These guys (and that's what they are - GUYS) were Shot For Stealing A Dress.

That's the REAL issue here - not what pronouns the Washington Post's crime reporter uses!

I'm sure if you called these men "he" but Didn't Shoot Them, they would prefer that to being called "she" and being shot over a dress!

This is one of the main reasons why Political Correctness is so destructive!

Sorry, but that's bullshit - he's a confused man in a dress!

You are what you are, NOT what you claim to be!

If the cops arrest me and I claim diplomatic immunity, because I have a delusion that I am the King of Swaziland, should they respect that delusion also?

Sorry, just because you THINK you are a woman doesn't make you a woman?

And BTW, could we keep this discussion in PLAIN AMERICAN ENGLISH, and not use obtuse Gender Studies Department jargonese like "cissexist"?

This isn't the Brown University Women's Studies Department, folks!!!!!

If you answered No (like I do) to the above questions then it would stand to reason that a man could share these same characteristics and still be considered a man.

Why then do some feel the need to ignore fact and incorrectly label either themselves or others with a stereotypical "gender identity" that defines ones sex by the way they dress & behave rather than their biological fact.

I applaud the Washington Post for getting the facts correct on this story and not letting political correctness cloud the truth.

I am transgendrred and have been living in my new identity 100% of the time for 3-1/2 years now. I identify as a a transgendered woman (regardless of how presentable I happen to be). I have seen and read so much idiocy in the media (and heard to my face and behind my back) that I am getting used to it and simply ignore it. However, it is the admission herein that what drives the reporting isn't the news itself, or even the truth of a matter, but rather it is geting a competitive edge regaredless of the truth that bothers me.

What ever happened to just the plain old facts?

It is this kind of thing that does the most harm not just the transgendrered among us, but to all of us because the news media can say anything they want without being held accountable.

To the issue of gender identity I would say to the reporters just what I tell everyone else - if you are in doubt of a person's gender identity don't speculate, guess or come up with a competitive term, but rather ASK THE PERSON how they identify.

This is a crime report, not an interview. For the purposes of a police report the classification of the suspects is the important point; ie - sex, and manner of dress. Yes, if the information had been present, it would have been most useful to identify the suspects as female transgenders. But then you'd be calling foul claiming there's no reason to point out they are trans (which in fact there is just as much reason to point out a transgender suspect as a male or female).

Barring knowledge of their preferred sexual identity, sex and mode of dress IS important, and the information WAS accurate.

The first thing that I thought about the article was, "That's nice that you cleared it up." But then I had this question: was this supposed to be a retraction of some sort? I understand that these two women are criminals, but were they issued some sort of apology? Clearly they considered themselves female based on what Renee Bailey said. And with names like Renee Bailey and Kelly Bright, how in the world would the police or anyone else think that these are men? WTF!

How the fuck does he expect us to believe that he isn't cissexist when he inherently thinks of men in disguise when he sees a case like this?