Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Transgender prisoner in US wants sex-change operation to prevent rape

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/435879.php (http://www.dailyindia.com/show/435879.php)
4/21/11

Los Angeles, Apr 21: A transgender prisoner has made a legal appeal for a sex-change operation, saying that she is harassed and sexually assaulted by male prisoners.


Lyralisa Stevens, 42, who was born male but lives as a female, is serving 50 years to life in a California prison for killing a San Bernardino County woman with a shotgun in a dispute over clothes.

Stevens is one of more than 300 inmates in the state prison system diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, a psychiatric condition addressed in free society with hormone replacement therapy and, in some cases, sex reassignment surgery.

Quoteargues in her court case that the cocktail of estrogen and testosterone-blockers the state has provided since her incarceration in 2003 are no longer adequate to combat her emotional distress.

Very sad, but this scum bag murdered someone.

What a stupid crime to commit, especially over something so petty. Now she claims she is being mistreated, them's the breaks, prison is supposed to be unpleasant.

Sarah7 has nailed it but I think the biggest issue here is worrying about Darklady finding this article...

A psychiatric condition, huh? Nice article.

The way I figure it, either SRS is medically necessary for trans people, or it isn't. If this gal is trans and needs the surgery, then the surgery is medically necessary and she should have it, even if the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. So for those of you who consider SRS necessary for yourselves or other non-prisoners, well, I think it's a bit inconsistent to say that a prisoner shouldn't have it.

Yes, it is unfair that a prisoner should get such treatment on the taxpayers' dime when a lot of us have to pay for our surgeries out of our own pockets. But it is also unfair that prisoners get some level of medical care (even if it's not that great) when lots of poor people in this country can't afford any medical care at all. Or exercise equipment, or TV, or enough to eat (even if it isn't gourmet), or clothes or shelter. The system needs to be fixed, obviously, but we already know that.

If she is trans, she doesn't belong in a male prison.

I'm with Arch, put her in a female prison, because they won't rape her, they'll just kill her.

Quote from: tekla on April 21, 2011, 10:42:54 PM
I'm with Arch, put her in a female prison, because they won't rape her, they'll just kill her.

Indeed! The men would keep her alive just so they can have some decent sex while the women have every reason to take revenge as she murdered a woman.  I say we should throw her to the lion(ess)! Grant her wish and put her in with the female general population.
The economics of the situation:
Plan A, no SRS
50 years in jail: $25.000 per yer for a total state cost of $1,250,000

Plan B, with SRS
Surgery: $50,000
1 year in jail before death by female inmate: $25,000
Total cost: $75,000

Potential savings if we grant a muderers wish: $1,1750,000
!!!

Rough justice is still some justice.

I also understand your point Arch. If she can provide the necessary costs, as almost every other American has to do, then she should be allowed to get the surgery.

But this woman is a criminal. She has committed and terrible crime and is paying for it. That will limit her ability to earn a decent living so being able to save up. Equaly, it seems unlikely that the family of the person sh murdered will be ready to help.

Prisoners lose quite a lot from being in prison. The solution is not to go there.

I'm very sorry for her suffering as a result of not having access to surgery. I and others here, who have never broken the law, (or who have but subsequently paid their debt), will, I'm sure, sympathise. It is humiliating, frustrating and depressing.

What is prison time for?

Where have we gone in society to deal with crime and punishment?

Several of the comments here, and some from close friends (sorry) are rabid dog comments. You killed, you were found guilty, you are now sentenced to 50 years of rape and torture. Is this in the USA penal code? So I suppose if you are sentenced to five  years you only have to have five years of rape an torture.

And no I'm not being miss prissy pants. WE, humans, have tried to install social structure and framework to allow people to live. We have laws and if you break them there is punishment. Often for periods of incarceration, particularly if you are poor and disadvantaged, a fine if you are wealthy and connected. Nothing if you hold power. 

There seems to be either a belief that prisons cannot stop this abuse, or the penal code condones it. Both are wrong. The law is the law. If rape is a crime then raping a prisoner is a crime. If murder is a crime then prison murder is a crime. Saying that you don't care and that they deserve 'it' means what? 

Answers none, but I really don't like the hypocrisy of a tooth for a tooth an eye for an eye. I could rant but I will restrain,


Cindy

Why is she in a male prison?

I can almost ask why does it matter

I'm sorry I'm going to respond to my own comment.

Why does it matter?

It doesn't matter why the system is so screwed up, or even why, what matters is how do you/we deal with the problem. I'm not black, I wasn't born into poverty,  I'm highly educated, I have a above good job. So why the hell should I care? It is doubtful that I will meet any one who is in prison, although I will qualify that by saying that I have probably met more than many of you, since I'm involved in a STD clinic and a separate lymphoma clinic. I have seen the broken young men, who, presumably since they didn't have AIDS before hand and now do, must have acquired it through food poisoning. Their broken eyes and spirit confirm it.

The five year punishment; is now death.

Yes; lets have capital punishment instead. I do not know the stats, I'm sure Tekla can supply some, but as far as I know it does nothing to reduce crime, and is inhumane. Sadly the two countries that have the highest capital punishment rate are China and the USA. Both claim that each other abuse human rites. I don't think either country knows what they are talking about.

I may come over as being angry, I'm not, I'm disappointed.

Cindy

Even people in jail have some sort of moral code.  Even the worst members of society have some bottom line beneath which they are not going to go.  So, don't be a child molester and go to jail male jail, it's going to be a hard road.  Likewise, if to take a shotgun to a woman, and then demand to be transfered to a women's prison, it's not going to work out to be a better solution.  California's female prisons are not full of women who made a single bad choice in life and got caught, they have a lot of very, extremely violent offenders.  Biker gang girls, black, Latina and white gang-bangers, and the like.  And, being guilty of an extremely violent crime, that's exactly the population that she gets housed with.  And even they have some code.

So, I only see one way to keep her safe in prison.  24 hour solitary confinement.  Of course the downside of that is that it tends to make people insane in short order.

added: Most of the women in prison also have a background of abuse, molestation and violence at the hands of men.  And that's exactly what they are going to see this person as, A male who did great violence to a women.

I fully appreciate the disgraceful conditions that detained people are subjected. They are unacceptable.

My own experience was in long stay psychiatric hospitals. Many things happening there were entirely unacceptable.

These occur because of lack of funding, lack of supervision, incompetance and corruption. These things shouldn't happen. Prisoners shouldn't be raped, brutalised, terrorised or treated with anything other than respect. As should all those necessarily detained.

But with respect Cindy, that is a different issue.

That this woman is being refused funding for her surgery, by the tax payer, is no diffrent from any other (US) citizen.

That she is being denied admission to a woman's prison is because of her physical biology. It is an established component of almost every prison system, that people are separated accoding to their physical sex.

If this woman can find the resources herself, to pay for her surgery, then I would think the humane thing to do would be to move her to a woman's facility, after the surgery.

But allowing prisoners to simply opt for the facility of their choice is preposterus.

Adds to my essay Tekla,

I know that these people are wrong in what they do. But how do we deal with them, or we cannot and say that society is doomed to failure. I think that is the choice. I have not lowered myself, but it was by restraint.

I'm either human or I am not.

Was every Nazi Death Camp Guard a moral human who was broken by taking authoritarian advice, or a coward who gave its life before others.

Sorry I'll  stop, I have a problem in that I can think an idea far ahead and do not always lay down my thoughts in detail for the between bits, it works for me but not always with everyone :embarrassed:

Cindy

Quote from: Imadique on April 21, 2011, 10:18:07 PM
Sarah7 has nailed it but I think the biggest issue here is worrying about Darklady finding this article...

I was thinking the exact same thing, though the entertainment value is almost too good to pass up.

What was her email address again?

*sorry*

As far as the subject goes, I'm with Kat.  Put her in with the girls.  Problem solved.

-Sandy

I am now revolted,


Sorry
Cindy

Quote from: CindyJames on April 22, 2011, 08:02:18 AM
I am now revolted,
Sorry
Cindy

Cindy, I apologize for my flippant response.  It was not meant to upset.  I can have a dark humour at times.

Western society, and specifically US criminal treatment is, to my mind, some of the most humane.  We do not practice mob justice or Sharia law.  However, overcrowding and lack of funding is a major concern.  We have over 2 million people incarcerated!  That is the population of a major urban center.  We do not address this issue at the level it should be.

Simple incarceration for temporary offenders should not be the point of imprisonment.  There are guidelines to retrain and return, but it cannot be effective if it is not given adequate attention.

Repeat offenders and lifetime incarceration is a separate issue which I am incapable of having an adequate opinion on because in these cases the offence(s) can be horrific and my personal opinion for their punishment would go way beyond what society would allow.

I am ambivalent on the issue of the death penalty.  Again my personal opinion on the subject would vary by the case involved.  It can be proven that it is NOT a deterrent to crime so in that case it is ineffective.

-Sandy   

Quote from: CindyJames on April 22, 2011, 04:12:38 AM

Answers none, but I really don't like the hypocrisy of a tooth for a tooth an eye for an eye.


Cindy

what is petty about her having her clothes taken from her? To her the clothes are a symble of her life just as it is to all of us. To her everyone was taking her life from her just as we feel it was being taken from us. not knowing what drove her to this point is needed to fully understad why she did it. the hypocrisy of tooth for tooth for an eye for an eye caused everyone to jugde on a serfice level. Just as you jugded her serfice she was doing the same as you. the woman was taking her life so she took hers. where did this thinking come from?  We all have been tought to distroy each other with our mouths. I hope you understand what I said.

I guess she should have considered the ramifications before pulling the trigger.  Personally I think we should save the tax payers the incarceration costs and just shoot her.  The shot gun shell is under $2 for a magnum round.

Well go over to the McDonalds threads and see what kind of girls she will be in prison with, except those girls are only going to get assault 2 and assault 3 charges, not enough to put them in prison - so the girls in prison are much, much, much, more brutal.

Quote from: tekla on April 23, 2011, 12:44:45 AM
Well go over to the McDonalds threads and see what kind of girls she will be in prison with, except those girls are only going to get assault 2 and assault 3 charges, not enough to put them in prison - so the girls in prison are much, much, much, more brutal.

Good point.  The prison girls will probably be a lot more creative with what they rape her with. 

They do have mops and other implements in women's prisons.

I don't feel that the GRS will prevent rape unless this prisoner is in isolation, but I believe that she should have it--and be in a women's prison.

If she needed a heart transplant they would not provide that, why GRS?

Quote from: tekla on April 23, 2011, 11:49:45 AM
If she needed a heart transplant they would not provide that, why GRS?

Good question. I remember reading something about heart transplants in prisons a few years ago. There was a big stink about one guy who wanted a transplant. Prisons are doing them every once in a while now.

I figure that our whole system needs to be changed, but that, of course, will take a long time and a great deal of arguing and many mistakes. My position derives from a forward-thinking perspective that looks to how I think things should be in the future, so my position is pretty incompatible with the current system.

I am under no illusions that most of these prisoners are nice people, but I still believe that giving prisoners the absolute bare minimum health care is a copout. For one thing, if we are going to incarcerate people, we need to take responsibility for them.

Obviously, expensive treatments like heart transplants and SRS need to be carefully weighed for cost versus benefit. Prisoners need to be screened for a variety of factors, including their health, their sentence, how much time they have left to serve, and so on. So maybe I am precipitate in saying that this particular prisoner should get SRS. She should definitely be considered for SRS. And trans prisoners need to be handled differently from the general population.

There is another factor that I have considered but not delved into when it comes to health care for prisoners. It's one of the main issues of incarceration: punishment versus rehabilitation. If we are ONLY punishing these people, then perhaps it is fair to decide that whatever happens in prison happens, and the taxpayers will not be held responsible for health care because prisoners have given up their rights to all but the most basic treatments and preventatives. If we are rehabilitating, things should be different. If we are punishing some prisoners and rehabilitating others, maybe we should provide different levels of health care to different types of prisoners. I'm sure that would go over big.

Actually, I feel that the punishment vs rehabilitation dichotomy is overly simplistic. Can't we do both? Don't we do both? And often, we are also keeping dangerous prisoners from getting out again and performing more acts of violence; in addition to punishing, we are also weighing the needs of the public against the needs of one aberrant individual, and deciding in favor of the larger community. That's about public protection as well as punishment vs rehab.

How much can you rehabilitate someone who took a shotgun to someone over some clothing?  I can see rehabilitation for someone who does auto theft, you know, teach them a skill so they can make money without boosting cars, but somethings don't get better.

Quote from: tekla on April 24, 2011, 01:26:39 PM
How much can you rehabilitate someone who took a shotgun to someone over some clothing?  I can see rehabilitation for someone who does auto theft, you know, teach them a skill so they can make money without boosting cars, but somethings don't get better.

I'm not saying that we can rehabilitate this particular person, especially since I don't know the particulars of her case. I'm saying that we can't seem to decide exactly what our purpose is, and that's a problem.

There are two primary issues that need to be addressed.  First is whether they were under medical care prior to committing their felony offense.  If not, then the State has no obligation IMO to provide ANY gender-related care.  If they were, then the State, again IMO, has an obligation to continue care at the level that was being provided in the community. 

The second issue speaks to housing and custody issues.  EVERY correctional agency has practices in place to provide 'safekeeping' status housing.  Some inmates never make the request.  Some abuse the process, effectively trying to game the system.  This is nothing new.  It was like that years ago and will be like that in the years that follow. 

Prison rape, while it does go on, is not the pervasive problem some make it out to be.  I've been involved with litigation with agencies on some of those issues. 

As a taxpayer, I would be highly miffed to find out that an elective procedure was being given to someone who could not otherwise have managed it at State expense in the community.  If the inmate has the funds on their inmate trust fund or in community-based accounts, then PERHAPS the availability of surgery within the confines of the penitentiary becomes an option for the State to look at.  Otherwise, the surgery becomes a reward for committing a felony offense. 

And yes, as a taxpayer, that IS something that I should get to have a say about if it were taking place in my State.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on April 24, 2011, 03:35:01 PM
Prison rape, while it does go on, is not the pervasive problem some make it out to be.  I've been involved with litigation with agencies on some of those issues. 

Nice points, BTW. I have read that prison rape is fairly uncommon but that it happens MUCH more to trans inmates. I don't know if that has been verified, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Unless this inmate seeks special protective housing, I don't think that SRS will reduce her chances of being raped, even if she is moved to a women's prison. She just won't be raped by penises anymore. And I don't think hers is a very persuasive rationale for granting her request for SRS.

I do think that if trans people claim that transition is medically necessary for them, then it's not fully consistent to say that it's not medically necessary for someone else.

Protective custody inmates are held in isolation 22.5 hours per day in small cells and get one hour alone in a small exercise yard.  They are often never allowed outside.  Your talking years without ever seeing the sun or sky.

Quote from: tekla on April 24, 2011, 03:54:00 PM
Protective custody inmates are held in isolation 22.5 hours per day in small cells and get one hour alone in a small exercise yard.  They are often never allowed outside.  Your talking years without ever seeing the sun or sky.

This is not always the case...the safekeeping wings in Texas and other States simply provide an isolated housing area away from the balance of the general population with activities during the day being blended (ie. education and work) with the GP.  In this State, there are SK wings even for all three primary custodies (what used to be viewed as Minimum, Medium and Close). 

The few people statewide in a PC described like tekla puts forth are those who have very pronounced hits out for them (ie. ranking gang members who rolled in trial or former members of security who have been incarcerated).  There is another class that is celled 23 hours a day, but those are disciplinary threats or members of identified security threat groups.

Quote from: Arch on April 24, 2011, 03:41:16 PM
Nice points, BTW. I have read that prison rape is fairly uncommon but that it happens MUCH more to trans inmates. I don't know if that has been verified, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Texas houses post-ops in gender-appropriate facilities.  Pre-ops were housed in safekeeping.  No discernible differences in rates of claimed assault. 

QuoteI do think that if trans people claim that transition is medically necessary for them, then it's not fully consistent to say that it's not medically necessary for someone else.

WHen you commit a felony offense and are sent to the penitentiary, you have (IMO) given up many of the elective options that might otherwise have existed for the non-felon.  It is arguably no different than the cigarette smoker that chooses to commit a felony in a State in which convicted felons are not permitted access to tobacco products while incarcerated.  They made a choice that limited their ability to act on what would otherwise have been a personal choice. 

Policies generally exist for the medical management of those who were legitimately under care in the community prior to entering the penal system.  It is my opinion that a person not under care in the free-world has no right to demand the State provide them HRT, transition or surgery while in the correctional environment.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on April 24, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
WHen you commit a felony offense and are sent to the penitentiary, you have (IMO) given up many of the elective options that might otherwise have existed for the non-felon.  It is arguably no different than the cigarette smoker that chooses to commit a felony in a State in which convicted felons are not permitted access to tobacco products while incarcerated.  They made a choice that limited their ability to act on what would otherwise have been a personal choice. 

I don't see these as quite parallel. Smoking is merely a (bad) habit, and giving up tobacco improves health. Transition can, and often does, mean the difference between life and death. People choose to smoke; they do not choose to be born trans.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on April 24, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
Policies generally exist for the medical management of those who were legitimately under care in the community prior to entering the penal system.  It is my opinion that a person not under care in the free-world has no right to demand the State provide them HRT, transition or surgery while in the correctional environment.

Yeah, demanding transitional steps and stating that one has the right to transition while a prisoner do seem pretty shaky--I guess they are among the key issues here. It all depends on what rights we think prisoners do have and what obligations we have to them.

She is serving 50 years to life for killing someone with a shotgun over a $400 dispute.  It's not like she was cooking meth or dealing, or stole a car, she took a shotgun to someone for $400 dollars and is not likely to get out anytime soon.  So, kill someone for $400, get a $50K operation at tax payer expense.  Such a deal.

Quote from: tekla on April 24, 2011, 09:22:53 PM
She is serving 50 years to life for killing someone with a shotgun over a $400 dispute.  It's not like she was cooking meth or dealing, or stole a car, she took a shotgun to someone for $400 dollars and is not likely to get out anytime soon.  So, kill someone for $400, get a $50K operation at tax payer expense.  Such a deal.

She also gets housing, clothing, three squares, recreation, and lots of other bennies at taxpayer expense. But, hey, if she ever gets suicidal about her gender dysphoria, we could save a bundle if she offs herself. Problem solved.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  She's getting far more of a chance than the person she murdered.

Whatever happened to, "don't do the crime. If you can't do the time."?

My biggest argument against SRS for prisoners is this. Let's say I commit a felony that lands a 2-3 year stint in a minimum security prison. A real Club Med type of place, no pun intended. In a system where all transition costs are covered.

They pay for the best FFS, SRS, BA, hair removal, voice, clothes etc etc etc. A good 200k.

Where does this money come from? Does every member of society get a magic 200k?

How many of you would sacrifice 2-3 years of freedom for the above?

That's why I say hecks naws. A fair number of free loaders would take this kind of deal.

Federal court rulings hold that if you are on HRT going in, they have to keep on providing it.  If you are not taking it, they have no obligation to start.

HRT going in would be a medical necessity in some cases. Plus has a very low cost. An M2F icould do the whole thing thru WalMart for $30 or less a month.

In addendum to what I was saying somewhat earlier...I would like to point out that with organ transplants, there's a severe supply-vs-demand problem, so I can understand that, all other things being equal, someone in prison for one or more violent crimes would be turned down in favor of a free citizen with no criminal record. SRS doesn't have this problem.

Quote from: Sarah7 on April 21, 2011, 01:57:54 PM
The point is that prison should be equally unpleasant for all inmates (assuming you believe retribution should be the goal of the legal system). Being transgender shouldn't lead to a greater punishment than being cisgender. That she's even in a male prison is seriously abusive.

This.

When a (decent, humane) society sentences someone to incarceration, their sentence is expected to involve certain experiences: loss of freedom, loss of privacy, some physical discomfort, some unpleasant social interactions. But not rape. Rape is not part of the sentence. Unfortunately, for too many American prisoners, it happens anyway - and for gay man and trans women, it's essentially part of the package.

We have a responsibility to protect prisoners from being victimized by other prisoners (and guards). One of the only ways to do that in the case of trans women is transfer to a women's prison - something we don't allow unless they have SRS. But they cannot have SRS unless the prison allows and pays for it. The other form of protection is solitary confinement - an option which is even more expensive than SRS over the course of a multidecadal sentence, and which essentially involves punishing her extra for being a victim.

Of the two options, I'd rather pay for SRS.

Quote from: kyril on May 01, 2011, 08:09:29 PM

We have a responsibility to protect prisoners from being victimized by other prisoners (and guards). One of the only ways to do that in the case of trans women is transfer to a women's prison - something we don't allow unless they have SRS.

With respect, that isn't true. Sexual assault occurs in women's prisons as well.

The solution to sexual assault is more and better paid, prison officers.

In the context of the US, I can't see any reason, a convicted prisoner should get something which otherwise decent Americans, those that have never broken the law as well as this that have paid their debt to society, can't.

Quote from: kyril on May 01, 2011, 08:09:29 PM
When a (decent, humane) society sentences someone to incarceration, their sentence is expected to involve certain experiences: loss of freedom, loss of privacy, some physical discomfort, some unpleasant social interactions. But not rape. Rape is not part of the sentence. Unfortunately, for too many American prisoners, it happens anyway - and for gay man and trans women, it's essentially part of the package.

There are many (nay, a majority) of gay inmates who do their time without being raped.  Do they have sex?  Yeah.  Is it rape?  Answer on that one is almost always an emphatic no. 

QuoteWe have a responsibility to protect prisoners from being victimized by other prisoners (and guards). One of the only ways to do that in the case of trans women is transfer to a women's prison - something we don't allow unless they have SRS. But they cannot have SRS unless the prison allows and pays for it. The other form of protection is solitary confinement - an option which is even more expensive than SRS over the course of a multidecadal sentence, and which essentially involves punishing her extra for being a victim.

Of the two options, I'd rather pay for SRS.

You conveniently overlook that the fact that MOST agencies have what is considered a safekeeping status which is simply a different housing area but with work assignments where the population co-mingles.  It is generally NOT an either/or of population or segregation (what you refer to as solitary confinement, which is a punitive housing assignment). 

During my years of working in this realm, rare is the instance that anyone entered custody of the agency and claimed to have been undergoing care in the community for a transsexual condition.  In my State, the prison system is well over 150K in size.  If the condition is not claimed at the time of intake, I fail to see a need for the State to intervene medically in any capacity.  If it is claimed at intake and medication protocols in the community can be documented as having been current at the time of arrest, then agency policy provides for the continuation of HRT.  Surgery at State expense is not and SHOULD NOT be an option. 

Quote from: spacial on May 03, 2011, 05:17:50 AM
With respect, that isn't true. Sexual assault occurs in women's prisons as well.

The solution to sexual assault is more and better paid, prison officers.

In the context of the US, I can't see any reason, a convicted prisoner should get something which otherwise decent Americans, those that have never broken the law as well as this that have paid their debt to society, can't.

It's much, much, much less common in women's prisons; in US prisons, for gay men and trans women, it's essentially a foregone conclusion. While the goal should be zero rape in all prisons, it's probably unattainable, and so we have the responsibility to do the best we can to protect particularly vulnerable populations.

As for the second bit: While I fundamentally agree with you (I actually believe that the US needs to get with the developed world's program and start treating healthcare like a human right), the status quo is that US prisoners are entitled to medically-necessary healthcare while the rest of us are not. If you're not complaining about prisoners' heart surgery, HIV antiviral cocktails, kidney dialysis, chemotherapy, and the like, why complain about SRS?

On that note, to those who argue that providing SRS in prison would create an incentive for trans women to commit crimes: I don't see people with other serious and expensive medical conditions lining up to go to jail. Our prison system isn't being overrun by uninsured cancer patients, even though their condition is far more painful and life-threatening and their treatment is even more expensive, even more urgent, and just as impossible to access without the cash or the right insurance. Are you arguing that trans women are somehow inherently less law-abiding than people with cancer or heart disease or kidney failure or HIV?

Quote from: Ann Onymous on May 03, 2011, 05:27:47 AM
There are many (nay, a majority) of gay inmates who do their time without being raped.  Do they have sex?  Yeah.  Is it rape?  Answer on that one is almost always an emphatic no. 

I respond with:

QuoteSexual abuse of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBT Q) inmates constitutes
one of the most rampant and
ignored human rights violations in the U.S.
today. In a 2007 academic study, funded by
the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation and conducted at
six California men's prisons, 67 percent
of inmates who identified as LGBT Q
reported having been sexually assaulted by
another inmate during their incarceration,
a rate that was 15 times higher than for
the inmate population overall.2 Of the
hundreds of survivors who contact JDI
every year, approximately 20 percent selfidentifiy
as gay, bisexual or transgender.

http://www.justdetention.org/en/factsheets/JD_Fact_Sheet_LGBTQ_vD.pdf (http://www.justdetention.org/en/factsheets/JD_Fact_Sheet_LGBTQ_vD.pdf)

There's much more at the site: http://www.justdetention.org/en/fact_sheets.aspx (http://www.justdetention.org/en/fact_sheets.aspx)

Studies based upon self-selection vis a vis 'reports' to a group like JDI are not statistically valid models.  As such, you'll have to excuse me for taking them with a LARGE grain of salt.

I base my comments on experiences working in and around corrections and also post-conviction realm for longer than some on these boards have been alive.  I've been involved in both classification as well as administrative responses to such incidents at the unit and department levels and have also testified as an expert witness in claims against the State. 

I've posted on this in several threads as had Kyril. Go and read them. There is no law at all  ( in the USA, EU or AU) to sentence a prisoner to incarceration and sexual abuse. If you think that is fair you are against your constitution. If(?) it happens it is against the law. and if allowed and or tolerated, it means your constitution is invalid.

I'm not dwelling but I have been 'male' raped, it isn't fun. It isn't a turn on. It is just a very brutal evil attack.

I'll mainly leave this thread and another Mod can look other it, Sorry, just got the past coming in

Love

Cindy

Quote from: Ann Onymous on May 03, 2011, 06:33:09 AM
Studies based upon self-selection vis a vis 'reports' to a group like JDI are not statistically valid models.  As such, you'll have to excuse me for taking them with a LARGE grain of salt.

I base my comments on experiences working in and around corrections and also post-conviction realm for longer than some on these boards have been alive.  I've been involved in both classification as well as administrative responses to such incidents at the unit and department levels and have also testified as an expert witness in claims against the State.

Did you miss the 'academic study' part of the quote?

I base my comments on several years of experience working as a volunteer counselor in a (sadly very rare) program that provides sexual assault counseling and support targeted to male victims of rape. I also have some familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature on the subject. You'll have to excuse me if I take your comments with an equally LARGE grain of salt, as you admit you were part of the corrections system and thus in my eyes part of the problem.

The vast majority of the victims I worked with who had been incarcerated never reported their assaults to anyone specifically because they would not be believed because people like you were working under the assumption that sexual acts involving gay men in prison are consensual. They waited until after they were released to seek help, and at that point were often deeply scarred by (months or years of) ongoing abusive and coercive situations in an environment that provided them absolutely no support and usually blamed them for their own victimization.

Through the interpretation the officials in California who have determined gender is dependant on the genitals they've kinda made their bed and will have to sleep in it.  Lyralisa Stevens is a woman and needs to be in a women's prison.  If the bureaucrats can't understand that gender is dependant on more than the parts then it's their fault and need to either correct their way of thinking or to give this woman the operation so she fits their limited view.

Teresa

I've read a few articles on this, and one thing that really bothers me is that she is adamant about staying in the men's prison, even if the she has the surgery.  The surgery has more to do with her boyfriend  in the adjacent cell than anything else.
I have enough trouble paying for my own transition, let alone paying for a murderer's transition.

This can be understand that way too:  a post-op transsexual (MTF) or intersexed woman commits a crime. She is sent to men's prison because her sex cannot be determined to be female. She will be in the solitary confinement her hole sentence because of her anatomy. The prison medical staff may treat her with testosterone. All this (the solitary and the  testosterone) using the limited public funds.

Sex and intercourse in any form in the prison system, is not about sex in ways that the non-prison world sees or thinks about the subject.  It is almost as bad an issue as cis and trans have in understanding in each other.  Sex in a prison system is a game of power played by the disempowered on the even less powerful.  This is true for both the female and male populations.  The most powerful inmate inside gets points for every new body they can gain some power over.  The inmate forced into the passive role "has less power" than the inmate in the agressive role according to those rules.

Once the concept of power has been established, variations do materialize.   An inmate can "accept the protection" of another inmate, and in a sense of fantasy, beeome one of the "un-raped" inmates, or the "spouse" of the other inmate, and depending on the overall status of the "Protecting" inmate, may become monogamous for a very long time.  At this point, the dominant and the submissive leave the world that non-inmates can readily comprehend.  Survival is about lying, cheating, and power and more power in the real sense. Once power and relation is established, anyone "in the system" be it inmate, guard or warden see a "happy couple". The game is played and it is like we do when denying our trans ness, inside, you see your sexual arrangement as natural and non threatening after the "honeymoon" is over.  The mind is numb to the concept of sex as it was OUTSIDE.

Once outside, after the return to those thoughts, the horror of what went on "inside" is told to non-inmates, with probably still some of the lying or at least survival thinking that has been the norm for the time.  They think that outside survival will improve if they tell the de-briefing counselors a certain tale, and it does take a skilled counselor to understand where to accept the story and where not to.  The truth is that they did go through absolutely horrific things as people "outside" understand them, but outsiders will have trouble knowing the feelings and adequately judging what is the correct answer here.

I for one look at the question of SRS in light of the "game of power" and need to have much more information and observation time to evaluate this inmate's true position in things.  It is true that she wants more power and feels as if she is the most powerless.  What power will SRS give her, and will it give her an advantage over men in a mens facility or women in a female facility.  Its the only game in town!!  In an eerie way though is says something about the ability of humans to survive.

I am not taking a position whether or not the taxpayer's should pay SRS for the inmates I just want to say that putting someone who is anatomically female (has vagina) to all male-institution is virtually a cruel and unusual punishment even the prison officials or the courts would argue otherwise.
But putting a person with a functional penis to female institution is a very problematic issue also considering the safety and privacy of the other inmates. 

Quote from: darklady on May 11, 2011, 06:16:18 AM
I am not taking a position whether or not the taxpayer's should pay SRS for the inmates I just want to say that putting someone who is anatomically female (has vagina) to all male-institution is virtually a cruel and unusual punishment even the prison officials or the courts would argue otherwise.
But putting a person with a functional penis to female institution is a very problematic issue also considering the safety and privacy of the other inmates.

I cannot speak to every other country or even ALL 50 States, but I can say without reservation that MOST (if not all) prisons in the US house based upon what is between the legs...in other words, a post-operative M2F is going to a women's prison.  A pre-operative M2F is going to be housed elsewhere.  However, it does NOT entail a single cell environment unless the institutional adjustment warrants a placement in Security Detention/Administrative Segregation. 

And no, they don't deprive one of hormones provided there is documentation of a medically managed treatment course in the community.  Even the F2M's in Texas prisons continue to get testosterone injections (I've also been involved in one of those cases).

Quote from: niciwer on May 06, 2011, 08:37:04 PM
I've read a few articles on this, and one thing that really bothers me is that she is adamant about staying in the men's prison, even if the she has the surgery.  The surgery has more to do with her boyfriend  in the adjacent cell than anything else.

Sounds pretty screwy to me. (Ugh, that was not an intentional pun, but I'm leaving it there anyway.)

I'm so against state funded SRS for criminals.  Being trans means you have to be extra careful so you don't get sent to the wrong prison.  If she wants to stay in the men's prison then why should she get the surgery?  Using genital status as the deciding factor may not be fair to trans people but it does keep other dangerous people out of the prisons they shouldn't be in.  The bottom line: if you don't have the time to lose don't do anything stupid because I'm sure as heck not going to pay for your mistake.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on May 11, 2011, 09:32:19 PM
I'm so against state funded SRS for criminals.  Being trans means you have to be extra careful so you don't get sent to the wrong prison.  If she wants to stay in the men's prison then why should she get the surgery?  Using genital status as the deciding factor may not be fair to trans people but it does keep other dangerous people out of the prisons they shouldn't be in.  The bottom line: if you don't have the time to lose don't do anything stupid because I'm sure as heck not going to pay for your mistake.

Would you use this logic on people with other medical conditions? 'Diabetics better be extra careful not to get arrested, because I'm not paying for their insulin'?

We keep trying to argue to cis people that our condition isn't a choice, that our transition and related health care are medically necessary. Well, if it's medically necessary, it's necessary for everyone, including people in prison, just like all other necessary care.

Quote from: kyril on May 11, 2011, 09:35:23 PM
Would you use this logic on people with other medical conditions? 'Diabetics better be extra careful not to get arrested, because I'm not paying for their insulin'?

We keep trying to argue to cis people that our condition isn't a choice, that our transition and related health care are medically necessary. Well, if it's medically necessary, it's necessary for everyone, including people in prison, just like all other necessary care.

Apples to oranges. 

One does not typically decide while in prison that they need treatment for diabetes.  They were under a managed care regimen if they actually were taking care of their condition in the free world.  Further, those persons entering agency custody would be maintained in a condition consistent with the care received in the free world.  There would not be a benefit conferred of additional care beyond basic maintenance.

The TS who was under medical management in the community would continue to receive HRT in the correctional setting.  They should not receive the benefit of surgery at State expense as a reward for committing a felony.  And if they decide to wait until AFTER they got to prison to decide they need treatment, then their options SHOULD necessarily be limited for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a propensity (acknowledged by many of our firm's clients) to manipulate the system whenever possible to make time as comfortable as possible.

So I guess suicide prevention is above and beyond basic maintenance?

Some  (many) states  go currently  using the orginal birthcertificate. And according to the courts it is not 8th Amendment violation. Then some other states shoul consider a  little bit flexibility for the genitalia-criteria because some states obviously don't follow it.

Quote from: darklady on May 12, 2011, 05:35:17 AM
Some  (many) states  go currently  using the orginal birthcertificate. And according to the courts it is not 8th Amendment violation. Then some other states shoul consider a  little bit flexibility for the genitalia-criteria because some states obviously don't follow it.

I am aware of no State in the United States where the various agencies in the judicial process get a copy of the birth certificate before determining where to house a convicted felon.  The backlogs in the county jails would be far worse than already exist if they had to wait for a birth certificate to arrive, not to mention you have a significant percentage of the jail population in some States where there would NOT even be a birth certificate (lots of illegals are confined and awaiting transfer to the penitentiary).

Quote from: kyril on May 11, 2011, 09:35:23 PM
Would you use this logic on people with other medical conditions? 'Diabetics better be extra careful not to get arrested, because I'm not paying for their insulin'?

We keep trying to argue to cis people that our condition isn't a choice, that our transition and related health care are medically necessary. Well, if it's medically necessary, it's necessary for everyone, including people in prison, just like all other necessary care.

Of course it's necessary however lack of insulin will kill you a whole lot faster.  If someone is on HRT before going to jail then keep them on it. If they had their surgery scheduled already let them go get it.  If it's not funded for law abiding citizens why should it be for criminals?  If it were covered for us then go ahead and cover it for her. But it's not and prison is a punishment anyway.

Or it can be that they use DNA-test results or something I am not sure of the exact criteria but there are many documented cases recently relating to the intersexed women or post-op MTF in male prisons.

Quote from: darklady on May 12, 2011, 06:00:29 AM
Or it can be that they use DNA-test results or something I am not sure of the exact criteria but there are many documented cases recently relating to the intersexed women or post-op MTF in male prisons.

The criterion used by MOST (if not all) States is very simple- at the time of booking into the county jail after being arrested for committing the felony, a physical examination is performed.  What is between the legs almost invariably dictates where one is housed.  The person remains housed accordingly while awaiting trial if they are otherwise unable to bond out. 

Once convicted, the transfer to the penitentiary carries with it an initial physical examination.  This takes place on EVERYONE coming in.  And again, the prisons house based upon what is between the legs.   

I am unaware of ANY fully post-operative individual out of the more than 150,000 felons presently housed in Texas prisons who is housed OTHER than a facility consistent with what is between the legs.  The same holds true for other States in which we had a review during my tenure with the agency.     

DNA testing presents the same level of complication as would reliance upon birth certificates.  It takes a lot of time and money.  And in a cash-strapped era, States are going to go with the simplest of examinations- look at what is between the legs. 

As the saying goes- don't do the crime if you can't do the time.  It really is not THAT difficult to stay out of jail.     

I don't know about TDOC, but there are cases in both Dallas and Bexar county. Then DC has had prolly several cases.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on May 12, 2011, 05:57:29 AM
Of course it's necessary however lack of insulin will kill you a whole lot faster.  If someone is on HRT before going to jail then keep them on it. If they had their surgery scheduled already let them go get it.  If it's not funded for law abiding citizens why should it be for criminals?  If it were covered for us then go ahead and cover it for her. But it's not and prison is a punishment anyway.

Nothing is funded for law-abiding citizens in the U.S. Which is itself a problem.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on May 11, 2011, 09:54:18 PM
Apples to oranges. 

One does not typically decide while in prison that they need treatment for diabetes.  They were under a managed care regimen if they actually were taking care of their condition in the free world.  Further, those persons entering agency custody would be maintained in a condition consistent with the care received in the free world.  There would not be a benefit conferred of additional care beyond basic maintenance.

The TS who was under medical management in the community would continue to receive HRT in the correctional setting.  They should not receive the benefit of surgery at State expense as a reward for committing a felony.  And if they decide to wait until AFTER they got to prison to decide they need treatment, then their options SHOULD necessarily be limited for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a propensity (acknowledged by many of our firm's clients) to manipulate the system whenever possible to make time as comfortable as possible.

So, if a prisoner with diabetes were to need surgery - e.g. amputation of a necrotic limb - because their condition had been poorly managed, and if this need were first discovered while they were imprisoned, you would deny them that lifesaving care?

Again, if trans-related medical care is necessary, then it is necessary for everyone. You're not doing yourselves any favours at all by arguing against that. If you yourselves argue that SRS is elective (and you must, since only elective care is ever supposed to be denied to prisoners), then why should insurance companies cover it? Why should it even be legal?

As for your privileged, cold-hearted "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" BS, an absolutely huge number of Americans are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. Among that population, there are very high rates of physical and mental illness, because people who don't have access to decent health care are likely to use drugs as a coping mechanism. This includes trans women. LGBT and female prisoners are also imprisoned at high rates for "accessory" and "conspiracy" charges, often as a result of living in abusive/coercive relationships. Low-income pre-op trans women with limited education, especially black and Hispanic women, are an extremely vulnerable population, often exploited, abused, and controlled. Breaking the law is often a survival decision: prostitute yourself to get money to survive and get medical care, use drugs to cope with the degradation of prostitution and the pain of being trans, and from that point you do pretty much whatever your drug dealer and/or pimp say in order to avoid simply being murdered.

Quote from: kyril on May 12, 2011, 07:42:03 AM
So, if a prisoner with diabetes were to need surgery - e.g. amputation of a necrotic limb - because their condition had been poorly managed, and if this need were first discovered while they were imprisoned, you would deny them that lifesaving care?

Again, you are talking apples to oranges.  And, just to add another twist to the mix, someone in THAT situation would actually be more likely to receive a release to MRIS (medically recommended intensive supervision) and have to get the surgery in the free world at their own expense than to get it within TDCJ. 

QuoteAgain, if trans-related medical care is necessary, then it is necessary for everyone. You're not doing yourselves any favours at all by arguing against that. If you yourselves argue that SRS is elective (and you must, since only elective care is ever supposed to be denied to prisoners), then why should insurance companies cover it? Why should it even be legal?

Most insurance companies DON'T cover it.  I know when I had my surgery, it was not covered although the other components of care were covered because they were not identified as anything related to a transsexual condition. 

The reality is that very few people enter prison under the care of a physician for a transsexual condition.  Very few ever admit to it while going through intake either.  Those that were on hormonal care are continued on a dosing regimen consistent with established protocols.  Surgery is not something that should be provided at taxpayer expense just as I would argue that it should not be provided in the community at taxpayer expense.  Thus there is no distinction that singles out the convicted felon. 

QuoteAs for your privileged, cold-hearted "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" BS, an absolutely huge number of Americans are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. Among that population, there are very high rates of physical and mental illness, because people who don't have access to decent health care are likely to use drugs as a coping mechanism. This includes trans women. LGBT and female prisoners are also imprisoned at high rates for "accessory" and "conspiracy" charges, often as a result of living in abusive/coercive relationships. Low-income pre-op trans women with limited education, especially black and Hispanic women, are an extremely vulnerable population, often exploited, abused, and controlled. Breaking the law is often a survival decision: prostitute yourself to get money to survive and get medical care, use drugs to cope with the degradation of prostitution and the pain of being trans, and from that point you do pretty much whatever your drug dealer and/or pimp say in order to avoid simply being murdered.

I had a lengthy response to the above, but deleted it because it won't do a damned bit of good even though it called upon statements FROM OUR INCARCERATED CLIENTS.  And you have tried to take the discussion away from the subject at hand and twist it into what seems to be an argument that convicted felons have society to blame for their station in life. 

It is clear we are not going to ever agree on this issue and you have also previously attempted to slam me personally, claiming that you viewed me as part of the problem.   

QuoteMost insurance companies DON'T cover it.  I know when I had my surgery, it was not covered although the other components of care were covered because they were not identified as anything related to a transsexual condition. 

I think that's his point--a lot of us think that trans surgeries SHOULD be covered by insurance because we see such procedures as medically necessary and not elective. And even if we don't believe that insurance should cover it, most of us still seem to argue that such procedures are medically necessary. If we DO argue that it's medically necessary for law-abiding citizens, how can we turn around and say that inmates DON'T need it?

I quite understand that people don't want felons, particularly violent ones, and more particularly murderers, to get free SRS on the public dime. I don't either, especially because the majority of prisoners are pretty appalling people and also because law-abiding trans citizens usually don't get subsidized surgeries. But I also know that I and a lot of other trans people get to the point where we must transition, or we will off ourselves. I was a heartbeat away from killing myself almost every minute of every day after I came out a couple of years ago. I had repressed so hard and for so long that I could not have held out for much longer. I was just running out of psychological energy.

Hormones and surgery saved my life, so I can't very well say that trans surgery is elective for prisoners just because they are in jail. Other people obviously have a different view, and I can see some merit to their position. But I'm a lot less likely to find much merit if I think that their argument is inconsistent to begin with. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone here because I don't keep track of who considers trans surgeries to be medically necessary and who doesn't. But I AM saying that when people argue one thing for themselves and something else for other folks, I would like to see some pretty persuasive arguments for treating the two groups differently.

Yeah, that's not a real good argument there kyril, if they were there for a non-violent drug offense then most likely they are going to be getting out at some point.  And if they were going to be eligible to get out in a year or two - or perhaps even three - should we pay for that just because they have a lot of time on their hands to recover, so this would be the perfect opportunity for SRS?  No.  If they are going to get out in a year or two they can wait for the SRS just like they are going to have wait for a lot of other things.  And, the precise reason, the exact thing that is preventing her from putting it off for a few years is because SHE TOOK A SHOTGUN TO SOMEONE (and man, is that some mayhem going down there) OVER A $700 DEBT.  Because she totally butchered another human being over an amount of money that would not even make the legal jump to felony, she's in jail for a long, long time - one can only hope until they cart her out in a box.  I sure don't want her living in my building?  Do you?

Get a better poster girl for the cause.  This one won't scow.

@Tekla, granted, this gal seems to be a ghastly poster child for trans inmates' rights, for a number of reasons. But the issue itself is still worth our attention and consideration.

i think transgender people should not go to male or female prisons but a prison of there own. thats just me. did you know there was this serial killer who claimed he had GID and went on estrogen so he wouldnt get killed he would just get raped.