Amy Hamm - Canadian Nurse being disciplined for being GC

[IcakethereforeIam]

I've not seen a thread on Amy on MN and the search didn't show up anything. She seems to be being put through the wringer by tras and by her nursing college.

I thought if she saw this thread it might be cheering , she's on twitter. I found her thanks to Bette.

quillette.com/2022/04/08/im-being-investigated-by-the-british-columbia-college-of-nurses-because-i-believe-biological-sex-is-real/

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Careful James. She s setting you up.

Eva Kurilova has written about it

https://www.evakurilova.com/p/cbcs-coordinated-attack-on-amy-hamm

It's a few days old, I missed it until today.

I'm gobsmacked at the forces arranged against this one (amazing) woman. I think it demonstrates the weakness of their ideology and the fear of those supporting it.

Thank you, those who are watching. Also thanks to anyone who can post.

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

Still suffering through BFs cross examination of Cantor.

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

On a break waiting for the panel to put questions to JC. Not sure who the next witness is.

Chilling19 do you know if Kathleen Stock was OK'd as an expert witness?

Signal - I am not sure, but I did hear her name spoken yesterday. Will have a search and see

Cantor making a case that the medical community should be researching no harm options, such as borderline personality disorder (for which there are treatments) before going down the demonstrably harmful medical intervention route. But he argues that this has not be allowed to happen.

I believe Kathleen stock and coach Linda blade

Oh brilliant Amy's up.

Found this from back in 2022 listing who may speak:

Dr. Kathleen Stock, a UK academic who has written widely on the topic of this conflict of rights; from Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist who has been warning about the dangers of gender ideology, especially related to children, for decades; from Dr. Linda Blade, a former Canadian national athlete and now coach, who has written a book about the impact of gender ideology on women’s sports; and Heather Mason, a former federal inmate who has devoted her efforts to protecting vulnerable and marginalized women in Canada’s prisons from gender ideology.

www.cawsbar.ca/post/amy-hamm-bccnm-disciplinary-hearing-opening-submissions-by-lisa-bildy-j

Just dipping back into the hearing so I'm conscious that I've missed stuff, but just hearing Barbara trying to get boodleoops article dismissed as evidence of the link to Amy's billboard supporting JK's tweets and the context of the atmosphere of death and rape threats.

As ever, as much as I know the extent of ideological capture (and that Barbara is paid for this), it's shocking to see another woman be able to see and read the attacks on JK and say 'it's nothing, it's not relevant, get it away'.

You must have to be so deep into the ideological belief to be able to go home at night and sleep well, knowing you are throwing all previous knowledge of women's fight for rights, abuse, the need to define ourselves, to champion this cause that supports mainly men.

I just found this. No idea if I've got kicked out of the session or not. They have all gone off to discuss whether evidence is admissible - ie the four JKR tweets - which Lisa Bildy got Amy Hamm to read out (they sounded so normal, sensible, and realistic) - and then pages of the abuse JKR got in return, which they didn't read out. LB said it gave context to the situation AH found herself in. BF (what's with the ee cummings tribute?) objected and said wasn't relevant.

Amy doing amazingly isn't she? So calm and articulate.
She has been through so much shit!

Totally agree. What strikes me is that phrase 'the process is the punishment'. She is calm and graciousness through the process. She's been amazing.

Here's a summary of today's events.