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 add to my last post, a policy that required you to use female pronouns for a trans woman in a situation where that would put safety at risk would clearly be unreasonable. So safeguarding can be a good reason to use the correct pronouns for an individual rather than their preferred pronouns.

Going back to - committed TRAs fail consistently to avoid sex-based pronouns during court cases. It's really bloody hard. Even when you believe in it.

It is a very, very difficult ask to expect people to avoid normal English. Would it be acceptable for an employer to ask all employees to replace 'the' with 'cat' or stop using 'the' in language altogether? No, avoiding pronouns altogether is a huge mental load and creates a coercively controlling atmosphere where a lot of employees will avoid speaking altogether for fear they'll get it wrong.

I understand the argument. But insisting that you will not use someone's preferred pronouns is also putting your belief as more important than theirs. And there is a clear difference from your Ramadan example. I can navigate a "please use preferred pronouns" policy by avoiding using pronouns at all in most situations, whereas there is no way I can navigate a "you must fast in Ramadan" policy without fasting.

To be clear, I am trying to look at this how I think the courts would look at it. I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if they found that a "please use preferred pronouns to avoid causing offence" policy was unlawful.

It may not be unlawful, true, but lots of stupid things employers do are also not unlawful (and as we've seen they do also routinely break the law).

No-one wants to work in an environment where they're walking on eggshells and they won't be productive if they do. It's not surprising the NHS is crumbling given their policies around this.

All this preferred pronouns ridiculousness is much more likely to make employers give trans identified people a swerve. And I don't think it's actually unreasonable if someone shows they are going to demand unreasonable behaviour of other employees and make everything about their narcissistic supply.

The point is avoiding pronouns is actually quite hard for any length of time so genuine slip ups (as TRAs have done in court) should not be a cause for a disciplinary.

I agree that TRAs like to use sex-based pronouns at every opportunity. They are often using the language unnaturally in order to do so.

My personal view is that I very rarely use pronouns at work, so I don't find it a mental load at all. Perhaps I'm unusual.

But the central question is, do you really want to be offensive to your work colleagues? Do you really want to tell your employer that they must allow you to be offensive to your colleagues? Maybe you do, but I don't think that would look good to the general public.

I'd say it was more like only having sausage sandwiches at the staff meeting. Food rules are irrational, but we accommodate them.

I don't want to die on this hill, I agree with PP's arguments. But the law currently gives legal significance to acquired gender, and I don't think we can, or need to, overturn that: we need to reframe it as a matter of personal conscience.

Agree. A policy must not be unreasonable.

What about people who can't lie?
When I'm talking about a man I use he because that's the truth.

There are many situations where it would be unreasonable for your employer to say that you must refer to a trans woman as "she". However, if you insist on being offensive to him, I would expect your employer to be able to take disciplinary action against you which could ultimately lead to you losing your job. There are many ways you can talk about, or to, a trans individual without being offensive to them. Why not do so?

Similar arguments were put forward years ago when employers started telling people that the n words were banned. When I was young, the ni word was regarded as offensive, but many regarded the ne word as factual and some claimed that their employer was forcing them to lie by banning use of the word. And, of course, that word was completely banned in all situations. There was no question of it still being acceptable in some circumstances, unlike use of pronouns.

To say again, in my view the way to reclaim pronouns is not through the courts, or through attacking employers who simply want staff to avoid being offensive to each other.

What about a "please use English in the usual way to avoid causing offence" policy?
Why does GC offence not count?

We shouldn't need a special safeguarding reason not to have to play the preferred pronouns game. It's a question of freedom of belief.

GC beliefs are protected, as GR is, but this whole discussion started because we don't yet know whether GII - which is the issue here - is a protected belief/set of beliefs.

A reasonable workplace policy about pronouns in my eyes would be: ask, but colleagues can say no. Wear your pronoun earrings or badge and others can ignore or take note.
A compromise means both sides have to give up something. The GC/Sex realist staff are already compromising by agreeing to call a man by a female name, or vice versa. Where is the compromise from the GII side?
You cannot impose your personal beliefs on others - not even by way of taking offence at words which are only offensive because of your beliefs.

As a pp said, courts are starting to allow the parties to use correct sex pronouns.
Management should not throw its weight entirely behind the pronoun-havers.

This is not even like insisting people using the word "bathroom" instead of "toilet" because the employer is American, because at least the two words mean the same thing in the different forms of English.

Forcing others to use wrong-sex or neo-pronouns is imposing a belief system.

I'm not entirely sure this is the right thread, but on the subject of the second part of the Sandie Peggie ET, I was one of those who wrote to the Edinburgh Tribunal service to state the importance of open access, and I cc'd my (Tory, GC) MP.
Here's an extract from her reply:

"I understand the significance of this case and the potential impact it may have. Your point about the importance of public access to the proceedings is well noted. Transparency and public scrutiny are indeed crucial in ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

The addition of cameras will ensure that the various parties' behaviours and the tribunal's decisions are witnessed firsthand, rather than filtered through journalists and editors."

Her second paragraph was very similar to what I wrote in my email. I do wonder if she used it herself to write to the tribunal service?

The GII side cannot insist that you must always, in all circumstances, refer to a trans individual by their preferred pronouns. Indeed, they cannot insist you use their preferred pronouns at all, however much they want to. But they can insist that you should not be offensive to them by gratuitously using pronouns they find offensive. So Upton cannot insist that his work colleagues refer to him as "she", but his employer can, in my view, insist that, in most circumstances, they should avoid referring to him as "he".

The n word has a documented history and arose from racism. That is why it is offensive. And you can just use "black" or several other words which merely refer to the colour of someone's skin. Black, white, brown, Asian, Caucasian... All of these are factual, descriptive words. Anybody claiming that the n word is "just factual" is either disingenuous or thinks that black people are in fact a subhuman species. (See also y*d, faggot, etc.)

Nobody is trying to cause offence by referring to a man as a man. That's the difference. Not saying "man", or "he" when referring to a man (and remember, he won't be present the vast majority of the time to hear it) is like playing the yes/no game. It takes up mental bandwidth. Basically, why should people have to do that at work?

But it's just simply not offensive to use sex-based pronouns and the person will be unlikely to be there so why is it being policed? It's NEVER something you'll do to their face, at most it'll be in their earshot but not TO them.

There's nothing offensive about being either male or female. Encouraging anyone to think there is is very mentally unhealthy and encouraging a catastrophic lack of resilience.

I have no problem if someone accidentally calls me 'he' because there's nothing offensive about being called he or being seen as a man. It's not comparable to the 'n' word at all. which is a slur. Normal pronouns are NOT offensive and if you buy into the delusion that they are then I'm going to claim I need my employer to intervene anytime anyone uses the word 'the' because I find it offensive.

It's an insane power grab and even on here there are those accepting this ridiculous coercive framing.

Where I work it's quite hard to not use third person pronouns because we often have conversations about clients. It's ok in emails because you can go over them and remove them altogether (taking time I'm unsure my employer really wants me to spend - but I'll do it for an easy life), but in speech- literally impossible, although the client won't be there most of the time.

I wouldn't be insisting on being offensive, I just can't lie. How would a disciplinary fix me?
There isn't a drug or procedure that would change how my brain works. I was born like it.

That is exactly my point. A policy that tries to insist you use the preferred pronouns all the time is almost certainly unreasonable. A policy that asks you to avoid causing offence is not.

You wouldn’t in any case be referring to Upton as “he” to his face but when referring to him when in conversation with colleagues. It would be unreasonable for an employer to compel the use of incorrect pronouns when the potentially offended party isn’t present.

So if a colleague has spent a fortune on a new hair style and asks you what you think, you would honestly tell them it makes them look like a scarecrow? I suspect you would either tell them they looked lovely or avoid answering. That is all that is being asked of you.

But as we saw so very, very clearly in the SP case so far via the tribunal feed, there are some abusive men for whom EVERYTHING a woman he's targeted says or does will be framed by him as being offensive. Using standard English is one of these things.

Dr U reported SP for harassment for wanting a single sex space, as is her legal right. He kept notes on her every behaviour. Not speaking to him was deemed offensive as was speaking to him. She even used wrong sex pronouns (under extreme pressure to do so) which I think was wrong in terms of patient safeguarding - but she did it and still got suspended! There was literally nothing she could do that he didn't consider offensive. And the sands were constantly shifting. Her existence was offensive to him.

It's an attempt at coercive control.

Normal pronouns ARE NOT OFFENSIVE. In ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

"That is all that is being asked of you."

Demanded of you. Often with threats.

Now not everyone uses threats, but if enough men say "use my pronouns" and then add "..or I'll make it so you never talk again" then the threat becomes implied. Especially so if they all claim to share an ideology and an absolute right to compel speech.

So the answer is no and will always be no.

I agree. To say again, an employer must be reasonable. Saying that an employee must refer to a trans woman using female pronouns in all situations may be what the individual wants, but it is not reasonable. Their position is absolutist - you must always use my preferred pronouns in every situation. That does not mean we have to say we will use pronouns you find offensive in situations where there is no need to do so.

Now who is imposing their beliefs on others. You may not find them offensive, but they may do so.