Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Improving article title

The article is a useful addition to Wikipedia, but its title is flawed. The focus of these recent attacks is not on a conspiracy but on the equivalence of sex education to "grooming." Per NPR, I suggest "Homophobic grooming narrative" or "Right-wing accusations of grooming" or "Accusations of grooming as a political narrative." HouseOfChange (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

NPR does use the phrase "conspiracy theory". Also "moral panic". Sennalen (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
"LGBT grooming" moral panic has a certain ring to it. Newimpartial (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
But is it a moral panic, do any RS call it that? What do RS call it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Vox thinks so. Newimpartial (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
They also call it homophobic, a recycled Satanic Panic. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
We need a title that reflects this is "zero evidence" for this, that it is a false narrative aimed at generating a moral panic. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I agree that it is a false narrative aimed at generating a moral panic. But I disagree that the title is the best place to try to condense that information. Let the RS-based information in the article tell this complex story. If RS had agreed on a descriptor of the situation, we would not be having this problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, do any RS not either say this is, is like, or is turning into a conspiracy theory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
"Groomer disinformation"? Concise and elastic. Sennalen (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I suggest "Groomer (insult)". Cheers, gnu57 17:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There's a lot of sources that do use the term "conspiracy theory" or compare it to conspiracy theories:
  • Vox: "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"
  • NYMag: "To comprehend America’s latest moral panic, it is necessary to recognize homophobia as not only a form of prejudice like any other but as a conspiracy theory."
  • CBC: "Ashley also highlighted similarities the current climate of transphobia has with what's known as the "great replacement" conspiracy theory"
  • CBC: "the false claims common among right-wing conspiracy theories of LGBTQ people grooming children for child abuse"
  • Canadian Anti-Hate Network: "Discussions and blog posts referring to the “Groomer” narrative have also become prominent in Canadian Telegram channels. It’s a natural fit - conspiracies about large pedophilic cabals of cannibal elites have long been a feature in Canadian covid conspiracy spaces, as is transphobia."
  • NBC: "The recent rhetoric mirrors that of a QAnon conspiracy theory — known as “pizzagate”"
  • FivtThirtyEight: "“Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes"
  • Global News: "A recent increase in so-called “child grooming” conspiracy theories"
  • ABC: "The focus, the experts say, echoes the language used by the far-right conspiracy theory of QAnon"
  • Slate: "Is this better than being an outright conspiracist? To use an extremely loaded and arguably libelous term with the understanding that you don’t really mean what people “usually” understand it to mean?"
  • The Guardian: "There has been a recent rise in false accusations of grooming and pedophilia against trans people, Serano said, noting the growing overlap between anti-trans groups and the QAnon conspiracy narrative about a cabal of powerful leftwing pedophiles"
  • Them: "Conspiracy theorists’ imaginations ran wild; for them, it was easy to attribute Democrats’ latter-day embrace of LGBTQ+ rights to a secret agenda to groom young children into having gay sex with them."
  • Hareetz: "Disney is the latest target of the pedophilia conspiracy theory that it's "grooming" children" NHCLS (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

How about "LGBT grooming allegations"? There is ZERO dispute that "conspiracy" is OFTEN mentioned in relation to this. We are discussing a different question in this section, which is the best descriptive title for a Wikipedia article about the topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Allegations is better than conspiracy theory. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Why, as this reads like weasel wording. Allegation implies there may be smoke with fire, this is however a made-up lie, just like Pissagate (which every source in fact links to this). We can't even imply this has any validity, as no RS do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:CRITERIA: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." It seems to me like the majority of those sources refer to the subject as a "conspiracy," and using the word "conspiracy" keeps the article consistent with related articles like QAnon, White genocide conspiracy theory, and Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Plus, it avoids what Slatersteven brought up about implications (we'd have to at least specify "false allegations" if we went with some variation of "allegations"). NHCLS (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
That Vox article even uses this article's exact title: "... the notion of “grooming” — slowly conditioning someone over time to accept a belief or a state of being that could harm them — arguably applies to the grooming conspiracy theory itself."[1] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

How about “Anti-LGBT groomer rhetoric”? Conspiracy theory is a bit too narrow. X-Editor (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Related content and scope

When it comes to the use of "groomer", is this article limiting it to only instances of it directed at LGBT+ people/allies, or is there scope for other uses of the same conspiracy theory by the far-right that target other groups?

For example, starting in the late 2000s in the UK, far-right agitators began to use and then spread similar fears and moral panics about "Muslim grooming gangs" (2013 Research paper 2020 Research paper). This eventually reached the point where it became widespread enough to feature in mainstream news sources(The Times, 2011, BBC, 2018), until the release of a report by the Home Office in 2020 (UCL analysis of the report, Guardian article on report release) . Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a major difference, in that Pakistani grooming gangs were a thing that definitely existed. The Guardian and such usual suspects equivocated about how in a majority white country the offenders were majority white, but at the end of the day, the Pakistani grooming gangs existed. There is no such equivalent thing happening with LGBTQ. We should beware of muddying the waters in this article and casting doubt on real victims of abuse. Sennalen (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I would call the Home Office as one of the usual suspects who equivocated about how in a majority white country the offenders were majority white when they said in their 2020 report (linked above and in the article you linked) that Based on the existing evidence, and our understanding of the flaws in the existing data, it seems most likely that the ethnicity of group-based CSE offenders is in line with CSA [child sexual abuse] more generally and with the general population, with the majority of offenders being White.
There is no such equivalent thing happening with LGBTQ. That is not true. Karen White is frequently held up by British transphobes in order to demonise trans women and as part of the argument to block reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I'm sure there are counterpart examples for the US, as misinformation stemming from the Wi Spa controversy springs to mind. If anything, I would argue that a handful of high profile cases are immensely helpful when trying to construe a moral panic, as the LGBT+ groomer narrative undoubtedly is trying to stoke.
We should beware of muddying the waters in this article and casting doubt on real victims of abuse. The muddying the waters comes down to what the scope of this article is. If it's just the LGBT+ grooming conspiracy theory, then we need to make that clearer from the title as there are other grooming conspiracy theories beyond those lobbed at LGBT+ people as is being discussed in the section above. If the article is about all grooming conspiracy theories, then we should plan out and discuss what other content is relevant for inclusion or exclusion from this article, as there is a lot of historical uses we could include; Jews in the 19th/early 20th century, Black men in the 1950s/60s, gay men in the 1970s/80s. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is about the recent spate of homophobic scare mongering. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking at this section and the section above about the title, should we go ahead and move the page title to "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" right away to make that clear? NHCLS (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
We need to resolve can we even call this a "conspiracy theory" first. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
How about "LGBT grooming allegations"? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I think there's enough sources that either call it a conspiracy theory or compare it to conspiracy theories that I think it's an appropriate term. But either way, the title of the page is currently using "conspiracy theory" - so even if there ends up being a consensus for another term, like "moral panic" or "slur" or "disinformation" or something else, at least in the short term, I think specifying in the title that it refers to the rhetoric aimed at LGBT+ people in particular still improves the title and makes it clearer. NHCLS (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. I think there's both enough sourcing to call this a conspiracy theory, and if the scope is only the LGBT+ grooming conspiracy theory then the title needs to reflect that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
As reported by WP:RS the scope is a bit broader than just LGBT+, it also extends to allies and even to liberals in general. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
It should be distinguished in some fashion from the earlier Huddersfield grooming gang and Muslim stereotypes in the UK. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" covers that succinctly. It distinguishes it from other grooming conspiracy theories, and doesn't limit it in a way that excludes LGBT+ allies. The alternative has much more verbage and would likely fall afoul of WP:CONCISE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this is good, although I am worried about the recentist tone of this article. LGBTQ+ grooming allegations from right-wing groups are nothing new, even if the terminology of "grooming" has gathered momentum due to social media (just look at the Save Our Children campaign from the 1970s) QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
But we don't have even a single source which calls it that, generally the procedure per WP:COMMONNAME is to pick between the names used by WP:RS (in general preferring the one with the most usage, which here would be the current title). We really only get to be creative with the name when "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources" which is clearly not the case here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Sideswipe9th on adding LGBT to the title. The current name is descriptive and there are other non-LGBT grooming conspiracy theories in the UK. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

Comment: The original concern copied from the article creator's talk page. Hello, I reviewed the article and I have some thoughts. The article uses the word conspiracy 15 times including in the title. 2 sources of the 7 you provided use the word conspiracy in direct relation to grooming. 2 others use the word to describe q-anon and other right wing groups. One reference to use the word in relation to grooming is Global News, another is the Intelligencer. It seems like a WP:POVPUSH to use the word both in the title and 14 other times in the article. Bruxton (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back Very surprised to see the revert of the POV tag. This is not at all appropriate as the issues raised were not addressed. I am reapplying the tag. Bruxton (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you issues then, as you have not told us what the issue is. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I spelled out the issue both at the NPOV noticeboard this am and on the article creator's talk page yesterday. But I see that you also removed the tag. I do not want to be tied up in a problem over this tag and especially with an experienced editor. I came to the noticeboard for guidance and I think I have it. I will move on. Bruxton (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
THis is where you discuss the issues, not there. A user will come here, not to a users talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
(found through NPP) Perhaps a more descriptive name could be chosen; this article is extremely US-centric. I'm also not sure of the name grooming conspiracy theory. The Vox source states, 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. The NYMag source states, For those engaged in it, the moral panic over “grooming” accomplishes what earlier iterations of the Homintern, like any conspiracy theory, did. Note that neither of them outright call it a conspiracy theory, which is important from a semantic point of view: Something can have conspiracy-theory undertones—lack of evidence, drawing tenuous connections between unrelated stuff—without actually being a full-blown conspiracy theory. Ovinus (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Revised 20:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ovinus: Vox also says "The thing is, grooming accusations aren’t concerned with making sense; they’re about stirring up fear, anger, and hysteria — which is why they sound exactly like the kinds of fringe conspiracy theories that have been around for centuries. The new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric is essentially the same as all the old pedophile conspiracy rhetoric, but with an added layer of wrongness." and "The second irony is that the notion of “grooming” — slowly conditioning someone over time to accept a belief or a state of being that could harm them — arguably applies to the grooming conspiracy theory itself." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I missed that, apologies. Still not convinced that this deserves its own article; it could be treated in much better context at Anti-LGBT rhetoric, as suggested by editors at NPOVN. Ovinus (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
No worries, reasonable editors can disagree on where its best housed and we disagree here. Thanks for taking the time to come back and acknowledge that you missed something, most people don't and I have a lot of respect for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Found this through the NPOV board. I do not agree with these 'issues' at all. The accusations of grooming are clearly centered on a conspiracy (a broad agreement among LGBT people and their allies) to 'groom' children. It's false, it's centered on a conspiracy, it's widely believed by people who endorse many other well-documented conspiracy theories and it's referred to as a conspiracy theory by multiple reliable sources. Happy (Slap me) 15:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


Some other sources

https://eunw.eu/global/canada/transphobic-response-to-canmore-pride-donation-request-sparks-apology-swell-of-support/ "“child grooming” conspiracy theory."

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep41824#metadata_info_tab_contents " “ Disney 'grooming' conspiracy theory."

Its early days yet, but yes it does seem to be being called a "conspiracy theory". Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it needs to be called a conspiracy theory in a preponderance of reliable sources, which I'm not seeing yet. Ovinus (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
So what do they call it? Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ovinus: that was my concern - we are stating it in our Wikivoice and mainstream media is not. Our article makes it seem like all concern about grooming is conspiracy theory and therefore an attack on LGBT people. This seemed like an easy thing to fix and I was surprised that procedural issues trumped the POV concern. I think that another NPP reviewer can review the article, we have many. My involvement has to be concluded after the POV tag was twice removed. Bruxton (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • NPR says "The "grooming" smear often expands to include accusations of pedophilia and sex trafficking — conspiracy theories spawned by far-right extremists such as QAnon supporters, propagated widely through social media and right-wing channels and spreading through mainstream conservative thought.
  • FiveThirtyEight says "“Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights."
  • Salon says "So in the past month, there's been a rapid escalation of conspiracy theories falsely accusing Democrats of being somehow pro-pedophilia. ... Soon, a generalized accusation that Democrats and even companies that are mildly pro-LGBTQ want to "groom" children spread across Fox News."
Other sources on the topic include The Independent, Snopes EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Our article makes it seem like all concern about grooming is conspiracy theory. Well, yes, all concern about the LGBT community having collective agenda of grooming or indoctrinating children IS a conspiracy theory, it is quite fine to state that in "Wikivoice". ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I suspect this was unintended, but the sentence According to Vox, the term groomer is derived from child grooming and is used to "imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers is problematic as written, as it heavily implies the word "groomer" is solely or predominantly used to denigrate LGBT people. As far as I know that's not true and this usage is a minority one. Perhaps it could be clarified. Ovinus (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
In the context of the conspiracy theory usage, the word "groomer" is solely or predominantly used to denigrate LGBT people - that is an accurate statement. It seems to me that what needs to be clear in our article is the relevant context. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The accusers who use the word "groomer" don't use it as a general word to denigrate all LGBT people in general. They only use that word to denigrate those LGBT people who educate (or promote the education) of children in a way to make them more accepting for LGBT people, or who help children learn about the truth that gender is not binary at all, that they might not have the gender their parents forcefully assigned to them at birth, and that human beings are free to choose their own gender. The alt-right uses the word "groomer" to paint these activists in a bad light, but they only use it against such activists, not against LGBT people who aren't performing any activism, especially around children. 2A02:2F07:D406:8400:8525:150B:6256:A548 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
And the Democrat party. Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Plenty of people are being called "groomers" who haven't done any of the things you listed... It does appear to being used as a general purpose slur at least some of the time (for example the "Ok groomer" meme is specifically targeted at liberals in general). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the RS emphasize the generic use of the "groomer" slur against specific anti-LGBTQ deployments. For example, from NBC News, “I get ‘OK, groomer’ comments every day. Hundreds,” said Larkins, a high school junior and activist whose efforts to teach LGBTQ history in his classroom were recently covered by NBC News. This seems pretty typical - it is LGBT positive and awareness policies/programs and activism that are most subject to the "grooming" accusation, not generic liberalism. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm a straight conservative and I've had "OK, groomer" thrown at me because I don't support the extremely fringe position of mandatory chemical castration for male homosexuals. Theres basically no logic to its use other than to denigrate those who don't share extremely bigoted views on these sorts of issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Grooming conspiracy theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Grooming conspiracy theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#Grooming conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy Narrative Doesn't work

Is the topic blown out of proportion by conservatives? Absolutely. But it won't work when there are examples of minor-attracted persons working in the schools, mocking parents, and then getting arrested for attempting sex with children.

67.245.196.244 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Z

Just because someone is gay does not mean that this isn't a conspiracy theory for the same reason just because someone is straight and kills multiple people doesn't make all straight people serial killers and doesn't legitimize other conspiracy theories. See also WP:NOR. The existence of pedophiles also doesn't negate any of this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ https://nationalfile.com/video-michigan-school-employee-who-called-for-lgbt-lessons-mocked-parents-arrested-for-pedophilia/
  2. ^ https://www.wilx.com/2022/07/15/sheriff-3-isabella-co-men-arrested-trying-have-sex-with-minor/

"Conspiracy theory" is wrong terminology

This article is not describing a conspiracy theory in the way that all our other conspiracy theory articles do. As our CT article explains, a conspiracy theory, quite obviously, is a theory about a purported conspiracy. The LGBT grooming accusations are precisely that: accusations. They lack one of the two critical elements of what makes something a CT: the conspiracy. They don't allege what they believe to be grooming is done in a network or coordinated. They're accusing people of individual actions. And, importantly, that's what all of the sources here describe. Therefore, this article should be renamed to LGBT grooming accusations. Ergo Sum 11:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

RS have called it a Conspiracy theory Laura Ingraham claimed that schools were becoming "grooming centers for gender identity radicals,", which reads like an accusation "grooming is done in a network or coordinated" Marjorie Taylor Greene's comment about the Democratic Party as "the party of killing babies, grooming and transitioning children, and pro-pedophile politics." reads like an accusations aimed at a group, about coordination. As do the accusations against Dinsey (the company, not the person). Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Ergo Sum has a point here, albeit misframed. The problem with the current article text isn't that it calls something a conspiracy theory that isn't; it is that it misdescribes or distorts key elements of the conspiracy. The focus of Libs of Tiktok and following isn't just the old "some liberals are pedophiles", it is that the activities of LGBT-positive education, allyship organizing, and so on are redefined as a conspiracy to groom children. Many of this article's sources are clear about this rhetorical move, but the current article text - notably the lede - is not. Newimpartial (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the only plausible alternative name would be "LGBT grooming moral panic" but I don't see that as an improvement. This is quite clearly a well documented conspiracy theory and some of its proponents will quietly let slip who they wish to imply is behind the alleged conspiracy. (Hint: It's exactly who they always is allege is behind every one of their made up conspiracies.) We even have Rufo trying to take credit for inventing the conspiracy. That may or may not be true but, either way, it demonstrates that it's not even slightly secret that the whole thing is contrived. DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the conspiracy theory label is an exact fit, even if some but not all sources use it. Not sure about accusations being better. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that conspiracy theory is the wrong word because it's too specific. LGBT grooming accusations would be a better title IMO. X-Editor (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
"Accusations" is far too broad and runs the risk of giving undeserved credibility to something that even some of its own proponents admit that they made up out of whole cloth purely for dishonest tactical reasons. I think that the only other credible option here is "moral panic" but it is not clear that the panic is taking off as much as they had intended. It might grow into a full scale moral panic at some point but, for now, it is just a fringe conspiracy theory. I don't see the argument that it is too specific. The topic of the article is that specific conspiracy theory, not accusations in general. It is as specific as it needs to be and no more. DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Again (per every other time this has been raised) RS call it a Conspiracy theory, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't like the term "accusations", but I am concerned that the article falls afoul of WP:COATRACK and has a poor title. It doesn't appear to be one co-ordinated and cohesive "conspiracy theory". I'm not sure exactly what the scope and title of this article should be, but I am sure we can do better.
    One thing that I've not seen mentioned yet is that the topic is not at all global, but there's no indicator of the geographic scope. Currently, we've got content on the US, UK and Canada. But none of the generalisations made in the lead are applicable to, say, Nigeria—it's just conservatives in Nigeria that view LGBT people as "groomers", is it, and it's been "widely dismissed as homophobic and transphobic"? Ah, but I see, accusing LGBT people of "grooming" is a practice "mostly in the United States" that originated in "the early 2020s". — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

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)

neutral heading substituted per WP:SHOWN

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Disruptive meatpuppetry. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
When a dozen editors show up on the same Talk page on the same day, to show sympathy do the same utterly unsubstantiated narrative, while placing a range of literate, semiliterate and illiterate complaints - that would be the depths of partisan culture war (sic.). Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

neutral heading substituted per WP:SHOWN

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Disruptive meatpuppetry. Generalrelative (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Would those sympathetic to the "LGBT grooming" narrative please present sources for their claims? The weight of feelz is overpowering among your brigade (I wonder if something is in the water in St. Petersburg these days.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

neutral heading substituted per WP:SHOWN

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Disruptive meatpuppetry. Generalrelative (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The 'right' are accusing groomers of using LTBT+ as a shield when they target children. Being LGBT+ doesn't make a person a groomer. Involving children in anyway makes them a groomer. 89.197.129.174 (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is about then accusation that LGBT people are groomers, as a political campaign and conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

neutral heading substituted per WP:SHOWN

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

WP:SOAPBOX. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


(From ChatGPT:) What is a straw man ad-hominem. Give a few examples.

A straw man ad-hominem is a type of logical fallacy in which an opponent's argument or position is misrepresented or exaggerated in order to make it easier to attack or refute. The term "straw man" refers to the creation of a false or exaggerated version of the opponent's argument, and "ad-hominem" refers to the attack on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

Examples of straw man ad-hominem:

In a political debate, a candidate says, "My opponent wants to take away all of your rights and freedoms." This is a straw man ad-hominem because the opponent's position has been exaggerated and distorted in order to make it easier to attack.

During a discussion about climate change, one person says, "My opponent is just a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry." This is a straw man ad-hominem because the opponent's argument is being misrepresented and the person is being attacked rather than the argument.

In a debate about gun control, one person says, "My opponent wants to take away all guns and leave us defenseless." This is a straw man ad-hominem because the opponent's position is being exaggerated and distorted in order to make it easier to attack. 2003:F4:FF0D:8300:4E07:4707:86B6:193 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are right. The proponents of this conspiracy theory employ straw man-ad hominem tactics to constitute LGBT activists and allies as "groomers". How astute of you to notice. Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@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)
  • 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. [2] 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". [3] 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. [4] 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)
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: 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.

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1248155486"