(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.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/lgbtq-abuse-spikes-online-fueled-intensifying-culture-war-rcna24904
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097820857/the-buzzword-grooming-is-an-age-old-trope-that-feeds-off-fear
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/23/lgbtq-groomers-smear-campaign/
https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-community
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.)
“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’
would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,"
she
tweeted
in early March, referencing the measure, that prohibits classroom
instruction on issues of gender identity and sexual orientation in
kindergarten through third grade.”
Let’s explore the factual meaning of the term “grooming.”
“In recent years, "grooming" has been used to describe
the actions of people such as former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry
Nassar, who sexually abused hundreds of gymnasts, many when they were
children, and Ghislaine Maxwell, who was found guilty of several
charges including sex trafficking a minor for her role in financier
Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring.
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.
Photo Credit: Image by Jose
Antonio Alba from Pixabay
