A male-designated inmate, Christopher Scott Williams, was quietly transferred back to a Washington State men’s prison in June following years of scrutiny after an alleged rape of a female cellmate in a women’s facility.
Williams, serving a 28-year sentence for first-degree assault, originally requested placement in a women’s prison in 2019. His request was denied after a DOC review cited a “level of past violence towards women.” The review committee recommended keeping him in a single-cell male facility, according to records obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Despite the recommendation, Williams was approved for transfer to a women’s prison in late 2021. Merely three months later, he was accused by cellmate Mozzy Clark of sexually assaulting her—a claim substantiated in a lawsuit filed against the Washington State Department of Corrections.
According to a lawsuit she filed against the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC), Clark alleges the DOC ignored multiple reports of “sexual harassment and assault” and violated her constitutional rights, including protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Her attorney, David Pivtorak, argued placing Williams in her cell despite his violent history was “reasonably foreseeable” to lead to harm
On June 20, 2025, Williams was reassigned to a male facility. State officials, limited by privacy rules, declined to specify the reason. A DOC spokesperson noted transfers occur “for a variety of reasons like medical treatment, programming needs, or security reasons”.
Williams’s gender marker remains listed as female in DOC records. His legal representation appears to have lapsed, and he has not publicly responded to the allegations.
Local and national prison-safety advocates caution that placing biological men in women’s prisons poses dangers. One commentator observed, “many women who are in prison… have been victims of sexual assault… having men in their spaces can be a very big trigger for them”.
This latest incident builds on broader trends. In 2024, a similar case in England involved Karen White, a male rapist identifying as female, who attacked multiple female inmates after transfer to a women’s facility; the case prompted UK policy changes.
Policy debates surrounding transgender housing rules in men’s and women’s prisons have intensified. Washington State law requires gender-affirming care and evaluates housing based on individual safety, but critics say these standards are inconsistently applied.
Conservative voices argue biological sex should determine prison housing, citing the need to guarantee safety. The recent executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” mandates that transgender individuals in federal custody be housed according to birth-assigned sex. It calls for funding bans on gender-affirming care and bar housing aligned with gender identity
Proponents maintain the DOC’s 2019 housing denial of Williams was correct, noting his 2021 approval and subsequent allegations validate their position. Pivtorak’s suit argues DOC defied its own safety protocols.
However, no DOC representative has acknowledged that the alleged assault directly triggered the transfer. The department stated routine reasons prompted relocation.
The case has stirred widespread concern. Critics assert current policies allow male predators to access female facilities with little oversight. Clark’s lawsuit accuses the DOC of “deliberate indifference”—a serious constitutional violation.
The user also notes there’s a growing sentiment that permitting transgender males in female institutions compromises safety and ignores biological differences. They argue this case underscores flaws in identity-based classification over factual risk assessment.
Meanwhile, supporters of transgender housing policies stress that transgender individuals, especially trans women in men’s prisons, often face extreme vulnerability and sexual assault Yet opponents insist safety of all inmates must take precedence.
Washington State, regarded legally progressive on LGBTQ issues, also acknowledges in policy that prison placements must account for ZIP-coded safety. But this incident raises serious questions about implementation and oversight .
In sum, Williams’s story reflects a clash between identity‑based placements and basic biological realities. It reignites debate over whether prison housing rules are being applied with sufficient caution—and whether policy should privilege identity over objective risk.
As litigation proceeds, multiple questions loom: Was DOC negligent in placing Williams with Clark? Did the department violate its own guidelines or constitutional duty? And will this case drive reforms or reinforce existing conservative aims to restrict transgender placements?
Williams remains housed among men as of late June 2025. Clark’s lawsuit is advancing through Washington courts. Should more victims emerge, legislators could mount stronger propositions mandating biological‑sex housing protocols.
The case is proving to be a flashpoint—propelled by both a serious criminal allegation and broader cultural fault lines, highlighting how identity ideology can intersect, and sometimes conflict, with tangible public safety concerns.