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

So disappointed in the judge. Adhering to stupid stereotypes about "femininity". It's all bullshit.

Wearing a dress and growing your hair long no more makes you a woman than me shaving my head and wearing trousers makes me a man (clue: it doesn't and I'm not). It's regressive nonsense. Our sex is what defines us, how can the judge even think otherwise? Trans ideology has clearly rotted his and the panels brains. Wouldn't surprise me if their personal views were TWAW but they had to rule for Sandie in some cases where clear employer discrimination was evident. FFS.

Edited for clarity.

Disappointed with overall result but not unexpected, however the majority of public debates (well all the ones I saw) supported SP and expect SS facilities especially in a workplace where undressing and uniform change is a requirement. There are more of her cases to come,The Union and named individuals in areas that found in her favour. What SP has achieved and I will be eternally grateful to SP and her legal team is highlighting the absurdity of SS facilities being open to anyone who so chooses. It should put an end to changes disadvantaging women flying under the radar by stealth . How many, particularly NHS institutions and businesses where women are underrepresented, will have positions which a high proportion of women usually fill now and in future vacant because of these policies? The ramifications could be catastrophic on recruitment and they cannot just ignore it.They should be made to state their policies on SS facilities clearly to any applicants to any position. This is just the beginning our voices must be heard.

Exactly. And the bloke in the Darlington nurses cases doesn't meet those standards. Of course he is working class versus Upton's father being a bishop. It shows what money can achieve in terms of female presentation.

Thinking about the notes that Upton took.

There was some mention to previous trouble he had before this hospital. Taking the notes sounded to me like an intention for him to use them to complain about Sandie.

If he had previous form of complaining about colleagues or being 'mis-gendered' by patients he would have learned to take notes.

For me personally that doesn't make him more plausible. It shows how he has learned to complain and use the system.

One thing that strikes me is that there's a fair bit of "feelings-based pretend law" in the judgment, especially in the parts considering whether a TW can sometimes be allowed into SSS. If a woman is deemed to be badly traumatised enough by previous experiences, it seems to suggest that that can create an exclusion.

But that's not how law works, is it? It's not a case-by-case comparison of conflicting rights. It's finding a rule that works and applying it. It's another example of the faith- rather than fact-based approach of the other side.

The judge quoted these as examples of DrU's attempts to look like a woman, he used the words 'what is generally regarded as feminine in style', so he was noting that DrU's use of stereotypes about femininity, not stating that doing so made DrU a woman.

He also stated that DrU is described as male on his birth cert.

There are a trillion and one things wrong with the judgement, but I don't think this is one of them

I think I misinterpreted it then; I took it to mean he was stating that feminine is based on style of clothing etc, which I found regressive. But if that's not what he meant, then fair dos.

Here's the relevant extract; I think he was wise and careful to say 'generally regarded as...' 60 The second respondent has identified as female since around January 2022, being fully open about that in public since around August 2022. The second respondent since 2022 has used the female names of Elizabeth and Beth, and female pronouns; has sought to have an appearance as a female; has worn clothing that is consistent with what is generally regarded as feminine in style; and has worn makeup in what is generally regarded as feminine in style. The second respondent presents in what is generally regarded as a feminine manner including as to having a long hairstyle worn in what is generally regarded as feminine in style, and a pitch and tone of voice consistent with that for a female. The second respondent has been presenting as a female in such a manner since prior to working at the hospital, and throughout the period since commencing at the department.

Cross-posting from the Kelly v Leonardo thread in case of interest:

Interesting journalistic article on judicial accountability, with some discussion of the role played by Barry Clarke, ET (Eng & Wales) President https://davidhencke.com/2025/09/15/the-black-hole-of-accountability-employment-judges-block-evidence-in-their-own-misconduct-cases/

Judge Barry Clarke is both President of Employment Tribunal (England and Wales), and is a Visiting Judge in the Scotland Appeal Tribunal. Judge Barry Clarke recently found Judge M Sutherland to have made a wrong decision (3 times), in a case taken to EAT in Scotland - have linked the EAT decision on Kelly thread so as not to confuse things here)..

I am not sure I want to be on his side!

It would be useful for Sex Matters or FWS to have an easy to fill in, anonymous card system for women to register with them that they are a woman who does not consent to/cannot share a mixed sex space, and perhaps also whether they have a history of sexual assault from males. The numbers would be large.

The obvious brigading by activists wanting to fill out cards that they are very happy to undress in mixed sex spaces is fine if they would wish to do that, separate bag, but would be wholly irrelevant as yes, no one's questioning that, and the SCJ and everyone else is clear that mixed sex/gender neutral facilities should be there for those who want them. The issue is managing to tolerate the existence of the women who don't and can't use them and apparently needing help to be able to believe such women exist in society.

Another point to add to the advice of: Write Everything Down and Formal Complaint Needed Invoking Article 8 Rights: (on finding fire in progress, install your smoke alarm - thank you for that example!)

Women: your emotional response will be judged and used in evidence against you. (Gosh, it's just like in all judicial situations with women isn't it?)

The man's show of emotion has been unquestioned and taken seriously as evidence to be used against the woman.

I would say that demonstrating performative emotion and making sure the right people see it would be the obvious thing to add to the 'things to do if you want your rights to function equally to men's' list, but I actually have no doubt that the woman in such a situation would be disbelieved either way. Had she sobbed and collapsed on others as the man did, I would be willing to bet that this would have been seen as negative and reflecting poorly on her as much as that she failed to show sufficient emotion for the judge's liking. I would bet too that the authenticity of such sobbing and it's possible manipulative factors would have been thoroughly questioned and explored for the woman involved as they were not for the man.

Jeez the barriers women have to battle for equality in all areas. And the absolute nonsense it makes of pretending anyone believes these men are women. They are never treated like women. Never.

I think someone said about a thread ago (I can't keep up) that the onus is in an employer to prevent detrimental treatment pre-emptively.

So it shouldn't be that a woman has to experience a man in the CR before making a justified complaint and the situation being remedied. It is reasonably predictable that this series of events could occur. So the employer should be proactive in ensuring that it doesn't happen.

Am I the only one here who find the use of female as a noun rather than an adjective when applied to humans inappropriate and objectionable?

Both in my view, although I suspect an appeal against NHS Fife is more likely to succeed than one against Upton.

Maybe not the hard-hitting analysis you were asking for but I think this is the most succient summary I've seen so far.

Disagree. He also used this to argue (i) that Upton "passed" Which for some reason made it not clearly unlawful that he used FCR and (ii) that Pete was not the right comparator. Unclear to me whether because Pete did not pass or because Pete made no effort as he had his full beard, unlike "true trans Scotsman" Upton with his long delicate hair and his exquisite feminine clothes

Wings has nailed it!

OK thanks for that, I've picked something out from the 300 pp, and it looks like I didn't see the part that you refer to.
It's a cooperative effort, reading this judgement!

👋to INeedAPensieve who I may have misled

The redoubtable Tess White MSP had an urgent question in Holyrood today on the Sandie Peggie tribunal. 15 minute clip here:

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/meeting-of-the-parliament-december-9-2025?clip_start=14:55:57&clip_end=15:10:48

Patrick Harvie his usual nasty little self.

@Keeptoiletssafe Re https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56?reply=149070802

Please, do talk to coroners about toilet cubicle designs. Preventing future deaths is more important than sparing deceased people's families' feelings.

Coroners are obliged to send Prevention Of Future Death Reports and these are published. www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/coroners-courts/reports-to-prevent-future-deaths/

The problem is I don’t want to cause anymore heartache. I also usually find out about these incidents retrospectively. There’s a couple in schools that I could mention but they are probably over and one ongoing elsewhere because it’s drug related it is a criminal investigation.

It's unlikely you're the only one, but I certainly don't. The usage has a very long history, according to the OED entry (see picture once it gets through). I found this suggestion that it can in recent use be disparaging, but given how we feel about "traditional feminine qualities" I suggest we don't let it worry us.

You will prevent more heartache by preventing future deaths than you will cause.

I don’t understand how the tribunal could have found that a male person who claims to be of the female sex is credible. What would he have to have said to lose credibility? It’s bizarre.

He'd have had to claim that a pizza is only really a pizza if there is pineapple.