Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
TriesNotToBeCynical · 15/02/2025 22:50

Shetlands · 15/02/2025 22:43

"Live as a female" in the UK means:

  • Growing your hair long;
  • Wearing dresses and skirts;
  • Wearing make-up;
  • Speaking in a soft, high voice;
  • Wearing a padded bra;
  • Having a 'girl name';
  • Using female pronouns;
  • Covering your Adam's apple with a scarf;
  • Trying to disguise male-pattern baldness with a comb-over;
  • Shaving your face twice a day;
  • Plucking your eyebrows;
  • Shaving your legs;
  • Being more likely to be in low paid work than men;
  • Being more likely to have fewer savings than men;
  • Being more likely to be in debt than men;
  • Being more likely to do unpaid labour and caring than men;
  • Being more likely to be domestically and/or financially abused than men;
  • Being more likely to have a smaller pension than men;
  • Being more likely to take a financial hit as a parent than men;
  • Being more likely to be under-represented politically than men;
  • Being less likely to hold positions of power & influence than men;
  • Being more likely to be talked over in meetings;
  • Being less likely to have your ideas listened to at work;
  • etc, etc, etc feel free to add more!

You're quite putting me off the idea of wanting to become one! (FTAOD I do realise it's not technically possible.)

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 22:58

This thread has been astonishing. I thought the scales had fallen from my eyes several months ago and realise now the scales had only fallen from the scales.

I'm not sure who's words are being quoted. But it completely sums up how I'm feeling. I honestly thought I'd been peeked with Rachel McKinnon.
The thought that the GMC allows Doctors change registered gender, birth certificates can be changed too. So absolutely no record or what Doctors actually are.

Doctors the people most likely to have legitimate reason to touch someone in their intimate areas.

How can anyone pin anyone down as male or female? If the records don't actually match body?

If you have someone with cock n balls but a birth cert that says Female. How the fuck can they be banned from Female facilities?

No cocks n balls in the Fanny owners facilities please! And no man made fannies either! Natural Fannies only!

NoBinturongsHereMate · 15/02/2025 23:10

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!

As we have a few newly peaked posters on the thread, I think it's worth setting out a few commonly-misunderstood points for clarity.

To change the sex marker on your NHS records, you simply tell them you want to change it.

To change the sex marker on your passport, you need either a letter from a doctor or to make a sworn declaration that you intend to live permently in your 'new gender'.

To get a new birth certificate, in a different sex, you need a GRC. No additional requirement.

To get a GRC you need to submit evidence to a panel. Those campaigning for a simpler GRC process tend to describe this panel review as 'intrusive and humiliating' and like to imply it's an in-person grilling like a particularly hostile job interview. The reality is that the panel never meets the applicant, they simply review the paperwork.

That paperwork is:

  • a £5 application fee
  • a letter from a doctor - these can be purchased from private gender doctors
  • evidence that you have been 'living in your acquired gender' for 2 years. There is no set defintion of 'living in your aquired gender', but it is considered sufficient evidence if you have 2 official documents, such as a utility bill and council tax bill, in your new name for the requisite period.

That's it.

There is no requirement for hormone or surgical treatment, no psychological assessment, no criminal record check, no interview.

Needspaceforlego · 15/02/2025 23:16

It just makes M/F so meaningless.
If anybody can be any sex whither the sex matches the body it's completely meaningless.

I actually take a little comfort that sports can do sex chromosome tests.

But I can't imagine it will be acceptable for employers to start chromosome testing their employees.
Or for gyms, their changing rooms
or prisons - Isla say no more

It's all complete nonsense.

KnottyAuty · 15/02/2025 23:28

Conxis · 15/02/2025 15:04

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.

Yes you're probably right @SerafinasGoose
I think it's quite a risk for a senior consultant though. Put in that situation I'd land my employer in it rather than risk reporting to GMC for answering under oath I didn't know the medical difference between a male and a female!

There are risks in all directions for KC.

  1. She stands by her actions and if she can't obfuscate like ED, or blame Isla Bumba, then she might take the fall for the intemperate email and other policy breeches bringing the Trust into disrepute. Even if the Trust stand by her, her reputation is in tatters with the general public for taking DU's side over SP's.

  2. She says she regrets everything and wins some public support and some insulation/protection as a whistleblower on foolish DEI policies (albeit very late). The Trust won't like this - so will they blame her for it all or kick it up and blame Isla Bumba?

Someone will take the blame and sure as eggs it won't be anyone on The Board.

KnottyAuty · 15/02/2025 23:30

PrettyDamnCosmic · 15/02/2025 15:26

I've been lurking following the case for the last few days so I thought that I should de-lurk. I am male & a retired A&E consultant so I have found this case particularly interesting.
Tthey have bent over backwards to accommodate Dr Upton's penchant for dressing up as a woman. It's gobsmacking that anyone especially Dr Upton should think it acceptable for a male to invade a female single sex space. The way that Sandie Peggie's case was handled was absolutely appalling & bloody typical of incompetent NHS management. She is going to win the case because they didn't handle the disciplinary process correctly. They put Sandie on 'Special Leave' then suspension & spun out the process until Dr Upton moved on to another department so there was no proper investigation of the complaint of bullying & harassment.

Thank you for speaking up. It is much appreciated. In real life lots of people won't say these things for fear of reprisals like Sandie. If your female colleagues knew they have your support they would appreciate it

TriesNotToBeCynical · 15/02/2025 23:40

KnottyAuty · 15/02/2025 23:28

There are risks in all directions for KC.

  1. She stands by her actions and if she can't obfuscate like ED, or blame Isla Bumba, then she might take the fall for the intemperate email and other policy breeches bringing the Trust into disrepute. Even if the Trust stand by her, her reputation is in tatters with the general public for taking DU's side over SP's.

  2. She says she regrets everything and wins some public support and some insulation/protection as a whistleblower on foolish DEI policies (albeit very late). The Trust won't like this - so will they blame her for it all or kick it up and blame Isla Bumba?

Someone will take the blame and sure as eggs it won't be anyone on The Board.

I'd just point out that apart from the foolish email the other policy breaches were not in her remit. And if managers followed her wishes without following their own professional training she is not responsible.

duc748 · 16/02/2025 00:00

And after all, she's a barrister. She's going to lose some cases, and win some. I can't imagine it's career disaster.

KnottyAuty · 16/02/2025 00:10

TriesNotToBeCynical · 15/02/2025 17:47

I am sure she'll be fine. Firstly because A & E consultants are not easy to get. But secondly the only thing she definitely did wrong was disseminating a biassed account of the event. If her opinion was so influential that those responsible for managing the nurses forgot all objectivity and training and rushed to do her bidding it is hardly her fault!

If it was just a procedural thing or a slip up, or bumbliness like ED, then I'd agree. But she might be named as R3 in this case - which suggests the evidence is rather more damning that you think?

KnottyAuty · 16/02/2025 00:41

NotMaroonButRaspberry · 15/02/2025 21:11

I think even digging up more dirt on SP will backfire.

Not least because it's a tenuous and grubby thing to do, and is direct challenge to the cult following SP has completely organically and unintentionally gained.

But also because not one of JRs witnesses have ever mentioned SP having a known or acknowledged issue with anyone trans. They knew she was into some Trump stuff and they've inferred & suggested her husband has racist friends but they've got no previous inkling or evidence of transphobia. Even though, and ED confirmed this, everyone in A&E was familiar with and had worked alongside DU for some months already (as he had a psych rotation where he would see A&E patients before moving to the department full time.) ED confirmed that everyone was aware they DU was trans (DU won't be having any of that) but had no issues with it. SP had worked with, alongside and around DU for MONTHS and despite their obsession with her being stern and outspoken, "everyone knows her opinions" they had no forewarning of "transphobia."

The problems only arise when SP was forced into a vulnerable position in a state of undress.

JR can bang on about SP telling people she stayed in a Trump hotel or whatever cheap shots she wants to take, but to my mind it makes it even more clear that SP didn't have an issue with DU because they were trans but because he is a man.

100% dirt won't help and more likely to backfire.
So she will be desperately trying to think of other alternatives and I was wondering what those might be... slim pickings.... because the NHS served her a turkey of a case and SP's a great witness....
She probably knew it was a toughie from the bundle, but I wondered whether she realised how bad DU would be in person?

Enough4me · 16/02/2025 00:47

I expect this has come up on here, but there's a petition to the Government to:
Fully Repeal the Gender Recognition Act
Which can be found through searching online.
The recognition act is meaningless and harmful.

KnottyAuty · 16/02/2025 01:10

NoBinturongsHereMate · 15/02/2025 23:10

As we have a few newly peaked posters on the thread, I think it's worth setting out a few commonly-misunderstood points for clarity.

To change the sex marker on your NHS records, you simply tell them you want to change it.

To change the sex marker on your passport, you need either a letter from a doctor or to make a sworn declaration that you intend to live permently in your 'new gender'.

To get a new birth certificate, in a different sex, you need a GRC. No additional requirement.

To get a GRC you need to submit evidence to a panel. Those campaigning for a simpler GRC process tend to describe this panel review as 'intrusive and humiliating' and like to imply it's an in-person grilling like a particularly hostile job interview. The reality is that the panel never meets the applicant, they simply review the paperwork.

That paperwork is:

  • a £5 application fee
  • a letter from a doctor - these can be purchased from private gender doctors
  • evidence that you have been 'living in your acquired gender' for 2 years. There is no set defintion of 'living in your aquired gender', but it is considered sufficient evidence if you have 2 official documents, such as a utility bill and council tax bill, in your new name for the requisite period.

That's it.

There is no requirement for hormone or surgical treatment, no psychological assessment, no criminal record check, no interview.

Thanks for this list. Maybe what we should all do is change our NHS markers to male. If we do it en mass it will reveal this for the gross stupidity that it is.

RapidOnsetGenderCritic · 16/02/2025 01:24

Signalbox · 15/02/2025 08:42

Quick question and sorry if already covered but why are DEI jobs so well paid?

Because the jobs are going to be short lived?

NoBinturongsHereMate · 16/02/2025 01:25

And for.the avoidance of doubt, when I refer to a 'letter from a doctor' in my previous post, this is not a letter to say that you have had, are having, or plan to have any medical, surgical or psychological treatments. Because none of these are required.

All it says is that the doctor believes that you belive your gender doesn't match your sex. (Whatever that may mean.)

TriesNotToBeCynical · 16/02/2025 01:29

KnottyAuty · 16/02/2025 00:10

If it was just a procedural thing or a slip up, or bumbliness like ED, then I'd agree. But she might be named as R3 in this case - which suggests the evidence is rather more damning that you think?

You may be right. But, in her position if I was made a respondent, I would get my medical defence organisation to provide separate representation, and take the line I was just strongly advocating for my junior and how the claimant was treated was entirely the responsibility of the management. And I would want to re-examine some of both sides witnesses. So it would probably add another week or so.
Edited for American spelling

KnottyAuty · 16/02/2025 01:37

TriesNotToBeCynical · 15/02/2025 23:40

I'd just point out that apart from the foolish email the other policy breaches were not in her remit. And if managers followed her wishes without following their own professional training she is not responsible.

I'd just point out that your tone has veered towards patronising. None of us know what is in the bundle but being named as R3 (and not having done the case-by-case checks required by law and specifically mentioned in the Trust's pre-hearing defence) puts KS in a vulnerable position IMO.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 16/02/2025 01:50

KnottyAuty · 16/02/2025 01:37

I'd just point out that your tone has veered towards patronising. None of us know what is in the bundle but being named as R3 (and not having done the case-by-case checks required by law and specifically mentioned in the Trust's pre-hearing defence) puts KS in a vulnerable position IMO.

Saying what I'd do is not patronising! Sorry if you feel offended - I'm just saying what I think, not remotely advocating for it to happen.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 16/02/2025 01:57

Oh, and it isn't intended as criticism of anyone here, but the advice apparently given to Fife to decide CR use on a case by case basis would seem to offer a messy grievance to the first person refused, as a PP pointed out.

eilean28 · 16/02/2025 02:15

Doctor here, have joined MN just to discuss this case as it's so difficult to find somewhere where people have common sense! I could not BELIEVE what DU said about biological sex, so embarrassing for our profession.

Re the GMC issue, there's a letter from head of GMC here explaining what they do - essentially just create a new GMC registration for the "transitioned" gender with no explicit link to old reg, but internally at GMC registrations are linked
https://x.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1889423803534680503/photo/1

TriesNotToBeCynical · 16/02/2025 02:30

eilean28 · 16/02/2025 02:15

Doctor here, have joined MN just to discuss this case as it's so difficult to find somewhere where people have common sense! I could not BELIEVE what DU said about biological sex, so embarrassing for our profession.

Re the GMC issue, there's a letter from head of GMC here explaining what they do - essentially just create a new GMC registration for the "transitioned" gender with no explicit link to old reg, but internally at GMC registrations are linked
https://x.com/Baroness_Nichol/status/1889423803534680503/photo/1

Did you notice the bit where they said that in future they are not going to publish gender or sex information at all?

Heggettypeg · 16/02/2025 03:25

Bit of a derail (sorry) but I just wanted to thank a PP - don't remember who - on an earlier thread in this series, who mentioned that they were listening to Smetana's Ma Vlast played on historic instruments on Radio 3. A very spirited performance - so many thanks for the heads-up, whoever you were!

Datun · 16/02/2025 06:10

TriesNotToBeCynical · 16/02/2025 01:57

Oh, and it isn't intended as criticism of anyone here, but the advice apparently given to Fife to decide CR use on a case by case basis would seem to offer a messy grievance to the first person refused, as a PP pointed out.

I'd like to know on what basis they would refuse any Tom dick or harry.

Saying you're not trans won't wash, will it? Wouldn't that be discriminatory towards men generally?

TimeForATerf · 16/02/2025 06:58

I have read the full thread from beginning to end and read all the TT, so if I’ve missed this then sincere apologies, I will blame the red mist having muddled my brain over the last week or more.

What was in the email from KS to the other 17 people in her department? Or is the content so bad that this is the main reason she is being considered as a further respondent in the tribunal?

NecessaryScene · 16/02/2025 06:59

Saying you're not trans won't wash, will it? Wouldn't that be discriminatory towards men generally?

Single-sex spaces or events are permitted for various reasons. And once you have one, then you're free to refuse a man entry to a female space because he's male. (Duh!)

But you can't refuse a man entry to something that's not single-sex because he's male.

Once you've let one man in, you can no longer refuse others based on sex - the single-sex exemption permitting sex discrimination no longer applies, and the general "no sex discrimination" rule applies.

Datun · 16/02/2025 07:07

NecessaryScene · 16/02/2025 06:59

Saying you're not trans won't wash, will it? Wouldn't that be discriminatory towards men generally?

Single-sex spaces or events are permitted for various reasons. And once you have one, then you're free to refuse a man entry to a female space because he's male. (Duh!)

But you can't refuse a man entry to something that's not single-sex because he's male.

Once you've let one man in, you can no longer refuse others based on sex - the single-sex exemption permitting sex discrimination no longer applies, and the general "no sex discrimination" rule applies.

Edited

Right. So that changing home could be absolutely rammed with male staff under their policy.

I want them to be asked what other men they let in

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.