DA Compelled to Call Alleged Male Rapist "She/Her"
California District Attorney Eric DuTemple might become the first criminal prosecutor to be forced to refer to a convicted male rapist as a woman, using opposite-sex pronouns in court. The motion may also force witnesses and victims of the man to refer to him as “she” and “her.” This dystopian, Orwellian horror show in the courtroom is an inevitable result of laws like California’s Senate Bill 132 (SB 132), the “Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act,” which prompted WoLF to sue the state in 2021.
WHO IS THE MALE CONVICT CLAIMING TO BE A WOMAN?
Tremaine Carroll, 51, a trans-identified male formerly incarcerated in a women’s prison, faces charges including two felony counts of forcible rape and one count of dissuading a witness - incidents that are alleged to have occurred in January 2024.
WoLF attended the People v. Tremaine Carroll preliminary hearing in Madera, California, in early July. The hearing determined there was enough evidence to proceed to trial. Our Executive Director Sharon Byrne and WoLF supporters protested the inhumane conditions that force women to be confined with men in prison cells, yards, and showers.
During the hearing, Mr. Carroll asked his attorney to require the prosecutor to refer to him by his "preferred pronouns" of she/her. DA DuTemple objected and was told he could file a brief, and the judge would consider his arguments in a later hearing.
Yesterday, the judge made a final decision: DuTemple has to refer to the alleged male rapist as a “she/her” during the trial.
Well-funded, influential transactivist organizations - including the Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Transgender Equality, National LGBT Bar Association, National Trans Bar Association, the ACLU, and Transgender Law Center - have been quite successful in imposing “gender-inclusive language” in courts across the nation. However, this appears to be a first for a criminal case.
Gender identity speech restrictions are quietly taking hold for public employees in many jurisdictions. New York State now requires its (publicly employed) correction officers to use “preferred pronouns.” New York City actually characterizes “misgendering” as sexual harassment reportable under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. This policy has the added effect of falsely increasing statistics on sexual victimization against people who identify as transgender while incarcerated (and even giving the appearance of an increase in victimization over time, as this is a newer policy and the old data would not reflect this convention). Activists then use this data to bolster their case for mixed-sex prisons. This is just one example in one state.
WoLF takes the rights of all litigants against compelled speech very seriously, which is why we filed an amicus brief in support of attorneys' free speech in October 2022. Facing similar problems as those facing the Madera County prosecutor, WoLF argued to the Third Circuit in Greenberg v. Lehocky that the proposed Model Rule 8.4(g) would violate lawyers’ right to free speech.
Why does this matter?
It’s one of the first rulings to compel a District Attorney to refer to a male standing trial for rape as a “she/her.”
WoLF’s mission is to restore, protect, and advance the rights of women and girls - largely through legal argument and policy advocacy. Critical to our advocacy, for litigation particularly, is our right to identify men as men through the use of accurate sex-based pronouns.
Read Barra Kerr’s Pronouns Are Rohypnol (2019)
For attorneys who wish to advocate for their clients zealously, rulings that compel pronoun use make their practice more difficult and perilous. For example, a Harvard law clinical professor said if WoLF’s legal counsel were licensed in New York, he would file a Rule 8.4 complaint against them for using a deceased trans-identified litigant’s former name by reference in an amicus brief for a case opposing child “gender affirmation” medicalization.
Related to Chandler v. Macomber, the ACLU has successfully persuaded judges to compel preferred pronoun usage in at least two other cases that relate to sex discrimination. Since they have been permitted to intervene, it is reasonable to believe that they will similarly seek to compel WoLF in this case if it proceeds. Our attorneys and the women we represent could be forced to refer to male inmates who transferred into the women’s prisons under SB132 as “she/her,” even when these men have assaulted them.
HOW DID WE GET HERE? SB 132 & OUR PRISON LITIGATION
In short, California passed SB 132 into law, which is perhaps the most heinous example of transactivist legislation that eviscerates the sex-based rights of women and girls. As early as 2019, lawmakers were warned by feminist activists, including WoLF, that male prisoners would exploit the law to victimize incarcerated women.
Tremaine Carroll’s criminal history begins in 1988, predating the law that he would eventually exploit to move into a women’s prison. Following a string of felonies, Carroll would be sentenced to 25 years to life under the state’s Three Strikes Law. While in prison, Carroll continued to accrue rule violations and filed numerous complaints and lawsuits against CDCR employees and the department. In these documents, Carroll referred to himself as a male, using “he” and “him.”
In 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 132 into law. Effective in January 2021, this legislation permits incarcerated men to be housed in women’s correctional facilities based on their self-declared gender identity. As a result, men who “self-identify” as women or non-binary could begin to be placed in women's facilities.
Before the passage of SB 132, Tremaine Carroll had not previously claimed a gender identity. Only months after SB 132 was implemented did Carroll begin to refer to himself as “she” and a “trans woman.” In August 2021, Carroll would be placed in the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF).
In November 2021, WoLF filed a lawsuit to challenge SB 132 on behalf of four incarcerated women: Janine Chandler, Kyrstal Gonzalez, Tomiekia Johnson, and Nadia Romero. We continue to seek to have the law overturned and declared unconstitutional. For more detailed information about Chandler v. Macomber (formerly Chandler v. CDCR) and our six current plaintiffs, click here.
1 in 3 Men Seeking Transfer to California Women’s Prisons Are Sex Offenders (Keep Prisons Single Sex USA)
After his transfer, Carroll began to publicize himself in op-eds as one of the first “transgender” inmates who moved to CCWF and a victim of CDCR employees’ discrimination, among other claims. In May 2022, the ACLU of Southern California represented Carroll as one of the four trans-identified male intervenors in Chandler v. CDCR; their motion to intervene was granted with restrictions in August 2023.
Between late 2023 and early 2024, evidence continued to build that policies like SB 132 were endangering women in the state’s custody, as well as state confirmation of pregnancies conceived in CCWF.
After a years-long delay, Chandler v. CDCR was dismissed on procedural grounds this past May without consideration for the constitutional arguments presented. The case dismissal came just days before prosecutors laid out evidence for Carroll’s crimes in CCWF.
On May 4th, donors of WoLF funded this billboard on California State Route 99 between Chowchilla and Madera.
Coincidentally, WoLF and Woman II Woman held a press conference at the Madera County Courthouse on May 17th during Carroll’s hearing. Carroll’s male pattern of violence and the dismissal of our case prove that the purported “gender identity” of violent male convicts like Carroll will continue to trample the fundamental human rights of incarcerated women until a legal victory is obtained.
This past July, WoLF filed an amended complaint in this critical lawsuit, now known as Chandler v. Macomber. The amended complaint includes two additional plaintiffs—Channel Johnson and Cathleen Quinn—and three more years of evidence of SB 132’s failure. In addition, two law firms joined WoLF’s groundbreaking case: Dhillon Law Group, led by Harmeet Dhillon, and Campbell Miller Payne (CMP).
In October, the ACLU and intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the case - a week after the state of California filed its motion to dismiss. In response, WoLF filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss, insisting that men are a unique threat to women in single-sex prison facilities. For a complete timeline of our California women’s prison lawsuit, click here.
WILL YOU BRING HOPE TO THESE WOMEN?
HELP WOLF FIGHT BACK!
For over a decade, WoLF has steadfastly challenged gender identity ideology and championed sex-based rights for women and girls. Our progress is a testament to our generous supporters!