American society tends to run on retribution, and according to the New York Times, other nations dwarf the US in terms of prison population:

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America’s extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice.

This American obsession with retribution has often manifested in ugly and triggering ways, such as victim blaming in prison rape. Yes, prison in America is tough, but the average African American cisgender male who was never nurtured from the start and had everything stacked against him, does not have it as hard as prisoners who are trans (of any race) To give you an idea, almost all correctional systems in the United States use anatomy to determine whether an inmate belongs in the men's or women's prison; this shouldn't be as much of a problem for transmen, but if its a transwoman in a men's prison (and prison officials can be mercurial about determining whether a trans prisoner should be segregated), they become at high risk of being sexually assaulted.

The American mentality is against "perks" in jail, especially by people of a more conservative mindset. Which makes it surprising that just recently, a federal judge who was a Nixon appointee ruled that a transfeminine prisoner in Massachusetts was unconstitutionally denied laser hair treatment by correctional authorities:

Christine Alexander, a biological male who identifies as female, was diagnosed in 2003 with Gender Identity Disorder, a controversial clinical name approved by the American Psychiatric Association.

Since that time, Alexander has received hormone replacement therapy and psychological counseling while incarcerated at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk.

Because Alexander also "suffers from facial and body hair, and male pattern baldness," several doctors have prescribed laser hair removal and finasteride, the generic name for Rogaine or Propecia, to "enhance patient's progress towards feminization," according to a court summary.

Though Alexander claims that the hair treatments are medically necessary rather than cosmetic, the state corrections department has not offered them.

This has led to many transphobic screeds floating around the internet and e-pitchforks being raised by those who are easily susceptible to the average conservative plen-t-plaint. But if we can all use our brains for a few minutes, we can realize that a conservative "law and order" view can be reconciled with the idea that a person should not forfeit their gender identity at the jailhouse gates.

Furthermore, in the above article:

Alexander claimed violations of her Eighth and 14th Amendment rights in a complaint against three corrections department officials, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Clinical Services Lawrence Weiner, Gender Identity Treatment Chairman Robert Diener and Norfolk's Associate Medical Director Rebecca Lubelczyk.

"Plaintiff asserts that the failure to provide her with the medical treatment will lead to serious bodily harm, untreated mental illness and continued depression," according to U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's summary of the lawsuit.

The defendants each filed motions to dismiss, but Tauro upheld the claims last week, finding that Alexander's "allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to establish that the plaintiff has a serious medical need, which has not been adequately treated under the Eighth Amendment standard."

We have a love affair with our constitution, but sometimes, driven by our toxic culture of sensationalism, we sometimes forget that the 8th amendment, which is to protect against cruel and unusual punishment, is there for a reason.

Laser hair removal is, in most cases, an elective procedure, and I would concede that the average cisgender male inmate should not receive laser hair removal while incarcerated. However, it is a medical necessity for us transwomen (hell, these faceweeds are causing me some real emotional distress), and given the expense of the procedure, plus the continued marginalization of transwomen, it stands to reason that should be included in healthcare plans as treatment for gender dysphoria.

However, this news makes me mad; not that Ms. Alexander will be able to get laser hair removal, but because very few people can get this procedure covered. I cannot afford $250 a month for 6 months, which is what the Mazzoni Centre charges for its in house laser clinic (even though I can get my Rx of spironolactone and estradiol covered and charged a nominal fee). Perhaps maybe it is time to use this as a springboard for a push to cover it under Pennsylvania's medical assistance. While the Eighth amendment may not play here due to my not being incarcerated, there is a chance that a Medicaid statute against necessary treatment, which is ill-defined, could be used here.

And what is interesting about this case is that the judge, Joseph Tauro, was a Nixon appointee. This conservative-judge-is-unlikely-ally-of-trans-people phenomenon is nothing new, as you may recall, one of the three judges who ruled that Vandy Beth Glenn was right to sue her boss for sex discrimination for firing her for being transgender, was William H. Pryor, one of the federal courts' chief mastodons. So, it is becoming more likely that if someone filed a federal lawsuit demanding that transpeople be able to get the treatment/care/redress they deserved, they would get it (the law is the law, but remember that judges are people too, and they make judgment calls everyday, no pun intended).

But back to the subject of trans prisoners. As of recent, the country is headed in the right direction. Just last October, the US Bureau Of Prisons now allows for comprehensive trans health coverage for federal inmates. Although it may seem like the federal government is conferring an expensive perk to wrongdoers, remember that there is a reason behind almost everything, and that being able to transition would actually aid in their transition back to civilian life (due to improved mental health) and become productive members of society, which would, in turn, reduce recidivism.

Even in states as conservative as Virginia, trans inmates are getting at least a few concessions from prison authorities. However, in term of determining which gender unit a prisoner should go in, the outdated "all penis bearers belong in the men's prison" mentality is still the norm. Even in New Jersey, which has gender identity protections, a facebook friend of mine who is a pre-op trans woman has been struggling to pay child support due to her unemployment and the other parent's extravagant lifestyle, has been thrown in the Atlantic County men's prison; she feels she has little recourse due to her not being able to afford an attourney.

A good compromise solution for prisons across the nation in terms of placement would be to use a case study of Philadelphia's city homeless shelters, in which trans* residents are in separate sleeping quarters with an attached restroom, but are otherwise integrated into the life of the shelter (ie: they eat together and share a common space). Perhaps a similar system should be in place in the prison system, in which trans* prisoners who are pre-op/non-op are placed in a separate living space with a separate bathroom in the prison corresponding to the gender which they most identify as, but are integrated in every other aspect of life within the walls (ie: bound to every other rule within the institution)

in terms of placement, I believe it would be better if the Department of Corrections used whatever is on the inmate's identification rather than genitals (though as stated above, genital configuration may be appropriate in what unit within the appropriate gender prison the inmate should be placed in, as long as they are otherwise allowed to participate fully in life within the institution). For example, under this regime, a trans* woman who has switched her ID to read "F" would be placed in a women's prison regardless of her genitals, and although it may be appropriate to put the transwomen in a separate area for sleeping and showering, they would still get the same
uniforms/honorifics/opportunities as the cisgender women in the facility.

However, if an inmate's ID does not match their gender identity (something that can often happen if certain states make it tough to do so), then a protocol should be put in place similar to Washington, DC:

It all starts at intake. According to the new program statement written by the D.C. Department of Corrections–and dated today!–DOC will classify an inmate or can classify an inmate as transgendered after the inmate has been reviewed by the new Transgender Committee.

The committee is comprised of "a medical practitioner, a mental health clinician, a correctional supervisor, a Chief Case Manager and a DOC approved volunteer who is a member of the transgender community or an awknowledged expert in transgender affairs." This entity can determine the transgendered inmate's housing assignment after a review of their records and an interview with the inmate.

Here's where it kinda gets tricky: "During intake, if an inmate's gender-related expression, identity, appearance, or behavior differs from their sex, staff shall, when practical, place transgendered or intersex inmates in a holding cell by him/herself during intake." I wonder how a guard receives training on this?

If an inmate has been determined as transgendered, there are now procedures for how guards must address them. "Inmates shall be called by their last names without referenced to gender specific indentifiers such as Mr. or Mrs.," the DOC statement says.

I think this process would be more humane and would balance the needs of the trans* inmate with the overall safety of the facility.

In conclusion, this quotation from Jennifer L. Levi, Director of the Transgender Rights Project at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, sums it up best:

''If we are successful in getting individual care and treatment for our client, unfortunately that doesn't change automatically the denial that other inmates receive. That will take a longer educational process. It needs to include training at the highest levels. The law is pretty clear in this area, as it happens. It's just that getting the prison staff and administrators to actually follow the law is a big challenge.''

Although a perusal of comments sections of articles related to trans prisoners rights (or any other types of prisoners rights) reek of victim blaming and misplaced outrage, enough for me to throw something at the computer, I am at least glad that trans* prisoners have won some important concessions, though there is still a long way to go. Most of all, I am glad that judges, even those more conservative, are paying attention to the basic needs of trans* people over the bloodlust and blind retribution politics of Joe Pitchfork the Anonymous Dot Commenter. Once again, I stress, NO PERSON, NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, SHOULD LEAVE THEIR GENDER IDENTITY AT THE JAILHOUSE GATES.

-Jordan Gwendolyn Davis