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

Once you've let one man in, you can no longer refuse others based on sex

This much is clear, but it interacts with the meaning of "sex" in the EA2010.

If "sex" means "actual sex", then letting in a man with a GRC "female" certificate would breach a "single-sex" female space and let in all men.

If "sex" means "legal sex", then letting in a woman with a GRC "male" certificate would breach a "single-sex" female space and let in all men.

This is another case where the "legal sex" interpretation harms female GRC holders.

And Upton doesn't have one. So he's just a common or garden bloke, like all the other blokes working in the hospital

And Upton doesn't have one. So he's just a common or garden bloke, like all the other blokes working in the hospital

Good point. The EA2010 interpretation is not relevant here. Just a man.

@ConstructionTime . Yesterday 20:27
It was in the TT from day 1:
^ https://archive.is/xkSxy^
They might come back to this relevant point again:
"NC - we have an additional document we want to insert into the bundle, DU previous GMC registration under the
name of Theodore Upton.
JR - that is opposed. I'm disappointed that MLC has deadnamed DU. Making that order might an act of direct discrimination and harassment against DU. Citing a case, deadnaming is an act of harassment.
Is the panel aware of deadnaming
J & panel indicate yes.
JR - deadnaming is a rejection of the person's identity and make them very stressed and it might affect the evidence they can give in this tribunal. Particularly egregious in a public hearing, anyone can harass DU
on the basis of previous name. Not relevant to the case. Do not need to refer to DU's deadname to deal with the case. Simply not relevant. To allow the document in is to harass the witness.

The whole 'deadnaming' concept is so bloody male. Until recently every woman who married changed her name - and when she met people who she'd know since childhood who used the name they'd been familiar with, she didn't feel 'rejected', or get 'very stressed' or describe it as 'harassment'.

Or the case of a relative of mine - names used slightly different, underlying principle the same.

Named Elizabeth Kelly

Called Betty Kelly by family

But Elizabeth Kelly in schools

Became a nun named Sister Joseph Kelly in religion

Left the convent, married, decided to use the Irish form of her name and her husband's surname, now called Eilis Murphy.

In later life, if she met someone who greeted her as Elizabeth, or a cousin who called her Betty, or a development worker who introduced her as the Joseph Kelly who ran an educational programme in Peru and published the process, Eilis did not cease to exist. The names were not 'deadnames' they were the names of her life, part of her story, to be remembered with affection and pride, even if they were not what she chose to use in later life.

The 'deadname' concept is a tell, that this thing is a performance and an attempt to coerce and control.

Yes and the hyperbole that came from JR actually made it seem ridiculous rather than serious.

It's another form of compelling others' language and speech.

This is one of my very favourite classical pieces so I need to look it up too.

(I'm not so fond of Yeats and his sodding gyres from a later thread though, as we had to study his poetry at A level!)

The 'deadname' concept is a tell, that this thing is a performance and an attempt to coerce and control.

I agree, but I also think that for kids who are going through the sort of existential crises that kids go through during puberty (or indeed any time), the idea that you can totally become a new person, and no one is allowed to even acknowledge that the old person existed - oh, that must be so seductive. It’s a tell, but as a bonus it’s also part of the sales pitch.

Based on what I've seen at the secondary school my kids are at, it also becomes a big stick you can use to bully other children with, and have teachers rushing to your aid. They got your name wrong/correctly identified your sex/looked at you funny/said there are only two sexes.

It's very appealing to a certain type of child.

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2025/feb/16/female-only-spaces-are-a-safety-issue

See 2nd letter. More delusion of biology.

I can see that too - and we’re back to the idea of control. There are a lot of overlaps, I believe, with things like anorexia, which we know is often more about control than about food. Imagine if all the anorexic kids in the world could exert that level of control over not just their own bodies but the people around them?

Re deadnames, if 'Peggie' is a married name, I wonder could they rustle up someone who has worked with Sandie since she used her original family name and let them refer to it without her dying or feeling stressed or rejected - just to demonstrate that she (and women in general) have mental flexibility and an understanding of how living through the passage of time works. Unlike some other people.

I wonder if you’re related to me! Especially if you’re based in the North of England.

It’s fine and dandy for the GMC to know which doctors are trans, but keeping this information a secret means it’s not much use to patients.

I think the news they are going to drop all mention of sex or gender indicates they think this whole area is a hot potato they’d rather not deal with. But that is abdicating responsibility; at least some patients (most women) need to know for at least some of the interactions (e.g. intimate examinations) they have with doctors. How are we supposed to find it if the GMC are hiding it?

I hear JR’s intervention here as a Buttergasp! Complete with the face.

I wish I’d seen it.

Id love to do the gif for those that haven’t seen, but sadly I haven’t learned how 🤣

I’ve added a few posts to this decaenneathalon of a thread series, always too frenzied to take the time to thank @nauticant , @justabaker and @ickky , and all the posters who have provided legal and historical context and have helped me through what’s turned out to be difficult reading.
I’m not sure why this case got to me so much. This morning I was reminded of when my year five teacher sided with the schoolyard bullies, a deep, unsettling terror.
Several (!) threads ago @nauticant asked us to share extracts of the tribunal transcriptions that stood out to each of us. Here are mine:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1888973915029991514.html

DU No, I get fully changed and then go to bathroom. Opposite way round when I arrive at work.
NC clear discrepancy between you and SP, But you agree you are entitled to use F CR
DU Yes
NC and to undress in CR
DU In almost 30 years I understand you have to get undressed first in order to change.
NC Didn't occur to you that SP needed menstrual flood
DU N
NC didn't cross mind
DU Not in habit of thinking c colleagues menstruation. Didn't consider it at all until raised in bundle.
NC so didn't think of it a possibility why SP there.
(highlight mine)

I’ve been asked before, in response to something I’ve said, “So you don’t believe in trans then?” I’ve seen it asked on these boards, too. I’ve always thought it was a stupid question, that of course trans people exist and I believe they exist. But now I’m wondering if my more honest answer isn’t, “No, I don’t.”
There isn’t a paper’s width of difference between Dr Beth Upton and a draftsman who designs a women’s changing room badly because he cannot imagine his way into a female experience. I don’t know what it is that Upton is identifying into, but it’s got nothing to do with being a woman, with being a female person, he is wholly oblivious to our carnal differences and unperterbed by that oblivion. His identification with not-cis-male-ness is obviously important to him, but the word “woman” in the term “trans woman” is misleading and I no longer think it’s a helpful categorisation.
To put it another way, for me, Upton has succeeded in queering the boundaries between “sincerely trans,” and “at it.”

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1890031571333415347.html

NC - you said, didn't think need. Expected to respect others cultural beliefs, but the right answer was you would have liked to be warned.
ED - only SP
NC - needed to warn all nurses not just SP
ED - doesn't seem to bother others
NC - did you know SP had been assaulted by a male GP when 17
ED - didn't have that info
NC - not surprising a woman with a hist of sexual trauma is partic upset by sharing CR with a male
ED - not unreasonable she would be upset. But there are other changing facilities, I wouldn't have put myself in that situation
(highlight mine)

I don’t know why it’s taken this case for me to realise what I’m about to relate. I’ve been talking and thinking about these situations (as Davidson puts it) since the early noughts. In all that time I have never received from any “cis” woman the heartfelt sentiment, “I don’t know what you mean, River, to me Beth is just one of the girls.”
It’s really starkly obvious in her evidence the Davidson doesn’t believe that trans women are women. She operates from the basis of, “How would I proceed here if I did believe that trans women are women?” And my honest experience is that this is true of every TWAW-er I have ever come across, from be-kinders through to full blown and very effective trans rights activists.
It makes me angry all over again. It makes me despondent. I’m exhausted and I don’t have Cunningham’s eloquence, Peggie’s courage, nor that of so many women here. But I am grateful for you all and could not esteem you more highly.

Marxists call it rent-seeking.
"Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth."
RENT-SEEKING

My understanding is that you need to have a 'legitimate aim' for which making provision single sex needs to be proportionate means of achieving that aim.

What is the legitimate aim of single gender identity provision?

I don't understand why it is deemed to be more dignified to change in front of a male who feels/thinks he's female than a male who doesn't. I also don't know that transwomen present less risk to females than males who don't identify as a transwoman.

Yes it will have an impact on the panel's decision making if they conclude the withholding of documents was unreasonable, deliberate or in bad faith and not just an accidental slip. It is very bad to not comply with disclosure orders. There may be costs consequences against the respondents. And the panel will be able to draw negative inferences from this, and may be able to conclude that the respondents are being evasive and not truthful. It's exactly like what happened in the Wagatha Christie case when Vardy lost her phone at the bottom of the sea - her credibility was destroyed.

The writer of that letter took an article that wrote clearly about sex and then replaced it with the nebulous concept of gender.

I will question the motives of anyone who does this.

I won't even bother commenting on their use of the word "femaleness".

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

I think it's because organisations are desperate to show that equality, diversity and inclusion is a top priority for them. They think that if they offered paltry salaries, they would come under fire for not valuing DEI enough.

Especially given this part of their mandate:

investigate where there are concerns that patient safety, or the public’s confidence in doctors, may be at risk, and take action if needed

https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do-and-why/our-mandate

NC - you said, didn't think need. Expected to respect others cultural beliefs, but the right answer was you would have liked to be warned.
ED - only SP
NC - needed to warn all nurses not just SP
ED - doesn't seem to bother others
NC - did you know SP had been assaulted by a male GP when 17
ED - didn't have that info
NC - not surprising a woman with a hist of sexual trauma is partic upset by sharing CR with a male
ED - not unreasonable she would be upset.

@TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged that section infuriated me, as did DU saying he was unaware- we know, statistically, we know the high rate of women affected by sexual assault history, to use DU’s coy phrase.

The chances are 50/50 that whenever there’s more than one person in the room, someone has been sexually assaulted in the past. So no one should need to make anyone else aware of anything.

That is evidence of Patriarchy, imo. That all that EDI hasn’t embedded that knowledge

Yes. I go by my married name now, but have no problem with people knowing about my maiden name, it’s just me in an earlier part of my life. Some of my paperwork is still in my maiden name, and some official forms ask for it. Fine.

I really don’t understand this ‘deadnaming’ thing at all. Just seems an excuse to make a fuss.

They don’t present less risk. They present the same amount of risk:

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/signed-Maya-Forstater.WS_.pdf

This is Maya Forstater’s submission to the tribunal which includes data on this exact subject.

Wait til you find out about the DBS Trans Loophole and the Hotline.

Maybe for another day.