Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory

Potentially moving the title of the page

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: retain status quo. While there was some support for some of the options added later on, especially "Groomer (anti-LGBT rhetoric/slur)", a majority of participants agree the current title best describes the content of the article. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Since most of the disputes above seem to be related to the title of the page, we should settle this through a discussion on which title to use. There are five options:

1. Keep the current title
2. "LGBT grooming rhetoric"
3. "LGBT grooming allegations"
4. "LGBT grooming moral panic"
5. Other title.

   a) LGBT grooming trope, proposed by Newimpartial on 14 Aug.

   b) Groomer (anti-LGBTQ slur), proposed by 107.122.161.55 on 30 Aug.

   c) Groomer (anti-LGBT rhetoric), proposed by Trystan on 31 Aug.

X-Editor (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"LGBT grooming trope" is used in some RS, in place of "rhetoric", and offers some clarity in this context, I feel. I would offer "trope" rather than "rhetoric" - including both would be redundant. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 preferred, Options 4 and 5 ("trope") acceptable. I don't see a need for a move. The current title is OK. Of the other options: "rhetoric" is worse, "allegations" is absolutely unacceptable, "moral panic" is OK but no better than the current title, "trope", or maybe "canard", would both be OK but I worry that they are not as widely understood as the current title. I think "trope" is the next best option but I think the current title has the best case. DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC), updated --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC) to conform to the RFC format.
• I think rhetoric is the best descriptor for this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Rhetoric" can encompass honest claims and arguments made in mistaken good faith. That is not what this is and there is no genuine controversy about that. The guy who claims to have invented this openly admits it. That is why I say that "rhetoric" is not as good as the current title. DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1:, it is what they are attempting to do, imply a conspiracy using the same rhetoric as pizzagate (from which this stems). Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: I think it is abundantly clear that one of the two elements that constitutes a conspiracy theory--the conspiracy--is absent. Anything other than the current title would be preferable and option 3 is the most accurate. Ergo Sum 13:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In my view Option 3 is the one absolutely unacceptable option on the list as it can be construed as indicating that the "allegations" (which are actually intentional lies) might be at least partially credible and worthy of consideration. (To be very clear, I am not accusing anybody suggesting this option with that intention. I'm sure that they were unaware of this risk.) Also, I am utterly unable to comprehend how anybody can say "the conspiracy--is absent" when Rufo boastfully admits to inventing it. DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep the current title. People arguing that there's no alleged conspiracy here either aren't reading, or aren't understanding the sources. Happy (Slap me) 14:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The issue I have with using the term "conspiracy theory" is that the article covers a lot of ground, some of which is clear conspiracy theory territory (e.g. the accusations against Disney) but most of the rest is not. We have "OK groomer" (dark satire, not a conspiracy), we have "groomer as a pejorative" (a slur, not a conspiracy), we have "LGBT people are pedophiles" (a canard, not a conspiracy), and we have "talking about sexual topics with young children is harmful" (a point of debate within the controversy surrounding the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, not a conspiracy theory). It feels to me like "Groomer (pejorative)" may be the least worst of the suggested options. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that whether or not sex education is child grooming is a "point of debate" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We could take positions in the debate but we can't deny that it is a debate. Here, for example. The point is that a debate or controversy (even one where you feel one side is obviously the right side) is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a debate about whether, say, people who advocate for gender identity awareness education for minors are thereby engaging in covert sex predation? And if so, in what meaningful way does this "debate" differ from the controversy regarding the role of "Jewish financiers" as covertly manipulating global affairs? Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So here’s what I’m getting at: an article that directly draws the link between “Don’t Say Gay” and protection from grooming. It’s from a throughly conservative source and I’m not here to endorse any argument it makes, but I also don’t think you can dismiss such arguments as conspiracy theories. There are many arguments one might find reprehensible or flawed but that doesn’t justify invoking the conspiracy theory label. Our Heritage Foundation article identifies them as a source of right-wing ideas, not as a source of conspiracy theories. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

When relatively mainstream sources repeat the tropes of conspiracy theories, they don't stop being the tropes of conspiracy theories. Newimpartial (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would accept language within the article along the lines of "has been described as a conspiracy theory", but elevating it to the title in wikivoice fails to distinguish the actually-conspiratorial parts from the merely-culture-war parts. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

We do not do the "both sides are valid" thing. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, the piece from The Nation doesn't really support there being a "debate" about grooming in sex-ed, but it does support "panic" (and "moral panic" happens to be my preferred option for the article title :) ). Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The mention of grooming by that source does not support your argument that there actually is a mainstream debate there and not a conspiracy theory "Some of that sentiment is fermenting in the same online sewers that produced the QAnon conspiracy theory—that top Democrats are running a child-sex-trafficking ring—and also helped plan the deadly January 6 insurrection. QAnon’s believers were violent then, and it’s frightening to think what they might do now. If you believe that LGBTQ teachers, or even straight sex-ed teachers, are “grooming” children for sexual abuse, then violence can seem justified." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It will make life much easier if users just pick one of the options and say "option X". Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are multiple options of equivalent merit and some of the less meritorious options are worse than others so "pick one" won't necessarily deliver the best result. Also, this isn't actually a proper RfC. Do we want to make into one? DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: WP:CRITERIA says that articles titles should be "based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject," and a conspiracy theory is how it's most often been described in reliable sources (at least, as far as I can tell). NHCLS (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 the rest are patently ridiculous. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• The conflict between the title and the scope of the article makes other decisions hard. Namely, the article begins framing the subject "in the 2020s", but while the word "grooming" has become something of a right-wing meme recently, the actual subject is much older (and this time around isn't all that much different from the past). So first and foremost, figure out the scope, and then the title. For the sake of choosing an option, Anything but 3. Conspiracy theory works somewhat, because of the Q/Q-adjacent far-right nonsense about people on the left coordinating to normalize grooming children (or whatever). "Rhetoric" is obvious, but does sort of miss the point: that there's absolutely no substance behind the claims. "Moral panic" seems the most accurate, and would probably be my choice if the scope were broadened (i.e. there's more sourcing about moral panics the previous times this has come up, because moral panics are easier to label/research in hindsight). The only one that doesn't ring true is "allegations" which is just too non-neutral (in the WP:FALSEBALANCE sense that we also shouldn't frame bogus claims that climate change isn't real or that vaccines cause autism as "allegations"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I see many insisting that most sources describe the subject as a conspiracy theory, but I have yet to see anyone go through all of the sources to see how many actually say it is a conspiracy theory or something else. Not saying it isn't, but we need to go through the sources in question first. X-Editor (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sources for the titles you suggested. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The titles I proposed were based on what people were saying in above discussions and I started this discussion so they could provide their evidence in the form of sources. X-Editor (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 or 3, I've never been a fan of blatantly naming something a conspiracy theory, even in examples where they are blatant.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: you appear confused, the label being applied here is conspiracy theory not conspiracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, my bad. Ortizesp (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2. The article's title is descriptive of what is being discussed here. Per WP:NDESC, "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof"". We don't get to invent our own titles based on how we feel about the veracity of the subject. It's comical to argue that the title should be chosen to use the most loaded terminology possible to discredit the subject. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: It seems the most reasonable, fitting with what is being described and the content of the article.@DanielRigal: has good points, I broadly agree with them (but wouldn't use trope). Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I don't wish to be obtuse on purpose, but all of these suggestions fall afoul of the issue I mentioned above. If the scope of the article is the 2020s and only a small subset of the world (perhaps "the West", or "the United States"), then all of these titles are way, way too broad. Rhetoric around LGBT people being engaged in "grooming" has a long history. However, "LGBT grooming rhetoric in the United States in the 2020s" is very long-winded.

The only suggestion I can offer is something like groomer (pejorative), which I was surprised to find already redirects here (great minds think alike...), but I'm not convinced that groomer is really a new term rather than one that's been around for a long time, and it's also a term used (in a pejorative way) to refer to people engaged in grooming (such as child grooming). — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 or what I feel is better than all of these: Queerphobic grooming conspiracy theories.

Analysis

Option 1 - Conspiracy theory is an accurate term that describes the false, queerphobic nature of the article subject. Out of the options you gave, it is the best one.

Option 2 - Rhetoric often describes bigoted language. And in that context, that accurately describes the article subject. People calling queer people groomers is queerphobic rhetoric - just like calling them any other slur is queerphobic rhetoric. However, the article isn't just about that rhetoric. Because, it is about the lie that queer people are groomers. Thus it is not just about language but is also about a noun. So, I think conspiracy theory is a more specific term. Therefore, I think Option 2 is the third-best from the suggestions.

Option 3 - the use of allegations says that the conspiracy theory may or may not be true - like a court case. This conspiracy theory is factually false and queerphobic. Therefore, regardless of good-faith intention this hypothethical title is queerphobic, not accurate, and conflicts with the contents of the article. Because, it implies that the conspiracy theory may be true. This is the worst option and the only one that isn't any good.

Option 4 - It is a moral panic, since it's being perpetuated by queerphobes concern trolling. However, I feel like conspiracy theory is a more appropriate term - since a moral panic describes an event. If most people stopped perpetuating this moral panic then it would no longer be a moral panic - since the event would be over, and the article would be retitled to something like '2022 LGBT moral panic'. However, if some people were still perpetuating the conspiracy theory after the moral panic was hypothethically over - with these lies being notable enough to be updated on Wikipedia regardless of whether the bigots were a minority - then conspiracy theory would be the appropriate title. Because, 'moral panic' would hypothetically only be about something that had happened in the past. Whereas, 'conspiracy theory' would be about that and the aftermath of the moral panic. It'd probably have a history section describing the moral panic, before being followed by ones that described hate crimes afterwards as well as criticism about the term in general that wouldn't solely focus on the past events of the moral panic but the general problems with the term and the harm it can cause, rather than the harm it has caused. We don't know what's going to happen. We all of course hope the queerphobes stop being bigoted, but since we don't know for sure I think we should stick to the term 'conspiracy theory', because it only covers what has happened so far. This is the second-best option from what you suggested.

However, I feel like the best option would be my term - Queerphobic grooming conspiracy theories. Because - in addition to the reasons I've given - it describes the article subject more specifically by saying the nature of the conspiracy theories, it's less vague because 'LGBT grooming conspiracy theories' could imply that the queer community invented the theories, and it also acknowledges that there are multiple conspiracy theories rather than just one. Because, queerphobes have perpetuated lies about different marginalised groups such as gay people and trans people, some of which differ in the minutae.

Pinging @User:DanielRigal, @User:X-Editor, @User:Newimpartial, @User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers, @User:Slatersteven, @User:Ergo Sum, @User:HappyMcSlappy, @User:NHCLS, @User:Praxidicae, @User:Rhododendrites, @User:Ortizesp, @User:Horse Eye's Back, @User:Chess, @User:Tomorrow and tomorrow, @User:Bilorv in case they wanna weigh in on my proposed 5th option Stephanie921 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921, that would be an acceptable move for me. I would note that it would broaden the scope of the article - but I'm not opposed to it.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Tomorrow and tomorrow Apologies, I meant to say my fifth proposal was 'Queerphobic grooming conspiracy theories'. I meant to write that when I initially wrote my message but forgot to type grooming. I've amended my previous message. How do you feel about my fifth proposal now? Stephanie921 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921, in that case I strongly support. That's clearly better than the current title. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the word queerphobic and use it in my personal vocabulary, but I'm not convinced that it's in common/expert usage enough for the article title. Nor does it address the issue I have raised that the article scope is nothing close to the whole history of queerphobic grooming conspiracy theories. — Bilorv (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Bilorv would you support the title if the article was updated to include prior history of queerphobic grooming conspiracy theories, such as during the AIDS pandemic? Stephanie921 (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No. I don't support the word queerphobic in the article title. — Bilorv (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Bilorv I don't get ur point about it not being in common use and would appreciate it if u elaborated on that. No obligation too though, ofc Stephanie921 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I definitely would oppose renaming the article to "Queerphobic grooming conspiracy theories." That is not simply a name change, but changes the entire scope of the article and is not what this discussion has been about. Also, it doesn't fix the primary problem of the language of conspiracy theory. Lastly, we have to be extremely careful when using NPOV language like queerphobic, especially in a title, instead of e.g. "anti-queer," which conveys the same idea without using a normatively charged term. Ergo Sum 11:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Ergo Sum Anti-queer and queerphobic mean the same thing. We already have articles like antisemitic canards, what's the difference? And I don't understand how it changes the entire scope of the article, and would be keen on hearing your reasoningStephanie921 (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I’d prefer Anti-LGBT instead of queerphobic since the main article on Anti-LGBT rhetoric already uses this terminology: Anti-LGBT rhetoric. X-Editor (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they mean the same thing @User:X-Editor :) What's the harm in using synonyms Stephanie921 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

While that’s technically true, it would be inconsistent to use anti-LGBT on one hand while using queerphobic on the other hand. I also cannot remember the last time I saw any source use the queerphobic terminology, while there are several sources in the article that call “grooming” a conspiracy or conspiracy theory. X-Editor (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

"Queerphobic grooming comspiracy theories" is possibly the worst option suggested out of all 5. First off, the term "queer" is still considered an anti-LGBT slur by many, despite what some describe as a reclamation. It's potentially going to be misinterpreted by our readers as a slur (hindering their comprehension of the title), and it's also not widely known or used. Google trends shows that any of the terms homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia are used an order of magnitude more that queerphobia is. [1] Google Trends also shows that many people searching for "queerphobia" don't know what it is; there have been many cases over the past 5 years of more people searching "what is queerphobia" than the term "queerphobia". [2] It's also a very biased term, Wiktionary (couldn't find a non-UGC dictionary) defines wikt:queerphobia as the "fear or hatred of queer people". It's a blatant display of WP:POV to describe something as hateful straight in the title, and we don't use WP:Wikivoice to describe these claims as "homophobic" or "transphobic". It's also not comparable to antisemitic canards. The term "antisemitic canards" has been widely used in scholarly literature to describe these tropes for around a century and was more common than "antisemitic trope" until 2004. [3] If you go onto the talk page, you'll find the consensus was that "canard" is used in the reliable sources written to write the article and so it was used for the title. To contrast, I could not find a non-UGC dictionary that even defines "queerphobia". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2. 3 is close to violating WP:FALSEBALANCE and the other two violate NPOV, the latter particularly so. 87.242.165.114 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 – per DanielRigal. Also because WP:AT says that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles, and the current title does that better, and more efficiently than the alternatives. Option 4, and 5/trope also acceptable. Mathglot (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

None of the above. I suggest "Groomer (anti-LGBTQ slur)" as the title. This is how the majority of RS describe this particular usage of the term Groomer. It does not properly fit the definition of a conspiracy theory as explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.122.161.55 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Groomer (anti-LGBT rhetoric). I agree with Bilorv that the scope of this article is unclear, and none of the proposed titles above resolve that. I'm not at all convinced that the sources warrant a stand-alone article, and would support merging into Anti-LGBT rhetoric. The approach that most sources seem to have in common is focusing on the word itself, and explaining its rise in use. Reflecting that in the title would best capture the sources and help clarify the scope.--Trystan (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1 or 4: I think the status quo of this article is fine, but believe it's slightly more precise to call it a "moral panic" rather than a "conspiracy theory". But both are true, and most importantly 2 and 3 are absolutely unacceptable: when we're dealing with a subject like this, we need to make the fact that the allegations are false as clear as possible. Loki (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, or 5. Right now, the article is predominantly concerned with the term "groomer" and prominent usage, so I think it makes a degree of sense for this to be a WP:REFERSTO page titled Groomer (anti-LGBT slur), or variations. Otherwise I think the status quo (conspiracy theory) is the best of the proposed options, followed by Option 4 (moral panic). Per the arguments above, rhetoric and allegations both risk misleading. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, these events are explicitly a conspiracy theory and should be called such. "Moral panic" is something that exists in the mainstream, so giving this article this title would be WP:UNDUE. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Housekeeping: struck comments by indeffed sock. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Housekeeping: added earlier proposals by 107.122.161.55 and Trystan to option "5. Other" at the top. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC) And another. Mathglot (talk)

• Option 1: The title is not ideal, but it's the most accurate of the options being considered. As a second option, I would support moving the article to False allegations of LGBT grooming, both because it fits the current lead and because it unambiguously makes clear that the claims are incorrect. Any of the other options is worse, with option 3 being particularly unacceptable, as others said above. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“Gays Against Groomers”

There’s at least one group which promotes the groomer panic but whose members claim to be gay themselves. That should be worth noting as well, especially since this group was kicked off PayPal and responded by accusing the platform of something called “woke homophobia”. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AFF0 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Concern-trolls are not a new phenomenon on the far-right, and wikipedia should not give undue clout to them. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it really a conspiracy theory?

Looking through it, appears that the concern of some people, after all. Is starting to be the rule to bring Drag Queens to read the stories for Children. And there was various cases of trans people assaulting women in school bathrooms. I think that it's better to call it accusation, rather than conspiracy theory. Could we discuss it a bit? 170.0.160.141 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

See the talk page above, this will explain why we say it is. Also can you bring some sources to the claim people are being assaulted?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

trans women have sexually assaulted other women (which proves nothing about trans women of course because so do cis women) but I’ve never seen anything about school bathrooms. Either way purely anecdotal. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It is always important to remember that Wikipedia is wrong, by its own admission. This is because Wikipedia's mission is not to present the truth, but what primary, secondary and tertiary sources report. To properly use Wikipedia, it is important to recognize that it is a reflection of what Reliable Sources (defined as sources voted to be reliable by Wikipedia's editors here and here) are stating, nothing else. I hope that helped. If you wish to include any information in this article, please make sure to provide sources that were voted to be reliable. - LilySophie (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That's because WP is a tertiary source, which means that it sums up what existing secondary and primary sources have to say on topics. X-Editor (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to justify why people voicing their concerns over child grooming is a "conspiracy theory". The fact that Vox (possibly others) claims that the term is referencing (or attempting to reference) all LGBTQ people hardly warrents it being a conspiracy theory. It is a claim by Vox, which should be investigated and clarified (meaning: debunked). More work should be done on this page to separate opinion from fact. Doing so would no longer result in it being considered a conspiracy theory. This type of article (as it stands) hurts public opinion and trust in Wikipedia. Http204 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This has much earlier historical roots

I'm glad this scare tactic propaganda is being recognized and acknowledged. I'm not trying to nitpick this or undermine anyone's efforts here, but I just wanted to share the reality that this was something my ultraconservative father heard somewhere way back in like the mid 90's.

He told me in so many words that "every family with children in America will be forced, by law, to allow pederasts and pedophiles to come into any / all family homes(even being escorted in by police if necessary), and parents will be forced to allow pedophiles to teach children about ‘gay sex’ and about “man boy love” and will be able to ‘seduce’ boys and engage them in sexual activity as they wish, and there was "nothing my dad could do about this."

This may have been coming from places like the John Birch society and adjacent far right organizations. Not sure where my dad had heard this for sure though.

(No I'm not saying my anecdote should be any kind of proof of its existing in the 90's, just saying that it for sure did. It certainly came back with a vengeance in the 2020s though) Sstewart888 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but we need wp:rs saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think one of the main differences between that era and the modern one is that in that era the "menace" was the gay man and the "target" was the boy. In the modern era the bigotry appears to have become more well rounded with the whole LGBTQ community and their allies being the "menace" with the "target" being literally everyone. Again we would need sources which linked them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem very encyclopaedic and will probably need a lot of cleanup

No point in continuing this as the OP has been blocked for unrelated reasons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right in the lede: Since the early 2020s, conservatives and members of the far-right, mostly in the United States, have falsely accused LGBT people, as well as their allies and progressives in general, of using LGBT-positive education and campaigns for LGBT rights as a method of child grooming. These accusations and conspiracy theories are widely considered baseless, homophobic and transphobic, and experts believe that they contribute to a moral panic. Not a single citation is offered for this paragraph. And further more, virtually every supporting citation is neither academic (and in some instances, downright incredulous like this Daily Beast citation) nor actually supports the in-line text: For example, the line "The conspiracy has also been used by the far-right in the UK, including Tommy Robinson." has a citation from some random org calling itself the "Canadian Anti-Hate Network", but even then their link only says that Tommy Robinson "elicited interest" towards a clip of Matt Walsh on the Dr. Phil Show. which is a far-stretch from the claim that Tommy Robinson has used any rhetoric one way or another. This article needs a lot off cleanup. Tabloid sources, unacademic, opinionated journalism, random organisations speaking authoritatively on issues without any real credibility--This article has to omany of these. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC) 1. Lead paragraphs generally don't require citations, as the lead is a summary of the body of the article, which is where the appropriate references will appear. 2. Sources are not required to be "academic", just reliable, which the majority of sources here appear to be. Your opinion of their credibility is irrelevant. 3. You will note that the Tommy Robinson bit has two citations, with the one you didn't mention providing more detail. --Pokelova (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC) As if to perfectly highlight the issues with low-quality surrounding this article, Both articles that reference Tommy Robinson don't even mention anything regarding a groomer conspiracy, or say the word 'groomer' at all. For example, your alternative link says: "In December 2021 alone he posted 14 transphobic posts and additional anti-LGBT+ posts, frequently using the slur “tranny”. In one post he wrote: “It’s not natural, biological men can’t have babies, they are not supposed to have babies.”" That has literally nothing to the subject matter at hand, and the latter is his personal opinion which has nothing to do with any cited 'groomer' conspiracy. He didn't make any claims about anyone trying to groom anyone else, just gave his opinion on an aspect of transgender natalism, which, frankly, is not noteworthy. I reiterate, the article is very low quality, seems like it was shoddily put together to capitalise on a mainstream neologism in the news right now, and very little of the source material used as citations actually support the inline reference text; The Tommy Robinson example was but one. Addendum: Ledes *still* must be reliable, and the provided sources are not reliable, considering they don't actually support what the text here says; Also, they *still* must abide by Wiki:BLP, which this article has numerous violations of (once again, the Tommy Robinson example a good one, made even worse by the fact he lives in the UK which has very strict liability for libel) PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) Why would you just say something factually untrue when people can look it up? The part you quote is from the first mention of Robinson in the article. The article goes on to say about Robinson: "he argued that gender-neutral children’s books and LGBT+ education in school causes mental health issues, calling it child abuse and comparing it directly to sexual grooming". I will be restoring the content and the first link, the second one can go. --Pokelova (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC) The second link is from Hope Not Hate, which is a lobbying/advocacy group that funds political candidates in the UK and thus cannot be seen as a neutral, impartial source worthy of an encyclopedia; It would be like referencing the National Rifle Association on gun statistics or for profiles on their political enemies against gun control. You must either find a better impartial source that can support this claim, or it must be removed given the strong guidelines on WP:BLP which I suggest that everyone give themselves a refresher on from time to time since there is a very strong standard for claims made against living, private persons (of which Tommy Robinson still legally counts as one in the UK). PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) "neutral, impartial source worthy of an encyclopedia;" We neither need neutral sources, nor should we ever use such sources. It goes against Wikipedia policies. Per the policy on biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Actually, as per WP:BLP (Which I again reiterate my request that you read this): Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. Wikipedia did that last bolded highlight, not me. As per long-enshrined wiki policy, it's removed for not meeting the standards of WP:BLP. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of the Vox Article in the Overview section

The Overview section, quoting the Vox article, states, ""imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." While Vox is a reliable source, per WP:RS, "Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics." I'd argue that this article is an opinion piece, and uses much stronger language than the other sources. I'd like to change this section to something closer to the lede, mentioning that it is deployed against advocates of LGBT positive education for children. Does anyone share my concern with the Vox article or am I seeing an issue where there isn't one? Poppa shark (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're seeing an issue where there isn't one. The Vox article is extremely well researched and cites a lot of reliable sources including academic studies. I also don't see any stronger language than other sources–what wording were you concerned about specifically? Also, the Vox article has three paragraphs covering how the conspiracy theory is deployed against advocates of LGBT positive education for children. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the statement from the from the Overview section too broadly describes who is being attacked. From the other sources I'm looking at, they seem to better clarify that the targets of this effort are those that are introducing LGBT friendly education. For example, the Politifact article says, "LGBTQ community — or even just those who discuss LGBTQ topics — are deliberately preying on children by discussing sexual orientation and gender identity."

The inews states, "Republican politicians and pundits, currently trying to pass dozens of anti-LGBT laws across the country, are firing the “groomer” retort at critics of it."

The Washington Post states, "The “groomers” framing played a prominent role in the passage of Florida’s law prohibiting discussion of sexual identity among young children in schools."

Slate and others specifically cite the Pushaw tweet that accuses opponents of "Don't Say Gay" of being groomers. All of these examples are targeted towards a smaller part of the community.

Whereas the Vox article makes more broad statements like this: "Increasingly, though — and perhaps most worryingly — conservatives also seem to be using “grooming” to mean left-wing indoctrination generally." "The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." Those lines seem to go beyond what any of the other sources are saying. Additionally, given the tone of that piece and the note on Vox from WP:RS, makes me feel that it shouldn't be relied on as a sole source for a statement.

I'm looking at it more closely, and I think it would be a non issue if the "liberals more generally" were removed from that section. But again, I came to the talk page to see if anyone shared my concerns before making any changes Poppa shark (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an accurate assessment of what conservatives are pushing. It's definitely a non-issue. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Some avenues for exploration

Question answered. Coverage of transgender youth (etc.) belongs on the relevant article, unless explicitly related to this topic by a reliable source. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that there are aspects of this trend that are not covered by this article. Most notably, there is a legitimate debate over the bioethics of "affirmation" of gender identity in those under the age of 18. Puberty is awkward and children/teens are impressionable. Natural puberty doesn't involve an intervention with drugs that can alter bone density and fertility, so "do no harm" is relevant. This is different than slandering lgbt people as child groomers, of course. I think those in opposition see "pride forward" as akin to a religion. Some religions insist that the bottle of merlot in their hands contains real blood of someone who died 2,000 years ago, just as some people today insist that the person with y chromosomes in every one of their cells (save for half of their sperm) is a real female. The more level-headed people in opposition to teachers pushing lgbt themes in their classroom just don't want their children exposed to perspectives that could lead them to potentially harmful medical regimens, just as some don't want to see religion pushed in their public schools. "Indoctrination" is different than "grooming", but the more legitimate debate isn't present in this article. Shouldn't it be? The US is currently poised to pass a bipartisan same sex marriage bill, but this article in conjunction with many republicans' agreement with Libs of Tiktok's activism, is just going to confuse readers, and lead them to think the GOP wants to return to 1950s-level vanilla-ism. I think that this article accurately describes the ugly underbelly of the activism by Libs of Tiktok and others, but ignores the legitimate and mainstream issues with "pride forward" raised by activists like LoTT. 2600:1012:B01E:57BA:140E:9830:F737:4961 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC) This is a subject for another article, this is about the attempt to smear LTBT people as groomers. Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC) I beg to differ. What the IP presented is not the subject for another article, it is in fact WP:SEALION. These are talking points pushed by the alt right as a form of gateway drug to the greater conspiracy theory (similar to what muddying the waters around the actual death toll is to holocaust deniers). 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC) What I meant was that these are matters relating to Child protection for example, so he should take his point there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC) OP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Anyone familiar with the rethoric of this particular conspiracy theory will recognize these "points". 46.97.170.38 (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC) How about no? Wikipedia is not here to entertain fringe conspiracy theories. If you want this topic discussed, take it to Conservapedia. I'm sure they will be very interested in hearing about it. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC) OP here, I understood the point of the first reply to my post and respected it by not fomenting an argument in response, as I can understand how an article should narrowly focus on the topic of the article, as Slatersteven said. Oftentimes an article will link to related areas or discuss them within the article, and that was the focus of my question. There is nothing "alt right" about the bioethics of endocrine disruption during development; the NYT (a reliable source) covered it recently, and quite critically. But, there is no mention of this conspiracy theory in the article, so Slatersteven's point stands. As for the other replier's uncollegial remarks, here is how Wikipedia defines sealioning: "pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity"...unlike the other IP, there was nothing relentless or uncivil about my post here, and since the IP has effectively called me a white nationalist, it makes it hard for me to discuss ways to improve this page with them. Regards, 2600:1012:B04F:DA9A:6955:70BA:4C59:97CC (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitic Cannard?

Are there any reliable sources covering the blatantly antisemitic undertones (are they even undertones at this point?) of this conspiracy theory? If so, they should be included. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I Have seen nothing linking this in any way to anti-semitism. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I find that off, bevause it was brought up in a previous discussion which has since been archived. When someone questioned whether this is a conspiracy theory, rather than an accusation, it has been pointed out that not only does the alt right frame this "grooming" as a conspiracy, but are also pretty open about who they believe is behind it. The antisemitism pushed with the conspiracy theory is actually pretty overt. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It is? then you can find RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the better question is whether this conspiracy theory has more antisemitic undertones than others do... Basically every single conspiracy theory we deal with today has some antisemitic undertones because that's the cesspool that modern conspiracy evolved from. WP:RS do seem to note it but they don't pick it out as unique or terribly important. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Almost every modern conspiracy theory has a potential or obvious antisemitic angle to it. Probably the best way to gauge if a conspiracy is fundamentally antisemitic is to assess whether Jews are invoked or not. 2600:1012:B02B:9A99:285A:D2DA:3F28:7A75 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a factual page

This is an opinion piece masquerading as a factual source. Pages like this hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. Outright deeming concerns some may have about some individuals and lumping fringe figures together to vilify valid concerns give you garbage like this page. Akan1765 (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Very one sided - needs a critical review.

It is best to use common sense and nuances when documenting a topic as sensitive as this. 82.69.1.137 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Current form is clearly a political narrative. Wikipedia should be a source of knowledge, not politics. 62.248.198.218 (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. When making a "change X to Y" suggestion, please make sure to include reliable sources in support of the change you wish to make. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy theory

It is not a conspiracy theory because: 1. The argument is not that all sexual minorities are child groomers but that their approach to child sexuality enables child grooming; and 2. There is ample evidence of children grooming for sexual and political indoctrination purposes.

Wikipedia cannot further fall into the depths of partisan culture war. 2A02:A420:2F:DB41:399F:9D9:2652:AEAC (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK Groomer

It’s associated with teachers and drag queen child story time and drag shows...not always, but there substantive evidence that kids are being taking advantage of and if the shoe fits Dorothy....it needs to stop. Cyberperro (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)