NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56

[nauticant]

Judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6936ce28a6fc97b81e57436a/S_Peggie_v_Fife_Health_Board__Dr_Upton.pdf

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]

The hearing was 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: 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
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 3 September to 1 October 2025
Thread 54: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54 from 28 September 2025
Thread 55: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5447019-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-55

We get it: you're happy to get undressed with men. However, you don't have the right to consent to this for other women who aren't. Brave is exactly what she is (especially in Scotland and the NHS - a captured institution in a captured country).

I'm pretty sure that an appeal will be won by Sandie, maybe in the SC.

I really don't understand this judgement, nor Maria Kelly vs Leonardo. Aside from harassment, bullying, poor processes or whatever, it seems that post-FWS the issue of males in female toilets and changing rooms should have been a slam dunk in favour of the complainants, but both judges said it was all fine and dandy, and these "feminine" men people couldn't possibly be expected to use male facilities?

@OpheliaWitchoftheWoods

there is no mention of the right of validation or right to her compulsory presence

Because that would be saying the quiet part really loud, and people might actually start to get it.

I have seen posts on both this and the preceding thread that are pleased with this judgement as it shows that it is not automatically unlawful for employers to permit employees to use single sex facilities designated for the use of the opposite sex. We are obviously all entitled to our opinion. But let's just take a look at the event that precipitated this case.

A nurse was approximately 4 hours into a 12 hour shift when she experienced heavy bleeding. She went to the female changing room to remove her bloodied scrub bottoms and pants, clean herself up and put on clean pants and bottoms. Unfortunately, a doctor who the nurse knew to be male, was already in the changing room and was willing to claim a right to remain there.

Can I ask posters who support this judgement what would you do? Would you happily strip off, clean yourself and then get dressed again or would you suffer a massive loss of privacy and dignity and just want the male doctor to remove themselves immediately just as an act of common decency?

The BBC reported it on the 6pm news and even they were forced to acknowledge one lawyer’s opinion that it was a “confusing judgement.”

Which I suspect is the polite way of saying “what the fuck was he thinking here?!”

Agree, I though it was good. It made clear that DU is male, and it was great that they included a comment from a legal expert saying that the judgement (from what he has read so far) was confusing and didn't provide clarity, which I think we will agree on here is a fair summary.

This will take some digesting.

I hope the points of law can be appealed and Pete's relevance as a comparator legally established. SCJ is clear on that one I'd think. I hope that wouldn't be too stressful on Peggie as the evidence of fact bits are done.

And I find the finding of harrassment against the NHS encouraging that Fife may now have to settle the further more specific cases Sandie is (at least I think she is?) bringing against managers who emerged as having personally contributed to that harrassment.

So does this mean if a transwoman has a beard I can say they aren't feminine enough and it's not ok?

Seeing as I actually know someone in this boat!

So if women don't present themselves in a feminine enough way does this mean they should be treated as men?

This defies all logic and feels like I've gone back to a bygone era where women and men are supposed to have certain appearances.

This.

Plus that judge's BS about "Oh well, only one woman complained." After months, years, of aggro having to politely rehash all the awfulness in public, what kind of zombie could even imagine any human being lightly putting herself through all that?

If this is going to appeal, I hope we're not going to hear any more mealy-mouthed apologetic 'he had a male presence', rather than 'the problem is he is a full sized adult male with a penis and testicles, changing while women change IN THE WOMEN'S CHANGING ROOM.'

Which I would hope a new judge won't feel he can refute with comments about pink frocks and lipstick.

Yes, your point was obvious. I'm not sure why anyone would read it any other way.

Sorry, tell me again Big Sond? Which one was credible? The one who spoke the actual truth or the man who said he was a biologically sexed female?

Claimant's beliefs

81. When the claimant first met the second respondent in August 2023 the claimant believed that the second respondent was a male from hair worn in a ponytail which appeared to the claimant to be receding, that the second respondent was she thought taller than the average woman, the second respondent being materially taller than the claimant, that the second respondent had she thought a prominent Adam’s apple, and had she thought large hands and feet.

Second respondent’s beliefs

82. The second respondent believes that the second respondent has the sex and gender of a woman.

4104864/2024 Page 19

If Righteous ladies truly believe what they say they believe about ladies all sharing the common characteristic of feminine ladybrains, then they would be delightedly stripping off all their clothes with merry abandon, admiring each others' pink lacy lingerie, whilst sharing tampons and having a giggly discussion about make-up tips? Not sure whether they could find time to squeeze in a bit of pillow-fighting.

Edit: @JanesLittleGirl

Has anyone made a meme of Dr Upton stating that he's a biological woman and the judge thinking 'credible witness' yet?

I'd call this "institutional DARVO".

And also, never mind having to disclose my trauma to my employer as a reason for not wanting a man in the women's changing area - why do I even HAVE to hvave any trauma NOT to want a man to see me half-undressed, or with menstrual overflow?

Yes, exactly. Either all men are ok, or no men are. We can't say "we accept that women do not want to undress around men as a rule, unless it's a trans woman in which case the women in question has to have suffered a higher degree of trauma to deserve our consideration"

Trans "women", regardless of who they may perceive themselves, are not objectively any more like women than any other men. It is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor even possible to expect women's assessment of a man in a women-only space to be based on his self image.

He's an imbecile.

I use a Fife Leisure run gym. The male cleaners always knock and yell before entering. The last time it happened to me, I yelled back "I'm in here, getting changed..." and the bloke reacted by gasp not coming in and shouting "That's fine! I'll come back later!"

He was thinking "Fuck this shit. I'm not having my Christmas and Hogmanay ruined by making myself a target for TRAs."

Has anyone alleged voyeurism or indecent exposure in these circumstances I wonder? I know as women we're meant to suspend all our knowledge about data, MoJ stats about trans prisoners and sex offences, the % of men who are sex offenders and of course the fact that men failing to respect women's spaces carry red flags over their heads.

Obviously it won't apply unless the men are specifically exposing themselves or observing women. Just wondering why this isn't happening given the sheer number of men violating women's spaces?

Holy hell. I need a drink.

It's rather ironic that the judgment decided that Jim Bor(th)wick wasn't impartial, when the judgment is laden with trans activist language, bias and sexism!

Takes one to know one! (Not that I necessarily agree that JB was impartial.)

Well, indeed.

Maybe Sex Matters should create a confidential form letter for employees to send to HR: I invoke my Article 8 rights and request access at all times to [facilities] segregated on the basis of biological sex. Letter suitable for both sexes! Optional to declare protected beliefs (religious, non-believer in transgenderism) or disability (eg SA-related PTSD), just so they know what sort of law suit they're letting themselves in for if they refuse. The more people sign, the less likely the broom cupboard.

'Honey'?