Loudon school rapist put on sex registry for life

I think what's happening on this thread is the transition from the "This didn't happen and it's transphobic to say it did" argument to the next stage: "This happened but it's transphobic to say the rapist was transgender (just because he was wearing a skirt)."

timeisnotaline
No, not at all. The boy is not trans. I’m saying it looks transphobic to say a boy who raped a girl is a trans boy who raped a girl

If you are going to engage in the 'trans debate' you may wish to avoid being seen as transphobic by using the term "trans boy" for a transgender male.
A "trans boy" is the term used for females.

when there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for this at all, apart from wearing a skirt which was just one little part of him being seriously disturbed.

Your not a true trans argument fails to align with the fact that the school treated the male as being trans.
The mother claims to reject the schools assessment of the male as being trans after being informed of the sexual assault. The school have additional liability issues if the male was allowed access to a single sex female only space so accepting the mother's claim may be rather financially expedient.
The school management was involved in a political battle to allow mixed sex facilities. The fact that children in their care were using the single sex bathrooms for sexual encounters should have been evidence enough that providing free access to mixed sex bathrooms for all children was in and of it's self a safeguarding concern. The campaign continued which the senior management claimed that the sexual assault of a male on a female in a single sex bathroom was not a "trans issue" / did not happen, which was a politicaly expedient claim.
As for what mother claimed who wants her child to end up as the bathroom rapist poster child. She was also aware her child faced a justice system which has the politically elected chief prosecuter show up to convict the parent who was arrested for objecting to how his raped child was being treated by the school.

(no, I don’t think a male wearing a skirt makes him a psychopath, just as I don’t think a male wearing a skirt makes him trans. This boy clearly has serious issues)

Per Stonewall definitions your statement is transphobic as cross-dressing falls within the trans umbrella.

People who really cannot see the dangers of this ideology in the treatment of the Father, in the way the adherents of the ideology attacked him as a whistle blower, as an apostate. There really is none so blind as those that cannot see.

No, not at all. The boy is not trans. I’m saying it looks transphobic to say a boy who raped a girl is a trans boy who raped a girl when there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for this at all, apart from wearing a skirt which was just one little part of him being seriously disturbed

The whole problem with this gender ideology is that there is no definition of trans. Everyone has to be taken at their word so any male can access female toilets. That's the whole point of the danger of this ideology. Males do not become safe to women because they say they are trans. Males do not become safe to women because no-one is allowed to challenge any males access to female spaces because they may be trans.
That's the whole safeguarding loophole that we see the inevitable consequence of (a raped girl) in this case.

How long will it be before we see cases where a sexual offence is committed by a person with a "fluid gender identity" and there will be mitigating defence submissions in court about where their gender identity had fluided to at the time they were committing the offence?

History repeating itself. Its the new priestly caste which must not be criticised or you make the whole church (ideology) look bad.
The fact that children and women get abused when you give one class of people a special status which removes them from normal safeguarding principles that apply to everyone else, is acceptable collateral damage. And you must not speak of it. The Church and its special status must be preserved.

That poor father.

He was desperate to have his daughter seen as a person who had been maltreated and deserved justice.

He was painted as an agressive, insane, moron.

He was a loving dad who wanted his daughter, and all the girls, to be safe from a proven sexual predator.

Poor sod. I hope he and his family are ok.

Apparently his mother claims that he's not trans, simply pansexual. But since she's on record for trying to put blame onto the first victim, and generally trying to excuse his behaviour, I wouldn't suggest taking her word for it.

You don't need any criteria to be trans, just saying it out loud, is enough. Or people believing that you are trans even if you're not, is also enough to claim discrimination on that basis.

Did he say he was trans? Because he was wearing a skirt and a blouse, and was accessing the girls toilets.

And Soon after, the school board sought to pass a policy that would permit transgender students to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

Unless he stood there and said even though I'm wearing a skirt and a blouse and I want to use the girls toilets I'm not trans?

I'm also nonplussed at the idea that a school boy wearing a skirt in school and gaining access to the girls' toilet has nothing to do with trans at all. In a school in the midst of a campaign to facilitate access by males into toilet spaces for girls.

It's grim to see that my difficulty to make these completely independent issues marks me out as having contributed to the problems of this case in some way.

So wearing a skirt and using the girl’s bathroom wasn’t sufficient evidence that he was trans? According to Stonewall, cross dressing falls within the definition of trans. And according to Galop, politely pointing out to a male that facilities are single sex is a transphobic act.
How are we to know who is trans and who is not? And how do we keep women and girls safe in the meantime while we work this out?

No, not at all. The boy is not trans. I’m saying it looks transphobic to say a boy who raped a girl is a trans boy who raped a girl when there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for this at all, apart from wearing a skirt which was just one little part of him being seriously disturbed. (no, I don’t think a male wearing a skirt makes him a psychopath, just as I don’t think a male wearing a skirt makes him trans. This boy clearly has serious issues)

Ah. The 'not true trans' argument. Wearing a skirt meets the definition of cross-dressing and cross-dressing falls firmly under Stonewall's definition of trans.

The bigger problem is just males in general and they shouldn’t be allowed in girls bathrooms
And
a broad atmosphere of misogyny relabelled as woke that says girls don’t deserve protection,

These statements I completely agree with.

I generally think the litigation culture in the US is unhealthy, but I really hope parents sue the arse off this despicable individual:

"To address concern by parents that this could cause a safety issue, Superintendent Scott Zeigler said definitively that there had been no bathroom sexual assaults in the Loudoun schools."

The second victim had her mother read a statement, in which she asked “why me?” She said that she knew the assailant was wearing an ankle monitor when he arrived at her school as a transfer student, but gave him a chance anyway. She did not know that he was wearing it because he had been arrested for forcible sodomy in his previous school, and felt that he took advantage of her kindness.

Be kind girls, be kind, no matter what.

Appalling.

Ah

Wtf did I just read? Where is whoever it was in the school that knew about the rape, lied about it, and changed bathrooms to mixed sex? They need to answer for this surely.

Am I reading the pp correct

Gender critical people pointed out it was a male in the female place which was a problem as sone males have a problem with behaviour,

and so its thier fault he wasn't stopped earlier because that distracted others into thinking poor transgirl they get such hate

so the GC people should not have said male in the ladies is a bad idea and then the prosecution would have been faster - because?

People are quicker to believe wrong of girls so a girl on girl crime will get picked up easier than boy on girl ?

But that would just enable a false narrative to persist ( self is is harmless, all "true" transwomen are harmless ) and lead to more rapes ?

I think timeisnotaline is saying it is transphobic to report rapes by transgendered people because it makes them look bad.

This proves the fear that so many have. Males will 'self ID' to attack women. Then TRA and their political allies will deny the attack happened rather than look at how self ID has allowed it to happen.
This boy was repeatedly entering what should have been a single sex space and was allowed to because he wore a skirt. Far from being the fault of gender critical, logical people, this is proof their fears are legitimate and real.
The spa incident and this incident show that predators will use self ID to offend and the offenders will be defended by the left wing press and politicians.

Sorry @timeisnotaline, are you blaming this on gender critical women for being fucking furious? Or is my sleepless mind fog misinterpreting what you’ve written?