Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 22/02/2025 14:11

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
MarieDeGournay · 25/02/2025 14:21

This is interesting for trying to get your head around what the law currently understands by the words male/female man/woman gender/sex:
Appeal on whether NB can be recorded on a GRC - dismissed | Mumsnet

Needspaceforlego
You ever wish you'd been a lawyer??
Ooooh yes, I really love the use of language and reasoning and strategy and tactics.
If only - in a different life, one where my family could have afforded to send us to uni [no grants where I come from]... in fact I'd like to be a judge by this stage in my alt.lifeSmile

thenoisiesttermagant · 25/02/2025 14:36

PrettyDamnCosmic · 25/02/2025 13:04

Her is another lengthy dissection of the eminent evolutionary biologists ludicrous letter highlighting their hypocrisy as their own resreach papers only mention male & female

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/02/10/more-on-the-three-societies-letter-about-sex/

Eminent evolutionary biologists can be moral cowards and equally as scared as other humans of being cancelled / fired / vilified shocker!

But, you know actions (like only mentioning male or female mammals in research) speak louder than 2+2=5 big brother appeasement statements.

I have several secretly GC academic friends who go along with gender bullshit because they don't want the hassle of being bullied by transactivists. Although to be fair they can avoid the cognitive dissonance better in their field of study.

Arran2024 · 25/02/2025 14:42

I saw a certain media celeb biological anthropologist speak during a nook tour where she explained how they sex a skeleton. But she later famously spoke about biological differences being cultural and so I think they just swim with the tide.

prh47bridge · 25/02/2025 14:45

Justme56 · 25/02/2025 14:10

I’m not sure about this. The Workplace Regulations came into place in 1992. Legal sex was introduced as part of the GRA in 2004. As the workplace regs were in place I’m of the understanding that the GRA couldn’t just override them but had to work with them. They were obviously then based on bio sex. If the workplace regulations were repealed after 2004 then this may be a different story. Just an opinion.

The Regulations are a statutory instrument, not primary legislation. They have to be interpreted in line with current legislation. Yes, when passed they clearly referred to biological sex, but the law has changed. If we take the GRA at face value, a man with a GRC is a woman as far as the law is concerned, and may therefore be entitled to use the women's facilities even though that was not the intention of the Regulations. This is why it is important to win the current legal battles to clarify the law.

KnottyAuty · 25/02/2025 14:51

Bannedontherun · 25/02/2025 10:33

I think NC is trying to ferret out the decision making process and who is actually behind what SP was put through.

Do you think so?

I’m not sure NC needs this to prove the harassment case or the victimisation or whistleblowing.

She’s only got time for the essential questions so won’t explore other areas even if we’d like her to.

IANAL but IMO she just needs to show that no assessment was done and that DU was legally male (self ID not being the law then/now). So NHS Fife passively/indirectly/via policy allowed a male to enter the changing room = harassment of SP by creating a hostile working environment/failure to meet workplace regs.

It might be different if they’d done an assessment or DU had a GRC, but they didn’t.

Yes DU has a protected belief that they’re a woman but based on the Grainger tests JR would have to also show that this belief overrides the effect on women in the CR of their biological and legal maleness - it is presence of maleness in the CR which creates harassment for SP in the first place. I believe that still stands even if DU believes differently.

I was trying to think of examples to explore these ideas - if I said I believed I could fly and jumped off the roof, my belief wouldn’t override gravity. So I’m assuming/hoping that’s how the Panel see it. But that’s probably too logical for this debate? Did DU go into why it was OK to be in the CR as part of their beliefs other than just insisting on being a woman? I suppose it will be the exact wording that counts.

Who made decisions is more about what happens after the tribunal and who goes under the bus for Team NHS Fife when the finger pointing starts? Looking at the Herald article, John Swinney and Neil Gray must each be trying to position themselves in the safe zone - but gender stuff has already done for 2 First Ministers so it may be the triple because let’s face it the NHS Fife Board didn’t exactly get a clear brief either?

KnottyAuty · 25/02/2025 14:58

Scottishtizzler · 25/02/2025 11:34

IB is typical of all DEI colleagues across NHS Scotland. They don't understand the basics of the law, and when asked about single sex spaces, they contact organisations with a vested interest in doing anything but ensuring single sex space is protected. Reaching out to, for example, trans groups rather than lawyers who can advise on what the legal position is. The whole system is captured and the timely intervention of Baroness Faulkner is a nuclear reminder that other people have rights in the NHS too. Even the DEI ideologues can't ignore that.

Absolutely.

The EA protects everyone under the law - we all have an age, ethnicity, beliefs, sex etc.

It’s worth remembering because most people think of it as a protection just for minorities which isn’t true

duc748 · 25/02/2025 15:00

All equalities are equal, but some are more equal than others.

KnottyAuty · 25/02/2025 15:11

ditalini · 25/02/2025 13:31

I have seen NHS EQA impact assessments for various things. They are without exception dashed off in 2 minutes as a box ticking exercises and always record "no impact" with no other detail for the protected characteristic of sex. It's as if the heresy of even considering it is unthinkable.

Ultimately I suspect most of these people think sex should be changed to gender so just go through life as if it has.

If the Tribunal finds in favour of SP’s harassment claim it will be very difficult to say “no effect on women” in future…

Bannedontherun · 25/02/2025 15:15

@KnottyAuty i do not disagree with you, but i think it will help the case to find out who exactly was deciding this, and how far up the tree it went.

In the absence of an EQ impact assessment.

Also NC is motivated to uncover this as her interests and that of her funders go beyond this case.

lcakethereforeIam · 25/02/2025 15:16

The Telegraph has published this

https://archive.ph/OD03l

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/25/nhs-trans-doctor-female-changing-room-legal-assessment/

Bit of a blooper in the subheading which in the archived version above reads

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has accused nurse Sandie Peggie of misconduct after she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton

I think they've copied it from the Herald. I'm glad the EHRC are holding feet to the fire.

lcakethereforeIam · 25/02/2025 15:23

This is the original version from The Herald

www.heraldscotland.com/news/24960314.nhs-fife-may-broken-law-skipping-impact-assesment/

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 25/02/2025 15:30

Also, @JazzyContemporaneousNotes and @mumsandaunties!

The whole Hunter Schafer (sp?) thing is interesting, and I think it has a bit of the Haley Cropper about it. By which I mean, he has had so much clearly very expensive facial surgery that he looks very pretty (in still photos at any rate - I haven’t had the pleasure of watching him act), and therefore much more “acceptable” as a woman.

So I do wonder, if you were to show your DS a video of (for example) Roxy Tickle, and ask whether he should automatically be allowed in women’s spaces, how your DS would respond.

I don’t know, but I would predict that their guts (if not their words) would respond differently to Tickle than to Schafer.

duc748 · 25/02/2025 15:33

I think that's absolutely right. But they have no internal logic at all. I thought it wasn't supposed to be about 'passing'?

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 15:34

KnottyAuty · 25/02/2025 14:51

Do you think so?

I’m not sure NC needs this to prove the harassment case or the victimisation or whistleblowing.

She’s only got time for the essential questions so won’t explore other areas even if we’d like her to.

IANAL but IMO she just needs to show that no assessment was done and that DU was legally male (self ID not being the law then/now). So NHS Fife passively/indirectly/via policy allowed a male to enter the changing room = harassment of SP by creating a hostile working environment/failure to meet workplace regs.

It might be different if they’d done an assessment or DU had a GRC, but they didn’t.

Yes DU has a protected belief that they’re a woman but based on the Grainger tests JR would have to also show that this belief overrides the effect on women in the CR of their biological and legal maleness - it is presence of maleness in the CR which creates harassment for SP in the first place. I believe that still stands even if DU believes differently.

I was trying to think of examples to explore these ideas - if I said I believed I could fly and jumped off the roof, my belief wouldn’t override gravity. So I’m assuming/hoping that’s how the Panel see it. But that’s probably too logical for this debate? Did DU go into why it was OK to be in the CR as part of their beliefs other than just insisting on being a woman? I suppose it will be the exact wording that counts.

Who made decisions is more about what happens after the tribunal and who goes under the bus for Team NHS Fife when the finger pointing starts? Looking at the Herald article, John Swinney and Neil Gray must each be trying to position themselves in the safe zone - but gender stuff has already done for 2 First Ministers so it may be the triple because let’s face it the NHS Fife Board didn’t exactly get a clear brief either?

Yes.... but not this bit:

Yes DU has a protected belief that they’re a woman

Gender identity belief isn't a protected belief i.e. it's not protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act. Whether it is protected or it isn't protected hasn't yet been tested in court. Hopefully this case will do just that.

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 15:40

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 15:34

Yes.... but not this bit:

Yes DU has a protected belief that they’re a woman

Gender identity belief isn't a protected belief i.e. it's not protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act. Whether it is protected or it isn't protected hasn't yet been tested in court. Hopefully this case will do just that.

This was confirmed a few threads ago when I asked about this point.

When Forstater won her case, it was confirmed that:

  1. "gender critical belief" (sex is binary and immutable)
  2. lack of belief in gender identity are both protected under the EA.

But the belief that "we all have a gender identity" hasn't been tested either way.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't require someone to have a belief that they have a gender identity e.g. as I understand it, a detransitioner (who no longer believes that they have a gender identity) would be protected against discrimination for time off for "gender" surgery to remove breasts/a neo-phallus under this PC.

GCEpileptic · 25/02/2025 15:40

Regular FWR but have NCed for this post as don’t like linking anything RL no matter how small/tenuous. Also a little behind on discussions as brain is slow.

just a point re the toilets issue that was being discussed earlier, as it’s not something that would usually cross peoples minds (and one aspect may be a useful discussion point with your DS
as a “how wouldyou feel comfortable handling this as a man?”)

recently I am finding (possibly as an own goal due to raised awareness, even women stickering perhaps, who can say? Grin) that local places, have started making changes and just having “mixed gender” Hmm toilets i.e. closed floor to ceiling cubicles, and letting either sex use them. Similar to disabled toilets, so with a sink in the cubicle, but inward opening doors lockable from the inside. In theory it sounds good, but as a female (uncontrolled) epileptic, an absolute nightmare. For some reason I seem to be fond of having seizures in bathrooms Hmm I don’t feel comfortable not locking the door for obvious reasons. inward opening doors make retrieving me a nightmare as I’m usually blocking it. floor to ceiling walls mean I can’t easily be checked on. So we are (admittedly a very small) demographic who they aren’t suitable for. disabled toilets have the same closed room issue but are easier to access as doors usually open outwards and radar key operated from outside.

Re “normal” toilets, the part that may be useful for you @jazzycontemperaneousnotes
is that I have to always have someone with me atm in public places. If I go into a women’s toilet, DH will wait outside for me, and hope I come back out basically! if I don’t, DH has to check - either finding a female member of staff to do so, or more usually, doing it himself. Example of a motorway service station with zero staff about apart from ones who can’t leave tills etc but will “radio a manager” and nothing happens - so meanwhile DH would have to open the main changing room door and announce (“man here” style, poor DHBlush) that he needs to come in to check his wife with epilepsy and give 30 seconds or so for any objections/women to leave. He then would have to knock all occupied/locked cubicles and if one has no reply (or he can see part of me at the bottom) try and look down on me from the neighbouring cubicle to see if there is anything that warrants a 999 call eg cisterns are bloody hard if you bounce your head off them, and head wounds bleed a LOT, or obviously broken limb or serious injury. Sometimes I’m just concscious but dazed, and DH can manage to get me to open door and help me.

as he is a normal decent man, the last place he wants to impose himself is a single sex womens toilet as he is respectful of women’s privacy. It makes him feel anwkward annd awful having to do it, so Jazzy you could ask your DS how he would feel in the same situation - having to impose himself into a busy women’s toilet. I’d imagine he too would feel extremely uncomfortable and it’s worth exploring with him why other men activelywant and seek to do exactly that. your DS is a young man,he won’t be able to feel or imagine the invasion of privacy a woman would, but he can imagine how a man would feel invading womens privacy. if that makes sense.

obviously it’s a shit situation for everyone involved and I know DH always feels terrible. he doesn’t want to upset women, he doesn’t want to be judged as a pervert, and it’s just awkward as hell. if your DS imagines himself having to do that, it may give him food for thought?I also have a similar age DS to yours and atm I would never put him in the position, he would fucking hate having to do that. (btw all my DC who had drunk the koolaid a few years back and were horrified by me are all now firmly GC, in fact one said off their own back in discussion the other day “I can’t believe I was such a naive dick about all that before” so there is hope Smile they grow older and wiser

NotAGentleReminder · 25/02/2025 15:44

The Grainger criteria for whether something qualifies as a 'philosophical belief' under the Equality Act - there are five criteria such a belief must meet:
(i) The belief must be genuinely held.
(ii) It must be a belief and not, [simply], an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
(iii) It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Does anyone think the claims made by Dr Upton during this tribunal so far - that he is biologically female, that he has the right to use women-only changing and toilet facilities based on his claim that he is a woman, that he can respond to a woman's request for a female doctor to examine her by turning up to do the consultation and assume she will only speak up about him not being female and repeat her request if she is a difficult patient, that biological sex is a 'nebulous dogwhistle', that nobody can tell the sex of a 'trans' person unless that person discloses this information, that he and his wife are in a lesbian relationship and subject to homophobia, that the opposite sex-specific reference ranges for medical laboratory tests apply to a patient taking cross-sex hormones, that he needs to record notes of interactions with anyone who does not affirm his claim to be a woman with a view to escalating disciplinary action against them which could cost them their jobs - represent a belief system that meets criteria (iv) and (v)? And that's assuming that it's genuinely held.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 25/02/2025 15:44

duc748 · 25/02/2025 15:33

I think that's absolutely right. But they have no internal logic at all. I thought it wasn't supposed to be about 'passing'?

Within the community it’s not supposed to be about passing (but also everyone passes and no one can ever tell, but you don’t have to pass because there are so many ways to be a woman, so…).

But! I think it’s different for allies who are allies without looking at, or thinking about, this critically. I think they will have gut responses to, eg a pretty trans-identified man versus one that is overweight, has barely shaved, and applies lipstick like a badly-trained dog, that betray their actual feelings on the matter. And enough tiny gut responses like that can add up to a crack in the all-or-nothing support.

GCEpileptic · 25/02/2025 15:47

Sorry.
my earlier post took me ages to write and I also tagged wrong poster, should have been @JazzyContemporaneousNotes for discussion with your DS

NotAGentleReminder · 25/02/2025 15:50

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 15:40

This was confirmed a few threads ago when I asked about this point.

When Forstater won her case, it was confirmed that:

  1. "gender critical belief" (sex is binary and immutable)
  2. lack of belief in gender identity are both protected under the EA.

But the belief that "we all have a gender identity" hasn't been tested either way.

The protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't require someone to have a belief that they have a gender identity e.g. as I understand it, a detransitioner (who no longer believes that they have a gender identity) would be protected against discrimination for time off for "gender" surgery to remove breasts/a neo-phallus under this PC.

Edited

Yes this is a big problem - the law now seems to regard the opinion of some that we all have a 'gender (identity') as fact, and the fact that we are all either male or female and this is our sex, as a belief.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 25/02/2025 15:50

@GCEpileptic

as he is a normal decent man, the last place he wants to impose himself is a single sex womens toilet as he is respectful of women’s privacy. It makes him feel anwkward annd awful having to do it, so Jazzy you could ask your DS how he would feel in the same situation - having to impose himself into a busy women’s toilet. I’d imagine he too would feel extremely uncomfortable and it’s worth exploring with him why other men activelywant and seek to do exactly that. your DS is a young man,he won’t be able to feel or imagine the invasion of privacy a woman would, but he can imagine how a man would feel invading womens privacy. if that makes sense.

That makes SO much sense, and is a really, really useful, helpful contribution - thank you!

prh47bridge · 25/02/2025 15:51

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 15:34

Yes.... but not this bit:

Yes DU has a protected belief that they’re a woman

Gender identity belief isn't a protected belief i.e. it's not protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act. Whether it is protected or it isn't protected hasn't yet been tested in court. Hopefully this case will do just that.

We can't say definitively that it is not a protected belief. We don't know whether it is protected or not, but I would be surprised if it isn't.

As far as I can see, DU's belief that he is a woman passes the first four tests of the Grainger criteria, so the only question is whether it is WORIADS. As the EAT correctly said in Forstater, it is only beliefs that are an affront to ECHR principles that are not WORIADS. I fail to see anything in DU's belief that he is a woman that is qualifies as WORIADS. That does not, however, mean that all manifestations of his belief are acceptable. It is open to the courts to decide that his belief is protected but that he can't use single-sex facilities intended for women because, despite his belief, he isn't one.

NotAGentleReminder · 25/02/2025 16:03

prh47bridge · 25/02/2025 15:51

We can't say definitively that it is not a protected belief. We don't know whether it is protected or not, but I would be surprised if it isn't.

As far as I can see, DU's belief that he is a woman passes the first four tests of the Grainger criteria, so the only question is whether it is WORIADS. As the EAT correctly said in Forstater, it is only beliefs that are an affront to ECHR principles that are not WORIADS. I fail to see anything in DU's belief that he is a woman that is qualifies as WORIADS. That does not, however, mean that all manifestations of his belief are acceptable. It is open to the courts to decide that his belief is protected but that he can't use single-sex facilities intended for women because, despite his belief, he isn't one.

I don't think it does meet criterion (iv) in term of being cogent or cohesive. It may be serious and important to the person who genuinely believes it but it is easily falsifiable unless you force everyone to change the meaning of our commonly understood words we use to communicate with each other about things that are real, to mean something else that only some people believe. This is where it fails on (v) as well, as it relies on forcing others who do not share the belief, to use the language of the belief system, as well as overriding sex-based rights.

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 16:17

prh47bridge · 25/02/2025 15:51

We can't say definitively that it is not a protected belief. We don't know whether it is protected or not, but I would be surprised if it isn't.

As far as I can see, DU's belief that he is a woman passes the first four tests of the Grainger criteria, so the only question is whether it is WORIADS. As the EAT correctly said in Forstater, it is only beliefs that are an affront to ECHR principles that are not WORIADS. I fail to see anything in DU's belief that he is a woman that is qualifies as WORIADS. That does not, however, mean that all manifestations of his belief are acceptable. It is open to the courts to decide that his belief is protected but that he can't use single-sex facilities intended for women because, despite his belief, he isn't one.

Thank you.

Just trying to get my head around this comment, so I'm going to break it down a bit:

We can't say definitively that it is not a protected belief.

Fair point! I even said myself that it hadn't been tested either way. D'oh.

I would be surprised if it isn't.

This is the bit I can't quite understand. Personally, I'd be surprised if it is because of a core tenet of the belief means that it conflicts with other people's rights.

However, the law and my opinion are blatantly not the same thing 😁
If I'm understanding this bit correctly...

As the EAT correctly said in Forstater, it is only beliefs that are an affront to ECHR principles that are not WORIADS. I fail to see anything in DU's belief that he is a woman that is qualifies as WORIADS. That does not, however, mean that all manifestations of his belief are acceptable. It is open to the courts to decide that his belief is protected but that he can't use single-sex facilities intended for women because, despite his belief, he isn't one.

.. is that similar to Islam qualifying as a protected belief but, despite this, not every manifestion of this belief would be supported in law e.g. if a majority Muslim council passed a local by-law that every woman entering the town needed to wear a hijab, this would not be supported? So in other words, you're free to believe in it (it's WORIADS overall)... but at the point when you're impacting others, that's a no. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick re the law on what's WORIADS and what's not??

Also, if Upton can believe in it but can't force it on others as if it's true (a good thing), other than securing a legal right to wear a dress and grow your hair long, it's not worth a fat lot. But I guess that's how the law should be when it comes to protecting belief - effectively it's "you do you" in legal speak.

BonfireLady · 25/02/2025 16:20

NotAGentleReminder · 25/02/2025 16:03

I don't think it does meet criterion (iv) in term of being cogent or cohesive. It may be serious and important to the person who genuinely believes it but it is easily falsifiable unless you force everyone to change the meaning of our commonly understood words we use to communicate with each other about things that are real, to mean something else that only some people believe. This is where it fails on (v) as well, as it relies on forcing others who do not share the belief, to use the language of the belief system, as well as overriding sex-based rights.

I agree. However, re point iv, I don't think transubstantiation or a refusal to have a life-saving blood transfusion are cogent and cohesive either. In fact I'd pick holes in all religions - I'm an equal opportunity atheist.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.