NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #19

[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. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It seems that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July but it wasn't completely clear whether it might end a day or two later.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 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 livestreaming, apparently caused by 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 don'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
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17
Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274332-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-18

Exactly.

Of course being abusive to the male who says he’s a woman is not acceptable. However the women were probably at the end of their rope being told they had to just suck it up and share the changing room with him. NHS fucked it up again

WTAF?
I actually feel sorry of the boss who confronted the dh.
She's obviously trying to protect the females but was operating with both hands tied behind her back.

Absolutely. The outcome in this case was that the trans employee successfully sued his employer because his manager confronted him following allegations he was naked from the waist down in the female changing rooms exposing his male genitals, hence asking if he wor underwear at work. The tribunal ruled he was discriminated against as the manager would not have asked the same question to female employees. It is unbelievable that the question of him being naked and causing harm to other employees was not seen as an issue. The Trust went on to say how they have learned valuable lessons. In other words, do not question the trans employees. If they say they are female then that is that. I don't blame the female employees at all.

I also think the judge fucked it up in that case missing the point the women were unhappy not because the person was trans but because he was male

It reminds me of Lady Catherine in Pride and Prejudice

LADY CATHERINE: Obstinate, headstrong girl! I’m ashamed of you. I have not been in the habit of brooking disappointment.

ELIZABETH: That will make your ladyship’s situation at present more pitiable, but it will have no effect on me.

Just because someone has never heard the word no, is not anyone else’s problem.

"Judge Davies said: 'A concern about the woman's state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.
'This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room."

This has to be legally incorrect though?

The right comparator is not a "cisgender" woman but a male. And yes, there would be issues with a half naked male in the female changing room (ta dah!)

Plus I don’t think they called him the rude names to his face, and there was no proof who wrote the notes. He could have writtten them himself

Exactly this - no one believes it but most go along with it to prevent dramas.
it’s infuriating. We seems to have trans awareness week every b week at work ! There’s much eye rolling.

Replying to @Jerabilis 's thread (not copying because it gets too long.
Mumsnet had been vital to me to avoid the ubiquitous TWAW brainwashing.
In 2016 when people I liked and respected started posting 'twaw' and all the guff that goes with it on FB my first thought was 'wtf?'. But my natural impulse was over ridden by seeing everyone else going along with it and I thought I was the odd one, I was the prude.
Then I came across Yaniv on Mumsnet (about 2017). And faced Qs like 'is it possible to change sex?'. 'Can a man become a women by cutting his hair? What about his penis and testicles?'.
Once you've realised that NO - no one can change sex no matter what they do to their body, no amount of DEI training can make you un see it.
But the many women of Fife hospital were subject to faulty DEI training and advice, and taught themselves to override their instinctive 'wtf' moment, with no de contamination opportunity.
If I hadnt been knee deep in Mumsnet in 2017 (in part thanks to RTB's amazing commentary) I could have been an Esther Davidson - caught in the crossfire between training and instinct.
Cheers to Mumsnet FWR section and all who post on it!

"So DU isn't only larping as a woman, he's also larping as someone with DSD just so he can get his own way. How reprehensible."

It's more insidious than that. He's not larping as having a DSD. He's just co-opting the narrative that even thinking about chromosomes (the scientific standard that determines someone's sex - even those with DSDs) is invasive & how dare someone question his chromosomes. Because that's what's trans activists do. It's switching from the obvious position that someone's sex isn't private information as it's evident from using your eyes to see he's male. So he can't argue that's private & therefore breached by SP's words. But he can elevate the offence/distress if he changes the words used/implied meaning. And I think, from what we heard from him, he's someone very capable of doing that.

Yes - the judge used the wrong comparator

the correct comparator was a male without the PC of GR

Yes. I was surprised to learn that there was a female changing room in the basement - which nobody used - and that the "changing room" here was a locker room. (Or I think that's what the evidence was. I find TT quite hard to follow sometimes).

I'm wondering if fife will say "There is a separate women's changing room but women choose not to use it".

Having said that, it also seems quite clear from Dr U's testimony that he asked about the women's changing room and he says that Dr KS told him that yes, he could use the women's changing room

Some commentary from the other side:

NHS Fife v Bigots: What the Law Says About Trans-Inclusive Policies (+ Reddit post)

If women can't be forced to believe because gender critical is WORIADS, how on earth can they be compelled to share a changing room with someone they will never see as female - because they observe sex rather than believe in gender?

What they can't do is abuse someone transgender or discriminate against them.

But they shouldn't be forced to give up their privacy and dignity to accommodate the desire to use a changing room used by women. Once again it's just a changing room until there's women in it - then they become the commodity and this matters.

I wonder from the title what their position is!

Dr Kath Murray on the Nitter thread:

Roses are red
I've not kept a diary
So when did it happen?
THIS ISN'T A ROVING PUBLIC INQUIRY

I bet it's you can exclude people on a 'case by case basis', but to do that you have to literally call somebody a rapist.

"Firstly, paragraph (1) says that suitable and sufficient facilities must be provided. For a trans person, a suitable facility is one that matches their affirmed gender.

Paragraph (2) seems to require gendered facilities, and some argue this is based on “legal sex” as determined by a birth certificate or gender recognition certificate. [Note 3] However, if you read carefully, you will see it must be read without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1).

And if you read very carefully, you will see that it does not actually require separate facilities—allowing people to use the same room at different times is enough to meet the minimum requirements under paragraph (2)."

You just have to read the legislation very, very carefully, and then it can mean anything.

Quelle surprise! It’s all about the rights of trans employees and not a sniff of why women might want single sex changing.
It believes that “making any concession to the nurse could be against the law”. And concludes there will “most likely to be a complete victory for NHS Fife”.

And provides a (unchallenged) quote from DU but only as “one of the trans employees” rather than Second Respondent in the case. I wonder why.

That's scary 😨

@RedToothBrush - "... Sandie didn't go to her union for support at a key moment. Why? Because she knew her union wouldn't support her on this issue..."

Slightly off topic but I asked this in a previous thread (ERCC?) and I'm not sure it was answered.

If SP or any other employee in a similar situation went to their union for help/advice/represenatation and the union refused - or only did a halfhearted job - because the union were captured by the idea that TWAW and believed GC members to be bigoted transphobes, wouldn't the member of the union have a discrimination claim against the union?

Isn't the union legally obliged to reperesent their GC member equally as well as a TWAW member?

Particularly liked this line

"Nowadays, employers want to be inclusive, and they are allowed to be better employers than the law requires."

I am not disputing this, but isn't the salient point when he wrote the notes i.e. when he decided to dredge up incidents which could be misinterpreted as gross misconduct by SP, which personally I don't believe happened for one minute.

A total assumption on my part, but the CR incident on his say-so clearly wasn't enough to suspend SP, and I have little doubt he was asked what other "incidents" there had been in the past - hence the alleged Resus incident so well explained by CarefulN0w at 21:24 last night, and the ignored wave. The metadata on that phone will betray the truth, and there is a key difference from "contemporaneous" note taking to notes engineered after the fact to support an alleged incident.

Many trans people have sued businesses for blocking them from using public toilets—and not a single case has been lost.

From that article - is that true?

This ^

I find it a characteristic of virtue signalling people who know they are right and look down their noses at others.

I used to be a socialist but I'm afraid that these days too many on the left treat "ordinary" people and ordinary concerns with contempt.

I found jonathan Haidt's book "The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion" a pivotal read.