Reply to LCPS Gets the NYT Treatment

Forum Index » VA Public Schools other than FCPS

Reply to "LCPS Gets the NYT Treatment "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish. [/quote]

I did. The sections where Scott Smith and the Ian Prior types knew the perp wasn’t transgender or even gender fluid but persisted in promoting that lie were illuminating.

As was the irony that Smith’s behavior at the school actually impeded the investigation into his daughter’s assault. That is a salient detail. [/quote]
The article basically says that it is important that this girl was raped by a remote-diagnosed pansexual person and not by a remote-diagnosed "gender fluid" or transsexual person, and that makes Ziegler's and the democratic administration's conduct in this case somehow ok.  This reminds me a bit of the 1990's when Clinton liberals explained to us that receiving oral sex doesn't count as adultery, and therefore Clinton didn't lie, and we just don't get the "salient" difference. 
[/quote]

But it does matter.  A lot.  The rapist wasn’t in the bathroom because he was trans, he was in there because he was hooking up with a girl.  He then took it too far and raped her.

The Times gets the story right.  The conservative movement was stymied because they couldn’t actually point to trans access to bathrooms as a problem because there were no good assault cases to use in the arguments.  They jumped on this one immediately because the story about the skirt got out.  By the time the truth came out (not trans, students in a prior relationship) it was too late.[/quote]

DP. “Truth?” The article was careful not to take either side, and it isn’t clear from the article that the Administration and the parent of the perpetrator didn’t change their story about his gender identity after they realized the political implications. In fact, the article points out that the email from the Administrator immediately after the incident stated that the gender policy was implicated, meaning *he* thought the kid was trans at the time. They then later promoted the “pansexual, not trans” line. Further, by pointing out that the kids were in a relationship, are you taking the position that a trans woman can’t have a relationship with another woman?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics