New Report Shows California Law Mandating Transfer of Men into Women’s Prisons Is Failing
The report by the California Office of the Inspector General Report follows WoLF’s request for an investigation of the implementation of SB 132
In August, the California Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Independent Prison Oversight Committee issued a “Special Review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) implementation of the Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act” (commonly referred to as SB 132). The report validates many of the concerns expressed by WoLF about SB 132, including the disparate treatment on women and the difficulty in safely implementing this law as written. Read the full report here.
Background: WoLF requested an investigation from the California Inspector General back in 2021
In 2021, WoLF filed a lawsuit (Chandler v. CDCR) on behalf of four incarcerated women challenging the California law that allows men to "self-identify" as women or non-binary and be housed in women's facilities. WoLF is asking the court to overturn this law as unconstitutional.
August of the same year, Lauren Adams Bone, lead counsel in Chandler v. CDCR, testified to the California Senate Rules Committee against the appointment of Jeffery Macomber as Undersecretary of Operations for CDCR. WoLF highlighted multiple areas of concern with the implementation of SB 132 and asked the Senate to ask the Inspector General to conduct a thorough investigation into the conditions on the ground. The OIG’s report appears to be the result of that investigation.
Key Takeaways From the Report
1. Transferees lie to get into the women’s prison in order to have sex with women - WoLF predicted it and warned against this.
SB 132 allows male prisoners to request a transfer into a women’s prison based on their self-declared “gender identity.” Their request is reviewed and either approved or denied based on factors that are unclear, creating a variety of issues.
The report states that “The Act’s broad language limiting the bases to deny a transfer request has also made it challenging for the department to develop specific criteria to evaluate transfer requests.” (pg. 2) The OIG described the problem with the standard laid out in SB 132 plainly:
“If a person with a history of raping women requests to transfer to a women’s prison, this language may prohibit the department from denying the person’s transfer request based solely on the prospective transferee’s history of raping women. (pg. 19)
The OIG also identified that it was difficult for the department to “accurately assess a prospective transferee’s sincerity in self-identifying their gender identities or their true intentions in requesting a transfer under the Act.” In fact, even some trans-identifying male transfers called out their fellow transferees:
“Some believed prospective transferees were seeking to transfer to have sexual relations with incarcerated people who were designated female at birth. Some transferees suggested the department should better screen prospective transferees and deny transfer to those with histories of abuse to increase safety at women’s prisons… One prospective transferee made the following observation: “There are a lot of wolves in sheep’s clothing. There are a lot of men who are now all of a sudden transgender.” (pg. 26)
WoLF predicted and warned against this outcome from the beginning.
2. The process is geared to favor male transfers - creating disparate treatment against women
The report describes a toxic environment inside women’s prisons, where staff members reportedly claim that ”transferees [men] must be treated like an ‘endangered species’ for the department to avoid lawsuits.”
Transferees gain special treatment like the ability to choose their bed assignments, and other special considerations that most prisoners are not afforded. This creates a major power imbalance in the prison, where men are prioritized over women in their own space. California has thus placed the desire of trans-identifying male inmates over women’s rights to their safety in women’s prisons.
“The Act creates inequity and tension between TNI people, whose perception of health and safety must be given serious consideration, and the rest of the incarcerated population, who must either accept housing assignments or be subject to disciplinary action. This disparity contributes to a feeling of resentment toward the transferees and the perception that transferees are treated differently.”
In Chandler v. CDCR, WoLF argues that the disparate treatment of men and women in women’s prisons under SB 132 violates the women’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. The state’s report validates those concerns.
3. Women remain traumatized and afraid of being forced to live with male offenders
The OIG’s report confirmed that many women are still living in fear two years after the implementation of SB 132. The report states, “Many incarcerated people at CCWF and CIW have expressed safety and privacy concerns living with transferees. Especially concerning to the incarcerated people we interviewed was showering around transferees, particularly those who have not had gender-affirming surgery” (men with penises). (pg. 3)
Of the women living at CCWF and CIW (the state’s two women’s prisons) nearly two-thirds of those interviewed stated that they fear for their safety around all or some of the transferees. Over a quarter of women reported bad experiences with the men, including sexual assault (pg. 25).
“Living in close spaces with individuals designated male at birth was particularly triggering for the 20 percent of incarcerated people we interviewed who reported a history of abuse. Consequently, being required to house, dress, and undress with transferees triggered past trauma. This type of intimate setting was also problematic for some incarcerated people who expressed religious objections to living with unrelated individuals designated male at birth.” (pg. 29)
The concerns of incarcerated women were apparently so severe, that it led to them reportedly forming “protection pacts” where they agree to join in any fight between a man and the women in their pod.” (pg. 25)
The state seems to think it has implemented enough security measures to protect women from the violent men they have let in, claiming, “Incarcerated people can report safety or security concerns to departmental staff, can request a bed change or be placed in temporary restrictive housing, and may file a grievance if their concerns are not resolved.” But, as we know women actually face retaliation when they attempt to raise their concerns or file a grievance with the prison.
It should be noted California prisons have long had well-documented issues with guards sexually assaulting female inmates, and the present ‘protections’ have never adequately protected women from those dangers, either.
4. In dealing with reports of sexual assault in women’s prisons, the state purports that acts of sexual misconduct are between consenting inmates, or ‘just’ incidents of unwanted touching
The report mentions numerous reports of sexual misconduct, however it continues the state’s pattern of downplaying these instances by claiming they were “consensual misconduct.”
“None of the incidents of sexual assault alleged rape or attempted rape, and most alleged that a transferee either touched another incarcerated person in an unwanted sexual manner or forced someone to touch them in an unwanted manner. The department did not substantiate any allegations of sexual assault. In contrast, the department sustained numerous allegations of consensual sexual misconduct between transferees and other incarcerated people at CCWF and CIW. In addition, many incarcerated people reported witnessing transferees abusing their romantic partners. Forms of abuse reportedly included both physical violence and demeaning behavior.”
This reads like victim-blaming by the state, when the state threw this door open wide, and put all female inmates and guards at risk of unwanted contact from males who declared themselves women or non-binary in order to get into women’s prisons.
WoLF foresaw all of these dangers to women when SB132 passed in 2020, and testified and warned the state accordingly.
The state was determined to pass this law, over reasonable and sound objections we raised.
We have been fighting to protect incarcerated women from the moment this bill was proposed five years ago, and we would not have gotten this far without you.
Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support this important case, as it represents a chance to set a precedent in defending women’s rights, to turn this terrible, farcical ideology on its head.
On behalf of these women, and all women, we thank you.
Learn More About SB 132 and Chander v. CDCR
