Why is San Francisco allowing a handful of sheriff's department staff to stymie a practical and effective proposal to house transgender inmates safely? I know the city has undergone some changes over the last decade, but I refuse to believe that it has turned its back on the human rights principles that made it famous worldwide. Yet here we are, weeks before an election for sheriff, and this policy �" more than two years in the making �" is on life support. Why?
It can't be the proposal itself. Here are the facts: after more than a decade of research, the U.S. Justice Department recently concluded that transgender women are �" by a horrifyingly wide margin �" the demographic group most at risk for sexual abuse in our nation's corrections facilities. In any given year, 1 in 3 transgender women held in a jail or prison is sexually abused by a staff member or another inmate.
This tragedy should surprise no one. With rare exception, transgender women in custody in the U.S. are held in men's facilities. Beyond sexual abuse, these women are subjected to taunts, insults, coercion, and degradation at a level that seems impossible in a civilized society. The results? Long-term negative health consequences, mental and emotional anguish, barriers to participating in educational and programming opportunities, poor re-entry planning, and higher risk of ending up back in a jail or prison. In light of these realities, meaningful reform of how transgender inmates are housed and treated is urgently needed.
Despite myths taking shape in the fog of the sheriff's race, it also wasn't the process that put the policy at risk. When I reached out to Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi in early 2013 to urge him to improve housing for transgender inmates, he readily agreed. He explained that his department was well positioned to create a comprehensive transgender housing program that could serve as a national model.
Over the next year, the sheriff pulled together several meetings between subject matter experts and his leadership staff �" including his chief deputies and one of his captains �" to discuss what it would mean to conduct individualized housing assessments of transgender inmates. These assessments �" already required under federal regulations �" would identify transgender inmates who would feel safer housed based on their gender identity. And, when appropriate, house them accordingly. As any good leader does, the sheriff solicited, and listened closely to, opinions and concerns expressed by this staff.
While a number of the sheriff's leadership personnel were supportive of this change, neither he nor I foresaw the seemingly intractable transphobia that this proposal would generate from a handful of key staff. It was their hostility that initially delayed the effort.
The staff who objected to the proposal expressed disgusting and outdated stereotypes about transgender women, their bodies, and the "danger" they pose. It didn't matter that city leaders and advocates answered and re-answered their "concerns"; they just kept repeating them in later meetings. Not satisfied with attacking only transgender inmates, these staff members also cast aspersions on the professionalism of the department's uniformed female staff. They told us that female deputies �" unlike paramedics, nurses, police officers, home health care workers, and juvenile detention counselors �" are unable or unwilling to conduct themselves appropriately when interacting with transgender women.
When these tactics weren't successful in derailing the policy internally, Eugene Cerbone, the president of the local Deputy Sheriff's Association, picked up the baton. In well-covered comments reported in the Bay Area Reporter and then in other outlets, he responded to Mirkarimi's policy announcement this summer with similarly outrageous assertions. But Cerbone's offensive and wildly incorrect comments weren't as shocking as the near silence that followed from the city's elected officials (including two gay supervisors), editorial writers, columnists, and the organized LGBT community.
Other than a column by Pride at Work and statements from the organizations that have been working directly with the sheriff's department, I can't find a single LGBT or ally leader who has stated the obvious: Cerbone's comments are transphobic; this policy is the best way to house transgender inmates; and, it reflects core San Francisco values. Thankfully, last week the B.A.R. got Vicki Hennessy, Mirkarimi's challenger in the race for sheriff, to expand on previous comments. She strongly affirmed that she disagrees with Cerbone's comments and supports a policy for housing transgender inmates that is based on safety, not stereotypes.
With the leading sheriff candidates agreeing on the basic fundamentals of a new policy, we should all commit to having one in place by the end of 2015. The policy should include training that provides accurate information to staff with genuine questions or concerns. However, there is no point in going through another years-long process of trying to respond to transphobic and sexist questions from a handful of leadership staff who only want to derail progress.
To get there, LGBT and ally leaders in San Francisco are going to have to get involved. As we all know, recent victories didn't end our movement. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves of that and recommit to working together even when it's tough. Otherwise, San Francisco is going to become what many people fear �" a city known only for its beautiful views and exciting tech. But I don't think that is what most people want and now is the time to prove it.
Chris Daley is a deputy executive director at Just Detention International. Prior, he lived in San Francisco for 15 years and is a founder of the Transgender Law Center.