The news thread

[Toy Revolver]

if it said Mexican rapist, would you think that was okay?

only if he's mexican

[Trollheart]

journalists report facts

get over it people

Come on now that's bollocks and you know it.
It's also NOT a fact, as I've already pointed out. It's twisting the truth into something it isn't.

[jimmy jazz]

The point here is that this person is NOT a trans rapist. When the rape was committed they were a man (though identifying as a woman from age four, not really relevant though). THEN later they transitioned. This headline makes it seem that someone raped two women AS A TRANS which is not the case. It gives fuel to these brain-dead idiots who will point to the headline and say "See? We told you! They're all rapists!" I mean, if it said Mexican rapist, would you think that was okay? I think placing the two highly-charged words right beside each other is deliberate, intended to cause controversy and is the worst kind of hate-mongering click bait there is. Fuck those guys. It didn't need to be written that way AND it's inaccurate and untrue.

Bryson was convicted last month of raping two women - one in Clydebank in 2016 and one in Drumchapel, Glasgow, in 2019 - and committed the offences while a man known as Adam Graham.

The 31-year-old, from Clydebank, met both the victims online and prosecutors said Bryson had "preyed" on vulnerable women.

The fact the offender is trans is central to the story. It isn't the fact they committed rapes, it's the question of whether they should have been held in a female prison. That's why it became a big news story and why Sturgeon got involved. If you remove the mess that happened with custody then you may have a point but it isn't the case.

Were you aware of this case before you read the article you posted?

[Toy Revolver]

The point here is that this person is NOT a trans rapist. When the rape was committed they were a man (though identifying as a woman from age four, not really relevant though). THEN later they transitioned. This headline makes it seem that someone raped two women AS A TRANS which is not the case. It gives fuel to these brain-dead idiots who will point to the headline and say "See? We told you! They're all rapists!" I mean, if it said Mexican rapist, would you think that was okay? I think placing the two highly-charged words right beside each other is deliberate, intended to cause controversy and is the worst kind of hate-mongering click bait there is. Fuck those guys. It didn't need to be written that way AND it's inaccurate and untrue.

Bryson was convicted last month of raping two women - one in Clydebank in 2016 and one in Drumchapel, Glasgow, in 2019 - and committed the offences while a man known as Adam Graham.

The 31-year-old, from Clydebank, met both the victims online and prosecutors said Bryson had "preyed" on vulnerable women.

The fact the offender is trans is central to the story. It isn't the fact they committed rapes, it's the question of whether they should have been held in a female prison. That's why it became a big news story and why Sturgeon got involved. If you remove the mess that happened with custody then you may have a point but it isn't the case.

Were you aware of this case before you read the article you posted?

mostly the american press is pretty good at calling it like it is but the british press suppresses information to protect minorities

hate is also intersectional one minority can target other minorities

a lot of blacks are homophobic- if a group of black youth target a queer it should be reported that way

it's up the reader to decide if it's relevant- if they're worried that readers will become unduly alarmed over the facts they can write an editorial about it

but excuding information is an editorial bias and doesn't belong is basic news stories- including a fact cannot be an editorial bias because editorials are opinions

a trans person or a mexican or whoever commits a crime then reporting that information is reporting a fact -intentionally omitting the information is to make an editorial decision that one group specifically needs to be protected and they should compromise themselves as journalists to provide that shelter

[Janszoon]

excuding information is an editorial bias and doesn't belong is basic news stories- including a fact cannot be an editorial bias because editorials are opinions

It can be editorial bias, but the reality is that information is excluded all the time. Someone's fingernail length or the style of their front door or how many parakeets they own or a million other details are probably not going to make it into the paper and its not about bias, it's about relevance.

[Toy Revolver]

excuding information is an editorial bias and doesn't belong is basic news stories- including a fact cannot be an editorial bias because editorials are opinions

It can be editorial bias, but the reality is that information is excluded all the time. Someone's fingernail length or the style of their front door or how many parakeets they own or a million other details are probably not going to make it into the paper and its not about bias, it's about relevance.

you're right

my argument isnt very sound

[jimmy jazz]

 

[Janszoon]

my argument isnt very sound

You should make this your signature.

[Toy Revolver]

you win some you lose some 🤷�♂️

[Marie Monday]

The point here is that this person is NOT a trans rapist. When the rape was committed they were a man (though identifying as a woman from age four, not really relevant though). THEN later they transitioned. This headline makes it seem that someone raped two women AS A TRANS which is not the case. It gives fuel to these brain-dead idiots who will point to the headline and say "See? We told you! They're all rapists!" I mean, if it said Mexican rapist, would you think that was okay? I think placing the two highly-charged words right beside each other is deliberate, intended to cause controversy and is the worst kind of hate-mongering click bait there is. Fuck those guys. It didn't need to be written that way AND it's inaccurate and untrue.

Bryson was convicted last month of raping two women - one in Clydebank in 2016 and one in Drumchapel, Glasgow, in 2019 - and committed the offences while a man known as Adam Graham.

The 31-year-old, from Clydebank, met both the victims online and prosecutors said Bryson had "preyed" on vulnerable women.

The fact the offender is trans is central to the story. It isn't the fact they committed rapes, it's the question of whether they should have been held in a female prison. That's why it became a big news story and why Sturgeon got involved. If you remove the mess that happened with custody then you may have a point but it isn't the case.

Were you aware of this case before you read the article you posted?

then why isn't the title something like 'transitioning criminal leads to prison transfer dilemma' or whatever? Can't you really see the issue?

[jimmy jazz]

The point here is that this person is NOT a trans rapist. When the rape was committed they were a man (though identifying as a woman from age four, not really relevant though). THEN later they transitioned. This headline makes it seem that someone raped two women AS A TRANS which is not the case. It gives fuel to these brain-dead idiots who will point to the headline and say "See? We told you! They're all rapists!" I mean, if it said Mexican rapist, would you think that was okay? I think placing the two highly-charged words right beside each other is deliberate, intended to cause controversy and is the worst kind of hate-mongering click bait there is. Fuck those guys. It didn't need to be written that way AND it's inaccurate and untrue.

Bryson was convicted last month of raping two women - one in Clydebank in 2016 and one in Drumchapel, Glasgow, in 2019 - and committed the offences while a man known as Adam Graham.

The 31-year-old, from Clydebank, met both the victims online and prosecutors said Bryson had "preyed" on vulnerable women.

The fact the offender is trans is central to the story. It isn't the fact they committed rapes, it's the question of whether they should have been held in a female prison. That's why it became a big news story and why Sturgeon got involved. If you remove the mess that happened with custody then you may have a point but it isn't the case.

Were you aware of this case before you read the article you posted?

then why isn't the title something like 'transitioning criminal leads to prison transfer dilemma' or whatever? Can't you really see the issue?

Cos it isn't talking about the dilemma it's talking about the sentence.

Have you been following this case?

[Trollheart]

I fail to see how you can't see my point.

I'm not saying the person is not a rapist BUT they were NOT a Trans WHILE or BEFORE the rape. Therefore to say they are a Transgender Rapist is factually incorrect and hurtful to other trans people. Look at it this way. Say, I don't know, a soldier raped someone before enlisting. Did a soldier then rape someone, or did a person WHO THEN WENT ON TO BE A SOLDIER rape someone? And if the latter should the headline be "Soldier raped woman" or "Man raped woman" or even "Man who is now soldier raped woman"? If it's the first, then the entire army gets dragged into it by association. This is what's happening here. They're making a link, a leap that is not true. The actual headline should be simply: "Man gets 8 years for rape" but that's not exciting, click-baity or controversial enough is it? So we'll say instead "transgender gets 8 years for rape" and immediately the idea is planted, in many minds, that transgenders rape women.

[jimmy jazz]

I know what your point is and I don't agree with it. I already explained why.

It sounds like you only just became aware of this story today from the one article you posted and that's why you see it the way you do, even though it has been in the news for a while for the reasons I already pointed out, you just haven't been aware of the back story and why it is relevant. As I said, if there hadn't been uproar because of what prison she was initially sent to, and then the move to the men's prison, then no the fact she is trans wouldn't be relevant. But unfortunately it is.

Also this bit:

They're making a link, a leap that is not true. The actual headline should be simply: "Man gets 8 years for rape" but that's not exciting, click-baity or controversial enough is it? So we'll say instead "transgender gets 8 years for rape" and immediately the idea is planted, in many minds, that transgenders rape women.

She doesn't identify as a man... You think they should deny their right to identify as trans because they committed a crime? I'm sure some would argue that that is transphobic.

[jimmy jazz]

Article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63823420

[Trollheart]

They don't identify as a man now. But they only started the hormone treatment after the crime. They would have been tried as a man at the time. Not trans. At best, transitioning.

All right, I'm not going to keep arguing this. You see it one way, I see it another. For me, the headline is clickbait and an incitement to hatred. For those who want to read into it what they want to, they'll only see trans rapes woman and make their completely uninformed conclusions based on that. I mean, the story is one thing. I get that and no I haven't been following it and no I don't know what the answer is. But the headline is just wrong. It screams TRANS PEOPLE ARE RAPISTS in exactly the same way as a certain orange bastard claimed all those south of the border were.