NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #25

[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
Thread 24: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5301295-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-24

I understand NC's arguments but, given previous decisions of the ECtHR have set a very low bar for beliefs to be protected, I don't think the courts would agree that GI beliefs are not protected. But let us imagine for a moment that the courts agreed that GI beliefs are not protected. What would that mean?

It would mean that employers could sack an employee simply for holding GI beliefs. They could refuse to employ anyone with GI beliefs, or employ them on worse terms. Shops could refuse to serve anyone with GI beliefs. Service providers could refuse to provide a service to anyone with GI beliefs. And so on. I get that people have been treated like this for having GC beliefs, and a desire for revenge is normal, but that doesn't mean that legalising discrimination against people with GI beliefs is the right way to go. Remember that most people aren't paying much attention to this debate. How many sad face pictures accompanied by "I was sacked for believing TWAW" would be needed to generate public sympathy and allow TRAs to convince people that GC=transphobic?

Yes, some GI beliefs are extreme, but so are the beliefs of some religions. For example, the bible says that male homosexuals should be put to death (Leviticus 20 v13). Some other religions say the same, e.g. Islam. We still protect the beliefs of Jews, Christians, Moslems, etc. However, we don't allow them to express their beliefs in a way that infringes on the rights of homosexuals. We definitely don't allow them to murder homosexuals.

We should certainly ensure that GI beliefs don't prevent free speech or infringe on women's rights, but we don't need to prevent GI being a protected belief for that.

In similar vein, I can understand those on the previous thread who want the WI's actions in admitting trans women to be declared unlawful. I think such a challenge would fail but, if it were to succeed, what would that mean? It would mean that any women's association with 25 or more members could not legally admit trans women into membership even if the (biologically female) membership were unanimously in favour of doing so. It wouldn't just be shutting trans women out of spaces where they weren't wanted. It would be telling women that they can't invite trans women to join their groups even if they want them.

We should certainly point out to WI that the advice they got that said they had to admit trans women was wrong. Since each local WI is an independent organisation, they could leave it up to individual WIs to make their own decision, or they could say that no WI can admit trans women, but they should stop telling WIs that they must admit trans women whether they like it or not. But trying to say that women can't have trans women in their organisation even if they want them is a step too far in my view.

That's rubbish - the WI could become the 'mixed sex institution' or the 'performatively feminine' institution and then men of any type could join.

It's already illegal under consumer protection law to lie about products, actually, and i think claiming something is a single sex organisation when it's not is equally as illegal as claiming a chocolate bar contains no nuts when it does. You can't claim 'contains no nuts' when it does. That's already illegal.

And in general having mad beliefs shouldn't mean you are discriminated against in terms of getting a job but Dr Upton's mad view he's literally female should prevent him from being a doctor because it means he cannot treat patients with dignity, respect, and will ignore patient consent. Because of his belief. Not abusing patients should be the minimum requirement for keeping your registration as a doctor.

Someone who believes children can jump off a tall building and literally fly should not be in charge of a school trip to the Eiffel tower. As that would infringe the children's right to safety. Etc.

They could, but they don't want to admit all men. They only want to admit trans women. If you say this is illegal, you are saying that any group of 25 or more women that wants to allow trans women to join can only do so if they admit any men. Do you really want to be in the position of telling women they can't include trans women in their groups and exclude other men even if they want to do so?

I'm not getting into the false advertising beyond commenting that the only remedy individual members would have if WI is engaging in false advertising is that they would be entitled to get their money back.

Thank you for that useful note which convinces me that GI is or would be a protected belief.

Ive clearly been asking the wrong question. It’s not about WORIADS. It’s about the expression or manifestation being appropriate or not. And how to balance needs.

Christians aren’t considered terrorists for standing outside abortion clinics praying. But they now have to stay outside exclusion zones because just their presence was considered intimidating for staff and patients at clinics. That was about balancing beliefs and it seems like a decent compromise.

If GI believers decide to flout the laws, women continue to suffer death threats and violence for GC views, unions ignore the SC and NHS policies are slow/don’t to change (or my fear policy docs are removed but GI practice continues undocumented), what recourse is there?

Well then they should be 'womens and transwomens institute' then or 'feminine stereotypes institute'. So that people can decide whether to participate and give up their time honestly.

The lack of honesty is the problem and in many contexts that is a crime.

As I said on a previous thread, the courts differentiate between someone's beliefs and the manifestation of that belief. Upton cannot be sacked just for believing he is female. The fact that he holds these beliefs does not necessarily mean he will not treat patients with dignity and respect, nor does it necessarily mean he will ignore patient consent, even if he says he believes he is entitled to treat a patient who has requested a female doctor. However, if he actually does treat a patient who has requested a female doctor or he does fail to treat patients with dignity and respect, he can be disciplined or sacked for that. But, before it gets that far, NHS Fife should carry out a risk assessment and, if they believe Upton would act on his beliefs in those ways, they should take steps to prevent him doing so.

But trying to say that women can't have trans women in their organisation even if they want them is a step too far in my view.

You're incoherent here. Of course people can have transwomen in their organisation.

But women can't have transwomen in a women's organisation, because then it's not a women's organisation. By definition.

If a single-sex organisation want to become mixed-sex, then they have to do it in a non-discriminatory fashion. Sex discrimination is barred in most circumstances, and by ceasing to be single-sex, the WI loses their legal cover for sex discrimination against male members.

There are plenty of formerly single-sex organisations that have become mixed-sex openly and honestly. It's not impossible! Why is forcing organisations to be honest a "step too far"?

Do you really want to be in the position of telling women they can't include trans women in their groups and exclude other men even if they want to do so?

Absolutely, because that is unjustifiable sex discrimination. Why are you not letting me bring in my lovely husband Nigel, when you let in all sorts of horrible men just because they're wearing fishnets?

Why do you want to be in the position of telling women they can't include all the nice men they know in the mixed-sex groups they go to?

And I believe if someone suffers harm from a criminal act due to dishonesty - e.g. someone dies from anaphylactic shock from eating a chocolate bar advertised nut free, or raped in a 'single sex, women's ward' - then those who broke the law by lying such that those harmed could not avoid the predictable consequences of the lies, then those who lied can be held liable for that harm.

I would agree with that. I'm simply pointing out that, if the arguments advanced on the previous thread by those who want to say WI is acting illegally held water, such institutes would not be possible.

Ultimately, recourse is through the courts. I agree it shouldn't be necessary. People need to listen to the courts. But they are the final protector of your rights and they will keep enforcing your rights as long as people aren't listening.

In theory - but poor people can't take things to court, this is just a fact. You need money. If SP had not had a backer to bring the ET claim, she would likely have been squashed and fired by the NHS with no recourse. So it's not as much of a protection as claimed, in reality.

There were those on the last thread who were arguing that it is not possible for an organisation to limit its membership to women and trans women. In their view an organisation must either be for everyone, male or female, or it must be for women only.

Re your last paragraph, let us imagine that there is a women's society at my local university and they decide that they want to admit trans women to membership. You want to tell them that they can't do so. They must either admit everyone or just women. You want to say to them that, even though every single member wants to admit trans women, they can't. That is your line. Even though it doesn't affect you or your lovely husband, you want to stop them doing what they want. Why? What is wrong with a group of women deciding that they want to allow trans women to join their group? I get that you don't want to be in such a group, but why do you want to prevent others?

Extremism is already illegal when it comes to certain belief systems.

Arguably there is a belief in gender which sees sex. This is the now marginalised belief.

And then there is the one which seeks to get rid of sex, despite it being an important factor in being trans itself. You can't be trans without recognising sex. You can only force the silence on sex.

And this is where religious comparisons fall down. Ideas of a god/soul can not be disproven in court.

However sex remains observable and demonstrable in court and is a fundamental factor in extreme trans identity beliefs.

Perhaps we should merely be going down the road of making a clear distinction here:

Belief in gender is ok.
But a separate additional belief, which not all people who belief in gender have, that sex doesn't exist and is a social construct is a belief that is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

It effectively then makes it an extremist belief. And from there, the criminality relating to threats based on sex becomes easier to tackle.

I know. Thankfully, there are lawyers who will act pro bono on such cases, but that is nowhere near being a complete answer. However, if the courts keep penalising people for ignoring their rulings, the message will get home eventually. In this case, organisations that want to ignore the courts will probably start to find that their insurers won't want to insure them or will want much higher premiums.

Why is the idea that sex is a social construct not worthy of respect? Is it Nazism? Is it totalitarian? If not, the courts would decide that it is worthy of respect. It is wrong, just as flat earth belief is wrong, but it is worthy of respect, as is belief in a flat earth.

There is no need to stop GI beliefs being protected to tackle the criminality relating to threats based on sex. Those threats are criminal regardless of the status of the beliefs, just as threats against gay people are criminal even if the person making the threats is an adherent of a religion that says homosexuality should be punishable by death.

Because it's homophobic and because it harms women to be denied the ability to show they are discriminated against. Thus is fails the criteria required to be worthy of respect.

Flat earthers aren't harming another identifiable group.

Many religions are homophobic and discriminate against women. Some control the way women dress and other aspects of their behaviour. These religions pass the criteria to be worthy of respect.

You don't have to respect GI beliefs and you can fight against the manifestation of those beliefs, but the bar for not being worthy of respect in a democratic society is much higher than you want to set it.

Re your last paragraph, let us imagine that there is a women's society at my local university and they decide that they want to admit trans women to membership. You want to tell them that they can't do so. They must either admit everyone or just women. You want to say to them that, even though every single member wants to admit trans women, they can't. That is your line. Even though it doesn't affect you or your lovely husband, you want to stop them doing what they want. Why? What is wrong with a group of women deciding that they want to allow trans women to join their group? I get that you don't want to be in such a group, but why do you want to prevent others?

Why wouldn't I want to be in such a group? I do want to be in it, and bring my husband. Other women are bringing their husbands - they're just calling them "wives".

I'm not saying they can't admit transwomen - I'm saying they can't exclude my husband. I get that you don't want to be in such a group, but why do you want to prevent others?

You aren't a student at my local university as far as I am aware. You therefore cannot join this group or bring your husband. So my question stands. Why do you want to stop this group of young women including trans women in their group? Why are you insisting that they must admit any male student if they want to admit trans women? It doesn't affect you at all. So why are you so determined to stop them doing what they want?

The basic legal principle here is the Equality Act's core - you cannot discriminate based on innate characteristics without good reason.

I think that's a good principle. I'm a little bit doubtful that enumerating characteristics like that in law isn't just reifying them, but still we have the law.

Creating a single-characteristic space is a clear outcome, which, if it can be held to be useful, immediately grants a reason to perform discrimination - to form such a space.

A single-characteristic space is a clear and concrete thing that may serve a purpose (like a peanut-free dish), and that clarity is what justifies discrimination. Meticulously avoiding peanuts during a recipe makes sense to produce a peanut-free product. It doesn't if you're going to sprinkle it with peanut topping at the end.

But in the absence of that, the EA starts to pinch and say "is there really a valid reason for discrimination?" It is upholding a general principle. People should not normally be treated differently based on their sex.

A club for "women, and men that the women like" is the mirror image of a club for "men, and women that the men like". Both entrench a sex hierarchy into the structure, and normalises sex discrimination - what's the purpose? If there's no purpose, you have to permit both or neither, to have a principled position. I'd fall on the side of permitting neither.

Because I can only hit the “agree” button once on this post have to say: thanks for expressing this so clearly, I agree 💯 and I love that you posted thus and it’s funny how you must have read my mind

Regarding the WI, the problem for me is that they are using the word “women” as if it meant “people with woman gender” and, simultaneously, biological women. That doesn't seem right to me.
The Sex Matters guide says that having “organisational policies” not based on the EA’s definition of Sex is “likely to result in unlawful conduct”. I think that applies here.

On the question of whether any random group of more than 25 women could decide that their organisation included women and MCW and excluded men who didn't claim to be women, I think the answer is that that would be unlawful. I think that the premise of the EA is that no-one with a PC can be excluded unless the exceptions apply. On the flip side, it would also mean that if you include men, you couldn't exclude MCW. And you couldn’t include gay men but exclude straight men.

Anyway, IANAL, so...

Regarding whether GII would pass the Grainger test, it's not about revenge, obviously.
My starting point is that GR as a standalone PC is not working. It's ill-defined. Nobody knows what it looks like. It protects fetishism as much as it protects people with dysphoria, etc.

So how do we protect people who claim a GI from discrimination?
As a belief, I believe is the best way. Manifestations which don't impinge on other people would be fine but others wouldn't be. This would stop the fetish aspect - turning up to work or the PTA meeting dressed in fetish gear, or engineering wardrobe malfunctions. Specific manifestations of belief could be questioned. It would be treated as we treat religion - reasonable accommodation made.

That's why I was interested to know if some beliefs might pass the test while others failed. I wanted to know if a court (or anyone else) would analyse GII as a belief or set of beliefs. Does it have to be taken together in one lump? Does it pass if most of it passes? Do some beliefs and not others pass?

I see problems even with the GII lite version, but I think that is more likely to pass. However, it's pointless to say GII shouldn't be tested. It will have to be, sooner or later, because it's such a huge influence in society.

We aren't talking about a club for women and men the women like. We are talking about a club for womankind, where that term includes biological women and trans women. You may not want to join such an association, but why do you want to prevent others from forming such an association if they wish?

But if the EA is engaged, which it would be, you can't make up categories for eligibility. "Womankind" is not recognised by the EA. It's just women and some men.

Small groups can do what they want - larger groups are covered by the EA.