LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do the clothes and the sexual preference of the alleged attacker matter here, at all? If it’s true a kid was sexually violated and LCPS and the police have done little to nothing about it. THAT’S the story.

Plus the shuffling of the accused rapist to a neighboring LCPS high school. Just like the Catholic priests who floated and continued to abuse children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The girl’s father said the boy was wearing a skirt when he attacked his daughter. The boy was pan sexual, gender fluid and liked to wear skirts but he was not a trans girl.

So he says . . .

Why would he just make that up? I’ve heard from a couple girls that attended the high school where the second attack happen say the same thing. The boy was gender fluid and wore skirts but was not transgender.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the WTOP story. Sounds like bureaucrats to me ...

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2021/10/teen-charged-in-loudoun-co-school-groping-was-on-electronic-monitoring-for-earlier-charges/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused. Where does it say the suspect was in a dress?

The girl’s father said the boy was wearing a skirt when he attacked his daughter. The boy was pan sexual, gender fluid and liked to wear skirts but he was not a trans girl.

So he says . . .

Why would he just make that up? I’ve heard from a couple girls that attended the high school where the second attack happen say the same thing. The boy was gender fluid and wore skirts but was not transgender.

Sorry I asked. I'm staying out of this thread. You people in Loudoun have gone nuts. Enjoy being pawns for the wacko conservative agenda.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone answer why this predator was transferred to another high school and not suspended or otherwise kept from other students? Is it an innocent until proven guilty issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the clothes and the sexual preference of the alleged attacker matter here, at all? If it’s true a kid was sexually violated and LCPS and the police have done little to nothing about it. THAT’S the story.

Plus the shuffling of the accused rapist to a neighboring LCPS high school. Just like the Catholic priests who floated and continued to abuse children.

Because the boy was wearing a skirt he could easily walk into the girl’s bathroom without anyone stopping or questioning him. This is the type of situation people have been worried about with these bathroom policies. Like a previous poster said, it removes a layer of protection for girls.

[Anonymous]

I have to give MAJOR props to the families of the two girls for not leaking the suspect's name. I'm not sure I would be as moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here. I'm not tuned in to all of the details about the rules for the transgender policies. Are all boys now permitted to use girls' bathrooms? Boys who identify as female? Is any documentation required? (In other words, are there administrative records that might verify or contradict the girl's father's claim that the attacker was using the girls' bathroom under the transgender policies?) And yes, I understand that these records are likely confidential, but my question is whether they even exist.

Regardless, assault is assault and it is very disappointing (and probably quite common) that offenders are just shuffled off to another school. At least they didn't tell the girl SHE had to move to another school if she felt unsafe.

It is NOT common for offenders to be shuffled off to another school with this kind of allegation. That's why this whole thing makes no sense. LCPS doesn't look the other way when a male student assaults a female student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here. I'm not tuned in to all of the details about the rules for the transgender policies. Are all boys now permitted to use girls' bathrooms? Boys who identify as female? Is any documentation required? (In other words, are there administrative records that might verify or contradict the girl's father's claim that the attacker was using the girls' bathroom under the transgender policies?) And yes, I understand that these records are likely confidential, but my question is whether they even exist.

Regardless, assault is assault and it is very disappointing (and probably quite common) that offenders are just shuffled off to another school. At least they didn't tell the girl SHE had to move to another school if she felt unsafe.

It is NOT common for offenders to be shuffled off to another school with this kind of allegation. That's why this whole thing makes no sense. LCPS doesn't look the other way when a male student assaults a female student.

Well, apparently they do if they fear it might undermine their “let boys in the girls bathroom” agenda. As we’ve seen in this thread, a lot of people don’t want to believe it could happen because they think it strengthens the hand of their ideological opponents. I assume the LCPS administrators didn’t want to give the “bad guys” a win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said this exact scenario would never happen?

I shared my thoughts in one of the deleted threads. Allowing boys to use the girls bathroom removes a layer of protection for girls. It means a boy can walk into the girls room and not get called out by his peers or stopped by a teacher. It means a girl will feel like she can’t just turn around and walk out because that would be considered “transphobic”. She is left vulnerable by policies that requires schools to allow students to use the restroom of their choice. Originally transgender students were offered private bathrooms but lawsuits were filed to let them into their choice instead. And now a girl has been raped in one. This isn’t okay.

Boys don't use the girls bathroom. Transgirls use the girls bathroom.

And you honestly think this boy was in the bathroom
Having a pee and said, hmm I think I’ll rape this girl in here? It was obviously a situation that was going to happen whether he was “allowed” or not. There are other places he can and did attack.

It’s not about the trans or the bathroom it’s about a psychopathic boy who needs to be in jail and/or a mental institution. I fail to see what LCPS or the sherif did wrong. They followed the law as far as I can see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when people said this exact scenario would never happen?

I shared my thoughts in one of the deleted threads. Allowing boys to use the girls bathroom removes a layer of protection for girls. It means a boy can walk into the girls room and not get called out by his peers or stopped by a teacher. It means a girl will feel like she can’t just turn around and walk out because that would be considered “transphobic”. She is left vulnerable by policies that requires schools to allow students to use the restroom of their choice. Originally transgender students were offered private bathrooms but lawsuits were filed to let them into their choice instead. And now a girl has been raped in one. This isn’t okay.

Boys don't use the girls bathroom. Transgirls use the girls bathroom.

And you honestly think this boy was in the bathroom
Having a pee and said, hmm I think I’ll rape this girl in here? It was obviously a situation that was going to happen whether he was “allowed” or not. There are other places he can and did attack.

It’s not about the trans or the bathroom it’s about a psychopathic boy who needs to be in jail and/or a mental institution. I fail to see what LCPS or the sherif did wrong. They followed the law as far as I can see.

Well ideally if some guy in a skirt comes into the girls bathroom you can yell “hey there’s a guy in the girls bathroom” without being called a transphobe and then he doesn’t get a chance to rape you.

[Anonymous]

The accused boy doesn’t sound like he’s trans. You can’t just use the girls bathroom because you’re a dude that wears a skirt sometimes. I assume FCPS policy is consistent with that.

Of course we don’t know if he was using the girls’ bathroom or just pushed the girls into the bathroom during the assault. I don’t see how the whole trans thing is even relevant here. He could’ve been a macho man and entered the girls bathroom to assault someone.

One thing I don’t get is how some of the quotes in the article refer to “harassment”. As described, both incidents are clearly assault. It is unbelievable that a student who is alleged to have forcibly sodomized another student would be permitted to just transfer schools.

[Anonymous]

I’d like to focus on why he was allowed to transfer schools. Don’t they have juvie for things like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do the clothes and the sexual preference of the alleged attacker matter here, at all? If it’s true a kid was sexually violated and LCPS and the police have done little to nothing about it. THAT’S the story.

Plus the shuffling of the accused rapist to a neighboring LCPS high school. Just like the Catholic priests who floated and continued to abuse children.

Because the boy was wearing a skirt he could easily walk into the girl’s bathroom without anyone stopping or questioning him. This is the type of situation people have been worried about with these bathroom policies. Like a previous poster said, it removes a layer of protection for girls.

You are such an idiot. Taking what is alleged to be true -- that he was not trans but put on a dress and walked into a girl's bathroom without anyone stopping or questioning him -- there's no connection between that and any "bathroom policy" at all. Even if there were a strict policy that only girls without Y chromosomes had permission to use a bathroom labeled "girls," any student in a dress could probably still just walk in without being stopped or questioned. Unless, of course, you stationed police officers at the door to the girls' room looking for Adam's apples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Help me out here. I'm not tuned in to all of the details about the rules for the transgender policies. Are all boys now permitted to use girls' bathrooms? Boys who identify as female? Is any documentation required? (In other words, are there administrative records that might verify or contradict the girl's father's claim that the attacker was using the girls' bathroom under the transgender policies?) And yes, I understand that these records are likely confidential, but my question is whether they even exist.

Regardless, assault is assault and it is very disappointing (and probably quite common) that offenders are just shuffled off to another school. At least they didn't tell the girl SHE had to move to another school if she felt unsafe.

It is NOT common for offenders to be shuffled off to another school with this kind of allegation. That's why this whole thing makes no sense. LCPS doesn't look the other way when a male student assaults a female student.

Well, apparently they do if they fear it might undermine their “let boys in the girls bathroom” agenda. As we’ve seen in this thread, a lot of people don’t want to believe it could happen because they think it strengthens the hand of their ideological opponents. I assume the LCPS administrators didn’t want to give the “bad guys” a win.

+100 Keep in mind the first assault happened the end of May and the Loudoun school board voted on their transgender policy 8040 in August. Of course they would not want this assault to become known right before voting on this policy.