New York’s Rikers Island has long had a separate unit for gay and transgender prisoners, intended to protect those prisoners from abuses from the rest of the prison population. According to The New York Times, the unit is now scheduled to be shut down. Instead, gay and transgender prisoners who feel endangered can apply to be put in solitary confinement 23 hours a day.
The elimination of special housing for gay and transgender inmates has outraged some critics, who say that Mr. Horn’s new policy essentially punishes pretrial detainees, who have not been convicted of any crime, for their sexual orientation. It also forces these inmates, their advocates say, to choose between the possibility of being abused in the general population or being locked up alone for 23 hours a day.
“This is not a change for the benefit of the prisoners, this is a change for the benefit of the administration,” said Carrie Davis, a social worker at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in New York, whose clients include former Rikers inmates. “What they’re saying is, people who by virtue of immutable physical characteristics are going to be put in 23-hour lockdown,” she added. “Does that sound fair?”
I have to admit, I’m suspicious of the claim that the only reason to eliminate the special unit is concern for the safety of gay and trans prisoners; it hardly seems likely that they’d be safer in the general population. Furthermore, since applying to live in the unit was voluntary, why were any trans or gay prisoners applying to live there if they would have been safer in the general population?
Pingback: Feministing
Pingback: feminist blogs
Eh. Prisoners suffer. This is regrettable, somewhat. (Fully, in a spiritual and compassionate sense; someone suffers, we all suffer. Another price paid for crime.)
The worst that will happen to those prisoners returned to the general population is the same worst that can happen to anyone in a prison: very bad things. Rape, death, etc.
So on an individual basis, everyone faces the same risks. Equity, if not Justice, is satisfied.
An objection comes, based on the probabilistic frequency of the very bad things. It seems very likely to me, on the basis of a first-approximation knowledge of human psychology (translation: not being dumb as a rock, that gay and transgender prisoners are going to be much more statistically likely to be abused.
So the question for Justice becomes: is a statistically greater chance of having a negative outcome sufficient justification for the privilege of a special holding unit? (Some might not view it as a privilege, of course.)
I would say no, regretfully. Lots of groups have varying outcomes, and it probably varies by prison, in ways difficult to measure or predict in anything like real-time. That makes equable enforcement of the law impossible; we simply end up shuffling unfairness around willy-nilly.
Others would say yes. I respect the validity of that position, even while disagreeing with it.
Not necessarily – the prisoners being moved to the general population face the same risks as everyone else, with the added threat of getting queer-bashed.
Also, aren’t there issues with which sex prison to put trans people in? I remember (and this is quite vague and purely anecdotal, but certainly happened) hearing about a trans woman who was suing the prison service in the UK over the abuse she suffered as a visibly female person who the authorities insisted on putting in a male prison.
I may be naïve, but it seems to me that the sentences to jailtime should mean jail time only, not “jail time plus beatings and rape”. To me, the question is not only “should we protect the gay/transgendered prisoners” but also “why aren’t the other prisoners protected”.
I don’t really see why there is such a problem segregating these inmates. Cell space is cell space. If they’re safer there, just do it. For God’s sake….they protect child molesters from the general population, why not gays, et. al.
This smells more political. Don’t want to be seen by the voters as being “soft on gays.”
This reminds me of the Supreme Court decision striking down the rule in California that new prisoners be racially segregated until they can determine who is likely to commit interracial violence (usually this takes about 60 days). This was because a lot of prison rape appears to be racially motivated, and because a lot of gang violence is interracial (e.g. black gangs going after Hispanics and vice versa). (Here is an article about it.
To be honest, a rule of thumb for me is that policy designed to foster “more equality” is usually stupid, because a lot of “discriminatory” practices are based on common sense (separating people who are more likely to get targeted by the general population – or alternately, who are more likely to target people – is a no-brainer, IMO).
Has anyone here seen the Law & Order: SVU episode “Fallacy,” [NOTE WELL: SPOILERS FOLLOW!] which involved a pre-op transgendered male (by which I mean, born male, the person lived as a woman – I am using the terms “male” and “female” to refer to the person’s biological sex) who had killed her boyfriend’s brother because he was going to reveal her secret to her boyfriend.
It dealt with the problem of what to do with transgendered prisoners (in the end, she was put in a male prison and was beaten and raped). It was an interesting epsiode; the only thing that irritated me was that early on when they tried to plead her out, no one discussed what kind of prison she would be sent to (she was genuinely surprised to find out that she would be going to a male prison; and the ADA obviously assumed that everyone knew that it would be a male prison); it seemed to me that this issue should have been one of the first things to be discussed. After she pled out, my first thought was, idiots! no one has thought to ask what type of prison she’ll go to, or to tell her. Sure enough, one scene later we find out that this is a problem.
To be honest, a rule of thumb for me is that policy designed to foster “more equality” is usually stupid, because a lot of “discriminatory” practices are based on common sense
That may have been a little harsh.
What I meant was, sometimes I think that there is an automatic assumption that any policy that does not comport with the idea that everyone is the same is automatically due to bigotry and bias. No one bothers to ask “why might this policy be necessary?” Generally when someone wants to end a policy because it “discriminates,” I tend to distrust them unless they actually can make a compelling argument as to why the old policy is bad other than the simple fact that it does not support “equality.” If they can see a reasonable motivation behind the polikcy and then argue as to why that motivation is wrong, that’s one thing. But if the idea is that “it’s not equal, end of discussion,” I tend to discount the argument.
In case any of this has been unclear, I am supporting Amp on this. I think that separating out those who fear that their sexual orientaton, gender dysphoria, etc. will lead to their being targeted is a good idea. Perhaps there should be better screening however, to make certain that people who want “to take advantage of a group they perceived as weak” do not qualify (I don’t care, on the other hand, if the system is “abused” by non-gay, non-trans prisoners who lie about their orientation in order to escape their enemies in the general populace, provided that the liars don’t use this as an oppotunity to prey on the gays and transes. My only concern is to prevent people from being victimized).
Robert, Rikers is a jail. Some folks have been convicted and sentenced to less than a year. Others are awaiting trial. Some of them did not do what they are accused of. If one were to presume that juries are always right, significant portions of those defendants who are tried by jury in Brooklyn and the Bronx cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of the charges against them. When one factors in the innocent defendant awaiting his or her opportunity to prove his or her innocence, the idea that we should shrug at their misfortunes in jail ought to be horrifying.
Glaivester wrote:
“What I meant was, sometimes I think that there is an automatic assumption that any policy that does not comport with the idea that everyone is the same is automatically due to bigotry and bias.”
For better or for worse, this is the position that the Supreme Court has taken as well, so the Court’s stance informs this kind of societal attitude. Hence the relatively extreme limits on affirmative action programs–policies meant to protect minorities have to reach the same standard as policies meant to hurt them in order not to be struck down as unconstitutional (though to be fair, policies meant to protect minorities are probably somewhat more likely to meet it). Of course, separation by sexual orientation would be treated differently than the racial segregation in prisons cases, because homosexuals have yet to be specifically treated as a suspect class by the Court. I think our Equal Protection jurisprudence has gone awry in a lot of ways, but certainly one is that it fails to protect a lot of groups that need protection and another is that it doesn’t sufficiently distinguish between policies based on the intent that underlies them.
Thomas, that’s all well and good, but the issue then becomes how life in jail is. Should gay or trans people be excused from the “normal” horrors of jail? I don’t think so. If the horrors are unacceptable, then fix the horrors. Don’t carve out special classes of folks who get special insulation from the horrors.
Yes, Robert, you are right. On the other hand, certain horrors may be directly related to what “class of folks” a person is in. In otehr words, everyone should be protected from prison rape and prison beatings, but if one way to reduce this is to segregate the people most likely to be victims from the people most likely to victimize, it is a good idea.
Should we consider it a “normal” horror of jail for a person to be singled out as “it,” as less than human? I’m thinking no.
That’s the situation for transpeople – it’s not an abstraction. The circumstance in question is created by conflict over in which population to house trans prisoners. By not housing transwomen in women’s populations (and I’m not saying this is a simple problem to solve), prison authorities are defining these prisoners as having no valid gender, and if you have no valid gender you are not human. Having created this circumstance, there is an obligation to provide some measure of safety to the people you have just rendered as “it.” You can’t just say oh well, not my problem, that’s a normal horror of prison. It’s not.
Eh. Prisoners suffer. This is regrettable, somewhat. (Fully, in a spiritual and compassionate sense; someone suffers, we all suffer. Another price paid for crime.)
Robert, perhaps you missed the part where pretrial detainees, who have not been convicted of any crime, are also housed at Rikers. Are you really saying that being a pretrial detainee is as good as a conviction?
Robert, (1) when one is targeted for violence for a specific reason, one is not exposed to the normal horrors of jail, but to exacerbated horrors. (2) The argument that we should simply keep all inmates safer is probably impractical (if it were doable, would we not have done it? If we could keep weapons out of jail, if only to keep corrections officers safe, would we not have done so?). (3) You seem to suggest that reducing violence between inmates is a very low priority. If that’s the case, then basically nothing will get done about it anytime soon, meaning that your solution to the particularized problem of gay and transgender inmates is, until such time as we get around to a global solution, screw ’em.
The argument that we should simply keep all inmates safer is probably impractical (if it were doable, would we not have done it? If we could keep weapons out of jail, if only to keep corrections officers safe, would we not have done so?).
It depends on what you mean by impractical. I suspect that a lot of people don’t care. A lot of people probably think that inmates getting raped is a good idea, it makes people not want to go to prison. As for pretrial detainees who have not been convicted – I doubt most people who don’t care about convicts getting raped are really unlikely to bother thinking enough to make the distinction.
By not housing transwomen in women’s populations (and I’m not saying this is a simple problem to solve), prison authorities are defining these prisoners as having no valid gender, and if you have no valid gender you are not human.
I don’t know if they are saying they have no valid gender. They are simply saying that they are segregating by physical sex, not by gender.
To argue that physical sex is not the same thing as psychological gender is not the same thing as saying that gender is always the more important attribute.
“Trans” isn’t that simplistic. My guess is that many people believe transsexuals are completely surgically constructed. The real “magic” in sex change isn’t surgical, it’s hormonal. Assigning someone based on genitals ignores the reality that genitals are virtual entities. A person who looks like a man is assumed to have a penis. A person who looks like a woman is assumed to have a vagina.
And making this simplistic a distinction says that someone who looks like a woman, but who has a penis, is going to be viewed the same by sexual predators as someone who looks like a man. I think we both know that isn’t the case.
Glaivester, I agree that many people don’t care. I meant to point out that, whatever the merits of the view that inter-inmate brutality is part of the sentence, this argument falls apart when one considers that the jail population includes people convicted of nothing, rendering assaults on these people punishment without conviction. Therefore, the “part of the sentence” argument is not an argument at all, but merely a prejudice.
As for pretrial detainees who have not been convicted – I doubt most people who don’t care about convicts getting raped are really unlikely to bother thinking enough to make the distinction.
Fortunately, the courts care. And the federal courts in NY come down fairly hard on the city for civil rights violations. Federal law makes a distinction between pre-conviction and post-conviction in terms of what kinds of conditions an inmate can be subject to. DOC until recently didn’t; they were, for example, strip-searching everyone who came through the door, regardless of whether they were convicts or had been remanded to custody because they couldn’t make bail.
Of course, it’s the attitude people have that people in jail deserve what they get that makes people reluctant to press for their rights, even when they were clearly violated. And I’m not talking about complaints about the toilet getting stopped up when 40 prisoners stuff their sandwiches into it, I’m talking about strip-searches and rats and extreme heat and cold.
One note of caution about this story, however: DOC has been undergoing a lot of reorganization, such as shutting down various facilities such as the Brooklyn House of Detention. If all the prisoners formerly in that facility and others now have to be housed at Rikers, there could be space issues they’re dealing with as well.
I guess my point was that I don’t think it is fair to “non-trans” women to house transwomen in their prisons (to be fair, David did say that this was a difficult problem to solve). Alternately, of course, housing transmen with “non-trans” women could also prove a difficulty.
In what ways would it be unfair? What sort of (most likely incorrect) ideas do you have in mind that make it unfair?
Rather than make an unsupported assertion that it would be “unfair”, I’d like to understand the ways that it would be “unfair” in your mind.
What if a woman is uncomfortable showering with someone who has a penis? Or with someone who considers themselves female, but still has a lot of masculine physical characteristics, either because she hasn’t completed the transformation yet or does not feel that it is necessary to make the full physical transformation in order to be a woman?
I have a feeling that a lot of woman might be disturbed at being housed or having to shower with someone whom they would still see as male.
This is unavoidable, unless you want all transsexuals segregated from the general population. Some people read us as men and women; there’s no predicting that, and no way to formulate policy so as to keep all people safe. Men might feel uncomfortable showering with someone they saw as female, or as gay, but that doesn’t mean their discomfort should compromise the safety of others.
And I don’t think this discomfort compares with the entirely justified fear of being raped, assaulted, and possibly murdered.
Should a pre-op transman–or, heck, a transgender-identified butch, if we’re arguing from “discomfort”–be housed with men against his or hir will?
Excuse me, “Some people read us as men or as women; there’s no way to predict that, and no way to formulate policy to make everyone satisfied.”
Men might feel uncomfortable showering with someone they saw as female, or as gay, but that doesn’t mean their discomfort should compromise the safety of others.
I am less worried about a male feeling threatened by a woman in his shower than by a woman feeling threatened by a man her in shower.
Should a pre-op transman”“or, heck, a transgender-identified butch, if we’re arguing from “discomfort””“be housed with men against his or hir will?
I think that it would be better to have a separate jail and a separate prison for transgenders who do not wish to be housed with those of their anatomical sex.
And I don’t think this discomfort compares with the entirely justified fear of being raped, assaulted, and possibly murdered.
Segregation would do a lot to reduce this possibility.
This is unavoidable, unless you want all transsexuals segregated from the general population.
Well, then so be it. I don’t see why women should be forced to shower with someone with a penis. I am not unsympathetic to transgendered persons, but I think that the rights of the majority of people who are not transgendered ought to be considered as well.
So you don’t actually have a problem with a transman living and showering with women?
That’s what I have a problem with. You’re saying that the right of other people not to have to deal with us is equivalent–in fact, more important–than our right not to be injured or killed.
Is that a purely emotional response, or do you have a rational reason for discriminating?
Also, just because it always bears repeating: Transmen are not women. Transwomen are not men.
So you don’t actually have a problem with a transman living and showering with women?
I’m not certain. It would likely depend on how “male” he seemed to the women he lived with. As I said before, in terms of the impact on the non-trans people, I am more worried about women being forced to shower with people they see as men than vice versa, because men are more likely to be a threat to women than vice versa.
That’s what I have a problem with. You’re saying that the right of other people not to have to deal with us is equivalent”“in fact, more important”“than our right not to be injured or killed.
I think that both rights can be protected, but it does require the segregation of transgendered individuals in situations where there is sex segregation.
I think that in the particular case of people living together involuntarily, such as a prison or jail situation, the right of people (or more to the point, of women) not to have to live with people of the opposite sex outweighs the right of transgendered individuals not to be segregated from the general population.
In any case, though, I am against shutting down the gay/transgender jail, and would be perfectly okay with making a special prison or section of a prison to deal with convicts whose gender identity or sexual orientation would make them more of a target.
Piny:
I don’t see anything in Glaivester’s words to support that interpretation. Saying that something “should be considered as well” is not the same as “is equivalent”, still less “more important”. Since he is in favour of separate housing for the transgendered, it would appear that he has given due regard to the safety of transgendered prisoners.
Then you support segregation, period, since it’s not possible to predict the extent to which any given transman will seem masculine to any given woman. And you support segregation of anyone whose gender presentation is masculine or androgynous, since those people also frequently seem threatning to other women.
Also, just because it always bears repeating: Transmen are not women. Transwomen are not men/
Okay, let me be more clear. When it comes to housing a transwoman with “non-trans” women, there is a question of how to look at it. The “best-case perspective,” so to speak, is that the transwoman is just a woman, so there is no problem. The “worst-case perspective” is that the transwoman is a man, and thus the woman are being orced to be housed with a man.
My point was that in the worst-case perspective, I do not see housing the transsexual with men as being particularly threatening to the men, so in terms of the rights of the non-transsexuals, I am less concerned with men being forced to live and shower with transsexuals than with women being forced to live and shower with transsexuals.(1) On the other hand, the worst-case perspective for the women could be very threatening to them indeed, so I am very concerned with their rights in this case.
(1) Obviously, in terms of the rights of the transsexuals, forcing them to live with and shower with “non-trans” men is a big deal.
I don’t know if I buy this. I understand that women can feel threatened by transsexuals, but I don’t think it makes sense to say that transsexuals (of either assigned sex) pose the same threat as men. We _know_ that transsexuals housed with men will be in extreme danger. There’s not much evidence that transwomen pose a threat to other women, or that transmen would pose any threat to women.
You’re right. I misunderstood what Glaivester was saying wrt segregation.
I understand that women can feel threatened by transsexuals
I don’t think they’re threatened by the transsexuality, per se. I think they’re threatened by having a person who is 30% bigger than them and who owns a working penis, showering and residing with them.
I wonder what they do with intersexed prisoners?
Exactly my concern, Robert.
If it were your concern, you wouldn’t have a problem with transmen showering with women.
Well, it is my concern with transwomen showering with non-trans women.
As for transmen, well to be honest I have somewhat less of a problem with transmen showering with non-trans women than with transwomen showering with them, but in that case there is the concern that someone who identifies with males may behave more masculine toward the women.
Put another way, both transwomen and transmen have some male characteristics that might intimidate non-trans women. In one case, it would be physical resemblance to a non-trans man, and in the other, psychological resemblance to one.
So … do women-born women also get put into special facilities if they are a bit too, yanno, ugly? Because I don’t see any way to interpret what you wrote, unless transsexual men and women are somehow uniquely freaky-weird.
So … do women-born women also get put into special facilities if they are a bit too, yanno, ugly? Because I don’t see any way to interpret what you wrote, unless transsexual men and women are somehow uniquely freaky-weird.
It has nothing to do with being “uniquely freaky-weird.” It has to do with the fact that we segregate prisoners based on sex and gender, but not based on attractiveness. In other words, trans people’s “difference” (specifically, that their gender does not match their anatomical sex) crosses a boundary by which we segregate prisoners. In a situation where women and men are together, there would be little problem with allowing transgenders to be considered whatever gender they please.
To give a better analogy than “ugly women,” let’s consider people whose physical and mental ages do not match. A 25-year-old murderer with a mental age of six may not be able to survive in a prison atmosphere, but due to the fact that his physical body is 25, it would not be right to put him in a juvenile facility. So he may need a third option. Likewise, if we had a murderer whose body never developed properly and who still resembles a child [something along the lines of Emmanuel Lewis] is in the opposite situation; his mental age is that of an adult, but his physical body more like that of a child. And yet, he does not belong in the juvenile facility either; even though in his case it is his mind and not his body that would be different than those of the juveniles. Likewise, he would not necessarily do well in a normal prison because he would be weak and easy to hurt.
In both cases, it would not be fair to the children to put the convict in with them, because they are vulnerable. It would not be fair to the convict to put him in prison with the other inmates, because he would be vulnerable.
I think transsexcuals give a similar situation because women are generally vulnerable than men in a way that men are not to women. And like it or not, both transmen and transwomen are in some respects both male and female, just as the two people in my hypothetical example above are in some respects both children and adults.
As I said before, I am not as concerned about whether putting a transman or transwoman in a male prison would make the male inmates feel threatened as I am that doing so in a female prison would make the female inmates feel threatened. (Which is not to say that I am not concerned about putting a transman or transwoman in a male prison, just that my concern in such a case would be about the threat to the transperson and not to the general population).
Yes, but this “difference” is nowhere near that simple, particularly if you understand that a transsexual may not actually differ.
Most of the time, when people say “anatomical sex,” they’re referring to what’s between my legs. You, on the other hand, are referring to that _and_ a collection of secondary sexual characteristics which any given transsexual may not have in the first place, which may or may not be modified by the hormones that a transsexual may or may not be on. You’ve also referred, variably, to identifying as male, being treated as male, being read as male or masculine, and being socialized as male, all of which circumstances are true of some but not all transsexuals to varying degrees, and all of which may function quite differently in transsexuals than in cisgendered people in terms of predisposition towards rape. Additionally, fear of rape by men is not limited to transsexuals; nor are transsexuals the only people besides non-trans men who are perceived by women as threats.
Your solution to this clusterfuck of identity and perceived status, by your own logic, is to take a bunch of people who have good reason to fear rape and house them with a bunch of people who must be expected to rape.
The analogy wouldn’t be segregating your developmentally disabled prisoner. It would be to put all prisoners with disparate mental and physical ages in the same place, no matter what their disposition and circumstances.
I think the belief that transsexuals are somehow unique in this regard is more one of ignorance than reality. Feelings of entitlement, willingness to be violent, willingness to be sexually violent, aren’t uniquely male. They are significantly more common to males, but not unique.
When we start talking about prisons we begin talking about people who aren’t like Dick and Jane. Dick and Jane aren’t in prison for committing a violent crime. Tom and Mary are, and if Tom and Mary are violent criminals, it doesn’t matter if a transman or transwoman is in prison with them and might be violent, Tom and Mary are already violent criminals.
I don’t think Glaivester was saying that at all. Seems like he/she was just saying that where to house a transperson is not as simple as where they’d like to be housed, and maybe the best solution is to come up with a third housing situation like the one that’s closing at Rikers, since transpeople don’t fit neatly into one gender or the other for the purposes of housing, and if that’s not feasible to at least consider all the myriad things that effect the decision of where to place a transperson in gender-binary housing. The situation is more complicated than simply putting transpeople where they want to go, even beyond the issue of people being unreasonably fearful or bothered by their existence there is still the very real issue of transwomen or transmen being harrassed or abused or worse in a male prison and biological women having a variety of valid and maybe not so valid reason for there not being a penis in their shower, regardless of which psychological gender controls said penis. Our society is organized around binary genders at this point, and blurring those lines is still not the norm, and so how to make the traditional structures for segregating gender work for those with not-so-traditional genders is complicated and not at all a simple matter. It requires a lot of thought and discussion…simply saying anyone who doesn’t abide by your conception that genitals don’t matter is bigoted is not particularly helpful to the conversation because, well…to most people they matter. And this complicates the situation whether or not it should in an ideal world, so its not really fair to try to ignore it by saying that its all just discomfort with transpeople.
The first part is exactly my point . Glaivester seems to have been considering these things, but not in a way that has much to do with transpeople themselves–arguing simplistic dichotomies like, for example, transwomen are physically male whereas transmen are psychologically male. The second part is something I’ve never said or implied. Of course genitalia matter–they matter, for example, to a transguy who might not feel comfortable being housed with a gay man, or to a transwoman who might not feel safe being housed with women.
Furthermore, the problems I was talking about are problems with a third housing situation: Glaivester is housing a bunch of people together, even though his own categories say that some have good reason to fear rape and some must be expected to rape. Transpeople can’t be generalized that way, and “men, women, and other” isn’t a viable solution to the problem.
Furthermore, since applying to live in the unit was voluntary, why were any trans or gay prisoners applying to live there if they would have been safer in the general population?
If the special housing is less safe than the general housing, they may not know about it, and apply to live there on the assumption that it does in fact fulfill its stated purpose.
(Note: This isn’t a comment on whether the decision really is a wise one; I don’t know enough to say.)
Well, piny, you have a point. It probably is not a good idea to house transmen and transwomen together. You would run the risk of getting the same problems that you would get if you house non-transsexual men and women together. That still doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to house transmen and “non-trans” men together or women and “non-trans” women, and in fact, the examples you gave:
Of course genitalia matter”“they matter, for example, to a transguy who might not feel comfortable being housed with a gay man, or to a transwoman who might not feel safe being housed with women.
seem to support that argument. My initial point was that I think that segregating the trasngendered population from the non-transgendered population may be necessary in a prison or jail situation.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that subsets of transgendered people should not also be segregated by gender; I can see where transmen might be uncomfortable being housed with transwomen and vice versa. For that matter, there could also be concerns about lumping homosexuality and transgenderism together and housing non-transgendered homosexuals with transgendered people.
In short, my arguments were about why it is impractical to house transgendered people with non-=transgendered people in a jail or prison setting, so my main concern was problems occurring between transpeople and non-transpeople. But you are absolutely right that in determining how to house transsexual inmates, we also have to consider the possibility of “intra-transsexual violence.” Definitely we ought to be concerned about preventing victimization within transgendered prisons; we shouldn’t just close the doors and assume that as long as the transgendered and the non-transgendered are separate that no violence will happen, or worse, assume that it will but decide that it’s not our problem.
It’s not really that much easier to make distinctions within transsexual genders than between transpeople and non-transpeople, but it’s definitely a start. The problem is that segregation by assumed gender, or assigned gender, or perceived gender, or genitalia all fall short, because you’re talking about a population that really–and I can’t emphasize this enough–doesn’t fit broad-stroke categories around all of those things, particularly if you have (and, in general, I do) a gendered understanding of sexual violence.
In a gender-segregated environment, created in part because of a gender-segregated society, I’m also at a loss as to how best to serve transpeople. It’s like the logic problem about the fox, the grain, the goose, and the farmer with the tiny boat.
I know this is long dead, but no one seems to have mentionded that statistically, transwomen are the most likely group to be in prison. Yes, MUCH more than young, black men.
Huh?
More prisoners are transwomen than black men?
That doesn’t parse.
I assume you mean that the PROPORTION of transwomen in prison as a percentage of all transwomen, not as a percentage of all prisoners is higher than the equivalent percentage for young black men…?
That could be true–I have no idea–but absent the actual numbers who ARE in prison, the proportion is not really germane. Even if 95% of all transwomen in the country were in prison, if there were only 2 per Rikers-sized prison we would not build a separate wing for them.