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

What's the name of the mammal you find on California's beaches?

Still waiting for your evidence from many threads ago proving exclusively nurture 'is to blame' ruling out all other biological influences on gendered behaviour btw.

Whaaat? ROGD? lol.

Homo sapiens

Transgender people take hormones to change their appearance.

The definition and diagnosis of GD does not measure hormones.

Saying boys and girls play with different toys and play differently, and that may be linked to hormones, is not evidence that men can become women. Its not used in the process to obtain a GRC.

And again, you show that you have nothing.

The study is theory that cannot move from a difference noted that other academics have theorised is due to androgens in infants through the quagmire of socialisation and negative sexist discrimination that then occurs in society to draw any evidenced conclusion about those theorised differences.

At least the authors admit the limitations that you seem to ignore.

And again, this is all you can do to defend your link.

Good one.

So, did you even read it? Or just AI’d it?

Compared to WHAT? Where is your smoking gun? What scientific consensus evidence gives you the authority to claim gendered behaviours a purely socially constructed? Feminist theory you say?

No offence but GC grandiosity has its limits in reality.

Well of course men exist. Who said they didn’t?

As of the rest of that word salad, wth are you talking about?

The link quotes numerous studies that show links to hormones & behaviour. That you can't except those obvious links exist is on you.

If it was established that natural hormones was the definition of sex, would TRA agree?

Would they take the test and if they 'fail' acknowledge that they aren't trans? Or would it be like the brain sex theory when many said a brain scan wouldnt make a difference to them?

*accept.

Do you need a Wikipedia link to explain the difference?

Still waiting for your one reason women should give up their sex based rights? What benefit does this provide to women….. your move.

What happens when grooming doesn't work any more? I often wonder.

And again you cannot even engage with the study you presented.

This is just your distraction tactic.

I will just repeat this.

The study is theory that cannot move from a difference noted that other academics have theorised is due to androgens in infants through the quagmire of socialisation and negative sexist discrimination that then occurs in society to draw any evidenced conclusion about those theorised differences.

At least the authors admit the limitations that you seem to ignore.

And again you cannot even engage with the study you presented.

I don't have to its self evident from the tests showing the links that you can't accept.

You act as if scientific theory is a crazy patriarchal guess that isn't accepted all the time as a broad well-tested explanation for a wide range of natural phenomena that is backed by extensive evidence and peer review.

Stating that human behaviour is the product of both nurture & nature is a thoroughly uncontroversial consensus backed scientific theory. Stating human behaviour is purely socially constructed isn't that's why you have zero evidence to prove this kooky take that would have you laughed out of legitimate scientific circles.

And the limitations they mention are regarding neuro imaging AND accounts for social influences in some studies so stop lying.

He seems to have gone a bit quiet regarding transmen.

Are you sure? How do you know they are not innately something completely biologically different? Should I look for a nonsense paper to prove that the metaphysical world is a construct?

Scientific theory is just that. Theory.

They have not been able to prove their theories.

There was actually nothing ‘self evident’ because it is all theory. I would suggest it will remain theory because as yet no one can remove sexist discrimination and children’s modelling of behaviour from people they recognise as being the same sex as they are from future outcomes. Therefore, your paper discusses theories.

Accusing me of lying is just more personal attack from you because the evidence you have crowed about is so fucking poor. You cannot engage with the study with anything beyond cutting and pasting the same section over and over that only supports a theory that has little evidence to support it.

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

& all the while to my intense irritation he keeps using the bloody Greengrocer's Apostrophe.

Thank you. I'll take this refusal to provide evidence countering the scientific consensus as a concession.

As H likes to ironically repeat ad nausem you have nothing….& know it.

But then I could take your refusal to name one benefit of women giving up their right to dingle sex spaces in the same way…. A concession to the fact you have nothing.

Do take whatever you'd like and have a lovely time with it.

I know who has nothing but a desire to bait. It's not Helleofabore

I'm more interested in Donald Trump not being arsed if San Diego and Los Angeles are wiped out, a plague in Siberia and some nutty anti-Semitic Greens who want to wipe out Israel today.

You'll have to find someone else to play with.

A man spending hours mansplaining to women that women don't exist as a distinct sex class 😂😂

Suppose it keeps him occupied for a while.