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

Then can you please explain what a gender identity is without using gendered souls or gendered stereotypes

Ha, that’s very fair! I am not arguing that, at least. And I don’t think it’s what the medical and scientific organisations I would defer to are arguing either.

Honestly part of my point is that I know I am not a scientific expert, and that’s why I don’t think I know better than the British medical association or the world health organisation.

Let’s not derail another thread - this one is about how the gc cause is perceived when gc feminists use phrases like ‘groomers’. I accept I’ve taken it a bit off track by discussing how I perceive it when GCs use any wording related to convey the concept of grooming - ie the idea that anyone is setting out to ‘trans’ anyone - and I’ve probably answered more questions that I should have about research etc, but it’s a waste of everyone’s time if every thread, whether it starts off being about park run on doctor who, just comes back to people yelling ‘WHAT IS A WOMAN’ at anyone not GC.

Glinner isn’t a feminist.

@Hoardasurass I’ve also sort of answered your question already when I said above that I don’t think anyone thinks gender identity is one single thing / one switch - I’m not going to be persuaded we have to let go of complexity / nuance in this debate. Things don’t have to be simple to be true.

Then back to the topic.
Is the word groomer actually constantly used by GCs?
Glinner uses it a lot sure, but I don't see it much on here, or from many high profile GC women, do you?

i agree Glinner isn’t a feminist.

I’ve also said at least twice that I don’t care about Glinner and I’m not on X and don’t see his posts. I’ve said consistently that I’m talking about how perceive it when people on these threads who call themselves gender critical feminists use words like ‘groomers’. I also said very clearly in my very first post that I know not ALL the gender critical posters on this website use that terminology / approach.

As I said earlier, I certainly have seen it used here, although I agree certainly not everyone (it probably IS a minority - but yes, I have seen it). Have you never seen it on here?

@Dadalus we can also both see a number of posters on this thread sticking up for use of the word groomer!

It's never, ever been acceptable to use this word in the context of trans children.

It trivialises the horrific effects of CSA for a start.

I've been called this word, solely for having a trans child. It has been deliberately weaponised against parents like me. It's sick.

Linehan has repeatedly, directly called David Tennant a child abuser. He has said that Tennant is a danger to children, just for supporting his nb child.

I can't stress enough how much damage has been done. And it's not accidental.

I've repeatedly been accused of child abuse - actual CSA - by GCs, because I haven't rejected my child.

Women like me are called this word to shut us up.

There are two dark truths here.

1. That accusations of paedophilia are levelled against supportive parents of trans children to upset, win arguments against and silence them. It's not just that word. Weaponising the accusation of paedophilia to triumph over enemies is beyond sick, and massively disrespectful to actual victims.

1. Within the GC movement are people who want to aggressively claim that being 'transed' is worse than CSA, target parents for abuse, and post very obvious CSA fantasies about young girls being trapped naked in showers with men, forced to view their erections and have them rubbed against their bodies.

I surely don't have to tell the women here why this is so sick, worrying and deeply untrue. As if we let strangers are our kids naked if we can help it. As if we would send a naked small girl alone into a group shower with anyone. I have always taken care for my children not to see me naked for God's sake.

Please stop making this comparison.

Stop comparing the lifelong, life-destroying trauma of CSA to a parent allowing their kid to have a new name and haircut.

Stop telling unhinged people that anyone who doesn't hate trans people.is an abuser and paedophile. They may act in it - which is why RTD has that knife.

Challenge Linehan when he does this, and call him out every time he posts those graphic nudes without permission.

Don't interact with men who want to discuss children's genitals and chests, and toilets, but who don't ever post about anything feminist.

Please, understand what's happening here. Linehan encourages the use of "groomer".

Do you think that's normal behaviour? Look at the other stuff he posts and reposts. The misogyny, racism, Islamophobia.

Learn this please. Learn also from the way devastated parents of trans children have been treated by GCs - often well-known ones. Called groomers, abusers and bad parents who are to blame for their child's death.

Again, it's not just about the word. It's about showing survivors respect, and not weaponising their trauma.

It is not fair to decide that certain words only have one context and that they are now redundant in any other.

You could say someone was ‘groomed for stardom’ for example. That has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Unfortunately people’s use of language and their comprehension abilities seem to be diminishing.

I agree that slipping transactivism/gender ideology into ‘Dr Who’ is a form of grooming. The word gender ideology in this context is the key to the meaning of what the ‘grooming’ is for.
Hint: not paedophilia.

I haven’t seen it widely used, even on Twix, where most of the people I follow are sex realist women.

The moment I saw the thread title, I thought it would be another Glinner bashing thread.

And I note the Tranadian suddenly got shy about derailing, just at the same time it was pointed out that believing in gender identity is broadly the same as believing everyone has a gendered soul, and being asked for an alternative description. There isn’t one.

It’s not a word I’ve ever used, but it is a valid one if you see gender as an ideology. It’s a bit rich being on Glinner’s case for using f it though when I’ve seen several TRAs imply he’s a paedo because he’s so “obsessed with trans kids’” genitals.

And, of course, calling someone a groomer pales in comparison to all the rape and death threats issued by many of our trans friends and their allies.

Why are you calling me that? Do you think name calling makes me think you’re someone I could have a reasonable or interesting conversation with?

How would posters describe the actions of people on Reddit forums etc who talk about "cracking " somebody's "egg" (meaning, I think, something like getting a person to the point where they will accept they are trans). Is that "grooming"? If not, what?

That's been discussed above. It is but dming someone one reddit is not the same as making a tv show the no one is forced to watch.

There are people saying it has a valid meaning outside of sexual abuse that does accurately apply to some TRAs.
And even still, i see no evidence that it is constantly, or even frequently, used by GCs or MN or elsewhere.

A quick Advanced Search doesn’t support your claim that it’s used extensively on here. Or even sometimes. You might be able to find a handful of examples. A site search shows ‘groomer’ used a lot on the Doghouse board. Were you mixing the two boards up?

I’m not very interested in having a conversation with you as I very much doubt it would be reasonable or interesting.

If you’d like to prove me wrong though, please start a separate thread and explain what you think gender identity is. Most posters here would like someone rational and reasonable to explain what it is as there’s never been a rational explanation.

I predict you won’t.

Yes, I think there is a difference.

So essentially a man (who isn’t a feminist) regularly uses a word on Twitter and it is apparently somehow connected with the character of feminists on a board where the word is seldom, if ever, used.

I’m not sure I’ve said ‘extensively’ - I think I said I see it on here, but I know not everyone uses it (indeed I actually said it’s a minority). But you can also see the people defending its use on THIS thread, right???

I don’t know of course, but I also wonder if it’s something that’s reported and removed where it happens which would reduce how often it shows up in searches? Can’t prove that of course!

No but it feels true doesn’t it? And that’s good enough for you. Jesus.

I see people defending the fact that it is valid use of the word, which it is, and haha re doing so because other posters see implying it always means sexual abuse which it doesn’t and never has.

But you can see, like I can see, the posters ON THIS VERY THREAD, defending use of the term groomer, right? You don’t need to search Mumsnet archives - it’s happening today, in front of you?