Loudon school rapist put on sex registry for life

[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

@Lovelyricepudding

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

Yup.

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.

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?

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.

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.

@JeshusHChr

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.

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.

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.

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)."

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.

@InvisibleDragon quite.

Definitions matter. Get over it.

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.

Many of us called this out years ago. We knew that males would use the trans umbrella to gain access to women and girls. It was a given. History shows us this.

The fact that this particular individual felt emboldened to behave like this, shows that he knew he would be able to get away with it. The message he and those like him get from making toilets and other facilities unisex, is that the feelings of women and girls don't matter.

Abusers will always exploit loopholes and claiming to be trans is just another loophole for them as it gives them the green light to behave in the way that he did. No doubt, porn has a big role in this too but isn't the only factor.

[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?

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.

"Fake outrage"

Oh dear. I hope an apology is forthcoming.

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.

@nauticant

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.

That's the point, isn't it? Women and girls are getting the message that this is a group of people beyond reproach, beyond accusation and if you dare to make an accusation we will come for YOU, and we will do it publicly.

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.

I agree @JeshusHChr

Another man I held in high esteem who shows himself to be a misogynist. You'd never think he had daughters.

@JeshusHChr

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.

No, Im not. I was just saying that earlier in the thread that there was misinformation going around at the time on timing of events and the boy’s gender identity, which distracted from the main point - that men assaulting women in bathrooms highlights exactly why self Id is dangerous whether the males are trans or not. And yes I do know self Id is driven by the TRAs and gender ideology. I’m not the MRA people seem to be reading me as here, so I might bow out as I’m obviously not coming across clearly.

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?

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.

@Masdintle

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 tribal identity. He so identifies as progressive, and this issue has been so well marketed as 'progressive'. that he's not even looking into the issue. He just somehow knows its right and he's right.

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.

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.

@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.

Looks like there's a second case looming

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10397305/Father-Loudoun-County-girl-raped-school-boy-skirt-relieved-sentenced.html

[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,