Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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
MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 16:59

MalagaNights · 08/12/2025 16:47

If they are so hazy about such a crucial point, and even admit to not knowing how to interpret the 1992 regs post SC, it casts doubt on their final decisions, doesn't it?

@MarieDeGournay why wouldn't the SCJ apply to the 1992 regs?
I feel like I've been missing a significant piece of information as I believed post SCJ, single sex had to mean single sex otherwise you'd be at risk of sex discrimination under the Equality Act. Why wouldn't that apply to the 1992 regs?

I was referring to this from the judgement
859.
The 1992 Regulations do not have a definition of men or women. FWS does not determine the meaning of words in the 1992 Regulations. As stated above its analysis of the meaning of words such as “woman” was specifically confined to the 2010 Act itself. The terms of that decision therefore contradict the claimant’s argument.

The judgement goes on to say
860.
There are arguments both for and against the claimant’s position that the same approach should be followed, and for and against the respondents’ position that a definition of women which is inclusive of those who are trans women is appropriate in order to construe the 1992 Regulations consistently with Article 8. In our In our view these arguments are not ones that we can competently address..[my emphasis]

Which looks to me like 'Does the SC judgement refer to the workplace regs 1992 as well as the Equality Act 2010? Hey, who knows? we certainly don't! But ignore that, let's get on with this judgment anyway..'

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 08/12/2025 17:00

MalagaNights · 08/12/2025 16:35

I'm reeling a bit from this judgement.

After the SCJ HOW can any judge not understand that single sex spaces must be single sex?

If it only applies to the Equality Act why have the Guides and the WI caved to exclude trans women?

If workplace regulations say there must be single sex facilities at work how can this judgement stand?

Please someone help it make sense.

What seemed clear yesterday now seems very murky and up for debate again.

GG and WI are governed by Schedule 16 (big clubs for people with a single shared PC (eg being female) are allowed, no justification required. A club for women and transwomen is not allowed because the admission criteria are different for women and men, which is sex discrimination).

Gym changing rooms (eg) are governed by Schedule 3 (women-only changing rooms must be objectively justified and must be strictly women-only to keep their exemption under sex-discrimination law, as above. Women who look like men can be lawfully excluded as an exemption from the ban on perceptive sex-discrimination).

Workplace toilets and changing rooms are governed by WR1992 and are therefore exempt from any liability under EA2010 (Schedule 22 provides this exemption for anything carried out in pursuit of a(nother) enactment).

In both Kelly and Peggie, the judges found that WR1992 mandates separate provision by sex, not gender, but that the employer has a discretion to allow males to use female facilities, exceptionally. Kelly lost because she was not inconvenienced, because there was unisex provision so she could easily avoid the men in the ladies' room. Peggie won because her employer ignored and failed to deal with her complaint and generally gave the runaround. So the decisions were fact-dependent. But failed to address the bigger picture of why the objective justification for having single-sex toilets etc at work wouldn't be exactly the same as under Schedule 3, or indeed to address the rights of women as a class, at all.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 08/12/2025 17:00

The reason we have appeals is because judges can be wrong. All the way up to the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal.

FragilityOfCups · 08/12/2025 17:01

Sorry I've not even begun to work through the judgement so I'm possibly being optimistic - does it state anywhere what the differentiating factor is in being included and excluded from a single-sex space?

The judge alluded to it with the 'disingenuous' claim to be a woman so I would infer purely on that it's about whether some criteria is believed to be held, but what criteria are they?

Boiledbeetle · 08/12/2025 17:01

moto748e · 08/12/2025 15:51

After 56 threads, it's come down to this? That once again, the process is the punishment? it's going to be a long, long road.

Love You Hug GIF by Loof and Timmy

Oh god!

Poor @nauticant is never ever ever going to get a break is she!!!

A hug for the poor thread wrangler.

FragilityOfCups · 08/12/2025 17:01

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 16:59

I was referring to this from the judgement
859.
The 1992 Regulations do not have a definition of men or women. FWS does not determine the meaning of words in the 1992 Regulations. As stated above its analysis of the meaning of words such as “woman” was specifically confined to the 2010 Act itself. The terms of that decision therefore contradict the claimant’s argument.

The judgement goes on to say
860.
There are arguments both for and against the claimant’s position that the same approach should be followed, and for and against the respondents’ position that a definition of women which is inclusive of those who are trans women is appropriate in order to construe the 1992 Regulations consistently with Article 8. In our In our view these arguments are not ones that we can competently address..[my emphasis]

Which looks to me like 'Does the SC judgement refer to the workplace regs 1992 as well as the Equality Act 2010? Hey, who knows? we certainly don't! But ignore that, let's get on with this judgment anyway..'

ah, thanks.

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 17:02

FragilityOfCups · 08/12/2025 16:59

I'd be interested to know this too - is there any actual argument as to why it wouldn't?

It would seem to me to be common sense, that in 1992 everyone knew what a man and a woman was, what the intent was of those regs. And that even though the United Kingdom’s apex court was deciding the definition for the United Kingdom’s flagship piece of anti discrimination and equality legislation, the Equality Act 2010, that that reasoning would be highly persuasive at best on the decision making of lower courts several rungs down the pecking order.

FallenSloppyDead2 · 08/12/2025 17:02

MalagaNights · 08/12/2025 16:53

I need to try to understand the law, as this has thrown my previous understanding and it's going to come up in discussions I'm going to need to have.

I find FWR invaluable in providing knowledge and helping understanding around the law which is not my area of expertise but something i need to know about as it's going to arise for me in various contexts.

Totally agree. I have learnt loads on FWR

SirChenjins · 08/12/2025 17:03

FlirtsWithRhinos · 08/12/2025 17:00

The reason we have appeals is because judges can be wrong. All the way up to the Supreme Court, which is the final court of appeal.

It feels very much like this is the intention of the judges in both this case and Kelly's. Misrepresent the law, lay their judgement wide open to appeal, kick it upwards and out of their hair, let the SC decide.

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 17:04

The Darlington nurses case will be interesting. No one could possibly say that Rose looked like anything other than a man.

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 17:05

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 17:04

The Darlington nurses case will be interesting. No one could possibly say that Rose looked like anything other than a man.

Or that only one woman objected...

plantcomplex · 08/12/2025 17:05

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cpd619q851vt?post=asset%3Ae6135b52-0bf1-4f20-9d29-3808c0e8becc#post

"This ruling is just the first of Sandie Peggie’s legal battles.
**
She has significant backing. So she's taking forward three more court cases against people she thinks have treated her badly.
**
She is suing NHS Fife health board, its chief executive and its head of “people & culture”. She’s trying to push the health board to confirm they will exclude transgender women from female single-sex changing rooms – which she claims is yet to happen.
**
In a separate case she's suing three of the senior medical staff who gave evidence in her case, and the health board – again.
**
She’s also suing her trade union, the Royal College of Nursing, claiming it failed to protect her and help her, when she was suspended. That's something they deny."
**
**

Tribunal says nurse in trans changing room row was harassed by NHS Fife but dismisses other claims

Sandie Peggie was suspended by NHS Fife after complaining about having to share a changing room with a transgender doctor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cpd619q851vt?post=asset%3Ae6135b52-0bf1-4f20-9d29-3808c0e8becc#post

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 17:06

This is kind of trench warfare. Because of the mishmash of laws and regulations concerned, it looks like each one will have to be determined.

We've got the Northern Ireland situation where everyone is waiting for the courts to determine whether the SCJ applies to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976 and the complex of other discrimination law there. It's extremely unlikely IMO that the High Court in Belfast will take a different view to the SC, but we have to wait to get it on the dotted line.

And first-tier employment judges seem inclined to kick the whole issue of the 1992 Regs upstairs with judgments that are open to appeal. Which just adds to the punishment on claimants, but I suppose it'll have to be gone through.

And we have fuckwit MPs on the so-called Women and Equalities Committee still trying to argue that the SCJ only affects the narrow ground of public board appointments in Scotland.

It's a right pain. It could be helped if the Government laid the new EHRC guidance before Parliament, but Bridget Phillipson seems inclined to sit on the guidance until doomsday, or until she's defeated in the next Labour leadership contest, whichever happens first.

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 17:06

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 17:05

Or that only one woman objected...

But they may say too many women objected and they were bullying poor Rose. So then we will need to try and work out the optimum number of women complaining. 3 maybe?

Hedgehogsrightsarehumanrights · 08/12/2025 17:09

There are a number of points of law popping up.

the obvious one being Pete the comparator, and a number of case law citations that are dead letter, subsequent to the SC ruling.

There also is a potential for a perversity claim about finding of facts, not least the weight of credibility given to Upton, justified by his appearance and demeanour.

There will be an appeal and will be a High court but Scotland is the land of gender woo

i think the Darlington case may bear more fruit as it is in the English jurisdiction.

Someone needs to issue a judicial review about sitting on the ERHRC guidance

ItsCoolForCats · 08/12/2025 17:10

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 17:04

The Darlington nurses case will be interesting. No one could possibly say that Rose looked like anything other than a man.

I would like to think that the Darlington Nurses tribunal will have a better outcome, but after the two judgements we have had in the last week, I am seriously losing faith. I thought things would be more straightforward following FWS, but alas not.

PipMumsnet · 08/12/2025 17:11

Hello everyone, we are getting quite a few reports about this thread so we thought it best to step in now before it is too late.

We have already deleted several posts which were seen to encourage posters to ignore other posters - this is not what Mumsnet is about. Our Talk guidelines are in place to ensure our boards are a welcoming place for all Mumsnetters.

Please bear them in mind when posting. Those who continue in the same vein may have their accounts suspended which is something we would rather avoid.

MNHQ

Mumsnet's Talk Guidelines | Mumsnet

A guide to using Mumsnet's discussion boards (Talk), including netiquette, rules of use and how to stay on the right side of the moderating team!

https://www.mumsnet.com/i/netiquette

SquirrelosaurusSoShiny · 08/12/2025 17:11

I'm honestly in shock at this, even in LaLaLand I mean Scotland. I really hope Sandie Peggie can dig deep and appeal this. In the end he's a male doctor and she a mere female nurse, so the same old hierarchy as ever. Calling the doc in lipstick a reliable witness would make me chortle if it wasn't so outrageous.

To be honest the good people of Scotland need to demanding answers from Fife Trust, since they're happy to spend thousands of public money defending the indefensible.

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 08/12/2025 17:12

Mollyollydolly · 08/12/2025 16:43

It's the sexism that gets me. Old blokes when I was growing up in a northern working class town didn't display this level of sexism. How can anyone think these attitudes are progressive?

My response to that section you have quoted is "so what? None of that makes him a WOMAN!!!!"

Substitute 'cat' or 'clown' for 'feminine' and see if it makes sense.

ETA I lost your quote, sorry.

ItsCoolForCats · 08/12/2025 17:12

SionnachRuadh · 08/12/2025 17:06

This is kind of trench warfare. Because of the mishmash of laws and regulations concerned, it looks like each one will have to be determined.

We've got the Northern Ireland situation where everyone is waiting for the courts to determine whether the SCJ applies to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976 and the complex of other discrimination law there. It's extremely unlikely IMO that the High Court in Belfast will take a different view to the SC, but we have to wait to get it on the dotted line.

And first-tier employment judges seem inclined to kick the whole issue of the 1992 Regs upstairs with judgments that are open to appeal. Which just adds to the punishment on claimants, but I suppose it'll have to be gone through.

And we have fuckwit MPs on the so-called Women and Equalities Committee still trying to argue that the SCJ only affects the narrow ground of public board appointments in Scotland.

It's a right pain. It could be helped if the Government laid the new EHRC guidance before Parliament, but Bridget Phillipson seems inclined to sit on the guidance until doomsday, or until she's defeated in the next Labour leadership contest, whichever happens first.

When are we expecting the judgement in the GLP judicial review? That should move things along regarding the code of practice.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 08/12/2025 17:12

Alpacajigsaw · 08/12/2025 17:02

It would seem to me to be common sense, that in 1992 everyone knew what a man and a woman was, what the intent was of those regs. And that even though the United Kingdom’s apex court was deciding the definition for the United Kingdom’s flagship piece of anti discrimination and equality legislation, the Equality Act 2010, that that reasoning would be highly persuasive at best on the decision making of lower courts several rungs down the pecking order.

The problem is that this ideology has deliberately attacked common sense.

Activists very confidentally claim that "science" says that no one can really tell who is a man or a women because it's all about ones inner knowledge of ones gender.

Furthermore, the fact that your own experience and self knowledge doesn't back this up just proves that your inner gender and body are aligned and highlights even more how marginalised and ignored trans people are. They tell you you can't trust your own common sense, you own lived experience on this matter because it itself is corrupted by your experience as a "cis" person.

And that anyone who doesn't accept this, doesn't allow the activists' narrative to overwrite their own knowledge and experience, is a transphobic bigot who is applying the same thought paterns as the racist or the homophobe.

And so they create the conditions where they cannot be criticised because only they have access to "the truth". Anyone disgreeing is simply proving they are uninitiated into the higher truth and therefore unworthy to be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, the very simple and observable fact that people who meet the boring, everyday and obvious definition of "women", the one just based on the gauche and embarassing existence of female bodies, continue to be exploited economically and sexually, and their attempts to highlight this continue to be talked over professionally and politically.

ProfessorDrPrunesqualer · 08/12/2025 17:14

Mollyollydolly · 08/12/2025 16:43

It's the sexism that gets me. Old blokes when I was growing up in a northern working class town didn't display this level of sexism. How can anyone think these attitudes are progressive?

Agree
These comments are incredibly sexist and backward
I really can’t believe they formed part of the decision making

Cailleach1 · 08/12/2025 17:14

MarieDeGournay · 08/12/2025 16:04

That's also not the bloody point, is it!

It's a matter of principle, not of weighing up risks.
Men should stay out of women's facilities because they are not women, full stop.
edited to say the exasperation is directed at the judge, not you NSPSmile

Edited

Wonder if EJ would add other men to that list. Men in wheelchairs. Men with erectile dysfunction. Older men and those with physical challenges. Sure, they are practically women, aren’t they? ‘Nice’ men. They could self identify and fulfil the very concrete (not) examples of being different from other men. Let them all in if they wish. EJ definitely knows the men who are not dangerous to women, and indeed even those who pose no more danger than women.

Mind you, it is still the cohort of men who claim to be women who have a disproportionately higher sex offending rate.

plantcomplex · 08/12/2025 17:17

I think Nick Wallis's explanation about the similarities of this situation to the Post Office scandal are useful here. This will take a long time to resolve, but that doesn't mean we won't get there.

SpringCalling · 08/12/2025 17:17

From the Radio 2 report all you would have taken away was that Fife were found guilty of harassing Peggie by allowing a trans woman into the changing room …. feels like the world has turned when bbc reports it like this … especially given they could have said the trans woman won ..

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.