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

Life can be painful. But the truth is the truth.

Well, the court has ruled otherwise: I don't know why you are arguing with me about it! Take it up with the judge.

He thinks he can muscle in and get naked with women because he looks like a woman, so it's very very pertinent that he looks exactly like the cross dressing, intact, 6', balding man that he is.

The irony is that he's not ugly; he is quite good looking when he's not attempting to feminise his appearance. It's the total incongruousness of it all. You just can't look dainty and girlish when you're a 6' man with rugby shoulders.

Did you see that the other parties tried to use Sandie's social media post to discredit her, applying she institutionally against LGBT+ people (sorry I 'm not up on the terms used) but Tribunal, although saying it could not rule on many of these issues, as they were out of their jurisdiction, but did their best in the notes about the judgment to malign Sandie's honest views and likewise say how "honest, truthfully and reasonable "( my words) Dr.Upton was.

The judgment seems completely at odds with Croft given that other than changing his name and wearing women’s clothes Dr U had taken no other steps to “change sex”. No physiological steps, yet was deemed that was enough to allow him into the women’s changing room?

Yeah! I'm done as well.

I am done with this shit.

These men are men.

I'm pretty sure that it will be taken up with another judge at an apeal. Let's wait and see.

your opinions of "the truth" of someone else's appearance is entirely irrelevant to the point.

Pleased to see that transgenderism as a protected belief has come up. It's high time it was Grainger tested - it should surely be found wanting in the aspects that conflict with the rights of non-believers.

Again: the judge focused on Upton's appearance in his judgement. Therefore, Upton's appearance is relevant.

It’s not a single sex space; it’s a single sex service. EA2010 doesn’t have a concept of a single sex space.

The male plumber isn’t a toilet user, unless he enters to use the toilets. If he enters to fix the plumbing the service manager can take whatever steps it feels are reasonable to permit or deny entry to the male plumber who isn’t using the service.

this is such a red herring.

It is factual. Men identifying as women need to accept it is not insulting to say they still and always will look like men. An insult would be to say someone is incredibly ugly or similar.

What you call a trans woman is a man. Dr Upton is a man. Even the Tribunal conceded that. Saying a man looks like a man is not hurtful. And even if it is, tough shit. I care not one iota about the feelings of cross dressing men.

Sure. You were also pretty sure about this one though🤷🏼‍♀️.

And that the only interpretation of the SC judgement was that it mandated the exclusion of trans women from all female facilities.

Interesting comment from Colin Wynter KC on X regarding the use of the term "sex assigned at birth" in the judgement:

"The term was used in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, to which all judges are supposed to refer for guidance.
It was revised after the FWS ruling & "assigned at birth" was stripped out.
That the term found its way into the judgment would be my first, foundational ground of appeal".

Nothing from Michael Foran yet, but if imagine he is carefully reading the judgement before commenting.

I'm talking about the truth of one's sex...which is generally always plain to see, and to recognise

You've no idea what my observations were on this particular case as it was heard.

Did the judge in the Darlington nurses case not make a point about that when the Hospitals KC tried to use the same “what about the cleaner” gotcha?

Too bad.

Saying a man looks like a man is not hurtful

It is profoundly hurtful to the person who is the object of your comments.

You don't have the power to control the emotional experience of others I'm afraid.

Not sure: I will check.

Ok well that was irrelevant to the point

That works both ways.

The second respondent wasn't claiming that Upton has sex and gender of a woman though? I'm pretty sure Big Bad Sond actually asked JR if she wanted to take instruction on that point, during discussion of submissions.

TT doesn't quite capture it as I remember it but:

JR: BMA have said terminology used here isn't medically literate. As a lawyer, not a medic - sex is complicated and nuanced.

J on vast majority of cases

JR Not complicated

J And with regard to R2?

JR Not complicated and not making that argument

J evidence we have is id ing as female...

JR No need to take instructions. FWS has had said it has re bio sex and DU in evidence not talking as a lawyer.

JR This is potential conflict of rights situation

J So how taken into account?

JR IB relied on statutory CoP to balance rights

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1962880207309644085?s=2

Can anyone remember which newspaper or other source live tweeted the submissions?

NC addressed issue of risk around the same time:
NC - any woman could have testified to those facts, all women have experienced it, the risk assessment changes radically if it is a man or a woman.

J - Rs argue that there isn't a correlation between men and TW on the issue of risk
and the EA seeks to avoid stereotypes, what do you say to the suggestion that if the 2nd R is a higher risk, that is stereotyping.

NC - the whole concept of indirect discrim depends on stereotyping, in the EA, and the PSED, for example a height restriction impacts women more
than men. And so with the propensity to violence, MF data was from the ONS, men are more violent than women. JR said it was unreasonable to proceed on the basis that all men are or might be predators. Nevertheless we widely operate SSS, women don't want to get undressed
in the presence of men. And that's not just modesty and preference. The vast majority of sexual offences are perpetrated by men against women, including voyeurism and the like. And we operate SSS to mitigate the risk of those.

J - thank you I have some detailed qs for you
that I will send via email, citations and requests for cases. etc.

I would have thought there were far stronger foundations for appeal in the judgment than a turn of phrase?