TiT: Your framing, it burns my eyes

[Trigger warning: transphobia, violence]

Today in transphobia, I present to you:

Exhibit Bad: Transgender Dog to be Given a Home

Whut.

First, the dog in question had what many people think of as "partially formed" "male genitalia" and "female genitalia" which isn't f*&king trans when we're talking about people. Second, we're not. It's a f*^king dog, and therefore isn't trans. Non-human animals aren't gay, or trans, or crossdressers, or Republican, or stylish, or affluent, or any other adjectives that humans apply to describe how other humans are situated within arbitrary cultural contexts.

As for the need for surgery in the first place, I'm no zoologist, er, I'm not a veterinarian, but wha??

---
Exhibit Worse: [TW]Have transsexuals become easy targets?

OMFG WHUT.

Transsexual? Still is an adjective.

Easy Targets? Dehumanization FTW!

Become? By which you mean people are still killing us at an alarming rate?

Have? No, this is not debatable.

You are officially 0 for 5 with words. :(

Try this: Violent criminals attack and kill trans people with alarming frequency.

And what about the actual article?
Lack of context when describing trans people (actually transsexual women; simultaneous erasure of trans men, gender queer and gender non-conforming people FTW!) in sex work: check

Discussion of how trans people are rare, and how transsexuals [sic, FTW] are rarer than Toby Keith fans at a Prius dealership: wrong and irrelevant, but check

Bizarre pseudo-journalistic sentence wrangling? "Murders are obviously at the extreme end of the spectrum and remain very rare." Check. I mean, that murder is pretty extreme is in fact obvious. At least when it comes to "regular" people, lolsob. However, murders of trans and gender non-conforming people are not "very rare", unless of course you're comparing such murders to blue cars.

Y'all in medialand keep reaching for larger audiences with your sexy, sexy headlines. I think I'm gonna lie down for a bit.