There appears to be a false statement made in the article: "about a transgender girl who sexually assaulted two girls in the women’s bathroom at two different high schools". The student in question sexually assaulted one student in one school in a bathroom, AND according to court proceedings abducted another girl in another school and f…
There appears to be a false statement made in the article: "about a transgender girl who sexually assaulted two girls in the women’s bathroom at two different high schools". The student in question sexually assaulted one student in one school in a bathroom, AND according to court proceedings abducted another girl in another school and forced her into a classroom (not a bathroom) where he forcibly touched her (either on or under her shirt). From an online report: "Loudoun County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge Pamela Brooks accepted the plea for abduction, which is a felony, and sexual battery, which is a misdemeanor" (https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/11/loudoun-county-teen-found-responsible-in-2nd-sexual-assault/
No he didn’t. The kid used claims of gender fluidity to gain access to the bathroom in the first case (and he was wearing a skirt) where he raped a girl. The school system covered it up because their new policy gave him a legal right to go into the girls’ bathroom. They moved him to another school quietly and another girl was assaulted there - something that should never have happened, and wouldn’t have, if they acknowledged the case and booted the rapist from regular high schools as they do other rapist.
Moreover, the judge in that case has overseen the cases hundreds of children accused of sexual assault and rape. She said in sentencing that this boy had the “most disturbing” physiological report she’d ever read. It made her “terrified for society.”
I think a careful comparison of Walsh's transcript with the facts of the case, as you've correctly summarized them, would reveal that he at least downplays some of the facts that don't entirely support the conclusion that the crime was sexual assault, committed by an adolescent who apparently took advantage of a rather ill-defined bathroom policy to have a pre-arranged consensual liaison with a female student, rather than a clear case of a trans-identified male using the policy to further a pattern of transgender predatory practice. And clearly the school system was at fault. The case is egregious enough based on the actual facts. I don't think the GC cause (which I wholeheartedly embrace) is furthered by misrepresenting facts to slant a story for the sake of generating outrage.
But there IS a pattern of rapists and sexual assaults being committed by people using those policies and claiming trans status, or gender fluidity. Look at the CA spa scandal, the “gender fluid” kindergartener assaulting a little girl in the GA school bathroom, or the number of “pro-trans” YouTube stars arrested for pedophilia (or just the number of US teachers this year). A lot of the argument on was he trans or did he use the policy inappropriately is semantics gymnastics.
If it’s not behind a paywall I highly recommend reading Matt Taibbi’s last few articles. He is NOT a right winger and yet, pointing out the assaults happening in CA women’s prisons by “female inmates with a penis” ends up at the same place. Can you tell the difference between a boy who claims to be gender fluid wearing a skirt to rape a girl in the bathroom, and a “transgender” boy with a penis in a skirt using the girls’ bathroom? Is there actually any difference? Or is the dispute semantics gymnastics?
I agree there is such a pattern. I just don't think the facts of that particular case support the allegation that it is actually an example of that pattern. When I first read the rather breathless accounts, I immediately assumed that it was an obvious instance of the pattern you cite. But as I looked into the details, it became clear that (although related in some ways), the motivations and actions involved in the adolescent male's crimes were unlikely to have more than an incidental relationship with the opportunities for abuse that are opened by the many badly misguided policies and laws allowing males access to women's spaces. I think it's unfortunate that this case was misinterpreted because of its appearance of being a poster child for the opposition to such policies. Legal experts who are actively engaged in examining the laws and policies and in advising politicians will quickly discover that this "example" is more rhetoric than substance. That has the negative impact of branding our legitimate, well-grounded examples as mere right-wing ideology, lacking basis in fact, which, I hasten to emphasize, is NOT the case.
BTW, I loved Taibbi's recent pieces on this issue. I don't think political axes belong in this battle at all. The fact that it's increasingly becoming a right-wing platform just alienates those on the left and makes the conversation about politics, not policies.
My understanding, with the first incident, is that they had *previously* engaged in arranged sexual encounters in the bathroom, but that for the incident in question, sex had not been planned, and the girl did not consent. That is rape, regardless of any prior sexual relationship.
There appears to be a false statement made in the article: "about a transgender girl who sexually assaulted two girls in the women’s bathroom at two different high schools". The student in question sexually assaulted one student in one school in a bathroom, AND according to court proceedings abducted another girl in another school and forced her into a classroom (not a bathroom) where he forcibly touched her (either on or under her shirt). From an online report: "Loudoun County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judge Pamela Brooks accepted the plea for abduction, which is a felony, and sexual battery, which is a misdemeanor" (https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/11/loudoun-county-teen-found-responsible-in-2nd-sexual-assault/
)
And a careful examination of the facts of the case leaves little question that Walsh misrepresents them.
No he didn’t. The kid used claims of gender fluidity to gain access to the bathroom in the first case (and he was wearing a skirt) where he raped a girl. The school system covered it up because their new policy gave him a legal right to go into the girls’ bathroom. They moved him to another school quietly and another girl was assaulted there - something that should never have happened, and wouldn’t have, if they acknowledged the case and booted the rapist from regular high schools as they do other rapist.
Moreover, the judge in that case has overseen the cases hundreds of children accused of sexual assault and rape. She said in sentencing that this boy had the “most disturbing” physiological report she’d ever read. It made her “terrified for society.”
I think a careful comparison of Walsh's transcript with the facts of the case, as you've correctly summarized them, would reveal that he at least downplays some of the facts that don't entirely support the conclusion that the crime was sexual assault, committed by an adolescent who apparently took advantage of a rather ill-defined bathroom policy to have a pre-arranged consensual liaison with a female student, rather than a clear case of a trans-identified male using the policy to further a pattern of transgender predatory practice. And clearly the school system was at fault. The case is egregious enough based on the actual facts. I don't think the GC cause (which I wholeheartedly embrace) is furthered by misrepresenting facts to slant a story for the sake of generating outrage.
But there IS a pattern of rapists and sexual assaults being committed by people using those policies and claiming trans status, or gender fluidity. Look at the CA spa scandal, the “gender fluid” kindergartener assaulting a little girl in the GA school bathroom, or the number of “pro-trans” YouTube stars arrested for pedophilia (or just the number of US teachers this year). A lot of the argument on was he trans or did he use the policy inappropriately is semantics gymnastics.
If it’s not behind a paywall I highly recommend reading Matt Taibbi’s last few articles. He is NOT a right winger and yet, pointing out the assaults happening in CA women’s prisons by “female inmates with a penis” ends up at the same place. Can you tell the difference between a boy who claims to be gender fluid wearing a skirt to rape a girl in the bathroom, and a “transgender” boy with a penis in a skirt using the girls’ bathroom? Is there actually any difference? Or is the dispute semantics gymnastics?
I agree there is such a pattern. I just don't think the facts of that particular case support the allegation that it is actually an example of that pattern. When I first read the rather breathless accounts, I immediately assumed that it was an obvious instance of the pattern you cite. But as I looked into the details, it became clear that (although related in some ways), the motivations and actions involved in the adolescent male's crimes were unlikely to have more than an incidental relationship with the opportunities for abuse that are opened by the many badly misguided policies and laws allowing males access to women's spaces. I think it's unfortunate that this case was misinterpreted because of its appearance of being a poster child for the opposition to such policies. Legal experts who are actively engaged in examining the laws and policies and in advising politicians will quickly discover that this "example" is more rhetoric than substance. That has the negative impact of branding our legitimate, well-grounded examples as mere right-wing ideology, lacking basis in fact, which, I hasten to emphasize, is NOT the case.
BTW, I loved Taibbi's recent pieces on this issue. I don't think political axes belong in this battle at all. The fact that it's increasingly becoming a right-wing platform just alienates those on the left and makes the conversation about politics, not policies.
My understanding, with the first incident, is that they had *previously* engaged in arranged sexual encounters in the bathroom, but that for the incident in question, sex had not been planned, and the girl did not consent. That is rape, regardless of any prior sexual relationship.