Years ago, we discussed tech at work; if memory serves, it occurred during lunch.  I mentioned I would pick one particular device because it had a “larger screen”.  One friend interrupted me midsentence and corrected me, “It doesn’t have a larger screen, it has higher resolution.”  He was right, of course, that is precisely what I meant; I wanted the extra pixels for more digital elbow room.  I didn’t post an objection, though, at the time, it seemed a bit pedantic.

He later mentioned that misrepresenting facts felt like fingernails on a chalkboard; he felt compelled to correct it.  It felt surreal, like a “sorry, but I’m not sorry” type of apology.  I filed it away as “that’s the way he is” and moved on.  Anyone with a diverse enough group of friends understands that they all have their idiosyncrasies and buttons to push; we learn to navigate them.

Henceforth, I conducted my conversations in his presence more crisply.  I expressed precisely what I meant, carefully avoiding the minefield of oversimplification.

Child sexual abuse

I remember the first time I heard of child sexual abuse.  While I don’t recall precisely who it was, it was a celebrity.  I was in high school, and the news shocked me.  While I didn’t necessarily doubt that it happened, I speculated that child sexual abuse is exceedingly rare, much like being struck by lightning.  Mentally, I filed it away as a freakish occurrence.  We didn’t need to worry about child sexual abuse.  Or did we?

Eventually, we discovered that child sexual abuse occurs more frequently than we anticipated.  The shame of the abuse commits the victims to silence.  In most of these cases, an adult slowly develops either control, trust, or both over their victim to affect their abuse.  People in positions of authority, like priests, abuse their influence to accomplish this.  This process is also known as grooming the victim.

The exploitation of children is horrific, especially in this manner.  I do not condone it.  However, grooming someone has a precise definition:

an act or instance of engaging in behaviors or practices intended to gradually condition or emotionally manipulate a victim over time, as through friendship, gifts, flattery, etc., in order to entrap the person in a sexually abusive or predatory relationship

The use of the term to describe a situation other than “to entrap the person in a sexually abusive or predatory relationship” is a misuse of the term groomer.  Pure and simple.

Navigating a diverse world with a narrow moral compass

Here in the United States, we have freedom of religion.  It’s the first sentence in the First Amendment.  Many religions have a wealth of different restrictions:

• No lying.
• No murdering.
• No adultery.
• No theft.
• No masturbation.
• No envy.
• No eating pork.
• No eating beef and cheese together.
• No homosexuality.
• No gender fluid identity.
• Etc.

Most of the above do not qualify as criminal.  Neither being homosexual or transgender is a crime.  I concede that either (or both) may not align with how you practice your faith, but that’s no reason to outlaw it.  Many religions do not condone masturbation, but you can still buy vibrators, dildos, and lubricants.  If it doesn’t align with your moral compass, don’t partake.

Jewish kids understand that others may eat bacon while they do not; their lives are not fractured because other people do.

“Let kids be kids.”

The expression I hear most frequently is, “Let kids be kids.”  I agree with that.  I do not believe that young children should learn about the nature of sexual intercourse.  The problem is that many equate the communication that “homosexuals exist” with “now you’re teaching the mechanics of anal sex” to children.  That’s not what is happening.

Allow me to frame it this way: at what age is it appropriate to tell the story of Snow White?  Does the story of Snow White, Prince Charming, and the phrase “happily ever after” come with explicit descriptions of coital ecstasy?  Of course not; that’s absurd.  Why do we then assume that portraying gay characters in stories implicitly sexualizes them?  That’s right; it doesn’t.  No amount of ideological contortionism makes this true.

I’ll point out the cold, hard facts.  The moment you take your child into a public setting where you instruct them which bathroom they should use, you have already taught them that there’s a difference in genders.  When you mention two people pairing, whether Snow White and Prince Charming or even Grandma and Grandpa, you have already taught them the idea of couplehood.  You have already ‘broken their innocence’ by introducing them to the concepts of gender and coupling.

Here’s the only difference.  Some believe the gender you’re assigned at birth stipulates ‘the gender in which you’ll conduct the rest of your life’ (cisgender) or ‘the gender of the person with whom you’ll couple’ (heterosexual).  Others do not believe in such restrictions.  You may decorate your counterpoints with phrases like ‘biological truth’ or ‘natural order,’ but that’s just window dressing.  In blunt terms, you’re pigeonholing your children into conducting their lives as a particular gender or coupling with a specific gender.  That’s the only difference.

Using the term ‘Groomer’

I have friends and loved ones who are gay and transgender.  I am a proud ally of the LGBTQ+ community.  Not only are you safe with me, but I’ll weather the storm with you.  I will not tolerate their being bullied or marginalized.  Conservatives understand that the LGBTQ+ community by itself is too small in numbers (about 10% to 15% of the population), but they also know that this community has many allies.  Therefore, they strategize and try to make allyship to the community as uncomfortable and distressing as possible; they do this by equating it to child sexual abuse.

I am a proud supporter of gay and trans rights, including their equitable mention in schools; some will label me with the word groomer.  May I trouble you to scroll up and read the definition of ‘grooming’?  Now, please explain to me how my standing up for gay and trans rights equates to “entrap the person in a sexually abusive or predatory relationship”.  That’s right, it does not.  No level of mental gymnastics and contortionism will lead you to that conclusion.

However, it’s become part of the Conservative playbook.  Oppose Florida’s “Don’t Say ‘Gay'” bill?  Label anyone who demonstrates allyship as a groomer.  How about using the word groomer to fundraise against the likes of Mallory McMorrow?  Senator McMorrow’s response strengthened her resolve:

Call me whatever you want.  I hope you brought in a few dollars.  I hope it made you sleep good last night.

For those squeamish about the association with the word groomer, don’t let it dissuade you.  Conservatives now use it with such alarming regularity that it will soon become meaningless.  Speaking up in support of the community does not equate to pedophilia.

What about that friend at the top of the post?

We still meet somewhat regularly.  On one occasion, he even admitted that opposing laws like “Don’t Say ‘Gay'” (or other laws that target the LGBTQ+ community) do not qualify as grooming.  It does nothing to entrap children into a sexually abusive or predatory relationship.  Privately, he understands this and even concedes that it is a misuse of the term.

However, the same person who nitpicked at my use of ‘larger screen’ versus ‘higher resolution’ to describe laptop hardware because it was a misrepresentation of facts sits idly by when many news articles and friends in common use the term groom as such:

Normies Unite!  Thank you, Kennedy Center, for not trying to groom or perv children-Cheers!

Oh, did I neglect to mention that friend is politically conservative?

I completely understand that we’ll likely never agree on these issues.  However, if you feel compelled to stop me midsentence and interject that I was misusing the term ‘larger screen,’ why not similarly interject when someone misuses the term ‘groomer’?  Is it because it renders the conservative assault on allies of the LGBTQ+ communities less effective?  Is it because you want to keep your Facebook timeline ‘clean’ of political commentary?  Maybe it’s not quite ‘fingernails on a chalkboard’ when it benefits your team.

Misusing the term ‘larger screen’ triggers him, but misusing ‘groomer’ does not.  Isn’t that convenient?  It’s not about the difference of opinions; it’s about the hypocrisy.