Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 ··· 39 40

Original poster

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #60

1000 replies

nauticant · 16/12/2025 22:37

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

OP posts:

Thread gallery

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 21:35

MyThreeWords · 18/12/2025 21:29

Thanks to that dictionary I now understand "threep it doun their thrapples" which was the bit that baffled me the most.

I think that would be a good suggestion for the person or persons writing about Some People in this unproven and unscientific manner. Threep it doun their thrapples!

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 18/12/2025 21:36

Could the "some people" be the gaggle of NHS Fife witnesses that, under oath, went out of their way to pretend they hadn't noticed Upton was trans, let alone a man?

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 21:38

@AreYouSureAskedNaomi I fear you are onto something there.

MyAmpleSheep · 18/12/2025 21:39

MyrtleLion · 18/12/2025 21:25

Paras 60-62. My emphasis.

The second respondent has identified as female since around January 2022, being fully open about that in public since around August 2022. The second respondent since 2022 has used the female names of Elizabeth and Beth, and female pronouns; has sought to have an appearance as a female; has worn clothing that is consistent with what is generally regarded as feminine in style; and has worn makeup in what is generally regarded as feminine in style. The second respondent presents in what is generally regarded as a feminine manner including as to having a long hairstyle worn in what is generally regarded as feminine in style, and a pitch and tone of voice consistent with that for a female. The second respondent has been presenting as a female in such a manner since prior to working at the hospital, and throughout the period since commencing at the department.
The second respondent is not a person who is obviously male from external appearance. Some people meeting the second respondent in a work or social setting unaware of the sex assigned at birth for the second respondent are likely to consider the second respondent to be of the female sex. Other people meeting the second respondent in such circumstances, or after more detailed interactions with the second respondent, are likely to consider the second respondent as someone assigned male by sex at birth.
The second respondent is about six feet tall. The claimant is about five feet four inches tall.

Show quote history

The second respondent is not a person who is obviously male from external appearance. Some people meeting the second respondent in a work or social setting unaware of the sex assigned at birth for the second respondent are likely to consider the second respondent to be of the female sex. Other people meeting the second respondent in such circumstances, or after more detailed interactions with the second respondent, are likely to consider the second respondent as someone assigned male by sex at birth.

In other words, you can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time...

MyrtleLion · 18/12/2025 21:49

MyAmpleSheep · 18/12/2025 21:39

The second respondent is not a person who is obviously male from external appearance. Some people meeting the second respondent in a work or social setting unaware of the sex assigned at birth for the second respondent are likely to consider the second respondent to be of the female sex. Other people meeting the second respondent in such circumstances, or after more detailed interactions with the second respondent, are likely to consider the second respondent as someone assigned male by sex at birth.

In other words, you can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time...

Show quote history

We must remember that Kemp only encountered Upton in "feminine" clothing, long hair, makeup and with a "feminine" voice.

At work he would be a long-haired man in scrubs, no makeup, maybe a high pitched voice (which would probably disappear in a stressful environment like A&E), but indistinguishable from any other longhaired man.

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 21:59

PrettyDamnCosmic · 18/12/2025 14:40

It depends... A non-verbal patient is likely to lack capacity but it is not a given.

Show quote history

That assumption has been shown wanting by several remarkable non verbal people:
Joey Deacon, assumed to be intellectually disabled for 50years, until Ernie turned up & could understand him, they wrote a book, 'Tongue Tied' together with Michael, who could understand Ernie...

Jean-Dominique Bauby and his memoir, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (Le Scaphandre et le Papillon), labouriusly written after he was 'locked-in', paralysed by a stroke, with assistance, one character at a time.

Helen Keller, prolific writer & disabilities campaigner, who was rendered deaf & blind by illness at ~20 months old.

Henrietta Freeman, non verbal disabilities campaigner, on twix. Uses assistive tech, writes in detail about consent issues & intimate care. Comes in for a lot of stick from Be Kind land.

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 22:13

PrettyDamnCosmic · 18/12/2025 16:22

Sorry I thought that it would be blindingly obvious that an inability to communicate adequately points to a lack of capacity.

Show quote history

it points to inablilty to use mechanisms such as speech or sign language, but is not of itself evidence of the lack of intelect.

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 22:23

Liverstreaming · 18/12/2025 18:51

It's a staged decision-making process.

Does the patient have capacity? If yes, explain the options and they have the right to accept/refuse the amputation (even if they are refusing for reasons you think daft and that refusal kills them).
If no, can you reasonably wait for them to regain capacity? (E.g. patient is drunk and incapable, but the decision will wait a few hours til they sober up.) If yes, wait.
If no, does the patient have a valid Advanced Decision to Refuse Treatment? If yes, abide by it. (So if they have an Advanced Decision saying no blood products under any circumstances you may do the amputation but, if they bleed out, so be it.)
If no, is there someone with a valid power of attorney? If yes, consult them on the decision and do what they say. However, their word is not the final word. If a patient with capacity makes a decision for, uhhh, unusual reasons then that decision sticks (it's their body); if the attorney makes a decision which is patently not in the best interests of the patient then it can be overridden. So if the patient declines the amputation because not being able to paint their toenails will make them sad then that's their call; if an attorney declines on that basis a court can override it.
If no, the clinician makes a best interest decision. Importantly, that's not the decision that the clinician would make in the same circumstances. It's the decision the person would make in their own best interests were they able to do so. So the clinician should take into account their previously expressed wishes and attitudes to healthcare, as well as the views of those close to them. Those close to them are not making the decision (that's for the clinician) but giving the clinician insight into what decision the patient might have made. If there is noone close to the patient, you should consult an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate who can be their voice. The decision should be the least restrictive practicable in the circumstances.

Show quote history

sorry, point 3 fails for me, you are making a decision to carry out an aggresive procedure which you know will kill the patient? (fails on do no harm).

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 22:30

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 21:32

"Some people are likely ... to consider 2nd respondent to be of the female sex ... other people are likely (or after more detailed interactions with 2nd respondent) ... to think they are male"

Who are these Some People? Where is the evidence for these assertions?

😬

possibly the people who said on oath that that did not know what sex they are because they had not had their chromosomes tested.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/12/2025 22:30

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 22:23

sorry, point 3 fails for me, you are making a decision to carry out an aggresive procedure which you know will kill the patient? (fails on do no harm).

Show quote history

You are correct to the extent that the operation should not be done unless there is a reasonable chance (reasonableness affected by how hopeless the situation will be without the operation) that it will succeed despite the restriction on consent for treatment. It should not be done if there is no improvement in the patient's chance of survival, as you say.
Edit: this is implied by the obligation to act in the patient's best interests.

KTheGrey · 18/12/2025 22:31

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 21:32

"Some people are likely ... to consider 2nd respondent to be of the female sex ... other people are likely (or after more detailed interactions with 2nd respondent) ... to think they are male"

Who are these Some People? Where is the evidence for these assertions?

😬

And are they some of The Reasonable Persons so famed in law?

prh47bridge · 18/12/2025 22:37

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 22:23

sorry, point 3 fails for me, you are making a decision to carry out an aggresive procedure which you know will kill the patient? (fails on do no harm).

Show quote history

No. As they said in a subsequent post, if you go ahead with the surgery, you take every precaution to minimise blood loss as that is better than simply doing nothing and letting them die of sepsis. Since you cannot give the patient a blood transfusion there are no good choices available, so you take the option that gives a chance of the patient living in preference to the one that guarantees they will die.

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 22:39

KTheGrey · 18/12/2025 22:31

And are they some of The Reasonable Persons so famed in law?

Show quote history

No, unfortunately they cannot be considered "reasonable" in this context. I am pretty sure they are not famous, either.

LordEmsworthsGirlfriend · 18/12/2025 22:49

Does no one care that the judge misspelt the second respondent?!! It's an outrage, I tell you.

Liverstreaming · 18/12/2025 22:49

SternlyMatthews · 18/12/2025 22:23

sorry, point 3 fails for me, you are making a decision to carry out an aggresive procedure which you know will kill the patient? (fails on do no harm).

Show quote history

No very much not. The point is you respect a patient’s autonomy. So by that point in the decision tree you’re dealing with a patient who lacks capacity, has a condition causing sepsis which will kill them if untreated, and has an advance decision permitting surgery but refusing blood products. You do not go ahead and give blood anyway ignoring their wishes, even if doing so will save their life. That may mean you don’t operate at all (if it is too risky) or it may mean you operate accepting the higher risk because the alternative is death. The point is your assessment of the patient’s best interests (having blood) does not outweigh a valid advance decision made when they had capacity. You need to consider the impact of that before making any best interest decision.

Getting back to Upton, it means that he doesn’t get to override a patient saying ‘I’ll only accept care from a female doctor’ because it’s their consent and not his beliefs/value judgements that matter. And he certainly doesn’t get to do so if they lose consciousness so can no longer protest.

KittyWilkinson · 18/12/2025 22:50

There is different legislation regarding Capacity for Scotland, N. Ireland and England and Wales.

In England, the CQC guidelines state:
The Mental Capacity Act explains how consent to care and treatment should be obtained. The Act provides the following principles:

A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that the person lacks capacity.
A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

Issue 12: Capacity and consent - Care Quality Commission

I assume similar applies in Scotland, Wales and N.I.

Any medic who assumes that a person who is non verbal is probably lacking in capacity, and carries on with a procedure or examination, ignoring guidelines, is on very dangerous ground,

Issue 12: Capacity and consent - Care Quality Commission

When a person is asked for their consent, information about the proposed care and treatment must be provided in a way that the person can understand.

https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/learning-safety-incidents/issue-12-capacity-and-consent

Totallygripped · 18/12/2025 22:56

Well we will ever be skirting around the consent issue in asking our esteemed and obvs much cleverer than any of us could ever ever be medic degree/clinician posters. But. Is Beth biologically female????

Totallygripped · 18/12/2025 23:12

Not my field at all but no doubt you are aware of the recent European jurisprudence from appeal from the Dutch courts re Jehovah Witness and blood transfusions.From.what i have seen personally recently i am horrified by the treatment of vulnerable persons. But again. Is Beth a biological female??

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 23:13

If I dress up as a hippopotamus, am I a hippopotamus? I thought I was a moose. But sometimes I might like to wear a hippopotamus costume. Or maybe a crocodile costume.

Maybe I'm overstepping the mark thinking about being a different species.

nebulousMoose · 18/12/2025 23:16

@Totallygripped who are you asking to answer this question?

No he isn't. That's my answer.

KittyWilkinson · 18/12/2025 23:24

Upton was born male, married as a male, and will always be biologically a male.

And I would refuse treatment from him. Not because he is a man, but because he gives me no confidence in his brand of medical ethics.

As for Dutch case law. Irrelevant here. Perhaps start your own thread.
HTH for the pp upthread

WearyAuldWumman · 18/12/2025 23:27

KittyWilkinson · 18/12/2025 22:50

A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that the person lacks capacity.
A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

Issue 12: Capacity and consent - Care Quality Commission

I assume similar applies in Scotland, Wales and N.I.

Any medic who assumes that a person who is non verbal is probably lacking in capacity, and carries on with a procedure or examination, ignoring guidelines, is on very dangerous ground,

I can't quote law, but I know that - one time - when my DH needed to go to hospital and refused, when he had a bad UTI affecting his reasoning, etc, the GP said she couldn't override this in spite of the fact that I had Power of Attorney for him. (We were in Scotland.)

According to her, she couldn't say that he lacked capacity. (He needed hospital because he had a heart condition, diabetes and was on warfarin.)

In the end, I was given antibiotics and left to look after him at home and hope for the best.

KittyWilkinson · 18/12/2025 23:33

@WearyAuldWumman
I'm in a similar position with a relative of mine. Frustrating though it is, the capacity to make (what seems to others to be) a foolish decision for yourself is still capacity.
And I'm also left looking after said person. Who refuses to listen to reason.
Well... my reason anyway😁
Edited to add, a similar fear of a local hospital was at the back of that refusal, perhaps they are right after all, it's got an awful reputation.

WearyAuldWumman · 18/12/2025 23:40

KittyWilkinson · 18/12/2025 23:33

Edited

It was the same for my late husband. To be fair, he had a point. It was the Vic in Kirkcaldy.

I got him an ambulance as soon as he had his stroke (this was before the incident above). The young doctor left in charge of A&E misdiagnosed him as having had a TIA. By the time I was allowed through and an older doctor came on, he was at the edge of the window for a clot buster. They opted not to give it and he was left with life-changing disabilities.

KittyWilkinson · 18/12/2025 23:52

Snap Weary misdiagnosed with TIA, and a male nurse who announced he was Harold Shipman.
Luckily the cleaners corroborated the complaint. A training need identified apparently. Relative wouldn't push it further as later diagnosed with Parkinsons at another hospital. NW England.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 ··· 39 40

Please create an account

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

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is not accepting new messages.