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 don't think I was the one who gave a Peggie update, but I will nevertheless take your thanks, scamper off up a tree and stash them in a hollow like a squirrel. Or chipmunk. Anyhoo....

We now know what the Equality Act means by sex, and therefore by 'woman', but in other contexts, such as the WI constitution, 'woman' can be use to mean something else (reasonably credible) if they want it to.

Even if you accept that, they can't have FAQs like they had saying that they are not open to men. Discriminatory 'No X' advertising cannot be excused by saying 'actually, we would admit any X who actually asked.' Or 'well, we mean something different by X'.

I am somewhat bemused by the outbreak of Butlerism on here, as soon as the Supreme Court has made clear what a dim view it takes of legal word games that produce real-world nonsense. Its almost as if people have got too used to being contrary...

Butlerism, or as coined in another thread “Butlerian flapdoodle” - a new breakfast snack, full of nuts but ultimately unsatisfying. Used in a sentence “What in the Butlerian flapdoodle are you talking about?!?”

Fair enough - good idea. Hope you get traction.

I saw my card! Which was a postcard - so the pointed message was very easy for anyone to read - and sent to the hospital :)

anyolddinosaur · Today 16:35

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?

They are also an organisation with > 25 members. Surely the word women in the SSC clarification means "Women," (
prh47bridge) and not Women plus transw? If anything advertises that it's single sex, does that not now mean unambiguously that it's single sex?

The WI is an interesting case anyway, as the executive forced the inclusion of MCW against the wishes of the membership, with no opportunity to vote on it.

The Supreme Court's ruling was confined to the meaning of the words woman and man in the Equality Act. It has some knock-on effects, but it does not mean that everyone has to adopt that interpretation of those words in all circumstances. It doesn't even guarantee that is what those words mean in other Acts of Parliament, although it is persuasive.

So no, the SSC ruling does not mean that the word "woman" in the WI constitution can only be interpreted as referring to biological women. That isn't playing legal word games. It is looking at what the Supreme Court has actually decided and avoiding falling into the trap of giving it a much wider interpretation than they intended. If the WI want to interpret "women" as including trans women, the courts will allow them to do so provided the result does not breach the law. However, if they do go down that route, they are clearly not a single sex organisation.

As I've said a few times today, I think there is a decent chance the courts would allow them to be an organisation for women and trans women. I agree it is not guaranteed, but I do not agree with those posters who say the WI is definitely acting illegally. It is possible the courts would find that they are acting illegally, but from experience of how the courts deal with organisations like this, I tend to think that the courts would say they are legal, albeit they are not a single sex organisation.

That's one. The other key point isis change physiological or other attributes'.

Hormone treatment or surgery - whether done or merely proposed - woupd be to change physiological attributes. Nobody has the first fucking idea what the 'other' attributes are, or how one would change them.

You could claim that anything counted. Planning to wear lipstick. Planning to change your name. That MP who claimed he was trans 'or at least wanted to be' had, I believe, worn a skirt at one point. He could claim that as an attribute of womanhood. It's an even worse catchall clause than 'living in the chosen gender'.

Changing your name on bills to an opposite sex one can be proof of living in your acquired gender for two years for the purposes of the GRC so I guess that would be an example of an "other attribute "

lcakethereforeIam · Yesterday 20:17

As it's written, lacking case law, all Bob from Accounts needs to do to be covered by Gender Reassignment is sit back in his, chair, throw down his pen, announce 'I'm thinking of changing my gender' and then she's covered.

As I understand it, at the time it was written, they only envisaged "serious" people to take advantage of GR. They assumed that it would be men who were planning surgery and that it would take some courage for them to tell people about it.

They almost certainly didn't consider that every oddball under the sun would claim the status and then barge into the ladies, screaming "Bigot!" at any woman who objected.

prh47bridge · Yesterday 23:16

I understand what you say, but to me, the WI constitution states that it's for women. The ruling states that women means women, not women and men with gender.

As they have TIM members, surely they are in breach of their constitution? Would they not have to rewrite it, to stay on the right side of the law?

Could not female members challenge the inclusion of TIMs, on the grounds that they are now unarguably men and therefore, cannot qualify as members of a single sex association?

Yes, I pointed this out in a later post. It's really poorly defined legislation, which means it can be widely interpreted.

If the WI want to interpret "women" as including trans women, the courts will allow them to do so provided the result does not breach the law.

Which they inevitably will - they're subject to the Equality Act!

Do you think they will have the discipline to never turn away a man, or write that they are for women only anywhere else, where the enforcers of Equality Act will see it?

The breach will come from them misrepresenting themselves as being single-sex for women - which is to the detriment of women - or, much more starkly, from discrimination against men.

With the ambiguity about the SSEs totally removed, both of those breaches which we've long discussed seem like clearer legal calls.

Oh, and btw, an earlier 'club for trainspotters' analogy doesn't work - I do not believe they exist. There are trainspotting clubs which are open to all. Not clubs that ask you if 'you are or identify as a trainspotter'.

That analogy would only work if the WI could rework itself to say it did womanning but everyone was welcome. As with the trainspotting club, their FAQ would have to have entries like. 'Who can enjoy womanning? - Traditionally, womanning has been thought of as being specifically for women, but anyone can do it, and our society is open to everyone of either sex. We are a fully inclusive organisation, and are not using the single-sex provisions of the Equality Act.'

They're going to have to lay it on thicker than the trainspotting club because the trainspotting club presumably isn't going to be calling itself the Trumpton Men's Trainspotting Club, and needing to asterisk the 'Men's' out of existence...

Meanwhile the current 'Can men join? No.' is almost comical in how much in breach of the EA it is now exposed as.

I don’t see how they can get away with excluding non trans males. Why would that not be sex discrimination?

Actually scratch my statements on the WI @KnottyAuty and @prh47bridge - on reflection I think the WI probably is a more difficult one as they wouldn’t necessarily be able to rely on the SS exemption anyway even if they wanted to - in contrast to eg boxing or the other situations where it’s a safety/dignity issue. I think it’s going to still be difficult to navigate this area going forward precisely because it’s a matter of balancing rights in these less obvious cases. And that is the issue when the world at large is trying to deal with these things day to day. Translating theoretical law into real world rules for lay people is a skill in itself!

They wouldn’t necessarily be able to rely on the SS exemption anyway even if they wanted to - in contrast to eg boxing or the other situations where it’s a safety/dignity issue.

The EA isn't actually that strict. 'Providing a female-only space' can be accepted fairly readily as a valid purpose for sex discrimination. There was never any intent to make single-sex groups nonviable. The aim was to prevent sex discrimination in circumstances where sex shouldn't matter. Orgs like the WI were considered while drafting the law, and space was left for them - as long as they are single-sex.

Boxing is actually tougher because the point of boxing is competing athletically - nothing directly to do with sex. That needs more attention to when activities with purposes other than group-specific provision can discriminate.

Thanks. I will be studying this further once the kids go back!

In the meantime I hope it will prompt change at least in the obvious cases.

I’ve been mulling and I suppose WI Meetings are generally not where people get undressed or are in vulnerable situations. Unlike Lesbian groups theres no conflict of interest. So under the EA there’s no specific need for a legal single sex space for members. Therefore excluding trans women just on the basis of them being trans is probably discriminatory under the Equality Act. Unless someone can tell me a legitimate and proportionate aim?

As an employer they’ll have to provide single sex toilets plus maybe a third space.

Separately there’s the issue of the WI Constitution which uses the word woman which is now legally defined. I’d say thats their biggest conundrum and I’m guessing will be linked to their charity (?) status. I assume the leadership will wish to continue with their current inclusive membership policy. So it will be interesting to see how they do it without having to declare they are simply a mixed sex organisation (edited to add) which excludes men (and trans men?).

To say again, the ruling says that women means biological women in the Equality Act. That's it. The Supreme Court were not ruling on the English language. They were ruling on the meaning of the Equality Act. Their ruling does not say that women means biological women in any other context. It does not even mean that women means biological women in other Acts of Parliament, although it is persuasive. It definitely does not mean that women means biological women in the WI constitution or anywhere else you encounter the word.

The effect of this ruling on the WI is that they are clearly not a single sex association. That does not necessarily mean they are acting illegally. As per my previous posts, if someone challenges the WI, previous case law around membership associations suggests the courts will find that the WI is acting legally. However, that is not guaranteed. The only way to find out is to launch a legal challenge.

They wouldn't be excluding transwomen for being trans, they'd be excluding them because they're male. There would only be a successful discrimination claim if they let men in, but not TW, as the comparator for a TW is a man.

The other thing women need to consider is that allowing the S S exemption for something like the WI does open the door somewhat to equivalent logic arguments that men only social clubs and golf clubs etc should be permitted. Not a slam dunk but definitely a case of “be careful what you wish for”.

Thank you! Thats cleared up my confusion
So they can exclude men. But what about Trans men?

Transmen are female, so it would be discrimination to not allow them (I don't think the allowable exclusion clause would apply for the WI, as there's no undressing etc, so you'd struggle to show it was warranted).

This topic of clubs needs a new topic of its own just for this. A trans woman can go to the Garrick Club one night and then the WI the next… fascinating

I seem to remember hearing a fair few complaints about transwomen using the female toilets at ET’s.

I have a hunch that they won’t get turned away by Court security, but would love to be wrong.