Herald headline about NHS Fife

That’s how they generally turn out, but it isn’t what they are supposed to be about.

Wow, that's outrageous.

I hope they are in the process of reversing that decision, because they can surely be made to do so now.

This doesn't surprise me in the least, in fact I'd only be surprised if they HAD done one.

In any case, don't impact assessments only look at the impact on the trans people, like the Scottish prison assessment which only looked at how the TiM prisoners would like to be accommodated, and failed to ask the women who would be incarcerated with them?

I thought this part of NHS Fife's statement was really interesting:

"We are committed to working constructively with the EHRC to provide assurance that we fully understand, and are meeting, our obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. This includes considering the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC’s interim guidance."

I thought this might get dealt with as a slap on the wrists for not having a policy in place, and that NHS Fife would get away with having an assessment that was very pro-gender ideology. So this action from EHRC would essentially demoted to a punishment for an admin oversight rather than a full breach of equality rights.

But.....

As NHS Fife has acknowledged the SC ruling in its statement and says it will take account of the EHRC interim guidance in its Impact Assessment, surely it seems hopeful that it will have to be respectful of single-sex rights? You can't follow the guidance and the ruling, and still insist that men can enter women's spaces.

And then, if that IS the case and by 30/9 NHS Fife acknowledge that men can't enter women's spaces, what impact does that then have on the outcome of the tribunal?

Exactly. This has been the case in many public organisations across all of the UK.

Arf! 😁

NHS Fife quote from the article

“Our priority is to ensure that all NHS Fife policies and practices protect the rights of our staff and comply fully with equality legislation.”

Why am I finding that very hard to believe?

Yes, I’ve seen an EIA done by an education trust to justify making the toilets mixed sex. It was an absolute joke. Not surprisingly it concluded that mixed sex toilets are not detrimental to girls at all 🙄

I ripped it to shreds but they stuck to their guns knowing their was nothing I could do to make them do it properly.

https://x.com/EHRCScotland/status/1955948088679367027

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/equality-regulator-directs-nhs-fife-take-action-ensure-compliance-public-sector

The word 'urgent' is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting here.

Has the good Law Project opined that this ´means nothing’ yet?
Dear old India had a melt down in the car?

how’s everyone taking it?

At this rate, maybe Sandie Peggie will have grounds to sue the board and potentially individuals on it. Trustees carry legal obligations. They are entrusted.

I was going to ask whether Sandie could take any legal action.

I’m morbidly fascinated (and made even more pissed off) by the fact that NHS Fife now seems to have been running three parallel process.

1 The Employment Tribunal defending themselves and Dr Upton

2 The disciplinary proceedings against Sandie Peggie for alleged misconduct

3 These remedial assessments and reviews as being negotiated since Feb 21 2025 with the EHRC.

Were there any personnel in common? If not, why not? Surely the board knew, and their senior legal and HR advisers?

How much was held back from the ET? From the Scottish information commissioner? Is Big Sond following this ‘with great interest’?

At this rate, maybe Sandie Peggie will have grounds to sue the board and potentially individuals on it. Trustees carry legal obligations. They are entrusted.

Yes, it’s impressive. I’m pleased Maya was also described correctly.

Maya Forstater, CEO of human rights charity Sex Matters said: "This directive to NHS Fife is an unprecedented intervention from the EHRC and the kind of muscle that has been lacking from regulators across the board since gender ideology first took hold of public institutions.

"While long overdue, this is a clear instruction to NHS Fife – and in fact all employers – that it cannot get away with continuing to flout the Equality Act.

"There have been relentless efforts to undermine the Supreme Court judgment since it was handed down, including organisations promoting the idea that it is difficult to understand, or that the rules protecting female-only spaces cannot be policed or should be up for negotiation.

"This leads to women being subjected to bullying, harassment and discrimination if they stand up, as Sandie Peggie did, for their right to undress with dignity and privacy.

"The EHRC is the Equality Act’s policeman and it has the power to hold employers, service providers and public sector bodies to account. Other regulators should also step up and do their job."

Isla will download one from Google. It’s not a problem.

Is there anyone here who can explain what an equality impact accessment involves, please? I get that, basically, it means the organisation has to do some thinking about a change they're about to implement and how they go anout it.

But who are they required to consult? Who judges whether they've done a proper one?

Edited tobadd: TIA

If it's anything like the one ScotGov did it will only look at gender reassignment as that is what they are aiming to impact, and all of the other categories will be N/A

Two different but connected things

They should have done the assessment as part of the "transgender" policies so broke the law by not doing one.

There should be a mimimum of 2 other parties to whom they owe a duty of care (1) patients (2) staff.

But if there was one likely it would have found that Upton should be allowed use the womens (staff only) changing room.

They would have written down the thought process which concluded that Upton had to be recognised as a woman by all members of staff who were using the womens changing room.

Remember there were staff in positions of authority who wanted to call the police in for the crime of refusing to be watched by a man while changing clothing and having the cheek to say that to the watching man.

Had they been proactive and done a document check before the case they could (well should) have realised that they had not the document on file and then that it was never done. At this stage they could (should have before comitting to court action) have carried out the assessment. Again due to timing (pre SC case that TWANW) they could have used the same process and produced a document which said Upton had a right to use the womens changing room.

The lack of documentation or a choice to have a lack of documentation is a problem.

This lack of consideration coupled with Uptons statements (that he expcted other staff to bring him to a woman who asked for a woman doctor) highlights a failure of management at all levels to properly assess the impact of employing staff who claim to be the other sex in an environment where sex can really matter.

Where does this leave Sandie and the tribunal?

Hoping our legal eagles can offer an opinion on what might happen now.

Surely this has to be the biggest red herring ever?

Surely an EIA could be done as follows - "we know many women like single sex spaces for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety, and we know many women need them for reasons of religion or their experience of sexual assault, and therefore it is 100% obvious we need to have single sex spaces".

An EIA on additional mixed sexed spaces would be more interesting - weighing up the desires of some men to access vulnerable women, and the virtue signalling of some women who claim to be fine with mixed sex spaces (but can we trust them when they tell us that), with the cold hard fact that to allow mixed sex changing rooms is by definition to increase the risk of women being sexually assaulted?

I cannot see how an employer can consent to providing facilities that the employer knows puts women at increased risk of assault, even if (some) women say they don't mind the additional risk.

Archive:

archive.is/1mXIy

I wonder if equalities lead Isla Bumba has ever heard of an equality impact assessment till now.

Yes, very clear and powerful comment from Maya.

I love Maya’s quote in this story. It’s a great summary of where we are - gender ideology has taken hold of so many public institutions and they are using weasel words to break the law. They must be held to account - every last one of them.