There is lots of hysteria at the moment about the use of the term “groomer.” The accusation from the Left is that it is used as a gay slur and is meant to incite harassment and violence against members of the LGBTQ community. The fact is, both “sides” use inflammatory terms disingenuously in an attempt to smear and silence those they disagree with. “Groomer” is used by the Right; “Racist is used by the “Left.”
False equivalency. The left calls anyone who it doesn’t like a racist. The right only calls people groomers only if they are conducting or advocating for grooming behaviors. Groomers of all sexual orientations should be named, shamed, and punished for harming children. The left recoils at the word because they are normalizing it in schools where teachers talk to children about gender and sex. https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-do-no-harm-part-2
I have seen people on the Right call someone who just says they are gay a groomer many times. It is possible to say it isn't appropriate for adults to discuss any personal life, and they shouldn't be trying to indoctrinate them into any pro or anti gay views at that age, without calling them a groomer. Labeling in general tends to be a bad idea.
Any adult who is talking about sexuality with a child in ways that are appropriate only for talking with adults is engaging in grooming. People promoting drag shows to children are engaging in grooming.
People who promote gender identity questioning to young children or encourage gender transition to children of any age are, the very least, groomer-like. Manipulating children with regards to their sexual identity is psychologically abusive, even if the manipulator is not personally seeking sex with that child.
The mere fact of being gay is not "grooming." In fact, there are LGB people actively fighting the Left's attempt to claim that "groomer" a slur against gay people.
The only people who are groomers are those who are exploiting children sexually.
Thus far, use of the word 'groomer' is primarily a reaction to a person's actual behavior towards children.
And most of the casual (and inaccurate) name-calling I've seen using the word 'groomer' is--unsurprisingly--coming from the Left. Seems to be another aspect of their tendency to accuse others of that of which they themselves are guilty.
My statement was tongue in cheek, but seriously what I was highlighting is that there’s always going to be nasty people saying nasty things inappropriately.
I still listen to what they have to say, because usually their nastiness stems from frustration at real issues.
The gay community would be better served fighting against groomers, because frustrated people are going to lump them into the same category.
Especially when groups like the San Fransisco gay choir sings about coming for your kids, and Yoel Roth revelations are coming out.
Jeffrey March, a self-identified "non-binary" TikToker, who uses the internet to speak directly to children, "I will be your family." Dylan Mulvaney, a self-identified "trans-woman" is all over the internet, beautifying the concept that a man can, in his third decade of life, declare he is "a woman," and claim "everyone" is "staring" at his "bulge." These individuals, along with Rachel (nee Richard) Levine, are groomers of society into the concept that you can change sex, children who have a fantasy of changing sex might need to get a new family, and if you do not "affirm" these fantasies, you are racist adjacent. Groomers engage in all sorts of quasi legal behavior before they have their target conquered. Grooming behavior by the fashion firm Balenciaga was just recently condemned and their ads withdrawn. American Girl Doll company just put out a book for girls in which the use of Lupron is promoted. It's all out there in plain sight, seemingly innocuous, seemingly promoting "rights." Mental health practitioners have been grooming the wives of cross-dressers to "become lesbian" to "keep your family together." It is all of a piece, and the ideology is based on fallacies.
Writer Rene Girard has rightly argued that we live in a culture wherein victims gain power. Hence, truth that disarms claims of victimhood rarely stands a chance when and if power accrues to victims merely because they can successfully claim victimhood status. Therefore your entirely accurate claims will have difficulty sustaining themselves so long as our neo-Marxist cultural elites retain their power to disavow epistemic authority. Sadly, nowhere is this truer than within the academy and within corporate boardrooms that flee from principle. So-called slurs are proof that particular groups are victims.
I'm (still) farther to the right than just about everyone - to me Beck is a laughable squish - and before 2015 I'd never have believed I'd be watching Jimmy Dore, checking a Bernie forum daily, and reading Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, and Michael Tracey.
It's a very strange world in which the *commies* are the sane and moral people, and the "centrists" of both parties have become (always were?) rabid authoritarian psychopaths.
It's sad that this is the level of discourse society has fallen to... but I don't think it's going away any time soon. It's important to note that plenty of people of the left who believe in objective reality use the term "groomer" when discussing the issue. For example, despite his re-branding from ideological rivals, I wouldn't consider James Lindsay a right winger. The left lives for name calling, re-branding, and changing definitions to fit their world view – it's one of their most powerful weapons. Anyone engaged in such combat is unfortunately forced to do the same to keep up. As the old saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The enemies of the far left (again, not necessarily conservatives) found a powerful weapon with groomer and they aren't going to give it up... the left hates this.
Before you jump to the conclusion that "groomer" is being used as a casual slur with no basis whatsoever, consider the fact that Elon Musk's team was able to remove the majority of child porn from Twitter within days. The fact that the thousands of former Twitter employees had NOT removed it says a lot about what was considered acceptable at Twitter in the past.
Serious question: What term would you recommend for people who ENABLE the sexual abuse of children, even if they do not engage in it themselves?
that's a good question. let me ponder. if i take it to my example of sports, if the owner of a gym knows that a coach is abusing athletes, and they do nothing - let it go on, they aren't abusers but they are certainly enabling abuse. they are complicit certainly.
I agree. Parents have to be very vigilant. Don’t go to gyms where the parents are not allowed to observe. There are some upstanding and protective coaches out there, “we just need a little help finding them.”
I largely agree, but there’s a difference between a groomer and grooming - with the latter being an imprecise characterization of what making sexual/gender identity, sex acts, and sexual desires/behaviors the subject of lessons, discussion, or focus with content presented to minors.
I avoid the term as a noun or verb and prefer to say “priming.”
There has to be a way of discussing the ethics, morality, and general wisdom of the developmental and contextual appropriateness/inappropriateness of sexual/sex-based content in schools.
If people would read and consider the implications of the National Sex Ed Standard, that would be a start.
Agree about making too much out of words and in doing so, robbing them of their once held clear meaning. For instance, when I grew up, it was a good thing to be "well groomed", presenting oneself in a way that my mother fostered. Not sure why, but I resent current "ownership" of words overtaking my ways of expressing myself. Racist is an example that we all understand -- not too long ago, had clear meaning (negative meaning). Now with its overuse and misuse, not even sure that we have a one-word substitute. Whom are we helping with these vocabulary take-overs?
I do call the woke left groomers and racists, because that is exactly what they are. They're groomers, because they advocate Mengele-style surgical paedophilia, and they're racists because they're openly vicious towards white people, and because they treat black people like babies.
Jen, I agree with the call for all to stop name-calling. It is too cheap and easy and inaccurate. And finally losing its potency. Instead, let’s accurately and truthfully describe the details of the behavior we have witnessed that is in fact “grooming” or “racist” or any other injurious behavior: who did it to whom, with what words and actions, when and where it happened and how we came to know these allegations are true. This takes work and courage. It is actionable for correction and perhaps even for unearthing the root cause, whether it is mental illness or moral depravity or simple hatefulness.
False equivalency. The left calls anyone who it doesn’t like a racist. The right only calls people groomers only if they are conducting or advocating for grooming behaviors. Groomers of all sexual orientations should be named, shamed, and punished for harming children. The left recoils at the word because they are normalizing it in schools where teachers talk to children about gender and sex. https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-do-no-harm-part-2
I have seen people on the Right call someone who just says they are gay a groomer many times. It is possible to say it isn't appropriate for adults to discuss any personal life, and they shouldn't be trying to indoctrinate them into any pro or anti gay views at that age, without calling them a groomer. Labeling in general tends to be a bad idea.
Any adult who is talking about sexuality with a child in ways that are appropriate only for talking with adults is engaging in grooming. People promoting drag shows to children are engaging in grooming.
People who promote gender identity questioning to young children or encourage gender transition to children of any age are, the very least, groomer-like. Manipulating children with regards to their sexual identity is psychologically abusive, even if the manipulator is not personally seeking sex with that child.
The mere fact of being gay is not "grooming." In fact, there are LGB people actively fighting the Left's attempt to claim that "groomer" a slur against gay people.
The only people who are groomers are those who are exploiting children sexually.
And I don’t know any large group of people calling “gays against groomers” groomers.
Lol. Growing up on the 90’s I was probably called a fag, or a homo by my friends more than an actual gay person hears today.
I managed to survive, I’m sure they’ll learn to handle it.
Thus far, use of the word 'groomer' is primarily a reaction to a person's actual behavior towards children.
And most of the casual (and inaccurate) name-calling I've seen using the word 'groomer' is--unsurprisingly--coming from the Left. Seems to be another aspect of their tendency to accuse others of that of which they themselves are guilty.
My statement was tongue in cheek, but seriously what I was highlighting is that there’s always going to be nasty people saying nasty things inappropriately.
I still listen to what they have to say, because usually their nastiness stems from frustration at real issues.
The gay community would be better served fighting against groomers, because frustrated people are going to lump them into the same category.
Especially when groups like the San Fransisco gay choir sings about coming for your kids, and Yoel Roth revelations are coming out.
Labeling is the only effective survival strategy we have as a species.
It’s why we have entire books dedicated to labeling poisonous plants, chemicals, animals, etc…
You always hit home runs with these columns!
Jeffrey March, a self-identified "non-binary" TikToker, who uses the internet to speak directly to children, "I will be your family." Dylan Mulvaney, a self-identified "trans-woman" is all over the internet, beautifying the concept that a man can, in his third decade of life, declare he is "a woman," and claim "everyone" is "staring" at his "bulge." These individuals, along with Rachel (nee Richard) Levine, are groomers of society into the concept that you can change sex, children who have a fantasy of changing sex might need to get a new family, and if you do not "affirm" these fantasies, you are racist adjacent. Groomers engage in all sorts of quasi legal behavior before they have their target conquered. Grooming behavior by the fashion firm Balenciaga was just recently condemned and their ads withdrawn. American Girl Doll company just put out a book for girls in which the use of Lupron is promoted. It's all out there in plain sight, seemingly innocuous, seemingly promoting "rights." Mental health practitioners have been grooming the wives of cross-dressers to "become lesbian" to "keep your family together." It is all of a piece, and the ideology is based on fallacies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c99jaMY8rXQ
Writer Rene Girard has rightly argued that we live in a culture wherein victims gain power. Hence, truth that disarms claims of victimhood rarely stands a chance when and if power accrues to victims merely because they can successfully claim victimhood status. Therefore your entirely accurate claims will have difficulty sustaining themselves so long as our neo-Marxist cultural elites retain their power to disavow epistemic authority. Sadly, nowhere is this truer than within the academy and within corporate boardrooms that flee from principle. So-called slurs are proof that particular groups are victims.
i so enjoyed your talk with Glenn Beck. i never thought the day would come when i would listen to his show. strange times
i certainly never thought a day would come when i would go on his show and enjoy the conversation!
I'm (still) farther to the right than just about everyone - to me Beck is a laughable squish - and before 2015 I'd never have believed I'd be watching Jimmy Dore, checking a Bernie forum daily, and reading Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate, and Michael Tracey.
It's a very strange world in which the *commies* are the sane and moral people, and the "centrists" of both parties have become (always were?) rabid authoritarian psychopaths.
The term groomer is being used because people are pushing sexual content onto children.
In TV shows, movies, classrooms, public libraries, etc.
And they do it under the banner of the rainbow flag.
Notice it’s “stop using the term groomer.” Not, “Quit chopping off child penises.”
It's sad that this is the level of discourse society has fallen to... but I don't think it's going away any time soon. It's important to note that plenty of people of the left who believe in objective reality use the term "groomer" when discussing the issue. For example, despite his re-branding from ideological rivals, I wouldn't consider James Lindsay a right winger. The left lives for name calling, re-branding, and changing definitions to fit their world view – it's one of their most powerful weapons. Anyone engaged in such combat is unfortunately forced to do the same to keep up. As the old saying goes, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. The enemies of the far left (again, not necessarily conservatives) found a powerful weapon with groomer and they aren't going to give it up... the left hates this.
Before you jump to the conclusion that "groomer" is being used as a casual slur with no basis whatsoever, consider the fact that Elon Musk's team was able to remove the majority of child porn from Twitter within days. The fact that the thousands of former Twitter employees had NOT removed it says a lot about what was considered acceptable at Twitter in the past.
Serious question: What term would you recommend for people who ENABLE the sexual abuse of children, even if they do not engage in it themselves?
that's a good question. let me ponder. if i take it to my example of sports, if the owner of a gym knows that a coach is abusing athletes, and they do nothing - let it go on, they aren't abusers but they are certainly enabling abuse. they are complicit certainly.
I agree. Parents have to be very vigilant. Don’t go to gyms where the parents are not allowed to observe. There are some upstanding and protective coaches out there, “we just need a little help finding them.”
I largely agree, but there’s a difference between a groomer and grooming - with the latter being an imprecise characterization of what making sexual/gender identity, sex acts, and sexual desires/behaviors the subject of lessons, discussion, or focus with content presented to minors.
I avoid the term as a noun or verb and prefer to say “priming.”
There has to be a way of discussing the ethics, morality, and general wisdom of the developmental and contextual appropriateness/inappropriateness of sexual/sex-based content in schools.
If people would read and consider the implications of the National Sex Ed Standard, that would be a start.
Agree about making too much out of words and in doing so, robbing them of their once held clear meaning. For instance, when I grew up, it was a good thing to be "well groomed", presenting oneself in a way that my mother fostered. Not sure why, but I resent current "ownership" of words overtaking my ways of expressing myself. Racist is an example that we all understand -- not too long ago, had clear meaning (negative meaning). Now with its overuse and misuse, not even sure that we have a one-word substitute. Whom are we helping with these vocabulary take-overs?
I do call the woke left groomers and racists, because that is exactly what they are. They're groomers, because they advocate Mengele-style surgical paedophilia, and they're racists because they're openly vicious towards white people, and because they treat black people like babies.
Thank you for this thoughtfully created piece.
Jen, I agree with the call for all to stop name-calling. It is too cheap and easy and inaccurate. And finally losing its potency. Instead, let’s accurately and truthfully describe the details of the behavior we have witnessed that is in fact “grooming” or “racist” or any other injurious behavior: who did it to whom, with what words and actions, when and where it happened and how we came to know these allegations are true. This takes work and courage. It is actionable for correction and perhaps even for unearthing the root cause, whether it is mental illness or moral depravity or simple hatefulness.
Disagree. Fight fire with fire. The leftist groomers are. Saying that we will be nicer than them is a certain loser strategy. No child will be safe.
Fantastic commentary, Jennifer.
thank you