I’ve been so immersed in war news that I missed a bunch of developments right here in the US. There was a mass shooting in a New York subway conducted by a racist maniac? WashPo has doxxed an Orthodox Jewish woman on Passover? I snoozed through all that.
One news item I missed was the rise of the “groomer” narrative in response to the increased gender madness in primary and secondary education. Instead of opposing gender lunacy on the grounds that it’s wrong, some geniuses decided to sabotage a clearly winning issue by drowning it in the quagmire of discussing whether a groomer is an actual pedophile. There’s overwhelming bipartisan support for removing gender propaganda from schools. People don’t want children to be taught that male and female aren’t a biological category but a feeling. They don’t want it because it’s untrue. It’s a fantasy. It’s untrue whether it’s taught by an actual pedo or by a sweet, hetero, completely vanilla grandma from Northern Indiana.
Moving the debate from the terrain of ideas to ad hominem attacks on individuals is a losing strategy. We are now in a bizarre spot of our own making where we have to write mile-long sermons on what constitutes grooming and whether a groomer can be somebody who doesn’t want to have sex with children but does something that can somehow make it easier for somebody else at some later date to do something that somebody might construe as actually pedophilic. Say, what?
Not only is this line of argument mind-numbingly boring, it’s also self-defeating. Nobody is going to believe that their kid’s second-grade teacher Mrs Jackson is a pedo. Because she probably isn’t. It’s the class plan foisted upon her that’s the problem. And it was done not in order to have sex with children but in order to deprive a whole generation of a stable sense of self.
The reason why the left-wing media glommed on to the groomer narrative so eagerly is because it’s helpful to them. It moves a very clear-cut debate into the cuckoo land of pedo groomer cabals and all that fantasyland stuff. Battling imaginary groomers stands in the way of winning a very real and a very reasonable fight against teaching gender fluidity as a norm.
Believing that a man is a woman because he says so won’t turn you into a victim of pedophilia. But it will, without variation, turn you into somebody who rejects reality in favor of fantasy. Why isn’t it good enough to stand up for reality? Why is it necessary to catastrophize the issue to make it meaningful? Isn’t that also an escape from reality? Do we really need to become the very thing we fight?