Just popping on to leave a summary of this morning from Boswelltoday on X. I couldn’t see that it had already been posted.
Day 7 Peggie v NHS Fife - Upton’s cross-examination continues to unravel, exposing the glaring contradictions in his testimony.
@tribunaltweets reports that the session may be continuing without the live feed. Here's what happened before the feed was cut.
Naomi Cunningham’s precise questioning, he has been forced to acknowledge uncomfortable truths—none more damning than his admission that women must take the initiative to opt out of being seen by a male doctor rather than having their request for female-only care automatically respected.
The exchanges over female patients requesting a woman doctor were particularly striking. Upton insisted he had no obligation to disclose his sex to patients, despite admitting that it is not always obvious he is male. This led to a critical moment: when asked whether a rape survivor requesting a female doctor should have to explain why, he evaded the point, refusing to acknowledge that placing the burden on the patient to justify her request is cruel and inappropriate. Instead, he tried to equate the issue with other forms of discrimination, suggesting that accommodating a woman’s need for a female doctor was akin to handling a racist patient’s request. This false equivalence speaks volumes about his unwillingness to acknowledge why single-sex care matters.
When Cunningham pressed him on a scenario involving a woman in A&E with unexplained heavy bleeding who explicitly requested a female doctor, Upton’s answer was evasive. He initially suggested it would depend on medical urgency but, when pushed, admitted that if the woman objected to his presence, he would step aside. This seemingly reasonable answer was undermined by the reality that it would fall on the patient to realise he was male in the first place—possibly when she was already in distress and vulnerable. Cunningham pointed out the cruelty of this expectation, highlighting that a woman might only realise he is male once she is already being examined. Rather than acknowledging the obvious problem, Upton deflected, repeating that it was the patient’s responsibility to express discomfort.
The contradictions in his behaviour regarding the changing room incident were also laid bare. On Christmas Eve, he insisted on his right to be in the female changing room despite knowing Peggie was uncomfortable. He framed her discomfort as bigotry rather than a legitimate expectation of privacy. Yet hours later, he claimed to feel unsafe, reporting distress over how Peggie had spoken to him. This inconsistency was key—he was willing to assert his right to be in a space where a woman was uncomfortable, but when faced with an uncomfortable interaction himself, he sought immediate action. Cunningham pressed him on this, pointing out that while he had demanded swift action from NHS Fife, he continued using the female changing room despite knowing Peggie had objected. His justification? That he would not let "bigoted opinions" dictate his behaviour. In other words, he dismissed her right to privacy and forced her into a situation she clearly wished to avoid.
His perception of hostility from Peggie was further scrutinised when it became clear that no one else recalled the incidents in the way he described. He had been documenting perceived slights—such as Peggie responding to another colleague rather than him—but these grievances amounted to little more than workplace friction. When confronted with the fact that neither Peggie nor other staff recalled the incidents he described, he fell back on the idea that it was his perception of hostility that mattered, rather than any objective reality. This was a devastating admission. A case that hinges on serious allegations against Peggie was revealed to rest not on clear-cut evidence, but on Upton’s personal feelings.
Perhaps the most striking moment came when Cunningham suggested that Upton’s determination to control language—insisting on the use of "she/her" pronouns and rejecting biological definitions—was about power. She put it to him that his position required total affirmation from colleagues, and that the issue with Peggie was that she refused to participate in what she described as an "immersive role play." Upton denied this but conceded that it "hurts" when people do not use his preferred language. This, combined with his legal team’s attempts to compel the tribunal to use his chosen terminology, underscores the imbalance at the heart of this case—women must be made to accommodate, but no such obligation is placed on him.
As the session progressed, the underlying theme of power and control became clearer. Upton’s insistence that his identity must be respected, while refusing to extend that same respect to women who request female-only care, was laid bare. His own shifting narrative—asserting himself in the changing room on Christmas Eve, only to claim fear and distress later—suggests an attempt to construct a grievance rather than a genuine concern for safety. His notes, detailing minor slights and perceived rudeness from Peggie, paint a picture not of someone facing discrimination, but of someone determined to build a case against a colleague who simply did not comply with his expectations.
At this stage, Upton’s credibility is in tatters. His testimony has exposed the fundamental flaws in self-ID policies—where women must justify their discomfort, while trans-identifying males are affirmed without question. The tribunal is laying bare the harsh reality of these policies in practice: women cannot opt out without consequence, and when they try, they are accused of bigotry, hostility, or worse. NHS Fife’s position in defending Upton is becoming increasingly indefensible. The tribunal is making it clear that this case is not just about one hospital—it is about whether women’s rights to privacy and dignity still mean anything at all.