Trans Women in Women's Prisons, Sports, and Bathrooms

Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions in our society that lead people to wrongly perceive the presence of transgender women as a threat in spaces like cisgender women’s prisons, sports, and bathrooms. These misunderstandings often stem from misinformation, fear, and a lack of awareness about the realities.

This article aims to provide a clear, evidence-based overview of these issues to dispel these myths and foster a more informed and compassionate understanding. By addressing these concerns with facts and empathy, we can work toward creating a society that is fair, inclusive, and safe for everyone.

(1) The issue of Trans women in Women's Prisons:

Court Blocks Trump's Order to Send Transgender Women to Male Prisons:

It is deeply unfortunate that far-right religious groups have managed to undermine the rights of vulnerable transgender individuals. Equally concerning is the fact that supporting transgender rights has become a politically sensitive issue that could harm us. However, standing for justice should not be about short-term political gain. I firmly believe that protecting transgender people remains the right thing to do, regardless of the political cost.

Although this battle is ongoing, justice is ultimately on our side. A major step forward occurred when the courts blocked Trump’s directive that would have forced transgender women into male prisons. Reuters.

The ruling was based on several key points:

1. Transgender Women Face Extreme Harm in Male Prisons: Numerous government reports and legal rulings, including Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), have confirmed that transgender individuals suffer significantly higher rates of physical and sexual violence when housed in prisons that match their biological sex rather than their gender identity. People are raped, and assaulted, and even killed for being trans. The Trump administration’s legal team did not even attempt to challenge this point in court, essentially conceding both the legal and moral argument.
2. Right-Wing Arguments Are Based on Rare Cases: The most common counterargument is that transgender women with a history of sexual offenses might pose a risk to female inmates. While there have been isolated cases, they are extremely rare compared to the widespread violence transgender women face in male prisons. The harm caused by placing transgender women in male facilities far outweighs the risk posed by the few cases where transgender offenders have committed crimes in female prisons.

Trans women, unlike cisgender men, undergo hormone therapy and take testosterone blockers, which significantly reduce their muscle mass and overall physical strength. This hormonal transition makes them physically more fragile, often bringing their strength levels closer to those of cisgender women rather than cis men.  

Because of this, placing trans women in men's prisons puts them at severe risk. In most cases, they are completely defenseless against the physical aggression of powerful cisgender male inmates, many of whom have histories of violent crime. Prisons are already environments where physical dominance plays a major role in survival, and trans women—lacking the biological advantages that cis men have—are often unable to protect themselves.  

This is why many human rights advocates argue that trans women should be housed in women's facilities. Ignoring these biological and medical realities can lead to severe consequences, including increased violence, assault, and psychological trauma and even killing for trans inmates.

Perfection Is Not Possible, but Solutions Exist

There is no 100% perfect God present in the heavens. Thus, our world is not 100% perfect. We face a lot of challenges, and we have to make a lot of compromises to survive in this imperfect world. 

Yet, far-right religious groups demand an unrealistic, absolute solution—one that simply denies the existence of transgender people. This refusal to acknowledge reality only deepens the suffering of transgender individuals, pushing many toward extreme distress and even suicide.

A practical approach must involve compromise. The possible solutions are:

1. Dedicated transgender prison facilities (a costly and logistically difficult option).

2. Placing trans women in male prisons (proven to be highly dangerous).

3. Placing trans women in female prisons while carefully monitoring behavior and, if necessary, transferring offenders to solitary confinement or male facilities—this was the previous policy before Trump’s orders.

Even if a transgender woman is not physically assaulted in a male prison, simply being forced to live as a man—being referred to as male, forced to wear male clothing, and subjected to male searches—causes significant psychological harm. Government reports and psychiatric studies confirm that this distress alone is enough to cause severe mental health issues.

When these reports were presented in court, once again, the Trump administration’s lawyers did not contest them. This marks another legal and moral defeat for those who seek to erase transgender identities.

The far-right’s refusal to accept scientific reality only worsens the suffering of transgender people. While there are risks with any policy, the solution should not be to ignore or erase an entire group’s rights. As history has shown, progress may be slow, but justice will ultimately prevail.

It is deeply troubling how the religious right approaches issues of gender and sexual violence. Their stance reveals contradictions and a deeper ideological motive:

1. 1. Selective Concern for Sexual Violence: They focus heavily on protecting cisgender women from sexual violence (which is, of course, important). However, they ignore or refuse to address the widespread sexual assault occurring between individuals of the same sex, especially in men’s prisons.

   2. Deliberate Harm to Trans People: They are fully aware that their policies will result in suffering for trans individuals. Instead of seeing this as an unintended consequence, they view it as an intentional and desirable outcome. Their goal is not just to exclude trans people but to erase them from public life entirely.

   3. Mocking and Dehumanizing Trans People: Rather than acknowledging the violence and discrimination trans people face, they trivialize and mock their suffering. They make jokes at the expense of trans individuals who are subjected to abuse.

   4. The Threat to Patriarchal Beliefs: Trans people disrupt long-held gender norms that religious conservatives see as divinely ordained. They believe gender is assigned at birth and should never be altered. Any deviation from these rigid roles is perceived as a direct challenge to "God’s plan."

   5. The Fear of Losing Control: Conservatives have invested deeply in the idea that gender roles are immutable and dictated by a higher power. If people are free to define their own identity, it undermines the authority of religious doctrine. They fear that without strict gender roles, society will descend into "chaos," as they believe God’s order is the foundation of civilization.

Far Right Argument: Reform Male Prisons Instead

A common argument from far-right religious groups is: "Why not reform male prisons instead of transferring trans women to women's prisons?"

Our Response: While prison reform is an important and necessary discussion, it is a separate issue from the immediate concerns we are addressing. Our focus here is on minimizing harm to transgender individuals within the current prison system. Reforming male prisons is a long-term goal, but it does not solve the urgent risks faced by trans women in male facilities today. We must prioritize their safety and well-being within the existing framework while advocating for broader systemic changes in the future.

Scandinavian countries, particularly Norway and Finland, have implemented mixed (unisex?) prisons. These systems often feature "open prisons," where inmates experience conditions that closely resemble life outside incarceration. In Norway, prisons like Halden are designed to simulate a village environment, promoting a sense of normalcy and community among inmates. This approach aims to prepare prisoners for successful reintegration into society upon release. Research indicates that these rehabilitative models have yielded positive outcomes. Centre for Economic Policy Research.

For individuals convicted of violent or aggressive crimes, separate wings or specialized confinement may be necessary. However, for non-violent offenders, a unisex prison system could offer a more humane and effective solution. 

(2) The Issue of Transgender Women in Sports

Once again, let us begin with the reminder that the world is not 100% perfect, as it has not been made by any 100% perfect god. We have to make COMPROMISES and find solutions (which may not be 100% perfect) in order to survive. 

So, what is the solution?

Option 1: Separate Sports Categories for Trans Women: One idea floating around is to create separate sports categories for transgender women, kind of like how we have separate events for cisgender men and women. On paper, this sounds inclusive, but let’s be honest—it’s not exactly practical. The costs and logistics of setting up entirely new categories would be a nightmare. Plus, it risks further isolating trans athletes instead of integrating them into the existing system. Do we really want to create more divisions in a world that’s already too divided?

Option 2: Trans Women Competing with Men: Another suggestion is to have transgender women compete in men’s categories. But here’s the thing: hormone replacement therapy (HRT) significantly lowers their testosterone levels and reduces muscle mass, bringing them in line with cisgender women. Forcing trans women to compete against men not only puts them at a physical disadvantage but also takes a huge toll on their mental and emotional well-being. Imagine being told you don’t belong in the category that aligns with your identity—it’s not just unfair, it’s downright cruel.

Option 3: Trans Women Competing with Cisgender Women: This option, while not perfect, might be the most balanced approach we have right now. Trans women on HRT have testosterone levels and muscle mass comparable to cisgender women. And let’s be clear: there’s little evidence to suggest they dominate women’s sports. In fact, they often lose more than they win—it’s just that the media loves to hype up their victories while ignoring their losses. This approach strikes a reasonable balance between inclusivity and fairness. It’s not about giving anyone an advantage; it’s about giving everyone a fair shot.

What About Cis Women with High Testosterone?

Consider the case of cisgender women like Imane Khelif, who are biologically female but naturally have higher testosterone levels than the average woman. Should such individuals be required to:

• Compete against cis men?
• Have their own category?
• Or be banned from sports altogether?

It’s a tricky question, and it highlights the fact that athletic performance varies widely even among cisgender athletes. Why single out trans women when natural variation is already part of the game? If we start policing testosterone levels, where do we draw the line?

Should we ban Michael Phelps because his body produces less lactic acid, giving him a natural edge in swimming? Of course not. So why are we so fixated on trans athletes?

Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and Its Impact

Transgender athletes undergo Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), which alters their muscle distribution and fat composition, effectively diminishing any biological advantages they may have had prior to transitioning. For transgender women, the physical changes brought about by HRT make them lose the muscle mass and strength typically associated with being assigned male at birth (AMAB). This process works to eliminate any inherent athletic advantages they may have had, aligning their athletic potential equal or at least very close to that of cisgender women.

In simple words, some cis women athletes may have more testosterone and muscle mass than trans women athletes who have undergone hormone therapy. Thus, there is no unfair advantage, as trans women often have even lower testosterone and muscle mass than many cis female athletes.  

If cis women with naturally higher levels of testosterone and muscles are allowed to compete, then why should trans women with lower levels be excluded?

Huge Variations Among Cisgender Athletes, where COMPROMISES were made

Please consider the following issues:

1. There are human populations or racial groups where individuals naturally tend to be lighter and shorter in stature, while others are generally taller and heavier. Despite this natural variation, a compromise has been made, allowing all groups to compete in the same sports events, even though those from shorter-statured populations may be at a disadvantage.
   
2. Even within the same population or racial group, some individuals are naturally taller, stronger, or faster than others. However, this natural variation in physical attributes doesn’t disqualify anyone from competing or imply that they unfairly disadvantage others. It is simply part of the diversity that exists in both sports and life.

Actually, this 2nd crucial point was raised in one scientific study. That study, titled Sex differences and athletic performance by D.J. Oberlin (you can check it out here) concludes that the ability to excel in sports is not solely determined by one’s sex. The study notes that within any given population, whether cisgender or transgender, there are individuals who exceed the average in terms of physical ability due to genetic and hormonal variations. These exceptional individuals may excel in their sport regardless of their sex or gender identity. Key findings from the study include:

• A small percentage of the population (around 2.3%) may NATURALLY excel in sports, regardless of their gender identity. They are naturally gifted—taller, stronger or faster than others. 
• Only 0.5%–0.6% of the population identifies as transgender. The idea that cis men would pretend to be trans women to dominate women’s sports is not only absurd but completely unfounded.

• HRT reduces or even eliminates many of the physical differences that develop during puberty. Trans women on HRT don’t have an unfair advantage—they’re playing on a level field.

• If trans women do excel in certain sports, should we really see that as unfair? Or is it just another example of natural variability, like how some athletes are born with freakish wingspans or superhuman endurance?

Only 10 Trans athelete in NCAA:

Lastly, the NCAA president told Congress in December that there are “less than 10” transgender athletes in the entire NCAA. Meanwhile, states with anti-trans laws have seen a 72% increase in suicide attempts among trans kids, according to an NPR story. Let that sink in. We’re arguing over a handful of athletes while real lives are at stake. Are we really okay with prioritizing hypothetical fairness in sports over the mental health and survival of trans youth?

"You know my child is dead," Kentucky Senator Karen Berg said at the statehouse during the debate over that state's anti-trans bill in Feb. 2023. Her transgender son had died by suicide two months earlier at age 24. "Your vote yes on this bill means one of two things: either you believe that trans children do not exist, or you believe that trans children do not deserve to exist."

History: How Solutions were found to include Women's Sports in Olympics

The Olympic Games originated in Ancient Greece around 776 BCE, held in Olympia as a competition exclusively for men. Women were strictly banned—not only from competing but also from watching the games if they were married. The Greeks saw sports as a display of male strength and heroism, believing that women had no role in such competitions.

Despite these restrictions, some women still found ways to participate. The Heraean Games, dedicated to the goddess Hera, allowed women to compete in limited athletic events, primarily foot races. However, these games were never given the same recognition or prestige as the men’s Olympics.

When the modern Olympic Games were revived in 1896 by Pierre de Coubertin, women were still banned from participation. At the time, people argued that sports were too physically demanding for women and that their inclusion would disrupt the tradition of competition. This mirrors today's arguments against transgender women in sports—both groups have been framed as a challenge to the established order.

It wasn't until the 1900 Paris Olympics that women were finally allowed to compete, but only in a few events considered "suitable" for them, such as tennis and golf. Over time, more sports opened up to women as society recognized the need for inclusivity. Adjustments were made, such as creating separate women's categories and securing financial support, to ensure fair participation.

Women’s inclusion in sports did not come from a perfect system—it evolved through continuous efforts to find solutions that made competition fair and sustainable. Despite early claims that women’s participation would be unfair to men, that they were biologically weaker, or that they might ruin the integrity of sports, society found ways to accommodate them. The same process can be applied to transgender athletes today, proving that sports can and should evolve to become more inclusive.

(3) Understanding the Debate on Transgender Women in Women's Bathrooms

This is a deeply sensitive and often polarising topic. To have a meaningful discussion, it's important to begin by listening to both perspectives:

What Trans Women Say:

• "Being a Woman is Our Identity": Transgender women identify as women, and that identity extends to all aspects of life, including the right to use women’s restrooms. Denying them access is emotionally distressing. It isolates them, reinforces misunderstanding, and exposes them to public ridicule. Many trans women compare this exclusion to past forms of segregation, such as “Whites Only” restrooms, that stripped individuals of dignity and recognition.

• Safety Concerns: Being forced to use men’s restrooms puts trans women at genuine risk of harassment and violence. It's not just uncomfortable, it can be dangerous. Even good looking staight men are being harassed and raped in male spaces, so the risk for trans women is real.

• Restrooms for Disable People: Directing them to use restrooms for people with disabilities sends a harmful message that being trans is an abnormality or medical condition. These restrooms are also often few in number and needed by people with physical impairments. Trans women argue that this arrangement is not only stigmatizing, but also impractical. And some people will still blame us to be a DANGER to disabled people, especially female ones. 

What Opponents Say:

• Safety and Privacy: Some opponents argue that because transgender women are biologically male, allowing them access to women’s restrooms could put cisgender women and girls at risk, particularly in public or shared spaces. They worry that open policies might be exploited by predators falsely claiming a transgender identity to access women-only areas. For many, this concern isn't necessarily about trans women themselves, but about potential loopholes that could be abused.

• Modesty and Religious Beliefs: Others express concerns tied to modesty, privacy, and religious convictions. In some cultures and faith traditions, being in a space with individuals of the opposite biological sex, even in a non-sexual context, can cause distress or violate deeply held beliefs.

• Protecting Children: A number of parents, especially those with young daughters, feel uncomfortable with the idea of their children sharing restrooms with trans women. They argue that young children may not be equipped to understand gender diversity, and that school environments should prioritise clarity and caution. Some suggest waiting until children are old enough to process these complex social issues before introducing gender-inclusive restroom policies.

So, where Do We Go from Here? This is clearly not a black-and-white issue. Both sides express valid fears, whether about safety, identity, dignity, or privacy. 

Let’s explore that together.

LESSON: Our World is not 100% PERFECT and we need COMPROMISES to Survive

As humans, we naturally hold diverse opinions, and that’s okay. it’s part of who we are. While differences exist, we may still find practical, respectful solutions.

The reality is, we live in an imperfect world. No solution will satisfy everyone, but public spaces require COMPROMISE to ensure coexistence.

By focusing on mutual respect and safety, we can work toward a balanced approach that addresses the needs and concerns of all.

A COMPROMISE We Already Make on PRIVACY & MODESTY: Communal Bathrooms and Same-Sex Nudity

In many schools and sports complexes, especially in the U.S., communal bathrooms and lockerrooms are shared by people of the same gender. 

Please see that we have already COMPROMISED here on PRIVACY. 

Yes, there may be many, who just feel personally uncomfortable with same-sex nudity in communal settings and want to have privacy. And yet, most still accept it as a necessary compromise, because building fully private bathrooms for everyone simply isn’t practical or affordable.

Secondly, while this setup may feel normal to many today, it actually goes against the modesty values of several religious traditions:

• Christianity: Many conservative Christians believe even same-sex nudity is immodest. Early Christian teachings, influenced by the story of Adam and Eve, viewed unnecessary nudity as shameful. Public baths, common in Roman times, were eventually rejected by the Church.

• Judaism: Orthodox Judaism also discourages nudity, even among the same sex. Modesty (tzniut) is expected at all times, even when alone.

• Islam: In Islam, same-sex nudity is strictly forbidden. Men should not look at other men naked, and the same goes for women. Communal bathrooms would be considered impermissible (haram).

So, we already made a compromise on modesty too in communal bathrooms. 

Compromise on Bikinis: Another Example

In the past, bikinis were considered highly inapprpriate by many religious and cultural groups. 

• Judaism: Orthodox Jewish women are expected to cover much of their body, even at the beach.

• Christianity: Many conservative Christians have long viewed bikinis as immodest, citing verses like 1 Timothy 2:9 that call for modest dress.

But despite these religious beliefs, bikinis are now widely accepted, not just on beaches but also in competitive sports. 

So again, we compromise. Culture shifts, norms change, and people adapt.

Debate about SAFETY

If Safety concerns can be overcome, then the world will start to shift

As societies grow through education, they become more civilised. People learn to respect the rights of others, including those who are marginalised or misunderstood.

When people take time to understand one another better, fear and suspicion tend to fade away. With modern tools like panic buttons, surveillance systems and trained security, we’ve already found ways to reduce safety risks in public spaces, including for women and children.

The "Safety" Argument Against Bikinis and Skirts

It’s important to realise that this kind of SAFETY debate isn’t new.

Not long ago, bikinis and even skirts were heavily criticised in the name of "protecting women." The claim was that revealing clothing would trigger male desire and put women in danger, as if men couldn’t be trusted to control themselves.

In some conservative or religious societies, this logic goes even further: women are told to cover their entire bodies, hair, or even their faces to prevent men from becoming “tempted.” This puts the burden of male behaviour on women’s appearance.

But over time, as societies educated themselves and grew more awareness, things changed. Women started dressing more freely, and society adapted. Skirts, bikinis, andeven mini-skirts are now common in many countries, without being seen as a threat to anyone's safety.

Scandinavia and the Rise of Nude Beaches after SAFETY concerns were no more a threat

Look at places like Scandinavia, where nude beaches are common. There, men and women of all ages share public spaces without clothing, and do so safely.

How did this happen? Gradually, through a cultural shift. People were educated to see the human body without shame or fear. Nudity was de-sexualised, and personal space and consent became key values. As a result, these communities developed environments where people could be both free and safe.

Naturism among Indegineious Tribes, without any SAFETY concerns

It’s also important to remember that ideas about modesty and safety vary across cultures and time.

There were thousands of indigenous tribes (link) that have practised Naturism (i.e. a lifestyle of practising non-sexual social nudity in private and in public) for thousands of years.

People of all genders moved freely without clothing, and yet sexual assault was not common in these communities. For them, modesty wasn’t tied to fear or danger—it was simply a cultural expression.

What made it work? The absence of shame. When people are raised in a culture where the human body is not hidden or hyper-sexualised, they learn to see it as natural, not taboo. Similarly, when men and women are encouraged to interact openly, men are more likely to understand and respect women as equals—not as mysteries or objects.

Is There Evidence of Trans Women Assaulting Cis Women?

No. Despite widespread fearmongering, there’s no solid evidence to support the claim that trans women pose a danger to cis women in bathrooms.

Multiple studies from respected organisations — including the Williams Institute (UCLA), the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Center for Transgender Equality — have consistently found no link between trans-inclusive bathroom policies and assaults.

In fact:

• A 2018 study showed no increase in public safety issues where trans-inclusive policies were adopted.

• Law enforcement across multiple U.S. states reported no increase in bathroom-related crimes after trans protections were put in place.

A few isolated cases (link) are sometimes cited in the media, but closer examination usually shows:

• The perpetrators weren’t trans women.

• The stories were either misrepresented or entirely false.

Who Actually Faces the Risk?

Transgender women and girls.

• A 2013 study found that 70% of transgender people in Washington, D.C. experienced harassment, denial of access, or assault in restrooms.

• In one tragic case, a trans girl in California was sexually assaulted in a boys’ bathroom after being forced to use it.

These aren’t rare cases, but they reflect a larger pattern of risk and mistreatment faced by trans individuals.

When schools allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identity, nothing bad happens. No increase in assaults. No safety issues. Just students using the facilities and going about their day.

At the end of the day, the fear that trans women will harm cis women in bathrooms is not supported by facts. But the evidence does show that forcing trans people into bathrooms that don’t match their gender puts them in danger, not the other way around.

We’ve already made compromises on modesty and nudity in public settings, from communal bathrooms to bikinis. We did it because real life isn’t perfect, and rigid ideals don’t always work in practical spaces. So why not do the same for transgender people?

Respect, compassion, and safety don’t have to be sacrificed. They just need a little compromise.

How Different Societies Are Handling the Debate

1. Unisex / All-Gender Restrooms

Some places (like airports, universities, or progressive cities) offer gender-neutral restrooms. These are:

• Single-occupancy (one person at a time)

• Private

• Open to anyone, regardless of gender

This allows:

• Trans people to feel included

• Cis people to maintain privacy

• Parents with children or caregivers to help someone without worrying about gender

2. Multi-stall All-Gender Restrooms (less common)

Some modern designs include shared sinks, but fully enclosed stalls for privacy. These are gaining popularity in Europe and North America but still spark debate.

3. Keeping traditional gendered restrooms + adding an extra option

Some places keep:

• Men’s restroom

• Women’s restroom
  …and add a “family/unisex” restroom for anyone uncomfortable in gendered spaces.
  This can work if it’s optional, not forced.

Possible Middle Ground Solutions

• Better stall privacy (floor-to-ceiling walls/doors)

• Education and awareness to reduce fear and misunderstanding

• Clear anti-harassment policies to punish those who misuse inclusive rules

• Allowing people to use the restroom they feel safest in, while also addressing safety and privacy concerns respectfully