Spoiler Alert
One must assume from reading the Sandie Peggie judgment that the tribunal was more concerned with discouraging further litigation than with giving full and fearless effect to the Equality Act.
At the heart of this case lies a straightforward question: does a biologically male employee have a legal right to undress in a female-only changing room? For Women Scotland answered that question at the Supreme Court: women-only spaces are for biological women.
Yet instead of applying that binding precedent, the tribunal awarded Sandie Peggie a technical win based primarily on procedural failings and delay, while simultaneously undermining the legitimacy of her core complaint. The effect is a ruling that says: “You were treated badly, but only because you reacted to a situation we pretend has no legal significance.”
For Women Scotland affirmed that sex in law means biological sex – not gender identity. That matters because single-sex spaces exist specifically to recognise biological difference. The tribunal contradicted that point. It acknowledged that one person was biologically female and the other biologically male, then declared that this distinction becomes irrelevant once clothing is removed – precisely when women are at their most vulnerable.
In doing so, the tribunal ignored sex-based protections contained within the Equality Act at the very moment they are most needed.
The technical win deserves scrutiny. It is a sophisticated manoeuvre: the judgment is generous enough to grant Peggie a partial win, but not so generous as to uphold all her claims. It is, arguably, a savagely ingenious move – providing just enough success to dull enthusiasm for appeal, while ensuring that the most legally explosive question continues to bend to stonewall. The message is unmistakable: accept your crumbs and walk away.
The outcome is a legally incoherent position: sex is relevant enough to identify, but too controversial to enforce. The tribunal elevated employer preference above statutory entitlement. Because NHS Fife allowed a biologically male colleague into a women-only space, the court treated Peggie’s objection as unreasonable. When policy choices override legal rights, those rights have already been hollowed out.
One of the most troubling passages asserts there is insufficient evidence that a male person poses greater risk than a woman does. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of safeguarding. Safeguarding is not reactive – it is preventative. It exists because vulnerability begins at exposure. Voyeurism, indecent viewing, intimidation – these harms do not require physical contact. The tribunal’s logic would justify installing smoke alarms only after the fire has started.
In addition, there is a distinct tone of moral superiority: gender-critical beliefs are technically lawful, yet treated as socially defective. The implication is that Peggie was protected not because she was right, but because the law is obliged to tolerate her. A right that survives only in silence is no right at all.
This judgment leaves employers without clarity and women with fewer rights. The purpose of a judgment is not to maintain institutional comfort. It is to state the law. Peggie’s case presented a direct conflict – gender identity versus sex-based boundaries. The tribunal refused to resolve it in accordance with precedent. That refusal is the failure.
This is why Peggie should, in my view, appeal. Not for a different trophy, but because the law needs the courage this judgment lacked. If allowed to stand, it will be provided as proof of the proposition that single-sex rights are discretionary. That women’s privacy is conditional.
The emotional toll of continuing is something we should all recognise. Sandie Peggie has already shown a resilience most people will never be asked to demonstrate. But rights that depend on the stamina of those who defend them are already eroding.
Where fear governs the interpretation of rights, those rights are already being lost.
When Sandy launches her appeal, I promise to support it financially. I’m sure there are many others, here and elsewhere, who will do the same.
?
I would definitely support a crowd funder for an appeal on point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal thence back to the Supreme Court if necessary. What must be understood is that for transactivist-captured organisations, the process (and cost) is the punishment for sex realists asserting their rights. This situation is akin to Miller’s ‘The Crucible.’ The overpowering of Reason by idiotic ideology that some people benefit from. Follow the money. Follow Big Pharma. This fight isn’t going away and we have to understand this.
Judge Rinder.
I absolutely would donate to a crowd funder for an appeal as well.
I had made an argument in the previous thread that the Government needs to get involved in this.
I know that government interference in the judicial and legal system is a dangerous path to go down but it seems that with every judgement made on this issue ends up as a fudge that tries to both appease woman and the Trans community.
Of course, it is essential to separate government from the legal system but what is to be done on this issue when plain facts of the definition of a woman is being ignored?
The Tribunal HAD to come out in favour of Sandy Peggie. They could not have done otherwise. That is I think crystal clear.
The grounds however for their decision in favour of Sandie Peggy are not clear and in fact are obfuscating and or misleading. That however, in the politically screwed up country that Scotland is comes as no surprise.
So yes, Swinney and his government, and the accolyte managers in the NHS have lost. And for that they should be punished. Rotten, corrupt and vicious managers, albeit bending to the politicos, should be punished. That is the only way this nonsense is stopped.
And for that reason their could well be grounds for Sandy Peggie to appeal certain aspects of her overall favourable result. That of course is a big ask since she has had two years of her life brutalised because a biological guy wanted to swing his dick in the women’s changing room.
Good article Rev Stu. 8lluminating what the others do not illuminate.
I am not sure where is Sandie is based, but if Sandie Peggy is able to use Article XV111 in Scotland she should, this would gives her ” Private Rights ” as a biological woman, to private spaces, as set out in the treaty of union,
As private rights are for the evident utility of the subjects of Scotland, people based in Scotland cannot be altered, to public rights or superceded by public law,
I also would have thought as a side comment that Sandie Peggy could request thave a private right to a trial in Scotland with a full jury.
If she is based in Scotland.
As the house of lords stated that the Private rights in Scotland make the treaty of union incomplete as it cannot be altered and is a article entrenched into the treaty,
All women in Scotland should use article XV111 in and included as it is a private right of biological women and their private spaces even in public arena, due to public amenities and public bodies not allowed to supercede Scots private rights as set out.
The public bodies must be reminded, including courts , that they would not only breach the treaty of union but would end it.
It is a powerful tool for women in Scotland right now, that the rest of Britain does not have.
Scotland’s judges are moral cowards.
Women in Scotland could back the Snp and government and courts into a corner on a case of breaching article XV111 over the Private Rights of biological women issue.