We've also discussed at legnth why Sandy Brindley from Rape Crisis Scotland criticised the amendment and it had nothig to do with attempting to deny women the right to a female examiner - a right they currently do not have for reasons that are nothing to do with trans women.
Do you mean this:
Johann Lamont MSP has this week lodged an amendment to the bill, to change the reference from “gender” to “sex”. It is not clear what she is trying to achieve with this – some commentators see this as a development which would exclude trans women doctors from carrying out forensic examinations.
If this is the intent of the amendment, it will not achieve this. No concerns about the use of the term gender were raised when the original bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December 2013; the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. Replacing one word with another will have no impact on the availability of female doctors.
The real issue
The amendment misses the point – the key issue facing women in Scotland accessing forensic examinations is not trans women carrying out these examinations. As far as we know there are no trans examiners in Scotland.
The real issue is that in four out of ten examinations women face being examined by a male doctor. If they request a female doctor, they may be told that this is possible but will involve a considerable delay. Most women are so desperate to wash that they then agree to the exam being done by a male doctor. This is unjust and unfair.
www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/forensic-medical-services-bill-important-step-forward-treatment-rape-survivors-scotland-gender-row-misses-point-sandy-brindley-3061543
I am not really sure that this article says what you want it to say.
Because in this article, Sandy Brindley sounds like someone who has missed the recent years where gender certainly has a different meaning than sex.
Or are you going to try to tell us that there is no difference at all.
Meaning Brindley is either still living back in 2013 or thinks other people are not up to date with the political maneuvering and they can therefore use this as yet another false argument.
No concerns about the use of the term gender were raised when the original bill was passed by the Scottish Parliament in December 2013; the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably.
Really? No concerns that have recently become apparent? Yet almost ALL the members of the Scottish Parliament voted for the amended bill. I guess that is an indication that those six little words strengthened the intention of the bill and did not detract from the bill at all.
It is also almost like Brindley is ignoring that Wadhwa got a job where an exemption was claimed so only 'women' could apply. An exemption in an act of parliament that was supposed to protect female only roles but has failed in some instances.
legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/09/12/fostering-good-relations/
It is then followed by the equally questionable and false assertion of:
Replacing one word with another will have no impact on the availability of female doctors.
and
The amendment misses the point – the key issue facing women in Scotland accessing forensic examinations is not trans women carrying out these examinations. As far as we know there are no trans examiners in Scotland.
And again. Only a fool or someone deeply entrenched in spreading misinformation would continue to argue this if an ambiguity in the law or policy meant a male medical examiner who transitioned over night could be considered a 'female' medical examiner. When the law included that magic word 'gender' thus giving the opportunity to misinterpret yet another law, to suit transitioned males wants over female's needs.
(I also want to clarify that if a transitioned male doctor was appointed and was presented to a female victim as a MALE doctor, with no gaslighting that that doctor was female at all, then it is not optimal but it is also irrelevant to the focus of the topic at hand. And by not optimal, I mean a female had to choose between a male or further waiting for a female medical examiner which can be a further traumatic decision to make)
I am quite happy to keep calling anyone a fool who argues that 'Replacing one word with another will have no impact on the availability of female doctors'. When the Scottish Government is apparently seeking to get more female medical examiners - meaning a recruitment drive.
Meaning that this clause becomes very important indeed in that recruitment campaign.
But Brindley knows what the issue is:
The real issue is that in four out of ten examinations women face being examined by a male doctor. If they request a female doctor, they may be told that this is possible but will involve a considerable delay. Most women are so desperate to wash that they then agree to the exam being done by a male doctor. This is unjust and unfair.
And yes. It is a horrific decision that some women and girls have to make here.
The amendment did NOT mean that the bill was not passed. The amendment did NOT mean that females will no longer get the right to make that request. It strengthened that right to ensure clarity around that right.
I am certain that readers of this thread will pick up the hypocrisy that seems to be being argued here. That two heads of organisations responsible for making sure that women and girls are treated with better care, are making political stances for their own agendas. And that their own agendas would allow loopholes into a brand new bill that will further cause harm.
That the downplaying of 'there is not one transitioned male medical examiner and so this is irrelevant and therefore phobic' is a ludicrous and hypocritical argument to make for a bill that hopefully will last a lot bloody longer than seven years. But it is a typical trans activist tactic.
So, is Sandy Brindley someone who is not up to date with the current political climate? Just using an outdated concept that sex and gender were simply interchangeable in 2013 (was it really?) and still is in 2022?
Is Sandy Brindley someone who was fully aware, even complicit, of the fact that Wadhwa was appointed to a role where an exemption was claimed for a 'woman' when it should have been for a 'female'?
Brings to mind:
what kind of mind can deny the right to request a female examiner to a shaking, traumatised woman on the worst day of her life when that person is also the CEO of a rape crisis centre?