Thread by @esme_saysno

Here we go with today's next instalment in the Amy Hamm Witch Trial (aka BC College of Nurses and Midwives discipline hearing). Again, I'll be live tweeting highlights

#IStandWithAmyHamm #NursesWillSpeak @preta_6

First order of business is submissions to qualify witnesses. Karen Bastow, counsel for Amy, is up first. She outlines some cases she's relying on for qualifying witnesses.

Bastow: Dr. Miriam Grossman is no doubt an expert witness. Amy relies on Charter rights of freedom of expression. This is not a negligence case. It's a speech case. Qualifying Grossman is crucial to demonstrating that Amy is speaking in good faith.

Bastow: The evidence of Grossman goes to determining that Amy is acting in good faith. No question Grossman is an expert as a clinical psychiatrist. Grossman's opinions are consistent with the spectrum of beliefs shared by Amy. The panel cannot find negligence therefore.

Bastow: Grossman's jurisdiction shouldn't have any bearing on the decision. While there may be differences in opinion on whether she's acting in the interest of her patients, she is still an accomplished expert in the field.

Bastow: The panel is asked to prove causation of harm with respect to speech. This is crucial. Grossman's experience working with clients is more relevant than the self-selecting self-reporting surveys the College relies on.

Bastow: all 3 witnesses have stated gender is not easy to define. This is a confounding issue in finding for or against Amy. The decision must be based in evidence and fact. The panel is asked to balance Amy's right to freedom of expression with her responsibility to patients.

Bastow: it's easy and attractive to say the human rights act prohibits certain speech. But this is not at issue. Question is: was there misconduct in the course of providing service?

Bastow: it's important to hear from witnesses who express gender critical views. They do this in order to protect certain groups. Grossman seeks to protect children. Prof. Kathleen Stock seeks, for example, to protect lesbians.

Bastow: we need to call international witnesses because this is a global phenomenon.

Bastow: with the respect to excluding a witness on the basis of their being an "advocate" the law clearly means an advocate for the respondent, not an advocate for the issue itself. Grossman is not an advocate for Amy. She'd never met her before or had any interaction.

Bastow cites various cases regarding free speech and Charter rights. She finishes her submissions. Now on to Barbara Findlay's submissions, counsel for the College.

Findlay: I object to Bastow's assertion that medicine is the same in all jurisdictions. Access to abortion is different in different jurisdictions. This is analogous to trans-affirming care.

Findlay: Grossman knows nothing about trans healthcare in Canada. In Canada we have affirming care. Grossman stated she doesn't believe affirming care is helpful.

Findlay: Grossman does not use the term "gender dysphoria" but prefers the term "gender confusion".

Findlay: Grossman fails for want of relevant expertise. She is a psychiatrist with an opinion, not an expert. (omfg) She calls her patients "gender confused" and not "trans". This is conversion therapy. (No, it's not.)

Findlay: Grossman cannot provide an opinion for the purposes of this panel because she refers to GSAs as activist groups. I reject her opinion that GSAs cause harm. They are legal in Canada.

Findlay: Grossman is entitled to "persuade" gender confused youth in the US, but not in Canada. The US is notoriously divided on trans issues, but in Canada it is not. It's settled. There is no debate.

Findlay: Grossman was evasive when asked about her process in treating her patients saying it's standard psychotherapy.

Findlay: Grossman hasn't read major reports on trans issues, for instance Dr. Bauer's. (lol, college's witness)

Findlay: Grossman submitted chapters from a textbook which supported sex-based differences and left out the ones referring to gender. (And your point is?)

Findlay: the panel has more knowledge of trans issues than this "so-called expert" and should not be qualified. Dr. Grossman in her evidence has confirmed that she continues to support the language in the video played yesterday, i.e., "What I am seeing is a man-made catastrophe."

Findlay: Grossman does not concur that trans-affirming care prevents suicidality. Anyone who does even a quick Google search would know this erroneous opinion. (Uh, yeah, 'cause Google skews search result, maybe?)

Findlay goes on to quote from the video, then: it is astonishing that Grossman would advance a proposition that children would be so disturbed by being exposed to trans education that they would wet the bed.

Findlay quotes Grossman's writing on the de-sexing of the language and why it's harmful, then: the panel knows why we use gender neutral language, for instance when "trans masculine" patients are having children, so they feel included.

Findlay quotes Grossman on her opinion that in treatment it's best to be rooted in biological reality, then: "trans" children pay a high price when they are denied their identity.

Findlay: "Dr. Hamm" (misspoken) can't be qualified as an expert because she has no experience on trans, hasn't worked with trans people, hasn't written reports or chaired committees regarding trans. (lol, no she hasn't, your point?) Her opinion is not scientifically relevant.

Findlay finishes her submission. Panel asks: if Grossman is disqualified, should she be admitted under relaxed rules outlined by Bastow?

Findlay: this panel ought to proceed with the best evidence available. How can she be admitted as an expert if she fails the rules outlined by Supreme Court? Expert witness opinions are important when panel takes care to ensure opinions are well-founded.

Findlay: in our opinion Grossman is a "fully deficient expert". Either a person is an expert or they're not. If not an expert, then they're just a person with an opinion. A social context expert is just taking a person off the street and asking their opinion. (So disrespectful!)

Findlay: Grossman is "spectacularly unqualified". Shouldn't be qualified as a medical expert or social context expert.

Bastow replies: I take objection to Findlay referring to the US as if it's some backward country is unfair. WPATH is headquartered in the US and it's a leader on the issue.

Bastow: in Canada we have a protocol for gender-affirming care but even Bauer states there's some nuance. The fact that trans rights are protected in Canada, US and UK but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the unintended adverse effects of laws.

Bastow: No one here wants to discriminate against trans, certainly not Amy.

Bastow: Dr. Grossman is not an academic. It is unfair to frame her as such and to demand metrics for outcomes. She is a clinician and is actually prohibited from conducting experiments on her clients.

Bastow finishes. Panel asks her: Grossman states it's not improper for a clinician to question gender ideology. Shouldn't it be narrowed to whether Amy made derogatory statements? Bastow: Grossman's testimony is relevant. Amy expressed her opinions in good faith.

Bastow: the question is whether or not Amy has the right to express opinions in the public sphere. Goodman provides social context for alternative opinions. Must be seen in context of unintended consequences such as girls being mutilated.

Bastow: medical professionals must be able to dissent because treatment protocols evolve over time. It's not for this panel to assess whether or not treatment protocols are correct. It's to find whether or not medical pros have the right to free speech to dissent in good faith.

Bastow: we don't come before this panel saying Grossman has no views. Of course she has views. We come to say Amy has opinions in good faith that align with Grossman' expert opinions.

Bastow: Amy is capable of providing competent care regardless of her personal opinions. We don't have any evidence that she has breached the standards of care at work, nor will she do so in the future.

Submissions and panel questions are completed. Chair states panel reserves the right for ruling on qualifications in the future. Lunch break now. Back in 1 hour.

Back from lunch. Counsel for Amy, Lisa Bildy, calls Dr. Kathleen Stock and she is sworn in.

Bildy: you have prepared an expert report for the panel? Stock: yes.

Bildy asks if Stock has reviewed the materials provided: citation against Amy, language guide, reports, materials, etc., and Stock affirms she has.

Bildy confirms Stock's degrees and academic experience.
kathleenstock.com

Bildy asks about several of Stock's recent academic papers and articles. Stock expands on the issues and themes covered including radical feminist theory, same-sex attraction, gender identity, sexual objectification, etc.
kathleenstock.com/academic-writi…

Bildy asks about Stock's writing about fiction and the imagination. Stock: in all of these I'm exploring the nature of fiction generally in our lives, whether reading a novel or watching a film, and our relationship to fiction.

Bildy confirms Stock's international speaking engagements at academic conferences.
kathleenstock.com/talks/

I need to take a business call for the next 20 minutes. If anyone else would like to add some live tweets of highlights here while I'm gone, please do!

I'm back!

Bildy asks about the Maya Forstater case and her assertion that women are adult human females. Stock: it was an important case. She shouldn't have lost her job. She won on appeal based on philosophical belief. I testified on her behalf.

Bildy asks about her piece in Quillette. Stock: that's the first time I wrote about trans identity as fiction.
quillette.com/2019/04/11/ign…

Bildy asks about another piece she wrote on sexual attraction. Stock outlines her stance that people with penises cannot be lesbians. It's illogical.

Bildy asks about Stock's 2018 piece in The Economist.
economist.com/open-future/20…

Bildy confirms Stock's experience as a parliamentary expert witness including the Harry Miller tweet case for a "non-crime hate incident." Stock: I submitted a witness statement for both cases, including appeal. I argued that saying "trans women aren't women" isn't hate speech.

Bildy confirms Stock's media appearances, including on BBC Woman's Hour.
kathleenstock.com/tv-and-radio-a…

Bildy confirms Stock's activism. Stock: when I started doing activism in 2018 it was difficult to even speak about any of the sex-based issues affecting women. We started a network of academics to open up a space for scrutiny of extreme ideas around gender identity ideology.

Bildy: and you don't get public funding for this? Stock: no, because the orthodoxy is hard to break through. Academics sit on funding committees and don't allow dissent. People are being de-platformed like Robert Wintemute just last week at McGill.

Bildy confirms Stock's other academic accomplishments and honours, including the Order of the British Empire for services to higher education, specifically in advancing academic freedom.

Bildy asks Stock about philosophical argumentation. Stock: philosophy has a long history of argument going back to Socrates. There is an accepted framework which seeks to remove bias from the process. Now on 15-minute break.

Back from break. Counsel for College, Brent Olthuis, cross-examines Stock on her qualifications.

Olthuis: you stated that philosophy involves argument. Stock: yes, it's not just the history of ideas. Olthuis: the nature of debate you'll agree is antagonistic. Stock: you examine the idea, not the person. You dispute a set of ideas.

Olthuis: much of your activity is arguing against radical feminism? Stock: no, I agree with rad feminism on some issues but not others. Olthuis: you disagree with the radfem notion of gender? Stock: there are different definitions of gender. Radfems want to abolish stereotypes.

Stock: gender doesn't actually have to do exclusively with trans. It's a bigger issue. Olthuis: do you see this particular hearing as involving trans activist claims? Stock: not sure I understand question but I see this about the permissibility of arguing against trans activism.

Olthuis: you were asked to comment on Amy's public statements vis-a-vis transphobia? Stock: yes, I've already provided testimony for Harry Miller case, which is similar. Olthuis: have you ever spoken with Amy? Stock: no. Olthuis: so you drew inferences from her public statements?

Olthuis: you don't know about laws in BC? Stock: no. Olthuis: are you familiar with Canadian Charter? Stock: no, but I am familiar with moral rights generally and there has to be discourse on that and philosophers play a role.

Olthuis: are you familiar with the bylaws of the BCCNM? Stock: no, I wasn't called for that expertise. Olthuis: have you had expertise dealing with issues in health care? Stock: no, not my area of expertise.

Olthuis: you've written you're in intellectual sympathy with Amy. Stock: Yes. Sex is real, sex has social consequences, etc. Olthuis: did you say sympathy because of your experiences at the University of Sussex? Stock: no. Intellectual, not emotional sympathy.

Olthuis: the task you were given was to look at comments Amy made and determine if they were transphobic, derogatory or discriminatory in your view. Stock: yes, to look at the material intellectually. Olthuis: not emotionally? (sexist much?!) Stock: no.

Olthuis: you reviewed the BC Covid 19 language guide? Stock: yes, it was advising gender neutral language, using euphemisms. Olthuis: would you say that was normative? Stock: yes, "say this, not that", etc.

Stock: I argue in my work that using objective language is best. Olthuis: can someone offend others unintentionally? Stock: I think it's dangerous to take intention out of the argument and just say certain words are harmful. That's an illiberal approach.

Olthuis finishes his cross. Panel takes short break to consider follow-up questions.

Back from break. No questions from panel. Discussion on proceedings for the rest of the day. Olthuis states he doesn't intend to affirm Stock's qualification as an expert. Panel will make a decision tomorrow. Stock is dismissed and asked to return tomorrow.

Bildy addresses the College's written arguments from October which seek to disqualify Dr. Stock on the basis of her not agreeing to the College's definition of transphobia.

Bildy: we need the expertise of a philosopher because this is about changing language. We spent a lot of time in the hearing talking about the definition of woman. It's like both sides aren't even speaking the same language. Who better to parse this than a philosopher?

Bildy: Stock can help us take a step back from polarizing, binary positions. She was qualified in the Harry Miller case for this reason. The judge was complimentary of her expertise in that case: "her intellectual pedigree is impeccable."

Bildy: Miller case is similar to Amy's. They both made statements in public and someone theoretically "out there" might have been offended. Not someone either of them interacted with in their personal or professional lives.

Bildy: College states Stock's report is argumentative and inflammatory in its language. Well, argumentation is the very nature of philosophy.

Bildy: Findlay said today "no debate". We disagree. Canada is not a totalitarian state. We do have rights of free expression. Stock can comment on the nuances of language underpinning the issue. Language is being radically transformed, with its impact now only being understood.

Bildy: I don't think you'd be able to find an expert who is entirely neutral on the topic at hand. Ms. Hamm would be severely prejudiced if you required her to find a neutral expert. The fact that it's hard to find dissenters is because people are being hounded out of their jobs.

Bildy: it's important to understand we're in a new era with this issue. When we're talking about Charter litigation, advocacy is something we can expect to confront. Experts will always have opinions.

Bildy: the fact that Stock had an experience with the University of Sussex does not negate her considerable academic experience and honours.

Bildy finishes her submissions. Olthuis now argues against qualifying Stock on a technicality, i.e., disconnect between what Stock is called for and what appears in her report.

Olthuis trying some serious sophistry to have Stock disqualified: experts must not engage in argument. (😱 she's a philosopher, ffs) This is disqualifying.

Olthuis: counsel cannot hire another lawyer, essentially. (They are clearly terrified of Stock.)

Bildy replies: Olthuis has given Stock's report the most narrow interpretation. Stock gives factual information in her report and how language is being used. I want to qualify her to speak to the transformation of language. She doesn't need to be limited by what's in her report.

Panel asks for 15-minute break to discuss.

(While they're on break, here's something for you to consider about the College's star witness regarding qualifying "neutral" experts.)

(So what is a champion anyway? Maybe a philosopher can help us parse the word. In the meantime, here's the dictionary definition. And there's that pesky word "argue".)

The Chair announces they'll need the whole day tomorrow to review the material on qualifications so hearing is cancelled tomorrow. States they need 8 more days for the hearing, bringing total to 18 days. This ends today's proceedings. (This is truly a Kafkaesque nightmare, ffs.)