I don't think she's doing it to hurt others.
JackDaw noted a key element of her motives (she is a victim of domestic violence and is concerned about compromising women's only spaces) but even in that context it's not about hurting anyone, as wanting the ability to speak her truth.
If she calls someone who came out as a trans woman after two convictions for rape a man, she's not doing it to hurt the person.
Is there any way she could be arrested for what she said outside of Scotland?
I wouldn't be surprised if she just repeats everything she said in a Q&A in Scotland, but I'm wondering if legally there's any hint that they could prosecute her for things she does outside her jurisdiction (Obviously anything she said before the law was passed was irrelevant because that would be ex post facto punishment.)
The legal argument is that she should be jailed.
This is the law Scotland passed. If you don't think she should be jailed, then the law is terrible and that is a much more important problem that a writer being wrong.
It's an easier argument to make when you're not announcing that the second-biggest Christian Holiday is also Trans Day of Visibility this year.
What evidence have I been asked to provide?
My claim is that we shouldn't assume the reporter is lying.
But I still don't know what you believe, because you didn't respond to my points.
It's perfectly fine to ignore me, but it's sketchy to make a quote about me and ignore my questions. Because I still do not know your objections to The Week article. And you can say what you want about when I posted something, but if you keep changing your mind, it will lead to contradictions.
And I'm not sure anyone else can confidently articulate your objections.
So, what is your argument that the article obviously lied? Because you have made different claims at different times. I am posting this again because I'm not sure; Perhaps somebody else can explain if it is so obvious.
Did the reporter lie because people who identify as genderqueer, nonbinary, etc. are not trans, so anyone informed about the topic would only include them in the umbrella term of trans is doing so for shock value? Even if this fits the Human Rights campaign definition.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...92#post6029692
Or did the reporter lie because they're not limiting the definition of trans to people who are going for specific types of gender affirming-medical care?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...42#post6385542
Did the reporter lie because they didn't include trans women and cis men when calculating percentages of students raised as girls (who are by definition not going to be trans women or cis men)?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...47#post6040947
Did the reporter lie because 4.2% rounds closer to 4%, so it's more accurate to say it was an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 25 (or to be more pedantic, an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 23.8, rather than an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 20?)
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...92#post6029692
Did the reporter lie because 0.5% of respondents did not have a listed identity in a selection that includes cis woman, trans woman, cis man, trans man, nonbinary, genderqueer, intersex and agender. It doesn't include terms like two-spirited, or various neo-pronouns.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...97#post6387397
Did the reporter lie because he or she should have assumed that males are more likely to identify in gender non-conforming ways?
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...41#post6386141
It does appear that the data backs up what the reporter said about a spike in identification rates, so the whole point about doing your own research isn't relevant here. The research backs up the claim.
And in general, people are better off trusting mainstream media sources like The Week than always doing their own research, both because it is time-consuming and can lead down weird rabbit holes. Skepticism all the time will backfire.