Just to be clear-

the "serious allegations of criminal conduct" alleged by the cease and desist letter were specifically in reference to items on one or more of OII's websites that spoke of alleged "child sexual abuse" by Zucker while in his care...someone had contacted OII to report these allegations, and OII made that known and had requested that anyone else with similar complaints contact the proper authorities-

" I have received communication from someone who alleges to have been sexually and/or physically abused by Kenneth J. Zucker. Please see Appendix A. Upon receiving the e-mail, I filed a report about this matter with the Toronto Police Department and the Federal Sex Crimes Unit in compliance with laws in effect where I live which require reporting of all allegations of child sexual abuse to the proper authorities."

http://www.intersexualite.org/Zucker-complaint.html

It was Lynn Conway's linking to this posting by OII that caused the Zucker camp to complain of "serious allegations of criminal conduct"...not simply "Conway's reporting of controversial intersex policy issues".

Obviously the allegations may or may not be true, but saying that they exist is hardly libel.

Also there is the issue of why, if merely linking to a post that mentions that allegations exist is worthy of threats of legal action, there was no similar threat of legal action made towards OII, only Conway.

Regardless, you missed a VERY important piece of the story and mischaracterize the issue when you present it as being threats based on nothing more than "dissent with CAMH policies and gender-reparative treatments".

I'm no fan of Zucker/CAMH and the lawsuit threats are quite obviously an attempt to suppress information...but I'm also no fan of reporting that misstates the facts and makes trans and IS activists look like they will ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda...the reported allegations on OII's website and Conway's linking to them being the "serious allegations of criminal conduct" referred to in the cease and desist letter has been reported since day one of this story, so how this could have been missed is beyond me.

Hello Dr. Winters

I blogged about this same issue Here.

I too felt that the idea of suing someone for simply linking to someone's website is total rubbish. If Zucker really wanted to sue someone he would sue OII since it's their website and presumeably they would be the ones liable for whatever is there. Not just whoever links to it. Heck in order to have a informed discussion of what's there someone has to link to it.

I should also mention that I pruchased read and reveiwed your book. I gave it 3 stars. Which I think is pretty good, but not either a NYT best seller (4stars) or the greatest book of all times (5 stars). I hope you don't take that personally. I recomended that people either read your blog, or check it out at a library (implying that if their library does not have it they should ask them to get it.)

Zucker may get a lesson in unintended consequences. He could take Conway to court and get HIS clock cleaned and lose his career. He's playing with fire and is completely blind to the consequences. The man is a fool. I would LOVE to see this man taken down for all the evil he has done.

Janis-

It is simply incorrect to claim that "There were no details of the alleged sexual abuse on OII's site at the time. Once again you are misinforming people."

Perhaps you and others are erroneously assuming that the addendum was published in July of 200*9*, after Conway's item hyperlinked there, but in fact the allegations were published in 2008, long before Conway's news feed item was ever published.

So just to make it clear, the Jan 19, 2009 news feed in question from Conway's site can be found here-

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/News.html#109

the line item reads-

01-17-09: Organisation Internationale des Intersexués (OII): "The self-proclaimed experts on intersex: Zucker and Lawrence", by Curtis Hinkle

"I am sure that many intersex people were aware that the APA had brought out a booklet on intersex. However, I am not sure that many understand how problematic it is to many intersex people to see some of the following names associated with this booklet: Margaret Schneider, Walter O. Bockting, Randall D. Ehrbar, Anne A. Lawrence, Katherine Louise Rachlin and Kenneth J. Zucker. At first glance, the booklet seems apparently harmless. However, that is what's so clever about it. It's a way for the Clarke/Northwestern clique to get their nose under the (intersex) tent and then later "come on in"."

The name "Kenneth J. Zucker" in that posting from Conway's site is underlined and highlighted, which denotes a hyperlink...and that hyperlink, which anyone can verify by going there, does indeed link to this page-

http://www.intersexualite.org/WPATH.html

-that contains the sexual abuse allegations which have been on there since at least July 2008, nearly six months before Conway's item containing that link was published.

All of these links have been derived from Conway's own pages and the content therein, not from Zucker's attorneys' letter.

So with all due respect, the hyperlink in Dr. Conway's news feed item ***DOES*** link to the WPATH letter that I gave as a link, and anyone who cares to go to Conway's site and follow the hyperlink from Kenneth Zucker's name can verify this.

If anyone is "repeating misinformation" it is those who keep insisting that no link exists on Conway's news feed item quoted above, and/or that if such a link exists that the addendum containing the abuse allegations was added some time after the Jan 17, 2009 publishing date of Conway's news feed item, which is incorrect...the addendum is dated nearly six months before Conway published the item/links.

None of this is in ANY way intended to speak to the veracity of the allegations themselves, or to Conway or OII's legal right to publish them, or to the validity of Zucker's attorney's claim that the hyperlink in some way makes Conway liable for defamation of character, and is entirely separate from any issues concerning Zucker's opinions or clinical methodology.

All I am speaking to is the fact that the reports and claims such as yours that the hyperlink found on Conway's site from ***Zucker's name*** to the page containing the allegations never existed are 100% factually incorrect, and the evidence is easily accessible to anyone wanting to verify it.

Same goes for any claim that the allegations were added to that page after Conway's site linked there in Jan 2009, the dates say otherwise.

Janis, you asked me to provide the links to support my previous statements when you posted this-

"Lynn never gave a link anywhere to the WPATH letter. Please show us where she did."

Then when I oblige, you respond with-

Who cares? Really, now. This is mind numbing. You are obsessing on links and who linked to what and when and where.

Evidently YOU cared enough to ask...or was your question merely a setup, so that you could then accused me of "obsessing"?

Sorry you can't handle the fact that what you posted was incorrect and the answer you sought proved it...but to respond with belittling comments like "Really now" after soliciting the links in question is frankly obnoxious.

You insist on claiming that the WPATH page on OII's site was devoid of any mention of the sex abuse allegations on 1/17/09, and go as far as to say "Web pages are constantly being updated", as if this would explain the material appearing on the page after Conway linked to it, but Conway's own posting on the matter acknowledges that it was there-

"Then too, OII Founder Mr. Curtis Hinkle reports that OII has not received similar threats of lawsuits, even though the OII page in question (an open letter to the President of WPATH) [4] has been posted on the internet for eight months and is widely known about in Zucker’s professional circles."

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/News/US/Zucker/The_webpage_Zucker_attempted_to_suppress.html

Why is it that even in the face of Lynn Conway's own words stating unequivocally that the material was there, you refuse to accept any suggestion that this may be the case?

The letter from Zucker's attorney's is dated ten days after Conway's news feed was published...so in order for your theory to hold water, the addendum referencing the allegations (dated July 2008) would have had to have been added sometime between 1/17 and 1/27 of 2009...this makes absolutely no sense, and is as blatant and disingenuous an attempt at spin as I have ever seen...Lynn Conway admits that the material being complained about was there, why can't you?

Similarly, your implication that the words "OII received communication from an individual that alleged that as a child Zucker had sexually abused her" could not possibly be construed as reporting an allegation of sexual abuse is simply absurd.

You may think that saying "we heard he did it" rather than "he did it" somehow absolves a person from any legal repercussions stemming from spreading a false rumor, but you would be dead wrong on that.

More importantly, in libel law there is a principle that states that one defense against charges of defamation is when the accused repeats a rumor that has been allowed to spread without the plaintiff making any effort to deny it.

That Zucker may have engaged in the conduct alleged is a rumor, and in order to prepare for any future legal action his attorneys have to be able to make the case that the rumor did not go uncontradicted by Zucker...

so from a strictly legal standpoint doing so in a manner that has his denial of the allegations plastered all over the internet is pretty smart.

But here's the real issue-

As evidenced by the editing of a previous post I made on this blog offering a hypothetical replacing Zucker's name with that of another person, the mere "chance of an inaccurate Google search causing issues for the blogger" was enough to cause the editor to alter my post (it was an understandable move and didn't bother me because it helps make my point anyway).

But is Zucker, who by any reasonable level of civilized justice must be considered innocent until proven guilty of the non-hypothetical allegations against him, afforded this same level of care for his personal reputation?

No, with very few exceptions these allegations are being taken at face value and repeated by trans activist bloggers as if they are as harmless as a basket of puppies...and when it is pointed out that he may not be guilty of them at all and the allegations may be nothing more than a vile character assassination attempt, is even a shred of concern being shown for what these kinds of allegations can do to a person's life?

No, the general feeling seems to be that he deserves anything he gets based on his other opinions and controversial treatment ideology, and if he gets taken down by scurrilous rumormongering, so be it.

This is exactly the same kind of thinking that causes people who are opposed to transpeople working in schools or using a bathroom to spread false claims that they are sexual deviants who will rape women and children if allowed near them...they can't make a reasonable case using logic, so they use sex rumors to cast aspersions and defame people.

If Zucker is shown to be guilty of the allegations against him, then no punishment would be too harsh, imo...I'm not even for capital punishment, but I'd flip the switch myself in the case of a clinician who raped IS kids.

but what if he isn't? Would those who are so quick to protect one of their own from the mere possibility of a hypothetical being construed as a legitimate charge after a Googl search be as quick to condemn the person who made false charges of sex abuse against an unpopular sex researcher? Would they be horrified by the damage that this kind of thing would do to the credibility of activists expressing legitimate complaints and concerns, and would they redouble their efforts to thoroughly vet all allegations of this kind of thing before passing them on? Would anyone say, "Gee, maybe I should have thought twice?"

My experience watching this and similar cases, and from seeing the kinds of totally irrelevant personal info collected and archived by some high profile trans activists to be used against those who displease them (both outside and within the community) says not just no, but Hell no.

Janis-

Your last post betrays a profound ignorance of how the law works, and continues to misstate the facts.

By asserting libel and rumors, you are falsely suggesting that the police reports by the alleged victim and by Mr. Hinkle should be supressed or that they are false.

That is absolutely untrue. I NEVER said that anyone concerned should not have made a report to the police. I said that I thought it was irresponsible to widely publish the fact that the allegations had been made, without any corroborating evidence or an attempt made to present both sides of the story.

As for the allegations being false- all I ever said is that they MAY be false, which is a simple fact of logic- like any other allegation or rumor they may be true, they may be false.

It seems you are more concerned about what YOU think is libel by suggesting your own rumors-that the two filed police reports may be false, thus attacking the credibility of the alleged victim and Mr. Hinkle. Suggesting or implying that they are false would suggest an attack on both the alleged victim and Mr. Hinkle, since it is a crime to file false police reports.

To admit that there are two sides to a story or more than one possibility is not "attacking" or "suppressing" anything. To suggest in the abstract that any allegation MAY be false is not starting a rumor, again, it is very simple logic.

If you take a ring to a jeweler to sell it, he doesn't just take your word for it that it's pure gold, he tests it himself- using your logic, that simple test is tantamount to spreading a rumor that you are attempting fraud, and an "attack" on your credibility.

You are really grabbing at straws here in your attempt to discredit anyone who merely suggests that the allegations in question MAY not be the entire story or free from significant bias. It is clear to me that you quite desperately *want* them to be true, to the point that you will attack any suggestion that they need further corroboration.

The key to real justice being served in this type of case is a fair and impartial investigation of the facts, and the court of public opinion is neither.

It is NOT a crime to openly make known that criminal behavior may be occurring or may have occurred when supported by legal affidavits (such as police reports). In fact, it is PUBLIC information. Now Tina, did you include the dates of the police reports (and as such, are legal documents) in your diatribe against the alleged victim and Mr. Hinkle's conduct????

You keep railing on about these public documents, but fail to acknowledge that while they are a matter of record, any reports to the police are absolutely not available for public consumption while an investigation is pending, unless someone subpoenas them...and the proper path to initiating legal action that would include subpoenas of these documents begins with a cease and desist letter.

When someone files a police report charging a crime, the accused can't just walk into the police station and demand to read any and all complaints against them on the spot, there's a fairly laborious legal process involved to gain access- and in the case of sexual abuse allegations, in many jurisdictions there are specific laws in place to protect complainants identities from public disclosure.

Try going to your local police and ask to see the documents pertaining to any other ongoing rape case, and see how far you get.

You are TOTALLY off base here.

Earlier you said-
The letters from the person making the allegations were already available for the whole public to read and they were posted by the person herself.

I've been following this story since it broke, and if the postings you allude to exist, I'm very surprised to have not seen them yet...they are not to my knowledge to be found on OII's site, so could you please post a link to these documents or any others that support your claim that the details of these abuse allegations are easily accessed by the public?

Also, since you seem to feel that the actual police reports are simple to obtain as "PUBLIC information", could you please prove it by posting a link to them or otherwise producing them?

You are acting as if you are intimately familiar with them and I should be too, but like I said, I've never seen them and since OII never posted the name of the person who made them I wouldn't know where to even look.

Tina,

Neither you nor anyone associated with Zucker's legal team intimidate me, confuse me or OII. Your legal gymnastics seem eerily familiar to the threats sent out. So, you can play legal gymnastics all you want. I am sure that OII members are reading it all.

I know a lot about OII because I follow their news blog and read their site. I laughed my head off at this blog entry:

http://intersexnews.blogspot.com/2009/02/hello-zucker.html

You are the one grasping at straws and the one who seems to want them (the alleged charges) not to be true. You also blatantly misinterpret what I write. I did not state the details of the reports are available. It is not irresponsible though dear, to publish allegations AND details. In fact, any local newspaper publishes all kinds of alleged charges, names and details of the alleged perpetrator before it has gone through any court-often the day after the alleged charge. Sometimes the news service also asks if anyone else may have had an experience like that of the ALLEGED crime. This is how reporting and journalism works dear. Gewt with it Tina LOL. This is how web reporting works also. But if you search the web (as did I) then you find that allegations made by the alleged victim were also sent to an online forum (and therefore for access to the public). You can assert away, but there was nothing unusual about how the alleged charges were broadcast.

Janis, you seem to be confused enough already, or are just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

you now say-

"I did not state the details of the reports are available."

Yet earlier you said-

Curtis Hinkle wrote a letter to WPATH after the person who made the allegations PUBLICLY on the internet...

The letters from the person making the allegations were already available for the whole public to read and they were posted by the person herself.

It is NOT a crime to openly make known that criminal behavior may be occurring or may have occurred when supported by legal affidavits (such as police reports). In fact, it is PUBLIC information.

So yes, you DO imply over and over that the information is available, and that you saw the abuse allegations published elsewhere...but when simply asked for a link, you go on the attack and claim that you never said any of the things you clearly did.

Even now you say-

But if you search the web (as did I) then you find that allegations made by the alleged victim were also sent to an online forum (and therefore for access to the public). You can assert away, but there was nothing unusual about how the alleged charges were broadcast"

Yet you cannot provide one single link to this alleged publication, which is HIGHLY suspicious- anyone with the truth on their side would GLADLY welcome the opportunity to support their claims.

Finally, you say-

"You are the one grasping at straws and the one who seems to want them (the alleged charges) not to be true."

What thinking person wouldn't want allegations of sexual abuse of children by a doctor to turn out to be unfounded, given the alternative?

Tina darling, I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth. YOU are by putting words in my mouth (well actually in print) which I did not state. When I said that I did not state that the details of the reports are available, I was talking about the DETAILS of what is in the police reports. That police reports have been filed is PUBLIC info.-to journalists and yes even
inquiring minds like yourselves, although the details may not be. BUT,
it is not my job to do your homework for you or your friends. The allegations have been made
public on the web and this has nothing to do with either OII or Ms. Conway.
Would anyone in their right mind want an alleged victim to be lying about their allegations?

Janis,

First, I would appreciate it if you would dispense with your belittling and condescending manner of addressing me as "dear" and "darling"; it isn't necessary or appreciated, and betrays an underlying contempt for any who dares to simply seek information supporting your assertions.

you say-

"it is not my job to do your homework for you or your friends."

What "friends" you are referring to is a puzzle, but judging by the general tone of your responses this is just another attempt to cast me as being on the side of Zucker, simply because I am willing to suggest that here are at least two sides to every story.

Whatever; thinking people reading this exchange will be able to separate normal, healthy skepticism and a desire to get ALL the FACTS, from your wild-eyed implications that anyone who suggests that one party's account of the matter is naturally biased is somehow in league with the other party.

They will also be able to see that when pressed for ANY evidence to support your claim that the allegations were made elsewhere online beyond the OII site, you not only failed to provide any, but went on a personal attack, no doubt in an attempt to cover for the fact that you can't substantiate your claim...if I am wrong, PLEASE prove it- I WANT to understand this matter and get ALL the facts available, and that you claim to have them but won't provide them in the interests of full disclosure and understanding speaks volumes.

In short, when you say that evidence to support your claims exists, it is ABSOLUTELY your job to provide it if you want to have even a shred of credibility. I did it when you asked me to, and you then attacked and belittled me as "obsessive" for doing so...then when I ask you to do the same courtesy and back up your claims, you also attack me and attempt to connect me with Zucker and his legal team on a logical foundation that doesn't even meet the requirements for "flimsy".

Like I said, your illogic and underhanded character assassination tactics will be utterly transparent and obvious to anyone reading this exchange.

As for this-

"Would anyone in their right mind want an alleged victim to be lying about their allegations?"

Yes, absolutely given the alternative, which is what I actually said. It is quite obvious that were the allegations to turn out to be fabricated, you would be disappointed even though it would mean that a kid *didn't* get sexually abused.

It is clear at this point that were the person in question to recant their allegations, this would do little to change your opinion of Zucker as having sexually abused his patients as alleged; you are obviously on a vendetta to discredit him using any means necessary.

That there's plenty in his history to discredit his methods and ideas isn't the issue at all, it's a matter of whether or not he should be tried in the court of public opinion over the vague and anonymous allegation that he "sexually abused" a patient...and whether or not people like you should be held to supporting their claims about facts in the case, or should just be taken at their word.

as was pointed out before, even a hypothetical presented using someone's name was redacted by this list's editor lest someone be confused and assume that the hypothetical situation be true...but there's obviously a double standard in effect when it comes to anyone who has been deemed an "enemy" of the gender variant population.