What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Revisiting the issue of allowing biological males to use women's bathrooms, and the Loudoun County rape case (1 Viewer)

I haven’t read through the articles about these particular assaults, but I do recall the debate in the now deleted thread being more along the lines of cis men dressing up as women so that they could access the women’s restroom to perpetrate assaults than trans women committing the assaults. But if that’s the argument, wouldn’t allowing trans males into the women’s restroom also provide cover for cis males to go into women’s restrooms to perpetrate assaults? They wouldn’t even have to dress up. 
I don’t think there is any evidence that trans people commit violent sex crimes more often than the general population, or cis males specifically, in any setting. Likewise, it’s not clear to me if shared or unisex restrooms encourage such crimes.

If the bathroom police are correct, what needs to be shown is a statistically increased risk of sexual assault/rape in restrooms where trans-accommodating laws/regulations have been enacted. If that is proven, the logistics of regulating restroom entry need to be determined, as it’s not difficult to imagine a would-be sex offender effectively disguising themselves as a female.

 
I don’t think there is any evidence that trans people commit violent sex crimes more often than the general population, or cis males specifically, in any setting. Likewise, it’s not clear to me if shared or unisex restrooms encourage such crimes.

If the bathroom police are correct, what needs to be shown is a statistically increased risk of sexual assault/rape in restrooms where trans-accommodating laws/regulations have been enacted. If that is proven, the logistics of regulating restroom entry need to be determined, as it’s not difficult to imagine a would-be sex offender effectively disguising themselves as a female.
In Europe and other places, unisex restrooms are common and have been for a long while. 

Just tossing that out there to maybe remove that part of the set up of the statement because it does not seem to be that "because this new thing now occurs, [x] results."  It seems to be more like "this is happening currently and the introduced new aspect appears to be tied to the policy".  

I don't know.  Not coming down on a side. That thought just occurred to me as I read it. 

 
The young man was not allowed in the women's restroom by school policy as the transgender policy was not put into effect until 2 months after the assault. At the time of the assault the young man just took opportunity where presented itself as he did apparently in October.
So they passed the policy allowing biological males to use the girls’ restroom AFTER the rape?  And after the 6/22 meeting where the Superintendent blatantly lied to the public saying a rape hadn’t occurred in the restroom?  Yeah, that makes the whole situation a lot better.

 
I don’t think there is any evidence that trans people commit violent sex crimes more often than the general population, or cis males specifically, in any setting. Likewise, it’s not clear to me if shared or unisex restrooms encourage such crimes.

If the bathroom police are correct, what needs to be shown is a statistically increased risk of sexual assault/rape in restrooms where trans-accommodating laws/regulations have been enacted. If that is proven, the logistics of regulating restroom entry need to be determined, as it’s not difficult to imagine a would-be sex offender effectively disguising themselves as a female.
Man you are one naïve dude.  You honestly think there would ever be a study on transgender rapes in bathrooms?  The school board wouldn’t even admit it to themselves.  In fact they specifically lied about it and said it didn’t happen.

I also find it curious that you put the burden of statistical data and studies on the “bathroom police”, yet you don’t apply that standard to yourself, saying “I don’t think there is any evidence that trans people commit violent sex crimes more often than the general population, or cis males specifically, in any setting.”  

 
Man you are one naïve dude.  You honestly think there would ever be a study on transgender rapes in bathrooms?  The school board wouldn’t even admit it to themselves.  In fact they specifically lied about it and said it didn’t happen.

I also find it curious that you put the burden of statistical data and studies on the “bathroom police”, yet you don’t apply that standard to yourself, saying “I don’t think there is any evidence that trans people commit violent sex crimes more often than the general population, or cis males specifically, in any setting.”  
I’m not sure if studies on bathroom sex crimes exist, period. And I didn’t find any evidence trans people commit violent sex crimes with greater frequency than the cis male population. Better?

Also, feel free to provide some data to educate me.

 
I’m not sure if studies on bathroom sex crimes exist, period. And I didn’t find any evidence trans people commit violent sex crimes with greater frequency than the cis male population. Better?

Also, feel free to provide some data to educate me.


They don't, as I imagine that there has probably not been enough of them to merit any sort of study.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those interested, the father of the 14 year old girl who was raped (known to you Libs as the bigoted domestic terrorist) will be on Laura Ingram tonight at 10:20.
What? I'm a lib and this guy is not known to me as a domestic terrorist. What are you even talking about?

 
To answer the OP’s question: no, I don’t remember when anyone in here insisted that biological men being allowed in women’s bathrooms would never result in any sexual assaults.

 
Are girls dropping their pants in the hallway?  You don’t get the whole privacy thing?  This was a crime of opportunity.  He could have raped her afterward in the hallway.  He didn’t.  He raped her in a bathroom, where it was just the two of them, in a place where the school allowed him to be.
You’re wasting your time

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right and if that person wasn't allowed in the hallways the second person wouldn't have been assaulted.  Do you think that we should prohibit trans people from using the hallways?  If you think bathrooms and hallways should be treated differently you need to explain why.  If you think trans people should be prohibited from being everywhere that a sexual assault might occur, you need to explain why that policy makes sense (given that the overwhelming majority of rapes/sexual assaults are committed by cis men).
Are girls dropping their pants in the hallway?  You don’t get the whole privacy thing?  This was a crime of opportunity.  He could have raped her afterward in the hallway.  He didn’t.  He raped her in a bathroom, where it was just the two of them, in a place where the school allowed him to be.
The second alleged assault was in an empty classroom, where it was just the two of them, after the perpetrator allegedly pushed the victim into the room from the hallway.  There are plenty of places other than bathrooms where one-on-one interactions can occur.

I don't spend a lot of time in women's restrooms but my understanding is that folks don't usually just walk around with their pants down.  That seems like more of a locker room thing.  My impression is that in bathrooms pants dropping is usually just happening in a stall.

 
The second alleged assault was in an empty classroom, where it was just the two of them, after the perpetrator allegedly pushed the victim into the room from the hallway.  There are plenty of places other than bathrooms where one-on-one interactions can occur.

I don't spend a lot of time in women's restrooms but my understanding is that folks don't usually just walk around with their pants down.  That seems like more of a locker room thing.  My impression is that in bathrooms pants dropping is usually just happening in a stall.


i submit that it is less about the location but more about the mental illness.  I think it is rare for this type of mental illness to result in physical violence toward others. I suggest it is more common for self harm to occur.

Regardless, pretending the mentally ill are "ok" does not actually help them so much as make others feel somehow virtuous at the expense of those who are hurting.

 
i submit that it is less about the location but more about the mental illness.  I think it is rare for this type of mental illness to result in physical violence toward others. I suggest it is more common for self harm to occur.

Regardless, pretending the mentally ill are "ok" does not actually help them so much as make others feel somehow virtuous at the expense of those who are hurting.


Well even mentally ill people* need to go to the bathroom.  If it's not about the location, and physical violence against others is rare, maybe we should just let them poop where they want.

*I don't agree with your characterization here but I don't think it really matters for the purpose of deciding bathroom rules.  

 
Man you are one naïve dude.  You honestly think there would ever be a study on transgender rapes in bathrooms?  The school board wouldn’t even admit it to themselves.  In fact they specifically lied about it and said it didn’t happen.

I also find it curious that you put the burden of statistical data and studies on the “bathroom police”, yet you don’t apply that standard to yourself, saying “I don’t think there is any evidence that trans people commit violent sex crimes more often than the general population, or cis males specifically, in any setting.”  
What?  It is his job to disprove a proposition for which there is no evidence?  Science is dying in America. 
 

 
zoonation said:
Do you honestly think that this predator wouldn’t have assaulted someone if he wasn’t allowed in that bathroom?  That is what this thread is trying to be.  


I do not understand your assertion, please clarify.

I remain in my stance that those with mental illness should receive treatment and not placation.

 
I think I may have figured out @Sparky Big Time's argument:

1) Transgenderism is a form of mental illness and normalizing it does not help the people that suffer from this illness

2) Allowing people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with normalizes transgenderism

3) Therefore restricting bathroom use to a person's gender assigned at birth is in the best interests of trans people, even though they don't see it that way.  It's not about the safety or privacy of cis people, it's about the mental health of trans people.

Sparky please tell me if this is correct, thanks.

 
Cowboysfan8 said:
ekbeats said:
Are girls dropping their pants in the hallway?  You don’t get the whole privacy thing?  This was a crime of opportunity.  He could have raped her afterward in the hallway.  He didn’t.  He raped her in a bathroom, where it was just the two of them, in a place where the school allowed him to be.
You’re wasting your time
Someone had a note earlier in the thread that no, the kid was not actually allowed in the bathroom

 
Joe Schmo said:
This is a serious topic so am not being trifling but the title of the thread and some of the discussion seems misplaced to me. According the the op the male wearing the skirt was not Allowed into the girls restroom as the school system had not yet implemented a policy regarding trans use of bathroom facilities. That didn't occur until two months later. This means the alleged rapist acted not with permission but unilaterally decided the time, place, means and manner of the assault without regard to policy or law, much like all predators.

 
I would be inclined to point out that this... individual has almost certainly carried out other assaults, and/or would have, regardless of the school district's policies, and regardless of whether or not he was wearing a skirt. But then I suppose I'd be accused of minimizing or defending the... individual's actions, so I'll have to just keep my mouth shut. Nice thread you have here. Seems like you're really looking for some illuminating discourse.


LOGICAL FALLACY: Nirvana Fallacy

Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy

******

I suspect a lot of the reaction here is to the thread title.

While I agree with ekbeats in general sentiment ( i.e. that tribalism from hard line leftists will often oppose a practical functioning civil society), I would have personally chosen a different thread title.

The facts are enough. Just present the facts and keep presenting the facts and information and the weight of that will eventually crush reverse tribalism pushback.

Human beings are biologically hardwired to do two specific things

1) Survive

2) Reproduce

As a survival mechanism, adults, particularly men, have a protective mentality and behavioral pattern towards children. Particularly young girls. In effect, the rape of a young girl is not just a crime against the girl, not just a crime against her family, not just a crime against established laws, but a crime against all of society.

The violation of some natural laws are actually an open threat and attack on any functional civil society.

Are you minimizing the rape of a child? Your rationalizing defending your "political tribe" which was prodded by a thread title and a raped child is simply a casualty of that logically fallacious indifference.

Point to note, your viewpoint is yours, it's your free speech, but it would only be tolerated in a society of abundance. All throughout recorded human history, in societies where the resource base was scarce, attacks against natural law were given a savage ruthless swift response.

There are places in the world that don't have the wealth of a modern Western society. In those places, this rapist, even though a minor, would be put on his knees and have his throat cut. The administrators who allegedly covered this up, if found guilty, would be put on their knees and have their throats cut. You, for rationalizing this in the open, would be put on your knees and have your throat cut.

I don't agree with the thread title in principle. I agree with the general sentiment and understand the outrage though. That being said, I find the tribal response to the thread title, by some though not all, to be repugnant.

Too many lawyers in the FBG forums. Too many overeducated tone deaf white collar professional yuppies drowning in their first world problems. Point to note, if many of you, not all, talked the way you do here outside of the general "Western Bubble", you would all be eventually killed for it.

Too much abundance makes people soft. It provides soft cover for their seething but casual indifference.

Hard times are coming. Most of you won't survive. Honestly, most of you don't deserve to survive.

 
Too many lawyers in the FBG forums. Too many overeducated tone deaf white collar professional yuppies drowning in their first world problems. Point to note, if many of you, not all, talked the way you do here outside of the general "Western Bubble", you would all be eventually killed for it.

Too much abundance makes people soft. It provides soft cover for their seething but casual indifference.

Hard times are coming. Most of you won't survive. Honestly, most of you don't deserve to survive.
Quit pretending that you know me. Or anything about me really. I have a strength that I suspect you can only pretend to fathom. 

 
Shutout said:
Shouting from the rooftops is far far from calling the authorities and reporting a crime

I don't know why you are trying to be so dismissive about the rape of a girl. I don't care. But for corrective purposes, let's clarify to make sure we aren't expecting anyone to broadcast it from the rooftops. We are simply questioning why the school board didn't abide by the law, report a crime, and protect a child. 
I'm not remotely trying to be dismissive of the incident. I am trying to be dismissive of labeling it a 'cover up,' as I don't think it meets that standard remotely.

 
Quit pretending that you know me. Or anything about me really. I have a strength that I suspect you can only pretend to fathom. 


This response is pretty interesting.

I wasn't referring to you. There are a lot of lawyers here in these forums, most of them far less skilled than you. I have a good eye for talent. If I had to hire someone here for Tier 1 level legal work, it would likely be an offer to you, johnnycakes and krista4. Though I suspect none of you need my help to have a good career and there are clear diminishing returns to working for a gangster, naturally dominant or not.

Actually I consider you very thoughtful and insightful.

It is my great hope that you live your life to be a better man than me. I don't think that threshold would be all that hard to overcome. I would not wish my life and burdens upon anyone here.

I see your talent. I'm not quite sure you do though. One day I genuinely hope that changes.

 
:blowsout:

Lots of nuances and unclear answers with the issues surrounding trans-kids in school.

Not yet discussed in this thread, and something I'd like to bring up first, is kids choosing to be trans. I guess, from their perspective, it may not feel like much of a choice, but choosing to be out about it vs closeted or whatever, that is a choice. There is downside to this, for these kids. Especially ones that have not yet fully gone through puberty and have started hormone treatments. Some of these kids, who don't let their biology follow through with its blueprint through biological post-pubescence they have issues. Like, some are never able to achieve an orgasm. That is an impact for some. I'm not an expert on biology or gender re-assignment, but I've read about that issue and am under the impression that there can be other impacts too.

Also not covered in this thread: sports. I personally do not think that whatever you identify as should determine which gender you compete with. The reason we have separate sports of separate genders is because of biology, not gender roles or how people dress. It was to maintain fairness, as biology builds men and women differently.

Covered here some, are trans-people more dangerous than regular people? I think this is probably a no, so I do not think there should be special 'safety' methods put in place to protect people from them. If there is research that determines otherwise, then I'm open to discussing more. 

Covered here plenty, bathrooms. This whole conservation strikes me as silly. We're so prudish in this country, just go to unisex bathrooms and call it a day. I say that as a father of 2 middle school aged girls. I do not think they'd be any less safe if their school went to unisex bathrooms than they are presently.

And the final issue here... these kids themselves. They feel like something they're not born as. It's gotta be real rough for them. I do think we should do what we can, and within reason, to help them out with this. Do we need to make additional bathrooms in every school for them? No. Do we need to let someone who is 6'5" and identified as male last month join the girls basketball team because she now identifies as female and wants a scholarship? No. Can we treat them with 100% respect and recognize what a personal struggle life must be for them? Emphatically yes. Gosh man, high school is a tough and awkward time when you're a standard gender, I can't imagine these kids struggles.

-----

So, that's my view of it all in a nutshell. And I bet, most of you think similar or close or can at least see why I think what I think. And I'm open to updating these thoughts if there is more information to inform these opinions. It is a shame that this issue, like so many others today, devolves into partisan BS. Everyone's so worried about what the other side can/might/will do. Some people are over-afraid of something different, but I bet those people at their core do not wish for a kid's life to be hell just because he or she is trans. Some people are hyper-reactive to protect those trans-kids, and ready to cancel anyone who takes a stance with any deviation from what they see is correct. Lots of name calling. Meltdowns at school boards, protests, conspiracy jibberish. No one seeing that all of that, from cancelling to conspiracy mongering, it's just wrong. It is bad for everyone. Bad for trans-kids, bad for regular kids, bad for schools, bad for the country. We're setting a terrible example. There is no longer any debate. The world isn't black and white, it's all shades of grey and if we cannot discuss things with nuance anymore, then we are a failed state and what we're living through is the fall of this country.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not remotely trying to be dismissive of the incident. I am trying to be dismissive of labeling it a 'cover up,' as I don't think it meets that standard remotely.


People in general will hold a zero tolerance standard when it comes to the safety and well being of their children.

I said this 15 years ago in these forums, if you want to find the two biggest groups of racist and bigots in America, look no further than

1) Parents

2) Homeowners.

Parents make a constant threat assessment around their children. The reality of human behavior and human interaction is we constantly our verbalizing our value systems every single day and in nearly every interaction.

If you want to split hairs to a legal distinction, so be it. To be fair, I want due process as well. I believe due process is important. That being said, most people will react as they do to you because of the perceived values you are promoting or their interpretation of them.

In effect, the aggression comes not from your opinions nor your free speech, but the subconscious question of if you are the kind of person who would approve of rape and/or hold the threat profile of a pedophile. And by extension, would you harm their children or any other children.  Do I think you are a rapist and/or a pedophile? No, I don't think that. But we are talking a visceral instinctive response based on ingrained biological imperative. The law doesn't stop humans being reacting in a very humanistic manner. 

I suspect a lot of people won't even realize they are not on the surface level perceiving the situation as such. If you kept saying what you did in front of your spouse/friends/family/coworkers/boss/social network, instinctively they would all likely assess you as less trustworthy because of it.

You can't fight how people are biologically hardwired.

To you, to your eyes, you sound like you want to be fair over reactive outrage. To them, to their eyes, you sound like a threat to their children and possibly, to some, as a closet rapist.

You want something more than zero tolerance. And I actually understand that. But to do so will expose you the silent question on if you are a pedophile or not. You'll say that's not fair. And it's not fair. But fairness has nothing to do with instinctive responses that have kept the human race alive so far.

Again, personally speaking, I don't consider your free speech to be an indictment of you as a potential rapist nor as a potential pedophile. I also don't consider it fair if others might consider your position to be an indictment of you as a potential rapist nor as a potential pedophile. I would go further and say society at large should not take your standing as some kind of indication and indictment of you as a potential rapist nor as a potential pedophile.

But that's logic and people are not instinctively hardwired to be logical about their children.

If you think I'm wrong, take your young son or daughter or a niece or nephew or little cousin to the playground. As your little buddy is playing on the jungle gym and as you sit on a bench, watch how the other women there will silently catch you in the corner of their eye if you are the only guy there.

Test it. Let us all know how it ends up for you.

 
Between the fact that I can't read the article without subscribing and I can't even tell what the policy was at the time of the incident it makes the thread tough to follow. What I've gleaned so far is that "the libs in here insisted" about something, which right away leads me to believe it's culture outrage of some sort where "sides" are drawn and spoken for with a broad brush, and that hard times are coming and most of us won't and don't deserve to survive. 

Great thread though. 

 
Loudoun County Schools Tried To Conceal Sexual Assault Against Daughter In Bathroom, Father Says

Luke Rosiak

On June 22, Scott Smith was arrested at a Loudoun County, Virginia, school board meeting, a meeting that was ultimately deemed an “unlawful assembly” after many attendees vocally opposed a policy on transgender students.

What people did not know is that weeks prior on May 28, Smith says, a boy allegedly wearing a skirt entered a girls’ bathroom at nearby Stone Bridge High School, where he sexually assaulted Smith’s ninth-grade daughter. 

Juvenile records are sealed, but Smith’s attorney Elizabeth Lancaster told The Daily Wire that a boy was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio, related to an incident that day at that school. 

“If someone would have sat and listened for thirty seconds to what Scott had to say, they would have been mortified and heartbroken,” Scott’s attorney, Elizabeth Lancaster said.

As a result of the viral video showing his arrest, Smith became the poster child for what the National School Boards Association has since suggested could be a form of “domestic terrorism”: a white blue-collar male who showed up to harangue obscure public servants on his local school board.

“If someone would have sat and listened for thirty seconds to what Scott had to say, they would have been mortified and heartbroken,” Lancaster said.

Minutes before Smith’s arrest, the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) superintendent lectured the public that concerns about the transgender policy were misplaced because the school system had no record of any assault occurring in any school bathroom.

Then a woman wearing a rainbow heart shirt – a left-wing community activist – told Smith she did not believe his daughter, he says. His rage reached a boil and he had a heated exchange of words with the woman. A police officer, there to keep the peace in the meeting, pulled on his arm. Smith yanked it away. Before he knew it, Smith says, he was hit in the face, handcuffed, and dragged across the floor, with his pants pulled down. Images of the incident were splashed on televisions and newspapers across the world.

Buta Biberaj, the county’s progressive, top elected prosecutor, who has close ties to the school board’s most liberal members, appeared in court to personally prosecute Smith for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Biberaj ran on a platform of ending “mass incarceration,” but she wanted to put Smith in jail for the misdemeanors.

As prosecutor, Biberaj would have known about the case involving Smith’s daughter. The suspect, juvenile court prosecutors assured Smith, was being held responsible: He was on house arrest, confined to his mother’s townhouse. According to Lancaster, a conviction was expected on October 14, likely in the form of a guilty plea to a lesser sexual assault charge. 

But on October 6, according to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, a 15-year-old was charged with sexual battery and abduction after police said he forced a girl into an empty classroom, held her against her will, and touched her inappropriately.

Lancaster says the suspect is the same boy that allegedly attacked Smith’s daughter.

What follows, based on extensive exclusive reporting from Loudoun County, is Smith’s experience. It is a story the school system and media were never going to tell.

An Incident In A School Bathroom in Loudoun County

On May 28, Stone Bridge High School called Smith to come to the school, where they told him that his 15-year-old daughter had just been physically assaulted in a bathroom by a male, Smith says. When he arrived, he determined that what had happened was not a case of his daughter being beaten up: It was far more serious. 

The school said it was handling the incident in-house. Smith was dumbfounded.

Deputies from the sheriff’s office ultimately responded to the school – not to investigate the alleged rape of a child, Smith said, but because school administrators called them on him for making a scene about it.

Smith acknowledges he did make a scene and says any father would have done the same in the situation. “I went nuts. I called the principal a p—-,” he said. “Six cop cars showed up like a f—ing SWAT team” to respond to the school’s complaint about an assertive parent, he said. 

“Thank God that I drew enough attention to it, without getting arrested, that we got an escort to the hospital and they administered a rape kit that night,” Smith said. A SANE exam and buccal swab, his lawyer said, later came back favorable to the prosecution’s case.

All juvenile court records are sealed. The sheriff’s office declined to release records relating to Smith to The Daily Wire but, in response to a public records request, confirmed that a report with “Offense: Forcible Sodomy [and] Sexual Battery” matching that date and location exists.

At 4:48 p.m. on the day of the incident, the principal sent out an email to the community that claimed nothing jeopardizing student safety had occurred, painting Smith as the villain, and offering counseling services for witnesses of Smith’s blowup:

Good evening Stone Bridge families this [sic] is Stone Bridge Principal Tim Flynn. There was an incident in the main office area today that required the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office to dispatch deputies to Stone Bridge. The incident was confined to the main office and the entrance area to the school. There was no threat to the safety of the student body. The incident was witnessed by a small number of students who were meeting with staff adjacent to the main office. Counseling services and the services of our Unified Mental Health Team are available for any student who may need to talk about today’s incident. Students might have noticed Sheriff’s Office personnel on campus and I wanted to let you know that something out of the ordinary happened at school today. The safety of our students and staff is the top priority of Loudoun County Public Schools.

“LCPS washed their hands of this,” Smith said, and it was taken seriously only because of the sheriff’s office.

LCPS Director of Communications Joan Sahlgren said only that “Any information related to student information is confidential under state and federal laws regarding student privacy.”

Lancaster told The Daily Wire that she accompanied Smith’s daughter to meetings with prosecutors, that the suspect made self-incriminating statements in an interview, that prosecutors brought the charges, and that a conviction was expected imminently, likely in the form of a plea deal to a charge of felony aggravated sexual battery.

Smith had not opposed the downgrade, saying about the boy, “What if he made one mistake?”

An “Unlawful Assembly”  

Smith, a plumber, and his wife Jess, who grew up as an Army brat, have always leaned conservative politically, but not terribly so. “I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t really follow politics until the last few years,” he said. The couple had never been to a school board meeting.

But on June 22, the school board held a meeting where the focus of discussion was a proposal expanding special protections to transgender students. They showed up out of practical concerns.

“My wife and I are gay- and lesbian-friendly,” Smith told The Daily Wire. “We’re not into this children transgender stuff. 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.”

From the dais, school board member Beth Barts painted such concerns as paranoia and prejudice. “Our students do not need to be protected, and they are not in danger,” she said. “Do we have assaults in our bathrooms or locker rooms regularly?”

A woman protests at a Loudoun County School Board meeting: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Superintendent Scott Ziegler replied: “To my knowledge, we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.”

Board chair Brenda Sheridan asked, “Have we had any issues involving transgender students in our bathrooms or locker rooms?”

Ziegler answered:

Time Magazine in 2016 called that a red herring, that the data was simply not playing out that transgender students were more likely to assault cisgender students in restrooms than were other students. In fact, regardless of the gender identity of the student, if a crime or violation of the rules were committed, that would be investigated and dealt with to the full extent of the rules or the law. …

 I think it’s important to keep our perspective on this, we’ve heard it several times tonight from our public speakers but the predator transgender student or person simply does not exist.

Smith tried to contain himself as activists who prioritize “lived experience” and “believe women” ignored his daughter.

“My child was raped at school, and this is what happens!” 

Nearly 250 members of the public had signed up to speak. Many of them were critical of the school system’s racial and transgender initiatives. Others were supporters of the transgender policy who painted their neighbors as ignorant bigots, with one saying “hate” was “dripping from the followers of Jesus in this room.” Opponents booed at that remark, and the board threatened to stop the meeting if participants were loud again.

After another speaker blasted the school board for suspending a teacher named Tanner Cross for speaking in opposition to a transgender proposal during the public comment portion of a previous meeting, the crowd cheered, and the board shut the meeting down. (Two courts later ruled that Cross must be reinstated.)

The response – a public body censoring the public as a direct result of it complaining about earlier censorship – was typical of what has made Loudoun County an avatar of the social instability brought by the politicization of schools. 

This much you may know already: Infamously, after far-left board member Barts was elected in 2019 with 55% of the vote, she lashed out at parents who disagreed with progressive- and teachers union-backed policies so often and with such vitriol that her peers – most of whom agreed with her views – censured her and stripped her of her committee assignments. 

Barts retreated to a Facebook group, officially known as the Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County and later known to critics as Chardonnay Antifa, populated by other progressive government officials, teachers, and a small but highly engaged faction of activist-minded community members. “I’m losing any hope that remaining civil towards these people changes anything,” one member wrote. “Avoiding these people isn’t enough to stop the spread of their evil rhetoric.”

Barts told the group that ethics rules were making it difficult for her to identify and call out such parents by name, and asked for help. The group took the hint and took up the banner.

They responded enthusiastically to a call to “hack” parents who questioned school board policies and “expose these people publicly.” They set out making lists of parents who posed a risk to their school policy agenda, replete with their spouse’s names, areas of residence, and employers.

Less understood, until now, is that these initiatives were not necessarily limited to behind a keyboard.

A frequent participant in the group was a woman named Jackie Schworm.

“Does anyone have a list of the parents who organized against the diversity library books?” Schworm posted, according to records subpoenaed from Facebook pursuant to a sheriff’s criminal investigation into the group. Schworm volunteered to find information about parents who disagreed with school policies, writing of one, “I’ll see what I can find out. She blocked me a while ago.”

One member wrote that a conservative school board member, John Beatty, had once spoken to parents at a church and told attendees they “should tell the schools what they wanted taught.” Another member replied with an idea to convince the Southern Poverty Law Center to list disfavored local groups as “hate groups,” then cite that designation to give ammunition for the school board to “have them banned from speaking publicly at meetings.”

Schworm said one minute later: “He’s truly scary… Have seen him ‘around’ and he makes Michelle Leffler [a conservative mom who has called attention to sexual assault in LCPS] look sane.”

Schworm was at the June 22 school board meeting, wearing a shirt with a rainbow heart on it. As a Girl Scout troop leader, Jess had mentored Schworm’s daughter. Smith and Jess said Schworm sought them out in the crowd, demanded to know which side they were on, then berated them that they were wrong. “Jess, who is this?” Smith asked his wife.

“I thought she was my friend,” Jess replied. 

Smith tried to tell her what happened to his daughter, he said. “And she looks me dead in the eyes and says ‘that’s not what happened.’” 

Schworm noticed that Smith was wearing a shirt with the name of his plumbing business on it, “And she goes ‘Oh… I’m going to ruin your business on social media,’” he said.

“You’re a #####,” Smith told her, video shows. A police officer monitoring the tension-filled exchange pulled on Smith’s arm, he yanked it away, and soon, Smith and the officer were wrestling. Other officers pinned Smith to the ground, bloodying his lip in the process, as Smith uttered, “I can’t breathe.” 

Jess cried out, in words lost in the chaos: “My child was raped at school, and this is what happens!” 

Smith was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

An Effort At “Restorative Justice”?

In an often-contradictory, nearly 40-minute call with The Daily Wire, Schworm contended she had no relationship to this topic, that she did not have any sort of argument with Smith, and did not know he had been arrested. “I’m a stay-at-home mom. I volunteer, I donate,” she said.

After The Daily Wire offered evidence of her involvement, she said she went over to ask Jess for a “play date” between their teenage daughters. She claimed that she asked Jess how she was doing, to which Jess purportedly responded: “We know CRT [critical race theory] isn’t real, but we don’t want them to know it.”

Schworm told The Daily Wire that if Smith’s daughter told them she was raped by “a Martian,” she would believe her, but also made repeated comments about the daughter’s mental stability.

Parents protest outside a Loudoun County school board meeting: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images

As to her comments on the Facebook group, she told The Daily Wire that the group was apolitical, she had never taken part in list-making activities, and that “I have no idea who Michelle Leffler is.” She later amended her remarks to say that Leffler is racist.

After Schworm repeatedly brought up that Smith was convicted of a crime, The Daily Wire asked if a restorative justice circle – a technique pushed by progressive prosecutors as an alternative to punishment – would have been a positive resolution to the arrest. 

The case would seem to be a better fit than most for the technique: It would mean getting everyone in a room to talk about what happened. The daughter shares her story, Schworm, Smith, and the cop talk about why they did what they did, and everyone understands each other better. Schworm said she did not know what restorative justice was.

The Daily Wire told Schworm it was interested in the incident as an emblem of Americans talking past each other, dividing neighbors into camps populated by two-dimensional caricatures. Is it possible she did not hear what Smith was trying to tell her because she went over there with a predetermined conclusion and loud opinions, just as he may have done the same? Does learning of what his daughter went through now give her a more nuanced understanding of why Smith holds the beliefs on school policy that he does?

This attempt at quasi-restorative justice did not seem to cause any breakthroughs. Though it may never be known definitively what words were exchanged during the incident, the remark Schworm attributes to Jess – that Jess confessed that she “knows” that critical race theory does not exist, but hatched a plot to come to a school board meeting to trick rubes into thinking it does in order to stir them up – strains credulity.

An International Media Incident And A Humiliated Parent

The overweight white plumber in handcuffs has served as a two-dimensional caricature for a variety of ideologues all over the world for three months. No one knew what happened – but they were sure they knew exactly who he was anyway, and they hated it so badly that one suburb’s town hall became an international media event. 

Smith had to put up temporary fencing around his house for three days to keep the media out. “The radio and TV people were coming for days,” he said. When he arrives at people’s homes for early-morning plumbing jobs, he has a habit of bringing customers’ newspapers in from the driveway for them, but for days, every newspaper he picked up had his bloodied face on it. When he finally laid in bed with his wife to get some rest, he turned on the TV and inevitably saw himself.

The body-positive crowd humiliated him for his looks. They mocked his inadvertent near-nudity, with one activist heckling online, “his gender pronoun is almost showing.” The National School Boards Association cited Scott’s arrest as an example of the sort of incidents that, they said, might justify invoking the anti-terrorism PATRIOT Act on U.S. citizens.

When it was all over, he was no longer politically uninvolved… nor moderate. Now, when people associated with left-wing activists call his plumbing company for service, “we started saying if you support this bulls—, call a different plumber.”

What has happened to Loudoun County in the last two years is notable not because its population is especially far-left, but because it is not, and this has happened anyway. Loudoun is in many ways more typical of America, with a politically mixed population. Its western half is bucolic farmland. In 2015, every member of its county board of supervisors was Republican. Its congresswoman, until 2018, was Republican.

Smith grew up in the area “when it was farms and cows and rednecks and we drank beers and smoked pot and got along with everyone. There was no white and black issue. We all got along,” he said. To this day Loudoun has no inner-city areas whose problems are the impetus for places like San Francisco to adopt far-left policies; black families in Loudoun have a median income of $112,000. It is, for the most part, just a lot of regular, two-parent suburban households. 

In November 2019, progressive activists won public office in Loudoun with as little as 51% of the vote, and Democratic control was cemented. It is a peculiarity of Virginia law that local elections are held in odd-numbered years, leading to low-turnout elections that can be carried by small numbers of people with strong beliefs. Some of these elections were defined by the brazen intervention of outside interests. It was clear they were often more interested in national politics than in the everyday concerns of local residents. 

Juli Briskman was a tech worker who happened to be captured by White House press corps photographers extending her middle finger at then-President Donald Trump’s motorcade as it passed through the county, where his company owns a golf property. After national left-leaning publications had some fun with the photograph, her local employer fired her for the uncouth act, but she set up a GoFundMe that raised money from Trump haters across the country, in order to make up for lost wages. So much money poured in that she used the windfall to run for a position on the county’s board of supervisors. She won 54% of the vote, turning an obscure position previously concerned largely with activities like paving roads into a soapbox for national partisan affairs.

Biberaj, the prosecutor, was elected by a 1% margin after George Soros paid $845,000 to support her bid. Her opponent, the Republican incumbent, spent $113,000 altogether.

Parents protest Loudoun County Public Schools: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

Despite a moderate population and few of the problems that typically justify radical politics, when Democrats crossed the 50% mark, they began using formerly apolitical institutions, such as schools and courts, as weapons in a nakedly partisan quest for power.

When citizens collected enough signatures to begin a court process recalling Barts, partly for her activities in the Anti-Racist Parents Facebook group, it would fall, under the vagaries of Virginia law, to Biberaj to prosecute the recall. Biberaj did not recuse herself, even though she was part of that group and promoted a letter to the editor that mocked the recall effort and those opposed to transgender policies. A judge ultimately had to intervene to disqualify her.

There was one relief valve: the sheriff, which is an elected position for which voters chose Mike Chapman, a Republican. In response, the Democrat-controlled board of supervisors pushed for strippingthe duties of the sheriff’s office and creating a police force that would report to them instead.

A Disorderly Conduct Prosecution

Biberaj is known for leniency and alternatives to incarceration. On July 30, Peter J. Lollobrigido was released from jail on a $5,000 unsecured bond while facing charges of strangulation, abduction, and assault on a family member. On September 19, he allegedly returned to finish the job, killing his wife with a hammer. A few days after Lollobrigido was released, on August 17, Smith faced court for two misdemeanors, disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice (resisting arrest), for the school board incident.

Lancaster, the Smith family’s attorney, was sure the charges would be dropped. Instead, Biberaj – the top law enforcement officer in a county of 400,000 residents – showed up to personally try the misdemeanor case.

Lancaster explained in court that her client was angry after his daughter was sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a person identifying as “gender fluid” and reminded her that prosecutors had substantiated the assault and chosen to bring charges. But Biberaj sought jail time against Smith.

“It is incredibly unusual for a disorderly conduct case to even go forward. The idea that they would actually be seeking jail time, I’d guess in my 15 years the number of times I’ve seen that happen would be zero,” Lancaster told The Daily Wire. “It would be completely unheard of for the prosecutor to handle a misdemeanor.”

Biberaj was not just the top prosecutor. She was the prosecutor who espoused a radical commitment to not jailing people for minor crimes and avoiding criminal convictions altogether when possible. 

But when Smith crossed the far-left by holding an opposing opinion on a school policy affecting his daughter, there was no “believe all women.” There was no appeal for tolerance and inclusivity for Smith’s viewpoint. His case brought no outrage about police kneeling on men saying “I can’t breathe.” And a strict law-and-order approach triumphed over leniency.

“The idea that this is a person who we need to put in a cage was astounding to me given the social justice reform she was pushing. I was blown away,” Lancaster said.

“I’m a bleeding heart liberal,” Lancaster, a former public defender, said. But “I don’t get where the vitriol comes from… that if you don’t believe what I believe, you’re a monster.” 

“I’ve known Buta for years. We’ve been colleagues for years,” she said. “When you’re a public defender you get to recognize the humanity of every single person, no matter what they look like or talk like. She used to do that, and I guess it’s gone. And that’s sad to me.”

The charges against Smith were so minor that there was no option to have a jury trial, which Smith believes he would have won. That option is available only through an appeal, which will cost him more than the thousands of dollars he has already spent on legal fees.

On August 11, the school board voted to approve the transgender policy. Smith could not sign up to speak so that policymakers could make their decision with knowledge of the Stone Bridge incident: Days before it, he received a letter informing him he is banned from the school board building. 

A Second Sexual Assault

Smith said nothing as his likeness traveled around the world, the avatar of ignorant bigotry. Advisors told him it would be better to let the process against his daughter’s assailant play out. He did not want to risk interfering.

“It has been so hard to keep my mouth shut and wait this out. It has been the most powerless thing I’ve ever been through,” Smith said.

“It has been so hard to keep my mouth shut and wait this out. It has been the most powerless thing I’ve ever been through,” he said. “I don’t care if he’s homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, transsexual. He’s a sexual predator.”

The culprit was expected to plead guilty on October 14, following the negotiation of a plea agreement. But on October 6, the Sheriff’s Office put out a press release that led Smith to believe that the process was not working.

“A teenager from Ashburn has been charged with sexual battery and abduction of a fellow student at Broad Run High School. The investigation determined on the afternoon of October 6, the 15-year-old suspect forced the victim into an empty classroom where he held her against her will and inappropriately touched her,” it said. 

A government official told The Daily Wire the name of the student. It was the same name as the boy who allegedly assaulted Smith’s daughter.

The Daily Wire is withholding the name of the suspect because of his age. Reached at home, his mother declined to comment on the allegations.

The prosecutors with whom Smith and his wife had been communicating about the rape case “never alerted us” about the alleged repeat offense, Smith said. He did not believe it could actually be the same person.

But “we called his probation officer and he told me ‘yep, I put him in juvy yesterday.’” They contacted the Special Victims Unit detective, “and she said ‘I can’t tell you what happened, but it happened and it’s bad.’” 

Jess contacted prosecutors, whom Jess said told her that his court date had been postponed from October 14 to October 25 in order to handle both charges together.

“I don’t even know why he was at a school,” Smith said. “Why was this motherf—er allowed to do this again?”

The Aftermath

Two girls, allegedly sexually assaulted in school, four months apart, by the same person. And so far, the only person to be convicted of a crime is the victim’s father.

A school policy passed following what appear to be false statements from the superintendent – a policy whose passage would have been politically impossible had Smith’s story seen the light of day.

Will this cause anything to change in Loudoun? Has anyone learned anything? There is no evidence that the answer is yes on either count.

Biberaj did not return a request for comment. Though the criminal justice system is a bedrock component of any community on which everyone must be able to rely, her office generally does not reply to The Daily Wire’s inquiries on various topics.

Though the injection of politics into schools and criminal justice have led to pain where there was none before, and enemies where there once were neighbors, it is possible – no less surreal than any other element of this story, at least – that some elected officials of Loudoun County might actually believe this story has a happy ending:

Though Smith’s daughter has been allegedly raped and separately beaten at school, the teen has adopted increasingly strong progressive views over the course of her tenure at LCPS.

“Where does she get these ideas? From school, obviously,” Jess said. “It’s not from our home.”

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.


Here's the article for @Grace Under Pressure and anyone else that can't access it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also not covered in this thread: sports. I personally do not think that whatever you identify as should determine which gender you compete with. The reason we have separate sports of separate genders is because of biology, not gender roles or how people dress. It was to maintain fairness, as biology builds men and women differently.


We have an extensive dedicated thread to this specific topic if you're interested:

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/792459-biden-vs-girls-sports/?tab=comments#comment-23210503

 
Godsbrother said:
To answer the OP’s question: no, I don’t remember when anyone in here insisted that biological men being allowed in women’s bathrooms would never result in any sexual assaults.


No one did. Not one person made that ridiculous argument. 

The thread title is flat out wrong and needs to be corrected. 

 
Did anybody forthrightly say that yes, some rapes would probably take place and that's a price that we should be willing to pay in this context?  Because it seems like that's the position that a lot of people in this thread hold (me included) but are being kind of coy about.

 
Did anybody forthrightly say that yes, some rapes would probably take place and that's a price that we should be willing to pay in this context?  Because it seems like that's the position that a lot of people in this thread hold (me included) but are being kind of coy about.
If there was evidence that this led to an additional one or two rapes per year nationwide, I think the benefits to thousands outweigh the admittedly tragic outcome for the one or two victims.

If this actually led to thousands of additional rapes I would be against it.  But I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the precise number of rapes that would change my mind.  Mostly because I'm skeptical that it leads to any additional rapes at all.

 
Did anybody forthrightly say that yes, some rapes would probably take place and that's a price that we should be willing to pay in this context?  Because it seems like that's the position that a lot of people in this thread hold (me included) but are being kind of coy about.
I hadn't thought about an increase in rapes due to this policy change , not sure there is any indication that would be the case but am open to the possibility.

 
This response is pretty interesting.

I wasn't referring to you. There are a lot of lawyers here in these forums, most of them far less skilled than you. I have a good eye for talent. If I had to hire someone here for Tier 1 level legal work, it would likely be an offer to you, johnnycakes and krista4. Though I suspect none of you need my help to have a good career and there are clear diminishing returns to working for a gangster, naturally dominant or not.

Actually I consider you very thoughtful and insightful.

It is my great hope that you live your life to be a better man than me. I don't think that threshold would be all that hard to overcome. I would not wish my life and burdens upon anyone here.

I see your talent. I'm not quite sure you do though. One day I genuinely hope that changes.
Well I’m unsure how to respond to this post. On the one hand, you are both complimentary and self-deprecating (in a way), which due to my generally polite nature would lead me to respond in kind. So thank you for the kind words and positive evaluation. But I also sort of think you missed the entire point of my post. It wasn’t about my legal acumen (or lack thereof) at all. My response was squarely aimed at what I view as your baseless judgement of a segment of posters here which I think is based more on a reflection of your own bravado than any real insight into anything legitimate or genuine. You really don’t know any of the posters you disparage. You don’t know of the successes they’ve achieved, whether professionally or otherwise.  You don’t know what challenges they have overcome. And you certainly have no basis of knowing their level of strength or resiliency. So maybe you should consider knocking it off and just focus on the debate at hand. Of course, that is a merely a suggestion, though offered in all earnestness. Do with it what you will. 

And as for your concluding point, I really have no idea what you are getting at. I am very self-aware about my own talents and shortcomings. And professionally, I am fully cognizant of the possibility that I might have one of the most interesting jobs for a lawyer that there is, even though my professional judgment precludes me from talking much about it. 

 
Here's the article for @Grace Under Pressure and anyone else that can't access it.
Thank you, that certainly helps. Taking a whack at this sans "sides" (if possible). The article is extremely slanted, and I'll try to stick to the facts as they're presented.

The procedures regarding school security, incident handling, and the roles of the parties involved requires a serious investigation. The fact that a perpetrator was allowed back into another school setting is disturbing and policies should be re-examined and corrected. Anyone who knew about the first incident and facilitated this outcome should be investigated and possibly disciplined, depending on the outcome. If the superintendent covered it up, he should be disciplined as well. 

The father didn't handle any of this properly but I give him a full pass on his first incident at the school. The board meeting, not so much. I don't give anyone at the board meeting a pass. This board meeting stuff is out of control, and Louden County seems to be an epicenter for it, not sure what kind of coincidence that is but it smells funny. Way too much about adults with their politics and way too little about the students. Actually the article does the same thing. It gets into some political tangent that only makes the story tougher to follow. The gist being "the libs took over" or something to that effect. 

Schools need to provide security with their bathroom situation regardless of their transgender policy. This thread, or at least the thread title, seems to be predicated on the transgender policy leading to the incident. That's clearly false based on the timeline of events. The issue that needs addressing is around school security, preventing a predator from attacking students at school, and preventing an offender from being placed back into the school setting. The transgender policy appears to be entirely tangential to the situation, to the article, and to the thread frankly. The policy isn't even addressed until paragraph 132 of the article, and it was passed months after the incident in question. 

But since the thread seems to want to focus on transgender bathroom policy anyway, in my opinion that's actually a school security issue. Whatever the policy is or isn't, schools need to be responsible for the safety of the students in classrooms, hallways and bathrooms. I lean toward providing free options in this regard, but I want to know what safety measures are in place regardless of the policy. I'm also not naïve enough to think events will never happen. I believe they'll happen to boys, girls, and transgender students, unfortunately, regardless of policy and security.

 
If there was evidence that this led to an additional one or two rapes per year nationwide, I think the benefits to thousands outweigh the admittedly tragic outcome for the one or two victims.
This is basically the mental calculus that I'm doing too.  I seriously doubt that making bathrooms marginally more inclusive is going to cause a massive rape spree, but I can live with one here and there.  This is one of those areas where we have to make a decision about how to handle restrooms, and somebody is going to be unhappy no matter what we do.  

 
Thank you, that certainly helps. Taking a whack at this sans "sides" (if possible). The article is extremely slanted, and I'll try to stick to the facts as they're presented.

The procedures regarding school security, incident handling, and the roles of the parties involved requires a serious investigation. The fact that a perpetrator was allowed back into another school setting is disturbing and policies should be re-examined and corrected. Anyone who knew about the first incident and facilitated this outcome should be investigated and possibly disciplined, depending on the outcome. If the superintendent covered it up, he should be disciplined as well. 

The father didn't handle any of this properly but I give him a full pass on his first incident at the school. The board meeting, not so much. I don't give anyone at the board meeting a pass. This board meeting stuff is out of control, and Louden County seems to be an epicenter for it, not sure what kind of coincidence that is but it smells funny. Way too much about adults with their politics and way too little about the students. Actually the article does the same thing. It gets into some political tangent that only makes the story tougher to follow. The gist being "the libs took over" or something to that effect. 

Schools need to provide security with their bathroom situation regardless of their transgender policy. This thread, or at least the thread title, seems to be predicated on the transgender policy leading to the incident. That's clearly false based on the timeline of events. The issue that needs addressing is around school security, preventing a predator from attacking students at school, and preventing an offender from being placed back into the school setting. The transgender policy appears to be entirely tangential to the situation, to the article, and to the thread frankly. The policy isn't even addressed until paragraph 132 of the article, and it was passed months after the incident in question. 

But since the thread seems to want to focus on transgender bathroom policy anyway, in my opinion that's actually a school security issue. Whatever the policy is or isn't, schools need to be responsible for the safety of the students in classrooms, hallways and bathrooms. I lean toward providing free options in this regard, but I want to know what safety measures are in place regardless of the policy. I'm also not naïve enough to think events will never happen. I believe they'll happen to boys, girls, and transgender students, unfortunately, regardless of policy and security.
I’m not sure how practical it is to provide bathroom security. But I definitely agree with regarding improving procedures regarding post-incident response. 

 
This is basically the mental calculus that I'm doing too.  I seriously doubt that making bathrooms marginally more inclusive is going to cause a massive rape spree, but I can live with one here and there.  This is one of those areas where we have to make a decision about how to handle restrooms, and somebody is going to be unhappy no matter what we do.  




GLAAD 2020 POST-ELECTION POLL: 81% OF LGBTQ VOTERS VOTED FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN; 93% OF REGISTERED LGBTQ VOTERS TURNED OUT TO VOTE AND 25% WERE FIRST-TIME VOTERS

November 20, 2020

https://www.glaad.org/releases/glaad-2020-post-election-poll-81-lgbtq-voters-voted-president-elect-biden-93-registered

*****

Now the above numbers are likely cooked to some degree. But to be fair, numbers as such are always subjective to some spin for an entire host of reasons based on self interest.

If we are talking pure math, then Yes, you are right. It's not like having boys in skirts or whatever they want to define themselves will suddenly start a groundswell of thousands upon thousands of rapes.

But parents don't think that way. Parents don't bet on odds when it comes to their children's safety. They don't want their kid to become that rare statistic. Will it dramatically increase a child's safety to hold an adults hand while walking across a crosswalk? The statistical odds say nearly all drivers will be aware of a child in front of them at a stop light and will react towards the child's safety accordingly.  But is that what happens? Schools have traffic guards. Child care centers put up signs. Parents clutch their children's hands. Special signs and lights and systems are set up by the city for children.  Children aren't being slaughtered wholesale walking to school in America. Even if you lifted all the other safety mechanisms, you could argue against 75+ million or so children in America, the rate of death from traffic accidents would be statistically low on a piece of paper.

Parents don't care about your math.

This isn't very complex. The Democratic Party has a locked in voting block. There's a reason they are generally promoting so much LGBT elements near young children and some are pushing for more "conversion" talk to kids at a younger age. They want legacy votes.

Here's the problem, a bigger "Party" than just Republican and Democrat are "Parents"

The "Parents Party" doesn't give a flying #### what some statistic says or not.

There are not enough LGBT voters out there to cover the staggering losses in the voting blocks of suburban women over this issue.

Establishment Democrats are making a calculated bet ( One I'd call horrible political strategy). They are making a wager they can indoctrinate more legacy LGBT voters in early education and the gains will be more than the losses they incur by the scandal/backlash they receive.

Establishment Democrats have reduced this innocent girl and her rape as a "loss leader" like she was some discounted toilet paper in a drug store's weekly ad to get more people to buy more cosmetics and vitamins.

In terms of just plain ethics, this is horrible. Reducing children to cannon fodder to secure a voting block.

In terms of long term political strategy, this is idiotic. Only someone completely insane would think it's a good idea to instigate the rage of the "Parents Party"  People will die for their children. Moreso they will kill for their children. And on top of that they will lose everything they have and own and value in this world to keep their children safe.

This isn't complex logistically. Get some Porta Potty type systems and have kids who don't mesh into another category go use that. But doing that won't secure a voting block.

So there won't be thousands and thousands of acts of rape,  but in effect, children are being held hostage as loss leaders for marginal political capital.  Establishment Democrats are pimping out these children for votes that eventually won't make a difference for them.

Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

 
LOGICAL FALLACY: Nirvana Fallacy

Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy

******

I suspect a lot of the reaction here is to the thread title.

While I agree with ekbeats in general sentiment ( i.e. that tribalism from hard line leftists will often oppose a practical functioning civil society), I would have personally chosen a different thread title.

The facts are enough. Just present the facts and keep presenting the facts and information and the weight of that will eventually crush reverse tribalism pushback.

Human beings are biologically hardwired to do two specific things

1) Survive

2) Reproduce

As a survival mechanism, adults, particularly men, have a protective mentality and behavioral pattern towards children. Particularly young girls. In effect, the rape of a young girl is not just a crime against the girl, not just a crime against her family, not just a crime against established laws, but a crime against all of society.

The violation of some natural laws are actually an open threat and attack on any functional civil society.

Are you minimizing the rape of a child? Your rationalizing defending your "political tribe" which was prodded by a thread title and a raped child is simply a casualty of that logically fallacious indifference.

Point to note, your viewpoint is yours, it's your free speech, but it would only be tolerated in a society of abundance. All throughout recorded human history, in societies where the resource base was scarce, attacks against natural law were given a savage ruthless swift response.

There are places in the world that don't have the wealth of a modern Western society. In those places, this rapist, even though a minor, would be put on his knees and have his throat cut. The administrators who allegedly covered this up, if found guilty, would be put on their knees and have their throats cut. You, for rationalizing this in the open, would be put on your knees and have your throat cut.

I don't agree with the thread title in principle. I agree with the general sentiment and understand the outrage though. That being said, I find the tribal response to the thread title, by some though not all, to be repugnant.

Too many lawyers in the FBG forums. Too many overeducated tone deaf white collar professional yuppies drowning in their first world problems. Point to note, if many of you, not all, talked the way you do here outside of the general "Western Bubble", you would all be eventually killed for it.

Too much abundance makes people soft. It provides soft cover for their seething but casual indifference.

Hard times are coming. Most of you won't survive. Honestly, most of you don't deserve to survive.
That's a whole lot of words, very few of which are related to the topic at hand, to basically say... what are you trying to say? We're all soft middle aged men that deserve to have their throats cut? I mean, I'm honored that you chose to quote me before going off on your diatribe, as you are currently the gold standard amongst the right-wingers here for the bloviating "own the libs" types of responses they're so fond of. And of course I will defer to you over the opening of your rant somehow being tangentially related to my post, because you're so obviously intellectually superior to me. Please humor my weak-minded inability to find that relation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did anybody forthrightly say that yes, some rapes would probably take place and that's a price that we should be willing to pay in this context?  Because it seems like that's the position that a lot of people in this thread hold (me included) but are being kind of coy about.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion rapes would increase, at least not to a greater extent than other situations where biologic males are isolated with females. There's nothing stopping rapists from dressing up as women under current bathroom designations, though I guess they wouldn't need a disguise if biologic men were allowed in under the assumption of trans status.

I also don't believe trans males are typically attracted to females, nor more likely to be sex offenders/pedophiles, as is oft implied. 

Ignoring all that, the net societal benefit is probably worth the small risk of an uptick in sex crimes IMO.

On a related note, I suspect unisex bathrooms would mitigate the risk of sexual predators, as good males would share the space with the bad guys, trans or not.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top