NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #37

[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 resumed 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] by 5pm on Wednesday 9 July. Detailed instructions were provided here:

drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view

The hearing is being live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6. 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.ph/WSSjg.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Links to previous threads #1 to #29 can be found in the header of thread #30.
Thread 30: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5375337-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-30
Thread 31: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5375819-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-31
Thread 32: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376072-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-32
Thread 33: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5376608-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-33
Thread 34: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377387-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-34
Thread 35: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377598-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-35
Thread 36 mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378031-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-36

Tandora, the only one I’ve seen on this thread having a fit at things they don’t like is you. You’ve got to find another hill to die on, this isn’t it. Let it go.

He doesn't have a grc. And is male.

Please can you explain to me how biological sex (not gender identity, social constructs etc) is not binary? Please do not use the term intersex, and note that people with dsds are one sex with a variant that does not make them the other sex, just a variant of one sex.

Right go for it.

Biological sex is binary, as has been explained dozens of times, including in this thread.

If there's some other human feature you think isn't binary, you'd better explain what it is, but it's not sex. Gender presentation isn't binary. But it's also not important, either.

As for the law: the law on biological sex is very clear, back from Corbett vs. Corbett, as I know you know, as you've written about it. And it's binary too.

This particular question / aspect of self ID based entirely on feelings not only being easy to game but rendering the definition of a word to the point of it being completely useless is almost never answered by supporters.

No consideration of why we have DBS checks for working with vulnerable populations or segregated sports categories or the need for single sex spaces. No acknowledgement of the many reasons as to why feelings cannot trump all other considerations.

If it is answered, it’s typically the claim of ‘it’ll never happen’ (the bad apple) despite the growing accumulation of evidence that it does. Or, one bad apple is acceptable ie women harmed = n is fine.

I mean the gaslighting.

I’ve had no “fits” whatsoever, I have been entirely measured and polite.

Meanwhile shit I have taken on this thread includes:
-being accused of libel, repeatedly called a troll, a bad faith poster, “he”, a misogynist, nauseating, sickening, full of hatred, “level of evil never seen before” 😂.

Now imagine I was a known journalist with national reach. Of course they are anonymising these articles.

“You can’t prove it”
Not a sensible thing for KS to have said today.
Not a denial. Oh dear.
The more she said the worse it got.
With friends like these who needs enemies?
Looking forward to tomorrow
Hoping the points NC made about non-bigotry related reasons for sss might have sunk in

And the phone!
Can’t wait for more on the phone notes
night night

I've seen a thread go like this where the poster - not sure if it's the same one - had a discussion like this then casually said they didn't consider 'female' to be a sex so was actually using 'female' to mean something else - not a physical sex.

Just an example of how these things can go when people are only interested in exchanging words, not ideas.

Exactly. I think they would have a more sympathetic hearing from other organisations and members of the public who know that "there but for the grace..." with some of that stuff.

Instead they've very much made things about their own moral compasses, their personal relationships and value judgements. Without realising that they are not in alignment with a lot of the now aghast public.

Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components.

“You can’t prove it”

Who does she think she is? Joe Pesci? 😁

Please elaborate. I'm pretty sure no definition of female includes Upton.

and completely derailing threads. Almost this entire one tbh. The case is going well for Sandie and we have to put up with all these derailments. All day.
Engaging is encouraging and feeds the desire

If, you think that's true, then "biological sex" means something else when you say it than when I say it.

The problem is that when I say it, i use it the way it has always been used, and I reject your attempt to redefine or subvert the meaning of the words.

For the same reason, I reject your (in the wider sense) attempt to hijack the word "woman" to mean anything other that what it has always meant.

If you want a word to describe "trans-identifying men and non-trans-identifying women" then go make up your own language for that group of people. "Women" is already taken.

The attempt to hijack language is quite legitimately described as Orwellian.

I’d be interested to know your professional qualifications. Are you a medical doctor?

If a person is aware that they use words to mean something different from most what people assume them to mean (through common usage etc) the honest thing to do, if posting in good faith, is to declare that straight up.

It would be good if people would stop banging their heads against the brick wall that is Tandora. Any reply only encourages him/her.

I've attended a fair amount of safeguarding training in my time through various work and volunteering roles.

I'm pretty sure that the reason given for some things has been "you always have to consider the unthinkable" and "you should not be afraid to challenge".

And yet, repeatedly, when it comes to trans issues, thinking the unthinkable and challenging are shouted down as bigotry and prejudice, as opposed to difficult conversations that we understand have to be had if we wish to safeguard the vulnerable.

And admit they are Humpty Dumpty.

I completely agree that this is the best way to learn. It's what I've always done in learning/memory situations. I understand why the judge does it, just wish he did it less!
Same as I think NC ummms too often and too long, despite my admiration for her.

It's a feature not a bug.

When words like "biological sex" and "woman" are redefined to mean what anyone who uses wants them to mean, it's a cheap way of changing the meaning of centuries of law, writing, culture and other written and oral tradition. It's retrofitting, and it's not valid. But it's done to further a political agenda without having to do the heavy lifting of justifying and garnering public support for that political agenda. It's totally subversive, and deliberately so.

The difficulty is that Fife claimed not to have any policy at the time of the incident.

A de facto policy however was set by various senior staff Googling and implementing what they read online.

Here’s what I understood about the email questions:

There was a smoking gun email (disclosed late during first part of the tribunal) and an email chain with the same title (was this chain timely disclosed? I think so)

The smoking gun email

1. Has Re: in title
2. Rest of title matches title of email chain
3. Features same recipients as email chain (although KS disputed this; it sounded like there was some movement between To and CC)
4. Does not have other content below the message (the email chain has older messages below with the new message at the top)

So the general point of the questioning was how likely is it that the smoking gun email is the first of a thread? If it is the first, why does it have Re: in the title? If it is not the first, why does the document not contain the previous messages in the thread?

And how likely is it that this email is not part of the email chain? If it isn’t part of the email chain, why does it have the same unusual title? Is it plausible that the same group of people would be on two separate email threads with the same title? If it isn’t part of the email chain, where are its replies or predecessors?

And ultimately I think there’s no good result for Fife here.

If the smoking gun email is part of the email chain, it’s more suggestive that this email was deliberately suppressed in a coordinated fashion. How could so many people miss this email when they were aware of and disclosed other messages on the same thread?

And then the lack of connection to the chain becomes suspicious. Was the email doctored to remove the previous messages? If so was this done to obscure its relation to the email chain or to hide further undisclosed emails?

But even if not part of the chain, the questions about further undisclosed messages related to the smoking gun email remain.

Please don’t. Honestly I’m pretty sure most women on a parenting board have an extremely good grasp on what sex is.
Gender otoh - well yes. That could be described as a multidimensional phenomenon with many components. Temporally and culturally varying.

I'm fairly convinced that particular poster is not posting in good faith. One minute they're sweetly reasonable, next minute gratuitously offensive, next minute completely batshit, and then they claim victim status for alleged bullying or gaslighting - when in fact many of us have given them the benefit of the doubt. These personas cannot all be real, and I'm guessing none of them are.

So tomorrow, in quieter moments, let's get back to a proper discussion of celeriac. I need soup recipes.