James Lindsay Is Right.

They're groomers. Yes. Really.

James Lindsay popularized “OK Groomer” as a response to gender ideology talking points.

In the wake of the response to the video that Matt Walsh (a controversial conservative figure on whom I have discussed my take here) recently released, saying harsh-but-true things about Dylan Mulvaney, I have noticed a resurgence of the discussion about whether “OK Groomer” is an appropriate response to gender ideologues—whether it does more harm than good, whether it’s even accurate. This is happening mostly as part of the overall discussion sparked by the viral video, which asks whether being mean (by telling harsh truths, in this case) makes it impossible to also be effective.

What Is A Groomer?

“More harm than good” with regard to the “OK Groomer” retort is both a topic for another essay and, I suspect, an argument for wiser minds than mine, but “OK Groomer” is accurate. It is truthful. It is correct. It is morally and factually defensible.

James Lindsay got it right. Gender ideology IS grooming. Every single person who promotes, defends, and spreads gender ideology is making children more vulnerable to sexual abuse, and this is true even if they have no conscious intention to do so. That makes them groomers.

It is true even of those who would never sexually abuse a child themselves—their promotion, defense, and spreading of gender ideology makes children more vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Real-World Protection of Children

As both a paid nanny and childless woman who loves children, I’ve been either babysitter or the “Mom’s cool friend who takes me places” pseudo-aunt figure to several children. In these roles, I’ve taken many children to crowded, public places. The best way to handle the risk of such a situation is to have a plan in place.

Here is the plan that I use. In every case, the parents have wholeheartedly approved (including those parents who would insist that they fully believe in gender ideology, themselves).

The best plan is teaching the child who to look for to help them, and doing so in a hierarchy of risk. With little kids, we practice this a few times before taking the child into any situation where it could conceivably be necessary.

Hierarchy of Risk Conversation With A 4-Year-Old

This conversation—with its helpful, ceaseless repetition—is one I’ve had dozens of times, and it works. Kids get it instinctively. Not even the most inquisitive, “Why why why why why?” child I’ve cared for has even once needed me to explain the logic here.

“We’ll be at the fairgrounds in a few minutes, so let’s practice our safety plan! Ready?”

“Ready!!”

“When I take you to the fair, what will you do if we get separated?”

“Freeze and look for you!”

“What if you don’t see me? What will you do then?”

“Look for a grown-up to help me.”

“Very good! What kind of grown-up will you look for?”

“A mommy with children!'“

“Exactly right. But what if you don’t see a mommy with children?”

“Look for grown-up lady all by herself!'“

“Bingo! But what if you don’t see a mommy with children or a grown-up lady all by herself? Who will you look for then?”

“A big girl!”

“How big?”

“Big enough to drive a car!”

“Excellent! But what if you don’t see a mommy with children OR a grown-up lady all by herself OR a big girl who’s big enough to drive a car? Who will you look for then?”

“A mommy and daddy together with their children!”

“Very, very good job remembering!! But what if you don’t see a mommy with children OR a grown-up lady all by herself OR a big girl who’s big enough to drive a car OR a mommy and daddy together with their children? Who do you look for then?”

“A daddy with children.”

“That’s right! Awesome job remembering! But what do you do then, if you don’t see a mommy with children OR a grown-up lady all by herself OR a big girl who’s big enough to drive a car OR a mommy and daddy together with their children OR a daddy with children?”

“Hide and wait for you to find me.”

Why This Is A Good Plan

Yes, there are females who are dangerous to children. Yes, there are males who are safe. In general, and in the absence of any other information—in the case that this scenario is designed to protect against, that of total strangers—the safest adults for a young child to go to for help are: a mother with her children, an adult woman alone, an adolescent or young adult female, a family group with adults of both sexes, or a father with his children. The other options—solitary males, of any post-adolescent age—are where the vast majority of the statistical danger lies.

But this strategy depends on children being able to trust that they can spot a mommy, a grown-up lady, a big girl, or a daddy, without needing verification.

Without having to ask.

Gender Ideology Destroys Children’s Understanding of Reality and Boundaries

There are many studies indicating that children can differentiate men from women at a very early age. This is a known finding of early childhood development, and has been for decades. The activists in academia and the pro-sexual-deviance movements are profoundly motivated to change this.

This study confirms that finding and asks, in this “Future Findings” discussion section: “As infants and children have increased exposure to gender non-binary individuals, might the male–female conceptual dichotomy change? A potential follow-up experiment could assess the flexibility of older infants’ representations of the gender binary by examining whether infants with gender non-conforming caregivers show a similar or possibly weaker pattern of individuation for female versus male faces.”

They know what they’re doing. They know that children recognize this aspect of reality, that evolution gave us all this gift, and they want to break the gift at the earliest possible opportunity.

Why is it so important to these monsters to get kids thinking that gender is “fluid,” that biological sex is a “spectrum” and not a category, that you can only tell a man from a woman if you ask—and that the answer may change a few seconds later?

Because they want children programmed to doubt their instincts.

They want children to distrust the voice inside them that tells them something is wrong or off.

A boy who knows that he has a male body, that adult men are older versions of the type of being he presently is, that he does not have the type of body in which a baby will ever grow, and that his understanding of humans as male and female is accurate—that boy will feel that something is “off” or “wrong” when a recognizable adult male is dressed as a woman and pretending to be someone more like his mother, grandmother, or friend’s mother.

A girl who knows that she has a female body, that adult women are older versions of the type of being she presently is, that female bodies are where babies grow, that her understanding of humans as male and female is accurate—that girl will feel that something is “off” or “wrong” when a recognizable adult male shows up in a public bathroom, locker room, or other space where adult men don’t belong.

These children have evolution-given instincts and boundaries. These are good, and designed to protect the child. They are one layer of defense against predation.

Gender ideology destroys this understanding and shatters these boundaries.

This is why they’re so determined to get kids accustomed to pronoun recitations and the other rituals designed to communicate that “gender” is a mystical, fluid, unknowable essence that can only be asserted by the person whose “gender” is in question.

Counter-Argument 1, Anticipated

People who have experienced sexual abuse will argue that this usage minimizes the horror of grooming. I have the “lived experience” angle covered here—my extensive discussion of the normalization of pedophilia, which includes details about my own abuse at the hands of a pedophile is here—so in our present, stupid schema of who has the “right” to speak on a controversy, I have more than earned this right.

Here’s why I disagree: pedophile normalization is rapidly ongoing. That movement is making extraordinary and stunning progress. Everything that breaks down children’s natural boundaries helps that movement. Pedophiles who want to abuse children, particularly the ones who want to have an ongoing abusive “relationship” with a cooperative victim (which is most of them; the Law & Order: SVU monster types are the rarest of the rare)—these animals have significantly less work to do if that child spends five days a week in a gender-ideology-saturated school setting. Their most likely victims are kids who spend their time in schools where the idea that some adults are neither male nor female, or that such things change, is inculcated. When those kids experience a man dressed as a woman performing an activity they associate with trustworthy, caring adults—reading them a story—they are being conditioned to trust adults who violate these norms and boundaries.

That. Is. Grooming.

Counter-Argument 2, Anticipated

Warning: the links in the final paragraph lead to news stories that are upsetting and/or contain graphic details of violent sexually motivated crimes.

Some have said that by the definition of grooming I use here—making children more vulnerable to sexual abuse—raising kids with religion does the same thing. Teaching kids to trust adults based on their position in a hierarchy is the aspect they most frequently point at, though there are others.

I grew up in the American South, which may be the most religion-saturated place in the Western world. I am fully aware of how many clergy abuse their position to abuse kids. I know many stories that I will never tell.

Here’s my response to this counter-argument.

First, let’s assume that they’re fully right (for the sake of argument, only). I’m still being consistent. I don’t want Priest Story Hour. I don’t want kids having to take “Computer Science for Religious Evangelism.” I don’t want Critical Religion Theory infusing math and science and everything else. I don’t want kids in preschool taught rituals for ascertaining an adult’s religious status as part of normal conversation. And you will note that my hierarchy of risk, outlined above, at no point mentions clerical collars as a trump card to identify a trustworthy adult.

If you don’t like “OK Groomer” but you’re thinking, “I don’t want those things either,” then ask yourself: why not? Put your best reasoning into a sentence or two.

I’d be willing to bet that your counter-argument could fairly be summarized as: “Because those things are a type of grooming.”

Second, let’s say the danger is exactly and precisely the same.

Great!! Let’s treat them the same. Let’s do to gender ideology exactly what was done to the Catholic Church when the pedophilia scandal in its ranks was revealed.

I want massive investigations. Lawsuits. Billions of dollars paid out. Statute of limitations extended. I want massive monetary damages available to every person, especially the children, who have been victimized by the decimation of these boundaries, by this evil ideology allowing predators to don the “trans” label, whether they sincerely believe themselves to be trans or not, and use it to get access to the vulnerable.

Conclusion

James Lindsay is right. Gender ideology is grooming. Some of you have heard “OK, Groomer” or read his twitter feed, now that Twitter has un-banned him, and you feel weird about it. You don’t like gender ideology, but the brazenness in flat-out calling it grooming feels a little intense, or mean, or too strong.

Try to get over that. Soon.

They’ve come for our children.

This is war.

---

Housekeeping: comments are open for paid subscribers, as they are on most posts. If you’d like a paid subscription but can’t afford one, email hollymathnerd at gmail dot com and I’ll give you a free year.