Re Ted Cruz statement on incarcerated trans individuals

Facts

• The video presented appears to be an excerpt of the hearing of US Senate Committee on the Judiciary for five US District judge nominees. The video is a conversation between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sarah Netburn, nominated to be US District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York and currently the Chief US Magistrate Judge of the same court. Ranking member Sen. Graham (R-SC) had discussion on the same topic in this hearing prior to Sen Cruz's questioning. 
• The case in discussion is Shelby v. Petrucci et al., between the trans inmate J. J. Shelby and the US Bureau of Prisons. Netburn presided as the magistrate and compiled a Report and Recommendation, which later confirmed by a District Judge. 
• In this Report, Netburn recommended the inmate to be housed in a female facility instead of the current male facility. Netburn analyzed the Transgender Offender Manual in its past and current form, the inmate's personal history, and the inmate's concern of safety in a male facility. This is in line with the Manual, which gives significant weight to any trans inmate's narrative to their security in the facility. Netburn assessed that the inmate has not have any contact offences for 30 years and is likely not going to pose security risks if transferred; on the other hand, the inmate's security in a male facility is profound. Netburn concludes that "BOP’s decision to deny Petitioner a transfer to a women’s facility is based on bias and fear and not evidence" and made the aforementioned recommmendation. 
• Revealed by one of the motions the inmate filed, the inmate is currently serving a 15-year sentence that commenced in 2017 for one count of distributing child pornography. The inmate pleaded guilty after counsel negotiated a favourable sentencing agreement of 15 years, the statutory minimum length of the sentence. The inmate has been serving the sentence in male facilities since. The inmate prior criminal history includes burglary and arson in 1985 (1-year sentence), child molestation and rape in 1994 (2 consecutive 18-year sentences), and violation of parole terms in 2012 (6 years). The inmate was last released in 2015 before commencing the current sentence. 
• The inmate started to experience gender dysphoria as a child and continuously experience dysphoria throughout the inmate's life but was not able to diagnosed as such until the age of 51. The inmate sought medical transition, including surgery, but never had the opportunity to do so. The inmate continues to intend getting lower body surgery. The inmate did not have the chance to initiate social transition until 2016. The sentencing judge of the 2017 conviction was aware of the inmate's gender dysphoria and transition and recommended the inmate to be housed in female facilities; this never happened. The inmate has been under hormone therapy to lower testosterone levels, which the medical consensus believes to contribute to aggressive behaviour. 
• The inmate experienced sexual harassment and rape as a minor, later in life in the Navy, and when incarcerated. The inmate had history of alcoholism since the age of 12. The inmate had no stable housing. 

My analyses on the video

• Throughout this hearing and in this conversation captured by the short video, the Republican senators generally appeal to audience emotions rather than facts to advance their political talking points. While in no way justifying the inmate's actions and convictions, I agree with Netburn's analysis that in this particular case, the transfer to women's facility is unreasonably denied and must be corrected. 
• Netburn emphasized in this conversation and throughout the hearing that she considered all the facts that was presented and made the recommendation; I agree. A good jurist must be able to look beyond the catch phrases and analyze the facts and the law on their own right. Sen. Cruz is obviously also well aware of that as a Harvard law graduate and former Solicitor General. It is obviously the political benefits that motivated his line of questioning in this hearing. 
• The senators ought to question Netburn's qualifications and fitness to the position; calling Netburn a radicalist without having the claim sustained by facts does not add to the discussions of her qualifications and fitness. In that regard, the Senator failed at his job. 

My further thoughts on the matter

• Obviously you are more interested in my opinion on the topic itself. I lack working knowledge to US constitutional law so I will move the discussion to be under a Canadian context. 
• I believe that where to house a trans inmate must have no set rules and analyzed by individual case's circumstances. The discussion must be a balance between the security risks that the trans inmate themselves would pose and would face in any given facility. Simply striking a rule en masse to house them by either social gender or "biological sex" (i.e. genitals) would be detrimental to some inmate's risk; the former rule generally makes trans men at risk in men's facility while the latter generally makes trans women at risk in men's facility. 
• You may find the commonality in the above example is men's facility. The root of the problem is (well, testosterone, and) the management of these facilities. That, in my opinion, matters the most than deciding where individual inmate should be housed. 
• Gender identity or expression are protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Corrections Services Canada has policies on how to treat and house trans inmates, which I substantially agree. 
• The politicians, editorial writers, and Toronto Sun / Postmedia "reporters" do not, in essence, care about women's safety or incarcerated person's safety. They care more about their political or financial future.