Because the offense took place against someone identifying as female didn't it?

This whole issue of treatment of people differently based on perceived gender is an intriguing one, reflecting traditional values vs women's rights vs gender identity. The idea that hitting a woman is somehow less acceptable than hitting a man seems outdated. Still more confused when you actually don't know if your target is male, female or other as self identified.

Yes it is inappropriate to assault anyone, whether they are doing their job or otherwise but to make that assault somehow less acceptable because it is made upon a woman (be they CIS or self identified) seems now to be outmoded in an era of gender equality.

Now if you throw the multiplicity of genders and ***es into the equation, how does the potential assailant understand who he can and cannot target without offending the contemporary moral compass.

The unfortunate perp would risk being cancelled for not treating all ***/genders equally when choosing his target for assault. Surely it's a woman's right to be hit as much as a man's?

You see where this is going now? Irony, sarcasm, a reflection on the peculiarities in the changing environment of human life and values.

Some might even regard it as humorous, although clearly not those on the other side of the Zuider Zee ☺️