Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 14/02/2025 18:06

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
WellIwasaGiraffeonce · 15/02/2025 14:14

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 13:58

That's scary 😨

Thanks, before it gets taken down on Medium, my response in the comments:

Thank you for this article - it is written from an entirely different viewpoint than I have, and I support Sandie Peggie challenging a transvestite male using the changing rooms that are exclusively for the use of females. I would ask that you consider if the Dr used the male changing rooms, would any male colleague been able to object to his use of them? And the answer is surely no, as Dr Upton is a male who has been wearing womens clothes for two or three years and who is fully entitled to use male changing rooms and toilets. I think the Tribunal will play out completely differently to you, especially if and when access is gained to Uptons phones, which will surely detail his "contemporaneous notes" were not, and are part of a planned attempt to destroy a woman's career and livelihood for rightly challenging him using the wrong changing room.

Merrymouse · 15/02/2025 14:14

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:05

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?

I'm suspicious that this might not be referring to UK law.

If it were true there would be more test cases to refer to.

WeeBisom · 15/02/2025 14:14

Merrymouse · 15/02/2025 13:56

"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.

It’s a big leap to infer that “suitable” accommodation must be whatever matches a person’s self identified gender. I think more emphasis would be placed on a purposive approach about why separate changing rooms for men and women are specified. If a man can just declare he is not a man, then the purpose of the man/woman distinction is lost. The problem is the legislation to me seems very clear that it refers to sex but the waters have been completely muddied by the fact that we allow men to say they are women and they have to be treated as such just because they say so.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/02/2025 14:15

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:05

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?

It's irrelevant anyway. This is not a public toilet. It's an employer provided changing room so different laws apply.

Merrymouse · 15/02/2025 14:16

WeeBisom · 15/02/2025 14:14

It’s a big leap to infer that “suitable” accommodation must be whatever matches a person’s self identified gender. I think more emphasis would be placed on a purposive approach about why separate changing rooms for men and women are specified. If a man can just declare he is not a man, then the purpose of the man/woman distinction is lost. The problem is the legislation to me seems very clear that it refers to sex but the waters have been completely muddied by the fact that we allow men to say they are women and they have to be treated as such just because they say so.

"It’s a big leap to infer that “suitable” accommodation must be whatever matches a person’s self identified gender."

Yes - I don't think that is part of UK law.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/02/2025 14:17

Manxexile · 15/02/2025 13:59

@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?

Edited

IANAL but that seems discriminatory to me.

NotAGentleReminder · 15/02/2025 14:20

NotAComputerPer5on · 15/02/2025 10:53

Not a lot has made me chuckle through this...
But I keep having an image of a group of TRAs watching DU evidence, edge of seats, waiting to burst into cheers and raptures of applause, "GO U" then out comes the 'biological sex is a nebulous dog whistle...'

Cue lots of W.T.A.F. ....

'Biological sex is a nebulous dogwhistle' is TRA rhetoric so they could well have been cheering this on too. He didn't come up with that nonsense himself, it's part of the cult think.

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:22

If a man has a GRC would that give them legal access to the Female changing room?

If the answer is No it changes Gender not Sex then it makes you question what's the point in a GRC?

Then going a step further if the GRC let's people change their Birth Cert that just leads to another fine mess.
Or can they only change the Birth Cert after it's been chopped off?

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:23

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 15/02/2025 14:15

It's irrelevant anyway. This is not a public toilet. It's an employer provided changing room so different laws apply.

Thanks for that

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2025 14:25

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:22

If a man has a GRC would that give them legal access to the Female changing room?

If the answer is No it changes Gender not Sex then it makes you question what's the point in a GRC?

Then going a step further if the GRC let's people change their Birth Cert that just leads to another fine mess.
Or can they only change the Birth Cert after it's been chopped off?

Let's wait until we have a full and proper ruling on that.

RoamingGnome · 15/02/2025 14:26

Does anyone know when a decision on the phone request will be made?

spannasaurus · 15/02/2025 14:26

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:22

If a man has a GRC would that give them legal access to the Female changing room?

If the answer is No it changes Gender not Sex then it makes you question what's the point in a GRC?

Then going a step further if the GRC let's people change their Birth Cert that just leads to another fine mess.
Or can they only change the Birth Cert after it's been chopped off?

People are not required to have surgery or take cross sex hormones for a GRC to be issued or the birth certificate changed

lnks · 15/02/2025 14:28

eatfigs · 15/02/2025 13:43

I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the law, but he is comparing SP case with one that happened 2 decades ago and one from even longer back than that. Given that the Equality Act was passed in 2010 how can he use discissions that predate it to discuss SP's case.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 15/02/2025 14:28

spannasaurus · 15/02/2025 14:26

People are not required to have surgery or take cross sex hormones for a GRC to be issued or the birth certificate changed

And a GRC changes their official sex as well as their gender.

prh47bridge · 15/02/2025 14:29

Merrymouse · 15/02/2025 14:14

I'm suspicious that this might not be referring to UK law.

If it were true there would be more test cases to refer to.

I don't think it is. There was a case in Jersey nearly a decade ago where a ferry company was forced to remove the words "ladies" and "gentlemen" from its toilets under Jersey's gender discrimination laws, and there have certainly been cases in the USA, but I'm not aware of any cases in the UK.

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:33

spannasaurus · 15/02/2025 14:26

People are not required to have surgery or take cross sex hormones for a GRC to be issued or the birth certificate changed

WTF - so a male can get a birth cert changed while intact.

I thought I was peeked with Rachel McKinnon I think I've just fell off another cliff!

Manxexile · 15/02/2025 14:35

SerafinasGoose · 15/02/2025 10:32

The thread has moved far on from this post - I'm following but missing large sections owing to the speed of the threads - but this got me thinking. Predictably, ED adopted the time-honoured TRA measure of 'aligning' feminist views with the so-called 'alt right'. This is such a lazy, uncritical regurgitation of lobby-group propaganda.

The US voted for Trump. The US wanted what he had to offer. There's a clear swing toward Reform in the UK. There's a discernible move toward right-wing views amongst younger people - working-class males in particular. As a society we ignore this at our peril, because this is the way the far right have historically come to power - through legitimate means, enabled by a disgruntled populace.

The 'Left' (which doesn't much resemble the left anymore but that's another thread) has walked right into this. If you shout down even the mildest of dissent as 'bigotry', start firing people, suspending people, harrassing and threatening them in their workplace a la Kathleen Stock, intimidate them outside their own homes as per JKR, then sooner or later people will rebel.

TRAs are not paying attention to their Overlords, Marx and Foucault. You can't keep people down like this for an indefinite period of time by merely oppressing them. You have to make them want to comply with what society is offering them, or sooner or later they will rebel. Then there'll be a revolution. The despots will be overthrown. Simple dialectics, and this one's coming to fruition right now.

Into this explosive mix walks Sandie Peggie. Of course she's going to agree with this particular stance of Trump's, because in a rare twist of fate it benefits women, who have long been pissed off and angry that their rights have been trampled over by this aggressive lobby.

IMO what we saw yesterday was an effective piece of lawyering. The motive for victimising Peggie has now been established and the hostility to her revealed. In any event, Trump is a clear red herring. UK citizens can't be 'supporters' of Trump, because Trump has no political jurisdiction in the UK, and we have no vote in the US.

As ever, with the TRA lobby (which ED is quoting to the letter whether or not she's a member), it's all wind and hot air.

This reflects very much what I believe.

I used to be very much a socialist but I would now describe myself as a conservative on social matters although I remain left leaning on economic matters.

Over the last 30 years or so the political left have moved away from the ordinary or working class person - the sort of person who should be their natural constituency - on social issues and have allowed themselves to be aligned to minority interests that are not as widely shared as the left would like to believe.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2025 14:36

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:33

WTF - so a male can get a birth cert changed while intact.

I thought I was peeked with Rachel McKinnon I think I've just fell off another cliff!

Yep.

Most people don't realise this.

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 14:36

MN needs a WTF face emoji,
I neither want to clap 👏 or agree 👍 with these responses but don't want to ignore either.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2025 14:38

Manxexile · 15/02/2025 14:35

This reflects very much what I believe.

I used to be very much a socialist but I would now describe myself as a conservative on social matters although I remain left leaning on economic matters.

Over the last 30 years or so the political left have moved away from the ordinary or working class person - the sort of person who should be their natural constituency - on social issues and have allowed themselves to be aligned to minority interests that are not as widely shared as the left would like to believe.

The majority of Brits are conservative leaning on social matters. This might come as a surprise to many. This doesn't mean they aren't tolerant though either, in something of a bizarre paradox.

I'm not sure what the split is on economic issues. It wouldn't surprise me if it was more socialist in nature.

No political party currently fills this space.

NebulousDeadline · 15/02/2025 14:40

WellIwasaGiraffeonce · 15/02/2025 14:01

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.

I agree and as noted yesterday by being suspended Sandie was protected from a further witch hunt by DU and supporting cast. He would almost certainly have raised more patient safety concerns and by the book.

Whole shambles is so short sighted. Their resolution was to wait until DU had rotated out. No consideration on what would happen if/ when there is another TiM member of staff.

usernameinserthere · 15/02/2025 14:42

Helpful audio summary here from the Times

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sexmattersorg_employmenttribunal-activity-7295805942783193136-y6AE?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAAiOtsgBQXrJ4HBH8lGTcZ7oweyTB6I6XHE

and some interesting commentary on why this is also a class issue:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/how-sandy-peggie-dr-beth-upton-tribunal-has-revealed-class-divide-at-heart-of-gender-debate-4991403

I’m a lawyer and baffled that someone who doesn’t have a GRC was allowed into a single sex space. They relied only on the conceptual analysis of the junior EDI bod and clearly bypassed HR & legal. Hope Fifes board get a handle on this - as the approve policy & have failed to ensure laws are followed for their employees. They are the ones accountable here and should be named as it was done on their watch.

SerafinasGoose · 15/02/2025 14:43

Conxis · 15/02/2025 13:29

I really want to know what KS has to say. I can imagine that Upton was a pain in the neck to manage.

If I were KS I don't think I would even contest this.
We know NC is going to ask her about Upton's sex, she's said that. I foresee a range of questions around "if Dr Upton presented in A&E would you use this set of norms for his tests results or this set? Oh you'd wouldn't use the female ones because...?" Risks for KS professionally if she doesn't answer correctly from a medical point of view is there not?
I'd put my hand up and say it's a fair cop, I handled the complaint wrongly and I need retraining!

They have to contest it. Because if one staff member, just one, of a captured organisation starts to make concessions like this, then the precarious foundation underpinning GI - not only in NHS Fife but in general - begins to shift, and the whole comes tumbling down like a house of cards.

Hence we're witnessing ED et al wriggling like worms on a hook to contort the fundamental, painfully bleeding obvious into ideologically acceptable obfuscation. I.e., needing an 'expert' to establish that humans are a dimorphic species and that changing sex is physically and anatomically impossible. I have to admit to taking a certain amount of perverse pleasure in witnessing their utter discomfiture, and wonder if the trust and its various Line-Manager minions are finding this process as uncomfortable and downright embarrassing as it looks to the uninitiated bystander.

The whole mess relies entirely on obfuscation. Which is why I find the Judge's insistence on not compelling the court to address DU by she/her pronouns quite interesting in context. It straightaway removes one of the most basic, fantastical untruths on which GI is predicated. It's a powerful statement to the tune that 'DU is a man, and the tribunal is to be heard on that fundamental basis'.

What a pity the same consideration is apparently not being applied, in the media at least, to the offensively-termed 'female' rapist in the news this week. But is even this small shift an indication that the judiciary - in Scotland, no less - is finally moving ahead of the curve with this issue?

Manxexile · 15/02/2025 14:45

mrshoho · 15/02/2025 11:30

Ah but back in the 70's tv had 3 channels and only a few hours of kids tv. Don't you remember being off sick watching Rainbows and then straight on to Crown Court. How did we survive!

NC only watched Rainbows so as not to miss the start of Crown court!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.