Langcleg is vindicated

[Namechangex5]

Mumsnet thought that Langcleg was wrong to state safeguarding regarding children who thought they were trans. When langcleg argued for our kids Mumsnet didn’t like it. Mumsnet caved to the men. Instead of champion safeguarding, Mumsnet got rid of an expertise on this. Well, Langcleg was right and the Tavistock judicial review shows this.
Langcleg kept me sane in a world where others tried to gaslight me for my refusal to believe that my child was born in the wrong body.
Shame on you Mumsnet for cancelling the very people who help us parents. The voice of sanity. More importantly the voice of support. Do you really think langcleg did this for her own gain? No. She did this to protect us all. Gonna report this post now to bring it to the attention of the monitors.
Langcleg if you are still reading these posts I thank you so much for you help. I wish you were here now to comment on the Tavistock review and feel vindicated.

PS what's scumsnet?

I too hope she’s reading this.
Hiya, scumsnetters!

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

PS what's scumsnet?

There's a thread on Site Stuff and also one on FWR. A 'scraper' which compiled data on active posters on MN FWR using 'transphobic' terms ... including 'safeguarding'. Tech have blocked it now.

When I first started reading FWR, I agreed with many of the posters on here but noticed over the months and years that various people would join in with an opposing view (not a valid argument mind) and thought that there was quite a few people with opposing views. Then I realised that most of those posters were one person. That person has helped many a lurker cement their views.

@DialSquare

When I first started reading FWR, I agreed with many of the posters on here but noticed over the months and years that various people would join in with an opposing view (not a valid argument mind) and thought that there was quite a few people with opposing views. Then I realised that most of those posters were one person. That person has helped many a lurker cement their views.

Unfortunately that doesn't appear to be quite so obvious to everyone.

It is the trawling back through historical threads to report certain posters for using terms/words that weren't against the rules at the time that is really infuriating. But if it works, I can see why they do it.

I find the sex of each of the parties involved in The Lang Affair very interesting and telling of its own story.

I miss Lang too.

Her knowledge of safeguarding, and the common sense she brought to bear in applying that knowledge, were awesome.

Lang is greatly missed. She was a well informed, well intentioned, passionate and compassionate poster who had the grace to banter with people irrespective of political differences. I never saw her bullying anyone. Not her style.

"Safeguarding" was deemed a transphobic term?!

Bloody hell.

@BrassicaRabbit

"Safeguarding" was deemed a transphobic term?!

Bloody hell.

Tells you everything you need to know.

I really miss Lang. I am still angry that she was banned. I have lost faith in Mumsnet over this.

Me too! When they asked for subscribers I just couldn't bring myself to do it because of this (and other similar issues with their moderation, plus data breaches).
I was fairly unaware of safeguarding issues when I first lurked on Mumsnet, and she lays information out so clearly and uncompromisingly. She taught me a lot. Repetition, I know, but shouldn't safeguarding children be something Mumsnet (I mean MUMsnet, right?) would want to highlight? I wish she would/could come back.

Question to tech-savvy members.

If Lang got a new ISP (and therefore a new IP address) wouldn't she be able to join again and carry on doing the very good work under a new name? In fact isn't it possible this has already happened?

I'm a bit shit at tech stuff so await cleverer people pointing that out..

I miss Lang too.

Ahhh thanks Errol

@GoingAroundBeingAWoman

Question to tech-savvy members.

If Lang got a new ISP (and therefore a new IP address) wouldn't she be able to join again and carry on doing the very good work under a new name? In fact isn't it possible this has already happened?

I'm a bit shit at tech stuff so await cleverer people pointing that out..

The IP address is pretty much irrelevant now, most people don't have a static one so it changes every time you reboot your router. A banned poster would need a new email address but that's trivial - trolls and other PBPs do this all the time. MaryZ signed back on briefly after her ban to give her account and say goodbye - but by and large perms banned FWR posters don't break the rules by re-registering. It's a matter of integrity, I think.

Goodness! I may consider a name change now.

I have had a strike after I commented that some people believe it is not only possible, but actively and publicly promote their personal belief (and lobby) that it is possible for humans to change their sex. Some people also maintain and promote their personal belief that it is even possible to do so temporarily and on a part-time basic. As such, with 'to and fro' alternating identities, someone may require other people to use fluctuating pronouns. Rather like the director of Credit Suisse, P. Bounce, who engaged with publicity on this and advertised themselves to the general public as such a person. They are known as Pippa when using one 'gender' identity and they are known as Philip when they are using the other 'gender' identity.

As such, their pronouns would be in a state of constant flux, you couldn't ever have the temerity to presume which ones they are currently using. Indeed, seriously taking such beliefs on board (or in my own case indulging someone in line with beliefs you do not share and which may be offensive and contrary to your own rationale) one couldn't presume how anyone identifies at any given moment in time. In my opinion, the logical conclusion of co-operating with this belief is that you should probably always ask someone if they are identifying as one or the other sex. I personally found the idea of possible, imagined rolling scenarios resulting from such human interactions humorous. I presume that this is against the 'think' allowed by 'witch' finder ideologues who demand that anyone in the universe isn't allowed to disagree with their personal ideology. And certainly not mere biological females! There is the problem that your active participation in someone's beliefs would be compelled even if you did not share the same belief or conviction as those who promote a belief in 'gender' identity.

My crime is not only to be a non-believer in other peoples personal ideologies which I personally don't regard as having any basis in biology. It is also to be personally incredulous and indeed find humour at such a scenario where someone's 'gender' identity is not only deemed to be a thing, but even a moving object. And of course for me it is antithetical to my credo as a firm basis in biology is my guide to how I see someone's sex. Equally, I would like people not to promote other beliefs which have no verifiable or independent basis in fact. I find them offensive to my beliefs.

I also got a strike for talking about the exact same person Cailleach1

Haven't heard about MaryZ in yonks. Under what name was the goodbye account?

Hello everyone - we appreciate your points of view here, and while we avoid discussing our decisions about individual posters with anyone but themselves, we really don't suspend accounts of genuine users without good reason, and without being in touch with them several times before we ever get to that stage.

While we're here, given a few of the posts on this thread, can we please remind you that we value a diversity of opinion on the boards, which means tolerating other people's views even if you strongly disagree with them? Thank you.

P. Bounce,

I don't know if that was a typo or deliberate but it's perfect.

which means tolerating other people's views even if you strongly disagree with them?

What does this actually mean in practice?

Are we now being told we can't reply to people to voice any disagreement?

Does this mean no more deletions and strikes or is it just some who have to tolerate other peoples views?

Seeing as I've never reported a post, I do tolerate all views.

tolerating other people's views even if you strongly disagree with them

Yes, great so no censorship on the boards then?
I think nearly all the posters on FWR are in agreement with that.

It's those reporting and MNHQ's capitulation that doesn't support that.

@DialSquare

Seeing as I've never reported a post, I do tolerate all views.

Same here, so clarification on what constitutes 'tolerance' would be handy 🤷‍♀️

Is refuting or objecting to someone making unsubstantiated comments about user who doesn't have the right to reply now "intolerant"?