Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #68

I used to teach biology. Are my textbooks science fiction?

Oh my goodness the defence is batshit. I have now cleared my diary for this case.

The respondent defends the latter claim by pleading that evidence-based medicine is just an opinion,

I just read that out to DH (DPhil in an area of medicine). You know when they describe someone, 'his eyes popped out of his head'...?

I listened to that one at the weekend, it was excellent.

Not very reassuring to anyone at all on any kind of medication making a blanket statement like that. It doesn't exactly fill you with confidence in the NHS does it? What's the actual point of clinical trials of any medication, NICE, etc., if it's all very nebulous? Wacko statement. I wonder if their lawyers saw it. If they did then, that's even more bonkers.

and this tweet is useful too on the same subject

https://x.com/IsntWorkingPod/status/2105400324651692201?s=20

Me too. And I thought we'd already scraped the barrel of audacity but no, NHS Sussex ICB have requested someone to hold their coat.

I always recommend that people read this article about pronouns. It first appeared on MN in 2019 and the poster was banned for a week. How times have changed.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

Note that the author talks about the Stroop test, which you can try here:
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/words.html#seffect

For those who don't follow links, I reproduce some extracts from the article Pronouns are Rohypnol and from the Stroop test here, and I am confident that many posters on this thread will have conducted these exercises already.

But if you are keen on being kind or polite and using preferred pronouns, the following two exercises might be helpful to understand why many of us are not happy.

The Stroop test: Do NOT read the words...rather, say the color of the words. For example, if the word "BLUE" is printed in a red color, you should say "RED". Say the colors as fast as you can. It is not as easy as you might think!

The next test is to re-translate all the transgender articles and comments that refer to the gender identity rather than the biological sex of the person. Change the pronouns back to sex-based pronouns, nouns and original names.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, yes? It shouldn’t matter. No-one else will be hurt or affected by this private experiment. It’s entirely between you, and your own resilient mind.

Be honest with yourself.
You may discover that, despite yourself, you have a viscerally different reaction to what is before your eyes.
Same story, same players, same core knowledge.
Different pronouns, different reaction.

[Incongruent pronouns] dull your defences. They change your inhibitions. They’re meant to. You’ve had a lifetime’s experience learning to be alert to ‘him’ and relax to ‘her’. For good reason. This instinctive response keeps you safe. It’s not even a conscious thing. It’s like your hairs standing on end. Your subconscious brain is helping you not get eaten by the sabre tooth tiger that your eyes haven’t noticed yet.

Thank you for reading.

Naomi tweets:
For CVP log-in, email [email protected] citing Redvers v NHS Sussex 6020988/2024.

Well... my experience of health care has been mostly limited to maternity care and quite a lot of that didn't seem to have been properly evaluated, and was just introduced and then sometimes, oh whoops, this is harmful. But I would be surprised if a health authority was prepared to admit to that.

But back in the 1950s we as children were regularly dosed with aspirin. Now they don't recommend that it's given to children.

Wow I thought @spannasaurus was being humourous

From the Tribunal tweets substack

"Her legal claim is discrimination on the grounds of her employer’s perception that she had gender critical beliefs and on the grounds of her protected belief in evidence-based medicine. The respondent defends the latter claim by pleading that evidence-based medicine is just an opinion, not cogent or coherent and not relevant to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour."

So NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board doesn't believe in evidence-based medicine?

Well fuck me. This should be more than interesting(!)

I haven't seen their defence but, if they have said anything like this, I would have asked them if they were really sure they wanted to say that if I was advising them.

Dr S Redvers is claiming a protected belief of evidence based medicine. The NHS response is that integrity evidence-based medicine is just an opinion, not cogent or coherent and not relevant to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

Wow! That's going to be a corker giving us more information on what was really happening at at Sam Hall's GP practice.

Stuart Fraser doesn't have a background in nursing but is from customer services which could cover a multitude of sins. He had only been an RCN rep for a couple of years when Sandie contacted him. He immediately jumped to the conclusion that Sandie was in the wrong on a disciplinary for misgendering & harassing Upton. His aim was just to mitigate any punishment hence his throwaway attitude that Sandie should regard her suspension as a holiday. He was so captured by Genderism that he failed to appreciate that it was his member who had been harassed by finding a man in the female changing room.

This particularly tribunal is/may be crucial to all relevant and future cases because those earning the ‘big bucks’ are going to have to justify their decisions. So much is now out in the open with DN’s winning, one appeal ongoing and the RCN to be decided.The focus will be away from SP and DU’s original confrontation per say but should be on the decision making processes and their implications/implementations for patients and medical staff and hospital estates. It should be solely around the individuals named, their decisions and subsequent implementation into the working practices of the institutions employing them and the professional and legal advice relied upon. Was it legal? Time they stood up to be counted and hopefully admit they simply got it wrong, some of it at least, and simply apologise, agree to put it right, no delaying tactics and definitely no NDA’s. Back to DU, wasn’t he insistent on SP writing an apology as part of her censure and accepting his right into women’s sss, that should have been a red flag to the RCN that all was not as it seemed.

It's part of the second first-instance tribunal against NHS Fife employees, based on facts that emerged during the first first-instance tribunal against NHS Fife and employees. I don't think we have a firm date yet. Keep your 2027 diary open - it should be another humdinger.

If SF had recorded that SP had complained that "a transwoman" was in the changing room, or "Dr Upton", with an explanation that her objection was that DrU was a transwoman but she believed that DrU was biologically male, or any other neutral position, I'd concede. But he changed her statement to reflect his/RCN's values.

yes, especially since all the indications are that Dr Upton is what I'd call a Bog Standard Basic (Straight) Bloke.

People with differences in sexual development have nothing to do with this situation under discussion whatsoever so hopefully we've heard plenty about that already, and will hear no more.

Thank you. I’ll do some routine maintenance on the popcorn conveyor belt so that it’s good to go.

Thank you! Interesting.

It does seem a little odd that the RCN are both modifying SPs words to sanatise them in line with the ideology adopted by their management team (thereby making SP's compliant less clear) whilst at the same time claiming that the words SP used did not make clear that she was exercising her legal protection of the belief that biological sex is binary.

Be careful what you wish for, we could have another full afternoon of the differences in sex development again, which is not at all relevant to the proceedings. 😀

Another case to watch
[https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2107802375343739013?s=20]