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

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.

My father did exactly this. He used the process to continue to harass my DM; my experience was the collateral damage.

Today’s request to bring back LangCleg.

Spartabix - bang on, thank you.

I find the arrogance of "oh we'd know if we were being used" utterly astonishing. In my line of work we get training and refresher training on recognising your limitations. None of us on the training courses would ever have accepted, for example, that we could be biased or anything other than impartial. Cos you know, we're experienced and good at what we do. Which makes it all the more important to have the training.
Bring back all the "fallen". This is ridiculous. We're just bloody talking.

I’ve said it elsewhere but in my view targeting the forum that GC feminists don’t se for special extra difficult rules is direct discrimination on grounds of philosophical belief and since these are beliefs that women are more likely to hold than men also discrimination on grounds of sex.

Bring back LangCleg !!

Raising and discussing the issues is imperative! Hiding them is dangerous for us and our future generations. If we don't raise and discuss it creeps in by stealth on the blindside, then it'll be too late to rectify!

Raising and discussing the issues is imperative!

Absolutely. But so is doing so in a way that isn't disparaging, rude or contemptuous towards mumsnet staff.

Couldn’t agree more Cohle which is why we need intelligent people like Lang on here discussing the issues without any of that nonsense as she does so well!

Unlike some lazy slatterns I could mention

Completely agree about the importance of this discussion. We must keep raising awareness especially here. It’s the only way. They must be scared or they wouldn’t keep stalking us...

I think it's fair to say that despite the breezy assurances from Michael and Justine, many of us have personal experience of just how arbitrarily the special rules for uppity women are applied

it's probably a bit nasty to say so though, right?

Not nasty at all Bernard. Which is kind of the point of this whole omnishambles isn’t it?

UPDATE

I reported the 'sign the Lang' petition thread to MN, and as well as tell them I was saddened by their decision, I thanked them for continuing the conversation - after all, they don't have to.

I've had a response and MN are "...reading this [petition] thread of course - and will have a discussion about it when everyone is back in the office on Monday."

I know this doesn't mean all is OK, or even that Lang will want to come back.

My father did exactly this. He used the process to continue to harass my DM; my experience was the collateral damage.

I've just realised my fathers actions for what they were. I mean, I know he behaved badly, but I always attributed the wrong reason / emotion to his behaviour.

I think it's fair to say that despite the breezy assurances from Michael and Justine, many of us have personal experience of just how arbitrarily the special rules for uppity women are applied

Oh and this ^^ I have definitely modified my behaviour, and check and worry about every interpretation of most my posts.

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.

It is not my intention to be rude but I cannot help but remember all the examples of stunningly poor judgment that has been displayed by the admin team of MN in the past which members paid the price for when Justine asserts they can be trusted to know when they are being worked.

From the discussion of reporting earlier on 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. Very much this. I had a post deleted this week that I couldn't see as breaching the rules and indeed it was reinstated when I asked for clarification. Someone must have reported it though and regardless of whether it was a misunderstanding or mischief making it's unsettling.

The point was made earlier in the week that the more you post, the more material there is to sift for reporting. Examined closely enough and infractions may be found or inferred, especially when considered without context.

I imagine if you read enough of Trump's speeches there will be the odd phrase in there that might suggest he is a kindly liberal. It doesn't mean he is.

I only went back to my original name a few days ago and I already have a few dogging my trail desperate to engage with me to discuss things I did not say.
There is something to be said for frequent name changes.

Just because the monitors reporting threads are regular members and seem to be bona fide MNetters doesn't mean they are not here to cause trouble. By the same token, I don't have many posts as I name change regularly and mostly post drivel anyway... I could be a perfect example of someone building up a posting history in order to start reporting people (I'm not, by the way, the only thing I've ever reported is spam).

I'm always seeing posts from MNHQ on threads saying you never know who people are online and not to give more of yourself in money or support than you can afford. So how can they really be sure that they trust the reporters over someone who has a big presence here and commands a lot of respect? I realise I sound like a crazy fan girl as I don't really post on FWR, as I feel that everything I have to say is already being said by more knowledgeable people like Lang. Am a big reader here though!

Anyway I read this from Hebe on the roll call thread

It would really have to be an exceptional case for us to decide not to reinstate posting ability, though obviously we might look differently on a further suspension.

and it made me think how exceptional Lang is, in a good way, and how on earth she has been deemed so thoroughly 'exceptional' in a negative way, and what ridiculous times we are living in when this is the case.

And as PP have said, others have been banned and restored, so I say Bring back Lang! (If she wants to be brought back of course... if I had dedicated myself to posting about safeguarding and had it all thrown back in my face, I don't think I'd want to come back.)

Just because the monitors reporting threads are regular members and seem to be bona fide MNetters doesn't mean they are not here to cause trouble

The vice article that has been linked several times already this last week, was published in December 2018.

Joss (waves!) Prior references being aware of MN “transphobia” since mid 2017 and references the “I am Spartacus” thread from 2016. Joss (waves!) has posted after being previously banned as recently as a few months ago (if not even more recently ).

So it’s perfectly possible that there are enough people in the group dedicated to external monitoring that have a longstanding posting history to make their reporting seem more valid. I mean it’s even referred to as a “network”.

The only thing that goes against this theory is that in order to have a regular posting history they would have to be posting regularly enough on all sorts of things which means they’re contributing to the overall success of Mumsnet as a platform, which must irk them somewhat. I imagine they think it’s worth it overall.

And just a reminder of what sort of things are trying to be silenced. External articles can go on all they want about how the valiant monitors are trying to eliminate dead naming and misgendering, but the reality is what these monitors (note: I do not mean moderators) want to eliminate is the truth about harm to children, the dangers of puberty blockers, the realities of surgeries, the opinions of detransitioners, the safeguarding concerns, the cases that happen even though they say they will never happen, etc etc. Jazz Jennings’ whole life including intimate discussion of her medical treatment is the subject of a tv show on the Lifestyle Channel FFS. But can you post a thread on here and comment on those realities without it being pulled after being reported? Hardly. In fact, just the fact I’ve mentioned that name means I’m going to screenshot/c and p this post because I know I’ve upped the likelihood of it being deleted.

I’d love to see a list of those posts that were deleted.

Thanks girl.

I'm going to tag mnhq them into another thread and see if they will reconsider.

Just because the monitors reporting threads are regular members and seem to be bona fide MNetters doesn't mean they are not here to cause trouble

See the Center Parks single sex spaces thread, and my comment as an example:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3731052-Center-Parcs-upholding-single-sex-spaces?msgid=93426524

I'm going to tag mnhq them into another thread and see if they will reconsider.

I hope they do NeurotrashWarrior, and that Lang still wants to come back. Bloody huge loss to the boards.

i think the problem is that MNHQ identify as nice people

and having the effects of their behaviour pointed out damages that identity, hence the outraged responses and general flailing about

i get it. i've had to do some self reflection at work recently and it was horrible. turns out i can be a bit of a dick at times without realising it. there's a lot of it about.

And now I am wondering what an alter in honour of LangCleg look like.

I'll bet it would have soggy Weetabix on it.

This brings to mind the spread you see in Korean dramas when families are performing their ancestral rites. As the food offerings usually include prepared and sliced fruit, I’m assuming the standard altar for fallen MNers would include cutted-up pears, as well as bespoke items like mushy Weetabix (boak).

Damn, I forgot the Pombears.

I think abusers often deliberately target people who want to do the decent thing and work hard to be fair Bernard. If you can get those people working on your behalf, it’s the perfect cover.

Anyone glancing quickly at this situation would see Mumsnet as a decent organisation doing their best to protect a vulnerable group. They’d see the messages about Lang breaking rules and being rude to staff and would conclude Lang was the bad person.

The point is, Mumsnet are a decent organisation doing their best to protect a vulnerable group. My doubts lie in the claims that that group are vulnerable. More specifically, that those who pushed for the rules are genuinely vulnerable AND whether they could possibly have any valid reason for targeting this board.

Had genuine/natural Mumsnet users been distressed by the discussion and raised it, then some kind of balancing act would arguably be justified. But non-users, who sought out Mumsnet? The question should be a very careful why, but that question has also been lost.

And of course, we are preconditioned to favour men’s requirements over women’s

Women making requests are pushy and unfeminine

Men making requests are behaving naturally and being assertive

And let’s be quite clear, I’m very certain that the vast majority of pressure being applied to MNHQ in this area is coming from men

There’s something about mumsnet that just gets right up many men’s noses