Amy Hamm - Canadian Nurse being disciplined for being GC

Looks like BF has finally come to a stumbling halt. At last.

Just tuned in - I forgot they were starting early today.

Still suffering through BFs cross examination of Cantor.

Careful James. She s setting you up.

I tried watching but found it unbearable. The combination of Roger Irrelevant questioning and passive aggression from BF, along with what looks to be an arbitrary process being made up on the hoof, was just too alienating for me.

James, yes, they all agree with WPATH. But they're wrong. That's the answer.

Gotta say, as qualitative academic, I am really appreciating this scientific adherence to data.

Interesting that BF recognises 'madam chair'. As all of the panel who appear to recognise the sex of each other.

You're right I was getting bogged down in the too'ing and fro'ing, when actually this has no obvious relevance to the case against Amy Hamm.

Meanwhile I am watching The Walking Dead in the breaks - not totally unrelated BF.

It does seem odd to be able to add new material at this stage but tbh the Canadian system feels entirely alien.

Other big red flag for me was when BF was so keen to assert JC must not use word 'child or 'children' when referring to a 12-14 Yr old. JC was weaving a case study of a 12-14 yr old who has been on PB for 2 or 3 years from age 10 or 11. Indeed, 'child' 'children' appears to have been redefined to refer to only prepubertal humans...when was this decision made? and why wasn't I informed? We use terms like adolescent or young person because the needs of adolescents are different to those of a toddler ...but in legal terms they are still children? Is this sinister or am I being oversensitive. Either way JC did push back.

I've given up and started watching x-files.

This just feels so much like a Mickey Mouse show. BF asking questions that have nothing to do with the case as far as I can make out, I don't understand why the panel continue to allow it, shouldn't she be asked to establish how her line of questioning is actually pertinent to the case?

When I think back through the process to date I really can't see how the panel will be able to use any of this to actually judge whether or not it was appropriate for Amy to have made the comments she has under her own social media accounts.

It should just come down to

• what was the colleges official position on social media
• was it communicated and clear
• did Amy knowingly breach it
• was she given suitable warning as per the colleges procedures and policies
• did she breach those warnings to the extent that this process needed to be invoked.

How Trans rights are perceived in society as a whole, the potential impact of her comments on that group, psychological theories on what is and isn't harm to the Trans community...... none of that is of any relevance.

The college are saying that Amy made inappropriate comments on social media and should be punished. In order to have that accusation stand they need to establish that what constitutes 'inappropriate social media postings' was defined and that Amy was aware of this and continued in the knowledge that she was acting in opposition of the Colleges policies.

I am confused - there was a ruling that Bastow can't mention anything outside his report. And yet opposing council can introduce completely new documentation that he hasn't yet seen?

Crikey. Be interested to hear BF summary of what she thinks she achieved in her cross examination. Agree with PP, there is a strong whiff of attempting to discredit JC.

I think he threw in 'correlational matrices' just to make it stop.... and it did...thank goodness. On a break while she cracks open a new pack of crayons to draw up fresh 'lines of enquiry'.

Thought it was interesting that the only time BF has expressed anything nearing human in her expression or tone was when she asked JC to repeat a flattering comment he had made. JC observed she had grasped a concept of correlation, that others may perceive to be complex. She positively beamed, giggled and asked him to repeat his affirmation...what a 'clever girl' she is.

Bastow - let her have enough rope, then power in.

Cantor is earning his money here.

This feels more like the Helen Webberley case where you can understand the need for the clinical / psychological experts. It's hard to fathom what all of this has to do with Amy when there are no criticisms at all of her clinical competence. It's utterly bizarre.

Pombear - yes it does. Which is weird (to us in the uk].

It does feel a very different test of law in Canada - this seems a long-drawn out test of Cantor, not the core of Amy's case. Not sure if there are any Canadian law experts here who could explain what's going on?

Just googled her...

findlay lives with her partner, Sheila Gilhooly, in British Columbia. She describes herself as "a white, cisgender, lesbian, activist lawyer with physical disabilities".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_findlay

Agree. Though really feel for her as this is her career and her life - and she's having to watch this shitshow.

Also, what has all this to do with Amy's utterances? As Cantor has been accepted as an expert,?

I would be swigging the booze from the mug.

I'm going with she believes the bullshit.

I am assuming she's an activist.
Aside from the blue hair and the she/her pronouns she seems very invested.

BF is, from what I can see, tilting at windmills.

Whether the panel see that is to be seen.

Kudos to Amy, who is sitting there sipping from various mugs - I have no idea how she's able to listen to this stuff and still look so calm.