The ‘Groomer’ ‘Fact-Checkers’ Are Onto Us
PolitiFact and its censorship minions are fact-checking the word “groomer.”
When Disney opened up the floodgates with its ill-advised and horrid stance on Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, it brought the term “groomer” under fire. “Grooming” is what child predators do to make their victims more vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and leftists insist that ideological, political, or sexual identity conditioning isn’t grooming.
On May 11, PolitiFact weighed in on this debate. PolitiFact is a biased fact-checker and has been a reliable tool for the radical Left in censoring information or key words that are later tagged in social media posts. The word “groomer” has become the latest target in this linguistic power struggle. After the PolitiFact article was posted, the response was swift and scathing.
There are many issues with the reasoning in the article, but they fall under three main points:
Not all LGBTQ+ people are groomers.
Teaching children about sex and sexuality is done “without intent to sexually abuse a child.”
“Experts in psychology and child development said they are not aware of any evidence showing that increased exposure to LGBTQ people or topics makes children more likely to join the LGBTQ community.”
The first claim that not all people who identify as LGBTQ+ are groomers is literally true, but the broader implication is absurd on its face. Activists, teachers, and politicians who implement the rainbow agenda as a means of influencing impressionable children and making them more vulnerable to sexual and political manipulation is, in fact, grooming. Harris Rigby sums up this sentiment perfectly, writing, “Opening children to the world of sexuality is grooming them into a lifestyle that values sex and sexuality as an identity.” James Lindsay added, “Most gays and lesbians are adamantly against grooming, so the inability to call out grooming in their name is what actually harms them.” In other words, PolitiFact trying to micromanage and dictate the meaning and usage of “groomer” harms the group it wants to protect.
As to the second claim that there is no intent to sexually abuse children, there’s a saying that goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Intention is irrelevant if those “good intentions” exacerbate the issues that kids are dealing with.
Example: A teen struggling with depression is told that maybe he is depressed because he’s “transgender.” He takes on that identity but his depression is untreated and worsens. He commits suicide. The “intent” is to make children more tolerant. The outcome is that children are more confused, angry, and vulnerable to manipulation by groomers of both the sexual and political type. Sometimes they end up taking their own lives.
Another example is the advent of “transition closets.” This enables children to hide their transition from their parents in a deliberate act of deception. Helping children to lie to their parents about sexual identity and sexual issues isn’t grooming? Again, the supposed intention of the Rainbow Mafia is to make school a safe place for LGBTQ+ children, but it’s grooming because it indoctrinates children in that ideology and then helps them lie to their parents about choosing to follow that lifestyle.
The third claim that so-called experts “are not aware of any evidence showing that increased exposure to LGBTQ people or topics makes children more likely to join the LGBTQ community” is just silly. I may not be aware that my child is awake from her nap, but that does not change the fact that she’s ready to get out of her crib and play — and I am an expert in my child’s needs. Just as I will eventually figure out that my child is awake, true experts will examine the evidence and find that talking about sex and sexuality to children is indoctrination. The very chart that is cited shows that the number of people identifying as LGBTQ+ is growing exponentially. Twenty-one percent of Gen Z now identify as LGBTQ+. To quote political pundit Ben Shapiro: “Yes, say the experts, probably 21% of people were always LGBTQ+, it’s just people were mean. Or, alternatively, there has never been a society in human history in which this was the case, and people are changing their behavior and ID radically based on cultural influences.”
Some ending thoughts from James Lindsay on this whole linguistic battle: “[Politifact’s] whole argument depends entirely on controlling the linguistic range of ‘groomer’ to a very narrow definition (which will still out in the end, I’d bet). Motte and bailey tactics, as always, and Americans see straight through them now. They might as well confess.”
Start a conversation using these share links: