Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #59

[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), 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.

Following handing down of the judgment on 8 December 2025, on 11 December 2025, it was announced by Sandie Peggie and her legal team that they would be pursuing an appeal.

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
Thread 58: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58 11 December 2025 to 12 December 2025

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?reply=149135165

Trevor McDonald pointed out that in the Act, if the word woman had applied to TW, there would have been no need to make GI a PC.

TM has misunderstood the law, which is worrying because he's a respected veteran newsreader.

• Gender identity isn't a PC, gender reassignment is.
• The belief in GI, and particularly the belief that everyone or nearly everyone has a GI, has yet to be Grainger tested.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?reply=149135199

so long as those remain in place there will be perpetual attempts to recast excluding men from women's spaces and services as transphobic discrimination.

I'm also warming to the view that we need to remove GR from the Equality Act.

• If someone is genuinely gender dysphoric to the point that it impairs their ability to use SSS of their sex, that may constitute a disability, in which case they can request a reasonable adjustment like all the other disabled people have to, complete with having to supply medical evidence like all the other disabled people have to. A reasonable adjustment, by definition, is one that does not infringe upon the legal rights of others, so it would reasonable to provision a private space but not reasonable to tell them to use the SSS for the opposite sex.
• If they are subjected to sexual orientation discrimination because someone thinks they are a gay man who likes wearing drag, they get EA protection on the basis of perception.
• If, as we know many are, they are flying to Malaga Airport and get told that they can't wear a dress to work, that's too bad. Part of being a woman is getting dress-coded at work for completely reasonable clothes, so being told that they can't wear whatever they want should validate them nicely. Men should not get EA protection for their display of their fetishes to the non-consenting captive audience that is their colleagues.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?reply=149141917

It acknowledges that there is "no type of official record or document in the UK which provides reliable evidence of sex" because documents such as passports can be changed.'

Also https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?reply=149145384

Surely their birth sex is recorded at death and the GRC ‘spent’ otherwise it’s possible to skew statistics recording that more women/men could die than were born.

And this is why we should repeal the GRA and outlaw falsification of State documents.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?reply=149142859

((Tweet about an experimental surgery to widen a man's pelvis, includes the text "The gist as far as I understand it is he'll cut the pubic symphysis, and add a bone graft to expand it."))

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Irish women were left disabled or with lifelong complications from having their symphysis cut during childbirth. And you want to not only have it cut, but have a bone graft from a corpse inserted between the two surfaces made by the cut? For entirely cosmetic reasons? This is a mental illness, and the surgeons preying on these ill people are butchers who should be in prison.

Also https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?reply=149145636

I want it quartered with the colours, the balance taking the last quarter & the whole supported by hamsters rampant.

I laughed so hard when I saw this reply. Bloody clients, always wanting to tweak the design.

quarterly argent purpure argent vert
in first quarter a heart gules
in fourth quarter a balance sable
helmet vert
crest a wren proper
mantling ribbons purpure and or
compartment rocks or
supporters two mice rampant tenne
motto "Dikigorosophilia Pride" sable

The blazon I gave to Drawshield to mock that up uses mice and a robin, along with some positioning tweaks for the charges. For some reason, there's not much demand for hamsters and wrens in heraldry.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5459115-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-59?reply=149151937

Ultimately, if a case gets to the Supreme Court and they agree that the lower courts are subverting FWS, they will issue a judgement that makes it crystal clear. If they specifically issue a judgement on the workplace regulations, that is final. The lower courts must follow that.

I can see appealing all the way to the SC being the only way we can get a meaningful answer on this, if only because of the ETs not having jurisdiction for W(HSW)R1992, whereas the SC has jurisdiction for everything. And I foresee the judgement being argued, again, on the basis of legislative incoherence.

My worry is that the absurd levels of influence this "oppressed" minority has will result in workplaces responding to any binding ruling by fitting what @KeepToiletsSafe has said are called "universal toilets" (or, as I call them, single-occupant self-contained loos) to stave off legal challenges, which will at some point result in someone dying needlessly.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5459115-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-59?reply=149156357

So the employer must accommodate both [the woman and the trans-identifying male], requiring neither of them to share intimate space with men.

This is not onerous for the employer. It should be easy to find out how many gender non-believers they have, and allocate strictly single-sex provision accordingly, without breaching anyone's confidentiality.

The GDPR might like a word. Even with an "anonymous" survey, it can be deanonymised if there's a sufficiently small number of women, especially if the company is multiple-site, because the company will need to collect data per-site to deliver appropriate provision. Examples: an oil rig or building site with one woman on it; a company with a HQ with 300 women and remote offices where there might only be one or two women present.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5459115-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-59?reply=149160335

Many assume these are just for people with disabilities but many disabilities are not visible - someone with a stoma for example, or autism where they have a sensory issue around noise or smell.

Also "shy bladder".

So..... the best argument for fourth spaces - mixed sex toilets - is that a trans IDing woman would be out of place in the women's toilet..?

Right. OK. So if there are less than 200,000 transpeople in total [my generous 250,000 figure was corrected by a PP], i.e. less than 0.03% of the population, and an even smaller % of that 200,000 are trans IDing women... but all public buildings and workplaces have to install a fourth toilet for them??

This 'third' - actually fourth - spaces idea sounds totally disproportionate to the number of transpeople requiring them.

As I've pointed out before, the required adjustments for 16m disabled people are caused by need, not preference or comfort, and are limited by 'reasonableness'. Surely the same criterion of 'reasonableness' should be applied to demands made by transpeople.

I'm reading the decision from start to finish and have had to pause to say I am still so annoyed that no-one interrogated whether Dr Upton ever actually used the changing rooms to change clothes during the period he worked as a junior psychiatry doctor prior to the emergency dept role.

Psychiatry doctors almost always wear civvies these days and it would mostly not be a job where changing at work would be necessary. Almost all of the work would involve clinic appoinments or home visits, or, in the case of hospital patients, meeting staff and patients at ward round or other meetings. For sure there might be accidental soiling of clothes on occasion, but Dr U's visits to the ED would almost certainly be to see people already triaged and very likely in a different part of the department. And so of bloody course no-one complained about changing room usage that very very likely never happened.

"The second respondent was employed as a Junior Clinical Fellow (also known as a junior doctor) in the department in August 2023. Prior to doing so the second respondent had worked in the Psychiatry department of the hospital, and had visited the department when in that role from time to time. Prior to employment by the first respondent the second respondent had been employed by Lothian Health Board. When in that employment and after being fully open about reassigning gender to female the second respondent had used the female changing room and toilet facilities without issue or complaint.
...
From the second respondent’s visits to the department prior to starting as a Junior Clinical Fellow most of the staff working in the department were aware of the second respondent being someone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. No member of staff had raised any concern formally or informally with any manager of the first respondent about the second respondent whether with nursing line management or medical line management prior to the claimant doing so informally in late August 2023, as set out further below."

I know it is going to make me unpopular but it seems obvious on the numbers alone that trans-identifying people should use identical toilets to disabled toilets. Apart from the very small numbers, being trans could reasonably be regarded as a disability. And it is pointless (except for very specific building constraints) to build a single person toilet that is not suitable for disabled people. Any detriment to other disabled toilet users should be prevented by increasing the per capita number of disabled toilets, which in any case should obviously be higher than the per capita number of single sex toilet cubicles.

edit grammar

Any detriment to other disabled toilet users should be prevented by increasing the per capita number of disabled toilets

Yup. Don't turn the stationary cupboard into a unisex loo, turn it into another accessible loo.

which in any case should obviously be higher than the per capita number of single sex toilet cubicles.

You mean accessible loos per capita of disabled people, versus single-sex loos per capita of non-disabled people, yes? Otherwise floor space devoted to loos will become a constraint very quickly.

I too would be in favour of simply increasing the number of single-user ambulant accessible toilets. Could be a win/win as they cover a lot of different needs.

I've been feeling since the judgement came out that I should apologise to certain posters. During the tribunal, they were concerned that SK appeared to be favouring the respondents but I was one who couldn't see it. What was coming out, the sheer stupidity and obvious... shall we say lack of clarity... made it seem to me impossible that anyone but the most dyed in the wool TRA could see it was ridiculous. I thought those posters were wrong and to them I apologise.

I'm generally considered the most cynical person around. Clearly I was nieve. I'm sorry.

single-user ambulant accessible toilets

Isn't "ambulant accessible" a contradiction in terms?

They're useful for a wide range of specific mobility and other needs. I believe the multi-user single-sex spaces can also incorporate a wheelchair-accessible cubicle. Come on, let's spend some money! It's worth it for our trans brethren.

If we are going to drop money on extra accessible loos, let's make some of them Changing Places rooms. Incontinent people who need changing assistance have the worst toilet provision of all.

No - imagine some who uses two walking sticks, blind, spatial issues, apparatus etc, change of urinary or intestinal stomas.

They’re the large cubicles with doors that swing out often in newer loo blocks.

There are specific details about them in the building regs. And further in construction codes.

There’s a whole body of research around it and vital for accessibility.

There is nothing wrong with being naive, other than that you get the wool pulled over your eyes and the bastards, of whom there are many, take advantage of you. It's not something you should apologise for, but it is a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with the self-obsessed, the dishonest, the wilfully blinkered, the selfish and all the other varieties of unpleasant people. Of whom there are many, many more in the world than I used to hope.

Over the last 15 years I've become steadily more and more cynical. This judgement hasn't exactly slowed that process.

I think it is fab that all of your hard work has brought us all together. I really appreciate it.

The problem is that trans identifying men want in the ladies facilities. They be very upset and annoyed to be told they’ve to use the disabled loos.

Yes detailed workplace regs, building regs and construction regs.

All to do with health & safety and wellbeing of workers.

All the more reason to do it IMHO. Sort out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I agree. But there’ll be world war 3!! They’ll be peeing outside the equality office again!

You forget, they just want somewhere to wee. I'm sure this option will delight them.

Don't the wheelchair accessible loos cover these use cases, once you've installed a shelf?

The wee-in outside the EHRC was Operation Let Them Speak in action and will have presented a convincing argument to the EHRC staff as to the appropriateness of men in women's loos.

It’s often a bigger cubicle inside rooms of loos. Increases capacity for those that need it without putting more pressure on wheelchair accessible mixed sex rooms.

I really hope your right 🙏

Alexander Kemp: the judge who fell foul of the Sandie Peggie tribunal

https://www.thetimes.com/article/37956579-3e02-4e74-97bb-b5c3c4b40145?shareToken=73d8b92c94e229e944d310fa650e6d5f

And wasn't that just such a.... MALE thing to do?

Telegraph article about Judges using AI https://archive.ph/LyxHO