News editors were huddling yesterday. All through the day. There were zoom calls, and meetings, across outlets. Advisory emails sent. Language guides consulted.

All in pursuit of an ephemera: what was Robin Westman’s ‘gender identity’? And how should we describe it?

All underpinned by a single, solid, unspoken conviction - we can’t make this look bad for ‘trans’ people. And if that gets too hard, we’ll minimise the story.

Here’s a solution that would have saved many journalist hours which could have been better spent. Call him a man, use male pronouns, and state that he had a trans identity. And move on to the factors that could have given his trans status real significance: was it relevant to the crime, and if so, how?

The first would have prevented the global stupidity and confusion that led to copy that can only be described as nonsensical. ‘The gunman turned the gun on herself’. ‘The shooter killed themself’. ‘Westman’s gender identity wasn’t clear’. ‘The gunman changed her name’. The observance of preferred pronouns for a child murderer. He/they/themselves/she/her, the tedious thesaurus of attacker, shooter, assailant, suspect - suspect! after he killed himself - anything but pronouns.

All that wasted energy, instead of asking whether his trans identity mattered to the crime, not the copy.

The second suggestion - looking how Westman’s trans identity might have led concerning behaviours to be overlooked, or how it could have played a part in him becoming isolated, paranoid and hateful - what they really should have done - was impossible for almost all legacy outlets.

It’s impossible because of settled belief in ‘true trans’ - that 'gender identity’ is real - and an instinctive certainty that whatever had happened, it mustn’t reflect badly on the ‘trans community’ - specifically the ‘trans woman’ community. This was one thing they all shared: this was not a crime committed by a ‘trans woman’. Only the New York Post and Radio 4 used the phrase, briefly, once. Most dropped the ‘trans’ word completely - there were references only to the name change only and ‘identifies as’. Some bulletins even dropped that, taking just one thing from his trans identification - don’t describe him as ‘he’.

What could they have done?

CNN ran a panel, about ten hours after the murders. Analysts and ‘experts’ spent an hour discussing motive and prevention. It was echoed by most news outlets through the day and night booking hits with contributors on a similar theme.

There were a number of simple questions they could have asked. Could a trans identity have a masking effect for dangerous behaviour? Could the stigma around attaching trans identities to mental ill health have prevented earlier intervention?

The FBI has a list of concerning behaviours on the front page of its Prevent site. It’s not hard to find at all. Well over half are recognisable in trans discourse.

Comments, jokes, or threats about violent plans

Repeated or detailed fantasies about violence

Comments about hurting themselves or others

Seeing violence as a way to solve their problems

Unusual difficulty coping with stress

Reduced interest in hobbies and other activities

Worsening performance at school or work

Increasing isolation from family, friends, or others

Angry outbursts or physical aggression

Increasingly troublesome interactions with others

Bizarre or unexpected change in appearance, including dress or hygiene

Changing vocabulary, style of speech, or how they act in a way that reflects a hardened point of view or new sense of purpose associated with violent extremist causes, particularly after a catalyzing event

The media taboo on associating trans identity with mental ill health swung into action. None of this could be discussed. But there is also a taboo on discussing the taboo. The exaggerated victimhood of transgender discourse means that real life approaches to a trans person exhibiting these concerning behaviours could be condemned as institutional or individual transphobia.

It’s simply not possible even to discuss the fact that people are afraid of provoking accusations of ‘transphobia’. That carries the implication that some instances of so-called ‘transphobia’ may not be real, and that accusations of ‘transphobia’ are sometimes unjustified attempts to defend unreasonable and unpleasant behaviour.

So a profoundly important point around what can be done in future is missed or ignored. Given that coverage very swiftly moved onto ‘lessons will be learned’ this was extremely depressing. A very significant lesson will not be learned, or even entertained.

The media claims for itself an important role in work to educate, inform and expand public understanding with a view to societal improvement. You may think that what pundits discuss on a media panel will have no impact on real life policy. But the media doesn’t think that, and it’s certainly not true. If the media dam can be broken on discussing problematic trans identification - politicians, local and national, will be brought into the conversation.

The public will feel more able to talk about it freely. Institutions and judicial authorities will become involved. Perhaps those images of signs saying ‘decapitate terfs’, the hanging of feminist effigies, the ‘arming of the dolls’, the brandishing of knives, guns and clubs on social media - even on politician’s T shirts - and the growing evidence, from the trans community itself, that it is taking to the firing range - will provoke inquiry and intervention rather than be dismissed as idiosyncratic responses to a ‘hostile’ world.

The historical connection between trans identities and violence or threats of violence has been long documented by those on the receiving end of it. But it’s been ignored with the utmost determination and resolve by media outlets.

This is what they should have spent their time on yesterday, instead of having arguments across the newsroom floor about whether to call him a woman. The real world harm is obvious. The ‘gender identity’ link will ultimately (we predict) be framed as Trumpian transphobia driving an already disturbed transgender person to a murderous act. Meanwhile the ‘trans community’ will see any mention of the connection as an attack, and double down on their firing range practice.

The world media agony about pronouns was the equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. These privileged journalists told themselves they’re better people for working hard to ‘get it right’ - but at the bottom of it lies fear.

They’re inexpressibly afraid of offending ‘the trans community’ and they really need to ask themselves why. It might be a revelation.