For decades, the right has slammed the left for incessantly referring to anyone with whom they disagree as “racists,” “sexists,” “homophobes,” and other false labels. Conservatives rightly pointed out that leftists who engage in this rhetoric are diluting the meaning of those words when they are used willy-nilly to score cheap political points.

But it seems that now, conservatives don’t have as much of a problem with this political tactic as they have in the past, especially when it comes to calling folks on the left “groomers.” This trend began with the controversy over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, which prohibits teachers from instructing students seven years old or under on matters pertaining to sexuality and gender. The legislation also provides more transparency to parents about issues their children might be facing when it comes to their gender identity or sexuality.

The leftist chattering class immediately began lying about the legislation, deceptively referring to it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and pretending it would specifically target members of the LGBTQ community. Of course, the law says nothing about specific types of sexuality, and those supporting the bill don’t want any instruction on these matters with children in this age range, but the left didn’t care.

But now it seems conservative pundits, politicians, and social media influencers have taken to referring to anyone who disagrees with the legislation – or others like it – as “groomers” or those who support pedophilia. Of course, the objective is to link the opposition with the worst of the worst in society. It is the same trick used by the left when they constantly referred to conservatives as “Nazis,” “fascists,” or “literally Hitler.”

In essence, they are downplaying the experience of people who have experienced actual grooming by pedophiles by applying the label liberally to those who happen to disagree with a policy just like the left downplays the Holocaust and Jim Crow by referring to their opposition as “Nazis” or “racists.” Many folks on the left agree that sexual matters should not be discussed with young children in the classroom but oppose the law because they (wrongly) believe the bill will lead to unfair discrimination against LGBTQ students and faculty. They argue that people might abuse the law in a way that is damaging to a marginalized population.

These people are wrong, but they are not groomers, nor do they support pedophilia. But there are too many on the right who are not making this distinction.

However, this does not mean the “groomer” designation is always inappropriate. Indeed, I believe for those who specifically support policies that allow teachers to discuss sexuality and gender with young children while concealing this from parents deserve the label. They might not be actually grooming children so they can abuse them, but they are exposing them to teachings about these matters that are not age-appropriate.

The fact that so many of these individuals want to cut parents out of the equation is telling. Most would agree that if a child is dealing with gender dysphoria or sexual attraction, the parents should know about it. But several school districts have instructed their teachers not to say anything to the parents. Indeed, some have even urged educators to lie about their students. It essentially means they can influence children to accept progressive ideas about transgenderism and other subjects without the input of parents. There is a reason why the percentage of young girls identifying as males has skyrocketed, as detailed in Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage.”

This is a classic grooming technique – the offender will gain the trust of the child and convince them to keep the relationship secret from their parents. Another is desensitizing kids to sexuality by teaching them about concepts for which they are not ready to learn. An example would be Justine Ang Fonte, who was fired from her position at a prestigious New York private school for, among other things, teaching first graders about masturbation. She also hosted a seminar on “pornographic literacy” for high school kids as well.

When educators and administrators are instructing children about sexual matters while actively trying to keep parents out of the process, what else can we call it? Sure, it is not grooming in the traditional sense – these teachers are not trying to have sex with these children nor would they support pedophilia. But they could be molding these kids’ minds to be more amenable to inappropriate ideas on sexuality and gender identity. It could influence them to make decisions they will regret later in life. It could also make them more vulnerable to actual predators seeking to take advantage of them.

To put it simply, those who advocate for instilling progressive ideas in children’s minds without the involvement of parents do not deserve to be defended when they are called groomers. Parents should be given the ultimate say in what their kids learn about these issues. And no, the possibility of child abuse from parents is not a good enough excuse; if a teacher senses that abuse is an issue, states already have mechanisms in place requiring them to report it. The fact is, these people do not believe kids belong to their parents; they believe they should be the property of the state. Therefore, they do not have a leg to stand on when they complain about being called what they are: Groomers.