My point is more that if this outcome wasn't entirely predictable to the people in the courts system who set this situation up, it's indicative of deeper problems with their assumptions. I'm happy to go into what I think those problems are (though it would be an essay) but a single shocking example is often enough to act as an intuition pump.

Even if their morality stops there, ot's a good first step to separate a natural class of physically more powerful rapists (men rapists), from a natural class of physically less powerful potential victims (women), no?

Or should our morality stop at: "since we can't or don't protect everybody let's leave an obvious, extremely vulnerable, and much more common (male-> female rape vs male->male rape) victim class unprotected?"

No-one is okay with any of this but it makes no sense whatsoever to try to solve a problem within men's prisons, i.e. men raping men, by moving some of these men to women's prisons.

Women's prisons do not exist for the purpose of forcing women to be human shields against male-on-male sexual violence.

Women raping women was the other key point.

You don't fix prisons by moving inmates. Having inmates socially interact with large groups of other inmates doesn't sound healthy or wise gender not withstanding. You can't put a group together who's only common interest is crime. Each criminal should be housed separately and socialized with trained pros who can help them work through why they are there. It would pay for itself when criminals don't return to crime. At least make it available for the last 6 months