Mass Shooting in Tumbler Ridge Canada

You are right that the victims and their families should be remembered.
However, as a mum to a gender dysphoria young person, I can also see that the shooter is also a victim. He was 17 years of age. And sadly, society has lost its way in helping lost adolescents.
He was not a man as some upthread are posting. He was a boy.
Mark Carney, rightly and unsurprisingly, showed considerable emotion in his statement. Perhaps this is because he too has a trans child, albeit non-binary. You can’t really understand this unless you have a trans child. One can only hope that this will lead the government to a more thoughtful approach

When my child came out as trans and asked our lifelong friends to call him, “she” and a female name, it brought to mind the fable, the emperor‘s new clothes. it was then that I decided that if I, his mother, could not tell him the truth then who could
But you are right, today is a day to remember the victims. May they rest in peace

Do you really think the families of the victims give a flying fuck what sex or gender the shooter was at this point ?

Interesting. I agree they were in an invidious position, but still think there were better ways through than the one they took, and that, by now, they could be doing better still. They're effectively misleading the public. This can't be right.

Some thoughts...

In the above, you seem to have shifted from suggesting in the post I was responding to that they were limited to the information provided by the police, to the very different "They do have to quote what was said by [the police]". There's an obvious difference here.

I've read the guidelines on accuracy with a fairly fine toothcomb, as part of making a number of complaints about this kind of thing to them. (These may not have been upheld at the time, but I think have been validated since, in the fairly clear changes we've seen since the recent whistle-blowing memo that blew up with the doctoring of Trump's speech).

I'm not convinced by the suggestion that "anecdotal evidence and stats would leave them wide open for a potential future lawsuit". I admit I don't know much about it, but am pretty sure I've seen eyewitness reports and stats quoted by reputable outlets in carefully qualified ways in these contexts, as opposed to these being straightforwardly beyond the pale. I'd imagine there's rather more nuance to this, or we wouldn't be seeing all the interviews with witnesses, fact-checks etc. that we do.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "You may be right that, if people cannot interpret or understand the need for quotes, we may need to have even more clear language". I don't think anyone here is unable to "interpret" a quote, far less "understand the need for" quotes(!!!) This does seem, though, at least to support my argument that their use of the word "gender" as opposed to "sex" to qualify the "known" information was at best irresponsible (and at worst cynical) in the current context of heated debate over what the former even means.

I've no doubt there are differences regarding individuals and regimes - this is a good point, but I'm not sure is entirely relevant in the light of my arguments above?

Not when so many posters are insisting that the eye witnesses would have been able to distinguish between a female in a dress and a male, in the midst of panic, no. The police did the best they could with the information they had from eye witnesses. What would you prefer, that they held off issuing the description in the public alert until they had established the sex of the perpetrator ? So more people would have died ? Really ? Common sense has gone out of the window on this thread.

Nope. All up for a in depth discussion about all the issues mentioned here. But the fact is the immediate aftermath of the killing of innocent people is neither the time nor the place. Neither is the ridiculously self serving criticism of the police for their immediate description of the killer, which was based on eye witnesses calls. The sex or gender identity of the killer won’t be the uppermost thing in the minds of the victims’ families tonight. Several posts saying that posters immediate thoughts on hearing the news was ‘it’s a man’. Only on MN. In the real world the immediate thought is ‘God help the victims and their families’.

The police update from Canada live on BBC- reporters keep referring to Jesse as “he” and the police keeps saying “she”.

The name the police gave is a different surname than that reported by the Daily Mail and other non-Uk news outlets?

Well it seems to have been confirmed the individual was transgender. I wonder what the story is.

The police update from Canada live on BBC- reporters keep referring to Jesse as “he” and the police keeps saying “she”.

I read it first on the BBC and then read it on the ABC. When I read it on the Beeb, I immediately thought it was worded very carefully. Seems that the staff at the ABC read it and decided to use the term woman in an early article.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-11/british-columbia-high-school-shooting-multiple-dead/106331278?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

I noticed that ABC have now changed their coverage to follow the BBC. But I did wonder at the time whether the ABC had this current information and yet still chose to report this person as if the person was a ‘woman’ because that seemed to fit what the ABC does still. I now feel I cannot trust the ABC.

They do have to quote what was said by other governments and agencies like ICE, yes. They usually then oppose it for balance by critics of regimes. I expect the rules are quite different as they pertain to individuals suspected of a crime.

Regarding waiting, they have guidelines you can look up about accuracy in reporting and their aims. I can see your point about unambiguous language. When I saw “identity” instead of “sex” I didn’t mind it as it seemed like a catch all regarding the suspect’s details, but it obviously impacted some on here, as they saw it as a lack of refutation that the shooter was female.

I did not see any reputable sources reporting the sex of the shooter, and anecdotal evidence and stats would leave them wide open for a potential future lawsuit, which is not a great use of public funds.

You may be right that, if people cannot interpret or understand the need for quotes, we may need to have even more clear language.

Nope. All up for a in depth discussion about all the issues mentioned here. But the fact is the immediate aftermath of the killing of innocent people is neither the time nor the place. Neither is the ridiculously self serving criticism of the police for their immediate description of the killer, which was based on eye witnesses calls. The sex or gender identity of the killer won’t be the uppermost thing in the minds of the victims’ families tonight. Several posts saying that posters immediate thoughts on hearing the news was ‘it’s a man’. Only on MN. In the real world the immediate thought is ‘God help the victims and their families’.

Not when so many posters are insisting that the eye witnesses would have been able to distinguish between a female in a dress and a male, in the midst of panic, no. The police did the best they could with the information they had from eye witnesses. What would you prefer, that they held off issuing the description in the public alert until they had established the sex of the perpetrator ? So more people would have died ? Really ? Common sense has gone out of the window on this thread.

Case in point: the irresponsible reporting here makes it look like the photo of the injured girl is in fact the shooter. Aided by the fact it was reported to be ‘carried out by a girl/woman’.

Do they, though? Have to wait?

If there's an abuse of power by the Afghan authorities, do they "have to wait for", and limit themselves to, the official reports those authorities put out? Or by ICE?

Or do they, rather, have a responsibility to acknowledge potential ambiguities and inconsistencies; to prioritise the truth, even if the truth is that we don't know the truth?

Their early use of the word "gender" didn't do this, because it was a (I'd argue deliberate) distortion of the truth: the issue was clearly one of sex, not gender. They know the difference. I mean, that difference has sometimes felt like their raison d'être in recent years - it's certainly something in relation to which they've faced serious accusations of bias in recent months, leading them to clarify more recent reports on similar issues with the commonly accepted language of biological sex.

I do recognise that investigative and news reporting are different realms - and that I know little about either - but think it's hard to argue that, where there's a clear conflict between the information provided by the authorities and the likely truth (here, statistics - we all as good as knew the shooter was male; anecdotal evidence; a minority of other similarly reputable mainstream sources' approaches etc.), they have a responsibility to, at the very least, use accurate and unambiguous language to reflect that uncertainty. And a lack of availability of resources to do so is no excuse, either. These things matter, as this thread and wide-ranging social media outrage demonstrate.

Nope. All up for a in depth discussion about all the issues mentioned here. But the fact is the immediate aftermath of the killing of innocent people is neither the time nor the place. Neither is the ridiculously self serving criticism of the police for their immediate description of the killer, which was based on eye witnesses calls. The sex or gender identity of the killer won’t be the uppermost thing in the minds of the victims’ families tonight. Several posts saying that posters immediate thoughts on hearing the news was ‘it’s a man’. Only on MN. In the real world the immediate thought is ‘God help the victims and their families’.