Father in viral video of school board arrest says his daughter was raped in school bathroom.
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.
As Loudoun schools sought to pass a controversial transgender policy in June, it concealed that a 9th-grade girl was allegedly raped by a "gender fluid" student in a school bathroom just 3 weeks prior, The Daily Wire has learned.https://t.co/t5IEv1vZZF
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Yea I brought it up and you chose to focus on that in particular while ignoring my overall point.
I’m not the one being inconsistent here, regardless of your strawman of me as an individual.
Your overall point was what, that if you care about women you should support these bathroom restrictions? I don't agree, and the game you're playing is no different than me saying if you cared about children you would support more gun restrictions. At least in that case guns are fundamental to the crime that we are trying to prevent. What percentage of rapes are men putting on a skirt and going into the women's restroom? Hit me with the data and not singular anecdotes on the threat that a more inclusive bathroom policy presents and we can have a conversation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
Your overall point was what, that if you care about women you should support these bathroom restrictions? I don't agree, and the game you're playing is no different than me saying if you cared about children you would support more gun restrictions. At least in that case guns are fundamental to the crime that we are trying to prevent. What percentage of rapes are men putting on a skirt and going into the women's restroom? Hit me with the data and not singular anecdotes on the threat that a more inclusive bathroom policy presents and we can have a conversation.
This is not a 'bathroom restriction' the change is a bathroom redefinition.
The argument isn't that we must have bathrooms segregated by gender to save women. The argument is that we already have bathrooms segregated by gender for myriad good reasons, and we need to weigh the costs of changing that status against the asserted benefits.
If trans persons are granted the liberty of a presumption of good faith to choose for themselves which bathroom is most comfortable for them, why don't we extend that presumption comprehensively? Just piss and shit wherever you like. Why limit it to bathrooms for that matter. If personal comfort and a presumption of rationality are the metrics, what business is it of yours if I take a piss by the ball fields in the park, or in the drainage of city streets?
What is so compelling about this specific concession to well-established and well-founded norms that makes it different from all other concessions?
Note - I ask this well aware of the likelihood that you won't give it reasoned assessment, as I had previously said no one is arguing for police checks of genital status at the bathroom door, and that the overwhelming majority of people, trans or not, would go about their business without incident with or without this change in the law, . . . then you came along and hypothesized with no evidence precisely to the contrary, so. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
This is not a 'bathroom restriction' the change is a bathroom redefinition.
The argument isn't that we must have bathrooms segregated by gender to save women. The argument is that we already have bathrooms segregated by gender for myriad good reasons, and we need to weigh the costs of changing that status against the asserted benefits.
The bathrooms are still separated by gender, but gender is no longer being defined as rigidly as conservatives are used to.
Originally Posted by :
If trans persons are granted the liberty of a presumption of good faith to choose for themselves which bathroom is most comfortable for them, why don't we extend that presumption comprehensively? Just piss and shit wherever you like. Why limit it to bathrooms for that matter. If personal comfort and a presumption of rationality are the metrics, what business is it of yours if I take a piss by the ball fields in the park, or in the drainage of city streets?
A reasonable person might have made might the counter argument that we should just do gender neutral bathrooms like many other places around the world do - and I would not necessarily be opposed to that. You have decided to take the bad faith slippery slope arguments and then put them on steroids. It is illustrative of the flimsy logic of your position that you feel the need to make such absurd arguments to try and prove a point rather than actually try to come up with good points with real data about the dangers that inclusionary bathroom policies present to society. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
This is not a 'bathroom restriction' the change is a bathroom redefinition.
The argument isn't that we must have bathrooms segregated by gender to save women. The argument is that we already have bathrooms segregated by gender for myriad good reasons, and we need to weigh the costs of changing that status against the asserted benefits.
If trans persons are granted the liberty of a presumption of good faith to choose for themselves which bathroom is most comfortable for them, why don't we extend that presumption comprehensively? Just piss and shit wherever you like. Why limit it to bathrooms for that matter. If personal comfort and a presumption of rationality are the metrics, what business is it of yours if I take a piss by the ball fields in the park, or in the drainage of city streets?
What is so compelling about this specific concession to well-established and well-founded norms that makes it different from all other concessions?
Note - I ask this well aware of the likelihood that you won't give it reasoned assessment, as I had previously said no one is arguing for police checks of genital status at the bathroom door, and that the overwhelming majority of people, trans or not, would go about their business without incident with or without this change in the law, . . . then you came along and hypothesized with no evidence precisely to the contrary, so.
Not really much else to say. This about sums it up. It’s clearly an apples to orange comparison.
Besides, I have already acknowledged that I’m open to alternatives like private individual bathrooms.
The only solution NJ seems to be good with is allowing perverts access to girls bathrooms if they wear a dress and claim they’re trans. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Oops sorry he’s also open to just allowing all men into a safe space for women/girls.
Reminder: all of you guys who pretend to be concerned about women having their safe spaces violated voted for this guy. I wonder how many perverts were emboldened when you guys elected him to be President? Oh wait I forgot, he said that if you're a star they let you do it! :-)
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
The bathrooms are still separated by gender, but gender is no longer being defined as rigidly as conservatives are used to.
A reasonable person might have made might the counter argument that we should just do gender neutral bathrooms like many other places around the world do - and I would not necessarily be opposed to that. You have decided to take the bad faith slippery slope arguments and then put them on steroids. It is illustrative of the flimsy logic of your position that you feel the need to make such absurd arguments to try and prove a point rather than actually try to come up with good points with real data about the dangers that inclusionary bathroom policies present to society.
More narcissism. Asserts that a change to society is necessary, and then when I point out the metrics to be weighed to be fair to all, criticizes that I don't do the work of devising an alternative change that you can accept.
If you want uni-sex bathrooms, advocate for unisex bathrooms.
And my hypotheticals are not 'slippery-slope' arguments. They are testing your commitment to the values you assert demand the societal changes you seek.
If people are to be trusted to figure out for themselves where ablutions are most comfortable for them, and individual personal comfort is the sole metric for how ablutions are carried out, why are you limiting yourself to the specific societal change for a single outlier demographic, instead of advocating for those metrics for everyone fairly, . . . unless there is something else at play in your rhetoric. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
Reminder: all of you guys who pretend to be concerned about women having their safe spaces violated voted for this guy. I wonder how many perverts were emboldened when you guys elected him to be President? Oh wait I forgot, he said that if you're a star they let you do it! :-)
When you do this, all you do is demonstrate for all how shaky the ground you know yourself to be on. Your urgency to change the subject is a tell. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NJChiefsFan27:
Sorry trans people, we can't give you rights or treat you with human decency because a guy somewhere faked it once!
What right am I taking away from them?
As I said, and you continue to ignore, I am open to just having private individual bathrooms.
It seems like you think the only way for them to have their rights is to be able use the bathroom with women/girls. [Reply]
