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 will just repeat this :

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.

Primarily, the line is intent. After all, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and all that: she was definitely depicted as deliberately grooming her arbitrarily-chosen pupils, her crème de la crème, in Fascism as well as in the arts.

I know it doesn't suit the agenda, but there it is. A teacher as a rule is trying to teach children facts about subjects rather than his or her own opinion on them; many (not all, obviously: some are didacticists) children's fiction writers are simply trying to tell an interesting story rather than inculcate their own world-view in their child readers; a groomer is trying to exert undue – and probably unhealthy – influence over children.

(I might be tempted to argue that writers who try to deliver a pot of message to children are very unlikely to be good writers, and are likely to be forgotten as the child grows older, but Narnia rises up in my mind and I can't bring myself to follow that line of thought too far. Lewis was definitely plugging Christianity for all he was worth, but he was also a memorable writer, so I can't have that as an argument.)

If the man you are talking about didn't write the scenes, was he paid for them? If he was, he might as well have done the writing himself: he gained from it.

Can I suggest that the reason you ask that question is because you are only looking at this through your own personal experience?

I must've used the word grooming a zillion times in the last few years to describe the triangulation of a narcissist and their two children. Who were both groomed from birth to perform their respective roles.

If someone says the word grooming to me, I instantly think of narcissist parents grooming their children.

i'm sure the word, indeed the concept, gained more comprehension in terms of people understanding how predators operate, but as a known behaviour, many people will use it in entirely different circumstances.

If you read the solicitor’s link talking about grooming as a crime in what you quoted it starts by saying:

There is no single offence called "grooming".

In a line further down it specifies sexual grooming as one type of grooming offence.
It needs to specify what kind of grooming.

That was from a solicitor.

Then of there are the general uses of the word grooming meaning something like manipulating towards an end, or influencing, for example when the pp mentioned advertising, or that a trans characters are in a drama that is popular with the young.

A lot of grooming towards being trans is coming from capitalism in an abstract way. One the one hand for the medical industry (USA and Canada), and on the other just because it is fashionable and ‘sells’. It is being used to sell art for example to the edgy more sensitive among us. Probably the same with Dr Who.

Some of that grooming is possibly grooming as collateral damage but the gender propagandists and perpetrators are proud of themselves, and the Tate has targeted children with their ‘education’.

I had been referring to this solicitor’s link in a pp.

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

Of course there are different uses. Somebody who has been groomed for high office since they joined the party. Somebody who has been groomed to one day take over the company.

My aunt and her husband had a farm in Devon. They had horses. My cousin was horse mad. She ended up marrying the groom who worked on their farm. So, I’d say he did a bit of grooming too. I’m referring to the horses. Mind you, the marriage did not last.

'Grooming' has clearly become a go-to word for many types of unsavoury behaviour as the tragic cases in this article demonstrate

https://archive.ph/pUCFm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/real-life/2026/10/09/my-daughter-took-her-life-poison-in-the-post/

Perhaps the OP has already contacted the man in the organisation who used it to scold him that he is the one causing harm.

It's now a shorthand for to describe someone who manipulates others into doing themselves harm or harmful behaviour. Language evolves.

Over on Trans Reddit can you describe this thread advising a 15 year old boy how to source DIY oestrogen as anything other than grooming?

www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1x1pkoc/i_told_my_mum_i_want_to_start_diy_and_she_said_no/

No, you can’t.

It isn’t as bad as suicide ‘how-to’ but it is awful, ought to be criminal, and yes, it is grooming. 15!

That poor boy. You can see he is sort of defending his mum and really wanting her there in the background. His insistence on DIY may even be him trying to keep some control over what goes into his body, compared to if he gets on the fast train he won’t easily get off with the private route - especially given his parents would be sacrificing to pay for it. The shaking after talking to her was release and relief. Now he should be having space to think and just be, but instead is getting a step by step account to block his future choices.

Just think what a help it would be if he had no internet.

As I've said multiple times now on this very thread, directly contacting a child and convincing them to be trans IS over the line into grooming.

What I don't agree with is that a trans identified character being in a fantasy tv show is of the level of grooming.

It is. They want to be current and ‘sell’ and they don’t care what they sell with it. And in fact they/the writer might believe in it all too and be on a mission as well. Win win.

At the very least it is societal grooming via the media.

Doctor Who isnt subtle at the best of times, and with its trans characters hammered home the idea that men could be women, characters could be non binary and anyone disagreeing are wrong. It wasnt characters that happened to be trans, trans was the character and point of the characters.

It was hours of TV introducing the concept of trans ideology to children and that a man could be a woman, and no one should question it.

Children can't separate out fiction from reality in a way that adults can. Its why daleks frightened a generation of children, whereas adults can see they are bonkers costumes.

As an adult, I can watch a programe knowing everything about it is fiction. I know the characters have been written to manipulate me, and I have the ability to enjoy it while knowing nothing about it is true. Children often dont see this.

RTD sees his role as a progressive story teller. He wanted to show trans ideology and trans characters positively. He wasnt concerned that its a contested ideology, the safeguarding risks and that children process fiction in different ways to adults. Or perhaps he did, and wrote it anyway.

The upshot is that some children will think that a character that was born a boy is now woman. They will take this into their real life and think its possible for them and anyone they meet.

How is the end result different if he told it directly to one child?

What if it was in a reality show? Is it the 'it's a fantasty show' bit that you think makes it NOT grooming?

I cannot think that it does not sow the seed of an idea that they may be in the wrong skin, and that to be trans would offer a ‘queer’ and glamorous alternative to misery in certain young, vulnerable people’s minds.

I am waiting to see the evidence that anyone, with the possible exception of someone I don't read, constantly uses the word "groomer" as a pejorative against trans people.

I occasionally see the word used in Mumsnet in other places than this thread, where the word is being discussed and will therefore appear frequently.

Seriously: storm force 11 in sea area Teacup.

Pingponghavoc · Today 20:57
What you describe is even more of a grooming set up than I had imagined from the OP.

Well I think in a reality show like BB for instance, children shouldn't be watching to begin with. Can't really think of any reality show I would let my children watch come to think of it. I also don't think that trans identified people should be banned from appearing on television as though simply knowing the exist would convince someone to also act that way.

Well considering the suggested viewing age for Dr Who is 10+ I actually think they are capable of knowing what is and isn't real. They understand Santa Clause isn't real, why would this be any different?

That's a very naive take.

Older children and adults can tell that fantasy isn't real, yes, but they can also tell the difference between the fantasy narrative and the real world setting in which the fantasy happens. Of course a propagandist can tell their "this is how the world is/should morally be" story as part of the real world elements within a fantasy story.

Kids and teen stories have done this forever after all - give kids heroes that exhibit the character and behaviour adults want those kids to emulate, give them a setting where society acts like we wish it did with values we want them to believe in not like it actually does.

Any story with a strong moral heart, which Dr Who clearly is, with its immortal god-in-a-blue-box hero saving the day against various threats, is a perfect place to embed character/value building messages through the simple mechanism of having the hero exhibit whatever value or quality you want to promote.

I have been wondering whether Propaganda is a better fit than grooming, or indeed if there is even a difference.

Then I thought about what grooming - not the consensual "grooming the next CEO" type but the malevolent "grooming someone to act in my interests believing they act in their own" is, and I think at heart it is teaching someone that what you want from them is something they want to give you, either because "everyone does it" or because "they are special".

So there's probably a spectrum between propaganda and social grooming, but looking at the two ends, the propagandist says "this is how the world should be, and these are your enemies who are trying to stop it", and the groomer says "this is how the world is, if you want to be normal/special/morally good you need to align with it, ignore those other people who want you to think differently"

I think RTD's Genderist proselytising probably sits somewhere in the middle.

All that said, and even though I think he's being a manipulative toad, the "transRose can solve this problem that neither Donna nor Doctor can because (s)he is beyond the binary..." did fold his propaganda into a nice plot.

Because they’ve already been told as a ‘fact’ in school PSHE or a school library book that some people have a gender different from the sex they were born. Because they may have been taken to drag queens [trans] grooming hour in the past. Because they may be autistic.

Well if they have the kind of parents that are taking them to Drag shows and encouraging it I really don't think Dr. Who is changing their mind in either direction. That being said, I also wouldn't go so far as to say their parents were grooming them, just parenting in a way I disagree with.

Grooming the parents to get to the kids is also a thing.

Yes, for child predators. That was my whole point to begin with.

But if we're expanding the word out to cover all manner of society then everything is grooming and the word loses all meaning. All societal norms are instilled purposefully from our very first days. From the monarchy, church, school, tv, film, literature etc. but we don't go around calling everyone Groomers. We reserve that specific name for specific purposes otherwise why have it at all?

Congratulations OP, you are finally waking up to the idea that grooming happens in all walks of life, not just sexual predation.

No, it is not grooming to teach people the societal norms. Teaching people the societal norms of how to act is not grooming.

It is grooming to teach people to ignore societal norms: ignore that it’s not possible to change sex, ignore that parents should be involved in their children’s care, education and identity development, ignore the harms and realities of medical transition, ignore the transgression of boundaries trans activism promotes, ignore the medicalisation of homosexuality. The grooming is all of this said with a smile and a hand wave at silly people who see safeguarding concerns and are told to ignore their instincts.

Oh don't be so condescending. If you read the whole thread you'll see this was talked about early on and I still disagree that ALL manipulation to ensure societal norms is grooming.

My whole original point is that grooming is used to refer to nefarious purposes AND that it mostly happens on an individual level with direct contact with the victim of said grooming.

I made the point above because so many people were claiming that there were all these non-nefarious ways people are groomed so therefore calling someone a Groomer could mean all sorts and if someone thinks it's an accusation of child abuse then that's their problem.

To call someone a Groomer in public is to accuse them of directly trying to hurt the subject in question. My whole argument is that throwing that accusation around where no actual contact or crime has happened makes our side look hysterical and is borderline a call for violence. Most people would take Groomer to mean child sexual abuser and at least where I'm from, many would say those should be shot in the street.