This is beautiful and good to understand, but we really need to understand that the policy makers have made protecting our boundaries a civil rights violation. In CA, the woke Capitol of America, if a woman even discusses not wanting to share a locker room with men on the job this can be considered "creating a hostile environment." That person can be written up and or fired. If I call for a nurse to come help my elderly mother with intimate care and a transgender" women" shows up, rejecting this person could be considered, "discrimination" and "harassment." Gavin Newsolini and like, have given the power to men and made women's bodily autonomy a crime. Except of course for abortion. How do we get this message to the policy makers?
Couldn’t agree more. Just think of the master manipulator pimp child abuser Susan who groomed a generation of girls who before were least likely to get into porn, go on grinder to have risky sex with rando men, and get plastic surgery. Tomboys of the past didn’t get pushed into any of this before Susan popularized this as her claim to fame and she is so effective as a groomer that GCs will cheer her on while she’s trooning and grooming children right in front of them. Please cover this and how the Aiden’s with their erect flesh straps (cuz the pump requires it hard for like 8 weeks ) are now normalizing the hard bulge for men like Dylan who do use trans as a weapon to basically flash their penises around in public.
Using the term “grooming” in this context collapses important distinctions that safeguarding practice relies on—distinctions between interpersonal abuse and structural effects, intentional exploitation versus unintended consequences, targeted victims versus ambient exposure, and power-based manipulation versus policy- or norm-driven change.
In safeguarding contexts, grooming has a specific meaning: a crime-preparatory, interpersonal process in which an identifiable individual intentionally cultivates trust and erodes boundaries in a specific target in order to enable later sexual or exploitative access. Applying the term to diffuse, non-intentional processes of habituation or desensitization does not strengthen the argument; it shifts the category while borrowing the moral force of abuse language, thereby diluting a term that exists to identify and interrupt real patterns of exploitation.
What is actually at issue here is better understood as unintended risk externalization and signal dilution. Certain policy choices or normative shifts may, without malicious intent, redistribute risk onto women and girls by weakening the clarity of sex-based boundaries and degrading the reliability of threat-detection cues in intimate spaces. Safeguarding frameworks already have language for this: risk should not be shifted onto vulnerable populations without necessity or consent, and protective rules need to err on the side of clarity rather than ambiguity. Framing the concern in these terms preserves moral seriousness, aligns with established safeguarding and policy principles, and avoids redefining grooming in ways that ultimately undermine its protective function.
What you're saying is true. However, the problem is that while terms such as "unintended risk externalization and signal dilution" may be more accurate, their meaning is not easily accessible to your average person. Amy's videos are aimed at a wide audience, so I think she is better off using terms that are familiar and easily understood, such as "grooming."
This is beautiful and good to understand, but we really need to understand that the policy makers have made protecting our boundaries a civil rights violation. In CA, the woke Capitol of America, if a woman even discusses not wanting to share a locker room with men on the job this can be considered "creating a hostile environment." That person can be written up and or fired. If I call for a nurse to come help my elderly mother with intimate care and a transgender" women" shows up, rejecting this person could be considered, "discrimination" and "harassment." Gavin Newsolini and like, have given the power to men and made women's bodily autonomy a crime. Except of course for abortion. How do we get this message to the policy makers?
Absolutely agree, Amy. Thank you for laying it out so clearly.
Couldn’t agree more. Just think of the master manipulator pimp child abuser Susan who groomed a generation of girls who before were least likely to get into porn, go on grinder to have risky sex with rando men, and get plastic surgery. Tomboys of the past didn’t get pushed into any of this before Susan popularized this as her claim to fame and she is so effective as a groomer that GCs will cheer her on while she’s trooning and grooming children right in front of them. Please cover this and how the Aiden’s with their erect flesh straps (cuz the pump requires it hard for like 8 weeks ) are now normalizing the hard bulge for men like Dylan who do use trans as a weapon to basically flash their penises around in public.
Using the term “grooming” in this context collapses important distinctions that safeguarding practice relies on—distinctions between interpersonal abuse and structural effects, intentional exploitation versus unintended consequences, targeted victims versus ambient exposure, and power-based manipulation versus policy- or norm-driven change.
In safeguarding contexts, grooming has a specific meaning: a crime-preparatory, interpersonal process in which an identifiable individual intentionally cultivates trust and erodes boundaries in a specific target in order to enable later sexual or exploitative access. Applying the term to diffuse, non-intentional processes of habituation or desensitization does not strengthen the argument; it shifts the category while borrowing the moral force of abuse language, thereby diluting a term that exists to identify and interrupt real patterns of exploitation.
What is actually at issue here is better understood as unintended risk externalization and signal dilution. Certain policy choices or normative shifts may, without malicious intent, redistribute risk onto women and girls by weakening the clarity of sex-based boundaries and degrading the reliability of threat-detection cues in intimate spaces. Safeguarding frameworks already have language for this: risk should not be shifted onto vulnerable populations without necessity or consent, and protective rules need to err on the side of clarity rather than ambiguity. Framing the concern in these terms preserves moral seriousness, aligns with established safeguarding and policy principles, and avoids redefining grooming in ways that ultimately undermine its protective function.
What you're saying is true. However, the problem is that while terms such as "unintended risk externalization and signal dilution" may be more accurate, their meaning is not easily accessible to your average person. Amy's videos are aimed at a wide audience, so I think she is better off using terms that are familiar and easily understood, such as "grooming."
agreed
“Without malicious intent” would be difficult to prove, don't you think?
Thanks, Amy.
Interesting piece and have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/im-laughing-at-clouds
Dusty
100%