If the Left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any. As we’re learning from the fallout of Eric Swalwell’s sexual misconduct scandal, Democrats and their media allies knew for years that Swalwell was problematic and that he behaved inappropriately with women (including his own staffers).
But because Swalwell voted the correct way and was vehemently anti-Trump and anti-ICE, Democrats turned a blind eye to his inappropriate behavior. For that, women suffered, and the so-called “Party of Women” didn’t seem to care. Why the Democrats decided to run Swalwell out of town now is purely speculative, but it seems his unwillingness to drop out of the California governor’s race irked his party, who fear a crowded Democrat field might give the Republicans a chance to clean up Newsom’s mess.
But that’s a topic for another time.
The larger point here, once again, is that the Leftist Democrats will sacrifice the very voters they claim to care about to advance their political agenda. That political agenda is not limited to guys like Swalwell, of course. It also applies to their pet constituencies, including the LGBTQAI+ alphabet soup community. That’s why, just a decade after the height of the Me Too movement, a new academic book is asking why “queer professor-student relationships” should be held to the same rules as heterosexual relationships.
This academic book chapter asks an unbelievable question: universities adopted rules against professor-student relationships to protect students from coercive power imbalances, “but should queer professor–student relationships be subject to the same scrutiny?”
It looks at cases… pic.twitter.com/XWk1GbNOAh
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) April 10, 2026
The entire post reads (emphasis added):
It looks at cases where “queer female professors were accused of sexual harassment by graduate students” and then sympathetically reviews arguments against such rules, including that they “disregard students’ consent,” “advance anti-queer and erotophobic agendas,” “require and reinforce fictions of female vulnerability,” and even “perpetuate neoliberal ideologies.”
The author concludes that if there is ANY problem at all with queer professor–student relationships, it’s supposedly “not exclusively or even primarily sexual” but “pedagogical.”
Instead of simply saying professors should not sleep with their students, this chapter attempts to reframe the issue when the professor identifies as “queer.”
Basically, everything is excused if you’re “queer.”
“These policies, which call into question the legitimacy of consent across significant differences of power, emerged largely out of efforts to protect female students from the coercion of male professors. But should queer professor-student relationships be subject to the same scrutiny?” the highlighted text asks.
“This chapter rehearses and evaluates the key arguments that well-intentioned scholars have posed against such regulations: that they disregard students’ consent and undermine their autonomy; advance anti-queer and erotophobic agendas; require and reinforce fictions of female vulnerability; and perpetuate neoliberal ideologies that locate sexual injury in individual agents rather than power structures.”
That makes no sense, of course, unless you’re a raging Leftist. “Queer” professors have the same coercive power structures over their students as heterosexual ones, regardless of gender. And if the issue is one of “consent” and “autonomy” why can’t young women consent and exercise their bodily autonomy to enter into heterosexual relationships with their male professors?
It seems that when you identify as a member of the Alphabet Soup activist mob, you get to be above the law. As I wrote about the other day, a trans-identified man who killed a baby in 2001 was released from prison 30 years early. Why? Because the ACLU sued Indiana to have his “gender-affirming care” covered by the state. Rather than provide that care at taxpayer expense, the state seems to have released him from prison to avoid paying for his “treatment.”
Last October, Nicholas John Roske was handed a light sentence by Biden-appointed Judge Deborah Boardman because of Roske’s trans identity. Roske faced 30 years behind bars after he was found guilty of trying to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Roske traveled from California to Kavanaugh’s East Coast residence and was in possession of a Glock, a knife, pepper spray, and zip ties.
Judge Boardman gave him eight years, citing President Trump’s order that inmates be housed in prison that correspond to their sex at birth. Boardman also said, “I am heartened that this terrible infraction has helped the Roske family … accept their daughter for who she is.”
I’ve also written at length about “trans-identifying men” being housed in women’s prisons, and how women are not only raped and abused by these men, but that they’re also punished by officials for speaking out about these misogynistic policies.
It’s (D)ifferent, of course.
Funny how fast “believe all women” turns into “it depends” when the accused checks the right boxes, or how rules about sexual conduct are suddenly unfair when equally applied across the board. Whether it’s Swalwell, academia, or the broader activist class, the Left has made one thing abundantly clear: accountability is optional if you’re politically useful, and rules only apply to certain demographics. And the people they claim to protect are the ones paying the price.
National Headline
