Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

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 #59

1000 replies

nauticant · 12/12/2025 19:37

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
62
TheCorrsDidDreamsBetter · 14/12/2025 15:57

Does any one have any spare subscriptions to Foran? Would love to catch up later on what he has to say at 4pm.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 15:57

TheCorrsDidDreamsBetter · 14/12/2025 15:57

Does any one have any spare subscriptions to Foran? Would love to catch up later on what he has to say at 4pm.

@ickky has some if you PM

TheCorrsDidDreamsBetter · 14/12/2025 16:00

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 15:57

@ickky has some if you PM

Thank you, I've sent a PM.

Easytoconfuse · 14/12/2025 16:03

MistyGreenAndBlue · 14/12/2025 15:40

Even in incognito I can't see this. Anyone got an archive link please?

It's a sign from on high. It's the season of peace and goodwill to all, so the universe doesn't want you to read it.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 16:05

NHSFifeStatementFinalFINALFinalVersionV9FINAL · 14/12/2025 15:42

In the Sara Morrison v BFF it was eventually found that the panel member was calling herself a Professor despite having left uni at 16. She also was in a video calling herself an employment judge.

Sorry don't mean to derail but I've not got up to speed with this one at all. Is it worth me spending Christmas skimming the threads?!

Yes you absolutely have to and a mere 5 threads. Judge was not impressed. I suspect another appeal. But l would highly recommend it. Compelling!

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 16:06

Foran live ‘I suspect the appeal might be fast tracked. I can see strong reasons why the Tribunal would want it heard as soon as possible’.

GallantKumquat · 14/12/2025 16:09

NHSFifeStatementFinalFINALFinalVersionV9FINAL · 14/12/2025 15:42

In the Sara Morrison v BFF it was eventually found that the panel member was calling herself a Professor despite having left uni at 16. She also was in a video calling herself an employment judge.

Sorry don't mean to derail but I've not got up to speed with this one at all. Is it worth me spending Christmas skimming the threads?!

The Sara Morrison v BFF case was high drama! There was a tense moment where the judge scolded Naomi Cunningham for tardiness, but it turns out she had been working on the conflict of interest application against one of the panellists right up to the wire who soon after left in a huff.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 16:15

GallantKumquat · 14/12/2025 16:09

The Sara Morrison v BFF case was high drama! There was a tense moment where the judge scolded Naomi Cunningham for tardiness, but it turns out she had been working on the conflict of interest application against one of the panellists right up to the wire who soon after left in a huff.

It had a lot of ground to cover:

  • two recusal applications
  • equivocates sex realist views with bringing back the armed struggle in the IRA
  • had a made up LGBTQIA event evidence of which included a 37 page big screen erection manual
  • shocking sci fi tit pump images of a trans identified man milking himself
  • media luvvies with not a wit of governance skills
  • a witch hunt from trans rights grouos
  • a whipped up conspiracy

There is loads of other stuff I can’t bring to mind just now but definitely read!

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 16:18

MistyGreenAndBlue · 14/12/2025 15:40

Even in incognito I can't see this. Anyone got an archive link please?

I tried to archive again but doesn’t seem to work. It is £1 for three months so with the Peggie trial rolling on it’s a good investment in my opinion. Most of their journalism has been excellent on Peggie.

Mmmnotsure · 14/12/2025 16:25

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

lcakethereforeIam · 14/12/2025 16:31

Would NC know who they are? Assuming she's permitted to disclose that information, and would want to, might it be worth someone on X contacting her?

Totallygripped · 14/12/2025 16:49

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/12/2025 15:00

I have very similar frustrations. Given that the two lay members are not legally qualified, I do think they deserve a much greater degree of privacy and protection from a public shitstorm in the absence of any confirmed wrong doing.

But I hope that the organisations and parties involved in the legal process will consider properly any connections that are known to them through the screening process and/or through what was known to them because of their privileged involvement in the case management. Like you say there could be TU connections.

There also may be conflicts of interest eg due to close personal or business relationships with politicians/NHS executives and so on. It may not be our business to know any detail at all right now as members of the public, but there should be ways that more formal nvestigations could take place if warranted.

Zero personal experience of employment or any other tribunal but I disagree that the absence of legal qualifications justifies a greater degree of privacy and protection. That they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity might be to overstate their role but they do have input into a decision determinative of the parties' legal rights. So I do think there should be transparency re their qualifications and affiliations. And how it has been determined that they have the appropriate skills and independence to sit on these tribunals.
In other news, Bristol....

Fifearenumpties · 14/12/2025 16:59

I agree with @Totallygripped I’ve said up thread that I’m a specialist member in a different tribunal in HMCTS. it was made very clear to us on training that we were members of the judiciary. We took the judicial oath. We are equal parties in the decision making and equally accountable for that decision. No excuses.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/12/2025 17:08

CriticalConditionUnamendedVersion · 14/12/2025 15:07

My recollection is that NC told the tribunal she had ordered a transcript of the first part of the hearing on behalf of her client. I have a vague memory of JR being somewhat put out by this as her clients would not be entitled to a copy of it without the claimant's agreement. Any agreement would no doubt require a contribution towards the costs.

So I think Sandie's team will be able to go through the first part of the hearing as well and take a view. Whether the procedure for appeal permits a a party to make an application for a fresh hearing I don't know. I presume it would have to be in the alternative at the least.

For general info, when I was skimming Scotland Employment Tribunals website I remember reading discussions in various minutes about the availability of transcripts. Irwin Mitchell summarises the new Practice Direction introduced in 2023, here:

"This sets out that, with effect from 20 November 2023, audio recordings will be made of all Employment Tribunal hearings (where the technical facility exists and where the recording can be securely retained)."

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102isze/recording-tribunal-hearings-a-new-chapter-in-legal-transparency

I'm pretty sure stenographers were brought into the SP hearing in July, which was when the Wall of Sad was replaced by them, and which was the time from which there needed to be 5 min breaks each hour, specifically for their benefit.

On 23/07 NC referred to a note from DU's cross-exam during her cross of Kate Searle, to which JR immediately responded:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948033582225928603?s=20

NC - note of DU in feb
NC - about that, said I communicated was not willing work and KS would ...
JR - wasn't aware there was a transcript
J - we've talked about this
JR - not shared with both sides
NC - will share
JR - i need it now
NC - requested and paid for by us, no obligation

Recording tribunal hearings: a new chapter in legal transparency?

Recording tribunal hearings: a new chapter in legal transparency?

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102isze/recording-tribunal-hearings-a-new-chapter-in-legal-transparency

ProfessorofSelfPortraiture · 14/12/2025 17:12

Does anyone know if Michael Foran's live video will be available on his substack archive? I'm a subscriber but got home too late to see the beginning and want to watch it all!

CriticalConditionUnamendedVersion · 14/12/2025 17:17

NebulousSupportPostcard · 14/12/2025 17:08

For general info, when I was skimming Scotland Employment Tribunals website I remember reading discussions in various minutes about the availability of transcripts. Irwin Mitchell summarises the new Practice Direction introduced in 2023, here:

"This sets out that, with effect from 20 November 2023, audio recordings will be made of all Employment Tribunal hearings (where the technical facility exists and where the recording can be securely retained)."

https://www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102isze/recording-tribunal-hearings-a-new-chapter-in-legal-transparency

I'm pretty sure stenographers were brought into the SP hearing in July, which was when the Wall of Sad was replaced by them, and which was the time from which there needed to be 5 min breaks each hour, specifically for their benefit.

On 23/07 NC referred to a note from DU's cross-exam during her cross of Kate Searle, to which JR immediately responded:

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1948033582225928603?s=20

NC - note of DU in feb
NC - about that, said I communicated was not willing work and KS would ...
JR - wasn't aware there was a transcript
J - we've talked about this
JR - not shared with both sides
NC - will share
JR - i need it now
NC - requested and paid for by us, no obligation

Thank you. Yes, that's the bit I remember. JR was most miffed. Ha!

NaomiCunninghamHasHadHerWeetabixAgain · 14/12/2025 17:21

EdithStourton · 14/12/2025 09:37

I've got a violin somewhere, but it's so small that I can't find it...

Have you asked AI where it is?! 😂

Largesso · 14/12/2025 17:22

Very interesting analysis from Foran on his Podcast. He doesn’t attempt to digest the whole as he hasn’t had time but his key thinking for the moment are, if I have understood correctly is that:

  1. to find the employer guilt of harassment for something the employee did and then find the employees not guilty of harassment is ‘unusual’, even if they had been given permission. Imagine an employer saying it’s ok to make sexist and racist jokes in the workplace because ‘banter’ and an employee complains about another employee’s sexist and racist jokes towards them. Just because the employee has permission does not make the harassment from the employee legal. There is a clause which perhaps allows some room for argument here but Foran doesn’t think it applies and anyway was not cited or referenced in the judgment.

  2. That just because you don’t have the jurisdiction to enforce laws is not reason to exclude them from your thinking, which is what the panel have done here with workplace regs. Because they have not allowed workplace regs to inform their thinking they have set up their own test for the workplace which is different from what might be expected of public services in light of FWS. Kemp sets up a process of conditional assessment on a case by case basis which the FWS said makes implementing Equality Act impossible and no employer is going to want or be able to do such assessments. For example Kemp says it, amongst other things, depends on the sincerity of the trans person as that sincerity and commitment is what activates PC of gender reassignment but how, Foran, asks can that be tested? Big Manly Pete could claim to be sincere and who is going to want to challenge that — and I would add that’s exactly what happened post Stonewall and created the mess we are in now.

  3. it is completely fine to do blanket policies as SC have made clear in many judgments recently but seems not to have been noticed by Kemp. Implementing Equality Act with blanket policies that are legitimate interpretations make it workable (ie single sex spaces mean sex).

  4. There is a hierarchy of PCs when it comes to how one PC is being managed. You can’t claim there isn’t because otherwise you would have to test Christians, say, in the same way as Trans when considering access to female changing rooms on a case by case basis. ‘Are you sincere in your Christianity’ would be a ridiculous test for employers to weigh up when considering policy on single sex provisions.

And on closing he sums it up as a legal error in misunderstanding FWS SC judgment.

He didn’t have time to investigate the issue of false quotes etc.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 14/12/2025 17:22

MarieDeGournay · 14/12/2025 11:06

Contrary to the impression I might give, it wasn't me who wrote Doc T of the English building regs, I'm not related to the person who did, and I don't get royalties every time I quote itSmile
I just like its detail and its clarity. If it was adopted as the standard, things would be a lot easier.

Here it is on 'Ambulant' toilets. Note that while they are of benefit to disabled people who are not wheelchair users, they are also good for people with luggage, mothers with little ones, people who temporarily need a bit of extra support, etc etc. And that they can be standalone mixed sex cubicles OR ambulant cubicles within single sex spaces - in fact I'm you've probably all already seen the wider ambulant cubicles in women's toilets.

Ambulant
Able to walk unassisted.
Ambulant self-contained toilet
A room or building that contains a water-closet (WC) and may also contain a washbasin, for use by ambulant people. A room for one person only used by either an ambulant disabled person or any person who can walk but with reduced mobility, or by other people who would benefit from a larger toilet cubicle with grab rails, such as people with luggage, people with a sports injury or pregnant women.
Ambulant single-sex toilet cubicle
A ventilated compartment not self-contained, used only by people of the sex identified at the entrance to the toilet room, with no washbasin, for use by ambulant people. A compartment for one person only used by either an ambulant disabled person or any person who can walk but with reduced mobility, or by other people who would benefit from a larger toilet cubicle with grab rails, such as people with luggage, people with a sports injury or pregnant women.
Appendix A
Approved Document T - Toilet accomodation

Ah. They don't always have a crutches sign on them.

TheAutumnCrow · 14/12/2025 17:22

GallantKumquat · 14/12/2025 16:09

The Sara Morrison v BFF case was high drama! There was a tense moment where the judge scolded Naomi Cunningham for tardiness, but it turns out she had been working on the conflict of interest application against one of the panellists right up to the wire who soon after left in a huff.

Yes, the judge had a huffy fit and threatened to de-oath the current witness outwith her powers.

More unprofessional judge behaviour at ET.

Largesso · 14/12/2025 17:23

ProfessorofSelfPortraiture · 14/12/2025 17:12

Does anyone know if Michael Foran's live video will be available on his substack archive? I'm a subscriber but got home too late to see the beginning and want to watch it all!

yes it uploads automatically after à but

Rightsraptor · 14/12/2025 17:30

I remember Michael Foran saying that when it is uploaded isn't in his gift, but is done by Substack as & when it suits them.

My subscription to his SS expired recently, it had been worth every penny for his insights into this case & now I'm kicking myself I haven't renewed it. Hey ho, I probably will.

Keeptoiletssafe · 14/12/2025 17:32

FallenSloppyDead2 · 14/12/2025 12:05

@Keeptoiletssafe Is there any direct evidence of the mixed-sex designs in schools directly contributing to the one-a-day school rape statistics?

Can I just say I didn’t want to research this because it’s so awful, but it is a problem I realised when looking at incidents in school toilets for medical emergencies.

I can list cases where it’s happened between pupil-pupil and pupil-teacher and the crime has been verified in the local papers. I can give you a FOIs about rape in school statistics from police and a lot of information where sex is reported to be happening in private mixed sex toilet designs (just ask what goes on to your school-age children). There is lots of information on Everyone’s Invited’ about disabled toilets (used to be the only mixed sex, private design) and other private toilets but unfortunately I can’t really use that because of verifying stuff.

You can see so clearly what happens it schools and the timeline. The school introduces private ‘gender neutral’ toilets with shared mixed sex sinks to much fanfare from a (male) headteacher. It goes down like a lead balloon with parents. The school says it’s inclusive.

Then the problems begin. The girls complain of the smell, urine, and the free sanitary supplies and bins being tampered with. Boys bang on the doors and try and work out if girls are on their period. The school has to keep the free supplies at reception to keep them safe. Sometimes, the boys and girls self separate the toilets into boys and girls to try and mitigate the problems. Because the toilets are private, it gives the opportunity for drugs to be used more easily, self harm to be undetected, two pupils to be in there at once. Girls are pushed back into the toilets by boys or boys let themselves in. Girls stop using the toilets. They hate washing their hands in front of the boys. Some boys stop using toilets. Teachers have to supervise the toilets or close them at certain times. Monitoring systems go up within individual cubicles but don’t work as they get tampered with or go off so often they get switched off. Sound monitors are tried but pupils say that violates privacy so they self exclude. It’s easier to hide cameras when there’s extra technology in the private cubicles like mechanical ventilation. Hidden cameras are a big problem in toilets and this includes at schools. The first reported instances were of teachers filming children in disabled toilets years ago.

Typical example of modern school toilets:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/drug-dealing-drinking-dirt-problems-28517175

Panorama, MPs, Ofsted, and now the Sarah Everard inquiry have all stated there’s a lack of data and no one collates where exactly assaults are taking place and how many. The location of rapes and the lack of information has been criticised so many times and ignored. There also need to look at designing out the locations that provide the conditions for an assault to happen in a school.

But start with schools if you want to know what happens when people have no option but to use unisex toilets.

Here is a study from India about unisex toilets and rapes in schools:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292125000030

Department of Education used to be against unisex toilets on religious grounds:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/05/education.schools The head teacher ‘dismissed fears of sex sessions, suggesting that pupils would seek somewhere more comfortable.’

Just to warn you, these articles are fine to click above but if you start googling you may get warnings coming up telling you searching for something illegal. That alone should give you a warning about how some people view toilets.

I also took a look at ‘gender neutral’ toilets because of the DfE design brief change.

This is what I sent a few months back to the DfE and HSE as part of a report I did (note these designs have only a maximum 5mm door gap):

A New Concern - Gender Neutral Toilets

At some point between 2020 and 2023, the DfE added a new specification point to its Generic Design Brief:

2.3.20.1g) on each floor, at least one of the toilets allocated for mainstream pupil use (i.e., not including accessible toilets) shall be designed and located so that it can be identified as gender-neutral for use by all pupils whilst ensuring pupil privacy.

As noted previously, the Brief is non statutory. However, this is very much a current topic of conversation due to the possible introduction of a ‘third space’ and ‘alternative provision’ discussed after the Supreme Court judgement in April 2025.

The author is not aware of any risk assessments or equality impact assessments that have taken place on these ‘gender neutral’ toilet designs.

To find a comparable situation where a gender neutral toilet design has been discussed, it has been necessary to look over to America, where the Gender Sexuality Alliance (GSA) ‘took on the push’ to try to establish one gender-inclusive bathroom on each floor. It should be noted that American single sex school designs typically have much bigger gaps than traditional designs used in the UK (sometimes along the sides) and are often called restrooms or bathrooms, although do not contain a bath.

The experience of a private, gender neutral toilet room on each floor of a school (directly comparable to the DfE spec) is summed up here:

‘The gender-neutral bathrooms are both horrible and amazing. I am so glad we have them, but they are disgusting, mostly because of the way students treat them. The issue mainly comes from how small and how few they are, and it’s not uncommon that the four small bathrooms are filled with sex, drugs or vaping. We need to address these problems, or the gender-neutral bathrooms will continue to be the most disgusting in the school….I consider everything in the third floor bathroom a biohazard. Almost every time I make the mistake of going in, I leave trying to purge my mind of the horrors I just witnessed. Whether it is people having sex, poop smeared on the walls, or the toilet being clogged with an entire roll of toilet paper, horrible things have happened in that bathroom.’
According to a teacher at the school above, since the number of students who need gender-neutral bathrooms is increasing, one bathroom per floor is no longer sufficient. They have more than one-quarter of our student body identifying as LGBTQ. The bathrooms are in less prominent locations than the men’s and women’s bathrooms, making it easy for students to get away with misbehaving. These bathrooms frequently end up closed and vandalized.
Again the privacy of these bathrooms is an issue. A staff member said the job can be difficult, as bathrooms are private spaces for students, ‘It’s not great because you’ve got a private space that’s publicly accessible and difficult for school staff to monitor. It’s true of any bathroom really.’
Other problems staff and students identified with the gender neutral bathrooms were:

· a continuing issue of faculty monitoring is allotting time to stand in front of a doorway for long periods of time during the school day: ‘I just don’t have enough staff to have people sitting outside of the bathroom.’

· the possible discomfort students may face regarding their identity: ‘Especially for students who aren’t out, if they feel like they are being monitored walking into the bathrooms and getting questioned about their motives in the bathrooms, it can make people feel uncomfortable. That can have a big impact on people’s mental state.’
· Students are not comfortable using them due to state they are left in so will not go to the bathroom at all during the day. They are ‘full’, ‘too gross to use’, ‘filled with vaping at least twice a week’.
· To have enough gender neutral bathrooms for each floor would take a classroom’s worth of space.
· Creative ways of trying to reducing substance use in the bathrooms, such as posters and literature, have been met with resistance and defaced and torn off.
· The suggestion of more cameras around the corridors and common spaces was tempered by the fact they can’t be put inside the bathrooms.
· Students being late to class due to not being able to access the bathroom.

Whether gender neutral facilities are added to a school should be carefully risk assessed and an equality and impact assessment done. As has been shown, it is particularly important and difficult to risk assess any private, mixed sex space. A radical solution would be to not have total privacy in the gender neutral toilets by introducing gaps above and below the door. This would ensure the cubicle or room was occupied by one person and that vaping could easily evidenced and stopped. This would also ensure that visits were shortened so more children could use them within a break period.

————-

Obviously, I am not that hopeful my radical solution is going to work for the exact same reasons the WRN made clear in their report on school toilets. The DfE told me they hold no risk assessments or equality impact assessments, about making their toilets private, in their department. I do not know why they changed their stance on unisex toilets in schools being ok now, despite banning them for religious reasons previously.

ickky · 14/12/2025 17:32

Largesso · 14/12/2025 17:22

Very interesting analysis from Foran on his Podcast. He doesn’t attempt to digest the whole as he hasn’t had time but his key thinking for the moment are, if I have understood correctly is that:

  1. to find the employer guilt of harassment for something the employee did and then find the employees not guilty of harassment is ‘unusual’, even if they had been given permission. Imagine an employer saying it’s ok to make sexist and racist jokes in the workplace because ‘banter’ and an employee complains about another employee’s sexist and racist jokes towards them. Just because the employee has permission does not make the harassment from the employee legal. There is a clause which perhaps allows some room for argument here but Foran doesn’t think it applies and anyway was not cited or referenced in the judgment.

  2. That just because you don’t have the jurisdiction to enforce laws is not reason to exclude them from your thinking, which is what the panel have done here with workplace regs. Because they have not allowed workplace regs to inform their thinking they have set up their own test for the workplace which is different from what might be expected of public services in light of FWS. Kemp sets up a process of conditional assessment on a case by case basis which the FWS said makes implementing Equality Act impossible and no employer is going to want or be able to do such assessments. For example Kemp says it, amongst other things, depends on the sincerity of the trans person as that sincerity and commitment is what activates PC of gender reassignment but how, Foran, asks can that be tested? Big Manly Pete could claim to be sincere and who is going to want to challenge that — and I would add that’s exactly what happened post Stonewall and created the mess we are in now.

  3. it is completely fine to do blanket policies as SC have made clear in many judgments recently but seems not to have been noticed by Kemp. Implementing Equality Act with blanket policies that are legitimate interpretations make it workable (ie single sex spaces mean sex).

  4. There is a hierarchy of PCs when it comes to how one PC is being managed. You can’t claim there isn’t because otherwise you would have to test Christians, say, in the same way as Trans when considering access to female changing rooms on a case by case basis. ‘Are you sincere in your Christianity’ would be a ridiculous test for employers to weigh up when considering policy on single sex provisions.

And on closing he sums it up as a legal error in misunderstanding FWS SC judgment.

He didn’t have time to investigate the issue of false quotes etc.

Agree

On point 2, what employer is going to want to be the judge of a trans persons womanliness? Is there a set length of hair we can measure against to prove your sincerity etc.

Completely unreasonable to put them in that position and unworkable.

They way people look to others is subjective, there cannot be a measure.

Also not to mention who wants to be judged in that way.

Someone in the live chat also pointed out, what about captured employers who would even wave Pete through.

I really think that the whole judgement needs to be heard again. There is too much wrong.

TheHereticalOne · 14/12/2025 17:34

Keeptoiletssafe · 14/12/2025 11:27

I have some theories on this - I would love a toilet symposium! There’s a few people I know off mumsnet I would like people to meet. @prh47bridge has touched on a massive problem that the government has. It is obvious they are trying to tally everyone’s existing designs into the Supreme Court judgement. It can’t be done because for years businesses have not been following building standards and HSE advice.

Now the focus is on toilets, people have realise what a mess this is. The Government tried to do something about it with Document T (only applies to England and not to schools etc) and the intention is there is very clear - single sex first then universal. They made clear it was as the result to stop the rise of gender neutral designs which aren’t regulated at all.

People have been complaining that universal toilets are discriminatory towards woman for 20 years. That too is documented.

HSE talks about people having the need for separate-sex toilet washrooms.

HSE have told me directly single sex toilets are the only one to have door gaps (that’s design C single sex and design D single sex ambulant). This is clearly an advantage to health and safety to women and children. Bluntly, it is very unlikely rapes take place in single sex toilets with door gaps compared to private toilets. The design where most people collapse and do not get found in time are private designs.

If you look deeply enough into legislation and building regs and standards, they were all built on single sex provision.

The disabled toilet expansion came after WW2 in direct response to having provision for amputees. Businesses weren’t happy about the extra costs. The mixed sex element is because it only requires one. The privacy, as people have found out, is a problem because they are used for sex, drugs, parties (!), sleeping, all sorts.

Worldwide, the best way to get girls to go to school is to build girls toilets. That is well known. I use to sponsor a girl via Plan and that’s what they did. It works.

So why the DfE have signed off on quarter of secondary schools just having mixed sex toilets? It’s madness. However, in a cruel experiment, it has shown what you think may happen, happens. The government need to look what has happened to schools. There’s private companies selling subscriptions to schools for all sorts of monitoring devices and alarms in each private toilet now because of the behaviour and risks inside them.

It’s a massive job getting provision to be equal for women. We’ve never had equal provision because of our biological needs compared to men. Now it’s in danger again.

There should absolutely be one - I'd attend!

I've read your posts before and they're incredibly helpful. The knowledge of how the various regs came to be stops history being rewritten and gives useful answers to Chesterton's fence question.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.