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

Orchid said "I feel sorry for you" it was deleted and then Orchid was banned (I don't know if she had other deletions, but that was her last post).

Original thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/lgbt_children/3732775-DS-is-transgender-ftm-16-and-happy

Second thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/lgbt_children/3733126-Re-DS-is-transgender-ftm-16-and-happy

Here's the roll call thread for reference re other bans.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3288762-Tuesday-roll-call?pg=6&order=

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

Yes, and wasn't Barracker banned/suspended in similar circumstances as Lang? Someone misinterpreted the meaning of 'pronouns are Rohypnol'.

Re-reading that first thread, sorry, Orchid said "that's awful, I feel sorry for you" or similar (she posted right after me).

Well said Spartabix

Can anyone confirm, if a post is deleted is that a strike? Or do MN tell you if they are giving you a strike? thanks

A post can be deleted for normal MN reasons.

A post can be deleted for special FWR reasons.

The former isn’t a strike. The latter is. The only deletion email I’ve had that was a strike didn’t actually use the word strike, it was only on later clarification 6 months later I found out that it had been a strike.

You don’t always get an email if you’re deleted so it’s hard to know if that’s because it wasn’t strike-able or because it was for other reasons. I had an email when I was deleted for troll hunting but not an email when my surgery post was deleted which was for use of a word deemed inflammatory. neither of which were for breaches of the FWR guidelines, they were for breaches of the normal guidelines.

After I pointed out that it didn’t say strike in my strike email, MNHQ replied saying they were discussing how to make this clearer. I don’t know if this has happened because I haven’t had a strike - to my knowledge - since.

Hope that clears things up!

Great explanation Not
This is usually accompanied by a passive-aggressive 'not in the spirit of MN' comment by MN. In my case: 'It looks like you've had a couple of strike mails in the past but none since March, so that's out of the six-week period. Obviously we'd hope you won't need to receive any more anyway,'

the entire system is skewed by abusers who have pressured Mumsnet into a set of rules that are, at best arbitrary.
By Jove, Spartabix you’ve got it. Excellent post, clearly explained. It’s like a lightbulb for me. I’m struggling more and more to abide by these ever-changing, inconsistency applied posting rules. Having to double and triple check every word in posts to ensure I haven’t accidentally generalised without explicit caveat or used an accurate pronoun.

Can anyone confirm, if a post is deleted is that a strike? Or do MN tell you if they are giving you a strike?

I've had a few posts deleted, but I've only had one email to tell me about a deleted post. The email warned me that they would suspend me if I continued to break talk guidelines, so I assume that was a strike. With the others I wouldn't even have known the posts were deleted if I hadn't returned to the thread, so I assume those weren't strikes. But I'm not entirely sure.

Thanks not clear as mud then!

And my post that earned me a deletion with an email threatening suspension was on the webchat thread, not FWR.

If you are lucky enough to get an email, then if there’s a link to “talk guidelines” in it, it will either take you to the normal rules or the special rules. I think that’s the only way of telling if you’ve been given a strike: you get an email with a link to the special rules.

But I can’t be sure.

With the others I wouldn't even have known the posts were deleted if I hadn't returned to the thread, so I assume those weren't strikes. But I'm not entirely sure

This needs to be repeated. It’s impossible for any of us to know 100% about all of our posts and any deletions because posts can be removed without notification and unless you’re checking everything you’ve ever posted and remember where on a thread it was (because it won’t come up if you advance search yourself) then it’s perfectly possible to not be aware of that deletion.

So with the numbers of Lang deletions, they could have been for a whole heap of reasons (like quoting a deleted thread) and it’s perfectly possible, or highly likely that Lang didn’t know about all of them.

Problem is that when you build up one or more marks against you, subsequent complaints will presumably take any previous into consideration (without necessarily also looking at detail of prev reports) and benefit of the doubt will be no more. Once you’re on that trail it’ll be very hard to come off it, especially when people are focused on reporting you and watching every word you say. Add in some mods who lose patience and become exasperated dealing with same situation over and over and there you go.

It’s a pattern on busy/controversial moderated forums everywhere. Very effective means of shutting down prolific opinionated posters but also the oldest trick in the book.

It was interesting this morning to try to explain the situation to a friend who has only a vague idea of what Mumsnet even is:

So - a woman on Mumsnet with extensive expertise, knowledge and experience of safeguarding issues posted frequently about how women who raise safeguarding concerns become targets.

She would post often about how women on Mumsnet are prevented from discussing and describing certain safeguarding issues because of this targetting.

This woman's posts were reported repeatedly, and the moderators eventually banned her from Mumsnet.

I think you have it, Spartabix. It's a perfect illustration of the dynamics of coercive control, and how women are being prevented from raising safeguarding concerns. The dynamics of the set up hadn't, to be honest, quite clicked with me, before Lang got deleted. But it seems very clear now.

It's a shame that Mumsnet's Feminism board and LangCleg's account, which provided so much useful information and support regarding safeguarding, had to be sacrificed to illustrate this point, but it is illuminating to see it play out so clearly.

I left for a while when reporting on Twitter was allowed because I don’t really ever want to be in a situation where I’m under the (indirect in this case) control of manipulative people. But I came back because this site is too important. I’m very much aware of it though.

If it helps, I'm dealing with this (yes, absurd) situation by not giving a single fuck what the manipulative people on Twitter etc think.

Link to an important thread. I can't help thinking this had something to do with her being banned.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

In the OP LangCleg said:

We've had two (well, one still standing) threads on Accenture and its inclusive LGBT event excluding lesbians by power of the state over the last couple of days.

We've also discussed the way in which the policy-setting leadership of other companies, state institutions (for example the police and the NHS), charities (for example NSPCC) and third sector orgs (for example Girl Guides) have enforced the top-down imposition of Gender Identity ideology despite obvious practical and ethical issues and conflicts of rights.

I came across someone remarking about the concept of regulatory capture on Twitter in relation to all this and, since we've also been discussing the actual power relations behind various oppression narratives, I wonder what everyone thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

There are two basic types of regulatory capture and the second rings a few bells:

Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry.

What do we think? Are there parallels?

I’m struggling more and more to abide by these ever-changing, inconsistency applied posting rules. Having to double and triple check every word in posts to ensure I haven’t accidentally generalised without explicit caveat or used an accurate pronoun.

That’s exactly how you’re meant to feel, Cwenthryth. The confusion actually makes it more likely you’ll make an error. And when the pressure builds up, many women eventually reach a stage where they can’t live with the pressure any more, or feel too tired to think (or both) and they decide to stop trying and post what they really think.

I’m out on Twitter Prodigal. I’m long past caring what abusive men say about me.

I think Lang pointed out some very uncomfortable truths, Crone. The whole reason these boards are targeted are because we are having an effect. We aren’t simply here to abuse trans people, as our accusers would have it. These boards are a place where important ideas and realisations come to light, which sometimes go on to stimulate important campaigns. And yes, likely that post of Lang’s might be one of those that singled her out as a specific danger.

Bring back Lang.

The only thing I have to say about "we'd recognise if we were being used as proxies" is - family court.
Do you not think judges there would say the same thing?

I bet the police force would think the same, Beyond. This campaign is astonishingly pervasive.

Can you expand on that about family courts a bit more BeyondReason? Just not an area I know a lot about (which I’m thankful for)

Apologies, Beyond, I assumed you were talking about the transactivism situation, whereas Cwenthryth’s question has made me realise you were talking more generally about coercive control.

Abusive men often pursue their partners, dragging them through court over access, and the court, trying to bend over backwards to be fair to both sides, sometimes inadvertently perpetuates the abuse.

Abusers will use anyone. They’re very convincing. It’s recommended that women in abusive relationships should not allow themselves to be pushed into couples counselling as the councillor is likely to do the same.