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.