Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Questionable Unsourced Claim
The article states "the belief that LGBT individuals are more likely to molest children or otherwise abuse minors than others has no basis in fact." I don't understand this claim. My understanding is that there is substantial factual basis that the percent of man-on-boy child molestation when compared to all child molestation perpetrated by males is substantially higher (more than twice) than the rate of homosexuality among males in the general population. Would that not constitute a factual basis that a given homosexual man is statistically less unlikely than a given heterosexual man to have molested a child? Am I incorrect that the proportion of child molesters who identify as homosexual is greater than the percentage of the general population that identify as homosexual? What am I missing here? If the "information" I have presented is correct (and I welcome someone to please correct me if I'm wrong), wouldn't LBT (not G) people have to have a much lower rate of perpetrating child molestation than the average person in order for the positive deviation from the mean of the G to be counter-acted enough to make the statement in the article true?

What am I missing here? I know that some scientists believe that the majority of men who molest boys are heterosexual despite the intuitive conclusion, but my understanding is that that opinion is disagreed with by the majority of academia. If I'm correct, the unsourced claim in the article should be removed. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Scientific research has shown that LGBT people do not molest children at higher rates than people who are not LGBT.    –– Formal Dude   (talk)  07:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing your sources may be a bit dated, but feel free to share them. DN (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also what about man on girl, or does that not count? Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What am I missing here?
 * Mostly that you're conflating various statistics, based on your own assumptions. We call that synthesis, and cannot use it as the basis of writing a Wikipedia article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Would that not constitute a factual basis that a given homosexual man is statistically less unlikely than a given heterosexual man to have molested a child?" do you mean male child? Your argument isn't internally consistent, you bounce around between "man-on-boy" and "child" without apparent logic. Note that the majority of child molestation victims are female, not male. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am questioning your premise. That a heterosexual male is more likely to molest a child than a homosexual male. This is simply untrue it's just the opposite. However you stated that a homosexual man is less likely to molest a child than a heterosexual. And implied that you have proof of this. Two problems you don't have a citation showing this proof I therefore must reasonably conclude that does not exist. The site is that I did not specifically say homosexual men I sent homosexuals that's men and women and recruiting the young is a common practice. 2601:204:EA7F:61F0:75A9:3489:C4E:5904 (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Propose removal of "world wide view" banner over History section
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)

Is this article focussing to much on the present?
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)

Vaguely self-contradictory language
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)

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