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

Yes, I think so too. You're grooming children into believing they are the opposite sex, and leading them to believe they will be happier if they have surgery to remove parts of their body and take dangerous, life-altering hormones. It seems like a very apposite use of the word "grooming".

Paedophile groomers build an emotional connection and trust with a child or vulnerable individual to manipulate, exploit and abuse them. They try to isolate the person from friends and family to gain power and control.

Russell Davies and other TRAs use similar tactics to promote an ideology that harms children. Actively seeking to harm children makes you almost as bad as a paedophile. I dont care if Russell Davies is called a groomer, he is. If you think that implies he's a paedophile the link is in your head.

Are the men who look for 'eggs to crack' not grooming these 'eggs' then?

I don't believe that someone who has no direct contact with the child in question is a groomer.

Dr. Who the tv show can't on it's own groom children. It's like back in the day when people believed Brittney Spears was grooming their daughters into whores. You are responsible for what your children watch on screens, if someone in real life takes advantage then it's a different situation but no I don't think you can groom someone you have never even met.

That is different than making a tv show. Going out and hunting for people and direct messaging/harassing someone vulnerable is grooming.

Thanks! I genuinely had no idea.

Do you don’t think people can use media to implant ideas and groom people into a particular way of thinking? Because using media to manipulate has been a thing pretty much forever. I don’t watch Dr Who and I don’t think I’ve watched anything by RTD ever, so I’m not saying he is doing that, but it’s very much a thing.

And of course, plenty of predators and terrorists, etc. grooming people they’ve never met online so you really don’t have to meet someone in real life to groom them.

As I clarified above direct contact can also be online messaging.

I also said I would call RTD a propagandist which is a much better word for what he does instead of groomer.

It’s sort of the same thing though, isn’t it? Influencing people to think and act in a certain way. I wouldn’t quibble over the use of either word.

You know what? Neither I, nor anyone I know, would have a clue what Glinner was saying if 'gender critical as they come' people concerned for the reputation of GC women didn't keep posting about it.

When YouTube user 'TenMuses' donated $300,000 to F1NNSTER if he 'lived as a girl' for two more months, was this grooming? Remember F1NNSTER didn't have a trans identity when he started his channel. In fact, I think the whole Finn saga is an example of online grooming and 'egg cracking'.

A word has a meaning and TRAs don’t like it and they want the rest of us to fall in with them and condemn those who want to use the actual dictionary definition.

Sound familiar anyone?

RobynMiller
You are responsible for what your children watch on screens,

and there speaks someone who hasn't got an adolescent child.

You may be blamed for what your children turn out to have watched, but there is a very strong probability that you didn't give it to them (and if you had they wouldn't have watched whatever it was) so I don't regard it as something you are responsible for.

Trying to stop an adolescent from watching what he or she wants to is like herding cats: foredoomed to failure.

This.

Can I just echo earlier posts.

Individually I am quite pleased when some "personalities" is reported in MSM and SM as having a position or support for women's sex based rights and are gender critical.

But have no understanding why, when there are so few public spaces that those of us who are individuals either actively engaged in some group or campaign, or who are online to further women's sex based rights would think this is in any way a priority.

There are far bigger issues about how women's sex based rights are being undermined, ignored or politically manipulated.

Let only thinking that because they are given space by the MSM two white men are that important. I suspect that there are far more people who have no idea who they are, or have any interest in their cultural output.

Our worry is that the MSM is setting this ding dong style, rather than for instance posting worthwhile and proactive comments by for instance Sex Matters.

One of the positive and proactive things FWR can do, and is in fact how it gained its feminist reputation is that it brought into the public domain the pro GC attitude of a huge number of women.

Let them have their public spats.

This is the only GC thing you post about though. A couple of people’s tweets.

I loved the way RTD revived Dr Who in 2005 with cybermen and Daleks just like mother used to make. The final series with Ncuti Gatwa was an utter travesty, Disneyfied singing and dance routines (WTF?) and the constant, constant TWAW. Grooming is a strong word but I would agree with it here. DW has a large fan base, attracts many with ASD and many young people who are disproportionately likely to be affected and influenced.

Propaganda of any kind seldom makes good drama (the Nazis and Soviets produced many, very very few of which made any impression at the box office) and ultimately it was RTD’s tub-thumping crusading that killed DW (hopefully temporarily, the BBC is calling for bids now). I suspect RTD will find the public voting with their feet more upsetting than this post by Glinner but do I think the criticism is warranted? Yes I do.

Only Americans that I've seen and they are generally referring to ANYONE on the left over there. Including TRAs more recently. They've always done it too. It's a very common insult in the US.

Well maybe Linehan's time living in the US has caused him to use it nearly every day then

In the sense that he's promoting Gender Ideology on a show that's popular with kids, yes.

Grooming is a widely used word. It’s a process of preparing people for a specific future. Kids are groomed into County Lines. Young people are groomed into an industry- perhaps the stage, dance or the city. Politicians are groomed for future roles.

Pedophiles groom children AND adults to create a culture where abuse goes unnoticed and unpunished.

To leap to the pedophilia connection says more about the person claiming it, to be honest.

What is the 'GC cause'?

What is it's aims? Policies? Leaders?

I don't think this actually exists. 'Don't do this, you make wanting equality for women look bad' is a bit like 'don't do this, you make gravity look bad'. Or 'don't do this, you make being anti-mugging look bad'.

His TV shows are manipulative tripe. I think there is a level of grooming in his intent.

Of course children have been groomed into believing their bodies are flawed but drugs and surgery will change their sex and cure them. No responsible adult would tell kids that. But groomers will.

It may be online, it may be via schools, charities or some of the events for those aged 13 - 25 years old advertised by some of the dodgy organisations.

Fretting about language in an attempt to demonise an adult few of us know, while ignoring the escalating rates of child abuse seems to be missing the plot big time. 🙄