(The following is an article I wrote in July of 2023. It's ironic to me how relevant this topic still is exactly one year later.)
by Rachel Dickson
News headlines accentuating a homophobic “grooming” narrative have been gaining traction since early 2022. The reactionary results of which has in essence fueled a full-fledged LGBTQ “grooming” and “recruiting” conspiracy theory.
In Aja Romano’s April 2022 article titled “The Right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia they wrote, “A renewed moral panic, stoked by the far right and trickling into mainstream conservatism, has come on the heels of an abrupt shift in the fight for gay rights in America. Following the recent passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law and a wave of other homophobic and transphobic legislation throughout the country, current right-wing rhetoric has focused on accusations of “grooming.”
Examples of how this egregious “grooming” narrative has intensified in news headlines:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2023/07/24/groomer-lgbtq-germany-children/
Something has been gnawing at me about an implicit familiarity to the “belief” behind “grooming” that’s being inferred in this rhetoric. The duplicitous use of the term “grooming” and the rhetoric then attached to these repugnant allegations exacts some cross-examination.
Yet first let me explain some background regarding the LGBTQ “grooming” and “recruiting” conspiracy theory and the timeline from early 2022 until now.
She retorted by deploying a term that quickly became a political grenade of its own: “grooming.” (Christina Pushaw’s engagement of the term “grooming” here has since triggered the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory.)
Abusers employ grooming tactics to gain a child’s trust and often that of their family. They may share secrets with their victims. They often engage in casual physical contact before escalating it to something violating. They are commonly people who are already inside the child’s circle of trust.”
But the “grooming” definition above in no way correlates to Pushaw’s inference of the term.
Here’s how Pushaw’s weaponizing of this term “grooming” exploded into a media wildfire.
The cross-section between Pushaw’s weaponizing of the term “grooming” hit smack into contention regarding drag queen story hour that was being held in locations such as San Francisco and New York and shortly thereafter took an enormous leap into the arena of public drag show performances when the State of Tennessee introduced Senate Bill 3.
Let’s be very clear. It’s a long...very long stretch to reach the conclusion that decrying the “Don’t say gay” law enacted in Florida, drag queen story hour and/or public drag show performances automatically aligns you with or as a “groomer”. It doesn’t take much research to understand what the term “groomer” actually means versus what’s implied in any of the above scenarios.
Which brings me to the point of writing this article. The ridiculousness of the above implications caused me to examine some of my own “wonder-year” experiences.
If as implied throughout the above allegations “grooming” is in fact an attempt to charm or recruit the young ones into being gay...or assert evil intention to corrupt or oversexualize children..then riddle me this?
The implicit familiarity that I referred to in the beginning of this article is appertaining to my own experiences growing up in a fundamentally evangelical family/household as a girl...”groomed” to be a girl. In the 1980’s (specifically during the evangelical boom that exploded during the 80s and 90s) there were inferred social preconditions depending upon what gender you were. I’ll speak here specifically to my own experience as being a girl raised in this environment.
As a girl there were certain expectations. Girls must like and wear pink. Girls must like and play with dolls of all kinds. Girls must like “baby” dolls in particular, especially the ones that cry and wet themselves. Girls must like things that moms do such as putting on make-up, wearing pretty jewelry, dressing pretty for her husband, cooking, cleaning, etc. Girls must like boys. Girls must not be outspoken. Girls must do girl things. Girls must be pretty. Girls must aspire to be a beautiful princess in order to be picked by a handsome prince. Whoops, there goes the sexualization!
Having been raised in an evangelical family inherently I was sent to a private Christian school. One of the requirements upon reaching a certain age was attending charm class where we girls were “taught how to be girls.” This included things like how to walk and sit properly, purses...what to put in them, etc, make-up and the how, where and whys of make-up-wearing. It was during the “purse training” that I was expelled from charm class because I was cutting up more than taking anything that was said seriously. You can see where this is going. Can’t this “training” be considered “grooming”?
And yes I do realize that my upbringing is not at all specific to the 80s and 90s but rather girls being taught to be feminine and to adhere to whatever the socially accepted norms of their times were. These accepted norms can in fact be identified as and/or lead to the sexualization of girls.
While attending Northland Baptist Bible College, I had yet another disturbing experience during the summer between my sophomore and junior year. I was traveling with members of the volleyball team putting on sports clinics. I had a very short hair cut. And after some time had past...and my hair grew out I had it cut short again. This allegedly repugnant act prompted a call into the college President’s office where I was informed that I would no longer be representing the college volleyball team as my hair cut was deemed inappropriate and that I would be sent home. I found out many years later that the college President also phoned my parents and proceeded to lecture them on how negligent they were in parenting their Christian daughter in the ways of being a “Christ-like” woman.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham said on her March 9, 2022 show, "When did our public schools, any schools, become what are essentially grooming centers for gender identity radicals? As a mom, I think it’s appalling, it’s frightening, it’s disgusting, it’s despicable."
Well Laura, I experienced what you might be referring to as gender identity radicals in my schools because I was punished for not following along with the feminine status quo. How is this any different than the above accusations with regard to the erroneous use of the word “grooming”? Or is your illusory use of the term “grooming” completely false?
Caution needs to be taken when grabbing a hold of verbiage tossed about and baselessly lobbed at a specific group of people with the intent to dehumanize and marginalize one group in order to establish higher ground within another group.
Furthermore it’s insulting to my intelligence that such politically driven pithy criticism of the LGBTQ community won’t go unchallenged. I’ll stand and challenge. Right here, right now.
What politically minded groups are allegedly calling “grooming” here is a farce. It’s that simple. And furthermore these accusations of “grooming” or “groomers” is causing harmful bullying and violent consequences of all sorts in the very heart of our communities.
Let’s call a spade a spade. “Grooming” is defined in great detail here by RAIIN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization; https://www.rainn.org/news/grooming-know-warning-signs
While it’s true, influencers influence. It’s also true that each of us as individuals have a responsibility to do our own research and call into question specific allegations that are unproven and unfounded in every way with absolutely no factual evidence to back them up.
So what do we do with this renewed understanding and verifiable knowledge? Are there individual responsibilities here? The human instinctive response is to fight, flight or freeze when faced with irrefutable sordidness, slanderous condemnation, maliciousness, resentment, marginalization and the like. But is there any hope for a different trajectory within topics of dissensions like these?
Greg Braden, author of “The Divine Matrix. Bridging Time, Space, Miracles and Belief,” imparts precisely what this dialogue calls upon.
“What happens if one person decides on a new response to an old and hurtful pattern? What occurs if someone chooses to respond to “betrayal” or “violated trust,” for example, with something other than hurt and anger? What do you think takes place in a family when one member begins to watch the six-o’-clock news without feeling the need for revenge or to get even with those who have wronged and violated others? What happens is this: That single individual becomes a living bridge—both the pioneer and midwife—for every other person with the courage to choose the same path. Each time someone else makes the same choice, it’s a little easier because another person did it first.”
Braden goes on to say, “...the key to their success is that in order to do so, they must transcend the things that hurt them without getting lost in the experience. In other words, Martin Luther King, Jr. couldn’t bring a stop to hate by hating. Nelson Mandela couldn’t have survived more than two decades in a South African prison if he had despised those who imprisoned him. In the same way, it’s impossible to end war by creating more wars. We’ve seen a powerful example of precisely this principle in our inability to find peace in the 20th century. Bottom line: In a universe that mirrors our beliefs, it’s clear that angry people can’t create a peaceful world. We’ve tried, and the instability of the world today is the evidence of where our efforts have led.”
The system demands that we shift the narrative and be the bridge or we’re doomed to perpetuate the same costly missteps over and over again. A change made anywhere in the system becomes a change everywhere in the system.
.png)
.jpg)
