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)

I seem to recall a thread on FWR where a list of the banned regulars was posted? Anyone know which one I mean?

I am another lurker who thinks Lang's banning is a terrible decision by Mumsnet.

Non-feministsappearto be granted many more deletions before a ban than actual feminists

Yes I've noticed this too. I have never received a strike on any other board.

I also received a strike for something that I actually got from reading on here

Something posted with photographic evidence multiple times..

Just posting my support for Lang - really shocked that MN have done this to such a valuable longtime poster.

Slight derail, but do FWR threads ever appear in the Trending Now box at the top right of the MN webpages? None in there at the moment, which seems surprising.

The reason certain other posters don’t get banned is because generally I, and others take the same view, very rarely report because it’s useful to let posts stand so others can see a person’s true colours. As this thread attests, there are numerous lurkers and whenever I post or enter a disagreement with certain posters it’s nearly always for those lurkers. It’s not for regulars, who already understand, it’s for those watching so they get to see the illogicalities of arguments.

In this instance however, it was a terrible slur on someone’s character and deserved it, although you have to wonder at the irony of that person’s character being worthy enough of a ban, but also worthy enough to be defended from slurs at the same time.

Another mostly lurker swinging by to register my disappointment in this decision by @MNHQ

I need to de lurk more often to show my support to the FWR board and the great people who post here.

I will add, I didn’t report.

Datun - it may well not be true that JP is 'negotiating' with mum sent.

But JP seems to want everyone to believe that it is true.

I am not one for pearl clutching, but if I was I would be clenching my fists SO HARD about now.

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1219947726449889280?s=20

But as the site is not pre-moderated and only responds to reports, someone was reporting Lang because they were objecting to what she was saying

It might be worthwhile if MN reviewed LangCleg's posts over the last month... or indeed picked any week from the time she's been a member.
Lang wouldnt describe herself as being a Safeguarding expert because she understands Safeguarding. One of her great skills is being able to clearly explain Safeguarding to others.

She also understands the dynamics of how coercive control & abuse work. Many don't.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3452784-Coercive-Control-a-need-for-better-awareness

I think we need a bigger ⛵

The reason certain other posters don’t get banned is because generally I, and others take the same view, very rarely report because it’s useful to let posts stand so others can see a person’s true colours.

Same. I hardly ever report. I generally try to ignore the GFs so as not to give them the satisfaction of derailing what are usually interesting and informative threads - which is exactly why they focus on those threads for a potential derail in the first place, of course.

Prior now claiming on twitter that it was all a great big wind up on their part.

Looking more and more unhinged.

But as the site is not pre-moderated and only responds to reports, someone was reporting Lang because they were objecting to what she was saying

I thought her ban might be to do with something she posted on the webchat, so I've just had a look at it. Lang asked the first question, but on another topic to allow others with direct involvement (such as trans widows and parents of ROGD children) to ask the questions that concerned them. It seems unlikely that the ban was to do with the webchat, so as you say, someone must have been reporting her posts about safeguarding and coercive control.

Who would want to do that?

I see OfLang is busy cry wanking to this thread on Twitter

Waves

Well, I thought MNHQ were cowards yesterday. Today I KNOW they're cowards.

Twirls

I hardly ever post on FWR, but read it every day. I have learned so much from this board. It has helped me to call out misogyny when I see it, and to show my children what it looks like.

I am disgusted by this ban. LangCleg is a measured and erudite poster. I've got lots of her quotes copied and posted in my notes, to read through and ponder.

I'm not leaving! I'm staying right here.

Prior now claiming on twitter that it was all a great big wind up on their part.

Oh, it was a joke now? I'm sure the mods will be roaring with laughter, HebeMN especially.

It was I. I reported snow, mainly because it was lies and if it had been left to stand anyone new may have thought that every single poster in support of Lang held the same point of view.
This board is thought to be a hotbed of transphobic bigots and it's not. So why should a vicious and baseless slur be left to stand.
Mind you I did think that snow meant to put that particular sentence on one of the 150 or so Posie threads.

Adding my voice to those horrified and disgusted by this.

Can you provide proof of transphobic posts please ruby?

Lang Cleg was not transphobic as you well know ruby2020