Pritt was initially elected to the state House as a Democrat in 2022 but changed his political affiliation to Republican the year after. Republican Party chair Elgine McArdle said in a statement that Pritt had realized that the “Democratic Party of today is not the Democratic Party that our parents grew up with.”
State Republicans have filed numerous bills seeking to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender minors, ban trans student-athletes from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, and nullify cities’ non-discrimination ordinances.
In 2023, Pritt voted for a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. State Sen. Mike Azinger ® said that the bill was needed because gender is “self-evident” and that the bill was needed to stop doctors who want to “chop up a child,” even though gender affirming surgery is almost never performed on minors and the bill banned non-surgical interventions.
Why is it always the ones you most suspect?
Does “have sex” imply consent?
Yes.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults. It’s rape.
So “consensual sex” is a redundant phrase?
Yes, it would be considered a redundant phase. Sex without consent is rape.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults.
I am pretty sure you’re wrong about this but I’m unsure where you’re pulling this definition from, so maybe that would help sort it out.
In 1530, could a 14 year old “have sex”? Are you leaning on morality to define sex this way, or legality?
To be clear, this semantic argument feels much more like virtue signalling than anything else, but I’m open to be convinced it’s more than that.
You’re pretty sure I’m wrong, but you can’t figure out why. Just to be clear - you’re pretty sure I’m wrong about children being unable to consent to sex with adults
We’re not talking about 1530. We’re talking about right now. We’re talking about THIS case with THIS child that was raped by a lawmaker.
I took issue with the author describing this abuse as “sex” when it is impossible for a child to consent to sex with an adult.
deleted by creator
Please don’t get me wrong, I do think using the word “rape” (when combined with the obligatory “allegedly”) is a better title, and a better way to describe the situation, but I don’t think using “have sex” is wrong or inaccurate, let alone defending anything.
“Have sex” when describing rape is absolutely inaccurate and implies consent. It’s part of our rape culture and how we excuse rape and pedophilia.
I think it’s telling that you came at me for defending this victim instead of any of the commenters here arguing that it’s more accurate to describe this act of rape as sex with a child. Literally teamed up with someone calling me a “retard” for accurately calling this for what it is - rape of a child.
Read the room.
What are you even talking about? I didn’t “come at you” nor is your semantic argument “defending” anyone lol. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not just virtue signalling. I think I’m about done with that now.