"The version of gender identity theory embraced by ERCC (described by the Tribunal as “dogmatic”, “extreme”, and “hardline”) is one that is not compatible with the requirements of tolerance. A central feature of this worldview is that dissent is transphobic and must be quashed. The Tribunal itself found that Mridul Wadhwa believed that all sex realist views were transphobic and that firing employees with those views was important for achieving inclusivity. Those beliefs are not compatible with tolerance and, in this extreme form, may not even be worthy of protection under the Equality Act. It is in no way incumbent upon a court or tribunal to remain neutral between those beliefs and the beliefs of Roz Adams, described by the Tribunal as “generally trans positive but also sex realist”.

Tolerance of different world-views is important but it cannot require a court or tribunal to purport to neutrality between sex realism and gender identity theory in contexts when our law requires one to notice and respect the reality of sex. This tribunal clearly did take a side. It followed the law and came down on the side of the “careful, credible and reliable witness” who was just trying to do her job by putting the rights of rape victims at the heart of her work. An extreme worldview that includes the belief that people like Roz Adams should be hounded out of employment in the name of inclusivity is not compatible with the tolerance required of our law."

https://thecritic.co.uk/why-roz-adams-won/