I realise the New Statesman, like most publications, probably mandates that men who 'identify' as women be referred to with female pronouns; however, you can get around this by avoiding pronouns altogether. I've seen other feminists do this when writing for mainstream news orgs and if they are crafty it can actually be done almost seamlessly (Meghan Murphy is a master at it).
Further, I've seen publications allow sex-based pronouns to refer to trans people pre-transition - Janice Turner did this in the Times for her article on female transitioners, I assume after some negotiation with the editors. My point is that Ditum could have found a way around this (either through careful sentence structure or negotiating with editors) so that she didn't insult Dean's victims (and indeed all women), by calling him 'she' and 'her' while describing his sex crimes. I actually felt sick reading that article, with lines like:
Dean broke into homes, dressed in teenage girls’ underwear, and filmed herself in their bedrooms engaging in what the court reporting coyly called “sex acts”.
It shows how total male control of reality is, when men can do this to women and girls and then have their crimes attributed to women on their say so. And the logical conclusion of this patriarchal reversal is: well, if this is a female sex crime, carried out by a woman who filmed herself engaging in sex acts in teenage girls' bedrooms, then 'she' should be housed in the women's estate. Which is exactly what TRAs and their allies are claiming about Dean.
I realise that some people will think I'm nitpicking, that pronouns are a side issue. They couldn't be more wrong. Pronouns are the whole ball game - that's why TRAs focus on them so fiercely. Language shapes cognition, and the TRA takeover of language, such that women are no longer able to describe reality, is a huge part of the reason they are winning.