NHS Fife tries to silence nurse

[Hoardasurass]

So as has been mentioned on threads about the Darlington nurses a nurse is sueing NHS Fife over its trans staff policy.
The poor nurse was forced to get changed infront of a man in the female changing facilities, when she complained about it she was 1st told to change in a cupboard if she didn't like it, then they tried to bully her into swapping shifts so she didn't work with the man in question (she wouldn't), then they wanted her to move hospital (again she refused) so then they suspended her without pay for months until her solicitor got involved and now they are trying to gag her by insisting that the court case (starts in February) must be held in secret (I wonder why) and will be in crt next month asking to restrict reporting on the case.

This case is really important in Scotland because the trans staff policy that's going on trial in this case is the Scottish government's own policy used in all public sector organisations in Scotland and works on self id. So when this case is won it will finally kill the Scottish government's self id policy in all public bodies

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nhs-fife-fights-secret-hearings-33877891?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

The difference is obvious surely ?
if I go into a changing room that is unisex, I expect that it might have males getting changed in it and I will prepare myself accordingly.
if I go into a changing room designated for females I expect females in it and that don't need to worry about being caught in my underwear by a man.

This is interesting. The Telegraph reporting that counsel for the NHS / Upton are attempting to compel witnesses to use female pronouns to describe Upton. Surely this is perjury?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/21/nhs-tries-ban-nurse-calling-trans-doctor-man/

archive.ph/i3zHd

Just ask the judge whether it's OK for you to lie in court, Ms Peggie.

Ms Peggie’s lawyers said they were not seeking to “police” their opponents’ language by forcing them to use male pronouns, but urged the court to refer to Dr Upton in gender-neutral terms, as “Dr Upton” or “the second respondent”.

This is the only fair solution. Each side should be able to speak as they see fit. The absolute brass neck of Upton. What about the harm and distress caused to Nurse Peggie? Upton is male in law.

Crikey. Here’s hoping sanity reigns and correct sex pronouns are allowed. That Telegraph article is good. Uses ‘they’ instead of ‘she’ when referring to Upton I note

I absolutely guarantee that no matter what they decide on, people will slip up. It takes quite a lot of practice to keep referring to people as they, as many women on this site have found out to their cost.

I hope they appeal if not.

When is the tribunal hearing? Has a date been set?

The comments under that article are all pro sandie and very much against the dr

Does anyone know if the judge makes the order that the claimant and her representatives cannot refer to Upton as “male” or “he” would this be something that could be appealed? It seems like such an important point. How can you argue your case if you are stymied in this way?

Very interestingly, the Judicial Office has just published the following 'Equal Treatment Bench Book alert'. I presume it relates to this case?

A recent Scottish Employment Tribunal case has considered the question of which gendered pronouns are most fair, reasonable, and understandable to use to refer to a male-born/biologically male party, who now identifies as a transgender woman, when the case itself centres around the trans person’s contested use of female changing rooms. The judge, having noted the guidance in the Scottish version of the ETBB (which is different from the updated English and Welsh version), adopted the trans person’s preferred pronouns; ‘she/her’.

Typically, it should be unproblematic to refer to those who appear in court however they wish to be referred to. The updated version of the English and Welsh ETBB makes clear that in some cases however it may not be appropriate, or may even be extremely inappropriate, for the judge to use a defendant’s preferred pronouns, for example, in cases of violent or sex crimes by a transgender perpetrator (or in other scenarios a judge may deem relevant). See chapter 12 of the ETBB, paragraphs 19-21.

In these exceptional, but increasingly common judgments, where one side’s case hinges on the recognition of the biological sex of the trans person as crucial, and the other side on the recognition of their chosen identification, judges need to be careful not to let the choice of gendered pronouns give an appearance of bias, or that there is predetermined conclusion. If possible, using the individual’s name instead of a pronoun where these pronouns are contested, or alternatively, the gender-neutral pronoun of ‘they’, may help minimise offence towards or the undermining of an individual’s personal identification, while also not giving it undue weight over the perceptions of others.

That's interesting.

Although I understand that it looks neutral if you use the word they, I completely disagree with it.

The person in question is a man.

Women are constantly having to operate under the imposed assumption that this is two sides of the same coin. That there's a balance. It isn't, there isn't.

The reality is this person is a man. It's not a matter of opinion! Or belief. Having to butcher language to avoid saying it is wrong.

I'd rather each person use which ever pronoun they wanted rather than a neutral 'they'.

I still get shocked afresh when I realise that women everywhere have been told they cannot refer to a man as a man - even when that man is in the process of intimidating them.

However, I do realise it's a step in the right direction. At least they're not recommending that everyone refers to him as she.

Agreed, Datun. It is ridiculous because Dr Upton is male in law. End of story.

I also note that in the commentary, no weight is given to the wishes of the sex realist (except in SA/assault cases) - the choice is neutral or wrong-sex.
Under this guidance, I hope the judge at least goes for neutral for all parties.

He should be referred to only as a man because that is what he is and the whole case is because that matters.

But given the current climate any compromise as far as the judge is concerned in not using pronouns at all, must not stop the claimant using correct language.

I said Dr Upton is male in law - making the point that the court doesn't even have the excuse of "legal sex".

However, the judge will decide this point, not us. Neutral language for all parties may be the best we can hope for. I think it's unlikely that a first-instance judge will be brave enough to bin the ETBB.

The ETBB alert above above says that the judge mustn’t give the appearance of bias. The claimant and respondent of course can remain biased as they must be allowed to present their cases. Denying a man from being identified as a man by those arguing it matters that he is a man would be clear bias.

Neutral language for all parties may be the best we can hope for. I think it's unlikely that a first-instance judge will be brave enough to bin the ETBB

Agreed. Am I correct in recollecting that the BBC refuses neutral pronouns as an acceptable workaround because it perceives it to be 'picking a side' and they default to preferred pronouns? I seem to recall that this was in response to a complaint about the reporting of a news story.

Added after search - the story was Scarlet Blake. It wasn't about neutral pronouns but did have useful perspectives on their view of impartiality.

[Complaint] By calling this individual a woman repeatedly with no prominent mention of his sex, you gave ‘the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area’ - ie you endorsed the viewpoint that self ID trumps sex.
[Response] The BBC recognises there is controversy over the distinction between sex and gender. People who experience a difference between the sex registered on their birth certificate and their gender identity may describe themselves as transgender. Some others may take the view that gender is entailed in what is often referred to as biological sex, and cannot be changed. Against this background, a simple refusal to use the terms in which people who regard themselves as transgender describe themselves would in effect be an endorsement of one viewpoint in this controversy, and the ECU considers impartiality is best served by the
BBC’s policy of using language and terminology which is clear and appropriate to the context, taking account of the subject and nature of the content.

Scarlet Blake: I'm now at Stage 2 of BBC complaints procedure
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5048170-scarlet-blake-im-now-at-stage-2-of-bbc-complaints-procedure?reply=134488280&utmcampaign=thread&utmmedium=share

The BBC have very clearly picked a side.

Starts 3rd February for 2 weeks

Well that's interesting.

As I've said, denying reality is quite hard unless you're used to it. So we'll see who can stick to it. I have no doubt that the sex realists will do it without even thinking.

As the case rests on a woman complaining that she's compelled to undress in front of a man, referring to him as "she" would make a nonsense of all the arguments.

Totally

Exactly, the respondent is accused of sexual harassment. Gaslighting about sex is not appropriate.

TT have now been given permission to live tweet at the tribunal.

This is excellent, not least because having to do the pronoun dance (and avoiding pronouns altogether isn't easy - I know from a lot of experience) will peak Judges faster than Isla Bryson.

(Quote fail - meant to quote the new rules stating the court needs to avoid pronouns altogether or use they/them).