Some thoughts on grooming
Jimmy Saville is not dead ten years and the BBC is forcing gender identity ideology down our throats
‘Grooming’ is not the real name of this TV program. A very kind subscriber who can navigate photoshop was happy to change it for me.
No, grooming is not the name of the program, but it is the aim of the program.
Grooming is defined by the NSPCC as “the action by a paedophile of preparing a child for a meeting, especially via an internet chat room, with the intention of committing a sexual offence” but anyone who’s seen the Netflix program ‘Abducted in Plain Sight’ will know that this is too limited a definition.
The paedophile at the heart of that documentary groomed a whole family, a whole neighbourhood, to get close to one child. He spotted the fault lines in a marriage (a gay, closeted husband, his lonely wife) and used that knowledge to divide and confuse the couple, so he could get closer and closer with his target. Most people who watch the programme cannot believe the ‘stupidity’ of the parents, but again, they misunderstand the nature of grooming (and its closest moon, gaslighting).
Groomers are master manipulators. They shape reality so events tell the story they want to be told.
There is surely now no doubt that by indulging the current fad for gender identity ideology, society is sleepwalking into a world where men’s sexual rights are placed above women’s rights. You only have to listen to the testimonies of transwidows, stories such as ‘Princess Mom’ and Aimee Challenor or the awful events at Vancouver Rape Relief to know that something is deeply wrong with this ideology, this fad, this trend, this spell under which so many privileged, always-online, white middle-class kids have fallen.
Women and children across every level of society are suddenly in danger because of an absurd, incoherent belief system, pushed by American academics, teenagers on Tumblr, and politicians too lazy or frightened to examine the issue properly. And if it takes just a few well-placed people to groom an organisation, it takes just a few such organisations to groom a society.
Replacing the real category of ‘sex’, with the fantasy category ‘gender’ is a huge societal shift, and once people know the implications, they reject it. This is an ideology that places mediocre men like Rachel McKinnon in women’s sports and hypnotises a whole country into accepting a male projected onto Dublin barracks on International Woman’s Day.
The reason we are only beginning to see mass resistance to this insulting appropriation of the lived reality of women (how insulting? This insulting) when the response to Rachel Dolezal was instant outrage, is that we have been groomed. We have been groomed by the most powerful demographic on earth—straight white men— working at the most powerful communication platforms on earth, into believing that the least powerful demographic on earth are…straight white men.
How does this grooming manifest itself? Well, I’m glad you asked. Let’s look at the rainbow of ways in which we have been groomed.
We have been groomed to accept straight white men on lesbian dating apps. We have been groomed to accept straight white men in women’s prisons. We have been groomed to accept straight white men in women’s sports. We have been groomed to accept straight white men in women’s hospital wards and, finally, most disgracefully, in rape crisis centres.
If we measure a society’s attitude to women by how it treats the most vulnerable among that number, then I cannot imagine a greater betrayal of women than the one committed by those who voted against the Lamont Amendment.
There’s only one explanation for this appalling, evil insanity. We, as a society, have been groomed. We are all the parents in ‘Abducted In Plain Sight’. People will say of us, as TV critics said of them, “how could they have been so stupid?” I am not ashamed of Ireland for falling for it, as I know it was done quietly and surreptitiously, but I am proud of the UK for resisting it. Perhaps the UK did not fall as quickly as Ireland and Canada because the wounds caused by Saville and Rotherham are still fresh, whereas Ireland imagined that misogyny had gone into exile along with the priests.
‘My Life’ and the Australian drama ‘First Day’ have something in common, apart from both being aimed at children. They depict situations that are so rare in real life as to be almost non-existent. It is men, not women, who are transitioning in their middle-age. It is girls, not boys, who are identifying out of their sex class, because of their despair at a society that thinks of them as a collection of holes and functions. (You know, Cariad Lloyd, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you signed that letter condemning JK Rowling.)
But reporting or depicting this phenomenon accurately… well, that would be a downer. If ‘First Day’ was about the huge uptick in young women transitioning, it would have to talk about double mastectomies and loss of sexual function. If ‘My Life’ was about the men who decide in late middle age that they’re actually women…well, it’s hard to create a heartwarming scene out of shopping for fishnets with your porn-addicted Dad.
As a result, we have these heart-rending dramas that bear no resemblance to what many worried kids, and many worried parents, are going through at the moment.
In the echoing chambers of the BBC, and Amnesty and Equity and Liberty, reality must not intrude. I believe the BBC is betraying its remit by refusing to hold a debate on a crucial matter, a matter that could not be more central to human life. It is also *the* feminist issue of our time, and the BBC insults women everywhere by refusing to conduct the debate. The mere idea is unthinkable. They would rather force out Jenni Murray or harangue Suzanne Moore than give it countenance. No, far better to just do what you’re told and say the words you’ve been groomed to say.
There are several reasons the two programmes mentioned above are aimed at children. The first is quite obvious; they are grooming future generations, just as they have groomed this one. The second reason is that both programmes would attract too much analysis, too much scrutiny, if they were aimed at adults.
A programme which advances the view that there is no such thing as biological sex would gather unwelcome attention if it wasn’t aimed at children. You can just imagine the heated debate on a special audience discussion show afterwards. No, far better to quietly slip it to the children, while the adults are getting on with adult things, like surviving covid and making a living.
And what’s the harm? The kids are indoors, so they’re safe, right? Well, we have a new story coming about Aimee Challenor that might change your minds on that one. When you read it, please do remember that Challenor was on a board at Stonewall when Helen Watts was expelled from Girlguiding for resisting the new safeguarding rules passed down by…Stonewall.
Stonewall was groomed by Challenor, and men like him, and Girlguiding was groomed by Stonewall, and organisations like it.
So. We have an ideology which advances by stealth, that tries to indoctrinate children while their parents are engaged elsewhere. And when the parents try to win their children back? Well, if you’re unlucky enough to be in Australia, the state steps in.
How have we arrived at this awful place, where children are deliberately alienated from their parents by random strangers on the Internet?
Well, I hate to press a point.
But we have been groomed.
We have been groomed at a societal level by people who were supposed to be the adults in the room, by the people with whom we entrust our kids. The BBC should either stop showing these dishonest, contentious programmes or conduct the national debate that is so desperately needed on this matter.
Jimmy Savile is online and he is connected with every other Jimmy Savile in the world. This is a national emergency, and the BBC is failing us. Again.
I guess there’s always ITV.
Oh, wait.
Institutional capture and grooming has been challenged for years and there's debris of women to show for it.
A heap of us, along with the real mutilated bodies of girls. Like a steaming compost heap, fed with that f*cking rainbow, infantilising colours and glitter, turning it into unicorn crap.
That rainbow, with its "QTPOC" (cutie-pok) wedge is a proper 'trigger' now.
The lanyards, the epaulettes, the car resprays, the badges, municipal building flags, Desmond is Amazing, Storytime, lgbTqwerty, Tavistock....ad infinitum...it all makes me physically repulsed, a knot in my stomach reignited from the past of eggshells and fear.
And still my answer remains - NO.
I have complained about "My Life: When Mum becomes Dad" as follows:
(1) CBBC should not promote the idea of "gender stereotypes" in adults any more than in children. The channel should obey the same restrictions outlined in the Government’s RSE guidance for schools in respect of adults as well as children. Issued in September 2020, the guidance directs that:
“You should not reinforce harmful stereotypes, for instance by suggesting that children might be a different gender based on their personality and interests or the clothes they prefer to wear.”
And
“teachers should not suggest to a child that their non-compliance with gender stereotypes means that either their personality or their body is wrong and in need of changing, teachers should always seek to treat individual students with sympathy and support.”
Exactly the same guidelines apply to the mental breakdown of a mother, aka "transition", to become another "dad" to her biological children. The programme showed clearly that the biological mother continued to provide the motherly role of day-to-day care of the children, ferrying them to and from school, liaising with teachers, organising after school and birthday activities. Why is this some "special" state? The CBBC is promoting a "stereotype" of what it is to be a mother. Actually "Dad Jack" was, is and will always be the child's mother.
(2) It is child abuse to pretend to a child that their mother can change their biological sex. The BBC should not promote the scientifically wrong idea that human beings can change their biological sex.
(3) The children are far too young to understand the subtle distinction between sex - a biological reality - and "gender" which is a social construct.
(4) The BBC should not be promoting "Gender identity" ideology which is a disturbing and deeply destructive belief which promotes "gender" stereotypes, which impact much more adversely on women and girls.
If the BBC were a school, scenes from ‘When my Mum becomes Dad’ would warrant a report to Ofsted for destroying mental health.
You are all welcome to copy and paste - but please change a few words to disguise the origins.
Thank you, Graham, for bringing the various programmes together. You know professionally how and why this is done. Thank you.