I don't understand this headline

[AngelLucifer]

I mean, I do. It's yet another example of male pattern, violent crime, and it's utterly horrific. What I don't understand, however, given headlines about other violent crimes, is why the victim, as a perpetrator would be. isn't reported as being, simply, 'a woman'?

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-58718183.amp

Because the attack was specifically linked to her being trans?

If it had been an attack on a woman it couldn't legally have been a hate crime.

Well if the victim was just a woman then it wouldn't be a "horrific hate crime " it would just be another attack on a woman who was probably atleast partly to blame, as we all know men only attack women who are asking for it.
Perhaps I'm being cynical but I can't remember the last time that an actual women was attacked but survived and the BBC reported it in such a simple way without trying to blame the victim in some way

Well obviously if a woman was horrifically attacked on a date it would barely make the local news, much less the nationals

This is an extremely good example of how transwomen are always "women" when they commit a crime but then always "trans women" when they're a victim of a crime.

See how many "women" have been convicted of rape in the UK when they're penis havers. They aren't called transwomen then are they.

No one is listing rapists as penis havers either. They're simply "women" with no eyelids batting. All the while women in need of important medical health screening are referred to as "cervix havers".

Fuck this shit.

Well it was a violent attack on a trans person because they are trans

And the man who did it is is reported as a man.

So no info omitted.

Not sure what the problem is.

It was a brutal attack and I'm glad the bloke who did it has been caught.

I think it is relevant because it appears that it was the victim's trans status that led to the attack.

As you say OP this is a horrific crime.

The victim was a prostitute, which seems at least as related to the reasons for the attack as the victim’s trans status. That’s how the attacker found them and presumably it was part of the motivation. Attacks on “sex workers” are common.

But the BBC left that relevant not only out of the headline but out of the story, for unclear reasons.

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/transgender-escort-stabbed-schizophrenic-after-21622944

NiceGerbil I assume the problem is that when a trans woman commits an attack, they are referred to as a woman.

It’s interesting. If the victim had been the perpetrator that headline would be missing the prefix.

And I also agree it's a horrific attack.

And yep men are violent!!! Who’d have thunk it? 😒

Given allmywhat’s additional information, the question is whether this attack was genuinely a hate crime or whether it was an attack on a sex worker because of opportunity and hatred of sex workers.

That would come down to whether there’s separate evidence of hatred of transitioning people or not.

A crime on a certain class of person is not a hate-crime merely because the person who was attacked was a member of a protected group and I wonder whether the police and prosecutors always remember that differentiation. The separate evidence that demonstrates this is a hate crime (as opposed to a vicious attack without demonstrable hate aggravators) certainly isn’t clear from either article. It would be helpful if it was made clear why this was deemed a hate attack.

If it was a hate attack, then obviously the person’s gender status is relevant. If there were no clear aggravating signs, then it isn’t.

It is possible that the mentally ill man convicted revealed the reason behind the attack, when he contacted the police to confess, hence the hate aggravator.

Obviously an awful thing to do but neither article mentions whether the attacker actually knew in advance this person was a trans woman and how. It just says that there was a website (is it mentioned on here, are there photos?) and they'd been communicating by text.

How do they know he was motivated by this sex worker being a trans woman and had not gone out with the intention of attacking any sex worker.

@334bu

It is possible that the mentally ill man convicted revealed the reason behind the attack, when he contacted the police to confess, hence the hate aggravator.

It is quite possible, of course. This may have genuinely been a hate attack, but it isn’t clear and I have lost faith in the police and justice system to act responsibly around this aspect of the law.

In all honesty, I’m not sure designating crimes in this way is useful. Anyone carrying out a similar attack on a stranger must be feeling some kind of extreme emotion which is akin to, or actually is hate. I don’t believe this man’s crime is worse because he selected this particular victim, rather than attacking a woman.

I think it is relevant because it appears that it was the victim's trans status that led to the attack.

Where is the evidence of this?

I agree it's quite possible - presumably the victim was making that they were trans clear, so the perpetrator presumably must have deliberately selected them rather than a female escort.

But if he had selected a female escort and stabbed her, that wouldn't have been a hate crime. No-one would have said "the victim's female status led to the attack". The logic here isn't clear.

Anyway, you shouldn't leap to conclusions. Especially from media reports in this area where we know they are incentivised to and do repeatedly mislead.

We're still trying to clear up the persistent lie that the Orlando Pulse nightclub attacks were some sort of anti-gay hate crime.

People really want to believe things are hate crimes when the victims happen to be part of some part of minority - not even when there's no real evidence of it, but even when there is conclusive evidence that it's false, as with the Pulse attack.

I think this headline suffers from the same problem that every other report of violence does: the use of the passive voice.

Women is stabbed. Trans woman is stabbed.

By whom? They never talk about the perpetrator until the second or third paragraph and it gives the impression that these things just happen.

They never write “man stabs” “man kills” “man attacks”. I mean, let’s face it, would be the easiest copy and paste in typo history!

@WatchWait

NiceGerbil I assume the problem is that when a trans woman commits an attack, they are referred to as a woman.

This. Sigh.

In my view it is relevant that the perpetrator was a paranoid schizophrenic and the victim an escort, that they had arranged to meet for sex and that they had done that online.

It is possible, and indeed it seems likely, that this belongs to the crimes committed when a heterosexual man finds out that the woman they felt sexually attracted to is a transgender male. The moment of disclosure - whether voluntary or by discovery after a sexual encounter has started - is dangerous for transgender male, and, unfortunately, the outraged reaction of a heterosexual man who feels duped and/or threatened in his sexuality can and has led to transgender males losing their lives.

And that kind of attack meets the definition of a transphobic hate crime: the victims are attacked because they are trans, and there's a lot of hate behind that motivation.

I just don't understand why trans rights activists are framing this as the fault of women opposing self-id.

The attacker was a schizophrenic. He did not have a “rational motive” for the attack by definition, and is unfit to plead to the subsequent charge.
The fact that his victim was transgender may have been completely irrelevant. Psychotic patients often hear voices telling them to kill prostitutes. They believe they are being instructed to by God or Satan.

Men's violence against sex workers is high volume and a notable subcategory in the general public health menace of male violence.

If i was feeling cynical i might say that it's politically expedient to highlight 'trans' status in the case of victims, but not in the case of perpetrators

I'm glad I used the words "appears" in my original comment as the facts relating to attackers mental health and the victim being engaged in prostitution both impact the story.

It isn't possible to know if the trans status or relevant in the situation, it still may be very relevant or it may not.

I do think that crimes perpetrated against women because they are women should also be a hate crime, if we are going to have the term.