Urgent action for those in Scotland

The complaint is that people might be allowed not to accept that transwomen are women.
The more they can stretch this the better they feel. There's not much further to go than a woman who has just been raped and who only agrees to an intimate physical examination if she is examined by a woman, then being presented with a man on the basis he's a woman.
That's a charitable interpretation though. I imagine that some men in this situation would be getting a real kick out it.

It’s all slogans and bullshit. So fucking sick of it.

What is the complaint? That trans women might be excluded from intimately examining women who have specifically asked for a female examiner?

That is a really odd hill to die on, imo. Presumably women who don't mind males treating them would not ask for a female?

Well quite.

Suddenly once the wording is changed, it makes all the difference and has removed rights?

Exactly. Surely Monica Lennon and Andy Wightman, who spoke against the amendment, should have made it clear that the amendment was a transphobic dog whistle causing literal violence to transpeople. If they had made clear that this amendment would mean greater discrimination against transwomen who wanted to carry out physical examinations on raped women then perhaps the amendment would not have passed almost unanimously.

There’s a bunch of Lib Dem’s

I didn't realise there was a great enough number of Lib Dems to constitute a "bunch"...

There’s a bunch of Lib Dem’s bleating on Twitter how this amendment has ‘removed rights’.

We were told this change of wording didn’t matter. Sex and gender are interchangeable and that it made no difference.

Suddenly once the wording is changed, it makes all the difference and has removed rights?

If they could at least be consistent in their bullshit it would be helpful!

So to some people, certain women only wrote to their MSPs and supported the amendment to change ‘gender’ to ‘sex’ because we wanted to get one over or make life difficult for trans women? They believe there was an agenda that had NOTHING to do with minimising the trauma of rape victims and EVERYTHING to do with making life difficult for trans women and a chance to exclude them from choices that every other woman has (in this case, to be employed as a Forensic Examiner and carry out these intimate examinations of victims of rape)

Or they think that by wanting this change of wording we instantly extinguished the idea that there should be a drive to recruit more female forensic examiners.

They honestly do not believe our motives came from a place of wanting to provide victims of rape with the support that they need at a time of extreme crisis. That a woman has the right to make that request and express that preference.

Johann Lamont shouldn’t have had to make that angry, passionate speech yesterday. This amendment made total, legal sense. It is only certain factions within the trans gender community that made this into a battering ram, that made women have to dredge up harrowing testimony to try and make unfeeling, selfish, agenda seeking individuals understand.

I don’t know what is going on behind the scenes within Rape Crisis Scotland. I imagine, in the main, it is being run by passionate, caring individuals trying to operate a service with insufficient funding and over-stretched resources. I feel sorry for the individuals within this organisation who have not lost sight of their organisation’s aims. Who are appalled that suddenly they are on a side in this argument that absolutely does NOT centre the rights, thoughts and feelings of women who have been raped.

Re Kirsty Blackman’s statement that sex and gender don’t have different meanings.

So why were they hell bent on changing the word from sex - as advised, to gender?

Pure gaslighting.

Agreed with PPs that to couch this away from the needs of rape victims - mainly women - is grotesque.

This serves both men and women - and transgender victims of assault - to choose the sex of the medical examiner. Men often prefer women too after assault for understandable reasons.

This is the natural conclusion that ‘being kind’ is manifestly unkind.

Sunlight. The majority of people can see exactly what this means.

Humza definitely has different views on abuse online

He got ratiioed on Twitter. Yesterday.

Never seen him stand up for Joanna cherry or Joan MacAlpine

Mridhul wadhwa declared on Twitter recently that they had had enough and would publish all the abuse they received.

A handful of tweets followed asking why as a male they felt it appropriate to manage a service largely there to treat traumatised women.

It was not abusive. Factual statements, disagreement, questions- this is what is now apparently termed abuse for some people.

Not women though, you can threaten them with pictures of goddesses beheading their enemies and that's totally harmless fun, of course. Violent imagery is okay if you are the right kind of oppressed.

I don't know if rape Crisis received abuse or were bullied, but it seems some people have different definitions for these terms.

Yes, I've seen all the guff about Rape Crisis Scotland being bullied off twitter. They haven't posted any evidence of this vile campaign of bullying though. I've seen some pointed replies to them following their disgraceful letter to MSPs but nothing anywhere near abusive.

Well, I agree with Rhiannon Spear's line about 'both sides' there, and that's not something I say ever often.

But they can fuck off with the 'weaponising'.

This is a word I want to never, EVER, see used in relation to women talking about their experiences of violence, rape and abuse. It's abhorrent, and unbelievable that some people think it acceptable to describe it as such.

Remember, women: talking about the reasons you don't want a male-bodied person intimately examining you is 'weaponising' your experience. You should presumably just never ever mention your experiences or reasoning, shut up about your feelings and accept that males' emotions matter more.

These people are unbelievable. Honestly absolutely disgusting.

twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1337468204847919111?s=20

They are also saying that Rape Crisis Scotland have been "bullied off twitter". Anyone know what happened? I suspect it was more robust disagreement than "bullying".

There is, quite rightly, a time and a place (and legislation) for the protection of transpeople and it is not this.

This.^

I've just read the statement from Fiona Robertson. It's on the granite and sunlight blog.

I'm shocked that trans rights are being centred in a discussion around the provision of services to victims of sexual assault and rape. How dare they? There is, quite rightly, a time and a place (and legislation) for the protection of transpeople and it is not this.

I meant that to pearpickingporky. Sorry itsall

Ugh. Just looked at her Twitter feed.:(

[quote Galvantula]@ItsAllGoingToBeFine seriously? ☹😮😮[/quote]
I may have phrased my post badly. I'll try again.

Fiona Robertson et al seem to be saying that it is transphobic to not allow transwomen to act as FMEs for women who have requested a female examiner.

Yesterday we were just foolish and misguided to think this would make a difference in law, today we are evil transphobes - even, and perhaps especially, those from the rape survivor groups. How they managed to keep so restrained until after the vote is incredible.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine seriously? ☹😮😮

Not as bad as Fiona Robertson who has just tweeted that women shared graphic stories about their rapes without putting a trigger warning on it and some people found this very distressing, and they did this to make a point about excluding trans people

Are these people really saying it is transphobic to expect female / women FMEs to exclude transwomen?

How much lower are they going to sink on this?

Who's that?
What is she saying?