Is this a serious question? This is what is wrong with the system, if you're being punished then you get the minimum and that is essentials! If they want something they need to pay with their own funds.

Provide everything essential to both and they can make a choice!

If the inmate is attracted to females, then no. If she is not, then yes.

These inmates should be treated as a normal human in incarceration! The sex that the inmate is not attracted to should be the searching participant!

Whatever sex the inmate is attracted to should not be the searching participant. It should be the opposing sex.

Should there be an inmate of this nature, perhaps giving them a choice to serve in a dorm for a single inmate (why is this a big deal, build jails that have smaller dorms/rooms in the population that keep them separated but still in population) or, for example- if it is a transgender female who is transforming to male, give the choice to go in men's population. Let's get honest, you cannot eradicate all the responsibilities of the supervising officers! They will inevitably have issues, and I think the more that is put in place to convenience an industry like that, the more roadblocks and convenience measures we take. It is counterproductive and it undermines the authority figures stance to the inmate populations. My opinion.

This area is so complicated that it seems the more it is scoped, the more has to be done for the purpose to reconcile. The system has to reform from a consequential function to a rehabilitative function.

Under the consequential function people are expected to obey all laws and if found not to have done so leads to a confined consequence. The initial purpose of confinement IS to pay a consequence! It should be no other than as described to be as a time out (comprehensive). When on a time out, the individual is to reflect on his/her said infractions (that is the whole idea). It is not known that there is freedom to make choices during a detention! As a citizen, Americans are expected to follow rules of law, and it is implied that rights and liberties are revoked if haven't done so. A person of LGBTQ community is no different than any other citizen expected to obey the law, they will forfeit their freedoms. In confinement, people that govern the society are there to habilitate on the reasons they are being put there. Nothing more. The taxpayers that house inmates (every color, religion, creed, etc.) should not be responsible for the hospitality outside of regular necessity, things like food, an outfit and a space to serve the time they owe. Inmates pay a debt to society by being present for their sentence and nothing other should take precedence over that! That being said, executing complete control over every aspect of a person's stance is tier to forcing a desired behavior. A person that serves their time also has to innately choose to derive within their evolution. There is no complete control, therefore, what the corrections choose to prohibit is merely giving out strings. Efficient governance should be modeled, not told. Efficient governance entertains only the description of the corrective actions taken during confinement. The system should not allocate funds to furnish the progressions of a person who does not sought the consequences of their own actions that essentially landed them behind bars. A person breaking the law should assume that their rights are surrendered during the time of sentence, and they can resume whatever they want in their free life.

This sounds like correctional officers' commit crimes that can be described/ compared to, that of predation. To prey on an entrapped group of prey. Why exactly do we have such high statistics? How come the jails and prisons don't have a clause that only permits same sex correctional officers to inmates in order to minimize the claims? I know it wouldn't eliminate the abuse altogether, but it would certainly minimize it! Shouldn't the officer then be charged the same as a person who is charged for pedophilia, rape, things of that nature? Not just relieved of their jobs?