Awww, there, see? You can be less reliant on reductio ad absurdum... Slightly... Pretty straight forward, you just summed them up nicely:

You can't continuously create new criteria that don't fit the current criteria and generate a need for more and more individual prison environments. It's an endless task that can really only lead to financial ruin as you attempt to categorize everyone more and more until you require dozens and dozens of different types of prison facilities simply to house the current load of prisoners.

Yes, any woman can bulk up. Your concern over "Scott" is that she's too manly, but the only thing about her that is manly is how big she is and her beard. Assuming you aren't concerned over her beard, your concern is that she's too strong for the other prisoners - If that's the case, you are essentially creating Weight Classes of prisoners, because any woman can work out and become stronger than the other women, at which stage they also meet your criteria. You can't draw a line in the sand and say: "She's the second strongest woman in the women's prison, but she thinks she's a man, so we sent her to the men's prison. Meanwhile, the stronger woman continues to beat, murder and rape her fellow inmates because she never said she was a man."

As I said much earlier, but you chose to forget in order to put that ludicrous and disingenuous post down you made earlier:

at the end of the day the problem that needs to be addressed is the violence and sexual assault taking place in prison

As for your point about "Joining the culture war", choosing to start allowing men and women to swap prisons is joining the culture war. That wasn't something that ever happened before, but because of the culture war, it's happening now. My stance is the opposite - not caving into the pressure to join the culture war - maintaining the current rules for prisoners: Men in the men's prison, women in the women's prison.

So, yes, larger people will always pick on smaller people. The fact that they claim to be the opposite gender isn't relevant to that discussion. Moving a population that is naturally born stronger across to the prison of the opposite gender knowing that prisoners are so desperate for sexual activity that they will perform gay acts then claim to be straight, many of whom are already violent and can not only sexually interfere with their cell mates but, on average, can overpower and impregnate them isn't a great choice, especially when it's numerical fact that, given the number of people in society who are trans and the number of prisoners who want to join the opposite gender prison, many of them are faking it to escape issues in their current holdings or to inflict misery, violence and rape on people who are naturally smaller and weaker than them isn't a good move, isn't helping anything or anyone and is performative at best. In the absolute least favourable interpretation - criminals are the last people who should be getting such leniency.

I'm going to leave it there. I'm not going to change your mind, and I doubt you're on the Californian Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, so I don't see this going much deeper than an interesting conversation that went a little sour. Again: If being in prison is an issue, don't do the crimes. "I really wanted pain killers so I took heroin" isn't really tugging at my heart strings. The prison system needs to try and resolve internal violence and sexual assault, and if you think people being hooked on pain killers and turning to hard drugs is a common story, it sounds like your medical system needs a review as well.