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

“To call someone a Groomer in public is to accuse them of directly trying to hurt the subject in question.”

I don’t believe that it matters whether harm was intended or not. If someone is doing something that non-intentionally causes harm via a grooming dynamic, it should be highlighted.

“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.”

Ok. And people have disputed the premises you have used for your argument. I would also dispute that it makes “our side” look hysterical and calling for violence in any degree.

What I can see is that numerous people who have attempted to shame feminists have often attempted to use this tactic. Feminists are not responsible for male people’s actions. Just because some male people or even female people agree broadly with the outcomes that feminists campaign for, doesn’t mean that feminists are responsible for what they do or say.

If someone’s support of female single sex provisions and better medical care for children is based on whether a small group of other people with similar goals uses the right words for highlighting issues or not, that really is up to them to make their own decisions. “Our side”? Sounds more like tribalism in political opinion than a discussion about the issues.

I think I get what you're getting at. It's arguable that RTD has no nefarious intent but that he has been influenced, groomed if you like, by progressives into the beliefs that caused him to put these ideas into his show. The show with these ideas was approved and paid for by 'groomed' execs at the Beeb. And so on. It's groomers all the way down. Gender ideology is currently systemic.

Putting it that way, I can see your point but I can't argue that Glinner is wrong to use the word. However kind and progressive RTD thinks he is being, he may have no nefarious intent, he is doing the 'groomer's' work for them. Perhaps it'll be the dash of cold water that will wake his up to what he is complicit in? I, personally, don't think so. RTD is firmly in his bubble.

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.

Yes. And you’re wrong.

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.

Don't you think it’s bit ironic you use the term “hysterical” for “our” side and then claim it’s a “borderline call for violence” and think it might lead to people saying they should be “shot in the street”?

I wouldn’t use the word “hysterical” to describe this view of yours but it’s hyperbolic to describe people making others aware of the widespread nature of grooming behaviour as some form of call to arms.

Mermaids used to go to PRIDE with puppies and lollipops. Specifically to target kids.

Mermaids has been highly promoted by the mainstream media for at least a decade.

I do not think that these things are unrelated. It is all part of the melting pot of grooming kids. From teachers to publishers to TV to libraries to shops to toys to clothes manufacturers to even the spate of the BBC having pink and blue lighting in almost every bloody programme for years. It is a constant barrage that kids have real problems unpicking.

Maybe think of it in terms of the child.

A man directly grooming a child into harmful behaviour.

A man indirectly grooming children into harmful behaviour.

In the first scenario, an individual child has been targeted. In the second, the man has cast a net and any child could be targeted. The bigger the audience for the indirect grooming, the more children could be harmed.

In either case, the man may or may not intend or even see harm. But in both cases children are harmed.

I think the question might be "is it possible to groom and not be a groomer?"

If that is possible, then calling someone who grooms a groomer may be inaccurate.

If that isn't possible, then a groomer is what that person is whether or not they intend to be. And doing something in ignorance that what you are doing is wrong is still doing that thing, and it is still wrong; that's why ignorance of the law is no excuse, after all.

Yes, I was thinking about that same thing.

RTD may not intend to harm children. But the ideology does harm children. It also harms women and girls, separately. His total lack of comprehension that it might, is a harm in itself.

Safeguarding of women, possibly children, are absolutely nowhere on his radar. Perpetuating that is harmful.

The saying is, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

I have always thought that means people not actually getting round to doing good things and assuming that their intention to do good things is enough. That a good intention isn't enough to keep you from the road to hell if you don't follow through on it, as it were.

I've just been talking to a friend about craft kits. That there are two hobbies, buying the kits is one, actually doing anything with them is the other. I think that fits with that interpretation 😊. Procrastinating and achieving nothing.

I've always interpreted it as people doing stuff with the best of intentions ('be kind') who end up causing harm. I can think of a bunch of stuff; thalidomide, vaginally mesh, lots of other stuff.

Procrastinating! Thank you! That was the word I was groping for.

There's a character in The Phantom Tollbooth who is like that, only I can't for the moment think who it is. So now I shall have to re-read it; oh dear, how I do suffer.