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 totally agree with you. Off topic slightly, but I am a nurse and remember a distressing situation where a female patient was really unwell and needed to be examined ASAP, but the only doctor available was a male. This was against her religion. After much explaining about the severity of her situation, she did agree to be examined by a male doctor but of course it was distressing for her.

My point is, at least she knew and was fully informed about what was happening to her. It wasn’t great but her situation was deteriorating quickly. Imagine not knowing and feeling deceived?

I don't know where a court might draw the line, but there is, in my opinion, a big difference between (a) saying "he's a man" in the presence of the transwoman you're referring to, and (b) referring to him as "he" in passing. (b) is just using English naturally (and probably automatically) whereas (a) is emphasising the sex of the person. That, to me, is the difference between something that can reasonably be called offensive, and something that is only offensive to someone who is looking to take offence.

I tend to agree. If a man finds references to him being male distressing, I can avoid those, including an honest attempt to not he/him him. I won't want to use specifically female language so won't she/her him, but will use preferred name, avoid pronouns altogether, and try not to make a somg and dance about it.

This is is at the heart of Sandie’s case. Was her use of the word “man” a pejorative term and used as an insult? Or was it a statement of fact used to describe a problem? Or was it an inconsequential mistake/oversight? Or if another situation was it a result of dementia/confusion etc? The panel will need to look at the context and come to decision about intention.

if Sandie had refused to use DU’s female name and pronouns; if she’d put posters about hating on trans people; if she’d pushed DU physically and screamed in their face… those actions would indicate a campaign of intolerant behaviour. But as it was she used the word man once in a departure from her usual polite use of preferred pronouns and female name. DU’s own description of the exchange seemed like a nothing more than a robust discussion between colleagues. From this the panel need to decide whether Sandie was harassing in her behaviour. Was DU reasonable in thinking it was harassment? And on the flip side, was DU’s simple presence in the changing room enough to be considered harassment? The latter was more difficult but maybe not impossible to prove up until last Wednesday.

I have to say since listening to the Inciteful Sisters Podcast I’ve got a lot more sympathy for the other staff. Living under a culture of fear & brainwashing for 10 years prior must have done funny things to their reasoning and ability to see what we do when coming to this with fresh eyes.

Regarding pronouns, what about schools, or our family homes? As parents we're threading lightly with a trans-identifying child, which we think has other problems that have triggered the identification. So we think it's our duty to maintain our child anchored to the reality of their sexed body, until more mature. Same for schools, they can't change pronouns without our consent. But a minor has already the characteristics of gender reassignment, there are no age limits. So not using the pronouns can be deemed offensive and be discrimination for their protected characteristics...

I can see some schools trying to take this stance.

I haven't read all the responses since my last post, but to pick up on this...

I may be wrong as to what a court would find reasonable. Until there are some actual court decisions, the best any lawyer can offer is an informed guess. However, below is what I think a reasonable policy would look like. I'm going to use a word I detest - misgender. Apologies to anyone who is offended by this word. The only reason I'm using it is because it has a clear dictionary meaning (even if we disagree with it) and makes it easier to express what I think a reasonable policy would be.

I think a reasonable policy would be to say that you must not be offensive to a trans individual by deliberately misgendering them to their face or in their presence. Therre would need to be reasonable exceptions to that, so this is far too simple, but it makes the point I'm trying to get at.

What would that mean in practice?

When talking to someone, we don't use their pronouns at all. It would be very odd to refer to someone you are talking to as "he" or "him". All the policy is doing, therefore, is stopping you gratuitously working pronouns into a conversation.

When in someone's presence, we sometimes use pronouns, particularly when we are talking about them to someone else in their presence, but most of the time we don't. Importantly, this policy is not forcing you to use their preferred pronouns. So, if I am in a group of people including Upton and we are talking, I could call him "Upton", "Dr Upton" or "Beth". I don't have to call him "her" or "she". My view, which I think the courts would share, is that this is not forced speech because you aren't being forced to use his preferred pronouns (and you shouldn't face disciplinary action if you use the wrong pronouns accidentally). You may not like calling him Beth, but there are a small number of non-trans men with that name, and we are all allowed to use whatever name we want.

For most employers, I think the courts would probably accept that as a reasonable policy. I may be wrong, but I doubt they would accept as reasonable a policy that attempted to force you to always use the individual's preferred pronouns.

In this case, SP referred to Upton using his preferred pronouns and preferred name except when trying to explain to him why she wanted him to leave the changing room while she got changed when she was experiencing menstrual flooding, and possibly when talking to HR. I think the courts would find that a policy that did not allow her to behave as she did was unreasonable.

If they've spent a fortune or it's self done, it's a change they have chosen.
I'd go down the it's nice you've had a change. This is because boredom can be painful to me and change is positive. Fortunately I find observing people fascinating and get to interact with a lot through my work.

If pushed to say men are women, I'd use the avoidance tactics I've built up over almost 50 years. I'd ask questions, "how, when?"
While I see the world literally, it is literal. The majority are conditioned to see the trends/nuances quickly. A lot of humour highlights how people don't see reality.
As an observer I also see how many are caught up by emotions such as anxiety. Girls are actively encouraged to take on responsibility for the feelings of everyone around them. I don't conform and if as a teen I'd been told I had a male brain I may actually have believed it. I had anorexia to control my life as I didn't fit in. I would have been a sitting target.
I think in a court of law I would need to ask why I'm asked for honestly but also asked not to be honest.

Im afraid I haven’t had a chance to read all the posts but on pronouns/referring to sex. I think we need to step back and say: if there are to be single sex spaces, how can they be ever be policed if referring to birth sex is taboo? I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest that women not be permitted to call out someone breaching the SS rules. In an employment situation you’d obviously be expected to go first to management rather than confronting the person in question - and Sandie originally attempted to raise the matter and was told to speak directly with Upton so she can hardly then be blamed for doing as she was told (which was ofc the wrong advice, but that’s (part of) why NHS Fife are at fault here) - but in a situation where there is no „management“ controlling the space and you’re dealing with strangers I don’t see why one can’t call out using truth based terms.

Honesty is desirable unless it hurts someone. When honesty would hurt it's better to avoid or deflect rather than lie. Using someone's preferred name seems to me to be polite, so I can do that. Wrong sex pronouns are coercive control so I'd try to avoid them.

I think the misgendering thing has been copied across from the USA, where people routinely call each other "Sir" and "Ma'am" in conversation. It doesn't work so well here, as this isn't how we talk.

That’s a good point, I’d never thought of that.

Having said that, I sometimes got called Sir rather than Miss in school. Did I care? Not one jot. But when I got called Gran/Nan by students a couple of times (completely unconsciously), I realised it was time to retire.

To add to my last post...

In thinking about what is reasonable, I've started with a less emotive subject and then applied the same principles to pronouns.

I have colleagues who are overweight. I have, in the past, had colleagues who were very overweight. Some of them embraced the term "fat" - indeed, one of them loves being called "fatty". Others got upset or were offended if you said they were fat or that they needed to use weight.

Faced with such an employee, it is reasonable for an employer to tell you that you mustn't call them fat. That isn't forcing you to lie by saying they are thin - if your employer said you must do so, that would be unreasonable. It just means you must avoid calling them fat. That doesn't mean they can go around demanding people call them thin or asking people whether they are fat. If they did either of those things, they should be told to stop and disciplined if they persist. And, of course, if their weight is relevant, a policy that stopped you referring to it would be unreasonable. A policy that prevented your doctor telling you that you are overweight, for example, would clearly be unreasonable.

My thoughts as to what would be reasonable regarding pronouns start from that base. So similarly, in my view, a policy that forced us to use a person's preferred pronouns would be unreasonable, but a policy that stopped you deliberately misgendering them is likely to be reasonable. The other side of that policy is that anyone who insists on people using their preferred pronouns rather than referring to them by name, for example, or goes around demanding people tell them whether they are a man or a woman should be told to stop and disciplined if they persist. Trans individuals should not be able to force you to use their preferred pronouns.

A quick clarification as I had to check this myself previously - After Sandie got nowhere with her manager, it was Sandie who said that she’d have to speak directly to DU. Esther didn’t comment. Which is pretty weak to my mind but until this week I hadn’t understood the oppressive culture of fear that the staff were expected to work in. The Inciteful Sisters Podcast described how trust between colleagues had been destroyed - prior to that I couldn’t understand how Esther could be so callous as to actively help Sandie. Her actions make more sense now. It’s upsetting to think how much this ideology has eaten away at workplace harmony and fine the polar opposite of “inclusion”. The people who have overseen this need to explain themselves

Thanks to @ICouldHaveCheckedFirst and @KnottyAuty for their kind comments, and also to anyone I have missed. Much appreciated.

Agree, coercive control and emotional blackmail.

Agree completely. Being inclusive is not inclusive if the effect is to exclude some people and destroy workplace harmony.

Trans activists have successfully persuaded some people that anything less than full compliance with their agenda is transphobic and should be equated to racism. They have succeeded, in part, because left-leaning individuals like to support people they perceive as oppressed minorities, and trans activists convinced many that they are an oppressed minority. It feeds off woke's attempt to divide society into oppressors and victims. Many on the left believe that GC women are the oppressors and trans individuals are the victims.

The tide is turning, but it is a long way from being over. We see people, predominantly on the left, rejecting the Supreme Court's ruling and some who clearly intend to ignore it including, sadly, Unite and a number of other trade unions. Most of the public don't pay attention until something happens like the SP case and FWS that turns the media spotlight onto it, just as with the Post Office Horizon case which I've known about for years but didn't get attention until ITV made it into a drama.

All power to those who are working to keep this in the spotlight.

Gratuitous use of sexed language is a bit of a red herring, no-one is suggesting that. And it's rude to use 3rd person pronouns about a person who is present anyway.

However, I would argue that in formulating a reasonable policy we have to start from the point that the potential offence taken has to be reasonable.
If not, all we are relying on is that the person doesn't like something. Please note my earlier example of the receptionist at a legal firm who insists on being referred to as a lawyer - let's say s/he finds the word "receptionist" or any synonym objectionable and demeaning. Would this preference be accommodated? If not, what would be the workaround? What would colleagues say to clients about her/him?

Basically, would a reasonable person find being referred to as a man (if male) offensive. I don't know what a judge would decide, but I think this is a step - an objective test of reasonableness - that should not be missed out. The idea that the only opinion about offensiveness that matters is that of the person taking offence is like hate crime incident law, which I personally feel is bad law.

Also, if we do accept that sexed language is offensive, we are accepting belief in "misgendering", gender identity, that sex is unimportant and the rest - accepting them for ourselves. Manifestations of belief are for the believer, not for other people.

phr was initially sceptical about a pp's claim that they find lying difficult. This is a problem some ND people are known to have and their claim could if needed be substantiated by a HCP. But are we to take on trust that the use of sexed or even neutral language causes pain to "Susie" as opposed to narcissistic injury?
The pervading sentiment seems to be that GII objections are serious and deeply felt and must be listened to but GC objections are trivial or vexatious. This is not balancing rights fairly. Even without getting into the fact that one side is reality and the other side is fantasy.

That's why my idea of a reasonable workplace policy, mooted several pages ago, is:
your name is your choice;
wear what you like within our dress code or whatever is suitable for your role;
you may ask colleagues to use special pronouns when talking about you - wear a pronoun badge or pronoun earrings if you're shy about speaking up. All those are acceptable manifestations of your belief.
But your colleagues will not be under any obligation to accommodate your preference;
and members of your team must not be bullied or harassed by you if they don't want to.
In such a workplace I probably would do the pronoun thing/use "they" in their hearing or in an email which there was any chance of them seeing. But I would never accept that they had a right to compel my speech.
The policy phr puts forward makes concessions as to what extent my speech may be compelled, but doesn't question whether the pronoun person has the right to coerce it at all.

*Meant to add - the receptionist insists that they actually are a lawyer, just a different kind.

I wasn’t surprised at all at Esther‘s actions. Completely consistent with someone who perhaps secretly knows it is all unethical but cannot afford to speak out. So brushes it under the carpet. Stays silent. Doesn’t really get involved. Then they try to brush it even further under the carpet by putting her on some kind of leave and hoping it all goes away when Upton moves on.

It takes real courage to stand up and whistle blow though. As we have seen with Sandie Peggie.

It's all very "they came for xxx and I didn't speak out....."
A few more people back in 2010 saying "How does this square with the H & S legislation?" and going public with their questions could have nipped a lot of it in the bud.

Leaving a few grey areas to be tested in law.

For some light relief I thought I might be time for another Bridgerton style update following last week's events:

Dearest Gentle Reader

In the hallowed halls of Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, a most curious scandal has set tongues wagging across the land. Nurse Sandie Peggie, a venerable figure of thirty winters' devoted service, found herself swept into controversy after a most unexpected encounter on Christmas Eve of 2023. Whilst seeking the simple sanctity of the female changing quarters, she chanced upon Dr. Beth Upton—a physician of grace and talent, though born into manhood and now living as a lady.

Nurse Peggie, unsettled by the arrangement, voiced her discomfort with delicate candour. Yet, such honesty was not met with understanding, but rather a swift suspension come January, under grave accusations of harassment and prejudice. Not one to suffer in silence, the good nurse sought justice in the form of an employment tribunal, invoking her rights under the Equality Act with a dignity most becoming.

The ton held its collective breath, and in a dramatic turn, Her Majesty’s Supreme Court did rule on the sixteenth of April, 2025, that the legal term "woman" must henceforth be interpreted through the lens of biological truth. The ripples of this decree reached far and wide, prompting whispers that NHS Fife must now reconsider its course in the affair.

Though the tribunal’s full judgment remains pending until July, society is abuzz with anticipation. For within this singular dispute lies the heart of a national conversation—a delicate waltz between modern identity and the time-honoured sanctuary of women’s spaces. A most gripping tale, indeed.

ChatGPT nails it once again 🤣

I haven’t read all the posts, I’m sorry, real life intervenes! But in law as a general principle one normally looks at whether there is a strong countervailing public interest/policy objective/pricate indicidual‘s right that might be a justification for putting limits on general rules. Hence one might say one can in general be free to present oneself as one wishes but not in a situation where one is then misrepresenting eg a professional title around which there is gatekeeping for very good reason eg lawyer/solicitor for quality control reasons, or police officer because of the right to exercise state power to to restrict the exercise of individuals’ normal human rights, or medical professional eg Dr or paramedic because it invokes the creation of a special patient-Dr relationship governed by particular ethical principles and rules to protect both parties. By analogy, if sex in the Equality Act is biological sex, this is gatekeeping and falsely attributing oneself to that sex category is problematic because it impairs that ability to gatekeep. Thus it must be permissible to refer to sex in relation to maintaining the sex segregation that we know, and the SC has now reconfirmed, the law permits.

Apologies if that‘s a bit of a stream of consciousness but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one, iykwim.

BRILLIANT!! Thanks so much

Ah, ChatGPT...

I was just about to compliment you on your Georgette Heyer/Jane Austen parody!

What does The ton held its collective breath mean?