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

Any adult who tries to persuade a child that they were born in the wrong body or that they can change sex, is grooming IMHO

What a disgusting thing to say to someone who is literally in this fight with you.

Not every disagreement is a TRA invasion. Just because I spend more time observing on this board does not mean I am a liar. Many times I don't make a thread because the conversation has already started so there is no need. It is only when something has happened and no one has mentioned it that I chime in.

For all those who seem confused, I am not in any way trans and have been fighting this ideology for years. Just because my activism is in the form of donations and real life interactions does not make it any less worthy. Thus far the thread has been incredibly civil so please keep your vile remarks about what you imagine of my anatomy to yourself, thank you.

Some of these posts are verging on actionable and quite disgusting.

RobynMiller Do you understand why adults shouldn't wear 'you're safe with me' badges?

The wearer may be the safest person on earth, but they are creating the illusion that the everyone wearing the badge is safe.

Thats what RTD is doing. He may never hurt a child himself, but he's using his writing to promote idea that 'transition' is safe.

The badge wearer is grooming children to think badge = safe. RTD is grooming childre into thinking transion = safe.

By that logic anyone transitioned and happy is 'grooming'.

Yes. I actually very much dislike the term Groomer. I don't think it's helpful because, despite understanding and not disagreeing with what they mean by it, it's far too easy to be misconstrued and turned into "they are saying all trans people are ..."

However, my experience is that any OP who talks about "GC" and "making us look bad" and "what do we think about this" is unlikely to be here in good faith. At a bare minimum an opening like that always leads me to do an advanced search before deciding if it is worth replying, and usually the results tend to lead me to conclude no.

So while I think the topic is worth discussing, I do not think this thead will be an effective place to do so. Sorry OP.

So because I don't feel the need to crow my opinion on every thread, a topic very worthy of discussion with just go ignored? What good will that do?

It's an open discussion, what you think of me personally is immaterial. I expressed a fear of this language damaging a fight we all believe in but because my previous posts don't pass some arbitrary purity test you walk away?

No wonder it's always one step forward 2 steps back.

To be fair you have only posted complaining posts about JKR & Glinner so you can't be surprised if you're not seen of "as GC as they come" when you post another thread moaning about their choice of language?

There are so many self identified "as GC as they come" posters who prove to be anti women, anti child safeguarding misogynists that posters on here are initially very sceptical .

We're not allowed to believe in women's rights without hating trans people here, I'm afraid. It's a deeply unpleasant attitude - but one that must be countered by sensible GC people. Keep it up!

I don't think I see this the same way as you do.

I am a Gender Critical Feminist. I am not in a "fight" other than with the structural and personal sexism that limits both women and men.

I have no issue with trans people other than their appropriation of sex-based language to label personality traits is centred in sexist ideas about what personalities are "right" for men or women to have.

So, I think I'll sit this thread out thanks.

And yet I'm sure I've never said I'm 'as GC as they come' so now, painting me with the brush is not understandable. I understand being on guard, there is literally one of those regulars posting in this thread now, but let's not start policing one another. Eventually only the 5 loudest posters will be the only ones trusted to speak.

I appreciate that but disagree about it being a fight. It is literally a legal and social fight that we have only just started to win.

Anyway, if the worst thing we can be accused of is having a few prominent GCs who call people groomers then we’re doing better than the TRAs who have some real wrong ‘uns at the head of their movement. How many prominent TRAs have turned out to be sex offenders or violent abusers over the years.

Apologies - you actually said "I am a Gender Critical Feminist". As you can see cupboard who's just replied to you claims to be one. If you look at how they speak to posters on here via Advanced Search, it should demonstrate why so many are sceptical of some who claim to be "GC"

When you suggest we shouldn't "police one another", surely complaining about using the word grooming is doing precisely that? There have been some very informative postes about how grooming behaviour can cover a range of behaviours that persuade children into dangerous behaviours yet you're trying to stop it being used?

this!

If you started the thread questioning if grooming is an appropriate word for RTD writing or bbc programming in general, responses may have been different.

Your post just seemed to want posters on MN to renounce glinner.

You live and learn.

Exactly.

I think it’s the right word to choose but indoctrination might also work? Any word relating to how cults manipulate people into joining?

Propagandist isn’t direct enough. It’s more than lying and more than propaganda.

If your question is about how gender critical feminists are perceived by others and you want the non-GC view….

I am not on X and don’t see anything from Glinner…. I don’t think people really think about him much!

I do see GC feminists on this forum calling people who disagree with them ‘groomers’ relatively frequently…. It does make those people sound a bit bonkers, and it certainly makes them sound extremist / radicalised.

…. But also they do stand out. I recognise it’s not the tone / approach taken by all gender critical feminists on these threads.

I agree it's not most, unfortunately it's just some of the most visible.

I mentioned him as context and then didn't ask anyone to denounce him. I actually asked a very specific question

Is there a term we can use that isn't so precariously close to slandering someone as a Child sex abuser?

Since my "vile" message has been deleted, I just want to reiterate that I do not read you as anyone I understand to be on the same page as me in terms of a sex-realist woman who recognises those who are genuinely supporting women's rights and genuinely see the pinch points where these rights clash with those demands from trans activists and the rest of the alphabet crew. You are throwing around inclusive words while at the same time throwing out barbed criticisms of some people who have invested a lot in trying to genuinely fight the post-Marxist Liberal madness that's captured most of western society. I can't accept that your questions are being posed in good faith. And you insisting that they are isn't sufficient to convince me. Even if you think you are a feminist or even gender critical, you are speaking like someone who believes we just need to be a bit more "kind" or engaged in a bit more "polite discussion". I've no time for that any more. So please count me out of your "we".

But again, it’s saying nothing of the sort, grooming has long been used in other contexts than child abuse. If people can’t understand that, it’s their problem and not the problem of the people who are using it correctly.

Your comment was deleted because it was objectively vile.

I am not saying 'be kind' I am saying BE SMART, BE STRATEGIC, BE AWARE OF HOW YOU ARE PERCEIVED.

You don't have to believe me but do you also think the people who have posted in agreement with me are all lying TRAs?

Language matters, that is what all of this is about to begin with. Implying everyone on the other side is a paedophile is an insane, short sighted strategy.

And to say you don't see how someone can see calling them a groomer as accusing them of child abuse is, as I said in the beginning, disingenuous.

I’m not sure another term would help anyway…. The whole concept that people are trying to make kids trans is as bonkers and offensive as the idea you could MAKE someone gay via propaganda, or indeed that conversion therapy could make someone gay straight.

Claiming people are actively trying to ‘trans’ children as opposed to just being supportive of existing trans children is already an extremist viewpoint, whether or not you use the word grooming to express it.