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

I'll give my opinion, but this is only my opinion. This is absolutely not definitive.

I can see the argument you are making re single sex facilities being indirect discrimination against women, but I'm not convinced the courts would accept it as a general principle. They may accept it in specific situations, but accepting it generally would mean making compulsory something that parliament has only made optional. As you say, schedule 3 allows service providers to provide single sex services and facilities, but it does not compel them. Given that the legislation does not compel single sex provision, I think the courts would be very reluctant to make it compulsory. For example, if you go to Center Parcs, you will find that the changing facilities for swimming are unisex (at least, they are in the ones I've been to - I don't know if they are the same at all their resorts). Each cubicle has two doors, one providing an exit from the changing rooms to the outside world, the other leading to the swimming pool. So you go in fully clothed through one door, lock both doors, get changed and exit through the other door, taking your clothes with you to put in a locker. I doubt the courts would want to rule that this is illegal. However, there may be some situations where the courts would find that failure to provide single sex accommodation was indirect discrimination against women.

I don't believe that the provision of single sex facilities in workplaces would be prohibited by the Equality Act if we took the Workplace Regulations away. Whilst Schedule 3 does not apply, having single sex facilities is, at most, indirect discrimination so can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the legitimate aim being to protect the privacy, dignity and safety of employees. So my view is that, if you take the Regulations away, it would no longer be compulsory for employers to provide single sex facilities, but it would still be legal for them to do so. And this may be a situation where the courts would be willing to say that failure to provide single sex facilities is discrimination against women.

Unfortunately I can't take up your offer of a drink in The Bluestocking. I understand that I am prohibited from entering, even as a guest.

That makes as much sense as having "being a metalhead" or "being a goth" be a PC. Even in the wake of Sophie Lancaster's brutal murder, I didn't support such a thing, I just toned my clothing down for my safety.

Thanks to The Times for linking to this 2013 profile of Big Sond:

EnergyVoice: What do you still hope to achieve in business?

Big Sond: An appearance in the Court of Justice of the European Union and to influence employment-law legislation, which is so often badly drafted.

Emphasis mine.

Whilst in general the third individual mixed-sex, private space should solve the problem, it doesn't really. It means the genderists have less of an argument to make but since their argument is piss poor in the first place I'm not sure it's that big of a deal.

Because it's an abusive demand in the first place and as we know from reading the Relationships board on here if not from real world experience, abusers escalate.

We saw this in the Peggie tribunal. It wasn't enough that women were forced to share something labelled as a single sex space with a man (so they had no way of knowing, at least the first time, that there would be a man there - there's a reason there are signs for a male cleaner). It wasn't enough that the sign said 'female' but actually it was 'mixed sex'.It wasn't enough their legal right under workplace regs to single sex changing was not upheld by the employer. It wasn't enough the NHS rolled over for Upton's demands with no risk assessment or thought to the pc of sex or religion or belief or disability which might make women staff sharing with the other sex harmful to them and impact their ability to work. No thought to balancing the rights of the many (women) against the wants of the few (Upton) at all. Women staff ALSO weren't allowed to display any discomfort at this or an opinion on it. Simply staying out, self-excluding, was considered 'hate'. The impression was that even a hint of wrongthink in Upton's mind (regardless of whether backed up with evidence or not0 would be enough for disciplinary action. It's like coercive control, whatever you do it's never enough, you can never meet their demands, you can never walk on eggshells to the extent they'll be satisfied, if you give an inch, then the next demand will just be even worse. It's 1984.

If self-ID was allowed, the next thing would be throwing women in prison (with male rapists) for hinting with any look or glance that they didn't really consent enthusiastically to the loss of their rights and spaces and language. We've seen this over and over, in the Peggie case, with the Darlington nurses, and with Jennifer Melle which is almost facical in it's extreme levels of gaslighting and coercive control. This is a convicted paedophile. She really didn't do anything wrong and he racially abused as well as physically threatened her and yet she's the one under attack for using the correct sex pronouns in a stressful situation! It shows the direction of travel if women don't stand up. Getting the sack (possibly, it's clear a lot of NHS policies bend in that direction) for refusing to accede enthusiastically and perfectly to the whims of a convicted paedophile - what the actual fuck?

The fact the NHS thinks this convicted paedophile's demands to control Melle's speech are more important than her right not to be physically threatened and racially abused at work tells you that NOTHING will ever be enough. They've attempted to cover up at least one rape committed by a man pretending to be a woman, that we know of, and I bet there are more. Because they treat any victims the way Peggie was treated - it's a feature not a bug.

It's a slippery slope.

Thank goodness for the modern day suffragettes like Peggie and Melle and the Darlington nurses.

Apologies I am jumping back a bit but a few mentioned loo design a few hours back.

I would avoid private toilet designs as much as possible. This also includes not adding more accessible (disabled) toilets that are mixed sex. The ones we have are to be vigorously cleaned, maintained and be the most scrutinised and supervised. They must open on to well supervised areas. What I would love to see, if we are adding toilets, is for single sex accessible toilets to be included into single sex toilet blocks. These would have a new design for disabled toilets in that they would have floor-door gaps. Having cared for people who need accessible toilets, many people can use them on their own. However if there’s a problem, then they are more likely to get help. They will be easier to keep clean. The extra space also be useful for adults with children.

In my research, young women who use ‘gender neutral’ toilets hate the dirt and get a bit scared of men in there too.

Of course, retrofitting any new design into an existing space is fraught with problems. Women would rather avoid a designated space if they feel uneasy - that’s why the nurses didn’t change in the basement. It’s why unisex toilets are often avoided by women. It’s why adding an odd unisex toilet to a building as a token measure can do more harm than good. Adding lots of excess disabled toilets at the BBC meant they were used for ‘liaisons’ according to Rod Liddle in the Spectator.

The 1992 legislation was for Health, Safety and Welfare. Not privacy. Privacy only and always overides h&s&w in mixed sex designs (Leonardo case exception).

It was mentioned people may die earlier. People have already died in new ‘gender neutral’ designs, in similar ways to unisex designs, and disabled toilet designs, with a delay in rescue down to people not knowing the occupant was in trouble. Women and children have been assaulted in them.

It’s ridiculous that we have enclosed toilets on wards in hospitals, even in cardiac wards. The WRN have found there are many assaults in hospitals but the exact locations aren’t logged.

There’s a real danger in the standard single sex provision being ‘closed up’ as the space outside the cubicles is ‘ambiguous’. Now single sex toilets should be single sex we need to stop enclosing toilets so anyone at their most vulnerable, and anyone trapped in, is safer. The danger is having a EHRC spokesperson saying maybe it could be on a case by case basis. And the Leonardos case. You can’t have any men in the ladies with of course the exceptions of cleaners and young male children.

Man not heard in disabled toilet:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqjvnkzgr1no.amp
Woman trapped in new unisex toilet:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-stuck-inside-locked-public-35746932.amp
Charity that campaigns for clean and serviceable accessible toilets:
https://www.euansguide.com/safertoilets

This latter one needs people to check emergency cords and make sure they are unknotted. I make a point now of unknotting them.

Oh and alongside the third individual lockable rooms for toilets not meeting what TRAs want (access to unconsenting women) they're also less safe as the magnificent @Keeptoiletssafe has so clearly illustrated time and again.

Not only are organisations like the NHS wasting hundreds of thousands on walking on eggshells for individuals like Upton and defending the indefensible (as in Peggie), they're also making a far far larger demographic materially less safe if they move towards less safe toilet designs for everyone. All to try and appease a tiny minority who quite clearly won't be appeased in this way. It's not the toilets that they're interested in.

It's literally insane.

Yes, I’d like this rule to be diligently upheld. I’d also like the following to be diligently applied:

Men who use mixed sex toilets MUST clean up after themselves to a satisfactory standard.

Men in the men’s facilities MUST NOT deliberately intimidate any other man because of how he dresses.

It’s about time men dealt with their shit.

It’s about time men dealt with their shit.

Literally, figuratively, or both?

@whatwouldafeministdo Thank you.

There’s this bizarre situation when you have judges and an EHRC reps implying some men may be ok in single sex spaces with no realisation that the design on those spaces then has to change.

Then you get completely contradictory messages from the government as shown on the headline from the BBC now (select paragraphs):

Specialist rape and sexual offence investigation teams will be introduced to every police force in England and Wales by 2029, the government has pledged.
It is part of a long-delayed plan aimed at halving violence against women and girls within a decade.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the measures will help to "bear down on abusers, stopping them in their tracks. Rapists, sex offenders and abusers will have nowhere to hide."

Announcing the move, the home secretary said: "This government has declared violence against women and girls a national emergency.
"For too long, these crimes have been considered a fact of life. That's not good enough. We will halve it in a decade."
It said sexually-motivated crimes against women in public remained widespread, criticised the limited nature of data on them, and called for urgent action to prevent predators from offending.

I tell the government which toilet designs in public are the best - the clue is in their own sentence ‘will have nowhere to hide’. It is not adding more private, mixed sex toilets retrospectively to unsuitable areas, to satisfy the wants of a few.

If risk assessments and equality impact assessments were done on eliminating single sex spaces, this would not be passed for health and safety reasons.

Definitely both.

IME the accessible toilets are often the dirtiest. It is so disrespectful. Most of the time I can manage ordinary loos, but when I have relapse I need my walking stck and grab rails, a clean toilet and a clean dry floor. The latter 2 things are rarely available. My local hospital, fairly recently refurbished, has only unisex, individual accessible toilets with no door gaps. All tucked away from main corridors. They are always filthy, flooded and with overflowing bins. I complain every time I go there, which is every few weeks. Nothing changes.

Thank you, that's very interesting to ponder. Drink of choice and beermat shawl will be duly delivered to the staunch alley at your convenience!

I've only ever peered in through the window but it seems like the ideal place for a (flaming) Christmas drink!

And a lot of conclusions where I cannot see how they leapt from an apparently reasonable discussion of an issue to the next apparently batshit conclusion.

This is how genderism works, all the time. Feature not bug etc. The judge’s reasoning is tainted by it throughout, that’s how we know he’s captured.

May be it's time the NHS started laying off all the unnecessary DEI staff and hire the very necessary cleaning staff, I would think that keeping the hospital's clean was more of a priority than keeping the staff 'happy'. As I recall they changed the uniforms for scrubs because the old style uniforms were thought to be an infection risk, how much more of a infection risk is a dirty, uncleaned, filth ridden environment.

The DEI staff can retrain as cleaners. The physical activity would do them good, and they might find the new job more intellectually stimulating.

Exactly. None of this 'had' to happen by law. It happened because Stonewall convinced people law existed and they all wanted to get a gold star from Stonewall to show how wonderful they were. Sacrifices had to be made, and that involved the women who didn't want to share facilities, and who no one asked first, which suggests to me that, deep down inside, those making the policies knew they weren't fair but were relying on assumed power and a deep-seated feeling that women are less important than men. That means I feel entitled to smile as I ask 'and how did that work out for you?' as long as I regularly do some gardening.

Have you read the Guardian article? He sees himself as a gentler, kinder voice against all us nasty types and is ever so upset that he has to be impartial and not bring his employer into disrepute. Sad times.

First thing that would pop into my mind is a concern that he might have gone in to place a camera somewhere. Without anyone to see him. We all now know that some men have fetishes about women’s bodily functions.

It doesn't make you unpopular at all with this particular disabled person because you've acknowledged that there need to be more accessible toilets. Can I throw in some separate mum and child loos while I'm making Christmas wishes? Or am I the only one who thinks 'oh, that's helpful' when you see the pull cord for help cable had been tied up to stop kids pulling it? Oh, and some extra store rooms would be good because then you wouldn't be sharing the loo with a couple of hundred loo rolls and a vacuum cleaner.

I'm not sure I understand this because I'm sure you're not saying that wheelchair users are the only ones who need adaptations. A good explanation of all the people who need accessible toilets is further up the thread.

Would it save time if we made 'idiocy' a protected characteristic? We already don't expect so many people to take responsibility for what they do and say.

That was my first thought too.

Big Sond - I want to influence employment-law legislation

And how is that working out for you?

I also didn't expect, shitshow aside, that the judgment would go this way. I was aware (from these threads) that FWS didn't cover the workplace rules, so knew there may be an issue there. But Dr Upton set off my creepdar so very strongly that I was completely blind to the possibility that he would be considered credible.

The fake, overly gentle voice reminded me of someone furious who was either barely restraining themselves or pretending to be calm, but about to blow. The "I'm a biological woman" schtick told me this is a manipulative gaslighter, like the colleague who assaulted me. The admission that there was no way in which Peggie could have expressed her protected beliefs that he would have found acceptable or not hurtful revealed that he was an extreme authoritarian.

I find this combination terrifying, genuinely. And I thought that anyone would be able to see this a mile off.

It has been a useful learning experience to realize that the panel did not even glimpse the red flags that I thought would be visible from space.

I try to check my biases and #bekind but my instincts are clear that this is a man, and a very dangerous man. I'm aware of course that there is no evidence that he is dangerous. But this is my instinctive reaction to the lies, manipulation and authoritarianism. I clearly should have realized that this might not be shared by the judge, whose life has doubtless shaped his instincts very differently.