Spot the issues here:
How is Janey Kay identified in the headline of this piece?
Though this attack has tones of cissexism, transmisogyny, and straight-up misogyny (a strange man attacking a woman in a dark public space), Ms. Key is not a woman in this article. She's barely even a person. She's just ... a transgender. And Ray Young's manhood is unmarked: he is a gay man, not cis, just, you know, regular.
Headlines are important to defining the key elements the writer or newspaper wants to highlight in the story that follows. And in this headline, the article or headline writer chooses to identify the perpetrator's gender, and clarify his position with two adjectives - drunk and gay.
Ms. Kay, however, is nothing. She is reduced to the adjective, without any mention that she's a woman on the recieving end of violence from a man. She's just a transgender. Practically an "it".
And no, it's not just because it's shorter to say transgender. Trans woman takes no longer to write.
This article from Metro Weekly spends as much time defending the attacker as it does covering the attack. He was drunk, he supports local gay areas, and after all - Ms. Kay attacked him! After all, he's one of the family! (What is "the family"? Is being cis necessary for inclusion?) This is particularly disappointing from a newspaper that claims to cater to the trans community by tacking on the "T" to the GLB.
Violence against women is unacceptable, and I'm pleased the perpetrator in this incident is being held responsible. But in coverage of such violence, it's crucial to remember that this is, indeed, violence against women. Ms. Kay is not "a transgender"; she's a woman, a trans woman, attacked by a man, a cis man, for not fitting into his gendered, sexist, cissexist expectations, for not being "part of the family". Reducing someone to an adjective is dehumanizing and degendering. Referring to her by simply her transition status is sexist, cissexist, and transmisogynistic.