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

I am so sorry.

It is unfortunately very heavily male biased, not the least in the sheer amount of space and consideration given to the needs of those with trans identities while women's needs and consideration are hand waved away with little examination and certainly not impartiality. (Dismissed in part because the women who spoke for women were too biased for women and not 'objective' - a standard not equally applied anywhere else to anyone else.) It doesn't look good and would be another thing to raise in an appeal.

Pulling out the old (old, old) chestnuts from 6 or so years back when it was suggested that single sex alternatives could be provided to women on a discretionary basis who disclosed trauma based needs:

Who does the woman disclose this incredibly sensitive information to, and what training have they had in it?
Where will they disclose this?
How will this very sensitive data be recorded and stored?
If a woman has had to disclose and go through some highly distressing re telling of events, what resources and actions will be taken by this listening member of staff to support and pick up the pieces afterwards?
I'll assume obviously it will not be a case of someone subjectively deciding what was 'bad enough' to justify single sex facilities.

A manager and HR would look at this and flinch, it's a recipe for disaster, and that's before you start on anticipatory duty to see problems coming and provide accessibility rather than pick up the pieces when it's all gone wrong, AND the indirect discrimination of putting a woman in the position of doing this.

To those who don't see an issue here: simply swap the disclosure, because the judge talks about employers 'needing to know' for both women and people with trans identities. Is it right and ok to require someone to disclose to their employer that they are trans, what their history is, the degree of their transition and have someone make a decision on whether it's sufficient to justify using single sex spaces (if a woman or women do not raise their article 8 rights?)

Of course it isn't, the same issues apply whether it's a woman or someone of either sex with a trans identity, it's beyond 'outing' and into actively traumatising.

Although any male who persisted in flouting the rule could potentially be sued for sexual harassment.

Terrifyingly, either complete failure of women's basic rights (and everyone's basic rights to boundaries and modesty, actually) or an appalling neo fascist government gets in because people are enraged and they're the only ones complaining, so we get our rights eroded just the same but from a different direction. Why can the lunatic ideologues not see that they are about to hand the country to bloody Farage and what that means?

I wonder what other subsets of men will be "just as safe as women so it's fine to have them undress with women"

Blind men?
Disabled men?
Men on androgen deprivation therapy?
Old men?
Men who pinky promise not to peek?

FFS

All about what's going on in a man's mind. The perspective of the man and not the woman is the objective measure.

Yet again, the utter fallacy that somehow trans "women" are materially and meaningfully closer to women than other ment are.

No consideration that from the perspective of women trans identifying men are just ... men.

x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1998028318319202509:

It is now urgent that the @HSE steps up and provides clear guidance to employers on workplace toilets and changing rooms. Employers cannot be expected to make complex human-rights determinations about whether particular men are allowed into women’s changing rooms, and then to wait and see if any individual women complain.

How much is this down to the Scottish judiciary being more captured and not really like being told what to do by the SC? I do find it fascinating how they can get it so wrong. And yes I know I have bias too, but so much of it seems .. just plain wrong. And yes, it makes me more determined too, but the sexism is just so depressing.

Well according to you on mumsnet. Not according to the first actual court judgement that has tested this question 🤷🏼‍♀️

Almost as if it's not so obvious after all and there are different possible interpretations...: 🤔🤭

From the judgement
1049. In our view, having read all the documents, there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth.

JFC
Nearly 2026 and this is where we’re at.

I know, I know …….. best to stay calm, logical, pragmatic, onward and upward, next round of crowdfunding, next round of lawfare, more letters written….. chip chip chipping away, poring over the legal minutiae …

Kind of feels the strategy isn’t working though. All that time, money and energy.

Still the EHRC guidance sits on Brigid Phillipson’s desk. Still Wes Streeting approves a horrific drug trial on children. Still judges can get away with writing unmitigated fence-sitting dangerous shite. Still idiots on tv whining about the poor lads who can’t just go anywhere they please. Every tiny obvious detail of our ordinary human rights having to be fought over again and again.

I’ll pick myself up no doubt, but I find myself hardening. My politics are changing.
It is absolutely fucking disgraceful what women are being put through.

Adding too:

if a group of women employees have to get together and in an organised way submit enough complaints that the proportional response to meet all needs is to ask the male member of staff to use a different facility,

how is that going to feel to those women and that male member of staff and what is that likely to do to the relationships and atmosphere of your work place ffs?

Is it not kinder and simpler and easier to just designate mixed sex spaces alongside single sex and be clear those are the two alternatives available, your sex based space or the mixed sex space, and everyone chooses from those two as they wish? Yes, this judgment would certainly look as if it would support employers addressing a male member of staff entering what had been made a single sex space after the woman had raised a formal complaint registering her need and the male member of staff had been made aware of what was to be his accessible space and what was to be hers.

In a workplace, wouldn't he be subject to disciplinary action for deliberately and persistently breaching the company's policy of abiding by the SC judgement and relevant regs?

and so - no - then 😂

😀🙏

I admit to not having read much here since the judgment landed, so forgive me if this has been raised, but it seems to me we need to read all these judgments and develop a clear strategy of how to behave when confronted with such people as Upton in a changing room or in the women's loos at work. We do seem to be getting it wrong.

How often can they use the facilty before we can complain?

How soon should we lodge a complaint and with whom?

What's a reasonable length of time to wait for a response?

Should we challenge any individuals directly?

What are acceptable words & phrases to use if we do take that route?

How many women need to make a complaint before it's considered valid?

Do we avoid looking directly at him/them?

Or do we have to make eye contact?

How soon can we leave the room after a man enters, or we find him already there, without it being considered harassment?

You can probably think of others.

Yes this ET Judge is saying it’s only relevant to the Equalities Act and nothing more….which is completely wrong

So biological sex is only relevant when men chose it to be as such.

Big Sond has just taken us back to before the SC ruling basically and Labour withholding the guidance from the ECHR hasn’t helped. In fact it’s concerning that they may change the understanding of sex now in the ECHR guidance that they received back in June

This is like a judge saying whilst murder is illegal it’s only illegal in the particular environments within the law. So if it doesn’t say murder is illegal in a toilet it’s not

Totally agree with this. The HSE have stayed out of this with a nothing to do with us guv attitude. They can't be allowed to keep doing that

I think the best strategy may be to ask these questions of employers. Request a written policy in the light of this judgement so all employees know where they stand.

Yes, the HSE needs to step up, and so does Wes Streeting. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Not his patch, is it?

Fuck’s sake. I’d assumed this was a bloody certainty. Bugger. Rats. Arse.

<Ladies, please note, this is not the language you should use if a hulking great bloke strips off in front of you in the changing rooms. You should be naice>

Loads of employers are still sitting on it, waiting for the EHRC guidance ….round and round we go

We should definitely celebrate the personal victory for Sandie Peggie. It’s brilliant she’s won the harassment claim against NHS Fife
But flipping Dr Upton. Once again a golden boy, untouchable .

The SC judgement was only relevant to the EA 2010, yes. Thats literally stated v clearly in the judgement.

I'd add to that as another thing govt and HR need to urgently consider under this judgment:

If belief CAN be held but only manifested in certain ways not to become offensive, and this is extremely relevant to avoid punishment for requesting your rights/needs for access to be met:

What can be said?
When?
To whom?
Tone of voice and facial expression have been deemed relevant in other cases, please advise,
What phrases and words are unacceptable and should be avoided?
Please provide example phrases or a form to use.

This will of course need to apply equally to ALL beliefs, not merely to women needing to explain that they perceive a male person as male. I suspect gender activists would find this considerably more inconvenient and difficult than women will, but obviously there cannot be double standards in this. Slurs, offensive words, threatening signs etc obviously over the line.