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

There's much more at the site: 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?