Women Allegedly Raped in Prison by Trans-Identifying Inmate Will Have To Refer to Attacker as 'She/Her'
The recent ruling means that on the stand those women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.
Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.
In 1990, Carroll was charged with three counts of kidnapping for ransom, two counts of robbery, and three counts of oral copulation in concert by force, ultimately pleading guilty to two counts of kidnapping. Several years later, Carroll was sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three-strike law after acting as a getaway driver in a robbery.
"After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to Los Angeles, two other cellmates of his had complained that he had raped them," Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno told the local ABC affiliate. One of those cellmates says Carroll attacked her while she was in the shower. "This is a particular issue in this case because it's confusing to the jury," Moreno added. "In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man."
It may be disorienting to the alleged victims, as well, who will be vulnerable to speech policing from the judge—or directly from Carroll, their alleged rapist, who has opted for self-representation. Charged with two counts of rape and one count of dissuading a witness from testifying, Carroll has since been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, a men's facility.
Prison rape is sadly a problem that attracts limited public outrage and is by no means constrained to women's prisons. Though precise statistics are hard to track, as such assaults sometimes go unreported, a 2012 report from the Justice Department estimated that over 200,000 inmates were sexually abused behind bars in one year alone. Many of those occur in men's prisons or happen to women at the hands of government employees. Those cases matter just as much.
But Carroll, who deserves a fair day in court, may be a fairly ominous cautionary tale. "It is our sworn duty to protect people from sexual assault and violence," Ralph Diaz, then the secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said in a 2020 statement about the Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act. He added that the law would "codify our policies for the screening, treatment, and housing of this population as required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act." In other words, in seeking to comply with the federal law meant to eradicate prison rape, California allegedly encouraged it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody could have predicted this.
I can’t believe all these women are so transphobic that they all ganged up on the poor trans woman. Clearly we still have a long way to go, and I truly hope this she/her is able to defeat this travesty of justice. Just suck the woman penis you bigots.
LOL!!!
The Donald should get shit on with this "babe" (Tremaine Carroll) like He did with His Queen Spermy Daniels, so ass to PROVE that He is SNOT bi-assed or prejudiced!!! (Or, Government Almighty Forbid, "bigoted").
He WILL be POTUS for ALL of us, right? All for Hump-Us; Hump-Us for All!!! All is fair in Love and War; especially in prison!!! And the USA is one GIANT out-door prison!
Unread
Incapable of reading OR honest, benevolent thoughts!
too retarded;didn't read
I muted the retard in question. Which only makes your comment funnier.
or
TS;DR (too sqrlsy; didn't read)
seriously, I start to read the thread, see "it's" batshit crazy cap's et.al and just skip to the next comment too..
haven't read Squirrely-fuck in years..
Any one with more than two brain cells to rub together could have predicted this. This isn't even the first instance of something like this.
There was a case a year or two ago from the eastern seaboard (NJ I think) where a trans woman in a women's prison impregnated another inmate.
If memory served, that happened in Scotland as well, and multiple pregnancies resulted.
And there have been multiple lawsuits published about men convicted of sexual crimes trying to demand a place in women's prisons. I don't know if they were granted since the news articles are all on the suit rather than the decision. However, we are by definition talking about the least savory parts of humanity here.
who has opted for self-representation.
Got no sympathy. She is an officer of the court - not a victim. And she has a stupid client too.
The perp not the victims is representing himself (not herself).
Yeah. I facepalmed myself after the edit time ended. Binion used that pronoun too without quotes - and didn't need to.
So they a violating her free speech right. Good take that to the Supreme Court, granted some of them don't know what a woman is
Not really. She can say anything she wants but if she says the wrong thing the defendant goes free. That is standard in criminal cases.
Charliehall is the dumbest fucker alive.
Possibly. But between Charlie, Shrike, SQRLSY and Sarc there is a lot of competition,
Fuck Charlie. And fuck California.
She is in trouble for calling a man a man, kill yourself
CHARLIE HALL!
>The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act
They started with the letters T, R, and A, and couldn't figure out a way to finish with N and S?
Non - Sense?
No Shit?
>Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week
Is there some back channel where the court tells the witnesses ahead of time how they must testify?
"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
No.
Lol. “….Carroll has since been transferred to…..a men’s facility.”
But his victims must refer to him as she/her in court? Does that mean he can sue the state for cruel and unusual punishment for putting him where he belongs?
CA is so retarded. They provide a continuous “how (not) to” primer for the rest of the country. Bravo.
CA residents would have far more liberty and freedom if Trump put the whole state under martial law.
Nah, he should tell Mexico that if they don't do more to help stop illegal border crossings from Mexico to the US, he will make them take California back. 🙂
"In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man."
Wow.
"Here's something you'll never hear a man say: Stop sucking my dick or I'll call the police."
-George Carlin
Ideas™ !
“She raped me with her penis.”
Who doesn’t love clown world?
She raped me with her very manly penis, oh so very masculine penis, did I say male sex organ yet?
Just before the trans mass psychosis really kicked in, I read some enabler talking about feminine penises and I thought that was just about the funniest thing ever. Now it's holy writ.
The defendant raped me with her male body parts as if she was a man. She busted a nut, too. I could clearly identify male body parts that females like me do not have. The masculine parts of her body are indistinguishable from male ones. She is one horny dude.
California has lost its friggin' mind.
If these were federal charges Biden would pardon the thing.
Can we get the judge's name?
It’s a state secret, and Reason respects that.
Fucking useless Reason.
I wonder if the URL is taken. They should rebrand.
We can if we look at other news sources. The Daily Mail says it's Madera County Judge Katherine Rigby.
So the state of California deemed it appropriate that this defendant is transferred to a men's facility, but the state of California deems it inappropriate to call this person a man. Hopefully one of his victims makes note of this.
To survive in this brave new world order, you must master the arts of DoubleThink and Newspeak.
further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.
Wouldn't you say that, since this person would have no opportunity to commit this crime if not for the government, the government may have done slightly more than "embolden" this crime? They enabled it. They're practically co-conspirators with the defendant.
I'd sue them. This turn of events was entirely foreseeable and the California government did not care.
California has finally descended into idiocracy with little or no hope of ever dragging itself out.
This latest episode is reason number 1,754 for leaving that wretched state and never returning.
I'm surprised that Meathead/Rob Reiner hasn't been mouthing off about this. Maybe The View will have something to say.
"California has finally descended into idiocracy with little or no hope of ever dragging itself out."
The only hope for improvement is to let the cartels take over.
"I'm surprised that Meathead/Rob Reiner hasn't been mouthing off about this."
On Bluesky nobody can read you scream.
"...Carroll has since been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, a men's facility..."
Seems the state isn't confused about his sex.
NAL, what happens if these women ignore the judge's order and refer to the man as a man?
I'd refer to it as it. It's not worthy of a human pronoun.
Just use the name every time, no matter how awkward it makes the statements. The jury will very quickly understand what is going on
Imagine being a rape victim, having been violated by male sexual organs, and having some dipshit judge ordering you to refer to the asshole as a she/her in court.
They think Six Pack McDreamy CEO shooter was pissed…
Contempt of court maybe?
That's why there's rarely a jury trial for contempt, some of the so called contempt would never get convicted by a jury
Kind of a catch 22 while under oath: Lie, or be subject to conte pt of court.
Carroll, who deserves a fair day in court
He got his due process when he was tried and convicted. Now, the time to take his shit is over. Let's hope he doesn't survive long in the men's prison.
Its always interesting to see what goes on inside the decaying corpse of the late state of California.
Authored by Senator Scott Wiener, SB 132 supports CDCR’s efforts to provide a safe, humane, respectful and rehabilitative environment for the incarcerated transgender, non-binary and intersex community.
There’s nothing the CA state legislature can do, short of committing mass suicide, to help reverse the slow motion train wreck of the Golden State.
To be fair, they're spending a shit-ton of money to try and make the trains faster. Should work with the wrecking part, too.
Never forget that California's standard of "freedom" is way more favorable to the Reason staff than Florida's.
"...allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding to the sex they say they are."
Is that the way it is worded? That seems to do away with the notion that we have been told that "gender identity" is the subjective category and "sex" is the immutable objective condition.
So this person got one "cellmate" pregnant and is acused of raping two other "cellmates" which indicates that at least three biological female prisoners were compelled to share and be locked in a cell with a male sexual predator.
We are playing out a horrifying real life version of "The Emperor's New Clothes" but where the state has made it illegal to point out that the Emperor, er, Empress is naked and has a twig and berries.
Madness.
We are being compelled by the State to lie to each other about what this person is because it allegedly might hurt this criminal's feelings.
There's no way I would comply with this order. However, it's easy enough to disarm all the "gender pronoun" Nazis. Simply don't use pronouns and use the proper name. Problem solved forever.
Or just call him "the pervert".
I think proper court etiquette is "the alleged guilty accused bastard".
I like it! The defendant unzipped the defendant's fly then the defendant pulled out the defendant's penis...
It'll drive everyone nuts!
This is the kind of shit that makes people want to revert to vigilante justice. And with fucktards like all the California retards responsible for this, the people might be justified.
Vigilantes only appear when the government fails to do its duty.
And you think they've done their duty to the women who were raped? You might be part of the problem.
That's not what I said. Read it again.
ABC is not your friend.
Why are you deadnaming and using the wrong pronouns, Billy?
Prison rape is sadly a problem that attracts limited public outrage and is by no means constrained to women's prisons.
I have a solution to that; one that solves all these problems without violating 8A - but nobody's interested. In fact, they often argue in favor of the prison rape and abuse instead.
Like what?
Modernize the prisons. Fit them with the tech that we all enjoy on a regular basis.
Personal showers and toilets, climate control, ventilation for fresh air, some kind of built in tablet/touchscreen type thing that allows screened incoming (but not outgoing) videoconferencing on demand (for family visits, court appearances, conferences with counsel, therapy, education etc.) as well as limited and discretionary entertainment, health monitoring wearables and monitored teledoc, three square meals a day (with a menu offering a small variety of choices), rotating changes of toiletries and linens, and the option to share a cell if desired upon both inmates' consent (with restrictions on gang affiliations or for the sexual predators and so forth).
Then leave them in the cell and never let them out until their sentence is up. In fact, timelock the door, with an override provided ONLY to medical/fire staff for emergencies. Their room - about twice the size of the average elevator - becomes their whole world (minus their ventilation window to the outside) for the entirety of their sentence.
Inmate abuse ends.
Prison staff abuse ends. (In fact, we can probably lay large %'s off.)
Prison riots end.
Prison drug trade ends.
Prison gang activity ends.
Convicts get more time with loved ones (albeit remotely) who want their company.
Convicts are guaranteed the health and nutrition and mental services they need.
Convicts have on-demand access to rehabilitative measures.
And so on and so on and so on. There are no minuses here. Just pluses.
We're long past the "more walls, more bars, more guards" mentality of prison design. We can do far better, while both honoring 8A and effectively eliminating the problems endemic to the current prison system.
Not bad, except that's effectively solitary confinement, which for "regular" criminals runs afoul of the 8th. Prisons are awful places and people are treated awfully there. Maybe if we stop criminalizing everything and prioritize both rehabilitation and dignity we wouldn't be here.
No. The solution to awful prisons isn't "legalize everything." That's blue-state "we'll lower the murder rate by not charging people with murder!" nonsense.
And it's the cushiest "solitary" (which is optional, providing the inmate can find a bidirectional willing celly) you can imagine, what with 24/7 access to anyone willing to Skype (or Zoom, or whatever) you; and access to arts, entertainment, and education on demand.
The goal of the modernized prison IS rehabilitation and dignity. While also not ignoring retributive justice. Prevent the abuses, but remember the purpose of a prison.
How about legalizing acts which have no direct victim?
How about respecting the will of the people who vote to enact laws of their own choosing.
When did we all vote on this?
So, let's take an easy one: drug laws. Usually when people whine about legalizing acts which only cause indirect (and social/cultural) harm, they're talking about drugs. Especially on this website.
Welllll.... not so long ago, just a few scant decades, Americans irrespective of political party decided they'd had just about enough rampant drug use and the problems it brings - so they called on their elected representatives to make it illegal.
In the electoral years leading up to the 91st Congress. And in the following years, many State legislatures followed in suit - notably in California, Texas, New York, and Georgia. (The voters of New Hampshire and Vermont, on the other hand, were a little more reticent - despite their federal legislators being supporters.)
Bipartisan support for the legislation - both State and Federal - was nationwide, hence the easy passage of it in both conservative and liberal circles. There was no outcry, and hence few (if any) legislators lost re-election over the issue.
Simply put: it's what the people wanted. And it's what most of them still want - even taking into consideration those who are easing up on so-called "softer" drugs. Even in blue states, ballot measures on the subject tend to fail, and in states where things like "recreational" marijuana have been legalized, its supporters are quickly discovering that it's not what they hoped.
So, again, will of the people. If the druggies, greatly outnumbered by the normies, are told no - is that something they can respect and abide by, and be held accountable for, or not?
Solitary confinement without communication with other people is a horrible thing that eats away at your sanity. But being able to interact with other people by sight and sound, without any opportunity to actually touch them, is enough to prevent that, and also prevents abusive interactions with guards and other prisoners.
I literally explained how the communication features are there.
Sounds exorbitantly expensive.
What do you do when the plumbing/touchscreen/lighting/health monitoring wearables break or are intentionally damaged? You might be surprised to learn that criminals aren't usually careful with things that don't belong to them.
You can put everything breakable on the other side of lexan walls, and don't give the inmate anything capable of damaging those walls.
Yea, it probably is. But at least we'd get something of value out of the price. As opposed to what we get now. Plus, humane inmate warehousing is a legitimate function of government.
What do you do when the plumbing/touchscreen/lighting/health monitoring wearables break or are intentionally damaged?
Replace them. Rotate them out to a different cell, perform repairs, put them back.
"Convicts get more time with loved ones (albeit remotely) who want their company."
There are prisons that have ended in person visits in favor of video chats. The problem is that there is, for any given prison doing this, one specific vendor that families have to go through for the video chats that charges absurd rates for the calls.
I would be 100% in favor of eliminating the imposition of that cost on the inmates, and assuming it as normal prison overhead. It's a hard prison we're talking about here, and that's not an unreasonable expense to provide what folks seem to have the most common objection to for the inmates.
Obviously have the vidcom companies bid on the contract to negotiate reasonable rates - but the bigger concern is ensuring their reliable service. If it can't be delivered, necessitating the use of another company (and yes, I would posit that because it's the inmates only means of meaningful contact with the outside world, that we should near-guarantee it at all times; again, for incoming, not outgoing) - that's a charge that should be deducted from what's owed to the breaching party.
Remember - we're reforming this idea from the ground up. Don't assume that what's status quo today shouldn't be reconsidered entirely for a modernized prison.
Why do people cling to the fiction that male or female has anything to do with the presence or absence of a cock, tits, or pussy?
Science disproved it, just like science disproved the Milnor conjecture!
I'm fine with XX and XY. Besides, science has shown that the "science" you refer to is garbage.
I guess the next step is to have a judge rule that the sun must rise in the west every other day, for equity.
We have to start slow before we require the chimps to cheerfully recite 2+2=5.
Boiled frogs, etc
Isn't this precisely what Binion has been demanding?
Brought to you by the party for women.
Or "the defendant," or "the accused."
I’m sure the purple-haired, Cosmo-guzzling Commie minge who intentionally ran this publication into the ground for her DNCCP masters must be thrilled.
"The recent ruling means that on the stand those women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation."
File this under, "Shit you just can't make up."
"Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. "
The only surprising thing about this story is that only a few men have not used this loophole to be transferred to women's prisons.
This is like Obama's Title IX guidance:
"The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian,
as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that
differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent
with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, the re is no medical diagnosis or treatment
requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender
identity."
Look, what exactly did the judge rule? You have an incendiary headline and then go to the fact that the incident happened without mentioning the speech policing?
I want the exact words of the ruling, because I don't trust summaries from clearly biased sources.
Women Allegedly Raped in Prison by Trans-Identifying Inmate Will Have To Refer to Attacker as 'She/Her'
Billy Binion wrote, after waking up from his 10 yr long nap-- the echoes of Nick Gillespie's "Hey man, why can't we just let them have their promethean transformation, maaan" reverberating in his head.
So if the woman that was raped tells the jury, while under oath, that "He raped me; that man raped me!"
What is the judge gonna do? Put her in jail?
If he'd previously told her not to do it, and she did it anyway, I would imagine she'd be locked up for contempt.
Just a word of caution, the news stories seem to rely on the prosecutor and her (I *think* she's a she) outraged comments on the judge's decision. Of course, the judge wouldn't talk to the media, so to get both sides they'd normally go to the defendant's lawyer, but the defendant fired his (oops!) lawyer.
So we're just getting the prosecutor's version - the judge insists the prosecutor call the defendant female pronouns, but will this be enforced against the witnesses who allege rape?
I'd like to see if the judge herself (I think the judge is a she) actually insists to the witnesses that they, as well as the prosecutor, call the defendant a she.
As I said above, if the judge tells the alleged victims to say "she" about the defendant, and the witnesses deliberately say "he" instead, then that would mean sending the witness to prison for contempt.
Even in California, would a judge go so far as imprisoning a woman who calls her alleged rapist "he"?
Certainly, the *prosecutor* isn't going to say "he," because the court would then punish the prosecutor, which the prosecutor would want to avoid. But an outraged witness who insists on defying the judge and saying "he" - would the judge actually want the hostile headlines involved in sending such a witness -and alleged rape victim - to prison?