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 #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
JanesLittleGirl · 17/12/2025 00:27

Ereshkigalangcleg · 17/12/2025 00:22

These people don’t care if it’s wrong, they only care that people believe their narrative.

They don't even care if people believe their narrative. Just so long as they have a narrative.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 17/12/2025 00:30

Yes.

SionnachRuadh · 17/12/2025 00:37

ILoveLaLaLand · 16/12/2025 22:37

I'm pretty sure most people recognize a trans man as a woman even if they don't say anything. Their height is the first giveaway, the smaller size of their head, more rounded forehead, smaller ears, nose, jawline, female hips, thighs & bum are a dead giveaway from behind, tiny hands and feet, small wrists, no adam's apple, narrow shoulders, visibly thinner facial skin compared to a man, even if it's hairy. Add in mannerisms, gait, how they speak, etc and really only the most skilled actors actually pass as the opposite sex in the real world.
On-line filters are a wonder to behold as are the posted photos which rarely show them standing beside men (or women for TIMs). Why, because we can see at a glance which ones are male and which are female.
It's all an illusion.

Edited

Certainly since transmen have become more familiar. The first few times I encountered transmen, even though I'd known transwomen for years, it took a few seconds for my brain to process what I was seeing, and my thought process probably went something like "gay man, but unusually small and effete gay man, odd voice pitch, narrow shoulders, broad hips, female mannerisms... oh I see, it's a woman".

But I think that element of surprise is much less common now.

I think of drag acting in movies, and even the most talented actors really struggle to carry off a cross-sex role. They still depend on willing suspension of disbelief. Dustin Hoffman is a joy to watch in Tootsie, and he puts all his talent into his female persona, and has the advantage of being a short and slightly built man, but it's still a leap of faith to see him as a woman. I love Theatre of Blood, but however wonderful an actress Diana Rigg is, I struggle to see her as a man.

I feel genuinely sorry for Elliot Page. She can look kind of masculine, or at least androgynous, in a filtered photo. But see her in live action, interacting with others... she's tiny even for a woman, and anyone who, wanting to be kind, says she looks convincingly male, is just gaslighting her.

CraftyRedBird · 17/12/2025 00:37

The “Proselytising Sandie” section in my view takes the tightly contested price for "Wackiest Paragraph of The Judgement!".

I don't recall Sandie's aim being disputed. She wanted Dr. Upton to change elsewhere. That's a request or expression of preference, not a belief or opinion that can be proselytised about! I seem to recall it was Dr. Upton who started on about "being a woman"...

IANAL, but as I understand it the Tribunal didn't need to go as far as it did. It only, at best, had to decide what was said and whether that met the legal test for the harassment of Dr. Upton aka what reasonably Dr. Upton took it to mean. Not to decide what Sandie really meant.

I'm hoping this can be successfully framed as an error of law and challenged, i.e. that it took irrelevant considerations into account or applied the wrong legal framework when assessing harassment.

InvisibleDragon · 17/12/2025 00:47

On the "proselytising" comment, I was particularly enraged to note that this was also used to undermine SP's credibility. Kemp noted that he did not find it credible that she would not have known who Isla Bryson was (both SP and DU agreed she referred to "the situation in prisons" and did not name Bryson directly). He said something like that it was unlikely that someone with an interest in GC issues would not have been following the news more closely. But SP has always maintained she had no particular interest in GC issues - the whole thing just happened because DU started using the changing room. It's like Kemp can't conceive of anyone objecting to a man in the CR unless motivated by being an activist campaigner.

ProfessorBinturong · 17/12/2025 01:14

as I understand it the Tribunal didn't need to go as far as it did. It only, at best, had to decide what was said and whether that met the legal test for the harassment of Dr. Upton aka what reasonably Dr. Upton took it to mean.

The question before the tribunal was not whether she harassed Upton, but whether he harassed her. He was the respondent.

CraftyRedBird · 17/12/2025 01:21

ProfessorBinturong · 17/12/2025 01:14

as I understand it the Tribunal didn't need to go as far as it did. It only, at best, had to decide what was said and whether that met the legal test for the harassment of Dr. Upton aka what reasonably Dr. Upton took it to mean.

The question before the tribunal was not whether she harassed Upton, but whether he harassed her. He was the respondent.

I'm aware but that much is relevant, i.e. to assess whether NHS Fife actied reasonably and such finding may reduce Sandie's payout.

MyDefaultUser · 17/12/2025 03:15

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 16/12/2025 22:49

Since who accesses which toilets is of significant importance here, I'm just going to mention that the Scottish Government has opened a consultation on updating the regulations that apply to school toilets in Scotland. It runs until March 2026. I'll have a look at it in detail before I respond but I'm giving a shout-out to @Keeptoiletssafe, though I'm sure others will be interested too.
Here's the link, assuming it's allowed:
https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/proposals-to-update-the-school-premises-regulation/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOuvqVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR4wiX-I69qYd2qsGCvM3iLkS4MoRvZ_8kJc3VEamru9uah3jdWeseoEX-XVMA_aem_aX7V8nsDdKJ6GRSmEnR25Q
(blimey that's a long url, sorry!).
This was drawn to my attention by a pro-trans group on FB. I keep the best company, you know.

The bit after the question mark in the URL indicates the source of the link, so you can just delete all that.
https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/proposals-to-update-the-school-premises-regulation/
Although it might be quite funny if they track the source of responses, to suddenly have a shedload of gender critical ones apparently coming from a pro trans FB group

Proposals to update the School Premises Regulations - Scottish Government consultations - Citizen Space

Find and participate in consultations run by The Scottish Government

https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/proposals-to-update-the-school-premises-regulation

ArabellaSaurus · 17/12/2025 07:01

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 16/12/2025 22:49

Since who accesses which toilets is of significant importance here, I'm just going to mention that the Scottish Government has opened a consultation on updating the regulations that apply to school toilets in Scotland. It runs until March 2026. I'll have a look at it in detail before I respond but I'm giving a shout-out to @Keeptoiletssafe, though I'm sure others will be interested too.
Here's the link, assuming it's allowed:
https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/proposals-to-update-the-school-premises-regulation/?fbclid=IwY2xjawOuvqVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR4wiX-I69qYd2qsGCvM3iLkS4MoRvZ_8kJc3VEamru9uah3jdWeseoEX-XVMA_aem_aX7V8nsDdKJ6GRSmEnR25Q
(blimey that's a long url, sorry!).
This was drawn to my attention by a pro-trans group on FB. I keep the best company, you know.

Every Scotgov 'consultation' has to be checked for hidden traps. And as we know they'll ignore any responses they don't like.

But! Thanks for sharing. May be worth its own thread.

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 17/12/2025 07:49

ProfessorBinturong · 17/12/2025 01:14

as I understand it the Tribunal didn't need to go as far as it did. It only, at best, had to decide what was said and whether that met the legal test for the harassment of Dr. Upton aka what reasonably Dr. Upton took it to mean.

The question before the tribunal was not whether she harassed Upton, but whether he harassed her. He was the respondent.

You'd think the judge forgot that several times in his judgement - and didn't he refer to Beth as 'the victim' during proceedings?

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 17/12/2025 09:09

https://archive.ph/O9m9z

Stopbringingmicehome · 17/12/2025 09:15

MyDefaultUser · 17/12/2025 03:15

The bit after the question mark in the URL indicates the source of the link, so you can just delete all that.
https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/proposals-to-update-the-school-premises-regulation/
Although it might be quite funny if they track the source of responses, to suddenly have a shedload of gender critical ones apparently coming from a pro trans FB group

@Keeptoiletssafe could you give us some prompts on helpful answers for this survey? Start a new thread and link from here?

Keeptoiletssafe · 17/12/2025 09:21

I will have a think. At work at mo. It doesn’t have to be in until March I believe?

Catiette · 17/12/2025 09:24

The proselytising comment infuriated me because it felt like an extension of Upton's refusal to accept any possible way of expressing concern. Wait outside? No. Quietly leave? No. Say something? There's no way she could have done so without causing offence. And then we have Kemp, knowing that she was faced with the impossible situation of trying to extract some empathy from a man denying her perception of reality... who condemns her for making multiple attempts, in the face of this distressing denial, to find some kind of wording that would get through to him.

nicepotoftea · 17/12/2025 09:24

InvisibleDragon · 17/12/2025 00:47

On the "proselytising" comment, I was particularly enraged to note that this was also used to undermine SP's credibility. Kemp noted that he did not find it credible that she would not have known who Isla Bryson was (both SP and DU agreed she referred to "the situation in prisons" and did not name Bryson directly). He said something like that it was unlikely that someone with an interest in GC issues would not have been following the news more closely. But SP has always maintained she had no particular interest in GC issues - the whole thing just happened because DU started using the changing room. It's like Kemp can't conceive of anyone objecting to a man in the CR unless motivated by being an activist campaigner.

I also don't understand what is wrong with referring to 'the situation in prisons'.

It's as though the rights of female prisoners are so distasteful that they shouldn't be mentioned in polite company.

ETA: and that is a particularly concerning attitude from a judge.

Shortshriftandlethal · 17/12/2025 09:31

Judge Kemp obviously has no "interest in GC issues" either, nor has he been following the news because if he had he would not have made so many fundamental flaws.Do we even believe it was he that delivered this judgement - because if it truly were him then it is more than clear he has been following trans activist arguments and seems more than a little well versed in them.

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 17/12/2025 09:32

MyDefaultUser · 17/12/2025 03:15

The bit after the question mark in the URL indicates the source of the link, so you can just delete all that.
https://consult.gov.scot/learning-directorate/proposals-to-update-the-school-premises-regulation/
Although it might be quite funny if they track the source of responses, to suddenly have a shedload of gender critical ones apparently coming from a pro trans FB group

Thanks. It was late, but I'll pay more attention when copying links in future!

nicepotoftea · 17/12/2025 09:37

CraftyRedBird · 17/12/2025 00:37

The “Proselytising Sandie” section in my view takes the tightly contested price for "Wackiest Paragraph of The Judgement!".

I don't recall Sandie's aim being disputed. She wanted Dr. Upton to change elsewhere. That's a request or expression of preference, not a belief or opinion that can be proselytised about! I seem to recall it was Dr. Upton who started on about "being a woman"...

IANAL, but as I understand it the Tribunal didn't need to go as far as it did. It only, at best, had to decide what was said and whether that met the legal test for the harassment of Dr. Upton aka what reasonably Dr. Upton took it to mean. Not to decide what Sandie really meant.

I'm hoping this can be successfully framed as an error of law and challenged, i.e. that it took irrelevant considerations into account or applied the wrong legal framework when assessing harassment.

I think this is an example of the concept of 'gender critical belief' creating confusion in law.

On one hand it's good to establish that people who believe that sex in humans is immutable and relevant shouldn't suffer discrimination.

On the other, knowing that this is true has as much to do with belief as anticipating that the sun will come up tomorrow. Peggie might as well 'proselytise' that Fife is in Scotland.

Largesso · 17/12/2025 09:40

BrokenSunflowers · 16/12/2025 18:51

In many respects a man trying to get his partner present is a red herring - he is still a man even if he doesn’t want to get his partner pregnant.

I think it goes to the question of whether the PC of gender reassignment is applicable. So if someone is sincere in their transition and demonstrating that sincerity then they are protected in EA under Gender reassignment. The question then is is someone who is maintaining their maleness to procreate? Lawyers would have a field day with that one as soon as arguable either way. My view is that demonstrates transition is performative rather than sincere ie they like playing the game of being a woman and, in particular, claiming victim hood status ( ie the mental dissonance of being a white middle class male within a society currently working to reject the intrinsic authority of such) and that they still quite like being a man.

lcakethereforeIam · 17/12/2025 09:56

There was a thread about a woman who was initially denied a GRC because she intended to get pregnant. In the end the GRC was granted. In light of that even if a man is intending to impregnate a whole bunch of women it should be no impediment to him getting his own GRC. i actually think this has already been tested, the guy skipped away GRC in hand, but i might be having my own hallucination.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5428960-high-court-rules-that-a-trans-man

High Court rules that a trans man...... | Mumsnet

...... cannot be denied a gender recognition certificate because he is trying to conceive, in an important win supported by Good Law Project. [[https...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5428960-high-court-rules-that-a-trans-man

nicepotoftea · 17/12/2025 09:57

Largesso · 17/12/2025 09:40

I think it goes to the question of whether the PC of gender reassignment is applicable. So if someone is sincere in their transition and demonstrating that sincerity then they are protected in EA under Gender reassignment. The question then is is someone who is maintaining their maleness to procreate? Lawyers would have a field day with that one as soon as arguable either way. My view is that demonstrates transition is performative rather than sincere ie they like playing the game of being a woman and, in particular, claiming victim hood status ( ie the mental dissonance of being a white middle class male within a society currently working to reject the intrinsic authority of such) and that they still quite like being a man.

Wasn't there a recent ECHR case where a woman couldn't be denied gender recognition because she had expressed a desire to become pregnant?

nicepotoftea · 17/12/2025 09:58

Jinx!

KitWyn · 17/12/2025 10:10

Shortshriftandlethal · 17/12/2025 09:31

Judge Kemp obviously has no "interest in GC issues" either, nor has he been following the news because if he had he would not have made so many fundamental flaws.Do we even believe it was he that delivered this judgement - because if it truly were him then it is more than clear he has been following trans activist arguments and seems more than a little well versed in them.

The judgement does not read as if it were mainly written by the elderly Judge Kemp. It is even odder when reading it for a second time, now we know about the hallucinatory quotes and many clumsy mistakes. I'm increasingly suspicious regarding possible contributions from a lay member who believes TWAW and in 'no debate'.

It seems likely 'L Brown' is Lorraine Brown, an experienced HR and project management professional with an honours degree in Business with Languages, an Associate Membership of the CIPD and is an Employment Tribunal Lay Member in Scotland. (🎩 Hat-tip to PP for sleuthing). Her CV is extensive/sensible/credible for a Lay Member representing the Employer/Business view. She is not an obvious TRA?

So that leaves the Employee representative, who is typically a trade unionist. This is a middle-aged woman named 'C Russell'.

Do we know anything more about C Russell?

MarieDeGournay · 17/12/2025 10:12

nicepotoftea · 17/12/2025 09:58

Jinx!

'Jinx' - I never heard that, but I'm guessing from context it means you've said the same thing. Thank you, something to add to my store of quirky things!

The other day I remembered what we use to say as kids when we wanted out of a game, we said 'Pax'.

I recall that it was immediately respected, you left that child alone no matter how frenetic the game was - it's interesting that even young children can learn and apply respect and boundaries. That's a nice thing to have rememberedSmile

Any alternatives to 'Pax'?

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread