Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
KnottyAuty · 25/02/2025 23:40

prh47bridge · 25/02/2025 21:34

There is no basis on which it could be taken to court just to get a determination. The most likely way for it to end up in court is if someone is discriminated against due to their GI beliefs and they sue.

I was listening to an HR podcast and they made the (slightly surprising) statement that if GC views have been proven as a protected belief under the EA 2010, then the opposite belief has also been confirmed by default. Does that sound right?

Obviously just because it’s a protected belief doesn’t mean you can do what you like with it, but it presumably means that further tests for the WORIADS of GI beliefs won’t need testing - just the extent to which they can be applied or impinge on others?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 26/02/2025 00:10

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

Edited

As an immediate transitional measure to assure your safety until we can lobby effectively to get these dangerous cubicle designs reversed, buy a Radar key and use the accessible toilet, ensuring before you close the door behind you that the red alarm cord has been properly deployed all the way to the floor.

You are epileptic, you are at risk from standard provision, so you are entitled to use the accessible loos.

SternlyMatthews · 26/02/2025 00:11

KnottyAuty · 25/02/2025 23:24

Isn’t this like the Christians versus abortion?

Christians are entitled to their beliefs but they’re not permitted to pray within the exclusion zone around a clinic?

What’s the equivalent for pronouns or female only spaces?

Intended as passive aggressive harrassment. She could pray anywhere & the message would be received in the usual way, but she had to do it performatively, with a sign round her neck(iirc), where pregnant, stressed women would be aware of her.

"Misgendering" as harrassment was discussed in detail, scenarios & all, on the legal feminist site in 2021, author NC
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/07/27/misgendering-and-harassment/

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 26/02/2025 00:21

NotAGentleReminder · 25/02/2025 15:50

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.

How do we challenge this in our captured workplaces that ask us for "legal sex" and "gender identity" on forms but don't allow "I don't have one" as an answer for gender identity?

Wbeezer · 26/02/2025 00:24

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 23/02/2025 18:14

Yes, I am aware that there is a separate NHS Scotland and that is also a waste of effort . It irritates me how devolution has led to an increase in bureaucracy and duplication. Subsidiarity is a laudable aim but it is rarely done efficiently. Being different purely for the sake of it is just a nonsense.

@Itsnotwhatitseemslike NHS Scotland was set up as a separate entity in 1948, right from the beginning. Nothing to do with devolution.

SqueakyDinosaur · 26/02/2025 00:39

Yes, and that is totally irrelevant here. Thank you for your contribution.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 26/02/2025 01:33

I was listening to an HR podcast and they made the (slightly surprising) statement that if GC views have been proven as a protected belief under the EA 2010, then the opposite belief has also been confirmed by default. Does that sound right?

No. IANAL, but that doesn't sound right at all. It's possible to think of perfectly reasonable beliefs for which the opposite would not be WORIADS - either because of a severe clash with the rights of others (Grainger V fail), or because they are utterly barking (Grainger IV fail).

NoBinturongsHereMate · 26/02/2025 02:01

And it's further complicated by many beliefs having more than 1 'opposite'. For example GC beleifs are opposite to both GI and gender essentialist ones. Many religions say that all other religions are false. Ruling 1 WORIADS couldn't reasonably determine that all opposing beliefs on the same topic were also protected.

Keeptoiletssafe · 26/02/2025 02:08

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 26/02/2025 00:10

As an immediate transitional measure to assure your safety until we can lobby effectively to get these dangerous cubicle designs reversed, buy a Radar key and use the accessible toilet, ensuring before you close the door behind you that the red alarm cord has been properly deployed all the way to the floor.

You are epileptic, you are at risk from standard provision, so you are entitled to use the accessible loos.

The alarm system in toilets isn’t often useful for people that collapse. With seizures, hypos and heart attacks there is either a period of confusion or no notice at all. Strokes sometimes people will be aware enough to release to pull a cord. It also appears women being attacked inside cubicles don’t pull a cord either - certainly this is the case historically in disabled toilets.

There’s actually a few physiological things that happen when you strain which put pressure on the body. That’s why paramedics say bathrooms and toilet rooms is where they get called to - it’s also the place people head to if they are feeling ill. There’s a heart attack and a stroke once every 5 minutes in this country.

The only safe design is to have a decent floor to door gap and preferably one at the top of the door too. That’s why that was a standard design until recently. It means people can see if there is a body on the floor and how many people are in a cubicle.

The irony is that epilepsy is a disability but if you are on your own, the disabled toilets are more dangerous than the traditional single sex design as the disabled toilets don’t have door gaps at the bottom for visibility.

Document T (2024) was the government attempt at getting public toilet designs right but they fail women and anyone having a medical emergency. Mixed sexed toilets including the accessible one specify there should be full enclosure. They do recognise that bodies get in the way so all fully enclosed toilets should have a mechanism to open the door outwards from the outside. In practise this will be usually a pin or mechanism around the hinges. It may require the correct staff member of a venue to be available, be knowledgeable and have special tools. It may be easier but then it also means people can let themselves in to a completely private and acoustically sound cubicle when the occupants aren’t expecting it. There are situations where this has happened.

Although the government stated that single sex toilets should be priority they say the fully enclosed design (with a sink) can be used for single sex toilets so people don’t have a safe choice. And the single sex design (without a sink) doesn’t specify gaps so it’s up to the venue what they decide to do.

@GCEpileptic you are right that there are so many dangerous designs. It is because there are more mixed sex toilets. You are not that small a demographic though upto 1% of the population has epilepsy and 10% of the population will have at least one seizure. The government commissioned a private construction company to look at long term health conditions and toilet design. The company didn’t mention epilepsy, diabetes, heart attacks, asthma in their 171 page report. They recommended fully enclosed toilets to the government for this demographic and the evidence listed was an American article stating this design was favoured by transactivists and was seen in trendy New York nightclubs.

Worst is secondary schools. Now the standard DfE toilet cubicle design for single sex and mixed sex toilets only has a 5mm gap at the top and bottom of the door. This, I think, is actually against the Equality Act as there will always be several pupils with epilepsy, diabetes and heart conditions within a school. Plus others having one off seizures from illness or drugs (spiked vapes a new threat). It’s certainly not Keeping Children Safe in Education.

It’s really late so hope this isn’t too jumbled and makes sense. If you need any more info please pm me.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 26/02/2025 02:26

Keeptoiletssafe · 26/02/2025 02:08

The alarm system in toilets isn’t often useful for people that collapse. With seizures, hypos and heart attacks there is either a period of confusion or no notice at all. Strokes sometimes people will be aware enough to release to pull a cord. It also appears women being attacked inside cubicles don’t pull a cord either - certainly this is the case historically in disabled toilets.

There’s actually a few physiological things that happen when you strain which put pressure on the body. That’s why paramedics say bathrooms and toilet rooms is where they get called to - it’s also the place people head to if they are feeling ill. There’s a heart attack and a stroke once every 5 minutes in this country.

The only safe design is to have a decent floor to door gap and preferably one at the top of the door too. That’s why that was a standard design until recently. It means people can see if there is a body on the floor and how many people are in a cubicle.

The irony is that epilepsy is a disability but if you are on your own, the disabled toilets are more dangerous than the traditional single sex design as the disabled toilets don’t have door gaps at the bottom for visibility.

Document T (2024) was the government attempt at getting public toilet designs right but they fail women and anyone having a medical emergency. Mixed sexed toilets including the accessible one specify there should be full enclosure. They do recognise that bodies get in the way so all fully enclosed toilets should have a mechanism to open the door outwards from the outside. In practise this will be usually a pin or mechanism around the hinges. It may require the correct staff member of a venue to be available, be knowledgeable and have special tools. It may be easier but then it also means people can let themselves in to a completely private and acoustically sound cubicle when the occupants aren’t expecting it. There are situations where this has happened.

Although the government stated that single sex toilets should be priority they say the fully enclosed design (with a sink) can be used for single sex toilets so people don’t have a safe choice. And the single sex design (without a sink) doesn’t specify gaps so it’s up to the venue what they decide to do.

@GCEpileptic you are right that there are so many dangerous designs. It is because there are more mixed sex toilets. You are not that small a demographic though upto 1% of the population has epilepsy and 10% of the population will have at least one seizure. The government commissioned a private construction company to look at long term health conditions and toilet design. The company didn’t mention epilepsy, diabetes, heart attacks, asthma in their 171 page report. They recommended fully enclosed toilets to the government for this demographic and the evidence listed was an American article stating this design was favoured by transactivists and was seen in trendy New York nightclubs.

Worst is secondary schools. Now the standard DfE toilet cubicle design for single sex and mixed sex toilets only has a 5mm gap at the top and bottom of the door. This, I think, is actually against the Equality Act as there will always be several pupils with epilepsy, diabetes and heart conditions within a school. Plus others having one off seizures from illness or drugs (spiked vapes a new threat). It’s certainly not Keeping Children Safe in Education.

It’s really late so hope this isn’t too jumbled and makes sense. If you need any more info please pm me.

The question is, how do we counter this? What are the criteria for getting a judicial review?

I agree with what you say about the alarm system not helping everyone. My point is that the accessible loo with the alarm is the least-worst option if the alternative is a floor-to-ceiling cubicle with an inward-opening door. That's why I used the term "transitional measure", thinking of the Marxist term "transitional demand".

borntobequiet · 26/02/2025 06:15

Though factual, it’s still a biased account. It always annoys me to see their whining “this is what we’re up against” pleas for support. Hypocrites.

prh47bridge · 26/02/2025 07:08

NoBinturongsHereMate · 26/02/2025 01:33

I was listening to an HR podcast and they made the (slightly surprising) statement that if GC views have been proven as a protected belief under the EA 2010, then the opposite belief has also been confirmed by default. Does that sound right?

No. IANAL, but that doesn't sound right at all. It's possible to think of perfectly reasonable beliefs for which the opposite would not be WORIADS - either because of a severe clash with the rights of others (Grainger V fail), or because they are utterly barking (Grainger IV fail).

I agree that it is not right. As per previous posts, I think GI beliefs probably are protected, but the fact GC beliefs are protected doesn't tell us anything about the status of GI beliefs.

prh47bridge · 26/02/2025 07:15

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 26/02/2025 02:26

The question is, how do we counter this? What are the criteria for getting a judicial review?

I agree with what you say about the alarm system not helping everyone. My point is that the accessible loo with the alarm is the least-worst option if the alternative is a floor-to-ceiling cubicle with an inward-opening door. That's why I used the term "transitional measure", thinking of the Marxist term "transitional demand".

Edited

You can apply for a judicial review of any government decision that affects you personally. However, the courts won't look at the rights and wrongs of the decision. They will only consider whether the decision is lawful, so it will only be overturned if the decision breaks the law or if the government did not follow the correct process in making the decision.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 26/02/2025 07:38

@Keeptoiletssafe

They recommended fully enclosed toilets to the government for this demographic and the evidence listed was an American article stating this design was favoured by transactivists and was seen in trendy New York nightclubs.

I don’t know why, but this makes me more angry than almost anything I’ve read on here recently. And I was already incandescent.

stickygotstuck · 26/02/2025 07:42

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 26/02/2025 07:38

@Keeptoiletssafe

They recommended fully enclosed toilets to the government for this demographic and the evidence listed was an American article stating this design was favoured by transactivists and was seen in trendy New York nightclubs.

I don’t know why, but this makes me more angry than almost anything I’ve read on here recently. And I was already incandescent.

That did stir (another) flash of anger here too!

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 26/02/2025 07:43

@wbeezer I didn’t say it was anything to do with Devolution. I was tagging a general moan about Devolution on to my complaint about the NHS in the UK - in all the constituent jurisdictions actually, not just Scotland - wastefully having multiple versions of policies on a matter that is governed by UK law. The legal form of the NHS is irrelevant to the contents of that policy.

hidingbehindmyfringe · 26/02/2025 08:16

On judicial review, a challenge can be brought on the grounds of irrationality, if the policy “is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”.
This is a very high bar and very few JRs succeed on these grounds.

NebulousDogBollocking · 26/02/2025 08:31

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 26/02/2025 07:38

@Keeptoiletssafe

They recommended fully enclosed toilets to the government for this demographic and the evidence listed was an American article stating this design was favoured by transactivists and was seen in trendy New York nightclubs.

I don’t know why, but this makes me more angry than almost anything I’ve read on here recently. And I was already incandescent.

It's almost like there was some kind of not very hidden agenda 🤔

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 26/02/2025 08:34

borntobequiet · 26/02/2025 06:15

Though factual, it’s still a biased account. It always annoys me to see their whining “this is what we’re up against” pleas for support. Hypocrites.

The article never says that Sandi Peggie's problem with DU being in the women's changing room is that DU is male. Instead it insists that Peggie's problem is that DU is trans. And unless readers are 100% sure what the Guardian means by "trans woman" (i.e. male) they would struggle to figure that out. A lot of people do think "trans woman" means a woman who identifies as male or non-binary.

Bunpea · 26/02/2025 08:46

Keeptoiletssafe · 26/02/2025 02:08

The alarm system in toilets isn’t often useful for people that collapse. With seizures, hypos and heart attacks there is either a period of confusion or no notice at all. Strokes sometimes people will be aware enough to release to pull a cord. It also appears women being attacked inside cubicles don’t pull a cord either - certainly this is the case historically in disabled toilets.

There’s actually a few physiological things that happen when you strain which put pressure on the body. That’s why paramedics say bathrooms and toilet rooms is where they get called to - it’s also the place people head to if they are feeling ill. There’s a heart attack and a stroke once every 5 minutes in this country.

The only safe design is to have a decent floor to door gap and preferably one at the top of the door too. That’s why that was a standard design until recently. It means people can see if there is a body on the floor and how many people are in a cubicle.

The irony is that epilepsy is a disability but if you are on your own, the disabled toilets are more dangerous than the traditional single sex design as the disabled toilets don’t have door gaps at the bottom for visibility.

Document T (2024) was the government attempt at getting public toilet designs right but they fail women and anyone having a medical emergency. Mixed sexed toilets including the accessible one specify there should be full enclosure. They do recognise that bodies get in the way so all fully enclosed toilets should have a mechanism to open the door outwards from the outside. In practise this will be usually a pin or mechanism around the hinges. It may require the correct staff member of a venue to be available, be knowledgeable and have special tools. It may be easier but then it also means people can let themselves in to a completely private and acoustically sound cubicle when the occupants aren’t expecting it. There are situations where this has happened.

Although the government stated that single sex toilets should be priority they say the fully enclosed design (with a sink) can be used for single sex toilets so people don’t have a safe choice. And the single sex design (without a sink) doesn’t specify gaps so it’s up to the venue what they decide to do.

@GCEpileptic you are right that there are so many dangerous designs. It is because there are more mixed sex toilets. You are not that small a demographic though upto 1% of the population has epilepsy and 10% of the population will have at least one seizure. The government commissioned a private construction company to look at long term health conditions and toilet design. The company didn’t mention epilepsy, diabetes, heart attacks, asthma in their 171 page report. They recommended fully enclosed toilets to the government for this demographic and the evidence listed was an American article stating this design was favoured by transactivists and was seen in trendy New York nightclubs.

Worst is secondary schools. Now the standard DfE toilet cubicle design for single sex and mixed sex toilets only has a 5mm gap at the top and bottom of the door. This, I think, is actually against the Equality Act as there will always be several pupils with epilepsy, diabetes and heart conditions within a school. Plus others having one off seizures from illness or drugs (spiked vapes a new threat). It’s certainly not Keeping Children Safe in Education.

It’s really late so hope this isn’t too jumbled and makes sense. If you need any more info please pm me.

Thank you very much for this post Keeptoiletssafe.

The point about secondary schools is very concerning, what you describe is exactly what is happening in my local secondary school, and the council says the floor to ceiling cubicles are the answer to concerns parents have raised about what has happened to the girls toilets.

We also have the situation other parents mention, where the girls avoid using the loos and instead pile in to the nearby supermarket at lunch time to use the loos there.

The school is a member of the Stonewall schools Champion scheme, so I’m not expecting the mixed sex toilets to be removed anytime soon.

I’ve passed the information from your post to a councillor who has previously engaged.

thanks again.

Szygy · 26/02/2025 08:54

@Keeptoiletssafe was on another thread <waves> where I lurked and the full details of that TRA toilet group are just…..well, brain-meltingly enraging. It’s led by an architect called Joel Sanders, and Susan Stryker is very much a driving force. 'Inclusivity beyond code compliance' is their watchword…..hmm, now, where have we heard that before?
If you fancy having your blood-pressure raised even more than it already is you can google them, but I warn you, it’s going to make you say bad words. Especially when you read about the delightful Stryker.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/02/2025 09:05

NoBinturongsHereMate · 26/02/2025 01:33

I was listening to an HR podcast and they made the (slightly surprising) statement that if GC views have been proven as a protected belief under the EA 2010, then the opposite belief has also been confirmed by default. Does that sound right?

No. IANAL, but that doesn't sound right at all. It's possible to think of perfectly reasonable beliefs for which the opposite would not be WORIADS - either because of a severe clash with the rights of others (Grainger V fail), or because they are utterly barking (Grainger IV fail).

This seems like they're conflating it with disbelief as well as belief being protected, ie in the Forstater decision not only Maya's positive belief in gender critical feminism was protected, but also the right to disbelieve in the gender identity belief.

The right to disbelieve in gender critical feminism would certainly be protected, but I don't think that's entirely the same thing as a positive belief in gender identity ideology.

NebulousDogBollocking · 26/02/2025 09:05

From Susan Stryker's website:

Based on this work, and her persistent interest in the intersection between built environments, gender, sexuality, and public space

"Persistent"

🤔

prh47bridge · 26/02/2025 09:10

hidingbehindmyfringe · 26/02/2025 08:16

On judicial review, a challenge can be brought on the grounds of irrationality, if the policy “is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”.
This is a very high bar and very few JRs succeed on these grounds.

Indeed. If a decision is Wednesbury unreasonable it is classed as unlawful, but that is a very high bar. The decision has to be "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it". (sorry for the overlap but I like Lord Diplock's description).

Ereshkigalangcleg · 26/02/2025 09:11

I mean, I think that about most decisions based on gender identity ideology Grin

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.