NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #57

[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 28 September 2025 to 21 November 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 19 November 2025 to 8 December 2025
Thread 56: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56 8 December 2025 to 9 December 2025

Exactly! Maybe not a physical threat but a psychological one ?

I did similar with DS and it’s clearly worked because if someone says “he” as an assumption, he’ll sharply add “or she”.

Doesn't even matter. If people have decided a space is for women or men, that's what it's for. If it's mixed sex, that's a different matter.

But as soon as you make this obvious point, the issue becomes crystal clear.

Mixed sex is not good enough for the men who want to access women's spaces. Why is that?

I hereby bestow you with the Judy Murray Award for raising a Sensible Male.

Hang on everyone....the Peggie judgement does not take one side or another. The argument is that the inclusion of transwomen in female single sex spaces in the workplace (and workplace only) can potentially be both lawful and unlawful, depending on a number of balancing factors where a compromise might be reached. It seems that the judge was trying to navigate his way through a labyrinthine landscape where gender reassignment and sex are protected characteristics of equal weighting. The problem is that the balancing factors he suggests are unworkable in real life and do not seem to take account of the UKSC ruling on the meaning of sex in law. Still, we can see what he was trying to do.

So many accreditations and unverified too.....

We anoint you top most best ever Employment Judgiest Judge!

Oh, we can see what he was trying to do.

I'm not quite that old, but I am over retirement age. And I'm not sure my wife would agree with that assessment of me. Apparently my latest offence was overloading the washing machine yesterday.

He was threatened, at the beginning, wasn't he - we learned that that was part of why the hearing was moved from Edinburgh to Dundee. I wonder what the threats were, whether it had ever happened to him before, and whether they weighed on his mind as he decided how to write the judgement. I do have some sympathy. Unlike NC and JR, he didn't choose to get into this controversial area, and may well not have been remotely prepared to experience personal threats. Even so, he needed to do his job, and he didn't.

You mis sexed him. Mis gendering is for people you properly sex but due to feelsz they aren't keen on the truth.

Exactly.

It then becomes clear that it's not the space the men want to use, it's the women in it.

Whether the man's motive is validation or voyeurism, the answer is no.

I agree with that Reddit poster's assessment of the judgement. The more I read, the worse it gets.

By the way, I note that the poster is unhappy with this going to a higher court as that will set a binding precedent. That suggests to me that they know that the courts eventually are likely to come up with a binding judgement they won't like.

No, you are not being fair. Part of the problem is that the judgement is muddled and over-long. I had to read it a couple of times to get to the heart of what the judge was actually arguing (several hours of my life gone!). The core arguments and conclusions only appear over a few pages in a 300 page long document. He is arguing that while it is perfectly lawful to exclude transwomen from female single sex spaces in the workplace (and he only addresses the workplace, nowhere else), it might be necessary for employers to address a number of balancing factors to find a compromise should either transwomen or women be disadvantaged. This is because both gender reassignment and sex are protected characteristics of equal weighting. A second problem with the judgement is that the balancing factors he suggests are not workable and do not seem to take into account the UKSC ruling. This will no doubt be thrashed out in various appeals.

I find the assumptions in these judgements that coworkers are safe because they're "vetted," or because they aren't strangers, quite hilarious since we're always told that we aren't really in danger from strangers because "most women are attacked by someone they know." Um, which is it then? Are we safe in the dark alleys and public toilets because we're more likely to be assaulted by an acquaintance? Or are we safe at work because we know everyone?

Either way, we are obviously being overly paranoid all the time because men don't pose any extra risk anyway. 🙄Infuriating.

I can be quite judgy, tbf. Appointment gratefully accepted, thank you.

<digs out old work suit from the 90s and fires up AI>

So clearly this can be appealed on points of law, the law in the judgement being comprehensively wrong. What are the chances that it will be sent back to be reheard in its entirety, as with Maya's case, though? Clearly that would be hideous for SP (and indeed, for all the other witnesses). However, there now seems to be ample evidence of bias from the judge, and given the surprising estimates of credibility and the language used (e.g. when SP and BU each try to argue their view about whether he should be in the changing room, only she is "proselytising"), it doesn't seem as though it would be safe for the EAT to rely on the ET's report of the facts in the case. So what happens, any informed guesses? Does it depend on what SP asks for?

My point was more around the whole "Well transwomen can't use the men's because they'd be unsafe/attacked/abused so of course they can use the women's" argument.

I don't use men's toilets so I don't know how men react to a transwoman in there but it appears to be ignore/avoid rather than attack.

Point being, TIMs are perfectly safe in the men's, as they should be.

I will accept the award on a temporary basis - we are yet to hit the teenage years, so I’m expecting to have to put in a significant amount of effort to maintain where we’ve got to.

My DH says that he just assumes it's a man in drag for a stag do. As ever, it is eyes down, do your business, leave.

I agree with this to a certain extent, but the doctoring of the FWS quote seems quite blatantly biased

Couldn't the judge's vetting argument be turned on its head?

If the vetting process significantly reduces the likelihood of sexual assault (also general assault?) in the women's SSS toilets then surely the same is true if trans women (biological men) use the toilets for their biological sex?

SEEN Police Official ( the fragrant Lynsay Watson I think) was very verbally aggressive about Big Sond when he refused him the opportunity to intervene in the case and also permitted multiple misgenderings. I don't know if that was the reason for the relocation.

Now, following the judgement, Watson has changed his tune and is loudly defending SK from the big bad Terfs. Wings have recently shared lots of his tweets.

Upton’s protected characteristic of gender reassignment means he should not be treated any worse than men who do not pretend to be women.

Now now, you are being far too modest here.

If you were to take the ‘Belfast tribunal panel’ approach, you could keep that Award and dine out on it for the rest of your days

Maybe you're right. I have a visceral response to sexism, and this judgement was riddled with it, from what I've read.

No woman has to prove or share a trauma history to justify her rights.

And no man has entitlement to women's services, spaces, company or acquiescence.

If I'm being unfair, it's in direct proportion to the unfairness of sexist reasoning.