U.S. DOE Opens Investigation After Girl, 5, Raped In School Bathroom By "Transgender" Boy

Hot tbh.

You idiots, that means it's a girl pretending to be a boy, not the other way around.

That's the sloppy editorialization of The Goldwater. The assailant is a biological male who pretends to be a girl.

Before we get any deeper, lets clear up exactly what Title IX is. According to the NCAA websi–
/thread

Live by the sjw fuckwit sword, DIE by the sjw fuckwit sword THOT

me? i will just sit over here with my popcorn and watch as you and your fuckwit friends tear your own lives apart. >:D

exactry

Schools often have preK in the same building as 8th grade. Do the math.

In my tiny Podunk little town on the edge of nowhere my old school had separate bathrooms for younger and older kids. And the kindergarten had a dedicated bathroom by itself.

Attached: tumblr_ox675awzm31utwbx8o1_1280.jpg (736x552, 56.88K)

...

They were told perverts would use this tranny bathroom shit to prey on people. They didn't listen. This is what they wanted.

Reminder to thank the jews for politically weaponizing a mental disorder.

eggzactly this. this wasn't an unintended consequence.

and keep in mind the main demographic that voted this shit in: women.

Attached: 1489200850583.gif (500x375, 337.26K)

Patently false. Boys get their first erections while still in the womb, and have several every day (often while sleeping) basically until death.

But you're right that more information is needed. Starting with how we define "rape", and if it's just the goldwater retards misusing terminology when what actually happened was "unwanted touching". If it was ACTUAL rape, ie: forcible penetration, and the perpetrator was much older (which seems likely; kindergarten age children might be physiologically capable of rape but are unlikely to be psychologically malevolent enough to try) then one has to ask themselves the most important question of all:

Will a mere sign on a bathroom door EVER stop a rapist from committing a rape, whether it's a cis male or a transgirl? Of fucking course not.

Not directly, faglord, but having strong societal conventions would cut way down on rape. Things like: Male and female are designated by genitalia you are born with, and are immutable. Males and females have strong gender roles that we generally adhere too. Males and females have public restrooms and public changing rooms that are separate for sanity and safety. Whites acknowlege that they are smarter and more civilized, and to never relax around blacks. Homosexuality is a mental illness, and if you act out on it in public you should be sent to Pence Memorial Electric Company and Hospital for the Sexually confused.

It wouldnt prevent it entirely.
Just cut down the opportunities to do it by about 99%.
If a sign saves just one girl from being raped then its worth it.

Those kind of erections aren't sexually induced. They are a natural mechanism to keep the organ oxygenated and the veins in good shape. Little boys don't get hard-ons you loopy pedo.

The whole trans bathroom rape argument is a stupid. Banning them explicitly wouldn't solve the problem listed here, as people could still either just do the same thing, unless you suggest having vagina and penis inspections at bathroom entrances. Then it would work, but I'd consider the TSA being expanded to toilets a breach of privacy. Its not like that raping someone in the wrong bathroom is legal now, its illegal. The perpetrator can now be charged for child rape, so its not at all like its legal now.

Your forgetting only a small minority of dudes can actually pass themselves off as a woman in order to get in to a bathroom.
Under traditional rules if a girl sees a bloke in the womans bathroom she would scream and run out.
With the new rules she cant do that because she doesnt know if the bloke has told people that he identifies as a woman.
Your saying that because those rules would only reduce the amount of rapes, not eliminate them completely that its not worth implementing. Most people would not agree with you on that.

Attached: female-transvestite-bodybuilder.jpg (1200x710, 251.33K)

hang her

But anyone could pass themselves off as a full burqa muslim woman. Really though think most people could do it fairly easily, maybe a bit of planning, but dont feel that these laws do anything at all. A man could walk into a womans bathroom and say it was an accident if called out anyways, or vis versa.

Attached: thatsthejoke.jpg (480x360, 21.71K)

Yes they do, retard
You don't have to be a pedo to know this simple fact

Exactly, plus I never heard of a girl being raped by a clítoris.

I wont deny that Burqas are a problem. Here in the UK we've had terrorists get away from police by ducking in to a mosque and walking out in a burqa. Safe in the knowledge that the police would never check a burqad woman for fear of accusations of racism.

But your other example falls under the definition of 'this law will prevent most rapes and some determined rapists may sometimes still get through so we shouldnt have the law'.
The average person wouldnt agree with that. They would agree with laws that drasticly reduce rapes even if they dont completely eliminate them.

sounds hot. I like to have fun with 5 year old girls. My daughter included. I have fun with her daily

did the bathroom had sign that rape is not allowed? if not, cannot blame the tranny

Uh….??? What? That makes no sense, get its supposed to be sarcastic, but, I don't get what claim you are trying to draw similarities to. I have never heard anyone make the claim that for something to be illegal it needs to be posted that it is, except trespassing of course and crimes that depend on location, as without it being posted, you cannot know you are in a location where the thing is illegal (such as smoking in some places, and swimming in some waters).

Hmm. Get what you are saying, however, I do not think there is any reason to think such a law would prevent 'most rapes,' as it would do nothing to effect most rapes, which do not happen by males disguising themselves and raping in women's bathrooms. Still, if you are saying it would prevent most rapes that happen in that scenario, I don't think it would. Just because its illegal to do doesn't mean people wont do it. I think, illegal or not, the exact same people would freak out and run away from some dude dressed as a girl in the womans bathroom. I think that what should be done instead is protect the right of people to have that response of running away, as some today try to get that sorta thing classified as something like discrimination, even though the two people don't know each other and the person who ran away should have no significant influence over the feelings or power over the other person.

Yeah thats what I was saying.
And by rapes I guess I meant all types of sexual assault. From creepy dudes exposing themselves in bathrooms, watching (or even filming) girls using the toilet or getting changed, to groping and obviously penetration.
The bathroom is a place where people let their guard down, and the perpetrators know there wont be a camera.

Having people 'run away' every time a tranny enters a bathroom is no solution, in my opinion. The reason they changed the law was to help trannies with their self esteem. Thats not going to work if everyone runs away from them. It makes the ordinary person in to the bad guy for protecting themselves and their kids.

Normally im a big proponent of light touch laws. But having separate bathrooms for the two biological sexes just makes sense. Its a rule adopted by every culture that uses toilets and sanitation.

liberals will ignore this

[citation needed]

You're saying that a man who wants to rape a woman will see that the sign on the door is "women only" and suddenly decide not to do it. Having an "opportunity" will not magically turn someone who isn't a rapist into one, and any actual rapists will make their own opportunity. What, exactly, is stopping them from just following the girl into the bathroom?

This is propaganda. This is how politicians take away all your rights, one by one, on the pretense that it's "for the children!" You don't care about it, this time, because it doesn't affect you, personally. But you should at least understand what nonsense this is. Would you accept signing yourself into complete slavery in a police state, so long as it prevented even one rape? If you answer "no", you're a hypocrite.

This is only because of cost. Men's bathrooms can be smaller and service the same number of people because they are mostly composed of urinals. Women's bathrooms all must have sitting toilets because women sit to pee, and thus must all be in separate enclosed stalls. So where are these women going to be seen by a man (or tranny) in the first place?? Are you implying that women would be totally okay being watched while taking a shit, if it were another woman?

If the bathrooms were coed but had all separate stalls and nothing else, there wouldn't be any problem. Nobody needs privacy to wash their fucking hands.

On that note, why do women get special protections with this? Why are men not allowed to feel creeped out when the guy next to him can watch him take a piss because sometimes their aren't even dividers between the urinals? It's asinine.

Yes. Your chances of doing slimy shit like taking photos or light groping if people are going to immediately evacuate upon seeing you in a secluded spot. 'Rape' is a dumb word to use here, all of these cases of trannies 'raping' people in bathrooms are probably light sexual assault.

If it was someone with the actual intent to pin and rape another person, preventing men in disguises from entering womens bathrooms wouldn't do anything, yeah. But this is a case of perverts trying to get their socks off through various means, not 'rape'. Who, I repeat, most people would turn and run away from, if the view of "this is a pervert attempting to gather material" was more common than "this is a transgender woman(male) using the bathroom".

Because they don't have the intent of 'raping'(using the strict definition), they aren't going to pursue who runs and screams. Closing this fault that trannies made and exploit also forces them further into the open. You're much more likely to be caught taking panty shots on a bus, rather than in the semi-secluded place of a bathroom.

And baiting someone into a secluded area is much, much more dangerous for the pervert, than heading into a already existent area that has the purpose of being secluded. It's not as if they're going to grab people and pull them into dark rooms, there's no grey area to hide inside there.
The trannys element of surprise is lost, focus is put on them for having to bring up the bait in the first place by interacting, the ability to be 'sneaky' in general is lost, when having to bring someone TO a place that is secluded, instead of simply putting on a disguise and heading into a shower room or bathroom.

Going on. Now that I think about it, violent and random rape is a stupid crime to commit in the first place. Either you leave a witness capable of identifying you, or bring the police's focus hard onto yourself by maiming or murdering the victim.
The fact that it's so easy to catch makes it a silly crime to put focus on, as the focus on it can't get any closer than it already is. It would be easier to get away with a burglary.

Not much can be done to 'fight' rape directly either, teaching precautionary measures and encouraging always wearing self-defense tools on person is the best that can be done. Neither of those methods actually directly 'fighting' the rapists, as compared to all the legal systems put in place to directly fight/restrict sex offenders in general.

It's no wonder why smaller scale sex offenders(perverts, as I was calling them), drug-rapes, or rape by people the victim has any sort of in-depth relationship with are more common, simply by the ideas of a lesser punishment, or of the greater chances for not being caught.