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

Would suggest that your 'at this point' is redundant!

Still, at least we are talking about Sandie and the RCN.

Exactly.

And either way, DU claimed to be biological and a woman.

But what Sandie was objecting to was precisely that there was a MAN in the changing room. If you alter her report to include the pronoun "she", you obfuscate that and make it appear that she objected to the presence in the changing room of a particular kind of woman, namely a transwoman.

That is precisely the move that makes it possible to misconceive her objection as an instance of transphobia - "I don't want 'her' there because she is trans."

The trans status of Upton wasn't something that concerned Sandie. She objected to a man. Rewording her objection in precisely the way that facilitates the misrepresentation of her complaint is a big failure.

And it has nothing to do with "kindness" or being trans-friendly. Upton wasn't reading the report.

ETA: Crucially, it was SP's report of the incident that was reworded in this way. It wasn't a perspectiveless account; it was a summarised version of HER account. And her account was of a man in the changing room

it might be irrelevant to SP and to you, but it's not irrelevant to DU and other people who don't share this gender critical lens. DU is a person who identifies as trans. The RCN are entitled to recognise that and chose to respect DU's pronouns.

DU was not a party to this Tribunal. It was entirely between Sandie Peggie and the RCN, so how DU identifies was at that point irrelevant.

@Lacksie

You're right, I am sure lots of them do have beliefs that directly conflict with sandi's (that's why we're here after all because the organisation is entirely captured)

But it is not appropriate for them to fly the flag for their beliefs and disregard Sandi's at this point in the process.

At this stage they were information gathering, collecting her account and should not have changed the basis of the information they gathered from Sandi. It should have reflected her words accurately. They didn't even go gender neutral. SF made the decision to go with the conflicting belief system (Gender-Based pronouns rather than sex-based) undermining Sandi's position.

The fact that they have changed what she said to reflect their own belief that TWAW is exactly why she's got a case.

She wasn't complaining that there was a person identifying as trans in the changing rooms, he may also be a vegetarian, a Capricorn or a line dancer, she wasn't complaining about any of those either.
The reason for her complaining is because he was a male in the changing rooms.

yes I understand SP's perspective.

The fact he is also trans is as irrelevant as my suggestions above

it might be irrelevant to SP and to you, but it's not irrelevant to DU and other people who don't share this gender critical lens. DU is a person who identifies as trans. The RCN are entitled to recognise that and chose to respect DU's pronouns. It may suggest that they don't share SP's gender critical perspective , but they are not legally required to do so. What matters is they support SP as they would any other nurse, regardless of her beliefs about sex and gender and whether they agree or disagree with those.

You are right to see that the poster is well aware of this.

Now you’re doing the same disingenuous not-acknowledging-the-issue as DU.

Everyone acknowledges DU as identifying-as-trans. The complaint was because of his male sex, not because he identifies as trans.

Recognising him as trans is not a context in which it’s appropriate to change the stated nature of the problem into something else you don’t think is a valid reason to complain when transcribing the nature of the complaint in your own notes.

If you are taking somebody's statement / account as to what happened, it should always be in their own words, regardless as to the scribe's ideological beliefs. Sandie has a protected belief and her statement / account as to what happened should have been her words used. That's a very basic investigative requirement really. If SF can't do that, he shouldn't be a union rep.

@Lacksie
So even if the RCN think trans is relevant, to purposely change the pronouns from he to she downplays the male element and whole focus of her complaint

@Lacksie
Yes, but you are deliberately misunderstanding I think at this point.

She wasn't complaining that there was a person identifying as trans in the changing rooms, he may also be a vegetarian, a Capricorn or a line dancer, she wasn't complaining about any of those either.

The reason for her complaining is because he was a male in the changing rooms. The fact he is also trans is as irrelevant as my suggestions above.

Not a person identifying as trans, which was the stance that Upton took and you take

But factually, DU is a person who identifies as trans. To SP that might not seem relevant, but others- including the RCN - are entitled to recognise that context as being relevant. It doesn't follow that they are discriminating against SP.

Definitions matter. This was no longer a single sex space. It was a space defined as universal or unisex. It wasn’t even a gender neutral space. There is no such definition for gender neutral in any regulations or legislation. It’s a nonsense term.

The only way for TRAs to avoid confronting this issue is to be disingenuous about what the objection is. Hence Upton “I don’t understand what you mean, biological sex is a nebulous dogwhistle.”

Because to explain in simple words to Lacksie, Sandie Peggie was complaining about a man, any man, in the women's changing room. Not a person identifying as trans, which was the stance that Upton took and you take.

But sorry to the rest of the posters: I shouldn't react to a timewaster on a thread.

SF could have put her remarks in quotations to show that it was her words. Or he could have changed it and put a statement to say that her complaint had been modified to represent preferred pronouns of DU. By changing it without such a statement, he didn't make an accurate record of her complaint.

It’s the same argument as to why it’s offensive to rewrite someone’s complaint of rape or sexual assault to refer to the attacker as “she”. It undercuts the understanding of the experience of the complainant by misrepresentation their words.

Or it just shows that the RCN take a different approach - one which involves respecting individuals' pronouns. That's perfectly fine.
The RCN aren't required to adopt SP's beliefs or approach, they are just required to provide the same advocacy services/ support for her in relation to the disciplinary proceedings as they would any other nurse.

Because if they do stock it, it backs the 'happy to, if only someone had asked' rather than 'we don't sell badges for bigots' argument.

Appeals leading to a re-hearing are rare, but we know they happen so I'd not be handing them a defence.

Why? It is already true that nobody in RCN raised any objection, when asked, to the idea of stocking merchandise in support of people with sex realist views.

The one thing I wondered is whether it was a wrong note for the badge to say it was supporting "staff" with sex realist views (rather than, say, "people" i.e. including patients). I don't think any of the pp merch says similar - closest I could find was "celebrate diversity, equality, and inclusion within nursing" which certainly sounds as though the point is to support the staff.

Yes, you're right FanofBen - it was 'quick as possible'.

While I love the badge and letter, it might have been prudent to wait until the case has concluded.

By changing any word it was not verbatim . SP was criticised for not identifying her protected beliefs in her exchanges with RCN. She used ‘He’ because this was what she believed and as a protected belief was entitled to do so. SF changed this for whatever reason in his reporting. It was not what SP believed so it ‘muddied the waters’ which can happen when using preferred pronouns. Years from now the written word will be so confusing. That’s why when posting I mainly use the individual’s initials to identify what I’m trying to convey, it’s fair and not disrespectful. It was how I was instructed for accurate report writing, N.B. JM’s predicament.
As an aside I received an email from the practice manager of my GP surgery (not medical issue) the sender stating their pronouns in bold rainbow (little biggly) colour. No explanation as to the significance and linked to a organisation, neither explained why the colours and preferred pronouns a sort of fait accompli corporate smugness. Not clear or appropriate without explanation in my view

Did the judge say she would be quick? I thought she only said she'd be as quick as possible...

I'm going to guess Jan 26 2027.

Someone asked about the NHS Fife appeal date - I looked quite hard recently but couldn't find anything more precise than "first half of 2027" (which I think is on TT's substack among other places).

You have a typo in the temperature. Gas 3/325F is 160C, not 180.