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

Again, demanding with threats is wrong. However, we are talking about what an employer can do here. If you insist that you will be offensive to trans colleagues, your employer is entitled to dismiss you. Provided they follow the correct process, that is unlikely to be unfair. They cannot dismiss you for holding GC beliefs. They can dismiss you if those beliefs lead you to be offensive to trans colleagues.

@prh47bridge
Your response to @Enough4me 's assertion that they cannot lie seems to me somewhat incredulous. I want to support their assertion, because I too have extreme difficulty with dishonesty. It's not a conscious position of morality; it's more an innate brain function. I just find it incredibly difficult to lie, and I'm amazed how easily other people do it. In my case, I put it down to being ND, as I'm aware of other ND people (particularly those with autism) who are unable to lie.

Some people with neurodivergent conditions would be considered to have a disability, so I would hope that their inability to lie, as a consequence of their disability, would be protected under the EA. If I had to defend my honesty in court, I'd certainly suggest it to my solicitor as a possible line of defence!

I was going to say generally I've found Unite very good. But actually Unite had wage bargaining powers in my last workplace. They negotiated a pay increase (by which I mean others were at 0%) for workers under a certain pay grade FTE.

I ended up in an argument with the rep (male). He was telling me how great it was in protecting the lowest paid (who earned more than me!). I had to explain I wasn't "choosing" to work part time. Having a 0% pay increase wasn't okay. In that workplace it was nearly all mums and those with long term health conditions working part time.

I am not saying they should have necessarily included part time workers but if their aim was to help people on the lowest wage and or greatest need with cost of living increases that's a problematic strategy.

Perhaps this is a slight digression but I feel there's some sort of "blinkered view" analogy. I can see a rep agreeing to trans using changing rooms as they want to support their safety and dignity. But not thinking about the needs of everyone, especially women.

"If you insist that you will be offensive to trans colleagues, your employer is entitled to dismiss you."

Normal usage of English grammar can not be offensive.

But this could be useful. Can I avoid problems with firing people I don't like by claiming they used the word right instead of notleft as I prefer?

Trans activists should not co-opt DSD to try and prove their case, but they regularly do. In the same way, we should not co-opt neurodivergency.

If someone is genuinely unable to lie so that, when faced with the question, "How do you like my new hairstyle that cost me £200" they have to say, "It's awful, you look like a scarecrow" rather than being nice about it or avoiding the question, their employer should make reasonable adjustments for them. They may be allowed to be offensive and others may have to accept it. Or, in some circumstances, the employer may be able to say that no reasonable adjustments are possible and therefore, as the individual is repeatedly offensive to their colleagues and others, they will have to be dismissed. If such an employee is allowed to be offensive to their colleagues, it does not mean others can also be offensive.

Words can be offensive even when used with their normal English meaning. If you insist on referring to a trans woman as "he" to his face, knowing that he finds that distressing, you are being offensive.

Given that the compelled speech demands apply even if not in the same room or building what if I have two jobs.

In one I'm required to avoid a word and in the other I'm required to use that same word.

If that's not enough to show how ludicrous this whole thing is I am going to require you to begin every sentence from now on with the Word Squeak and end it with EndSqueak.

Or I will be severely offended and it might make me cease to exist.

I must go now so have a nice day.

Unless the word nice is offensive to anyone here in which case "Have a day"

To say yet again, a policy must be reasonable. An employer can prevent you being offensive to an employee. If you have two jobs, referring to a colleague in job A using their non-preferred pronouns whilst working in job B is fine. They are not an employee there so you are not being offensive. Even in the the job where they are your colleague, your employer cannot force you to use their preferred pronouns in all circumstances. But they can stop you using them in circumstances where it will be offensive to your colleague.

If an employer gives in to the full compelled speech demands of TRAs, that is unreasonable and hence unenforceable. But ensuring that employees are not offensive to each other is reasonable.

@prh47bridge

I started off by saying that a policy which required employees to use preferred pronouns or neo pronouns would not be reasonable. After a whole lot of going around the houses, I see you agree.

Regarding not being offensive to others, you still completely discount the offence given to GC people.
Why can't the employer tell the pronoun haver to get over him/herself? Why does all the accommodation have to come from the GC side?

You give great weight to the feelings of the pronoun havers and compare sexed language to the use of racist terms despite the fact that sexed language is not offensive, derogatory, nor is it intended to be, nor is it rooted in any form of oppression. It just doesn't fall into the same category as a word like "bint" or "y*d" or the n word. Some things are objectively true.

Out of interest, if a receptionist at your work took offence at the word receptionist and insisted that s/he was a lawyer, would you think it was right to just accept that it was offensive and ban the use of the word "receptionist" to describe them if they were in the vicinity? Would you make everyone else talk about them either by referring to them as a lawyer - even to clients - or by some special form of words?

And in practice, nobody would be calling a man who claims to be a woman "he" to his face unless he does something like talk about "us girls", or tries to use the women's loos. Nobody is advocating harassment.

Just popping in to say, if there was a Nobel prize for patience, I'd nominate @prh47bridge !

If you insist that you will be offensive to trans colleagues, your employer is entitled to dismiss you.

Generally we've tended to be a bit more liberal around here, but if we're going to enforce an subjective offence regime, then we can also fire men for calling themselves women, even when we tell them not to because female staff would find that offensive.

Seems like stalemate, unless you have a two-tier justice system.

Interesting discussion.
It reminded me of this podcast linked on a thread here somewhere.

Maybe the issue is the creation of a hostile working environment. The stories the 3 women tell in simple words. It’s horrible what they’ve had to put up with - in our name

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/inciteful-sisters/id1802508941?i=1000704330320

They can dismiss you if those beliefs lead you to be offensive to trans colleagues.

You do seem to be consistently conflating 'being offensive' and doing something someone finds offensive. Do you not see that those are clearly different things?

Having a policy against the former is reasonable. Against the latter is nonviable and just begging for abusive manipulation - the 'so what?' response from Stephen Fry is required. At most you can rule on the latter happening gratuitously. And we're not talking about following people around going 'man, man, manny man' here.

I find men pretending to be women really, truly offensive as well as anti-safeguarding given men commit 98% of sex crimes.

I think everyone at NHS fife pretending Dr U is a woman with his 'preferred pronouns' is anti-safeguarding because say a Muslim woman goes in to A&E and is triaged by a nurse who speaks about Dr U using she/her that Muslim woman can reasonably expect that Dr U will be a woman. So will think she doesn't need to express her requirement for single sex care. Then when presented with a male bodied doctor, she is in a position where she has to say 'no' to his face and given he thinks saying 'no' to him is harassment (as show by SP case), she may feel too afraid to do so.

Also to say that his participation in this open discussion is so useful. It’s all very well for us all to be aggrieved at the sexist language of GI but we need practice to put it into words and make our case. It’s so “nebulous” to steal our favourite doctor’s phrase… having @prh47bridge here putting forward a male/legal perspective is worth its weight in gold. Thank you for your service (and patience)

Plus saying 'no' to certain men giving off certain vibes can be dangerous, as most women know. Some women may only feel safe to express need for single sex care to a woman.

The only thing some women can do is self exclude, but once in a room with someone you were lead to believe would be female but you can see in fact is male bodied, is that even possible?

I suppose I'd say I needed the loo and leave.... trying to think it through. But then I might not get essential medical care.

@WandaSiri - This is one of the problems with online forums. You get into an argument with someone and exchange lots of posts before you realise that you are violently agreeing with each other!

Regarding not being offensive to others, you still completely discount the offence given to GC people.

I don't, but I'm trying to look at it how I think the courts would. What follows is a gross oversimplification, but it will do for now.

If your employer insists you do something that you find offensive, they need a good justification for that. For example, when talking to someone face to face you generally don't use their pronouns. That just isn't part of normal conversation. Saying that you must somehow work their preferred pronouns into every conversation would clearly be unreasonable, so your employer can't do that. There probably aren't many situations where your employer can insist you use someone's preferred pronouns. I think it would only apply in situations where you are using pronouns and it is reasonable to think your colleague would find out which pronouns you used, and it wouldn't even always apply in that situation. However saying you must not use their non-preferred pronouns in situations where they would find it offensive is a different matter. That isn't about saying you must do something. It is saying you must not do something.

Imagine that A and B are work colleagues. If A is a flat earther. B wants to say that the earth is a globe but A finds that offensive, A will just have to put up with it (although their employer could reasonably tell both of them to avoid the subject). However, if B wants to tell A that they are obese and A finds that offensive, B will have to keep quiet in most situations even if they find it offensive that they aren't allowed to say that A is obese (and notwithstanding the fact that A weighs 30 stone!).

As a general rule (but remember this is a gross oversimplification and isn't always true), if A and B are in a work situation and B wants to say something about A that A finds offensive, A's desire not to be offended is likely to win.

Absolutely. No-one, on either side of the debate, should create a hostile working environment for those on the other side. It has so far mainly been GI individuals creating a hostile working environment for those with GC beliefs, and that needs to stop, but there is no need for those of us with GC beliefs to create a hostile working environment for trans individuals or those with GI beliefs.

We do have a two-tier legal system, because the law attaches special significance to people living in a cross-sex acquired gender (must be recognised, and protected from discrimination and harassment).

GC belief is protected, but the preferential treatment of trans colleagues (in the form of pronoun directives) seems unlikely to amount to a hostile environment for believers (rather than just a massive irritant), given that it's endorsed by the law.

It is anti-safeguarding though, in healthcare, in schools and in any situation where a child is present. Also, arguably, if it could conceivably deceive someone into behaviours they otherwise would choose not to take if they had knowledge of the truth about someone's sex.

Yes, there's an Article 8 issue needs unravelling, and I think it should be the next big thing.

The GRA has made everyone's sex into private personal information, and that needs reversing.

People's sex must always be acknowledged, even if we also know that they are trans, and so present in a particular way.

If you think that's not safe enough, then fiddling with pronouns won't help. The GRA would have to be repealed.

The SC ruling has taken away from trans people some sex-based rights which they should never have had,

As far as I am aware, the SC ruling didn't take any rights away from anyone.

I would agree that a person with a GRC, which I believe are few, might have assumed they had certain rights to e.g. enter a woman's changing room. As they say Assume makes an ass of u(you) and me. It does seem that the law wasn't wholly clear on this issue. This has now been tested and it wasn't a right. Such a person would have been as much at liberty to bring a test case to clarify this assumption as FWS did.

But as for those men who have no intention of having surgery and get a sexual thrill from imitating or intimidating women, all they have lost is something they were taking illegitimately and expecting us not to mind.

if A and B are in a work situation and B wants to say something about A that A finds offensive, A's desire not to be offended is likely to win.

But there must be a lot of exceptions. Doesn't it depend on whether it is relevant to the job? "He can't fly this [fighter] plane because he's too tall", "He can't pilot these [fighter] planes because he's obese", "He can't treat this [female] patient because he's male"? In A&E there's not time to go all round the houses trying to think of the most tactful way to say it.

but there is no need for those of us with GC beliefs to create a hostile working environment for trans individuals or those with GI beliefs.^

In Sandie Peggie's case though, there was nothing she could have done. From the testimony we have seen so far, it appears he was determined to take offence.

Similarly wasn't there a case of a girl banned from a football league simple for asking "Are you a man?"

When the immediate response is bigot, terf, transphobe, and cowing the rest of us to censor our speech, who is creating the hostile environment?