Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #25

1000 replies

nauticant · 20/04/2025 08:15

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
33
AAT65 · 21/04/2025 16:43

Conxis · 21/04/2025 10:16

I’m sure it will be the Scottish Gov who decide whether to carry on defending or not. They very much run the NHS in Scotland and this mess is very much of their doing. The NHS Scotland central legal dept are footing the bill.
I hope for Sandie’s sake she gets her written judgement, and I’m sure her very astute solicitor will make sure it’s printed in most newspapers in the land.

Yes CLO are acting for NHS Fife but they are not footing the bill. CLO will be submitting timesheets and billing back costs and expenses to Fife who probably have cover under CNORIS. Ultimately, of course, we are all paying. I wonder if following the SC judgement now is the time to make another FOI request about costs. I know documents etc used in court cases are exempt but why should an invoice be exempt?

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 16:50

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 15:09

Gender ideology may be WORIADS but is it cogent. One of the conditions for a belief to be protected under the EA is that the belief is cogent

The standard for being cogent is also very low. Indeed, this part of the standard is almost always ignored, both by the ECtHR and by domestic courts. Established religions, even minor ones are always regarded as passing this test without question, for example, The only exception of which I am aware is Pastafarianism, which was rejected because it links global warming to a decline in the number of pirates since 1800. However, since Pastafarianism admits it is a parody in its own scripture, it is not surprising that it failed. For those not familiar with Pastafarianism, their deity is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I doubt the courts would regard GI beliefs as reaching this level of ridiculousness.

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 16:54

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 13:33

Lack of belief is protected so Upton could claim for discrimination on the basis of not having GC beliefs rather than claiming on the basis of discrimination for having Gender Identity beliefs

Can belief in ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ be protected and considered WORIADS if there is no coherent definition of gender?

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 16:58

SternJoyousBee · 21/04/2025 16:54

Can belief in ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ be protected and considered WORIADS if there is no coherent definition of gender?

As with cogency, the bar for a belief to be coherent is very low. I would expect GI beliefs to pass this test.

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 16:58

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 15:03

I'm afraid I disagree. I am confident it is WORIADS.

In the Forstater case, the barrister representing the respondents protested that the approach taken meant that only beliefs akin to Nazism or espousing totalitarianism would fail to be WORIADS. The EAT said that that is as it should be. I disagree with the GI position, but I don't think it can be equated with Nazism or totalitarianism.

It is only in extreme cases that a belief would fail to qualify for protection. Given existing case law on the Convention, it would be very surprising if GI beliefs did not qualify as protected.

I suppose I’m interpreting the GI idea that any male that says they’re a woman can access any single sex space and that the words of women must be erased (pregnancy, mother, breastfeeding etc) for their inclusion and that any disagreement or dissent is not permitted - as totalitarianism.

I agree that anyone can believe TWAW if they like but the extremist version is not ok. Similar to how Islamic beliefs are OK but the ISIS version is not?

thenoisiesttermagant · 21/04/2025 17:05

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 16:58

I suppose I’m interpreting the GI idea that any male that says they’re a woman can access any single sex space and that the words of women must be erased (pregnancy, mother, breastfeeding etc) for their inclusion and that any disagreement or dissent is not permitted - as totalitarianism.

I agree that anyone can believe TWAW if they like but the extremist version is not ok. Similar to how Islamic beliefs are OK but the ISIS version is not?

Agree with this.

The idea that a man who says 'I'm a woman' literally then is a woman is not WORIADs as it then takes away the rights of women and is not cogent as that man still has an empirically provably male body.

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 17:21

thenoisiesttermagant · 21/04/2025 17:05

Agree with this.

The idea that a man who says 'I'm a woman' literally then is a woman is not WORIADs as it then takes away the rights of women and is not cogent as that man still has an empirically provably male body.

Belief in transubstantiation is regarded as cogent, notwithstanding the fact that it is empirically provable that the bread and wine do not become flesh and blood. So the fact that a man still has an empirically provable male body does not prevent his belief that he is a woman from being cogent.

As per my earlier post, a man believing he is a woman is almost certainly WORIADS. The bar for a belief to not be WORIADS is very high. Unless you can show that a man believing he is a woman is on the same level as Nazism or espousing totalitarianism, that belief is WORIADS.

vandelier · 21/04/2025 17:31

WORIADS it may be for a man to believe he is a woman. That's like any other belief. However, where that belief impacts detrimentally on society is where the link should be broken regarding belief.

Annascaul · 21/04/2025 17:32

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 17:21

Belief in transubstantiation is regarded as cogent, notwithstanding the fact that it is empirically provable that the bread and wine do not become flesh and blood. So the fact that a man still has an empirically provable male body does not prevent his belief that he is a woman from being cogent.

As per my earlier post, a man believing he is a woman is almost certainly WORIADS. The bar for a belief to not be WORIADS is very high. Unless you can show that a man believing he is a woman is on the same level as Nazism or espousing totalitarianism, that belief is WORIADS.

Still doesn’t mean anyone else has to back up this belief, or act as though it affects anyone other than the man himself.

Much the same as though he believed himself to be Napoleon (although time was that could earn you a spell on a locked ward).

Joolsin · 21/04/2025 17:47

Thanks @nauticant for #25 - the rollercoaster continues. Thanks also @KnottyAuty and posse for your sterling work on the hospital policies which is already reaping results.

Peregrina · 21/04/2025 17:54

To be honest, as long as the amount of Sandie's payment doesn't exceed the amount of NHS money pissed up the wall on DEI / anti-woman policies / removing single sex spaces / misogynistic coercive control, then I'm fine with my tax being used in this way. And that must run into millions.

I had a similar feeling with the recent judgement which spent a six figure sum trying to defend the case of constructive dismissal brought by Eleanor Frances
https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/significant-settlement-for-civil-servant-eleanor-frances/

At first I thought "what a waste of taxpayers money" but on second thoughts I believed that this would be a six figure sum well spent if it highlighted the state the country was in with the TWAW nonsense. Because people did not know and thought it was just a few Jan Morris type figures - until it's their daughter losing a sports prize or their friend or sister or self being forced to use a mixed sex changing room in defiance of the law when a fully functioning biological male barges in.

Significant Settlement for Civil Servant Eleanor Frances

Doyle Clayton has secured a significant settlement for its client Dr Eleanor Frances, in her claims of constructive dismissal and discrimination against two civil service departments.

https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/significant-settlement-for-civil-servant-eleanor-frances/

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/04/2025 18:13

Thanks to all contributors. Catching up now...

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 18:30

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 17:21

Belief in transubstantiation is regarded as cogent, notwithstanding the fact that it is empirically provable that the bread and wine do not become flesh and blood. So the fact that a man still has an empirically provable male body does not prevent his belief that he is a woman from being cogent.

As per my earlier post, a man believing he is a woman is almost certainly WORIADS. The bar for a belief to not be WORIADS is very high. Unless you can show that a man believing he is a woman is on the same level as Nazism or espousing totalitarianism, that belief is WORIADS.

Follow up question - what would the legal definition of totalitarianism be?
thanks!

Cailin66 · 21/04/2025 18:32

nauticant · 21/04/2025 09:46

It's better than that Conxis. If NHS Fife weren't providing a counter to Sandie Peggie's case that she could continue with, then, unless she was saying outlandish things, it would be the uncontested version that most likely the panel would use in making their decision.

The way NHS Fife have run their case would have been effective against just a little person with scant means and not much support. However, not only would it seem that Sandie Peggie's means are effectively unlimited, the adjournment has proved to be extremely unfortunate to NHS Fife in terms of the law having moved on in a hugely significant way that is to their detriment.

Technically the law hasn’t changed. It’s just that the law has been confirmed.

Cailin66 · 21/04/2025 18:53

NoWordForFluffy · 21/04/2025 13:19

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability (i.e. what is more likely to have happened / be true in the circumstances, based on the documentary and oral evidence put before the court).

This means that the person / people making the decision will prefer one side's evidence to the other's (for whatever reason; you don't always get the decision you're expecting, as this is clearly subjective).

Dr Upton's assertion that he's a biological woman may affect how the rest of his evidence is viewed and what weight is put on it (for instance, if they decided that he was lying about one thing, they may decide that he's also likely to lie about other things as well, so yes, his credibility as a witness could be damaged).

I've dealt with some flakey / unreliable witnesses before now, but thankfully I've never had any come out with anything quite as batshit as insisting they're the opposite sex! I'm wondering how they dealt with this evidence in pre-Tribunal conference with Counsel, as it should surely lead to raised eyebrows (unless your barrister is of the same opinion, I suppose!).

Any man, with penis, who is having sex, in vagina, with a female wife knows full well he is a man.

Not for a second do I believe he believes he’s a woman. He’s living a fetish and trying to impose that fetish on everyone around him.

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 19:10

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 18:30

Follow up question - what would the legal definition of totalitarianism be?
thanks!

There is no specific legal definition, so the word has its normal English meaning - a centralised, dictatorial system of government requiring complete subservience to the state, e.g. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 21/04/2025 19:17

StellaAndCrow · 21/04/2025 12:40

Latest from the GMC - doctors CAN hide their biological sex

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/19/trans-doctors-can-hide-gender-despite-supreme-court-ruling/

https://archive.ph/TXcBF#selection-3243.0-3247.492

'In a letter sent to Baroness Hayter, a Labour peer, earlier this month, the GMC said it was updating its regulations “to remove the requirement for a doctor’s gender, or sex, to be recorded on the Register”.
Charlie Massey, the chief executive, wrote: “We have now started this work to bring doctors into line with the approach we take for PAs [physician associates] and AAs [anaesthesia associates]. We would continue to collect such data on a voluntary basis as part of our routine diversity monitoring data collection. We will consider precisely what data to collect when we undertake the aforementioned work to update our approach to collecting and using equality, diversity, and inclusion data.”'

That's a shame for patients trying to find registration details of their GP. Ticking the man/woman box was one of the ways to narrow the search if you weren't quite sure of the full name or spelling of the name.

They are just making things harder for everyone.

RedToothBrush · 21/04/2025 19:20

The political scientist Juan Linz, in an influential 1964 work, An Authoritarian Regime: Spain, defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

Limited political pluralism, which is achieved with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
Political legitimacy based on appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency."
Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, used to extend the power of the executive.

This isn't a definition but it's fairly widely accepted as features.

The problem with authoritarianism is once an authoritarian government gets in, the lack of political pluralism there is means it's hard to explicitly expressed this due to a lack of free speech aka political pluralism.

RedToothBrush · 21/04/2025 19:21

NebulousSupportPostcard · 21/04/2025 19:17

That's a shame for patients trying to find registration details of their GP. Ticking the man/woman box was one of the ways to narrow the search if you weren't quite sure of the full name or spelling of the name.

They are just making things harder for everyone.

Invisible women....

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 21/04/2025 19:42

You are not liable for costs because you lose but possibly because you refused to accept a good offer (likely circa what she asked for) because you were vexatious/unreasonable.

Needspaceforlego · 21/04/2025 19:57

Cailin66 · 21/04/2025 18:53

Any man, with penis, who is having sex, in vagina, with a female wife knows full well he is a man.

Not for a second do I believe he believes he’s a woman. He’s living a fetish and trying to impose that fetish on everyone around him.

Well he needs to actually engage brain before he opens his mouth.

He either believes it, or he deliberately lied, have your pick?

Neither is particularly good for a man who is meant to be a respected professional doctor.

KnottyAuty · 21/04/2025 20:09

RedToothBrush · 21/04/2025 19:20

The political scientist Juan Linz, in an influential 1964 work, An Authoritarian Regime: Spain, defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

Limited political pluralism, which is achieved with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
Political legitimacy based on appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency."
Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, used to extend the power of the executive.

This isn't a definition but it's fairly widely accepted as features.

The problem with authoritarianism is once an authoritarian government gets in, the lack of political pluralism there is means it's hard to explicitly expressed this due to a lack of free speech aka political pluralism.

Thank you! What do you think of this?

My argument would be that TWAW / GI is a belief that is WORIADS but that the way it has been manifesting in the UK over the past 10-15 years is not. On the basis that:

Political legitimacy based on appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency.

GI views are based on emotive appeals for “the most vulnerable” without objective evidence to back up the vulnerability claims. Stats on violence and suicide rates haven’t been unpicked from other coexisting issues such as childhood trauma, autism and history of sexual abuse. The claims that self harm is high because of harassment from society for being trans haven’t been separated from harassment or abuse, say, for presenting as autistic. Support for trans people seems to be based on appeals for kindness, inclusivity and equality due to past oppression. Stonewall has particularly been able to use their track record/reputation on gay rights - even though the GI belief system interferes with gay rights.

Limited political pluralism, which is achieved with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.

TWAW cannot claim to sit within pluralism which requires peaceful coexistence between different groups. The beliefs interfere with protected characteristics and rights of sex and sexual orientation. The TWAW and GI values require the subjugation of women’s and gay rights in order to have full expression. Female related words must be removed for full “inclusion” of trans people without any acceptance or acknowledgement that this is exclusionary for females. Control of language ensures confusion and redefining normal words as hate speech is discombobulating for average people. With speech controlled opposing points of view and counter arguments cannot be made. The language control required by GI prevents clear understanding of what is happening in society. Redefinition of a male as female co-opts heuristics regarding safety, strength, privacy and social behaviours. This effect creates a dissonance which has been seen to interfere with freedom of speech, the press and the judiciary in the UK & elsewhere. No Debate as a default position and accusations of bigotry and right wing hate suppress discussion.

Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, used to extend the power of the executive.

The TWAW belief system can be seen in the policy documents of almost all public bodies, political parties, the bench book, NHS, police etc etc so these beliefs are perpetuated by the state on a massive scale. Both in the Uk and internationally. These policies were put in place by behind the scenes activities which differ from public facing websites. Extensive staff education given on pronouns, inclusion, men as women etc. None of these schemes are transparent and public bodies obfuscate when asked Freedom of Information requests. Shifting rankings on a nebulous ranking scheme with no transparency and seemingly arbitrary scoring (WEI and Champions or Rainbow Badges) which “matured” policies over time via multiple updates - like the frog in boiling water analogy - to gain Stonewall points with hundreds of organisations competing to be named on their top100 employer lists.

Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.

Those who have tried to protest have lost their jobs. Platforms such as mumsnet and other women’s organisations have been targeted for “re education” or cancellation to prevent organised dissent. The scale & vociferousness of GI /TWAW beliefs and their manifestation has made it almost impossible to posit counter arguments. The BBC and other media do not cover the stories without fear or favour. Our politicians don’t speak basic biological truths. The movement was so confident in its capture of the Scottish Government that no trans organisations applied to be intervenors. It seems they expected the Supreme Court to agree blindly because of the sheer numbers of believers/institutions on their side. Post judgement politicians have been unable to express any support GC views, programs on the BBC omitted to mention it. Silence as censorship? Nothing to see here?

Internationally it seems that many countries have accepted this as an orthodoxy. The UK is apparently unique internationally in how grassroots feminists have pushed back on these ideas.

Lay it on me - why is this not a Totalitarian movement?

BezMills · 21/04/2025 20:45

It's not the totalitariah, it's just a naughty naughty boy

In all seriousness, the aim of some extremely loud male TRAs may well be totalitarian subjugation of women because mummy issues but they are doing such a shit job of it that I am not taking it seriously.

Being unsafe about their feelings about your feelings about their performative gendering, is not the first attribute you'd select for in the revolutionary guard. I think that might be harsh, but fair to say.

The Tatecels are a more credible threat if they can get over their vitamin d deficiency and scurvy and get out of their w*nking pit long enough to get something organised.

prh47bridge · 21/04/2025 21:12

why is this not a Totalitarian movement

In simple terms, because they do not plan to wipe out democracy and require us to be completely subservient to the state. You could use similar arguments to say that a lot of political movements are totalitarian, but there is no way the courts would find GI to be totalitarian.

rebmacesrevda · 21/04/2025 21:16

@BezMills
You’ve reminded me of a guy I used to know, who never even opened the curtains, let alone left his bedroom. This was evidenced by his diagnosis of vitamin D deficiency, and piss tide-marks in the bin in his room.

I don’t know how he identifies now, but I could see him as a trans-lite non-binary type. He is also a qualified medical doctor.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.