Rape victims will choose gender of their examiner (Scotland)

[stumbledin]

Scotland’s health secretary has said she is confident rape and sexual assault victims will be able to choose the gender of their forensic medical examiner under new legislation.

Jeane Freeman told Holyrood’s health committee people will be able to self-refer and should not have to wait more than three hours for examination.

At a previous evidence session on the proposed Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill, Sandy Brindley, Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive, said access to a female doctor “is the most important issue brought up by complainers”.

She added delays in waiting for examinations is also a key issue.

Ms Freeman told the committee she has “confidence” victims will be able to choose to be examined by a man or

............

Anyone a Times Subscriber. Really want to know are they talking about choosing a "gender" or do they mean sex.

Amazed to see someone from Rape Crisis Scotland apparently openly talking about why women have suffered male sexual violence would want to be examined by another woman. (I thought both Scotland RCC and WA were very woke and TWAW)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rape-victims-will-choose-gender-of-their-examiner-cxjtbr5l0

but I am interested to know whether a man could insist on a woman doing it?

I'm intrigued by the slightly judgemental tone of saying "insist". Why shouldn't a traumatised man or boy who has been the victim of a sexual assault by a man ask for a woman to carry out the examination?

I have seen posters on MN, not many but a few, say they prefer to be examined by a male practitioner due to sexual assault by women.

Also confused by why a male victim of sexual assault shouldn't be equally able to choose the sex of the examiner they are more comfortable with.

I've had male friends say they find it harder to accept nursing care from males than females, they don't feel sexually vulnerable with females in the way they do with males, although there are some issues they would feel more comfortable discussing with a male hcp.
A TW may prefer a female examiner, or may not. It needs to be the personal choice of whatever the person feels safest and most comfortable with, since the primary aim is meeting their need.

I don't think this is in any way at all similar to the cases you may be thinking of, where a male under arrest at a police station or in a prison who has identified as a woman and insists on being searched by female officers even though it is apparent to all in the room that the male is exploiting the protection of the law to enjoy a sexual experience/act of sexual intimidation and power over those females that everyone in the room knows they cannot protect themselves from.

Gender is a meaningless term. It has no relation to the sex of the person involved.

Gender is fluid, as they say.

Of course what a victim, male or female, is entitled to ask for under existing legislation and prospective legislation is

an opportunity to request that any such medical examination be carried out by a registered medical practitioner of a gender specified by the person

"Gender" is not defined in the 2014 Act so despite Freeman's protestations it is not clear what a victim is actually entitled to ask for.

Actually what I said was ‘choose the sex...” I’m not responsible for how a journalist reports

When I'm reviewing academic, clinical papers - I constantly go through and ask if they mean sex when they write gender. For clinical research in my typical field it's unusual enough to have researchers state the numbers of both sexes even when it's relevant, it's vanishingly rare that gender is specifically on-topic. (I did have one recently where I mentioned that both sex and gender were potentially pertinent which may have baffled the authors.)

But she didn't say " choose the sex...."

The legislation refers to "gender" not sex.

I'm also confused about this can a man choose thing.

A man who has been raped by a man might well prefer to be examined by a woman.

The various protocols around this have always said patients can choose for particular things, it's not just for women. Why would it be?

Agree if they're changing sex to gender in the law then they might as well just do away with the law.

Having this law when they know it is utterly meaningless is incredibly sly. It looks like protections are there, but they aren't.

Could a woman who has been raped, refusing a trans woman as an examiner, be guilty of discrimination/ hate crime?

A man may prefer to be examined by a woman and I imagine that most if not all medical examiners really do not mind examining either sex. These things are both fine. I am interested though in the concept of insisting that a woman must examine a man even if she does’t want to because it is required by her job. I don’t think this legislation does that (I haven’t looked at it and am totally unfamiliar with it and it’s origins), but for me there is something to think about there, so I am thinking.

You would have to ask Jeane Freeman directly what she meant. She has obfuscated the issue by

(a) not correcting the Convenor when the Convenor said "gender" ;
(b) dissembling about what she did actually say;
(c ) ignoring what the existing and prospective legislation says.

She needs to be put on the spot- is "gender" in the following merely a synonym for "sex"? Or does it have the meaning used in other legislation such as the Gender Recognition Act?

an opportunity to request that any such medical examination be carried out by a registered medical practitioner of a gender specified by the person

I am interested though in the concept of insisting that a woman must examine a man even if she does’t want to because it is required by her job

Sorry but tough. If anyone chooses to get involved in this very specialist type of care there should be no opt out.

Probably right Dido. I expect the same is true of all doctors. But I don’t think it is ok to insist of bouncers, prison officers, border guards etc. So I am examining (for my own sake) why I think that, where the boundary is, and why. Anyway, not directly relevant to this thread.

miraloma – are you saying there is another report in the National paper?

DidoLamenting – thanks for confirming that Sandy Brindley did you the word gender – how disappointing

Also if there is a Memorandum of Understanding to a bill on services to Victims of Sexual Offences that lists Sex of Examiner why aren’t law makers being more accurate in their language and why is a representative of Rape Crisis then talking about gender.

Also if there is a Memorandum of Understanding to a bill on services to Victims of Sexual Offences that listsSex of Examinerwhy aren’t law makers being more accurate in their language and why is a representative of Rape Crisis then talking about gender

They are hamstrung by the existing The Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 which refers to gender not sex.

Freeman needs to be clear on what she thinks "gender" means. That's what the black letter of the law says.

Dido there should be if eg turns out the medic and the person know each other etc

Or if the person is violently racist or something

(Thinking in general here not for rape specifically)

I think 'tough' is not the right answer tbh

Professional boundaries are one thing though - ie I must state that ethically cannot treat this person, because I know them/have a conflict of interest.

Saying "I will not treat this person because they hold political views I find offensive" is plain not professional.

You do your job, you do it properly and to the best of your ability and impartially, even with the nasty, mean, racist, smelly, abusive and violent ones: that's daily reality for police, NHS, social services, education, emergency services etc. You do it, you take pride in the fact you do it despite all the provocation and challenges, and if need be you work with your team to let off steam, debrief or take needed action afterwards out of sight of that person.

Any professional who wants to decline to do their job over feeling personally offended - or who wishes to do their job against their patient's wishes or take action because they feel personally offended is not behaving professionally and shouldn't be doing that job. Capacity issues.

Pretty much you can't have someone in that situation who cannot, at all times, be the grown up.

I think 'tough' is not the right answer tbh

Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.

Your example of the nurse and the victim knowing each other isn't remotely the same and that would be up to the victim to decide.

'Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.'

Are you talking about the victim or what? I'm not following.

Michelle I did say violently racist. It is not 'being a grown up' to accept verbal and physical abuse.

The grown up thing to do is get someone else to treat them to get the job done. Rather than saying it's your job get on with it no matter what.

ShinyFootball

'Nope "eugh a man" in a specialist sex assault unit isn't good enough.'

Are you talking about the victim or what? I'm not following

It's obvious I'm talking about a practitioner refusing to treat a male victim following from the bizarre suggestion by
PaleBlueMoonlight that a female practitioner should be entitled to refuse to treat a male victim if a male victim requested a female.

In the specialist situation we are discussing here- ie examining traumatised victims of sexual abuse - the grown-up thing is to do the job you chose to do- not to get someone else to do it.

ShinyFootball

And I can't believe the paper changed her words

Actually I can

The paper didn't change her words. She didn't say what she is claiming she said.

Ok so you need to flag that post or the poster because everyone else on the thread said what the fuck are you talking about.

It's one person's view so really I'm not in s position to respond.

The good news is from previous posts most of these examiners are male, and we know most victims are female, so it's not likely to come up very often.

Not least because there is no evidence that female examiners are saying 'eugh a man', unless you have some?

@Michelleoftheresistance

Pretty much you can't have someone in that situation who cannot, at all times, be the grown up.

Sadly we already have that where pharmacists can refuse to give out the morning after.pill. affecting women once again. I don't disagree with you btw.

Sorry for the derail.

Ok so you need to flag that post or the poster because everyone else on the thread said what the fuck are you talking about

if you are referring to querying the bizarre idea that it was wrong for men to specify the sex/gender of the examiner the poster who made the comment PaleBlueMoonlight didn't seem to have difficulty in understanding the point.

Not least because there is no evidence that female examiners are saying 'eugh a man', unless you have some?

I take the concept of hyperbole is unknown to you? Well clearly it is since everything has to be taken literally.

It's also bizarre that you are concentrating on this peripheral issue rather than the main point- namely that Freeman did not say there would be a choice of the sex of the examiner. She confirmed there would be a choice of gender and then lied about what she said; which makes your comment about the newspaper lying look just a teeny bit silly.