Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #67

1000 replies

nauticant · 01/10/2026 18:23

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 were of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claimed 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 after a prolonged process judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025. That judgment is being appealed and an appeal hearing is expected to take place in 2027.

A second Employment Tribunal, Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing, has just been heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and ended on Thursday 1 October 2026. It is possible that a decision will be handed down before Christmas of this year.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against three senior managers who were witnesses in the first Employment Tribunal - Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson, against Carol Potter, the chief executive of NHS Fife, for victimisation, against NHS Fife for discrimination, and against its director of people and culture David Miller for harassment. In addition, Sandie Peggie is being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council over fitness to practice.

The past proceedings were live tweeted by www.x.com/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets are likely to be providing coverage in future proceedings. There's additional information on Tribunal Tweets' substack: www.tribunaltweets.substack.com/.

Links to previous threads #1 to #60 can be found in this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 61: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5472628-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-61 8 January 2026 to 3 August 2026

Thread 62: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5562302-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-62 3 August 2026 to 24 September 2026

Thread 63: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-63 24 September 2026 to 27 September 2026

Thread 64: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64 27 September 2026 to 29 September 2026

Thread 65: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65 29 September 2026 to 30 September 2026

Thread 66: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-66 30 September 2026 to 1 October 2026

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
MyAmpleSheep · 05/10/2026 13:28

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:26

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that it’s a bold claim.

Perhaps this is a debate for another time. I have no doubt you could come up with arguments to support your opinion that including trans women inherently compromises women’s privacy, dignity and safety in every conceivable context. I’ve heard those arguments before; I don't share them and have my own views - which I'm sure you've heard too. How a court of law might come down hearing both our sides on each is an entirely open question.

Yes, we can talk about sport and fairness, toilets and changing rooms, biology and transition, safeguarding and violence against women and girls. But I wasn’t here to hash out our respective opinions on these things.

My intervention on this thread was much narrower: to challenge the widespread claim that the Supreme Court judgment establishes a blanket ban on trans women using any service intended for women. It does not.

Whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the circumstances. If you want to show direct or indirect discrimination, you need to establish that on the specific facts, you can't simply assert that every conceivable arrangement must be discriminatory. I’m not going to debate an endless series of examples with you.

Edited
Show quote history

Perhaps this is a debate for another time.

ROTFLMAO.

MarieDeGournay · 05/10/2026 13:29

LacksieThe hypothetical about admitting trans women while excluding other men comes from paragraph 61 of the High Court’s GLP v EHRC judgment, not FWS. It recognises a potentially strong argument that this could be different but not less favourable treatment, depending on the circumstances.

He actually says there is 'scope' for a strong argument, not that there is one - judges' words matter.
And he then dismissed it.

I see you've quoted #62 as well as #61 this time - any comments on #38 and#38 which I posted above?

If there is a men's single-sex facility and, a women's+transwomen's facility, spot the missing provision:
yes, it's a women's single sex facility, so it women, but not men, would be deprived of the single-sex provision they are entitled to.

MrPrettyDamnCosmic · 05/10/2026 13:31

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:26

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that it’s a bold claim.

Perhaps this is a debate for another time. I have no doubt you could come up with arguments to support your opinion that including trans women inherently compromises women’s privacy, dignity and safety in every conceivable context. I’ve heard those arguments before; I don't share them and have my own views - which I'm sure you've heard too. How a court of law might come down hearing both our sides on each is an entirely open question.

Yes, we can talk about sport and fairness, toilets and changing rooms, biology and transition, safeguarding and violence against women and girls. But I wasn’t here to hash out our respective opinions on these things.

My intervention on this thread was much narrower: to challenge the widespread claim that the Supreme Court judgment establishes a blanket ban on trans women using any service intended for women. It does not.

Whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the circumstances. If you want to show direct or indirect discrimination, you need to establish that on the specific facts, you can't simply assert that every conceivable arrangement must be discriminatory. I’m not going to debate an endless series of examples with you.

Edited
Show quote history

My intervention on this thread was much narrower: to challenge the widespread claim that the Supreme Court judgment establishes a blanket ban on trans women using any service intended for women. It does not.

It of course imposes a de facto blanket ban on transwomen using any service intended for women because there is no way to legally define a service for women & transwomen that excludes other males.

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:33

MarieDeGournay · 05/10/2026 13:29

LacksieThe hypothetical about admitting trans women while excluding other men comes from paragraph 61 of the High Court’s GLP v EHRC judgment, not FWS. It recognises a potentially strong argument that this could be different but not less favourable treatment, depending on the circumstances.

He actually says there is 'scope' for a strong argument, not that there is one - judges' words matter.
And he then dismissed it.

I see you've quoted #62 as well as #61 this time - any comments on #38 and#38 which I posted above?

If there is a men's single-sex facility and, a women's+transwomen's facility, spot the missing provision:
yes, it's a women's single sex facility, so it women, but not men, would be deprived of the single-sex provision they are entitled to.

I said “a potentially strong argument”, which is perfectly consistent with “scope for a strong argument”. So your criticism there is entirely unwarranted.

I’ve also addressed paragraphs 35–38 extensively. They concern the Workplace Regulations, which we’ve been discussing at length. Repeating them does not answer the distinction I’ve already explained.

MyAmpleSheep · 05/10/2026 13:35

@MarieDeGournay

77 from GLP is worth reading

The second possible criticism concerns the proposition at [3a] considered at point (vi) (above at paragraphs 57 – 62). While I am less certain than the Interim Update that a man prevented from using the Claimants’ trans-inclusive female lavatory would be likely to establish the less favourable treatment necessary to make good a claim of direct sex discrimination, I do not consider that the way the point is put in the Update is necessarily wrong. Rather, it is a point that may turn on the facts of a situation.

There are other reasons why a gender-segregated toilet service is unlawful besides indirect discimination against men excluded. For such a service not to be found unlawful it has to pass all possible challenges, and the unlawful indirect discrimination against men is only one of them.

KittyWilkinson · 05/10/2026 13:38

MyAmpleSheep · 05/10/2026 13:28

Perhaps this is a debate for another time.

ROTFLMAO.

Show quote history

Translation: I can't think of a good answer so I'll deflect.

MyAmpleSheep · 05/10/2026 13:39

KittyWilkinson · 05/10/2026 13:38

Translation: I can't think of a good answer so I'll deflect.

Show quote history

For the seventy billionth time, in eleventy million different threads. Are you spotting a theme?

OldCrone · 05/10/2026 13:39

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 11:39

I’m really not trying to “wriggle out” of anything.

I accept that there may be reasons why the alternative private spaces used for changing in this case did not meet the regulatory requirements. The tribunal also acknowledged that possibility.

What I object to is the claim that the law prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men. That arrangement is not automatically unlawful. Its lawfulness depends on the circumstances, details of the facilities provided, etc There is a really important distinction here. You and others are presenting the law as requiring exclusions that go well beyond what the legislation actually requires, and the case law has reasoned, in order to advance a political agenda. That is not democratic.

Providing trans-inclusive services for men and women may be lawful in a wide range of circumstances. There are particular circumstances in which separate single sex provision is required—for example, certain facilities in workplaces and schools. In those settings, additional facilities or arrangements for private, separate use may be needed alongside trans-inclusive provision.

Whether those arrangements meet the requirements then becomes a question about the specific spaces, facilities and how they are used, rather than establishing that trans-inclusive provision is unlawful in principle.

Edited
Show quote history

What I object to is the claim that the law prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men. That arrangement is not automatically unlawful.

You seem to be suggesting here that there is some way of distinguishing 'transwomen' from other men. How would you go about doing this? What is the difference between a man who is a 'transwoman' and a man who is not a 'transwoman'?

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 13:42

GailBlancheViola · 05/10/2026 13:17

WRT why Sandie needed a private changing room with washing and toilet provision - any woman knows you need this basic level of facilities if you have menstrual flooding. Particularly if you are a nurse on duty and will be going back to nursing patients - basic health and safety.

No woman should ever have to plead or justify or explain why they want single sex ONLY spaces, services, sports, etc., etc., that excludes ALL males.

If TW don't want to share spaces with members of their own sex then they need to ask for and be provided with an alternative if necessary, the single sex spaces for women are NOT an option as an alternative.

As for the blathering on about the High Court case that GLP took - GLP LOST the case. The High Court is beneath the Supreme Court so therefore the Supreme Court Judgement is the judgement.

If you want to test the bit in the High Court Summary that you keep banging on and on about @Lacksie it will need a case to be brought to Court to do so and as there hasn't been all your endless wittering on about what was mused on in that case is irrelevant.

TW have NEVER had a right of entry into female single sex spaces, services, sports, etc., if the sign on the door says 'Women' it is NOT for them. Why is it impossible for some TW to behave like decent human beings and respect that?

Don't worry I know the answer - absolute misogny and hatred of women.

You actually used my quote explaining to Lacksie why SP specifically needed a changing room with washing facilities. I agree no one should need to explain or justify a need for SSS as it’s should be obvious.

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:42

OldCrone · 05/10/2026 13:39

What I object to is the claim that the law prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men. That arrangement is not automatically unlawful.

You seem to be suggesting here that there is some way of distinguishing 'transwomen' from other men. How would you go about doing this? What is the difference between a man who is a 'transwoman' and a man who is not a 'transwoman'?

Show quote history

This has also already been discussed and answered in detail on this thread.

NotAtMyAge · 05/10/2026 13:44

Wishesandhorses · 05/10/2026 10:36

I suspect there's a fourth option:

that he felt entitled to do what he wanted and to go 'where he felt more comfortable' as part of his chosen identity,

and despite identifying as a woman, had no doubt of a hierarchy in which he held higher control and power and entitlement to that space than any woman.

And viewed any woman who failed to unconditionally provide the labour he wanted from her and see him as the only relevant person in the situation, was a bad person who should be punished and disposed of ASAP because it threatened his self perception and his believed entitlement.

And had no capacity to care that the women in that space actually had lives and consciousness and needs of their own that were equal to his, and that he wasn't the only part of the situation that mattered. Issues with social capacity and emotional intelligence would seem to be playing a major part.

Unfortunately for women; none of this precludes options 1 2 or 3 also being involved for a man demanding to be present while she changes her period flooded clothes because he wants to and perceives her giving this experience as his right and that she is distressed about it.... well at best, he doesn't care. At worst, it may well be adding excitement to the whole experience. And his personal inner motivations don't matter anyway to her experience which is I do not want to do this in front of a man.

It's extremely grim.

Edited

And had no capacity to care that the women in that space actually had lives and consciousness and needs of their own that were equal to his, and that he wasn't the only part of the situation that mattered. Issues with social capacity and emotional intelligence would seem to be playing a major part.

To be honest, I doubt those who convince themselves that they are the opposite sex (or wish to be perceived as such) have much social capacity or emotional intelligence in the first place. If they had, they wouldn't try so vehemently and sometimes viciously to wrest the whole of society into validating their individual self-perception.

BezMark · 05/10/2026 13:45

I don't know about Pete The Plumber but I'm Bez The Software Engineer and I've got both gender dysphoria and am gender non-conforming.

My gender identity is generally something I keep to myself, but I can assure you it falls under the trans umbrella according to Stonewall themselves.

I've got no god damn business in the female facilities because I'm male. I have to share the stinky male facilities with toilet fingers and his soap allergy and I'm not over the moon about that, but it is what it is.

MyAmpleSheep · 05/10/2026 13:46

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 11:39

I’m really not trying to “wriggle out” of anything.

I accept that there may be reasons why the alternative private spaces used for changing in this case did not meet the regulatory requirements. The tribunal also acknowledged that possibility.

What I object to is the claim that the law prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men. That arrangement is not automatically unlawful. Its lawfulness depends on the circumstances, details of the facilities provided, etc There is a really important distinction here. You and others are presenting the law as requiring exclusions that go well beyond what the legislation actually requires, and the case law has reasoned, in order to advance a political agenda. That is not democratic.

Providing trans-inclusive services for men and women may be lawful in a wide range of circumstances. There are particular circumstances in which separate single sex provision is required—for example, certain facilities in workplaces and schools. In those settings, additional facilities or arrangements for private, separate use may be needed alongside trans-inclusive provision.

Whether those arrangements meet the requirements then becomes a question about the specific spaces, facilities and how they are used, rather than establishing that trans-inclusive provision is unlawful in principle.

Edited
Show quote history

What I object to is the claim that the law prohibits, in principle, a facility or service from being advertised as “for women” while admitting women and trans women, but excluding other men. That arrangement is not automatically unlawful. Its lawfulness depends on the circumstances,

I (we?) don't claim the law prohibits this in terms. I (we?) claim that it will necessarily be unlawful because it will always be found to violate various other relevant requirements or meet other prohibitions.

Its lawfulness depends on the circumstances

I claim that you cannot describe a circumstance where a challenge to it's lawfulness would fail. I claim it is de-facto unlawful.

NotAtMyAge · 05/10/2026 13:54

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 10:42

@Lacksie I have asked you this direct question several times

Why are you so desperate to have changing rooms labelled “women’s” to surreptitiously permit transwomen to use them?

A transparent label “women’s and transwomen’s changing room” would give everyone the choice of whether or not to use the changing room.

If, as is being mooted, Lacksie is posting from Australia or NZ, it's from an environment where women are no longer an acknowledged sex class, as Sal Grover's legal cases have shown so clearly. No need in that situation to separately mention trans-identified men as they have automatic right of entry everywhere. What Lacksie is totally unwilling to acknowledge is that here on Terf Island, women are still a legal sex class and have our own single-sex facilities and resources, to which NO man has right of entry.

MarieDeGournay · 05/10/2026 13:55

But you haven't 'explained' the distinction, you just keep repeating things that you believe are explanations, but as you say yourself, repetition is not explanation.

What is clear from Swift, UKSC and I'm sure others, is that when a service or facility is designated as being for women, that means it is reserved for biological, or natal women.

If transwomen are permitted to use it as well as women, it ceases to be a single-sex provision for women.

It therefore does not meet the requirements of for instance building regs, workplace regs etc where they require single sex provision.

By the way, Doc T of the building regs requires sex-segregated toilets in the first place; if there is insufficient room, mixed sex toilets may be provided instead; if so wished mixed sex toilets may be provided in addition to sex-segregate toilet, but not instead of.

It's pretty straightforward,. I don't know why people are so keen to find ways to complicate things and make women-only spaces open to men too.

Occam's razor meets Ronseal: in order to stay on the right of laws and regs, if it says it's for women, it's for women as defined by the UKSC.

GailBlancheViola · 05/10/2026 13:57

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 13:42

You actually used my quote explaining to Lacksie why SP specifically needed a changing room with washing facilities. I agree no one should need to explain or justify a need for SSS as it’s should be obvious.

Show quote history

It wasn't a go at you Kirschcherries apologies if you took it that way.

I am just so incensed that women are expected to beg, plead, detail private and personal female biological functions and even to the extent of disclosing sexual trauma in order to somehow justify being granted the very simple, humane, consideration of provision of single sex spaces or services. It encapsulates just how little women are though of.

Upton never had to explain or justify his use of the female changing rooms, never gave any thought to the impact he would cause on the women in there, their thoughts, wishes, wants, needs were an absolute irrelavance not only to him but also to those who granted his wish. A man asks and he is given and this is not an MRA movement? This is not patriarchal imposition? This is not misogny red in tooth claw? Yeah, right.

Rollingpinofdoom · 05/10/2026 13:59

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:26

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that it’s a bold claim.

Perhaps this is a debate for another time. I have no doubt you could come up with arguments to support your opinion that including trans women inherently compromises women’s privacy, dignity and safety in every conceivable context. I’ve heard those arguments before; I don't share them and have my own views - which I'm sure you've heard too. How a court of law might come down hearing both our sides on each is an entirely open question.

Yes, we can talk about sport and fairness, toilets and changing rooms, biology and transition, safeguarding and violence against women and girls. But I wasn’t here to hash out our respective opinions on these things.

My intervention on this thread was much narrower: to challenge the widespread claim that the Supreme Court judgment establishes a blanket ban on trans women using any service intended for women. It does not.

Whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the circumstances. If you want to show direct or indirect discrimination, you need to establish that on the specific facts, you can't simply assert that every conceivable arrangement must be discriminatory. I’m not going to debate an endless series of examples with you.

Edited
Show quote history

that’s a lot of words to say you can’t find up with an example….

Tallisker · 05/10/2026 14:04

Please please please can we just not?

BackToLurk · 05/10/2026 14:05

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:42

This has also already been discussed and answered in detail on this thread.

Show quote history

It really hasn't.

  1. Male people with a 'female' gender identity
  2. Male people with a GRC
  3. Male people who are proposing to undergo a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
  4. Male people who are undergoing a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
  5. Male people who have undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
  6. Male people presenting as female.
  7. All of the above in all circumstances
  8. Some of the above in all circumstances
  9. All of the above in some circumstances
  10. Some of the above in some circumstances

I may have missed some of your other options.

NotAtMyAge · 05/10/2026 14:05

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 11:56

i claim those circumstances only ever exist in situations where any sex segregation at all would itself be unlawful under the EA2010.

This is completely incorrect.

can you give a single example where the obvious sex discrimination involved in a woman-gender service meets any of the schedule 3 exemptions that permit it?

To provide services for women and trans women and exclude men you don't need to meet schedule 3 exemptions.

This was the reasoning that people widely tried to claim to support an interpretation of the SC as banning trans women from all female spaces. (If you treat men and women separately you rely on single sex exemptions. If you admit trans women to the female service, it is no longer "single sex" for the purposes of the act and therefore you can't allow on these exemptions. Therefore it would be unlawful discrimination against men to exclude them from the service.)

However, the High Court helpful pointed out, that this reasoning doesn't necessarily hold, because discrimination has to be more than simply "different treatment". You can provide different facilities for different groups, it only becomes discrimination when the alternative is less favourable.

So the court provided the example of toilets - men and women's. If the facilities are the same and no less favourable, it would not be necessarily unlawful to admit trans women to women's and not men, including if the toilets are specifically labelled as for "women".

In workplaces and schools, there are additional rules that require single sex provision, but this doesn't make the above type of services unlawful, it just means that in schools/ workplaces you would at least need some provision that satisfy's "single sex" provision rules - no reason to say this couldn't be additional services for birth females, or private facilities that meet the requirements. Etc.

Show quote history

For the umpteenth time, the High Court in the the GLP case did NOT rule that. The judge merely expressed this might be a possibility before dismissing the GLP's case entirely

I asked Google's AI for comment and this was the result:

The elements that some commentators and the GLP highlighted as "victories"—such as the observation that trans-inclusive spaces do not automatically violate the law—were part of the judge's obiter dicta (remarks made in passing) or expressions of hypothetical possibilities during his technical analysis. They were not formal legal rulings or bindings mandates,

Edited for SPAG

Kirschcherries · 05/10/2026 14:09

GailBlancheViola · 05/10/2026 13:57

It wasn't a go at you Kirschcherries apologies if you took it that way.

I am just so incensed that women are expected to beg, plead, detail private and personal female biological functions and even to the extent of disclosing sexual trauma in order to somehow justify being granted the very simple, humane, consideration of provision of single sex spaces or services. It encapsulates just how little women are though of.

Upton never had to explain or justify his use of the female changing rooms, never gave any thought to the impact he would cause on the women in there, their thoughts, wishes, wants, needs were an absolute irrelavance not only to him but also to those who granted his wish. A man asks and he is given and this is not an MRA movement? This is not patriarchal imposition? This is not misogny red in tooth claw? Yeah, right.

Show quote history

No offence I absolutely agree with you.

Mmmnotsure · 05/10/2026 14:15

KittyWilkinson · 05/10/2026 13:15

I wonder if Judge Kemp has given up his day job? There's an uncanny resemblance with a piss poor grasp of the law.

Perhaps they are both using AI in the same way.

NotAtMyAge · 05/10/2026 14:20

Lacksie · 05/10/2026 13:26

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that it’s a bold claim.

Perhaps this is a debate for another time. I have no doubt you could come up with arguments to support your opinion that including trans women inherently compromises women’s privacy, dignity and safety in every conceivable context. I’ve heard those arguments before; I don't share them and have my own views - which I'm sure you've heard too. How a court of law might come down hearing both our sides on each is an entirely open question.

Yes, we can talk about sport and fairness, toilets and changing rooms, biology and transition, safeguarding and violence against women and girls. But I wasn’t here to hash out our respective opinions on these things.

My intervention on this thread was much narrower: to challenge the widespread claim that the Supreme Court judgment establishes a blanket ban on trans women using any service intended for women. It does not.

Whether a particular arrangement is lawful depends on the circumstances. If you want to show direct or indirect discrimination, you need to establish that on the specific facts, you can't simply assert that every conceivable arrangement must be discriminatory. I’m not going to debate an endless series of examples with you.

Edited
Show quote history

Of course it's "for another time" - which will never come. It always is with you when you're put on the spot. The Emperor is definitely minus clothes here.

WearyAuldWumman · 05/10/2026 14:29

janeszebra · 05/10/2026 12:32

I've been pondering a scenario where Fife offer two sets of changing facilities, one labelled 'Women and Transwomen' and 'Females Only'. And I'm thinking Upton would have insisted on the 'Females Only'.

The leisure centres that I attend have unisex 'changing villages' adjacent to the swimming pools, but single sex changing rooms and shower areas for the gym and studios. Those using the gym and studios can choose to use the single sex areas or the changing villages.

In the centre that I use most, we did have one instance of a bloke turning up wearing a set of unfeasibly large prosthetic breasts - very much like the get-up of the infamous woodwork teacher - but for some strange reason he didn't stay long, even though he could have used the locked cubicles and showers in the changing village. At the time, I thought it bizarre that the shorts and top combo he was wearing looked like a cosplay of the uniform worn by the staff at the gym.

The single sex areas are all clearly marked "FEMALE" or "MALE". I suspect that he didn't have the gall to attempt to use those marked "FEMALE", given that - unlike the Upton situation - he didn't benefit from a power imbalance.

GriseldaandMike · 05/10/2026 14:29

It might not be discrimination against men therefore it might be OK.

Can anyone spot what (who) is missing in this argument?

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.