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

Just to add, having different requirements for men and women is not automatically make it discrimination. The question under the Equality Act would be whether men are being treated less favourably than women (or vice versa). Having a different requirement does not necessarily mean it is less favourable.

Presumably in much the same way the requirement "must have a penis" would not be direct sex discrimination?

This seems a rather idiosyncratic view.

I think the WI discussions are interesting on several levels. It's hard to envision a successful proceeding against the WI if they continue to accept TW; where is the detriment?

And personally, I think men and women should be allowed to form single sex associations just because they want to. I worked in the City for 40 years and I understand the access to the corridors of power argument, etc but would still prefer the ability to form ss clubs. I would say maybe consider if they have charitable status or any tax exemptions.
I think the Girl Guides is more interesting though. Genuine safeguarding issues etc, if they want to admit boys, okay, but they cannot continue to pretend that men are 'women leaders' or that 'trans girls' can share accommodation with girls.

One slam dunk is, I think, Rape Crisis Scotland, still run by Sandy Brindley. TW are not W and they need to revise their policies, consider staffing and back off on inclusivity.

The point about taking things to court if it affects you is an interesting one. I think the following is applicable to the changing room cases as well:

I have evidence that the recommended design for school toilets leads to harm (inc deaths) and sexual assaults (usually to girls). The DfE say they haven’t got any risk assessment nor Equality and Impact Assessment information, and said as well as their 2023 designs, schools should actually use 1974 Health and Safety legislation.

Specifically it’s the tiny 5mm door gap I object too, as they say it’s for privacy. ‘Safety’ is never mentioned in the toilet section but they say cubicle doors have also got to have a mechanism to override opening inwards from the outside incase of an emergency of someone collapsing. This is not safeguarding, it’s more likely to be retrieval in the cases of which I am aware.

So I spoke to the EHRC and they seemed interested until I mentioned the gender ideology influences (when they couldn’t get me off the phone quick enough). They said unless myself or a family member had been harmed directly and they could prove it was as a result of the change in design, then I couldn’t complain. They sent me a form in case it happened in the future.

This seems ridiculous when you think of it as, for example, you would have to prove a girl closely related to you (or yourself) got saved from being attacked because there were a boy and girls feet people could see in the cubicle, then the same girl would come to harm because the toilets had been refurbished and labelled ‘gender neutral’ and now had full length cubicles so one one could see how many were in there.

Safe guarding is about prevention. People don’t want to get caught - so a gap is more likely to stop it happening in the first place.

Because the full height cubicle is a new design for most schools, and not usually mentioned in newspaper reports, I have looked at historic reports. Rape locations inside school premises were the disabled toilets and store cupboards. Now there’s more reports coming out about sex in gender neutral toilets. Even single sex toilet cubicles that are full height as per the DfE document.

So as far as I can see, the DfE are discriminating against girls and pupils with disabilities (like epilepsy and diabetes). There’s no safe toilets in school (to take into account reasonable adjustments) for a person with a disability who may collapse without warning and where timely assistance could be lifesaving.

It seems particularly cruel when the government made such a thing about having defibrillators in secondary schools.

@prh47bridge please can I have your opinion on this? Are the DfE discriminating directly or indirectly with these designs?

"Must have a penis" is a factual question which would clearly exclude all men (apart from eunuchs). That would be direct sex discrimination.

If an organisation takes the position that "woman" refers to gender, not biological sex, "must be a woman" includes trans women and excludes trans men and non-binary individuals. It includes most, but not all, biological women and excludes most, but not all, biological men. It is therefore not direct sex discrimination.

I remember someone posting. I suppose we all turned a blind eye. As the tribunal second half approaches we should maybe email the Judiciary to check that will be sorted for next time?

thanks for all your efforts and your woman in arms who did great work on freedom of information searches. Once this is done I’ll fill in the MBE forms for you both xx

Let me start by saying I support your campaign.

Schools must provide single sex toilets for children aged 8 or over. That must now mean single biological sex. Schools that currently allow boys who say they identify as girls to use the female toilets must stop doing so.

The regulations that require schools to provide single sex toilets do not prohibit schools from also providing other toilets that are not single sex. They also specifically allow a lockable room that can be used by one pupil at a time. Since a basic rule of legislative interpretation is that words have their normal English meaning, a cubicle is clearly not a lockable room so, in my view, a full height cubicle does not qualify as such. A school can't have a room full of full height cubicles for use by both sexes as its only toilet provision and claim it is complying with the regulations. The previous government was planning legislation in this area. It would be good if the current government picked this up.

Whether the design is discriminatory is a difficult question. If you came to me professionally and asked, I would say we needed get an opinion from counsel. I think this requires a lot more specialist knowledge than I have. I think you are making a decent argument that it is discriminatory, but I'm very much on the fence as to whether the courts would agree.

In terms of taking action, I may be wrong, but it feels to me that health and safety legislation is more likely to be helpful than the Equality Act. If the design is unsafe for girls, that is enough of an argument in itself. You don't need to also argue that this is a form of discrimination, although there is no harm in including that argument. There may also be the potential for judicial review on the basis that there was no risk assessment.

Thank so much for replying. If you are correct there’s going to be a lot of panicking in schools then.

Here are some pictures of new uk secondary school toilets (used by both sexes). The current DfE guidelines are a 5mm gap.

All of us would benefit from public toilets not being private. Any of us could feel ill when we’re out, head to the toilet and then collapse. It is a common place to find a body as on average, every five minutes someone has a stroke and someone has a heart attack. I have also discussed this HSE for public toilets.

I have yet to find a mixed sex design that is not private. Which is obviously due to the fact people don’t like ‘to go’ or get undressed in the vicinity of someone of the opposite sex.
This is why single sex toilets (or changing rooms) are safer.

Although the discussion (which I am finding very complex) has moved on, I just wanted to say @NecessaryScene that I am deeply tickled by your hypothetical Inclusive Club for Womanning Activities

@prh47bridge just one more thing. I wrote for the Document T 2024 (public toilets, not schools) and I have been told a charity action group did too, however our views on safety and door gaps were never acknowledged in the published consultation survey analysis.

In fact the evidence reference I can find to why door gaps are not specified, relates to a report commissioned by the government to look at the requirements for people with long term health conditions. The evidence this report links to refers to American transactivists preference for enclosed designs. As a woman, I am also annoyed the report didn’t look at issues with heavy periods which is a massively common long term health condition relevant to toilets. The references to periods at the back of this long document, were American articles about transmen. There’s also a discussion about non binary crotch height for urinals, which I think is less relevant than the never-mentioned epilepsy, diabetes, asthma or cardiac problems etc. The company won Stonewall awards. Which is fine, but not at the expense of the group of women and men the government asked them to regard.

So I don’t think the assessments for Document T were fit for purpose.

Again, this has impacts on all designs for public spaces as I don’t think people are putting health and safety first.

If you know people in government, please voice my concerns. Happy to send you or anyone else all the evidence.

Apologies for typos in last post. I should say ‘I wrote in for the consultation’. I have no contacts in government.

I wonder whether now it is not exciting for transwomen to join the WI, they just won't bother? Do they have many TW members apart from Petra (iirc - was on the cover of the WI magazine)?

Yes, he was.

If "non binary crotch height for urinals" is ever an issue, I should think it is adequately dealt with by the usual provision of at least one lower urinal for the use of (rather commoner) small boys.

But that presumably wouldn't work if they were relying on the 'association for people with a shared protected characteristic' clause. Because the protected category of women is the one in the EA. So they'd need to shift categories.

Re the loos question, discrimination on the grounds of disability seems at least as relevant as sex.

Includes most biological women and some biological men? How could a requirement to be a woman ever exclude some biological women? Surely if the requirement is to be a woman then all biological women are included but no biological men?

Possibly excludes women with some flavours of trans identity, and women with no gender identity?

@prh47bridge Thank you for your lucid posts - I would love to have such clear thought processes. Faint but pursuing ....

Trans doctors can hide biological sex 😵‍💫
The GMC is pressing ahead with its new policy of making it voluntary for medics to record any data on their gender or sex!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/363cd187bb40d2b2

Some apology the GMC is making.

So how is this different to "Deception as to Sex" which involves a different type of consent?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/prosecutors-publish-updated-deception-sex-guidance

ETA - This report may relate to a letter from before the SC ruling. I wonder how this will change in light of that?

Just seen this. Oh dear!

"The cash-strapped health board has been told there is no longer any realistic legal defence for trans medic Dr Beth Upton to have been given access to female changing rooms."

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/neil-gray-hauled-equalities-watchdog-35085401

I hope you’re right and it was prior to the SC ruling.
I’ve lost all faith in the NHS. Didn’t it used to be the ‘envy of the world’ ?

Since nothing the Supreme Court has said stops doctor with a female GRC (and probably not one without a GRC ) from telling the GMC he is female, and the GMC are not entitled to ask, I think the GMC are wise not to potentially mislead patients by publishing the sex of doctors as it is known to them.

A doctor has a duty to not mislead patients and probably not to mislead employers if they ask for their biological sex. What seems to be urgently necessary is a law stating that when a patient asks for a medical attendant of the same sex as themselves they should be taken to mean biological sex unless otherwise stated. I think a court would take that as obvious but it really needs to be the law.

If anyone knows that this is the law, I would be very grateful for correction.

I agree - but having tried to raise this with the GMC during the tribunal when I emailed, I got a brush off. I will try again next week. When on the stand, Dr Upton stated they would offer to treat a patient who had asked for a woman doctor without mentioning they were trans - and suggested they would consider the patient transphobic if they rejected them. The GMC didn't seem to have considered this situation as a possibility - I mean who would? - but presumably they will have to and write it into updated guidance because it is not OK