Bit late to this, but wanted to add my voice to those asking Mumsnet to lift the ban on LangCleg, who has been consistently one of the most articulate and humane women on here. The value she brings to the board is incalculable, and surely someone being a valued and popular poster over many years should count for something, and warrant a rethinking of a permanent ban.
I also want to say something about pain, because the banning of brilliant women like Lang and others from Mumsnet at the behest of anti-women activists has been painful for many of us, and Mumsnet are also saying that moderating this debate is frequently painful for them.
AppleBlossom noted that: TRAs will use any means necessary to silence discussion, suppress opinions & set the agenda.
I would argue that the main way they do this is simply by making it very, very painful for anyone to question any aspect of their objectively bonkers agenda.
They shamelessly lie about their targets. They threaten and dox them. They file vexatious police reports and lawsuits against them. They accuse them of causing suicide and murder. They compare them to Nazis and other mass murderers. They harass them and the places they work. They sometimes even harass and stalk their children. They ensure that any venue or forum which allows their opponents to speak will be targeted relentlessly until they give in. They don't let up, ever. They are efficient, ruthless and consistent in this tactic. They simply keep on inflicting pain until the target and everyone in their vicinity cries 'Make it stop!'
This is how they get venues to cancel women's meetings. It isn't because the venues agree with the TAs that women meeting to discuss the law are akin to Nazis. They just want the pain to stop.
This is how they got Canada's largest mental health centre to fire its most senior doctor, Kenneth Zucker, on the basis of a report that was stuffed with easily refuted lies and fabrications. It wasn't that CAMH really believed Zucker was an unethical doctor who needed to be summarily fired. Trans activists had made it so painful for CAMH to keep employing Zucker, that the hospital was looking for any chance to jettison him - because that was the only way to make the pain stop. (CAMH recently had to pay out half a million to Zucker for the unfair and illegal circumstances of his firing - money I'm sure they regard as well spent if it persuades the TAs to leave them alone.)
This is why journalists don't cover this issue - not because they believe there is nothing to cover, but because they don't want to deal with the pain that comes with it - pain that will follow them around for the rest of their careers.
Most people deal with the pain that trans activists inflict by consciously or subconsciously making their targets into 'the problem'. So to CAMH, Zucker - rather than the TAs and their sadistic and dishonest tactics - became the problem that needed to be dealt with. Venues see that TAs will bombard them with threats of violence and harass their staff if they host women's meetings - and they decide that the women are the problem.
Same here. TAs target Mumsnet relentlessly because women come here to discuss the impact of gender identity on women and children - and therefore we are the reason TAs are causing them so much pain.
I don't know what to do about this. The only way to counter this is to recognise these tactics for what they are: the modus operandi of abusers - and to refuse to to grant them legitimacy, but few seem prepared to do this. Everyone is keeping up the pretence that this is a 'civil rights movement', seemingly without realising that no genuine civil rights movement has ever operated like this, nor would it need to.