Awww, there, see? You can be less reliant on reductio ad absurdum... Slightly...

Now if only we could find some way to break your reliance on condescension and sanctimony...

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.

That's correct. You can't create a prison for each prisoner. But you also aren't limited to two kinds of prisons. Or six kinds of prisons. And you aren't required to categorize whatever prisons you do build by "people with penises" or "people with vaginas." That isn't some kind of rule, let alone natural law.

You're suggesting a really silly false dichotomy: that either we categorize people chromosomally, or we build 1.2 million prisons. There are obviously other options - options as simple as "Let's make decisions on a case-by-case basis; everyone will be safer if Scott Percy is housed in a medium-security men's prison."

choosing to start allowing men and women to swap prisons is joining the culture war.

Any categorical answer is joining the culture war. "Anyone who identifies as a woman must go to a women's prison" is the answer of a culture warrior. "Prisons must be segregated by chromosomes" is the answer of a culture warrior. Neither leads to optimal outcomes. Both are based on nothing but ideology.

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.

There are innumerable reasons that people are in prison. Some of them because addicted to drugs. Some of them are mentally ill from birth. Some of them snapped and did something violent under very understandable circumstances. Some of them are protecting others. Some of them were with the wrong person at the wrong time and got lumped into the same prosecution. Some of them are flat-out completely innocent of what they were convicted of.

Let me just ask you this: when Derek Chauvin nearly got stabbed to death, did you say "Good, the motherfucker shouldn't have done the crime if he didn't want to face the consequences"? Or is it possible that the BOP failed to take the appropriate steps to keep him safe?