you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The article seems to make a big fuss over the person being 18. I'm guessing because that can imply certain legal ramifications against this SPECIFIC person. I think that this is misplaced outrage. Yes be outraged over this incident but don't say it's because he is 18 that this is the problem because you can catch this one guy on a legal technicality. If the boy was 14 and the girls were 18 this is still a problem.

The problem is the locker room policy that the principal emailed to the parent. All boys can go into the girls showers if they declare "trans". That policy isn't requireing the boy to I'd as a girl he can claim "nonbinary" and walk in. That's just actually insane.

If they focus on the age it tries to pull off a quick win while leaving the bad policy in place. It also justifies the dumb statutory rape laws which high school students face for dating each other.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very well said. Agree with you on both counts, that the statutory charges are a distraction from the real problem of men in the womens room, and also creates consent for criminalizing high schoolers having sex with arbitrary age distinctions. Appreciate you calling attention to this