The pair moved from Iowa to Minnesota last year under the 2023 ‘Trans Refuge’ law, according to a rally organizer
Summary
Two transgender women, Dahlia and Jess, were attacked at a Minneapolis rail station, with onlookers cheering their assailants instead of helping.
After confronting a man yelling transphobic slurs, the situation escalated into a violent assault involving four or five others, leaving both women unconscious.
Advocates attribute the rise in anti-trans violence to emboldened transphobia fueled by misinformation and political rhetoric, including Donald Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies.
The local trans community is responding with solidarity rallies, self-defense classes, and firearm training to prepare for a potential increase in attacks.
Police are investigating, but no arrests have been made.
Instigate a confrontation, then knock a guy out with a cane, and cry victim. Seems the crowd actually did help out the victim of an assault.
Edit: That you will support people who attack someone with a weapon, because a journalist used your trigger words, is exactly why public opinion has turned against you.
Dahlia and Jess were leaving the station when a man started yelling transphobic slurs at them, Amber Muhm, a rally organizer who spoke to both of them after the incident, told The Independent. Jess asked him to stop talking to them that way, prompting the man to “sucker punch” her. Dahlia then struck the man with her cane, Muhm said.
Although the man was “knocked out,” four or five other people ran up and began to “mercilessly beat” the two transgender women, Muhm said.
“People were cheering the attackers on,” Muhm said. Both of them were knocked unconscious and Dahlia was left with a broken nose while Jess suffered “multiple contusions” on her ribs
Pretty clear. They knocked a guy out with their cane, which is when the crowd moved in to defend the unconscious man. Though this hack of a journalist tries really hard to spin it.
It sounds like you're just trying to be contrarian? Do you have any reason whatsoever to not believe the article? I understand doubting the article, but it seems you've just decided that it is exactly the opposite of the truth, which I don't get.
The reason is that the 'journalist' uses intense emotional language to highlight only one side of the story, while completely glossing over the fact that their 'victim' literally knocked someone out with a weapon. Any rational person ought to at least raise an eyebrow while they consider what could have provoked bystanders to jump in, when presented with that fact.
Turns out that describing hate crimes objectively inherently uses "leading language" since it's a societal problem that only bigots don't mind.
And thinking that The Independent, a well-respected broadsheet, is a tabloid is quite indicative of exactly how much you know about anything you're talking about 🙄