Thread by @goinglikeelsie

This will be the thread for my notes of the third day of the @BCnursemidwife Hearing for @preta_6 This hearing took place on Sept 23. #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak #IStandWithAmyHamm

Day 2 is here and includes a link to Day 1

https://twitter.com/goinglikeelsie/status/1574852938287108097

As a reminder, this is a hearing into two complaints (one anonymous, one by Alex Turrif) that were originally about @preta_6’s participation in putting up a billboard that said I ❤️@jk_rowling.

This apparently morphed into an investigation of Amy’s social media and participation in political action supporting women’s sex based rights and resulted in citation by the College. At one point, it included a charge of provide in medically incorrect information.

This allegation was later quietly withdrawn, apparently without any consideration of the damage it may have done to Amy’s profession reputation or any other negative consequences that levelling such a serious charge entails.

Here is a link to @BCnursemidwife’s current public notice. It includes a link to their revised citation.

bccnm.ca/Public/complai…

And here is a link to @BCnursemidwife’s page that describes their professional conduct review process.

bccnm.ca/Public/complai…

And an infographic of the process. This thread documents Day 3 of the Disciplinary Hearing. During these three days, the College presents their evidence. Later this month, Amy will have a chance to respond and present her defence.

The panel is made up of three Members (acting as the “judges”) one of whom is a lawyer. Appearing for the College:

Michael Seaborn, He/Him
Brent Olthuis, He/Him
barbara findlay She/Her

bf also identifies that she uses lowercase letters

They all identified their pronouns and had them onscreen.

On behalf of Amy:

For Amy Eileen Hamm:

Lisa Bildy
Karen Bastow

Neither accepted the invitation to share their pronouns.

Quick note that none of the Panel Members identified their pronouns or had them on screen.

MO (he of the many objections) will not be attending today so after preliminaries, bf will be doing a direct examination of the College’s final witness.

Another quick note to ensure clarity. The Panel and the College are not the same entity for the purposes of this thread. The College must prove its case to the Panel who will then decide what if any disciplinary action should be undertaken.

The Panel is independent and must follow the law but this is neither a civil criminal hearing. As documented below, their decision is subject to judicial review.

KB begins.

Amy’s defence has requested disclosure of letters, emails and postcards sent to the College in support of Amy. It is documentary evidence, on the point of Amy’s positions on women’s sex based rights being a matter of public discussion and shows public support.

MS responds.

Questions appropriateness as evidence, says public commentary is of limited value, consideration of it would undercut authority of Panel, says correspondence was result of an orchestrated campaign - essentially a protest campaign.

Says that it is not evidence that Amy’s words or conduct are not discriminatory and that it would be best to have in person evidence.

KB replies.

Administrative Panels such as this usually have leeway to relax rules around evidence and that the Panel can weight its evidentiary value. Correspondence goes to existence of public debate. College has redacted names and emails so in person testimony no possible.

Says citation is about a public debate & correspondence shows this is a public debate. Says that one letter of support was from someone who identifies as a trans rights activist.

Panel goes to break to decide if correspondence in support of Amy will be admitted as evidence.

*Note - things can be admitted as evidence and later found by the Panel to not have much or even no value. It is for the Panel to decide what weight to give any particular evidence submitted by either the College or Amy’s team.

Very long break. Panel comes back to say they need more time and information.

KB and MS reiterate their respective arguments.

Panel has another break and comes back with decision.

Correspondence will not be admitted as evidence. Says it is not relevant to claim of discriminatory conduct by College. Acknowledges that Amy’s team could not call witnesses as names redacted and that it clear that this is a public debate.

*Note - maybe it’s just because IANAL but I found it very significant that the Panel acknowledged that the subjects of women’s sex based rights was a matter of public debate. 💪

Next up for the College, bf will lay out the evidence that the College wants to present that day.

bf says she’ll be seeking to qualify and present evidence from an expert witness including two volumes of that expert witnesses report.

bf has decided to refer to the paper version of the evidence, rather than the electronic version. This results in lots of discussion of page numbers and the Panel breaks to sort things outs.

bF, perhaps not realizing her mike is live, says to someone at her location, “ Trust me. They’re old like me.”

*Note - bf appears to use paper version as she goes along while Panel & Amy’s team use electronic version which results in several tedious delays to match pg numbers.

I wouldn’t want to say whether using a paper version, much like using lowercase letters for your name, is an annoying affectation.

I guess everyone can decide for themselves.

As documents were being sorted out (long tedious delay), LB asked if there was not a matter to be discussed and decided on before bf proceeded. bf says she will continue her opening statement and then proceed to discussion as needed.

bf begins

- will introduce and seek to qualify their second experiential witness, Greta Bauer
- discusses GB’s report, and the evidence GB relied upon to make it
- brings up a procedural matter and refers to a recent Supreme Court of BC decision to justify her proposed actions.

bf proposes that GB give evidence, undergo cross examination by Amy’s team and then bf will do a redirect with GB

The purpose of this redirect will be to put each of Amy’s proposed experts reports to GB and have her comment on them.

bf says the Panel can then decide if they want to rule that Amy’s (as yet unheard from) if the experts and or their reports should be ruled inadmissible, if the Panel wants to hear from Amy’s experts or if they want more time to decide.

LB says she will make submissions about this now. Says that this is unorthodox and that bf is attempting to split her case. bf should make her arguments in her direct, redirect is for matters that have been brought up in cross and that could not have been reasonably foreseen.

*Note - basically this comes down to a couple of Supreme Court of Canada rulings that the defence is entitled to hear the Crown’s full case before making their defence.

R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3 at para. 47:

“The "case to meet" principle is a component of the accused's constitutional right to make full answer and defence. It means that an accused has the right to know the case he must meet before answering the Crown's case…”

“The rationale behind this principle is that the accused, before embarking on his defence, should be able to assume that the Crown has called all the evidence it will rely on to establish guilt.”

And

R. v. Krause, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 466

“The plaintiff or the Crown may be allowed to call evidence in rebuttal after completion of the defence case, where the defence has raised some new matter or defence which the Crown has had no opportunity to deal with…”

“. .and which the Crown or the plaintiff could not reasonably have anticipated. But rebuttal will not be permitted regarding matters which merely confirm or reinforce earlier evidence adduced in the Crown's case which could have been brought before the defence was made.”

“…It will be permitted only when it is necessary to ensure that at the end of the day each party will have had an equal opportunity to hear and respond to the full submissions of the other.”

*Note - TLDR: bf is trying to preemptively disqualify Amy’s experts using a mechanism (case splitting) ruled against by the SCC - not presenting her full case before the defence has a chance to respond & using re-direct to bring in evidence that she already knew about.

bf attempts to interrupt LB. LB continues that she is addressing a procedural issues, Amy’s experts should not be struck at this juncture, this was not in case bf citied and bf should not split case. Talks about the law of natural justice and how experts are designated.

LB says hearing is the exercise of the disciplinary power of the State against an individual and that as such, bf’s argument is outrageous.

LB continues by saying that even lay people people can be designated as experts in a non civil, non criminal hearing such as this and that the admission of Amy’s experts should be argued when they are presented by her defence in October.

bf replies that she will move on to her direct. Her point re experts may be made moot by lack of time. She “disagrees analytically” but no decision about Amy’s witness will sought at this time.

*Note - this does not mean that bf is still not seeking to disqualify Amy’s witnesses and may still seek to do it preemptively. bf is saying that they will not be enough time today to even do her full direct so will not argue re the splitting in redirect.

When I come back I’ll finish up Day 3. ✌️

#IStandWithAmyHamm #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak #sexnotgender

And apologies for all the keyboarding/spelling/grammar mistakes. Still quite jet lagged and also recovering from the flu.

Last notes for Day 3 of the @BCnursemidwife discliplinary hearing for our Amy Hamm @preta_6. This part of the hearing took place in September and the College is examining their second expert witness, Dr, Greta Bauer.
#IStandWithAmyHamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswill speak.

Dr Bauer is sworn in by barbara findlay, a lawyer acting for the College. Asks to admit GB’s report for identification. bf uses analogue version while everyone else seems to be using digital version so there’s confusion re page numbers/tabs…etc as the afternoon progresses.

bf begins by reviewing GB’s CV.

Dr. Bauer has a PhD in Epidemiology and is a full professor at Western University. In case you are unacquainted with epidemiology 👇

GB is also the Canadian Institute of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair.

cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50833.html

Please see here for GB’s extensive CV 👇

schulich.uwo.ca/epibio/people/…

GB’s interest in transgender health goes back to her graduate work on access to health care for trans people circa 2005. She originated the Trans Pulse Project which included the often cited Trans Pulse surveys.

transpulseproject.ca

She’s a member of CPATH, the Canadian arm of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, where she was head of the Ethics Committee. She’s previously acted as an expert witness and provides expertise to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This expertise is related to sex and gender data collection. bf walks GB through a discussion of her many publications, her journal articles, her work reviewing journal articles and setting curriculums for higher education, mainly Masters programs as they are more employable.

bf emphasizes the prestigiousness of the work that GB has done in almost every question. For example, GB’s expert testimony at the CHRT in the long running discrimination case regarding Canadian Blood Service and that GB has never been denied qualification as an expert witness

bf has GB has explain what an abstract is & that she has submitted and/or presented them at many conferences including 15 submissions to WPATH. She has presented to many government agencies, done many media interviews & agrees that her CV is typical of an expert in her field.

bf proposes that GB be qualified as an expert witness.

Lisa Bildy for Amy’s team has questions.

Just adding that GB is now analyzing data for the Trans Youth Can Survey, a completed 2 year data follow up of 174 youth at 10 gender clinics across Canada who are receiving puberty blockers or hormones. Here’s a link to the site but all the internal links seem to be broken.

transyouthcan.ca

On to LB’s questions.

She comments on GB’s evolution in research interests from women to the transgender population. GB says was originally women and LGB.

LB asks re switch from HIV research to sexual minorities. GB says always sexual minorities.

Re timing of switch to transgender research, LB suggests 2010, GB says 2005 with first Trans Pulse Survey at Western University. Says was a 2010 publication for work began in 2005.

LB: clinical practise or provision of clinical care.
GB: No, and no time to volunteer.

GB participated in CHRT hearing and provided expertise but did not speak or present at the hearings for Bill C16.

Note: still no sign of that illusive GBA.

#releasetheGBA.

GB has acted as an consultant for WPATH and was present at the Montreal conference where the latest standards of care were released though her role if any in drafting the current standards seems negligible.

LB walks GB through her 77 page CV, her active appointments and her work, both as a graduate student and more recent collaborations with Elizabeth Saewyc, the College’s previous witness.

Regarding work outside academia, GB mentions working as a waitress and a dance instructor.

LB and GB discuss her many research grants and the shift in her research from women’s and perinatal health to transgender health.

LB asks GB about a news release regarding her appointment as incoming director of the Institute for Sexual and Gender Health (ISGH) at the University of Minnesota.

(Bauer had previously served as a research coordinator when the Institute was the Program in Human Sexuality.)

In the news release announcing the appointment the Dean of Medicine refers to GB as a “respected activist”.

Link to full release here 👇

med.umn.edu/news-events/u-…

LB asks if GB approved of Dean’s language.

GB: did not seek your correct but doesn’t use activist to describe self, says it was the Dean’s term.

LB says she will agree to GB as qualified expert but will challenge evidentiary weight of of her testimony.

After lunch break, there is a point of clarification put to the Committee. What questions will GB be allowed to provide an expert opinion on?

bf says area has been recited and GB’s expert opinion has been set out in her report.

Sorry, now lunch is taken. The Committee panel will confer.

Panel is back and rules on questions that expert can answer.

GB can discuss the evidence based health and well being of transgender and sexual minorities including the effect of social marginalization on that population.

She is qualified to provide testimony on how gender and non binary identity intersect with sex and define terms used in her research such as trans, cis, non binary, gender creative, gender expression, diversity….

Also the current scientific understanding of the relationship between and components of sex & gender. She can give expert testimony on the ways the transgender population is marginalized in Canadian society taking into account structural barriers & interpersonal mistreatment…

And how marginalization plays out in healthcare and affects the ability of trans people to access to health care, evidence based research in use of washrooms, and other gendered spaces such as ….

locker rooms and sports…etc. How the materials with the Palladian report (on Amy’s alleged statements) and the extract of that report fit within the framework of sex and gender and if the respondent’s (Amy’s) alleged statements are likely to cause harm and if so, why.

Sorry guys, have to break for the night. Will finish this tomorrow night and then back later this tweet notes of this week’s scheduled hearing. ✌️

#IStandWithAmyHamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak.

Okay back to finish up the last of Day 3 of the Sept. session of the @BCnursemidwife Disciplinary Hearing for @preta_6. The College would like Dr. Greta Bauer (Ph.D, not a medical Dr.) to accepted as an expert witness. LB, for Amy, is questioning GB

bf is also still asking questions as there's some back and forth about narrowing the scope of Amy's statements that will be commented on. The Panel has already asked the College to pull out the ones that they are most concerned with and focus on those.

bf asks if the Pallatin report into Amy's social media and it's extract, a transcript of Amy's podcast and a letter written by @jk_rowling form the factual basis for GB report. LD says cannot say "factual basis". Perhaps (in my words) evidence relied upon would be better.

bf aks if there is peer reviewed information about sex vs gender as the only "socially relevant" variable.
GB: sex only relevant in regard to health
bf asks GB to list some of the terms she'll use

GB: cis as a prefix, on the same side, gender id, gender id as a function of sex assignment, gender diversity - going beyond trans and outside of cis.

GB: gender expression - how someone presents socially, includes how they dress. Difference between expression and gender id - expression is only 1 dimension of gender. Can present in many ways. Sex is biological, gender is social.

GB: Gender ID is a self understanding, could have biological aspects but this is not fully understood, most are social. Sex assigned at birth is looking at neonatal phenotype.

Note:

Phenotype
In genetics, the phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology or physical form and structure, its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties

GB says we're not getting rid of sex, just understanding whether and how something implicates sex or gender or both.

bf asks GB question to discuss a chart that GB says help us think through sex and gender differences in healthcare. GB says that sex is not just one thing.

GB gives example of uteri status, uses the phrase "people who have uteri". Says we've assumed that all women have uteri which excludes women who've had hysterectomies or are intersex or trans.

GB says gender is not imaginary, because people are clear about their personally held gender. Says the prevailing understanding of gender id and sex is that they intertwined but function distinctly. Separate things that are both multi dimensional.

GB; they may be aligned. They have a functional aspect ('Trans women" can't get pregnant) so organs and hormones may not be aligned.

Note: In case it isn't clear, Dr Greta Bauer, full Professor of Epidemiology at Western University is giving testimony that "trans women" are male. You heard it here.

GB: Gender ID is deeply held but can be stronger or weaker depending on treatment by others. It's an unseen disability. Trans people are marginalized in Canadian society and this plays out in health care too.

GB gives example of erasure, says this might be a formal or informal process. Invisibility through lack of data and inclusion. includes institutions like hospitals, may not have intake forms that address what someone wants to be called of have gender segregated wards.

GB; only intake forms for sex, trans are cognitively challenged guessing what they want, is it sex assigned at birth? Reinforces that cis is good and may make them feel like they can't exist. Design of system or policies may not deliberately erase trans people.

GB: But it still erases them and is cisnormative. So trans in healthcare are typically erased. Not speaking about gender affirming care, more negative interactions with GPs (primary care) and in emergency rooms.

Quite common, especially in Primary care, to be made to feel they are not really trans, have their care ended or have Drs. refuse to examine certain body parts.

GB: in ERs, erasure very common, gender marker seen as mistake. Says 21% of trans people avoid going to ER.

Says some active interventions could be the fields on electronic records, education, room assignments.

GB: Misgendering and treating a trans person as not the gender they id as discourages them from accessing healthcare. Says it's a definite barrier that needs more research to quantify. Also mentions violence in the healthcare setting but has no date for Canada.

Moving into a discussion of how GB performs her research.

GB; qualitative research, process is hypothesis, study design, collect data, try to remove bias, publish and study results. Says study subjects sometimes have multiple marginalizations - indigenous, refugees, trans.

GB discusses "gendered" washrooms. Says it's claimed that people (women) have safety concerns but it's really a purity, not fear of harm issue. The stated opposition is really disgust, a pathogenic disgust toward "trans women".

GB compares it to racial segregation. Says pathogenic disgust is strongest predictor to opposition of "trans women" in washrooms, not safety. Says it purity. Must keep ourselves separate.

Note: On disgust, I certainly have been disgusted after watching many videos & seeing many pictures of "trans women" masturbating in female spaces. As usual, AGP & other paraphilias are the elephants in the room!

Note: And there are obviously valid physical safety concerns that seem to be dismissed as well as the impact of self id.

GB: says that if there were actual serious concerns, we would be looking at them but we're not.(implying that because we're not looking there must not be)

Moves on to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

GB: studied it ans found no support for the hypothesis, think it still fits within the DVSM.
Explains her definition of desistance: used to id as trans or non binary, now id as cis.

May have stopped gender affirming treatment such as hormones. Says people use same word to describe different things. Says there's an assumption that numbers are huge and increasing but more research is needed.

GB comments on studies that have found that 60 to 80% of children desist & go on to come out as lesbian, bi or gay. Says some truth for prepubescent group but at/after puberty is probably not true.

Throws out caveat that studies showing this stat may have not used correct diagnostic criteria.

Note: this is BS and has been debunked.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

Note: I will write to Dr. Zucker and ask if I may have and can link to non pay walled version of this paper.

GB says most post puberty transitioners don"t go to clinics Draws a parallel with gays and lesbians - there's less erasure if they are not sexually active. Says same as bathroom issue, face disgust.

Break is called and upon return, bf asks GB about other "gendered" spaces - washrooms, prisons, sports.

GB discusses the negative effects on trans people (not women). Says they avoid gyms (41% from TransPulse Ontario survey), are single out for harassment.

Mentions that a US study of 3600 grade 7s to 12s that found some were outed by having to use the teacher's bathroom and that both trans boys and girls were sexually assaulted, trans girls more so.

Says if we make trans men use women's space, we'll end up with bearded men in women's washrooms.

Note: we already do...

GB says there's been no harm shown to cis women (as there's been no research into harm to cis women).

GB: not a lot of data of trans in prisons, groups T with LGB to discuss a US study showing the need to protect trans people and the isolation they face.

Note: GB has been qualified as an expert for Canada and as you will see on her cross, claims she can't speak about other countries but has done so numerous times in her direct questioning answers.

GB says cis men assault cis women but can't use that as a comparison to "trans women". Says can't comment, not aware if on any negative effect for cis women in rape crisis centre as has not studied.

bf moves on to ask about caWsbar and its position statement.

Note: caWsbar stands for Canadian Womens Sex Based Rights. You can read about them here:

cawsbar.ca/who-we-are

Here 's their position statement:
cawsbar.ca/position-state…

Our @preta_6 is a founding member of this important organization.

bf asks how the caWsbar position statement fits in with GB's (and supposedly the scientific) idea regarding sex and gender.
GB: Agree that sex is distinct, biological but not that there are only two sexes or that one can't change sex. There's some general truth but not factual.

GB: sex is multi dimensional, people may be one sex based on genitals or hormones or chromosomes.

Note: GB often conflates sex with secondary sexual characteristics - this will continue.

GB says DSDs like Turner's and AIS prove that there are more than tow sexes. Says even sex chromosomes are not immutable. Says yes, it's a general truth but not absolute. As counter examples, GB lists way that chromosomes change:

- via blood transfusions
-bone marrow transplants
- women pregnant with sons
- y chromosome depletion
- fraternal twins
- chimerism (twins and pregnancy)

bf says aren't those just outliers
GB: relevant to Pt 4 that humans can't change their sex and that it present in every cell and immutable.
Moves on Pt 5.

Point 5:

Gender identity and expression, which have yet to be defined in Canadian law, are culturally-based, stereotypical degrees of “masculinity” and “femininity” (e.g., men like hockey, women like fashion);

GB: Gender ID is distinct from stereotypes. Used to be that "trans women" had to look feminine. Couldn't be a "jeans and tee shirt kind of girl". GID is what you know yourself to be, all genders can like hockey or you can express as a woman without liking hockey.

Onto Pt 6.
"All Canadians are free to express and present themselves as they wish; however, the concept of "gender identity and expression" does not negate the material, biological reality of women and girls; "

GB: GID doesn't negate reality. It's a biological reality to have a cis or trans gender id. A cis gender id could be wearing makeup, particular clothes.

Pt. 7

Women’s and girls’ sex-based rights to bodily privacy, dignity, fairness and security are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which sex is a protected characteristic;

GB: Trans rights are protected under sex. Sex protects gender too.

Note: again I come back to what this witness was qualified as an expert to give testimony on and I am sure I didn't miss the Canadian Charter of Human Rights!

Note: This is not a criticism of Amy's team. Lawyers have to be judicious with objections and just because they allow testimony to go in doesn't mean they won't try to steer the panel on how much weight to give to particular evidence.

Pt. 8
Canadian women’s sex-based Charter protections are based upon the fact that females have historically been -- and still are -- disadvantaged and vulnerable due to their distinct biological reality;

GB: yes, reproductive oppression is real but not limited to females

LB now objects, says GB is not a lawyer, can't give evidence about the Charter.

BF say, what about asking is it only the case that cis women give birth?
LB agrees to questions but say no more legal testimony.

GB: trans men and non binary people can give birth.

Don't seem to have a question about Pt.9 and when bf asks about Pt. 10, she seems to misunderstand the statement and ask her question like caWsBar are talking about the inclusion of "cis men".

Here 9 and 10 for your reference.

Pt 9.

Therefore, women’s and girls’ sex-based Charter rights must be strongly asserted and preserved in public policy, and must take precedence over any concept of gender

Pt. 10

The inclusion of males in the definition of “woman” under federal and provincial Human Rights legislation (i.e., gender self-identification) is regressive, unfair and perilous for Canadian women and girls.

bf asks: harmful, not harmful or neutral to say that there are 2 and only 2 sexes?

GB: it's wrong based on chromosomes, ignores the many dimensions of sex, bad assumption that only cis women can get pregnant, leaves no possibility for trans existence.

bf asks about segregation, meaning single sex spaces.

GB: questions if spaces have not been segregated by sex in past. If homeless shelters have not been segregated. Trans would be excluded from systems, prisons, shelters, retreats, conferences...

GB: gives example of lesbian festival (MitchFest?). Says was always open to trans, idea that it excluded trans is incorrect.

Note: MitchFest (RIP) had the intention that it was a single sex space and asked everyone to respect that intention.

Also GB seems to be arguing against the "continue" in caWsBar's statement re single sex spaces by saying they often haven't existed in the past and were open to trans people while also arguing that trans people face marginalization through exclusion.

bf: effects on trans women if restriction of previously not single sex spaces or u[ho;ding current segregation?

GB: No where to go, coul daffect housing, homeless and rape crisis centre, just given a transit ticket and a sandwich.
bf: what about using spaces for cis men?

GB: profoundly unsafe, same as if a cis woman was in a male homeless shelter.

It's the end of Day 3 and hearing will break before bf moves on to her next major section of direct.

There's discussions of timing as these three days were meant for the College to present its evidence and they haven't even completed their direct, with cross by Amy's team and possible redirect to come.

Also discussion of College's intention to try to block Amy's experts during their redirect of GB. Panel's lawyer says she hasn't seen submissions or arguments from College on their proposed procedure. LB would like a procedure outline from College.

bf declines to make an argument or commit to a submission so her next steps (note: to try to screw over Amy's witness) will have to await the next hearing.

That's it for the first three days of the @BCnursemidwife disciplinary hearing for @preta_6. Quick reminder that this originated with a complaint that Amy participated in putting up a I ♥️@jk_rowling billboard. The next three days were held this week.

I'll try to get some notes up next week and as always #IStandWithAmyHamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak

PS caWsbars's merch is great - stickers, tee shirts...etc and I'm sure they'd be grateful if you'd consider a purchase or a donation.

cawsbar.ca/donations

And ciao for now ✌️