Thanks for telling a fellow DV survivor asking you if women should have to spare spaces with men to shut up, and complaining that words are being put in your mouth when people explain the logical end game of allowing any male who says he’s a woman into women’s single-sex spaces. Trans people SHOULD have their own trans spaces, but they want existing same-sex ones instead.
Other women are calling you a condescending idiot and being highly concerned about you working with other vulnerable women for good reason, not just to be mean. Marmorada was out of pocket for saying you should die, but women on the internet calling you stupid for saying something extremely stupid and offensive on the internet (which your original post was) is a good thing, actually. Your justifiable righteous anger toward abusers is being wasted defending a movement full of them, using their trans status to keep abusing with impunity.
Would you make a female rape survivor share a shelter with a male who identifies as a woman, yes or no? Would you make a female rape survivor call her male rapist by female pronouns while testifying about what he did to her? If no, great. You’re not completely stupid or evil. If yes…
I'm not going to respond to most of this, but I am going to respond to the things at the bottom and reiterate a few things I have publicly stated that I'm assuming you read given your comprehensive knowledge of the comments made that you likely intentionally neglected to include.
First of all, I have repetitively stated that I believe in women's only spaces, and I in fact went to a women's only post secondary institution, so no, I do not feel a female rape survivor should be forced to share shelter space with a trans individual. I think that vulnerable women should be given every available opportunity to heal exclusively around other women if that is what they need to feel safe, and I feel that we should have similar but distinct options for the trans community as well. I don't have complete opposition to the idea of trans women existing in shelters with cisgendered women, as long as there are more than enough other spaces also available for those not comfortable with that.
The question. regarding forcing a female victim to use preferred pronouns for her rapist is a lot more complex and nuanced, and this response is likely to be influenced by the laws of my country, which is viewed as one of the "safest" countries for trans people in terms of respecting pronouns and gender identity and access to gender affirming procedures.
In short, no I would not force a female survivor to identify her abuser by their preferred pronouns, however, depending on circumstances I would probably recommend doing so for a few reasons. I'm going to operate under the framework that the abuser had already transitioned at the time they attacked our Jane Doe.
Reason 1, It could really cause some issues for Jane Doe whilst she is testifying. Testifying against my rapist was one of the hardest things I have ever done, and TV does not showcase that process in any way that reflects reality. Basically, you get on the stand and you are prompted by the prosecution to tell your story. They may ask some clarifying questions, and then the defence takes over. The defence will then proceed to spend basically as long as they want attempting to poke holes in your story, confuse you, and focus on really minute details. Anything that can help their client is on the table. With this in mind, and basing this on my experience, the defence would absolutely go in on the pronouns to try and make our victim, Jane Doe, look bad. They may even attempt to have the judge allow them to treat Jane Doe as a hostile witness. For this reason I would personally advise Jane Doe to use their abuser's proper pronouns just to avoid this circus, and to protect their mental health. Simply, it could be far more damaging for Jane Doe to go through that than to simply use the designated pronouns. This answer is rooted in the reality of the situation, not the hypothetical, please treat it as such.
EDIT: I knew I would forget something. This also opens the door for defence to accuse victim of filing a false report based on the gender identity of her attacker. Now let me be clear, I'm not saying that is in any way okay or reasonable, I'm just saying a defence attorney might do it, and that that would be incredibly damaging to the victim. This is a great example of the nuance of the situation and why this isn't a simple yes or no question.
Reason 2, this also adds a level of nuance to the crime itself, that could be lost to the court if not properly acknowledged. The optics are fundamentally different, especially if our abuser comes to court presenting as their preferred gender. This goes hand in hand with the above, and could also lead to the optics shifting to the abuser appearing victimized instead of our Jane Doe. Additionally, the optics shift because there's an argument that Jane Doe let her guard down around someone she perceived to be a woman, which really does create a shift in the perceived severity of the crime. It's beneficial to Jane Doe's case to have her use the preferred pronouns in this way.
Reason 3, statistics. If we boil this down to simply assigned gender at birth we can lose a statistic. We don't have great statistics on the rates of trans women committing violent crimes, to my knowledge, but I'm disabled and haven't really been keeping up with studies coming out over the last few years, so I'm happy to be corrected. Either way, this incident is statistically significant in a manner that actually benefits your position, and that should be taken into account.
Finally, regardless of gender identity of the attacker, Jane Doe was assaulted, and she deserves to have her crime treated the same as everyone else, regardless of the assigned sex at birth or gender identity as her attacker. In the same vein, our attacker committed a violent crime, and should be punished regardless of their assigned sex at birth or gender identity. We should be treating all violent crime in the same manner (not self defence before anyone says it, and you already knew that wasn't what I meant), and not let any sort of gender debate influence that. Humans of all sexes and gender identities commit violent crimes, and their assigned sex or gender identity should not really be part of the conversation, and we shouldn't make this a big issue during court proceedings because, as stated above, their can be some real harm to the victim in doing so.
All that being said, If a victim was really hell bent on not respecting the gender identity of their attacker, and was informed of the above, I would not force them to use preferred pronouns.