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

There have been at least two threads on FWR in the recent past on the subject of sexual assault by deception.

I’m thinking of a fictional character. Possibly played by Burn Gorman.
The awesome performance from Anthony whatshisface was far more charismatic!

It used to be - at least by the early 90s this had gone and it was impressed upon us students that we could not examine anyone (vagina or rectum) unless we had expressly obtained written consent and that was for us personally, not any student who happened to be there.

Just dropping in again from the deep, dark past of, oh, about 24 hours ago in thread-time - 24B(efore)C(urrentThread)? - & without a clue about the discussions I'm interrupting - to thank everyone again, especially @nauticant and @prh47bridge, for threads, legal knowledge, insights etc. Just finished #10, but am up-to-date on Tribunal Tweets as aiming to read these before the corresponding threads in an attempt to form my own impressions before being influenced by commentary here, and... Wow. Just, wow.

So many people & lives affected and such immense implications that I don't entirely like saying this, but, really - who needs John Grisham?!? Or rather, it's exactly because it is real-life & we're all so understandably, necessarily invested that it has such impact.

It looks to me (from rushed skimming, in my little corner of total ignorance of all things legal etc.) that the DU/NHS defence is falling apart at the seams, while the extremes of GI and its associated implications are being platformed for all those who may not have realised, or denied, what's been happening.

It's been intensely distressing to read at times. In particular, DU's ironically confident appropriation of "female" & "woman" in total opposition to his concurrent, total ignorance of what it means to navigate the world in a female body, and the revealing contrast between the sensitivity extended to him re: language v. SP's public interrogation on her experience of sexual assault and bodily functions...

But to have the worst excesses of what's been happening laid out so unambiguously clearly, in the DU offering the best defence possible(!) of this ideology while simultaneously modelling the implications for women, in real time, has felt a bit like water after a drought, following the shameless denials & gaslighting by politicians, the media & institutions like the NHS.

Maybe I'm being naive (we're all so used to thinking, "This latest travesty against women's rights will be the one that swings it... No? Really?! OK, then this one will... Won't it?!") but the clarity of what's on display, coupled with the growing interest, feels a bit like an Isla-Bryson watershed - & also just an invaluable "for the record" that pulls everything together in a fairly comprehensive way in the most formal context possible.

And the great thing is, all the arguments NC's presenting are "our" arguments, the product of all these different sources & voices dismissed for so long coming together in a grand demonstration of what is a conflict of rights at best, & something so much more worrying, saying so much about our society, rampantly unthinking individualism, patriarchy etc., at worst.

Gripping.

Back into the Delorean, now (briefly wracked my brains for a Back To The Future pun, but then found this Marty quote, which seemed more apt for "where I'm going": "What the hell is this?!”)

or Ted Levine?

Except, apparently, when the male doctor thinks he's a woman.

I thought it was good to keep it white on white to avoid clouding the issue. And in the end it was Upton who made us wince referring comparing their own rejection to that of a black doctor - because the woman was transphobic or racist and nothing at all to do with her own preference or past trauma. That wasn't good enough reason to "exclude" trans people - chilling stuff

Yep - clearly the only protection would be if a woman asked for a trans man - otherwise the law won't recognise an assault or harassment - while also dodging the accusation of homophobia

Oh, I see. Thanks. That's somewhat less bad.

I had one that was a pure ogling exercise, the dirty fucker. I'd bite him if I ever saw him again. But you don't, do you, as a young and bewildered woman.

A bit like that rape that never happened 😡 in the psych ward / secure unit on the women only section?

I've banged on about rostering males in female dementia patients bays when it is totally unnecessary when the ratio of females to males health carers was 10 to 1 and plenty of male wards to be cared for - thank God I'm out of it because I was banging my head on a brick wall - those ladies could NOT consent and had no choice for intimate care

@delvan

Thanks so much for this post; was nice to read.

I don’t think it is that as I haven’t seen it, but will make a note of it and try to watch it.

Thank you ☺️

A student dr at St George’s in the 2000s didn’t share that view - how would drs be trained if they couldn’t examine the vagina of any woman under GA? I wonder how many of them still think that way. He genuinely couldn’t understand what was wrong with it as long as you were unconscious at the time. Makes
me shudder remembering it. He was quite angry at the thought of women refusing consent.

Following on from the posts about TUBE, I remember there was a scandal about female patients who were being operated on having medical students perform internal examinations without consent. The operations were not related to gynaecological issues so the internal examination was completely unnecessary.

It was seen as a good opportunity for medical students to “practice” internal exams.

What is worrying is from a quick google I found this paper https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1125036/ A very quick scan found
”Some 702 intimate examinations were done on sedated or anaesthetised patients (table 3). In only 24% of these examinations had written consent been obtained, and a further 24% of examinations were conducted apparently without written or oral consent. Consent seemed not to have been obtained for most examinations on sedated or anaesthetised patients by junior (second and third year) students.”

My advice to any woman is to make it clear on a consent form you do not agree to an internal examinations.

My possibly most furious moment among many, was when he complained that NC was not respecting language and making it impossible to discuss by refusing to use the acknowledged terms.

I actually sighed with relief when I identified it as DARVO and projection. I was about to burst with indignation and rage.

Horrifying. Is there anything we could do about this?

Puts me in mind of the twilight birthing that caused such trauma.

I really love the Scottish Daily Express, whose reporters refuse to play Upton's game. This is how this case should be reported. Second of two articles today:

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-doctor-accused-making-up-34657493

@JanesLittleGirl

Thanks.

Sadly, I’d be surprised if there hadn’t been. (And I work in this field so have, also sadly, come across many more.)

No, it’s something like a book or story lodged in my brain from way back. I expect it will pop into my head at some point.

Could even be something as simple as a fairy tale. I remembered the sudden feeling of it quite viscerally, but the accompanying image continues to elude me.

Sorry the context was unnecessary breast examinations, and in that case it really doesn't matter whether the perpetrator was male or female or not.

I can confirm that this was routine for my medical school cohort (early 1980s). Several medical students of both sexes would perform a bimanual (internal) examination under the supervision of a consultant on an anaesthetised woman who was in theatre to have a gynaecological procedure and who had not been explicitly asked for consent to this. Looking back, I'm horrified and ashamed, and I hope it doesn't happen now.

That's terrible.

We did have an over-valued idea of how important it was going to be for us to be able to do a vaginal exam - reality, I never needed to do one again after med school.

Similarly have done a miniscule number of breast exams and groins for hernias, despite these skills being apparently vital for us to pass finals - reality was you would be taught how to do them properly if you had a job where you needed to do them.

And there was much discussion about how difficult it was getting women to consent because why would you, and also we were completely inept and dying of embarrassment when we asked.

Much respect to the women who did agree. It was absolutely stressed to us that these women were doing us a massive favour and we should be incredibly grateful.

Legislating for decency by gender rather than sex only retains an air of workability while gender is treated as binary too:

Man (as in adult human male with all his tackle) takes off his kit in a women's changing room ...

• he doesn't identify as anything but male = "indecent exposure"

• he identifies as a woman = "all ok here, nothing to see,"

But

• he identifies as gender fluid = indecent exposure on Monday but not on Tuesday? And how would we know, if we've only their word for it that it was their woman-day?

• he identifies as non-binary = Half an indecent exposure? Semi-decent exposure?

• he identifies as cat-gender = "do you identify as a tom?"

Silly, but there it is. You gets what you pays for. People have claimed all these identities. And why should gender be binary if it's unmoored from physical constraints?

I really hope that anyone involved in legislating about sex v gender is made to confront the full potential for absurdities before making any decision.

I remember being told by a consultant (maybe more than one consultant) on a gynae rotation that it would be a good learning opportunity as a student to examine patients who were having EUA (examination under anaesthesia ie an examination that the patient needed to be anaesthetised for anyway). But I had to ask the patient for (documented) consent and explain it was for learning purposes and could only go ahead and do it if she consented. Thankfully I think the days of just going ahead and doing it on anyone without asking were over by then. At least, I very much hope it doesn't happen any more.

They weren't there an hour ago when I looked. Very funny!