Comment Of The Day: “A Language Ethics Quiz: Regarding ‘Groomer’”

And now an important word from Mrs. Q that I wish could be circulated and read far and wide, on the post, A Language Ethics Quiz: Regarding “Groomer.” (I’ve just got to find a way to get more readers here. I’m sorry, Mrs. Q. You deserve better.)

***

Gays Against Groomers is not a conservative group at all. The people in GAG are mostly gay or trans and stand against sexually inappropriate indoctrination of youth as well as against modifying the bodies of kids in the name of gender theory. This group has been denied services from several companies including payment processing and merchandise makers.

GAG’s crime, of course, isn’t that they’re “conservative” but that these renegade gays and trans citizens aren’t going along. In the world of progressivism, not knowing your place as a minority is even worse than being conservative. This is why people call GAG an “anti-gay transphobic hate group”— which of course makes no dang sense.

The Department of Justice has used the word Groomer for years. I read some of the DOJ’s reports on school grooming by teachers and other staff. This has been an unsaid issue for decades. The difference now is that the grooming is more diffuse in schools and done by woke staff who don’t see any issues down the road with exposing kids, including LGBT kids, to sex and gender identity concepts that are not age appropriate and that should be discussed with parents first.

Yes, this is grooming because such exposure seeks to eliminate innocence and circumvent parental moral teaching.

Just the other day, I got a text from a friend I’ve known since I was 12 years old. When I came out to her as bisexual at 16, it changed our friendship and we didn’t really talk for a couple years. Years ago, before I could legally marry my wife, this same friend chose to get married and asked me to be a bridesmaid. At the time I was a bit incensed by the request because it felt like a legalized slap in the face. I never said anything and realized her joy mattered more than my annoyance.

Her text was about how her sixth grade daughter had a girlfriend but now is dating “boys, girls, and non-binary kids.”

“Kids” is the key word here.

Sixth grade in my mind is too young to date ,but what really disappointed me is that I know her daughter is anything but queer. I have been able to predict with 100% accuracy, which kids may be gay later in life and this girl simply isn’t. My friend went on about how her daughter’s school was “a supportive, open school that fosters kindness, exploration, openness and curiosity.”

I’m sorry, but the only exploration kids should be doing in school regards their studies.

My friend’s daughter, I believe, has been groomed into thinking she’s queer from all the “exploration” of her school combined with a hypocrite of a mom who sees nothing wrong with letting her 11-year-old become essentially a check-mark on the never-ending list progressive bona fides. Her text felt like a giant “look at me!” exercise while her kid is caught in the rainbow crossfire.

The irony here is that I can’t even talk to this friend who once couldn’t even bother waiting to marry until people like me could. This is a friend who once said it was okay for whites to attack racial/sexual minorities like Andy Ngo for wrongthink.

I responded to her text by saying I didn’t want to discuss the matter but that I hope her daughter knows she can wait before dating or deciding anything. “You can never get your innocence back,” I texted her and left it at that. Thus far, I’ve received no response. I suppose it must be weird when the person you think will automatically affirm your 11-year-old’s LGBTQ “exploration” has little to say.

My sincere concern for my friends daughter and so many of these kids is that they may find themselves doing things with people that is inauthentic for who they are. They may be robbed later in life of things like having their own kids or being in relationships that are less about looking “queer” and more about truth and loving as they truly are.

I worry that these kids will take drugs that will change them permanently. I’m concerned these kids will cut off body parts that later in life they’ll greatly miss. Or that we’ll have a generation of children who have been used as pawns in their parents quest to out-woke other parents, resulting in the kids suffering from severe mental and physical problems later.

No straight kid should have to fake queerness, and no gay, bi, or trans kid should feel the need to fake straightness. Such a paradigm can only make kids less real and less happy.

Concerns about the safety and innocence of kids isn’t a conservative issue, it’s a societal one. Any attempt to say otherwise is allowing the ruin of innocence. If that isn’t grooming, I don’t know what is.

20 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “A Language Ethics Quiz: Regarding ‘Groomer’”

  1. Great comment of the day Mrs. Q!

    I shared this with my hordes of loyal followers on Facebook & Twitter and I will share on TruthSocial when it starts working again. I also sent a link to a local LGBTQ blogger to get his perspective on the topic, maybe he’ll chime in here.

    I do what I can, when I can. Maybe someone will pay attention even if I don’t know about it.

  2. I was asked to comment on this post by Steve Witherspoon. I will be brief, and not cheeky, even though this truly absurd line does warrant such a response. “I have been able to predict with 100% accuracy, which kids may be gay later in life….” From my perspective as a gay man, teachers and school programs today are designed to foster a child to see themselves as who they are and allow for the expression of their individualism, which includes sexual orientation and identity. That is absolutely the opposite of how the school system was designed when I was a student. I did not need any teacher to tell me in my elementary years I should find the shoe salesman at Shippy Shoes in Stevens Point worthy of being looked at repeatedly. But it would have been most helpful to have had support from the school staff when my first all-out crush, a young handsome literature teacher in 6th grade, was killed in a car crash. There was not a single person I could talk to at the time about grief and my folks could not figure out why I was so broken up over the death. Supportive teachers and mindful awareness from implemented programming about their gay student population were not even on the radar. It was not lost on me at the time how painfully ironic his replacement happened to be, as his name was literally, Mr. Loveless. We should not today desire our school systems to be falsely constructed so as to pretend that the world resembles some outdated version of Leave It To Beaver. That was a false image of the nation when it aired, and dreadfully so now. No one is grooming students, but rather allowing a student to be authentic and allowing for their expressions to be honestly expressed. No person, regardless of age, is having transition issues occurring without years of medical input and assessments by professionals. The lack of seriousness or understanding about the issue, by the writer, was expressed near the end with these words, “these kids will cut off body parts that later in life they’ll greatly miss.” Maybe the writer could predict with 100-% accuracy which person will miss which part. OK, that line was cheeky.

    • dekerivers,
      I think your overall dismissiveness of Mrs. Q’s opinion is signature significant and your past experiences are interesting to give us perspective as to where you’re coming from but they cannot be used as a form of rationalizing what’s going on now.

      Moving on.

      dekerivers wrote, “From my perspective as a gay man, teachers and school programs today are designed to foster a child to see themselves as who they are and allow for the expression of their individualism, which includes sexual orientation and identity.”, “No one is grooming students, but rather allowing a student to be authentic and allowing for their expressions to be honestly expressed.”

      Here are some honest critical thinking questions for you:
      How far down that slippery slope are you willing to blindly slide?

      What sexual orientations, identities or expressions of individualism are a step too far for you?

      Isn’t opposition to what’s going on in our K-12 schools another form of authentically expressing honest individualism?

      Remember dekerivers, what we’re seeing is the shattering of societal norms when presenting sexuality and identity related discussions to our youth in K-12 education system and people are really not comfortable with where it is going. We’ve been told since before 2016 that shattering norms was a bad thing, what norms are fair game t shatter and what norms are not?

      Mrs. Q aptly wrote, “The difference now is that the grooming is more diffuse in schools and done by woke staff who don’t see any issues down the road with exposing kids, including LGBT kids, to sex and gender identity concepts that are not age appropriate and that should be discussed with parents first.”

      Isn’t our education system supposed to be all about teaching students the three R’s and the sciences not a social experiment in hive-minded 21st century “woke’ism”?

    • “From my perspective as a gay man, teachers and school programs today are designed to foster a child to see themselves as who they are and allow for the expression of their individualism, which includes sexual orientation and identity.”

      From my perspective as a gay man, if that actually all they were doing, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. Oh sure, there are legitimately Americans who still hate the fact that gay people exist, so *a* conversation would be going on, but it wouldn’t be this one.

      And that, I think, basically encapsulates my disagreement with you: You ignore too much. you accept to much. You have done what so many people who identify with the acronym have done and taken in some awful people who have done shitty things and wrapped them up in the protection of inclusivity.

      Just recently, during the Balenciaga SNAFU… There was a contingent of people saying that the moral panic du jour over pedophilia was an attack on LGBTQ people. Now, I believe that was a poorly designed shock campaign gone bad… But no one mentioned gay people. No one mentioned groomers. This is something the LGBTQ community took upon themselves, and I’m left standing at the outside of that, horrified at the implication. I don’t know how much lifting that + does for you, but it apparently does some heavy lifting elsewhere. I make it simple: Pedophiles don’t get to sit at my table. I don’t see an attack on pedophiles as an attack on me. I don’t know what exactly went on in Balenciaga’s office space, but it was fucking dumb, and no skin off my ass if they get called out.

      The groomer narrative is less obvious than that because there are going to be cases, probably a majority of cases, where the teachers are acting appropriately. The problem is that we have some breathtakingly obvious examples of teachers exceeding their authority and mandate, and people like you refuse to separate the wheat from the chaff and that gives your opponents carte blanch to paint you with the same brush.

      Because again… There are stupid people out there… There would still be *a* conversation. but it doesn’t need to be this one. We could, as a bonkers example, take a hard stance against teachers that take it upon themselves to decide not to advise parents about things regarding their child’s sexual health. Because that’s just not acceptable. Teachers aren’t trained to make those kinds of decisions. It’s creepy as fuck. If teachers suspect abuse, they report abuse, period. End of sentence. It’s not complicated. It’s not hard.

      If progressives, generally, accepted that premise, the conversation would be different. But they don’t. So it is what it is.

  3. Thank you for your comment, Mrs. Q.

    I don’t know that I could predict anything with 100% accuracy but I can tell you this: I suspected my youngest was gay by the time he was three. I was positive by the time he was five. Here’s the thing: we didn’t talk to him about it. He was FIVE! What was there to talk about? Did I discuss heterosexuality with my other two when they were five? Dear God, no. I mean, what the hell?

    When he finally “came out” (as if there was someplace he had to come from) I looked at him and said “yeah, I know. By the way, we’re having lasagna for dinner and I love you.”

    End of discussion.

    • Hah! Fantastic.

      “You can never get your innocence back.” Amen. Would that we could possibly comprehend the power of intimacy when we are young. But I guess it’s simply not a transmissible piece of knowledge.

    • I’m not really sure why I’ve been able to, as you demonstrated, be able to figure out this aspect of a kid. I’m an ardent watcher of behavior in humans and animals so maybe that has something to do with it. That being said, I never, ever, say a word about it to the child. If their parent asks me directly, I may be honest if the situation makes sense, otherwise I keep it to myself and my wife.

      In my mind, it’s much more important for a youth to develop their personality than their preferences. I don’t think adults harping on sexual and gender identities to kids who may be LGBT will help. Most people who are out now didn’t need adults blathering about it to figure it all out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.