New York Won’t Give Up Its Efforts to House Men in Women’s Prisons
A bill which would allow men to opt into women’s prisons, jails and other incarceration facilities throughout New York State has been amended and resubmitted to a New York State Senate Committee for consideration
Over the last three legislative sessions in New York, some version of the bill “Gender Identity Respect Dignity and Safety Act” has been sponsored by State Senator Julia Salazar, as seen here, here and here.
At a time when the transgender community is under attack across our country, it’s important now more than ever that we stand up for transgender rights in ALL spaces, including in our prisons. It’s time to pass my and @EmilyAssembly’s Gender Identity, Respect, Dignity & Safety Act pic.twitter.com/iztEB64FCs
— NYS Senator Julia Salazar (@SalazarSenate) May 20, 2025
This week (approximately one year into a two year session), the bill was amended and reintroduced again to the Senate Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction.
In its current incarnation, the bill provides that inmates “shall be placed in a correctional facility or other institution with persons of the gender that most closely aligns with such person’s self-attested gender identity unless the person opts out of such placement.” In an earlier version, this provision in the bill included that prison housing placement would be “presumptively” based on gender identity or trans-identifying status or other self-identifying categories. The deletion of the word “presumptive” does not render this version of the bill any more reasonable or protective of female inmates. Rather, it appears likely it simply reflects that if housing is not made on the objective basis of sex, but on subjective internal feelings (including those who declare themselves “gender nonconforming” or “nonbinary”), it would be impossible for prison authorities to intuit where an inmate should be housed to comply with the law.
Other egregious elements remain in the bill, including that denials cannot be based on the realities of biological sex (including “past or current … chromosomes, genitals, gonads … or hormone function”), or based on sexual orientation, or the “complaints of other incarcerated individuals” (a/k/a women). Additionally, it is prohibited to transfer an inmate out of a “gender-aligned placement as a form of discipline.” This means that a male inmate who verbally harasses female inmates, or engages in voyeurism or exhibitionism directed towards them, cannot be transferred out of the women’s facility in response to this conduct, unless the conduct rises to the level of “current danger of … violence” as described below.
The procedures to deny cross-sex housing permit only two days to make a determination and only two days following that to provide the decision in writing to the inmate, including “an explanation of why the evidence supports a determination that the person presents a current danger of committing gender-based violence against others.” Further, the department is required to “attach all supporting documentation” and notes that “[u]nsubstantiated allegations are not clear and convincing evidence justifying a denial of gender-aligned placement.”
In any legitimate investigation, it would be reasonable to review the criminal history and prior incarceration records and to conduct interviews with former cellmates, law enforcement, and jail or prison officials, including those who have made psychological assessments. After gathering this information (including investigating any allegations not already substantiated), a review and assessment would be made, recommendations would be provided and then a final determination reached. The authorities would then draft the written decision, gather the supporting documentation, potentially redacting names of cooperating individuals, and – given the potential financial liability – obtain legal review. Obviously, all this activity cannot be done in four days, and it appears the intent of the law is to make it impossible to deny cross-sex housing placement.
Internal legal review of decisions to deny cross-sex housing would be necessary before finalizing a determination because the bill incentivizes legal challenges. It provides an avenue to appeal, which includes the availability of “injunctive relief and damages, including reasonable attorney fees.” Again, the bill appears designed to make denials near impossible and costly.
A marked-up version of the bill includes a “Justification” narrative which enthuses that “[s]imilar measures have passed in California and have been implemented as a result of litigation around the country.” The Justification ignores the many horror stories which have resulted from housing men in women’s prisons and jails, including a male inmate in California charged with sexually assaulting multiple women in prison and female inmates in New Jersey who were impregnated following an influx of men into the women’s prison there.
Immediately following his second inauguration, President Trump issued multiple Executive Orders (EO’s) including one on Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. This EO includes a section to “ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers.” Implementation of this EO in federal prisons has been thwarted at the district court level and remains on appeal. (Although there was a reprieve for two female federal inmates who secured a Temporary Restraining Order requiring a federal facility to keep male inmates away from them.)
“KAMALA’S AGENDA IS THEY/THEM—NOT YOU!” pic.twitter.com/ciIOk5IFSx
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2024
Despite this EO and despite the Trump victory on the heels of the impactful “Kamala’s Agenda is They/Them – Not you!” ad, New York State pushes ahead to enshrine transgender ideology in the law.
Amanda Stulman is a Senior Researcher and Attorney at the Legal Insurrection Foundation
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Let Salazar spend a few weeks in the slammer with transgendered prisoners as roommates and then tell us how safe it was for her,
These things always seem to begin with “At a time when ______’s rights are under greater assault than ever before…” Exactly what rights are transgendered people losing? The “right” to pretend that they are something that they are not biologically? The right to violate the privacy of real women? The right to groom minors? The right to have taxpayers fund their fantasies?
A right cannot be something someone else is required to provide for you. Housing is not a right. Health care is not a right. Acceptance of one’s delusions by others is not a right.
Those who think they are being compassionate by affirming the mental illness of others are sorely mistaken.
You cannot dare deny that no one’s rights are under fiercer attack then those of our esteemed transsexual illegal Muslims of color!
As you say, what a bunch of formulaic ritual horsesh*t.
And just look at all those smiling AWFULs betraying their sisters, holding those rigidly uniform signs. Not even the Vichy whores who collaborated with the Nazis were quite that giddy.
I certainly hope that the women in New York are too stupid to evacuate forthwith to save their own skins, because I surely do not want them polluting any other part of America.
No one can give you natural rights. The Constitution and the government demand/guarantee and create, respectively, civil rights that generally consist of rules of conduct for the government with respect to its citizens, establishing obligations and responsibilities to be fulfilled by government when dealing with the people. Civil rights are entirely synthetic, and require the existence of a government to even exist.
Arguably, this is an attempt to establish a civil right for trans convicts. Agree or disagree with the effort, because such a “right” would be a new rule for government’s obligations towards a segment of the population, it must be a civil, and not a natural, right. (If it were a natural right, trans persons would already have the right and they’d be in court defending it.)
New York Democrats are clinging bitterly to their ‘sexual identity’ fantasy and won’t let go unless and until the voters rub their noses in reality.
True. The lag time to that occurring is gonna be considerably longer for the ‘tranny in prison’ nonsense. Why? The sort of ideological wokiestas that vote for political figures to push nonsense/bad public policy are often able to insulate themselves and their family members from the negative consequences. The plight of female inmates being forcibly housed with tranny is not something that will impact most of these folks so they can be even more obnoxiously ‘pure’ in showcasing their commitment to this issue.
This women is a real nutjob, She might be worse than AOC and doesn’t have bartending skills. There must really be something in the water in NY to spawn these creatures.
She resembles the horse faced communist nutjob.
Maybe they should talk to the Navy about how their co-ed carrier went. It was so bad that it was called the “Love Boat” because there were so many pregnancies when it returned to base.
Trump said it well in his commercial “ Kamala is for they/them not you and I. I guess “ they” haven’t learned anything.
The one thing I can never figure out (okay….one of the things I cannot figure out, is the contradiction between laws when it comes to the issue of “transgender” and “men in women’s spaces.”
In the real world, ie private enterprise, a company can get smacked around for creating and having a “hostile work environment” when it comes to sexual harassment. Findings of sexual harassment can be based on the “feelings” of the woman / women being harassed. There have been cases where a company has been found to have fostered a “hostile work environment” for men having vacation / honeymoon picture of their wife on the beach in a bikini in a frame on the worker’s desk.
Now, with the push of “transgendered rights,” the same women are being told their “feelings” don’t matter and that naked men in locker rooms, dressing rooms and bathrooms are something the women must “deal with” Any complaint by the women is considered “transphobic” and “hateful.”
I cannot resolve the dichotomy between laws that don’t allow “hostile work environments” and the government creating and demanding those same “hostile work environments.”
Identity politics has its hierarchies.
Diversity (e.g. sexism).
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable.
Then there are the back… black holes… whores h/t NAACP at the intersection of racism and sexism where Back Lives Mutter.
#HateLovesAbortion
Because such rules have NOTHING to do with who you want to protect, and everything to do with who you get to punish.
Culture Marxism, men who want to see women and not be them.
Most individuals in the transgender spectrum are homosexual.
Simulants with Dreams of Herr Mengele or transsocial (e.g. men mocking women in drag)? Misogynists.
All’s fair in lust and abortion.
Grifters, groomers, and gropers are the three legs of the liberal triad.
Also known as “communists, jihadists/terrorists and trannies.” One hell of a marriage of political convenience, between three equally evil and vile groups.
American Civil Liberties Unburdened with benefits and collateral damage.
If the vile, stupid and evil Dhimmi-crats earnestly and genuinely believe that their neo-communist-Islamofascist/Muslim supremacist-tranny predator/groomer/abuser/terrorist platform and fanaticism represent the alleged path to electoral victory, let them ride that road straight to Hell, ruin and damnation.
The problem being, Dems only win by cheating, likely in every place except possibly blue hellholes.
With election integrity being furiously fought everywhere it’s instituted, and the cheat codified, it doesn’t matter what fetid amalgam lefties choose to champion. It’s not real people casting votes for them.
Political congruence (“=”) of couples and couplets. Albinophobia with pride in parades, too.
Social distancing from affirmative abortive ideation with a fetus technical term-of-art.
Diversity (Equivocation, and Indifference) or color and class judgments (e.g. racism, sexism).
Conflation of sexes and deprecation of gender (i..e. sex-correlated attributes including sexual orientation.
Scientific seance and experts braying in consensus in a secular society with precedent.
Progressive liberalism (i.e. monotonic divergence): one step forward, three steps backward and wicked solutions. Deja vu.
And women and girls thought they would be excluded as collateral damage from social progress. Diversity, Equivocation, and Inclusion (DEI) is a fetus… feature of a the Pro-Choice religion and scientific seance in a secular society. The Germans were far from unique in celebrating wicked solutions while in pursuit of capital and control.
Make Lethal Injections Great Again!
Can we bring back the acronym GIRL?
People who think rape in male prisons is funny, something to crack jokes about, shouldn’t have any objection to allowing potential rapists access to female prisons either. What’s the difference?
The matter could be solved with gender-detecting dogs. Like bomb dogs and drug dogs, specially trained to detect gender.
That’s what crotch sniffing is about.
Speaking from the “edgy-kashun” front:
We teachers get told that we face the stark choice of either affirming a confused kid’s “gender identity” or abet his suicide (sorry, folks: back in the day, lady teachers taught me pronoun agreement). Well, we have cases in which we did both.
In a jurisdiction near me, a boy in a skirt was allowed to use the girls’ bathroom, where his “gender fluidity” turned into the worst kind of male and he raped a girl. But, in accordance with all the regulations surrounding expulsions yadayada, he got transferred to another school while all the i’s and t’s were being dotted and crossed. What happened? Another rape in the girls’ room. Ultimately, the superintendent went to jail for criminal negligence; but, what else could he have done when caught between legally enated procedures and a sexual revolution lobby eager for fat, juicy lawsuits?
Since others here seem to be lawyers, maybe you could take the cases of female inmates who get violated by men in dresses? Cruel and unusual punishment for people already paying their debts to society?
Sounds like Loudoun County VA where my daughter is a teacher. As long as the public keeps voting for these degenerate politicians, there is no hope for normal people. You get what you vote for. Lawyers can’t help because the judges and juries are also polluted. The only solution is to move to a red state, like I did.
Yep. But one would think that even the most obtuse progressive would see how this kind of thing works out.
That is just not true. There was no such policy, and he was not allowed to use the girls’ bathroom. He was there not because of any school policy, but because that was his and his girlfriend’s regular spot to meet for sex. On this occasion she wasn’t in the mood and he didn’t take no for an answer. So it had nothing at all to do with the topic here. It had nothing to do with any trans policy or situation.
This isn’t true either. The second rape did not happen in the girls’ room. Again, it had nothing to do with any kind of trans policy or situation.
I stand corrected.
its how they keep the breeding farms going
They are men. they were born men and nothing will change that. And where did this all come from in the last so many years??
Actually, some of those men might actually be eunuchs with slightly more fancy cutting and wearing drag.
Communist efforts to destroy the family unit.
If I were convicted to serve a term in a NY prison (or CA or WA), I would definitely put myself down as a woman on the intake sheet. The women’s prisons are nicer (and less brutal) places to be, and the women are easier to get along with. Here in WA, the women’s prison looks like college dorms, and our state commonly puts men who say they are women into the women’s prisons. In fact, most of the sex offenders claim to be women.
Progressives don’t care about results, but they are very sensitive to appearances. They have to display obeisance to the canon, and this is issue is one of the pillars of their doctrine that feelings should prevail over realities. They get really stirred up about this, and don’t care about how crazy it seems to most people. They insist that all criticism is homophobic, and the sheep follow dutifully along with this. However, most others don’t, and it is costing them, so perhaps we should just encourage them to continue to stand up vocally for what they believe.
First institutionalize the mentally ill holding public office. Then worry about those crazy enough to vote for them.
Make insane asylums great again.