NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #22

[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 last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It is planned that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July and then there will be 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing will end on 30 July.

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
Thread 19: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274571-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-19
Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5275782-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-20
Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5276925-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-21

@AlisonDonut THIS IS WHY WE TEACH SHAKESPEARE. The lies, the drama, the FAFO of life.

Exactly. Thank you.

Pah! Who has time to be cleaning ovens or oven liners?

I just buy a new oven when it needs cleaning!

Thanks, And to save everyone watching. Here's the screenshot from 26.25 minutes in

Isn't this a complete misunderstanding of intersectionality?

The concept was created (by Kimberlé Crenshaw) in order to highlight that if you don't explore all axes of oppression, it is possible to continue to discriminate against an oppressed group while claiming to be doing the opposite.

Which is exactly what TRAs do to all women (no sane person could argue that black or brown women are somehow benefitting from men in single sex spaces) when they seek to obscure the fact of sex discrimination whilst continuing to both benefit from and perpetuate it.

(The situation which sparked the concept of intersectionality was (IIRC) the term "black people" being used to obscure the fact that a company was only happy to employ black men in it's workshop and not black women in it's public areas; ie the company's hiring stats said it wasn't racist when of course its hiring policies were very racist. Similarly, trans ideology has appropriated the word "woman" for men therefore obscuring things such as pay disparity, maternity discrimination, sex crime statistics etc).

Trans rights ideology has appropriated intersectionality just as it has appropriated feminism, and twisted them both to claim extra rights for predominantly white men. Make it make sense.

"Her close family and friends know, as does her supervisor, but she does not accept that all staff at Victoria Hospital know she is a trans woman. She regards her transition process as private."
It is utterly wild that anyone would believe someone with that jawline, height and hairline is a woman. In many photos it looks like he still has facial stubble, not to mention the penis! The arrogance of men to think banging on a skirt and lippy will make everyone believe you're female.

Thiis is the actual Case Management Order denying anonymity linked from that Sex Matters webpage. It's an interesting concise summary of the case including the background plus the excellently argued reasons why anonymity would not be appropriate.
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Redacted-Peggie-Case-Management-Order-06.01.2025.pdf

The Case Management Order also includes this succinct paragraph that goes to the heart of the case.

Third, the Claimant’s case raises the issue of trans women’s right to access single-sex spaces in unusually clear and stark terms: was it an act of unlawful harassment for Dr. Upton to be merely physically present in the female-only Changing Room (and for her employer to allow her to be there) on the three occasions in issue? The Claimant says it was, the Respondents say it was not

When a man is in a position of power to deny the rights of actual women, who might end up with his body parts inside of hers, without her consent, then anonymity is forfeit.
And they should be investigating any woman who requested a female doctor whose lack of consent he ignored. If that did indeed happen.

Also the sexism of thinking throwing on a dress makes you a woman.

His skeleton, gait, hip to shoulder ratio = all immutably male.

Place marking but also - thanks for this. Hoping bicarb and hot water work on food burnt on a pan. DH made a delicious risotto last night for us but the food at the bottom of the pan is like cement. I used lemon juice and bicarb which helped a bit but we are now out of lemon juice. Will try this method and hope this gets it off

740 of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7 makes it completely clear that it is the service, not the transitioning male, that is the "case" for case-by-case exemptions.

Put a couple of inches of water over the concrete bits and simmer it for a few minutes, that ought to shift it.

The judge recognised at the end of the last session that people could not avoid seeing some comment on the case - he told them not to seek it out. it was in response to an intervention by JR who may or may not have had in mind the planned disciplinary hearing.

Lemon and bicarb will cancel each other out (although the fizzing may help a bit). Washing soda is stronger than bicarb - I'd use that and vinegar separately (simmer then soak with 1, rinse and scrub, simmer and soak with the other).

It's amusing that a feminist thread is interspersed with household cleaning tips, isn't it.

My husband cleans the oven in our house. He is brilliant at it. Takes the doors off and everything. I’m only following the thread for any useful tips for him. 😌

Thank you PrettyDamnCosmic for posting
https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Redacted-Peggie-Case-Management-Order-06.01.2025.pdf
I was going to have a quick look through it and ended up reading every single word! Partly because it gives such useful background to the ET, and partly because it is an example of what I love about the law - OK so it isn't always fair but the level of detail in this Order shows the lengths the judge went to to come to a balanced decision. I❤that

This section that jumped out at me - I got the impression from the ET reports that DrU had been floating blissfully through his working life known only as a woman, because he just IS a woman and passes 100% as such to everyone except that pesky SP. However:

41. Dr. Upton accepted that before the incidents in 2023 other than the occasional “micro aggression” - eg, people asking Dr. Upton about trans people, being occasionally ‘misgendered’ by colleagues and patients - she was generally accepted and not harassed for being a trans woman.

-He was 'generally accepted' as a trans woman, i.e. known to be trans, therefore known to be biologically male.
-He had been referred to as a man [aka ' occasional misgendering'] by colleagues and patients, so he was obviously perceived as male by a range of people.
-He considered these incidents as 'micro aggressions' [misgendering? a 'micro aggression? I thought it was considered literally aggression!] but did not take notes on his phone, and did not report the micro-aggressors.

He saved that for Sandie Peggie.

Well, if you will let non-wims* on a feminist thread...

*I believe SinnerBoy self-defines as a non-wim.

You're not accusing SinnerBoy of....mansplaining oven-cleaning, are you?😱
😂😂😂

Oh wow, 22 threads. I have needed over a week to read this lot.

DeanElderberry · 19/02/2025 11:38

I have wondered lately what age posters were when they first experienced sexual assault (prolonged non consensual groping, deep kissing).

I was eight, it happened at school, and it was my primary motivator for going to a single-sex secondary school.

[ Someone linking to https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,peggie-v-nhs-fife-more-casualties-to-come ]

Disbelief and outrage are mounting. Why bother with elections, a parliament, or the other institutions it supports if the outcome is an ideologically-captured monoculture that not only inhabits an alternative reality but in amoeba-like fashion engulfs then suffocates every trace of challenge or democratic dissent?

This is why Reform UK are surging and President Pussygrabber is in the White House.

[The comment at https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5276925-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-21?reply=142357401 contains an image that I want to comment on. Image summary: an excerpt of a policy about about how to manage trans staff and ex-staff, showing a paragraph instructing people giving references to not use ex-staff's prior names.]

There's a reasonable chance that a reference request for Jane Smith will get a reply of "sorry, no one of that name has ever worked here". How is the referee to know that Jim who worked here until six months ago is now Jane?

@Cerah
A good soak ought to do the trick. If you still have stains or stubbornly stuck bits, try boiling some chopped rhubarb in it.

This is the question!

My take on it is:

Under workplace regs SP was entitled to a female only space.

No risk assessment or case-by-case checks were done on the A&E locker room by NHS Fife.

The sign by the door said Female Staff Only

Even though DU claims to be a biological woman, the fact is that the Dr was legally male in Dec 2023.

IMO the default position for the changing room is female only - which excludes DU as a legal male.

There would have been complications if DU had had a GRC or NHS Fife had produced any assessment showing there would be no negative impact on the women by making the CR Unisex. But as neither of those applied at the time, they can’t come into it.

With the recent EHRC involvement I’m hoping this throws more weight behind the female only spaces but only time will tell

Third, the Claimant’s case raises the issue of trans women’s right to access single-sex spaces in unusually clear and stark terms: was it an act of unlawful harassment for Dr. Upton to be merely physically present in the female-only Changing Room (and for her employer to allow her to be there) on the three occasions in issue? The Claimant says it was, the Respondents say it was not

I agree @KnottyAuty this is the question.
If Sandie and her team win this will be a warning to other organisations and the trans person who access the changing rooms that they can both be accused of harassment

Sorry if this has been posted already, but the Darlington Nurses union are accusing Wes Streeting of kicking the can down road regarding single sex spaces https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/23/wes-streeting-kicking-can-down-the-road-over-single-sex-spa/

It's disappointing as it seemed like Streeting was on board.

Definitely disappointing.

It's already clear that a TW without a GRC is legally a male, following the previous FWS case at the Supreme Court in 2022. So it should be very simple for him to insist that all legislation referring to TW without GRCs is predicated on the established legal fact that such TW are male/men for the purposes of the EA and the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare regulations. Yes, there needs to be a "TBC" placeholder for TW with GRCs, but that's the only bit that should be kicked down the road. It needn't hold up everything while this clarification is established. Come on Wes, put your big boy pants on find your backbone. You've done it before, you can do it again.

As for the fact that employers can't disclose GRC status, that's fine. The logical assumption is that a TW has not got a GRC and does not seek access to women's changing and toilet facilities. If the TW does have one, and wishes to access these facilities, at this point any TW can choose to either a) "out" themselves in order to gain this access or b) accept that in order to maintain their GRC privacy status, it is not something that they require. Given most TW don't have GRCs, this is a logical start point anyway because in legal terms, any TW without a GRC has already accepted that they are legally male (as a result of the 2022 FWS appeal in the Supreme Court).