Put this in the “You can’t make this shit up“ file. It’s a story from Reason.com about a number of women who are claiming to have been raped by a trans-identifying inmate.

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.

A very Merry Christmas to you all. And a joyous time to those who celebrate other traditions. I am very grateful for your presence here.

Men are good!

Justifying Women's Violence "Kill all Men"

Apparently the recent Wisconsin female school shooter, Samantha Rupnow, was known to spew hatred towards men and to believe that all men needed to be killed in order for women to be free to create a new world. I don’t think she offered an explanation of where the sperm might come from in order continue propagating this paradise, but maybe she just didn’t think that far ahead? The media is staying fairly quiet about this. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if a male mass shooter openly stated that he wanted to kill all women. You would never hear the end of it.

Where did this young woman get this sort of stance? You need look no further than the radical feminists who have been encouraging this sort of thing for some time. Valerie Solanas and her Scum Manifesto are an extreme version of this but there are many others. The depersonalization of men has been one of the hallmarks of not just radical feminism but also mainstream feminism. One example is  the “I bathe in male tears“ mantra that is so prevalent and ubiquitous. People don’t think much of that phrase, but what would they think if someone said they bathe in Black tears, and wore t-shirts making that claim in public? What would the public think? They would quickly be labelled as dangerous racists. It’s easy to see the hatred when the group is almost anyone other than men. This sort of thing is diminishing the humanity of men. And there are many other ways that men’s humanity has been ignored or worse. The feminist refusal to allow men into treatment centers as victims of domestic violence is another example, or issues around reproductive rights or circumcision. Men are portrayed as not needing special care, of actually being less than human. This, along with men’s already existing disposability and gynocentric disadvantage, degrades men and prepares the ground for the more radical views of simply killing men. The explanation for this hatred is of course, that they deserve it.  The "Battered Woman Syndrome" is a tragic example of this. 

If you look around you can find evidence of even professionals who are moving towards a stance of allowing violence and possibly death towards men. The following is an abstract of an article written by a woman who is apparently a law professor who is claiming that women should be able to be violent towards men. Wikipedia calls her a legal scholar. Let’s take a quick look at the abstract and you be the judge.

 

She starts off by saying:

While both men and women can, and do, use violence against each other, men's violence against women is far more common, less justified, and more destructive than women's violence against men. One of the reasons for this asymmetry is that men do not fear retaliation for violence against women, whereas women do fear retaliation for their use of violence against men.

This assertion that men are unafraid of women’s violence ignores reality. Men attacked in their sleep, whether scalded with boiling oil, shot in the back, or run over by a car, never had the opportunity to fear—only to suffer. Would this scholar support the idea of men responding to women’s violence with reciprocal force? Almost certainly not.

Society would be better off as a whole if more women were willing to engage in justified violence against men, and fewer men were willing to engage in unjustified violence against women. To that end, women's justified violence against men should be encouraged, protected, and publicized.

Curious to understand what she defined as "justified violence," I read the article but found no clear criteria. The author repeatedly suggested that women should respond with violence to “unjustified violence,” but offered no specific markers for when violence might be deemed justified. She did, however, concede that women’s violent reactions could sometimes be overreactions, which she defended with the rationale that “the ends justify the means.”

The normalization of these dangerous ideas—in rhetoric, institutions, and academic discourse—is a troubling sign of society’s growing acceptance of misandry`. If such attitudes continue unchecked, they pave the way for further erosion of men’s humanity and dignity.

Men are good!

(The title is a link to the full paper)

Men, Women, and Optimal Violence

Authors

Mary Anne Franks, University of Miami School of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2016

Abstract

While both men and women can, and do, use violence against each other, men's violence against women is far more common, less justified, and more destructive than women's violence against men. One of the reasons for this asymmetry is that men do not fear retaliation for violence against women, whereas women do fear retaliation for their use of violence against men. The distribution of violence between the genders, then, is suboptimal. Society would be better off as a whole if more women were willing to engage in justified violence against men, and fewer men were willing to engage in unjustified violence against women. To that end, women's justified violence against men should be encouraged, protected, and publicized. This will require a reversal of the current trend in legal and social practices, which is to tolerate and encourage men's unjustified violence against women while discouraging and legally restricting women's violence against men. Even if encouraging an increase in women's justified violence against men may sometimes result in unjustified or disproportionate violence in individual situations, the overall effects of the redistribution of violence will be preferable to the current asymmetry.