Source: Women are Human
US — Shawano, Wisconsin. “It only serves to harm her psychologically by requiring her to continue to publicly identify by a male name,” attorney Cary Bloodworth said on behalf of her client, a convicted sex offender who is male and identifies as a woman.
“And to endanger her physically by increasing the risk that she will continue to be the victim of transphobic attacks by members of the public who are able to identify her as transgender by her legal male name.”
Ms Bloodworth’s client was 15-years-old, 6’5 and weighed 345 lbs in 2016 when he sat on and forcefully performed an oral sex act on a boy 10 months his junior who was 5’10, 110 lbs, blind in one eye and functioning at a six-grade level due to autism.
The larger boy, whose name is abbreviated to C.G. and is referred to by the pseudonym “Ella” in court documents, had frequently sexually solicited his smaller, vulnerable friend. The friend had repeatedly rejected C.G.’s advances, responding that he did not want that type of relationship with C.G. or to receive “head” from “a guy.”
Following the rape, the survivor was instructed not to tell anyone, but his mother learned what happened when she checked his phone and saw Facebook messages alluding to the incident.
C.G. pleaded no contest to a count of sexual assault of a child under sixteen years of age, as a party to a crime. Adjudicated delinquent by a court, the young predator was sentenced to six to ten months in Lincoln Hills Schools, a secure facility for juveniles, and ordered to sign the juvenile sex offender registry.
While in the facility, C.G. was bullied over his sexual orientation after writing letters in which he told other inmates they were “cute,” and made inappropriate references to teachers.
An inmate punched C.G. in the head. C.G. applied for a transfer, which was denied. C.G. was subjected to a second assault, which left him with a “significant” head wound requiring hospital treatment.
Due to the assaults and C.G.’s decision to begin ‘gender-affirming’ intervention, he was transferred to the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center.
Upon completion of treatment, C.G. filed a motion to stay the order to sign the juvenile sex offender registration.
Under Wisconsin’s law, the Department of Corrections (DOC) must maintain a sex offender’s registry that includes the offender’s name and any aliases used by the offender. The statute forbids the offender to “change his or her name” or “identify himself or herself by a name unless the name is one by which the person is identified with the” DOC.
The basis of the 19-year-old’s motion is that the Wisconsin’s statute is an unconstitutional violation of his rights. C.G. argued that self-expression outweighs any government interest in limiting his use of another legal name, and the statute violates his First Amendment rights by restricting his self-expression as female and preventing transgender individuals from communicating their preferred gender identity “while not doing the same for registrants who are cisgender.” He additionally claimed that the statute violates his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment by “outing” him as transgender.
The state of Wisconsin argued that C.G. is able to use any preferred name, as long as it is on the registry as a name or alias.
A circuit court denied C.G.’s motion, ruling in favor of the state.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals District III unanimously upheld the circuit court’s ruling, determining that the statute’s prohibition against name change is “content neutral,” furthering “an important government interest in an incidentally restrictive manner.” The court also determined that C.G. failed to provide evidence of any harm that has occurred “to date” as a result of the registration, concluding that any stigma experienced by C.G. “is undoubtedly experienced by anyone who has to register as a sex offender.”
C.G. “has the right to use whatever name she chooses, provided she includes it in the sex offender registry,” Judge Mark Seidl wrote in the majority opinion. Noting that the complainant was able to “express her gender identity without changing her legal name,” Judge Seidl concluded: “Her freedom of expression is therefore not implicated. Neither the fact that she may feel uncomfortable when having to use her legal name, nor that she feels ‘outed’ when she does use her legal name, renders the statute unconstitutional as applied to her.”
