By Madeline Martin – The Postmillennial
On Monday Amy Hamm, the BC nurse, women’s rights advocate, and mother of two, entered Day 19 of her disciplinary hearing with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) over her acknowledgment that only two genders exist.
“I’ve testified under oath, in Canada, in 2023, that women don’t have penises; lesbians also do not have penises; males are never lesbians despite their gender identity claims—they are heterosexual men; that human sex is immutable and never ‘assigned’ at birth. It just is. You’re a male or a female,” Hamm told The Post Millennial.
Hamm sat for cross-examination by Barbara Findlay, who writes her name in lower case as a protest against oppression, representing the BCCNM. Shortly before the proceedings began, Hamm sent out a tweet to her multitudes of supporters who have popularized #IStandWithAmyHamm
Not far into the day, Findlay attempted to impeach Hamm’s testimony in a legal strategy claiming that Hamm was using the huge amount of supporters that have gathered around her to bolster her own advocacies.
Hamm’s attorney Lisa Bildy immediately objected. The judgment came back in favor of Hamm. The court declared that Hamm was welcome to speak to her supporters, invite them to observe the proceedings and to share her opinions with them.
Next, Findlay questioned Hamm’s views on gender identity and trans persons.
“I am saying that I don’t believe in mind-body dualism,” Hamm said. “I believe that the mind is the body and that people may suffer from gender dysphoria, and in order for them to live their best, happiest, healthiest, most fulfilling lives, they may require or seek treatment for gender dysphoria to relieve their distress. And I’m perfectly happy to support them in doing that. The mere fact that I don’t believe that there is this essence someone has, a gender essence, that’s contained in their mind to me, doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on the way that I feel about trans persons.”
“I simply recognize that gender dysphoria is generally what causes trans people to feel distressed in their bodies,” Hamm continued. “I believe it is that condition that’s listed in the DSM-V, gender dysphoria, that causes persons to want to seek treatment and call themselves trans. I don’t believe that it is a gendered soul or a gender identity.”
In questioning pertaining to biological sex-based safety, Hamm explained: “The notions that people have a gender identity and that their gender essence or gender soul actually determines their biological sex and that it supersedes biological sex are ideas that result in harms to women and children in ways that I’ve described in terms of our sex-based rights and in terms of the medicalization of children, who I believe are not capable of consenting to medical procedures that can maim and sterilize them when they’re minors.”
After quoting previous testimony from Hamm in which she was asked to define gender ideology, Findlay asked, “Who are you referring to when you say ‘trans activist’?”
Hamm responded, “I’m referring to a large group of people, some of them are trans people, and many of them are not, who promote gender ideology and promote the implementation of self-ID laws. And legislation like Bill C-16. I would also say the Pritzker family that employs Dr. Greta Bauer. They’re a billionaire pharmaceutical company, and they’ve opened a lot of gender clinics. I would also classify them as trans activists.”
“I’m not familiar with the Pritzker family. Do you want to say anything more about that?” Findlay said.
“I think I’ve said enough,” Hamm said. “They’re a very, very wealthy family. And one of them happens to be a trans woman and they have spent a lot of money on research and on gender clinics and on pushing the idea that you can literally change your sex. There are great harms that flow from these sorts of ideas.” JB Pritzker is the governor of Illinois.
Leaning into the subject of safety in sex-segregated spaces, Findlay asked Hamm if her position was that “trans women ought not to be permitted to use sex-segregated facilities, such as washrooms,” and if that position “means that trans women have to risk harm from cisgender men, do you feel real sympathy for trans women who have to use male washroom facilities?”
“The point that I was arriving at,” Hamm answered, “is that why is it incumbent upon women to allow males to enter their spaces in order to accommodate a small number of males who are also afraid of male violence? The common denominator here is male violence, and women are rightly afraid of it and we deserve our sex-segregated spaces. I do not believe that the solution to a small subset of males who identify that way, feeling afraid of males, is to then add them to a female sex-segregated space.”
“You agree that unless there are third spaces for trans women, they should be excluded from homeless shelters for women?” Findlay asked.
“I don’t want anyone to be excluded,” Hamm clarified. “I want people to use their services based on their biological sex. That means nobody is excluded. They just don’t inappropriately infringe upon women’s sex-based rights. I want every trans person to be able to go to a crisis shelter. I want them to have housing. But women deserve to have sex-segregated spaces for their own safety. And you don’t have to exclude trans people to do that, you just ensure that people have the services for their biological sex such as Ross Aoki house in Vancouver where trans people have their own dedicated housing and I think that’s great.”
“So you would agree with me that trans women who use men’s washrooms,” Findlay asked, “if they present as women, face the same kinds of dangers from male violence that a cis woman would face if she were to use the wheel washroom? Correct?”
“I can’t say that it would be the same sort of danger because again, this is a biological male and a biological male situation,” Hamm said. “Biological females are quite different from biological males. So I don’t think that this safety risk is identical.”
“Nevertheless, I believe you’ve already testified that trans women face risk from cisgender men, if they use men’s washrooms, whatever, however you characterize the risk,” Findlay asked.
“‘They may feel afraid of using those spaces because they fear violence from other males’ is what I said and yes, I hold to that,” Hamm said.
“And similarly,” Findlay asked, “trans women would be likely to experience risk if they participate in homeless shelters and hospitals, designated for men. Do you agree?”
“Sorry, so I’m answering what I believe would happen to trans-identified males in shelters that are not female-only?” Hamm asked.
“For the purpose of this hearing,” Findlay cut in, demanding that Hamm use terminology to which she is fundamentally opposed. “I would appreciate it if you would use the appropriate gender identity for the people you’re describing because otherwise we’re going to get confused. We’re talking about trans women. The question is whether or not they would be at risk if they were to go to a gendered shelter or homeless shelter or hostel, which was designated for men.”
“I’d like to make clear that when I say ‘trans-identified male’, to me, that is the clearest way of expressing what I’m talking about,” Hamm said, refusing to capitulate to Findlay’s demand. “Regardless, I think that if you look at shelters that are available in the Downtown Eastside, women have their own and as far as I’m aware, everything else is mixed sex. So I don’t think that’s even a question I can answer because I’m concerned about women’s sex-segregated shelters being kept for women. And I’m not I’m not aware of any male sex-segregated shelters.”
“Madam Chair,” Findlay said, addressing the court in an attempt to compel Hamm to use the terminology Findlay preferred. “I would request a ruling that for the purpose of this hearing, the witness refers to trans people by their own identities so that trans women are referred to as trans women, not in any context as men.”
Bildy objected fully to the demand.
“Objection,” Bildy said. “You’re asking the witness to be compelled to use language that you deem appropriate. But there’s no sort of codex in this proceeding or in any court proceeding, that certain language has to be used. This is how she identifies; it’s clear and the record will be perfectly clear to anyone reading it. There are differences in terminology, but with all due respect, my friend, it isn’t for you to decide what everybody else has to say. Now if the panel makes a ruling, she will abide by that but I think the record will be abundantly clear about who she’s referring to, and, again, it’s compelling. You’re compelling somebody to say things that they find doesn’t accord with their own views.”
“Madam Chair,” Findlay continued, “the Human Rights Code of British Columbia, requires that we respect gender identity, including pronouns. There is case law to that effect. There’s a Supreme Court of Canada case recognizing transgender people. The issue is not a question of language choice, it is a question of the application of the current law to the proceedings.
“I must insist the parties use the appropriate pronouns preferred to refer to the trans person who’s in these proceedings. To do otherwise is not neutral. To do otherwise is actually not to apply the Human Rights Code in the context of these proceedings. The term – I think you called it ‘trans-identified men’—is not a term that has any meaning in the literature. And, in fact, I don’t know what it means.
“The term for people whose gender identity is female is trans women,” Findlay continued. “The term for people whose gender identity is male is trans men. The term for people whose gender identity is non-binary is non-binary people. And both for the record and for this video, I request that in this hearing, those are the terms that we stick with.”
Earlier in the disciplinary hearing, Hamm spoke about her dismay that women who are victims of rape at the hands of men who claim to be trans are often forced in a court of law to use female pronouns for their male attackers.
“First of all, the Human Rights Act and BC is not is not brought into play,” Bildy said, “because we’re not providing a service to a trans person present in this proceeding. There is not somebody here who is asking for their particular pronoun or identity to be used. We’re in a proceeding that is looking objectively out at something else. And we’re not in a context where services are being provided to a person who is being discriminated against on the basis of their gender identity. So that’s a red herring in this context. And furthermore, you want certain speech use and there’s no law that is compelling our speech to the rest of the room speech, because you have a certain language that you want to use. For example, some people find the term cisgender to be extremely offensive. So are we allowed to say that under no circumstances during the proceedings can we use the term cisgender because it’s offensive, and it should be banned? Because if you’re going to get your way on certain language, then perhaps we should as well. Or we can all just communicate as best we can and I’m sure the record will show what the record needs to show. Those are my submissions.”
After breaking to rule in private, the court ruled against Findlay and the hearing continued with Findlay’s cross of Hamm. Findlay asked Hamm to explain her stance on safe places for biological females.
“Every space that has previously been a sex-segregated space for women should remain that way,” Hamm said. “And the same goes for things like women’s awards, recognition in the workplace or in academia, scholarships previously for women. Yes, I believe those should all remain for women on the basis of their sex and should not be given to biological males.”
“That is to say transgender women or non-binary people?” Findlay asked.
“If a non-binary person was biologically female, that wouldn’t be an issue,” Hamm said.
“I’m just going to come back to that,” Findlay said, beginning to show signs of exasperation, responded. “The harm that is experienced by women, cisgender women, and in relation to which harm women-only spaces or actions are established are harms which transgender women also experience at the hands of cisgender men? Do you agree? Whether or not they’re the same in degree?”
Bildy objected to the question because Hamm specifically advocates for the safety of women and children, not for males or transgendered people. But Hamm was instructed to answer.
“The types of harms that males inflict on other males who are identifying as females in male spaces,” Hamm said, “it’s not something that I either am directly involved in advocating for or paying attention to in terms of whether or not there is data or numbers about that.
“What I’ve said in previous testimony is that I can understand if someone fears male violence, because women do as well,” Hamm continued, “but that it doesn’t mean that it’s incumbent upon women to accommodate biological males who are afraid of other biological males in our sex-segregated spaces, because I advocate to maintain our sex-segregated spaces.”
“And so whether or not trans women do, or would be likely to experience harm in spaces where cisgender men are is not something that you concern yourself with, is that correct?” Findlay pressed.
“Well, I don’t like the characterization that I don’t concern myself with it,” Hamm said. “I abhor all types of violence and discrimination. The point that I was making is that my advocacy is focused on protecting women and children from males. It’s not the focus of my advocacy work, but yes, I would condemn all sorts of violence and discrimination against anyone including trans persons.”
“With trans men,” Findlay went on, “that is, people who were assigned female at birth, but whose gender identity is male, and who present entirely as male for example, with beards, be welcomed in the places you are talking about only if they identify as female or would they be welcomed there if they identify as male?”
“They would be welcomed there on the basis of their biological sex and the way that they identify would be immaterial. For me it’s strictly on the basis of your biological sex,” Hamm said.
“Is it your position,” Findlay continued, taking another tack, “is that it is not trans women who pose a danger in segregated spaces which are segregated by sex, but the danger is from predator cisgender men, and because there is a danger that predator cisgender men will pretend to be trans women and come into spaces like washrooms and cause harm. On account of that danger or that apprehended danger, trans women as a class should be excluded from washrooms, to take the simplest example?”
“Again, I take issue with the term excluded,” Hamm said. “I don’t want anyone excluded from anything. I would like people to use the correct space on the basis of their biological sex. So I don’t advocate for the exclusion of anyone, I advocate for women to have safe sex-segregated spaces. And I have also explained that my issue is not with trans persons. The issue is with gender self-identification policies that flow from gender identity being enshrined in law and the fact that when you have self-identification policies, any male can simply state that they are female and enter our spaces. And women lose the ability to question someone if they feel unsafe or if they feel that they feel you now seeing a male that has made no effort to transition has a beard, dressed completely as a male women are in a position in Canada now they cannot question that without being accused of being a hateful transphobic bigot. So we essentially don’t have safe spaces. And we have to feel— if we want to stand up for ourselves and stand up for our safety, it’s very likely that we will be the ones that get punished for doing so.”
“Would you agree with me that a predator man intent on invading women’s spaces for the purpose of doing harm is able to do so by putting on a dress or makeup or making themselves up in a manner that makes them pass as a woman and that that’s true regardless of any rules about who can and can’t be in the washroom?” Findlay asked.
“What comes to mind when you say that is why would you even bother locking the front door of your house because someone could just break in through the windows?” Hamm countered.
“I don’t think that’s entirely a response to my question,” Findlay asked. “My question is, my understanding is that the danger that you apprehend is a danger from cisgender men who adopt a female disguise in order to be predating in a women’s washroom? Am I correct?”
“What I am saying is that my concern is biological males in women sex-segregated spaces,” Hamm said.
“So then I asked you the question,” Findlay said, “I am mistaken to have understood your evidence to be that it wasn’t trans women you’re concerned about, it was men who took advantage of self-identification and predated on women in washrooms?”
“I am saying,” Hamm again clarified, “the underlying concern with every potential situation in women’s sex-segregated spaces—what it comes down to is the fact that there are biological males there. And that it doesn’t necessarily matter whatsoever how they identify the issue. The core issue is a sex-segregated space free of biological males.”
“And that’s true regardless of what body parts those men may or may not have. Is that correct?” Findlay asked.
“Are you asking about persons who have had vaginoplasty?” Hamm asked.
“For example, yes.”
“First of all, there would be no way for a woman to know that. It would be inappropriate for a woman to ask that,” Hamm said. “So again, it just comes down to the fact that someone is a biological male with a biological male body and that as a sex class, there are risks associated with biological males and women’s spaces and biological males commit the vast majority of violent and sexual crimes.”
“Part of your reason for wanting to exclude trans women from women’s shelters is that cis women might be triggered by having a woman who has a penis in that space,” Findlay said.
“Women do not have penises. And again, I think that rape shelters should be segregated on the basis of sex,” Hamm said. Later, she would tweet the absurdity of having to explain to a court that women do not have penises.
“And part of the reason for thinking they should be segregated so that only people who not only now but have ever had vaginas should be included. In other words, it’s not just women. It’s not just women with vaginas. It’s only women who were assigned female at birth that you consider to be part of the category. Am I correct?” Findlay asked.
“Biological females,” Hamm said. “That is what the category consists of, yes.”
Findlay attempted to argue with Hamm’s advocacy for the need for sex-segregated shelters.
“Well, I actually tweeted an image of a trans woman, or trans-identified male, staying in a local rape shelter in Vancouver. Posting sexually explicit selfies in the bathroom and bragging about walking around the women’s shelter with a boner visible to the other women staying in the shelter,” Hamm said.
Findlay, choosing to ignore Hamm’s response, cited a case that occurred at a Vancouver rape crisis shelter instead continued, “So in the last 20 years, there’s one example which you believe is representative of that issue that you know about?”
“Well, I would say I have heard other examples,” Hamm said, “but it also, to me, doesn’t matter. It’s unacceptable that there is a single example. It’s unacceptable for it to have happened in the first place. It never should have happened at all. And I don’t think that we should be deciding on a line how much abuse women should face before we’re allowed to speak out against this.”
On Tuesday, Dr. Kathleen Stock spoke on issues related to the case as a neutral witness i.e. not there to help Hamm but to assist the panel due to her credentials in the areas of language usage regarding sex and gender (such as gender identity and transphobia), the impact of the self-identification process, and sex-based speech and language in relation to its effects on the trans community.
Stock was clear and knowledgeable in her direct and defined sex according to the biological definition. Stock acknowledged that the language surrounding sex and gender studies has evolved to quite radical views, including the theory that there are more than two sexes or that it is a social construct, and that these views have become somewhat of a social contagion as well as spreading into the sector of policy making. Stock was unabashed in her perspective that this is highly problematic and incorrect. Stock went on to say a view has emerged that there is no difference between men and women and that biology is seen as regressive and considered it a result of poststructuralism and postmodernism.
Bildy asked Stock what she believed the impact of this was and Stock listed a number of harms that have been taken on by women as a result. Stock claimed that women have lost the ability to refer freely to issues that affect them, they have lost the ability to talk about sex in maternity, and in sexual attraction. Stock also highlighted the loss of ability for women to discuss sexism and sex-based violence. She also highlighted the tremendous problem that is occurring in prison environments which were once sex-segregated but now allow male inmates to be housed with females if they self-identify.
Stock summarized that the evolution in the area of sex and gender that she has witnessed impacts all areas of life and is dangerous.
Stock paid special attention to the area of children, noting the harm that today’s children face is unprecedented and that by taking away biological sex, children will experience confusion about their own identity, opening a pathway for children to be victimized through life-altering drugs and surgeries.
This, she said, in an ethically problematic situation, as she provided a tremendous wealth of understanding. When Bildy finished her direct, the court took a break. When they reconvened, counsel for the college was to begin their cross but informed the counsel they had no questions for Stock.