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

Gender reasignment is effectively plastic surgery and not much different to a tattoo.

Might change their appearance but it doesn't change their biology or make them a different sex or colour.

Not NHS Fife related but Scotland related. This from James at the Herald about Scottish education and the SC ruling is typical of him. I've had dealings with him on other matters and he's a total wanker.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/25099607.spare-thought-young-people-caught-anti-trans-storm/

Oh my! That is going to be really painful to eject transwomen - unless they change the constitution? All this "inclusion" has been done so cruelly and so badly. It will be devastating for some - I hope the people who bodged this take responsibility for breaking the law and promising them things they shouldn't have

I’m sparing my thoughts for the women and girls harmed by the ideology but whose harms have never been acknowledged.

I've made several posts on this subject. I'm not going to repeat them. In brief, they can't claim to be operating a single sex service, but their position may still be defendable. WI don't conduct any enquiries to see if a man wanting to join is genuinely trans, so they are arguably open to all men. Also, the courts give more latitude to associations like this than employers, added to which most men don't want to join the WI, so it is possible they would accept that being inclusive of both biological women and trans women is a legitimate aim for WI and their current approach is a proportionate means of achieving that.

This is a good read IMO

Phallic Drift – politicalbetting.com

It is confusing.

The EHRC say that "to be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender"

But this appears to contradict the actual law which says that

"A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

These two things don't really add up. Perhaps there is case law that explains the disparity. The impression I get is that in practise the PC of gender reassignment is just based on self ID.

Does this mean that the actual result of Wednesday's ruling will be that organisations and businesses will just make everything mixed sex? The likes of the WI could admit all men to ensure they can admit trans women for example. The toilet issue is more complex, I know. But Helen Webberley for one ranted on one of her videos yesterday that we should get rid of labels and just let everyone in everywhere.

Oh that is a good read! Thank you for that!

From the article:

“Safeguarding’s fundamental principle is that you look at which group poses a potential risk to the vulnerable and limit or control access. It is necessarily exclusionary, not inclusive. The group isn’t the issue; the access is. The group to focus on is the vulnerable one and what it needs to mitigate its vulnerability. That is why all men are kept out of spaces and services where women are vulnerable. It is their sex (the single most important factor determining whether someone will be a criminal) which makes them a risk as a category regardless of what individuals in that category are like. Their gender or feelings are irrelevant. It is potential which matters, not any individual man’s intention. A case-by-case assessment might work when choosing wine or hiring an employee but not in a changing room or loo. That is why we should view with some suspicion any group of men demanding access to such spaces. That is why you should never privilege any group with access to the vulnerable because, if you do, that group will inevitably attract predators. That is why the exceptions in the Equality Act exist and why they must be sex-based to achieve their purpose.”

These two things don't really add up. Perhaps there is case law that explains the disparity. The impression I get is that in practise the PC of gender reassignment is just based on self ID.

The key is 'proposing to undergo'. So no treatment yet undertaken, but planning to. (Or saying you're planning to, I imagine, in reality.)

So yes, I don't disagree that there will be an element of self ID in relation to that PC. However, it's only relevant if alleging discrimination, so in the case of TW, that you've been treated less favourably than a man in the same situation.

Great article thank you!

Brilliant thank you!

My brain is shutting down, but anyway...

The FWS original was about women including anyone who identifies as a woman. The EHRC admonished the Welsh Senedd for putting "anyone who identifies as a woman" in the definition of women because we don't have self-ID. In both cases, men who identified as women could have included men with the PC of GR, but not necessarily with a GRC. Point is, identifying as the other sex does attract the protection of the EA - PC of GR - whether or not the person has a GRC or has made any body modifications or is "living as a woman/man". I think that is settled law (don't know the cases, IANAL.)

So I don't think Women plus those who identify as women is lawful. And whether or not the WI are arsed to find out who is "genuine", or full-time is neither here nor there. It's women-only or everybody.

Does that make sense to you?

As an aside, this all shows you that the PC of GR should go and belief in GII should be a protected belief (if it passes the Grainger test).

Thanks for the article, I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of this whole issue bring dismissed as just "culture wars". Particularly by men who should know better. It is completely the case that women have been fighting for years about this issue and it seems to have come as a complete shock to a lot of people that women's words actually have weight and real life impacts.

No. There are many situations where single sex provision is mandated.

An employer must provide single sex toilets. If changing rooms are needed, they must be single sex. In both cases, unisex provision is only allowed if it takes the form of a lockable room for one person to use at a time. There is no getting round that. This provision will now have to be single biological sex.

There are many other situations where regulations or licence conditions mandate single sex provision. Again, this will now have to be single biological sex.

If the circumstances that permit single sex provision apply, most organisations and businesses will still need to continue with single sex provision. Moving to mixed sex either won't be practical or will mean no-one will want to use their services.

There may be some organisations and businesses that move to unisex provision for some things, but I expect that most will stick with single sex provision and, hopefully, most will realise that now means single biological sex.

I’ve not seen this posted (apologies if I’ve missed it) but this has been posted on X by the EHRC:

https://x.com/ehrcscotland/status/1913217592686215650?s=46

“We can confirm that we are meeting the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray MSP, next week [thread]

The purpose of this meeting is specifically to discuss concerns relating to existing NHS guidance on single-sex spaces, and the upcoming NHS Scotland Guide to Transitioning [continued]

These have been highlighted by the ongoing legal case involving NHS Fife, which predates the Supreme Court’s ruling. We will be updating our guidance on single-sex spaces to reflect the Supreme Court judgment in the coming weeks [continued]

We first wrote to Mr Gray about this matter on February 21st this year. You can read what we said here: equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/n… [end]”

Given that the EHRC argued in the FWS case that the terms man and woman in the Equality Act included trans men and trans women, and that parliament needed to legislate to clear up the mess that caused, I'm not sure I would trust their interpretation of this part of the Act. This is their opinion. It is not based on any case law.

The WI is actually a charity. As such its constitution is a legal document. IANAL but I think that means their decision to admit trans women, who are not legally women, can be challenged in court. Anyone want to write to their trustees?

The Supreme Court's decision was specifically about the terms in the Equality Act. It has knock-on effects, but it doesn't mean that the word "women" in the WI constitution has to mean biological women.

In general, when dealing with membership associations such as the WI, the approach of the courts is to let the association interpret its own constitution. They will not step in just because they disagree with the association's interpretation. They will step in if the words of the constitution cannot possibly bear the interpretation the association wishes to use. They will not necessarily step in if the interpretation leads to an unfair outcome, but the greater the unfairness the more support is needed in the constitution.

So, in this case, it would be very surprising if the courts told the WI that references to women in their constitution had to refer to biological women.

I'm currently looking for another job and its difficult to find somewhere that isn't captured and I dont see any changes coming in immediately either. Wonder if FWS are hiring....

Call up a few recruiters and ask them specifically for GC friendly workplaces. If all women do the same then employers will get the message - both when asked by recruiters and then at exit interview. Staff leaving costs money. A lot of money. If people put up and shut up they won’t act. Or they’ll fudge it

So if you have no intention of making any changes but you still consider yourself to be transgender you would not be covered by this PC because you aren’t proposing to undergo a reassignment?

Yes, I think so. Because to fall under that PC, you have to fulfil one of the criteria. I do think that 'proposing' is a bit woolly though.

Yes I suppose it’s self ID again isn’t it. You can just say “I’m proposing” even if you aren’t and just like that you are protected.

The ruling made clear that it was nonsensical to have heterogeneous groupings as gender is meaninglesss (from @GargoylesofBeelzebub)

We use the same words for gender identity as we do for sex (@prh47bridge )

All this is so much up for debate now, thank god, with the gender ideologists on the back foot for a change. Many of them argue that there are multiple genders anyway, as do Stonewall, and that gender is not binary, and that 'non binary' is a cogent and coherent concept as a gender.

Could that nebulous mish-mash of thoughts ever coalesce into a 'belief' that could survive the WORIADS test, up to and including at Supreme Court level? I have a new optimism that it would be an uphill struggle now that 'sex' means biological sex at birth, not an idea in someone's head or on a five pound piece of paper or in a Butlerian text book.