Sandie Peggie facing internal misconduct hearing this week!

[NotAtMyAge]

Utterly mind-blowing to read that NHS Fife is pressing ahead with a disciplinary hearing this Friday against Sandie Peggie, despite the Employment Tribunal not having completed its work. Sandie isn't taking this lying down and has started separate legal proceedings according to The Telegraph, which also includes the stunned reaction of Michael Foran to the news in its report.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ea111fbd4a9af5a6

Archive version: https://archive.ph/lsriA

It may have been mangled by the BBC.

Or written by one of the numerous Fifth Columnists ensconced at the EHRC? The ones who tried to undermine Baroness Falkner.

It said the results of any assessments must also be published, and that it had not been able to find this information on the NHS Fife website.

Oops what a shame someone is in for some overtime..

We know and you now know we know.

They would have been 'safe' because the bullying to ignore sex as a PC was working as the case-by-case ignores the needs of the other person being balances against the want to use a single sex space

In the draft NHS Scotland guide it states decisions regarding trans people using changing facilities should be "made on a case-by-case basis" and that "managers must balance the needs of the trans person to use this facility against the needs of other members of staff."

Sex and GR and no CR at all is a need
Sex and GR and 2 CR its a want not a need.

In the draft NHS Scotland guide it states decisions regarding trans people using changing facilities should be in the context of current law and current provision and that managers must balance the needs of all members of staff when making provision for the needs of the trans person

Not the power imbalance where an employer is removing from one employee (SSS) and giving to another employee

In case you haven't seen the original from the EHRC, their press release and the two letters are here: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/equality-regulator-engages-scottish-government-and-nhs-fife-regarding-staff

In the draft NHS Scotland guide it states decisions regarding trans people using changing facilities should be in the context of current law and current provision and that managers must balance the needs of all members of staff when making provision for the needs of the trans person

But surely this can never be squared. To give rights to one person (trans women in female changing room) it involves removing rights from another (women's sex based rights not to share with someone in a male body with a penis)

Wow, didn't expect that. Teeth are showing.

It can be squared.
Its based on proportionate adaptation on the right to change not the righ to change beside somebody else.

But looking at it from both all sides from the top down.
Provision
Population
Individual
The individual gets fair access to the same level as any member of the appropiate population.

Take a wheelchair user (PC Disability ( D)) in employment in an old building
You are not expected to replace all the stairways and doorways in a building with lifts and proper clearance openings.
You can be expected to have a ground floor office that is accesssable and a toilet that a wheelchair user can access
The exception would be where the cost to adapt would cause harm to or actual business failure.

Similar a Muslim (PC Relegion (R))who wishes to pray the provision of a space and allowing time is proportionate once it can fit around the role.

The NHS has failed to grid the PC and create a rule where they clash.

So the whole employee population would split down into very small sub-groups using the 9 PC into Are these PC and Are / Not these PC.

They went GI Only and ran the proportionate test

Policy should be based on looking for all the outcomes possible before they happen.

Eg

Why CR:
CR are health and safety issue its infection control for staff leaving the work area and allows replacement of damaged protective gear after a work place accident.

[The policy should have all the legislation that is relevent to each decision. As the law will stop the "decision tree Yes" to a No because its unlawful.]

So building regs and H&S laws quoted.

Outcome: Fife need CR

How many CR
We look at our sub-groups and decide what provision is needed

PC : Sex (S)
Law says SSS
The doctor male need to use a CR is provided for.
Every other employee is provided for to per the law.
Fife must provide 2 CR per the SSS law and PC S has only 2 class

Outcome 2 SSS are provided

PC: S and D
Here the SSS law still applies and proportionate adaptation
There is a need to make the space user friendly or provide a dedicated space
So quoting SSS lad and building regs for space and fitout and etc..

Outcome 2 SSS are provided both with access or 1 individual unit is provded with access

PC: S and R
Here the SSS law still applies
Plus some faiths do not allow nonSSS CR so no clash.
So SSS law and how free expression is allowed/restricted eg there should be no symbols and guidance on matters of faith eg no abortion posters or bible quotes.

PCs: S and GR
He or any other male can not be in the female single sex CR as the SSS law says no.
So hospital need to decide if they provide a 3rd space. That is a right to a not-male CR

(What happened in the US was a school decided the girls had no right to contol who had visual access to their bodies if they changed on the school premises. And the school district were going to payout 3m ish to the boy who wanted access)

PCs: S and GR and D
So what happens in the third space if and someone has a disability

PCs: R and GI
Here non-SSS can be a supression under R so they need to provide for both parties

And each of the PC gets mixed and matched before the policy comes into being so case-by-case is never needed due to the pre-anticipation and resolution.

The law at the moment stops males. And i cant see the ET ruling otherwise

It's a right not to have to change with other males, not a right to see females get changed. That's the bit that needs to be spelled out to Fife.

So the correct risk assessment in law would be to have a 3rd space for people who do not identify as their natal sex, but they cannot change in the CR for the other sex as that would mean the workplace does not have SSS?
Like the example of creating a disabled toilet on ground floor, accessible to the wheelchair user but doesn't remove other people's access to toilets?

Many thanks for this extremely helpful analysis. NHS Fife should hire you as a consultant as it doesn't look as though they have anyone working for them who can think as clearly as this.

Sensible people would think so, but the problem of course is that there's no validation for a trans-identified man if he isn't allowed to change alongside women.

@SqueakyDinosaur

The counter for the signing of the petition to repeal the GRA is ticking along nicely. Almost 500 signatures per day now. If this keeps going, then by August it could reach over 50.000 or even enough for the parliamental hearing.
I see many GC women on Twitter posting and reposting about it.

The law is only F/M for changing rooms.
So the employer is within the current legislation to only provide F/M

And a S:Male + GI:Yes is classed the same as S:Male + Gi:No not S:Female + GI:No so there is no clear legal obligation.

Using disabilty S:M +D:Yes is not the same as S:F + D:Yes a third mixed sex open disability CR would qualify but 1 individual CR would. (sorry ifs fuzzy logic) as SSS + provision law combines.

End is the law is not there to move the GI into a third space until someone takes a test case.

Or the courts come back on the GRC test case with a ruling that S+GI creates a sub-sex class

Thank you @AnSolas for your valuable explanations and analysis.
Maybe you should give NHS Fife a ring, see if they need some help!

And this is relevant. They provided a non-binary/trans sporting event and no one entered.

Trans-identifying men get a sexual thrill from being seen as a being a woman. This is enhanced when they are allowed to use women's spaces and enhanced further when women directly validate them, either by ignoring them and being embarrassed/annoyed or when women object.

Dr Upton is literally getting off on the tribunal because he was not validated by Peggie, but complaining and getting this far and being called "she" during the tribunal, is all sexual eroticism for him.

Tbf its not my industry so my method may be 100% wrong

And while I have been lucky to work beside very clever people (who did this kind of thing for a living in an industry where the No because its unlawful usually had a prison sentence and /or a fine alongside financial and reputation risk that could kill the business) I would never hold myself out as a qualified consultant. My role was being clued in enough to see if we need to push an issue into review and/or buy in the specialty.

Anyway the biggest problem NHS F have is the culture which had noone asking why SP has to see a woman in the CR but a man when patient requested SS on the work floor. If that basic logic was applied across the organisation they would have provided a third space.

The EHRC is no longer hobbled politically as the the Stonewall awards is now recognised as lobby group and the we never denied that the PC Sex is important is warming up. Health care is for a multicultural population and the internal weakness will imo roll into NHS's core business and the staff have no rights above the service users. So if the EHRC is willing to go all in its going to be an interesting year.

When it comes to Dr Upton, this is speculation. I understand that it looks this way, but there isn't any completely conclusive evidence. It is at least possible that a trans identifying man is not sexually motivated but still wants the affirmation of being accepted as a "woman" in all circumstances. I fully accept that there are plenty of examples of what you are talking about, but I don't think it's OK to assume that all TIMs are like that.

The fact that this is a case of insisting on access to a women's changing room does of course create suspicion, and it would be no surprise if you are right. And the dignity and safety of the women affected should be ample reason to exclude the bloke, even if the law didn't require it.

I agree, @RapidOnsetGenderCritic .

There was something in his evidence, he said not that he didn't look at women changing but that he didn't want to be seen to be looking. Although, that may mean nothing. Just the way he worded it.

Map of Anger is looking very angry in Scotland. Nearly at 12,000 signatures

We need Eve and Wales to catch up on the map of angry.

Autocorrects gone a bit mental there, England and Wales

@Boiledbeetle

more than 12.000 now!