Talk:LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory/Archive 3

The banner was placed over a month ago (Oct) and there currently seems to be no active discussions addressing any issues with this. The section currently references views from Germany, Russia, UK, and the US. Per WP:WTRMT I believe it is no longer needed at this time. DN (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel as if this article is focussing too much on the 2020s on a small amount of far-rightists. To my knowledge, the conspiracy theory has actually been dying out over time, apart from the recent resurgence in the 2020s. The theory used to be held, to my knowledge, by a large portion of the population back then, but the 2020s resurgence is really just a lot of far-rightists, who are a population minority. I mean take Boys Beware as an example. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"back then" When? Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

1980s and prior, when societal attitudes were much more negative. —Panamitsu (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This article has quite a bit of this information already, in the origins section. I think that the lead really just needs to make clearer that it isn't new, even if it is gaining in popularity. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

". The origins of the "groomer" conspiracy theory can be traced to American singer Anita Bryant and her "Save Our Children" coalition founded in 1977." and "this assertion has existed for multiple decades in the U.S. going back to the times before World War II. At the beginning of the Cold War, the U.S. government sought to remove homosexuals from positions of importance during the Lavender scare.". seems pretty clear to me. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We do discuss its origins (as mentioned above) but the sources support the idea that it gained more prominence in the 2020s - it was only at that point that it became the crux of an entire relatively-major movement, as opposed to just one of numerous strands of opposition to LGBT rights. As the article says, there was a deliberate attempt by right-wing activists like Christopher Rufo to pivot to using it as a primary grievance and talking point in 2021; it had its roots in earlier conspiracies but it didn't start to become become central to the American right until that point. Prior to that most movement-based opposition to LGBT rights, at least in the mainstream, was framed in religious terms rather than "they are baby-eating monsters" terms; the conspiracy theories existed but were usually more on the fringes politically. It's natural for the article to give events around and following that shift more focus, since that's when the topic became more significant politically and attracted more coverage. That said, it's not like we ignore earlier usage - about a fourth of the article is devoted to origins, which are all prior to that. --Aquillion (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, I completely overlooked this! —Panamitsu (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Although I'm sure the term "far-right" is well sourced, the language in the rest of the article (and especially the lead) imply that this is more of a general right-wing conspiracy theory, which could bring confusion to readers. For example, in the first sentence, the article can't seem to agree with itself whether the subject is predominantly far-right or mainstream conservative. At the end of the lead, it is stated that potentially 29% of Americans support the conspiracy theory - and that it is very divided by political party. Assuming that America is demographically 50% right-leaning (exactness is not the intent of this point), then it could be extrapolated that roughly 55-60% of the American right-wing would support or agree with this conspiracy theory, which to readers would fit the definition of mainstream conservative. This is a bit confusing, and readers of the article (including myself) may not understand what the actual demographic of the conspiracy theory is. I don't have any specific x-to-y changes in mind, but I would suggest adjusting the wording to make it clear whether this is far-right or mainstream. The reason. I am writing this is because I myself do not understand what the article is trying to say about it. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The opening suggests the conspiracy theory itself is far right, not necessarily the people who share it. Someone might consider themselves left-wing but hold one or more far-right beliefs, for example. The stats don't really refute anything - all it means is that at least 29% of Americans hold at least one far-right opinion.

In terms of "mainstream", I guess it could mean "mainstream" in the same way Fox News or the Daily Mail are "mainstream" (i.e., widely read/watched). The conspiracy theory has certainly become widespread. Lewisguile (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

MAybe, but unless those people are RS its irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that "mainstream" and "popular" are terms that don't at all in American English correlate with "centrist", "moderate", "rational", and/or "reasonable".

To use a thought experiment, if Donald Trump decided tomorrow after having a bad stomachache that everybody who eats ice cream with nuts should be put into interment camps with the dessert banned, then it would immediately become the standard political position that 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans now suddenly want to exterminate the scourge of that dastardly treat that's actually killing the U.S. from within. The notion would swiftly be "mainstream" and "popular" according to the literal definitions found in dictionaries such as Webster's one. That's that. Of course, the viewpoint would be neither "centrist" nor anything else mentioned above. It would still be post-truth nonsense that 2/3 to 1/2 of Americans oppose strongly. It would also be, in a way that can't be denied, "mainstream" and "popular".

While it's uncomfortable at best that you could, say, lift an Austrian neo-Nazi and put him in New York City, and then he/she/they would immediately go from having relatively unpopular, fringe beliefs to relatively popular, mainstream beliefs, that's the political world that exists. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Remember we are not a wp:forum or wp:soapbox for the airing of wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We're literally talking about dictionary definitions. See here for "mainstream". See here for "popular". Those and related terms don't convey anything other than how a viewpoint is treated in an 'X' way or a 'Y' way by many people. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

But "mainstream" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive. Thus discussing what mainstream means is irrelevant, we go with what RS say, not how we interpret it. If RS say this is far-right so do we, it does not matter how you or I define the term. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that the lead section is too long. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrst201 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Abrilzar24.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrst201 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Abrilzar24.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  The redirect LGBTP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § LGBTP until a consensus is reached. lizthegrey (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead states: "The notion that LGBTQ people, or those supportive of LGBTQ rights, are engaging in child grooming and enabling child sexual abuse is a far-right conspiracy theory and anti-LGBTQ trope."

This may seem petty, but what is the purpose of such a ridiculous claim? LGBTQ people, as well as those "supportive of LGBTQ rights," do engage in child grooming, as does every other group of people. Would it not be more appropriate to say it is a far-right conspiracy theory that they disproportionately engage in child grooming—or that the community as a whole is supportive of it? Swinub★ 17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, as we do not have to caveat this, the far right implies this is the only threat to children, not men, not priests, just TG people. Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote above does not say any of this. It makes a verifiably false and unnecessary claim. Swinub★ 18:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. The statement is based on the far-right trope that all LGBTQ+ people and rights orgs are pedophiles or enabling child sexual abuse. It's an unfounded conspiracy theory meant to slander an entire group of people. The far-right does not distinguish or claim it's a "disproportionate" number, they trope is to label all LGBTQ+ people as child abusers.

It is, in fact, just their way of claiming that educating children on the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals is itself child abuse. In that world, there is no situation where an LGBTQ+ person can be out without "abusing" a child by their mere presence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement says what the statement says, which is false. Yes, far-right people claim that all LGBTQ people are pedophiles, and yes, that is an unfounded conspiracy theory. That is not what I am arguing against. Swinub★ 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Precisely for the reasons you mention, it is obvious that the first sentence is refuting a generalizing claim. "LGBTQ people, or those supportive of LGBTQ rights, are engaging in child grooming and enabling child sexual abuse" is clearly making a statement about LGBTQ people and allies as a group, and that is what the sentence addresses. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The above quote is the opening line. Opening lines never tell the whole story. Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It can do so without making a false claim. Clarifying that the far-right conspiracy theory is that all or disproportionate amounts of them are grooming children or enabling child sexual abuse would correct this. Swinub★ 18:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that that is not what the conspiracy theory is, it is that they are the only threat. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I ask you to re-read my opening post and stay on topic. Nothing you have responded with is addressing the concern. Swinub★ 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Conspiracy theory is that this represents a specific meaningful direct (and exclusive) threat to children in a way nothing else does. It is not just that Some LGBTQ are a threat, or even all. It is that they are the only threat that needs special attention. That is what the issue is, and why if we change the wording we are in fact watering down the criticism of it. And with that I am out of his with a resounding no. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We have responded to your concern. The fact you don't like the answers is not our problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You've not, nor has anyone else. I would expect users on the English Wikipedia to have a better grasp of the language to understand what is wrong with the opening sentence and why it does not reflect the point of the article. This should not be contentious. Swinub★ 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are the sources that such an extreme and unlikely, empirically obviously false conspiracy theory actually currently exists? I had the same problem as Swinub when reading the article.

Avoiding "more likely" or "dispoportionately" makes the article sound like it's putting up an extreme strawman instead of grappling with the idea/prejudice that gay men are more likely than hetero men to molest/groom children. In fact the article helps LBGT haters by giving the distinct impression that actually, there is such a disproportionality, because if there weren't, the article wouldn't so carefully eschew any claim beyond that it's not emprirically true that all gay/trans men are child molesters. 188.97.63.97 (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think that this is a valid concern (the meaning is obvious, especially with the additional details in the rest of the lead) but I do think the first sentence is a bit awkward. Wouldn't it make more sense to reorder it into the more standard The LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory is a far-right conspiracy theory and anti-LGBTQ trope stating that LGBTQ people, and those supportive of LGBTQ rights, are engaging in child grooming and enabling child sexual abuse? I'm not sure "stating" is the right word (it could also be "in which" or "according to which" or something of those lines) but you get the idea. --Aquillion (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alledging? Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alleging is better. This seems like more direct language, although it does use conspiracy theory twice in so many words. But that's not necessarily a major problem. Lewisguile (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence literally clarifies what this means. Adding the caveats misses the point and waters down the actual conspiracy theory. Lewisguile (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it not be more appropriate to say it is a far-right conspiracy theory that they disproportionately engage in child grooming—or that the community as a whole is supportive of it – but that isn't the conspiracy theory. What is being claimed (e.g. by Libs of TikTok) is that transgender people being around children, or a drag queen reading a story, constitutes child grooming. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Swinub here. The current wording could be made more precise. The sources do actually state that the conspiracy is all LGBTQ people, so I can't see why we wouldn't just state that. Comes across a little NPOV otherwise...IMO. Riposte97 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think perhaps this is getting a bit muddled.

When the opening says "LGBTQ people" without qualification, that means LGBTQ people generally—i.e., all of them or most of them.

Swinub is arguing that we should change it to "LGBTQ people disproportionately engage in..." when that isn't what the sources say. "Disproportionately" is the same as saying "some" (or at least "more than average"), which is less than "all". If you see what I mean?

So I think you're actually agreeing for the status quo. (Adding all isn't necessarily a bad idea, although if some sources say "all" and others say "most", it might end up getting removed again anyway. I'd prefer we just leave it as "LGBTQ people".) Lewisguile (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hah sorry that's my bad. 'Do' should be 'don't' in my response. I won't edit my comment now as that would make this doubly confusing! The reason it needs to be stated that we aren't talking about all LGBTQ people is, as Swinub says, that it is just factually incorrect if read at face value. Riposte97 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

But the sources don't say that and they don't qualify it in that way. The sources just refer to accusations about LGBTQ people generally. That's the point. The idea is that they believe the very presence of LGBTQ people is a threat to children—not some, not many, but any LGBTQ people at all. Lewisguile (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As stated more than once, that is the point. It's the claim that all LGBTQ are a threat, all of the time. And not it is not "disproportionately" either, its is tey are the only threat you need to be concerned about. Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the claim has nothing to do with disproportionately. As I noted, a transgender person talking to a child is enough to constitute "grooming" in the eyes of LOTT. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Claim: all dogs are brown.

Rebuttal: wrong, all dogs are black. Riposte97 (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that it doesn't technically say "all" either; it just says "LGBTQ people" (meaning, "in general", "as a group", "as a whole", "as a people"). The whole point is that this is a trope/stereotype, so it's a broad assumption applied to a whole category of people. Therefore, that wording is correct.

Crucially, it also reflects the consensus among RSes, who don't quantify the statement in that way either—presumably because doing so would be to pretend that this is a rational opinion based on logic, rather than a stereotype based on prejudice.

Since you don't seem to be engaging with the substance of our explanations and keep repeating the same point in response, there's a risk this is going to descend into WP:BLUDGEONING. So we should just agree that there's no consensus to change this wording and move on.Lewisguile (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Woah, please AGF. I've made three responses. It's not appropriate to make a suggestion of bludgeoning to shut down a thread. Riposte97 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say you were bludgeoning. But the arguments against the opening sentence (and I don't just mean yours) are substantially the same and seem to ignore the points others have raised, such as:

1. This is how RSes describe the situation and no one has provided RSes showing the contrary.

2. A stereotype is a sweeping statement by its nature. That's the point.

3. We don't need to refute the stereotype; we just need to describe what it is and how RSes deal with it.

4. The second sentence already deals with disproportionality.

If you want to respond to these points, then I'm happy to keep discussing the issue. Lewisguile (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

can tell there has been no discussion about moving this page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article content and the bulk of the references at the bottom for the article, they use the term LGBTQ, so I think this qualifies as an uncontroversial bold move by the mover (@Lewisguile) that is in line with our policies. They cited consub in the move, butasI said, looking at the article content and refs, this also seems to be supported by them. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

But they claimed the had been a discussion in their edit summary. "As per RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ", there is no such RM. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there was here: Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024 - it was the trigger to move the main article to LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not this article. 14:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

No, which is why the mover cited WP:CONSUB with the parent article. Not every single page move has to be subject to an individual RM, if it appears to be supported in line with our policies, then editors can WP:BOLDly move articles. As I mentioned above already, this appears to be one such case sinc almost all the refs used in this article use the term LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

IS it? as this seems to be a conspiracy about solely TG people, not the queer community (in general). It is related yes (hence why we can make it part of the same project and have see also pages. But is it the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear path forward for those that think this move is unsupported by policy. Consult WP:CONSUB's exception: "where a specific subtopic has its own common name, which is therefore likely to be the more natural or recognizable title". If a review of sources about this subject shows that "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME, we should move it back. I don't think that's the case, but anyone is free to look into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Lets make this clear, I am not necessarily against the move, but I would have liked to see the arguments (see my comment above about this being about TG (not gay) people). Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You should re-read the article. It's about way more than trans people. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to reply to you directly, @Slatersteven, Raladic hit the nail on the head. There was an RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ, and based on WP:CONSUB, I WP: BOLDly moved this one. I apologise if this has created any confusion.

@Firefangledfeathers' suggestion seems a good one to see if there's a case for an exception? Lewisguile (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's mostly TQ+ I'd say. LGB separatists (aka Drop the T crowd, some even say #DroptheTQ+) often try to distance gay from queerness (see lesbian not queer and Gays Against Groomers). --MikutoH ^talk! 00:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a risk of going into WP:NOTFORUM territory, but there is question as to how genuine those organisations are. Certainly they are fringe organisations and not repreentative of a significant proportion of LGB people. The UK equivalent the LGB Alliance is notorious for rarely campaigning on Lesbian and Gay issues and mainly being an anti trans group with LBG issues being a pretext. Membership figures have shown only a minority in that organisation are LGB. While it is true some Gay and Lesbian people feel they don't want to associate, it's not a significant number, compared to cis straight people wanting to use it as a wedge to attack LGBTQ in smaller, more managable groups.

I think that these groups are not significant. Rankersbo (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what Slatersteven was asking for, but this talk page is about the scope of this article and I defended the inclusion of other letters in the title. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK, sorry, thanks for the clarification. In which case yeah such organisations are likely to balk at the queer label as much as they rail against trans people and allies.Rankersbo (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)