Covent Garden - why don't I trust the reporting ?

I love the word bloviation.

Oh and you can give over with the 'women have agency' crap. It's precisely because we have agency we don't accept any old bullshit.

Exactly! It's completely contradictory.

And yeah, the old "you're not real feminists" and "far right! far right!" is so. fucking. tired.

I think we're all wasting our time here. Still, there's a nice list of lies there for lurkers/others who might have wandered into Feminism:Sex and Gender because this thread was trending

@ThatCyanCat You're not making a point here, not even a clumsy or dishonest one. Multiple media have lied for years about the sex of criminals, and so people, quite naturally and reasonably, wondered if they were lying this time.

This!
It's been explained so many times on here. Over and over. Patiently. Clearly. And yet some posters still don't get it.

Those are different examples entirely. I do not agree with media outlets saying “woman” when, actually, the offender is a man. When publicised though more details were known - names, images, the offences, dates, etc. What makes you think I don’t understand that is wrong?

That wasn’t the case here. Details initially were scant and clickbait about the alleged offender was rife. I saw plenty of of speculation on X about her gender well before this thread and was quite confident the supposition would spill over here. I wasn’t disappointed.

I apologise for saying thick. I meant obtuse

Lol.

"The media doesn't lie about men being women! Apart from when it does. Those are different examples entirely!"

And believe it or not, this is actually an improvement. Not sure how much energy it's worth continuing to waste on this.

Yes, I am going to get some fresh air

Did I say those things? No?

Perhaps stop making things up. It’s tired.

Now, that’s just unkind. Sorry I bothered you so much you needed to resort to ad homs.

Well, give yourself a big ol' smug pat on the back then for not being disappointed.

Women are allowed to discuss what is reported in the media and how. On a feminist board.

I saw plenty of of speculation on X about her gender well before this thread
^ this just proves our point entirely! Why was there speculation about her sex when 10 years ago there probably wouldn't have been?

(it's sex, not gender BTW)

The absolute chutzpah of you complaining about making stuff up!

When you try to beat people down as misogynistic, media illiterate, sexist and general intellectual and moral failures because they've been lied to repeatedly and are wary of it happening again, you're making very very clear implications that anyone with even a smidge of media literacy doesn't need explaining to them. You wouldn't be blaming them for being at fault if you accepted that the media has lied; the only way your accusations make sense is if you think it hasn't. And you admit that it has. You had no choice! Oh, but that was different entirely...

Anyway, I know your modus operandi is obfuscation, time wasting and pushing posts down the page so I'm not going to give you what you want any more. Just don't imagine anyone is fooled. You aren't even fooling yourself.

@GreyskySexRealistsky

^ this just proves our point entirely! Why was there speculation about her sex when 10 years ago there probably wouldn't have been?

That’s another thread entirely. Not sure how it proves your point, though.

@ThatCyanCat Again, the hint Im someone you’ve come across before. Do tell me who you think I am?

Comprehension fail. It is not another thread, it is this thread.

Not sure how it proves your point, though.
It's not a complicated statement! It proves our point 100%. If you can't understand it, I can't help you.

This obtuseness is familiar....

I’ll also say this: as you’re entitled to an opinion, so am I. (Without abuse.)

No one suggested otherwise. You are also entitled to have your opinion examined and questioned. A bit like media reports, in fact.

It would be termed a derail. It deserves its own thread, anyway.

Another person hinting they know who I am. Do tell!

The title literally uses the words "why don't I trust the reporting?"

It is a thread about dishonest reporting.

The thread was started before any images were released. All we had was the information that a woman had committed the act.

A) This is an EXTREMELY unusual crime for a woman to commit.

B) @SodThisHeadache has provided numerous examples of a time when the media (particularly the BBC) have falsely reported that crimes (that were actually committed by men) were committed by women.

I'm what other circumstances are we expected to give the benefit of the doubt when we have been lied to over and over again?

Interesting. I’d seen images before the thread existed.

Why is that "interesting"?

Strange response.

But notably no response to my question about why we are expected to trust sources that we KNOW have repeatedly lied for years.

Again - In what other circumstances are we expected to give the benefit of the doubt when we have been lied to over and over again?

And to add, I've just ordered a search of news articles on order of date and the only photographs I can find (which were part of reports posted literally minutes before the thread started on 15:35 on 5th August) are the extremely grainy ones of her on the ground, face down.
You can't make anything out.

It was only AFTER the thread was posted that news agencies were providing clearer photographs

So, yes, images before the thread was posted.