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

Says the person that claims that sex categories of humans can be categorised by behavioural traits.

As many of us on many threads have pointed out, there may be some behaviourial traits that may more aligned with one sex category of human than the other. Although they are not exclusive to one sex category. Therefore, behaviourial traits are an unreliable category definition of human sex category.

Because there are many humans who will not have the behaviourial traits that may be associated with their sex category and have those associated with the opposite sex category, and this does not change or negate the sex category that their body was formed around.

It is you who has attempted over many months, threads and user names to tell other posters that behaviourial / personality traits are a sex distinguishable trait. Some posters have pointed out that because many relevant points such as overlap between sex categories, lack of definition and changebility over time, behaviourial / personality traits are not reliable categorisation tools for human sex categories and that just because a male person may have some behaviourial traits categorised as being more associated with female people, he is not a female person.

Says the person that claims that sex categories of humans can be categorised by behavioural traits.

I have said no such thing. Its gender categories & that's not my opinion but a sociological fact that gender categories are a socially constructed set of roles, behaviours, expressions and norms that a culture associates with being a boy or a man a girl or a woman. In fact the gender critical movement agrees with this otherwise how would they square their belief in gender stereotyping?

But nice attempt at diverting with false representation to avoid your accountability to provide evidence of your anti science claim that human behaviour is purely environmentally influenced.

That you can't bring yourself to at least acknowledge the scientific consensus on the matter can only be deduced as an effort to deny female agency.

At least we have moved from seeing that link to the self reported personality traits. A very good example of why those self descriptions fail would be how some people might describe themselves as super feminine on the personality questionnaire, yet in real life might show many more masculine traits and none of those super feminine traits in their everyday interaction with others. And this can be seen regularly on self published content, particularly videos, across social media platforms.

Any research that uses self reported personality traits as a basis for categorising sex categories, or even just a snap shot of time and how people behave, is going to only be able to claim very broad conclusions. It will also be why there is no resource tool created yet that will be able to be used to define sex category from personality / behaviourial traits.

Did we even get a list of what behaviourial / personality traits are associated with female vs male humans?

Or is this theory still at its concept stage with no usable tools coming from it?

I don't know what you are blabbering on about to avoid accountability. My comments regarding behaviour pertain to gender categories not sex categories.

Now where's your evidence?

One paper does not make ‘scientific consensus’ even if it brought together other papers.

When sex categorisation matters, a persons gender identity is irrelevant. Hence, when regulations exclude all male people, that is legitimate sex discrimination.

Super feminine of you.

But you said gender roles were innate in humans So what the poster is asking ,and you deliberately misunderstanding, is what gender roles are unique to females and which are unique to males, or is there an overlap and you are talking bollocks again
@Helleofabore sorry for jumping in

So you now concede you have nothing to eliminate biological influences given your refusal to provide it with obfuscation.

Thankyou.

Yes he's part of the problem and should apologise

Go for it!

No I did not. Its gendered behaviour that's partly biological. Gender roles are social constructs/human categorisations.

I think if you look at my posting history, I have repeated the same lines almost exactly.

Personality / behaviourial traits are unreliable in defining sex categories in humans.

It is sex categories that matter in the discussion about who accesses female single sex provisions. That is based only on a person’s sex category determined by their body being formed around one reproductive role or the other.

Please do check my posting history if you are unsure about what I say. My username is consistent, I don’t believe I have changed position on this point at all.

Meantime, this is a thread about grooming.

That's irrelevant to this conversation other than you using that to evade accountability for your claims on this thread.

There aren't. Don't know where you get that nonsense from.

pivot pivot pivot……

I see.

So we are to believe that there is scientific consensus that there are some personality / behavioural traits that are sex specific but there is no list.

And around we go.

Super feminine behaviour.

So what genders behaviour is unique to males, and what to females?

But you are the one claiming gendered behaviours are innate. So can go give some examples….

Show us the scientific consensus then that gendered behaviour is exclusively socially constructed then.

This is your claim. Now back it up.

So there are no [as in zero] behavioural traits that are specifically male or female?

But there are gendered behaviours that are specifically male or female?

What is your difference between 'behavioural traits and 'gendered behaviours'?

So there are no [as in zero] behavioural traits that are specifically male or female?
But there are gendered behaviours that are specifically male or female?

No. There are typical behaviours.

What is your difference between 'behavioural traits and 'gendered behaviours'?

I never said anything about behavioural traits so don't know what you are talking about.

The same one's you believe are socially constructed.