Help David fight back. Donate now to support his legal case.
David Toshack was instantly dismissed from his role in Scotland as a trainee Prisoner Custody Officer at GeoAmey, a private company contracted by the government to supervise and escort prisoners across the UK. His alleged misconduct? Calmly expressing his view that sex is real, binary and immutable and that people cannot simply change sex at will.
Over five-weeks of training, David was, by all accounts, an exemplary employee. His performance was consistently praised, with instructors recording positive comments in his workbook such as: “well done”, “good effort”, “no issues”.
He also contributed thoughtfully to training session discussions. When the topic of managing transgender prisoners came up – men who identify as women and women who identify as men – he sometimes expressed the view that a person’s sex cannot be changed. Yes, he would treat all prisoners with respect, call them by their chosen name, and use non-gendered language where appropriate. But no, he could not, in good conscience, use pronouns that conflicted with biological reality and refer to a man as a woman and vice versa.
That approach went unchallenged until the final week of David’s training, when GeoAmey’s safeguarding lead asked him to leave the training session because he stated during a diversity discussion that he could only use correct sex pronouns.
Minutes later, David was marched to a meeting with company’s lead trainer and an HR representative during which he was told he was being dismissed with immediate effect because he was “not suitable” for the role due to his “strong beliefs”. The company stated that his refusal to call trans prisoners by their preferred pronouns – ‘she/her’ for biological men and ‘he/him’ for biological women – was incompatible with the company’s policies and “the law”, even though the belief he expressed, that sex is real, binary and immutable, has been designated a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010. No attempt was made by the company to reach a compromise or accommodate David’s protected belief despite his assurances that he would always use neutral language that ensured respect for all.
Instead, he was escorted from the training venue that same day.
The usual company disciplinary procedures were not followed, and no note of the meeting has ever been shared with him. He was given no advanced warning of his dismissal nor offered the right to be accompanied. Following an appeal process, the company changed the reason for his dismissal alleging that he had expressed his views in an aggressive manner, which is not borne out by their own contemporaneous documents.
These procedural failings reinforce the sense that the outcome had already been decided, and that the real issue was not David’s conduct or competence but his sex realist beliefs.
Please donate today.
Why this case matters
This is first and foremost a fight for justice. David was dismissed simply for politely expressing a protected belief that sex is real, binary and immutable. He was sacked from a job which he was really looking forward to starting after six weeks of intensive training.
David isn’t a provocateur or a campaigner. He didn’t impose his views on others, nor did he act with hostility or disrespect. He simply articulated, when asked, a belief held by many people of good conscience: that sex matters in policy and in law, and that biological truth should not be denied under pressure of institutional conformity. No one should lose their job for that.
The good news is that, with the FSU’s help, David is fighting back. Our legal team has done a lot of the preparatory work in-house to keep costs down. But we’ve now reached the point where expert legal representation is essential to pursue the claim through the Employment Tribunal and give David the best possible chance of success, we need your support.
David is represented by Employment Solicitor Margaret Gribbon, who is also acting for Sandie Peggie in her legal challenge against NHS Fife. Her involvement in both cases is a sign of how serious the threat to free speech in Scotland has become – and how vital it is that these cases are fought, and won.
David’s claim rests on three grounds under the Equality Act: that he was harassed at work related to his beliefs, in breach of Section 26; that he was treated less favourably, and ultimately dismissed, for expressing them, contrary to Section 13; and that the company’s internal policies amount to indirect discrimination, placing gender-critical employees at a particular disadvantage, in breach of Section 19.
But this case is about more than employment law. In addition to his Equality Act claims, David is also relying on the Human Rights Act 1998. Because GeoAmey performs a public function – including the secure escort and supervision of prisoners – it must act compatibly with fundamental rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and expression as set out in Articles 9 and 10. David argues that his dismissal breached those rights. His claim therefore raises not only issues of fairness and discrimination, but broader constitutional questions about how public authorities implement contested policies on sex and gender, and the limits of their power to compel ideological conformity in the workplace.
With your support, we can ensure this case is properly argued and fully heard. The funds raised will help cover legal fees for David’s legal team, disclosure work, witness preparation, and representation through to the final hearing.
Please donate today.
Scotland’s self-ID hangover – and what David’s case reveals
GeoAmey’s failure to respect David’s fundamental rights didn’t happen in a vacuum. It reflects a wider policy environment in Scotland shaped by the now-failed attempt to embed gender self-identification in law – an ideological high-water mark that many institutions have yet to acknowledge has receded.
The company’s training and policy documents, including materials presented during David’s induction, make clear that staff are expected to use trans prisoners’ preferred gender pronouns and to affirm their chosen identity. Staff are instructed to record gender identity, not biological sex, on escort paperwork, and to conduct searches on that basis. One training slide even advises: “You do not have to understand or agree with a trans person’s identity – but you do have to respect it. That means using the correct name and pronouns.” At no point do these materials acknowledge that some staff may hold legally protected beliefs about sex, or that neutral language might be permitted as a matter of conscience.
How did a company like GeoAmey end up enforcing such rigid rules with so little room for gender-critical belief? In its legal defence, the company says it was acting on instruction from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), whose transgender prisoner policy was drawn up in early 2024 when the Scottish Government was still attempting to pass its Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.
Many public bodies in Scotland – including the SPS, NHS trusts, and local authorities – developed internal rules around the anticipated passage of that legislation, assuming it would become law. When Westminster blocked it on constitutional grounds, most just left these new rules in place. They continued operating as though self-identification had legal force, leading to the steady erosion of sex-based safeguards in areas such as prisoner searches, facility allocation and single-sex services.
The SPS policy of requiring staff to use prisoners’ preferred pronouns is a clear example of this and continues to enforce the central premise of the rejected Bill: that gender identity alone should determine sex for official purposes, regardless of context, belief, or safeguarding concerns.
That approach is no longer sustainable. The recent ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2024] confirmed that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, sex means biological sex. The Inner House of the Court of Session also specifically rejected the idea that gender identity alone can override sex-based rights – and in April 2025, the UK Supreme Court upheld that judgment.
In this context, David’s case has the potential to serve as a much-needed wake-up call – not just for employers like GeoAmey, but for every public body still enforcing self-identification-style policies that have no basis in law and that conflict with the protected beliefs of those they employ.
Support the fight – donate today.
Any money raised above what’s needed will be used by the FSU to fight other, similar cases.
© Limited
