Page 5 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #22

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 08:31

Why on earth was the single sex carve out made optional rather than compulsory...

If you make it compulsory, you prevent people from offering unisex services. Making it optional allows service providers to decide whether they should provide single sex services. If a service provider wants to provide unisex changing rooms, they are free to do so, and customers are free to avoid them if they don't like it. However, EHRC are clear that a service provider can legally provide single sex changing rooms.

At work the situation is different. If changing rooms are required, the provision of single sex changing rooms is compulsory unless the changing room is a lockable room for one person to use at a time. There is no way a man without a GRC should be in the women's facilities. The situation is less clear when dealing with men who do have a GRC since the GRA manages to conflate sex and gender, saying that "the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)". If the word "sex" in that sentence was replaced by "gender", it would avoid any confusion and would mean that, even with a GRC, a man would not be entitled to use the women's facilities.

Chrysanthemum5 · 23/02/2025 08:33

RaspberryScrubs · 22/02/2025 18:48

Re Dr Upton and incivility I am lately reminded of a phrase: underneath every ponytail is an arsehole.

😂 I'm going to remember this

GriefSubmittedHighways · 23/02/2025 08:33

Datun · 23/02/2025 06:59

Yes, it's a shame that workplace regulations aren't replicated in service providing regulations.

But I meant it's more about the concept. If the concept holds true in the workplace, there is a very definite argument that it holds true elsewhere.

Maybe not enforceable on the basis of regulations, but if anywhere was dithering about providing single sex spaces because of transactivism, this would give strength to their spine.

Show quote history

It may not be enforceable on the basis of the workplace regs, but service providers (such as shops etc) are bound by the Equality Act and, since mixed-sex changing rooms are more of a detriment to women than to men, it is entirely possible that, if relevant legal cases were brought, allowing men into women's changing areas would (depending on the particular circs of the cases) be ruled as a violation of the Equality Act.

The real difficulty, though, is that once we lost the culture in which men routinely respected the boundaries of single-sex changing - and in which such routine respect was fully expected by society as a whole - it became unrealistic to expect retail workers to inform and remind men that they shouldn't be in women's changing rooms.

Retail workers have an increasingly shit time as it is, with customers becoming more aggressive and police less and less likely to respond to shoplifting and other criminality in stores. I can understand shops seeking to avoid situations in which employees have to take action to keep men out of women's changing places.

The real change will have to come from society as a whole recommitting to what was, until five minutes ago, an entrenched respect for social rules relating to women's spaces.

Itsnotwhatitseemslike · 23/02/2025 08:34

GriefSubmittedHighways · 23/02/2025 08:33

It may not be enforceable on the basis of the workplace regs, but service providers (such as shops etc) are bound by the Equality Act and, since mixed-sex changing rooms are more of a detriment to women than to men, it is entirely possible that, if relevant legal cases were brought, allowing men into women's changing areas would (depending on the particular circs of the cases) be ruled as a violation of the Equality Act.

The real difficulty, though, is that once we lost the culture in which men routinely respected the boundaries of single-sex changing - and in which such routine respect was fully expected by society as a whole - it became unrealistic to expect retail workers to inform and remind men that they shouldn't be in women's changing rooms.

Retail workers have an increasingly shit time as it is, with customers becoming more aggressive and police less and less likely to respond to shoplifting and other criminality in stores. I can understand shops seeking to avoid situations in which employees have to take action to keep men out of women's changing places.

The real change will have to come from society as a whole recommitting to what was, until five minutes ago, an entrenched respect for social rules relating to women's spaces.

Show quote history

Yes. So much is about the social contract.

Skyellaskerry · 23/02/2025 08:57

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 08:31

Why on earth was the single sex carve out made optional rather than compulsory...

If you make it compulsory, you prevent people from offering unisex services. Making it optional allows service providers to decide whether they should provide single sex services. If a service provider wants to provide unisex changing rooms, they are free to do so, and customers are free to avoid them if they don't like it. However, EHRC are clear that a service provider can legally provide single sex changing rooms.

At work the situation is different. If changing rooms are required, the provision of single sex changing rooms is compulsory unless the changing room is a lockable room for one person to use at a time. There is no way a man without a GRC should be in the women's facilities. The situation is less clear when dealing with men who do have a GRC since the GRA manages to conflate sex and gender, saying that "the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)". If the word "sex" in that sentence was replaced by "gender", it would avoid any confusion and would mean that, even with a GRC, a man would not be entitled to use the women's facilities.

@prh47bridge I feel like it’s a bit of a hamster wheel with all this. How could a workplace create SSS for its employees if this can be bypassed by other laws, GRCs, “intent” to transition being protected, but you don’t actually have to do anything, no clear definition of what “living as a woman” means and no one can define (because,well, you just can’t). Throw in the cut and paste policies in workplaces (not just public sector) that have mushroomed, creating a non-questioning implementation.

I am now really confused. If SSS are enshrined in law, how, given where we are is this possible. Does it all come back to the need to repeal the GRA and update the relevant legislation? My mind has become as scrambled as the eggs I had for breakfast!

hollyblueivy · 23/02/2025 09:02

Thanks @prh47bridge for your succinct summary. Also been trying to keep up and wasn't quite sure if what the EHRC development actually meant.

Skyellaskerry · 23/02/2025 09:08

nauticant · 22/02/2025 20:03

That's the beauty of this story. It's been covered so much that the media which would prefer to ignore it know they'll look strange to people wanting to learn more and that their competitors will get the views and the clicks.

Someone on an earlier thread shared that Shelagh Fogarty covered this last Thursday pm (LBC).

Other than a phone in on radio Scotland on school toilets, I’m not aware of other phone ins about the issues of this case specifically.

Sorry I forget the posters name who highlighted Shelagh’s show, but thank you, I have listened on catch up. Shelagh if you are on here thank you for covering! Also there was one excellent caller (forget name) but if you’re on here you were great! Shelagh absolutely gets it, but she is so professionally fair in her coverage, whilst pushing back callers and not taking any nonsense.

Datun · 23/02/2025 09:09

GriefSubmittedHighways · 23/02/2025 08:33

It may not be enforceable on the basis of the workplace regs, but service providers (such as shops etc) are bound by the Equality Act and, since mixed-sex changing rooms are more of a detriment to women than to men, it is entirely possible that, if relevant legal cases were brought, allowing men into women's changing areas would (depending on the particular circs of the cases) be ruled as a violation of the Equality Act.

The real difficulty, though, is that once we lost the culture in which men routinely respected the boundaries of single-sex changing - and in which such routine respect was fully expected by society as a whole - it became unrealistic to expect retail workers to inform and remind men that they shouldn't be in women's changing rooms.

Retail workers have an increasingly shit time as it is, with customers becoming more aggressive and police less and less likely to respond to shoplifting and other criminality in stores. I can understand shops seeking to avoid situations in which employees have to take action to keep men out of women's changing places.

The real change will have to come from society as a whole recommitting to what was, until five minutes ago, an entrenched respect for social rules relating to women's spaces.

Show quote history

Yes, I agree the social code is being violated.

And at the moment, people are just shuffling around looking at the floor and not doing anything. Understandably. As you say, it's just above most peoples pay grade.

But if more places made a song and dance about SSS, then the men who are determined to use them will become a lot more obvious.

Forcing these man out into the open, demonstratably going against what the provider has said, will be a step towards reinforcing the social code.

Duncan Bannatyne is very vocal about having single sex changing rooms. I wonder if he ever has much of a problem enforcing it.

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 09:11

Skyellaskerry · 23/02/2025 08:57

@prh47bridge I feel like it’s a bit of a hamster wheel with all this. How could a workplace create SSS for its employees if this can be bypassed by other laws, GRCs, “intent” to transition being protected, but you don’t actually have to do anything, no clear definition of what “living as a woman” means and no one can define (because,well, you just can’t). Throw in the cut and paste policies in workplaces (not just public sector) that have mushroomed, creating a non-questioning implementation.

I am now really confused. If SSS are enshrined in law, how, given where we are is this possible. Does it all come back to the need to repeal the GRA and update the relevant legislation? My mind has become as scrambled as the eggs I had for breakfast!

Show quote history

I would agree that the law is a mess at the moment. It is, in my view, clear that a man who does not possess a GRC can be lawfully excluded from single sex spaces. However, the position of a man with a GRC is less clear due to the confused wording in the GRA. The courts have to interpret this mess unless and until such time as parliament decides to clarify the law.

SqueakyDinosaur · 23/02/2025 09:34

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 09:11

I would agree that the law is a mess at the moment. It is, in my view, clear that a man who does not possess a GRC can be lawfully excluded from single sex spaces. However, the position of a man with a GRC is less clear due to the confused wording in the GRA. The courts have to interpret this mess unless and until such time as parliament decides to clarify the law.

Show quote history

The definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010 is also a huge problem, as it effectively defines GR as self-ID.

Peregrina · 23/02/2025 09:39

What puzzles me is this. Upton graduated from Dundee in 2021 as a man. Did he start with Fife health authority immediately? Did he need to present his graduation certificate to them? He then decided to transition in 2022. It seems then that there is a fudgy time line and we think he can't have a GRC when the first incidents were reported in 2023. He might of course have one now, but that won't affect this case.

KnottyAuty · 23/02/2025 09:54

Placemarking while popping in this article about women who opposed women getting the vote and who worked against Suffragists. While I think apathy and fear are big factors in why women haven’t stood up for GC views, this article is useful insight into how we might expect some to act against their own best interests. Fascinating and seems very relevant to the current gender debate

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42704341.amp

Skyellaskerry · 23/02/2025 09:55

SqueakyDinosaur · 23/02/2025 09:34

The definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010 is also a huge problem, as it effectively defines GR as self-ID.

Show quote history

If the H&S 1992 regs were highlighted as needing update for clarity on what is meant by men and woman, I wonder if that would start to focus different minds in workplaces and elsewhere. I’m thinking of writing to my MP, if I can articulate sensibly! On the other hand, I’d be horrified if it ended up worse!

crabbyoldbat · 23/02/2025 10:17

Another issue is the 'case-by-case basis'. As I understand it the 'case' is, for instance, a particular changing room, or a particular counselling service (or even set of sessions within a service). NOT if a particular person (or 'case') has a right to access. But of course, this is how it is being interpreted, so it needs clarification - or at least pointing out (though I think the EHRC guidance is clear on this)

Slothtoes · 23/02/2025 10:17

Thanks nauticant for the thread. I haven’t seen all the threads so my apologies if this had been covered. but what, if anything would be legally different about the case if Dr Upton declared they hold a GRC? I can’t see any quotes that mention they have declared anything on this apart from saying in news quotes what looks like effectively, they believe that self ID is sufficient for male people to be in women’s spaces.

So either (because GRC has special secret legal status) either we can’t know if a GRC is held unless Dr Upton wishes to declare it, or Dr Upton does not hold one. But the public won’t know. But if there is a legal distinction then does a judge have a right to ask for someone’s GRC status if it’s relevant to the case?

And if in a case GRC status is not declared, If there would be differences between GRC and non-GRC holders under the law, does the judge not inevitably reveal the status eventually through their legal judgment? If not explicitly, then by the substance of the decision?

Otherwise how might a judge seek to get around having to reveal that in their judgment? Redacted sections? That doesn’t seem right. It just makes me concerned yet again that the GRA with its secrecy cloak wasn’t thought through and it seems to creates a chilling effect of non transparency that disproportionately affects other people in a negative way.

RethinkingLife · 23/02/2025 10:21

Slothtoes · 23/02/2025 10:17

Thanks nauticant for the thread. I haven’t seen all the threads so my apologies if this had been covered. but what, if anything would be legally different about the case if Dr Upton declared they hold a GRC? I can’t see any quotes that mention they have declared anything on this apart from saying in news quotes what looks like effectively, they believe that self ID is sufficient for male people to be in women’s spaces.

So either (because GRC has special secret legal status) either we can’t know if a GRC is held unless Dr Upton wishes to declare it, or Dr Upton does not hold one. But the public won’t know. But if there is a legal distinction then does a judge have a right to ask for someone’s GRC status if it’s relevant to the case?

And if in a case GRC status is not declared, If there would be differences between GRC and non-GRC holders under the law, does the judge not inevitably reveal the status eventually through their legal judgment? If not explicitly, then by the substance of the decision?

Otherwise how might a judge seek to get around having to reveal that in their judgment? Redacted sections? That doesn’t seem right. It just makes me concerned yet again that the GRA with its secrecy cloak wasn’t thought through and it seems to creates a chilling effect of non transparency that disproportionately affects other people in a negative way.

The quality of the contemporaneous House of Lords debate indicates just how well all of these issues were anticipated. Everyone was told to accept assurances that they never would. Yet they did.

Vegemiteandhoneyontoast · 23/02/2025 10:23

As I recall DU said he didn't need a GRC to validate him because he knows he's a woman

Chrysanthemum5 · 23/02/2025 10:26

@RethinkingLife that's what drives me mad about the Scottish Labour Party saying they would not have voted for the GRR bill if they'd been told the truth by the SNP. Their job is to ensure these questions are asked. And they were told about the potential issues by many women at the time. They just chose not to listen. And I don't know why- what was in it for them? Did they think the country was keen on this policy? Were they scared to stand up to the TRAs?

And of course the Scottish Labour leaders can say what they like but their bonkers party conference has just voted against the Cass report so clearly the leadership has no control

KnottyAuty · 23/02/2025 10:27

Skyellaskerry · 23/02/2025 09:55

If the H&S 1992 regs were highlighted as needing update for clarity on what is meant by men and woman, I wonder if that would start to focus different minds in workplaces and elsewhere. I’m thinking of writing to my MP, if I can articulate sensibly! On the other hand, I’d be horrified if it ended up worse!

Show quote history

I’ve just been thinking the same! Trying to find a way to briefly articulate my views. I’m coming around to the idea of trying to frame my GC beliefs as a reasonable response to sexual assault (by peers) as a child and that 1 in 2 women have had similar experiences. I’m delighted that my DD at 15 has so far avoided this, but obviously I’m aware this makes her (and maybe lots of other younger women) vulnerable to not appreciating the risks of losing female only spaces… but then I get stuck on what I want to ask for that’s simple … and yet avoids me being ignored as a bigot?

repeal the GRA?

GC has been strongly tested in law but GI has been snuck in without public debate or agreement in all its forms - so Legal clarification on how much of the GI belief meets the WORIADS /Grainger test?

And clarification on what is extremist GI ideology? Most of us accept religious ideology until it interferes with the rights of others eg Christianity and abortion - that’s been clarified and protected in law/by Parliament. Why not this?

Science based approach to legal terms and definitions?

Any suggestions on what cuts through all the flannel gets to the heart of the matter?

KnottyAuty · 23/02/2025 10:28

crabbyoldbat · 23/02/2025 10:17

Another issue is the 'case-by-case basis'. As I understand it the 'case' is, for instance, a particular changing room, or a particular counselling service (or even set of sessions within a service). NOT if a particular person (or 'case') has a right to access. But of course, this is how it is being interpreted, so it needs clarification - or at least pointing out (though I think the EHRC guidance is clear on this)

Very useful point! Thank you

needmoresheep · 23/02/2025 10:28

How Sandie Peggie-Dr Beth Upton tribunal has revealed class divide at heart of gender debate

Gender identity theory is largely a middle-class pursuit, says Susan Dalgety

When giving evidence at the employment tribunal brought by nurse Sandie Peggie earlier this week, respondent Dr Beth Upton got to the heart of the matter early on. “I’ve never been spoken to like that in my life,” said the medic, describing the nurse’s reaction when she discovered the doctor – born male – stripping off in the female changing rooms at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy.

From NewScotsman article

Upton - doctor ✔️ middle-class ✔️ born and raised male ✔️

Lots of advantages for Upton compared to SP who is the opposite

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 10:29

crabbyoldbat · 23/02/2025 10:17

Another issue is the 'case-by-case basis'. As I understand it the 'case' is, for instance, a particular changing room, or a particular counselling service (or even set of sessions within a service). NOT if a particular person (or 'case') has a right to access. But of course, this is how it is being interpreted, so it needs clarification - or at least pointing out (though I think the EHRC guidance is clear on this)

There are two levels of 'case by case'. A service provider can decide whether to provide a single sex service based on its own objectives. That is one level. Then, having decided to provide a single sex service, they can decide whether trans individuals can use that service on a case by case basis provided they have a lawful justification for doing so rather than throwing it open to all trans individuals. As I understand it, NHS Fife's policy was that access to single sex changing rooms by trans individuals would be considered on a case by case basis, i.e. whether the particular individual would be allowed.

KnottyAuty · 23/02/2025 10:29

RethinkingLife · 23/02/2025 10:21

The quality of the contemporaneous House of Lords debate indicates just how well all of these issues were anticipated. Everyone was told to accept assurances that they never would. Yet they did.

Show quote history

Oh thanks for this - where can I find the record of this please?

KnottyAuty · 23/02/2025 10:35

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 10:29

There are two levels of 'case by case'. A service provider can decide whether to provide a single sex service based on its own objectives. That is one level. Then, having decided to provide a single sex service, they can decide whether trans individuals can use that service on a case by case basis provided they have a lawful justification for doing so rather than throwing it open to all trans individuals. As I understand it, NHS Fife's policy was that access to single sex changing rooms by trans individuals would be considered on a case by case basis, i.e. whether the particular individual would be allowed.

Show quote history

Well that’s what NHS Fife said in response to SP’s tribunal claims. But there’s no evidence that there was a policy that covered this. And while there was confusion amongst the staff the guidance which filtered down was “they have the right to use the changing rooms”. So no evidence of any case by case assessment taking place on the ground either. No policy or practical action = convincingly not happening IMO! Therefore illegal

PrettyDamnCosmic · 23/02/2025 10:35

prh47bridge · 23/02/2025 10:29

There are two levels of 'case by case'. A service provider can decide whether to provide a single sex service based on its own objectives. That is one level. Then, having decided to provide a single sex service, they can decide whether trans individuals can use that service on a case by case basis provided they have a lawful justification for doing so rather than throwing it open to all trans individuals. As I understand it, NHS Fife's policy was that access to single sex changing rooms by trans individuals would be considered on a case by case basis, i.e. whether the particular individual would be allowed.

Show quote history

As I understand it, NHS Fife's policy was that access to single sex changing rooms by trans individuals would be considered on a case by case basis, i.e. whether the particular individual would be allowed.

On the contrary. NHS Fife's stance is that all trans identifying men can use female changing rooms. It's a blanket policy.