Baffling.

As so often, one doesn’t know where to begin.

Yes, Bryson is a rapist, and as such (as well as for other reasons) he is not a she and his actions are his actions, not her actions. He’s a man. It’s his actions that are deplorable and repugnant – and that are a part of the long and global history of male oppression of and violence against women. Even if you think it’s “respectful” or progressive to refer to men who identify as trans “she” (which I don’t), you surely ought to differentiate between men who rape women and call themselves women, and men who don’t do that. It’s an insult to women to call a rapist “she.”

Trans women may be subjected to high levels of violence, rape, harassment and abuse, but so are women, and the women Bryson raped are women, so what is the point of whining about trans women and rape when the issue is a man who raped women? Why is this “but violence and rape” used as a shield for the man who committed violence and rape instead of for women? Why are we supposed to gasp in shock horror that Bryson [claims to be] part of a group subject to violence and rape when 1. so are women and 2. he subjected women to violence and rape? It’s grotesque. Man claims to be woman, rapes women, woman barrister tells us to be nice to the rapist man because he is subject to violence and rape. What is wrong with her?

Nobody is “using” Bryson to “bash a vulnerable and marginalised group” – we’re saying Bryson exploited his claimed “identity” to commit violence against members of the vulnerable and marginalised group called women.

It doesn’t matter that he’s not “representative of trans women.” That’s completely beside the point. He’s a rapist. Trans women are a different subject.

Proudman works with the Good Law Project. Maybe it’s a drug?

Updating to add:

Great. An MSP, a woman, sides with a rapist and throws his victims on the dungheap.