NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board - thread #2

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 January 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks.

First thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

It's being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr

I think Forstarter is a witness to explain why, what a trans person looks like, what a trans person possesses in terms of genitals, what a trans persons needs and feelings are about are all irrelevant.

Once a female space is opened to “some” men is not the point. Wether one can objectively test their risk is irrelevant.

Open a space to just one man means it is no longer a female space.

So female spaces should mean just that.

He wasn't observed to be male at birth. At birth, his chromosomes were XY. They are still XY. He shouldn't be in any cubicle or room reserved for those born XX. End of.

I want NC to ask Dr Upton if they considered reframing their trauma.

I am so sorry SP is going through this but it is highlighting just how awful NHS Fife’s handling of the situation was. Male feelings trump female privacy and dignity yet again.

The timing could be interesting as there is a chance we will have the FWS SC judgment before this Tribunal hand down their decision. Whatever the SC decide they are likely to confirm that a person without a GRC is their birth sex as all sides accepted the point. Clearly we can’t ask if DU has a GRC but if they don’t then NHS Fife have a clear problem because DU’s gender is irrelevant. (Obviously I am hoping FWS are successful on all elements).

Nitter version. https://nitter.poast.org/nhsfife/status/1886675479886700568

Quite. So he is old enough to know different and has presumably worked in a.n. other profession for many years. He is not of that young generation. His very behaviour and entitlement offends me. But sadly being a little older than him/them/her I have many gay male friends who carry that same entitlement. That TWAW and in reality women's actual views dont matter. But who decided to let him/them/her train for medicine? Not a good payback on investment I wouldnt have thought. Or was that also a support the trans decision.

Am I mistaken that somebody can ask to see a GRC, but they can't disclose to others that they have seen it?

I lose track

It was certainly my impression that the SC were hoping to get a judgment out fairly swiftly (to which I assumed end of Feb(ish) )

thank you for the Nitter version, that's exceptionally helpful.

And those comments are bloody gold.

NHS Fife's post was this

"Mind to Mind is a site where people share their own experiences with mental wellbeing to help others who are struggling."

promoting their 'mind to mind' resource.

This response is almost breathtaking in its accuracy.

"I don’t think you have any idea just how distressing and alarming your lawyer’s strategy is for any women watching and listening to this tribunal Your strategy is misogynistic in the extreme and shows zero interest in or sense of care for women in your hospital."

Give he decided to start ‘living as a woman’ in 2022 and these incidents happened in 2023 he could not have had a GRC at the time (unless he lied in his application).

I don't know ladies. Difficult to tell from the transcript, but I think JP has done a good job of painting SP as a bigot. She may well be, but that doesn't mean she is wrong.

I am not feeling as confident about this as I have about other cases.

I think the Tribunal will hopefully be able to see through the ‘your husband posts stuff on Facebook’ and the smear tactics - they’re capable (or should be!) of separating someone’s general beliefs and the actual case and issue at hand.

It does feel a bit rubbish today but we’ve had a full day and a half of one side battering the other, and it’s quite usual when you’ve just heard one side to feel like the other side is going to struggle. Hopefully after NC and some more witnesses we’ll be feeling more positive.

I think if the knowledge of the GRC has been gained in an employment or official capacity you are not allowed to pass that info on without the permission of the person. Something like that.

You may be able to ask if someone has a GRC although that may be discriminatory in some circumstances but the holder is not obliged to answer.

This is the current EHRC guidance

Gender recognition certificates
2.29 The Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) provides that where a person holds a gender recognition certificate they must be treated according to their acquired gender (see the GRA for details on those who are covered by that Act; see also the Data Protection Act 1998 which deals with processing sensitive personal information).
2.30 Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their gender recognition certificate as evidence of their legal gender. Such a request would compromise a transsexual person's right to privacy. If an employer requires proof of a person's legal gender, then their (new) birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.

I think the comment which said something about 'coercive control in action' is exactly right. It was like watching an abuser and their abuse victim. Poor Sandie Peggie.

But of course NHS Fife have abused SP for months. Firstly trying to force her to undress in front of men without her consent. Secondly, gaslighting her about scientific reality, forcing her to lie to patients. It's endless. Quite a few on that thread asking about patient consent and lying to patients about biological reality.

And they could have resolved the changing room dispute by having both single sex and gender based toilets/ changing rooms. But they didn't. Which is odd given they're so all in on gender ideology. Unless of course the presence of unconsenting women is somehow the aim.

And there's lots of evidence for the need for single sex toilets and none for the need for gender based toilets.

The nitter thread shows that the court case certainly hasn't gone the way I think JR was hoping. Thank goodness for open justice.

That nitter thread has restored my faith in human nature. I was almost convinced we were going the way of Afghanistan in terms of the rights of women after the treatment of Peggie.

This is the first part of s22 of the GRA

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.
(2)“Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1) and which—
(a)concerns that application or any application by the person F1under section F24A,] F34C, 4F,] 5(2)F4, 5A(2)] or 6(1)] F1under any other section of this Act], or
(b)if the application under section 1(1) is granted, otherwise concerns the person’s gender before it becomes the acquired gender.
(3)A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—
(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,
(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or
(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.
(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—
(a)the information does not enable that person to be identified,
(b)that person has agreed to the disclosure of the information,
(c)the information is protected information by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and the person by whom the disclosure is made does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued,
(d)the disclosure is in accordance with an order of a court or tribunal,
(e)the disclosure is for the purpose of instituting, or otherwise for the purposes of, proceedings before a court or tribunal,
(f)the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime,
(g)the disclosure is made to the Registrar General for England and Wales, the Registrar General for Scotland or the Registrar General for Northern Ireland,
(h)the disclosure is made for the purposes of the social security system or a pension scheme,
(i)the disclosure is in accordance with provision made by an order under subsection (5), or
(j)the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.

I always feel a bit doubtful at this stage. Once NC gets going it will all start to feel more positive.

I don’t think JP has had much to work with and gone round the houses trying to nit pick at everything. She thrown every kitchen sink she has at it. It did feel quite horrible towards SP but that’s unfortunately what happens.
SP has answered very well.
If Upton is ‘on the stand’ presumably JP has set the scene for NC to be able to be equally as robust in her questions.

Ach, we've only heard one side.

Who are the people in this image?

(edit - damn I cant seem to add photos due to MN new rules. Basically its the picture of a person in a camel coat. it that 'Beth'?)

Ha ha. Have it! 😁👍

Is deliberate disruption a possibility?

Excellent thread.

Bigotted and racist women are also entitled to safety, privacy and dignity in single sex spaces when getting changed.

Sorry, what's Nitter?!

"Right wing women are women." ~~ KJK, who is absolutely right.

A mirror site for X (Twitter) that allows non-members to see the comments.