Yvonne van Dongen
Veteran NZ journo incredulous gender ideology escaped the lab. Won’t rest until reality makes a comeback.
The number of women harassed by their employers and/or colleagues for stating biological facts continues to grow.
Just last week we learned of three such cases – two in the UK and one in New Zealand. The successful outcomes in the UK cases contrast with the unsuccessful case here. Sex realists have to hope that the success of their UK counterparts may yet influence local events.
- On December 24, 2023, Sandie Peggie, a veteran nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, objected to sharing a female-only changing room with Dr Beth Upton, a transwoman. Upton then filed a complaint alleging bullying and harassment, leading to Peggie’s suspension in January 2024.
An internal disciplinary hearing by NHS Fife followed, alleging Peggie was guilty of gross misconduct. Eighteen months later, on July 14, 2025 Peggie was cleared of all charges due to insufficient evidence.
Peggie has also pursued an employment tribunal against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing sexual harassment and discrimination based on her gender-critical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal, which began in February 2025, resumed in mid-July 2025 and is expected to run 11 days.
The redoubtable Helen Joyce wrote on @HJoyceGender, Jul 19
Sandie was subjected to the modern-day equivalent of a witch-ducking. These people are monstrous. I remain bemused that NHS Fife hasn't publicly apologised, its senior leadership team haven’t all stepped down and they haven’t begged Sandie publicly to settle at any cost.
- This next UK case should sound a warning to NZ Police. In 2024 a UK gender critical lesbian, Linzi Smith, was investigated by the police for social media posts expressing her belief that biological sex is immutable. No charges were filed and, in March 2025, the police admitted their investigation was a mistake. They acknowledged that there was no victim in the alleged offence and offered a formal apology for the distress caused.
But Smith didn’t stop there. She then initiated a judicial review against Northumbria Police for allowing uniformed officers to participate in the 2024 Newcastle Pride event. She argued that such participation signalled institutional support for a controversial political stance on gender identity, conflicting with the police's duty of impartiality.
And she won! This month 2025, the High Court ruled in her favour, stating that the police’s actions breached their duty of impartiality. The Northumbria police force announced last week that they were removing all Pride colours from its livery. Officers and staff were also told they could not attend a Gay Price march in uniform this weekend.
So what about New Zealand? Isn’t it time NZ Police did the same? Ditch the diversity officers. Kick creepy trans officer Rhona Stace for touch. Stop marching in Pride parades.
Smith is still under the cosh though. She has been banned from attending Newcastle United football matches until 2026 after the club deemed her social media posts transphobic. Smith is challenging the ban, arguing that her gender-critical views are protected beliefs and that the club’s actions were discriminatory. Go Linzi!
- In New Zealand gender critical feminists have not been so fortunate. Last week we learned Christine Massof, an employee of 14 years at the Inland Revenue Department, had lost her case against the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) for constructive dismissal.
Her crime? A social media post on the work intranet. In response to news that the department would be providing period products in both male and female bathrooms, Massof posted:
This is awesome but a shame it took so long coming. And interesting, now that men can menstruate, free period products are available in IR bathrooms.
The IRD’s rainbow network complained they felt offended and upset. Massof then had a conversation with her manager and was given a warning letter about expressing views that could cause offence.
The incident left Massof feeling anxious and ostracised. She filed with the ERA that she had been unjustifiably disadvantaged and then she resigned. Later she raised a claim of unjustifiable constructive dismissal. She said the letter had silenced her and that Inland Revenue had imposed a bathroom policy on her without consultation.
But last week we learned that authority member Claire English said the letter was not a disciplinary outcome and did not impose disciplinary consequences on Massof. Hence this did not amount to a constructive dismissal.
That’s just July in New Zealand. Earlier this year we learned about the case of Wellingtonian Ann Elborn, a counsellor of 30 plus years. Twenty-one of her colleagues signed a letter to their professional body, the New Zealand Association of Counsellors (NZAC), calling for her permanent de-registration citing a single gender critical Facebook post and a picture of the writer wearing a gender critical T-shirt. In the letter to the NZAC, the word ‘harm’ or a version thereof was mentioned 34 times by the 21 complainants.
Elborn is unperturbed since she has since retired and resigned from the association but the level of hostility concerns her.
It is very serious calling for someone to be permanently de-registered and would likely lead to me losing my livelihood if I was still working and they were successful. Losing your professional registration means you are unable to get professional indemnity insurance and contracts with various agencies.
Elborn has been trying to raise concerns about gender ideology with the NZAC since 2021. She wrote letters and posts questioning gender orthodoxy on their Fb page. A number of her posts was taken down after a barrage of comments criticising her Terf opinions for being abusive.
Elborn realised that not only would alternative views not be tolerated on the NZAC Facebook page, but the organisation was actually running training that endorsed gender-affirming care and shut down alternative approaches.
In late 2024 she posted a Stuff article regarding the Ministry of Health’s Evidence Brief on Puberty Blockers, that indicated puberty blockers would be restricted (she also mentioned the Cass Review).
Reaction came quickly. One commenter referred to the Cass Review as “biased, unscientific, unethical and bigoted”. Other comments included “restricting access to (puberty blockers) is rooted in transphobia and will result in more harm”. Elborn was also accused of transphobia and her post was taken down.
The next day a new post went up asking that “people refrain from sharing material/opinions that provoke debate about their (transgender people’s) lives and identities”.
Elborn put in a complaint to the ethics committee of the association about her post being removed. The committee said they would make recommendations to the Facebook page moderators, but she has never learned what those recommendations were.
Finally, at the beginning of this year, Elborn and another colleague decided to put up another gender critical post on the association’s page, hoping that the climate might now be more welcoming. They called upon counsellors to adopt an open-minded approach in the light of recent developments such as the Cass review.
Instead of the discussion they had hoped for, their post prompted a pile on and the letter by the aggrieved 21.
In May this year she was interviewed on the Platform by Sean Plunket after an article I wrote on Substack about the attempt to silence Elborn. Not long afterwards, the NZAC announced on their Fb page that they would be shutting it down within 48 hours. One comment referenced the Substack article.
The next case came to light thanks to the social media posts of the ever predictable TRAs Paul Thistoll. Below is his X monicker. Not unhinged at all.
Jan Rivers is a merchant of hate
1 post
See new posts
This is what he wrote about Christine Gillespie.
Christine Gillespie has had the following restriction placed on her practice by PBANZ. This will fuck off Jan Rivers @swannieriv no end. We will complain about every transphobic health professional until they are all gone. Christine explicitly tried a defence. It flopped.
Christine Gillespie became the target of Thistoll’s animus in 2022 when she helped organise a conference titled Children, Adolescents and Gender – Impacts of Transgender Ideology, hosted by the Child and Adolescent Therapists Association (CATA).
Thistoll said the event promoted practices potentially violating New Zealand’s Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, particularly targeting gender-exploratory therapies. He contacted professional bodies and service providers, such as Eventbrite, which subsequently withdrew its ticketing services for the conference.
The NZAC caved almost immediately. In a letter to their 3200 members they wrote:
NZAC is concerned about the advertised conference, ‘Children, Adolescents and Gender Negative Impacts of Transgender Ideology’ being offered by the ‘Child and Adolescents Therapists Association of Aotearoa New Zealand’ (CATA) in August.
The proposed programme does not appear to be going to reflect best practices in working with transgender or gender-diverse children and adolescents. The presentations as described seem to pathologise transgender people and support conversion-style practices which are unethical, potentially illegal and contrary to the interests, well-being and safety of takatāpui and LGBTQIA+people. NZAC recognises that support for the best outcomes for transgender people, and those who care for them, require culturally appropriate, gender-affirming services.
The New Zealand Association of Counsellors does not condone or support therapeutic interventions, such as ‘Conversion Therapy’, that proactively aim to change a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression.
As Thistoll’s nemesis, Public Good’s Jan Rivers puts it:
The process is the punishment, plus Christine has been ordered to undergo “re-education”.
Finally, there is Momo St John. This one is especially concerning since it involves a journalist attempting to shame and silence a medical professional for airing views deemed unacceptable.
Momo St John is the anonymous X handle of a senior healthcare professional employed by Te Whatu Ora. A Stuff journalist, senior reporter Jody O’Callaghan “with a focus on Maori affairs and diversity”, identified Momo and contacted her employer regarding tweets perceived as controversial. This lead to an internal review by Te Whatu Ora in 2023.
The FSU waded in in support of Momo.
The message is nothing more than ‘We are going to publicly denounce you.’
The fake questions are framed to allow the branding of any careful and accurate answer as denialism, or equivocation, in the classic ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ genre.
Momo had hosted her social media profile for over 10 years before this incident. In response to the threats by O’Callaghan she released a statement which read:
What’s the story here?
If there is any story to follow O’Callaghan’s fake questions, they must depend on one or more of the following:
(1) The idea that it is “unsafe” to allow doctors to practice if they still believe in the science they learned and rely on, which denies that men can become women if they want; or
(2) It may be safe to allow doctors to practice while not believing in the new ruling dogma on gender as long as they never express their doubts about the new faith publicly; or
(3) That someone who believes that racism in rationing healthcare is wrong will be dangerous to patients who would ‘benefit’ from getting a race pass to the front of the queue; or
(4) There is nevertheless some technique or way for a doctor who believes that racism in healthcare is wrong to “ensure” that their opposition to racism won’t “sway how” [they] treat [their] patients.
The FSU pointed out:
This is a very dangerous takeover of state powers. It treats the idea of the tolerant secular state, which drove the NZ Bill of Rights Act protections of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, as quaint anachronisms – to be ignored. ...
Ms Callaghan and her enablers in Stuff need to answer some questions themselves – genuine ones this time.
Are doctors not allowed to have opinions themselves? What opinions are forbidden? What if until recently discrimination was considered wrong? At what stage should people with newly-'sinful' views be considered to have become dangerous? Who will decide? Have you asked the patients – what if they still want doctors who have the courage to resist ideological bullies? Have you asked if the trans and Māori you pretend to care about should get a choice? As a journalist are you worried if it becomes routine for people to hide their views – because your questions seem to rely on an assumption that things could be fine if the ‘sinful’ thoughts had been harbored unsaid.
There are scores more pertinent questions to put to Ms Callaghan and Stuff.
Have you another line of views and jobs that can’t be mixed? Where is your evidence that the views you are trying to smoke out, are associated with risks? How will you ensure that your views won’t sway and bias the ‘news’ you supply to the people who rely on Stuff to be informed? Are you perpetuating mistrust among those of us who seek objective and factual reporting?
Stuff should not be allowed to get away with doxxing medical staff for ‘wrongthink’? Our professionally conducted annual survey of academic freedom shows the pervasive fear now in our Universities; that a career-ending mistake could come from incautious expression of doubt in the current Wellington orthodoxy.
While the incident was covered by NewstalkZB, it was not tackled by any other mainstream outlet. Obviously the FSU is doing the job of the MIA media.
As a result, the anticipated article by Stuff was not published, and Momo St John kept her position without formal disciplinary action. Te Whatu Ora did not go ahead with punitive measures, recognizing her right to personal expression.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
