Holy, Holly!

In response to Holly Lawford-Smith

February 22, 2025

​

 

On February 3, 2025 Holly Lawford-Smith published this statement about me after polling her Twitter followers about whether or not to "out" a "mentally unstable" individual.

 

https://hollylawford-smith.org/aaron-kimberly-a-statement/

 

 

I've taken some time to let the dust settle and put a stop to my supporters confronting her tweets. I don't want this to escalate further and I have apologized to Holly for this conflict, which I expressed in an email to her via her Dean on January 31, 2025, after seeing the Twitter poll. In that email, I also offered to sign a legally binding peace agreement of no contact, which would have been a final resolution. Holly posted this statement instead. I've consulted with my lawyers, trusted friends, and professional colleagues and was advised to make a counter statement, which will co-exist on the airwaves - given the reputational damage her statement has caused. I truly wish this matter could have been settled privately and respectfully. I value Holly's contributions to the movement. 

 

I want this to be over. I'm over it. I've moved on. The situation isn't repairable and there's more important work for all of us to do. This was a personal matter that should have been addressed privately and tactfully. I've tried several times, by offering gentle olive branches. I should have been more clear about my intent for reaching out, since it's been misconstrued as ill intent or a romantic advance. I won't bring anything new to this, but will only address the points made in her statement. 

 

​

"Have you ever been a character in someone else’s delusions? I have."

 

Holly seems to be doubling as a philosopher and psychiatrist! I'm quite clear there is no romantic connection between us. Our interactions had been initially warm, humourous and gently flirtatious in both directions (though Holly denies it with the vigour of a fat kid on a candy bar). And then it ended abruptly in a manner I found very hurtful, jarring and confusing. She's allowed to bolt. Some people do that. But it hurts on the receiving end. I'd been messaging more than she wanted. She blew up. I'd hoped we could recover some civility since we're in a movement together. Have I misunderstood or misread anything? Probably. And so has Holly. Good-faith communication would have resolved any such misreads. I'm making this counterstatement in good faith.

​

 

"Attempting to organize an in-person event to take place on my campus, at which I would be a speaker, without my permission or input"

 

That is not correct. An international group of transguys came up with an idea for a friendly debate to model civil discourse. The idea was pitched to Holly. She was free to say yes or no. She said no and that was the end of it. I would not have been involved in any way in that debate. The invitation was to debate another transman from the US. Her input would have been welcome. No planning had been underway beyond the pitch of an idea. It was intended as an act of solidarity between transmen and Holly, as a representative of the gender critical movement. Holly had told me that the activists tend to hassle her at the start of the semester and she'd been feeling nervous about going back. Transmen wanted to stand with her. It was political. Not personal.

​

 

"...mischaracterizing our brief interaction to mutual acquaintances"

 

There's an implication here that I have lied. No, I have not. That I have different recollections of events isn't a deliberate or malicious mischaracterization. Misunderstandings happen, especially when clear communication isn't happening. My olive branches were intended as invitations to talk so that any misunderstandings could be ironed out. We have overlapping professional and social networks. I'm free to speak to people, which I did because I was confused and upset about how things had ended. It wasn't done with any ill intent. 

​

 

"Publishing a full podcast episode mischaracterizing our interaction"

 

It was never posted publicly on the podcast. It was recorded with the podcast host, Rachel, who used her conflict resolution skills as a teacher to lead me through my own account of events - which was an uncomfortable and vulnerable thing to do. I offered my perceptions as honestly as I could. This was then posted privately and a link was forwarded to the parties involved to invite them into the discussion, for the purpose of conflict resolution. We did ths because there had been a lot of talking around me, but no talking to me. 

​

 

"...seems to have failed to take the necessary actions to repair an incredibly valuable and important friendship...and has apparently been orchestrating an international political plot whereby gender-critical feminists pretend that trans men are welcome in feminism but are actually just laughing at them (evidenced by the fact that she won’t even sleep with the first one to make a pass at her!)"

 

I'm sorry that she sees no value in a friendship or working relationship. Up until things went sideways I enjoyed our interactions and I think we could have had some very constructive conversations about bridging transmen and feminism. I and other transmen had been willing. Now we are not. Not because she didn't want to sleep with me, (and I'm offended by that flippant remark) but because of her hostility, wild assumptions about me and my motivations, an unwillingness to listen to me or speak to me with respect, and for the impact of this on me. I had been willing to listen to her.

 

​

"After the MIT event, Aaron made a pass at me (by direct message on Twitter). Out of politeness (a mistake) I deflected. Aaron took this as encouragement. When he made another pass a short time later, I made it clear that I wasn’t interested in him. He claimed to be fine with that, and I thought we had resolved the issue amicably. (I also apologized for not being clear at the first opportunity). But he continued to message me at a volume and with a kind of over-familiarity that I found annoying, and inappropriate to the fact that we hardly knew each other. I stopped replying."

 

I don't deny that I flirted. I had interpreted Holly's behaviour as flirtatious and so thought there was mutuality. This is a misread that I've apologized for but, I'm far from delusional since others who witnessed our interactions also interpreted Holly's engagement with me as flirtatious. As for "over-familiarity", that had also been happening in both directions and our messages were going in both directions up until May 2024. (I still have them.) Holly had told me about some of her dating history, including things she said she hadn't told anyone else - which for me, created a sense of intimacy. She had offered to vote on which shirt I wore to the MIT debate - which also felt intimate to me. She had asked if she could come to my home for an LGB campout I was planning. She did tell me that she wasn't comfortable with flirting after we'd been in Cambridge together. After the debate, we'd all gone out to a bar and, afterwards, I was texting her goofy things like how I and another woman would compete for her heart. It hadn't been vulgar or sexual. It was playful and in good fun but, it made Holly uncomfortable. She said it wasn't me, just that flirting in general made her uncomfortable. I didn't flirt with her again. I didn't take "don't flirt" as "don't talk to me again." I have heard Holly's feedback that the messaging was more than she wanted. I would have appreciated gentle, respectful communication about what she wanted and needed. I would have been responsive to it. I genuinely cared about her and wanted to build a friendship and working relationship. It only took two unanswered messages for me to pick up on the fact that Holly was disengaging. I try not to make assumptions. There are a number of reasons for why a person might not be replying right away. We had just recorded a conversation together a week earlier, which seemed cordial. I saw no reason to assume that there was a big problem. 

 

 

"We got into an argument in which Aaron refused to believe that I hadn’t been interested in him. He asserted that I had been flirting with him, and offered as evidence that his colleagues agreed; in presenting this ‘evidence’ he revealed that he had been sharing screenshots of my direct messages with other people."

 

I wasn't trying to convince her that she was in fact into me. I was trying to explain that I had misread things because it appeared as though she had been flirting. Others had told me they thought she had been flirting. And some of our conversations had been of a personal nature, not just professional. I misread things. I was just trying to explain my misread. I was already feeling mortified by it and her sudden hostility. She then told me I was gaslighting her so, in an attempt to show her that I wasn't lying to her, I sent her screenshots of people saying that they thought we had chemistry. I did not share any screenshots of my conversation with Holly with friends. I was confused by the whole situation and asked members of the Courage Coalition if I had been imagining things, and Derek confirmed that they had indeed all interpreted Holly's interactions with me as flirtatious. I'm allowed to speak to my friends and witnesses to seek clarity. I was distressed by the suddenness of Holly's hostility, embarrassed by my misread, and hurt by this whole thing. It wasn't a "delusion". It was a misunderstanding, which I felt terrible about. 

​

 

"Aaron sent me emails on the 21st of May, 3rd of July, 18th of September, and 27th of September (and also 11th December, see below). I did not reply to any of these."

 

After the argument on Twitter, which to me seemed entirely based on misunderstandings, I did follow up with banal emails on the above dates, intended as olive branches, hoping to make amends. These were not romantic advances. In hindsight, I was looking for some reassurance that if we were to cross paths again in the movement that there was goodwill, given how uncomfortable the argument had been. I was feeling bad and anxious about it. 

​

 

The women from Stone Butch Disco were the first people to speak publicly about Aaron’s behaviour, announcing a split from him (and I really appreciate their solidarity on this point). Aaron subsequently threatened them with legal action, and they took the post down.

 

The post contained many falshoods which I was able to prove. My lawyers had that evidence and, given the reputational damage that false statement did, I was prepared to submit my evidence to court and seek compensation for damages. Fortunately, the Stone Butch Disco removed the post in compliance with a letter from my lawyer. I had hoped that would be the end of this whole ordeal, but then, Holly posted this statement, seemingly in retaliation.

​

 

Soon after the podcast episode, Aaron posted two Substack posts talking about me by name (here’s the first, on 4th December, and the second, on 18th December, courtesy of Wayback Machine). In the second, he shared screenshots of our direct messages from Twitter. He also embedded a video interview that we had recorded after the MIT debate to clarify his contribution there. I own the copyright to that video,

 

Regarding the Substack posts: The context is that instead of anyone communicating directly to me what concerns they had, my accounts were being trolled with accusations of sexual predation, and false allegations were being shared among my network of collegues in an attempt to alientate me from the movement. Any time I did an interview, those accounts were also trolled with accusations of predation. I found this extremely disturbing. Since those accusations were being made publicly, I felt it necessary to defend myself publicly.

 

As for the video interview, Holly had given me a hard copy of that footage with the full knowledge that I would be posting it publicly. That copy is mine. I don't know why Holly objects to it being posted publicly. It had already been posted to the LGB Alliance Australia YouTube and the Courage Coalition YouTube. Why not let people decide for themselves how our interactions appear if there's nothing to hide? My misread was innocent. Not a result of some grave mental health issue. I'm doing perfectly well. Thank-you for the concern. ​​

​​