Mass Shooting in Tumbler Ridge Canada

My post was in response to a post saying that major press outlets have a higher standard of reporting than sm outlets. If this is a male in a dress, whilst being reported as a female in a dress, I fail to see the higher bar of verification.

Certainly, when all over the world, major press outlets do refer to male perpetrators as female. Whatever the reason, that is an outright lie.

Because the police haven’t revealed the sex of the attacker? You want the bbc to go off random social media reports before the police have verified it? I get the frustration if it is recorded as a female crime, but this is such a leap. They didn’t say it was a female. They quoted the Canadian police’s initial reports. People are so angry at the bbc when they have no reading comprehension

I think this might be the thing that finally makes me stop paying the licence fee.

It's. A. Man.

A male crime.

Yes we were talking about the BBC. So the ruling should have impacted their reporting

It's a small community, they know by now the sex of the shooter yet haven't clarified. This is the insidiousness of gender ideology. It affects split second decisions, in a bad way.

The police are used to issuing instructions in this sort of situation, they're trained to. Accuracy should be absolutely the main concern. They could have just said 'shelter in place'. They could have just said 'suspect in a dress'. They know if those instructions are wrong that this is dangerous, probably better than we do. They also know wrong instructions damage trust. Better than we do.

Yet, they haven't corrected initial reports.

Well, most people haven’t adopted any credence in gender being real as opposed to sex. Sex is real and immutable. Gender (as in an andopted identity context) has no more reality than someone saying they’re a ‘Goth’. So still fantasy being reported as fact. Certainly when trying to muddy the field with an ideological use of ‘gender’ as if it were ‘sex’.

As to The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, it doesn’t apply in countries outside of that court’s jurisdiction. It won’t be lending its clarity in this case to the Canadian police or press (or most other countries). More’s the pity on that one.

I see where you’re coming from. I’m going to refrain from saying “it’s not fucking rocket science”, given I’ve never been in a situation in which I’m making an emergency alert based on panicked reports. Their information may not have been correct but they may have had to make a split second decision about how to communicate that and what to include/omit.

If they're not sure they should say 'suspect in a dress' it's not fucking rocket science.

Yes. Lies never caught a mass murderer.

Lies help them kill/escape/repeat. You want that?

Police, public and press work with facts. This guy’s dead, so luckily the language liars aren’t responsible for endangering the public - this time.

I know :) I still remember a visit to northern Canada at Easter...

I was thinking, perhaps someone going to a special occasion?? [grasping at straws].

But prioritising the wishes and demands of men who id as women puts other people - particularly women and girls - at risk.

They can just say 'suspect in a dress' which would be safer all round. Just in case the 'female' bit is wrong, which it is likely to be given statistics.

But we don’t know what the police had seen! If it was grainy CCTV or if they had seen nothing, only heard reports from frightened people running away!

And in a society with genderwoo, really they should just say 'suspect in a dress'. The police KNOW that these crimes are predominantly male. They KNOW people are scared into lying. The safest thing would be not to specify sex.

And yet...

And of course most Canadians probably know not to trust this bit of the message, but that probably means they don't really trust the rest of it either.

Yes I agree. I appreciate the concern that saying “female” could have potentially confused people on the ground, but surely worse still would be to delay making the shelter in place alert because of concerns about politicisation of language?

I seriously doubt if anyone saw a male bodied person in a dress they'd say 'female in a dress' - unless of course they live in a society where naming reality is punished.

As of course Amy Hamm has famously been punished.

See - it reduces safeguarding for EVERYONE this lying, this conditioning people to lie.

So in the middle of an ongoing emergency you want them to stop and ponder the language they are using ?

If there were people calling in to the police and describing what they saw as a female in a dress, what are the police supposed to do ? They have that information and have a duty to impart it to the public ASAP to protect them. You don’t hang around to verify the sex of the perpetrator if you have a reliable description from eye witnesses that it’s a woman in a dress. The insistence here on the authorities being somehow at fault for that is astounding. You act on the information you have at the time, and the emphasis at that point is saving lives.

Here is a literal copy and paste from the bbc article:

What is known about the suspected attacker

Canadian authorities said they knew the identity of the suspect - but are yet to release further details.

The suspect was found dead inside the school with a self-inflicted injury following the shootings.

At a news conference, RCMP North District Commander Chief Supt Ken Floyd confirmed the suspect was the same person police described in an earlier alert sent to local residents.

That alert described a "female in a dress with brown hair" - but the person's name or gender are yet to be publicly released.

The police also said they were investigating the attacker's possible motives and whether the suspect had any connection to the school.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1e98w35qyjo
——————
As you can see they put “female in a dress with brown hair” as what the alert said not how they describe the person. Then say their name and gender haven’t been publicly released. Obviously sex would be clearer.

Or if staging a fast-moving attack in a school. For a man, however, the wearing of a dress might be meaningful and important.

I understand that, none of us would have time to read all the reporting. I linked the one I was referring to. Joining in a BBC pile on without reading the source is almost an interesting example of exactly what we’re also worrying about here- spreading of misinformation and how we can verify facts.

@Mmmnotsure I think very few actual women would have chosen to wear a dress in February in northern BC...

And 'person in a dress' really eliminates bias and would improve safety compared to 'female'.

The 'female' is political.

‘In a dress’= doublespeak for male, isn’t it.

Why slur dresses, I’ve got a lovely maxi on now. Silly men.

That was nearly fifty years ago !
Yes, of course sometimes women can be violent, but as with family annihilators, school mass shooters are overwhelmingly male.

I'm halfway through a reddit thread on this, and I've already read two comments about how he must have snapped because he was bullied. So... why are the vast majority of mass-murderers male? Do women hardly ever get bullied or abused?