> I share your concern and anger. This particular phrasing could sound like reinforcing a historical perception of [indigenous people/black people/jews/...] as innately weak and needing protection. I prefer to think of it as people needing help due to circumstances, and the circumstances in this case perhaps due in part to such historical perceptions.

When the persecution of a certain group of humans is this direct and the consequences of capture so severe, I think the semantics of help are irrelevant until the danger is resolved.

Please don't misuse square brackets in a quote to say something the person didn't say. We don't want that to become the new destructively illiterate "literally".

Headline:

> Saudi Arabia tracks runaway women by cellphone IMEI

Parent:

> Engaging security forces to chase women

I'm sorry, what's the need to rephrase?

It might not be a rephrasing of the headline - it might be a summary of the article - that summary seems pretty correct after reading it.

I don't think we're disagreeing in what either of us said, but only in whether it's the best idea to invoke historical sexist ideas (by saying simply "women", as if all else is implied) unnecessarily. Especially when we're talking about tragedies that could be direct effects of those kinds of historical ideas, so it should be on our minds.