An email sent to a news outlet in NZ re: Canadian Shooter

[2021x]

I sent this email to a news outlet in NZ when reporting the recent Canadian shooter.

I would be keen to know how many people feel that I am being unreasonable.

I’m writing to seek clarification on Stuff’s editorial guidelines regarding the use of female pronouns to describe a male assailant.

I became confused when reading this article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360937660/canada-shooting-who-was-shooter-suspect-jesse-van-rootselaar. The use of “her” pronouns, alongside a photo of a male person and references to the shooter’s mother, made it difficult to understand who the “her” in those paragraphs was referring to. Female school shooters are extremely rare and therefore, the pronoun choice stood out and created uncertainty about the factual details of the case.

My understanding is that news reporting should prioritise clarity and factual accuracy- especially for such a tragic event. Using female pronouns to describe someone who is male may suggest an ideological or political framing, which raises concerns for me about impartiality in reporting at Stuff.

I’m aware that raising questions about pronoun usage can sometimes lead to assumptions about a person’s views, resulting in my concerns being dismissed as bigoted rather than considered on their merits. My intention is not to be inflammatory, but to understand why a political stance appears to have been taken in a situation where a neutral approach—such as using the individual’s name or simply “the shooter”—could have avoided confusion and not detracted from the article.

I would appreciate clarification on the editorial reasoning behind this choice.

Great idea

I disagree with your post.
At no point can I see even the minutest criticism of the author of newspaper article.

I don’t think he killed her because he was trans.

I think he killed her because he was unstable, violent and had access to guns.

I do wonder if the trans stuff masked the real issues which is where the system fell down.

Yes, I think that’s quite likely.

Something like if his distress was properly assessed and treated this might not have happened.

He still could have had gender dysphoria but the hype around it caused more urgent issues could have been overlooked.

The fact that the shooter was born male is one of many pieces of data that will be gathered. Other things include race, socie-economic status, medical history, educational history, family history, etc.

If you were truly concerned about the accuracy of data, you should be giving proportionate attention to these as well.

If the media had reported this as having been committed by a black man, or asylum seeker, or that he was the product of an Islamist upbringing, or that he had had a psychological reaction the Covid vaccine…

…when they knew those things weren’t true…

Would you have a problem with it?

We get that being concerned about accuracy on this one issue is low-status, but it’s as important as accuracy on any other those other things you consider proper subjects of enquiry.

Seriously. Go for a walk. Breathe in the fresh air. Look at the snowdrops and the buds on the trees. Listen to the birdsong. Or just watch a bit of TV or read a book. Anything to take you away from this obsession you've developed. It is incredibly unhealthy. When your obsession has developed to a point that you are writing letters to the media and attempting to justify yourself with long convoluted posts, you've gone too far. Step away or get help. He/she. It really doesn't matter.

Thank you for the advice.

Have a nice day.

But you've made it clear you could tell. And indeed the article itself explained the situation fully. So what is the point of the letter?

And do we actually know that Statistics Canada will reflect his sex in their data? Or is that an assumption?

Several UK police forces, for instance, were reporting crimes against preferred gender identity until challenged. There’d be no such challenging in Canada (or none that would make any difference).

Are you saying the same re “obsession” to those who are on here and other aspects of media who are demanding total capitulation that others believe their delusions?
why are they obsessing that others don’t do what they want?

Huh. I read that article this morning, thought it explained very clearly and early on that the shooter was born male, identified female. Not at all confusing.

Good to know.

Have a nice day.

Yanbu. A trans woman is man. You have to be a man to be trans woman. I hate this pronoun bullshit. Some of the news reports called him a female which he never was nor never could be.

I found the initial reports of a female shooter shocking. Then the clarification in other outlets really annoyed me further.
By all means say "male shooter identifying as female" but the whole plain "female shooter" irritated the hell out of me.

Those poor families and their children, just awful.

My daughter couldn't see the issue but for me, whilst sadly male mass shootings are common, a female one is not.
The statistics for 2025 in the US bear this out overwhelmingly.

My intention is not to be inflammatory, but to understand why a political stance appears to have been taken in a situation where a neutral approach—such as using the individual’s name or simply “the shooter”—could have avoided confusion and not detracted from the article

I don’t really know why people have such an issue with the OP

she is asking news outlets to report correctly…..and she isn’t even saying that! She doesn’t even want them to use the correct sex. She wants them to use gender neutral language

Ah. So you're not at all interested in any opinion other than YANBU. Got it.

Personally I have no skin in the game, I'd prefer the shooter was referred to using male pronouns, but I'm less interested in that than the view of victims families, some of whom have pleaded for people not to focus so much on the shooter. And I'm genuinely mystified as to how the article was confusing, it takes language skills at the level of my 11yr old to decode. Raise the issue of pronouns with Stuff, sure, but it seems disingenuous to express it in terms of confusion.

Thank you for your opinion.

Have a nice day.

I suppose at least you were polite. I can imagine the reporter has had death threats today from the Brian Tamaki crowd, so a polite query is probably refreshing.

I can imagine they have. We also don’t know if it was the reporter or the editor which is why I asked for the standards.

Between the Trump crowd and the “Trans-Women are Women mob”. This is got way out of hand.

Let’s say the media started reporting a big spike in crime committed by “foreigners”.

It’s the word used in the headlines, and it’s how the police refer to the suspects.

Later in the articles, it becomes clear that ‘foreigner’ is used for Canada-born citizens too, provided they are non-white or descendents of recent immigrants.

Would you think something had gone wrong?

It’s an unorthodox use of the word, being applied for an ideological reason, that gives a misleading impression. I’d object to it. Would you?

Except the headline Stuff used has "shooter" and the name, not gender or sex. As far as I've seen Stuff's reporting has been very clear. Early reports overseas - well, a) there's a lot of chaos in the beginning of these events so facts are often muddled and updated later (eg death roll was revised down), and b) it sounded to me like they weren't sure where the shooter was so wanted people to be aware of someone who - at first glance - would appear to be female. If everyone was looking for a male, that female looking person might then slip the net or kill more people. That's a very brief thought from this morning, I stayed away from most reports because quite frankly I've had enough bad news for one week, and I knew the trans issue would obscure focus on the victims which will be just horrendous for the families. The absolute last thing they need is for their raw losses to be co-opted into a political firestorm right now.

Because we should always respect the rights of others, even those who are evil, or we would live in a lawless state

As I reported further down the stuff
article referred to the shooter twice as her before outlining that they were biological male before transitioning.

Why is it a “right” to force people to lie about your sex?