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

I think you’ve just described Gender GP’s diagnostic tool.

The issue in the world of 'gender bollocks' as I call it, is that chopping off people's penises and breasts IS abuse.

It is all such fucking nonsense isn't it?

Yes. It’s a whole heap of nonsense.

And there is a direct line between WPATH, the organisation that tells people they have a “gender identity” and recommends medical transition for children at any age, and a group of men who partake in the fetishisation of children who have been castrated.

People who you call 'gender critial' just know there are 2 sexes.

But chopping, despite all of the eye rolling, must too.

To determine if a trait is male or female, chopping would have to observe people traiting and their sex.

He's seen 100 people wearing false eyelashes, seen that they are all female, so is assuming the next person he sees wearing false eyelashes must be female or very likely female.

Similarly, he's seen 100 people wearing a tie, seen that they are all male, and therefore everyone wearing a tie is male or very likely male.

I dont know how he'd gender some wearing false lashes and a tie, or someone wearing neither lashes nor a tie.

He knows sex, because otherwise he wouldn't know which traits are male or female. But then is pretending that sex is irrelevant, and the traits are how we classify people.

He knows the reliable sex class exists, but then wants to ignore it for the complicated, unreliable class of 'gender'.

Also, chopping must know that gender can work both ways.

If i want to wear lashes, or a tie, I must be female or male.

If i want to present as female or male, I must wear lashes or a tie.

Up is down.

Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.

I get a sense that at least one poster on this thread is using a lot of AI assistance, and that as in classic Star Trek 'Kirk reasons a computer to death' episodes, it doesn't cope well with responses that depart from its own script.

Much hot air, very little direct response to the content of posts.

What I notice is a lot of "You're wrong! You're wrong! But I am not going to say why or how. You'll have to work that out for yourself."

Classic abuse textbook stuff, I would have thought.

We used to have a sheet that regularly got faxed to other people, unfortunately I can't find my original copy so I had to get AI to try to recreate one. It's what I always imagine some posters are using, only a TRA version.

I had a sudden thought about the thread title.

I would draw a definite distinction between trans people and TRAs, many of whom seem not to be particularly trans at all.

Is this me being pernickety, or do other people feel the same?

I mean, I do know some post-op trans people who are also TRAs, but I also know post-op trans people who most decidedly are not. (On the whole, the latter are less trying to spend time with: their conversations are less one-track me-me-me-my-sexuality-me-me-me.)

Brilliant! 😂

We'll file it alongside the bingo card

Yes, you're right.
Not all trans people are TRAs. A good many TRAs are not trans.

It might be that we need to be careful to make sure that people realise that "groomer" is reserved for a person encouraging children to behave in a way advocated by that person, and should not be applied universally to everyone trans. On account of I know a fair few trans people of both sexes who would no more advocate changing gender to a child of ten than they would try to fly without wings.... Some are even honest enough to admit the down-sides of the whole business; without themselves wanting to detransition nor repining about their own choice, they wouldn't necessarily recommend it for anyone else.

A groomer is also someone who is breaking down safeguarding.

A perfectly nice trans person who wants to be referred to as the opposite sex, or no sex at all, is telling children that sex is irrelevant.

Its not just about introducing the idea that the child can be trans, its about introducing the idea that we should ignore sex.

I always rather feel that to groom someone is an active thing, not a passive one. I mean, to use a completely different example: a Christian who tries to be a good person is I suppose trying to influence people into seeing that Christians can be good, and therefore Christianity also can be good, but he isn't grooming anyone; a door-to-door God-botherer or someone who lures young and bewildered students into "church houses" by being ostentatiously kind to them is grooming. (I have seen the damage that can be done by an ostensibly Christian house-father who told a young gay man that he could be cured by marriage to a good woman, and told her that it was her Christian duty to save the lad from his sin; it ruined both their lives for decades.)

afaik I have never called any individual, trans or otherwise, a groomer. I have said that I believe that the advertising industry grooms us all, to turn us onto compliant consumers, with varying success.

There I do very much agree with you. The only advertising I don't find deplorable is the strictly-informational, which means, in general, small-ads and the like.

Naturally a "groomer" for me is someone who targets particular individuals and who benefits personally from those or other individuals being successfully groomed. That doesn't sit very well with what most TRAs are doing.

I think you could make an argument that, say, Instagram encourages young girls to sexualise themselves in ways that might contribute to them being targets for predators in some cases. It would be a stretch though to call the people who run it "groomers" themselves.

When i was at secondary school, we had this sort of church group that came to the school every few weeks.
It’s only when i look back now and think about the sort of things they said, i realised they were grooming us. I don’t know what for, mind you, but it was definitely iffy.

I remember one particular thing was about the Easter message, and how badly they were trying to make us ‘feel things’. They said imagine Jesus is your best friend, or the person you love most, and think about how much pain he was in.
They were a husband and wife team, and as a kid i thought it was a bit weird, but as an adult, it was actually pretty inappropriate.

Another example of grooming that occurred to me a few years ago was when Titanic came out in the late 90s.
Capital Radio used to play My Heart Will Go On, as you’d expect, but it was a version that had lots of dialogue from the film, in the song.
This whipped people up into wanting to see the film, like no other film before it or since.

Girls are told from a variety of sources that they are more mature than boys of their own ages and its natural for them to date older boys and men.

As a result, they believe its normal for men to approach them. In other words, they have been groomed to believing its ok.

The men themselves havent told the individual girls this. But the girls have been groomed and the men take advantage.

We need to recognise safeguarding and the role we all play.

Anyone saying to children that a man is a women is confusing children about sex, just as we are confusing girls about age and maturity. Even people who have no intention of harming children could be inadvertently grooming children into dangerous situations.

Actually In conversation I have said ( and believe) that society grooms children by pressuring them towards being sexual when they are too young.

Yes absolutely draw a difference.

A long time ago, but probably in the depths of FWR somewhere, I noted that danger of taking on someone else's cause for them is that you can fight for them, you can amplify their voice, you can hold the line for them, but you cannot compromise for them because it's not your fight to say what they can or can't accept in the interests of finding a solution. So, allies tend to be more extreme that the people for whom they are fighting.

And in a movement like Genderism, where you have I guess at least 1000 allies shouting about trans rights for each actual trans person, that becomes a big deal. Because most of the people driving this on the Genderist side now are only empowered to fight, not to compromise.

And then if they have also put a heavy slug of their own identity into being "a person who is compassionate / sophisticated enough to truly believe that TWAW / TMAM"... well. Those people have every reason to dig in and no reason in the world to soften.

"Primed" is quite a good word.
Laying down the undercoat, ready for the paint.