In a week marked by legal battles and contentious rulings, the debate over transgender rights and free speech has taken center stage in both the United Kingdom and the United States, with cases ranging from workplace policy to military service and the boundaries of public discourse. Each decision, while rooted in unique circumstances, reflects the growing complexity and polarization surrounding issues of gender identity, discrimination, and the limits of legal protections.
On December 8, 2025, a UK employment tribunal in Dundee delivered a 312-page verdict in a case that has captured national attention. The dispute began at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy on Christmas Eve 2023, when nurse Sandie Peggie objected to sharing a changing room with Dr. Beth Upton, a transgender woman. Peggie brought claims of unlawful harassment, discrimination, indirect discrimination, and victimisation under the Equality Act against NHS Fife and Dr. Upton. While much of the media framed the outcome as a victory for Peggie, legal experts have clarified that only her claim of harassment against NHS Fife was upheld; all other claims, including those against Dr. Upton, were dismissed.
The tribunal found that NHS Fife had harassed Peggie by failing to revoke Dr. Upton’s permission to use the changing rooms on an interim basis after Peggie lodged her complaint. The ruling stated that once Peggie raised her concerns, alternatives should have been considered, and Dr. Upton’s access should have been temporarily suspended until new work rotas could separate them. Additionally, the tribunal criticized NHS Fife for taking an unreasonable amount of time to investigate Dr. Upton’s counter-allegations against Peggie, and for instructing Peggie not to discuss the case. The judgment also noted that officials had harassed Peggie by referencing patient care allegations during the investigation.
However, the tribunal also found that Peggie’s comments to Dr. Upton on Christmas Eve amounted to harassment and breached the NHS’s anti-bullying and harassment policy. According to the judgment, “Dr Upton had not falsely claimed that Mrs Peggie had been guilty of harassment, as Mrs Peggie had in some of her remarks impermissibly manifested her gender critical beliefs.” The tribunal concluded that Dr. Upton’s evidence was “more reliable and materially more cohesive in nature.”
Importantly, the ruling referenced a recent UK Supreme Court decision on the definition of ‘woman’ and clarified that it is not inherently unlawful for a trans female to use female changing rooms at work. “The tribunal was clear that the law does not now require banning trans people from single-sex spaces,” Jess O’Thomson of the Good Law Project told GCN. Human rights lawyer Olivia Campbell-Cavendish, Chief Executive of Trans Legal Clinic, praised the decision, stating, “The Tribunal has in fact found that trans women are women and shouldn’t be excluded from women’s single-sex spaces. This judgment exposes the gross misinformation being spread by groups who espouse extreme anti-trans rhetoric. They disingenuously claim that equality law has been rewritten to exclude trans people for political gain, even though this is not a legal reality. Today is a victory for Dr Upton and a victory for every trans person who has ever been made to feel unsafe in their own workplace, school or community. You are valid. You are protected. And we will continue to fight for you.”
Across the Atlantic, the battle over transgender rights has reached the highest levels of the U.S. judiciary. On December 9, 2025, a three-judge federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C., upheld a Trump-era policy that bans transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. The policy, directed by former President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, asserts that “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” The Pentagon’s guidance further claims that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The court’s majority, consisting of two Trump-appointed judges, dissolved a previous order that had blocked the policy while legal challenges continue. They argued that the policy “reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests,” and dismissed arguments that it was driven by animus toward transgender people. The policy does allow for limited waivers, but only for those who can demonstrate they have never transitioned or lived as their gender identity for a period of time.
A group of 20 active-duty transgender service members has filed a lawsuit, claiming the ban is discriminatory and violates their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law. In a sharply worded dissent, appellate judge Cornellia Pillard, appointed by Barack Obama, called the policy “openly hostile to transgender people” and said it is “based on nothing more than negative attitudes about transgender identity.” Pillard warned that the majority’s decision would result in “thousands of qualified servicemembers” losing their careers, “drawn up short by a policy that would repay their commitment and service to our nation with detriment and derision.”
Shannon Minter, legal director with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, told The Independent that District Judge Ana Reyes “correctly found that this ban causes irreparable harm and is rooted not in facts, data, or reason — but in animus. Notably, all three judges on today’s panel acknowledged that the ban is driven by animus. The court still has the opportunity to protect our troops and their families by upholding Judge Reyes’s decision.” Attorneys are set to return to federal court on January 22, 2026, to continue arguing against the administration’s ban.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, the intersection of free speech and anti-discrimination laws is being tested in a case involving Julie Mauck, a mother and real estate agent. In July 2023, Mauck attended a library meeting, urging officials to move a sexually explicit book out of the children’s section and warning that some pedophiles might claim LGBTQ+ membership. Transgender activists Felix Bell and Danielle Carmella Bonanno contacted Mauck’s real estate broker and the Georgia Association of Realtors, accusing her of calling the entire LGBTQ community “pedophiles” and seeking disciplinary action. Mauck’s broker subsequently stopped working with her, prompting her to suspend her business temporarily until she obtained her own broker’s license.
Mauck sued, but both a trial court and the Georgia Court of Appeals struck down her claim under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, which is intended to protect against lawsuits stifling public debate. Her attorney, Jonathan Vogel, has appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, arguing that the anti-SLAPP statute is being misused to shield those who allegedly mischaracterized Mauck’s speech and tried to get her fired. “Julie’s speech at the library, that’s the classic protected speech that the anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to protect,” Vogel told The Daily Signal. Doug Turpin, president of The Coalition for Liberty, warned that the appeals court ruling could set a precedent for activists to “knowingly lie about a person, get them fired, destroy their reputation, and then if somebody tries to fight back, they will be paying the legal fees.”
The Georgia Association of Realtors ultimately cleared Mauck of any ethics violations on appeal, and the library moved the contentious book to the adults’ section. Still, the case has sparked warnings from legal experts and advocates who fear that anti-SLAPP laws could be weaponized to suppress dissent and public debate. “If the Georgia Supreme Court doesn’t act, they’ll be enabling this kind of precedent to be used against ordinary people,” Turpin cautioned.
These three cases, each in their own way, highlight the evolving legal landscape around transgender rights, workplace policy, military service, and the boundaries of protected speech. As courts on both sides of the Atlantic grapple with these challenging questions, the outcomes are sure to reverberate far beyond the individuals involved, shaping the future of civil rights and public discourse for years to come.
