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

Does it, so why are governments not testing every child to see who is going to be a criminal? Because that wiuld deffo bring crime rates down wouldn’t it? We can check their hormones and genes, and then monitor those who flag up. Unless of course you're talking total bollocks.

Sure, the "Bad" people may "exploit" a conflict like this.

If the "Good" people decide to fuck over a group, then the Bad people can point out how the group are being fucked over by the Good people, and use that as to bolster their position. Always true. (Also vice-versa).

Might I humbly suggest that the best way to avoid this would be for the "Good" people to stop fucking over women?

Your plan of expecting women to keep quiet so fewer people notice what you're doing so the Bad people can leverage it less seems hardly ideal on a few points:

1. It's not terribly consistent with the Good-versus-Bad self-ID marketing thing. You're making tough work for your brand gurus.
2. It won't be very effective - do you really think you can fully suppress all dissent? Maybe you think you can "persuade" Good women to take one for the team, but that's only one section of the pushback. Their silence won't achieve total silence.
3. Much much easier to avoid pushback by not pushing in the first place. You need to think about where you deploy your political capital. Would there perhaps be more productive things to push for, as a political coalition?
4. Women continue to be fucked over. Not relevant strategically, but thought I should include it.

Righto boss.

Yeah. I’m still waiting to hear one good reason why women should give up their sex based rights but I think I may be waiting in vain. Oh well. Just proves there isn’t one and feminists are correct to keep fighting for women and girls.

love a bit of male rage in the morning I do 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Problem is GC's & the 'bad people' are one in the same philosophically. And no, they don't get to speak for all women or feminism in general.

But then you could say vegetarians and hitler are one and the same philosophically couldn’t you? I mean they both believe eating animals is bad…
so if women believe women need sex based rights and some people who you call “the bad people” also believe women need sex based rights agree, but only on this issue, by your logic, all vegetarians are also evil….

The issue is not that GCs and the ‘bad people’ believe that humans can’t change sex and that women’s sex specific spaces and services should be protected.

Until five minutes ago pretty much everyone believed it.

The issue is that certain left leaning types have convinced themselves of something else.

Those of us with functioning brains and consciences have not wavered in our understanding because our ‘tribe’ has lost the plot.

As I said upthread;

"Far right mimicry in the gender Critical movement is simply a natural conclusion of a movement that is essentially conservative coded in its resistance to change, preference for existing conditions, established institutions and traditional ways of doing things over modern innovations. Its essence is conforming in nature so its going to attract all that goes with that: good & bad.

Personally, I prefer encouraging far right proponents to let their freak wig fly as a community service. Its important for the general public to understand who these people actually are (& their actions point to that) so they can accurately assess where this train is actually going…& not anywhere good.

That's not to say the gender critical movement's intentions aren't societally helpful in terms of caution to harm, they clearly are, but that the far right historically has a way of exploiting & distorting caution into authoritarianism & bigotry that is anything but pro women's rights so important to allow them to show who they are.

If it it walks like a duck…"

Liberalism emphasises individual liberty & social progress unlike conservative values so the 'wavering' is built into the philosophy. That you are crying over liberals not being conservatives is kinda like saying why can't fire be water.

Perhaps its time to accept that GC's are conservative in nature?

To get a diagnosis of GD and a GRC, a person has to feel that their gender does not match their sex. The gender is personal to everyone.

A man could feel that he has GD, but act and have the traits of other men who do not feel that dysphoria. Similarly, a woman may not have any of the traits and be very happy being seen as a women.

The idea that there are a list of traits that make someone a woman or man is something you have made up.

Images of the ‘child catcher’ in ‘Chitty, Chitty, Bang Bang’ now in my mind.

It’s also like saying men can’t be women so should never be in women’s spaces. You’re getting it. Yay!

Individual liberty is not absolute. We cannot let everyone just do what they want. If we do that, the social fabric collapses and the most vulnerable suffer. This is not a left or right issue, it is basic understanding of how we protect those who need it.

There is absolutely nothing ‘socially progressive’ about stripping women of their sex based rights.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Individual liberty is not absolute.

No one is suggesting it is or should be. But there is a huge gulf regarding its limits that places GC's squarely on the conservative side of the ledger.

Let’s remember that individual liberty is a mainstay of right-wing libertarianism.

Exclusively for men & power? Sure. There's this thing called 'egalitarianism' that liberals are kinda more fond of.

It seems to me that dismantling women’s sex based rights in response to the demands of men is a lot more conservative than the opposite.

Horse shoe theory in action again.

uh uh uh trans men exist too remember? Oh that's right, natal females don't have individual agency in GC world.

Perhaps people that don't believe in female agency ought sit the conversation on individual liberties out.

Please stop linking this paper as if it is in anyway a conclusive piece of research. It is nothing but theory.

How Early Hormones Shape Gender Development

Sheri A Berenbaum, Adriene M Beltz.

Feb 2016

“Overall, the zeal for neuroimaging studies has yet to be matched by findings, with few clear and consistent patterns regarding androgen effects on brain structure and activation.”

This is the conclusion:

“Work on hormonal influences on gender development provides a nice model for understanding psychological development in general. Identifying mechanisms by which sex and gender matter can tell us about the ways that the prenatal environment primes us to elicit and respond to our social worlds, and how our biology and experiences transact across development to shape brain structure and function that guide behavior.”

I read that as a place holder for the future research it outlined needed to happen to prove the theories. There are no conclusions able to be drawn.

Here are the Highlights.

“Prenatal androgens influence sex-related characteristics to varying degrees.

Androgens facilitate male-typed activities through interest in things vs. people.

Androgens are associated with some aspects of brain structure and activation.

Current work is focused on interplay of hormones and social environment.

Relevant to questions regarding sex-related psychopathology, prenatal programming “

There are no strong conclusions to be drawn here about hormone effects beyond theory. Nothing also that proves any differences beyond infancy.

The paper presents theories that as yet have not been shown to be significant enough for a conclusion to be drawn in a peer reviewed environment. (It also had a section based on a self reported questionnaire about aspects of personality as well.)

And then it has a large section outlining plans for future studies to support the theory. Have those happened?

It is almost like it is a theory and there are some indications that the theory could be relevant in some ways but as yet there are merely plans to do further studies to be able to draw the conclusions that you, personally, wish to make as accepted science.

That you haven’t found research that has progressed this 10 year old theoretical paper is also significant. I would suggest you give up on this paper. It doesn’t say what you want it to say.

Covered by @TheKeatingFive

Cherry picking again? Why am I not surprised. Here's the bit you like to hide:

"Nature and Psychological Mechanisms of Prenatal Androgen Effects on Gendered Behavior
Confidence has increased that early androgens affect gender development, in light of recent studies that confirm, extend, and clarify previous findings. Most promising, research has moved from asking whether hormones influence human behavior to asking how they do so.
Activity interests and participation – from childhood toy preferences to adult hobbies and occupations – continue to be strongly linked to prenatal androgen exposure [e.g., 7,8], with two notable recent findings. First, androgen effects on interest and engagement in male-typed occupations was seen to have economic consequences: women with exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) were more likely than controls to have income in the top 20th percentile, reflecting employment in male-typical, higher-paying jobs (despite having lower education, and more psychosocial problems) [9]. Second, the sensitive period for androgen effects on activity interests was extended to the early postnatal months, as seen in links between parent-reported child play and urinary testosterone during the first six postnatal months [10], and penile length at a similar time (marking the postnatal testosterone surge also known as mini-puberty) [11].
Speculations about the affective and cognitive processes that underlie children’s sextyped toy preferences have been stimulated by evidence that those preferences are paralleled in rhesus monkeys (male monkeys, like boys, strongly preferred wheeled toys, whereas female monkeys, like girls, had variable preferences, leading to sex differences in preference for wheeled versus plush toys) [12, 13]. Recent work has documented early sex differences in propulsive movement (hitting versus cradling an object), with sex-typed activities suggested to develop “from socialization mechanisms that build on a male predisposition to imitate propulsive motion” [14, p. 262]. Furthermore, sex differences in occupational choices (e.g., male-predominance in science and engineering, female-predominance in social service) appear to be driven in part by androgen effects on interest in things versus people [15].
Spatial abilities are facilitated by exposure to high levels of prenatal androgens. Performance on several spatial tests was higher in two samples of females with CAH compared to typical females [16,17]. Inconsistencies in early studies were clarified: androgen facilitation of spatial abilities may be countered by adverse effects of the disease during early life [17]. Converging evidence comes from typical samples. Spatial abilities were positively related to amniotic testosterone in girls for one measure, but not two others, perhaps due to small sample [18]. Spatial performance was also higher in females with a male co-twin than a female co-twin, thought to reflect transfer of testosterone during gestation [19,20]; importantly, one study controlled for postnatal socialization effects by showing that females with a (non-twin) brother did not have better spatial ability than those with a sister [19]."

All you need to know about the position of trans activists in relation to transmen is the amount of energy they put into the sections of the Gender Recognition Act that stated that for the purposes of succession transmen are considered female. A small matter maybe, but at the time one directly concerned with transfer of power. Zero objections from activists. Zero mention of it when reform of the act was up for debate.

Your copy and paste shows nothing.

You continue to be unable to defend the study you have posted nor to be able to discuss it with any depth.

Just copying and pasting without analysis is what you do. I don’t think you do more than use AI to find information and then copy and paste it.

You miss the authors themselves saying it is theoretical as yet and a great deal more research is suggested by those authors.

But feminists are fighting for TIF too. The SC judgement set in stone their rights to abortion and pregnancy care, and their ability to access RCC and prisons and psych wards for women. Isn’t that great? Feminists did that for them.

'Copy & pasting' accusations don't qualify as an argument. The 'copy & pasting' is self explanatory. Please point to what's false in the 'copy & pasting' & why?

Oh look. Someone can quote bollocks whilst they mansplain that gender is innate and all women like pink and makeup.