NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #13

[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 February 2025 and was expected to continue for 2 weeks although at the start of the second week getting everything done in this time period was looking less certain. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on Thursday 6 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

However, as a result of problems with the liverstreaming, apparently as a result of a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was suggested that it might be reinstated at some point but I wouldn't count on it.

The hearing is 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. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse
Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2
Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3
Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4
Thread 5: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5
Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6
Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12

Well quite.

According to him, that he is 'trans.'

Someone should ask him how a woman would spot that.

That he is 'trans'. But no one has asked him to define what he means by 'trans' (unless I missed it). Which would be useful as that is the bit that means he is a man who says he is a woman.

Seriously?! The US is not currently a rational country. Certainly not safe for women of a childbearing age.

I am interested in the fact that when NC started on this line of questioning JR intervened and said that NC was basically going to be accusing DU of sexual assault. Given that the questioning was allowed, and DU answered (I assume) as expected, does that mean that his counsel has tacitly recognised that he has professed himself willing to commit sexual assault?

He has insisted repeatedly that he is not male, he is a woman, he is biologically female.

Therefore he would be doing nothing wrong.

But he’s still admitting, however tacitly, that he’s not a woman…despite insisting yesterday that he was a biological woman.

Wasn’t it “woman with a trans history”?

If only I could be sure I could be honest on LinkedIn without cancellation I would!

I fear you are right.

It's a dangerous path for him to be allowed to go down, isn't it?

I suspect he thought he covered his arse with 'the woman can refuse me at any time'

Yes I really wish NC had asked him this during that bit of the cross-examination.

I know we shouldn't laugh, and I do try really hard to challenge myself on making comments on how transwomen look, or making cheap jibes. But there is some about this smug bastard and his total disregard for women's autonomy, I just can't help myself.

He insists any objections are to 'trans' not male.

They cannot object to male because he's not male.

It's like listening to an obnoxious 12yo who thinks they're being really clever.

Yes, absolutely. He is every time he says he's trans. I wish NC had pressed him on how a patient would notice he is trans and ask to see an 'actual female' doctor instead. Then he would have to try to spell it out without saying he is male. He wouldn't be able to, of course.

Yes exactly. Trans as in transitioning… from a man. But putting aside anything about not being able to change sex, he is still admitting that he’s not a woman. If he was a woman, there’d be nothing for a patient to notice. If he agrees there was something to notice and object to, then he’s contradicting himself and admitting he’s not a woman.

Just remind yourself that he with held emails pertinent to the case because they are 'private' but he thinks women should only have the right to privacy from the male gaze when changing if he decides they are suitably traumatised to be to worthy of his granting it to them.
He doesn't want to share his trans status but if the little (intimidating) ladies ask nicely enough and share the reasons for their distress he might decide to let them change after he has left without making snide notes about it or running off to tell mummy a consultant.

Has anyone else responded to the email from Edinburgh Tribunal?

Here's mine.

Dear ABC

Thank you for your response and clear explanation.

It is very disheartening to read that everyday women, for whom this case is of utmost relevance, are effectively excluded from witnessing their concerns being actively investigated by the justice system.

For years, many women have been adversely misled by mainstream news coverage. Given your restrictions, we must rely on them once again provide accurate representation of the issues being discussed.

In other words, women are no longer included. The irony cannot possibly be more overstated.

Best regards

I wish she would ask him about autogyphelia.

His admission of overriding patient consent is so darkly disturbing. It reminds me of something and I can’t quite place it.

It’s using deception as a means to intimately touch a woman. And while he is intimately touching, he is aware he is deceiving. (Assuming, in this scenario, that the patient has loss of capacity or awareness temporarily due to the circumstances surrounding their admission.)

And, if the patient is aware but too afraid to say anything, he will sense this too and still proceed.

What on earth is going on in his mind during such encounters?

He denies the existence of male/female as biological sexes, though. That's part of his argument. They're an oversimplification only used by people who are too stupid or ignorant to understand biology.

Thank you to everyone who has been keeping us updated on this - I managed to watch a bit yesterday but none today.

Musings so far:
I was very frustrated yesterday when NC didn't seem to be (IMO) landing any of her points. DU came across as very consistent, if irritating, at his refusal to give a straight answer. But that is the nature of cross examination - you don't know whether you are going to get anywhere without asking the question.

The panel will be looking for facts. As an Employment Tribunal they will be used to 'he said she said' but what makes it easy for them is when someone says something that can be proved one way or another. A lot of the other stuff e.g. 'sex is nebulous' can be dismissed as irrelevant.

Facts wise, it will be the other Fife employees where this is most revealing. But what has come over quite clearly so far is that DU thinks SP is transphobic. I think he said so a few times yesterday and today. BUT there has been no evidence that she is, and he hasn't presented any evidence that she is transphobic, as opposed to believing that biological men don't belong in female changing rooms.

And this was addressed in the Jo Phoenix case. It was held to be bullying to call someone transphobic when what you really mean is 'they don't go along with TWAW'. I don't think this is as cut and dried here (yet) because I don't think he has called her transphobic to her face, but those BMA emails may be interesting.

The other facts that will tell against him are the failure to disclose (although that partly depends on what it is) and the slight inconsistencies that are coming out where it appears that his memory and hers differ.

I did find it truly jaw dropping when he admitted he would examine a woman who has specifically asked for same sex care unless she specifically refuses him. I suppose his reason for that might be that she may think that TWAW, but with the various YouGov polls that really won't wash, and is something that I very much hope will be taken up by Sex Matters or the EHRC to NHS England and Scotland. There would be very many circumstances (I would say all) where you should assume that a woman asking for that means same sex, not 'same gender'.

In his head nothing wrong, but in the real world breaking the law.

Or he's just a massive liar who has found bullying people into pretending he's female is something he rather enjoys.

He reminds me of what must be a character in a film- that very contained, softly spoken and entirely false persona. I can’t quite place it though.

Also he’d probably say not having a womb/ovaries doesn’t mean you’re not a woman - women who have hysterectomies are still women after. Also India Willoughby reckons he’s got a cervix so there really are no limits. (I know BU has said he hasn’t had surgery).