Is gender ideology a threat to national security? It may seem like a ludicrous question, but aside from the civilizational question of collective sanity (not to mention morality), it appears that some trans activists are intent on ensuring that it becomes one.
Thankfully, their crusade is being exposed. A Porton Down scientist, who worked for fifteen years at a top-secret U.K. defense laboratory, has won his case against trans activists intent on getting him marginalized and fired for his “gender-critical” views.”
As a scientist at Porton Down developing technology to secure Britain’s defences, Peter Wilkins never imagined he would be considered a threat because of a belief in biology. But when he stated his gender-critical views and support for the concept of immutable sex, Wilkins was reported for his “ideology” and labelled by colleagues as transphobic, “sad and pathetic” and “a rubbish employee.”
Wilkins was not labeled a “rubbish employee” for his actual work on behalf of the defense of Great Britain. No, he was referred to as garbage for affirming the male-female sex binary. The campaign against him initially worked, with trans activist employees creating what an employment tribunal recently called “clear hostile animus” towards Wilkins, who was forced to leave the top-secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DTSL) as a result. Wilkins, not incidentally, is both a scientist and a Christian.
The Times reported that Wilkins faced an “intimidating atmosphere [that] resulted in harassment and discrimination,” but that senior officials “failed to address the behaviour:” due to an “‘unblinking desire’ to support the pro-trans lobby.” Again: this did not happen at a university or hipster coffee shop. This happened at a top secret defense laboratory.
“It’s a scientific organization,” Wilkins told the Times. “So it shouldn’t be unacceptable to use the phrase biological sex. I was never looking for DSTL to endorse my beliefs, or for anything to be said against people on the other side of the debate. But it just felt very one-sided. And it was pretty hurtful, really, having spent 15 years working for DSTL on some things which were high-security, to be told that we think you’re a security risk because you have these fairly normal, run-of-the-mill, factual beliefs about sex and genders.”
Re-read that for a moment: Peter Wilkins was told that he was a “security risk” for affirming the male-female sex binary. For those who believe that it is hyperbolic to conclude that gender ideology is a national security issue: What do you think now?
The employment tribunal, led by Judge Gary Self, stated that senior officials were neglecting their obligation to be “impartial,” and reiterated that “gender-critical views” are protected under the Equality Act. Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union, an organization which supported Wilkins, was more succinct: “They’re meant to be fighting world wars, not culture wars.”
It reminded me of an old joke from Mark Steyn, which seems far less funny at present: “We’ll be arguing about transgender bathrooms when the Ayatollahs nuke us.” I doubt even Steyn could have predicted a scientist at a top secret defence lab getting forced out because he affirmed that there are only two sexes.
As the Times noted, Wilkins wasn’t the only one targeted by a trans activist purge: “In August 2021, when the neuroscientist Sophie Scott was awarded the Royal Society’s Michael Faraday prize, a DSTL employee wrote on the internal blog that it was ‘pretty disheartening’ given that Scott was ‘well known for her non-inclusive views on trans and non-binary people.’ Another wrote that it emboldened transphobes.”
Remember: these are the people tasked with keeping Great Britain safe, and they appear far more concerned about policing pronouns than U.K. security. In an increasingly dangerous world, they want to make sure that defence personnel are ready and willing to call Steve, who wears a dress, “she/her” when asked to.
Indeed, one DTSL insisted that Wilkins’ views were “abusive.” Another called them “bigotry.” Wilkins noted that it was stunning that he was flagged “in the same way as if I was expressing support for the provisional IRA or al-Qaeda.”
Wilkins did not respond in kind but asked management to intervene. The tribunal found that they did not, in large part because they viewed the DTSL’s sexual orientation and gender identity network, Prims, “as a powerful force within the organization and were loath to do anything to go against [or] upset that body.” The tribunal did not comment on the bizarre fact that a top secret defence laboratory has an internal LGBT activist group influencing its operations. This used to be called “mission drift.”
It gets worse. Paul Kealey, the head of counterterrorism at Porton Down, was pinpointed by the tribunal for special criticism. Kealey told Wilkins that his views were “permitted,” but that it was “not OK to express such views in the workplace.” According to the Times:
The tribunal detailed how he created a “hostile and intimidatory environment” for Wilkins and encouraged staff to pick a side, including lobbying on the blog over the conversion therapy ban and to support reform of the Gender Recognition Act … Kealey, a finalist for advocate of the year at the LGBTQ+ Defence Awards in November, “lost sight of his obligation to be impartial in line with the civil service code.”
Wilkins resigned from DTSL in November 2022, “citing a hostile, intimidating and degrading environment,” and now works in the private sector. DTSL will have to pay “substantial damages.”
As Harris told the Times: “Peter was exquisitely patient in pointing out, again and again, that DSTL cannot demean employees for holding the ‘wrong’ view about sex and gender. DSTL’s response that it is ‘not OK’ to express gender-critical views in the workplace was a flagrantly unlawful suppression of our member’s freedom of speech. We expect DSTL now to put its house in order, and to respond accordingly to the tribunal’s finding of serious breach of the Civil Service Code by senior employees.”
I am glad that Wilkins won, but his case has exposed a far more serious problem. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: “Look how far the termites have spread and how long and well they’ve dined.”
