Thread by @goinglikeelsie

Notes for day 1 of the 2nd session of the @BCnursemidwife Disciplinary Hearing for @preta_6.

It took place on Oct 24th

Links to the previous 3 day session which took place in September are linked in the next tweet
#istandwithamyhamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak

Link to the last three day session:

https://twitter.com/goinglikeelsie/status/1578836520517398528?s=20&t=aTgwHujZ6GjL4I07r-d3RQ

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This allegation was later quietly withdrawn, apparently without any consideration of the damage it may have done to Amy’s profession reputation or any other negative consequences that levelling such a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

The first session ended with Dr. Greta Bauer, a Professor of Epidemiology, one of two experts testifying for the College undergoing direct examination by barbara findley.

Also of note, the College announced its intention to try to preemptively disqualify Amy's experts during a possible redirect of GB. Amy's team had several objections including the fact that the "prosecution" is not allowed to "split" their case.

Amy's defence is entitled to see the College's witness's evidence so they can respond to it within their cross examination. The College can only perform a redirect examination on information that has come up in cross and that they couldn't have reasonably foreseen.

We know the College has reasonably foreseen it because they announced before starting their direct that it was their intent to do it!

To bring up new evidence in your redirect is called "splitting" your case and is not allowed.

Note: IANAL but I can't imagine the Panel will allow it.
It's an outrageously shitty and sloppy attempt to foreclose Amy's right to a robust defence and if allowed would seem to be a point on which to appeal any adverse decision to an actual court.

To start:

bf addresses the Panel and says she has forwarded the Panel a drill down of the extract of Palladin's report of Amy's tweets, statements, articles, etc and other material She proposed to summarize "the gist" of some of these articles for GB.

LB, for Amy, objects.

LB has no objection to bf putting quotes to GB but says that for bf to "summarize the gist of my client's evidence" would be considered leading the evidence and is inappropriate on direct. Says okay with quotes or excerpts.

bf says that she will ask GB to summarize the article, not Amy's evidence before going to a specific quote from article. Says first article is by @jk_rowling and was written in June of 2020.

Here is @jk_rowling's article:

jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-r…

GB summarizes it as @jk_rowling writing following "attacks that she had on Twitter" and that explains her position on sex and gender.

bf: did @jk_rowling say she had five reasons to be concerned about trans activism?

A little back and forth about leading the witness follows.

bf says she ask GB about the accuracy of @jk_rowling's statements.
bf: says new trans activism is eroding definitions of sex and gender so having large impact on causes that @jk_rowling supports. True for research, sex to replace gender?

GB asks bf to clarify if she means health research because she doesn't do research on social media.
bf says yes.

GB: always required to explain how we address sex and and we address gender. How we address sex & explain if we're not addressing it, why it's not being addressed.

bf next asks about @jk_rowling writing about parents identifying an usual pattern of trans identification in friend groups and brings up Littman paper on ROGD hypothesis which bf characterizes as implication social media/contagion contributing to trans identification.

Littman's paper.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

GB: parents recruited from websites, survey of parental experiences used to generate hypothesis called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. Not all parents of children, oldest "quote, unquote" child was 27.

They say that their adolescents were spending a lot of time online, or that they had friends who cane to ID as trans and then their kids did too. "reported in terms of parent perception".

GB says no "actual trends, adolescents, or your adults", just parents in this study.

bf asks re validity of Littman's work. Asks GB to explain what hypothesis generating means.

GB: work in a new area or first reporting. It wasn't an unbiased sample.

GB: LL says she was taking the experiences & using them to generate hypotheses. What might explain the parent's reports. Hypothesis generating "meaning it's not it's not testing out a hypothesis".

GB says that it's asking questions, and trying to generate a hypothesis to be later tested.
bf asks if LL hypothesis is valid

GB: early days, more to do but to date not supported by my work with adolescents in clinical care. Says her group is different than group in hypothesis as they are in clinical care but since ethical concerns important to look but so far found no evidence to support LL.

bf moves on to discussing article by Marcus Evans from Tavistock & the NHS Gender Clinic (UK). Says ME says that the trans narrative of children killing themselves if not allowed to transition does not align with data/studies or his decades of experience as psychotherapist.

bf asks GB to comment on ME's article and its accuracy in the context of her research.

An archived link to ME's article about his resignation:
Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just ‘Affirmation’ and Drugs
archive.ph/3n4NB

GB makes a caveat that she is commenting in context of her research and that she can't speak to his decades of clinical experiences.

GB: fairly consistent reports of older adolescents & adults that 35 - 40% have at some point attempted suicide.

GB corrects that her research is 35%, had seriously considered suicide with 11% attempted. Says they separate ideation/serious consideration from attempts. Says high rates for two groups - trans and aboriginal people. Says "consistent associations with forms of social exclusion".

GB discusses TransPulse survey results. Says highest risk group were those planning to medically transition or access gender affirming care but hadn't begun. Discusses how they control for various factors that might affect results. Says they do "causal analysis".

GB says that for those who accessed/completed gender affirming care, suicide attempt rate went down to 1%, closer to "base population rate".

Says this data is "remarkably consistent" around the world and that factors that "may play a causal role" in suicide risk are social and perhaps more importantly medical & include "protection from transphobia".

bf asks how gender affirming treatment can be different for different people.

GB: says did paper on this. Can look very different. May need medical treatment/transition. Could be hormones/different surgeries, depending on how dysphoria manifests or what they think is important.

bf asks GB about a sentence saying that transition may be right for some but 60 to 90% of teens grow out of dysphoria.

Note: not sure where this is being pulled from as doesn't seem to be @jk_rowling or ME.

GB: That's not teens, it's childre who have not gone through puberty. Also many didn't fit clinical criteria for gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder.

GB then muses about a study she recalls from the late 1980's of young boys brought in for psychological care.

GB says ages 7 to 13, she thinks. Says probably less than 2/3 met clinical definition for what was then called gender identity disorder. So is true for that group, much younger & not really suffering from clinical gender dysphoria, many grow up to be cis gays or cis lesbians.

GB says a very different group than than teens getting clinical care for gender dysphoria which is a small group.

GB demurs, says that's the UK so can't comment on their system.

bf say in Canadian context?

GB says yes, removal of surgical requirements for gender markers on ID. Requiring surgery was too high of bar, is sterilizing, may be other contraindications, may be to expensive.

GB: must get physician's referral, can't speak to policies of the limited number of clinics that do the surgeries.

bf: what does DSM mean?

GB: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Has the the codes that are used for diagnoses & definitions of categorizations of mental disorders. Used in US and Canada as a guide for mental health diagnosis, created by the American Psychiatric Association

Going to pause here. Back with more tomorrow. ✌️

#istandwithamyhamm #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak

More Day 1 tomorrow.

Okay, back with more from Day 1 of the Second Session of the @BCnursemidwife Disciplinary Hearing for @preta_6 which took place on Oct. 24th. 2022
#istandwithamyhamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak

bf asks GB about trans issues in the DSM

GB replies that things have changed over different version Current is version 5.

LB say sorry to interrupt but asks are psychiatric matters within GB expertise and area that she was qualified as expert for?

bf asks GB is DSM relevant to the treatments you look at in your research?

GB says yes, the DSM is used by clinicians in Canada.

bf asks about WPATH and how their standards relate to the DSM.

Here's a link to the latest WPATH Standards of Care.

wpath.org/soc8

Note: yes, this is the one that was released and then immediately modified to remove all minimum age guidelines.

Note: WPATH SOC 8 also included eunuchs example of a gender identity (male to eunuch of MTE) and recommended castration in some cases.

Many papers (16 for one, 18 for the other) cited in the Eunuch Chapter of SOC8 were written by two men closely linked to the Eunuch Archives, a site that includes child sexual exploitation material in its content.

Back to GB.

GB: explains WPATH, formerly the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association is different. That it is a "long standing international organization", currently on SOC8. Says SOC8 does not remove medical oversight but has not read all of it.

bf goes back to @jk_rowling's statement. Say it claims trans women eroding women's rights and giving cover to predators. Asks if there is any research showing trans women as predators.

GB: "as a group, no."

bf asks if views like @jk_rowling's contribute to harm to the trans community and if so, how.

GB: coming from a health background so looking at risk of suicide and mental health. Also access to services. Says these types of statements portray trans women, in general, as a risk.

GB: transphobic to say trans people not normal, that trans women are potential predators & not safe, sick, dangerous. Potentially harmful statement, has to be room for trans people to exist, says no room for you, no room for services. Need to think about it more so may say more.

bf asks if @jk_rowling's statement is well known.

GB says she doesn't follow social media but this one "broke through" and "made a big splash".

bf asks if GB aware of @preta_6's participation in I♥️@jk_rowling billboard and "how that would have been understood" by trans people.

GB: understood as supporting @jk_rowling and agreeing with her and her supporters.

LB interjects to say she's concerned that GB is being asked to speak on behalf of trans people as not part of expert opinion that she was qualified to give. No studies or surveys were done.

bf says moving on but claims this does fall within GB's expertise if she chose to continue asking questions like this. Then brings up letter that @preta_6 and Billboard Chris wrote to company, Patterson who installed billboard.

bf says they said they were not transphobic and neither is @jk_rowling. That they are concerned about women and girl's rights, the impact of gender ideology and that most Canadians think woman is a biological fact, not a feeling. Harm or contribute to harm against trans people?

bf clarifies that this was a letter to Patterson that later became public.
GB: yes, harms as "clearly excludes" trans people as women & defines woman biologically. Speaks about "multi dimensionality" of gender & sex.

GB: in her research, woman is defined as gender, female is sex. Woman is social, an identity, a gender category, not a biological reality. The feeling part is confusing. Says identity is knowing, not feeling so not accurate. Says harm is because of concern for women & girls.

GB: Not clear what the harm to women/girls is, maybe saying safety? Was @jk_rowling alluding to safety? If yes, has potential to harm.

bf asks if the "theoretical analysis of gender identity" harms women's rights.

GB: analysis is for both cis & trans people. Part of identity development for all. Debate if changeable but not sure if that's what is being discussed. No harm from science point of view.

Note: asserting everyone has a GID

bf takes GB to another article & asks her to summarize.

GB: about what happened with billboard

bf says in article @preta_6 claimed she is not allowed to defend women's sex based rights or define woman. Anyone can say they are a woman. Also says Amy is organizer of GIDYVR which bf characterizes as "gender identity ideology events".

bf ask if will contribute to harm to trans people.

GB: yes, minimizes what gender identity is. Not how GID it works. But also confusing - does it mean legal definition? Does that even exist?

GB: in Canada, people can have different "gender markers" on different ids - example birth cert vs. drivers license. Talks about differences between provinces. "it's not as simple as somebody saying something and it being so and that's different than identity".

GB: Same for cis people. No one tested me to make sure I'm a woman. If I say it, then it is so, it's my identity & I can express that. Always been the case. So article making it sound "frivolous" or unusual.

bf asks do rights for trans people conflict with rights for cis women.

GB: IANAL
bf: in context of your work, see a conflict?

GB: generally no but rights do conflict. Says that's why we have HR Tribunals...etc.

bf asks about the logic of says yes, I support trans rights but not trans women in washrooms or rape crisis centres.

GB: how is it possible if not supporting someone to have a place to urinate - needed several times a day. Health concerns but also need equitable access to other gendered spaces, need safe participation, access to health and social services.

Breaking here. Back soon with more of Day 1.✌️

#istandwithamyhamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak

Back with more of Day 1 of second session from Sept 24th.

bf in direct to GB asks what happens to trans women if they are not permitted access to "gendered spaces" like rape crisis centres.

GB says that it's well documented that trans women experience high levels of violence.

GB says there is a system of gendered spaces so everyone may not be able to access services, get their needs met.

bf asks if GB is aware if any sexualized violence trans specific services.

GB: apart from rape crisis lines, not aware of any.

bf moves on to a quote from @jk_rowling about the fact that if sex isn't real, then how can sex based attraction be real, about erasing the lived reality of women globally and removing the ability of women to discuss their lives in a meaningful way.

bf asks about preserving a "bifurcated" categorization of the male and female sex category and if that's the only way to preserve same sex attraction.

GB questions the meaning of bifuricated.

bf goes back to @jk_rowling and says that she says that it's not hate to say that removing sex removes the lived experience of women. Asks GB if goal of her work is to remove category of sex and if adding idea of GID removes ability of women to discuss their lives.

GB: no, not intent of her work and no GID does not remove. People still talk about the dimensions of sex all the time.

bf asks did you mean sex or sexuality

GB: dimensions of sex like reproduction, anatomy...etc.

GB: I understand that @jk_rowling is talking about consequences if sex is not real.
bf: @jk_rowling quote harmful to trans people

GB: yes because it saying people are saying that sex isn't real. Aware that some on internet/Twitter say that, but haven't met anyone that does.

GB: For trans people, gender care carries real implications about "dimensions" of sex. Hormones, anatomy...are real. is @jk_rowling creating strawman argument? No one is arguing that sex isn't real.

bf wants to clarify, does GB mean in her research.

GB: yes,in those who study trans health, sex/gender, government, agencies and the trans community in general.

bf goes back to @jk_rowling and her statement showing solidarity with trans people, that they are vulnerable but that it's not hate to trans people to say sex is real and that sex has lived consequences.

GB: talking about male violence so I agree. But can't say whether or not she hates trans people. Saying sex is real means that you hate trans people must be something someone said to her. Haven't heard that or that sex isn't real, gender care is all about sex.

GB: Sex very important. Has an impact. Gender care is about making adjustments to dimensions of sex.

bf moves on to discuss article titled "Why I Bought a I ♥️JK Rowling Billboard in Vancouver". Asks GB to summarize.

99.9% sure this is the article

theline.substack.com/p/q-and-a-why-…

GB says question and answer style article about billboards, consequences and the "quote unquote" gender wars.

BF says interviewer asks Amy how she responds to criticism of billboard.

BF says Amy disagrees that she is 'trying to generate attention off of issues that I think transgender rights activists would claim is their well being, their sense of personal safety, and security in society."

Note: quote is from article

bf says Amy responds that "I completely disagree. Rowling and myself and other women who have spoken out about gender-identity ideology have consistently made it clear that we support equal rights for transgender persons."

"We don't want them to suffer discrimination, we would like them to live their lives in peace and security. So that's not the issue for us. The issue is the way that self-identification legislation impacts the rights of women and children."

Note: quotes again from article.

bf asks GB what she understands self id to be in Canada.

GB: self id language not used in Canada, maybe in UK, they do. They have different process, have GRC (gender recognition certificate).

bf asks if different id in Canada can be obtained that shows gender id, not sex?

GB: yes, different id, criteria reflects "multi dimensionality". In Ontario,must see doctor or psychologist. May be changed for not for gender id but for gender presentation, safety issue.

GB: different processes across Canada. Federal and provincial processes.

bf asks if GB has seen research evidence of harms to girls/women (amends it to be cis girls/women) of allowing gender markers on id.

GB: no none known to me

bf: any evidence of violence of cis men going into "gendered" spaces dressed as women to cause harm?

GB: long history of cis men harming women, sometimes in gendered spaces but "not historically" needed to dress a certain way to access washrooms

bf goes back to article & quote from interviewer

"J.K. Rowling is not a benign figure in the culture at the moment, and signalling an allegiance with her signals an allegiance with a set of ideological presuppositions with regards to gender and identity and sex-based rights"

"I can understand why people who are on the transgender side of this particular debate would be angry at J.K. Rowling for insinuating that self-identity laws creates the implication that transgender people are predatory...."

"..or are seeking to harm women, when in fact, the opposite is usually true."
bf says Amy responds (quote from article)

"I think the problem with that reasoning is that a lot of people who are feeling that way are basing what they've heard other people...

"..saying about what J.K. Rowling has said, rather than her actual words. So if you were to read her essay about why she got into the sex and gender debate, she specifically and clearly states that trans people deserve protection...

"..and that she's not suggesting that they are predatory people. She's suggesting that men — as a sex class — can take advantage of self-identification laws, and that is the crux of the issue."

"It's not trans people, it's the people that will take advantage of self-identification laws."

bf asks GB if what Amy said is "likely to cause or contribute to harm to transgender people?"

GB says it's a hypothetical about something that is already illegal in Canada. Is that enough to deny access to people who are always excluded from society"? Enough to not address issue based on unknown risk? So, yes harmful.

GB: Risk that we don't have research for. Cis men not needed "loophole to attack women" before but fear around that great, could override very real safety needs of trans people. Needs have been documented as adverse to health of trans people.

Time for a break ✌️

#istandwithamyhamm #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak

Back to Day 1 of the second session of the @BCnursemidwife displinary hearing of @preta_6.
#istandwithamyhamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak #sexnotgnder

GB discusses gender dysphoria. Says for some, it about "social gender", for others "sex aspects" of their bodies. Can be both. Says experience of GD is different than a diagnosis. Can vary over time, 'Gender affirming" care can reduce distress.

GB says gender dysphoria can be affected by around 60 aspects of the body. Says able to document because of the questions they asked. It's feeling distressed, can be intense, maybe around sexed body, genitals or things like facial hair or breasts.

Or can be social, how you are treated, assumptions about your gender. If how you're perceived isn't "in alignment" with how you may identify. GB want to acknowledge that she can't cover 100% of what GD might be.

Break for lunch. Then bf lays out how she will proceed for the afternoon. Will ask GB more about Amy's comments and then proposed process for deciding admissibility of Amy's expert witnesses.

Sorry had to delete a few tweets in aid of accuracy.
The College is no longer trying to split their case. instead they will ask GB about Amy's witnesses and their reports. The they will ask the Panel to strike the reports and disqualify the witnesses.

You will see that at the end of the last day of this session, both sides set a schedule to file written submissions.

On Amy's side there was an extensive submission on the question of her experts' evidence and if it meets the test for proper expert testimony.

They submit that it does and address whether they are advocates for a cause or are addressing the “ultimate issue” that the panel must decide.

Okay back to bf's direct of GB.

bf takes GB to a transcript of an interview of Amy by Meghan Murphy.

Note: I believe this was on a The Same Drugs podcast.

bf says that Amy identified herself as a Mom, Nurse, involved in the gender wars, part of GIDYVR (Note: RIP 😪) and caWsbar, a freelance writer and part of a duo that rented the I ♥️@jk_rowling billboard.

Asks GB to opine on what a trans person would think about that.

GB says it relates to what she discussed about access to healthcare and anticipation of poor treatment. Says doesn't matter if it's actually happening, it;s the perception that it may. Says show Amy is a healthcare professional deeply involved in opposing trans rights.

GB: Stongly taking positions that trans rights ae bad for girls and women. Shows how important these positions are to Amy and could cause trans people to think they may be treated unfairly.

bf asks if GB thinks a trans person who "experienced transphobia in the delivery of healthcare" would be likely to file a complaint.

GB says have some data but not detailed comparison but it's very common and there's not a lot of complaints.

GB says lots occurs that trans people don't file complaints about. Thinks transphobia happens a lot but can't give specifics about numbers of complaints filed.

Note: my sarcastic comment - low complaints filed about "transphobic" health care treatment - two filed about a billboard.

Note: Also interesting to note GB's assertions about something that there is a lack of scientific evidence for vs. the way she treats/dismisses other issues that supposedly lack scientific evidence (hint, those mostly involve rights for women/girls & safety and privacy concerns).

bf moves to Meghan asking Amy about why she cares about gender. Amy says that she thinks most people don't understand that when we are talking about sex, we mean bodies while gender is a social construct.

Amy says gender roles are stereotypes. Says in answer to people who ask why can't we have both sex and gender rights - there's no reason why a feminine man has to be legally recognized as a woman to be protected from harm. Sex covers discrimination - adding gender confuses issue.

bf asks GB, does that statement harm or contribute to harm against trans people If so, why?

GB says she's saying trans women are feminine men. Interesting because femininity in cis man is a gender expression. But saying trans women are feminine men is denying their existence.

GB: not allowed to be who you say you are. Says adding gender is very meaningful because sometimes it's "gender expression" (feminine men, masculine women) that are discriminated against.

GB: Discriminated against "because of the way that their gender is expressed relevant to the sex based characteristics of their body."

bf asks what washrooms trans women would use if treated as feminine men and the consequences.

GB asks meaning social affirmation of gender or legal?

bf says Amy's comments and the consequences. So if trans women legally feminine men, what about washrooms?

GB says no currently no legal documentation required to use washrooms. Says lawyers can correct her but doesn't think we've ever had them n Canada. People usually use those in which they feel safest, those which match their identity or presentation.

bf asks what would happen to trans woman in men;s washroom.

GB says depends on presentation. If still presents male may chose differently than someone who presents female. Could be "very dangerous, potentially dangerous " situation. For others it's something avoided.

GB: may chose gender neutral as both male and female washrooms can feel unsafe.

Going to break here, back soon with last of Day 1. ✌️
#istandwithamyhamm #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak #sexnotgender

Back with more of Day 1 @BCnursemidwife Disciplinary Hearing of @preta_6

#istandwithamyhamm #womenwillspeak #nurseswillspeak #sexnotgender

bf now moves GB to a different section of the documents. She call these Amy's team's documents for cross examination of GB. Says she's not going to ask about substance of the content but wants to know if GB read any of the 31 articles.

GB says yes, a lot so scanned.

bf asks if any of the content changed GB expert opinions.

GB says most of it not academic research, mostly from US and UK. Is opinion pieces, blog posts...etc.

bf says she thinks GB is referring to incorrect bundle, says she means 31 articles.

GB says yes, now has them. Says none changed her opinion. Also got more from Amy's team over weekend but not read yet.

Some discussion between bf and GB about actual number of articles, more than 31 and about bf's table listing article and URLof article.

GB says large volume, not relevant as in US or UK context and by journalists and activists.

Now discussion between bf and Chair of Panel as to what documents bf is referring to - apparently there are 10 volumes. bf says will not submit 10 volumes as exhibit but will ask GB questions.

bf again asks if GB if docs changed her opinions.

GB says does not impact her opinion of her research, says not useful for evidence based policy and practice.

bf says US?UK are different context to Canada, are you an expert in UK/US? Please specify the "facts you relied upon in the preparation of your report" & evidence

GB refers to her report, says relied on areas within her research, has led Provincial and National health studies. Has relied on other sources and tried to stay up to date with US. Has gone to US info when info not available in Canada. And professional opinion at conferences.

Note: GB claims US is different context is from the US, uses US research, did undergrad work in the US & has been appointed the new Director of the Institute of Sexual-and Gender Health in the US.

Linked press release characterizes GB as an activist.

med.umn.edu/news-events/u-…

Sorry, lost a tweet. GB also says she relies upon "works in progress" that haven't been published yes.

Now bf moves onto the reports of Amy's witnesses. These would be part of Amy's defence.
Starts with @coachblade and lists her credentials as documented on her CV.

- former Canadian champion athlete, elite heptathlete.
- PhD
-doctoral dissertation in human biology & the interface between anthropometry & kinesiology, a multidisciplinary science that involves health sciences, pediatrics, endocrinology, physiology and epidemiology.

- sports performance coach who trained professional athletes, Olympic champions
- book co author of "UnSporting - How Trans Activism and Science Denial are Destroying Sport."
amazon.ca/Unsporting-Act…

Note: If you want to ensure that your local Canadian library is carrying this great book, here's a cross country thread I created in the past.

https://twitter.com/goinglikeelsie/status/1400547851852079106?s=20&t=qy8Rxeuq2tb6x79qtH_53A

Back to @coachblade's CV.

- author and developer of sports programs
- sports administrator and policy leader
- President of the Board at Alberta Athletics

bf documents the 3 questions that CB was asked to address in her expert report:

How does prioritizing gender over sex impact women and girls in sport?

How has gender ideology become so prevalent in sport?

Is open discussion necessary for the protection of fair and safe participation in sport for women and girls.

bf asks GB to consider CB's CV and say whether or not she thinks CB is qualified to answer the questions and why or why not.

LB objects, says qualification of expert witnesses is responsibility of Panel. GB cannot give legal opinion on test for admission of expert testimony.

bf says not looking for legal opinion. GB is an academic who "has occasion to consider and assess the expertise" of others.

bf says asking GB to assess in way that she normally would in her work.

LB points out that this is not what GB was qualified by Panel to address as expert witness. Says totally outside that qualification.

LB says "outrageous" to say that because GB has lengthy CV that she can judge another academic's expertise. Not her place. Can speak to content of report only.

bf rephrases, ask if GB has expertise in assessing expertise of others.

GB says yes, done performance reviews, been on promotion and tenure committees.

bf asks what would you look for in qualifications of an "expert".

GB says number of publications, specific expertise, if publication are recent or old, rankings of journal that publications are in, being recognized as expert by governments and agencies that need "evidence based policy".

Note: to be qualified as an expert by a tribunal like the Disciplinary Panel Hearing of the @BCnursemidwife, one need not be an academic and laypeople can also be qualified as experts.

bf asks GB if she's aware of an instance where GID is prioritized over sex in sport.

GB says for children, little difference but CB seems to be discussing elite sport.

bf says not safe to assume that.

GB says CB discusses World Rugby, the Olympic Committees, regulatory bodies so thinking she means elite sport.

bf says CB has answer why gender is prioritized, does GB agree?

GB does not agree, says debates already happened, that it's about hormones,about "sex dimensions", particularity how they impact muscles and strength.

Note: The tragically misnamed Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports recommend that inclusion should trump fairness (and I guess safety) when it comes to GID.

Indeed, they further recommend that someone should be allowed to identify as different "genders" for different sports AT THE SAME TIME!

bf moves on to ask GB about Heather Mason's (@Mason134211f) report.

bf says that Heather has explained her qualifications as building a database of men in Canadian prisons who id as women. Says she has done independent survey of women in prison with men to understand their experiences. Is this accepted research or following accepted stats?

GB says yes data but not research. Not able to be relied upon because of methodological issues. Isn't a data analysis. May be some accuracy to what is captured here but can't verify that accuracy. Being able to verify data is a "hallmark" of scientific research.

GB says that in her work, she has to follow reporting guidelines. Guidelines cover what can be reported regarding observational data vs. a randomized trial. Also have to report how data is collected. Doesn't meet standards for reporting.

GB says causation analysis is very different than association analysis. Always have to apply "statistical analysis". Adjustments for bias. So "complex questions" can be answered.

bf asks how GB would do study on whether trans women in prison pose risk to cis women.

GB says first work out what unacceptable level of risk is. Where to find data, what institutions. Must protect privacy.

Decide who needs to be involved to get "high quality data" then work on proposal. Example consideration is who is in general prison population vs segregation. Can we control for factors that might bias data. So, lots of work on proposal and then work to get funds and staff.

bf asks if study like this currently exists.

GB says her research has included very small number of trans people in prison. Harder to get this research done because of considerations around coercion of incarcerated people. Special ethics considerations.

GB says not even a lot of research about formerly incarcerated people. Says collected some in her Trans Pulse Ontario survey but such low numbers didn't submit for peer review, didn't want to generalize.

GB says maybe 25 trans women in women's prisons and most not tracked.

bf asks, acknowledging it is not peer reviewed, can you still talk about your data.

GB says needs to open report but knows people did not feel safe, trans people were potential targets.

GB says that this survey data was trans people 16 or older in Ontario. Had 23 respond who had been in prison while "presenting their gender", 18 in Provincial, 2 in Federal, 3 that had been in both Provincial and Federal.

Note: Provincial is for sentences of less than 2 years, Federal for 2 years or more.
Also would be very interested to know if a survey of this type of 220 or so women would yield the same # of people who had been in prison?

GB says we're getting data form long ago, none had been in prison in last year. Says 2/3 had experienced "hostility" or verbal abuse, 1/3 violence because of being trans. Says 65% of those in prison did not feel safe.

GB says not information on any harm trans women may have done to cis women. Survey was in 2009/10 so not many trans women in women's prisons. No current data on any "disproportionate" harm to cis women either.

bf moves on to @Docstockk's report. Kathleen Stocks CV:
- former Professor st University of Sussex
- published scholarly philosophical work on among other things, sexual objectification and orientation, and on the importance of of human sex in language

- published author
-papers about womanhood as a social fact, sex and GID and the "incoherence" of abolishing gender, how important it is to refer to human sex in language and law.
- her book, "Material Girls, Why Reality Matters for Feminism"

amazon.ca/Material-Girls…

Again, Canadian Women and our allies, get it in your public library!

https://twitter.com/goinglikeelsie/status/1400547851852079106?s=20&t=NiMfkd5Dad3SJbtA6GV_Og

- published in the International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Oxford University Press
- has written on sex, gender identity and transactivism vs. feminism for The Economist, Prospect...etc.
- is critical of self id, access for any male self declared as a woman is harmful to women.

- rejects claim that trans women are literally women, same for trans men or non binary people.
- may be used therapeutically or okay to adopt in interpersonal relationships but are fiction, not true.

- rejects idea that institutions, lawmakers or policymakers should force people to adopt these fictions
- not only illiberal but actively harmful to women, gay people and children

- sex based language important and bio categories of sex are "scientifically robust, socially significant and unaffected by psychological identity claims".
- argues against erasure of sex based categories (male, female) and sex based language (woman, man)

- has talked about these issues on numerous TV and radio programs (example, the BBC)
done interviews with The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, other international newspapers.
- was given OBE (Order of the British Empire) in 2020 for services to higher education

- founding member of University of Austin
- writes column for Unheard
- is on the left politically but been exposed to controversy because of writing about importance of sex, sex based spaces and legal protections.

- very familiar with high level of outrage and controversy from some when defending women's sex based rights in public (citing resignation as Prof at U of S after campaign of student harassment waged against her)

Going to stop here but back soon for conclusion of Day 1 of second session. 3 more daysof this session to tweet. ✌️

#istandwithamyhamm #sexnotgender #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak

Back with the end of Day 1 of 4 for the 2nd. session of the @BCnursemidwife Disciplinary Hearing for @preta_6. from October. bf is questioning GB (the College's expert) about Amy's proposed witnesses.

#istandwithamyhamm #sexnotgender #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak

bf asks GB about @Docstockk's assertions that sex based language - that categories of male and female are scientifically robust, socially significant and unaffected by psychological identity. Does GB agree that categories of male/female are scientifically robust?

GB says, yes I talked about those as multi dimensional. Don't know how she's defining robust but are heterogeneous as to the different dimensions of sex and gender. it's complicated.

bf asks if male/female categories socially significant.

GB says yes, have particular meanings. For people and for the gendered expectations we are tied to and add. Parents have specific expectations from birth. When they have "external genital phenotype".

bf asks if gender id is a psychological identity.

GB says not sure what KS means so can't answer that.
bf goes back to earlier evidence from BC Centre of Disease Control re inclusive language. Says replaces sexed language. Do "cisgender" people lose something by using gender neutral language, rather than gender language?

GB says does not replace language. Says it says "call people by what they want". May only lose assumption that default is cisgender. If someone hates inclusive language, can say no.

bf gives hypothetical. If refer to "set of people who deliver children as birthing parents", not mothers so we can include transmen, is there something lost to cisgender women?

GB doesn't think so as long as it's not forced on people. Motherhood is very socially significant.

GB says very important to people. Should not substitute language - very disrespectful. Only give options.

bf asks about the Discipline of Philosophy. Asks if it impacts social,medical and natural science as it relates to gender/sex or gender diversity.

Does it have anything to say about questions in GB field?

GB says yes, as her field includes ethics "absolutely does". Philosophy of Ethics is "highly relevant".

Will use philosophical papers to help understand if one thing causes another. Can't use randomized trials.

Note to bf : ooops.

GB says will adopt philosophical methods.

BF asks if KS's report cause GB to change her evidence.

GB says no.

bf asks about the American College of Pediatrics vs. the American Academy of Pediatrics.

GB says more familiar with Academy. Large org, membership limited to pediatricians. Has 60K members. Publish journal. Has published there and read manuscripts for them.

College has membership of a few 100 people. Not just pediatricians. Publish lots of position statements. are against abortion, access to contraception, against living together before marriage. Against "trans youth", against gay people. Slanted positions.

bf moves to expert report of Dr. Miriam Grossman. Goes through her CV.

miriamgrossmanmd.com

MG would be expert witness for Amy.

bf asks GB if in MG's CV there is any evidence of education in treatment of transgender people or youth.

GB says MD trained as psychiatrist but nothing specific to trans.

bf: any peer reviewed publications?

GB says no.

bf: any original research conducted by MG in relations to trans?

GB says no.

bf: any expertise in clinical practice with trans?

GB says no, not through continuing medical education. Does say she works with "gender confused" youth and their families. Private practice.

bf: has been peer reviewer on articles or research grants on trans health? Like the National Institute of Health?

GB says no.

bf asks see that MG has been asked to deliver talks at conferences on trans people or trans health?

GB says no, not trans health.

bf : any sign of clinical supervision of others in her field in regard to trans and trans health?
GB says no.

bf asks any consultations with governments or research agencies?

GB says no.

bf: any research on her own?

GB says no.

GB goes back to MG's list of speaking engagements and says it's irregular, listed in a confusing way. Information is limited.

bf has MG instructed at Universities about trans and trans health?

GB says does seem so.

bf asks if GB looked at MG's website.

GB says yes, no place to book appointment, no FAQs, no way to become a patient. Focus was on the books she has written, like a speaker's website. Made statements about fighting gender ideology. Not a clinical website.

bf moves on the MG's report.

bf says MG says sex refers to biological classifications. Male or female is based on reproductive cell produced. Sex is dimorphic. Female is objective, permanent.

Asks GB if correct and if not, why not.

GB says humans are low dimorphism species. But MG misunderstands that dimorphism is about secondary sexual characteristics like height or hair. It's not realted to gametes. Agrees that sex is biological but is multi dimensional.

GB says in terms of gametes, humans will produce either eggs, sperm or neither. That's "one dimension of sex". May not align with secondary sex characteristics. Maybe sex based organs differ.

bf goes back to MG report re differentiation between hard science (objective) & soft science (intangibles like behaviour). Soft science is subjective. Says biological sex confirmed by hard science.

Asks GB if she recognizes distinction between hard and soft science in her work?

GB says not involved in this distinction in her work. Says confirmation of sex in hard science like genetics, embryology statement by MG is not strictly true.

In text books, sex based differences because of hormones separated out, sex based differences because of genetics separated out. Can define sex according to different dimensions. People can have sexually dimorphic differences even if not producing gametes.

Says many things measured in lab science, not measured with great accuracy. Says many things measured over many decades with surveys have evidence of validity. Says lab measurements no inherently more accurate than surveys.

bf goes back to MG report about being XX and XY depending on sperm contribution of an X or Y. All cells of embryo develop with original XX or XY. Asks, is this accurate and if not, why?

GB says most common, exceptions apply. Can have XXY or can have mosaicism where individual cells are different XY configurations. Or like chimeric cells like with twins. so yes, general truth but not absolute.

Have to break. Back tomorrow. ✌️

#istandwithamyhamm #sexnotgender #nurseswillspeak #womenwillspeak