Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #58

1000 replies

nauticant · 11/12/2025 13:09

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), 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 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.

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 2025 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
Thread 57: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57 9 December 2025 to 11 December 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
58
OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 11/12/2025 19:40

Precisely. As with that excellent quote by Rhinos up thread: why on earth should women be expected to predicate their reality around what a man tells them is happening in his head?

It's the ultimate in misogyny.

One wonders too if the judgment is arguing, as it appears to be, that a man who has sufficiently transitioned (appears feminine enough with a higher voice) is rendered perfectly safe and very different from the threat of a man, if the judge has ever experienced the suggestion from FWR that someone pops up to K wing at Strangeways Prison with lipsticks and frocks, and renders life a hell of a lot safer for everyone concerned. Overnight it could all be fixed.

ArabellaSaurus · 11/12/2025 19:41

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 11/12/2025 19:37

Why should the woman have to give up her hard won rights because of something that only exists in the man's head?

Or be put in the posotion of trying to discern whether his behaviour was offensive, creepy, and upsetting by accident or intent and feeling obliged to try and explain why his behaviour was upsetting?

Most of the country knew immediately that Isla Bryson being sent to Cornton Vale was wrong. The reason it was wrong was because of his sex.

Men in women's spaces is wrong.

MarieDeGournay · 11/12/2025 19:42

I've just come across this section where the judge deals with the apparently fabricated accusations of professional misconduct against SP.

Right from the start he misses the point - he said that if DrU had really wanted to punish SP because of her beliefs, he'd have got her into trouble by complaining about her at the time. He misses the point that it was only when SP declared her beliefs directly to DrU that the 'misconduct' was brought up.

And the incidents may not have taken place - but DrU really believed they did!

The judge doesn't consider the possibility that DrU didn't raise a claim because he knew he had made stuff up, and was better off just playing on the emotions of his 'allies'
t would also have been possible for the second respondent to have raised a claim against the claimant [and first respondent] under section 26 of the Act after the Christmas Eve incident. No such claim was raised

694. If however the second respondent did have a mindset of seeking to punish the claimant for her views, as the claimant claimed, raising the issue of patient safety on or around the time it happened would have been one obvious way to do. It would have been both a matter for the first respondent, and potentially one for the NMC. That it was not raised by the second respondent in that manner we consider supports the evidence the second respondent gave. It would also have been possible for the second respondent to have raised a claim against the claimant [and first respondent] under section 26 of the Act after the Christmas Eve incident. No such claim was raised. What the second respondent stated in evidence, which we accepted, was that the purpose of raising the matter with Dr Searle was to avoid repetition of what had happened. That also is not consistent with someone seeking to punish the other party, as if so the obvious way to do so was to allege gross misconduct specifically so as to seek dismissal.

695. The claimant argued that the resus and missing patient incidents had been fabricated as part of the intention to punish the claimant. We did not agree. Considering all of the evidence we heard, we considered that the second respondent genuinely believed that each incident had occurred, that each was essentially one of the claimant avoiding being with the second respondent rather than directly one during which the safety of a patient had been adversely affected, and each was either recorded or reported at some point not wholly distant from the event as the second respondent perceived it. In addition to the email to the BMA, in the investigation meeting with Ms Glancey Ms Curran referred to a comment she had heard to the effect that the claimant was leaving an area when the second respondent was there. The source of that at best hearsay evidence was not probed in questioning, and it was not the basis on which we decided this point, but it is a minor adminicle of evidence which to a very small extent supports the view that the second respondent had not fabricated these two incidents.
[my emphases]

It all seems to be trying really hard to make DrU the good guy, doesn't it?

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 11/12/2025 19:42

I thought a song was in order.

We haven't seen the last edit of the judgment.

Oh Sandy (a la Barry Manilow)

I remember all my life
Big Sond as cold as ice
Shadows of a man
Baws deep in AI, cryin' in the night
The night goes into
Morning just another day
Sex realist women pass my way
Looking in their eyes
I see a memory
I never realized
I misquoted cases, fuck me

Oh Sandy well
You came and you gave us a judgment
Data dumped Monday,
Oh, Sandy
Three hundred plus pages sent,
Reissued Thursday
Oh, Sandy!

I'm standing on the edge of time
I've made it up like the truth was mine
Caught up in a world of ideological thinking
The tears are coming I can’t see the facts through blinking

Oh Sandy well
You came and you gave us a judgment
Data dumped Monday,
Oh, Sandy
Three hundred plus pages sent,
Reissued Thursday
Oh, Sandy!

Totallygripped · 11/12/2025 19:44

MyAmpleSheep · 11/12/2025 19:14

No, not really. But amusing, nonetheless.

How was it amusing? I received many compliments in my professional life about the quality of my drafting but no one ever said it was equivalent to a blow job.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 11/12/2025 19:44

The point also very much missed that there may be many things that Dr U sincerely believes, his claim to be a biological woman among them.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 11/12/2025 19:44

ArabellaSaurus · 11/12/2025 16:07

The class aspect is written in ten feet high neon letters, imo.

The Lanyards get nice things for nice people. Their desires are about living their real, true, precious inner selves, with the big words and the deep and righteous thoughts. They know the Right Side of HIstory, because they're the ones that write it.

The 'bum wipers' must learn to do as they're told and stay in their place Their desires are common and a bit simple and naff, and prudish and unprogressive. They read the wrong papers, make jokes that are crass, and are not very impressive victims.

On that note, I just read this on Reddit earlier:

'Since when did alleged victims of harassment and sexual misconduct hold press conferences full of tabloid journalists after losing their case?
If I were a legitimate victim of half the stuff she’s accused Upton of doing, I’d be hiding at home having a very long and thoughtful cry, not workshopping headlines with the editor of the Mail!'

It's past time these disgusting sentiments were revealed as the base misogynist, rapey, victim blaming nonsense they actually are. 'Progressive' my arse.

That Reddit quote reminds me of:

It doesn't state anywhere in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that the victim has to be traumatised for a sexual offence to be a sexual offence. She doesn't have to be traumatised for her assailant's actions to be illegal and a violation of her rights. It doesn't say anywhere in our laws that a harassment victim has to be traumatised either.

No one claims that Rhonda Cornum's sexual assault as a POW in Iraq wasn't a sexual assault because Cornum is unfazed by it, I suspect only because she is a decorated military officer and surgeon who has spelled out in detail the major injuries she had at the time. Does a woman have to have two broken arms, a bullet in her back, and have been shot down in a helicopter over a combat zone to be allowed to say "No, I'm not traumatised by the offence against me, and yes, it was still wrong and I shouldn't have been subjected to it" about sexual assault and sexual harassment?

Rhonda Cornum - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhonda_Cornum

ProfessorBettyBooper · 11/12/2025 19:45

EweProfessorSurnameDoctorProfessor · 11/12/2025 18:53

Alessandra Asteriti, an academic lawyer, has tweeted similar. That it’s all pointless unless gender as a concept is removed from the law altogether.

Well I agree in that sense.

How 'GC views' is a 'belief' and protected on that basis, whereas gender reassignment is given it's own category is bonkers to me.

GI should be protected under belief, otherwise their really is a hierarchy of characteristics.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 11/12/2025 19:46

eatfigs · 11/12/2025 18:50

I'm not sure what the point is of appealing. The tribunal found against NHS Fife on the harassment claim. Their policy has been changed so changing rooms are single-sex. What's left?

The higher up the courts this goes, the better the precedent for strong case law for women in similar circumstances. I have been one of these women. There are many women on these threads that have had a similar experience and not had the means for a strong legal recourse, especially pre-FWS. I didn't want to experience what I went through, I wouldn't want my daughter to experience what I went through, I wouldn't want anybodies daughter to experience what I went through, and right now somebodies daughter is almost certainly going through the same thing. It is for women everywhere that the best case is for a positive judgement from a higher court.

The onus should never have been put on Sandie to complain about this in the first place because single sex spaces should be permitted as single sex. Sandie has been through hell with this tribunal only for the judgement to say such things as she was the only woman to complain so that shouldn't automatically exclude men from women's spaces.

Throughout the tribunal she has been told that she shouldn't have complained but if she had a complaint she should follow the correct procedure, and when she followed the correct procedure she was told it was the wrong procedure, and then right at the end it was swapped to it's not what she did it's the way that she did it, it's not what she said it's the way that she said it.

The entire process has been a classiest, misogynistic nightmare.

So the point of appealing isn't just to force NHS Fife to act lawfully, it is to force employers all across the UK to act lawfully and provide a solid foundation for women to exercise their right to a fair tribunal for the horrific discrimination that continues to exist in the name if inclusivity and progression.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 11/12/2025 19:46

ArabellaSaurus · 11/12/2025 19:27

We've not had SP speak to the press before, I don't think? It was very affecting.

I loved watching her husband's bashful proud expression as she spoke.

I'm so sorry she needs to appeal but am glad that Kemp has gallantly put himself up as an alternative focus for negative attention this week, so she has probably had some light relief despite the stress and distress of having to deal with the outcome.

ILoveLaLaLand · 11/12/2025 19:47

murasaki · 11/12/2025 16:10

It was absolutely a class thing, amd a money thing, which in Fife's mind was related. They never considered that she'd fight back because they thought she couldn't afford it. Which she probably couldn't, but they never considered she might have support. And a lot of it.

Yes - the whole thing reeks of elitism.
They thought they could trample her rights into the ground because she was a working-class woman.

The same ignorant attitude is how men ended up in women's refuges and prisons - everyone supporting men's rights over women in women only spaces are should hang their heads in shame.
They are beneath contempt.

EweProfessorSurnameDoctorProfessor · 11/12/2025 19:48

ProfessorBettyBooper · 11/12/2025 19:45

Well I agree in that sense.

How 'GC views' is a 'belief' and protected on that basis, whereas gender reassignment is given it's own category is bonkers to me.

GI should be protected under belief, otherwise their really is a hierarchy of characteristics.

She also said this on twitter “The ONLY reason why recognising gender identity belief as a protected one could be useful to defend sex based rights is to argue that the State ought not to implement policies on its basis. And this is the ONLY argument Anya Palmer did not make in the Forstater case.”

thelonelyones · 11/12/2025 19:49

I wonder if SK used the free (shittier) version of ChatGPT or the (slighty better) paid version of ChatGPT? Clearly he's not an expert on AI or he would have upgraded, been more specific with his questioning and known the pitfalls.

Or he could have used co-pilot or gemini which are even shittier AI models.

curious minds want to know

Also, I haven't seen many Scottish legal folk commenting on this, has anyone else? My legal contacts are mainly English.

SigourneyHoward · 11/12/2025 19:49

MN: Whats your move, your big move?
BC: I've got lots of moves

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #58
Keeptoiletssafe · 11/12/2025 19:50

On Appeal, can they introduce new supporting evidence like the recommendations of the Sarah Everard inquiry Part 2? A lot of them are relevant.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 11/12/2025 19:51

This board has gone all fellatio and BDSM references. Calm down Mumsnetters.

It just a wee employment tribunal .....

Largesso · 11/12/2025 19:51

BaronMunchausen · 11/12/2025 19:35

LLMs are programmed to help the prompter - to satisfy (as I've just got ChatGPT to confess) "user intent signals". Kemp should disclose the LLM conversation he had so it can be ascertained whether any of his questions were prejudicial or leading.

There is lots of assumption that the judgment was written using LLMs but I don’t think there is any evidence of that.

The writing itself has none of the clues of it, there is a pattern to who LLMs write and it ain’t like the judgment.

I think he just didn’t go to source having been provided the quotes by another party (not using GenAI but just manipulating it from
a captured position).

When LLMs hallucinate they don’t just miss out crucial bits of existing quotes or edit to suit the arguments because that would require comprehension.

I think it has been borrowed from other analysis where they didn’t quote the judgment itself but they have quoted someone else seemingly quoting the judgement and not checked. For example, it is the sort of selective quoting an editing I’ve seen from TRA lawyers and imagine, tho I haven’t checked, it might be drawn from something JR submitted.

It doesn’t make it less bad but by leaping to LLM use just because one of the errors appears made up — though as Anya Palmer pointed out even though it is not a direct quote as used it is a generally held understanding — feels like a big assumption

It would be easy to borrow it from a source you assumed to be credible — Kemp clearly has form in thinking folk credible when they are not.

ArabellaSaurus · 11/12/2025 19:51

ProfessorBettyBooper · 11/12/2025 19:45

Well I agree in that sense.

How 'GC views' is a 'belief' and protected on that basis, whereas gender reassignment is given it's own category is bonkers to me.

GI should be protected under belief, otherwise their really is a hierarchy of characteristics.

GI would need to be Grainger tested and found WORIADS for that - it hasnt been so far.

Shortshriftandlethal · 11/12/2025 19:52

Media headlines trying to make out that the flawed judgement was some kind of "landmark trans rights ruling" are wilfully inflammatory, as well as deeply wrong.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 11/12/2025 19:52

So appeal grounds are

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Practice-Direction-Employment-Appeal-Tribunal-2024-1.pdf

2.5.What might be an error of law?

2.5.1. There might be an arguable error of law where, for example, an Employment Tribunal:

a applied the wrong legal test (you would need to state what you say was the correct legal test and identify the incorrect legal test that you say the Employment Tribunal applied)

b incorrectly applied the correct legal test (you would need to state what you say was the correct legal test and say how the Employment Tribunal applied it incorrectly)

c reached a decision of fact for which there was no evidence (it is not sufficient to argue that there was more evidence for an alternative factual conclusion)

d reached a decision which no reasonable Employment Tribunal, directing itself properly on the law, could have reached (it is not sufficient to argue that a different Employment Tribunal may have made a different decision)

e failed to take into account a relevant matter or took into account an irrelevant matter (you would need to state what the relevant matter was and how the Employment Tribunal knew you relied on it and/or state what irrelevant matter was taken into account)

f decided a point that was not argued (you would need to clearly state the point that you contend was not argued)

g gave reasons that do not, in broad terms, enable you to understand why you lost

h did not follow the correct procedure in a way that affected the outcome (you would have to give full details of the procedure that was not followed and how it affected the outcome)

i conducted the hearing in an unfair way (you would have to give full details of what was done that was unfair and say whether and, if so, how it affected the outcome)

Practice Direction Employment Appeal Tribunal 2024

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Practice-Direction-Employment-Appeal-Tribunal-2024-1.pdf

ArabellaSaurus · 11/12/2025 19:54

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 11/12/2025 19:52

So appeal grounds are

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Practice-Direction-Employment-Appeal-Tribunal-2024-1.pdf

2.5.What might be an error of law?

2.5.1. There might be an arguable error of law where, for example, an Employment Tribunal:

a applied the wrong legal test (you would need to state what you say was the correct legal test and identify the incorrect legal test that you say the Employment Tribunal applied)

b incorrectly applied the correct legal test (you would need to state what you say was the correct legal test and say how the Employment Tribunal applied it incorrectly)

c reached a decision of fact for which there was no evidence (it is not sufficient to argue that there was more evidence for an alternative factual conclusion)

d reached a decision which no reasonable Employment Tribunal, directing itself properly on the law, could have reached (it is not sufficient to argue that a different Employment Tribunal may have made a different decision)

e failed to take into account a relevant matter or took into account an irrelevant matter (you would need to state what the relevant matter was and how the Employment Tribunal knew you relied on it and/or state what irrelevant matter was taken into account)

f decided a point that was not argued (you would need to clearly state the point that you contend was not argued)

g gave reasons that do not, in broad terms, enable you to understand why you lost

h did not follow the correct procedure in a way that affected the outcome (you would have to give full details of the procedure that was not followed and how it affected the outcome)

i conducted the hearing in an unfair way (you would have to give full details of what was done that was unfair and say whether and, if so, how it affected the outcome)

Kemp thought fuck it and went for the full house, then.

Boiledbeetle · 11/12/2025 19:55

MarieDeGournay · 11/12/2025 18:43

I don't remember anybody feeling underwhelmed about money being given to charity, but maybe I missed it.

In what was I think the first case of 'Synchronised Donating', we made many donations to the charity that Sandie's family mentioned on the memorial page for her father, RIP, i.e. the Scottish Society for Rheumatology. So many that that year's accounts must have looked amazing!

In contrast there was a crowdfunder for 'treats' for Beth...

I just went to look at how much was raised in the crowdfunder

Wow! It was a decent chunk.

https://twitter.com/nicoleepeggiee/status/1913283364691357778?s=19

Sandies response in April about the donations to the crowdfunder and the one in memory of her dad.

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #58
Skyellaskerry · 11/12/2025 19:55

ArabellaSaurus · 11/12/2025 19:27

We've not had SP speak to the press before, I don't think? It was very affecting.

I think this is what really got to me, obviously in addition to the content of her statement.

Another2Cats · 11/12/2025 19:55

MyAmpleSheep · 11/12/2025 17:14

NHSFife wasn't charged with a breach of the 1992 regulations (and can't be, in an ET). As far as we know, nobody has ever been charged with breaching regulation 20.

I agree that in 1992 it would have meant mean and women in the biological sense, but since "the law is always speaking" that's not a slam-dunk that a court will see it the same way at the end of 2025, 32 years later. A lot has changed in 32 years.

SP wants the court to accept that an alleged breach of a regulation whose interpretation has never been tested means that harassment has occurred on one side, and could not have occurred on the other.

The court is not allowed to say "these rules cannot be interpreted in a compatible way" - it has to find a way to make the rules fit, and something has to give. We have to accept the legal fiction that Parliament is infallible in having a consistent intention that is expressed in all laws and regulations simultaneously.

This case seems to me to be a bit like Escher's waterfall: every small section can be self-consistent, but when you step back to look at the whole landscape there's a problem.

"...but since "the law is always speaking" that's not a slam-dunk that a court will see it the same way at the end of 2025, 32 years later. A lot has changed in 32 years."

Even though much has changed in 32 years, the "always speaking" principle doesn't change a concept. Although it may change what is included in that concept.

For example, if Parliament, however long ago, passed an Act applicable to dogs, it could not properly be interpreted to apply to cats; but it could properly be held to apply to animals which were not regarded as dogs when the Act was passed but are so regarded now.

(That analogy is from a House of Lords judgment back in 2003).

But you cannot construe the language of an old statute to mean something conceptually different from what the contemporary evidence shows must have been intended (from a House of Lords judgment in 2000)**

Even before FWS, it was acknowledged that there was a difference between those with a GRC and those without.

The correct comparator in a discrimination case involving gender reassignment for a trans-identifying man that did not have a GRC, and was therefore legally male, was always a man who did not have the PC of gender reassignment.

Men without a GRC were always conceptually different from women (I would argue). FWS was about whether men with a GRC were also conceptually different from women.

I would argue that back in 1992, the "concept" that they had of men and women was simply that of biological sex.

To now try and argue that the word "women" used in the 1992 Regs includes a group (men) that is conceptually different from the ordinary, accepted, meaning of “women” even nowadays, let alone in 1992, I would suggest is not likely to go anywhere.

Just my thoughts though.
.

** This is just me going totally off tangent about not construing an old statute. This was a very mundane case indeed that made its way to the House of Lords.

It all revolved around whether Mrs Oakley's landlord (Birmingham City Council) should have provided her with a basin in the WC under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The then current Building Regs when the house was built didn't require a basin in a toilet. But Mrs Oakley claimed that this made the house unfit for human habitation.

The House of Lords went back to the Nuisance Removal and Diseases Prevention Act 1848 which the 1990 Act followed on from (and even earlier temporary emergency legislation from 1846) to understand what the 1990 Act meant and decided that the requirement for provision of a basin in a toilet was something totally conceptually different from what was originally intended.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 11/12/2025 19:57

In other news - since EJ Sandy Kemp has started on his juggernaut of judical corrections....

NHS's media training has paid off. Today's one draft statement in full glory.

https://www.nhsfife.org/news-updates/latest-news/2025/12/statement-employment-tribunal/

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.