To be angry that Scarlet Blake is being called a woman.

And for every person who thinks ‘hmm that’s a bit odd…oh of course it’s one of those new women’, there will be thousands that don’t make the connection. It’s infuriating we can be lied to so blatantly.

It's frightening that there are so many people commenting that this is the first they've heard that this was a man! Not the people who have said that's fault obviously... it's a very, very poor indictment of the rigour of the press isn't it? Pure propaganda, serving a narrative and not the truth.

It's grim.

I was just reading the article thinking how it's so rare to see a women kill a random man. Read a bit further and then it made more sense. Yanbu

I don't think it's as simple as there are males and females and that's it.

So what's the extra complexity?

For example in the UK, same sex relationships were seen as unnatural in the past and were illegal. I don't think it's as simple as there are males and females and that's it.

Is there a logical connection between these two sentences, because I'm not seeing it? Prejudice against those who are same-sex attracted is totally different from people with gender issues. The two issues have been coupled together in spite of having little common ground. This has been detrimental to many gay men and especially lesbians because they are now told that their sexual orientation should relate to gender identity, not sex, and that leads to lesbians told it's bigoted not to consider dating transwomen, who are male. Spot the difference from the old trope that a woman identifying as lesbian just hadn't met the right man yet.

Biologically, right across all the mammals there really are just males and females, and that's it. Some people (a very small number) have disorders or differences of sexual development that make it difficult to observe at birth what sex they are, or later on they don't go through puberty in the way that would be expected based on their outward appearance. These are medical conditions. From the point of view of sexual reproduction, there are only two gametes, eggs and sperm, and humans (and all the other mammals) have bodies arranged around producing one or the other. No healthy human has ever been able to produce both gametes.

Socially, every society has some degree of sexual stereotyping. Some people struggle with this. The answer there is not to agree they must really have the wrong body to match their brain - what would that even mean? The brain is part of the body. We should be fighting the stereotypes.

That’s exactly what I said in my bbc complaint. It’s just straight up lies otherwise. They know what they are doing too, liars. They know it keeps people reading because it’s such an unusual crime for an actual woman.

But there's no logic to this at all. Either they are female or they're not. It's not a shades of grey situation.

So if a compelled falsehood is traumatic for someone there's a reason for that. At the heart of it is that it's a compelled falsehood. It shouldn't be expected of anyone.

The same sex relationship isn't a good comparison either. That shifted because society got behind it, and that was because people saw the benefit to society overall. There was lots of debate and eventually a majority behind it.

This situation has been the exact opposite. 'No debate' was a definite feature. People haven't been brought along with the argument, they've been bludgeoned into submission. Crucially, identifying 'TW' as women
has huge down sides for society, notably the impact it is currently having on women's rights.

What else is there? Male, female and... Sperm, ova and....

Sex is binary.

I don't think it's as simple as there are males and females and that's it.

It is that simple.

Sex in humans in binary and immutable

There are two sexes. Humans cannot change sex.

That article doesn't state she's a trans woman until the third section of the article. It should be the second word. "A transwoman".

Good

Plus agree reporting should be accurate

Ah so you believe that trans women are women.

You believe that Scarlett Blake is a woman.

So do you think he should be in a woman's prison then? Because that's the logical position of your argument.

For me, the logic is that it is highly traumatising giving a statement and that it doesn't need to be made any more difficult for the victim than it already is. A person isn't led through their statement/evidence, it is in their own words and how they experienced it.

That is different to the press or others.

I also don't agree with the history argument in a lot of respects, things we once thought of as straight forward and correct no longer are. For example in the UK, same sex relationships were seen as unnatural in the past and were illegal. I don't think it's as simple as there are males and females and that's it.

Sorry @noctilucentcloud thats bollocks.

Sex based pronouns are accurate.

Some people are prepared to offer preferred pronouns as a courtesy, despite them being inaccurate.

This man does not deserve courtesy.

For me the correct pronouns are what an individual prefers, be it he/she/they.

'I identify as African American. I therefore feel eligible to apply for a job in a civil rights organisation representing the interests of this group which is reserved (legally) for applicants of African American heritage.'

This happened - Google Rachel Dolezal. Would it have been respectful to refer to her as African American, in line with her preference, even though it emerged that she was white with no African American heritage whatsoever, and had altered her appearance to make herself look darker skinned and to make her naturally curly hair a bit frizzier? Or would it have been better to listen to the people who really were African American, who were outraged that she had taken it on herself to speak for them and had taken a job meant for one of their number to that end?

I've got more examples of people who self-identify as things they are not, if they should be needed. I can't understand why we are pandering to them. They are either deluded or dishonest or both. In the past most of us would have had no hesitation in saying so. I'd like to get back to those times.

She isn’t a women. She’s a psychopath. A male psychopath.

The bbc and the rest of the media apparently cares what 'gender' this man identifies as. I don't give a shit about his gender. His sex however, is a different matter. How the crime is reported, where he has to serve his sentence.

His 'gender' may have been helpful in luring the poor victim to his death though, so I suppose it may be significant.

(And in case the pronoun police feel inclined to report any posts for 'misgendering', mn guidelines allow us to use correct sex pronouns for individuals primarily known for serious crimes)

They still retain their male pattern violence don't they? The truth in the form of their behaviour will always betray them.

For me no. I've always used pronouns based on sex. So has everyone else, historically, as far as I can see. After all we use them for babies, animals - who cannot be said to have a 'gender identity'.

So when did that change? And why was there no discussion about it?

In any event, what's the logic behind some people using preferred pronouns (press) and others not (victims)? If we don't actually think these men are women, why are we mangling language on their orders?

"Preferred pronouns" are reality destabilising LIES.

I don't think victims should be compelled to use any particular terms, giving evidence is traumatic enough. But that is a very different argument to the use of preferred pronouns by the press.

Why? Why should the press lie about this?

What about the victim's family who have to read lies in the press coverage? They know he wasn't murdered by a woman FFS. It was a man. A violent man.

I also think it is unreasonable and disrespectful of you to use a child's murder to argue that the press should report the incorrect pronouns of violent men.

I've been following this story and I'm shocked it's the first i know that in fact she is a he thank god he's in a man's prison

For me the correct pronouns are what an individual prefers, be it he/she/they. Turning it round on you - do you think a transgendered witness or victim shouldn't have their preferred pronouns used? A recent very sad example being Brianna Ghey.

I don't think victims should be compelled to use any particular terms, giving evidence is traumatic enough. But that is a very different argument to the use of preferred pronouns by the press.

I have complained to the BBC. Suspect it is wasted effort but hey.