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

To clarify the law around organisations, if you have an association that admits women and trans women, it is clearly not relying on the exemption that allows it to limit membership to people sharing a protected characteristic. The question then becomes whether what they are doing is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (objective justification). The way the courts approach associations means there is generally a very low bar for something to be objectively justified, so being inclusive of all womankind (where that term is defined as including both biological women and trans women) may well be sufficient to say they are acting lawfully. If they wanted to admit gay men that would be more problematic - I can't see an obvious way of coming up with an objective justification for that, but maybe someone more imaginative could do so.

But my fundamental point here is about tactics. Some people on here want to tell any women's group, regardless of whether they are involved or even can be involved with that group, that they cannot open up membership to trans women. That would inevitably lead to newspapers running stories about the women who wanted to admit trans women to their group, but these evil GC women who aren't part of their group and don't want to be part of their group stopped them.

IANAL (obviously 😂) but does this now matter on the size of your group? Are you just a bunch of friends (less than 25 of you though) who meet up? Or are you a membership group of more than 25 for women and men who claim to be women? In that case what is the legitimate aim of your group where excluding men who don’t claim to women would be considered proportionate ?

"Womankind" doesn't have to be recognised in the Act. The Act is only about protected characteristics. If I am organising an association that doesn't use a protected characteristic as qualification for membership, I can use anything I want provided it doesn't indirectly discriminate against a protected characteristic. Even if it does, I can still do it provided the courts accept it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. For that question, whether the Act recognises the term "womankind" is entirely irrelevant. The question is whether the courts accept it as legitimate.

Yes, the size of the group does matter. If there are fewer than 25 of you, you can do whatever you want. My example assumes that there are at least 25 people in the women's group at my local university. And the legitimate aim would be something like being inclusive of all womanhood (or whatever other term you want that you can interpret as covering both biological women and trans women). That is clearly what the membership of my (fictional) group want to achieve by admitting trans women. The only question is whether the courts would accept that as legitimate. My view is that, given existing case law that shows how the courts approach associations, they would.

But being a woman is a protected characteristic, as is GR. Calling your eligibility category "womankind" doesn't get away from the fact that men who don't claim to be women will be turned away. It's not like saying it's a club for "dog lovers" or "chess fans" or "petrolheads", and admitting cat lovers or tennis players or committed cyclists. From an EA point of view, I mean.

Also I don't think it would be possible to come up with a legitimate aim. Unless - "just because that's what we want" is a legitimate aim. That could redound on us quite badly.
I'm hazy on the details, but there seems to be a general principle of being able to restrict access on the basis of one PC - eg the Charities exception, Positive Action, etc - but not more than one.

I'm not strategising, I simply want to get to the heart of this, legally speaking, because I am interested.

Take Girl Guides as an example.
Lots of people don’t want their daughters in what is now effectively a mixed sex organisation, despite its whole premise being that it’s exclusively for girls.
What recourse do they have but to pull their daughters out?
How is that fair for anyone who doesn’t believe boys can be girls for the asking?

Any group that claims to be for women who has subsequently allowed TW to join have probably done so because they have been told that they would be discriminating against TW because TWAW. A group of more than 25 that is single sex is I believe already relying on the exception/exemption (I can’t remember which) in the EA that allows single sex provisions. If they continue to allow TW to join but reject a request from another man who does not have a trans identity to join then they could open themselves up to a sex discrimination case. That doesn’t mean that all groups have to eject their TW members but some might because the majority of the members may not have wanted TW to join in the first place.

does “womanhood” have a generally agreed/definition that would include people who are not women?

I think I am fumbling toward the answer - defining which parts of the belief are not acceptable in a democratic society and getting those listed up with Incels on the proscribed list. The death threats, coercion etc are acts of terrorism so let's call it for what it is. That deals with the problem manifestations and the attempts to limit freedom of speech without condeming the whole movement?

The police do not act on threats against women from TRAs. They are able to get away with that because the government allows it. If a court ruled that that a belief is GI is woriads it would also come with the rider that it does not allow you to harass and intimidate women on the basis of that belief. The problem is getting the police to enforce that.

We have 2 tier policing and EHRC should be pushing a lot harder on that. And Starmer needs his feet held to the fire for allowing it.

Sorry it is not the proscribed list which deals with organised groups. It is the Prevent scheme which includes far right and incel groups which are not part of formal organisations and often act alone: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65e5a5bd3f69457ff1035fe2/14.258_HO_Prevent+Duty+Guidance_v5d_Final_Web_1_.pdf

Many thanks to @prh47bridge for patiently replying to us all and not getting frustrated when the same questions crop up on different threads💐

The thought I keep having is, if the WORIADS bar is so low, why the hell did Maya have to go to appeal to get it granted for a belief that was completely standard up until 15 minutes ago?! (Rhetorical question)

They could still have the group but just wouldn't be able to call it a women's group. Doesn't seem like it would be a massive problem for the hypothetical group?

Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood any of this 🙂

Beacause she wouldn’t just “ be kind”

This movement relies of ignoring reality and instilling fear

but hopefully someone will know the actual answer from the initial hearing/tribunal.

It would be a massive problem for a lot of TRAs though - invading women only spaces appears to be part of the point. They don't WANT mixed sex, gender neutral spaces.

However, it is essential for spaces to be labelled correctly for safeguarding purposes - if they are not parents cannot safeguard their children.

We know children have been attacked in 'women's' toilets by male bodied offenders self-IDing as female. I always wonder if the child's Dad was there - because if he was and the toilet had been labelled 'mixed sex' then the Dad could have gone in and protected his child from a paedophile attack.

Honestly labelled spaces MATTER for safeguarding.

I believe that the father of the girl that was attacked in the Morrisons toilet was standing outside. Probably standing next to the social worker who escorted Dolatowski to the entrance to the female toilets.

although not sure if it was the one he physically attacked or the one he filmed.

From the Forstater EAT, in reference to the ET:
The Tribunal held that the belief, being absolutist in nature and whereby the Claimant would “refer to a person by the sex she considers appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment”, was one that was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the belief did not satisfy the fifth criterion in Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360 (“Grainger V”).

EAT verdict:
Held, allowing the appeal, that the Tribunal had erred in its application of Grainger V. A philosophical belief would only be excluded for failing to satisfy Grainger V if it was the kind of belief the expression of which would be akin to Nazism or totalitarianism and thereby liable to be excluded from the protection of rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) by virtue of Article 17 thereof. The Claimant’s gender-critical beliefs, which were widely shared, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons, clearly did not fall into that category. The Claimant’s belief, whilst offensive to some, and UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ notwithstanding its potential to result in the harassment of trans persons in some circumstances, fell within the protection under Article 9(1), ECHR and therefore within s.10, EqA

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

What the flip (trying not to swear quite as much) is degrading about correctly sexing someone and refusing to be gaslit?

I suppose any woman’s organisation that members have to officially join and pay a subscription to could have a vote on whether to include transwomen, or is that too simplistic?
AFAIK this didn’t happen in the WI.

Struggling to keep up with this, but my very basic thought is that it would make life so much bloody easier if we just recognise and call “gender” what it is - stereotyping. It’s not a word that should be interchangeable with sex. Ever.

in the last god knows how many years, I have never got a response when i have asked the TRAs who popped up here how they define gender without resorting to stereotyping in their reply., nor exactly how one “lives as a woman” without resorting to stereotyping.

its a bit of a shame they seem to have run away with their tails between their legs as these boards have been strangely absent of them recently.

i think the “living as a woman” question will nev.er be answered. Unless you are a woman literally just going about her day…

Didn’t NC define it as LARPing or did I get that wrong? I’m off to LARP as a cat anyway.

@thenoisiesttermagant
I totally agree Honestly Labled Spaces Matter.

The way the law stands their doesn't seem to be anything to prevent a group of transwomen creating a "womans knitting group" advertising it and luring women along to it.

To name something Womans, Girls, Lesbian anything it should mean biological female only.

Just the same as Mens, Boys, Gay should mean biological males.

So it is this, but flipped isn't it?

GI Belief is WORIADS but a manifestation which insists on calling women, cis gender or cis women instead of "women" is not acceptable as it is considered by some to be an offensive term.

There is a poster on another thread who is being called by a colleague the/them for the colleague's benefit, not the OP's despite everyone in the office sharing preferred pronouns. Following the SC ruling it is now easier to say she wants them to use her pronouns and for the colleague to be disciplined if they refuse.

I think in legal terms the battle is going to become what does and what does not constitute 'harassment'.

Yes I suppose that is it - at the Employment Tribunal.

Well personally I would say that I feel that I am in a hostile environment if I were called cis to my face.

I also now feel the same about the rainbow lanyards and badges - it's a visible indicator of threat based on past treatment of women (withdrawal of treatment, sexual assault denials, accusations of bigotry etc).

It is going to take someone very committed to carry that one through though and risk the legal costs