Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v AVP (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 360 (5 April 2022)

[sixandoot]

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2022/360.html
Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v AVP (Review and Regulation) [2022] VCAT 360 (5 April 2022)

Professional misconduct by a man who used his penis to abuse patients and was called she during the tribunal proceedings. The tribunal did note, while calling him her, that he has a penis and that this was relevant to the abuse professional misconduct.

Good that the accused got the help needed. No mention if the two victims she assaulted with her penis were provided with similar assistance?

I’m glad that the sexual predator has been professionally disqualified but, in my opinion, it should be for longer than 6 months (3 years and 6 months in total as the sexual predator was not permitted to practice will this was investigated).

And, call me cynical, but I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the victims had been women instead of men.

But, hey, it never happens, so it doesn’t matter, right?

Pronouns FFS.

[the respondent] took out her penis and/or slid it between Mr A’s toes and/or moved Mr A’s hand up and down her penis until she ejaculated.

There is no respect for the victims ability to refer to the perpetrator as they saw the perpetrator. For example:

I pulled them down to the mid-thigh point and saw [she] had a penis.

Clearly the victim gave evidence as “he” but it’s been changed, because, you know, it’s much more important that the perpetrator isn’t “misgendered” than the victim gets to accurately describe the events as he saw them 😡

Don't know if you had a chance to read all the case notes but the perpetrator's legal council claimed both victims initiated sexual contact by flattering the perpetrator; Mr B was 'happy' for that contact to continue by kissing the perpetrator and in both cases, the interaction only stopped when they found out that 'she' had a penis. So therefore they weren't really victims. All that matters is that the perpetrator was seen as the true victim due to their gender dysphoria and an absent daddy.

And, call me cynical, but I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the victims had been women instead of men.
Sadly I suspect this is likely :(

the perpetrator's legal council claimed both victims initiated sexual contact by flattering the perpetrator
It certainly is grim that the clients were, on the face of it, willing to engage in inappropriate sexual conduct with someone in their workplace. And, as you've identified, no excuse for the awful unprofessional behaviour of the man who is the subject of these disciplinary proceedings.