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

True believers think that the incongruence is between their biological sex and their physiology (primary and secondary sex characteristics) and that their gender identity is the medical proof, rather than some metaphysical or legal concept.

That's why they hate 'misgendering' - because to them it just means mis-sexing. And that's why they are utterly resistant to arguments based on 'sex sometimes matters'.

The rest of us were just bumbling along with a Cartesian view of things. GI on one side of the mind/body divide, sex and physiology on the other. But there's only about two-and-a-half transwomen and their dog (Miranda Yardley, Debbie Hayton) who agree. The rest are in Upton's camp, and the law has capitulated by making it possible to obtain an altered birth certificate.

internet search Fully Repeal the Gender Recognition Act. It's the first result

Does anyone have a link to where Upton's counsel misgendered him repeatedly in court? That profoundly undermines the entire trial surely??!

But that's why its so fab (politically) - because it's woolly it can be used however is convenient. Legally it's a nightmare though.

As a PP so eloquently said: Holy shit!
This is against natural justice surely?
Oh wait - did I say 'natural justice'? I don't think we're in Kansas any more, Toto, are we?😡

The board will have had very little input (so far) with the cause of this snafu. It's management led by EDI. Of course, one can never discount laziness or incompetence!

Lockhart was fully supportive of Clare Baker when she voted against GRR and has said that men do not belong in women's spaces. I wouldn't be surprised if she was horrified by her brother's antics.

Of more note are the executives who report to the board. Check out, for example, Ben Hannan. https://www.nhsfife.org/about-us/senior-management-team/

Not sure that she did. TT were reporting and used 'he' but I never heard Jane Russell say that.

There was, however, a moment right at the very end of evidence in chief where she started to say what sounded like 'Mr Upton' but corrected to 'Dr'. But maybe she'd claim she was saying 'Miss'!

How can it be legal for NHS Fife to continue internal processes for an issue which is already under adjudication by an employment tribunal? Genuinely asking.

Also, if the tribunal instructions are that matters before it can't be discussed prior to the resumption in July, how on earth are the witnesses (already been on the stand and those still to come) not in contempt of court? Again genuinely asking.

If this investigation is now adding misgendering to the list, this will make the decision arising from Friday even more important through several different aspects.

Firstly, through whether an employer can dictate that an employee acts as if they comply with someone else's philosophical belief in matters of language.

Then how that interacts with the law generally.

But also then how pronouns and using common use language can be used abusively by those demanding that people use ones they demand suit them.

I think this move will now show the harm that many of us have been discussing on MN and in real life. I also think even more strongly now that this case has built on the Bryson and the Wadhwa cases about language usage. I really don't think that there is any going back for many people to supporting use of preferred (in this case, demanded) pronouns and language.

It is just more crumbling crumbling crumbling before our eyes.

I am horrified that Sandie Peggy has to go through all of this particularly after listening to what she has already been through. And I am grateful to her, but fuck! Why the fuck should she have too!

Ironically, I feel this piece is relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/16/when-its-to-cause-distress-to-believers-call-it-for-what-it-is-a-secular-version-of-blasphemy

Sorry to quote myself but wanted to provide a route to X so people could read it themselves.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5267835-a-man-undressing-in-front-of-a-woman-without-her-consent-is-an-act-of-intimidation-and-control-men-do-not-acquire-consent-by-identifying-as-women?page=16&reply=141972366

Sorry for the derail

I think this move will now show the harm that many of us have been discussing on MN and in real life. I also think even more strongly now that this case has built on the Bryson and the Wadhwa cases about language usage. I really don't think that there is any going back for many people to supporting use of preferred (in this case, demanded) pronouns and language.

Yes: it's clear that this is a highly strategic case on a number of fronts, including single-sex facilities and the NHS. And Upton performed beautifully and showed the world how an abusive controlling man can uses claims of victimhood and offence to control everyone in his orbit.

No, I don't have half a day to go back through Twitter looking for the various Tweets from people who counted the misgendering. If you do, you will find them. You may even find them here on MN on the various threads covering the live trial.

Sorry I dont have a link and

No
Lucky they lost that round 🤪

...... because this counsel argued against this and 'his side' lost

.... otherwise the counsel doing the misgendering could have made an objection when Sandie side used correct sexed terms

.... as it stands its a lack of professionalism (not really) loosing out to normal brain socialisation

.... and the counsel being 'rude'

She is still an employee. And if she left prospective employers may ask for her disciplinary record.

They want to frighten every other Woman in the NHS into silence and submission. I hope it backfires in the most explosive way possible.

So...GMC say they can't / won't do anything about a doctor spouting unscientific nonsense and being blasé (at best) about patient consent because the ET is still underway. Sod all the patients he treats in the meantime.

But NHS Fife can do this to Sandie?

I wish I knew. I've been trying to glean more from the media this morning, but there's a lot of debate and mystification out there, even among legal experts.

I agree, it's yet another deliberate conflation of sex & gender. When I say 'he' or 'she' I mean someone's sex. I don't have words to refer to their gender. If they want to use sex-words to describe their gender then they are clearly inviting this ambiguity of whether it's sex or gender that is meant.

As they won't say what they think a woman is, it could be anything - let's say they would define a woman as a person of either sex who is left-handed. Therefore when I say 'he' they would say I'm saying they're right-handed. But that's not me mis-gendering/handing them, that's them mixing up body-sex words with words that describe their true inner selves.

Again - they need to decide whether sex & gender id are the same thing or not.

@Alicethroughtheblackmirror
The board will have had very little input (so far) with the cause of this snafu. It's management led by EDI. Of course, one can never discount laziness or incompetence!

Sorry I disagree on the input.

The board have oversight (or should have) to all the policy which fences in what the organistion can or can not do.
And are there to control the organisation so need to have a reporting system in place to make sure that the various department heads report the good and the bad.

Thats how delegated authority works. Failure to report is hire error (of Senior Managers) and lack of control.

So
HR should have a line item of the potential need for an ET to when legal papers confirmed it was happening.
Legal should have a line item to prove that they are aware and are progressing with some kind of plan plus likely outcome
Finance should have had a line item to cover the cost of external legal (estimate then quote) and the maximum expected payout (if applying modern accounting standards)
The hospital believed they could get a closed door hearing and no bad PR but Communications should have had a plan.

One can work through the department heads who should have a need to include the legal action as a job requirement.
Plus they all had a whistleblowing option as it was about has the hospital broke the law.

Individuals on the boad may not have passed the policy or can be out voted or get poor reports or poor legal advice but ownership remains with them.

Oh, that's what should happen...

They would be correct

They are effectively taking away the ability to earn a living so have to have set the bar high.
And afaik they have get the ruling signed off by the high court if a doctor wont agree to a suspension and/or its a strike off

1. no direct evidence that there is a patient care issue he passed the tests and the training.
2. no evidence of him forcing a (female) patient to accept him as a woman.
3. if the Judge accepted he was female and a woman they cant do anything about the unscientific bit

NHS Fife on the other hand has a duty to assess his ability to safely carry out a role within their rules of patent care.

Yep
its a lets look at root and branch with nice words like systemic vs systematic ( or what ever is in fashion these days).

Imo the big problem is the male saying he would expect other staff to apply the is a woman to every situation. The hospital have a problem as they are saying is a woman except in the role when it comes to same sex provision.

That is 3 department heads who now know they have a HR problem

Christ it's almost like NHS Fife want to lose the case and pay substantial damages.

Yes, I don't think you can discipline someone at work for something that happened outside of work. There may be cases - like MPs doing wrong things in their spare time - but in normal situations it doesn't apply. There would need to be proven a direct link to their work.

And here, as the others said, it was permitted by a judge, too.