Teachers suing Loudoun County school board - trans policy

Page 2 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,530
Location: Melbourne, Australia

25 Oct 2021, 8:42 pm

In a case that has generated a political firestorm, a Virginia juvenile court judge found sufficient evidence during a trial Monday to sustain charges that a teen sexually assaulted a classmate in the girls’ bathroom of a Loudoun County high school in May.

The teenager, now 15, is also charged with the sexual assault of another student that occurred months later at a different Loudoun school. Loudoun County juvenile court Chief Judge Pamela L. Brooks said she would wait to sentence the teen until that case is decided in November.

The judge’s finding is the juvenile court equivalent of a guilty verdict in other courts.

The case generated local and national attention after the parents of the girl assaulted in May said the charged youth was “gender fluid,” prompting renewed backlash against a policy in Loudoun County schools that allows transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity. That policy was adopted after the May assault.

Authorities have not commented on the youth’s gender identity and it did not become an issue Monday in court. During the hearing, the 15-year-old victim in the first case testified she had consensual sexual encounters with the defendant on two occasions in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn. On May 28, she said, the two arranged to meet again and the youth threw her to the floor and forced her to perform sex acts.

The case also has sparked anger from parents who have questioned why the teen was allowed to attend another school while awaiting trial in the May assault. It has prompted the head of Loudoun County schools to embark on major reforms to the district’s disciplinary procedures to prevent a similar occurrence.


The defendant’s attorney William Mann said in his opening statement that the encounter between the two teens was consensual, just like the ones that had occurred on two previous occasions.

“They discussed sex regularly,” Mann said. “The encounter was just like it was before.”

The defendant did not testify during the trial, but prosecutors played interviews he gave detectives investigating the case during which he acknowledged “messing up” and said he did not intend to perform one sex act with the victim and said he stopped once he realized he was hurting the girl.

The defendant initially told detectives the second sexual act did not occur, but later said it may have happened briefly and accidentally when a knee-length skirt he was wearing got caught on his watch as the pair were fumbling around in the bathroom stall.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/in-case-at-center-of-political-firestorm-judge-finds-teen-committed-sexual-assault-in-virginia-school-bathroom/2021/10/25/42c037da-35cc-11ec-8be3-e14aaacfa8ac_story.html

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it" - Edith Sitwell
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell

Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,662
Location: Reading, England

26 Oct 2021, 5:38 am

Brictoria wrote:

I agree, but there's the third category of a man proclaiming to be trans, to get access to women's spaces.
Plus, there is the right-wing argument about pedophile men trying to get access to children by posing as women. Now, this is of course as unrelated to Trans issues as it always was to gay issues - but in the 60s and 70s, pedophile activists did try to hijack the gay movement, wwith some limited success even.
And again: I don't expect a pedophile would stick to identifying as male, when acting out his harmful drives.

There's a cluster of things coming together, because biological sex is tied to differences in extreme behaviours and gender is the construct on top, and pretending that the transgender movement can't be hijacked is short-sighted.

You seem to be getting close to the point of conflict between "conservative" and "progressive" views regarding societal change.

On one side (conservative), you have the existing "rules"\framework under which society operates at a given time. When a change is proposed, these people will look to how society is currently functioning to the benefit of the majority, and identify potential issues the proposed change may have on the current state of society\other areas of the population.

On the other side (progressive), you have a proposed change to the existing "rules"\framework in order to benefit\support\etc. a subset of the population, which may or may not have a direct impact on the rest of society. When proposing a change, they will look to what will benefit this group within society, while not neccesarily considering the full impact it may have on others outside the specific group the change is designed to benefit.

Both sides are necessary, and will have legitimate reasons for their opinions regarding the proposed change, but problems occur when either side is unwilling to look for a compromise with the other.

In this case, the progressives laughed at (and ignored) the view of the conservatives that there was a risk of "predators" utilising "bathrooms" for the type of incident as occurred at the Loudon county school, instead of acknowledging their concern and looking to implement some type of "safeguard" - They saw "the needs of the few" as being of more importance\requiring more urgent attention than the potential impact on "the many". Had a more measured approach been taken, though, what option would have been best to avoid this situation:
* Bathroom use based upon biological sex - potential risk to the transgendered
* Bathroom use based upon "gender" - potential risk to (in general, but not restricted to) females through bad actors taking advantage of this new access. Plus, given there are more than 2 "genders", what about those who identify differently to male\female?
* Mixed\shared bathrooms - potential risk to (in general, but not restricted to) females through bad actors taking advantage of this new access...Has the benefit of potential "help" from having more possible users to "defend" potential victim, but also assists cases were a group of "bad actors" are involved.
* transgender people using disabled toilets - potential "embarrasment" to users through being "singled out" by using this. Risk of inconvenience to those who require these facilities.
* Seperate bathroom for "transgender" people - potential "embarrasment" to users through being "singled out" by using this. Considerable cost involved in implementing.

So, which of these options (or some other option?) is the "correct" one? And should society as a whole (not merely the "progressive" portion, or that section for which the change is designed to "benefit") be able to have some say regarding what can be both simple and complex questions (not just on this subject, but on any other issue with potential societal impact) rather than having a "solution" foisted upon them by the beneficiaries\supporters of the "solution"?[/quote]
In this case, it is the regressives who are being radical, so I don’t think appealing to conservatism to justify transphobia works.

Toilets already use self-ID and have done since time immemorial. There are no security guards checking people’s genitals, birth certificates or karyotype in order to police who goes into which toilet.

The regressive right have abandoned this principle in order to try to police who gets to use which toilet, which has led to widespread harassment of short-haired women who use women’s toilets. In some cases, the police have even been called.

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/pride/art ... shes-woman

https://divamag.co.uk/2021/01/19/news-b ... c-toilets/

The notion of the trans predator is little more than scaremongering - if someone (regardless of gender) wants to commit sexual assault then they are unlikely to be stopped by a policy saying they can’t go in the bathroom.

There is frankly no merit to the regressive viewpoint. It is nakedly ideological, and it isn’t a respectable ideology. It flies in the face of evidence and practicality, not to mention sensible principles of legislative conservatism. Forcing people to prove their gender or sex before accessing a bathroom is not a conservative position, it is a radical one, whose proponents have not considered the impact of their position.