California Judge Rules Rapist Must be Referred to With She/Her Pronouns Because He Identifies as a Woman
“Its 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”
A California judge has ruled that an accused rapist named Tremaine Carroll must be referred to in court with she/her pronouns because he identifies as a woman. As you can see from the featured image, it doesn’t look like Carroll has put much effort into passing as a female.
Carroll was allowed to be housed in a female prison for simply claiming to be female. Now, two female inmates have accused him of rape. A third was allegedly impregnated by him.
ABC News in Chicago reports:
Pronoun use at center of rape case involving former prisoner in California
A convicted criminal who served time at the women’s prison in Chowchilla, California is charged with raping fellow inmates.
A Madera County judge ruled 52-year-old state prisoner Tremaine Carroll must be referred to with she/her pronouns because Carroll identifies as a woman.
But the district attorney believes the defendant is abusing the system.
“This is a person who is not a woman in any sense of the word,” says Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno.
In March DA Sally Moreno, charged Carroll for rape allegedly committed while incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla.
“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,” said Moreno…
“Its 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,” said Dutemple.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes that this is all because of a particular law in California, aimed at preserving the “dignity” of the criminal. Yes, really:
How does a man end up in a women’s prison in California? Thanks to progressives in the state legislature, all it takes is for the man to declare himself a woman. Three years ago, Democrats enacted Senate Bill 132, also known as “The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act.” As one prosecutor explains, the law requires no medical transition, no psychological evaluation, and no other medical assessment.
What happens when this law gets put into effect in prisons? Pretty much what everyone would expect. Tremaine Carroll impregnated one fellow inmate after declaring himself a woman and then allegedly raped two other female inmates in prison. He faces trial now for those sexual assaults, but the Madera County judge ruled that everyone has to use Carroll’s preferred “she/her” pronouns — including his victims.
Why? Because, the judge explained, Carroll “deserves dignity.” Uh-huh.
This law and the judge’s ruling are stupid and offensive.
Here’s a video report:
This issue cost the Democrats big in the 2024 election. An increasing number of Americans look at stories like this one and say something to the effect of; You know what? I’m done with this.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Here’s a better example of some things that political correctness stole besides Christmas.
It has stolen comfort from the victims and given it to the criminals.
Another Culture Marxist judge, a couple more on the US Supreme Court would sink the country. And if Trump would have lost from another vote fraud we would have gotten a couple more.
This is not a judge anyone seeking justice should have to suffer.
The judge needs to be this guy’s next cellmate.
Seriously.
The women in these prisons are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S Constitution.
excellent point
Only if you say the same thing when a judge who believes a male prisoner to be at a significant risk of rape in prison sends him there nevertheless. The two cases are exactly the same.
Can’t you find a fire?
The fire is your home, not mine.
Lawsuits!
Insanity.
So after I swear an oath to tell the truth, you’re ordering me to lie?
Referring to a man as “she” is incorrect English, but it’s not a lie. Especially when everyone can see him and knows that he is a man.
Even if it were a lie, though, it wouldn’t be perjury because it’s not material.
This judge seems to think it’s material. I would bet that the women in the prison the guy might be sent to would think it’s material.
The judge did not say it’s material. And the defendant’s potential future victims have nothing to do with what is or isn’t material to the case.
The defendant’s correct gender is completely immaterial to the case, so it would not be perjury even to tell an outright lie about it. Let alone to merely use incorrect pronouns, which is not even a lie.
I know what “material” means in a trial. I was being flippant. Evidently, you are too dumb to pick that up. I’ll type more slowly for you next time.
So if it is immaterial can you be found in contempt for continuing to use male pronouns? Can the prosecution ask for a change of venue based on the judge being obviously biased in favor of the defendant? I mean insisting you call him a her while you are on the stand describing what you obviously know was a male on female rape would seem to be minor witness intimidation.
“The defendant’s correct gender is completely immaterial to the case”
The case is for RAPE, but I’m sure you feel you can defend this statement with the usual legalistic pettifoggery.
If you’re defying the judge’s order, then yes. ttucker, What has materiality got to do with contempt? Materiality is an element of perjury, not of contempt. If you tell an immaterial lie under oath it’s not perjury. If you tell the truth using language the judge ordered you not to use, it’s contempt.
Henry, I am well aware of the charge. The defendant’s gender is irrelevant to that charge. It is immaterial whether the rape was committed by a man or by a woman, and it’s certainly immaterial which pronouns are used for him.
Incorrect English? So if you claim you didn’t steal an object when proof exists that you did, you’re just using incorrect English? If you tell me I have to look at a man sitting in front of me and claim he’s a woman, it’s a lie. And it’s gaslighting.
You do not have to claim he’s a woman. All you have to do is refer to him with the pronouns “she” and “her”. As in, “she exposed her penis”. That is not a lie, it’s just incorrect English.
Actually you don’t even have to do that. All you have to do is not use the pronoun “he”. “The defendant exposed the defendant’s penis.”
The pronouns you used to refer to female people, AKA women, are she and her. They are not appropriate to refer to a man
And if you do use them, what is it? Is it a lie? No, it is not. It is simply incorrect English usage.
You are a Democrat. You cannot open your mouth without lying–so of course you do not understand.
It is a lie because when you refer to someone as ‘she’, you know she cannot forcibly insert ‘her’ penis into anyone because those called ‘she’ have no penis.
The worst part, Milhouse, is that you know this –but the first person a Democrat lies to, always and constantly is themself.
You are a liar, a vicious evil slanderer, and a demon from Hell. You have never in your life told the truth about anything.
It is undisputed that the defendant has a penis. Referring to him with incorrect pronouns does not change that. The judge has not ordered anyone to deny that he has a penis; the order is merely to refer to it as “her” penis rather than as “his”. That is not a lie, it’s just incorrect usage.
A lie is when you say something that is false. Calling that dude a woman is a lie because you’re saying something that’s false
No one has been ordered to say that he’s a woman. They are merely required to refer to him with female pronouns. That is not a lie, it’s just incorrect English usage.
>>California Judge Rules Rapist Must be Referred to With She/Her Pronouns Because He Identifies as a Woman<<
Not surprised at all. It's the fad thing to do these days. And I'm more than sure his Public Defender told him to make that claim. So that if he's found guilty he'll be sentenced to a women's prison facility instead of a men's facility. Of course, that puts all the actual female inmates at whatever facility he's assigned to in jeopardy but that doesn't seem to be a concern for the woke California justice system. Disgusting. Simply disgusting.
Simply wouldn’t do it.
Easy answer. Just say you cannot be sentenced to a female prison with a dick. So you either admit you are a man and go to male prison or cut it off. That would put a stop to 99% of this nonsense.
You can’t be sentenced to any specific prison anyway. You are only sentenced to prison in general. The department decides where to send you, and California law specifically requires the department to house you in a place appropriate for the sex you claim to be, regardless of whether your claim is true. The judge has no control of that.
I wonder if this ruling could be and/or would be worth taking to a higher court to have overturned.
Personally, I would have the victims refer to him as “The Rapist” in their testimony until ordered not to, then have a list of other ways of referring to him. Call him anything but she/her.
Just call it by its last name
Period
Time California is made to come to its knees
They can’t make you participate in somebody else’s hallucination, has always been the trouble with the pronoun aggression.
Why is everybody waling on the judge? Are his hands not tied by this stupid state law?
As we are reminded, judges don’t make law, except when a specific case is about challenging the law itelf.
How about giving the legislators hell?
Save some for the voters who keep putting folks into office that pass these sorts of ideas into law.
What business is it of the government, in any context, what pronouns or names someone uses for someone else?
The first amendment, which is the Supreme Law, says that the government has NOTHING to say about my language in that respect.
Then, there are also the little things called “reality” and “sanity”.
The first amendment doesn’t apply when you’re in court, and especially when you’re on the stand. For instance when you’re on the stand you have no right to remain silent; you are required to answer all questions truthfully unless the answer would incriminate you.
Judges can also impose their own idea of appropriate language. You don’t have a right to use vulgarities on the stand, or indeed anywhere in the court room, if the judge objects.
So if the judge thinks referring to the defendant as “he” is offensive, he can order you not to.
Obviously, the judge can order anything he wants in the court. He is given full reign for the moment he is the judge, there. But his actions in this respect are criminal and he should, at the very least, be thrown off the bench and disbarred (if he’s a lawyer).
A judge can decide that “stupid” is verboten in his courtroom and start holding people in contempt for using it to describe stupid people and stupid actions (as they are legally required to do in telling “the truth, the whole truth”) but he would need to be held liable for his actions by the state and appropriately punished.
Obviously, California would never hold a deranged lunatic like this liable (since California is the home of deranged lunatics) but then the US attorney should look into it and California should be sanctioned by the feds until the judge is removed.
The judge can compel you to speak the truth but the judge cannot compel you to lie. Period. And men cannot be women. End of story.
The judge’s alleged order is not criminal. It violates no law, and certainly no federal law, so the US Attorney has no business poking his nose in.
A judge can ban the word “stupid” in his courtroom just as he can ban the word “fuck” or “kike”. You can find some other way to express your opinion of how smart a person or a thing isn’t.
But in this case we don’t actually know what the judge really ordered, because all we have to go on is third hand reports that don’t even name the judge.
Why is it that you always rush in to defend evil?
The sheer vileness of the notion that the supreme law of the land has no place in court is the utmost perversion of all that the United States is.
The idea that, when faced with the bare power of the government the citizen has no recourse to that which binds the government from tyranny is so openly wrong that it bears no brooking.
A judge has no rights whatsoever when working as a judge–because the state has no rights, only restrictions with regard to what it can and cannot do.
The leftist destruction of this fact is why we are where we are.
When you call me devil, leftist, you are speaking to the reflection I hold up to show the evil that burns in you.
I may be the blind, mad, idiot daemon-sultan who resides in chaos at the center of all things, but I am nothing compared to the despicable evil you so fervently serve.
I always and ever defend the truth. You only ever attack the truth. You are made of lies and love lies, and everything you say is a lie. Starting with your vile, vicious, and repeated slander of me.
The judge is not affected by this law at all.
The law requires prisoners to be housed according to their stated preference. That has nothing to do with the judge. Judges sentence people to prison; they don’t decide where that sentence is to be served.
The law also requires “Staff, contractors, and volunteers” of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Not judges and certainly not witnesses in a court. It’s entirely up to the judge what language he considers appropriate in his courtroom.
It identifies as a rapist.
On the contrary. If he’s pleading not guilty then he identifies as a non-rapist.
The reason Tremaine Carroll identifies as a woman is because he knows how to work the system.
Does this Leftist jurist even know what a woman is? Didn’t think so!
If I identify as a judge will I be caledl, “Your Honor”?
In California?
They had a guy who identified as an Emperor, and they called him Your Imperial Majesty.
So why not?
What methods are available to remove this judge from the bench?
I believe California has a judicial conduct board, which can recommend to the state supreme court to remove a judge.
But I have tried and failed to find any mention of the judge’s name, or a direct quote from this alleged order, let alone its original text. It’s alleged here that the order will apply to witnesses too, including the alleged victims, but we only have the DA’s word for that. Without the text we can’t know whether that’s true.
I noticed that as well. Every article about this case conveniently omits identifying the judge. And this judge really needs to be named and shamed.
Recall that California elects its judges, and I believe they are also subject to recall petitions.
That’s what happens when judges don’t know what a “woman” is.
This judge has the sort of sharp legal mind of someone Biden would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Seems like a clear case of “compelled speech”, which would be in violation of both the US and CA State Constitutions.
6th Circuit recently ruled on this.
Here in my State of VA the State Supreme Court recently ruled on it as well.
Anyone on the stand in court is already compelled to speak. The first amendment doesn’t apply when you’re on the stand. The judge makes the rules.
You are NOT “compelled to speak” in court. You are compelled to tell the truth. You CANNOT be compelled to lie.
As you just acknowledged, you are indeed compelled to speak. You may not remain silent, any more than you may lie. You must truthfully answer the questions asked, unless the answer would incriminate you. If the first amendment applied then you couldn’t be compelled to speak at all. Clearly it doesn’t apply.
The first amendment does not address “compelled speech”. It says that the government cannot prohibit your free speech. It does not say that the government cannot compel you to answer truthfully in certain contexts.
I would remind you (or maybe you never knew this) that a trial court does not exist outside of the US Constitution. Quite the opposite. Anyone who is of the belief that the Constitution is suspended inside a trial court has no inkling of the Constitution or of the American governmental architecture and character.
The first amendment doesn’t say Congress can’t “prohibit” speech. It says it can’t abridge the freedom of speech.
It is universally acknowledged that the freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak, and that compelling someone to speak abridges that freedom. There are literally dozens of court decisions affirming that.
However the freedom of speech does not and has never included a freedom not to testify truthfully in court, just as it does not and has never included a freedom to defame people, or to conspire with people to commit crimes, or to make true and credible threats against people, etc. Those aren’t part of the freedom, so a law prohibiting them doesn’t abridge it.
And just as the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t include such a right for people who, after due process of law, have been adjudged to be dangerous, so a law disarming such people doesn’t infringe the RKBA, and therefore doesn’t violate the second amendment.
The first amendment does not address “compelled speech”. It says that the government cannot prohibit your free speech. It does not say that the government cannot compel you to answer truthfully in certain contexts.
Yes, it does.
Because the freedom to speak includes the freedom to refrain from speech.
And ‘no law’ means ‘no law’. The government cannot compel.
The fact that it DOES indicates wrongness.
Just a thought… what if that man identified as a eight year old, and ended up serving in “juvie”? Ridiculous, absurd… not really. Age is a reality, why isn’t gender? I am figuring he still has the required genitalia for raping women.
My step son is a CO for Suffolk County, NY. He told me they just keep it simple, based on plumbing.
how about the generic term “defendant”?
Screw HIM.
How about treating the women prisoners with some dignity if that is the goal?
Insanity is not loss of reason: it’s loss of everything save reason.
Says it all about the manifest evil of the Dhimmi-crat cultists.
They have compassion aplenty on display, for genocidal Islamofascists/Muslim terrorists; practitioners of infanticide; sociopath criminals and illegal aliens; obnoxiously misogynistic, malignantly narcissistic and child/teen-abusing/manipulating/mutilating trannies and their enablers.
But, the vile and evil Dhimmi-crats have no compassion to share with Jews, unborn babies, victims of criminals of whatever stripe, and, girls and women who seek to preserve their sports and their private spaces.
Have the victims use the male pronouns and make the judge and lawyers correct them. I’m sure the jury will be even more sympathetic after that.
Getting threatened with contempt of court for saying, while sobbing, “he raped me” will go over real big with the jury. Can the court, by creating bias against the defendant with its ruling, lead to a motion for mistrial?
Ann article I just read was titled “The tyranny of the absurd is the natural progression of political correctness.” Case in point…
User ‘ThePrimordialOrderedPair’ suggested the judge needs to be this guy’s next cell mate. One thing I could not find in a quick re-read of this article was the name of that lunatic judge: Male or female? If the judge is indeed females she really should be locked up with HIM in the same cell. Perhaps that clarify HIS gender.
The Daily Mail claims that the name of the Madera County judge is: Katherine Rigby.
Thank you. I still find no link to her actual ruling, or a direct quote from it. So we don’t actually know what she ruled. But at least we now know who she is and exactly which court she serves on. That would be Madera County Superior Court (Main Courthouse 2nd Floor – Criminal), and she was elected in 2022, with the endorsement of “8 Madera County Superior Court Judges, the entire Madera County Board of Supervisors, Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno, Fresno County District Attorney Lisa Smittcamp, the Madera Police Officers’ Association, the Madera Deputy Sheriff’s Association, Madera Police Chief Dino Lawson, and Retired Sheriff Jay Varney.”
Looking up the rules for the Madera County Superior Court we see that:
So, in this court a “person” doesn’t even have to actually be a person. I wonder what the lunatic gender rules are, then, for addressing the corporations, associations, public entities, etc … I have a feeling that many of “them” are severely gender-fluid “persons” and need to have “their” full lists of pronouns provided before anyone in court can try to refer to “them” … which also brings up the issue of plural pronouns for groups of “persons” who are all of some particular, odd gender-type or types? “They/them” cannot be used, willy-nilly, with these sensitive cases since the group of these “persons” might collectively identify as some, as yet unknown, plural pronoun.
English is getting really difficult. At the current rate, I have a feeling that it will be bogged down to total uselessness within two years.
Can someone explain to me why not one single news story about this episode has actually named the Madera Country judge involved?