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

It could also be, it could also be the medical heirachy i.e. doctors needs before nurses, it could a higher education i.e. DU went to a "better" university.

My point is that this "class" debate is similar to the "race" debate narrative that the TRAs were peddling last year.

The actual issue is enough we don't need to muddy the waters or support will be lost.

No one here has suggested that who you share a changing room with is a "sexual preference". Where did you get that idea from?

Given that Christmas and New Year effectively drive a two week bulldozer through many people's working calendar, this is pertinant.

The cynic in me says that both these judgements being released so close together, with Xmas between now and the appeal submission deadline, is deliberate sabotage of these tribunals. But then we know that Scotland's institutions are very badly captured.

"The Supremes"

Mary Queen Of Scots is widely understood to have been raped and impregnated by James Bothwell. Rank and class does not always protect women from male abuses. However, a woman's lack of rank is likely to make male abuses harder to avoid.

I agree.

But my point is that what you are adding is an assumptions. This then diverts the conversation away from the provable points, and opponents will be able to use your assumptions as a way of undermining your credibility.

Sandie Peggie is clearly a woman who knows her own mind and understands the importance of female only spaces where undressing is an activity. She is also someone who is not afraid to speak up. It is therefore not a wise decision to potentially weaken the very strong argument by projecting other issues on to it.

This conflict is about the recognition of sex differences on human interactions. Any discussion of class is an assumption and cannot be proven.

Hey, I've explained the context to this many times. If you insist on ignoring that, I cannot help you further.
I have no issue with multiple people replied at once, I have an issue with the content of their posts which is to bully and insult.

You should ask a grown-up to read it to you & help you with the big words.

exactly the sort of behaviour I was talking about.

I was asking for a paragraph / page reference

And as for your dismissive attitude to boiled Beatles experiences and that she bothered to expose herself to you.

No idea what you are referring to and I did not discuss anyone's personal experiences.

My feelings are not hurt, I have simply requested that people not make personal comments.

Thanks .

I agree with this. Further, I wonder if they are trying to put so much pressure on NC that she breaks or retires.

She is doing the Belfast trial and Woodhouse’s HCPC hearing starts this week. And who knows wha else she is juggling.

I think that the judges in Fife NHS and Leonardo know each other and have added timing as a strategy to put barristers off this work. I mean, there is plenty business so why are there so few barristers and KCs doing this work?

and is there a “legal “class” issue? NC is not a KC, are they slapping her down as being “uppity”?

The idea came from the statement:

"We get it . You like to get dressed in front of men".

Can we please discuss the tribunal and not my person?

Thank you.

Can you help me understand what you disagree with about sex fundementalism?

Fundamentalists view -

"sex" is a singular, simple and absolute fact about a person.

Truth

• Sex comprises a complex variety of traits, with different possible combinations of things that have both biological and social consequences. Aspects of these things are also changeable.

Fundamentalist view-
being a "woman" or a "man" has always been understood as a simple fact about the body.

truth -
There are a whole host of complex biological and social/ legal/ structural factors that shape understandings of these words

fundamentalist view -
The existence of sex variations (DSDs) do not present any challenge to a strictly binary view of sex , all variations can be very obviously categorised within the binary and should be treated as “disorders” rather than naturally occurring variations/ diversity.

Truth -
the existence of sex variations demonstrates how sex is a complex process of development made up of different components, and a person may have different combinations of these (some from one category, the others from the other). It is not always easy to make sense of how a particular variation should be classified within the binary.

fundamentalist view -
Law policy, and social spaces should recognise only "sex" classifications. Gender identity is irrelevant.

Truth-
Gender and sex cannot be meaningfully disentangled in this way. They are different parts of the same system- biologically , psychologically, socially. It's a dystopian fiction to believe that we can eliminate "gender" from society and attempts to do so are profoundly harmful to trans and gender non conforming people, people with DSDs , as well as ultimately women more broadly

He is a married man with a penis in a women's changing room. I'm not sure why the way he identifies makes that any less concerning than any other man going in a women's changing room. We can't see into people's minds and know what really motivates them but the fact that he wants to change in there, despite knowing it makes women uncomfortable seems to make him higher risk than most men.

I think a lot of people involved in this case have lived a very charmed life and are a bit naive. They seem to be blinded by the fact he is a middle class doctor.

The specific parag reference I am asking for is for this claim:

you can't have provisions that bill themselves as single sex but which are de facto mixed sex.

It's making a claim that I believe to be an (over)-interpretation rather than actually substantiated in the text.

No. It. Didn't.

Persistent misrepresentation doesn't make it true. 'You're happy to' does not = 'You like', no matter how many times you lie about what was said.

I’ve said that a few times now. Two judges same circuit of 22 judges, called in the same year, there are cases they both took part in so cross over of work. One rushed out the door. One 300 pager dumped with no notice.

They made a fix to fix her. But I have no doubt NC and team are for for the task.

Oh give over. This is a f*ing anonymous account, it's not personal. (And I'm very rarely rude)

We're just asking you to reflect on what you are de facto wishing on other women (ie that they be faced with male genitalia and male eyes in a supposedly female changing room, even though they don't want to) and put yourself into these women's shoes.

I cannot go back and check , as I do not have the premium version. I beleive the original comment said "you like to" , unless it was edited.

That's interesting!

So am I right in thinking that you agree with the following?

• There should be no mention of either sex or gender in law, since those are in effect spectrums, not discrete categories, so we can't seperate people according to them.

• Consequently, there should also be no mention of sexual orientation in law, since in effect sexual orientation is a cloud of a myriad of possibilities, none of them more important than others.

Am I understanding you correctly? If not, where did I go wrong?

I don't think there's any suggestion that DU ever showed SP her genitalia.

As another poster said earlier, he got upset when an elderly patient kept calling him son or sonny when he was treating them. In real life, it's very obvious Upton is a bloke.

Never trust still photos, especially the more flattering photos included in a lot of the media. The photo used by the Scotsman earlier this year is so obviously a man, ignore the clothing and hair which are there to try and deceive you, just look at his face. Still the same man as he was before.

Amplifying

There are now two types of women

Women who are are happy to get changed in front of men with gender dysohoria

Women who want single sex spaces

P.s. Men who identity as women are still men

That is the judgement in a nutshell. Suggesting women who cheerlead Upton and are happy to be in the changing room while he changes into his underwear with his penis and gonads evident. That’s not sexual harassment- that’s gender identity theory. I am sorry your beliefs sexually harassed you. And the EJ SK sexually harassed you.

This case says Sandie Peggie was harassed by the failure of NHS Fife to protect her article 8 rights to privacy. She has a right to a single sex space and quickly.

Thats a start and it’s a vindication for sex realists.

This will go to appeal. It’s too nonsensical to sit as is. Peggie is a strong woman with a great team behind her.

Where you have gone wrong is this reasoning :

"since those are in effect spectrums, not discrete categories, so we can't seperate people according to them."

We can acknowledge things are diverse and complex and still find meaningful ways of categorising them in law. That applies to most things.