Leftist "Grooming" of Children
The Left's bizarre mania for the sexual indoctrination of young children
This tweet, posted by somebody calling themselves “Plastic Martyr,” reveals more about its author than it does about its putative political target. It’s a confession rather than clever piece of trolling or salient criticism. The poster is under the illusion that she is making a particularly shrewd and insightful point against those in favor of legislation prohibiting teachers from discussing matters related to sex with children in the third grade and under. How would conservatives feel if legislation, the poster contends, if legislation prohibiting the discussion of religion in schools were passed? Wouldn’t they then be forced to get a taste of their own legislative medicine?
What this tweet implies is that for the progressive, human sexuality, in all its forms and perversions, is something of such immense sacredness and import that even young children must be exposed to its manifest intricacies and perversions. The plenipotentiary power of the state must be called forth so as to enable LGBTQ activists and teachers the opportunity to encourage children to explore the possibility of having their nascent reproductive organs physically mutilated for the purpose of “transitioning” to whatever gender might tickle their fancy. It’s all grist for the progressive’s sex-obsessed mill. The notion that gender is a social construct is the holy writ of these people, holding the same place in their world view that the Bible’s holds in that of Christians.
Now some have regarded the strange mania we find on the left for teaching other people’s young children about sex as a form of “grooming.” This label has induced torrents of criticism from not only the left, but even from pundits and journalists on the moderate right, who have argued that the term “groomer” is a smear word that extremists on the “far right” would ever use. As Emily Brooks, staff writer for The Hill, writes:
The loaded term, which is widely used to describe child sexual abusers who are priming their victims, enrages LGBTQ advocates and allies who say that it is painting teachers and advocates as pedophiles. They suggest that it feeds into a false stereotype that LGBTQ people prey on children.
The problem with this take on the use of the “groomer” is that it rather conveniently ignores the context of the entire issue. The question at stake involves not merely whether teachers and other so-called LGBTQ “advocates” should be allowed to peddle sexual information to very young children, but also whether such information should be disseminated without either the knowledge or consent of the children’s parents. In other words, progressive advocates for this sort of sexual instruction insist on the right to introduce this sexual “enlightenment” in secret, without anyone but themselves knowing about it.
Imagine if you discovered that a neighbor had been sharing inappropriate sexual material to your six year old without either your knowledge or consent. Almost everyone, including even those very left-wing parents who oppose the Florida bill designed to put a stop to this practice, would be scandalized. Indeed, the first instinct almost universally would be to accuse this neighbor of “grooming” children. For what other possible motive could there be for providing intimate sexual “information” to a six year old? Passing off such “information” to children is patently creepy, and even if it is not motivated by a conscious intention to groom kids as objects of sexual predation, it is clearly inappropriate.
Activists claim the reason why they need to sexualize young children is to prevent the bullying of gay and gender fluid children. But even assuming that such bullying is a genuine problem, why should the only solution that the left is willing to entertain involve passing on sensitive sexual material to children without their parent’s knowledge or consent? For that is simply not an appropriate course of action. The fact that leftists seem incapable of understanding this is deeply troubling, to say the least.
To be sure, people on the left often suffer from a troubling penchant to choose inappropriate means to solve the various problems, often wholly imaginary, which preoccupy their demented consciences. Hence we find intrepid leftists everywhere trying to fight racism by encouraging white children to hate themselves, or seeking to defeat Russia’s energy-based economy by sabotaging oil production in the United States, or attempting to increase the number of college graduates by saddling billions of dollars of student loan debt on the nation’s youth. The left, as if driven by psychopathic instincts, can’t help choosing unsuitable means to achieve their various political and social goals. Why is this? Unsuitable means can only lead to failure and disaster. So why persist in choosing them? Do these ideologically disturbed people on the left suffer from an unconscious predilection for failure and disaster?
There must be scores of ways to deal with the bullying of children who, whether rightly or wrongly, identify as gay or gender fluid. The fact that the left continues to favor entirely inappropriate means to attain this particular end will inevitably raise suspicions as to their motives. If activists insist on indoctrinating kids in the sexual ideology of the extreme left in secret, without their parent’s consent, then they are sure to arouse suspicions as to what they are really up to. The desire to sexualize children is so strange and unnatural that no one should be shocked that it has led to accusations of grooming. And so if LGBTQ activists resent being labeled as groomers by the “far right,” then there’s a very easy solution. Stop supporting the right of schools to teach human sexuality to children eight years and under without parental knowledge or consent. If leftists continue to insist on their right to pass on their bizarre and frequently disturbing views of sexuality onto other people's children, they can hardly complain when they are regarded by millions of Americans as groomers.