Available in Audio Format:

Amy Hamm is a registered nurse in B.C. and a J.K. Rowling fan. But her professional regulator, the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives, is not a fan, for reasons we’ll get to in a moment.

Last month, the College’s Discipline Committee found that Ms. Hamm had engaged in professional misconduct due to her allegedly discriminatory and derogatory statements about men who identify as women. According to the Committee, Ms. Hamm’s statements “challenge the existence of transgender women, conflate sex and gender, and advocate for the denial of legal protections for transgender women.”

Let’s see if that’s a fair assessment.

Highlights of Amy Hamm’s Case

When Amy Hamm expressed her views on gender identity and transgenderism online, none of her supposedly “discriminatory” or “derogatory” statements were made in the context of providing patient care. It’s not as if Ms. Hamm was going around getting into arguments with patients about this. Indeed, there were no complaints from patients or anyone else about Ms. Hamm’s performance as a nurse.

Did Amy Hamm “challenge the existence of transgender women”?

Such an accusation is rather cliché today. And as empty as ever. Amy Hamm never denied that people experience gender dysphoria or that people identify as transgender. Rather, Hamm’s position is that self-identity cannot override biological realities—meaning that a man cannot become a woman simply by imagining or believing himself to be one.

The Committee found Hamm’s biological realism to be “unfair and untrue to transgender women” because it denied the “possibility” that they could truly feel like women. Essentially, the College took the baffling position that it is wrong to argue something is false if it might possibly be true and if questioning its veracity upsets certain people.

Did Hamm “conflate sex and gender?”

For almost all of Western history, the medical and scientific communities treated sex and gender as interchangeable terms. But the College asserts that Hamm engaged in misconduct by upholding this long-standing view that sex and gender are the same. The College asserts that holding such a view should be considered unprofessional. But Hamm does not actually hold this view.

The only evidence available to the Committee – statements made while Hamm identified as a nurse – shows that Hamm distinguished between sex and gender. In a position statement on her website, she explicitly states that sex is “based on biological reality” while “gender identity and expression are culturally-based.”

The College’s problem was not that Hamm failed to distinguish sex and gender—but that she didn’t do so in a way that aligned with the College’s preferred ideology. By stretching its interpretation of evidence, the Committee framed Ms. Hamm’s views as derogatory and discriminatory without demonstrating how they met that threshold.

Did Hamm oppose “legal protections for transgender people”?

One of the College’s most egregious accusations against Hamm was that she desired to strip transgender people of their legal protections. On the contrary, Hamm never argued against anti-discrimination protections. Her position was that such protections should be based on biological sex rather than gender identity. Otherwise, she argued, it “renders sex meaningless.”

Hamm argued that transgender people can and should be protected under human rights legislation. Despite this, the College concluded—without evidence—that Hamm’s view “erases transgender women” and was therefore discriminatory and unprofessional.

The Committee goes on to suggest that Hamm sought to “elicit fear, contempt and hostility towards the transgender community, particularly transgender women” through her comments. The Committee tried to attribute bad motives to her even thogh she made clear her concern was protecting women’s rights.

Incredibly, the Committee even cited a billboard Hamm helped put up that said “I heart J.K. Rowling” as evidence of Hamm’s hatred for transgender people. Rowling is (in)famous for standing up for women and sex-based legal protections rooted in biological reality.

Transgender Ideology Threatens Healthcare Workers

Throughout its decision, the Committee made broad ideological claims about gender. It refused to acknowledge the basic biological reality that “there are only two sexes,” dismissing this statement as an “oversimplification.” That a panel of medical professionals would reject such a fundamental biological fact raises serious concerns.

Unfortunately, this rejection of biological reality is a symptom of a broader problem. As explained by scholars like Carl Trueman, we live in a highly individualistic culture that encourages us not to love, but to reject our God-given bodies. In some sense, our culture suggests we can transcend our bodies and the natural limits our bodies impose in the pursuit of whatever we think will make us feel fulfilled.

Many Canadians are waking up to the social and political ramifications of this phenomenon. Last year, an Ipsos poll confirmed a decline of support for LGBTQ causes, due to increasing frustration with transgender ideology. Hamm’s views, far from being fringe, reflect a mainstream position. Yet, many governments and regulatory bodies continue to purge those who accept and respect objective reality.

Why Amy Hamm’s Case Matters

Something needs to change. Medical professionals in Canada are still under increasing pressure to conform to tenets of a gnostic civil religion.

A few years ago, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that doctors must provide effective referrals for procedures such as Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) and abortion, even if doing so violates their conscience. Recently, in Manitoba, medical student Rafael Zaki sought judicial review after he was expelled for sharing a pro-life essay online.

Amy Hamm’s case is another example of the effort to purge ideological dissent from the medical profession and to suppress the truth about the damage caused by this pervasive ideology. Amy Hamm will likely not be the last victim. But let us hope and pray that her courage in this case will inspire others.