Some More News - SMN: Who Are The Real "Groomers"?

Episode Date: July 12, 2023

Hi. In today's episode, we analyze the accusation that THE LEFT is grooming children by injecting gender ideology into schools and putting disgusting things like rainbows on shirts. We also look at the actual definition of "grooming" and ask ourselves what group in the U.S. appears to fit that definition. Check out our MERCH STORE: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/somemorenews SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh Subscribe to the Some More News and Even More News audio podcasts:  Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-more-news/id1364825229 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqegozpFt9hY2WJ7TDiA?si=5keGjCe5SxejFN1XkQlZ3w&dl_branch=1 Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomeMoreNews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/SomeMoreNews/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SomeMoreNews/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@somemorenews

Good evening. I'm Cody Johnston and you're in the news zone. Some more news that is, where we talk about the news. Some more of it, news, but with a Z. And here's some more news with a Z. Everybody I don't like is a pedophile. Groomers. He's a pedophile. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz at a Lego store while wearing a rainbow pin on your shirt. The Lego group supports what? The Lego group pretty probably supports LGBTQ trans people. Do you want to? Yes. But the question is,

why are you all in here with those pins on? Do you think children care about what man sucks at home and what girl eats vaginas at home? It's time to leave, man. Do you think they care about that? It's time to leave, man. Do you think they care about that? It's time to leave, man. To clarify, the groomer here is apparently the Lego worker wearing a rainbow pin, not the man yelling about sucking dick and eating vagina in a store for children.

Okay, so groomers are people who wear rainbow flag pins. Got it. Who else are groomers? All Democrats. The Democrats are a party of pedophiles. I would definitely say so. They support grooming children. They are not pedophiles. Why would you say that? Democrats support, even Joe Biden, the president himself, supports children being sexualized and having transgender surgeries.

Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do to children. Wow. This was Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene saying that Democrats are a party of pedophiles and that they support grooming children on 60 Minutes, while Leslie Stahl goes, wow, that's the hard-hitting and brave journalism we need in the face of a relentless campaign to demonize and criminalize LGBTQ people. So what is an example of this dangerous grooming that MTG is alluding to?

Thank you for your patience. This is Dylan Mulvaney, he's an actor and he has a very specific role that he is playing. And it's the grooming and sexualization of children. Ah, yes. Dylan Mulvaney, the trans woman who is the latest target of conservative cancel culture. As we all know, Dylan Mulvaney forced Bud Light to rebrand beer as pro-trans carbonated beverage by insidiously accepting a single free can of Bud Light with her face on it.

Conservatives claim that Mulvaney is grooming children, a well-known beer drinking demographic, by publicly chronicling her transition on TikTok. While her TikTok isn't really aimed at kids, she does have one video where she directly addresses youth with the bone-chilling message of... It's day 249 of being a girl and this video is to all the queer and trans kids and teens out there who have been following along on my journey. Hello! First of all, I'm kind of honored that you've accepted me as one of your own since I'm

on the Gen Z millennial cusp. But most importantly, I am in awe of you. You give me so much hope. I'm like enamored. I wish that I could be as strong as y'all are being right now. You are my heroes. And I know that you probably want to rush into adulthood. I get that. That was so me growing up. And I don't know what your home life looks like. I hope that your family's accepting. You know, that's how every family should be. And congrats if yours is. But a lot of families are not. And to those of you who don't have an accepting family or safe space, I get how frustrating it is to not be allowed to step into your true self. But believe it or not, your parents think that they have your best interest at heart. They do. They think they are protecting you from something, something scary. But that's because

adults fear what they don't know. You know, they might not have a lot of gay people or trans people in their lives. Just remember that there are so many of us out here ready to celebrate you. Just remember that there are so many of us out here ready to celebrate you. And I know that you're excited to be an adult. I couldn't wait to turn 18. But please don't feel rushed in any of this. Enjoy your childhood. Ask for what you need when you need it.

I grew up too fast. Terrifying stuff. So yeah, apparently telling kids to not rush into adulthood and that they should seek out friendships with other kids who support them is grooming. Why? Because she's saying it's okay to be gay or trans or queer? Is that it? I bet that's it.

Her other videos are basically an online public diary and pretty much just as tame as this video. Seriously, go watch. The most sexual she gets is talking about dating, her sexual orientation, not wanting people to stare at her crotch, all things that never get blinked at if done by a cis woman.

But according to conservatives, publicly existing while being trans is apparently grooming, as is offering pride-themed clothing or clothing for trans people. Because the LGBTQ agenda is so powerful, a rainbow on a t-shirt is enough to knock the straight right out of your innocent child. Tonight, Target, one of the nation's largest retailers, is pulling some products that

celebrate Pride Month off store shelves. Citing threats to employees, the company says, given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior. Okay, these are like naked people in shirts. Hey, fun fact, that shirt she's mad about, it was in the adult section. Also, it barely shows naked people. It's a slightly risque shirt for adults, which isn't new. Here's Walmart selling a Christmas shirt depicting,

I guess that your tits want to lick each other. It's unclear. Seems weird nobody is upset over that because that is far more conceptually disturbing. And yet Target has been absolutely hounded for having pride clothing that conservatives claim are grooming children. Products with dangerous images of unicorns and lions

and terrifying messages such as true to your heart and love and Minecraft, disgusting. See, much like that first shirt, it turns out that every claim around this often involves an adult product they pretend is actually for kids. Pretend is a nice word for it. For example, there was that tuck-friendly bikini

they all got mad at. Conservatives claimed that this was in the kids department, but that was a make-em-up, a whoopsie pretend-o, or a lie. Anyway, the attack worked. Target withdrew its Pride merchandise after its workers were threatened with violence. I feel like there's a word for when people use violence

to threaten other people, to enforce their ideology. It's like a scare-ism, scare-ology, something like that. But actually, scare-ology, something like that. But actually just to recap, conservatives falsely claimed that Target's adult pride clothing was for kids, then got so mad at their own lie that they went around threatening the stores, and in fact, none of that response

is designed to help kids in any way. Well, I am shocked. Can we get a clip of something to express my shock? Wow. Along with this Target story, a fifth grade teacher in Florida is under investigation for showing a children's movie that has a gay person in it. The movie, Strange World.

So why are they investigating her? Is this the first Disney movie that shows full frontal? Do we see Mickey Mouse's rock hard mouse dick plowing Minnie's sopping wet mouse pussy in the backseat of the goof mobile? Please let it be that. Wait, did I miss the penetration? Damn, you always miss it.

So that's weird. Why is there no outrage over the many, many, many, many, many other kids movies that feature teen crushes or even teen kisses? In Shrek, kids were exposed to implied donkey and dragon copulation, and we actually see their hybrid donkey-dragon offspring from the donkey-dragon fucking.

Donkey came in that dragon. But people are upset over a movie where a teen boy has a crush on another teen boy? Seems like they just don't like gay people, or seeing gay people, or being reminded that gay people exist. After all, the knee-jerk reaction to LGBTQ people with cries of pervert and child predator isn't new.

It was directed at gay people, particularly gay men in the 1950s and other eras as well. We talked about this a bit in our drag queen episode too, but it's worth mentioning again. It was a moral panic known as the Lavender Scare, where people in the LGBTQ community were branded as anti-American, threats to the country, and child predators.

What Jimmy didn't know was that Ralph was sick. A sickness that was not visible like smallpox, but no less dangerous and contagious. A sickness of the mind. You see, Ralph was a homosexual, a person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex. Public restrooms can often be a hangout for the homosexual. One never knows when the homosexual is about. He may appear normal, and it may be too late when you discover he is mentally ill. So keep with your group, and don't go off alone with strangers

unless you have the permission of your parent or teacher. That's from a 1961 propaganda PSA from the Englewood Police Department and School District. And boy, sounds pretty familiar. You might have seen that video before, but it really speaks to how unserious the grooming and anti-LGBTQ crowd is, how their entire playbook is decades old,

specifically that they focus on bathrooms and kids and they simply adjust the perceived threat to whoever they want to scapegoat. We also saw this exact same thing with anti-integration propaganda as well. They're so uncreative that it's all they can come up with and every time we actually expand human rights, it never comes true. When we legalized gay marriage, for example,

there wasn't an epidemic of child molestations. The kids are fine. I mean, unless you scream at them for having short hair at a sporting event. Then that kid is scared of you. So why does this idea keep persisting? How are they able to keep moving the goalposts, or in this case, the slippery slope,

and claim for the last 70 years that the gays want to groom your kids. It might have to do with how a lot of them define grooming. Someone doesn't need to be an active child rapist to be grooming children. They just have to believe two things. Number one, that they know better than you. And number two, that you have no rights to your own children

when they are not in your presence for that period of time. And number three, that these hyper-sexualized issues should be introduced to children, whether they're engaging in them or not. Okay, so according to Captain Two Mugs, grooming is also when they believe that they know better than you and that you have no rights to your children. Basically, Steven Crowder believes grooming is when you don't give parents total control over a child, whether or not he realizes it, this is a big piece of the puzzle, and ultimately kind of a confession about the conservative party and religious fundamentalists. Because spoilers, we're gonna be talking about child marriage later. And maybe it's relevant to bring up how a large proportion of sex abuse cases are actually perpetrated by parents or trusted family, or friends or partners of the parents.

But according to Crowder, it's child grooming to not allow parents complete control over their kid. So is that even if the parents themselves may be sexually abusing their children or enabling sexual abuse? In fact, 34% of child abusers are family members, whereas only 7% are strangers. So, I have an idea.

Before we continue, maybe we should get into what child grooming actually means. Because before Libs of TikTok became governor of Florida, it used to have a specific set of definitions. Grooming was first used in the 1200s to describe a knight's squire, then in the 1600s to describe a stable hand, someone who took care of horses.

It was also used in the 1600s as a term for a husband to be. And in the early 1800s, again to describe taking care of horses. Then it started getting applied to people in the mid 1800s, meaning taking care of a person's appearance or to prepare someone to perform a role, such as for a leadership position or some kind of profession.

Then in the early 1900s, probably horse stuff again, but in the 1980s, grooming was used in the context of child psychology as a specific term to describe befriending or influencing a child in order to later sexually abuse them. And now, apparently, the definition of grooming has expanded to include anyone I don't like or someone brushing a horse in order to turn the horse gay.

Of course, words change definitions all the time, but maybe equating sexual abuse to this store sold a shirt is quite possibly a bad, incorrect, and dangerous thing. Putting mayo on a sandwich is grooming. So what is child grooming really? Also, hey, this part of the episode is pretty rough and not funny since we're talking about child abuse. I don't know, maybe we'll put wacky music over it

to make it fun, though I doubt it and I hope not. But given that the term child grooming has been thrown around everywhere, I think it's important to describe what actual grooming is. Because it's not somebody wearing a shirt that says gay, and it's not somebody wearing a dress or a rainbow-colored pin. It's a very serious and disturbing form of child abuse.

According to RAINN, the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, grooming is a set of manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught. Grooming often follows a specific pattern of escalating behavior with the intention of abusing the child without being reported by that child. As outlined by Raine, it starts with selecting a victim who the perpetrator has access to, or to a victim who is vulnerable.

The predator may also place themselves in a position where they will have frequent access to minors, like a church leader or law enforcement officer. Once the perpetrator has found a victim, they will begin to physically or emotionally isolate their victims from others, especially from people who could protect them. Then the perpetrator starts establishing trust

with the victim, often by giving them gifts or special treatment or sharing secrets to get them used to keeping things from others. One of the final stages is getting the victim desensitized to touch, often at first with hugging or tickling, and then later more inappropriate touching. And this may include discussing sexual topics or showing the victim explicit pornography.

It is disturbing and absolutely horrific in its effect on the victim's mental health. Important to this topic, it's a very specific overall pattern. And while some of the listed behaviors are inappropriate on their own, some can only be spotted in the larger context. That's why it's so insidious.

Groomers don't want to scare their victims away and also want plausible deniability. Grooming can be very difficult to identify because it is often disguised as something more innocent. This also makes it easy for bad faith individuals to muddy the waters when it comes to identifying grooming behavior. Is it grooming to want to work with kids or to give a child a gift? Is it grooming to establish trust with a child

or to hug a child? Is it grooming if you teach a child about sex if you're a parent or if you're a sex ed teacher? None of the things I just listed is intrinsically child grooming. For instance, it's not grooming to give a child a birthday gift if you're the child's parent or family member. It would be grooming if, say, the child's youth pastor started giving them lots of gifts

and using the gifts as a way to convince the child that the youth pastor is owed trust and physical affection. Is it grooming if you keep secrets with the child? At first that sounds suspicious, but if you're a school counselor and a child tells you that they think they might be gay, but they're afraid that if they come out to their parents, they'll get kicked out or abused,

then not telling the parents may actually save the child from abuse. It's about context and often requires a case by case assessment. A doctor asking a child medically relevant questions about their body isn't grooming. Whereas a doctor who befriends a child, builds trust with the child,

and then breaks down their boundaries and touches them inappropriately is grooming them, such as the case with Larry Nassar, the gymnastic sports doctor who abused underage girls entrusted to his care. So yeah, bummer, bummer segment. I'm glad we didn't do the wacky music. Actually, maybe it would have helped.

Cue the music. Okay, now stop, stop, stop it, stop it. I see now how that would have been a mistake. But it's important to actually define what grooming is because notice how none of that involved hanging rainbow flags in the classroom. And after the break, we're going to take that definition, break it down some more, and then talk about

which demographics are actually likely to groom children. Sounds fun. We're having fun. We're having fun. We're having fun. We're having fun. Hey there, it's me, Cody from a moment ago. But now I'm ad Cody. How you doing? How's that thing on your foot?

Did you cut it off finally? Don't, it's your toe. Now listen up, Pete. I wanna tell you about the Some More News Patreon, as in patreon.com slash some more news. The slash leans to the right. It's one of those right-leaning slashes you hear about so much.

If you go to patreon.com slash, the right-leaning slash, some more news, you get access to a bunch of cool stuff you can't get from our regular smelly videos. Along with ad-free versions of this show and even more news, you can also get access to our Discord, producer credit, and even a Google Hangout with the Some More News team.

And you know, we're, we're, we're pretty cool. We're all right. Anyway, Pete, I got a jet. Good luck cutting your toe off and eating it. And remember, patreon.com slash some more news. As we always say, the slash leans to the right, I'm pretty sure, I think.

It's one of the two slashes, that's for sure. The URL slash, the slash that's used for URLs. Oh yeah, such lucky ads for our video with grooming in the title. Oh, we had no ads this week, so we just did one for our show's Patreon. Perfect, excellent, good episode. All right, before the break,

we outlined the exact definition of grooming and pointed out that the conservative accusations of LGBTQ people have very little to do with that definition, but rather fit a pattern of anti-gay rhetoric of the last 10,000 or so years. And in fact, as we move on to talking about who is actually grooming kids, you might not be surprised to hear

that we're not really gonna talk about LGBTQ people that much because here in reality, they really don't have much to do with grooming unless it's a dog show, which in that case, yeah, big LGBTQ presence, I assume, I don't know. So who are the people actually doing the grooming and committing the abuse? Raine explains that this is something that can happen

in person or online, and as we noted before, that it's most often done by somebody within the victim's circle of trust, such as a family member or someone in a leadership role within their life. In fact, 93% of underage victims of sexual abuse knew their attacker, 59% were acquaintances, 34% were family members, and only 7% were strangers.

Meanwhile, being in the LGBTQ community is not associated with higher rates of child sex abuse. UC Davis professor Gregory Herrick notes that many child abusers can't be given a label for adult sexual orientation, as they are unable to form healthy sexual attachments to adults and exclusively target children. This type of predator is known as fixated,

whereas a child predator who also has sexual relations with adults is known as regressed. In a 1978 study on child sex abusers, Professor Herrick explains that of the 175 adult male child sex abusers, quote, "'None of the men had an exclusively "'homosexual adult sexual orientation. "'83 were classified as fixated.

"'70 others were classified "'as regressed adult heterosexuals. The remaining 22, 13%, were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Another study found that fewer than 1% of cases of child abuse being fielded by a Denver hospital between 1991 and 1992 could be attributed to a gay perpetrator.

I shouldn't have to quote studies to demonstrate that gay people are no more likely than straight people to abuse children, but when people are making threats against Target for having pride clothes, I guess here we are defending Dayton Hudson Corpse Target. And hey, just to be super duper clear, being a parent in the LGBTQ community is not associated with higher risks of child abuse. And in fact, based on that same Denver study, risk of child abuse committed by a relative's heterosexual partner

is over 100 times that of someone who identifies as gay or bisexual. And you know all the hysteria about young people coming out as trans. Well, transgender teens are less likely to commit acts of sexual abuse than their peers, but trans people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime and are at greater risk of sexual abuse than their peers, but trans people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime

and are at greater risk of sexual assault at schools where they're not allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. That's interesting, isn't it? That obsession over the genitals of children and which bathroom they use is actually harmful. Imagine that. Okay, so literal grooming isn't really prevalent

in the LGBTQ community. But of course the word grooming is often used by conservatives very loosely, when the real word I think they actually mean is indoctrination, at least sometimes. Or rather, when you point out that there's no literal grooming, they often pivot to indoctrination.

That way they're able to slyly propagate the idea that gay people and trans people are all pedophiles or predators, but have plausible deniability at the same time. So let's address the idea that teaching kids about gay people existing or trans people existing, or that it's okay to be gay or trans is indoctrination. Firstly, we have to define the word,

which boils down to the act of teaching someone to believe something uncritically. That's what makes it different from teaching, because when you teach somebody, you could allow them to question what you're teaching them. While often seen as bad, indoctrination is ever present. After all, when we teach children our society's rules, we are to a certain extent indoctrinating them.

The Golden Rule or the Pledge of Allegiance could be seen as indoctrination. There's probably some other examples of beliefs you can't question out there, but I'll let you think of them. Anyway, there are obviously ways to teach children social rules without completely indoctrinating them, specifically by allowing them to teach children social rules without completely indoctrinating them,

specifically by allowing them to question the social rules. And so when you think about it, teaching kids that it's okay to be different is actually the opposite of indoctrination, isn't it? You're opening doors and not closing them. So telling a kid it's okay to be gay or transgender isn't indoctrination unless the teacher doesn't let the kids ask questions.

And in that case, that's just a shitty teacher, right? It's like if a math teacher said two plus two equals four because I said so. Teachers generally like questions and explaining things. Those apple-loving freaks want to make the world bigger for kids. So a good teacher explaining to kids that it's okay to be different

doesn't seem like indoctrination, does it? And in fact, it's extremely ironic to accuse teachers of practicing indoctrination by giving kids more options. It's like saying that enjoying different ice cream flavors is indoctrination, whereas saying vanilla or you're a pervert is freedom? Rocky Road is for Satanists, obviously. What's interesting is that we've had a long history

of conservatives accusing the act of teaching and social progress as indoctrination. Here's a cartoon from 1924 criticizing teaching about evolution and depicting science as a pied piper, leading children down the path of education, into the cave of disbelief in God of the Bible, where presumably they'd be eaten by the bear of empiricism. Also interesting to note that one of the more vocal leaders

of this LGBTQ or all groomers movement is Christopher Ruffo, formerly of the Discovery Institute, which heavily pushed back on evolution being taught in schools without including intelligent design. Anyway, here's a cartoon of a long-nosed shrew-like bespectacled teacher violently teaching a frightened white child to accept integration,

that white and black people are equal, and two plus two equals six. Compare that to how these current segments on Fox News frame teaching kids that other gender identities or sexualities exist. Look, there's a reason why the Democrats are treating this bill like it's the apocalypse. All we're telling them is you can't groom young children. And to them it's Armageddon.

And that's because they know they have to indoctrinate the kids into this madness very, very young. Notice how Matt Walsh equates indoctrination with grooming and child sex abuse. And much like everything we already talked about, this is also not even close to being a new strategy because it turns out that Matt Walsh is not very creative. I honestly think it's the biggest threat,

even that our nation has even more so in terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat. Because what's happening now, they're going after, in schools, two-year-olds. You know why they're trying to get early childhood education? They want to get our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. I taught school for close to 20 years, and we're not teaching facts and knowledge anymore, folks. We're teaching indoctrination. That's a clip of Republican representative Sally Kern

being mocked on Ellen 15 years ago. It was a joke then, and it's a joke now. If you think there's some new reason they're making these accusations, there isn't. Amazingly, the fear that gays and trans are taking over is reflected in polling. Every estimation that the average American has of the proportion of trans or gay people

is always much higher than the actual statistics. Americans think 21% of the adult population are transgender, while the real number is much lower. This is likely in part because of the lack of trans acceptance over the years, which would also explain why trans adults only account for 0.5% of the adult population, whereas trans youth, 13 to 17,

account for 1.4% of the youth population. But conservatives see this slight increase in youths identifying as trans, again, only 1.4% of the youth population, as some kind of mass indoctrination of kids, as opposed to a mass, slightly more acceptance. But this also supposes that you can indoctrinate kids to be trans or to be gay, which when you think about it,

for even a moment, is nonsense. Do we have to actively indoctrinate kids to be straight or to be cisgender? I mean, kind of actually, in that we often indoctrinate specific and so-called gender norms that were artificially created by our society. And in fact, most of the actual indoctrination

around kids and sexuality is almost exclusively done to LGBTQ kids. After all, have you ever heard of parents forcing kids to go to camps to make them gay? No, you haven't. But you have heard of the opposite. You have heard of pray away the gay camps and conversion therapy aimed at forcing kids to be straight.

And you might have even heard that it super doesn't work unless the goal was to make the victims twice as likely to attempt suicide. A review of studies on conversion therapy to turn kids straight examined research since the 90s, which came to conclusions such as, quote, "'There is no evidence from any of the studies reviewed here to suggest that sexual orientation can be changed

and that it's unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex attractions or increase other sex sexual attractions through conversion therapy. So if a concerted effort to forcibly turn a kid straight doesn't work, why would the mere mention that it's okay to be gay or okay to be trans turn a kid trans or gay?

Do they really think kids are that impressionable? The only thing it would actually do is make an already trans or a gay kid feel comfortable being who they are. Could there be cases where a young person explores their sexuality or gender and later realizes they're not gay or trans, just like some kids later realize they're not straight or cis? Sure, we've all seen your preferred Chris

and had impure thoughts, but that's what happens when you give people the freedom to explore their identity. And it's weird, it's very weird that conservatives are strictly against giving kids that freedom and are calling it indoctrination when it's, by definition, the opposite. What are they afraid of?

Perhaps if being cisgender and straight is so fragile that you can turn a kid gay with a few rainbow flags, then it's not as natural and normal as conservatives claim it to be or crave it to be. Just saying. Pray away the gay penguins. But maybe I'm being reductive about what they're trying to say.

After all, often the claim from conservatives is that kids are being shamed into accepting LGBTQ people. That was certainly the narrative about critical race theory, hello again, Rufo. The idea that there's some kind of punishment if you don't go along with the trans agenda, that kids have to fall in line or else. But here's a question, what does that even mean?

Do we have widespread examples of teachers punishing students for not accepting gay people? It's far more likely that a student would get in trouble for being mean to another student, period. And one imagines sometimes that involves a trans or gay student. But nobody's upset by the existence of straight people and cis people.

However, they might be upset if you're rude to people or disrespect them or if you call in bomb threats to a store for having some rainbows and accepting trans people as people who exist. Hey, you know who does use shame and fear to push rules on people? Churches, a lot of them at least. Religious institutions are very good

at the existential threat, claiming you'll go to hell or you'll be kicked out of the church or your family will disown you. Or second, hey, you ever heard of a gay parent kicking a child out for being straight? You see a lot of that on the news? You don't. Maybe never actually,

maybe that's literally never happened, but gay children or trans children getting kicked out of their homes for being gay or trans is so common, 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ. So you tell me, which side of this debate is actually punishing people for not falling in line? Which side is limiting options? Putting kids in camps to change who they are,

pushing kids to uncritically accept specific norms while demonizing anyone asking questions. Sure seems like the indoctrination isn't coming from LGBTQ people. And this is where I point out how institutions tied to conservatism such as churches are often hotbeds for child grooming. The Catholic Church obviously

has a huge child abuse problem, but so does the Mormon Church, the Protestant Church, Baptist churches, evangelical churches. It seems like there's a theme here where when you give someone the authority to interpret God's word, you put them in a position of massive power, allowing them to abuse that power

to victimize the vulnerable and get away with it. If you're indoctrinated to believe that those authority figures should not be questioned, then you can't question them when they start to abuse you. And you may not even understand what's happening to you if you're kept away from any education that would teach you that you're allowed to have control over your body and what sexual abuse looks like. So here's a fun idea. We're going to cut to some ads ads and then when we come back, we will perhaps look at who is actually grooming and indoctrinating kids.

I mean literally, using the actual definition of the word. Let's look at who is actually enabling that behavior. I will give you a hint. It's not them gays. Okay, BRB. Hello, sexy ad watchers. You know who you are because you're you. That's how you know.

We tend to not be other people most days, unless you're a demon. Demons can enter your body through your many holes. And speaking of holes, I wanna tell you about the Some More News merch store. That's tpublic.com slash stores slash Some More News. We got shirts, mugs, tote bags. Heck, we got tapestries!

You can hang a six-foot Wormbo banner in your home or work or both. Maybe you work in a nursing home, and so why not hang giant Wormbo in every room for the olds to see? Our elders love Wormbo, who, much like a demon, can squirm through most things. We have other designs too, not just Wormbo,

but mainly it's all for Wormbo. All for Wormbo! Shirt sales is how he gains his power, and you can feed Wormbo by going to tpublic.com slash stores slash some more news. Inflate a demon puppet with the souls of elderly people. Once again, that's tpublic.com slash stores slash some more news.

Do, wait, do we actually have, we have tapestries? Oh, fuck a duck, we are back. Don't actually fuck a duck, but dang, hot damn, and poop, hot damned poop. Now, if you recall, we've been talking about what grooming actually is, how it's different from indoctrination, and how the LGBTQ community isn't doing either of those things on any widespread level.

Of course, you could cherry pick examples of some LGBTQ people who abuse children, because LGBTQ people are just people like anybody else. But it's extremely disingenuous to take a handful of examples and pretend they're evidence of a systemic problem, because the statistics say otherwise. After all, conservatives wouldn't want me to,

I don't know, do the same thing with stories of anti-LGBTQ people who turn out to be creeps and abusers, right? That's weird. What's, oh my, what's, what's my hand doing? Oh my gosh, it was doing that. Holy shit, wow.

What's all this stuff? Cool, let's see. A QAnon leader who made money by claiming Democrats were groomers and pedophiles tried to sue a newspaper for defamation, but accidentally revealed that he himself had groomed and sexually abused a 15 year old girl. Far right Trump supporter and Stop the Steal organizer, Ali Alexander, has now apologized for asking

underage teenagers for pictures of their genitals. The founder of the far right wing Liberty Action Coalition, Patricia Kent, an anti-LGBTQ activist who has claimed that drag shows are grooming children, lost her teaching license in 1998 for forming inappropriate and overly familiar relationships with female students.

Republican Texas State Representative Brian Slayton, who has accused drag shows of grooming and sexualizing children, is under investigation for giving a 19 year old intern alcohol after inviting her to his home at night and having a sexual relationship with her. A far right anti-grooming organization, which has railed against sex education books in schools,

platformed a convicted child sex offender. A man who was accused of spray painting groomer on a public library ended up being arrested for having child porn. A QAnon influencer, oh, different from the earlier one I talked about, who called Democrats pedophiles, turned out to be a convicted sex offender

who victimized an eight year old. And so on. You get the idea. Actually, wait, I found more. Charlie Kirk just appeared at a youth pastors summit where one of these sponsors was a sex offender. Here's professional weirdo, Nick Fuentes, talking about marrying a 16 year old when he's 30.

Let's say I get married to a 18 year old now. Six year age difference. When I turn 40, she's gonna be 34. Ew. Well, if I'm 30 and she's 16, 14 year age difference. When I'm 50, she'll be 36. When I'm, when I'm 40, she'll be 26. Now we're talking here. Now we're cooking with gas. Hey, gross. But again, even though it's surprisingly easy to find a ton of examples of conservative pedophiles, no, the GOP isn't the party of pedophiles

just because these specific people I listed are pedophiles. What you would need in order to make a case like that is perhaps some kind of systemic evidence of them supporting pedophiles or grooming behavior of some kind. You know, like if the Republican-appointed Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could legally withhold evidence

of child sex abuse. Or similarly, if Fox News went out of their way to gloss over child abuse in the church, or if Wyoming Republicans opposed a bill that would raise the state's legal marriage age to 18, because as of now, a child under the age of 18 can be married, even to adults, if their parents ask a judge to allow it.

If you innocently think this is just something that allows two 17 year olds to get married, nope. According to anti-child marriage advocacy group, Unchained at Last, 1,260 children were married in Wyoming between 2000 and 2019, 98% of which were underage girls being married to adult men. Now, you out there might think, "'Hey, isn't it kinda fucked up

"'to marry a child to an adult?' "'Well, sure, if you just focus "'on the whole child marrying an adult part, it sounds bad. "'But according to the Wyoming Republican Party, maybe it's wrong to not allow child marriage. They sent out an email to their constituents saying, this bill may seem harmless, but there are concerns about constitutional rights.

You know, the constitutional rights to marry children as written by founding father, Jared Fogle. The Wyoming Republican Party also directed people to read the succinct analysis on the bill on a blog called Capital Watch for Wyoming Families. This succinct analysis advises that since children under 16 years can get pregnant, it should be legal for their parents

to make them get married so they aren't having a child out of wedlock. The problem isn't that they may have been raped and forced to have a child while still being a child themselves. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You see, the problem is that it was done out of wedlock. The analysis on Capitol Watch for Wyoming families

also says the anti-child marriage bill would be an attack on parental rights and that parents should be the judges of whether their children are being put into properly desired and well-ordered marriages. Father knows best after all, if you should be married off to the adult family friend who impregnated you when you were 13,

as long as it's properly desired and well-ordered. Pardon me a moment, actually, excuse me one second. Sorry about that, I had something stuck in my throat, some kind of chunk of despair. Anyway, I guess this group is just really into parental rights, so it's kind of odd. They also support bills banning gender-affirming care for trans kids, even with parental rights. So it's kind of odd. They also support bills banning gender affirming care for trans kids, even with parental consent.

Hey, weird. What happened to parental rights? I guess those only matter when trying to force your kid into a child marriage. They predictably support another bill to ban teaching kids about gender identity or sexual orientation because it's not age appropriate. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so,

so basically teaching kids about sexual orientation, gender identity, allowing them to express their gender identity and sex education, that's child grooming. Meanwhile, forcing children to get married and have babies and be parents before 16 years old, totally fine, godly even, super cool, excuse me. Sorry, I had a little bit left in there, but it's gone now.

Scuttled away like a sadness crab. Anyway, it's not just Wyoming Republicans. Missouri Republican State Senator Mike Moon also defended child marriage for kids as young as 12. Here he is being questioned about his support of child marriage. And even though I've already told you he supports child marriage,

his justification is so bizarre, I don't know how to prepare you for it. Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12? That was the law. You voted not to change it. Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12? That was the law. You voted not to change it. Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12? I don't need to. I do. And guess what? They're still married. Oh, okay. Senator Mike Moon says that child marriage to a 12 year old is okay because the 12 year olds that he knows who got married are still married. His defense is that child grooming and marriage is okay because it works, I guess. Here's the thing there.

Besides that being a fucking horrifying argument, it's also false. Around 70 to 80% of child marriages end in divorce, probably because they're fucking child marriages. And you wanna know something incredibly messed up? Of course you do. Even though children can get married, in some states, they're too young to easily get divorced

without approval from a judge. So they have to wait until they're adults to legally separate from their rapist. I would scream again, but my doctor says that I'm one good scream away from something called a throat blood geyser and esophagash. Anyways, it's pretty weird how child marriage is often defended by Republicans and of course freaks such as Matt Walsh who say stuff like, the problem is not teen pregnancy, but unwed teen pregnancy.

So what I'm saying is that the problem is not per se teenage pregnancy, it's unwed pregnancy. That's the problem in society. So I have a question. Are conservatives groomers? Or rather, are they supporting grooming? Remember the actual definition. I'm not calling them groomers because they did something I don't like.

I'm talking about an authority figure, often a family member, isolating a child, sharing secrets, and slowly training that child to be accepting of inappropriate touching until they can be abused. By that real definition, who is actually enabling or supporting that behavior in our country? Who is pushing for a climate where grooming is more allowed and accepted?

The people barely putting gay characters in Disney films? Or the ones openly supporting child marriages and saying stuff like this? If I was a little kid, if I was like six years old, and my grandmother came to visit, and said, hey, give me a hug, and I said, nah, I don't feel like it, granny. I cannot imagine what my dad's reaction would have been. It would not have been pleasant, I can tell you. My reaction with my own kids wouldn't be pleasant in that situation. Yes, I tell them. I guess I viola- I've- let me tell you something.

I violate my kids' consent all the time in the sense that I force them to do things they don't want to do. That's Matt literally getting upset over a book that teaches kids consent. See it's not just that they are pro-child marriage, but actively against tools that could help a kid identify grooming. Researchers in Spain found that even a brief educational session on what online grooming is would result in kids being less likely to report having sexualized interactions with adults. Sex education in general also appears to help prevent child abuse. A review from the Department of Public Health at Montclair State University looked at 80

studies spanning over 30 years of research on sex education. They found that sex education, including education on bodily autonomy, helped improve skills that children need to protect themselves from sexual predators. And children who suffered sexual abuse were more likely to disclose the abuse after the educational programs. Remember earlier how we talked about the strategies that groomers take to try to prevent their victims from disclosing their abuse? Education seems to be part of the antidote.

So it's really weird that so many conservatives are against sex education and often demonize it as perverted perversion for perverts. If you don't want to hear it in a school board meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system? See, we have perverts that are perverting our kids. That's a Christian pastor ranting about a 1994 book called "'It's Perfectly Normal' that contains frank descriptions of what sex is. You know, as one must do if you are to educate someone about what sex is.

It also features some art that shows depictions of people's nude bodies in a way that's somewhat realistic. It has a cartoon depicting how the menstrual cycle works. It talks about what masturbation is and explains that it's a normal urge to have. It also contains topics like online safety and sexting, consent, and the sorts of educational interventions that the studies we discussed earlier mentioned

as helping prevent child sexual abuse. But the fact that it's perfectly normal bluntly talks about sex has caused the author to be accused of being a pornographer. I'm explaining this in detail, not because I want an excuse to show cartoon wieners, I don't need an excuse for that, but because this is the kind of pornographic content

that conservatives say is in schools, and results in so many book bans and attacks on education. Yes, the content is sexual, but aside from the obvious point that sexual isn't a synonym for pornographic, it's also clearly presented in an educational capacity. And the book's frankness about what sex is, including the sections that talk about sexual abuse, have actually helped children realize

that they were being abused, leading to them disclosing the abuse to a trusted adult. Literally, this book led to a 10 year old girl recognizing she was being sexually abused by her father. She used the book to explain to her mother how she was being abused, and the father was convicted by a judge of sexual abuse. The judge commented,

"'There were heroes in this case. "'One was the child and the other was the book.'" The author of It's Perfectly Normal, Roby Harris, explains why she's so motivated to offer kids a book on sex education despite the abuse she gets, saying, "'I have been called a pornographer, a child abuser, "'every name in the book,' as the saying goes. "'But whenever I am called one of those names, "'I think of that 10-year-old girl. a pornographer, a child abuser, every name in the book, as the saying goes.

But whenever I am called one of those names, I think of that 10 year old girl. I wish we never had to talk with kids about any of these aberrant behaviors, but we have to do so because they already know about them to some extent, and because kids have a right to have the accurate information that can keep them healthy and safe.

They need to know how to get help to make any abusive behavior stop. So, why would anyone be angry at this book unless they wanted to keep kids in vulnerable and powerless situations? For the record, the answer isn't that they are all literally groomers or pedophiles. That pastor, for example, might be fine.

No idea. It's more that they are enabling grooming, which would explain why we have so many stories coming out of religious institutions. The church has, whether or not they meant to, built a culture designed to do exactly the opposite of helping children. And conservatives, often being religious

and supporting traditional family values, are right there with them. Sex education seems to have fallen victim to this really obtuse view of what counts as grooming, specifically when it comes to any explanation of LGBTQ sex. Like there are things in this book children should not be told about. But they explicitly, they say it. They say that straight sex is presented as the norm to make 5% of the population feel abnormal. Listen, sex education is like,

here's how humans reproduce. Sex education is not, here's how to feel real good. That's kink. That's totally different. My goodness. I guess if you don't want kids to have sex, showing them a clip of Tim Pool saying, feel real good in a creepy trucker voice

is an option now." Yeah, Tim, feeling good is kink. Great analysis from a sex haver. Tim here is talking about a book called, "'This Book is Gay," which indeed was in at least one middle school. A scourge across the nation at that at least one middle school.

The book basically covers sex education for LGBTQ kids and talks about things like Grindr and various sex acts. Not how to sign up for and use Grindr when you're a kid, as Tim claims, but acknowledging that it exists, is for people aged 18 and up, and when you're old enough to use it, there are useful practices that can keep you safe from predators and creeps.

It's not actually different from some other modern sex education books, which have understood that dating apps are now something kids will be exposed to in life. And the idea that sex education is just to instruct kids on the literal act of procreation is, it's just a lie. Like we know it's a lie. We've had sex education classes,

which often cover things like STDs and contraceptives and oral sex and consent. The point is to educate kids so they don't stumble blindly into sex or get abused or base their idea of sex on what they see in porn. And it's just like pearl clutching absurdity and possible foolishness and dishonesty that he would associate that with kink. Being gay isn't a kink,

Tim. Kinks are like foot stuff or poop stuff or poop on foot stuff, or perhaps being humiliated publicly by the majority ports Emma Vigeland on your own show and then getting so mad about it that you call her a pedophile. I showed Emma Genderqueer, the book that depicts a graphic, graphic depictions of sex acts. And she said she had no problem with it. Okay. Then I only assume that Occam's Razor. Emma wants children to be in positions to have sex with adults. I don't know what you would call that because I try to be fair and

honest and really understand. And so many of us want to take the position that she doesn't really want to want to hook up with kids. She just is a tribalist who will say anything to defend the left. I just don't think we can do that because that's not the simple answer. If an adult woman, Emma Vigeland, advocates for teaching kids to use Grindr and showing them porn, I can't make any other assumption other than she wants to engage in sexual activity with children. Ah, yes, indeed. Fair and honest. Occam's razor, indubitably. Tim Pool, master of detached logic, has simply reasoned that the woman who publicly humiliated him is a pedophile. Because she supports a book that explains a dating app

for gay men, this straight cis woman wants to have sex with kids? You know, logic. Logic says she's a pedophile. Not because he's mad and doesn't like her, you see, but because Occam's razor indubitably. She had no problem with a sex education book being shown to kids.

The book, Gender Queer is once again, just an educational book for LGBTQ kids. It has some graphic pictures showing sex acts, but so do a lot of these books. Here's one from the freaking 70s. And no, to be fair and honest, neither this nor This Book is Gay instruct kids to have sex with adults.

They're simply educating kids about sex and dating. You can't conclude that by teaching kids about an adult dating app, they are automatically instructing kids to have sex with adults, any more than you can conclude that teaching kids about sex in general is instructing kids to have sex with adults, any more than you can conclude that teaching kids about sex in general is instructing kids to have sex with adults.

Sex generally is likely going to happen no matter what, which is why sex education is trying to get ahead of these subjects to protect and prepare kids. And so fair and honest, Occam's razor and all that, I must conclude that Tim Pool has a problem with educating kids about dating apps or any sex related topic, besides the bare bones instructions of how to procreate,

which we know Occam's razor, fair and honest, would make kids far more vulnerable to things like STDs and grooming. Therefore, Occam's razor, Mr. Skate Park Beanie Man, Tim Pool is in favor of helping groomers take advantage of kids. And also wants kids to get STDs, Occam's razor, either because he's fair and honest, an idiot, or because he himself has a more insidious agenda.

And that's actually the explanation across the board, that these people are either dangerously clueless or actually wanna hurt kids, right? It's really just the two possible things. The first is denial, that some of these people simply don't want to accept the reality of what grooming actually looks like, that it's more likely someone close to the child,

often from a religious institution, and really has nothing to do with LGBTQ people. And for people like that, the idea of books educating kids on the subject is the idea of books educating kids on the subject is the equivalent of taking away their innocence. We hear a lot of parents complaining that we need to let kids be kids when talking about sex education.

But again, sex comes for these kids, no matter if we educate them or not. And that's what these people can't accept. And so in wanting to shelter children, they end up making them even more vulnerable. The second reason is way more malicious and possibly subconscious for at least some of them. And that reason is that these people actually have

no problem with grooming or indoctrinating children, but rather are angry that they aren't grooming and indoctrinating them their way. It explains a lot of the contradictions, why people like Matt Walsh can claim LGBTQ people are pedophiles while supporting child brides and the like. For them, they are completely okay with a child,

specifically a girl, being groomed for sex and exploited, so long as that happens under a so-called traditional hierarchy, specifically a religious hierarchy with men at the top and women serving as baby incubators. So have you been a great woman? There ain't nothing wrong with being a trad wife. Being a trad wife's based.

Holy moly, that is not based. That's plagiarist and targeted ads for Gay Cruises receiver, Benny Johnson, at Turning Point USA's Young Women's Leadership Summit, being one of the many speakers telling all of the young women in the audience that they should aspire to become wives and mothers more than anything.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with being a wife or a mother, obviously. But you combine this with them also rejecting the trans and gay community, and we have indoctrination, don't we? They're pushing a single lifestyle and asking you to uncritically accept it. And they are specifically going after young women to do so,

as are they actively trying to indoctrinate children. Have you heard of PragerU Kids? It's a conservative kids streaming channel that specifically advertises to scared fathers who have panic attacks at the dinner table because their children are questioning history. As you eat the roasted goose, your little sport insists... Hey Dad, did you know America is racist?

Your mind goes numb, your skin turns pale, and your heart aches with fear. Your child is being filled with lies, the babe you once held dear. But in that shocking moment, a man pops into frame. Could it be George Washington, here to save your child's brain? He snatched the screen and changed the thing, the something that is true. It's an app which shows for kids.

They call it PragerU. Notice how that ad depicts the child as a slack-jawed sponge. What does it say that this kids program isn't even advertising to kids, but also seems to actively show contempt for them. Frames them as easily indoctrinated goofs who never ask questions. And do you see left-leaning groups

announcing their own political kids shows like this? It's only on the right. I guess they would justify this by pretending that mainstream education is secret leftist indoctrination so that they can consider this retaliation. But the reality is that there's only one group of people here actively trying to force a specific lifestyle and narrative on kids.

There's only one group of people downplaying and allowing the church's widespread sex abuse of kids. There's only one group of people going to school board meetings and trying to remove books designed to teach kids about sex abuse. There's only one group of people fighting laws that are designed to raise the age of consent and marriage.

There's only one group of people who get angry when a teacher tries to tell kids that people are different and that's okay. And there's literally only one human running a conservative compound skate park like he's trying to recruit kids into the Foot Clan. And it's really fucking weird that those are the same people who are on the attack

when it comes to grooming accusations. Like, how did we allow that to happen? Why do we have to defend the LGBTQ community from a baseless accusation when it's coming from a party that is quite literally enabling grooming themselves. Perhaps we need to stop playing their game and call out their party for what it actually is.

Not because they're quote, people I don't like, but rather that they are literally trying to indoctrinate and groom kids on a systemic level. Boy, I am angry. I think my shoes might've melted actually. Anyway, this has been our episode about grooming brought to you by Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer. The world forever changes on July 21st.

They didn't sponsor this, but it would have been fun if they did. So. Cody's Explodey, the Oppenheimer story, brought to you by Warmbo. Thanks for watching, everybody. Sorry about the topic. Please like and subscribe and do all the YouTube stuff that helps us. We've got a patreon.com slash some more news. You saw an ad for it earlier probably

if you didn't skip it. And we've got merch. You saw an ad for that probably too unless you skipped it. So check those out. We have a podcast called Even More News and this show as a podcast called Some More News is the name of the show.

You can listen to it instead of watching it. Whatever you want, live your life as long as you don't hurt people. And you know, go with God.