Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TurkeysGhost]

And I'm sure that there will be some way to overlook the obvious.


Personally, I wish there were some things posted about what students, especially female students, thought about the case, but I haven't seen anything like that.

(I'm getting tired of typing alleged over and over again, but let's just say that all crimes here are alleged, though the evidence seems hard to deny)

Yes, it would be nice if there were some good-faith exploration for why someone who had been credibly accused of a serious sex offense was able to commit a similar crime. It's good that the offender was separated from the victim, but how this person was able to commit another sex crime really begs for a deeper investigation into how the school district deals with high risk students. If this student was just shoved off to a different school with no further precaution, it would be a massive lack of good judgement on the part of administrators.

The sad thing is that this trans freakout, which seems to be entirely baseless, is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The transphobes insist on chasing this red herring (insisting that trans-inclusive policies are too blame) rather than allowing a good-faith analysis to identify what failures might have occurred and how they can be prevented in the future, and, if those failures were severe enough, who to hold accountable.

It's a real shame that because of this moral panic, it seems that nothing is going to be learned from two very serious sexual assaults. Frankly, it's incredibly disrespectful to the victims that their very real traumatic incidents are being distorted and appropriated by the reactionary right for unrelated moral crusades (it's almost as if transphobia is bad for cis-women too...) Do they even care about the second victim, who's assault did not take place in a gender segregated area?

This is the ideal scenario for transphobes. Given this involves a school where both the victim and offender are juveniles, there are strict confidentiality concerns that will allow large gaps of knowledge to exist that the bigots will gladly fill in with their preferred narrative.

 

[Meadmaker]

(I'm getting tired of typing alleged over and over again, but let's just say that all crimes here are alleged, though the evidence seems hard to deny)

Yes, it would be nice if there were some good-faith exploration for why someone who had been credibly accused of a serious sex offense was able to commit a similar crime. It's good that the offender was separated from the victim, but how this person was able to commit another sex crime really begs for a deeper investigation into how the school district deals with high risk students. If this student was just shoved off to a different school with no further precaution, it would be a massive lack of good judgement on the part of administrators.

The sad thing is that this trans freakout, which seems to be entirely baseless, is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. The transphobes insist on chasing this red herring (insisting that trans-inclusive policies are too blame) rather than allowing a good-faith analysis to identify what failures might have occurred and how they can be prevented in the future, and, if those failures were severe enough, who to hold accountable.

It's a real shame that because of this moral panic, it seems that nothing is going to be learned from two very serious sexual assaults. Frankly, it's incredibly disrespectful to the victims that their very real traumatic incidents are being distorted and appropriated by the reactionary right for unrelated moral crusades (it's almost as if transphobia is bad for cis-women too...) Do they even care about the second victim, who's assault did not take place in a gender segregated area?

This is the ideal scenario for transphobes. Given this involves a school where both the victim and offender are juveniles, there are strict confidentiality concerns that will allow large gaps of knowledge to exist that the bigots will gladly fill in with their preferred narrative.

It's understandable that you are focusing on the assaults, but that isn't what I've been talking about recently. I've been talking about the invasion of privacy.

The rape itself was a simple variation on date rape in an existing relationship. There's nothing extraordinary about it. Even the fact that it occurred in a girls' bathroom is only marginally relevant. So, put it out of your mind for a moment.

What I have been talking about is how self ID created a situation where the privacy of the girls at the school was invaded. This person presented himself as a girl, which presentation was accepted by the principal of the school. In accordance with school policy that existed for at least two years prior to the rape and to the highly publicized confrontations at school board meetings this summer, this person was allowed to use the girls' bathroom.

While using the girls' bathroom, this person was hooking up with a more conventional girl, engaging in rather conventional sex.

This person would enter the sphere of public knowledge after the assaults, and in all of the public discussions about him and his deeds, he has been referred to as a boy. However, this was a surprise to the school principal, who thought he was a girl. Of course the principal was aware of his male anatomy, but the principal was under the impression that he identified as a girl and, therefore, was in fact a girl.

It wasn't until after this person committed a sexual assault that the principal learned of his mistake.

Prior to that, this person had been sharing the girls' bathroom with the conventional girls. The "cis-girls", in modern parlance. I would like to see some commentary on that subject, to hear what the females of the school thought about the situation. Of course, school officials are under confidentiality restrictiosn, but the press is not.

We do have the opinion of one fourteen year old girl who was a student of the school district, because she spoke out at one of the school board meetings, and I've seen an interview on a local news show, but I would like to see a bit more about what the girls who attend those schools actually think about either the trans-inclusive policy in general, or about the specific situation regarding the rapist.

(And, we can drop the "alleged". He has been convicted. There's no issue with trial bias anymore.)

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I really didn't think we'd get to the point where even JoeMorgue thinks that calling trans women female* is legitimate, but here we are.

*I don't agree with redefining "woman" to refer to gender rather than sex, I don't even think doing so is coherent, but at least it's not as blatantly anti-science as the move to redefine "female". When Boudicca tried it earlier in the thread everyone seemed to see how clearly wrong that was, but now somehow even Joe, who seems to legitimately not be taking a side here, thinks that there's a legitimate debate about the meaning of the word female.

I've gotten confused about the terminology and the usage of those two words. we definitely need to retain a word for those two copies of the X chromosome, and another for those with one X and one Y chromosome.

I also don't really know what's supposed to be meant by the word 'transphobe'. I haven't really come across many people that really care that much, and I rub elbows with quite a few conservative people (although I do live in San Francisco). Sure, I know people who think they shouldn't be allowed in this or that bathroom, or people that think pronoun usage shouldn't be compelled by law, or those who thing children under a certain age shouldn't be encouraged to transition, etc. But I can't say I've really come across anyone who is against the idea of someone born as one of the two deciding to live their life as the other of the two.

 

[theprestige]

(I'm getting tired of typing alleged over and over again, but let's just say that all crimes here are alleged, though the evidence seems hard to deny)

(And, we can drop the "alleged". He has been convicted. There's no issue with trial bias anymore.)

(Alleged girl, maybe. But that's not a crime, and shouldn't be. On the other hand "alleged girl" is kind of the central point of contention in this debate.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It's understandable that you are focusing on the assaults, but that isn't what I've been talking about recently. I've been talking about the invasion of privacy.

The rape itself was a simple variation on date rape in an existing relationship. There's nothing extraordinary about it. Even the fact that it occurred in a girls' bathroom is only marginally relevant. So, put it out of your mind for a moment.

I'm glad we agree on this element. Of course, not everyone is following this story as diligently as you. The distorted version that this rape was the direct result of trans-inclusive policies is one that is almost certainly believed by many who only believed the baseless smears that initially attracted so much attention. As with most sensational reporting, the initial story lingers long after it has been debunked by further facts.

What I have been talking about is how self ID created a situation where the privacy of the girls at the school was invaded. This person presented himself as a girl, which presentation was accepted by the principal of the school. In accordance with school policy that existed for at least two years prior to the rape and to the highly publicized confrontations at school board meetings this summer, this person was allowed to use the girls' bathroom.

While using the girls' bathroom, this person was hooking up with a more conventional girl, engaging in rather conventional sex.

This person would enter the sphere of public knowledge after the assaults, and in all of the public discussions about him and his deeds, he has been referred to as a boy. However, this was a surprise to the school principal, who thought he was a girl. Of course the principal was aware of his male anatomy, but the principal was under the impression that he identified as a girl and, therefore, was in fact a girl.

It wasn't until after this person committed a sexual assault that the principal learned of his mistake.

Prior to that, this person had been sharing the girls' bathroom with the conventional girls. The "cis-girls", in modern parlance. I would like to see some commentary on that subject, to hear what the females of the school thought about the situation. Of course, school officials are under confidentiality restrictiosn, but the press is not.

We do have the opinion of one fourteen year old girl who was a student of the school district, because she spoke out at one of the school board meetings, and I've seen an interview on a local news show, but I would like to see a bit more about what the girls who attend those schools actually think about either the trans-inclusive policy in general, or about the specific situation regarding the rapist.

Wouldn't hold your breath on this. The reactionary mob screaming from the rooftops are not interested in such nuanced reporting on what the actual students or victims think. As I said before, they don't really seem to care what actually happened to the victim, just what they imagined happened. It's really pretty gross. I don't think the press should be chasing down a rape victim, but I would be very curious to see what the victim feels about their trauma being used as a springboard for an anti-trans wild goose chase. Considering she was dating someone who seemed to be at least some variant of gender noncomforming, I would say it's a safe bet she's not virulently anti-trans like the frothy-mouthed mob that is trying to weaponize her victimhood.

My general impression is that most of these freakouts at school board meetings over trans rights (or CRT and mask/vax policy) are largely driven by parents and right wing media and students are a rarely featured perspective.

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on whatever misunderstanding the principle may have had. Whether or not the offender identified as a girl or boy kinda turned out to be a inconsequential detail, don't you agree?

(And, we can drop the "alleged". He has been convicted. There's no issue with trial bias anymore.)

I wasn't aware of this, thanks. I suppose it's not that shocking that the case resolved quickly, all indications was that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

 

[d4m10n]

The distorted version that this rape was the direct result of trans-inclusive policies is one that is almost certainly believed by many who only believed the baseless smears that initially attracted so much attention.

Has anyone here argued for this version of events?

What was actually argued is that it is significantly easier to have heterosexual liaisons in private spaces which are segregated by gender expression rather than birth sex. Parents of young women have particular concerns here, especially in a nation which is increasingly delegalising abortion.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on whatever misunderstanding the principle may have had. Whether or not the offender identified as a girl or boy kinda turned out to be a inconsequential detail, don't you agree?

No, I do not agree, because I am not talking about the sexual assaults. I am talking about the invasion of privacy, and in that case, the principal's misunderstanding is central.

In your post, you began by noting that while I might be talking about one thing, the narrative focused on in the media was all about the other thing. You then proceeded to talk about the other thing, and ended up asking me why I'm hung up on the principal's misunderstanding, because it turned out to be an incosequential detail for that other thing.

For that other thing, I would agree it's pretty inconsequential. I would also agree that a lot of the story has been, and remains, forcused on that other thing. However, for the thing I'm actually talking about, the principal's misunderstanding is not an inconsequential detail.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, I do not agree, because I am not talking about the sexual assaults. I am talking about the invasion of privacy, and in that case, the principal's misunderstanding is central.

In your post, you began by noting that while I might be talking about one thing, the narrative focused on in the media was all about the other thing. You then proceeded to talk about the other thing, and ended up asking me why I'm hung up on the principal's misunderstanding, because it turned out to be an incosequential detail for that other thing.

For that other thing, I would agree it's pretty inconsequential. I would also agree that a lot of the story has been, and remains, forcused on that other thing. However, for the thing I'm actually talking about, the principal's misunderstanding is not an inconsequential detail.

What does that have to do with the inciting incident at all then? Or is this just a total tangent? (I don't mean this as a barb, perhaps I'm just confused).

Maybe there's privacy concerns, but I'm not seeing any evidence of a complaint.

 

[Meadmaker]

What does that have to do with the inciting incident at all then? Or is this just a total tangent? (I don't mean this as a barb, perhaps I'm just confused).

There was a person claiming to be a girl and using the girls' bathroom, but it turned out he was a boy after all and, not only that, a rapist.

Maybe there's privacy concerns, but I'm not seeing any evidence of a complaint.

Yeah. Kind of odd, if you ask me. That's why I would like to see any evidence that the girls of the school actually have opinions on the subject.


(There was a small bit of evidence, actually. A fourteen year old girl was a speaker at one of the school board meetings. She was opposed to trans-inclusive policies.)

 

[theprestige]

In your post, you began by noting that while I might be talking about one thing, the narrative focused on in the media was all about the other thing. You then proceeded to talk about the other thing, and ended up asking me why I'm hung up on the principal's misunderstanding, because it turned out to be an incosequential detail for that other thing.

MEADMAKER: Tell me your opinion about This Thing Right Here.

SUBURBANTURKEY: The media had some other opinion about That Other Thing Over There. Let me tell you my opinion about their opinion about That Thing.

I guess we should add the Gish Gallop to the list of crap that trans-rights activism substitutes in place of actual discussion of serious concerns.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

MEADMAKER: Tell me your opinion about This Thing Right Here.



SUBURBANTURKEY: The media had some other opinion about That Other Thing Over There. Let me tell you my opinion about their opinion about That Thing.



I guess we should add the Gish Gallop to the list of crap that trans-rights activism substitutes in place of actual discussion of serious concerns.

Yes, my mistake for focusing on the rape that was the pivotal incident at the heart of this anti trans freakout rather than realizing that the real crux is the issue was some tangentially related hypothetical that can't be answered

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What was actually argued is that it is significantly easier to have heterosexual liaisons in private spaces which are segregated by gender expression rather than birth sex.

yes, this has been repeatedly asserted here without a lick of evidence, nor is there any evidence that the trans-inclusive policies of the school contributed to the crimes committed.

Despite the details of the story showing that the wild speculations to be without basis, the idea that trans-inclusive policies are even partially responsible for this rape happening is an Article of Faith.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

For that other thing, I would agree it's pretty inconsequential. I would also agree that a lot of the story has been, and remains, forcused on that other thing. However, for the thing I'm actually talking about, the principal's misunderstanding is not an inconsequential detail.

Perhaps you can reframe your point, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Are you asking a question?

My reading of the reporting is that the principal and the mob were talking past each other quite a bit, not a surprise given how rowdy things got. Either the principal was playing coy (either out of confidentiality reasons or "cover your ass" reasons) or maybe honestly misunderstood the details. The mob definitely had no idea what had happened and had a pretty clear agenda of their own, which might explain why they were so focused on tedious details that ended up not being important.

So the principal got the gender wrong for some student that liked to wear skirts. So what? Maybe the rapist was also left handed. Why does any of this matter? I'm not playing dumb here, I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to drive at.

 

[Meadmaker]

Perhaps you can reframe your point, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

I know.

Are you asking a question?

No.

My reading of the reporting is that the principal and the mob were talking past each other quite a bit,

You are probably confusing the principal with the superintendent. It was the superintendent who spoke at the school board meetings.

not a surprise given how rowdy things got. Either the principal was playing coy (either out of confidentiality reasons or "cover your ass" reasons) or maybe honestly misunderstood the details. The mob definitely had no idea what had happened and had a pretty clear agenda of their own, which might explain why they were so focused on tedious details that ended up not being important.

When the principal (not the superintendent) made the statements I have referred to, he wasn't talking to "the mob". He was talking to the rapist's mother.

So the principal got the gender wrong for some student that liked to wear skirts. So what?

So, as a result, a boy was allowed to use the girls' restroom.

Maybe the rapist was also left handed. Why does any of this matter? I'm not playing dumb here,

I know.

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to drive at.

You are so obsessed with your anti-fascist propoganda that you can't see this story as anything else. You see a right wing crowd and you see everything else in that light.

To be fair, all media sources are going along with that. Left, right, and whatever possibly masquerades as mainstream media these days are focused on the same thing you are.

Meanwhile, there was a boy using the girls' bathroom.

I can't shake the feeling that some of the girls at Stone Bridge High School think that's significant, but I haven't found any reporting on that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Meanwhile, there was a boy using the girls' bathroom.

I can't shake the feeling that some of the girls at Stone Bridge High School think that's significant, but I haven't found any reporting on that.

I read through your most recent link and I can't find anything to indicate that the boy was using the women's restroom besides as a private place to meet for sexual liaisons. Am I missing something?

It's definitely sketchy that the superintendent played dumb about this very serious crime. Again, this goes back to what I was talking about before, how anti-trans panic-mongering causes collateral damage. It would have been much better if there were a deep dive into what actually happened and why it seemed like a serious crime was being swept under the rug, but the whole trans witch hunt was a huge red herring.

As you are surely aware, powerful institutions sweeping sex crimes under the rug is a recurring theme dating back well before our current freakout about trans rights.

 

[Meadmaker]

And why are we even calling the rapist a boy? Do we know that?

He presented as a girl. The principal thought he was a girl. He was photographed at a meeting where he was wearing women's clothing and rainbow motifs. Why are we calling him a boy?

I honestly have no idea about his gender identity, but I can't help wonder if we are dealing with a rare example of the actual No True Scotsman fallacy. Are we saying that because he was having sex with a girl, and he raped a girl, that he cannot be a "true" transgender?

We have insufficient details available to answer questions about his gender identity, but when he had a choice, "he" was presenting as "she". So, why are people who consistently rail against misgendering so quick to declare that this is a boy?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And why are we even calling the rapist a boy? Do we know that?

He presented as a girl. The principal thought he was a girl. He was photographed at a meeting where he was wearing women's clothing and rainbow motifs. Why are we calling him a boy?

I honestly have no idea about his gender identity, but I can't help wonder if we are dealing with a rare example of the actual No True Scotsman fallacy. Are we saying that because he was having sex with a girl, and he raped a girl, that he cannot be a "true" transgender?

We have insufficient details available to answer questions about his gender identity, but when he had a choice, "he" was presenting as "she". So, why are people who consistently rail against misgendering so quick to declare that this is a boy?

The article you linked in the daily mail has the mother claiming the child identified as "Pan sexual", which for all intents and purposes is some variant of vague nonbinary. The mother claims the kid would tended towards androgynous dress, sometimes skirts, sometimes pants. Nonbinary people often see themselves are part of the broader "queer" community, though not necessarily trans despite similar ideas of gender nonconformity.

Again, not seeing any evidence that this kid was ever "using" the women's restroom except for as a clandestine meeting spot.

I think you're being a bit uncharitable to suggest I'm imagining how reactionary and, for lack of a better word, absolutely insane the mob was for these meetings. These school board meetings had been very contentious and rowdy well before this specific incident, with frothy mobs screaming about CRT and trans panic nonsense. Hell, the father was arrested while bloody mouthed trying to accost someone during the shouting match.

 

[Meadmaker]

I read through your most recent link and I can't find anything to indicate that the boy was using the women's restroom besides as a private place to meet for sexual liaisons. Am I missing something?

In this case, no. Or at least, you aren't missing much. I have never seen it reported either.


What I have seen reported is that the policy since at least 2019 was that students in Loudoun County schools would be allowed to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity. What I have seen reported is that the principal believed that the rapist identified as female. What I have seen reported is that the rapist was wearing women's clothing on the day of the rape, and a picture of that clothing has been published. That clothing would be very, very, odd in the boys' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that when another student, a girl, encountered the couple in the girls' bathroom that the other student did not immediately report the presence of a boy in the girls' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that there were at least three separate occasions on which this person was in the girls' bathroom having sex, and what I have not seen reported was any incident where this person was reported as having invaded the girls' bathroom.

So, I've had to make an inference that the rapist was routinely present in the girls' bathroom. My inference is based on the fact that he did routinely wear women's clothing, and the principal believed him to be a transgirl.

I would love to have confirmation, or refutation, of my inference, but I'm getting nothing in my searches. The kids who attend that school know the answer, but nothing has made it to the media.


As an aside, whose relevance you will almost certainly not understand, is that I guarantee that you will find, and have probably already read, in numerous spots, that in the summer of 2021 the Loudoun County School board voted on a resolution that would allow students to use bathrooms based on their gender identity. This is, at best, misleading. That had been the formal, written, policy since 2019, and an informal policy since 2016.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In this case, no. Or at least, you aren't missing much. I have never seen it reported either.


What I have seen reported is that the policy since at least 2019 was that students in Loudoun County schools would be allowed to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity. What I have seen reported is that the principal believed that the rapist identified as female. What I have seen reported is that the rapist was wearing women's clothing on the day of the rape, and a picture of that clothing has been published. That clothing would be very, very, odd in the boys' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that when another student, a girl, encountered the couple in the girls' bathroom that the other student did not immediately report the presence of a boy in the girls' bathroom. What I have seen reported is that there were at least three separate occasions on which this person was in the girls' bathroom having sex, and what I have not seen reported was any incident where this person was reported as having invaded the girls' bathroom.

So, I've had to make an inference that the rapist was routinely present in the girls' bathroom. My inference is based on the fact that he did routinely wear women's clothing, and the principal believed him to be a transgirl.

I would love to have confirmation, or refutation, of my inference, but I'm getting nothing in my searches. The kids who attend that school know the answer, but nothing has made it to the media.


As an aside, whose relevance you will almost certainly not understand, is that I guarantee that you will find, and have probably already read, in numerous spots, that in the summer of 2021 the Loudoun County School board voted on a resolution that would allow students to use bathrooms based on their gender identity. This is, at best, misleading. That had been the formal, written, policy since 2019, and an informal policy since 2016.

So just idle speculation huh? Cool.

So maybe this person was using the women's restroom routinely, maybe not, which really doesn't seemed to have mattered one bit one way or the other.

I'm still trying to figure out how any of this is relevant to anything. Is there a point?

 

[Meadmaker]

I think you're being a bit uncharitable to suggest I'm imagining how reactionary and, for lack of a better word, absolutely insane the mob was for these meetings.

I am doing no such thing. The mobs at those meeings were indeed reactionary.

What I am suggesting is that you somehow think the mob is part of the story that I'm commenting on. It isn't. You keep coming back to it, but it has nothing to do with the invasion of privacy that (I'm inferring) occurred at the high school.