ManFriday article in the Daily Mail

I know We Need To Talk and find a middle way but that’s just not on offer is it? Any offers to talk aren’t about finding compromise, they’re about beating us into submission. And when we say no we’re threatened (have had threats of police action and civil action today) and shut down (am shadowbanned).

Post by SwearyG

Twitter comment today that other #ManFriday women have been shadow banned:
twitter.com/hear_woman/status/1003043635712155649

I find the use of the term "allies" in this case to be particularly revealing as it is typical TRA-speak.

recent thread discusses both the language and context of 'allies':
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3228481-Cis-allies-being-asked-to-provide-protection

And also, to turn it on its head, if people from such radically different worldviews are all vehemently disagreeing with TRAs and their 'allies', then that indicates even more clearly that there's something radically wrong wtih the TRA views.

Very much agree with this.
I couldn't give a toss what paper something is printed in, or what political party someonr votes for - I am anti Self-ID & against the transing of kids (social & medical).

If an issue can cross over so many differences (class/age/sexuality/wealth/politics etc) then it's clearly a massive bloody red flag that the issue is a problem.

It's like gravity - I may vehemently disagree with religious people about what happens to people after we die, but we all agree that if someone jumps off a tall building without a parachute, bungee cord, etc, then they're going to go splat on the pavement and be dead. Similarly, we may disagree about what the appropriate social rules should be for men and women, but we all agree that men are the ones with the dangly bits and women are the ones who can potentially get pregnant.

This really isn't as complicated as TRAs would like to pretend that it is.

“When your allies are the DM, the Catholic Church and David Davies MP - you have to seriously consider if your views are correct.”

Not necessarily, for two reasons: (1) there may be times when parties with differing views agree on a particular issue and (2) one can arrive at the same destination using different routes.

I find the use of the term "allies" in this case to be particularly revealing as it is typical TRA-speak.

Yes, this.

And also, to turn it on its head, if people from such radically different worldviews are all vehemently disagreeing with TRAs and their 'allies', then that indicates even more clearly that there's something radically wrong wtih the TRA views.

TRA mantra:

Allies are horribly transphobic but we won't bully and intimidate them. The allies are male-centred and therefore get a pass from us.

I'd actually have a bit more respect for them if they did take on an organisation like the Catholic Church. It would demonstrate that TRAs do believe what they are saying.

At the moment, they are proving their own agenda by only bullying and intimidating women. The discomfort, upset and silencing of women is the end-goal for them, nothing else matters.

“When your allies are the DM, the Catholic Church and David Davies MP - you have to seriously consider if your views are correct.”

Not necessarily, for two reasons: (1) there may be times when parties with differing views agree on a particular issue and (2) one can arrive at the same destination using different routes.

I find the use of the term "allies" in this case to be particularly revealing as it is typical TRA-speak.

Isn't it telling that the TRAs aren't actually hounding the Daily Mail, the Catholic church and David Davies though? Given how utterly heinous and beyond the pale that we are told that they are?

But no, it is just ordinary women that they go after.

Every single time.

HQ on the case! That bloke needs an intervention.

The first ones told us that we were being monitored by their team and did anyone want to comment.

Wankers.

What happened with the visitors?

“When your allies are the DM, the Catholic Church and David Davies MP - you have to seriously consider if your views are correct.”

You remind me of another fight we fought where Feminists were accused of being in bad company by the lefty liberals.
Feminist testified against the proliferation of pornography and so did the Churches. We lost that fight and you now live in a porn culture because we lost that fight.
You won't like the culture you live in if we lose this one too.

@MNHQ Is there a way for the tech team to prevent the creeper above from mirroring your threads on another site?

Also , apparently the onslaught of people trying to shut the site down continues.

seconded.

Ok, Jordan Newman, here's my comment

Fuck off, you creepy, threatening, misogynist. And take your 'team' with you.

I'm interested in the twitter business as I got banned from MN briefly because I was posting that I didn't believe it made a huge amount of difference to grass roots participation in sport that transwomen could compete as women.

I think there are plenty of very serious issues with accepting the dogma that transwomen are women, but they centre on areas where abuse of that system will put women in danger, like in refuges, hospitals and prisons. I also have grave concerns about teaching children that playing with toys stereotypically associated with the opposite gender means your body might be 'wrong' rather than that toys are toys and for use by anyone (which is what I believe).

I just don't care which particular tiny minority of people get to win the gold medals at the olympics. It will never be me or anyone I know, and its always going to be massively unfair on the majority of people who want it to be them, and we will continue to enjoy our sports week to week at the level we can compete at regardless...so meh.

Anyway, the point is I got banned because I was upsetting a lot of people who didn't agree with me...

I think basically I got accused of trolling because my point of view differed from the majority on the thread....and because I keep stating it every time there was yet another thread about it. (there were a lot as it was peak Caster Semenya controversy at the time.) I think MNs modding on trans threads has become more nuanced since then.

In summary, I don't think it is at all appropriate to silence the minority, whether its MN or twitter...and even whether they are actually the minority, which I'm not sure the GRA critical even are!

I imagine - but don't know, obvs - that Twitter keeps a personal reputation score for each of us in addition to the obvious follower, like and retweet counts: how many people we are blocked by; how many reports are made against us and the reputation levels of the reporters; engagement rates. They might even do sentiment analysis on replies to our tweets?

If they do, imagine the weight the block lists carry. The purpose of block lists might be more than simple echo chamber creation.

I think the final sentence of the shadowbanning process is the key,

"All of this shadow banning will be handled by an algorithm, meaning who gets banned will depend mostly on the reactions of other people."

So the human involvement is in the creation of the algorithm and then in the active reporting.

If there are established grounds / words etc that will prompt a ban, these can then be used effectively by the people reporting & as the decision is automated, likely successful.

It would be interesting to know how Twitter manages the bias that inevitably exists as some people may be more likely/able to report than others.

I'd better read the thread...

Brogrammers, he called them.

swearyg

I don't like it when journalists frame women in terms of who their parents or partner are and it felt pretty invasive to me.