Except that the law and trained legal opinion examined her case and denied her sex offending ass as they deemed her offence to be a forfeit of certain rights and freedoms the law abiding- very much including the law abiding trans community- don't forfeit due to the whole law abiding thing.


No.The rights of victims first. Their loss and the loss of their families supersede your subjective personal principals

And they decided here.

Indeed. And the courts studied it objectively and after scrutinizing it they duly denied her rapey nonce ass her request due to her being a nonce.

Depends on the individual case, crime in general isn't uniform.


Or to this case unless you can specifically show coercion regarding her conviction.


Again you study a case on its merits and if there's mitigating circumstances then the court should duly consider such cases. None were found here.

It is very obvious that sex offenders, including paedophiles and rapists, are seeking to adopt and exploit 'trans' status to get around the law, to conceal their criminal records and to carry on offending. Because they would, wouldn't they? That is one reason, and an important reason, why trans activists seek to place a taboo on 'deadnaming'. (Trans activism is an offshoot of Postmodern Queer Theory, which, ever since it was drawn up by Michel Foucault in France in the 1970s and restated by Judith Butler in the US in the 1990s, has aimed at the normalisation and legalisation of child sexual abuse. I am not making this up. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...isia-6t5sj7jvw)

Some sex offenders also play the 'trans' card to get placed in women's prisons, where they can carry on offending while inside, as seen in the Karen White case in the UK. ('Karen White' is actually a man called Stephen Wood, who is a vicious rapist and paedophile, and who sexually assaulted women prisoners while held on remand in a women's unit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45825838) The authorities have no business going along with any of this.

Just to be clear, your claim is that the trans movement, as a whole, wants people to refer to them by the current name rather than a former name because the movement, as a whole, has the aim of wanting to normalize and legalize child sexual abuse and not because they were prefer people to call them by the name they would prefer to go by?

Maybe so but that's not an 'except' to what I said.

If you think that then you must object to the usa 'justice' sysem as much as I do.

Of course

Sure and courts decide within the parameters of the law. What that law should be is the stuff of politics.

I'm not even considering the specifics of this case.

Only within the parameters of the law. That law includes rights for everybody and what it should be is still the stuff of politics.