How have legal and medical records referenced Brittney Griner's gender during her detention and trial?

1. Records and custody placement: detained and processed as a woman

Multiple outlets reported that Griner was initially held in a women’s detention center and later in a women’s penal colony, which in practice reflects how Russian authorities processed her custody placement during pretrial detention and after sentencing ^{[1] [5]}. That placement is a concrete administrative fact documented in reporting: she was moved to a facility outside Moscow and later transferred to a penal colony in Mordovia, both described as women’s institutions ^{[1] [5]}. Reporting also notes official concern in the U.S. about her treatment while detained as a Black, queer woman, reinforcing that her public identity and custody status were treated in gendered terms by observers ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Medical evidence presented in court referenced non‑gender issues but anchored her as female

Griner’s defense submitted U.S. medical documentation to the Russian court to explain that she had a prescription for medical cannabis to treat chronic pain; those medical records were used as mitigating evidence in hearings, not as a basis for disputing her gender ^{[2] [7]}. Coverage indicates Russian officials planned medical evaluations for her health while detained, but reporting does not produce or quote a Russian medical record that reclassifies her gender; rather, available sources show medical files were entered to support the claim the substance was prescribed ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Rumors of DNA or “gender tests” and how records were weaponized on social media

A viral claim that Russian authorities ordered a DNA or sex‑determination test to decide whether to send Griner to a male or female prison was investigated and found to be fabricated: fact‑checkers and news organizations reported the purported CNN graphic was altered and there is no credible evidence Russia ordered such tests ^{[3] [4]}. Major fact‑checks concluded Griner had been held in women’s facilities and had not identified as transgender, undermining the social‑media narrative that legal or medical records “reassigned” her gender ^{[3] [4]}.

4. First‑hand testimony and guards’ behavior: gender questioned, not reclassified

Griner herself and interviewers described guards questioning her gender and staring at her body during detention, accounts that document humiliating treatment tied to gendered assumptions rather than any formal legal reclassification ^{[1] [8]}. Academic analyses of media coverage argue those incidents reflect broader patterns of dehumanization and intersectional bias against a tall, Black, queer woman, showing how informal behaviors and public records interacted in the story even when official documents did not change her legal gender status ^[9].

5. Limits of available reporting and open questions about paperwork

Public reporting and fact‑checks establish that administrative and medical records used in Griner’s defense treated her as female and that no verified court order mandated DNA testing or gender reassignment ^{[3] [4] [2]}. However, the sources provided do not include copies of every Russian legal filing that would show the precise gender markers, pronouns, or sex designations used on official forms in every step of the process; therefore, there is no direct source in this set that reproduces native Russian court documents to settle every bureaucratic detail (no citation available in provided sources). Given the prevalence of misinformation early in the case, contemporaneous fact‑checking and mainstream reporting converge in saying records and custody practices referenced Griner as female while documenting demeaning questions and scrutiny from officials and guards ^{[3] [1] [4]}.