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

This is exactly it! Thank you!

So when the Trans Lobby literally said they were going to try and achieve getting men into female prisons, not because it benefits them personally but it would benefit the community overall, because nobody cared about women in prison so they could use the same techniques across every other sphere...was that 'grooming'?

It is often said that paedophiles groom kids, not necessarily for them but for the next potential paedophile.

What is the difference in the tactics?

This is Truthphobic.

Naturally a "groomer" for me is someone who targets particular individuals and who benefits personally from those or other individuals being successfully groomed.

AGP males target young people and tell them they’re trans for their own benefit, to legitimise their fetish (to help access medical treatments and destigmatise their fetish.) The existence of “trans kids” is necessary for them.

Paedophiles have targeted doctors at WPATH to legitimise Eunuch identity and benefit from humans reaching legal age with children’s bodies.

Men who want to access women’s spaces have targeted [insert numerous people or organisations] to convince them that men are a type of woman, and have benefited from being able to access women’s spaces.

And so on.

This very much seems to me to hit the nail spang on the head.

It's a usual human reaction that having been very vocal in support of something, it's well-nigh impossible to admit that you might have got it wrong. See the difficulty vocal maga people in the States are having when it comes to admitting that far from making America great, Trump is a disaster for America both at home and in the world, having trashed their economy and reduced the influence of the country in many ways, making himself and thus them too into a laughing-stock by his antics abroad.

The best thing that can be done is absolutely not trying to get such determined proponents of anything at all to say they might have made a mistake; it is to give them what I think is called "an off-ramp", a way to back off without being seen to back down. Thus the maga person is not going to vote for the other "side" but may simply not bother to vote if the down side of maga is pointed out without heat often enough; a TRA is never going to say "hang on, you have a point there" but may – if you are lucky – start to feel a bit stupid, stfu, and go off to find some other trendy cause and be offensive and belligerent on behalf of some other group who could really do without him or her (with friends like that, who needs enemies?) exaggerating what they might want said.

That's a very perceptive take on why the handmaidens & other non-trans TRAs are so hardline in their support for TIMs. They cannot compromise on behalf of TIMs nor do they want to compromise as they have no need.

Well before he became Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan was groomed into holding the position on trans that he does, for example. I am morally certain that for every non-trans supporter of the Cause at the expense of women – and, in at least one case I know, also at the expense of his own common sense, intellect and scientific training, since he is utterly unable to consider that he might be mistaken about any of The Script no matter what factual argument my be offered to him – there is one or more person grooming him or her into that pose.

It an observation that holds true in general I think. I first observed it totally outside anything political, as a dynamic when people fall out in friendship groups.

Yes. Reminds me of the issues many MNetters have had with CAFCASS and Social Services too, where an abusive ex has often successfully groomed an assigned worker into enabling him and opening up the pathways to his further abuse of the woman and children involved.

Also reminds me of that article, years ago now, written by a trans identified man about the carefully selected representatives put before politicians etc in those 'cosy cups of tea' meetings - pretty, vulnerable children, with very sad stories. Never large middle aged men. Impression and story very carefully cultivated, because meeting a pretty, vulnerable boy and imagining him prey to adult men is one thing. But being faced with a large, stubbled middle aged man in a frock is quite another when you are discussing imposing him and whatever his particular agendas and drives are on a room full of women.

Actually. It is not really it.

You could categorise that the people creating the specific content on instagram as engaging in grooming. The people who run the app can be considered to contribute by allowing that content.

As the writer of the content that is the Dr Who episodes in question, the author does have responsibility for the content.

I started reading this thread thinking 'what constant use? I never call anyone a groomer' and the more I read the more I'm thinking that I really ought to call out more people as groomers.

How far is enabling a crime in itself a crime? I know grooming isn't one, but if it were, would the people running the app be enabling a crime?

Grooming is most certainly a crime in the UK. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

https://www.jdspicer.co.uk/site/blog/crime-fraud/what-is-sexual-grooming-under-uk-law

Well either grooming is usually considered sexual or it's not. This was the point of my post in the first place. Your average person does assume if you call someone a Groomer it is meant for sexual purposes/

When a writer / producer of a show aimed at children includes content that is aimed at convincing the audience that something that is purely subjective is representative of material reality, when that subjective concept is also one that is based on on philosophical belief and not based on scientific evidence, in a way that children cannot tell the difference, the writer and producer of the show should take responsibility for including that concept and presenting that way.

maybe in your group of people. I don't believe you have shown any evidence that supports this.

Be honest, if someone said, 'That man is grooming that child.' Is your first thought that they mean grooming for the PMship or is your first reaction that it is sexual?

Grooming is not just a sexual matter, though. It can apply to any number of other ambitions held for one person by another, who is influenced and coerced and coaxed into doing what is wanted of him or her. Little girls were groomed by the USSR authorities to be amazing (drugged) gymnasts. Arguably, Shirley Temple and Judy Garland were groomed by their parents to be child stars. Britney Spears was groomed for her singing career ditto. Pretty-much anyone in the Unification Church is quite likely to have been groomed (and love-bombed and so forth) into joining. Lots of non-sexual examples.

I think I would agree with you more if the show in question also didn't have main characters that are literal aliens who time travel. Children seem perfectly capable of knowing those things aren't real.

But in common parlance it is used to mean sexual predator. Would you call all the staff of Eton Groomers the same way Linehan has called RTD?

I have no idea what someone I don't know, using a medium to which I don't subscribe, may have written about a three-initial individual who works in a profession I haven't had anything to do with for over fifty years, so no, I probably wouldn't have any opinion about it at all. I mean, I saw the first Dr Who episode, and I think I may have seen as many as six since then.... I have never owned a television.

No, I don't think all teachers "groom" children. I suspect the vast majority are too busy trying to get the little beasts to learn a modicum of any subject so they can pass some exams before they leave school. If a teacher decided that one of his or her pupils was going to be a maths prodigy or a chess grand master, and spent a lot of time on convincing the child that was what it ought to do for life, at the expense of any other subject or interest, now that is grooming.

So the line is personalized attention. I agree with that which is why I think a man who may have not even written the scenes in question, should be smeared as a groomer.

No. My first thought is not limited to sexual grooming.

And I would be not doing a good job of safeguarding a child if that was my limited response.

Yes. Because society and people they respect help them to understand that aliens and time travel is make believe.

Being told that a male person is a female is something that there are many people who are in positions of respect are telling children is possible. This writer chose to reinforce that philosophical belief with absolutely no way for children to understand that it is also just as impossible as time travel.

Where I think we disagree is that I don't think that is his job. In fact, it being in a show about aliens makes the whole gender thing look even more ridiculous.

The writer of any tv show is not a trusted person to be listened to and for the same reason does not shoulder the responsibility of safeguarding all children who may watch.