I pose this question also to the sexually confused, self proclaimed constitutional scholar, Rowdee.
As I recall, the other article, posted yesterday, indicated the Judge in this case looked to the legislative intent when Congress made this law; as I recall, it said the law was narrowly written and defined; and the Judge said that it was not intended that people be held for grand jury purposes or whatever the devil her exact words were.
Sorry, if that doesn't comport to your idea of justice.....
Further, she also wrote up or said something about there being four (4) friskings of this person.......seeing as how your masculinie traits appear to be called into question, at least in your own mind, you'd probably consider the four friskings as 'pleasant or stimulating' rather than 'intimidating'.