NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #50

[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 was 29 July 2025. It will resume again over 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February 2025. Sandie Peggie returned to give more evidence on 29 July 2025.

Access to view the second part of 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 #40 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 41: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379334-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-41 24 July 2025 to 25 July 2025
Thread 42: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379820-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-42 25 July 2025 to 25 July 2025
Thread 43: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379979-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-43 25 July 2025 to 27 July 2025
Thread 44: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5380196-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-44 25 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 45: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-45 28 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 46: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381640-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-46 28 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 47: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382102-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-47 29 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 48: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-48 29 July 2025 to 31 July 2025
Thread 49: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5383443-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-49 31 July 2025 to 8 August 2025

With a different number from the Theodore Upton registration (7844321) but the same qualification year

Both versions of Dr Upton have exactly the same registration date in Aug 2022.

See here

Are they both extant or has one been cancelled? If not he could effectively use either, Pips Bunce style, or like that mad chap who publishes articles with himself.

And if that were the basis on which JR had applied for this, I would wholeheartedly agree with her submission. And the decision to grant it.

Instead she did it on the basis of "dysphoria", and so deliberately using his MH condition as the justification which is clearly intended to rile up the reporting. If that is the basis on which it was granted, I'm concerned that this is showing the panel are struggling with the issue of transgender identity and pandering to Mr Upton.

Sad times.

The catch ups will be long consolidation ones

from Tribunal Tweets

J - <nods to NC>

NC - on prlmy matter, on the question of open justice, we have had various requests for our submissions, our view is that these are the Cs docs and she is entitled to do with them as she wishes, it is her Art 10 rights, freedom of self expression. We are minded to release, there is no order to prohibit, there is no reasonable basis for such an order to be made. Our written subs will be released to the press, Dr M Foran, and Tribunal Tweets.

J - would you like this to be dealt with now or afterward.

NC - yes please

JR - our position is the spirit of entente, there is a middle ground, the C's redact the deadnaming of DU, it is gratuitous and unnecessary, DU has been sued not in deadname, it triggers dysphoria, the GRA attaches criminal liability in cases where someone has been outed

These are not those circumstances, no GRC, as Parliament has rec'd as criminal offence, it is serious. Also the ETBB - J - Scotland? JR - yes J - do you have a copy? JR - can supply, now quoting, 'name or pronouns can be very important to the transperson, sign of disrespect if transperson not ref'd to by them. No one should be outed, everyone should be treated with courtesy and dignity. The gratuitous dropping of the deadname in the submissions is harmful to DU, contrary to the ETBB, and contrary to Supreme Court, in relation to EAT Forstater

Finally, DU's deadname is not relevant in this case. Unless I can assist. NC - as far as I can tell, that's not a request to the ET but to the C, and the answer is no. JR - in which case, I will make an application J - under rule 49, JR - yes J - there was email corro on this,

NC - yes

J - has to do with public register,

NC - our reading is that the ET can treat that as 'known'

J - how do we know it, shall we look at the public register

NC - I'm asking you to accept it from our submission, the Rs have not said it isn't true

J - the old fashioned point of view is that submissions should address the evidence NC - Yes, our submissions cannot be edited line by line, our position is that this is true, we include it in our submissions. J - on privacy law, what do you say

NC - it's futile, first and foremost, DU's former name has already been reported, so the information is out there. It is counterproductive. Counsel is acting as if this info isn't up there. It's drawing attention to DU's former name. It's futile. The ET should make futile orders. The name is out there. JR refers to Sec 22 of GRA, which of course has no application whatsoever here.

It may be that if someone has a GRC, then he is entitled to some quite powerful privacy protections for his former name. Those protections were drafted for someone who is succeeding in passing as the opposite sex, those very rare circumstances. If they've done that and they have a GRC, they have some powerful privacy protections. Does not apply here. DU as a trans identifying man has been made clear by these proceedings.

J - thats not what my colleague said in January NC - the ET has had the ability to observe DU and reach its conclusions. Witnesses said they identified him easily as a man. JR - briefly, the ETBB and GRA are not futile. And the evidence of witnesses has been that they did not identify DU as a man, rather the opposite. J - we will rise to discuss, please stay where you are. Court rises.

100%

This case affects so many women.

I've really changed from the edges of feminism 10 years ago ( 'a few men with MH problems want to remove their penis & get a certificate that won't affect anyone else' ) to absolute and pure anger and disgust at the contempt for women the whole GRA demonstrates, the way it has been used to enable abusive misogynistic men, with no physical changes, often with sexual paraphilias, to remove female human rights- to privacy, to fair sport, even just to a name to refer to ourselves rather than reducing us to body parts (cervix haver) and reduce us to an unverifiable feeling in an abusive mans head.

I am so grateful to Sandie for speaking up when so many women are too scared of targetted abuse / threats to do so, and can't access some workplaces/ venues as a result of this cruelty/ abuse to women.

He has a GRC then?

from herald
11:08am
She is referencing a case - Garçon and Nicot vs France.
The two claimants are transgender and applied to have their birth certificates altered to reflect their chosen sex and names.
The court rejected their claims on the grounds that they had not shown they had undergone the necessary surgery and medical reassignment.
Dr Upton does not have a gender recognition certificate, she says.
10:59am
Ms Cunningham referenced the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman.
Because of that judgment the tribunal has "no choice" there are "indeed very serious and significant limits to the extent to which a trans identifying man” can expect to live fully as a woman.
The ruling, brought by For Women Scotland, linked the terms sex, woman and man to biological sex in the Equality Act 2010.

'the evidence of witnesses has been that they did not identify DU as a man, rather the opposite'

Did they, aye?

No.

No. Or st least he didn't when the events took place. But he can change his name without one.

From Tribunal Tweets

J - we have a unanimous decision to grant a rule 49 order to redact the former name of DU. Arising from DU's article 8 rights. Balancing different rights we grant an order to the 2nd respondents former name, subject to redaction of that name, there is no order made.

NC - just taking instructions, we should be able to make those redactions within a few minutes. Just the Rs first name? No, there are middle names.

J - yes, I will do a draft of the order to ensure that we get it correct. Now, we have 3 hours each, it's 10:30, it is only that either side has time to take instructions or think about our questions. I'm proposing that you can respond to our questions in further written submissions within 2 weeks. We keep an eye on the timing, and the stenographers will have a break every hour.

NC - in broad order, will start with remarks on broad authorities relied on by the Cs, I will also provide a copy of my speaking note, I will comment on the ET's approach to matters of human rights, the credibility of various witnesses, (missed).

The male one has been relinquished.

I’d like to think now this is properly in the public domain there will be proper pushback against Drs changing their names and GI on the GMC register (and other HCP registers). I’m not holding their breath but it’s an outrageous lie to perpetrate against vulnerable people.

5 min break

from herald- still NC
11:10am
The barrister says it is an unarguable fact that a man who says they are a woman is simply a man.
They belong in the sub category of men, sometimes referred to as transwomen, but they are simply men, she argues.
Discussing NHS Fife and Jane Russell's argument she said: "It has been made taboo to say that they are men."
"It makes it difficult to hang on to the fact that transwomen are men, but that reality is enshrined in law."
She argues that those arguing the gender critical views have been condemned and ridiculed.

I think changing your name is fair enough, but you shouldn't get a new registration.

..proper pushback against Drs changing their names and GI on the GMC register (and other HCP registers)

Not just name and GI, also registration number.

JR - can supply, now quoting, 'name or pronouns can be very important to the transperson, sign of disrespect if transperson not ref'd to by them. No one should be outed, everyone should be treated with courtesy and dignity.

Is this one of Nicola's droppings?

Can anyone advise- I am not sure why the SC FWS Scotland is having to be reargued here- assume because JR and the Judge didn't seem to understand it?

from Tribunal Tweets

Starting with Goodwin - in para 77 of Rs long document. They rely on para relying on conflict between law and reality. The prob with this argument, the Rs urge the ET to find that under Art 8, DU has the right to access CRs, toilets, single sex facilities

This cannot be right. If so, the GRA did not go far enough, it has a number of built in limitations and safeguards. Did not implement ECHR did not go far enough. And the judgment in FWS Supreme Court was wrong. It says that a GRC does not make a man a woman for the EA.

The protected chara of gender reassignement is not affected, they are fully protected by the EA. But a GRC has no bearing on male vs female in the EA. Given that decision, the ET has no choice but to find there are limitations on how a TiM can live like a woman.

It must be lawful for him to be excluded from single sex spaces.

J - asking clarifying questions on EA. How does Sched 3 have relevance in this case.

NC - he can't be entitled to access women only spaces provided by public spaces, where there are single sex spaces. DU and any other man like him has no right to access those spaces. He must be excluded from them because they are only lawful by Sched 3, if Sched 3 exceptions are to be operated, the threshold conditions must be met. It gives permission to create ss spaces. If some men are admitted they no longer ss spaces. SSS - single sex spaces.

NC - it is not possible for a man who asserts a female identity to live fully as a woman, he can't have that right because those female only spaces are only lawful by Sched 3, if a man is in them they are not SSS.

J - are you transporting Sched 3 to the workplace regs?

NC - no, I don't think we need them but it is slightly ambiguous as to how the EA applies here. There is no longer a broader sexual discrimination grounds. The sanctioned single sex spaces don't make that a specific defense. No one has ever suggested that SSS are not lawful, it's not straightforward to pin down the operation of the law. I don't think the Rs suggest that they are unlawful. I understand that TL may suggest that. They have suggested that sex in the 1992 regs, must be given a self id lens. The result of that is that say toilets provided for public and staff or used by them both.

J - asks NC to speak up.

NC - the result of TLs submission is that toilets provided for use of both public and staff, would have to be genuine SSS for public but mixed sex for trans people for 1992 regulations for staff. We don't think the ET should take that seriously. Now back to Goodwin and Rs point.

But what about the gender statement that he is female on the registration?

I am looking forward very much to NC's comments on the credibility of the witnesses.