How genderism could have won

The Sandie Peggie tribunal is a reminder of why the justice system must remain free from ideological capture.

The list of people who have been harassed by their employers for stating irrefutable biological facts continues to grow. Sandie Peggie, a nurse at the Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy in Scotland, has finally been cleared of all wrongdoing in NHS Fife’s internal disciplinary investigation. And why had she been suspended and subjected to this eighteen-month ordeal? Because she had objected to a man being present in the women’s changing facilities.

It’s the kind of case that, just fifteen years ago, no sane person – on the left or the right – would have thought possible. Such has been the rapidity of the spread of genderism through our major institutions that NHS Fife is happy to shred the reputation of a nurse with an impeccable 30-year career simply because a man doesn’t know that he is male. The man in question is Dr Beth Upton, who refused to leave the female changing area when Peggie had asked him to, and accused her of ‘bullying’ for making this entirely reasonable request.

It is bad enough that NHS Fife wasted so much time dragging Peggie through a needless disciplinary rigmarole, but it has done so while her case against them is still ongoing. This tribunal has coincided with the Supreme Court ruling that sex in the Equality Act has always meant biological sex, which means that NHS Fife has been disregarding the law when it comes to its obligation to provide its employees with single-sex spaces. This is why this health board now finds itself in so much trouble.

The courts have proven to be the key to the collapse of gender identity ideology, precisely because they have necessitated the kind of scrutiny that activists have been at pains to avoid. Given that no one has ever been able to provide a satisfactory definition of ‘gender identity’, it is alarming that major institutions, corporations and even the police have been happy to demonise anyone who does not accept the belief-system as gospel. But this does raise an important question: what would have happened had the judiciary been similarly captured?

We might turn to the other side of the globe to see how such an eventuality can unfold. In August 2024, a judge in Australia ruled that ‘sex is changeable’ in the case of Sall Grover versus a man who calls himself Roxanne Tickle. Grover had barred Tickle from using her women-only app ‘Giggle’, and he had taken legal action. Not content with being awarded $10,000, Tickle is seeking further damages, and Grover is appealing. And all because a judge has allowed ideology to throttle his common sense. (You can support Grover’s case here.)

Tribunals such as the one concerning Sandie Peggie are significant because they are judicial processes, meaning that activists are obliged by law to answer questions truthfully. As in the cases of Maya Forstater in 2021 and Denise Fahmy in 2023, employers who have harassed gender-critical women have suddenly been forced to justify their actions publicly. The questions can no longer be evaded, and crying ‘no debate’ or ‘bigot’ is not an option.

— To continue reading this article, please consider becoming a paid subscriber —