[heartwood]

Not a great case for our side. The girl had consensual relations with the boy on two prior occasions in the school bathrooms, agreed to meet him in the bathroom again but did not agree to sex, according to the judge’s findings.

An unsurprising result of a sexually amoral culture and lax school supervision, with transgenderism a contributory rather than a primary factor.

[CivilWarBrewing]

Agree 100%. This girl is not exactly a charm school candidate. Her actions are slutty.. Willingly meeting a boy in 'her' bathroom for sex which he then perceives as a green light for more. I'm not condoning rape, but this 'tranny assaulting girl' narrative by our side was 95% WRONG.

Is this article accurate, though..??

[Tennessee Nana]

How can that be ??? The boy was a ‘girll’

[Albion Wilde]

Not a great case for our side. The girl had consensual relations with the boy on two prior occasions in the school bathrooms, agreed to meet him in the bathroom again but did not agree to sex, according to the judge’s findings.

I wish the written material specified what type of "consensual relations" they had previously. Was is penetration, oral sex, or mere fondling?

Nevertheless, the presence of any "person" with a penis in the girl's bathroom provides a private setting for sexual behaviors that violate the purpose of a public school.

[StAnDeliver]

"Not a great case for our side. The girl had consensual relations with the boy on two prior occasions in the school bathrooms, agreed to meet him in the bathroom again but did not agree to sex, according to the judge’s findings. An unsurprising result of a sexually amoral culture and lax school supervision, with transgenderism a contributory rather than a primary factor."

There's no consent in Virginia's statutory rape laws, you brain-dead moron. That's why it's called "statutory rape". Piss off.