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

The GRA does not compel us as individuals to recognise gender identity or pretend we cannot recognise sex.
The EA says we cannot discriminate on the basis of GR, which includes harassment and victimisation of course.
I don't think there is any legal requirement for us to believe or act as if we believe in GII.

I thought they couldn't come up with a definition. Do you even have to change your name?

Although I've wasted a lot of time on it when I should have been doing other things, this thread has been really helpful to me about why a requirement to use wrong-sex pronouns is not a neutral request.

Because other people will overhear (third person pronouns) and it will deceive them as to sex. Which has multiple safeguarding consequences which I've outlined. It's not just about the people involved.

I wonder how many patients at NHS fife have been deceived about Upton's sex given the intense pressure on nurses to accede to sex-deception pronouns? How many really wanted or were required by their religion or past trauma to have a female HCP? How many were coerced or deceived into a male being present whilst they received intimate care? It's not ok.

Maybe not, but it has a chilling effect. And if this law has no real effect, beyond a piece of paper and #bekind, what is it for?

It reifies gender identity. Without it, trans would just be some people who disguise themselves as the opposite sex, without any legal recognition or protection. With it, pronoun abuse or deliberate outing become potential victimisation that can be punished.

It's entirely possible, given the batshittery on display in the tribunal and in NHS policies expanding the meaning of 'woman' and 'female' to include men, that families could have been told that their relatives would receive single-sex care when unconscious and didn't.

A bit like the rape victim on the "woman's" ward was told the crime against her didn't happen even though it did and there was evidence.

Preferred wrong sex pronouns make this sleight of hand over language in policies that embed illegality more likely.

I don't believe a name change is required.

I hope the guidelines come out pronto. Delays may result in the void being used by TRAs to make their own assumptions/rules/interpretations. It's happening already, but tentatively. Need to nip it all in the bud quick.

I've been off this thread for a bit but last time I was hear there was talk of the second half of the tribunal being held without the press/tribunal tweets (NHS fife/Upton legal team had requested it, I can't imagine why 🙄) Has this been decided yet, I can't find anything in the news about it.

No news yet. Not expecting to hear anything before mid to late May.

And no suggestion of banning 'press' but restricting access to the CVP to those who meet press criteria. The Rs application is to ban Tribunal Tweets from it's normal reporting.

Very good discussion about the preferred pronouns and enjoyed @prh47bridge sharing his expertise.

Those actively engaged in the discussion might enjoy this long form post from Peter Daly of Doyle Clayton on misplaced morality in the workplace.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/?trackingId=%2BUyKlPhrQlnb05OrvhLxYQ%3D%3D

What is interesting is that the belief discrimination cases (the collision of GI & GC in the workplace) are largely in the public sector, NGOs, quangos, education, academia. Not that there are no cases in for profit business (one could argue that Garden Court Chambers is a for profit business). The Lloyds Bank case was not GI but rather freedom of speech issue arising in the more heated atmosphere of 2021. And it was a very substantial settlement (search Lloyds Bank on the TT substack if you're interested).

My prediction is that dichotomy will continue. For profit businesses do not have access to the public purse to defend, their insurers will ask very difficult questions about whether a case is winnable, they learn financial lessons fairly quickly, ability to work in teams is a key recruitment characteristic and employees have more demanding performance criteria and accountability. And the decision to defend or settle will be in the hands of a senior individual who's probably tough and pragmatic.

I think for profit businesses are adopting increasingly sophisticated pre-employment screening. I've heard this from our grown children in work force and my former colleagues (retired now) Nobody wants to hire high maintenance entry level employees. I'm not saying pronouns consign a CV to the bin but its a flag for sure. Transition of senior employees is more of a challenge.

As I'm writing this (I think by writing) I would say this has not necessarily been true of creative and media industries - think publishing where the younger employees have seemed to have a bit of a grip on culture and decision making around these issues. I think cancel culture operates in those spheres, but as the creatives tend not to be employees it may be harder to draw conclusions.

Realise this is a bit of a ramble, but the discussion got me thinking.

That is an excellent article - I do hope he updates it in light of the UK Supreme Court judgement.

@BeLemonNow Any good employer and TU will always negotiate pay rises on the basis of Full Time Equivalent. This is because Equal Pay is measured using FTE.

If you used actual salary for part timers to draw the line you would end up boosting their hourly rate creating an equal pay issue. As most part timers are female, full time men could lodge a claim using them as a comparator.

I know it doesn’t help but the TU did their best in a shitty situation.

I will take advice on what is offensive to say, and make an honest effort to avoid specific language. For example avoiding religious epithets like "gods sake" or mildly rough language like "screwed up" and I'll include advice that male person A doesn't like getting he/himmed.

I'll try.

What I won't do, is be compelled to use specific forms of language, if for any reason, I don't wanna.

Really interesting thoughts @Justabaker - you’re right there seems to be a disparity between private and public sector/ not for profits and different sectors. I’m in the legal sector which is generally old fashioned and slow to change, and I expect what you’ve heard about anything that makes a person seem high maintenance is right. That said some parts of the profession definitely like to be seen as progressive and some are stonewall champions etc.

And it only takes a couple of over-zealous people to get influence over policies or culture to create a climate where people are afraid to dissent from TWAW. I hope the SC decision might give people courage to speak up but it’s certainly not easy still.

You have made me think of a study module I once did on power and influence. We all use "heuristics" all the time because otherwise we get overloaded with information. Whether we like it or not, tall good looking people are considered more competent (even if they are not) and women are considered to be "safer" "nurturing". Which adds an even more sinister twist if you evoke the female heuristic for a preditory male

Perhaps I didn't explain this very well. My issue wasn't that this was done in FTE per se.

It was that Unite the union wrongly claimed they protected the "worst off employees" from the rising cost of living, and completely missed the concerns of some of their female workforce. Sound familiar?

Until I explained it, feeling quite incredilous, the male rep thought anyone part time could increase their hours and be better off. Obviously for someone paying for childcare that's not necessarily how that works...

@BeLemonNow I do understand.

Regarding GII being a protected belief and there is no way this screed can be WORIADS...
https://transrightsnow.uk/
These are the demands of full-on GII - the "lite" version might fare better.

Dear God - what poison.

"We will state plainly - this ruling effectively means transgender people cannot live our lives in the UK at all" - I would be interested to know how this is evidenced? And where they plan to claim asylum?

I think this probably is WORIADS.

I would be delighted if this were published on the front of every newspaper and run as the headline bulletin. It's lovely and clear!

Are you brave enough to put this on AIBU "to support this open letter"?! 😆

I find it offensive that I would be expected to call my brother she. This is not my lived experience and it undermines my lived experience. It undermines language which protects women from discrimination because it distorts the visibility of issues. Women face enough problems with invisibility without having to navigate this shit too.

The net result is not actually conflicts though - quite the opposite in practice. People willing to be tolerant will instead merely will try to avoid situations like this leading to breakdowns in communication, damaging trust in individuals and institutions, working relationships as people actively seek to avoid difficult situations.

Precisely because there is a fear that it will cause conflict and risk a disciplinary. And this is far more relevant than a great philosophical debate about what is offensive or not.

This doesn't actually help in terms of trans inclusion. Its utterly self defeating as a position to be insisting on the wrong pronouns for this reason. It's like shooting yourself in the foot and expecting to win a 100m race.

I give it a max of 3 days before it's published in the Mail.

It's great Sunday fodder.

I think I am starting to wonder if "most vulnerable" might be a synonym for total naivety/toddler level reasoning skills. Or this is the most clever and funny satirical website ever?

Erm.. the link posted upthread led to me being Rickrolled....

However when I typed https://transrightsnow.uk/ into my browser, it brought up the correct link.