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

Vulvamort aka HairyLeggdHarpy on X did an amazing job of covering the debates with references to Hansard. I would start there:

https://x.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1177699186361458688

Yes, while we weren't given explicit detail of the conversation and any previous communications between IB and ED/the Department, it doesn't sound like there was any individual assessment of the transperson in question, more a general blanket statement that transwomen must be allowed to use the female facilities.

Maybe some more detail will come out during IB's questioning in July to clarify what that advice was based on.

NHS Fife claim they have a policy of considering access on a case by case basis, but the evidence in this case suggests that the practice is different.

I think they will claim they mean case by case to refer to specific circumstances so have decided that all changing facilities are open to people to use according to their gender identity. Rather than looking at each individual person

It's all still bollocks but I expect that will be their defence

The issue with case by case, what criteria would anyone use for yes Rachel can use the ladies but Isla can't?

One is a rapist, both have the equipment to be a rapist. At one point I'd maybe have had sympathy for a male who'd had the equipment removed. But I'm not even sure I'd allow that any more. Because it's not exactly something anyone can ask to see.

It has to be a clear cut no males in female facilities.

KnottyAuty · Today 10:35

That was also my understanding, that they were unable to provide a copy of their policy, which tends to suggest that it doesn't exist. Upton told them he'd be using the women's changing rooms and they effectively shrugged and said, "OK, fine."

It has to be a clear cut no males in female facilities.

I agree. That's my position & always has been. However many women (my wife included) say that they would be OK sharing with a man who has fully transitioned with hormones & surgery.

Nope. Not me. The stats are clear (see Maya’s submission to the tribunal): trans-identified men, even those who have had surgery and are on hormones, retain male patterns of violence against women. Just because he can’t rape you with his girl penis doesn’t mean he can’t cause irreparable damage, both physical and psychological.

No men in women’s spaces. At all. Ever.

I agree entirely, @TwoLoonsAndASprout

Yes, that's what struck me about the NHS Scotland guidance that was mentioned the other day. From memory it said something about a 'personal case-by-case basis' whereas I think the statutory guidance on the Equality Act is pretty clear that it is the situation, rather than any individuals, that needs assessing - including all features of the situation, not least the impact on women.

How on earth would a 'personal' case-by-case assessment work? You can't ask about a GRC, and there are no criteria for distinguishing between 'really trans' and 'not really trans' in relation to anyone who claims that status (the very idea of there being such criteria is regarded as being transphobic).

So what would actually be assessed? Would they just ask the person "Will you harass/spy/stare/impose/photograph/film, or do you promise to be an altogether good egg?"

Or would it be a 'personal' case-by-case assessment relating to the impacted women - eg whether they had a 'sufficient' history of traumatising sexual assault?

Or would it be a 'personal' case-by-case assessment relating to the impacted women - eg whether they had a 'sufficient' history of traumatising sexual assault?
Even if that were the test, which would be appalling, it seems Sandie still didn't demonstrate that she had suffered sufficiently.

KnottyAuty Science based approach to legal terms and definitions?
Any suggestions on what cuts through all the flannel gets to the heart of the matter?
Sometime last year, so before the Trump EOs, there was a proposal from a congressman in the US to conflate the terms 'sex' and 'gender' in official use, so they would mean one and the same thing, and they would only mean the biological fact of being immutably male or female.

Given that sex and gender are used interchangeably in a lot of circumstances anyway, this seems like a useful suggestion.

It would mean that if someone referred to their 'gender', they were just stating their sex, i.e. whether they were male or female; being 'trans-gender' would mean changing sex, which is impossible.

'Gender identity' would just mean being male, or being female.

The expression 'shooting their fox' springs to mind!

Sorry, I haven't been able to find references to the original proposal or where I posted about it on FWR. I'll keep looking because I thought it was an interesting suggestion which could tidy up some loose ends.

I was reading on FB the Indy banging on about some Hollywood starlet I'd never heard of who is trans (natch) and sadly, after losing their passport, has been issued with a new one with a 'M' marker. This appalling attack on civil rights produced a strong response. How ridiculous that 'she' should be required to use men's toilets, they crowed. Well, the situation they are in is of their making, but people who say that never explain how it's OK to allow this person into female spaces, but not bearded r*pey types in a bad wig.

And this conversation took place AFTER Sandie Peggie had said she was uncomfortable, so any process should have been even more careful.

Yes. “intent“. Subjective belief, cannot be proven or disproven. And it’s being used as a sword, rather than a shield, legally speaking. I can’t think of many other situations where that is the case …

Of course it’s central to rape - belief in consent. Objective belief or subjective ? Normally there is at least some reasonableness test.

It wouldn't have crossed BU's mind to seek forgiveness/permission if he was an actual woman, though, would it? Ergo, he knows he's a man. Ergo, he lied in court, and him stating he would treat anyone who asked for a female doctor must breach something or other, surely?

What I find odd about the IB and ED discussions is/was that neither of them thought to go beyond a telephone call (or maybe the written advice went AWOL).

I get that hospitals are busy places, but I'd have requested something in writing (or emailed IB a note of the discussion) if I knew my direct report was going to be upset.

I'd also do it in a timely manner, not simply "shrug" and hope that the matter went away.

"Oh, we had a chat" weeks later wouldn't cut it.

I googled Sarah Holman crowd funding and immediately found you. Carrots watered and post shared. Best of luck Sarah, will follow with interest, I hope you are going public. You are very brave. Thank you.

How on earth would a 'personal' case-by-case assessment work? You can't ask about a GRC, and there are no criteria for distinguishing between 'really trans' and 'not really trans'

Who says you can't ask about. GRC? If I have a disability (protected characteristic) and require adjustments at work I have to provide evidence to my employer. I couldn't just turn up and state I needed X, Y and Z and you can't ask me why!

@nauticant thank you so much for all the work you have done, really appreciate it.

Also to the other lovely ladies on here and those on tribunal tweets etc.

Could someone help me with something particular, Twitter, boswell today. How do I see his day by day posts on twittter in chronological order, right now I can't find day 1 to 6. Is there a trick to it?

For the same reason you can't question trans folk about anything ever, it might make them sad 😢 .

A headline popped up the other day that said the gender change with the GMC means the previous disciplinary record of the Dr isn't transferred to the new reg so a potential employer can't see if the sacred ones have had issues in previous positions. But hey ho mustn't upset anyone.

It’s because the trans lobby are weaponising the privacy laws to say it’s a breach of the right to a private life/a breach of Data Protection law etc. Not sure which articles etc they would be citing - perhaps it would even just be a bare assertion… but in this climate, many or even most people are intimidated by complaints or the fear of complaints from the “sacred caste” so just don’t say anything in case it isn’t “being kind”…

It’s of course completely outrageous and hypocritical given your situation as a disabled person. But it’s another example of Stonewall law trumping real law.

actually @Conxis you are incorrect. I'm disabled and work in the DEI field (although thankfully no longer anything to do with sex or gender)

The definition of disability is a legal one, not a medical one, so no proof is needed. Only a court or tribunal can tell you if someone meets the definition of disability - a medical professional can diagnose you with an impairment but that doesn't necessarily mean you are DISABLED by it - hence the legal definition.

Think of covid - all the legal cases from disabled people because shops and restaurants demanded mask exemption certificates before entry but doctors refused to give them, for the very reason I just said - its a legal definition.

The EQ Act also says employers have a duty to make adjustments if they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, somone experiences a barrier.

In other words, if someone is limping at work but don't tell you why, the signs are still there that they require you to do something different. You are not likely to win on the 'they never told me' defense if the court determines the signs were there.

Trans people do try to make the comparision with disabled people - "you can't ask me" which is frustrating as the law approaches both PCs differently.

Also if you look at any OH report, it will say 'this person is likely to meet the definition of disability'. It will never ever say 'this person does...'