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

That sanitation persists to this day. It’s remarkable how everyone like the Guardian questions the ethics of chemical castration for sex offenders without realising they are the exact same drugs given to gender distressed children as part of medical transition.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/22/chemical-suppression-why-the-uk-is-exploring-libido-control-drugs-to-treat-sex-offenders

Because there is institutional grooming too with language. Pronouns. Euphemisms like “top surgery”. “Gender affirming care” for children meaning sterilisation and causing infertility. This links to the “how did trans ideology get so embedded” thread.

But describing or supporting a phenomena doesn’t prove a causal link to it occurring in the first place. This is where 'groomer mentality' falls apart. Its an assumption without any causal scientific basis. Its as silly as saying more gay people will exist if society is supportive of them.

The use of groomer tended to be when the TRA was directly addressing children with 'ill be your new family' style approaches. As the TRA community were completely unable to call out their own on this it became obvious it was acceptable to the TRA community to use any tactics available to them, including now pretending to be shocked that anyone would call anyone a 'groomer' for people trying to separate children from their families.

Then it became apparent that there are no boundaries for the TRA community, that anyone expressing any opinions not in line with their agenda was to be brought down and then more and more people started to realise what had been going on under their noses. So the vitriol and accusations ramped up the more that the agenda was becoming clear.

It isn't just kids groomed into thinking they are 'in the wrong body' it is adults that have been groomed into not using words to describe reality lest they be accused of being literally Hitler.

It isn't the word 'groomer' that is the issue it is the behaviour of a whole network of TRAs that manipulate and propagandise and terrorise people into behaving in ways that they would not normally even consider.

Grooming is probably the very nicest way of referring to the behaviour we have seen over the last decade. And yet, they still aren't happy. Sheesh. Who'd a thought it?

You’re working really hard here to present RTD is a favourable light - I wonder why? If you listen to what detransitioners have to say, you may well change your opinion on whether they have been groomed or not. When they have been bombarded with messages - overt or otherwise- about how much happier they’d be if only they were trans then you’d accept that they have been groomed. Those messages come from media, direct from famous people, (Ellen Page for instance) internet chat rooms, TV, youth leaders, politicians, even religious leaders! The whole principle of gender ideology is based on grooming. That’s why things like drag Queen story time was so prevalent- get to the kids as young as possible…
When you look at the history of the rise in GI, you’ll see that ultimately it’s a men’s movement designed to encourage young boys to remain childlike for nefarious reasons. Pretending otherwise is just ignorant.

God yes, Jeffrey Marsh. Going out of his way to separate children from their caregivers.

Detransitioners aren't trans people by definition though so they don't count not to mention their minuscule numbers aren't reflective of the norm.

Detransitioners aren't trans people by definition though so they don't count

😄

“Detransitioners aren’t trans, so it doesn’t matter that they were groomed to believe they were and made irreversible changes to their bodies.”

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole (f) thread.

But from the OP and following discussion it seems to be about a man I have barely heard of (RTD) and another man I'm slightly more familiar with (GL) and they online disagreements. I have never watched any of Davies' cultural offerings, I've heard some of Linehan's early radio work, years ago. Ultimately, they are both blokes. Neither of them can ever understand feminist motivation.

I'm a woman, a feminist, my experience of a lifetime living in a female body, growing into adulthood at a time when many of my choices were constrained because I was female, makes me find men debating any aspect of feminism so ridiculous that I really can't be arsed.

I'm appalled that some girls find puberty so distressing that they starve their bodies of cut their bodies, or latterly drug and mutilate and deny their bodies. I wish it wasn't so. Anyone who encourages young women to harm their bodies to avoid adulthood is cruel and cynical.

Enabling male predation on women by using 'gender' to remove the protections afforded to the female sex is also cruel and cynical.

Men having disputes about women's issues in cyberspace is wanky.

And even if they did there aren’t very many of them. The comedy cherry on the inane cake.

The point you are spectacularly missing is detransitioners don't prove that 'grooming' is causal to trans identification in general.

I think that quote will go down as a classic.

Far right demonisation strategy 101: Make a minority representative of the majority.

If people who aren’t actually trans can be led to believe - by people, online communities, teachers, doctors, society etc - that they are trans and undergo irreversible medical procedures as a result, how would you describe the external influences on them that led to that then, other than grooming?

Talk about an own goal

Nice try but shifting the goal posts from identifying a causal relationship to trans people in general to a minority of mistaken trans identification won't save you.

When all you have is detransitioners to invalidate trans identity go for the low hanging fruit!

No there are those who have been caught up in a social contagion, although a case can be made for social contagion being a vehicle for grooming. So on second thoughts maybe most of those now identifying as 'Trans' were groomed.

Right so TRAs are grooming people, some of whom capitulate, and some don't. And by your logic those who don't, de-transition. So all the rest...

What caused the ‘mistaken trans identification’?

Social contagion is just a theory that has yet to be proven which increased trans visibility could just as easily be explained by increased social acceptance.

At the end of the day either way there is no causal evidence yet to explain trans identification so perhaps arm chair 'experts' & their emotional 'groomer theory' ought ssit this one out.

That's irrelevant to the claim trans identification in general is 'groomer' caused.

@Choppingwoodcarryingwater

"And the idea that the gender critical movement is opposed to sex stereotypes is patently false give the particular derision they reserve for trans women (not trans men interestingly) expressing gender non conformity as in the vicious mocking of them as 'men in dresses' 'woman face' 'cross dressers' & 'AGP' thereby modelling a distinct internalised misogyny that aligns with misogynistic views of patriarchal values where the demeaning of feminine expression AKA femmephobia has a long history rooted in the systemic devaluation of traits, behaviours and aesthetics associated with women and femininity. Historically, patriarchal structures have positioned masculinity as the universal human standard leaving femininity to be viewed as inferior, superficial, or manipulative.
Describing feminine traits, behaviours and aesthetics as purely a 'stereotype' is simply another form of femmephobia. Just because patriarchal & social expectations exist regarding feminine expression doesn't mean that's the only cause of them. In fact gendered traits are considered as both a nature/nurture phenomenon with genes, hormones & evolutionary survival & mating pressures influencing their expression."

That's bollox. 'Femme' is a stereotype, culturally specific, nothing to do with being female. Neither is femininity, though it's often pushed by the advertising industry, the ultimate groomers.

Genderists who encourage transmen to conform to masculine stereotypes or transwomen to feminine stereotypes are pushing conformity to gender stereotypes. Sex doesn't need anyone to conform to anything in their clothing or habits.

Sexed bodies exist. Everyone has one.

Social contagion is just a theory that has yet to be proven

Haha! tell that to the 76 children who all came out in one school.

In Brighton obvs.

Wrong there's all manner of proof that there's such a thing as social contagion, you're either to ignorant to know or you're denying reality, either way you're wrong.

perhaps arm chair 'experts' & their emotional 'groomer theory' ought ssit this one out.

Shocked 😁

You’re hilarious.