You are not likely to be convicted of a crime if you lacked intent. Your argument is largely a strawman.
Nope, that's just total bull->-bleeped-<-. As your law GED must have covered, "intent follows the bullet"*. It does not matter if you 'intended' to do it, all that matters is that you put a chain of events into motion that end up in illegal activities. About the only time 'intent' matters in a US court is not in innocence, but rather in terms of enhanced penalties for things like 'hate crimes' which do take intent into account, or in the distinction between murder one, and lesser killings. But you may not have 'intended' or had a guilty mind when you made a math error in your favor on your tax returns, try getting the IRS to care or understand. You can be charged (and many are) with being an 'accessory' after, before or during the crime even if you did not know a crime was being committed, or even if the criminal lied to you about what was going on and why.
But here is the funny part:
The fact of the matter is law-abiding persons, trans or not, have nothing to worry about.
yet, prior to that you noted that though the person was in fact, innocent, that matter - the innocence - was just a minor twist in the story - so which is it? Do innocent people have nothing to fear, or is 'innocence' as a matter of law now a secondary consideration? Which is exactly what it seems to have become. You can't have it both ways.
In fact, this is one more ruling that moves the goalposts further away from 'innocent until proven guilty' to LA standard of "we'll arrest them now, and find out what they are guilty of later." It is a very radical revision of the most basic foundations of US law.
If, as the Court found, that: "people detained for minor offenses** can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals" (directly citing both Tim McVeigh and Mohammed Atta) then you can expect a growing trend of treating even the most minor offences like you just blew up the World Trade Center or the OK City Federal Building - or at the very least, you would like to blow them up. And that's no joke at all. (also that's an idiot's argument, as neither McVeigh or Atta was guilty of doing something - like shooting a prison guard - that strip searching them would have prevented in the first place.)
Not to see how such a ruling has deeply chilling ramifications for everyone lack a certain critical thinking component.
* - If person A goes to kill person B, but misses and instead kills person C who is some random by-stander, because the intent was murder one, the crime is murder one - even if you didn't put a cap into the right homeslice.
** - and this was very minor, the person was not the driver who committed some minor traffic infraction (so the long held 'you have no civil rights as a driver because driving is a privilege not a right' didn't even apply), they were only a passenger in the car. So that even being in the car now also means you are exercising 'privilege' not 'rights' and are subject to whatever the police can come up with.
