Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Woman sets person on fire in US

58 replies

Pota2 · 26/10/2019 08:28

I am quite concerned at how violent women seem to have gotten. I don’t know why people claim that men are the ones who commit most violent crime when there are ladies like this who act just as violently.

mobile.twitter.com/MiamiHerald/status/1187784905465454593

OP posts:
VodkaRevelation · 26/10/2019 08:32

Because men ARE the ones who commit MOST violent crime. Some women can be violent but more men are. This one case isn’t indicative of a rise in Mc joke the crime amongst women. Do you have any stats to back your concerns?

Also, are you a man?

VodkaRevelation · 26/10/2019 08:33

Ahhhh....sorry! Didn’t read the article and read goadiness! I see now...

What a div (me!)

fridgegrazer · 26/10/2019 08:34

Well - that's just ridiculous! Why don't they just report the truth which is that a man set a woman on fire? Trying not to think of the phrase "may have went on an arson spree"

VodkaRevelation · 26/10/2019 08:35

I hope my ‘Mc joke’ typo Is indicative of a night of no sleep and I can be forgiven. 😬😬

SarahConnorFem · 26/10/2019 08:36

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PoppiesarelethaltoSpellmans · 26/10/2019 08:36

...is that a recent picture of the perpetrator?!

fridgegrazer · 26/10/2019 08:36

Sorry - the may have went distracted me - but I meant to say that it makes it worse that they refer to the perpetrator (who is obviously male) as a woman, but to the victim (who is female) as a person. What sickening bias.

Original poster
Pota2 · 26/10/2019 08:38

Yes, for the avoidance of doubt, my post is entirely sarcastic and no, I am not a man.

For those who have not opened the article, it features a male with full beard who is described as a woman because that is how he identifies. He doused a woman (biological female) in petrol and set her alight. She however does not get to be called a woman in the headline and instead is referred to as ‘person’.

What the fuck.

OP posts:
MindTheMinotaur · 26/10/2019 08:39

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.

Original poster
Pota2 · 26/10/2019 08:39

Yes, fridgegrazer wtf? Why is she ‘person’? Is she not woman enough? What an absolute shit show.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pota2 · 26/10/2019 08:40

Twisting language to try to distort the truth. Straight outta 1984.

OP posts:
Janaih · 26/10/2019 08:41

Bloody hell there are no words!

GruciusMalfoy · 26/10/2019 08:41

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.

midcenturylegs · 26/10/2019 08:41

I felt sick reading that.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 26/10/2019 08:41

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

teawamutu · 26/10/2019 08:44

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.

SarahTancredi · 26/10/2019 08:44

Ffs

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

AwdBovril · 26/10/2019 08:45

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.

WomensRightsAreContraversial · 26/10/2019 08:48

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?

AwdBovril · 26/10/2019 08:50

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.

sheshootssheimplores · 26/10/2019 08:51

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.

HandsOffMyRights · 26/10/2019 08:52

Another for the 'it never happens' resource.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 26/10/2019 08:58

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

Maybe they 'identify' as 'never happened'.

Tableclothing · 26/10/2019 09:04

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.

VodkaRevelation · 26/10/2019 09:04

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread