Why are we protecting the feelings of rapists?

Earlier this week details emerged of a rape committed by Michelle Winter, a man who identifies as a transgender woman. British law is clear, according to the Sexual Offences Act (2003) rape is a crime that can only be committed by a man using his penis. Winter was referred to by the judge as a dangerous individual, with a ‘clear propensity to violence’ and the attack was described in court as leaving Winter’s female victim with ‘recurring nightmares’. Court documents detailing the case state: ‘She [Winter] was found guilty of rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.’ It is not clear whether Winter will serve time in the male or female prison estate.

Aside from refreshingly clear local reporting in the Cambridge Independent, the mainstream media persisted in referring to the convicted rapist with female pronouns as per his preference. Until forced into a rewrite thanks to a social-media backlash, the original headline in the Metro ran ‘Transgender woman jailed for 15 years for raping another woman’ – the word ‘another’ suggesting no significant difference between men who identify as women, and actual women.

[...]

Irrespective of the crime committed, the ‘Equal Treatment Bench Book’, the guide to which judges refer when presiding on matters of equality, urges ‘respect for a person’s gender identity’ by using ‘appropriate terms of address (Mr, Mrs, Ms), pronouns (he / she) and possessives (his / her). Nonbinary people may prefer to be referred to in gender-neutral terms (eg Mx, they, their)’. As such the famously fusty members of the judiciary are advised to refer to those accused of committing rape, a crime which can legally only be committed by men, according to their stated gender identity. This is clearly nonsensical and distressing for victims.