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

What's your causal evidence that hormones, genes & evolutionary pressures don't also influence the expression feminine behaviours along with the environment?

Bonkers isn’t it? At least a TRA has come here to acknowledge it.

There’s a whole cohort of young people who have been led to believe they are “trans” and the subgroup of those that changed their minds and regretted it somehow don’t count and are somehow proof that it’s not possible for external influences to lead someone down that path of believing themselves to be “trans”.

Bonkers.

You've got to love transactivism.

How do they not know that starting a thread slagging off the concept of grooming is going to just prove it unequivocally?

Social contagion has not been scientifically recognised as smoking causal gun to trans identification in general particularly because you can't rule out other biological influences. Its currently only recognised as a an unproven theory.

The only research is ROGD that has been largely debunked & retracted by the author because of major methodological flaws of relying on parental surveys sourced from disgruntled parents opinions on anti trans forums & not directly from the source: the people involved assumptions were made about.

Social contagion of one kind and another is such an ubiquitous part of how society operates that I think the onus is on the genderists to prove that it is not operational in this context.

Look up the horseshoe theory of politics and you will see how wrong you are.
Also the side that is authoritarian and screams no debate, turns up to disrupt and threaten any woman's debate dressed all in black with face coverings is the TRAs. Women don't do that to trans events not do we vandalise the venues or set bombs off near them thats all behaviour that only comes from TRAs

Basically all of your posts are a classic example of DARVO.

The onus for burden of proof is on those making the claim (for obvious reasons) which they have yet to prove.

Yer but splutter splutter You're all nazis

That's the other thing with TRAs. They completely forget who they're talking to. Women who have children at school where entire social groups are coming out, friendship groups, best friends.

Them yelling prove ittt! They couldn't alienate themselves from real women more if they tried.

edited to add that fortunately the social contagion seems to have peaked and is now on its way out.

Ahistorical. The Suffragettes weren't averse to vandalism nor are all feminists like trans people in favour of vandalism.

In terms of 'no debate', how do you debate bad faith interlocutors who deny obvious facts like the existence of gender norms that influence social categorisations? While on the other hand when convenient say gender norms influence behaviour. You can't debate an incoherent ideology not to mention its billionaire thought leaders routinely threaten law fare as a form of censorship or block people they don't agree with.

I think the problem with Glinner and the language he uses, is sometimes it hits closer to the mark than people want to see.

I don't know that this is always helpful and it's definitely inflammatory but he has something of a point.

Mermaids forum had adults and older kids who were coaching the younger ones to get what they wanted at the Tavistock. This was eventually acknowledged by Mermaids and there was a crack down on it.

But we know it still persists on the likes of Reddit.

We also know that the Cass Review highlighted similar issues were happening and that it was a problem, particularly with some parents participating in this.

This isn't a wild accusations without any substance. The wording, and once again tone, is what's really the beef and bone of contention. And of course because it's Glinner who has gone slightly off a cliff with right wing Trumpian stuff.

But yeah I think it's probably hard to move away from the issue of indoctrination and active targeting of educational institutions without due oversight and diligence on safeguarding along with the deliberate attempts to suggest that safeguarding is transphobic.

And people like Russell T Davies feel uncomfortable about that because it forces them to be accountable and maybe pause for thought when they don't want to.

💯

'feminine' is a word properly only applied to grammar. Sexed behaviors and traits are female, not feminine.

Feminine is literally defined as having qualities, traits or appearances traditionally associated with women and girls.

And stop avoiding the previous question you know you can't answer with this diversion btw.

Please name 1 scientifically proven biological influence that causes someone to be trans.
Also please explain gender identity without relying on a gendered soul or stereotypes.
Oh BTW RODG has not been debunked its actually been proven.

We can talk in theory about different definitions of woman, man, girl, boy. We could base them on age and sex, or identity or presentation, or a combination of everything. There are people who would be happier for everyone to see them as the opposite sex.

But safeguarding depends on knowing the age and sex of everyone.

So we need words to describe age and sex.

Trans ideology does want to remove these definition. We know that if we 'give' them these words and use other words for age and sex, theyll want them too, because they want to be seen as the opposite sex. There are dozens of words for different genders, but adult men use women and female to describe themselves, proving that it isn't about gender, it's about sex.

When anyone tells children that an adult man is a women they are trying to tell children that sex doesnt matter. They are grooming children to ignore a crucial part of safeguarding, that puts children at risk for benefit of adult men.

The argument that adult men want to be seen as women, therefore we ignore sex in safeguarding is, to put in mildly, bonkers.

Ah more DARVO please keep posting as you are doing operation let them speak a great service

I specifically said there's no causal evidence yet & as such we can't rule biological influences out.

What we do know however is that hormones, genes & evolutionary pressures influence behaviour that combined with social categorisations create gender categories that logically would influence gender identification.

This is silly. Trans people specifically use trans woman/man & non binary to distinguish themselves from natal males & females.

Why do they want to use women's toilets snd changing rooms? It is known that these a justify on the bases on sex and designed for only one sex to use.

Go away and read Germaine Greer. You might learn something.

Even something about the way the advertising industry grooms us to accept contagious stereotypes, some of them harmful, some of them harmless.

Mermaids literally rocked up to PRIDE with puppies and lollipops.

India Willoughby literally says he is a Biological Woman.