Lang Cleg 3

[ButterisbestLangClegisbetter]

Can you codify belief into law? Will you mandate that people can transition from one sex to the other and must be treated accordingly? That children who fail to conform to sex role stereotypes are to be taught they were born in the wrong body & will be treated with drugs and surgery? How will you punish the non believers? The heretics
This is the 1000 post by the Bewildernessis Weetabix on Lang Cleg 2
I'm sure that this needs to be repeated

On the deletions, we don't know how many of those 53 were self-reported and how many were reports from regular posters who may or may not have been disrupters.

We also don't know the content and for what reason each one was deleted, we have to trust that the reasons were based o breaking the rules, which we all find difficult to post within sometimes.

I don't think we will ever know how it breaks down and I doubt Lang will be reinstated.

I miss her. I hope she knows how much we all miss her already.

Has anyone ever been reinstated before when they've been banned? Wasn't Barracker? I miss LangCleg too.

Yes, there is precedent, if there is MNHQ want to

AnyFucker was banned, not sure for how long, and is back. IIRC it was similar in that MNHQ provided an exhaustive list of her sins because they realized that their decision would not be popular.

Not that was an interesting link. It suggests to me that very few advertisers would turn their backs on a captive audience of 10 million users per month, especially as I would think mumsnet is a much cheaper option than many other forms of advertising. Maybe mumsnet should get a backbone and stand their ground against TRAs as they have 10 million 'products' as their bulwark and stand up for free speech by ditching the special guidelines for the FWR board.
Oh and in case mumsnet don't know - I want Langcleg back pronto!

I was permanently banned then was allowed back

I want Lass back as well. I almost never agreed with her and sometimes she really annoyed me BUT every so often she made me think oh wait a minute i need to think about this. That is valuable and i miss her as well as others who have gone, been banned or made to feel mumsnet made it too difficult to post.

Amazing how little posting history there is in those who want the ban to continue...

Checking in to show my continued support for Lang. This whole episode leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth and has significantly dented the affection I held for MN.

There was a hoo-ha a few years back when AF got banned/ suspended and lots of AF names and grumbles to MNHQ.

This site is getting harder & harder not to be deleted from. On a recent thread I said I felt uneasy about a male person masquerading as a woman, and having access to a large mainly teenage female audience who believed that person to be female (mentioning no names so not directed at a particular person) That got deleted....... but I stand by my point, I do feel incredibly uneasy about the deception of children-this is predominantly a parenting forum & the fact we cannot discuss safeguarding concerns is bizarre. I really hope Lang can be given a 2nd chance, why should moderate sensible women be silenced?

I'd forgotten that littlebrown.

menopausal brain fog

I'd love to see the pattern of those 53 reports. My impression is that, until quite recently, Lang was a poster who was rarely deleted. That changed. I can remember watching the deletions mount up and getting a bad feeling.

Lang was a prominent poster because she had a distinctive voice, posted about a contentious topic, clearly knew her stuff and who also didn't name change. That made her vulnerable The Twitter TRAs - whether or not they're telling the truth about the part they played - had clearly clearly been watching her, as evidenced by their celebrations.

I think anyone who believes they can stay on the right side of the rules just by being clever is deluding themselves.

And then there was Orchid's ban too, after a child set up a new account and posed as a parent. Orchid said they felt sorry for the poster and was deleted and subsequently banned.

That sounds similar to one of my deletions happy. I pointed out the potential issue of predatory males pretending to be trans in order to access vulnerable victims and made the comparison with PIE. I was deleted because someone interpreted that to mean that I was saying that all trans people were paedophiles.

It's interesting how many people want us to stop talking about how predators infiltrate popular movements in order to access victims. What sort of person would want to stop us talking about such things?

The orchid ban was bizarre

Orchid said they felt sorry for the poster and was deleted and subsequently banned.

How could she be banned for saying she felt sorry for someone? There must have been more to it than that.

Was that the young FTM teen that posted as her mother - they came across as incredibly vulnerable. I felt huge empathy and concern for them too.

Frequent name changes might prevent you becoming an easy target . Anyone with a long history who is respected is an obvious target.

I think we also need to recognise if we are being targeted.

In a previous name I felt at one point I was being personally baited

I was deleted because someone interpreted that to mean that I was saying that all trans people were paedophiles

Thing is, it could be someone misinterpreting it that way, but it also could be someone who knew exactly what you meant but saw it as an opportunity to report it as such. It’s hard, because lack of comprehension is as common as zealousness in people who report.

Did Orchid appeal her ban? She was expressing sympathy not sarcasm. It wasn't that long ago now that I think about it and the OP in that thread masqueraded as the mother of a gender dysphoria teenage girl before admitting that it was herself posting.

Where is that roll-call thread?

I remember littlbrown being reinstated and it felt like sense had returned at the time. There is hope then. This has lifted my spirits!

Lang provides so much amazing information to parents on safeguarding you would think MNHQ would want her here. If not it brings in to question whether they are really suitable as a parenting website.

Yes, many women were posting to that teen (once the deception was revealed) expressing kindness and concern but not indulging the ‘I feel like this so therefore am Male’ idea, and they were so adamant that we didn’t understand, none of us had ever felt like that etc. It was absolutely heartbreaking and we didn’t even know them - I can only imagine what parents of gender dysphoric teens go through. There is so much misogyny, homophobia, ageism being fed to young people when you look behind the curtain.

... I felt at one point I was being personally baited
I've experienced that once too and I'm not an especially prominent poster. I stepped back and watched - and it turned into a thread with a lot of deletions.

I think we also need to recognise if we are being targeted.
I agree. Some posters are more vulnerable than others but I think we would all be wise to be alert.

I have finally got through the LangCleg2 thread and found Justine’s second statement (on p33 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3802343-lang-cleg-2?pg=33).

I want to comment on this:

Hi again, I want to just address this coercive control question because the overriding impression on this thread and the previous one seems to be that MNHQ has been played, that lots of external folks with a specific agenda are reporting maliciously, and that regular MN users are getting strikes/being banned as a result.

I'm confident we've been doing this for long enough to know if someone's maliciously abusing the system and rest assured we do and would ban anyone we considered to be vexatiously reporting in this way.

The point about coercive control is not a straightforward line of direct and obvious posters ‘maliciously using the system’ by reporting from outside Mumsnet (or indeed, from within it, having made an account). I accept that it might be possible to discern those, to an extent.

The point is that via both direct campaigns to Mumsnet and indirect campaigns towards advertisers who fund the board, transactivists have pressured Mumsnet into putting biased rules into place for this board.

Evidence that this bias in the rules exists?

1. Who it was that pressured Mumsnet into creating those rules (I presume Mumsnet was satisfied with their own rules before pressure was applied - indeed those rules still stand for all other areas of the board, so if they are inadequate, I would ask why).

and

2. Until very recently, the rules clearly named the side of the debate who was deemed to “need more protection”. So on a board devoted to feminists and feminism, consideration for trans rights activists was designated as more important than consideration for women.

The point is not simply that outsiders are maliciously targeting posters (though it’s unsurprising that would be assumed, given Mumsnet’s very odd decision to allow complaints via Twitter in the not-too-distant past) but that the entire system is skewed by abusers who have pressured Mumsnet into a set of rules that are, at best arbitrary.

It’s how abuse works in households. I’ve been there, so it’s easy to see the parallels.

The abuser sets up arbitrary rules, which are by design difficult to follow and don’t come naturally.

Ideally, he will, over time change the rules, gradually tightening them.

Then all he has to do is wait for her to fall into the trap of breaking the rules and then he can punish her.

So it’s not that MNHQ has been played by those reporting. The whole system is set up so they can do so. That’s where (in my opinion) MNHQ have been manipulated.

The all important question: if pressure had not been brought to bear by trans rights activists, would those special rules be in place? If the answer is no, then MNHQ has been manipulated.