California Judge Orders Rapist to Be Referred to by Preferred Pronouns

In a controversial decision, a California judge has ruled that Tremaine Carroll, a male inmate accused of raping two female prisoners and impregnating another, must be referred to by “she/her” pronouns in court. Carroll, who self-identifies as a woman, was transferred to a women’s prison under California law despite lacking psychological or medical evaluations to substantiate his claim.

This ruling, which applies to all participants in the trial, including Carroll’s alleged victims, has sparked outrage. Critics argue that forcing victims to use the preferred pronouns of their alleged attacker is a cruel imposition that adds unnecessary trauma to an already harrowing process.

Madera District Attorney Sally Moreno has charged Carroll with multiple counts of rape. Carroll’s alleged crimes occurred while he was housed at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla, a placement based solely on his self-identification as a woman.

“After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to Los Angeles, two other cellmates of his had complained that he had raped them, so we have filed rape charges against this inmate,” Moreno explained.

Adding to the complexity of the case is California’s legal definition of rape, which requires the perpetrator to be male. “This is a particular issue in this case because it’s confusing to the jury,” Moreno said. “In California, rape is a crime that has to be accomplished by a man.”

The judge’s pronoun mandate has been widely criticized for its insensitivity toward the victims. Supervising Deputy District Attorney Eric Dutemple expressed outrage, saying, “It’s just absolutely insane that a victim would have to get on the stand and police their pronoun usage when trying to recite one of the scariest times of their lives.”

Critics argue that this decision prioritizes the alleged attacker’s comfort over the victims’ dignity, forcing them to accommodate the identity Carroll allegedly exploited to gain access to them.

This case highlights growing concerns about the implications of self-identification laws, particularly in spaces segregated by biological sex, such as prisons. While proponents of such policies argue they promote inclusivity and dignity, detractors contend they open the door to abuse and endanger vulnerable populations, especially women.

As the trial progresses, the court’s handling of this case will undoubtedly reignite debates over gender identity policies and their consequences for justice and victim rights.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter for updates on this case and its broader implications for legal and social issues in America.