Amy Hamm Tribunal 7th Nov 2023 – Tribunal Tweets Notes taken
Amy Hamm Tribunal 7th Nov 2023
[Notes were taken by reporters from Tribunal Tweets and consolidated into the following report. It covers a testimony from Amy Hamm and Witness for defence, Professor Kathleen Stock]
Abbreviations
AH: Amy Hamm
KS : Witness, Dr Kathleen Stock
LB: Lisa Bildy, counsel for AH
Chair: Chairing hearing
P: members of panel
BF: Barbara Findlay KC ‘she/her’, counsel for Respondent
MS - Michael Seaborn 'he/him'
[Joined late - just as Barbara Findley (BF) ended her cross examination of Amy Hamm (AH). Panel to take 15 mins break to collate Questions to ask of AH. Followed by Prof Kathleen Stock giving evidence ]
Chair: Good morning. The panel will need another 10-15 minutes so we’ll reconvene at quarter past.
Chair: One question for Miss Bildy re ownership of 26 which are attributed to her. Casbar isn't her work, only those in her own name. Were you working in pool positions between the relevant dates?
AH: I was on a pool for psychosis ward but was not used
P: Between the dates of July 2018 and March 21?
AH: No
P: What if you were recognised by a transgender patient? What was to happen?
AH: Hard to remember. If someone recognised me and was unhappy with having me as a nurse then I’d recuse myself but I don't do frontline care so it is an unlikely situation.
P: But you could be at the bedside. Could someone else support the nurse delivering care?
AH: Yes, someone could step in.
P: Is your Twitter public?
AH: Yes
P: Do you set your own bio?
AH: Yes
P: Can you change this any time?
AH: Yes
P: Your bio is something you provided?
AH: Yes
P: When a member of the public clicks on your tweet do they come up to you and your bio?
AH: No. They’d need to click on my bio specifically
P: Between July 2018 to 21 Did you say you’re a registered nurse on bio?
AH: No
P: Not a nurse or nurse educator?
AH: No
P: Had you ever had this in your bio?
AH: Yes. Very briefly before the hearing I was going through… eg. saying a nurse going through a hearing over bio facts. It’s pretty well known I’m a nurse and is no longer on there.
P: When did you make the change?
AH: Was there for a couple of weeks and changed a couple of months ago?
P: Why made the change?
AH: Wanted to make precautions. Trying to be cautious
P: When did you say you stopped being a registered nurse in your publications?
AH: I asked publications to change it but it isn't at writers behest. The places I currently write for don’t say this.
P: What publications do you write for?
AH: New Westminster Times. Freelance for Quillete. Occasionally the Post Millennial.
P: Has this changed?
AH: Local newspaper is a new one since March 21. Otherwise is the same.
P: Why did you stop saying you were a nurse?
AH: It was clear it was an issue and I wanted to comply with the college and not risk my employment. There was no request from my employer. They only asked for me to add ‘these are my views alone’
P: In tweets in tab 4, the statement saying is a registered nurse. Did you create that bio?
AH: That isn't a twitter bio but for an article.
P: Did you create the bio?
AH: I can't recall as was years ago
P: What is the year of tweets 402- ?
AH: Appears to be in the citation period.
P: Do you recollect if it is?
AH: Yes, everything was in citation period
P: There was a reference to non-binary being trendy here?
AH: Yes
P: Is that your view?
AH: Yes. 15 yrs ago I didn't know 1 but now I know a dozen that are non-binary. Many of these people would have been gay if happy and comfy to come out as this. So it isn’t that they’re now happy and able to come out as non-binary, it is a new way they describe themselves and I think it is a trend.
P: Reads ‘This type of conversation terrifies the gender extremists so they try to silence TERFs, who most would believe if they heard this’. What is a TERF?
AH: Talking generally about women who talk about self ID policies
P: Have you identified as a terf?
AH: Yes, but tongue in cheek. It’s clear it’s now a slur, even terfisaslur.com being used as a slur that can be accompanied by threats. When I refer to myself as a TERF, firstly I’m not trans exclusionary and secondly I’m not a radical feminist. I'm not using it in the sense of the acronym, I’m doing it to take back this slur activists use against women.
P: You reference the language guide regarding gender identity. Was it appropriate to do this after identifying yourself as a registered nurse educator?
AH: I hadn't before the tweets were made. Was just writing bios. My motivation was using humour to engage and poking fun at a policy that seemed bizarre: a whole section on pronouns in the middle of a pandemic. Trying to drive engagement.
P: Article published re JKR billboard where you identified as a healthcare worker. Were you asked your profession?
AH: They knew I was a nurse. I don't remember how. This happened in context of a conversation that people were saying online that they’re going to complain to my employer. Saying I was a health care worker rather than nurse to protect me.
P: What was your thinking about the location of the billboard?
AH: The location was solely based on what is available, cheapest and what would get most views. It’s on commuter route with heavy traffic coming into Vancouver at the end of the day. Only consideration was given to those 3 things, not to the neighbourhood it was in.
P: Did you have an intended audience?
AH: No. Just Canadians to see it and ask what it’s about. I assumed there'd be backlash and it'd raise awareness for the issues.
P: You say backlash. Who from?
AH: From the same groups that protest the events I put on in Vancouver. Hard core activists who don't want women to talk about gender identity or sex based rights and try to get them shut down. I assumed the same group of people that have targeted me would likely make a fuss about the sign. And people in the general public who don't know issue at all, would be introduced to the debate.
P: Looking at tab 11 tweets, what year is this?
AH: Part of extracts. I don't know exact year just investigation period.
P: Same for tab 12?
AH: Yes
P: Tab 24-30 re bio - did you provide these bios?
AH: Can't recall if I provided or if it was done by the publication. Some situations they ask for bio and some just do it themselves
P: They'd get the info from what they’d read about you?
AH: Yes at some point
P: How could you say people were protected from your views if they didn’t agree with you?
AH: I don’t work in a specific area which focusses on Gender Affirming Care area, nor would I due to conflict of interest and what I guess it comes down to is that I have grave concerns about women losing their hard-earned rights in Canada and it would go against my conscience not to speak out about these issues. I'm not in a front-line nursing care role at this point and had worked out with my employer how to deal with it if I were ever recognised. The combination made me want to continue to do my advocacy work.
P: Did you consider how the statements would impact staff who did not agree with your views?
P: Everyone has variety of beliefs whether political or religious and it’s normal for people to have disagreements. I’ve never spoken about my political views at work and work with people from all sorts of backgrounds. There are nurses who are pro-choice or pro-life and you come to work as a professional, and every nurse should recognise you’re there as a professional, and so is everyone else and we've left our political beliefs at the door and it should not be a factor.
P: Does the fact that people approach you about these things raise concern for you?
AH: It does bother me now and again when it happens and I choose not to engage. I would have hoped it not to have happened and it’s a result of this investigation. I respectfully decline on the subject at work.
P: A conflict of interest to work in Gender Affirming Care (GAC). Does your current employer provide GAC to patients?
AH: I’m in general inpatient psychiatry. There's GAC policy about respecting pronouns and I follow them. I may be dispensing testosterone and oestrogen and that's not been an issue for me. I wouldn't be working on a surgical clinic providing mastectomies on underage girls as too much of a conflict but I work in an area that I'm fine following my employers policies. It's not an issue in the area I'm working in.
Chair: Has counsel anything arising?
BF: Yes. You were asked about overlap at work and you said it does bother you and you choose not to engage. Give me examples. Who said what?
AH: If a colleague says “I heard what your going through and I’m sorry, and I support you”, I’ll say “Thanks” and change the topic.
BF: These are the only comments you’ve had?
AH: Yes only people supporting me and wishing me luck - hoping I’m successful. I reply ‘Thanks but I can't talk about it here’ and we move on.
BF: You mention you think that arises at work because of the profile you have now, and attribute that to this process and how public it has been?
AH: Yes. I have clearly also encouraged the public to attend the hearing because I’ve felt the complaints made against me were frivolous and should've been dismissed and I also want the public to be aware of what happens to women who speak in favour of sex based rights. They can be threatened with the loss of their career and their employment.
BF: Part of increasing your profile is a result of your intentional tweets about the hearing and inviting and describing issues as you have done. Would you agree your profile isn't just because of the investigation but the way you have treated the investigation in public?
AH: Sure. If I feel I’m undergoing an injustice and it would be unfair to censor and muzzle myself and I want to demonstrate my strength, and for women to similarly stand up for what they believe in. I maintain my professional standards and don’t discuss this at work as I don’t find it appropriate.
LB: Is it possible for nursing colleagues to find out about what you’re going through not via the case?
AH: Yes CBC have done hit-pieces and it has had international attention. It's not entirely on me that people know about this. People say they saw me in the news and heard about it not as a direct result of what I have said.
LB: Could they also get this info from the college?
AH: Yes every month there is a newsletter sent out and my name is there and you can click and it accuses me of being transphobic and I feel I'm entitled to defend myself. These emails go to more that 50K people per month with that citation so people all over world can find out what happened to me.
BF: I have another question.
[LB objects that she’s had her time. Chair allows BF one question]
BF: Generally speaking, regardless of the nature of the publicity, you believe informing the public is a good thing do you not?
AH: I don't know if I can answer that. Not entirely good as there’s down sides but there’s social benefit in raising awareness about women standing up against their sex based rights or taking a stand against an oppressive, harmful ideology against women.
LB: I have no further questions.
Chair: Lets have a break until 11.15am and then we’ll have witness KS.
[AMY HAMM RELEASED. COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL 11.15]
[11.15 CANADIAN EST – WITNESS KATHLEEN STOCK]
Chair: Can we get Dr Stock?
LB: It would be midnight if we go to 4pm here and wonder if we should have a short lunch time?
Chair: I think it might impact the time frame and see how we get on.
LB: I’m not proposing we lose time
Chair: I’m sorry, I misunderstood. There’s Dr Stock.
[KS is taken through affirmation]
LB: You're aware that some redactions are needed to your report. Do you have it? The panel have also received it? It’s our next exhibit with your CV - exhibit 51.
LB: We went through your CV and want to talk about your background as we’ve not been together since January.
KS: Yes, I’m a former Professor of Philosophy for 18 yrs. Specialising in Imagination, fiction, and the importance of sex in language. Discussed Material Girls in 2021 and another book in the pipeline. Yes, I understand I’m not an advocate for AH
LB: Have you reviewed the expert reports and citations, investigation brief & supplementary materials?
KS: Yes
LB: The 1st heading is ‘use of language related to sex and gender’. What is meant by term Gender Identity?
KS: A feeling, a private feeling you are really a particular sex which is not congruent with your bodily characteristics. A feeling, some people say, you are born in the wrong body.
LB: How long have we had this concept?
KS: Been an evolution, is relatively modern. Partly an elaboration of feminist ideas of gender and the social meaning of sex like femininity attached to female and masculinity attached to male. That's one aspect and second is psychologists working with intersex people / DSDs particularly John Money and Robert Stoller and they came up with idea of gender roles - outer performance- that people can see. But Gender Identity is your private experience of gender roles. As he was working with DSD kids. These are concepts open to dispute and I'm just giving the history. I don't agree with it at all.
LB: Dr Bauer said this “I know some people talk about gender identity as a feeling, I say it's a knowing about myself”. Bauer makes a distinction between feeling and knowing.
KS: Yes, that’s an activist’s understanding of gender identity. It is more than a feeling that might be wrong but that you actually know who you are, and only you can know this. I think it's a misunderstanding of what the word ‘knowing’ means. In science we talk about truth, observation and procedures. But in this case there is no methodology. Also the phenomenon of detransitioners who were very certain of their gender identity before and then change their minds. So you can feel very strongly but not know. We need to keep these apart [SOUND ISSUES]
LB: AH describes gender identity as a metaphysical claim.
[OBJECTION RAISED BY MS FOR COLLEGE]
MS: KS’s report doesn’t address the question of AH’s statements so we’re back in the same territory. An expert's evidence must stay in the corners of their report. So unredacted parts don't cover AH’s statements. 2nd part of objection is that panel has already ruled and delineated what KS can testify about from Feb 2nd ruling, just 5 areas KS can give evidence on: 1. use of language including the need for sex-based language, meaning of transphobia and not describing it too broadly. 2. Conflict of rights between trans rights and sex-based rights. 3. Impact of self ID on women. 4. Whether sex-based language puts transgender people in real harm. 5. Sex based speech. She’s testifying from the philosophical aspects only. So asking questions about AH’s statements cannot happen as nothing in those areas supports moving to the specifics of her statements. We're straying past boundaries of KS report.
LB: First the law is clear. An expert is free to amplify their evidence as long as it touches on their report. Has to be a nexus to the report but isn’t bound to what's on the report. 2nd, following use of language I’m putting propositions to her regarding this about what might be included in a definition. So it is entirely appropriate to include the need for sex based language. I'm adhering closely to the categories. The ruling said KS couldn't comment on whether AH’s tweets were discriminatory or derogatory but could speak to the meaning on transphobia and describing it too broadly. I think my friend is mistaken and I haven’t gone outside the ruling of the panel.
[PANEL STANDS DOWN FOR 10 MINUTES TO DISCUSS MS’S OBJECTION.]
Chair: LB appears to be asking her about her analysis so the objection is upheld as Panel agrees its prejudicial. She can testify about criminology generally and the risks of defining phobia generally. But she can't analyse AH’s comments and I’m Not prepared to delay proceedings. Continue please LB.
LB: Talking about gender identity, is this different to gender theory?
KS: Gender Theory is all the theories about gender which means 5 things and is ambiguous. [sound issues]
KS: I think my Internet connection not mic I'm afraid. Shall I turn my camera off?
Chair: No we need to be able to see you so speak more slowly please.
LB: You were examining gender identity ideology. Is there a gender ideology?
KS: In my book I say it's a set of claims including that gender identity is more important than sex, everyone has a gender identity but that some people’s is incongruent with their sex, and a principle is that gender identity trumps biological sex if there’s ever a clash. There’s usually a claim that sex is socially constructed rather than naturally found in the world.
LB: What is sex, by your definition?
KS: My definition is standard to biology. It distinguishes between 2 types of species pertaining to sex reproduction and that female species contributes large gametes or is a person who would produce large gametes as you can have problems. And the male provides small gametes. That’s my understanding and this applies to animals and some plants.
LB: Has our understanding of biological sex evolved?
KS: No, words are used differently rather than thinking it has evolved, It's claimed that former understanding is old fashioned and biological sex should be seen as a spectrum, so are more than 2 sexes in humans. Or that bio sex is a socially constructed concept rather than a fact. So quite radical views now that have spread out from academia. I think they’re entirely wrong.
[SOUND ISSUES - KS LOGGING BACK IN AGAIN]
Chair: Thank you for your patience LB but the transcripts need to be clear.
LB: Yes I agree.
Chair: We’re going off record again to sort out sound.
[RETURNS]
Chair: Reminding KS she’s under oath. State question again LB please [repeats]
KS: In some areas a view has emerged that the way we think of biology is regressive and we should look at sex as spectrum. We're urged to look at sex as a social construction. We're creating differences between humans with our words. It’s a relatively niche view in science but in humanities it’s much more popular and influential in policy making. I disagree with it.
LB: Why has it happened?
KS: Ideas coming out of postmodernism ad post structuralism. Everything is structured on this view. It’s dismantled nature and culture and gender studies have run with it. It's then taken off on the internet. Students believe this stuff and its a philosophical belief that has its problems in my view.
LB: What's the effect of downgrading sex?
KS: It’s been huge. Bio sex hasn't gone away even if some of us have walked away from it. We’ve all lost ability to talk freely about facts about ourselves: that we’re sexually dimorphic which has an impact in sport, violence, maternity, sexual orientation and what is a gay/ lesbian person, which is important to me. Been a huge number of issues: sexism, misogyny also. Lots affected.
LB: What other harms of not using sex based language?
KS: In prisons for good reasons we’ve separated sexes and now rapists are in prisons. Once we take sex based language away we can't talk about their experience as females. Also in hospitals for women who want privacy, especially those who are victims of sex based violence. We cant talk about being females who have suffered at the hands of men. There's also a chilling effect about this on children as they're very confused about this. There's drugs and surgeries being done in name of gender identity. Namely done on females. If we take out sex we can't talk about that. Of course bio sex comes into our arrangements and concerns and this takes away ability to discuss important issues
LB: How?
KS: It’s strongly discouraged via draconian policies. Within institutions, its transphobic to talk accurately about biology and then obviously people don't want to fall foul of the policies or lose opportunities professionally. More draconially, people are afraid of being accused of hate crimes compared to 10 yrs ago.
LB: Are you being transphobic with these ideas?
KS: No. It’s about ideas and not people. Lots of trans people reject these ideas. I’ve successfully taught transgender people and have trans friends. It's about philosophical ideas
LB: What does harm mean and how has this evolved?
KS: Traditionally harm has meant something that causes dysfunction and usually associated with pain / suffering or something that’s damaging. But has expanded via concept creep to mean something relatively trivial eg. causing offence. Offence would never have been classed as harm before. Feelings of distress could be understood as harm so concepts relaxed past 20 years so relatively minor things now
LB: Is sex based language causing harm?
KS: No. I’d say the opposite and that not using it could cause harm. In developing adolescents they need to understand what sex they are, there may be feelings of distress but this isn't harm. The strongest argument in this area is that if you point out the sex of a trans person they say you expose them to violence, but even that claim needs empirical back up as these days your gender identity is meant to be more important even than your sex, which is visible. Everyone can see this as we’re hard wired to do this from a young age. It doesn't add much info to most people as we can see a person’s sex unless they've had lots of surgery
LB: When we use the term trans person what does it mean? Surgical intervention?
KS: No that's the point. We're supposed to get rid of the idea of the old transsexual with lots of surgeries . We're compelled to believe a person is trans simply through a feeling inside, and compelled to believe that once you’re a transwoman, you’re a woman, and that this doesn’t require drugs or body modification. Plenty examples of people having to say someone is opposite sex with no changes at all. People are being forced to say that a man is a woman.
LB: From day 4, In Canada what do you understand re self ID. Bauer said we don’t use a GRC or documents here. We do use documents based on different criteria, not necessarily based on gender identity. So it isn't encoded exactly re gender identity as could be about presentation. In your research is there evidence changing carry cards has a negative impact on women. Is that your understanding of self ID?
KS: The UK context of self ID is narrowly to do with GRCs and has been a campaign by activists so that anyone can get a GRC with no gatekeeping, no sign-off, no period as living as opposite gender or whatever terminology they use. Purely administrative and pushed heavily in the past 5 yrs. A total removal of gatekeeping. The wider sense is you don't really need a GRC it's about entry into women's only spaces and sports teams. The idea that your female gender identity is what gives u access. We already have that here in UK where lots of policy says you can go into women's spaces, etc. It’s the idea of ‘I decide who I am’ and that gives me the right to go in, on simply knowing the basis of my identity.
LB: You reject TWAW and TMAM and say these are fictions.
KS: Partly from my conviction you can’t change your sex. You can have surgery but it’s about your gametes. We need words to describe the types of humans (M, F) but also for adults and juvenile versions –We’ve had them since the dawn of time – Men and women and boys and girls and those words are crucial for having these types of conversations. What's the difference between a boy and a girl that's sex, difference between girl and woman is age. So if females can be boys we’ve lost this whole set of language. I don’t believe transwomen are women else they wouldn’t be trans and it’s best to understand as a fiction that isn't true. We do this all the time, in role play or online; so it is common and nothing wrong with it. It might be the right thing to do sometimes but we shouldn’t be compelled to do it and we cannot force people to believe it. Its not literally true. But we can go along with it.
LB: Why would people go along with it, for example a transwoman?
KS: I don’t understand the question
LB: Does fiction play a role in their perception of themselves?
KS: I don’t think u can generalise. Some trans women really believe they're women. Others really know they're not. They know their histories. They have a different theory of womanhood. Some become very immersed and might lose attachment to reality, which is a standard human response. They're asking us to be immersed in their fictions, which is wrong, at all times.
LB: Why do others participate in these fictions?
KS: This is a matter for psychology professionals to take the lead on. I’m told it can be therapeutically useful at times, eg in your own family to not comply. I’m not a psychologist. It might be damaging interpersonally and be sensitive. And you might do as a matter of courtesy, as I did with students. But a male rapist in a female prison is very different. It’s illiberal to say it's mandatory. People confuse fiction with fact and kids won't know it’s fiction. In role play we might look like we believe what we’re saying which has knock on effects for kids. They need to understand a transman isn't a man and may be at risk in a way a man is not. We need to maintain the difference between fiction and fact.
LB: What are the consequences to kids if we don’t?
KS: They’re building a picture of the world by what they're told and by their own experiences, so if you don’t tell them what's actually happening and that the natural world exists outside ourselves this may express via confusion about their identity, and there’s a pathway towards life altering drugs and surgeries before they know the full facts - rhetorically very difficult to not explain properly.
LB: How do you address immersion into fiction?
KS: In role play, often people use props to improvise. You can incorporate the bits of the world into your game. Is that what you mean?
LB: Does reality interject when you're in a fiction?
KS: If in the theatre say, it can be disruptive to have something penetrate from the outside world. You don’t want reality to break through into the fiction if you’re very immersed, and I think that’s what’s happening with some people immersed in a sex change. They don’t want to know so there is a strong incentive to not listen and close others down. This is normal stuff.
LB: Does it apply to others?
KS: Yes, and you will do your best to avoid, and one way you may try to control others’ language is to shut them down and tell them they are bigots
LB: How do detransitioners sit in all this?
KS: They were very attached to this and were affirmed by friends, and possibly their parents too. And then they reach a stage of maturity or something happens and they have doubts. Did I get it right and facts were withheld from them or they didn't want to see the facts, or both. A very strong conviction about the world that changes as they get older. It's not unusual to change your mind as u get older.
LB: How do detransitioners impact the broader conversation?
KS: Their existence is difficult for fanatical activists who want to convince you gender identity is innate and permanent so it doesn’t fit into the narrative. Now I have facial hair, double mastectomies, etc, and are very distressed by it. They lose their social circle as they go through this reassessment, and we don’t have pathways to help this very vulnerable and often lonely group. They counteract the dogma and suffer more.
LB: Back to self ID and from Dr Bauer’s transcript from day 3. She said the primary driver for restrictions to toilets is about purity, Chapman’s research and consistent to trans people avoiding the washroom. Stated opposition is about safety concerns for cis and trans people but was a smaller driver than disgust. There are different rates of disgust - pathogen disgust which Bauer’s ties to evolutionary needs. This also applies to people and previous segregation of black people. They found pathogen disgust was the main driver for toilet restrictions. That’s what Bauer had to say. In your opinion, is that the only reason?
KS: No. Clearly it isn't. I’d be interested in who was asked those questions and when. It’s not complicated about females, where they undress and sleep, wanting policies to keep out males, however they identify. Risk assessment and males are responsible for the vast amount of sexual assaults. It could be fear rather than disgust. Fear for your child. There've been many occasions of transwomen offending, eg Katie Dolatowski who assaulted a girl in a female washroom. We only have the norm of this as a female space and this has now gone. It’s fear, or maybe menstruation..it could be lots of things.
LB: Will cis men take advantage of self ID?
KS: How do we tell the difference? Every man who says he’s a woman has to be allowed in if you change the rules. All you need is this feeling and none of us can argue with the feeling. I don't believe any man can be a woman, but yes lots might predate and take opportunity where they find it. Ask any criminologist.
LB: Has the dialogue changed since self ID discussions started?
KS: Yes, originally talking about people who passed, had had full genital reconstruction, and most people would accommodate them as a small cohort with a specific background. But the demands and rhetoric changed to a feeling, and you can't deny them. In the UK we were told “Some people are trans. Get Over it” and “No Debate” but if you try to re categorise people there will be a change in the atmosphere in discussions. People have been very angry about being shut down.
LB: I would be happy to shorten lunch in view of the time difference. I will be another 1.5-2 hrs for KS.
Chair: Half hour lunch break now.
[RETURNING FROM LUNCH.]
Chair: Miss Bildy?
LB: From a philosopher’s perspective tell us about the conflict of rights and how this has become so polarised?
KS: A right is an entitlement or freedom and there's a conflict of rights *claims* rather than a conflict of rights, eg transwomen using women-only spaces. The right is to be free from violence and there are other ways. It isn’t unusual for ethics, eg rights for religious freedom or to marry gay people. Policy makers can discuss whether it is a clash of claims or a clash of rights. Also the concept of human rights that are essential for flourishing, eg to food, shelter. And quite often couched in terms of human rights for gender identity and therefore need to be affirmed in all possible places. I don’t think it's true it’s a right.
LB: In this conflict can you talk about the polarisation and how to reconcile?
KS: Claims about gender identity are presented as absolutes and a human right to be affirmed and you can go into whatever space or team you want. I don’t think it's a human right, but avoiding violence is one. Some people say allow them into female spaces, but I’d say this puts women at risk as anyone can enter and a better way is to create third spaces. Why hasn't the same amount of effort been put into this more reasonable solution?
LB: Is debate and discussion important?
KS: Yes. It’s the only thing we have or special interest groups make extravagant claims and control the conversation, saying it doesn’t affect you. Then you have an illiberal authoritarian state of affairs that is very divisive where women feel suppressed and can’t talk about what matters to them; and kids are confused. So much goes through words so if discourse is not allowed they’re cut off from valuable ideas and info.
LB: Can I share documents please? What is a TERF?
KS: In inverted commas “TERF” is an acronym coined by the opposition as it were, when apologised for upsetting trans activists and the abbreviation took off. It is now a term of abuse for people like me. I’m not a radical feminist, not trans exclusionary as I include trans-identified females in females. It rhetorically damages your opposition, and accompanied by swearing etc. And men can be TERFs and it’s now used indiscriminately for someone with the wrong ideas.
LB: What does transphobic mean?
KS: Historically it was intense aversions involving fear or disgust, eg spiders, but over time concept creep includes lesser intense experiences. Here it’s been defined by lobbyists and activists in a biased way so is a fear of dislike of people including failure to accept their gender identity. It's smuggled in an intellect position on gender identity, so if you don’t accept a trans person's presence in a space you’re now transphobic. It helps the activist and has a chilling effect and is an unfair and partisan way to describe transphobia. Not rational. Women have rational fears.
LB: Looking at JKR Tweets re “If sex isn’t real…” What’s the risk to include this as transphobia?
KS: It's completely unfair. I’m not disgusted by trans people but drawing attention to not being able to discuss things - I’m a lesbian and it’s based on sex. If you erase talk of sex and instead female gender identity - so male heterosexuals are now lesbians. Activists say this and we now have lesbians with penises. We still need a word to describe these people (lesbians) who haven’t gone away. We need to be able to discuss this and complicated ethical issues. You commit harm to lesbians if shut down discussion by activists (not necessarily trans people themselves)
LB: In the discourse, if you used mocking language would this be transphobia?
KS: No. Established way of satire and may not be funny. But offence isn’t harm and is foundational to liberal society. In Communist Russia there was a rich vein of dark comedy in stories and jokes. It’s socially disapproved of for women to make jokes and we should be kind - we can be seen as cruel. Women can make jokes and be funny.
LB: You were provided with popular articles you reference you’ve read. Are you familiar with this?
KS: Yes
LB: Is it a good representation of the debate?
KS: Is more permissible and widespread. Is a snapshot and the debate is now more open.
LB: This is exhibit 52
MS: I have an objection to the 10 volumes - to any of these popular articles. 1st as a wide variety of materials: news, tweets, advocacy, articles. None are admissible directly or through this witness. News reports are hearsay so can’t be admitted as not attested to by an expert. Looking at opinion evidence it’s always inadmissible unless it is by an expert who can testify. As a general rule, advocacy is never admissible and not admitted as evidence to the proceeding. And tweets are often opinion and we’d need the writers to testify if they wanted to. They all exist but the fact of the statements has been made, and we say here is not. Are they discriminatory against trans people to the extent that others share or support her views in no way answers her allegations. It isn’t whether people share her views, and does not obviate her responsibility if her views are found to be discriminatory. If there’s a debate it doesn’t matter. The context doesn’t matter nor whether they are actually discriminatory or not. For any of the articles to be included they’d need to testify are experts, their background and research. So college says no probative value, cannot assist panel in decisions and lack necessary evidentiary foundations and should all be excluded.
Chair: Do you have a reply LB?
LB: College is wanting to discipline AH due to her off work comments. The context is important and this case is entirely contextual. KS is an expert on sex based speech. It contextualises the comments of AH and what the environment was at the time of the tweets. I don't say panel should review them and their truth, but it goes to question of the public square as AH was not talking in a vacuum. It’s about her freedom of expression whilst she made some reference to her being a nurse. Is my only request for this and not the validity of their contents.
Chair: We’ll take 30 mins to look at this and return.
[ADJOURNED AND RETURN]
Chair: Everyone back. The college objects to the 10 volumes saying they constitute hearsay and opinion evidence that must come through an expert. He acknowledges there’s an exception to the hearsay rule and he says the evidence isn’t relevant. Mr Seaborn states whether they support his views, these don’t matter. There might be a social debate and cannot acquire another colour because of social discourse. LB says it isn't about the truth but to understand the context of the debate and KS can speak to this material. The panel says the fact that KS reviewed these isn’t relevant for this tribunal, and that if others have these views this isn’t relevant. The panel knows there’s a social debate and understands there’s a need for contextual evidence but we’re not prepared to admit them
LB: What's the impact on institutions like universities adopting gender identity and stifling debate?
KS: There’s individual Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression but universities are meant to test ideas and wisdom and there shouldn't be boundaries that can’t be considered. It's a good way of exposing bad ideas to the light as well as allowing good ideas to flourish - so it is a real problem in universities. Although every organisation should have open discussion.
LB: Can you discuss your own institution?
KS: In my former institution, it was difficult to make these points as the definition of transphobia included rejecting the acceptance of gender identity in every context and required a compulsion to go along with people actually changing sex, and that there was no cost to these ideas to anyone else. We were told this is the institute's position as they were heavily influenced by LGBT groups. Over 3-4 years I faced protests, open letters against me, defamation about my character online, petitions, threats, constant complaints and the weaponising of the internal complaints system - all in the name of kindness and inclusivity. Very ironic really.
LB: When did this happen?
KS: I left in 2021 but it started in 2018 and immediately got pushback from students, my colleagues and the public. Also got support but people were Very vocal and dogmatic responses saying I must hate trans people. The thought it was the only reason it could be. People harassed me every day until I left – masked men on campus, setting of flares, graffiti, manifestos, calling me ‘transphobic shit’, ‘TERF’ and worse, you can see that's an atmosphere difficult to speak in and I left.
LB: What is different about the debate now since the 2 years when this case started?
KS: It’s opened up. There was blanket approach by press in 2018 that we must be transphobic or paranoid cranks or horrible people, and that has changed. Since then the evidence is, we're not cranks. Through persistence, evidence has come to light that there are significant problems with Self ID & with prisons, hospitals and with the treatment of children with gender issues. The NHS has had a review and now say they shouldn't be automatically affirmed. It's now evidence based and other medics are looking at it and trying to incorporate these children back to psychiatric practice. There's been a case about gender critical being a philosophical belief, which is now protected in law, to be able to talk about these issues as protected philosophical speech. In that sense there’s been a change here.
LB: Thank you, that’s all my questions.
Chair: You may start your cross now.
MS: Can we have 5 minutes please which will speed things up?
Chair: You may
[WE RETURN]
Chair: Back to Mr Seaborn
MS: The college doesn't have any questions for Dr Stock
Chair: Neither does the panel. Thank you for your time Dr Stock. You are discharged.
KS: Thank you
Chair: Is there any other business we can do today as Linda Blade cannot attend today?
LB: No there isn't.
Chair: Ok, we’re adjourned until 9am tomorrow.
[COURT ADJOURNED]