Woman sets person on fire in US

If anyone else is wondering how people know the victim was a woman, cos it's not included in the Miami Herald article, it has been widely reported by other media outlets, eg
www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/10/24/suspect-busted-for-lighting-woman-on-fire-in-florida-taco-bell/amp/

The reporters are probably subject to the same threats
as we are for stating the flaming obvious. Maybe it's the lawyers keeping calling the shots or a nervous editor. Some spine is needed.

It is a painful read though. Remember the line in the Karen white story: "her penis" which peaked readers. I wish there was more of this.

In this case, the picture says it all.

But if you didn't open the link or looked at the crime stats, this would be recorded as a crime committed by a woman.

Whatever happened to journalistic ethics?

Haha. Grammar obviously very problematic for the editorial staff. Pronouns a full on pick and mix, the victim is "them" the person who "may have went" on an arson trip variously "he,him and she".

Apart from anything else I despair of future educational standards, with biology and science out of the door, critical thinking it goes without saying is an unknown concept and grammar making language meaningless.

We truly are on a downward spiral. I recommend the tale of the "Doasyoulikes" in the Water Babies: "Kingsley tells of a group of humans called the Doasyoulikes who are allowed to do "whatever they like" so gradually lose the power of speech, degenerate into gorillas".

The CCTV shot shows a person with a beard in a faux-mincing pose like a drag queen.

So I guess the bearded mugshot was taken at the police station, where they make them wear this boiler suits.

Where does it say the victim is a woman?

Horrible, horrible crime.

How can the Miami Herald get away with lying in its headlines and articles. Every single person knows what is going on there.

However, a police officer tazed 'him' as it says in the article so the truth will out, even if it slips away again. This individual has clear mental health problems.

How any newspaper could write that bunch of obfuscation, I don't know, unless they intentionally want to peak trans their readership.

MNHQ needs to edit the thread title: MAN sets person on fire.

It’s so farcical. No one is going to look at that picture and buy that it’s a woman. Why the forced language when all the other evidence so clearly contradicts it? Makes you want to scream.

How lovely that the XY violent offender gets referred to by XY violent offender's madey uppy 'gender identity' while the XX victim is a de=sexed 'person'.

I have my fingers crossed that that (Plus the very, very obviously male photographs placed prominently) was the newspaper staff's way of obeying the letter but not the spirit of imposed-from-above style guidelines. Maybe I am too optimistic.

Funny how the 'things that never happen' seem to happen on a pretty much daily basis.

Maybe they 'identify' as 'never happened'.

Another for the 'it never happens' resource.

This double speak is honestly helping us by confusing the fuck out of your every day person who hasn’t s clue what’s going on in the Twittersphere.

So the natal female victim isn’t afforded the curtesy of her biological sex and the accused is respected with his preferred pronouns? How wonderful.

Why are they not allowed to say "trans woman", or "self identified woman"? At least it would be closer to the truth. Additionally, in any crimes against trans people, it would highlight that they had potentially been targeted due to being trans.

I no longer know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that they can't even keep to the same pronouns for the attacker throughout the article.

Funny how the TRAs are awfully quiet about this attack isn't it?

It could well be a recent photo... there is a still image from CCTV, presumably from the day of the incident. The perpetrator looks pretty much the same.

Ffs

Affirming the perps identity yet again trumps the victims truth. This shit is abusive. Its lies.

I do wish that the media would just be a bit braver and state the fucking facts, but the technique of using preferred gender and a photo is very eloquent.

How lovely that the XY violent offender gets referred to by XY violent offender's madey uppy 'gender identity' while the XX victim is a de=sexed 'person'.

Because madey uppy 'gender identities' are really important to crime statistics while sex doesn't matter a shit as I'm sure we're all agreed.

FFS

I felt sick reading that.

Isn't it funny how they call this male a woman, but leave the victim's sex ambiguous? This person (allegedly) set fire to a woman, going on other articles.

Bloody hell there are no words!

Utterly disingenuous reporting 'Woman sets person on fire', clicking on the link of course I thought the bearded person was a male victim. So the perpetrator gets reported in the way they identify and the victim isn't sexed.

Deliberate obfuscation.