Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #68

[nauticant]

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

Thread 67: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584523-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-67 1 October 2026 to ????

If only one sex didn’t use their genitals to oppress the other sex, then maybe sex segregation wouldn’t matter.

Until men stop using their physical strength, or threats of physical strength, against women, and until men stop putting their penises into women’s bodies without women’s consent, we will need separate spaces for women and men.

Lacksie, genitals are just shorthand for the fundamental physiological differences between males and females, regardless of whether or not some people have surgically altered the genitals they were born with.

Speaking as a woman, I really do NOT want to have to use public sanitary facilities which are also routinely used by men, however those men identify. To put it bluntly, men can be messy in toilets, whether inadvertently or deliberately - certainly messier than women on average. in addition women have other needs in toilets which men don't share. All this is separate from the fact that sexual assault is more frequent in mixed sex sanitary and changing facilities. Society developed single-sex spaces for good reasons and those reasons haven't changed just because we're now living in the 21st century.

Are you aware the genitals aren't the only difference between men and women?

Sure, but genitals are the main basis on which we register sex at birth - and that is what the latest rules say- don't they. Regardless of any other factors, we must legally enforce the organisation of people according to their birth sex, without exception, in a whole variety of different contexts.

Although not without exception - of course. My apologies. Of course, if you want to exclude a trans person from a facility or service, in that case, other factors are definitely relevant regardless of birth sex . But only if you want to exclude them.

@Lacksie do you not think that coming on here complaining about the LAW (the ECHR guidance is a simple guide about the law, not the actual law) is such a pointless activity, on your part.

Tell me please what is the point of your presence here.

It's all about casting doubt.

And disruption of the Sandie Peggie threads.

Well i know that but I want an answer from @Lacksie

Yes. Well good luck with that one

Sorry Hedgehog.
Mind you, I'm not going to hold my breath that the answer will be forthcoming.

Of course

Actually just realised someone might be reading bed time stories atm then doing lunch boxes, sorting laundry, and all that jazz

so what is the difference? Oxfam are pushing for single sex spaces. They EHRC guidance is pushing for single sex spaces so please explain the difference. If you can…

Privacy and dignity are old fashioned religious concepts now? We, as modern women, don't need that anymore?
That's a new one. One for the "persuasive TRA" thread perhaps?

The rules about policing spaces based on birth sex . I'm very confident that what oxfam is advocating for doesn't involve any of that.

The easiest way to determine biological sex at birth is to look at the newborn’s genitals because a little penis is at least 99% certain to indicate a biological male. And a little vulva is 99% certain to indicate a biological female.

It’s quick and easy.

And many many children have their sex determined in utero when their genitals or testing can determine their sex.

In the western world, the very few children who have a difference of sexual development can also be determined at birth and genetic testing can confirm this.

A few boys with XY chromosomes who also have complete or partial androgen insensitivity syndrome might not be diagnosed until they are 15 or older when their periods don’t show up.

But people with DSDs are extremely rare and need our support rather than be treated as a justification for the sexual fetishes of men who want to be treated as women.

I would rather see research into the mental health of girls who want to be boys or non-binary. Almost without exception every teenage girl I’ve met who describes herself that way (and there are three in my family) is autistic, or sexually abused or cannot cope with the natural process of puberty.

Every trans identifying woman I have met has a history of mental health issues and sexual abuse and is opting out of womanhood.

I would rather we built up the resilience and mental health support for these women than allow them to make irreversible decisions about their bodies and lives before they have had that support.

Ummm yes, yes it does.

er. Ok. Send me the evidence that oxfam is advocating for rules that these facilities should be policed according to birth sex.

Why oh why is anybody still playing pigeon chess with this bellend? He (or possibly she) is just chewing up an important thread with shite.

I’m not playing that game either a well known tactic to derail objections. Alternative description is an Aunt Sally. You put out some outrageous idea which provokes a seemingly justified negative response, a form of concession follows from the original idea to lesson the outrage, doesn’t seem quite so bad now does it. Often used in planning applications ie a 1000 new homes becomes 750 with a playground, proposed GP surgery, shop etc ( but no guarantees, yes you can build a surgery but you can’t guarantee it will staffed within time limits). When really 750 is still far too many or shouldn’t be in that location.
Much like the weasely words/actions on sss, Women’s toilets relabelled unisex, Mens labelled urinals ( not suitable for women) disabled are unisex but now over used. Men have 3 options women ss none. Don’t fall for the rhetoric just say no to all men in women’s sss. The majority of 51% of the population (women)legally had that right and want it restored no ifs and no butts. If women are wanted in the workplace, particularly medicine/ caring professions ss facilities must be provided.

In the UK we expect people to police themselves when it comes to which facilities they use. If they don't, they risk it becoming an issue for someone else, who may decide to do something about it. At work, using the facilities provided for the other sex could be a disciplinary matter, especially of continued after a warning. In some cases, people may be caught breaking voyeurism or other laws around sexual misbehaviour.

Why do you think it would be different in the countries where Oxfam are promoting and building single sex toilets?

@Lacksie is trying to tell us that Oxfam wants the toilets in developing countries to be single gender, not single sex. I'm not sure why Lacksie is being coy about saying this.

I'm not being coy about anything at all- I've said exactly what I mean.

I disagree with that interpretation- as you know. The SC was about something narrow. The way that has been politically capitalised on (despite the court warning it shouldn't) and vastly expanded in the EHRC guidance to create a set of rules that completely undermine the clear intentions of both the EA and the GRA , with regard to inclusion of trans people, is a disgrace.