Here’s an article that gives more details on the story, and what Harris said about it. The key points:

It was the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation that refused the surgery to the inmates. When the inmates fought the policy in court, as Attorney General of California, it was Harris’s job to represent the Department. Yes, she did it, but it wasn’t something she decided on her own to do. (Also, not for nothing, the inmates won the case.)

Yes, she did it, but it wasn’t something she decided on her own to do. (Also, not for nothing, the inmates won the case.) Her characterization of the episode: “ On that issue I will tell you I vehemently disagree and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said.

and in fact worked behind the scenes to ensure that the Department of Corrections would allow transitioning inmates to receive the medical attention that they required, they needed and deserved,” Harris said. A policy now exists for inmates to receive transition-related care in California prisons (although apparently the DoC isn’t doing a great job of holding up its end of the bargain*--quelle surprise).

(*For the record, Harris finished her time as AG and became a Senator shortly after this agreement was reached, so it’s someone else’s job now to enforce it.)

The thing to keep in mind here is that, as Attorney General, Kamala Harris couldn’t wave her hand and have everything in the entire California Department of Justice go exactly as she wanted it--and she won’t be able to as Vice President, either. We currently have a president who thinks that’s how it works, and we’re damned lucky he’s wrong.

She had (and will have to) work with large number of people who hold different views. (Another article I read said that the California Department of Justice, which she ran as AG, employs about 4,800 people--that’s a lot of different views.) If she had refused to back the Department of Corrections in their case, she would have alienated people whose cooperation she needed to be able to rely on. (If she even had the option of not backing them and staying AG--I’m not sure how it works, exactly.) Even people who agreed with her about the specific matter might have disapproved of her hanging her subordinates out to dry. (Another thing our current president does constantly--notice how Harris isn’t saying that the person in her office who actually wrote these briefs is a bad guy that she barely knew.)

So here’s what actually happened when Kamala Harris “fought against transwomen in prison seeking gender affirmation surgery”:

The Department of Corrections had a policy denying gender-affirmation surgery to inmates.

Two inmates fought that policy in court.

Harris defended that policy in court (or, more accurately, was the supervisor of the person who did so--but the legal documents went out under her signature, and she takes responsibility for their content).

Harris also worked to change the policy.

If you’ve had a job, you’ve probably been in the position of having to carry out a policy that you don’t agree with. Your choices are to quit your job in protest or stay and argue that the policy should change. If you pick option B, you still have to follow the policy while you’re working to change it--again, just about the only person in the world who doesn’t know this is Donald J. Trump, because he’s never had a real job where he answered to anybody.

What this incident shows is that Kamala Harris is accustomed to working in a system where she doesn’t always get her own way, and that she knows how to lose the battle to win the war. As VP, she’s going to need those skills--especially if the Republicans keep the Senate, but even if the Democrats sweep everything in November, we’re notoriously bad at all pulling in the same direction. We’ve had about enough of the “I’m taking my ball and going home” style of leadership.