men should be able to examine women who have been raped
In Scotland it was more nuanced than that and IMO rather vile.
It went to the heart of the legal dilemma of asking people to deny the evidence their eyes see and their ears hear.
The aim of some in Scotland is to have Gender self ID rather than gender reassignment legislation.
The argument was about changes to legislation dealing with sexual assault and if the law used the word sex or gender
At the time I belive there were more men than women employed to carry out the examinations and evidence collection.
The State provides, suitably qualified and trained, HCP's to carry out the examination. The State would formulate policy to meet needs of the State. All witnesses, both for the State and defence, giving testimony under oath. HCP collect evidence on behalf of the State and should be a neutral witness as the accused has the right to a fair trial.
In this aim there is no conflict in using the word sex or gender.
The State would also provide, in as far as practical, for the needs of the person being examined. So in the legislation a woman asking for a woman or a man asking for a man would determine the [sex gender] or [sex gender] of the HCP.
In this aim there is a conflict in using the word sex or gender.
So should it be sex or should it be gender?
Is a person who has been sexually assaulted expected to define what their request means?
" I want a woman/man, female/male, human with vulva/penis "
Or is the witness is saying
" I consent to this examination provided it is carried out by a woman/man, female/male, human with vulva/penis "
The consent of the witness should take precedence so the word sex should be used.
As the State is taking account of a sex bias expressed by those being examined the recruitment policy will be formulated around historic data for sexual assaults and current staffing levels.
In this aim there is a conflict in using the word sex or gender.
The State need to know the sex of the person who was attacked and their preferences as to the sex of the HCP. Again the consent of the witness should take precedence so the word sex should be used
Once this is established the State would be reflected in the number of each sex who should be recruited and trained.
In this aim there is a conflict in using the word sex or gender.
They first look at the existing employees.
Then if more women are attacked and preferred to be examined by a woman then the State would actively discriminate on the basis of sex by recruiting more women than men.
They would also be actively discriminating on the basis of gender reassignment by excluding females from the classification "man" and males from the classification "woman".
The State provides a HCP to carry out the examination and giving testimony under oath.
In this aim there is a conflict in using the word sex or gender.
In a sexual assault case consent or lack of consent is the key element that needs to be proven.
The HCP will testify as to their physical examination. That's usually a physical external and internal examination of the primary witness.
The first thing they offer the court is that the witness consent to this examination or some other circumstance which resulted in the HCP giving testimony under oath.
For a HCP informed consent is not obtained if the person limits the consent in a way which specifically excluded the HCP. The HCP would take the stand and under oath testify as to their own act of sexual assault.
That was the essence of the debate.
That a HCP would carry out a "legal" sexual assault.
That a HCP could legally trick a woman or a man who had not consented.
That the HCP could testify under oath about evidence obtained by deception.
For me the question remains what type of mental gymnastic is needed to argue that the word gender should replace sex in any legislation which needs consent?