NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #52

[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 resumed 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 #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 51: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025

What factors are relevant

he is a man

I ❤️ Naomi's Pete

From TT

purposes. The idea that no one could object to say an intimate search by that type of person, it's a good thing isn't.

J - so it's the GRA that causes it to be dead.

NC - yes

J - permitting TW to use changing room could never be justified. Is that correct

NC - yes

.

From TT

J - what factors are relevant

NC - the sheer enormous disproportionate numbers, admitting a man to a supposed woman only space makes it a mixed sex space for all the women who use it. One thing regularly said by the other side, is its an accommodation for a tiny tiny minority

but this comes back to bite them, but if you admit even one man, or one man from time to time, you are saying to all the women that they cannot trust the sign on the door. You say it to robust women who might be nudists and not care who sees them naked.

From TT

You say it to women who are modest about their bodies, you may have been subject to sexual trauma, who may be uncomfortable about their bodies. Even if you do case by case, if anything that is worse, the reason I say that is because it undermines the confidence of women that

A man's a man for a' that.

from Herald
2:19pm
Ms Cunningham told the tribunal that earlier case law – notably West Yorkshire Police – once set an “extremely high threshold” for when a transgender person could be treated as the opposite sex.
That test, she said, required transition to be “so complete that the individual was for all practical purposes indistinguishable” from the other sex.
But, Ms Cunningham argued, Parliament deliberately chose a different approach with the Gender Recognition Act.
“Parliament didn’t place any requirement of surgery or hormone treatment."
Instead, it required two years of living as the opposite sex, however that is interpreted.
In return, what it granted was a much more limited set of entitlements.
She added that West Yorkshire Police is now “a dead letter,” and said this was for the best: “It is not possible to change sex literally. Even if a man has a so-called neo-vagina constructed, it is not a vagina."

Ms Cunningham told the tribunal that sex differences remain real and legally relevant, particularly in intimate settings such as changing rooms or searches. She said the idea that nobody could reasonably object to intimate contact with someone of the opposite sex simply because they have undergone surgery was "a fairly dismaying one.”

From TT

they are really in a female only space even when they actually are. Women who have been subject to the most severe forms of sexual abuse don't just use rape crisis centres, they use toilets, CRs, gyms, etc.

Let's take it to a rape crisis centre. Policy is 'everyone you will meet her will be a woman' that is clear. And a woman who may be talking about her sexual trauma in a small room behind a closed door. And if it turns out she's talking to a man who has taken all extreme measures to appear to be female, even if she is fooled, she may found out

I'm so glad that NC is getting the chance to say that a policy which admits even a single TIM affects every single woman who is using that space. Not just the ones who are 'cool' with it. But all those who experienced trauma. It undermines their confidence that it is a SSS. And it's a cruel deception and piece of gaslighting.

NC is stating Mridul Wadhwa's behaviour in ERCC as a clear justification of why women's only spaces and services must mean just that.

I assume that he is prompting NC to lay out the argument clearly so that it can be considered by the tribunal.

And what about religious women ?

From TT

at some later date. What a policy like that does is make user not really sure that they are talking to woman. You are probably talking to a woman but maybe it's a man. That is extremely cruel to women, gaslighting. Women who have been subject to sexual assault are in the rest

It must be killing JR just to sit there with her gob shut whilst NC answers the judge.

Actually I think Big Sond has played this bit well.

Also who gets to decide who passes and who doesn't, surely it's subjective.

Women can and do correctly sex a person much more accurately than Men can.

Do you take it to a panel and majority rules?

It is unworkable.

And there are provisions that some jobs are reserved for men or women working in SSS. So a man must be appointed for a sexual abuse recovery service for men. So that men don’t have to relive their trauma in front of women.

Judge: If the tribunal isn't with you on that...

They'd better be!!!

From TT

of the world; they use toilets, CR, etc. But not just women who have experienced sexual assault. Women who have a religious commitment to modesty, who would be more modest in the presence of the opposite sex. This would open claims to discrim on religious and possibly race.

Naomi's argument here is a thing of beauty.

Also to add what if that panel is like the NHSF board, be kind at all costs.

From TT

J - so if the Tribunal is not with you on this, do you invoke Art 8?

NC - Yes

<missed, noise>

J - do you say that it is a breach of Art 8, to not allow women SSS

NC - yes

J - specific case in E&W, not binding but could be persuasive, as a matter of principle do you agree

[E&W = England and Wales]

A very good point from NC that there was no evidence from any witness that the basement CR was any different and DU could/would be excluded from using it.

From TT

NC - yes

J - there is no equivalent in sched 3 provisions that apply to the workplace, how do we transpose those requirements to the workplace

NC - I say that what matters is the Art 8 analysis, bodily privacy, doesn't matter if its a workplace matter or not.