Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

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.

The Times article also got the story right in detailing how LCPS’s initial response to the sexual assault was colored by a potential concern, justified or not, that the incident might impede efforts to adopt pro-trans policies in LCPS. The reporters didn’t just shed light on how the assailant was not actually trans or non-binary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

So, a woman can’t be raped if she has previously had consensual sex with the perpetrator? And a woman can’t be in a relationship with a trans woman?

NP. That's not what the PP said, and you know it.
Stop trying to make this horrific incident fit your agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

If you get that agitated every time, you'll get that heart attack before him.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.

And this was a false view. People whose jobs include investigating sexual assault should know it can definitely occur in the context of a relationship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

NP. If you are someone willing to write this bolded horror of a statement, you cannot be saying anything that is true. This is so extreme, so crazy, and so vile that you substantially weaken any other point you might make.

Idk what I think about all of this, but I can’t be on the same side as someone who writes what you wrote, period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

So, a woman can’t be raped if she has previously had consensual sex with the perpetrator? And a woman can’t be in a relationship with a trans woman?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

You’re right — you don’t get anything that doesn’t fit into your twisted, narrow agenda.

Facts:

1) They had a relationship and a history of consensual sex. This is why administrators and law enforcement were initially skeptical of the claim.
2) The claim couldn’t be fully investigated by law enforcement because Smith showed up at the school and made a scene. He literally impeded the investigation of his daughter’s assault.
3) Ian Prior is a vile and disgusting opportunist who will burn in Hell, hopefully sooner rather than later. May he have a heart attack or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

The rapists mother initially said he was fluid. Then she started denying it and berating the victim. Just like you.

Uh, no she did not. And I am neither berating Scott Smith nor is he a victim.

He emotional outburst in the heat of the moment were understandable. His ongoing belligerence has caused more harm than good. As is his refusal to acknowledge his daughter and the perp had a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship (which is not to say SA can’t happen in these relationships, of course they can).

Ian Prior is the devil. He is a revolting, shitstain of a human who exploited a tragedy with the sole purpose of persecuting the most vulnerable among our children. He also got rich off this.

She did. By saying the rapist and the victim had a relationship you ARE saying that rape can't happen in those cases. No matter that you later claim not to.

You are berating and blaming Smith. Again, you can say you aren't but that's exactly what you are doing.

The people I see criticizing Smith's actions and berating the victim are snobs. They don't like that a blue collar dad stood up to his supposed betters. Not acceptable in NOVA.

Ian Prior does great work to expose the rot in Virginia. So grateful for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

The rapists mother initially said he was fluid. Then she started denying it and berating the victim. Just like you.

Uh, no she did not. And I am neither berating Scott Smith nor is he a victim.

He emotional outburst in the heat of the moment were understandable. His ongoing belligerence has caused more harm than good. As is his refusal to acknowledge his daughter and the perp had a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship (which is not to say SA can’t happen in these relationships, of course they can).

Ian Prior is the devil. He is a revolting, shitstain of a human who exploited a tragedy with the sole purpose of persecuting the most vulnerable among our children. He also got rich off this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.

The rapists mother initially said he was fluid. Then she started denying it and berating the victim. Just like you.

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has followed this from the beginning, I didn’t learn anything new. Well except Ziegler’s nail polish.

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.