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

Teddy used to squat to pee because he's had a leg smashed badly when he was a puppy. Daisy often cocked a leg for mysterious reasons of her own. She was obedient and co-operative, he was cheeky and defiant and given to stealing rats, voles etc out of the cats mouths.

Although she was bigger than he was, she always deferred to him.

Hormones and physiology, sex-driven, not gender, canine animals do not have genders. Nor do I btw.

Has anyone ever met one of these single-issue GC feminists? Did they only become feminists when gender was invented in the mid 90s? Or when it started to be a widely visible 'thing' circa 2010? Were they perfectly happy with wage inequality, male violence and lack of autonomy up until then? And with global issues of violence, femicide, differential effects of poverty etc etc?

Self proclaimed 'feminists' who deny nature/nurture exists just so they can justify that females don't have individual agency aren't feminists.

Has anyone done that?

Nature exists. Nurture exists.

Gender is an artificial social construct, very culture specific, developed in different ways in different societies in different eras.

female humans have agency and can opt out of (or into) artificial social constructs. They cannot opt out of sex.

male humans have agency and can opt out of (or into) artificial social constructs. They cannot opt out of sex.

canine mammals are not aware of artificial social constructs. Their behaviour is influenced by sex.

There are a lot of people for whom "critically examines" equates to "denies exists".

That's exactly how it comes across.

I'm gobsmacked that they couldn't see it, either.

So yes, the word grooming is not used lightly with these people.

'What's in it for the women' never gets a response. Half the time I think they don't actually understand the question.

You have no evidence gendered behaviours are exclusively a social construct. I repeat, its the scientific consensus that human behaviour is influenced by nurture AND nature that's why our dear Hebb has flown the coop.

That really isn't how scientific theories work. They are ideas which are demonstrably supported by existing evidence. Alternative theories may be developed that better explain the evidence or new evidence discovered that requires a change in theory. But they aren't just ideas without any backing whatever.

Yes. Meh. No.

If they are gendered they are artificial.

There many differences derived from sex. Testosterone and bodies shaped to child production and nurturing are real.

What is a dear Hebb?

There used to be a chap in the pub, most pubs, that would bang on and on about incomprehensibe nonsense and take the lack of 'resounding argument' as evidence of their 'I'm right'ness.

Most people just avoided him like the plague. For reasons he may never quite comprehend.

Do schools still teach reading comprehension?

I keep remembering teaching a BA evening class tutorial group ca 45 years ago where one bloke was being very repetitive and very resistant to learning anything about the subject, and it gradually became clear that be was well infused with wacky backy.

Mentioned it to a mutual acquaintance and was told yes, his job was customs official and he'd had a 'good' day.

Yes, knew a similar one. Used to get absolutely plastered and then hang himself around the shoulder of anyone silly enough to make eye contact, put his face to theirs and sob 'are you saved?'

And that was your evening gone, he'd drain you dry on that one.

I found many that would hang off the side of a quiz machine and call out wrong answers and if you pressed the right answer would claim credit anyway.

As I’ve mentioned before sometimes people online adopt little writing tics because they have another posting identity, to throw people off that so they don’t get identified. Not suggesting this is the case, but it’s a thing.

Sexually reproducing creatures without a nervous system can tell the difference between male and female.

No gendered behaviours required.

Sure.

Anyone can develop a ‘scientific theory’.

However, if a team of academics wish their theory to be considered strong, they need to support it with strong evidence. Do you think the paper linked provided strong evidence that means that the environment was well controlled so that a conclusion could be drawn? Did you even bother to read the conclusion the paper drew before jumping in ?

Just catching up.

Hyperbole with this one strong.

Is there something in the water at the moment?

Only a sinking ship, @Boiledbeetle

Yes; many theories look reasonable for a while but they can simply be shown eventually to be incorrect. As with phlogiston. Or the geocentric theory, which accumulated more and more extra theories to explain the movement of the planets through the heavens, since they too must revolve round the earth. Or the notion that illnesses sink through the body and eventually out through the feet; the discovery of the circulation of the blood did for that one, I think.

Theories that turn out on further examination (which that paper calls for) not to be accurate are called "exploded", as far as I know.

Some theories start with a new discovery or insight, such as that of a Ptolomy or an Archimedes or a Galileo or an Einstein, around which older theories have to be adjusted. Some theories seem to start from "here is a nice hypothesis: I wonder if it can be shown to work?" Perhaps the problem is when what is actually a hypothesis gets referred to as a theory?

Indeed.

I would love to know how the paper is going to be proved in this modern era. I suspect it cannot because controlling for other influences cannot be done.

It is as weak as the self reported questionnaire that asked people about their personality traits. Apparently that was supposed to be convincing too.

But… apparently, this ‘evidence’ is strong enough to support that behavioural traits of the sexes are clearly defined enough to use as a basis for sex categorisation……

Correlation is not causation. You have no evidence that gender is exclusively a social construct. Your own defence disproves your argument.The fact that cultures differ in expression of gender can also be a result of cultural pressures. Women in Afghanistan aren't sporting mini skirts & high heals for a reason….they aren’t at liberty to. That's why when measuring gendered cultural differences in egalitarian countries like in Sweden are more accurate which research has shown to have even broader differences in gendered behaviour particularly in employment choices.

What you don't seem to comprehend is whether the research proves a smoking gun is irrelevant. All it has to do is point to credible possibilities supported by evidence that can't be ruled out. And that's essentially the problem with the blank slatists argument….it can't rule out biological influences. Hence you being unable to show how they are ruled out & clinging to tenuous obtuse argument.

Yeah. If gender norms innate but also are unique depending on hormones and genes,as some posters claim then gender roles are meaningless and cannot be proven to be innate. Unless we monitor and record every hormone and gene on a baby at birth, then monitor each behaviour growing up, then compare each person to every other person to see what they do, we will never know. It has been proven that children pick up behaviours and language from a very early age however. This is proven. Therefore there seems to be more evidence that gender roles are learned and not innate