The constant use of Groomer against TRAs is doing the GC cause harm

[RobynMiller]

Just seen this posted by Glinner
https://x.com/Glinner/status/2106504469651579047
Text
Russell T Davies says I called him "a paedophile and a groomer" in this. It's a lie. I did call him a groomer, because he used Doctor Who to push gender ideology, in which no child would believe unless an adult had planted it in his or her head.

And I just find it disingenuous from him. It's no secret I don't love his decent into more, let's call it, aggressive strategies on social media, but they are now coming home to roost and won't be good for any of us.

The word Groomer has a very specific history when it comes to CSA so to use it as often as he (and other) do and then claim you don't mean it in the very well accepted way is always meant just doesn't sit right with me.

Is there a term we can use that isn't sp precariously close to slandering someone as a Child sex abuser?

Here is the article he is referring to in the tweet

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/oct/03/russell-t-davies-interview-doctor-who-fierce-fandom-love-grief

If that were true feminism wouldn't exist because we would be 'brain washed' into accepting male superiority from an early age. There is simply no causal link between trans identification & 'grooming' as proven by your inability to provide it.

Let's face it howse, you're not the best communicator in the world.

I'm sure it's not deliberate, but it does have the effect of making your posts ambiguous.

What with the vaguely incoherent posting, and the teenage bollocks of yah ha you've got no comeback, it means most people will skim your posts anyway

So how you reconcile this opinion with the GI mantra that women are only saying no to males in female spaces because the right wing “goons” are manipulating them?

Do ok. If women exercise agency by saying no males in female spaces, that’s not them being coerced or manipulated right? They are exercising their stance and saying no.

Quoting myself, to add the text of the other two

Mermaids @Mermaids_Gen…
・ Jul 22
Need some energy after all that walking on the #TransPrideBrighton march? We have sweeties on the Mermaids stall! se
Come & say hi!

< Picture of sweets>

And

Mermaids @Mermaids_Gender • 5h v
We have this beauty giving FREE hugs at the Mermaids stand at #norwichpride2017
What more could you need?
@NorwichPride

<picture of Labrador>

mermaids being a charity for children and young people.

wanting to attract children, using sweets and dogs, at a march about sexuality, especially if they're vulnerable with no parental support.

It must be Wednesday. The opposite argument is always on a Tuesday.

I love love love threads like this because we can bring the literal opposite claim, recorded in plain sight, as evidenced, to the table.

Anyway...
What causes harm is ACTUAL GROOMING lads. Not the people pointing out the actual grooming.

Of course women can exercise agency, what are you talking about, and what has it got to do with single sex public facilities?

The word "agency" seems deliberately designed to mask the power structures that exist in society. Do women in Afghanistan have "agency"? Do gay men in Iran have "agency"?

Well quite.

There'll be a reason why that's the wrong sort of agency in a minute though.

You are not compromising at all. You are starting from the position that some males are actually female/women. That is not in the least respectful. And that is the crux of it.

Feminsim is nothing unless it centres female people. Unless it prioritises their voice; their experience, their conditions, and the realities of living in a female body.

And yes, I've been in a pub ( In Edinburgh) in which there was a handwritten note in the women's toilets telling women that there was someone behind the bar that could be alerted if a woman had come into the pub on a blind date or with a man with whom she felt very uncomfortable or threatened.

So, yes, 'chaperone' does sound like a bit of an old fashioned term ( one still used, albeit, by many religious groups) but what it implies is a measure to ensure that women are shielded and protected from certain vulnerabilities in relation to male people in certain types of circumstance.

Male people who tend to be bigger, more muscular, and more driven by sexual urges and various paraphilias than female people are. So, that also means vicarious thrills from voyeurism; from self exposure; from fantasy 'role play' etc
Women don't want male people in the spaces in which they feel most vulnerable and/or pre-occupied with their body or biological function.

Being vulnerable, by the way, is not a weakness...it is simply a recognition of practical, lived reality...often based on experience, and an awareness of one's own position/situation in relation to certain others. We can all have areas of vulnerability.

So far,

Men have decide that female/woman can mean sex or sex traits. They are two different things, no man is claiming the sex of female, just the sex traits.

Women, with agency apparently, cannot have women's or female anything just for the meaning of sex. It needs to include sex traits, despite everyone being clear that they are two separate things.

If we say that sex traits isnt relevant for SSE or safeguarding, we are wrong. This would out the men who are clear that they have female sex traits, not female sex.

Well I think it's fair comment since we have had to put up with the likes of NHS Fife writing their entire policies based on illegal drivel they found online.

That is such a reach. We’re talking about women whose teenage years were in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s, not Victorian times. Dungarees, jeans and t shirts in any colour were normal for girls. Short hair was normal.

We’re all quite capable of deciding we’re really men now if we wanted to.

Except we don’t because we are now grown up, accepted our adult bodies, and have often given birth which does tend to ground us in reality.

We also comprehend that having an interest in DIY, maths, football, aeroplanes or driving fast cars and not getting our nails done doesn’t mean we are men.

We’re also not so stupid as to think we could identify our way out of the prejudice we faced at work by deciding we were men really.

You sound American with your talk of “fathers beating the crap out of them”.

You are confusing fathers angry at having an effeminate son (probably gay) with their reaction to having a tomboy daughter. The taboo is not the same; being feminine is the bottom of the pecking order for those sort of sad men. Their daughters are just not on their radar in the same way.

Thanks a lot to the US for exporting your rigid gender roles to the world via Hollywood etc. It’s all Barbie and GI Joe lookalikes. No wonder the gender-woo started over there.

😂

Blimey.

Oh look! a man telling me what to think

sadly for him, I have agency and can think my own thinks and act accordingly, unsupervised by any male. So high risk of me.

I too am shocked, my mouth is agape, agape, I tell you! Remember this is the lovely man who said this, in a discussion concerning the need for female people to have single sex spaces away from men.

Gretel346 · 30/07/2026 03:03
What's obvious to someone with a modicum of brain cells that hasn’t been infected with phallophobia is the potential for harm dictates access not what might or might not be between someone’s legs.

Perfect example of an absolutely delightful and well-adjusted male specimen who doesn't harbour a deep-seated hatred towards women, am I right or am I right ? 😏

You’re right!

I see @Choppingwoodcarryingwateris using his favourite tactic of trying to redefine the meaning of all the words to gaslight women into caving to men’s demands.

Guess what? It’s not working 😭

Men mansplaining feminism to women and saying women should think the same as him and not make a fuss about their biological related differences and needs is always enlightening.

If they wear a green, yellow or red badge it's 'progressive'.
If they wear a red or purple badge it's 'incelly' or 'sexist'.

They all looks the bloody same to me though.

That horse has long bolted.
Anyway, how is it somehow worse than all the words TRAs have inappropriately adopted to throw at people, such as; genocide, holocaust, violence, stochastic terrorism, Nazi and fascist?
Looking at it, their list is quite a bit longer, so I hope you’re pulling them up on that and not exercising some sort of hypocritical double standard, yes?

I didn’t understand the long post about what we allegedly think, but I wondered whether the accusation that we don’t allow women «agency» (whatever that is) applied mainly to Men who claim they are women.

To be fair, we do keep annoyingly pointing out the fact that they are men and shouldn’t have «agency» to invade women’s spaces? It was the only way I could reconcile the claim made with what I actually believe.