Sexual Assault

Conservatives Wrongly Portrayed the Loudoun County Sexual Assault as a Transgender Bathroom Issue

The perpetrator did not target a random student, and he did not choose the girls bathroom because of his gender identity.

|

In June, a male student in a skirt reportedly assaulted a female classmate in a public school bathroom in Loudoun County, Virginia. It was a story that appeared to confirm the conservative media's worst fears about how predatory men could theoretically take advantage of accommodations for transgender people in order to harm young girls, and it touched off a wave of protests—with the victim's father, Scott Smith, at the center of them.

But it was substantially misreported in order to fit a conservative social agenda. Anyone on the right who makes a habit of complaining—often justifiably—about the mainstream media gullibly succumbing to viral stories that fit their priors ought to denounce this as well.

Smith, the father, was arrested for loudly protesting at a school board meeting on June 22. Cops bloodied him, placed him in handcuffs, and charged him with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. When it later emerged that Smith was angry with district officials because he thought they weren't doing anything about his daughter's rape, he became a conservative folk hero, and was interviewed repeatedly by right-leaning media. The Daily Wire led the charge, seizing on an opportunity to embarrass both the mainstream media and the federal government for portraying hostile parents as akin to "domestic terrorists."

The Daily Wire's interview with Smith portrayed the idea that the daughter's assailant was "gender fluid" as central to the story. The implicit idea is that the perpetrator wore a skirt in order to gain access to the women's bathroom at Stone Bridge High School and carry out the attack. Over the summer, Loudoun County approved a new policy making it easier for transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice, and thus a connection was established between this policy and what happened to Smith's daughter.

That policy wasn't actually implemented until August, it turns out. But even if the school had begun enforcing it before that, there's no reason to think the assailant's actions had anything to do with accommodations for trans people.

That's because the assailant and the victim had a relationship, and had met in the bathroom for sexual activity previously. According to The Washington Post:

On Monday, the teenage victim of the Stone Bridge assault testified that she and her attacker had agreed to meet up in a school bathroom around 12:15 p.m. on the date of the assault. She testified they had not explicitly discussed having sex beforehand.

The teen testified she arrived first and chose to go in the girls' bathroom because the two had always met in the girls' bathrooms in the past. When the boy arrived, the teen testified, he came into the handicapped stall she was in and locked the door.

The two talked, before the girl testified the boy began grabbing her neck and other parts of her body in a sexual manner. She testified she told her attacker she was not in the mood for sex, but he forced himself on her.

"He flipped me over," the girl testified. "I was on the ground and couldn't move and he sexually assaulted me."

NEXT: Joe Biden Will Let World Leaders Know He Wants To Spend a Lot of Money on Climate Change

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So was he gender fluid or not?
    If he was, regardless of the impending policy not yet being in place, allowing the behavior made it acceptable for him to be there. Regardless of whether the girl wanted him there. She’s not an adult. And the Loudoun County public schools failed her that day significantly. Had they met behind a 7-11, he still could have committed sexual assault. Snd the school would not be responsible. But it happened in their girl’s bathroom. And he isn’t a girl.

    1. Sure, it's not completely irrelevant. But it's not like it's hard to sneak into the wrong bathroom if you really want to, cross dressing or not. I'm pretty sure meeting in the toilet to have sex is against school rules too.

      1. So because a precaution is imperfect it is irrelevant? The detection method was done away with so no biggie, rapes happen, moving on.

        1. In this specific case it may be. That's all I'm saying. To jump to a conclusion because of a characteristic of one of the people involved is not a good thing.
          It might have been enabled by the "trans rights" stuff. Or it might have been just an old fashioned sexual assault.
          I don't doubt that the trans issue was significant to how the school chose to react.

          1. It's an old fashioned sexual assault facilitated by deference to trans people.

            1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FRL And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

              Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP1

              1. Do you shave your pubes before your webcam show, or flash the bush?

          2. It was not the “trans person suddenly turns into rapist by being admitted to wrong restroom” case that some people are imagining (and some people are imagining that everyone on the other side is imagining), but nor is it unrelated to the trans issue.

            Presumably if this sociopath had been barred from the girls’ room, he would have found his victim somewhere else.

            The point is that Loudoun County covered up the rape — to maintain the fiction that there WAS no issue, and also partly just CYA — and because of that cover-up, another rape was committed.

          3. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GHl simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

            Try now............... VISIT HERE

        2. Not wanting your daughter raped is white privilege.

      2. We talked about this in the Welch article on Friday, and Soave is being myopic here.

        1) TG Activists have long insisted that there is nothing to fear from a TG girl using the girl's bathroom because that isn't really a boy in the bathroom, it is a girl, and she isn't going to be ogling or threatening the other girls. This incident puts paid to that narrative. It is a TG kid, who *would* be allowed to use girls' locker rooms and bathrooms, and TG Activists don't get to scream "Bigot!!!" to parents who have a problem with that.

        2) Regardless of whether there was a policy at the time or not, it is a fact that this kid DID rape a girl in a bathroom, and later assaulted another girl. And it is a fact that he would have had an easier time under a TG policy.

        The idea that Conservatives are "misrepresenting" this issue is yet another "Republicans Seized" distraction. Soave- who never met a liberal narrative that he didn't prefer over a conservative one- is happy to carry water in making a distinction without a difference.

        Get ready- the next narrative that is being sent up the chain is that Loudoun schools hid, and lied about this situation because Betty Ds Voss rescinded Title IX protections under Trump. I wait for Rico to take that one up next.

        1. And what's bigger to me is that, at this school board meeting, when there's some discussion of transgender bathroom policy, the superintendent pretended this incident never occurred.

          https://wjla.com/features/i-team/loudoun-county-public-schools-superintendent-scott-ziegler-sexual-assaults-bathroom

          He told parents at a school board meeting he had no evidence that any sexual assault occurred. E-mail records confirm that he did know, and he told this directly to the father of the girl assaulted. And he lied because this is extremely inconvenient factual information for the policy the school board was planning to adopt.

        2. > it is a girl, and she isn't going to be ogling or threatening the other girls.

          If our goal is to stop girls from being ogled and threatened, then we need to ban all public restrooms. Even if only cisgender girls were allowed in restrooms, girls would still get ogled and threatened. Even if only straight girls were allowed in public restrooms, they would still occasionally ogle other girls in order to body shame them, or otherwise make them feel bad.

          I think your issue is that you think male humans are inherently more sexually dangerous, violent, and predatory than female humans, and that pro-trans activists were arguing that trans girls are more like females humans than male ones (i.e. nonviolent nonpredatory). Because of this, you think the existence of a violent transperson disproves their narrative. The problem is that that was never their narrative. Their narrative was that trans girls are no more dangerous than cis girls. There are some dangerous trans girls, the same way there are dangerous, violent, predatory cis girls. Letting a trans girl into a girl's restroom will not put the other girls in any more danger than letting additional cis girls into the restroom would.

          You need to get it out of your head that females are all peaceful and non threatening, and males are all violent and dangerous. And even if you refuse to do that, you need to not assume the people you are debating agree with you about that. Otherwise you will never understand them.

          >This incident puts paid to that narrative.

          I don't see how it does. It was someone meeting a girl in a bathroom for sex and attacking her when she decided not to go through with it. It wasn't someone walking into a bathroom and ogling random girls who happened to be in there.

          I think this incident actually puts paid to conservative fears of TG kids. If they were actually a serious danger, conservatives would have lots of actual examples of bad behavior to choose from. They wouldn't have to warp this case to fit their narrative.

          >And it is a fact that he would have had an easier time under a TG policy.

          This is simply false. Boys and girls have been meeting in school bathrooms for decades. They just break the rules, and it's hard to catch. The TG rule wasn't even in force yet, and they still met each other.

          1. "You need to get it out of your head that females are all peaceful and non threatening, and males are all violent and dangerous."

            That is not at all my argument, so *you* need to get that strawman out of your head.

            "I think this incident actually puts paid to conservative fears of TG kids. If they were actually a serious danger, conservatives would have lots of actual examples of bad behavior to choose from."

            Right, sure. *shrug*

            There is a reason why the Loudoun county schools tried to sweep this under the rug, and it wasn't because they thought it proved Conservatives wrong. You know that. I know that. And everyone reading your craven fallacies knows that.

            "This is simply false. Boys and girls have been meeting in school bathrooms for decades. They just break the rules, and it's hard to catch. The TG rule wasn't even in force yet, and they still met each other."

            No it is not simply false. 10 years ago, a boy caught in a girl's bathroom was a suspend-able, if not expellable offense. I have seen it happen. Today, if that boy puts on a dress he faces no penalty. It is easier for boys with sexual appetites for girls to get into a bathroom alone with girls. Because of this policy. And that is why the school board denied that this incident happened. Because they knew that their policy would have made it easier for this TG kid to hang out in restrooms and predate on girls.

            1. >There is a reason why the Loudoun county schools tried to sweep this under the rug, and it wasn't because they thought it proved Conservatives wrong. You know that. I know that. And everyone reading your craven fallacies knows that.

              If schools and other institutions didn't have a history of sweeping any and all sexual abuse scandals under the rug, regardless of the gender of the perpetrators, you might have a point. But they do, so it doesn't really prove anything. Large organizations hate scandal and try to avoid it. It isn't a part of a larger agenda.

              >That is not at all my argument, so *you* need to get that strawman out of your head.

              Your argument doesn't make any sense unless you implicitly assume something like that strawman, though. How does one student attacking another student prove anything about a large demographic group that that student belongs to, unless you were already making a bunch of strawman generalizations about that group?

              >No it is not simply false. 10 years ago, a boy caught in a girl's bathroom was a suspend-able, if not expellable offense.

              That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Students do all sorts of expellable things and then don't get expelled because they don't get caught, or because the administration wants to cover up a scandal. Scenarios where students snuck off somewhere for clandestine intimate relations weren't exactly common, but were far from unheard of. The only reason these ones got caught was because the girl changed her mind and was attacked.

              >Today, if that boy puts on a dress he faces no penalty.

              Putting on a dress will net any boy a colossal penalty in most parts of the country. Trans girls are among the most brutally bullied individuals in existence today. Do you seriously think there is anyone willing to endure that for a tiny chance of getting to watch some girl take a dump? People do not make huge, radical changes to their entire lifestyle like that for a tiny chance of getting to peek at girls.

              1. You make the assumption that trans people are stable and rational. Reality shows that to be untrue.

                An example is right here in Pittsburgh we have a tyranny, non binary, piece of shit activist name nique craft who the local news fawned over early in blm. Now this piece of trash is Facing multiple felony charges for assault and attempted arson during the fentanyl floyd riots, including blocking the door of a downtown restaurant so the patrons couldn't exit, sealing the door with duct tape, and then trying to light the building on fire. And another separate incident where this pig (proper pronoun) stole some elderly woman's beer from an outdoor dining table, drank it, then smashed it near them while flinging other peoples food on the floor.

                https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/09/25/Pittsburgh-protest-941-saloon-demonstrators-charged-go-to-trial-nique-craft-christian-carter-dena-stanley/stories/202009250148

                "Craft faces two felony charges, riot and terroristic threats, and a misdemeanor harassment charge.... The incident occurred months before another incident on Sept. 5 at Sienna Mercato, Downtown, in which protesters were accused of smashing a patron’s glass and drinking a patron’s beer. Craft and Mr. Rulli were also charged in that protest."

                https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2020/09/black-lives-matter-protesters-accused-of-harassing-diners-at-pa-restaurants-face-charges.html

                " Craft, known as Nique, was charged with theft by unlawful taking and disorderly conduct after admitting to chugging an elderly couple’s beer."

                1. Or how about Pennsylvanias former tyranny health secretary, now bidens assistant secretary of health.

                  He and Tom Wolfe were responsible for the policy of sending elderly covid patients back into nursing homes which caused massive loss of life, just like cuomo, Whitmer, and Murphey. But it gets better... While this deranged tranny authoritarian was telling us all how safe Pennsylvania nursing homes were as thousands of patients were dieing due to her policy's... He was simultaneously pulling his mother out of her nursing home and telling his relatives to do the same.

                2. >You make the assumption that trans people are stable and rational. Reality shows that to be untrue.

                  The overwhelming majority of trans people are stable and rational. There are some who are not, but that is not because being trans makes you unstable, it is because any decent sized group of people contains a small number of impulsive and unstable individuals.

                  I'm sure you can find a list of trans people who have committed crimes, but you can also find a long list of cis people who have. So that proves nothing other than thT being trans does not decrease the odds someone will commit crimes.

                  However, most crimes, including the ones you linked to, are impulsive, undisciplined acts. My entire point is that no one is disciplined enough to undergo all the effort of transitioning purely to make peeping in the bathroom slightly easier. So showing instances of impulsive crimes committed by trans people isn't exactly disproving my point.

                  1. The overwhelming majority of trans people are stable and rational.

                    To be 'trans' is to BE unstable and irrational.

                    You believe that even though biological sex and gender are social constructs, somehow society could reach into the aether before you were born and cause you to be born into a body of the incorrect sex/gender.

                    This is an irrational belief and highlights a mass of concurrent mental instabilities.

                    And that's just the first step on the 'trans' path.

                  2. The overwhelming majority of people who believe they are the queen of England are stable and rational too.

            2. I'm sorry, timeout. "Predate"? Really?

              The verb is "prey".

      3. Yes, it is pretty damn hard to sneak into the wrong bathroom in a school without anyone noticing. Have you actually attended a public school? There are multiple people entering and exiting constantly, especially in between classes.

        1. I don't know about that. This was likely during class, getting passes or whatever and sneaking out, given that there was time for an assault to happen uninterrupted. And nobody's standing out there watching the traffic of who's going to bathrooms during classes.

          There is a bit of security theater in that school hallways are pretty covered in security cameras, so if students think someone is watching, they'll be discouraged from walking into the bathroom. But nobody is actively watching those feeds, so if students are aware of that, they can sneak into whatever bathroom.

          That said, even boys sneaking into the bathroom would have to worry about a girl being in there already and then screaming at them and telling them to get out. If a boy wearing a skirt and self-identifying as gender-fluid, the girl can't play the victim card from his mere presence. And any pervert who wants to sneak into the bathroom has an affirmative defense if a girl tries to call him out for being a pervert.

    2. He was.
      The WaPo is being deliberately dishonest, and maybe for the first time ever "misgendering" (such a stupid word) a person with he/him when the boy claimed they/them. It's no secret that the WaPo is deliberately lying about the situation, and I'm pretty Robby knows that.

      This is one of the articles he writes to keep the woke from burning a cross on his lawn. It's a "both sides" effort.

      1. Plus he really liked the kid's skirt.

      2. Also odd robby tries to say they didn't end up in the girls room because the guy is trans, but because they ALWAYS went there.

        Well why did they choose the girls room in the first place? Was it because he wanted to go there? Too dumb to ask that question?

    3. Yup. And regardless of his identity, can the incident help inform parents about the wisdom of allowing boys who self-id as girls/nb/genderfluid etc. into the girls' restroom?

      Seems like the Daily Wire reporting is largely correct, and some people are mad because the fact didn't fit their own assumptions.

      1. I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the full Daily Wire article. The four paragraphs of it I have read, however, are completely spot on. The headline includes the allegations of the father that the schoolboard was trying to cover up the assault, which is reasonable for him to conclude when the Superintendant lied about his evidence. They reported that this was the poster-child for the NASB letter to the White House about "Threats of violence" against schoolboards.

        The burden is on Robby to point out what they got wrong. The only point he makes is that the boy and girl had a previously relationship and had had sex in the bathroom before. That's not exactly a slam-dunk "gotcha" on the conservative media's reporting. It also really doesn't disprove concerns about how transgendered bathroom policies could potentially be exploited.

        1. At most news sites, you can defeat the pay wall by downloading and then deleting the entire header code.

          1. The Braves of Atlanta have defeated the Astros of Texas.

            Yeah sure. I demand a recount. We all know about corruption in Georgia. The team name is racist democratic socialists to begin with. The games were stolen.

    4. Court documents say he was wearing a skirt, and in the girls' bathroom.

      1. Yet Loudoun County says this is not a violation of their penal code.

          1. Guess the legal staff that reviews their policies are pro boner.

            1. Their penal code wasn't stiff enough!

            2. It was reviewed by Hugh G. Rection, esq. He takes umbrage, sir.

    5. No mother would throw her son under the bus, the fix is in, the liberals must have told her that they would throw the book at her son unless she states publicly that he did not identify with trans gender.

    6. It's yet another argument for what I have argued for previously: single-stall unisex restrooms. Not only are they easier to clean and maintain and preserve privacy and dignity for all, but per this case, single-stall unisex restrooms couldn't easily serve as a vector for crime without getting noticed.

      I guess you could say that single-stall unisex restrooms would leave predators shit outta luck.

  2. No Robbie. They said that when bathrooms are not identifiable to sex, it allows predators access. Just like rapes now occurring in women's prisons.

    But even if the school had begun enforcing it before that, there's no reason to think the assailant's actions had anything to do with accommodations for trans people.

    So your entire article is an unfounded assumption?

    The attacker was convicted of what certainly sounds like vicious and violent behavior. But he did not target a random student

    Holy fuck Robbie. Students just don't rape random strangers. They often try to groom and convince and lash out when denied. What the actual fuck?

    This is a terrible rationalization from Robbie.

    1. Next up, Robbie defends Canada forcing women to give that sick fuck trannie Brazilian waxes around his junk to get off. Threatening to sue them if they didn't.

      Hint Robbie. Predators will abuse whatever leeway you give them.

      1. Maybe Robby is Buttplug.

        1. No, shriek is a greasy-haired hicklib from Georgia. Robby has too much dignity to let his glorious mane degrade to that state of filth.

        2. Robby is alright. He just gets scared because his neck is really out there, and his peers in the industry are vicious fucking madmen.

          Buttplug on the other hand is a pervert fifty-center hired by auxiliaries of the real world equivalent of Auric Goldfinger.

          1. Yeah, Robby's "to be sure"s are tedious, but he's one of the few journalists these days willing to dig in to stories, rather than just accept the knee-jerk line Operation Mockingbird line that gets disseminated. At least you can trust, for the most part, that he's giving a good-faith effort in his takes.

            The issue with this article specifically is that he's drilling down a little too much and missing the forest for the trees.

            1. And missing the Superintendant's disgusting lie. How sadistic do you have to be to stand in front of the father of the daughter who was assaulted and claim there's never been any evidence of assault?

        3. May I humbly offer a suggestion to improve your comment? Add an "a", as in "Robby is a buttplug."

      2. You mean that (literal) lolcow Jonathan Yaniv, who seems to have a thing for trying to organize pool parties with little kids?

    2. Conservatives pounce on sodomy rape story.

    3. I don't know. Sounds like teenage bullshit that crossed a line to me. It isn't obvious that the gender shit had anything to do with it. It's not as if sneaking into the wrong bathroom for a potential sexual meetup is something that never happened before.

      1. The gender shit did have a lot to do with it and the WaPo is outright lying about the boys "identity".

        1. I'm talking about the assault itself. I don't doubt that the school's reaction and the discussion around it has a lot to do with trans stuff.

          1. If he hadn't done it again to another girl shortly after, that take would make sense. It sounds like there's some murkiness around this one, but what are the chances of him being taken out of context twice in a couple weeks.

            1. Yea he was accused in may and then again in October.

              Whats also not talked about is, at this age there's a very good chance this kid has gender dysphoria and is hyper sexualized because of it. Very good chance this kid has mental issues causing this behavior and he's not really trans, he's just very unstable and confused.

      2. Except the kid did it a second time within weeks at a new school.

        1. And those are also facts really inconvenient for the narrative as well.

      3. With this dismissive attitude there is not a single rule or law you cannot just discard. Rape is not just typical teen shit and you're advocating an abdication of all responsibility for the adults that were in charge there.

        1. No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm not advocating anything with my original comment. The "typical teenage shit" is the meeting up in the bathroom for whatever. Rape is rape and the school should probably be liable for not reporting it to the police. Schools have no business deciding how such matters should be handled.

    4. Maybe if school was less like prison.

  3. Totally had nothing to do with the school's treatment of the rapist. Uh-huh. Because a male student sodomizing a female student in the girl's bathroom would also have been covered up by the school.

    This is really disappointing coming from you, Soave. You were about the only writer left at this magazine whose writing was worth reading, when it came to educational issues, and you turn around and write this.

    1. But they had a prior relationship so all good.

      1. That revelation certainly changed the framing for me a bit when I found out a couple weeks ago. However, there is enough information to substantiate that the boy is a repeat sexual predator.
        Soave is really trying to split hairs on his take and it is extremely dishonest. The tg bathroom policies were being phased in in Loudon last year. The same policies were officially imposed upon the whole state by Governor Northam's order over the summer. Those policies certainly pave the way for abuse like this. Let's pretend the boy isn't claiming tg status. The obvious obfuscation of referring to him as a "boy in a skirt" is pure deflection and defense for tg activists. Him wearing a skirt is enough under these policies to give him access under "gender non-conforming" status.
        On top of that, the school board blatantly lied about there being any sexual assaults in school bathrooms despite it being proven that they knew about this case and tried covering it up and protecting the assailant.
        I live 2 counties away from Loudon, so fb and groups I'm in relay a lot of information about county proceedings. I've watched their school board meetings live. Soave lives even closer and should have access to the information that contradicts his bullshit framing and overall take. LCPS are actively implementing radical left-wing policies and curricula in schools including material based off of crt. He is either ignorant and sticking to sources that confirm his biases or intentionally misleading readers.

    2. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. You do not have to like transgender people nor do you have to give way to every demand made. If you merely tolerate them, then violence or laws against them are not allowed, but you don't have to make special allowances for them either.

    3. And the really sad thing is, maybe it would have.

    4. However, schools covering up crimes by students has been an issue for years.

      The issue I have is the board pretending that troubles never happen.

      The proper response would be that this happened before. Heterosexual couples are routinely caught in bathrooms despite breaking the rules. Gay couples probably just as often. Bullying and assault happen in almost every school bathroom in this country. Probably a chunk of these assaults become sexual assault, and a few rapes. There will almost certainly be a murder or two in American school bathrooms before the year is up. The trans-policy had nothing to do with it.

      However, the board covered it up and pretended it didn't happen. Whether it was just to protect school reputation, to protect the assailant from prosecution, or to protect the preferred policy from criticism it doesn't really matter. We cannot trust the board to protect our children and they should be removed.

  4. "court documents confirm the offender was wearing a skirt when the assault took place."

    "In court, the 15-year-old girl testified that she engaged in consensual sexual activity with the defendant two different times in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School but on a subsequent occasion was violently coerced into performing sexual acts."

    https://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-loudoun-county-teen-131413442.html

    It's almost as if the "gender fluid" policy gave a boy an excuse to enter the girls bathroom and sexually assault a girl. Why would anyone complain about that?

  5. They paintes the story as an over zealous totalitarian unaccountable schoolboard working with the white house to classify parents who disagree with them as terrorists

  6. Robbie, why did you also leave out the district is now under investigation for not reporting any of the multiple assaults to state agencies as required by law?

  7. Excellent journalism, Robbie.
    Now do the story of the second assault at a different school by the same rapist.

  8. The issue isn’t the bathroom policy. The issue is the school board lied and pretended that no rape had happened at all.

    1. This. That was what Smith was upset about that led to to the violent altercation. Hiding the attack was convenient to justifying the new trans policy being put in place. And it does not address that the school board association's letter, which was coordinated with the Biden Administration identified the incident with Smith as an example of possible domestic terrorism.

      The Daily Wire article was primarily about the School Board denying the sexual assault in a bathroom happened, as little could be found out about the attacker.

    2. More specifically, the issue is the motivations for the board doing so. Which are arguably that they didn't want to contradict the narrative regarding how "safe" it is to allow "gender fluid" individuals in a women's bathroom. The fact is that this "gender fluid" individual, representing themself as Female, still lusted after his Female companion.

      Whether or not he used a school policy as a cover, there's the simple fact that women want to keep (literal) dicks out of the bathroom for a reason. Short of a full sex change, no amount of "gender fluidity" leads to women's bathrooms being as safe as they were prior to any sort of policy change. I'm not claiming they are truly safe. But there is a specific reason for the No Dick rule.

  9. "Conservatives Wrongly Portrayed the Loudoun County Sexual Assault as a Transgender Bathroom Issue
    The perpetrator did not target a random student, and he did not choose the girls bathroom because of his gender identity."

    I didn't read the rest of the article because my eyes almost rolled into the back of my head after this part, but this is probably the dumbest thing I've ever seen written on the transgender debate.

    It's obvious it never occurred to you to even attempt to understand the conservative position before because THE PERVERSE INCENTIVES OF ALLOWING BIOLOGICAL MALES IN A WOMEN'S RESTROOM IS 50% OF THE "TRANSGENDER ISSUE", retard.

  10. Literally any other time one of these things happens:
    - male gets put on blast, accuser is believed, public/media smear the accused as guilty until proven innocent, his life ruined

    School district makes a tranny friendly bathroom policy and is embarrassed that a boy in a skirt buttfucks a girl against her will in the girls bathroom:
    - crickets from the school, media, and its covered up

    Ya, there is definitely no agenda they are trying to push. Those conservatives have it all wrong.

    SMH

  11. Media: "believe all women, doesnt matter what context rape is rape, must be believed"

    Media when rape makes tranny friendly policies look bad: "I mean bitch had it coming, she took plenty of loads in that stall before anyways"

    1. Liberals finally realized there's no rape culture in the US. The obvious solution for them is to create one.

  12. "The Daily Wire's reporting also gave readers the strong impression that the school was initially reluctant to involve law enforcement in the matter; journalist Jesse Singal obtained police dispatch logs that "strongly dispute" this notion."

    "A second attack with the same suspect was reported inside a classroom at Broad Run earlier this month after the suspect was allowed to come back to class at a different school."

    How exactly did that happen if the school district was properly involving law enforcement? I mean, at that point it was a bit beyond 'suspected', they had a positive rape kit.

    1. The father of the victim gave his personal story directly.

      He said that he was told by the school that they would handle the matter internally.

      He said that he told them that it absolutely would not be handled that way, and due to the ensuing argument they called the police on him. He even produced the letter to student and parents informing anthem of the "incident" in the school office.. Assuring them that the police handled it and everyone was safe. There was no mention of an alleged sexual assault.

      It is not "reporting". This guy gave his own version of events, and it is pretty well backed up by independent facts, including the superintendent claiming other there were no incidents in their school bathrooms.

      1. My understanding was that in the end they DID involve the authorities. I recall reading that when he committed the second assault, he was under limited release with an ankle monitor. I'm willing to accept that there are few good choices for a public school in this situation- but lying to parents about what happened in order to push through a leftist Kulture Warz item is not one of those valid choices, IMHO.

    2. I think there are rules about what can be done with school age offenders until their cases go to trial that the district does not have much choice but to obey. The boy was convicted of the May assault a couple of weeks ago. This does effectively put the school system in the position of having to do what was considered the great wrong in the Catholic Church's recent sex scandals. That is, moving the offender to a different facility where the commit the same crime.

      1. I am pretty sure schools can expel students without a court order or conviction.

        1. Or for that matter have somebody keep an eye on them.

        2. Expulsions are reserved only for truly egregious behavior, like nibbling a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun.

      2. I think he was also forced to wear an ankle monitor pending the results of the investigation. It's pretty shocking that they didn't have a handle on this student in some manner.

        1. They didn't want to, ATM.

          Stick the kid in the alternative school for anti-social shitheads that every district seems to have, while the school + cops gets to the bottom (ugh, phrasing) of the matter. They get watched like hawks, and nobody else gets victimized.

          I don't care if the victim consented on a prior occasion, even assuming she's of the age to where she could consent to sexual activity. It doesn't impugn her credibility to me, depending on the nature of the prior contact. Plenty of young women may be OK with one sex act, but draw the line at anal intercourse. (Garfunkel and Oates, notwithstanding...)

          Through their actions, these school officials have shown they felt being woke to young transsexuals was more important than ensuring the safety of their students. That's unbelievably disgusting, and it's embarrassing that Soave is trying to use this to score points on conservative media.

          1. Agree with Gray_Jay; interesting article by Soave in that he provides background regarding the rapist and his victim, but disappointing in tone and misses the point. Why was the boy wearing a skirt? Soave implies he was not gender fluid but impersonating a girl so he could meet the victim in the girl's bathroom. Other reports say he regularly used the girl's bathroom, and was gender fluid.

  13. If only Reason and all other "media" call out the Dems and their hyperbole and gaslighting.

  14. So will Loudoun County be installing urinals in the girls restrooms? If so, do they have the funds to piss away on that? I.e., are they flush with cash?

  15. Oh come one Robby! Don't let silly facts get in the way of the narrative!

    1. Don't worry sarc, he didn't.

    2. Which facts would those be again?

  16. "Anyone on the right who makes a habit of complaining—often justifiably—about the mainstream media gullibly succumbing to viral stories that fit their priors ought to denounce this as well."

    ----Robby Soave

    1) The objection to Biden and Garland siccing the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards was never about denying the inappropriate behavior of some parents at school board meetings. The question was whether it was an appropriate venue for the FBI's counter terrorism efforts, and the answer was, is, and always will be no--regardless of whether any particular incident was or wasn't reported correctly or incorrectly by the progressive media or anyone else. The principles at stake, here, simply don't depend on the particulars of any incident. The FBI has no business involving itself in these matters.

    2) The National School Boards Association apologized for the September 29 letter asking President Biden to sic the FBI on parents for opposing their school boards, and they've retracted the letter that referenced this and other cases. In their apology, they specifically say that, "There was no justification for some of the language used in that letter". More than a dozen state school board associations have distanced themselves from that letter because of its contents, and three state school board associations (Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) severed their ties with the the NSBA completely over that letter to Biden.

    You can read the apology letter yourself at this link:

    http://www.osba.org/News-Center/News_releases/20211022NSBA.aspx

    Why are you defending the contents of a letter that the NSBA itself has disavowed? Your favorite bothsideism argument simply isn't the issue here. The principles that decide when using the FBI is or isn't appropriate, and the principles that govern whether the FBI's attention or surveillance carries a chilling effect with it that represents a serious threat to our rights to free speech, to petition the government with a redress of grievances, not to mention our rights to privacy. The issue simply isn't the accuracy of the reporting. Do you not understand that? The NSBA understands it!

    The question isn't whether the vaccine information and the Hunter Biden emails are being reported accurately. The question is whether Biden's White House put undue pressure on Facebook and other social media companies to censor posts and accounts that the White House didn't like. Whether the information being censored is accurate is a red herring. The question is whether the Biden administration was flagging posts and accounts for Facebook to censor.

    Focusing on the accuracy of the reporting in this case is doing the same thing--it's a red herring. If anyone is truly guilty of a legitimate both sides issue here, Robby, it's you. The question of whether the FBI should focus its counter terrorism efforts on parents who oppose their local school boards has nothing to do with the particulars of any case. If some media outlet was focusing on that red herring, you seem to be doing that, too. The FBI has no business treating parents like terrorists for opposing their local school boards, and that's regardless of whether the parents involved are threatening or violent.

    1. And let the record show, the parent was neither threatening or violent. He was loud, but so was the activist who called his daughter a liar for saying she was raped. That was the conflict... So not even the school board at that moment.

      1. If my daughter were raped, I'd be really fcking loud.

        1. Better to remain silent.
          You don't want the to know you are there until you pull the trigger.

      2. And please let the record show that the FBI has no business getting involved in this any more than they should be involved in cases of spousal abuse, child abuse, elderly abuse, cases of drunk drivers killing people, bar room fights, or muggings--and that's regardless of whether there was any violence or threats of violence. The principles behind what the FBI should or shouldn't be involved in simply do not depend on the details of any particular case, and when we make our opinions subject to the details of what we read in the news, we make ourselves vulnerable to manipulation.

        Six months after we invaded Iraq, 69% of the American people still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11--probably because of the anthrax attack. There was no way to know that the mobile WMD labs weren't real. There was no way to know the truth of the Plame Affair. Whether Saddam Hussein was looking for yellowcake in Niger wasn't something I could contest. I was at the mercy of the CIA and the news media to uncover anything that wasn't true.

        Of course, whether Saddam Hussein was looking for yellowcake in Niger and whether Saddam Hussein had mobile WMD labs wasn't and shouldn't have been the deciding factor in whether we invaded Iraq. The question of whether we should have invaded Iraq was governed by larger principles--like the question of whether invading Iraq was in the best interests of the United States and its security. There was a real possibility that taking Saddam Hussein out of the equation would leave Iran without a significant rival in the region. And there was the costs, questions about the benefits, etc.

        By focusing on the details of the news, we lost perspective on the larger principles, and I see that happening here. Principles proven to be true over the course of decades, centuries, and history don't suddenly evaporate in light of the details of a new incident. If a scientist does an experiment that seems to contradict the Archimedes principle, they don't assume they've suddenly overturned a 2,500 year-old scientific principle. They check their equipment and try to figure out what they did wrong.

        The principle is that the FBI has no business investigating parents for opposing their local school boards, and there is nothing about the details of this or any other story that address much less refute that principle. The principle is grounded in larger concerns about the nature of a free society, the concerns we have about our constitutional rights, and chilling effect that siccing an anti-terrorist task force can have on the democratic process. When the enemies of liberty try to focus on the trees to overturn some broad principle, we can always pwn them by focusing on the forest.

        1. Well... I suppose we crossed that line long ago. When the FBI asked "are we going to interview General Flynn to get himnto lie in order to get him fired, or to get him arrested?", it becomes pretty obvious that it isn't just a few bad apples... They are quite comfortable with being used as political enforcers.

          Have we seen any mass revolts after Garland's announcement? How about after it was all revealed to be based on a hoax whipped up in the White House?

          I mean... Shouldn't that be pretty close to impeachment territory? Sending the FBI counterterrorism task force after political opponents ... All based on a lie? And a literal conspiracy with the white house, the FBI and a supposedly independent national political group?

          Yet it doesn't even make the news?

          1. Before we can get to something like an impeachment, we'll need to see it become an issue that swings an election result. And that may be happening in Virginia as I type. That's why we're talking about Loudoun county, isn't it? If the Democrat loses in a blue state for being associated with Joe Biden's ideas about parents shutting up about what their schools teach their children, that doesn't auger well for progressive control of Congress come 2022. In fact, it will probably make moderate Democrats run for the exits on Biden's whole agenda.

            One step at a time.

            P.S. I'm not sure Biden was ever planning on being around long enough to impeach. He may have planned to resign after the midterms from the beginning.

            1. As long as the democrats get to break the rules, they will continue to "win" elections.
              I can't wait for an election in some state that has mandated vaccine passports for entry to the building where the poll is.
              No ID required to vote, just to get to the poll.

              1. I hope Ken is right, but this:

                "As long as the democrats get to break the rules, they will continue to "win" elections..."

                Is how I see it shaking out. This Election Day, and in next year's. Maybe we'll do something then? Probably not.

                1. Moderate democrats are already acting like they're afraid they'll lose their seats if they vote for the budget reconciliation bill and associate themselves with the progressive agenda.

                  What do you know that they don't know?

                  1. They will lose their seats if they vote for it. It was shitty form the get-go, but paring it down to just force as many shitty policies, as shittily as possible will make them even more unpopular. Independent voters are never going to be in favor of 10's of thousands of new IRS agents and climate corps, but the bigger bill might have had something in it they like. I hope the whole thing crumbles, but at this point it looks like career suicide for any non-whacko to support.

      3. But according to sarc, the real problem was conservatives pouncing.

        1. Who is shocked here?

    2. More than a dozen state school board associations have distanced themselves from that letter because of its contents, and three state school board associations (Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) severed their ties with the the NSBA completely over that letter to Biden.

      Didn't the Iowa and NH state boards do so as well?

      1. I haven't been keeping up with the latest.

      2. Follow the money.
        If the states weren't bailing, there would be no "apology".

    3. What does that have to do with the conservative media running with a story without bothering to check any of the facts?

      1. Ohhhh, I get it. You're providing another example!

        1. Wow. Talk about tone deaf....

          1. What does the FBI have to do with the conservative media not checking the facts and spinning a false narrative?

            I'll answer. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

            It's just Ken changing the subject from "conservative media fucked up" to "eeeeeeeevil Democrats siccing the FBI on conservative parents!"

            1. What does the FBI have to do with the conservative media not checking the facts and spinning a false narrative?

              Because the incident at the board meeting where the girl's father was arrested for speaking out about the board lying that no assaults had taken place, is what the NSBA alluded to as justification for the FBI to get involved, you doofus.

              1. Oh I see. The red herring did it.

                1. Just because you're too dumb or drunk to see how the incidents are related, doesn't mean that isn't what happened.

                  1. His only goal the last 10 months has been to attack anything he sees remotely as conservative. This despite him on Saturday admitting the GOP is probably "slightly better" than the DNC, which is still an understatement. But at most, he can not allow anyone else to attack the party of his new BFFs White Mike and Jeff.

                    His only concern is how to make team red look bad while declaring himself not on a team.

                2. red herring

                  Someone please buy the stupid shit a dictionary and a thesaurus.

          2. He may as well have said "Fake but accurate."

            1. Except that it was true and accurate.

              Explain to me how someone who identified as gender fluid, wore dresses and lipstick, habitually used the girls washroom and demanded that people use they/them as referential pronouns, suddenly isn't transgender.

              Just because the Washington Post is lying, doesn't mean you and Robby should.

              1. How is someone who sticks their penis into girls a "transgender girl"?

      2. "What does that have to do with the conservative media running with a story without bothering to check any of the facts?"

        That isn't what happened. The conservative medias facts were accurate (a gender fluid boy raped a girl in a girl's bathroom, and it was denied and covered up by the school board and administration) or disputed (the dad claims the rape was initially not going to be referred to the authorities, and provides some documentation indicating that, while a reporter disputes that fact). The knowledge about the daughter having had sex previously was brand new, and only came to light when the trial's documents were released.

        Conservative media did not do anything wrong.

        1. So you didn't read the article.

          1. I did read the article, Sarc. Did you read my response?

            You said "conservatives didn't bother to check the facts." They did. Soave *doesn't dispute the facts*, sarc. He disputes what was "implied" by the Daily Wire article.

            Are you denying that? Because he spends an entire paragraph explaining that, while the facts are true, the implication is wrong (and it is entirely subjective what is implied).

            I'm really getting worried about you man. You are so wound up in wanting to criticize Ken that between this and the Kinks article, I'd have to assume that if Ken wrote a missive on the blueness of the sky, you'd be jumping in to criticize him. It's really weird.

            1. I guarantee that 1. the only article sarcasmic read on the issue was the Washington Post one, and then only the first few paragraphs; and, 2. that sarcasmic knows that Robby's disputing the implications rather than the facts, but is deliberately lying about it.

            2. It would be easy to say Trump broke him, but I don’t think that’s it. It saddens me how much some writers and posters have changed over the last 6-7 years. Especially after the great exodus.

        2. They pounced, that is what makes sarcasmic the most upset.

  17. Lets slut shame teenage rape victims on behalf of the left. Free minds and free markets and all.

    Fuck you, Reason.

  18. This seems to be an odd bit of hairsplitting. Dude was in a skirt. Dude was apparently not in any fear of getting caught being a dude in the girls bathroom.

    It is hardly a stretch to say that these issues are related.

    In fact, it is much more of a stretch to claim they are not.

    In fact, it is some pretty epic goalpost shifting to go from here to "it wasn't some random person".

    Yes, there is a bit of an implication that random dudes will be in the bathroom with random girls while they are in various states of undress. The " creeper hiding in a stall" version is probably pretty off a putting for some folk.

    But this case is in fact a guy in a dress in a girls bathroom sexually assaulting a girl. Why on earth would you plant your flag in "this doesn't count" because they had had consensual sex before, even if it was in that location?

    And why on earth would you proclaim the overreach to be on the part of people pointing this case out? That just seems insane to me.

    Sure, it seems fair to me to argue that this case is a little more nuanced, and there is more to it than "boy in dress using girl's bathroom".

    But calling out conservative reporting as being dishonest or "substantially misreported"? Well, that is just wrong. They did not " misreport" anything.

    They did not include the "prior sexual relationshio" in the story... Probably because that did not come out until a couple of days later. Probably because their primary source was the father.

    And it is just flat out wrong to say that they did not report that TG bathroom use was not implemented yet. It is right there in the story.. The meeting was about the policy they wanted to adopt. The board set up a dog and pony of a bunch of activists masquerading as a slice of concerned citizens. They were not going to have any of the "against" block speak.

    It was the insistence that there have never been any incidents like this that made the girls father angry.. But it was one of the activist speakers who said she did not believe that any such incident with his daughter happened. Since this person knew them well, the daughter included.. He became quite angry. And police attacked him from behind to remove him, instead of simply escorting him out. All of that was in the original reporting.

    Proclaiming it "misreporting" to fail to include facts that were not known, or to fail to frame it in a much less honest way in order to favor a different side of the argument is much closer to "misreporting" than these original stories were.

    I am kinda surprised at this. Slave has evolved from the absolute worst version of "to be sure, those terrible republicans are truly evil, but this thing over here..." into the best that reason has to offer on anything that looks like a splinter in the eye of the left. But this? Really?

    I mean, the nut of the argument is there.. You could say that this isn't indicative of a trend, or that this isn't the dispositive fact case and we should still find a way to respect the dignity of young trans people... There is plenty to say about that. But pretending that this is actually in some way a fake story? Come on, man!

  19. "The Daily Wire's reporting also gave readers the strong impression that the school was initially reluctant to involve law enforcement in the matter; journalist Jesse Singal obtained police dispatch logs that "strongly dispute" this notion."

    It seems like the logs confirm the notion that the school was initially reluctant to involve law enforcement outside of the school's SRO.

    The logs indicate that the school's SRO was investing the rape himself. He didn't call for a forensics team to seal off the crime scene, or for the victim to be transported to the hospital for a rape kit, or for the assistance of anyone capable of conducting a rape investigation.

    But when the parents showed up, the called for assistance several times. An "upset parent" situation is something an SRO should be able to handle by himself. A rape is not.

  20. Apparently trans-rapists who dress in provocative clothing and aren't asking for it but taking it are the victims. That's were the woke are taking this crap. It's like excusing POC crime on racism.

  21. Soave: "But it was substantially misreported in order to fit a conservative social agenda."

    No, the Louden County Superintendent and School Board members refused to acknowledge that the girl was raped, and then falsely denied it occurred (when asked) at a recent school board meeting.

    If Soave had any interest in the truth or concern for student safety, he'd be criticizing the Louden County officials who imposed the absurd transgender bathroom policy for knowingly and intentionally lying about and covering the crime, and then blaming and trying to have the father arrested (and any other parent who objected to their outrageous CRT and transgender policies).

  22. Oh, one more "right wing" talking point to discuss as relates to "misreporting" and media coverage with an agenda....

    You will see the attacker described as "boy in a skirt" or "boy wearing a skirt" if it is mentioned at alll. Transgender and genderfluid and gender queer have been scrubbed from the narrative.

    Why do you suppose that is? 5 minutes ago that was the most horrifically offensive thing you could do. It would result in immediate calls for firing, bans from YouTube and twitter... But magically overnight it is now ok to misgender this kid.. But only this one kid and only in this one situation.

    Yeah, it is a conservative talking point and it is totally "whatabout"... But come on, man!

    1. Ding ding ding!!!!

    2. Can we now expect the left wing media propagandists to truthfully refer to Rachel Levine as a "man in a skirt".

      Didn't think so.

      1. You have two choices: "This story is too local." or "That's different."

        I jest, of course.

        Way to disappoint, Rico.

      2. They have reported that Lavine is the first ever female 4-star admiral.

        1. Can’t believe she has the balls to accept that monicker.

  23. the most important issue of our time is who can pee where.

  24. It totally IS related to transgender issues, in this way: it's plain the school system tried to cover up the rapes because of concern for the fallout it could cause for their transgender policies. So if this happens again it's perfectly reasonable to suspect the school system will try to cover it up too.

    1. It totally IS related to transgender issues, in this way: it's plain the school system tried to cover up the rapes because of concern for the fallout it could cause for their transgender policies

      Exactly. Anyone claiming otherwise is just being obtuse, because I guaran-fucking-tee if he hadn't been wearing a skirt when he waltzed in to that bathroom, there's no way in hell the board would have just blown it off and let him enroll at another school in the district. They certainly wouldn't have lied at a public meeting that no assaults had taken place, and knowing their politics, would have turned it into a football about "toxic masculinity."

      Their actions were solely about covering for a protected class in the interests of encouraging juvenile mental illness, simply because said mental illness is considered politically fashionable by the mass media and academia.

  25. The little whore set him up and the SoCons POUNCED!

  26. regardless, Flowers By Irene needs to be in our schools immediately to protect the principals from principles.

  27. The attacker was convicted of what certainly sounds like vicious and violent behavior. But he did not target a random student, and he did not choose the girls bathroom because of his gender identity.

    I am certainly relieved.

    FYI, this fact check seems to nervously skirt around some issues.

    ...oh, and 'skirt' was not used as a chumby-esque pun. I literally mean it.

    Also, the police report doesn't change the fact that the superintendent knew about a sexual assault while going on record to deny it. In fact, they confirm it.

    A Virginia school superintendent notified officials about an alleged sexual assault of a student in a bathroom weeks before he denied having “any record” of such an incident, a report said.

    Loudoun County Superintendent Scott Ziegler reportedly emailed school board members to tell them about the alleged attack on the same day it happened, but claimed in a public meeting weeks later that “we don’t have any records of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”

    1. The email was about a single attack.

      The public statement was plural, "we don’t have any records of assaults occurring in our restrooms.” RecordS of attackS occurring in restroomS -- no, no, nothing like that.

      The statements are grammatically consistent.

      1. Fair play. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

  28. It's also funny how we just went through a year and a half of #BelieveAllWomen, #MeToo and 30 year old accusations which are "credible" and now suddenly we're getting sober, skeptical reporting on a rape that actually did take place but the extraneous facts to the rapeyness might not be what someone in the GOP said they were.

    1. If team blue had to apply these same standards to themselves as they do to everyone else , Joe Biden would be in jail right now.

  29. I am not a fan of teenagers with penises using the girls room but I am struggling to understand what the school's bathroom policy has to do with the outrageousness of the assault.

    If the school allowed kids to open carry and one day someone is shot in a bathroom that does not match the shooter's genitals do we blame the school and guns or do we blame the shooter?

    Now if the school tried to cover the crime up that is a separate problem.

    1. Parents do not want their daughters in varied states of undress in front of boys. The TG Activists have tried selling a line like, "Bigot! How dare you suggest that the girl with a penis in that bathroom is a boy. She is a girl, and not interested in your daughter!"

      And that line is strongly contradicted by the facts on the ground. We have a TG Girl who *would* be allowed to go into girls locker rooms and bathrooms, and who *is* interested in girls, and *is* interested in doing very male things with them.

      Do you not get how that complicates the Activist's narrative?

      1. We have a TG Girl who *would* be allowed to go into girls locker rooms and bathrooms

        Assuming the girl's version of the story is true, existing laws against rape didn't prevent the assault. I see no reason to believe a sign with a picture of a penis and an "X" through it would have either. Especially given the circumstances alleged.

        1. "existing laws against rape didn't prevent the assault. "

          Again, read what I said- This isn't about the assault.

          Let me put it this way: why don't parents want their daughters undressing in a locker room with boys? It is at least partially (if not substantially) due to those parents not wanting their daughters naked in front of people who see them as a sexual object.

          When parents balk at the idea of a boy being allowed to watch their daughters undress, the argument from the Trans Activists has always been, "But this isn't a boy- it's just another girl, who happens to have male parts. You are a bigot for still seeing them as a boy."

          But this story invalidates the Trans Activists' narrative. If this TG girl was interested in sticking "her" female parts in girls' female bodies, then Parents have every reason to feel that the TG policy will result in their daughters being ogled by boys as sexual objects in the locker room.

          The fact that this ended up as an assault just further highlights the danger that occurs when you are putting teenagers of opposite sexuality into these situations.

          1. The fact that this ended up as an assault just further highlights the danger that occurs when you are putting teenagers of opposite sexuality into these situations.

            That's a risk the woke are willing to take with other people's children. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few heads.

            Criminals gonna criminal and the risk of sexual assault exists with same sex bathrooms too.

            I don't remember any undressing and nudity in school bathrooms. I've yet to see an argument for same sex locker rooms but I assume it is fomenting.

      2. >Parents do not want their daughters in varied states of undress in front of boys. The TG Activists have tried selling a line like, "Bigot! How dare you suggest that the girl with a penis in that bathroom is a boy. She is a girl, and not interested in your daughter!"

        Trans Activists have never made this argument. Ever. They have always made it very clear that there is a distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation. I have never encountered a trans activist who is not aware that many male individuals who identify as women remain attracted to women after they transition, or that those who are attracted to men were already attracted to them before they transitioned.

        What gender one identifies as is orthogonal to what gender one is attracted to. This is a bog-standard basic Trans-Activist talking point. They get really upset and offended if someone thinks trans people are just "extra gay" or something like that.

        What Trans Activists have been saying is just that transwomen are no more likely to sexually assault ciswomen than other ciswomen are. They've never said, "Don't worry, no one in the bathroom is attracted to your daughter." Even if you ignored transpeople that would be an obvious falsehood, since cisgender lesbians and bisexual women exist.

    2. The problem is the lies, lack of oversight and accountability that goes with it up to and including lying about the assault taking place at all.

      To your hypothetical, it wouldn't be the the open carry policy per se but that it went with Alec Baldwin levels of firearm safety practices (or lack thereof) and when a shooting did happen the activists tell the grieving parents no such shooting happened...would kinda suck to defend the open carry policy then.

  30. Biological males should not be allowed in biological female bathrooms or the reverse even if they claim to identify as female.

    The eventual solution is to over time transform from gender based bathrooms to individual bathrooms. If can be difficult in places where a large number of people are, but architects will become inventive and figure out a configuration that works.

    The key is to maintain privacy for all sorts of people and their individual situation while containing cost and efficiency.

    1. I noted on a recent trip to Ashville, NC, that almost every public bathroom was gender neutral. For most small establishments this is pretty easy, just convert the existing men/women to two GN. I suspect that Ashville is ahead of the curve in seeing this is the best way to go.

  31. Is this article a joke?

    I mean seriously - the student considered himself "gender fluid" and was wearing a skirt. WHETHER HE HAD A PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM IS IRRELEVANT. He entered the girl's bathroom multiple times previously, and so it's clear he felt perfectly safe doing so. Certainly no one in the school administration cared, and other students didn't feel like it would do any good reporting him. So yes, this IS a result of transgender bathroom policies, whether they are officially written down, or simply and informal policy. 99% of the rules that people follow in their daily life are local norms that aren't codified into law.

    1. WHETHER HE HAD A PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM IS IRRELEVANT.

      Bullshit. The previous relationship means she was essentially asking for it.

  32. There is a reason to think the assault was connected to policies for trans people - if he wasn't allowed in the girl's restroom the assault would have been less likely to happen there.

    Some dude is hanging around the girl's restroom, you're gonna move him on.

    He puts on a skirt and then he lurk as long as he wants.

  33. He was allowed to go into the girls' restroom because of a transgender policy.

    This is a transgender issue.

    1. I mean, whether or not he was allowed due to a transgender policy is disputed.

      The fact that he was wearing a skirt and assaulted a girl in a girl's bathroom is what makes it relevant to transgender policies because it proves that boys may wear skirts for the opportunism of getting access to the girls' restroom.

      1. The policy allows boys to skirt the rules.

  34. If anything, it's a cautionary tale about credulously assuming the worst when it would be maximally politically convenient to do so.

    The commentariat heartily disagrees. Far better to maximize the political narrative at any possible expense. The ends always justify the means.

    1. A TG Student raped a girl in a bathroom at the same time the school board was pushing a policy that would allow TG Students to freely use the bathroom of their choice. The School Board hid that fact from the public. These are all facts. They aren't wrongly portrayed.

      Even Soave agrees, as he has to fall back to saying that the Daily Caller article "implied" things.

      Now Soave *asserts* that two additional facts mean that this no longer counts as a "Trans Gender Issue".

      1) It is disputed whether or not the School Administration took the matter seriously enough.

      2) The daughter had sex with the TG kid on previous occasions in the same bathroom.

      None of those facts suddenly make this "not" a trans gendered issue. It is a fact that the TG Activists have suggested that there is no problem with TG girls being in bathrooms with other girls, because they're all "just girls", even if one of them has male parts. This narrative has been used repeatedly to calm the concerns of parents who balk at the idea of dudes creeping on their girls in a bathroom.

      This incidence obviously complicates that narrative. This TG Girl would be allowed in that bathroom under the new policy, and clearly wasn't "just another girl". They wanted sex with girls, and that sex included sticking their male parts into girls' bodies, much like boys are want to do. The fact that they had previously done this consensually with girls (including this one) doesn't change that fact. They obviously were into girls, and under the new policy would have been given further license to see girls in inappropriate ways.

      (It is also not clear if the TG kid was getting access to these bathrooms under some informal or formal school wide policy prior to the district policy coming into effect. That too would also be germane to the case.)

      The fact that the Loudoun county schools covered this up, and denied it during the TG Policy debates shows that even THEY felt this was germane to the debates.

      Is the conservative story more complicated than first reported? Yes. But if you want to compare this story to, say, the Covington Smirk, or the ER Space filled with Ivermectin Patients- i.e. real "viral stories that took off because they were politically convenient"- it holds up quite well, imho.

  35. Did you just slut shame this girl? And wtf is a boy doing in the girls bathroom, under any circumstances. I thought an important tenant of being a libertarian was do no harm?

  36. BIOLOGICAL MALES HAVE NO BUSINESS IN FEMALES LOCKER ROOMS OR ANYWHERE ELSE..REAL FEMALES ARE. FEMALES ARE FROM VENUS & MALES ARE FROM THE AMAZON, THE OTHERS ARE OUT OF UR.ANUS! wANT TO BE FEMALES WILL NEVER BE FEMALES. When you cut a male bull you get a STEER. EVEN a degreed dolt should know that.

  37. To say that the fact the boy was wearing a skirt and has a penis had nothing to do with the incident is like saying allowing a mask and gun into a bank has nothing to do with a bank robbery. No, I'm not "transphobic". Just pointing out some inconsistencies in the logic here.

    Also, you should not deposit your gender fluid in someone without their consent. That's just wrong.

  38. The only middle ground solution I see that makes sense is to have separate biological male, biological female and gender neutral options for things like bathrooms and sports. Freedom of choice is the only way a society can function with any amount of "diversity".

    1. Or end the public (pubic?) education system.

  39. My mother watches Fox News all day so I saw their reporting of the story by accident. From their story you'd not get the impression that they were in a relationship at all.

    1. From their story you'd not get the impression that they were in a relationship at all.

      No means no you sick fuck.

      1. What Chuck said.

        What the fuck is wrong with you, Butler? You didn't used to be like this here.

  40. Transgender people and their supporters(including school boards) need to be questioned why bathrooms are so important to them. By their own admission transgender people claim that gender is something you ‘feel’. If that is true then nothing that society or schools do to you can intrinsically change your gender. It comes from within and can never be taken away by the opinions or directives of others.

    Why then is it so important which bathroom you go to? How can going to the bathroom enhance your sense of gender when gender is a feeling? You remain the gender you feel no matter which bathroom you frequent.

    Transgender access to ‘preferred’ bathrooms is not a question of rights it is a question of reason. What is the reason for wanting access to bathrooms that do not match your birth gender? Which bathroom you choose cannot either affirm or deny the feeling that comes from within.

    Either your gender is totally a subjective thing or it is not. You are entitled to your analysis of your own gender according to your feeling but you are not entitled to demand that society or schools change unless there is a good reason to do so.

    1. They have a legitimate issue that is of legitimate concern to them.... A very small group, uniquely impacted by the issue.

      Of course it is a passionate subject for some of the directly affected people.

      Completely separately, it is a political toy being used by the far left to create wedge issues. The Charlotte city council did not pass their edict requiring businesses to allow trans women to use the women's room on a whim. There was no great hue and cry, no avalanche of arrests or violent confrontations to prompt the action. It was designed entirely to use Trans people and their issues as a bait and switch for a political hit. And it worked.

      They got the state to correct their overreach, and then the entire outrage machine went into action, branding them crazy hate mongers.

      This has been the play for quite a long while. This is why they went around tearing down confederate statues. They could not care less about statues... What they wanted was white southerners to complain about tearing down confederate statues. That was the beginning and end of it. That failed repeatedly until they got antifa involved... Then Charlottesville happened, and we all saw how they lied about that... A bunch of anti-racism activists from out of town violently assaulted a bunch of counter protesters... And the national media jumped in and called them neon Nazi racists.

      That is the formula. That is why TG bathroom. That us why gay wedding cake. That is why anti police violence activists pick cases of justified police violence instead of unjustifiable cases.

      The issue does not move the needle. Portraying the reaction as hateful and divisive does.

      1. What you say may or may not be true but there is no way of proving it. What can be proven is what transgender people say about their gender - that it is a feeling. It may well be a feeling but it does not logically follow that the feeling has to be acted upon by demanding access to bathrooms. Acces to bathrooms should be on the basis of biological gender and not on feeling. If feeling is the determinant factor then those who feel uncomfortable with transgender people have just as much right to deny them access to their bathrooms. Why should transgender feelings have more sway than those who are uncomfortable having them in their bathrooms?

    2. For passing transgender women, it is an issue of not wanting to be outed as transgender (due to harassment) or not wanting to endure harassment and assault when using the men's washroom. It is less about "gender is a feeling" and more of a practical concern.

  41. It's not Rape-Rape.
    And there is no chance she will get preggers, right?
    So ... what the Big Deal?

    /s/

    Stupid Progtard Fuckers

  42. Set up a strawman, knock it down.

    A rape occurred.

    The school board tried to suppress the fact that it occurred in the girls room and was perpetrated by a boy wearing a skirt.

    Just the facts.

  43. You knocked down all the straw men, tho I have no doubt that some of them were created or at least pushed from the Right, to fit a narrative.

    But the real issue always was and is male access to female-only private spaces, and the safety and privacy of the females in those spaces. It does not matter why that particular Loudon County male was there or his motives, the issue is whether a trans bathroom policy makes it easier for males to get into female spaces. Frankly, a person truly having transitioned to female was never the problem, it is the male who would claim to self-identify as female in order to take advantage.

  44. He was permitted into the girls' bathroom because he claimed to be a girl.

    This makes it a transgender issue.

    1. None of what you said happened. The trans bathroom policy wasn't in place yet. The kid was permitted into a girls restroom because no one was watching the door. And again, they met a girl there that had agreed to meet them earlier.

      1. A male disguised as a female entered the women's bathroom and committed a sex crime.

        That's the point.

        1. That did not, in fact, happen. The male student did not gain entry to the restroom by disguising themselves as a female student. They just went in the restroom. No one stopped them because restrooms don't have bouncers.

          Again, the scenario everyone is worried about is a male student entering and ambushing unsuspecting women who just went in the bathroom to pee. That is not what happened. Selectively describing events to make it sound like that is what happened does not make that be what happened.

          1. Again, the scenario everyone is worried about is a male student entering and ambushing unsuspecting women who just went in the bathroom to pee.

            The scenario everyone is worried about is that a trans kid raped a girl in the girls restroom and --get ready, this is the scenario, coming now--THE SCHOOL LIED ABOUT IT AND TRIED TO COVER IT UP BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT THE NARRATIVE SO THEY HAD THE DAD OF THE VICTIM BRUTALIZED AND ARRESTED AND THE RAPIST RAPED ANOTHER GIRL IN THE SAME MANNER

            There.

            It's not at all what you said.

      2. "The trans bathroom policy wasn't in place yet."

        To be clear, all we know is that the district policy was not in place yet. It is alleged by many that there was an informal or formal policy in place at the school level.

      3. No, the COUNTY WIDE trans bathroom policy wasn't officially in place yet. They haven't answered the question of whether this school already had their own policy. But given that this "gender fluid" person was wearing a skirt and had been in there several times, it's likely it was already the policy there.

  45. This article is why Reason has lost any semblance of morality or libertarianism...just a woke cosmo mag focused on open borders, abortion and ..wait for it...pot.

    1. The story's in part about ass sex. Reason's just staying true to their brand.

  46. The problem is not that actual intersex people tend to be dangerous sexual predators. They don't seem to be, and they are extremely rare in any case.
    The issue is that bathroom and gym shower policies meant to accommodate those rare individuals can be misused by actual sexual predators or perverts.
    In this case, the fluid kid had unlimited access to the girl's bathroom. Any girls that felt uncomfortable with that probably felt pressured to not complain or say anything.

    1. Did you read the article? They didn't have access, the policy wasn't in place yet. They got into the bathroom by breaking the rules, the same way actual predators and perverts did. They snuck in to meet a girl who knew they was going to be there ahead of time. This is something teens have been doing ever since there have been large schools with public restrooms. It isn't really relevant to the trans bathroom debate.

      1. And with the new policy they WOULDN'T BE BREAKING THE RULES by going into the bathroom. So it is actually very relevant to the debate.

        1. >And with the new policy they WOULDN'T BE BREAKING THE RULES by going into the bathroom.

          So, in addition to being charged with sexual assault, they'd also be charged with going into the wrong bathroom? What additional deterrent effect would that provide? The school can't expel them twice! In criminal court, depending on the jurisdiction, it might add a few extra penalties on top of the already huge penalties they are getting for the crime of sexual assault. There's not much evidence that increasing the severity of the punishment increases the deterrence effect.

          What really has a deterrent effect is increasing the odds that someone will get caught. And those odds were apparently infinitesimal, since these students had met in the girl's restroom multiple times before without getting caught. The only reason they got caught this time was because the assailant became violent, causing the girl to report them to the authorities.

      2. "Not yet an official policy" yet may not be relevant. Lots of things that are accepted practice are not official policy.
        It is entirely possible that the official policy was drafted to reflect the fact that people were already being allowed into the restroom corresponding to whatever sex they felt like that day. The main reason you need an official policy is to clarify the administration's position on the subject, often as an answer to complaints or controversy.
        Rules against boys in the girl's bathroom were never intended to make sexual assault impossible. They just make it a little less likely. Some percentage of humans are disgusting perverts. In Ye Olden days, a girl wanting to get away from a persistent, creepy boy could go into the girl's restroom. If he followed her in, someone could complain. One of the girls in there would say "You are not allowed here!".
        But now, he is allowed there. And everywhere else.
        Not long ago, there was a local hearing where a trans person sued over being given an individual space for PE changing and showering. The kid's argument was that their experience and acceptance as a girl could not be complete unless they were permitted to shower with the regular girls. Doing so is now allowed, and the girls are transphobic for being uncomfortable with it.
        School boards and administrations are willing to sacrifice our daughters for their political views. Probably not their daughters, of course.

    2. Transgender and intersection are not the same thing.

      1. *intersex

        1. Persons with intersex disorders actually have a chromosomal sex, but sometimes choose to live as the other sex. That seem reasonable.
          The vast majority of trans people rely on personal intuition for their belief that they are the other sex. Some do not believe that their sex is fixed, and that it can vary from day to day or even more often.
          Some trans kids just have an idealized vision of what life is like for the opposite sex. It is normal during or after puberty to have such a view, and to have a fascination for the other sex's bits and pieces. Really liking girls is not that far from "I bet being a girl is really great". These days, a kid thinking such thoughts gets lots of affirmation, and often a hormone prescription. But what they imagine life is like for the other sex is not what it is actually like. It is an unreachable goal, but the kids are told that after the next step, it will all come together.
          But the point is, there is no objective way to tell the difference between a boy who feels he was born into the wrong body, and a boy who just really wants girls to see his penis, or from a boy who just likes girls so much he wants to live like one.

  47. OPos makes the critical failure in morphing a "no true scotsman fallacy" with a "no true homo" fallacy.

    Clearly they dont teach leftist partisan hack slime basic critical reasoning skills.

    Why would anyone even waste the time to watch a democrat primary debate at this point? Why not just read from a list of common fallacies and save themselves the headache of watching lower life forms puke nonsense for even lower life forms to watch?

  48. The fact that you're quoting a WaPo article to make your point -- without fact checking it -- speaks to your credibility, or lack of it. You also fail to mention that the school board did, in fact, cover up the incident and moved the predator to another school, where he proceeded to commit yet another sexual assault. You were so excited to have a "gotcha" moment and defend a repulsive sexual predator, that you momentarily lost all journalistic integrity.

    1. No you are wrong.

      Rico only has momentary displays of journalistic integrity. This event wasn't anything special form, more his true form.

  49. Is there a term for a fallacy that is the opposite of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? A fallacy where someone sees an Irishman put salt on his Cocoa Puffs, and claim that proves that true Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge? Because that is what we have going on here.

    Conservatives claimed that we needed to stop trans women and trans girls from using women's public restrooms because it would make it easier for perverted men to enter the lady's room and ambush any women who walk in. That hasn't happened, so they looked around for anything resembling that. They found someone who happened to be trans, snuck into a woman's restroom for a prearranged meeting for sex with a girl, and then assaulted her when she decided not to go through with it. They then claimed vindication.

    Imagine if progressives pushing for harsh laws restricting gun sales law abiding citizens claimed vindication after a criminal shot a place up with a gun that he had stolen, not bought. These same conservatives would no doubt be up in arms, and rightly so. An Irishman putting salt on his Cocoa Puffs does not mean a Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. It is only because they hold trans people to a double standard that they do not hold gun owners to that this is an issue.

    1. Imagine if progressives pushing for harsh laws restricting gun sales law abiding citizens claimed vindication after a criminal shot a place up with a gun that he had stolen, not bought. These same conservatives would no doubt be up in arms, and rightly so.

      Why would they be up in arms about it? It happens so often, it's a cliche at this point.

      It is only because they hold trans people to a double standard that they do not hold gun owners to that this is an issue.

      Most gun owners don't treat their guns as a sexual fetish--that tends to be a projection of shitlibs who think of a penis every time they see a gun or a truck.

      1. >Most gun owners don't treat their guns as a sexual fetish--that tends to be a projection of shitlibs who think of a penis every time they see a gun or a truck.

        Of course they don't. The shitlibs who say they do need to get their minds out of the gutter.

        Most trans people don't treat their gender identity as a sexual fetish either. There were some theorists named Blanchard and Bailey who asserted that at some point a few decades ago, but theat theory has largely been discredited. The people who still claim they do need to get their minds out of the gutter just as much as the shitlibs do.

    2. "They found someone who happened to be trans, snuck into a woman's restroom for a prearranged meeting for sex with a girl, and then assaulted her when she decided not to go through with it."

      Let's be clear here: Ghatanathoah is misrepresenting what happened. This is not the story that is on the record. Ghatanathoah is libeling a victim, writing that she agreed to sex and then backed out of it, when the testimony said that she was just meeting up to talk.

      For some reason Ghatanathoah feels so passionately about this, that they are willing to accuse- without any evidence- a victim of being a "tease" in order to strengthen their Pro-Trans argument.

      I have no idea how such a fringe element of the left (the Trans element) became such an outsized influence on the left, but it is noteworthy that Ghatanathoah would rather throw a female victim under the bus to protect someone with a penis than admit what is plainly obvious to everyone paying attention to this story.

      1. >Ghatanathoah is libeling a victim, writing that she agreed to sex and then backed out of it, when the testimony said that she was just meeting up to talk.

        Going over it again, it is true that the girl in question did not discuss having sex with the assailant beforehand. Rather, the assailant assumed they were going to because they had had sex at previous meetings, and was upset that this time she did not wish to. I am not libeling anyone, when I read the article I misread the fact that they had met in bathrooms for sex at earlier times as saying that they were meeting for it at this time as well.

        That is a genuine mistake, that I made. But it does not change my main point, which was this was not the scenario that conservatives say we need to prevent: Women having to worry that whenever they go to the bathroom, there might be someone in disguise there perving on them. This scenario would have played out exactly the same if the two students had met in some other private place.

        > I have no idea how such a fringe element of the left (the Trans element) became such an outsized influence on the left,

        I think it is because unlike other major issues (the economy, and so on) it is one where there is little moral ambiguity. The side in support of trans rights is pretty unambiguously good, their opponents are not only wrong, but suffer from severe misandrist paranoid delusions. The idea that anyone would undergo the extreme effort it takes to transition from one gender to another purely to become a slightly more efficient peeping tom is so absurd that anyone who takes it seriously as a danger is obviously too paranoid to take seriously.

        >throw a female victim under the bus to protect someone with a penis than admit what is plainly obvious to everyone paying attention to this story.

        I have no interest in protecting a scumbag who committed sexual assault. The assailant deserves whatever they get. The people I am interested in protecting are innocent people who just want to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with in peace and will now have this crime used as a talking point against them.

        1. The idea that anyone would undergo the extreme effort it takes to transition from one gender to another purely to become a slightly more efficient peeping tom is so absurd that anyone who takes it seriously as a danger is obviously too paranoid to take seriously.

          That is dangerously naïve. First, there is no need to transition to be trans, at this this point all it requires is a declaration. Second, perverts throughout history have gone to great lengths such as years of seminary training and joining the priesthood just for the opportunity to groom young boys. Putting on a skirt and risking some teasing/bullying that can get the bullies expelled is not 'extreme effort'.

          As evidenced by what has happened at Netflix, Trans is now a protected class.

          1. >Putting on a skirt and risking some teasing/bullying that can get the bullies expelled is not 'extreme effort'.

            I think you are grossly overestimating how protected from bullying trans people are, and how easy it is to transition. Even if there are official protections against bullying in place they are very hard to enforce, and that's true for bullying in general, not just transphobic bullying. It also seems odd that you think threat of expulsion is sufficient deterrent to prevent transphobic bullying, but not sufficient to prevent restroom assaults and perving. If expulsion is a terrible enough threat to deter the notoriously intractable problem of school bullying, why is it not also sufficient to deal with perverts?

            Also, if the general goal is to prevent people from being creeped on in the bathroom, what about trans women who might be creeped on if they had to use the men's room? This does not seem a large possibility to me in absolute terms. But it does seem much more likely to me that a trans woman, especially one who fits conventional standards of woman's attractiveness, might be harassed by random men they encounter in the men's room, than that some pervert might fake being trans to use the woman's rest room. Again, they both arent that likely, but the first seems like an order of magnitude more likely than the second,

            > Second, perverts throughout history have gone to great lengths such as years of seminary training and joining the priesthood just for the opportunity to groom young boys.

            It's actually not clear to what extent perverts joined the priesthood specifically for cover, and to what extent they joined it for the same reasons anyone else does and then took advantage of the opportunities. That being said, seeking out a position that accords one social respect, a salary, and a bureaucracy that defends one from accusers seems easier in a lot of ways than transitioning, which often does the opposite of all those things (it makes one less respected, have difficulty finding employment, and makes law enforcement more hostile than before).

        2. > I think it is because unlike other major issues (the economy, and so on) it is one where there is little moral ambiguity. The side in support of trans rights is pretty unambiguously good, their opponents are not only wrong, but suffer from severe misandrist paranoid delusions.

          Over 5 decades of discussions on any number of political, religious, moral, and social topics, I nominate this as the most 180-degrees from reality, absolutely wrong and backwards in its description of right/wrong, good/bad, statement of all time. Congratulations on your blue ribbon.

      2. "I have no idea how such a fringe element of the left (the Trans element) became such an outsized influence on the left,"

        Because it's a wedge issue. Like every other cultural issue their lot pushes. Anything to broaden the cracks in this society so that it might fall, and the idiot proletariat might finally realize how good Marxism will be for them.

        The piece of shit is slandering a child victim of sexual assault, in order to try and score cuture war points.

    3. Conservatives claimed that we needed to stop trans women and trans girls from using women's public restrooms because it would make it easier for perverted men to enter the lady's room. That hasn't happened

      It has happened repeatedly.

      Your qualifier is an attempt to make something specific that is a generality and thereby negate the initial idea as wrong or bigoted.

    4. "31-year-old Sean Ojeda, who is currently transitioning to a woman, was arrested last week for allegedly assaulting a teen inside a Walmart bathroom. "
      "Martinez, who is a family friend, invited the girl into the bathroom on March 23, and touched her breasts and genitalia before penetrating her."
      "According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said ‘the law has changed and I have a right to be here.’”
      Subsequent to this new rule, no one called the police on this man who reportedly came back a second time when young girls were changing into their swimsuits for swim practice."
      "charges were filed against Jason Pomare, 33, for allegedly disguising himself as a woman, sneaking in to the women’s restroom at a Macy’s department store and secretly videotaping hours of footage of women in bathroom stalls."
      "The University of Toronto had to change their gender-neutral bathrooms back to bathrooms separated based on biology “after two separate incidents of ‘voyeurism’ were reported...Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.”
      "Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities when they saw “Colleen” Francis deliberately exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna."

      There are lots of these, even if you only count the ones that made the news.

  50. It doesn't matter. Conservative SOP is to be afraid and victimized, full stop. Makes it quite easy to justify any attempts to grab whatever power you can.

  51. The article has many good points.

    A bigger problem is how schools deal with sexual assault. In Madison WI, there have been a number of recent protests and student walkouts because of the way a high school sexual assault was handled. I see high schools and colleges in a bind. If they admit the assault occurred do they then deny the accused assailant due process? If they don't take action and allow the legal system to handle the situation they are accused of failing to take action against a threat? It seems a no win situation which may be the case in Loudoun Co.

  52. I didn’t really get the impression the Daily Wire piece made the student’s gender fluidity central at all. In fact they even quote the dad saying “The person that attacked our daughter is apparently bisexual and occasionally wears dresses because he likes them. So this kid is technically not what the school board was fighting about. The point is kids are using it as an advantage to get into the bathrooms. . . . I don’t care if he’s homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, transsexual. He’s a sexual predator.”

  53. Conservatives: We need to keep women in bathrooms safe!

    Me: The overwhelming majority of trans women are not sexual predators. The idea that a sexual predator might pose as a transwoman is highly unlikely. Why would they need to, if they aren't deterred by laws against sexual assault, why would they be deterred by laws against going in the wrong bathroom? This law will only inconvenience law-abiding people, just like gun control laws.

    Conservatives: It doesn't matter. If there is even a tiny chance that some pervert might get into a bathroom and put women in danger, we have to act!

    Me: Okay, so women in bathrooms need to be protected from anything that puts them in danger, even if that danger is tiny?

    Conservatives: That's right!

    Me: Okay, let's require everyone who enters a woman's restroom be vaccinated and wear a mask. After all, COVID has killed thousands of women. Even though the odds of getting COVID that way are tiny, women need to be protected!

    Conservatives: That's different! People should have the freedom to use the restroom, even if there's a tiny chance they'll endanger someone's life. Freedom is important, you can't inconvenience people over a tiny danger.

    Me: What made you change your tune? It's really inconvenient for trans women and trans men to use the other gender's restroom. Especially if they pass for the gender they identify as, they're probably in far more danger of harassment than cis people are. In fact, the people who will probably be most inconvenienced by a heavily enforced restriction on bathrooms are cisgender men and women who happen to have really feminine/masculine features and are mistaken for trans. What about their freedom and convenience?

    Conservatives: You don't understand. We're not libertarians. We don't actually care about freedom, convenience, or safety. We just use freedom and safety to justify whatever policies fit our prejudices. If a policy only harms the freedom of people we don't like, then freedom doesn't matter, only safety does. But if a policy takes away our freedom then it doesn't matter how many people our behavior endangers, freedom trumps safety every time.

    Me: Honesty? How refreshing.

    1. Why should your fears be a burden on the lives individuals who do not share them?

    2. Garble-hore equivocates like the other Kleptocracy half. Freedom is the absence of coercion. Soi-disant christians and communists alike imagine "rights" as excuses to coerce, not ethical justifications for acting without aggression. "Freedom" only enters their worldview when someone resists their particular coercive predilections. Trying to stop Texas Violence-Against-Women-Aggressors would qualify as obstruction of Justice according to the new George Wallace, just as failure to pay a penny in sales tax is reason for socialists to whip out a loaded gun.

    3. It's all too obvious that little criminal had exactly in mind to predate on young girls and he's not the only one either.

    4. The issue I have with the Progressive establishment’s efforts to make Trans a fashion statement is that,, like many of their other efforts to champion this and t hat, it attracts predators, perverts, and nuts. My Lady’s Uncle was a predator (minor; he bullied but did not, so far as we know, go as far as rape). He didn’t care which sex he preyed upon, he got off on emotionally abusing and manipulating people. When the Gay movement was new and fashionable, he found it convenient to present as Gay, because it gave him cover. I have numerous Gay friends who tell me this isn’t as uncommon as one might hope.

      Now Trans is fashionable. And persons are using it as an excuse to cheat in Women’s Sports, to expose male genitalia to women, and to otherwise behave in a manner that begs to be corrected with a tire iron. They assert that they are Trans. I beg leave to doubt.

      The reason this concerns me is that I have Trans acquaintances and family, and when the inevitable backlash happens, they are going to catch grief for the behavior of the predators and nuts who are using Trans as a cover.

  54. The little punk put on a dress so he could invade girls bathrooms and rape them, which is why he did it twice. His decision was made purely for that purpose. He is a predator and will grow up to be an even worse predator if he isn't taken out of society permanently.
    As for the Lousy County School Board, who knew about this,covered it up and then transferred the little monster to another school where he raped another girl, they should all be arrested and charged with felonies such as failure to report a felony and aiding and abetting the perpetration of another rape.
    This is not going down well. There's gonna be hell to pay and as Youngkin is now the new Governor of Virginia, the members of that school board are going to begin sweating profusely at the thought of what's coming. I hope they get it all.

  55. So the girl agreed to meet the boy in the bathroom stall, then disagreed about permissions. When Ayn Rand was accused of glorifying rape (Howard Roark and Dominique Francon) she replied that "If that was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation."

  56. If this was NOT about trans gender identity or lack of school security why did the School board face the issue straight on? The cover up and lying were seen as an attempt to protect their trans gender policies. Open the discussion and say it was not a random attack and deal with the thing as a crime. The dishonesty of the Board just allowed the over amped reaction and the frenzy by the parents. The rumors became facts and the board just buried their collective heads in the sand and allowed others to frame the story as they saw fit, The media never investigated or put the matter in perspective or printed the actual facts. That Board was just too arrogant to deal with the issue honestly.

  57. #1 you left out the fact this gender fluid raped 2 girls at separate schools instead of being removed he was transferred after the first rape. You also failed to mention the superintendent who is pro transgender democrat tried to cover this up and lied about it. Then your boy Terry tried to lie and say this never happened too. Well now Youngkin is your governor and that school board is toast your all about to get fired and if you hid this from law enforcement I want your asses in prison. You hid this because its damaging to your transgender political agenda. I dont care a rapist gets no free pass trans or fluid or whatever ... https://loudounnow.com/2021/10/26/teen-convicted-in-sexual-assault-of-stone-bridge-student/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.