Is the state of CA required to pay for an inmate’s sex change?
Stories about transgender rights always provoke interesting debates about identity versus biology. Few are as interesting as the story of Lyralisa Stevens, an inmate in the California prison system who wants the state to pay for her sex change. Stevens landed in jail after murdering a woman in a dispute over clothes, and is serving fifty years. The problem is, she has been the subject of sexual abuse from fellow-prisoners and feels she’d fare better in women’s facility.
On one hand, her safety is important; if she is being harassed or, even worse, raped, something should be done. On the other, she is biologically a man and killed someone in cold blood. It’s hard to weigh an inmate's needs against the fact that they are, in a lot of cases, hardened criminals. I can’t pretend to have a definitive answer to this question, but I think, at the very least, something should be done to protect Stevens and the approximately 300 other transgender inmates in the same situation.
Comments ( 22 )
It should be the job of prison officials to prevent sex abuse in prisons, whether the victim is transgender or not. How about they work on that, first?
Yes, that's true and lots of groups are working on that (Google PREA). I don't know whether the state should have to PAY for the operation, but if we are for trans rights (and the folks at Hooksexup and most of its readers would probably say they were), shouldn't she be treated by the state in a manner that's aligned with her gender identification (including being housed in a women's facility)? I don't know Cali law at all, but my guess is that if biological males who ID as female are allowed to be in a women's facility at all, it's probably req'd that she be post-op.
Or we could do what the rest of the world is starting to do, which is build mixed-gender prisons (e.g., https://goo.gl/VETJO) to avoid this entire debate. I am sure it will be centuries before our absurd hangups about sex would allow any such advances to creep into penal institutions, but this is a long-term problem so it needs a long-term solution.
@meh Interesting link, thanks. I have to say, I came back to this article after the weekend because it really irked me and I wanted to revisit the language. The line "she is biologically a man and killed someone in cold blood" is really awful. It implies that once someone commits a crime, they are no longer entitled to their own identity. It's disappointing that Hooksexup sounds so much like a right-wing, law-and-order-obsessed politician here.
Regarding Lyralisa, I think it's ridiculous that this debate is even happening. S/he killed someone over clothing. The fact that they're alive, period, should be gratifying enough, and now they want the state to fund a non-essential surgery?
Three squares a day and a roof over their head on the taxpayer's dime isn't enough-now we have to fund sexual reassignment because a MURDERER would feel more COMFORTABLE in a different facility?
Here's what's ridiculous if you actually take the time to read the article: the state acknowledges that she's female enough to be giving her female hormones since 2003, but does not acknowledge that she's female enough to be in a women's prison. It sounds like she just wants to stop getting raped and sexually abused, and that's why she's pushing for the state to fund the surgery ... and yes, I guess that's a comfort issue, startmakingsense, but if the state acknowledges that she's female enough to deserve female hormones, then they should move her into a women's prison (I have a feeling that her having breasts just makes her more of a target).
We're out-evolving sex? My god, Demolition Man was right.
Bring on the Orgasmotron! (https://goo.gl/kgjRU) Woody Allen turned out to be right after all.
maybe my wife has simply "evolved" past giving a shit about how she looks or what she acts like in the bedroom. the constant complaining and sweat pants and farting is a real turn on.
Quit fooling around with my wife!
Oh you guys.
Wait, is there something current/newsworthy about the Jocelyn Elders piece? Is there something that JUST happened that led to us talking about this now? My only sense from the "according to her" is that she wrote about this in a book that was released recently or gave a speech or something. SOMETHING that would lead to this being in a piece about "this week." Also, what does this have to do with congress masturbating. I don't get it.
I don't believe that most Americans are in favor of gay marriage. I believe that many say that they are in favor of it to avoid the backlash of being called bigots, having their businesses boycotted or having their homes or businesses vandalized. State legislatures can be swayed by threats imposed by the gay marriage lobby but when it is left to the voice of the people, that "majority" suddenly evaporates. What say ye, haters?
Not a hater, but since these survey are usually anonymous and only aggregate results are published, there is little chance of getting boycotted or experiencing any backlash based on one's responses. More likely explanation is that people are starting to get that like their own marriage, the same sex variety is not about having weird sex, but about insurance, taxes, social security, health decisions, and thousand other pedestrian rights that come with the "married" label.
If you're a hater but are worried about backlash enough to say that you support gay marriage in an anonymous poll, then hopefully you will be worried enough about backlash to vote pro-gay.
Thanks, Meh. That's basically it. My darling gay friend wants to be able to marry his long-term partner because he wants to be *legally* able to make end-of-life medical decisions for him - and he for him - in the case that it becomes necessary. "Marriage", so far, is the only way that's possible.
Medical Power-Of-Attorney. That is even stronger than marriage when it comes to making end-of-life medical decisions. (I think gays should be able to legally marry, but this isn't the reason.)
For hell's sake, what prisoner in a male prison doesn't think he would be better off in a women's prison? I don't think any kind of abuse is acceptable, but to expect the state to pay for your surgery? Fucky you, you're a felon and have very little rights. Try obeying the fucking law and then we'll talk about your surgery.
I really hope the shift in how people feel same-sex relationship will eventually lead to ALL Americans having the right to 'marry' what ever their sexual orientation. Same-sex civil partnerships have been legal in the UK since 2005. A really positive step forward in a more liberalised Britain I think
Mollyxxx
https://mollysdailykiss.com/
There is no defense for "two girls, one cup." But if that guy wanted to film himself eating his own poop and vomit, I guess that would be somewhat different. I just don't see him doing that anytime soon.
"No matter how you feel about the films he makes, he should have the right to make them — unless they’re directly harming people." Arguably eating vomit and poop is directly harming people. Even if they do it for money (goodness forbid one ever finds oneself in that desperate undignified situation in which one has to eat poop/vomit for money).
"...he should have the right to make them — unless they’re directly harming people" what about if they're directly hurting animals? "Gang Bang Horse" which Mr. Isaacs has said involves bestiality crosses a BIG line for me. Hurting animals is wrong and does not equal art.
Add a Comment