Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton

[Inauthentic]

Is the following statement correct?

In Scotland, transgender employees can use restrooms that match their gender identity, with or without a GRC.

Employers should not require proof of legal gender recognition unless they have a strong, lawful reason.

Denying access could be considered unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

It's not discriminating against anyone to say you can't have a choice of changing room. It's fair to everyone to say you're only allowed to go to the CR that matches your sex.

Just like Sandie Peggie, and her other female colleagues, wouldn't have been allowed to change in the men's.

Discrimination means treating someone differently and worse to everyone else.

An example of discrimination covered under the EA would be, say, paying a trans-identifying employee less than everyone else.

Not really. The law does protect trans people because it protects everyone and trans people are part of everyone. But it protects no one as a class or group. As PPs have said, changing rooms are segregated by sex so there is no discrimination. Trans women are male and males are excluded from female changing rooms. Even for people with a grc single sex services are explicitly allowed in EA2010.

If the PC of GR in the Equality Act removes the ability for service providers and employers to provide single sex facilities, the acts need to be ammended to reflect that.

If single sex spaces are illegal, then we need to ensure that that is clear in law.

OP, things end up in court where there is disagreement on the facts (did the behaviour of one person about to harassment of another, for example). One of the reason people on both sides of this deplorably polarised debate are paying so much attention to this case is a disagreement about the law, which is not settled yet.

I'm grateful you gave the correct name of the Equality Act, by the way, pedant that I am! Also lawyer, I'm studying for my professional exams with two degrees which is why I have been following the case very cursorily.

I actually haven't paid more than passing attention and if you come back to this thread I'll look it up, but if the law were unequivocal then it wouldn't be in court. There would also not need to have been a debtate, campaign and several policy changes about self-ID if it were already enshrined in law. Finally, whatever the legal definition of male and female (words you used) are, it will not be based on self-ID, and the law on the meaning of gender reassignment will draw heavily on GRCs and the process of getting one, because that is the way the law recognises gender reassignment.

Either way you won't change anything by asserting quite a shaky interpretation of the law at some strangers on a part of this site with extremely strong views. If you want to impress or engage some lawyers I'd suggest actually quoting statute and case law, as well as government policy and any guidance that exists.

Have a great week, all.

What a strange post, being talked down to by a student who hasn’t paid more than ‘passing attention’ to the subject they are commenting on.

NHS Fife shameful handling of the case and casual attitude to HR processes is costing them money. I wander how much money has been spent on this instead of patient care.

Great user name, OP. Cracking.

NHS Fife could have given this great thought and understood they were in a tricky place. They had to choose between upsetting DrUpton and upsetting all the women (75% of their workforce).

The Legal stuff is under discussion in court, but I agree with PPs- single sex provision is required.

discrimination would be -
stopping DrU using the men’s or the women’s and not providing him space at all (which they didn’t)
suspending Sandie for refusing to change with DrU (which they did).
Allowing DrU in the women’s but not allowing the other men in.

Dr U has the choice of all the changing rooms, Sandie of none.

Its the forcing the third party that is a big problem.

Getting changed is not a spectator sport in fact there are laws to prevent it become a spectator sport.

NHS Fife is trying to prove a woman has a contractual obligation to provide a strip-show or at least attend one against her will.

Same kind of problem that NHS's across the country have and that leads on to the problem of employing staff who state the intent to assault patients.

If the two laws clash thats up to the Courts to identify and politicians to rectify.

I've followed a lot of these cases and my understanding is as follows. IANAL and interested to hear from any lawyers on this.

Given that Dr Upton doesn't have a GRC, his legal sex is male (regardless of her gender identity). In the recent supreme Court case, it was common ground that someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but without a GRC retains their legal sex. The 1992 regulations pertain to legal sex, and Fife had a clear obligation to provide single (legal) sex changing rooms.

Had Dr Upton had a GRC, the situation would be different and the law unclear: we don't know if his/her legal sex change would be enough to allow him/her to enter the women's changing room. We can expect clarity about that only once we hear from the Supreme Court on the case heard late last year
sex-matters.org/posts/updates/for-women-scotland-in-the-supreme-court/

OP, I expect you will consider this a biased source and I can sympathize with that. The article however contains links to key submissions, which you may find helpful.

Define ‘best practice’ - Gender reassignment doesn’t outrank sex or religion as a protected characteristic, both of which it can be in contention with when it comes to single sex spaces.

I think the law versus the Stonewall interpretation boils down to the reference category when claiming discrimination.

It can be interpreted that Gender Reassignment is the same as other factors in the equality act - that a man does not lose or gain any rights, is not treated any differently, than he would be without gender Reassignment. So a man called Pete, coming to work the next day as Petra, cannot be fired for that, or paid less, for example. He isn't discriminated against for making this change.

Stonewall interpretation uses women as the reference category, so a woman who became one through gender Reassignment is the same as one who didn't have it, but only for the things men want, like changing rooms with women,not the lower pay women get.

No the statement is incorrect because we don't have restrooms in Scotland, we have toilets and changing rooms.

So the statement has clearly been rehashed by an American rather than by someone who understands anything about the UK either north or south of the Scottish border.

Language matters. It reveals that there's someone not even in this country has an agenda over this case.

Finally, whatever the legal definition of male and female (words you used) are, it will not be based on self-ID, and the law on the meaning of gender reassignment will draw heavily on GRCs and the process of getting one, because that is the way the law recognises gender reassignment.

Except that isn't right. There is no requirement to have a GRC, or be in the process of getting one, to have the PC of gender reassignment. See the wording of the EA here and how a person qualifies: www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/gender-reassignment-discrimination

The relevant legislation is the Workplace Regulations 1992 which make it mandatory to provide separate changing facilities for men and women.
Dr Upton is not a woman therefore has no right to be in the women's changing room.
It's no more complicated than that.

My local hospital (England) has the same rules as Fife, it's worth asking your local hospital what their rules are and raising any concerns with them.

Any man can use any female facilities with no certificate or change to his body whatsoever under the rules currently in place.

Exactly this. It's really not hard! Unless you're NHS Fife and / or a TRA!

If I could post a pic it would be of a rock. Grey in colour.

I imagine we won't be hearing from the OP for a while, given that they're in a different time zone.

Not that posters from outside the UK aren't welcome, as long as they have something constructive to add.

Anyway, grey rock time.

All this shows the stranglehold that men who claim to be women are having on the social contract, women's rights and the safety of children. Mangling the law to wedge a man in to a space where women are undressed. Whingeing posts claiming that single sex spaces "restricts everyone's freedoms". Endless faux legalistic posts on a board predominated by women, all aimed at ensuring that men - including the most predatory and dangerous of men - MUST be allowed access to women & girls undressing for .... reasons.

Fuck that shit. Women say no. And so do men. In vastly increasing numbers.

Away with all this predatory nonsense, positioning women and girls as support humans for sad men. There's no point in engaging with those who are so fundamentally flawed that they're unable to respect the boundaries of women and girls and our rights to safety, privacy and dignity.

But Greyskybluesky said it far more calmly than I did :

"Anyway, grey rock time". 😂

Thank you for your replies, everyone.

I'm a bit confused about this case and was looking for clarification, as well as people's interpretations of the law. There seems to be a lot of misinformation circulating about it—including here on Mumsnet.

To clarify, since it seems important to some posters: I live in the UK, but I am not British.

There seems to be some confusion around this point.

My understanding is that self-identification matters under the Equality Act because protection is based on a person’s intention and actions, rather than their legal document.

There are specific provisions for single sex spaces in the Equality Act 2010. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not mean that men who identify as women are seen as women under the law when it comes to single sex spaces or other protections, just that they are protected from discrimination and harassment, within limits.

The only way they may possibly gain a legal "woman" status when it comes to single sex spaces is by applying for a gender recognition certificate and that itself is disputed, see the current Supreme Court case.

All this shows the stranglehold that men who claim to be women are having on the social contract, women's rights and the safety of children. Mangling the law to wedge a man in to a space where women are undressed. Whingeing posts claiming that single sex spaces "restricts everyone's freedoms". Endless faux legalistic posts on a board predominated by women, all aimed at ensuring that men - including the most predatory and dangerous of men - MUST be allowed access to women & girls undressing for .... reasons.

YY.