NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #26

[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 doubtful whether pubilc access for remote viewing would be reinstated but recent developments (as of mid May) suggest that this might actually become available again.

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
Thread 25: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5318518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-25

Thanks @ThreeWordHarpy that makes sense.

..and then hopefully get taken to court by disabled employees for repurposing the disabled toilet!

We've seen before that some institutions put up a paper tiger defence, allow the transwoman to win the case, and then retreat from the fray content that the onlooking unhinged activists will be happy. Those kinds of cases can only be appealed by the parties, third parties cannot intervene, and so they stand.

repurposing disabled loos is a likely outcome (playfully) i would argue that trans people are disabled by virtue of their false conceptions about their sex, and are therefore a group with an invisible disability.

ergo a disability to understand reality.

I really hope NC drills down into the origins of the “policy” Fife was following. I wonder if we may find it leads the whole way back to Scottish Gov!

It potentially may lead back to Stonewall and its Workplace Equality Index.

I would love a case like this to come to court because it would raise interesting questions. Like...
What does it mean to say a person "can't" or "doesn't feel able to" use a loo? What is a need and what is a preference?
Everyone has forgotten that the privacy argument only made sense (just about) when applied to the mythical passing transsexual. Does a man who claims to be a woman need privacy away from other men? If a person transitions at work, all their colleagues know what sex they are anyway.
Why are toilets and changing rooms segregated by sex?
And for smaller workplaces, why is someone's feeling about himself or herself important enough to reduce the numbers of single sex facilities available in order to fit in a unisex toilet or two? Just to reiterate, "outing" is not an issue - it's just been stolen from gay rights.

I think your suspicion that disabled loos will be rebadged is right, so I would also ask the court if that was fair on disabled staff or other users.

The case of the MCW naked from the waist down in the women's changing rooms springs to mind!

But now that the SC has clarified, I don't see how a court could go against it.

It back to the old chestnut of Gender Dysphoria in the DSM again.
Certainly a lot of trans people have ‘barriers to access’ toilets. Certainly a lot of trans people have invisible disabilities- apart from anything else, the impact of any surgery, and the comorbidity of ASD.

Yes - it will lead back to Stonewall via every public sector policy there is. And in IB’s case via her uni degree.

There’s a lot of unraveling to do.

All English and Welsh NHS “single-sex accommodation” policies (which are actually mixed-sex accommodation, because they include an annex which says that trans people must be accommodated according to their chosen gender) come from a single, governmental source (via an external lobby group), starting in about 2007.

When the Scottish govt devolved, it committed to “single-sex accommodation” across the NHS, as the undevolved UK parliament had done.

Devolution happened before the policies were written, but while movements to get them written were happening. I doubt highly that Scottish NHS trusts spent time developing their own, different policies when English ones were available (in fact, having read them, the wording is in the main identical to the English ones).

So, not Stonewall but similar, but with governmental approval (but possibly without much governmental oversight).

One of our intrepid auditors, @GreenAllOver, has been digging into the past.

someone mentioned on this thread that their manager had compared them to a nazi, I cant find the post again. They should (privately) record any future conversations with that manager and make contemporaneous notes from the recording. It's an ET/ constructive dismissal claim waiting to happen.

Continuation thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5372582-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-27

Although I'd request that people continue to post on this thread till it's full before moving on to the new one.

A lot of TRAs are talking confidently about taking a case to the ECtHR and it finding that trans people's article 8 rights have been violated.

I found Michael Foran's most recent Substack post very reassuring on this point. He basically argued that article 8 rights aren't an absolute right but they are qualified. When it comes to gender recognition, usually there is a narrow margin of appreciation, but when other people's article 8 rights are impacted (such as women with the protected characteristic of sex) there is a wider margin of appreciation for member states.

MF went through the various case law in this area to underline this point. It made me feel less worried that women are suddenly going to have their rights undermined again. I now think that the sooner a case can be taken to the ECtHR the better, as I feel a lot of TRAs will continue to flout the law in the belief the ECtHR will rule in their favour. Listening to Victoria McCloud recently was eye-opening. Many TRAs really believe that their rights should be elevated above everyone else's. Even if employers and service providers provide perfectly adequate unisex facilities, it will never be good enough for them unless they are allowed to do exactly what they want.

Perhaps it depends on the treatment? No justification for refusing to consent to a trans Dr examining your broken arm. Reasonable to want smear test to be carried out by female nurse.....

....... But, i'd imagine many of us had male staff involved in birth of our children. Did we say we'd prefer to wait until all female team available? Why is it OK to have caesearean carried out by an openly male Dr but not a transwomen Dr?

I think it's the dishonesty that causes difficulties. Women are being asked to play along with the notion that males are females, when we all know that's a lie

The dishonesty is entirely the problem.

The NHS policies that I’ve read make a big deal about single-sex spaces and services being very important for women’s mental health. And I’m fairly certain that if a woman were to ask for an entirely female team for a treatment, there are policies that would allow this to happen if it could (I know that women have asked and been granted this; I haven’t seen the relevant policies to know under what circumstances it would or wouldn’t happen).

The issue is that the same (or additional) policies state that trans-identifying men, whether patient or staff, must be treated as women. And furthermore, that no one may say anything to anyone, including any patient who has requested single-sex care, or is in a supposedly single-sex ward, about the fact that this person is actually a man. In fact the policies go farther and state that if asked, staff must deny that a TiM patient or doctor is anything but a woman.

Well I suppose @Dwimmer is filling up the thread - but by being an absolute bore.

My youngest was a forceps delivery, and the consultant who delivered her was male. There were loads of people in the room by that point, and I was so out of my mind with pain, that I didn't care who was there or who got her out.

But going for a smear test feels different. It's always been me alone with the nurse, and I often feel self conscious. If I was expecting a female nurse and someone who was obviously male but with a female name walked in, I would feel extremely uncomfortable. So I think you are right that it is the deceit that causes issues.

Deadcog · Yesterday 21:02

Crikey, that's awful. Is there no one on your side to support a complaint? I'd start taking dated notes on any exchanges.

On Sandie's disciplinary hearing, can you imagine if they come down against her and her ET finds for her? She'd absolutely wipe the floor with them at an appeal.

Agree with with, but if he has treated women who have specifically requested same sex care, then I think that does give rise to questions about fitness to practice.

@Deadcog

I was asked if I was OK with a male midwife at a certain point in my induction (I was OK but I was also informed and consenting) the lady opposite me did decline his care and it was absolutely a none issue.

I was asked if I wanted a chaperone when male doctors were involved in parts of my fertility investigations and treatment.

I wasn't asked before my C-section but it was a crash emergency at 4am so I was wasn't in a position to refuse whoever was available.

The problem is if I was to be treated by Dr Upton I wouldn't be informed that he is male and when my senses told me he was I would be branded a bigot for requesting someone else.

"Agree with with, but if he has treated women who have specifically requested same sex care, then I think that does give rise to questions about fitness to practice."

To the point, by personally violating a woman's right to a same sex space or service, he's demonstrated a cavalier disregard of women's well-being in order to prioritize his own selfish interests, being exactly the sort of male who shouldn't be in woman's spaces and shouldn't be providing women's services.

Irrespective of what they were told the law said they could do legally, these men should have had the moral awareness and capacity to reason clearly on the subject. By not doing so they impugned their own character - there are trans identifying men who didn't use women spaces, even though it caused them inconvenience and occasional embarrassment. Why shouldn't men who refused to acknowledge women's rights receive public and professional disapprobation for for their misogynistic behavior and selfishness?

I’m reassured another poster picked up on this. I thought the same.

On a lighter note - is there a bet open on what number thread we'll be at when the trib restarts? And should we be alert to the possibility of filibustering posts on #27 by people with their money on #28?