Langcleg is vindicated

Goodness! I may consider a name change now.

I have had a strike after I commented that some people believe it is not only possible, but actively and publicly promote their personal belief (and lobby) that it is possible for humans to change their sex. Some people also maintain and promote their personal belief that it is even possible to do so temporarily and on a part-time basic. As such, with 'to and fro' alternating identities, someone may require other people to use fluctuating pronouns. Rather like the director of Credit Suisse, P. Bounce, who engaged with publicity on this and advertised themselves to the general public as such a person. They are known as Pippa when using one 'gender' identity and they are known as Philip when they are using the other 'gender' identity.

As such, their pronouns would be in a state of constant flux, you couldn't ever have the temerity to presume which ones they are currently using. Indeed, seriously taking such beliefs on board (or in my own case indulging someone in line with beliefs you do not share and which may be offensive and contrary to your own rationale) one couldn't presume how anyone identifies at any given moment in time. In my opinion, the logical conclusion of co-operating with this belief is that you should probably always ask someone if they are identifying as one or the other sex. I personally found the idea of possible, imagined rolling scenarios resulting from such human interactions humorous. I presume that this is against the 'think' allowed by 'witch' finder ideologues who demand that anyone in the universe isn't allowed to disagree with their personal ideology. And certainly not mere biological females! There is the problem that your active participation in someone's beliefs would be compelled even if you did not share the same belief or conviction as those who promote a belief in 'gender' identity.

My crime is not only to be a non-believer in other peoples personal ideologies which I personally don't regard as having any basis in biology. It is also to be personally incredulous and indeed find humour at such a scenario where someone's 'gender' identity is not only deemed to be a thing, but even a moving object. And of course for me it is antithetical to my credo as a firm basis in biology is my guide to how I see someone's sex. Equally, I would like people not to promote other beliefs which have no verifiable or independent basis in fact. I find them offensive to my beliefs.

Ahhh thanks Errol

I miss Lang too.

Question to tech-savvy members.

If Lang got a new ISP (and therefore a new IP address) wouldn't she be able to join again and carry on doing the very good work under a new name? In fact isn't it possible this has already happened?

I'm a bit shit at tech stuff so await cleverer people pointing that out..

I really miss Lang. I am still angry that she was banned. I have lost faith in Mumsnet over this.

Me too! When they asked for subscribers I just couldn't bring myself to do it because of this (and other similar issues with their moderation, plus data breaches).
I was fairly unaware of safeguarding issues when I first lurked on Mumsnet, and she lays information out so clearly and uncompromisingly. She taught me a lot. Repetition, I know, but shouldn't safeguarding children be something Mumsnet (I mean MUMsnet, right?) would want to highlight? I wish she would/could come back.

"Safeguarding" was deemed a transphobic term?!

Bloody hell.

Lang is greatly missed. She was a well informed, well intentioned, passionate and compassionate poster who had the grace to banter with people irrespective of political differences. I never saw her bullying anyone. Not her style.

I miss Lang too.

Her knowledge of safeguarding, and the common sense she brought to bear in applying that knowledge, were awesome.

I find the sex of each of the parties involved in The Lang Affair very interesting and telling of its own story.

It is the trawling back through historical threads to report certain posters for using terms/words that weren't against the rules at the time that is really infuriating. But if it works, I can see why they do it.

When I first started reading FWR, I agreed with many of the posters on here but noticed over the months and years that various people would join in with an opposing view (not a valid argument mind) and thought that there was quite a few people with opposing views. Then I realised that most of those posters were one person. That person has helped many a lurker cement their views.

I too hope she’s reading this.
Hiya, scumsnetters!

PS what's scumsnet?

I miss Lang too. She spoke sense and truth. At times this meant her posts could be sharp and to the point and I think some people misunderstand this lack of "niceties" as aggression, especially as us wimmin should of course be nice

Lang didn't give a shit about that in the face of how certain practices and ideology could harm our kids. As a mum I'm so glad of this.

The only brutal thing about LangCleg's posts was the clarity of her logic. That's what some people couldn't handle. The posts themselves were always civil but it was that pesky commitment to truth and fact that did for her.

I owe a great deal to LangCleg for opening my eyes and for encouraging me to speak up and speak out, especially to my elected representatives.

If you are reading, LC - thank you.

Anyway, yes, re Lang I can usually see some logic to MNs moderation but I think they badly miscalled this one. Admitting when you've got something wrong isn't a weakness.

What tinsel said.
I don't judge anyone for changing name, including quagaars - but if you do so then you cant blame other people if they assume you're new here.

I really miss Lang. I am still angry that she was banned. I have lost faith in Mumsnet over this.

Name changing dilutes the power of what women have to say, stops alliances being formed and stops expertise being recognised.

Those who try and coercively control this board by reporting women here will be well aware of that.

I don't judge women for feeling the need to name change but I think this should be acknowledged as an effect if it.

There was an interesting discussion recently about that at the end of this thread.

'Scumsnet' web crawler trawling Mumsnet/FWR www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/4041044-Scumsnet-web-crawler-trawling-Mumsnet-FWR

I'm not sure I understand? Doesn't what happened to Langcleg demonstrate the importance of name-changing, so it's harder for TRAs to target individuals?

Yes - this came up on the scumsnet threads. There's good reason for many to do it but it's at a price.

I change names every few months and use a VPN. After security breaches, I delete my account and re-register with a new one, using an email address not used for other purposes. This is all primarily for personal security, because of MN's woeful record on data breaches, but it has the additional effect of making it harder to target me though vexatious reporting.

It's a pity that name changes make it harder to follow particular individuals with expertise, like Langcleg, but they are a price worth paying for security.