Is the Trans shooter in Nashville Male or Female?

[Tradeup]

The murderer who came in and killed 3 children and 3 adults is trans and called Audrey, I am confused as to their biological sex.

Is that you Owen?

Well said.

I think this is justification to as fully as possible look at any potential reasoning to mitigate the possibility of recurrence. If the shooter had been radicalised do we need to look at the source of radicalisation in much the same way we would look at incel sites or culture if this led to crime?

This.

I wasn’t painting anything as anything. Simply posting a link to the legislation amendment as it had been mentioned upthread and it was mentioned in a news report. Thought it was relevant that’s all - wasn’t posting in support of anything. Am I not making myself clear or something because this is the second time in the last few minutes I’ve been jumped on and chewed out for something I haven’t said.

Except that that was categorically not what I was saying.

I agree with all of this, I just think this thread is much gentler in tone than they generally are when it comes to male violence and I think the suggested 'contributing factors' are, so far, looking pretty similar to the reasons behind mass shootings perpetrated by males; neurodiversity, poor mental health, a sense of not belonging, etc.

Obviously it really doesn't need pointing out that most autistic, mentally unwell women are not killing children. That takes a certain type of personality, I think.

@DotAndCarryOne2

Apologies that wasn't meant personally, the you was a more general one.

The point in this particular case is that we have had a shooting at a conservative Christian school where it would be fair to say trans values were not high on the agenda in a state where trans issues are of contemporary importance legislatively. The perpetrator of this heinous act identifies as male and there is evidence to suggest that there may be trans related grievance in her manifesto. It may be disingenuous to say there is not a link.

I am saying that exploration of radicalisation should not be prohibited for the sake of general society. I think the Guardian article deflects by stating the vast majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by males which although true should not in itself stifle debate on this

You may find posters rude but it seems the stakes in this debate are high

Thanks for clarifying.

TRAs are rushing to if not justify, at least rationalise the shooting. https://twitter.com/EliErlick/status/1640746970519162882?t=Jn8GD_RKHbaJ8xQ3Nlopyg&s=19

We're being monitored again! I didn't know I was keeping company with dangerous extremists, are you all doing something extra and leaving me out or did I just miss a tussle over some tunnocks?

It is 'dangerous extremism' to talk about the nashville shooter, is it?

😂 Pot and kettle spring to mind…

"Eradicate the deviants"

Honestly, they are exhausting. How do they live like this.

No Rose. We want the rights in the Equality Act upheld. All this fear and hyperbole.

You know what looks like dangerous extremism to me?

'Trans Day of Vengeance'.

https://www.tiktok.com/@trans_radical/video/7214914735551024426

You know what looks like dangerous extremism to me?

'Trans Day of Vengeance'.

https://www.tiktok.com/@trans_radical/video/7214914735551024426

Coming back to the thread after making similar points upthread.

Bbc have updated ongoing reporting with these stats:

Bbc quote:
Last year, America's National Institute of Justice released data on mass shootings across the United States over the last 50 years. Here's a quick look at some of its findings:
• People who committed a mass shooting had experienced personal trauma before opening fire. The data shows that, almost always, the shooter was in "a state of crisis at the time" and most leaked their plans beforehand.
• Half of the shootings studied happened after 2000, with over a third since 2010.
• The numbers show that most people used a handgun to commit a mass shooting (77.2%) whilst 25.1% used an assault-style rifle.
• Looking at the data, we can see that 77% of people who committed a mass shooting in America bought their at least some of their guns legally
• The database covers 172 people involved in a mass shooting. Almost 98% of them were male, with the youngest aged 11 and the oldest 70.
The Congressional Research Service defines a public mass shooting as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, not including the shooter(s)within one event, and [where] at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity".
You can read the full report here

What is also horrifying is that the instances of shootings are rapidly increasing with each decade.

She is male. Not a radicalised female, but a male who thinks he's a girl

Other way around.

No. Female. Vagina, ovaries, the whole thing.

I feel that we need to be aware of extremism from all sorts of directions.

“You are one of us, we like you even though you don’t get on with your family. Others don’t understand you but we do. Those other people are the ones stopping you being happy. They don’t like you. They don’t like the way you do things or what you believe. They want to stop you from living your life. You need to make sure that doesn’t happen”.

Thst could be said to someone who is a faith group extremist, right wing extremist, TRA, MRA and pretty much any other group. There are many people who sit there whispering poision into people’s ears.

In this particular case it is a female being radicalised by similar methods
And possibly poisoned with testosterone in her female body to a point of rage, a suicidal state and psychosis.

I thought most of the feminist section didn't believe that testosterone causes violence? All the discussions I've read on, here say it's male socialisation.

Are we now saying it causes violence in women but not men?

You have misunderstood what I was saying, and clearly haven’t looked at the quote history. If you had, you would have understood the comments I was responding to and why I felt the need to point out why it wasn’t acceptable to use dehumanising language such as ‘it’ to refer to the shooter. That does not mean I was supporting the actions of the shooter in any way - that’s what you seem to be implying. Neither was I suggesting that it’s in any way acceptable to use violence against those who don’t share your beliefs - none of the things I made reference to were mentioned for any other reason than to make the point that the motives behind the shootings were a lot more complex than that poster was suggesting. It doesn’t mean I support them. Since you have declined to explain your comments, I felt I should clarify.

You know what looks like dangerous extremism to me?

Apparently there is an attempt on Twitter to airbrush this out of existence, and people are being blocked for sharing even critically.