The case of Tremaine “Tremayne” Deon Carroll, a 52-year-old California inmate, has ignited controversy and raised serious questions about the implementation and potential consequences of California’s SB 132, the Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act. Carroll, a biological male who identifies as a woman, is accused of raping two fellow inmates at the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) after being transferred there under the provisions of SB 132. The law mandates housing transgender inmates in facilities aligning with their gender identity, rather than their biological sex. The case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate surrounding transgender rights, prison safety, and the potential for legal loopholes to be exploited.
Carroll’s transfer to CCWF was based solely on self-identification, without any requirement for psychological evaluation, hormone therapy, or surgical transition. Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno argues that this lenient interpretation of the law has allowed a dangerous predator to be housed with vulnerable women, leading to the alleged assaults. She emphasizes that Carroll is “not a woman in any sense of the word” and that SB 132’s lack of objective criteria for gender identity creates a significant safety risk for female inmates. Moreno’s concerns are echoed by victim advocates and former inmates, who warn that the law is being misused by predatory individuals seeking access to vulnerable populations.
Adding another layer of complexity to the case, a Madera County Court judge has ruled that Carroll must be referred to using she/her pronouns in court. This order has sparked outrage from the prosecution, who argue that it not only confuses the jury but also forces the alleged victims to participate in a charade that further traumatizes them. Supervising Deputy District Attorney Eric Dutemple finds it “absolutely insane” that victims must police their language while recounting such a traumatic experience. The forced pronoun usage, they argue, complicates the legal proceedings, potentially impacting the victims’ ability to testify clearly and hindering the pursuit of justice.
Carroll’s extensive criminal history adds further weight to the controversy. His record includes charges of grand theft, possession of a firearm by a minor, kidnapping for ransom, robbery, and “oral copulation in concert by force.” He has also accumulated numerous prison violations for fighting, disobeying orders, drug possession, and filing false reports against peace officers. Critics of SB 132 argue that Carroll’s past behavior should have disqualified him from being housed in a women’s prison, regardless of his self-proclaimed gender identity. They point to his history of manipulation and frivolous lawsuits as evidence of a pattern of exploiting the system.
Amie Ichikawa, founder of Women II Women and a former inmate, has closely followed Carroll’s case and asserts that he had no history of identifying as LGBTQ+ prior to the passage of SB 132. She believes Carroll is exploiting the law to gain access to a more vulnerable population. Ichikawa criticizes the law’s inability to consider an inmate’s criminal history, physical attributes, or sexual orientation when making housing decisions, deeming such considerations “discriminatory.” This, she argues, creates a dangerous loophole that puts women at risk.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has stated that they cannot comment on pending litigation. They maintain that all transfer requests under SB 132 are reviewed to assess potential safety and management concerns and that all allegations of sexual abuse are thoroughly investigated. However, critics argue that the CDCR’s current policies are inadequate to protect female inmates from predatory individuals exploiting the law. The case highlights the ongoing tension between protecting the rights of transgender individuals and ensuring the safety and well-being of all inmates.
