Loudon school rapist put on sex registry for life

Archive link.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220101213342/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/loudoun-county-trans.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20220101213342/www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/loudoun-county-trans.html

Have a look on an archive site ArabellaScott and you can find it. I'd put a link but doing that usually gets the post deleted.

In summary the opinion piece gives an account of what happened but then does this big reveal:

But this week, during a juvenile court hearing, a fuller picture of Smith’s daughter’s ordeal emerged. She suffered something atrocious. It had nothing at all to do, however, with trans bathroom policies. Instead, like many women and girls, she was a victim of relationship violence.

Smith’s daughter testified that she’d previously had two consensual sexual encounters with her attacker in the school bathroom. On the day of her assault, they’d agreed to meet up again. “The evidence was that the girl chose that bathroom, but her intent was to talk to him, not to engage in sexual relations,” Biberaj, whose office prosecuted the case, told me. The boy, however, expected sex and refused to accept the girl’s refusal. As the The Washington Post reported, she testified, “He flipped me over. I was on the ground and couldn’t move and he sexually assaulted me.”

The boy was indeed wearing a skirt, but that skirt didn’t authorize him to use the girls’ bathroom. As Amanda Terkel reported in HuffPost, the school district’s trans-inclusive bathroom policies were approved only in August, more than two months after the assault. This was not, said Biberaj, someone “identifying as transgender and going into the girls’ bathroom under the guise of that.”

It ends sadly saying how the real story is about disinformation and people being taken in by a lie.

Dare I ask if the rapist has been sent to a male or female institution?

I can't read this - can anyone else?

From last year - www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/loudoun-county-trans.html

I know that my unthinking or "be kind" friends are heavily (sub-consciously) influenced by hearing the words "woman" and "girl" used when talking about this issue.

Have you seen this?

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

My friend thinks "transwoman" means a female who identifies as a man, not the other way around. She thought the uproar about "transwomen" participating in the Olympics was because of bigotry over some women's decision of how to present themselves rather than males be allowed to compete in women's categories! She has at least 2 master degrees from excellent universities and is still confused by this!

I've seen this a lot in newspaper comments. People who think a 'trans woman' is a woman (female person) who identifies as transgender. Have you explained to your friend that 'transwomen' in sports are people like Laurel Hubbard?

[quote justaftb]@Datun - agreed.

I keep thinking about how powerful language is and how gender ideologists have manipulated language.

We have two sexes - male and female. We segregate some services and facilities into separate facilities for males and females. One of the reasons we do this is because females are at risk of violence from males. Not all males, but some males. This is proven.

But we start calling some males "transwomen" or "transgirls", promulgating the the idea that these males are a subset of females rather than a subset of males, that they are different to other males, that they have more in common with females than their fellow males, that they suffer the same risks from males as females do.

Why do our legislators, our politicians, our decision makers believe that this subset of males deserve special privileges? What is their justification for making allowances for this subset of males? What are these exceptions based on?

I refuse to use the words "woman" or "girl" now when referring to individuals from this subset of males. I will not participate in the perpetration of this fraud for as long as women and girls suffer as a result of it.

I know that my unthinking or "be kind" friends are heavily (sub-consciously) influenced by hearing the words "woman" and "girl" used when talking about this issue. Some don't even understand that we are talking about males. When discussing the Olympics, one Canadian friend said that it was OK that "transwomen" were participating in the women's categories. There was a "transwoman" on the Canadian women's soccer team and she didn't have any advantage over the other players. Yes, there was a person who identifies as trans on the team, but she was female! My friend thinks "transwoman" means a female who identifies as a man, not the other way around. She thought the uproar about "transwomen" participating in the Olympics was because of bigotry over some women's decision of how to present themselves rather than males be allowed to compete in women's categories! She has at least 2 master degrees from excellent universities and is still confused by this!

As no good reason is forthcoming for why we make exceptions for one subset of males and allow them to use services and facilities designed for females, then either we allow no males, no matter how they identify, use those services and facilities, or we abolish all single-sex services and facilities because allowing one subset of males in seems to be saying that we do not need to segregate the sexes at all.[/quote]
I agree. The entire concept is nonsense.

There is a clip of Julia Long talking in her own marvellously eloquent way about how unnecessary it is to talk about people being trans at all.

It's just men and women.

The only reason I give it any verbal acquiescence at all is because of the threat of consequences.

I'm being compelled,

@Datun - agreed.

I keep thinking about how powerful language is and how gender ideologists have manipulated language.

We have two sexes - male and female. We segregate some services and facilities into separate facilities for males and females. One of the reasons we do this is because females are at risk of violence from males. Not all males, but some males. This is proven.

But we start calling some males "transwomen" or "transgirls", promulgating the the idea that these males are a subset of females rather than a subset of males, that they are different to other males, that they have more in common with females than their fellow males, that they suffer the same risks from males as females do.

Why do our legislators, our politicians, our decision makers believe that this subset of males deserve special privileges? What is their justification for making allowances for this subset of males? What are these exceptions based on?

I refuse to use the words "woman" or "girl" now when referring to individuals from this subset of males. I will not participate in the perpetration of this fraud for as long as women and girls suffer as a result of it.

I know that my unthinking or "be kind" friends are heavily (sub-consciously) influenced by hearing the words "woman" and "girl" used when talking about this issue. Some don't even understand that we are talking about males. When discussing the Olympics, one Canadian friend said that it was OK that "transwomen" were participating in the women's categories. There was a "transwoman" on the Canadian women's soccer team and she didn't have any advantage over the other players. Yes, there was a person who identifies as trans on the team, but she was female! My friend thinks "transwoman" means a female who identifies as a man, not the other way around. She thought the uproar about "transwomen" participating in the Olympics was because of bigotry over some women's decision of how to present themselves rather than males be allowed to compete in women's categories! She has at least 2 master degrees from excellent universities and is still confused by this!

As no good reason is forthcoming for why we make exceptions for one subset of males and allow them to use services and facilities designed for females, then either we allow no males, no matter how they identify, use those services and facilities, or we abolish all single-sex services and facilities because allowing one subset of males in seems to be saying that we do not need to segregate the sexes at all.

I look forward to seeing the coverage of this verdict in the Guardian, which has of course featured a lot of coverage and opinion on the issue of "trans women" accessing women's bathrooms.

And the other tribe, republicans, well, not even worth considering to any degree what they say, no matter how serious the issue, such as child rape, as they are so clearly wrong as they are, well, republicans. That's why is so bad when politics gets so polarised that people stop listening to each other. If you can't listen you can't actually think.

And that's the problem, isn't it. Pretending that the concept of trans is meaningful in any way that can be applied.

It isn't. It can't be defined, therefore it can be applied or unapplied at will.

Which, to me, makes it completely irrelevant. Its only relevance is that it is allowing men to access women when they shouldn't be.

Looks to me like we're all on the same page here.

I'm sad about Obama, I thought he'd be better than that. Michelle is such a force for girls' education, what's gone wrong there?

Its not that Obama was not interested in the facts. He was prepared to tell an alleged (at that time) rape victim that what happened to her was trivial, fake - there are more important issues to concentrate on that the right of girls to be free from assault in school.

He's not better than any other victim blaming bastard or misogynist or thinks women's concerns are secondary to everyone and everything else. And certainly secondary to winning elections.

If the boy in a skirt who entered the girl's toilets and raped a girl had been beaten up or raped by a fellow male pupil, TRAs would be screaming from the rooftops about violence against people who identify as trans. He would have become the poster child for the trans rights movement. Vigils would be held for him. Awards names after him.

But because the boy in a skirt raped 3 girls on different occasions and is described as the judge as one of the most disturbing cases she has come across, the optics are not good and TRAs are screaming that it is transphobic to say he is trans just because he was wearing a skirt.

This ideology has to eat itself soon. It makes no sense, there are no definitions, no rules. We are expected to accept people with trans identities as just being like the rest of us, regular people, but we are also expected to believe that they are purer than pure, that no one amongst their number is capable of committing a crime, that they are only ever the victims.

Trans everywhere except when found guilty of a crime. But suddenly trans again when sentencing is happening and it is being determined which prison estate they should server their time in.

Gender fluid indeed.

"Fake outrage"

Oh dear. I hope an apology is forthcoming.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10132499/Loudoun-County-parents-tell-Obama-apologize-rape-victims-dad-fake-outrage-claim.html

Note the tricksy wording "the former President called the row encircling it". It's quite possible Obama didn't know the details of the rape and sexual assault cases and simply assumed that anyone protesting against the introduction of these "progressive" ideas into the education system must be right-wing bigots. In other words, he was driven by partisan politics, and not interested in the facts.

[quote PandorasMailbox]I hope everyone who enabled this and called these girls liars (looking at you Obama) hangs their heads in shame.

Shame on all of you.

"Over the years this court has read many psychosexual reports, and when I read yours, frankly, it scared me."

www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-loudoun-rapist-sentenced-put-on-sex-offender-registry-for-life[/quote]

What did Obama say?

I agree with every word of this. Self id removes women’s spaces completely and is unsafe. That is what should be the real moral here- this kind of heinous crime is only facilitated by allowing men into women’s spaces

I'm trying to understand your position here. I think you are trying to state that women should argue their need to be be safe from males, without mentioning the trans issue?

The problem with that is that it is the gender/ trans ideology movement which is arguing FOR the access of males to female spaces. No-one else is doing this.
So we do have to say that this ideology is making women/ girls unsafe, and that males do not become safe just because they say they are trans, or people are too scared to challenge any male for fear of being accused of transphobia. And the Loudon case illustrates this on so many levels: in the actual assault and in the refusal to address the fact the assault had taken place and the character assassinate the victim and her family when they tried to demand justice and safeguarding. ALL of this happened because of the politics of this gender/ trans ideology.

@InvisibleDragon quite.

Definitions matter. Get over it.

I wonder what a teacher or other authority figure at the school would have done had they received a report that a young male person wearing a skirt was in the girl's toilets? I doubt they would have said "them wearing a skirt is irrelevant to what my responsibility is here". My guess is they wouldn't have rushed over to get him ejected.