NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #24

[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
Thread 22: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5280174-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-22
Thread 23: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5285690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-23

I know what the protected characteristic is. However, @spannasaurus wants to admit anyone who identifies as a woman. That will include men who identify as women who do not propose to undergo any process for reassigning their sex. Her theoretical group is therefore discriminating on the basis of gender identity, which is allowed.

You are not excluding these men because they are men. You are excluding them because they don't identify as women.

For that to stand a chance of working, you would have to make absolutely sure you weren't including women who didn't identify as women. Transmen and non-binaries would have to be excluded, as well as gender-critical feminists.

In practice a lot of people doing this sort of thing have been permitting "all females regardless of identities, and males who claim to have special identities" (even though that's not the way they put it).

That would be clearly impermissible anti-male sex discrimination.

I do understand how the Equality Act works. It allows single sex services in some circumstances. It does not mandate them. You are attempting to argue that, despite its clear wording, it does in fact mandate single sex services. I think the courts would be reluctant to agree with that proposition generally, but there may be specific circumstances where they would agree.

I think the lesson is that whatever one does, the label on the group needs to match its actual composition. And given the confusion around terminology, among the general public, the media and even those claiming to be experts in this field, that is not going to be easy! But at least we know now that women and female definitely means biological sex at birth and we now have an easily quotable case from the Supreme Court, no less, to wave at anyone who is using the words to mean anything else….

I think the lesson is that whatever one does, the label on the group needs to match its actual composition.

Quite. The scope for confusion between a service for women and a service for people who "identify as women" is possibly too severe to be permitted.

The very act of providing something for "people who claim to be X" instead of "people who are X" could be taken as a form of discrimination against people who are X.

It's acting as a barrier to getting a dedicated service in, and could be seen as a dedicated attempt to distort the "market", as it were.

Not having a women's group (or whatever) is one thing - choosing to deliberately set up a fake women's group is something else.

For clarity, the Supreme Court ruling applies specifically to the use of these terms in the Equality Act. It does not have any wider application than that, although it is clearly persuasive in terms of other legislation such as the regulations around workplace changing rooms. It does not mandate that the terms refer to biological sex at birth in other contexts.

Edited to add...

It does have some knock-on effects. A group for women, for example, cannot rely on the single sex exemption if it admits trans women and has more than 25 members.

I think this is exactly why the SC judgement was needed - it isn't possible to segregate on gender because the term is not meaningful. That's why they had to stop the whole subgroups of sex class with different needs.

As an example, let's say you advertise an Inclusive Walking Group.

I assume that your intention might be that it is for women and trans women.
You might have in mind that you would want to include biological women, trans women with GRC and self ID trans women?

How might you control who can/cannot have access?

You can't ask for a GRC.
Passports or driving licences won't help much because they may or may not accord to the identity in which that person is living.

You can't go on appearance - because there are people in your chosen group who might look stereotypically male (either because they are non steretypically female, or male or because they are trans men).

I think to run an inclusive group, you would have to be specific about who you wanted to exlude - if that isn't a weird concept...?

If you limit your walking group to 24 members, you don't have to worry. You are exempt from the Equality Act and can do whatever you want.

Ah I wasn't thinking about the legailty part.

More the likeminded/shared interests part

@spannasaurus what is your reason for wanting to run the group? Are you trying to exclude males and trans men? And if so why? Understanding the reasons might make the method for doing so come clearer

You can't exclude protected characteristics unless you are trying to achieve a legitimate aim

Using gender instead of sex because you feel like it is not a legitimate aim.

If you wish to create a group for those who have their gender reassigned that's legitimate.

But otherwise it's discriminatory.

You can try and pretend differently as much as you like but your point is bollocks when it comes to a gender public access issue.

How is restricting a group to under 24 relevant to the NHS anyway?

I think this is exactly why the SC judgement was needed - it isn't possible to segregate on gender because the term is not meaningful. That's why they had to stop the whole subgroups of sex class with different needs.

The ruling made clear that it was nonsensical to have heterogeneous groupings as gender is meaninglesss.

I think that was regarding my and @spannasaurus theoretical walking group - not so much the NHS

Your first sentence is correct.

Your second sentence is wrong. Using gender instead of sex means I am not excluding on a protected characteristic. Gender is not protected, so I can discriminate on the basis of gender if I wish.

I need a legitimate aim to exclude on the basis of sex or gender reassignment. I do not need a legitimate aim to exclude on the basis of gender because it is not protected.

It's hypothetical. But let's say I'm a TWAW type of person who wants a women's group but also wants to be kind

could you talk me through that? Are you arguing that gi is not a pc, therefore discrimination is allowed?

Could you just advertise it as for those who identify as women?

GC types would be unlikely to want to touch it with a bargepole 😁

it sounds like you can be kind to women or transwomen but not both at the same time ?

GI is not, gender reassignment is.

I need a legitimate aim to exclude on the basis of sex or gender reassignment. I do not need a legitimate aim to exclude on the basis of gender because it is not protected.

I think this could maybe be valid - but you'd have to be crystal clear that you were in no way referring to sex.

You'd have to spell out that you would only admit women if they made clear that they had "female gender", and that having female sex was not sufficient or relevant.

If there was any possibility that women were ending up getting treated more favourably because they or someone else thought sex was relevant, you're entering a world of indirect sex discrimination pain.

Your "not a protected characteristic" thing would be on firm ground if you were talking about identifying about "autobots" versus "decepticons" or something. But by using the words for protected characteristics you're on very, very thin ice.

"No people who identify as X" is not a magic formulation that avoids discrimination legislation intended to protect X.

It was. And none of this is relevant to this case. NHS Fife clearly have to provide single sex changing rooms. They cannot make their changing rooms single gender. Upton can, and should, be excluded from the female changing rooms and disciplined if he insists on using them. Sandie Peggie should not face any sanctions for complaining about a man in the women's changing rooms.

I'm not arguing it so much as stating it. The Equality Act lists 8 protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Gender identity is not.

Gender identity is not.

Yes, but sex is.

So you can't use the sex words to describe your thing that you claim is not a protected characteristic. Or you'll be dragged into the coverage of that protected characteristic.

Totally unqualified question here - are we sure that gender self ID is not rolled into the Gender Reassignment category by the bit in the EA which says that it includes anyone trans regardless of treatment etc etc? I'm struggling to keep up with the implications but my take is that the SC confirmed noone can self ID into sex, but I think you can still self ID into gender reassignment?

👍 understood.