Cruel and unusual punishment: California now letting biological men into women’s prisons

Law Enforcement Today – by Gregory Hoyt

CALIFORNIA – It’s been nearly six months since the passing of SB 132, an ill-thought bill passed under the guise of tolerance and inclusivity that allows biological men to be admitted as inmates into women’s prisons.

And with the law now having been put into practice for nearly half a year, the process of inserting men into spaces meant specifically for women is speeding up – and the consequences for allowing this abhorrent practice to continue and amplify is certain to come at the cost of incarcerated women’s’ general safety and possibly lives.

The concept of common sense, in terms policies and approach towards sensitive areas, has been completely abdicated in the name of “understanding” and “tolerance.”

But at what point must the clamoring of things like “tolerance” be no longer entertained with ridiculous accommodations, when the price of that accommodation is literally at the expense of potential abuse and torture?

Well, in the name of “tolerance” toward the transgender community, California brought about a law that went into effect in January of 2021 that allows those who identify as a particular sex to be housed in a prison designed for actual specified biological sexes.

Basically, a biological man who says they are a lady can find themselves housed in a women’s prison with actual biological women – while they still have a completely intact and functioning penis.

Here’s the bill summary text from SB 132, noting this absurd accommodation to someone’s whim of self-identity:

“The bill would require the department, for a person who is transgender, nonbinary, or intersex to only conduct a search of that person according to the search policy for their gender identity or according to the gender designation of the facility where they are housed, based on the individual’s search preference. The bill would additionally require the department to house the person in a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference, except as specified.”

The keywords in that bill are that prison officials must “house the person in a correctional facility designated for men or women based upon the individual’s preference.”

Now of course there is the caveat stop mentioned in that statement, that says “except as specified” – however, when reviewing the entirety of the bill text that is currently in law,  there are really no exceptions.

In fact, the word “except” is only in the bill summary and not anywhere written in the legislation as it stands today.

Now one may be wondering whether or not this is a hyperbolic take on SB 132, insofar that maybe it’s not as point blank as described earlier in that someone with perfectly functioning male genitalia can be admitted into a women’s prison.

Rest assured, that is not hyperbole, as here is the bill text that shows not only can someone have their fully functioning penis and be placed into a women’s prison – they can actually be a straight biological male that just feels like a woman:

“(c) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not deny a search preference pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or a housing placement pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) based on any discriminatory reason, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

“(1) The anatomy, including, but not limited to, the genitalia or other physical characteristics, of the incarcerated person.

“(2) The sexual orientation of the incarcerated person.

“(3) For a denial of a housing preference pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), a factor present among other people incarcerated at the preferred type of facility.”

Also, if you take a look at section (3) above, that is very nifty legal jargon within SB 132 that says it doesn’t matter if “other people incarcerated at the preferred type of facility” object to a particular biological male being housed at their prison.

It’s completely understandable to have little to no sympathy for those that have ran afoul of the law – everyone in prison committed a crime and are sentenced to a period of confinement for their respective offenses.

The keyword there is “confinement.”

But this nonsense from California that is SB 132 is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment, specifically for women that are incarcerated in the state prisons – because the punishments allocated for non-violent offenses (which the majority of women in the U.S. are incarcerated for non-violent offenses) is not the risk of sexual violence or physical abuse coming from a man’s hands.

Back in 2018, the slogan “believe women” became wildly popular and circulated, namely within progressive circles in response to the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Yet in 2021, progressive states like California won’t even listen to women, as through their legislative processes they’ve effectively rendered the significance behind what it is to be a woman meaningless.

Law Enforcement Today

One thought on “Cruel and unusual punishment: California now letting biological men into women’s prisons

  1. Although I don’t remember the particular State, this has happened before – where as women prisoners were raped. Not only were there pregnancies, there was the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *