[seebs]

I apparently misread your post.

Here's the thing. Your premises and conclusion are contingent, not on whether or not a female was present in the article, but whether her femaleness was central to the story.

No one disputes that there was at least one female in the story. What's disputed is whether it matters whether that person is female or not. Your P1 isn't just that the person in question is female; it's that the story is framed as "a male making a female cry".

For that to be true, it has to be true that the story would have to be reframed if the child in question had been a boy rather than a girl. Otherwise, "a female" is not part of the framing, but one of the non-framing facts.