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 ????

I also think people with gender issues or even just different outward appearances now won’t seek care and potentially die which is a much bigger problem.

Were you as actively concerned about the women who didn't seek care, or discharged themselves because they were forced to share a space with a man with gender identity? Or indeed the women harassed, assaulted and raped by men with gender identities on women's single sex wards? Where the harms actually happened over several years?

And of course, the policy at the time was not carefully considering and offering alternatives for those women in the way that they now do for trans identified people.

I am no different to my husband just because he has sex organs, stop thinking of this as a XY vs XX issue

But as much as you might like it not to be true, you are, on average very different to your husband. He can't bear children, and you can. He inseminates you, not the other way around. His part in child-birth is minutes long; yours is months. And it's your life that's at risk, not his. He's also on average taller, stronger, faster, can punch harder and hold you down with one hand while he beats you senseless with the other. Written history is not full of stories of women raping men. Your husband's body courses with testosterone and he has different desires and impulses to you. Whatever he says and however well he controls them.

Sexual dimorphism doesn't go away just because we have bigger brains than other animals. We've masked a lot of sexually-differentiated behaviour under social norms, which I think is good, but it's really stupid to pretend it doesn't exist.

The whole point of this argument is you are taking away one persons dignity in support of some else’s.

We have to take an overall view of dignity, and upholding the dignity of a tiny minority of the population necessarily involves denying it to 50%. That's not appropriate.

What Upton actually said was that you cannot assume a patient requesting a female doctor necessarily means a cisgender woman, which is true.

She also said that she did not consider herself obliged to disclose personal medical information to patients, which is a perfectly reasonable position.

And she explicitly stated that she would respect the wishes of any patient who did not want to be treated by her, emphasising the importance of consent and patient comfort.

Meanwhile, none of this establishes that Upton has ever treated a patient without their consent, either in the UK or subsequently in Australia. There is no evidence presented here of any such incident, let alone medical malpractice.

And, finally, the employment tribunal dismissed every claim brought against Upton personally.

Article 1 states that all human beings "are born free and equal in dignity and rights".

But humans are not all born equal in terms of being safe and medically healthy. Some human beings are more vulnerable than others from the moment they are born due to their sex.

My right to dignified care with appropriate support was taken away leading to an injury to protect someone else’s privacy from the male gaze 🤦🏻‍♀️

Your support should have been the hospital staff. Your man was taken away from you to protect others safety, privacy and dignity. No doubt there will be male staff in the wards so it’s not the male gaze. They are tolerated.

All roads to ‘gender inclusivity’ lead to individual private compartments whether it be unregulated ‘gender-neutral’ floor to ceiling toilet cubicles, unisex toilets or hospital side rooms. Privacy does not equal safety. But individual privacy always the solution to mixed sex spaces.

It was Beth Upton’s solution too - private cubicles in a mixed sex private staff space. Double privacy. This is not good safeguarding design.

In terms of arguments, Article 8 is often quoted which centres around privacy. However it is not an absolute right. If there are safety concerns, it can be overridden. Such as single sex spaces which are safer by design and this can be evidenced.

I think that we can safely assume that any female who requests a female doctor is expecting to see someone with XX chromosomes & not a man in a dress.

What Upton actually said was that you cannot assume a patient requesting a female doctor necessarily means a cisgender woman, which is true.

No, I think you reasonably can, actually, so it's not true.

She also said that she did not consider herself obliged to disclose personal medical information to patients, which is a perfectly reasonable position.

The fact that he's a man is not "personal medical information", and it's abusive of him to try to hide behind that argument.

And she explicitly stated that she would respect the wishes of any patient who did not want to be treated by her, emphasising the importance of consent and patient comfort.

We understrand him to be lying through his teeth when he said that, given his prior statements.

Meanwhile, none of this establishes that Upton has ever treated a patient without their consent, either in the UK or subsequently in Australia. There is no evidence presented here of any such incident, let alone medical malpractice.

We have a reasonable concern that he has, and does.

It’s not a “perfectly reasonable position” because Upton is a man. Not a woman. Thankfully the SC has now ruled on this issue when it comes to single sex exceptions. As you know. But I’m not going round and round with you on this. No one is buying it. Give it up. Trans rights activism’s time has come and gone. I won’t be engaging further with you on this, but suffice to say I believe (from observing him in the tribunal and hearing him speak) Upton not just to be a man but a bad one.

What Upton actually said was that you cannot assume a patient requesting a female doctor necessarily means a cisgender woman, which is true.

If a patient was happy to be treated by a male doctor then they wouldn't be requesting a female one so I think you can assume that asking for a female doctor means they want a female one.

@Lacksie I asked you earlier. In the light of the Sarah Redvers case where it has been acknowledged they went for the children - and the very sobering article by Hannah Barnes - what is your view on doling out illegal PBs and hormones to children by Sam Hall.

You know the thing that ‘never happens’ DID happen and had full support of NHS CEO Adam Doyle. even Cass has said Hall should be struck off.

Any nuance to add to the monster that is Sam Hall?

This is what I find really anger inducing, all the weeping and a-wailing by @Anothercoffeeafter3 and others on behalf of men and yet absolute tumbleweed from them about the many, many evidenced harms and abuses to women and girls which resulted from the imposition of GI policy.

It absolutely clarifies that the ONLY important sex here to those posters, the ONLY people they care about are men.

And this:

Nothing is being “taken away” from men who identify as women. They have no right to be in women only spaces. It’s not some great travesty that they’ve now, finally and belatedly, been told they can’t use women only spaces, because they are men.

Men never had the right to access women only spaces, however they identified it was a travesty that they chose to and were enabled to do so. Nothing has been taken away they have just finally been stopped from taking what isn't theirs to take.

It always amuses me that the French for a transvestite is un travesti.

Getting back to Sandie Peggie, I’ve been a bit absent and don’t know where it’s got to. Can anyone point me to an update?

The level of sexual assault on women and girls who are seriously disabled and need long-term intimate care is horrific. Every single one of these women and girls has the right to request single-sex care (even if there are some people who wouldn't request it or think it is unnecessary).

Someone convalescing after an operation that they will recover from is not the same level of vulnerability as someone who is paralysed, has advanced MS, etc.

Apologies Wits. I posted before reading this.

I agree, we should get back to Sandie.

I’m impressed by the mental convolutions that say tattoos and DMs are more reliable signifiers of gender (sex) than genitals.

*...and the younger generation rising up to challenge the laws that have been put in place over the recent publicity.'

Which laws? There are no new laws (the court interprets, not makes, laws).

"What Upton actually said was that you cannot assume a patient requesting a female doctor necessarily means a cisgender woman, which is true."

And this is again where the destabilisation of language comes into negatively impact female people.

When a group state that 'woman' means both male and female people, and that same group then make false declarations such as this based on destabilisation of language, then the message is that women asking for a female doctor should expect either male or female. And that with that false claim that someone 'cannot assume a patient is requesting a female doctor' means a 'cisgender woman', doubt is cast.

It is known that a large % of the population does NOT understand the terminology about who is 'cis' and what sex a person described as a transwoman is. So I call bullshit on a statement that medical staff cannot assume with a high level of confidence that a female person asking for a female doctor is referring to a female doctor and is excluding a male doctor with a transgender identity.

That claim that it cannot be assumed is based on what I consider misinformation designed to emotionally manipulate people into believing that demanded language is more acceptable to the majority of people than it is.

I also consider that the UK polling on whether people accept a male person using a female single sex provision is a very good indicator as to whether it would be acceptable for a male person to present himself if a female doctor has been requested. If the majority of UK female people don't want to share a single sex provision with a male person with a transgender identity, it would be rather a very long stretch to consider that they would want one when they have specifically requested a female doctor.

I'm in Fife and was in A&E the night before the encounter outlined at the tribunal.

I don't know for a fact that the big bloke with mascara and eyeliner who spoke to the senior doctor in charge of A&E was actually Upton or even trans. For all I know, he might have been into glam rock or a New Romantic or simply liked to wear a bit of make-up.

He left shortly after I arrived and I was treated by women and kept in overnight for obs.

I have no concerns about being treated by a gender non-conforming doctor. I have no concerns about being treated by a trans doctor. I do have concerns about being treated by a man who genuinely believes that he's somehow been transformed into a woman - I would have to question his medical knowledge.

I'm one of those older people who was brought up to address doctors as "Doctor", so I'm guessing that misgendering to the doctor's face wouldn't have been a problem for me, but I'm extremely concerned by the report included in the tribunal proceedings that Upton had seen fit to complain about an elderly woman who had misgendered him. Presumably, she made the cardinal sin of referring to him either as "son", "laud" or "yon lauddie" as many older Fifers do.

The fact that Upton had the unmitigated gall to complain about this tells me that he lacks empathy, common sense and decency.

For various reasons, I loathe the Vic A&E/resus. I have very unhappy memories of that place. I went in with what I thought might be a detached retina; when I got there, I realised that I was being treated as someone who might be having a stroke (but with no offer of a scan - no surprise there, given my previous experience with a relative who actually was having a stroke).

The last thing that I needed as a patient was worry over causing offence over misgendering a member of staff and I was relieved not to have to interact with the doctor who had approached the senior: he took the senior aside then strode out, presumably at the end of his shift.

The revelation that Upton had complained about a patient (with dementia I recall?) tells me that Upton has no place in a medical setting.

Do you have a notebook handy?

Case 1 (Fife as an org, Upton, 2? other Fife staff).

• Heard at ET.
• Permission to add more staff to claim based on evidence emerging during hearing was refused. See Case 3
• Judgement out, judgement revised mutiple times under slip rule.
• Judgement appeal applied for on 14 counts.
• Permission granted for an appeal on 13 of the counts, count relating to judicial bias refused at first reading.
• Appeal on the remaining count goes to an oral hearing (I think we had a mid-Jan date mentioned for that?). This will be very short, just setting out why appeal should be allowed.
• After that, date unknown, EAT will hear appeal on 12 or 14 counts

Case 2 (Union)

• hearing just finished, judgement hoped for before xmas but may tip over to next year.

Case 3 (Fife an an org again I think, plus individual staff including the one behind the 'all-doctors' email convicting Sandie before any investigation had been started)

• awaiting hearing, possibly mid 2027.

Yes, this is accurate IIRC.

The female patient might possibly be denied treatment.

Given the state of things in Australia, could a woman even find herself being prosecuted?

I can't find this is the contemporaneous reporting of tribunal tweets. Are you sure you aren't mistaking a discussion on this board for something DU actually said?

Can you link to any evidence DU said this?

As far as I can find the exchange went like this:

Cunningham: What about a rape survivor specifically wanting a cisgender woman?

Upton: Anyone can experience sexual violence. These needs can be accommodated, within the limitations of emergency care.
Cunningham: Would the patient have to disclose her history of sexual trauma?
Upton: No. Any patient can refuse to see a doctor. Preferences should be accommodated as far as possible without patients having to give reasons.

Cunningham: Imagine a woman attending A&E with unexplained heavy bleeding who asks for a female doctor. Would it be appropriate for Upton to be assigned to her?

Upton: It depends on the medical circumstances and urgency.

Cunningham: Imagine it is not an immediate emergency. Is she entitled to a female doctor to take her history?

Upton: If she wanted me to leave, I would and get someone else. Consent is very important, and patients’ wishes must be taken seriously.

Cunningham: So the patient has to say she’s uncomfortable with you?

Upton: “That’s how it works.” You cannot assume she would reject a trans woman. Clinicians should explain examinations, respect patients’ decisions to stop and make patients comfortable.

I think what DU said is being grossly misrepresented here.

As I've stated before, a lot of the content on these threads appears to amount to ruthless online bullying of a real , private individual who has been cleared of any wrongdoing. Why? Because they are trans. It's quite simply a disgrace.

Oh noooo. The tragedy of being unkind to a predatory nasty man! The inhumanity! He got a woman in trouble because she refused to get undressed in front of a man. He put her through hell. He deserves every bit of the scorn and shaming poured on him. He is the disgrace.

It’s one thing to disagree with Dr Upton’s conduct, to question her decisions, or to sympathise with Sandie Peggie. (I think you are entirely wrong-headed about that, and your interpretation of the facts is difficult to reconcile with the tribunal’s findings.)

Either way, calling Dr Upton a “predatory nasty man” and declaring that she deserves every bit of scorn and humiliation directed at her isn’t criticism. It’s personal abuse.

Criticism addresses what someone has said or done and why you believe it was wrong. Personal abuse and bullying target the individual, often with the aim of humiliating or demeaning them.

This is a real person, not some abstract figure in a political debate, who has moved to the other side of the world in search of some peace. Whatever your views on sex, single sex policy and on the case, the relentless personal abuse directed directed at a real, private individual is unacceptable, and I don’t think it should be tolerated on any forum.

He bullied SP first. If he can’t take the heat….

Surely the word predatory describes the behaviour of a person who will act in a way that ignores another’s consent, such as being a male person in a female single sex provision, to get what they want despite the direct harm to other people?

And that behaviour is then also fitting of the description of ‘nasty’?