Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 08/12/2025 13:52

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
2021x · 09/12/2025 08:15

ScrollingLeaves · 09/12/2025 08:08

It is extraordinary as a judgement. It just shows the judge to be mentally the age of a primary school child in his perceptions of male and female. Perhaps he is autistic and fixed on what a female is. Missed the subtleties and cues somewhere along the line.

In real life, a great many actual women do not look like this anyway, but when they do, they still do not resemble Upton.

Also, judge, either transwomen can go into a woman’s changing room or they can’t. It can’t be that one who looks more feminine is allowed, but one whose appearance fails to look feminine enough will not. Your judgement is utterly discriminatory.

Show quote history

So maybe the judge is endorsing passing privilege with this statement which we know the Trans community finds transphobic?

EweProfessorSurnameDoctorProfessor · 09/12/2025 08:17

Helen Joyce with Nick Ferrari discussing the case on LBC

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pWKh44yyUYw

Harassedevictee · 09/12/2025 08:17

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 09/12/2025 03:43

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.

Show quote history

I very much doubt there has been any attempt at co-ordination. Each ET will have been run separately.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:18

2021x · 09/12/2025 08:15

So maybe the judge is endorsing passing privilege with this statement which we know the Trans community finds transphobic?

Show quote history

Yes Sandy Kemp is a transphobe.

His judgement is transphobic.

And he said that women do not have to cos play with men. So he’ll empty out the changing rooms quick smart.

You have to pass and no handmaids to witness your penis in pants. Sad times.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:21

Harassedevictee · 09/12/2025 08:17

I very much doubt there has been any attempt at co-ordination. Each ET will have been run separately.

Show quote history

I have tracked the timings of judgments. This is very quick for Michelle and while Sandy said pre Christmas it’s only a few days after Kelly. They control the timing of when they issue. Sandy scrapped the usual prior notice to the parties. It was done for impact.

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2025 08:25

I would say that in order to not harass staff, there surely has to now be a consent form issued by employers which say "I do / I do not consent to sharing facilities with the opposite sex".

And then they have to do policy on that basis. Which is bloody ridiculous.

It will lead to women not getting jobs in the first place. It will lead to trans people not getting jobs.

When frankly the simple and easiest solution is just third spaces in the first fucking place.

FragilityOfCups · 09/12/2025 08:29

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/12/2025 00:10

Also, appros of nothing, lying about what another poster said is a pretty dumb thing to do when the original post is there on the thread for all to see. I guess when your whole belief system depends on forcing others to accept a lie you forget other people don't think that way.

Generally speaking, it happened on previous threads as well, along with mocking autistic people, which is why I have zero interest in what such people type on here.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:31

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2025 08:25

I would say that in order to not harass staff, there surely has to now be a consent form issued by employers which say "I do / I do not consent to sharing facilities with the opposite sex".

And then they have to do policy on that basis. Which is bloody ridiculous.

It will lead to women not getting jobs in the first place. It will lead to trans people not getting jobs.

When frankly the simple and easiest solution is just third spaces in the first fucking place.

It’s going to be outing of women for their sex realist beliefs.

That’s hardly balancing of rights.

At least employers will start to see the scale of the problem.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:35

NotBadConsidering · 09/12/2025 06:37

The post with “you’d be happy to” is clear to read on page 25 and was not edited.

Page 15 I think

Little puppy 🐶 is a liar but given their delusional beliefs and gender evangelism I suspect critical thinking isn’t their forte. I could be wrong but the evidence is leaning one way.

And whether it says like or happy to get almost naked in front of men - principle is the same. The fact they said this was sexual harassment is bonkers when ignoring that Upton had his genitals in tight fitting women’s underwear and was wearing a bra despite having no breasts and forcing all women to
endure that - and then made notes on women who didn’t.

Why fixate on women who aren’t liking your male presence and male gaze?

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56
Boiledbeetle · 09/12/2025 08:36

puppymaddness · 09/12/2025 06:29

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.

Show quote history

You can still do an advanced search for a users post even without premium.

It's a more long winded way to do it, but still possible:

Click on the search button at the bottom of your page. Then click the advanced search option and type in your key words and the users name, choose the board etc and it should narrow down your results enough for you to find what you are looking for.

On this occasion I've taken a screenshot for you. It was happy to not like to. It was not edited.

NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56
FragilityOfCups · 09/12/2025 08:36

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 09/12/2025 02:48

In the case of, e.g. HE institutions, where there is no distinction between staff loos and loos used by students and the public, an interpretation of the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regs 1992 that classes (some) men as women would immediately be in conflict with the EA2010 requirement that woman means "human with female biology" and "women's loos" means "no wedding tackle allowed". And turning the loos into explicitly mixed sex would immediately violate W(HSW)R92's requirement that loos be separate for men and women. So either your point has to hold up in law, or else universities will have to spend a lot of money on making all their loos single-occupant-self-contained, which @Keeptoiletssafe might have some strong opinions about.

I suspect, given what I've said about staff loos often also being the student loos, that the SC's "legally incoherent" argument could be made about any attempt to treat "women" as including some men for the purposes of W(HSW)R92.

Show quote history

Thanks, that's a good point.

On a slightly related note, I hadn't really grasped the difference, so the discussion about secondary school toilets on another thread was interesting (shared basins etc)

Harassedevictee · 09/12/2025 08:37

puppymaddness · 09/12/2025 06:54

We don’t recognise trans-race
We don’t recognise trans-age
We don’t recognise trans-pregnant
We don’t recognise trans-maternity

No. because there's no evidence that these things exist as real axes of human diversity. So there's no need to recognise them in law. There's never been a person who was born trans-race or trans-age.

Being transgender is a real thing, despite the ignorance of the majority of women on mumsnet.

Show quote history

What about trans-disability?
A person born able bodied who believes they are disabled e.g. paralysed or no lower limbs. Body Integrity Identity Disorder/Body Identity Dysphoria are recognised medical conditions.

Trans-race are you saying Rachel Dolezal doesn’t have a right to believe she is black?

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:37

Boiledbeetle · 09/12/2025 08:36

You can still do an advanced search for a users post even without premium.

It's a more long winded way to do it, but still possible:

Click on the search button at the bottom of your page. Then click the advanced search option and type in your key words and the users name, choose the board etc and it should narrow down your results enough for you to find what you are looking for.

On this occasion I've taken a screenshot for you. It was happy to not like to. It was not edited.

Show quote history

Puppy 🐶 isn’t into facts. They could have just scrolled back.

Repeating a lie until it becomes true better suits their evangelical zeal.

Dancingsquirrels · 09/12/2025 08:37

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2025 08:25

I would say that in order to not harass staff, there surely has to now be a consent form issued by employers which say "I do / I do not consent to sharing facilities with the opposite sex".

And then they have to do policy on that basis. Which is bloody ridiculous.

It will lead to women not getting jobs in the first place. It will lead to trans people not getting jobs.

When frankly the simple and easiest solution is just third spaces in the first fucking place.

I wonder if employers will be cautious about allowing TW into female spaces? Any hint that females are not happy could be problematic for the employer

Last night, I was disappointed with this judgement. On reflection, I don't think it's so bad. Judgement says that -

(1) it may be OK for a TW to use female facilities
(2) but not if any females complain
(3) females should complain respectfully / not harass anyone
(4) if females complain, then TW shouldn't be permitted to use female facilities

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:39

Harassedevictee · 09/12/2025 08:37

What about trans-disability?
A person born able bodied who believes they are disabled e.g. paralysed or no lower limbs. Body Integrity Identity Disorder/Body Identity Dysphoria are recognised medical conditions.

Trans-race are you saying Rachel Dolezal doesn’t have a right to believe she is black?

Show quote history

Yes body integrity disorder isn’t treated with amputations. Gender identity disorder is. Very odd. Very sad.

SqueakyDinosaur · 09/12/2025 08:39

Question re appeals: is this the correct pathway?

ET > EAT > High Court > Supreme Court

Or have I missed out one (or more)?

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:40

Dancingsquirrels · 09/12/2025 08:37

I wonder if employers will be cautious about allowing TW into female spaces? Any hint that females are not happy could be problematic for the employer

Last night, I was disappointed with this judgement. On reflection, I don't think it's so bad. Judgement says that -

(1) it may be OK for a TW to use female facilities
(2) but not if any females complain
(3) females should complain respectfully / not harass anyone
(4) if females complain, then TW shouldn't be permitted to use female facilities

Show quote history

I think you’re wrong about point 4 - I think the employer needs to provide a single sex changing room. But that’s likely to be the broom cupboard a la Darlington rather than removing the man.

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2025 08:41

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:31

It’s going to be outing of women for their sex realist beliefs.

That’s hardly balancing of rights.

At least employers will start to see the scale of the problem.

Show quote history

But women need to be able to voice opposition without fear or harassment too.

This ruling basically makes it unworkable!

And that's why it won't stand in the end I suspect.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:42

FragilityOfCups · 09/12/2025 08:36

Thanks, that's a good point.

On a slightly related note, I hadn't really grasped the difference, so the discussion about secondary school toilets on another thread was interesting (shared basins etc)

Show quote history

Yes - Sandy didn’t have the balls or intelligence to actually deal with the issue.

Appeal it is. Only if in Sandies best interests.

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2025 08:43

Dancingsquirrels · 09/12/2025 08:37

I wonder if employers will be cautious about allowing TW into female spaces? Any hint that females are not happy could be problematic for the employer

Last night, I was disappointed with this judgement. On reflection, I don't think it's so bad. Judgement says that -

(1) it may be OK for a TW to use female facilities
(2) but not if any females complain
(3) females should complain respectfully / not harass anyone
(4) if females complain, then TW shouldn't be permitted to use female facilities

Show quote history

The default that women have to complain will ultimately not stand as it's sexist.

You have to view in inline with policies designed to get females to comply.

There isn't a way that females can do so without feeling potentially harassed if you have EDI policies about sodding pronouns.

Gloriia · 09/12/2025 08:43

ScrollingLeaves · 09/12/2025 08:08

It is extraordinary as a judgement. It just shows the judge to be mentally the age of a primary school child in his perceptions of male and female. Perhaps he is autistic and fixed on what a female is. Missed the subtleties and cues somewhere along the line.

In real life, a great many actual women do not look like this anyway, but when they do, they still do not resemble Upton.

Also, judge, either transwomen can go into a woman’s changing room or they can’t. It can’t be that one who looks more feminine is allowed, but one whose appearance fails to look feminine enough will not. Your judgement is utterly discriminatory.

Show quote history

The judge and his panel need to go on a basic biology course. Perceived 'feminine' clothing and an alleged 'feminine' voice should not have made the blindest bit of difference. I'm embarrassed for him, what simplistic nonsense.

FragilityOfCups · 09/12/2025 08:45

2021x · 09/12/2025 08:15

So maybe the judge is endorsing passing privilege with this statement which we know the Trans community finds transphobic?

Show quote history

That was my issue and one I found to be slightly puzzling... it conflates 'woman' and 'feminine in appearance'.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:46

RedToothBrush · 09/12/2025 08:41

But women need to be able to voice opposition without fear or harassment too.

This ruling basically makes it unworkable!

And that's why it won't stand in the end I suspect.

Show quote history

Exactly.

If I was the Chief People Officer having to look at this - I change the ladies to room for people who want to undress with same biological sexed people and then do a changing room for gender ideologists. I’d do anonymous surveys for stats on preferences to have evidence available in event of a tribunal.

KTheGrey · 09/12/2025 08:46

FannyCann · 08/12/2025 17:57

Jim Borwick should sue the judge for slander and reputational damage.

Borwick's evidence (IT analyst for Sandie) considered to have some unreliability due to not being impartial (para 659)

We had NHS Fife computer guy who chose the 6th best option, versus Jim who has an incredibly impressive CV and is the go to guy in this specialised area.

KJB Computer Forensics Consultancy was born as a direct result of a realisation that there was a need to provide a Computer Forensics Solution to Business Communities and Legal Professionals, throughout Scotland. We will take instructions on behalf of Defence or Prosecution in Civil or Criminal investigations where digital evidence is present.
KJB Computer Forensics’ examiners are expert in securing digital evidence and the investigation of all manners of digital crime. We are educated to degree level and have worked within law enforcement. Our evidence is produced to a high standard and has been presented in Scottish and English Courts.
Owner - Jim Borwick MSc,LL.B
Jim served in Her Majesty's Forces (ARMY) for 24 years; 12 years in the Royal Military Police where he was a Sergeant, specialising in General Police Duties within the Military Community throughout Scotland. As a result of service with the Royal Military Police Jim gained a wealth of investigational experience working within jurisdictions across the world. Throughout his career Jim was held a number of positions which included detachment commander and IT Systems Administrator responsible for managing the IT Network across Military Police locations in Scotland.
Upon retirement from HM Forces in 2004, Jim worked as a Computer and Mobile Telephone Forensic Analyst with Law Enforcement Scotland (Scottish Crime & Drugs Enforcement Agency). As part of this role he worked on all manner of criminal investigations including protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, drugs, fraud, abuse of privilege, murder and other Criminal activity.
Jim holds a Master’s Degree in Forensic Computing from Cranfield University (Royal Military College of Science), completed in 2009, and a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) from the Robert Gordon University, which was earned in 2025. In addition, he has completed the CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA) and has specialized training in the forensic recovery of digital evidence from computers, mobile devices, and various forms of storage media. Jim has completed ENCASE and FTK training to an advanced level, is trained and experienced in live forensics - including RAM analysis of Windows/MAC based operating systems; analysis of Apple MAC Computers; completed Wireless Forensics training and Ethical Hacking training at a World Leading University.
Jim is a very experienced Mobile Telephone Forensic Analyst particular areas of expertise are the examination of Apple and Android devices including techniques to circumvent security of these devices and examination of Apps installed on these devices. Jim has completed Advanced Mobile Telephone Forensic training courses and is experienced in the use of industry standard Mobile Telephone Forensic Software.

Jim is a vetted member of the UK National Expert Witness register. He regularly gives evidence in High Court (Scotland) for Criminal Cases and has produced Expert Witness Reports for Civil and Criminal Investigations throughout the UK, which have included investigations into theft of IP, Brand Protection, Offences Contrary to Copyright Legislation and investigations relating to the comprising of Corporate Network through unauthorised access from and external source, among others.

Specific areas of expertise include:

  • Wireless Network Forensics,
  • Wireless Forensics Surveys,
  • RAM Analysis - Windows OS and Apple Mac
  • Windows and Mac 'Live' Forensics,
  • IOS Forensics - IPhone IPad etc,
  • Investigations regarding the Theft of Intellectual Property (IP),
  • Internet Investigation and Open Source Intelligence gathering.
  • Social Network Forensics - Facebook, Twitter,Snapchat, Kik, Instagram, Whatsapp etc
  • Crypto Currency Investigations
  • Drone Forensics
KJB Computer Forensics Consultancy use standard Computer Forensic tools such as ACCESSDATA's Forensic Toolkit and Guidance Software ENCASE. We aim to do more than merely produce a standard forensic report - we aim to work as part of your investigation team, providing regular input and conducting investigations in accordance with your requirements.

Fuck me - I had not seen that CV. But is it not a tad ridiculous to say that if either party brings an independent expert witness on a technical matter, that witness’s evidence is biased?

Can barristers not be relied on to clarify the matters of fact?

And yes, if I were JB I would not be best pleased at having my professional integrity impugned. Badly done, Big Sond.

usernameinserthere · 09/12/2025 08:47

FragilityOfCups · 09/12/2025 08:45

That was my issue and one I found to be slightly puzzling... it conflates 'woman' and 'feminine in appearance'.

Show quote history

He’s transphobic about men that can’t pass.

He is fixated on passing privilege.

I met many men more feminine than me. Didn’t make any of them women.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.