I do agree that after SRS they should just be treated purely as their new sex and before that it is a bit tricky especially because of the criminal charges against women. In this case I think protective custody is needed in either prison also to be honest for everyone’s best interests.

I think I would say:
Pre “medical transition” if you will then birth sex prison
After hormones only then protective in the new sexes prison
Finally post “op” in the new sex’s prison like very other woman/man.

but thats a very blanket suggestion I think case by case is largely needed as there is A LOT of grey in the community
Thanks for the brilliant input though!

For example, someone who is ‘just starting out’ when incarcerated should probably be held as the individual in the article is – in semi-protective custody, but birth-assigned gender facilities.

Someone further along (e.g. living full time, has been on hormones for several years etc.) should be housed in their new gender – if they have not had GRS at that time, protective custody should apply – for their safety as well as the rest of the prison population’s.

Post surgery (assuming that the person is continuing to live full time in their chosen gender), there should be no question. They should be housed with others of the same gender.

There are some grey zones, though. Cross-sex hormone therapy does not immediately affect male sex organ function. The inability to sustain an erection comes later – often after several years, depending on dosages administered.

The individual in the article you cite is an interesting case – not because they are serving a life sentence, but because the charges mark them as a sexual predator, with a history of violence against women.

What we don’t know is the person’s current sexual orientation and identity. Do they identify as straight female, or are they attracted to women? (Fluidity of sexual orientation is fairly common among transsexuals during transition) In the latter case, moving them to a regular population female prison could present a serious problem without ongoing, active psychiatric oversight for both the individual and the people they are housed with.

Women’s shelters would never allow a man to stay there even if his wife/gf was on the front step wielding a gun. They’d send him to a man’s shelter. I understand it’s to make the women feel safe, so in that case it’s allowed and no one bitches (though they would if a man’s shelter denied a woman safety).

If this were the other way around and it was about it being an all woman’s club, this woman wouldn’t share the view she expressed. In fact, if a gay man walked into the all woman’s club, no doubt she’d be complaining that it’s only for women and that she didn’t go there to see men, she was there for the women. Men should be allowed the same thing. Gay men go to that bar to see men. Not women. The owners of the club should be allowed to discriminate based on the demands of their clientele.

PS : Je t’aime cherie!