Males in Women's Prisons: A Human Rights Violation

How the New Executive Order on Gender Could Reshape Prison Policies

It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how many biological males are housed in women’s prisons nationwide as this data isn’t readily available. However, all 50 states are bound by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in some capacity. Under PREA, states are mandated to assess inmate vulnerability before housing placements, which includes evaluating risks to transgender-identified males but also aims to safeguard all inmates. Beyond PREA, many states have implemented additional safeguards for trans-identifying men in prisons.

When I first learned that 38 states allow biological males in women’s prisons, I was shocked. I assumed that here in Alabama, known for its conservative stance, this wouldn’t be the case. However, I was mistaken. Currently, three males reside in women’s facilities here, two convicted of heinous crimes like murder and child sexual assault. This scenario underscores a broader issue where PREA’s protective intent has been reinterpreted to place the rights of males who claim to be female over the safety of women in women’s prisons.

California, On the Other Hand

Those of us familiar with the issues might expect California  to put trans rights over women’s rights. However, even Amie Ichikawa, founder of Woman II Woman, did not anticipate the near erasure of support for incarcerated women’s needs that has unfolded. Her organization emerged from the realization that focusing on males claiming to be female had compromised services for biological women. Senate Bill 132 (SB 132) in California allowed these males to be housed in women’s prisons, which lead  to a surge in violence, sexual assault, and psychological trauma among female inmates. Instead of offering protection and rehabilitation, this policy transformed women’s prisons into places of re-traumatization, with advocates like Ichikawa ultimately shedding light on these human rights violations.

Ichikawa has described the post-SB 132 scenario as “a female human rights crisis that will permeate beyond prison walls if we don’t ensure basic human rights for the least of us.” Women, many of whom are survivors of abuse, now live in fear, sharing spaces with males with violent or sexual offense backgrounds. California’s acknowledgment that these inmates are biologically male is made evident by their distribution of taxpayer-funded condoms in women’s facilities for pregnancy prevention.

Furthermore, financial evidence speaks for itself: a 2023 report cited by the Washington Free Beacon indicates California has spent over $4 million since 2017 on surgeries and “gender-affirming” treatments for these males. This includes $2.5 million on vaginoplasties for 35 male prisoners, alongside other procedures like breast implants and facial feminization without any cap on requests. Attorney Harmeet Dhillon has criticized this expenditure, noting, “People who think they're transgender have rights, and they should be treated with dignity and respect, but it does not include taxpayer dollars being used to do surgeries that are experimental at best and scientifically unjustified at worst.” 

Case of Krystal Gonzalez vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Krystal Gonzalez, a female inmate, was allegedly sexually assaulted by a biological male transferred to Central California Women's Facility under SB 132. The lawsuit, filed by the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), contends that housing biological males in women’s prisons infringes on the rights of female inmates like Gonzalez, reflecting a broader legal challenge against SB 132.

A Broader Pattern of Neglect

Nationwide, placing biological males in women’s spaces under the guise of gender ideology has resulted in widespread reports of abuse, intimidation, and legal actions, highlighting systemic issues within PREA implementation and state laws. According to WoLF, women prisoners are significantly more likely to have histories of abuse, with up to 80% having experienced some form making these conditions that much more torturous.  These women’s voices are often drowned out in discussions about gender identity in prison reform.

Speculation on EO's Impact

The impact of President Trump’s new Executive Order, which redefines sex and gender recognition in federal policy, remains speculative but could signal significant policy shifts. It might pave the way to overturn laws like SB 132, aligning state practices with a federal stance recognizing only biological sex for housing. This could provoke a reevaluation of prison policies, enhancing the safety and rights of female inmates. However, implementing this would hinge on legal interpretations, public advocacy, and the political will to prioritize safety.

• Policy Realignment: States might adjust their policies to match federal guidelines, potentially creating safer environments in women’s prisons by housing based on biological sex.

• Legal Challenges: The EO might face legal scrutiny, particularly in relation to PREA’s transgender housing mandates and it could empower advocates for women’s rights in prison settings.

• Public Awareness: This order could educate the public on the implications of gender identity-based housing, sparking broader discussions on women’s safety and rights.

If It Can Happen in Conservative Alabama, It Can Happen Anywhere

The presence of males in women’s prisons is setting off alarm bells. This transcends policy; it’s about human rights, dignity, and safety. The Courage Coalition pledges to leverage this moment to advocate for policies safeguarding women’s spaces, ensuring ideology does not supersede reality.

Join the Fight

If this issue infuriates you as much as it does me, now’s the time to act. Reach out to your representatives to discuss aligning state policies with this new federal directive. Share stories like Krystal Gonzalez’s to inform others. Join the Courage Coalition. Your support amplifies our call for change, securing a safer future for women in all institutional settings. Don't let this chance to correct a clear human rights violation slip away.