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

There’s absolutely no evidence that anyone is innately trans though. It’s not comparable to being gay in any way.

You only have to look at trans spaces online and the vast of teenage girls who are now identifying as trans to see that there is an agenda and a push to encourage confused children down a certain path. Sure, some of them might go down the trans route anyway but that doesn’t mean an ideology isn’t being pushed by certain adults in trans spaces.

I see our friend from Tranada has turned up to scold us about a man's behaviour that we have no control over but which is somehow our fault 🙄

My Prevent training discussed different types of grooming. Others have posted examples of other types of grooming in common language. Some of the meanings of grooming are about grooming for the purpose of abuse and exploitation.

County lines and radicalisation usually involves grooming. These are exploitative actions. There are many ways to exploit children and vulnerable people over time through building relationships with them. It really is not just sexual.

I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that @IrishScotch. There’s evidence that gender divergent people have existed across the world, and throughout history.

There’s a lot of scientific agreement/ consensus - major medical and scientific organisations recognise that transgender people exist, and research shows that gender identity has real biological, genetic, and neurological foundations. The world health organisation’s position is that a person's internal sense of gender is a core part of human diversity, not a choice or a mental illness

What’s the evidence you have that nobody is innately trans?

Grooming means to build a relationship with someone to manipulate them.

RTD is using a long established family TV show to promote trans ideology. Lots of people would trust the programme to be suitable for children to watch without being exposed to dangerous ideas. Telling children that men can be women is dangerous.

It's going to depend on the context isn't it? We know that children's charities, healthcare, schools etc are targeted by predators wanting to abuse children. When I see adults (often with zero qualifications in child development etc) telling children that their uncomfortable pubertal bodies can be wrong but a sex change could be the cure, I see that as grooming children. Gender Ideology is an adult belief and children deserve to be safeguarded from an age inappropriate belief. They may not be aiming to directly abuse those children but they are facilitating an adult issue that children are ill equipped to navigate and critically evaluate. There's a reason this government have located the guidance about these vulnerable children in statutory safeguarding guidance!

If we'd seen this as the safeguarding issue it is from the outset, more children would have been protected.

We should be far more concerned about the safety of children than the egos of adults trying to convince children that transitioning is a positive life choice for them.

In what way do you think these posts are "actionable"?
People are posting their honest opinions about a man who used his massive platform ie dr who to indoctrinate thousand of children into gender ideology (the nb alien rant etc) which is a form of grooming

If you mean me, I very specifically said I don’t see or care about Glinners posts at all, and instead replied specifically about how I perceive it when gender critical feminists on this forum use the term groomer 🤷‍♀️ so I’m not scolding you about a man’s behaviour at all. I do not care about Glinner, and I know full well he is not representative of the gc movement.

I think we’d all get more out of it if you can engage with the actual conversation that’s happening.

@Canadanian What you call major medical and scientific organisations, I call 'captured institutions'

What you call science, I call pseudoscience or junk science.

What you call trans, I call ideology

I think " indoctrination" is a good word in this context.

For me, "grooming" isn't exclusively sexual, though it seems to crop up most frequently in that context, but it does have a flavour of personal attention to individuals, which ideology in a TV programme doesn't really fit.

I think precision in language is good. When "hate" can mean everything from murderous loathing to saying "Well, sorry, I don't actually believe that", society is in a bad place.

I’m not disputing sometimes people think they are trans. The fact is no one can change sex and there are no biological indicators for gender. It’s just a thought in the same way that some people used to think they were Napoleon or whatever. Every psychologist used to know that it’s a really bad idea to affirm a delusion. It doesn’t help anyone, least alone the person suffering from it.

I don’t know. Most people wouldn’t be upset if we said Andrew Tate was putting out videos that groom young men into becoming incels or that terrorists produce videos to recruit young people to the cause was grooming them, for example, so why is it different if someone else puts out a TV show that’s pushing a different ideology, in this case, gender ideology?

Your "saying BE SMART, BE STRATEGIC, BE AWARE OF HOW YOU ARE PERCEIVED" is just as pernicious as "be kind" because you think some sex-realist women or men are not speaking in a way that is "smart or strategic" and therefore need to moderate their speech (i.e., be more "kind"). I'm of the sex-realist group that is done with trying to be "strategic" or modulating how I present my disgust for gender ideology and what it's doing to society. I've no interest in how someone "perceives" how I come across. If the truth is not "palatable", tough.

The problem with this is the phrase 'existing trans child'.

I thought that phrase had been consigned to the dustbin of 'things that do more harm than good to the trans cause', because many children question the gender stereotypes associated with their biological sex, and they have the right to the time and space to work things out for themselves without adults applying a highly-contested adult label onto them.

I make a distinction between 'trying to make kids trans' and 'applying the label trans to kids who are gender-questioning', the latter is capitalising on children's feelings about themselves, rather than necessarily actively promoting such feelings.

We can agree to disagree, but as this is a thread about how GC feminism is perceived by trans inclusive feminists and others, I will say - rejection of the research, expertise and consensus of major medical & scientific organisations does make you sound like your views are fairly extreme / that you’ve been radicalised.

Where is all this research? Can you provide li is because the idea of male and female brains, for example, has been thoroughly debunked.

I think " influencers" are an interesting case because they are a sort of hybrid of general content for an audience ( like TV) and personal connection, or connection that can feel personal.

Thinking about e.g. YouTube videos, there's a possibility of dialogue with the content creator in the comments, and the flavour of comments is often quite personal eg concern for the creator's health if they haven't been well and posting videos for a while.

Have you ever listened to suzzy greens ted talk ot seen the propaganda that was spread around by pro trans groups including the genderbread man and tge claims that you can trans the adhd and asd away?
I ask because they absolutely have indoctrinated and brainwashed kids into believing that they are trans as can be seen by the kids "treated" by the Tavistock ie the number of gay children with homophobic parents, the number of kids in care, sexual assault survivors and the 33% autistic kids (whereas asd is 2-4% of the general population).
When you look at the material that these kids have been exposed to and the lies they've been told along with the false promises then calling it grooming and pointing out that kids are being convinced that they are trans when in reality they aren't (nobody is) is not extremism its common sense.
Oh and before you come back with the magical gendered soul im an atheist and don't believe that anyone has a soul gendered or otherwise

@Canadanian I thought it was more about the differing perceptions of certain words.

I prefer my research as double blind randomised controlled trials.

Not self chosen sampling, with a size of 5, methodology: questionnaire, analysis - very little, conclusions - what I thought in the first place

Please link to your so called evidence as I've yet to see any that shows any such thing that can stand up to proper scientific scrutiny

Nobody is arguing that individual genetic markers or brain scans can predict gender identity. I think it’s more that a complicated mix of biological, genetic, prenatal hormonal, environmental etc factors predispose or contribute to the development of a diverse range of gender identities - it’s not a single switch!

I am not a scientist at all, which is why I rely on actual scientists and medical experts to inform my opinions…. And the medical and scientific consensus IS that trans people exist.

The research to look at would be the research used by the world health organisation, British Medical Association etc… I sort of assumed you’d already have some familiarity with the existing research, as you’ve already chosen to reject it?

Ha I’m also an atheist! I don’t think it’s souls we’re talking about either.

@RobynMiller You and Russell Davies are the only people linking the term "groomer" to paedophilia. Clearly you associate this sort of behaviour with paedophilia. Well both harm children and no the contact does not have to be direct to do harm. It does pave the way for paedophiles.

Nobody is arguing that individual genetic markers or brain scans can predict gender identity.
Always foolhardy to start any argument with "nobody is arguing that..." as somewhere on the internet there is some crank arguing exactly that, no matter how bonkers.
In this particular case, there was a thread in AIBU a day or two ago where a "scientist" was arguing that brain scans accurately reveal true brain gender, and that such scans could be practically used to allow access to single sex spaces.