Thank you for posting that. Very interesting to see someone who has clearly spent most of her time being lobbied by trans rights campaigners being confronted with the consequences of the demands she supports. Arguments once again (and always) made about the needs and experiences of the tiny number of homosexual, postoperative transsexuals are used to demand rights for a much larger group where the majority are neither homosexual nor fully transitioned. And of course lawmakers aren't made aware of that.
It is inconceivable that there should be transfers without serious safeguarding protocols in place, and yet we know from UK prisons and elsewhere that there is a conundrum at the heart of any policy that accepts self-declaration of sex which prevents proper safeguarding by its very nature.
If the policy says that the prison system accepts a male prisoner's claim that he identifies as female as a mere statement of fact never to be questioned or doubted, how can protocols pertaining to males be properly applied? That in itself would be proof that their identity is not accepted.
Which is what the second speaker explained - the male prisoner whose transfer request is subjected to safeguarding on the basis of his status as a dangerous and violent male then argues he cannot be denied a transfer on the basis of his crimes and status because there are female prisoners who are violent and dangerous too. And his sex is now accepted to be female.
Of course, if the risk assessment was on the basis of the risk the male sex class poses to the female sex class, there could be no transfers in a penal system that separates male and female prisoners on principle (because that has long been recognised as a necessary measure for the safety of female prisoners).
That lawmaker was suffering some serious cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile what she'd been told by trans rights campaigners and what she was hearing about the consequences of their demands in California. I hope she had the integrity to listen to the evidence.