"First, it's obscene that you would imply that wanting people to use gender-affirming bathrooms means you want children raped."
I agree that the crucial issue there is not gender-flexible bathroom policy. But the perpetrator of the rape was already a known offender who was allowed to transfer to a different school rather than being expell…
"First, it's obscene that you would imply that wanting people to use gender-affirming bathrooms means you want children raped."
I agree that the crucial issue there is not gender-flexible bathroom policy. But the perpetrator of the rape was already a known offender who was allowed to transfer to a different school rather than being expelled, and that's a clear indication that Virginia schools have slipshod policies toward discipline that even extend to students who perpetrate blatant transgressions of basic standards of social conduct.
Compare that case with the recent phenomenon of resort to preemptive suspensions and expulsions of college students that have resulted simply on the basis of an accusation of sexual assault that isn't proven or admitted.
Also, at least some of us are dismayed by another frequent feature of the conversations about this event: the implicitly expressed laissez-faire attitude, in regard to couples appropriating school bathrooms during open school hours in order to engage in sexual acts, as long as both parties are "consenting." At least some of us find that attitude of passive assent to be not just an awfully slippery slope, but a telling indication that disciplinary standards in regard to the social environment in the high schools have already gone completely over the edge. What is someone who walks in to witness two students actively engaged in a sex act to do- give them the benefit of the doubt? Simply go about their business, using the adjoining facilities? At some point, lines need to be drawn between the mission of public high schools as learning environments for teenagers, and the opportunity for students to take advantage of a lack of enforcement of standards for social conduct- and the legal privileges of "juvenile" status- to convert a school building into a porno fantasyland environment for their personal gratification. (After which, presumably, some of those who act on that impulse may well find themselves in college and office environments where they're liable to be judged for so much as one "inappropriate touch"...the mixed messages are practically vertigo-inducing.) My sensibilities are basically libertarian. But sexual activity by students in a public high school building is not to be hand-waved aside as if the place were an after-hours nightclub for adults with proof of ID.
"if CHILDREN are involved in crimes, they are afforded privacy."
Yeah, within the controllable boundaries of the courts and the news media. But the CHILDREN cajoled or intimidated into public sex acts- including by their "partners" of minor status- are often NOT afforded privacy in their social environments; word has a way of getting out among their teenage peers. Far and wide. Sometimes there are even photos, or video. Which also has a way of encouraging silence on the part of those participants whose "consent" was actually to some extent coerced. We're all someone's "children", by the way. The word "children" is not a synonym for "fresh-faced innocent."
I'll concede that it's questionable how much the issue of (the lack of) disciplinary standards in the public schools has to do with the responsibilities and priorities of the office of Governor. But neither side's campaign particularly distinguished itself in this race, as illustrated by the McAuliffe ads that sought to portray Glenn Youngkin as if he were Steve Bannon in a fleece vest. Both sides can claim that they're simply drawing broad comparisons that highlight contrasting political leanings, in that field of political discourse that clings so fervently to being reduced to a contest between Blue and Red. I don't find either side convincing, but undoubtedly some voters did, given the jejune political climate established by those game rules.
"First, it's obscene that you would imply that wanting people to use gender-affirming bathrooms means you want children raped."
I agree that the crucial issue there is not gender-flexible bathroom policy. But the perpetrator of the rape was already a known offender who was allowed to transfer to a different school rather than being expelled, and that's a clear indication that Virginia schools have slipshod policies toward discipline that even extend to students who perpetrate blatant transgressions of basic standards of social conduct.
Compare that case with the recent phenomenon of resort to preemptive suspensions and expulsions of college students that have resulted simply on the basis of an accusation of sexual assault that isn't proven or admitted.
Also, at least some of us are dismayed by another frequent feature of the conversations about this event: the implicitly expressed laissez-faire attitude, in regard to couples appropriating school bathrooms during open school hours in order to engage in sexual acts, as long as both parties are "consenting." At least some of us find that attitude of passive assent to be not just an awfully slippery slope, but a telling indication that disciplinary standards in regard to the social environment in the high schools have already gone completely over the edge. What is someone who walks in to witness two students actively engaged in a sex act to do- give them the benefit of the doubt? Simply go about their business, using the adjoining facilities? At some point, lines need to be drawn between the mission of public high schools as learning environments for teenagers, and the opportunity for students to take advantage of a lack of enforcement of standards for social conduct- and the legal privileges of "juvenile" status- to convert a school building into a porno fantasyland environment for their personal gratification. (After which, presumably, some of those who act on that impulse may well find themselves in college and office environments where they're liable to be judged for so much as one "inappropriate touch"...the mixed messages are practically vertigo-inducing.) My sensibilities are basically libertarian. But sexual activity by students in a public high school building is not to be hand-waved aside as if the place were an after-hours nightclub for adults with proof of ID.
"if CHILDREN are involved in crimes, they are afforded privacy."
Yeah, within the controllable boundaries of the courts and the news media. But the CHILDREN cajoled or intimidated into public sex acts- including by their "partners" of minor status- are often NOT afforded privacy in their social environments; word has a way of getting out among their teenage peers. Far and wide. Sometimes there are even photos, or video. Which also has a way of encouraging silence on the part of those participants whose "consent" was actually to some extent coerced. We're all someone's "children", by the way. The word "children" is not a synonym for "fresh-faced innocent."
I'll concede that it's questionable how much the issue of (the lack of) disciplinary standards in the public schools has to do with the responsibilities and priorities of the office of Governor. But neither side's campaign particularly distinguished itself in this race, as illustrated by the McAuliffe ads that sought to portray Glenn Youngkin as if he were Steve Bannon in a fleece vest. Both sides can claim that they're simply drawing broad comparisons that highlight contrasting political leanings, in that field of political discourse that clings so fervently to being reduced to a contest between Blue and Red. I don't find either side convincing, but undoubtedly some voters did, given the jejune political climate established by those game rules.