LangCleg

[dragongirlx]

I am a long time lurker but infrequent poster here but I needed to bring this to everyone's attention.
I have found out that Mumsnet HQ have banned the fabulous LangCleg simply for repeatedly pointing out the repeated times coercive control has been used by the moderators to stop women talking.
I understand it started with a conversation when a post was deleted because she allegedly used a sweeping generalisation but they couldn't or wouldn't confirm the generalisation and when she challenged them they decided to ban her on the basis of previous comments.

So it now seems pointing out coercive control is now grounds for being banned, thus proving that coercive control is being used.

I for one would like @MumsnetHQ to provide an explanation here as this is really not on

(also taking bets on how long before the thread is deleted)

At this point we should all get some sort of momento when we're eventually banned for honesty and/or insubordination, like a pint glass or something.

Just to clarify, mothers=women
(I know there was some gaslighting on the surrogacy thread).

Doyoumind

what post if yours is LouMumsnet replying too?sorry the thread is moving so fast now. It can't be your last post?
The monitors are going to be out for some of the posts on here. Don't play into their hands.

I don't think this particular topic is going to be quite that easily dodged, Lou.

I second **hand's off's question. Will you reinstate LangCleg? Because if it's not the site for her, I sure as shit don't know who it's for.

Sorry all but this is the one for the media @dailymail @spectator @guardian whoever has links please DF?

No. A mod did not just ask a poster 'which threads play into monitors hands'! Surely ?! For what purpose ? More deletion?

Don't play into their hands

Ha. Undoubtedly their hands are otherwise occupied due to their excitement of getting another woman banned.

Here's Lang on the Jess Phillips webchat. Note the malice and weaponry, the dangerous bile spreading to wholesale slaughter people's feefees. Nothing so vicious could be heard in any other public press, parliament, political debate, no siree. Thank goodness the internet is now safe and wholesome again, can't have a woman politely disagreeing!

14:08 LangCleg

Thanks for coming and for all the answers, Jess.

That said, you've confirmed to me that I, as a materialist leftist and feminist, with political priorities of women's rights and child safeguarding, cannot find a home in the Labour Party.

Is it a fucking game, to see how many women you can get pissed off enough to get the mods to delete and ban, and mods engage in it ?

Moderators, this is my LIFE. MY KIDS. safeguarding doesn't matter to me because I just want to stick the boot into trans people, it matters to me because I am trying to protect the trans people in my life whom I love most - my kids!! THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LIKE LANG MATTER! Because they help real women in real life care for real kids.

But it's more important to mess around with the likes of Joss Prior ?

Shame, shame, shame.

"Thanks for coming and for all the answers, Jess.

That said, you've confirmed to me that I, as a materialist leftist and feminist, with political priorities of women's rights and child safeguarding, cannot find a home in the Labour Party"

So clear, direct and fucking polite. All cardinal sins now, apparently.

I'm assuming the mod is asking about doyoumind ' s post one page 23 the one with JP claims in screenshot.

Also directed at deleting mods: I WILL recognise sex as part of safeguarding my children. If I observe males, of whatever gender identity, engage in what I consider to be abusive, dangerous, gaslighting behaviour, I WILL call them out as the abusive, dangerous, gaslighting males that they are.

Because kids matter more than the feelings of men.

Another adding my voice to say this is disgusting behaviour from Mumsnet. Incredibly disappointing m

We would be hard pressed to find anyone more patient and civil in a discussion or debate than Lang, Bowl, or Datun.
Looks more like #nodebate than civil debate.

We don’t know what discussion this is referring to, exactly - but as a rule we don’t discuss our moderation decisions relating to individual posters with anyone else.

@LouMumsnet is that the royal 'we'? As in you personally are not quite sure why LangCleg was banned?

Or is it a MNHQ general 'we'? Cos that's a worry!

Bloody hell. Better start making better use of Spinster. I can only hope the tide is turning and that there will be some good news from the High Court regarding various legal actions. I am sorry to read all this. But many of us are able to use our anger constructively. Let them have their preening 'victories' on social media. I still believe in the rule of law and I still believe that this madness is not sustainable.

Absolutely fucking outrageous that they banned Lang, allegedly following discussions with Joss Prior.

I'm looking forward to hearing MNHQ's robust rebuttal of JP's claims that they have been "in discussion".

If they don't do that it will be a terrible indictment that they are working with a person who has repeatedly been banned from MN in order to silence women's voices.

Lang's taste in breakfast was an abomination though.

Another who isn't happy about this news.

Fairly disgusted at the moderation decisions around here really.

Another avid reader but former lurker of FWR frustrated to see this. @MNHQ this is inadequate.

It bears repeating: LangCleg was a leading voice for the safeguarding of children. I deeply appreciate a PP's point that the well-being of gay children, rather than homophobic attempts to shove them down a path of transition regardless of whether that's right for the individual, is especially at risk here.

Who wants to see safeguarding fall by the wayside?

Who thinks that's ok? Even thinks it's so necessary they need to silence those who discuss it?

Politicians, journalists, teachers, moderators, advertisers--do you want to find yourselves allied with people who deliberately try to silence safeguarding?

Also this quote from Jess Phillips: " I do believe transwomen are women" is everything we need and want to know about Jess. Hope we never hear of her again.

Accusing moderators of coercive control was it

No. Suggesting that moderators were not recognising coercive control when applied to them, and to the women on this board.

This^
For example, say there's a thread about drag kids and someone posts a YouTube video that shows a child performing in a night club. The video is in the public domain but certain people don't want us to discuss it because it contains some serious red flags. They will complain to MNHQ that some of the comments under the video - on YouTube, not here! - are offensive, and the mods delete the link and all references to the video from the thread, so we can no longer have a meaningful discussion about specific safeguarding issues, because the moderators are being controlled by people who have no interest in this site other than to police what women are talking about.

(I'm only trying to explain what Lang meant by coercive control wrt the mods, so no need to ban me, ta.)

Wow, what a phenomenally bad decision by MN. Of all the people to ban, and they choose the voice of reason. What does that tell you?

@MNHQ - it was pointed out to you months ago that posters on the feminism boards were being targeted by activists who wanted to pick them off one by one and have them banned.

That is precisely what is happening here.

The good women with smart and insightful comments are being picked off one by one.

I don’t want to say ‘We told you so’......but we did!

What else have we told people that will be coming true soon?