LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women

+1 The administration, SB, and prosecutors felt political correctness was more important than safety.

Of course, NCAA feels that political correctness is more important than women, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women

+1 The administration, SB, and prosecutors felt political correctness was more important than safety.

Of course, NCAA feels that political correctness is more important than women, too.

+100

[Anonymous]

This is nothing new. Sped students have been throwing chairs or stabbing classmates with pencils for many many years now and nothing is done because their right to a “least restrictive environment” is more important than the other students right to not be assaulted at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the student adjudicated guilty as a rapist claims that he is not trans. If one of the principles of the trans movement is to permit people to choose their identity, and I believe it is, there is evidence that this student does not identify as trans but certainly is open to assuming a feminine appearance. I am not sure the narrative is relevant. Sexual assault is wrong, grievously wrong, and deserves redress. If, and I am not suggesting this is the case here, the bathroom policy contributed to a negative event, that has to be examined irrespective of the narrative. Schools cannot function without an expectation of safety.

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women. This is the problem with identity politics - it eats itself and can lead to poor decisions. Young women should be able to rely on being safe in washrooms, particularly in wealthy Loudoun County where resources can make this so. By the way, the same goes for trans students, gay students, shy students or any other type of student. No one gets a pass for sexual assault or should be subject to it. And lets be real - if the student is somehow trans, well, every group has its bad apples. Not dealing transparently with the issue does no one any favors.

I am appalled at the mention of the girls' sexual history. Do people who believe this is relevant have any idea of the need for rape shield laws, which gained steam in the 60's and 70's? Heck, in the 80's when I was a law review editor at a top law school we were still getting articles about the challenges in implementing rape shield laws and eliminating sexist artifacts. I am no bleeding heart, either, but rape shield laws are all about justice. Such laws back then were resisted by archaic white men who believed that assault was excusable if women acted a certain way. So the people arguing that this young woman's sexual history is relevant are in essence asserting the rationale of narrow minded troglodytes of the past? Such people aren't liberal or progressive, but are in fact intolerant. A major media publication took this position in this case - to heck with the prote4ction of women and rape shield considerations- because again, protecting the narrative of trans people was perceived as more important than protecting women against violence.

Nothing herein should be taken as being intolerant of trans people. But rape is wrong, and group identity does not excuse it any way.

You have built quite the strawman there. Literally nobody is defending the actions of the perpetrator. It is unequivocally sexual assault. So, the victim's sexual history plays no role in the question of guilt. However, it absolutely destroys the right-wing argument that this was somehow related to trans access to bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

The latest statement is such CYA BS. I hope someone FOIA’s the hell out of that report. It could be heavily redacted to protect privacy. The attorney-client argument is moot, the “client” is residents/taxpayers of Loudoun county.

[Anonymous]

This whole story has so many facets and layers, so not commenting on all. Four things the jump out to me, some addresses here some not (though I have not read all 70+ pages of comments).

- The trans bathroom discussion is irrelevant to all of this.

- The Title IX regulations enacted in July 2020 must change, and really tie the hands of schools to deal with these issues. They had a direct impact on allowing for the second assault to occur (not an excuse, just a reality).

- The schools have to be able to take disciplinary/preventative action even when law enforcement says step back and do not investigate until they finish their investigation. I get the rationale, but the school has a duty for safety and should not be obliged to step aside as they did as that investigation went on.

- The schools, since following Title IX limits and the request of law enforcement, needed to be much more proactive in monitoring this boy while on campus.


And unrelated to the school part of this, after reading the AP article, the psychosexual evaluation produced for the court must have been a doozy for the judge for say what he/she did and have the boy require to register as a sex offender for life at his age.

[Anonymous]

It’s been reported that the victim was assaulted again in September.

A Loudoun County high school student, who is also a recent sexual assault victim, was attacked by a classmate at the same school where she was initially assaulted, according to charges filed in court Wednesday.


http://wjla.com/news/crisis-in-the-classrooms/loudoun-county-public-schools-sex-assault-victim-attacked-by-another-teen-caught-on-camera-video-shows-charges-stone-bridge-high-school-scott-smith

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s been reported that the victim was assaulted again in September.

A Loudoun County high school student, who is also a recent sexual assault victim, was attacked by a classmate at the same school where she was initially assaulted, according to charges filed in court Wednesday.


http://wjla.com/news/crisis-in-the-classrooms/loudoun-county-public-schools-sex-assault-victim-attacked-by-another-teen-caught-on-camera-video-shows-charges-stone-bridge-high-school-scott-smith

Is this the same report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the student adjudicated guilty as a rapist claims that he is not trans. If one of the principles of the trans movement is to permit people to choose their identity, and I believe it is, there is evidence that this student does not identify as trans but certainly is open to assuming a feminine appearance. I am not sure the narrative is relevant. Sexual assault is wrong, grievously wrong, and deserves redress. If, and I am not suggesting this is the case here, the bathroom policy contributed to a negative event, that has to be examined irrespective of the narrative. Schools cannot function without an expectation of safety.

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women. This is the problem with identity politics - it eats itself and can lead to poor decisions. Young women should be able to rely on being safe in washrooms, particularly in wealthy Loudoun County where resources can make this so. By the way, the same goes for trans students, gay students, shy students or any other type of student. No one gets a pass for sexual assault or should be subject to it. And lets be real - if the student is somehow trans, well, every group has its bad apples. Not dealing transparently with the issue does no one any favors.

I am appalled at the mention of the girls' sexual history. Do people who believe this is relevant have any idea of the need for rape shield laws, which gained steam in the 60's and 70's? Heck, in the 80's when I was a law review editor at a top law school we were still getting articles about the challenges in implementing rape shield laws and eliminating sexist artifacts. I am no bleeding heart, either, but rape shield laws are all about justice. Such laws back then were resisted by archaic white men who believed that assault was excusable if women acted a certain way. So the people arguing that this young woman's sexual history is relevant are in essence asserting the rationale of narrow minded troglodytes of the past? Such people aren't liberal or progressive, but are in fact intolerant. A major media publication took this position in this case - to heck with the prote4ction of women and rape shield considerations- because again, protecting the narrative of trans people was perceived as more important than protecting women against violence.

Nothing herein should be taken as being intolerant of trans people. But rape is wrong, and group identity does not excuse it any way.

You have built quite the strawman there. Literally nobody is defending the actions of the perpetrator. It is unequivocally sexual assault. So, the victim's sexual history plays no role in the question of guilt. However, it absolutely destroys the right-wing argument that this was somehow related to trans access to bathrooms.

Um, no it doesn't. People walking around with a peni$ (straight/bi/trans/whatever) should not be in girls bathrooms or locker rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s been reported that the victim was assaulted again in September.

A Loudoun County high school student, who is also a recent sexual assault victim, was attacked by a classmate at the same school where she was initially assaulted, according to charges filed in court Wednesday.


http://wjla.com/news/crisis-in-the-classrooms/loudoun-county-public-schools-sex-assault-victim-attacked-by-another-teen-caught-on-camera-video-shows-charges-stone-bridge-high-school-scott-smith

there a lot more that they are not telling us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s been reported that the victim was assaulted again in September.

A Loudoun County high school student, who is also a recent sexual assault victim, was attacked by a classmate at the same school where she was initially assaulted, according to charges filed in court Wednesday.


http://wjla.com/news/crisis-in-the-classrooms/loudoun-county-public-schools-sex-assault-victim-attacked-by-another-teen-caught-on-camera-video-shows-charges-stone-bridge-high-school-scott-smith

there a lot more that they are not telling us

Are you speculating or do you have something to share?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the student adjudicated guilty as a rapist claims that he is not trans. If one of the principles of the trans movement is to permit people to choose their identity, and I believe it is, there is evidence that this student does not identify as trans but certainly is open to assuming a feminine appearance. I am not sure the narrative is relevant. Sexual assault is wrong, grievously wrong, and deserves redress. If, and I am not suggesting this is the case here, the bathroom policy contributed to a negative event, that has to be examined irrespective of the narrative. Schools cannot function without an expectation of safety.

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women. This is the problem with identity politics - it eats itself and can lead to poor decisions. Young women should be able to rely on being safe in washrooms, particularly in wealthy Loudoun County where resources can make this so. By the way, the same goes for trans students, gay students, shy students or any other type of student. No one gets a pass for sexual assault or should be subject to it. And lets be real - if the student is somehow trans, well, every group has its bad apples. Not dealing transparently with the issue does no one any favors.

I am appalled at the mention of the girls' sexual history. Do people who believe this is relevant have any idea of the need for rape shield laws, which gained steam in the 60's and 70's? Heck, in the 80's when I was a law review editor at a top law school we were still getting articles about the challenges in implementing rape shield laws and eliminating sexist artifacts. I am no bleeding heart, either, but rape shield laws are all about justice. Such laws back then were resisted by archaic white men who believed that assault was excusable if women acted a certain way. So the people arguing that this young woman's sexual history is relevant are in essence asserting the rationale of narrow minded troglodytes of the past? Such people aren't liberal or progressive, but are in fact intolerant. A major media publication took this position in this case - to heck with the prote4ction of women and rape shield considerations- because again, protecting the narrative of trans people was perceived as more important than protecting women against violence.

Nothing herein should be taken as being intolerant of trans people. But rape is wrong, and group identity does not excuse it any way.

You have built quite the strawman there. Literally nobody is defending the actions of the perpetrator. It is unequivocally sexual assault. So, the victim's sexual history plays no role in the question of guilt. However, it absolutely destroys the right-wing argument that this was somehow related to trans access to bathrooms.

Um, no it doesn't. People walking around with a peni$ (straight/bi/trans/whatever) should not be in girls bathrooms or locker rooms.

DP. You are missing the point, which is that trans bathroom policies had zero impact on this case. First, it occurred under the old policies that required trans students to use the bathrooms matching their gender assigned at birth. Second, regardless of rules or gender identity, this was not the case of a student with a penis laying in wait in a girls bathroom to sexually assault someone. In this case, the girl reportedly asked the boy to meet her in that bathroom, where they had hooked up previously. The fact that they had hooked up there previously in no way excuses the assault, but does give important context when evaluating bathroom policies because this assault didn’t happen because they were in a bathroom, it happened because they were in a private space hidden from view of others (just like the second assault that happened in an empty classroom). People trying to use this girl’s story to advance unrelated anti-trans policies are trivializing and degrading her trauma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the student adjudicated guilty as a rapist claims that he is not trans. If one of the principles of the trans movement is to permit people to choose their identity, and I believe it is, there is evidence that this student does not identify as trans but certainly is open to assuming a feminine appearance. I am not sure the narrative is relevant. Sexual assault is wrong, grievously wrong, and deserves redress. If, and I am not suggesting this is the case here, the bathroom policy contributed to a negative event, that has to be examined irrespective of the narrative. Schools cannot function without an expectation of safety.

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women. This is the problem with identity politics - it eats itself and can lead to poor decisions. Young women should be able to rely on being safe in washrooms, particularly in wealthy Loudoun County where resources can make this so. By the way, the same goes for trans students, gay students, shy students or any other type of student. No one gets a pass for sexual assault or should be subject to it. And lets be real - if the student is somehow trans, well, every group has its bad apples. Not dealing transparently with the issue does no one any favors.

I am appalled at the mention of the girls' sexual history. Do people who believe this is relevant have any idea of the need for rape shield laws, which gained steam in the 60's and 70's? Heck, in the 80's when I was a law review editor at a top law school we were still getting articles about the challenges in implementing rape shield laws and eliminating sexist artifacts. I am no bleeding heart, either, but rape shield laws are all about justice. Such laws back then were resisted by archaic white men who believed that assault was excusable if women acted a certain way. So the people arguing that this young woman's sexual history is relevant are in essence asserting the rationale of narrow minded troglodytes of the past? Such people aren't liberal or progressive, but are in fact intolerant. A major media publication took this position in this case - to heck with the prote4ction of women and rape shield considerations- because again, protecting the narrative of trans people was perceived as more important than protecting women against violence.

Nothing herein should be taken as being intolerant of trans people. But rape is wrong, and group identity does not excuse it any way.

You have built quite the strawman there. Literally nobody is defending the actions of the perpetrator. It is unequivocally sexual assault. So, the victim's sexual history plays no role in the question of guilt. However, it absolutely destroys the right-wing argument that this was somehow related to trans access to bathrooms.

Um, no it doesn't. People walking around with a peni$ (straight/bi/trans/whatever) should not be in girls bathrooms or locker rooms.

DP. You are missing the point, which is that trans bathroom policies had zero impact on this case. First, it occurred under the old policies that required trans students to use the bathrooms matching their gender assigned at birth. Second, regardless of rules or gender identity, this was not the case of a student with a penis laying in wait in a girls bathroom to sexually assault someone. In this case, the girl reportedly asked the boy to meet her in that bathroom, where they had hooked up previously. The fact that they had hooked up there previously in no way excuses the assault, but does give important context when evaluating bathroom policies because this assault didn’t happen because they were in a bathroom, it happened because they were in a private space hidden from view of others (just like the second assault that happened in an empty classroom). People trying to use this girl’s story to advance unrelated anti-trans policies are trivializing and degrading her trauma.

I agree with you that this assault did not happen because of anything to do with trans policies, but why did the school board lie about it and deny it ever happened?

-not the pp you quoted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mother of the student adjudicated guilty as a rapist claims that he is not trans. If one of the principles of the trans movement is to permit people to choose their identity, and I believe it is, there is evidence that this student does not identify as trans but certainly is open to assuming a feminine appearance. I am not sure the narrative is relevant. Sexual assault is wrong, grievously wrong, and deserves redress. If, and I am not suggesting this is the case here, the bathroom policy contributed to a negative event, that has to be examined irrespective of the narrative. Schools cannot function without an expectation of safety.

The problem I have with the handling of this case is that the school authorities acted (from all accounts) that trans people are higher in the woke ladder than young women. This is the problem with identity politics - it eats itself and can lead to poor decisions. Young women should be able to rely on being safe in washrooms, particularly in wealthy Loudoun County where resources can make this so. By the way, the same goes for trans students, gay students, shy students or any other type of student. No one gets a pass for sexual assault or should be subject to it. And lets be real - if the student is somehow trans, well, every group has its bad apples. Not dealing transparently with the issue does no one any favors.

I am appalled at the mention of the girls' sexual history. Do people who believe this is relevant have any idea of the need for rape shield laws, which gained steam in the 60's and 70's? Heck, in the 80's when I was a law review editor at a top law school we were still getting articles about the challenges in implementing rape shield laws and eliminating sexist artifacts. I am no bleeding heart, either, but rape shield laws are all about justice. Such laws back then were resisted by archaic white men who believed that assault was excusable if women acted a certain way. So the people arguing that this young woman's sexual history is relevant are in essence asserting the rationale of narrow minded troglodytes of the past? Such people aren't liberal or progressive, but are in fact intolerant. A major media publication took this position in this case - to heck with the prote4ction of women and rape shield considerations- because again, protecting the narrative of trans people was perceived as more important than protecting women against violence.

Nothing herein should be taken as being intolerant of trans people. But rape is wrong, and group identity does not excuse it any way.

You have built quite the strawman there. Literally nobody is defending the actions of the perpetrator. It is unequivocally sexual assault. So, the victim's sexual history plays no role in the question of guilt. However, it absolutely destroys the right-wing argument that this was somehow related to trans access to bathrooms.

Um, no it doesn't. People walking around with a peni$ (straight/bi/trans/whatever) should not be in girls bathrooms or locker rooms.

DP. You are missing the point, which is that trans bathroom policies had zero impact on this case. First, it occurred under the old policies that required trans students to use the bathrooms matching their gender assigned at birth. Second, regardless of rules or gender identity, this was not the case of a student with a penis laying in wait in a girls bathroom to sexually assault someone. In this case, the girl reportedly asked the boy to meet her in that bathroom, where they had hooked up previously. The fact that they had hooked up there previously in no way excuses the assault, but does give important context when evaluating bathroom policies because this assault didn’t happen because they were in a bathroom, it happened because they were in a private space hidden from view of others (just like the second assault that happened in an empty classroom). People trying to use this girl’s story to advance unrelated anti-trans policies are trivializing and degrading her trauma.

I agree with you that this assault did not happen because of anything to do with trans policies, but why did the school board lie about it and deny it ever happened?

-not the pp you quoted.

Is there a recording of the meeting where this happened publicly available? I was not a party to the discussion so I cannot speak to their thinking. I would not want to offer thoughts more generally unless I could hear the exchange for myself with any relevant nuance or qualifiers.

[Anonymous]

Given that the superintendent had already notified the school board of that assault a month earlier, it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought the question was asking about anything that hadn’t been reported to the school board or something like that. Otherwise why would the entire school board play dumb on it?