Just a Regular Rape

For a few weeks there has been a lot of discourse about the Loundoun County school where a girl was raped by a boy in a skirt in the school bathroom. Recently it has come to light that the girl had previous consensual encounters with the boy and the story for the most part turned out to be different than it has first been reported upon, as usually happens. Once the news broke that the girl had had consensual encounters with the boy previously, I nervously waited to see if the champions of consent from the past would compromise their own morals and beliefs to condemn this girl for "her part" in her rape or not, or to what degree.

I was predictably disappointed that they did, in fact, compromise their morals on consent - but it was as little as possible. Only in implications, in the framing. When making headlines or opening paragraphs, the fact that the girl and boy had met up for consensual sex in the school bathroom previously was brought up as the "main point" - disguised as an objective journalistic reporting detail, but worded and framed as a headliner detail. Their reason for this isn't to excuse the rape necessarily, but to excuse the boy in the skirt in the girl's bathroom. Because, you see, to the mainstream population this issue has been, from the beginning, not about a girl being raped, but about trying to defend transgender bathroom policy. It started that way from the very beginning when the girl's father was dragged out of a school board meeting and has never stopped being about that for them.

That's why such an obtuse a ridiculous article was written entitled, astonishingly, "The Right's Big Lie About A Sexual Assault in Virginia". I cannot stress enough how absurd this was to read as a real, genuine article.

The title is one thing, but what's somewhat surprising is that every terrible detail is confirmed in the article, which still has the audacity to claim that the whole thing was a "big lie". The dad being arrested for acting out at a school board meeting because he was furious that his daughter was raped. The school not properly reporting the crime and covering it up. The boy being transferred to another school and committing a second sexual crime. Everything, every single detail is correct. So what on earth is the "big lie" here that the article showcases?

Since for them it was about transgenders in bathrooms from the first day, it's still about it now. The "big lie" is that this wasn't a case of a regular teenager using the cover of false transgender identity to enter the girl's bathroom and commit a crime. We can all rest easy, folks! Since the girl and boy had met up previously in the girl's bathroom, this is not a case that can be used against transgenders in girl's bathrooms! Conservatives lied yet again! The entire premise of saying the right had a "big lie" is that this was not a normal teenage boy using the cover of the transgender bathroom policy to commit a sexual crime against a totally random and unsuspecting female victim. 

What's interesting is that that fact is the only thing that is a "lie", yet the article intends to convince us that we "had it all wrong". All wrong. All of it, totally wrong. Except for the vast majority of it. What's most glaring of course is that it was never a lie - details about the story were missing. For all intents and purposes, it was actually definitely a boy using transgender identity as a cover to go into the girl's room and rape someone - until we learned that they organized ahead of time to meet up in there on purpose. We do not lie when we are lacking information. Is it wise to make declarations about a situation when you don't have all the information? Surely, we could have a discussion about that, but that is different from intentionally lying about a situation. 

None of this, of course, matters to the author of this and other articles like it. The framework of this piece allows unbelievable responses in the people who were desperate to be relieved of their guilt for wanting to belittle this crime against an innocent girl, such as the following:

"So, it was all bullshıt. The boy wearing a skirt who raped a girl isn't trans. They had hooked up in the bathroom a couple times before. This time she said no & he raped her. Then the girl's dad fed the media the "trans predator" story."

"It was all bullshit." All of it, according to the rape apologists, was bullshit. Except, of course, for the school hiding the rape, sending the boy to another school where he would commit another sexual crime, arresting the father for trying to speak for his daughter, so on and so on. It turns out a very large amount of the story was absolutely not bullshit, but it becomes all bullshit when the magic information they needed to quell their nervous hearts is heard, that the girl and boy had previous encounters. Suddenly all is forgiven.

Except that the biggest cover points I have seen in every article that discussed this horrible situation did not even focus on the transgender aspect. It was mentioned, of course, but nothing has been more important to the people covering this story than the fact that the school covered up the rape. This was the absolute biggest part of the story, it was not focused on transgender kids from the beginning. It was, however, the main focus for the mainstream, liberals, leftists, and Democrats. They projected their focus on transgender bathroom policy onto their opposition - or perhaps maliciously, intentionally pretended that a school covering up a rape was not a big deal.

Yes, from the beginning, before it was even a story, before the girl's father was even arrested, this was about transgenders in bathrooms for the mainstream - that's why the school hid the rape. That's why they had the father forcibly removed, because they knew they hid the rape and didn't want to be found out. They hid the rape because the boy had worn a skirt as a cover to go into the girl's bathroom uncontested and they didn't want this story used as ammunition against their transgender bathroom policy. It was a relief to them that the girl had had previous sexual encounters with the boy, which is why they think "the right" has made this case into what they see as a whole hullabaloo over just a run of the mill rape. They are ecstatic that this isn't a random assault by a boy who wore a skirt to enter the girl's bathroom. Despite that this girl was raped, the fact that they had intentionally met up in the bathroom before, and had done so that day, resolves the moral quandary they had over the case from the beginning. They project that to their preferred boogeyman of "the right" and spin the story until it vomits. "The right lied about this story from the beginning!"

Except the big problems I've seen from the beginning weren't that a skirt wearing boy used transgender bathroom policy to rape a girl, but rather that the school hid the rape because they were worried people would use it against their transgender bathroom policy. They had the father - understandably furious - arrested to keep trying to hide the rape. The big story was the blatant disregard of this girl, the crime against her hidden for their agendas, and as if it couldn't get any worse, another girl was assaulted due to their negligence. Because they didn't want to hurt the transgender cause.

It wasn't the right that made this about transgender bathroom policies, it was the Loundoun County school when they hid the rape for fear of making it about transgender bathroom policies. It is about transgender bathroom policy not because a boy wore a skirt into a bathroom to rape a girl, but because adults are so worried about passing transgender bathroom policies that they would hide a rape by a boy in a skirt. The transgender agenda itself is not worried about sacrificing young girls for their cause.

What's more is, unfortunately, they still aren't even in the clear. They are so focused on the boy in a skirt portion that they are ignoring the fact that these two students were having sex in the school bathroom. How is that even acceptable? Of course, kids were having sex in school bathrooms when I was in school, too, but it was at least marginally more difficult when boys were not allowed free reign of the girl's room. The transgender bathroom policy may have not, in this specific case, enabled a boy to randomly assault an unsuspecting girl in the girl's bathroom under the cover of the transgender bathroom policy, but the greater transgender discourse absolutely enabled the situation. Would they have met up anyway, without pretending to be gender fluid? Maybe. Probably even likely. But the fact of the matter is, there would have been a small chance he would have been stopped at the gate if the adults in the situation were not so hellbent on propping up transgender ideology.

The NYT flagrantly accuses the Bad Team of using this story to hurt "transgender children" when they used "transgender children" from the beginning to try and erase a crime against a girl and a second crime against another girl that was enabled due to their complicity. That's why they are so stuck on the idea that anyone has been "lying" about this story to hurt the transgender cause - because they thought someone would and proactively tried to hide the rape to keep that from happening.

Of course they will argue that the father made the situation about the transgender bathroom policy. I understand that this was his intention, as it is very likely his daughter framed the situation for him thusly. She was brave enough to speak up about being raped, but was she brave enough to tell her father that it was by a boy with whom she had been regularly fornicating in the school bathroom previously? We don't know that yet, but it seems rather likely. Despite any of this, of course, while it may have been his intention to frame it thusly, his sudden summary expulsion from the school board meeting is what set the narrative. While surely people had been talking about the "predatory exploitation of the transgender bathroom policy" aspect before we knew that the girl planned to meet with the boy who raped her, I cannot stress enough that the biggest part of the story from the beginning was the school hiding the rape. Articles like these, meant to assuage leftist moral quandaries over being more concerned for transgender bathroom policy than a girl being raped, do even more to delegitimize the victim - by claiming that the people who were defending her and trying to ensure her rapist saw justice were actually lying about the case. The more nuanced details, of course, insist that surely she was raped and trust us we do think that's bad, but the discourse is framed overwhelmingly about transgender bathroom policies instead of that adults responsible for the safety of a young girl covered up a heinous crime against her. 

Of course, more details don't make this story better. Many parts of it are disgusting and revealing about how our culture hurts children and teenagers. One of the first articles I read about this story that contained the information that the girl and boy had had previous consensual encounters was a very objective article. In this article, a much larger problem about this crime is uncovered. It stated that the boy had previously propositioned the girl for "a particular sexual act" in the past, but she continually refused. Considering the crime was forcible sodomy, we do not need to do much of a connect the dots puzzle to figure out that the boy had been trying to persuade this girl to engage in consensual sodomy rather than forcible. The boy further claims that he stopped when he realized he was hurting her. Whether or not that's true, it showcases a deeper tragic scenario. 

When we know what we know about porn and its horrible effect on young minds, we get a much more depressing picture of this encounter. A boy's mind poisoned by gratuitous pornography showcasing women enthusiastically enjoying sudden anal penetration, or perhaps even more disturbingly not enjoying, convinced this teenager that if his female hookup just tried it, it would be just like the sex he sees in the porn! So convinced he was of this in fact, he decided it would be okay to force it upon her, and it would just work out, like it does in the porn, and he'd get the sexual gratification he sees the men in porn display. All the education about consent in the world has to fight against the brain rewiring, evil power of highly accessible, gratuitous porn.

Many many things could have been different to have stopped this situation from ever happening. Many things could have been done differently to allow responsible adults to actually handle it properly after it unfortunately did happen. The big story isn't about whether boys can use the girl's room, though it is a small part of it. 

Truly no situation is ever so cut and dry. I'm sure there are people who were excited that there was what appeared to be such a plain and uncontestable example of transgender bathroom policies harming young girls, just as excited as the people who were thrilled to hear the victim of this crime had intentionally met up with her soon-to-be rapist that day. People love to exploit others for their causes and beliefs, an unfortunate reality. But the real story is actually just as bad, despite it not matching up perfectly to any one of these sociopaths' desired narratives. There are multiple aspects to it, all of which are terrible. The facts of the situation do not reflect well on the Loudoun county school and contribute even more fuel to the fire of the greater "parents and school board meetings" discourse happening concurrent to this. This is probably the most important aspect of the story and people are more than happy to bury it, as the facts undeniably point to a justifiably outraged father being arrested for attempting to advocate for his daughter.

I am not very surprised lately by the grotesque behavior of many, but the framing of this crime as what essentially boils down to "guys this isn't a special rape, it's just a regular run of the mill rape" is particularly disgusting. We were just a few years ago heavy into how important it was for schools to take sexual assault seriously. Apparently it was a huge deal then. But now it is not, because holding the school who tried to hide a rape accountable could hurt the transgender cause, even though we could easily agree to set that aside and focus on the reality of the victim. The blatant display of tribalism and friend vs. foe thinking is perhaps the last time I will be so naively surprised. They would surely sacrifice thousands of young girls at the altars of their culture war than risk harming any of their ideological causes and it is naïve to believe otherwise.