On February 20th, the District of Columbia joined a very short list of  states that allow transgender inmates in their corrections systems to be housed with other inmates of their gender identity.

And by “very short,” I mean there is one other such state: New York.

Given the not-entirely-progressive-on these-issues tilt of the current District administration, this Department of Corrections shift seemed like a great step. According to a letter acquired by the Washington City Paper, Attorey General Peter Nickles described the regulation change like this:

“These provisions, along with other aspects of the policy, will help to ensure that the rights of transgender prisoners are respected and that their unique needs are accommodated, to the extent practicable, while they are incarcerated.”

Pursuant to this policy, the District Will [sic] be one of only a few jurisdictions in the nation to permit transgender inmates to be housed according to their gender identity in appropriate cases, and to allow transgender inmates to initiate hormone therapy while in custody.”

Sounds great, right? Trans prisoners will be able to be housed according to their gender identity, and will even be given the opportunity to start hormone therapy will incarcerated, right?

Not entirely. While Nickles paints a pretty picture about the policy, it’s full of holes that render the new policy inconsistent at best and somewhat useless at worst.

The first questionable aspect of the plan is that it states that inmates “may” be housed based on gender identity, if it’s “appropriate.” Who decides what’s appropriate? The newly formed “Transgender Committee,” comprised of a medical practitioner, a mental health clinician, a correctional supervisor, a case manager, and a Department of Corrections volunteer that’s part of the trans community or knowledgeable about trans issues. The City Paper suggests that majority will rule from the Committee, but then points to a further complication.

The Committee’s decision can be overturned, it turns out, by the prison Warden. All he needs to do is submit his reasoning in writing to the Director of the DOC.

That loophole is exacerbated when you take into consideration that the new policy could be described as “all or nothing.” A Transgender woman who is housed with cisgender women will also be given a woman’s uniform, be permitted to keep her hair long, and start or continue hormone treatment. But if either the Transdgender Commission or the prison warden houses the trans woman with male inmates, she won’t have access to any of those rights.

To make it worse, no trans inmates can expect to be addressed by their first names or genered pronouns. The regulation states that to avoid confusion, all trans inmates will be called “Inmate Last Name” by all prison staff. First of all, pronouns aren’t that confusing to keep straight. But second of all, does the regulation really need to stipulate a way of treating one group of inmates differently than the others? If the point of the policy change is, as explained, to respect gender identity as required under the DC Human Rights Act, isn’t treating transgender prisoners different from cisgender prisoners discriminatory?

Perhaps I’m being oversensitive. Perhaps this really is a progressive policy. Or perhaps the Department of Corrections is trying to win a PR fight while making no real concessions. If the behavior of the DOC Director is any indication, it’s clearly the latter. During negotiations, The City Paper reports, he consistenly (perhaps purposefully) referred to the trans women underconsideration as “men.”