When Transgender = Prostitution?

It is when you get into a car and it turns out to be an undercover police officer. In Arizona a trans-woman,

Phoenix transgender activist appeals prostitution-related conviction
By Megan Cassidy
Arizona Central
August 6, 2014

Monica Jones, a Phoenix transgender woman found guilty in April for manifesting prostitution, is challenging her conviction and the constitutionality of the ordinance that brought her to court.
[…]
Jones is an LGBT activist and full-time student at Arizona State University. She was arrested last year during a prostitution sting operation in Phoenix after she got into the car of an undercover officer.

To violate Phoenix's manifestation-of-prostitution ordinance, a person must have attempted to engage a passer-by in conversation or stop cars by waving at them, inquired whether someone is a police officer or requested that someone touch his or her genitals.

She got into the car because the undercover office offered to give her a ride to another bar. According to Courthouse News,

Monica Jones, a student at Arizona State University and an "internationally recognized advocate for the rights of transgendered people," was arrested in May 2013 after accepting a ride to a bar from an undercover Phoenix police officer.

Why did the officer single her out?

     During Jones' trial, the arresting officer testified that Jones' neighborhood was known for prostitution, and that she was wearing a "black, tight-fitting dress," which indicated to him that she was about to engage in prostitution.

      The officer repeatedly referred to Jones as a man.

So wearing a tight –fitting means you are a prostitute, that would make most women prostitutes since at one time or another a woman has worn a tight-fitting dress.

     Jones claims the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce evidence of her prior conviction for prostitution, and denied her a jury trial to which she was entitled.

     The state presented "no facts other than the bare fact of conviction and that the prior conviction 'related to an oral sex allegation.'" It also failed to explain how the prior conviction could be used to show any intent by Jones, according to the appeal.

Do you remember the trial of CeCe McDonald? Where the judge didn’t allow the defense to show that the man that she killed in self-defense had prior convictions for assault? Well it seems like judges only allow it when it helps the prosecutor.