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

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.

@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.

@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

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

Yes, that’s something!

Upton was not a member of the RCN. RCN should have been concerned about representing and supporting their member Sandie not pandering to a non member

SP’s complaint was doctored by SF. The very reason she was complaining at all was because there was a man interfering with women’s sense of safety, dignity and comfort by hanging out the women’s changing room. What seemed to be a very vindictive, nasty man, who engaged in what one might call a vendetta against SP for not pretending he was a type of woman. And did not (could not) hide her distress just to satisfy his sense of entitlement. Just my opinion, of course. And he did have partners in crime, so to speak.

A man who stated publicly he would ignore, and transgress, the clear wishes of a woman if she said she did not want to be treated by a man if there was a woman available. So, a man that women would be quite right to be wary of, I think.

Whatever your "lens", Doctor Upton is male. This is a measurable, and observable, fact. The sooner people who have adopted trans identities get to grips with the reality of their sex the easier their lives would be. They would still have employment and other protections, and they would still be free to negotiate terms of personal reference with their nearest and dearest. What they cannot expect to do is to gas-light or coerce others into validating their own personal belief system.

The RCN are not in the position to enforce pronoun use on their members. That is not its role, or it certainly should not be.

I can feel a doom loop coming our way, tunnocks available for not engaging i have eaten two myself.

Factually, DU is a male, who has no right to ever be in a female changing room, or for that matter, in any other female space.

speaking of those who enabled Dr Upton to think Dr Upton was entitled to use the female locker room to get changed, I'm very much looking forward to Dr Kate Searle taking us through her decision making and communications relating to that.

Good point people. I shouldn't have even engaged.

very much looking forward to Dr Kate Searle taking us through her decision making and communications relating to that.

When are we expecting to hear from Kate Searle? I'm only able to dip in and out of these tribunals but do love to say some of the absolute ridiculous verbal gymnastics from some of these TRA's

I went to the OP to refresh my memory and SP has made a wee list and NC will check it twice. They're going to find out who's naughty and nice.

"Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against three senior managers who were witnesses in the first Employment Tribunal - Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson, against Carol Potter, the chief executive of NHS Fife, for victimisation, against NHS Fife for discrimination, and against its director of people and culture David Miller for harassment. "