We already know that the left hates it when we refer to those in the LGBTQ (and sometimes Y) cult who target children as “groomers,” even though the term fits. And now we can include Wikipedia among those outlets that have a problem with the truth.
Professor and author James Lindsay pointed out Wikipedia’s entry for “LGBT grooming conspiracy theory” on Twitter on Thursday, and it’s a doozy.
This is an absolutely insane Wikipedia entry featuring @libsoftiktok, @realchrisrufo, and I.https://t.co/3VmRvqGY0R pic.twitter.com/H21UOlFBF6
— James Lindsay, Wokest debater at Oxford (@ConceptualJames) January 12, 2023
Let’s start with the intro to see how this entry is loaded with an anti-conservative agenda. (Note: I’ve removed the footnotes and links in order to make reading it here less clunky. If you want to see all the footnotes and links, check the original entry out for yourself. I’ve linked it above.)
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 systematically using LGBT-positive education and campaigns for LGBT rights as a method of child grooming. These accusations and conspiracy theories are characterized by experts as baseless, homophobic and transphobic, and as examples of moral panic.
See? No agenda here, huh? Especially when you consider that the entry quotes an article from the terribly unbiased and agenda-free Vox that contends that conservatives call groomers “groomers” in order to “imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers.”
The irony is delicious. The authors of the Wikipedia entry and Vox are trying to say that conservatives paint all gay people with a broad brush in their efforts to paint all conservatives with a broad brush.
One of the funniest parts of the entry is the historical basis for this “conspiracy theory.” The authors of the entry start out detailing Anita Bryant’s anti-gay crusades in the ’70s — then they jump to 2020 and the earliest uses of the phrase “OK, groomer.” It’s a level of scholarship that’s second to none.
Recommended: OK, Groomer: Former Twitter Exec Yoel Roth Wondered if High School Students Could Consent to Sex With Teachers
The entry goes on to call out Lindsay, Christopher Rufo, and Libs of TikTok for “smearing” organizations that target kids for the LGBTQetc. cult before detailing how the “conspiracy theory then moved into the American conservative mainstream, with a number of high-profile cases of its use in Spring 2022, including its use by members of the Republican Party.”
At this point, the entry goes into the conservative rhetoric surrounding Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation. On first reference, the entry calls it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill without quotation marks or any acknowledgment that “Don’t Say Gay” was the derisive name the Democrats gave to the legislation. The authors call out Republicans who suggested that Disney was “purposefully influencing small children with its political and sexual agenda.”
The entry quotes an Associated Press article that refers to the use of terms like “groomer” and “grooming” as “another volley in the [United States’] ongoing culture wars, during which conservative lawmakers have also opposed the teaching of ‘critical race theory’ and proposed bills requiring schools to post all course materials online so parents can review them.” It also cites a survey from the left-wing Data for Progress that claims that 45% of conservatives agree that “teachers and parents that support discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity in school are groomers.”
Of course, we know that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced platform, and any user can write almost anything he or she wants on the platform. We’ve also seen how Wikipedia can be a fount of misinformation and even disinformation, and this entry is a prime example. Say what you want about conservatives who campaign against groomers — I say, “more power to them!” — but calling them conspiracy theorists is flat-out wrong.
Wikipedia should fix this, but we know they won’t.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member