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’ve asked: what does “biologically female” refer to? The answer given was “people with a vagina.” When I pointed out where that leads, the reply was that a vagina only counts if the person is already female. That’s not a definition, it’s a circle — “female” is being assumed, not explained. If my position is incoherent, quote the sentence.

I’ll manage without the insults; I’d ask for the same in return.

'some trans people simply haven't understood what everyone else means by 'female'' is quite a take

Thanks for the article re the NHS Fife statement. That really was something to see played out in real time, but it's good to get some context to what was going on. Bizarre.

Notice what NC actually wrote: “when I talk about sex I’m talking about bodies that make eggs and sperm.”

That’s a stipulation — a chosen meaning — and a recent one.

Nobody has ever applied “female” by checking for eggs. Newborns don’t make gametes; neither do post-menopausal women, nor many infertile women, nor women who’ve had hysterectomies. The word has always been applied to all of them without hesitation. In practice it’s been assigned on sight at birth, from genitals, and carried forward from there.

“Bodies that make eggs” is a definition some philosophers settled on about five years ago because the older ones kept leaking.

It’s a perfectly respectable thing to propose. But proposing it is redefining the term — which is precisely what you say the other side mustn’t do.

Must not, will not

The cervix and vagina are connected, it’s at the top end of the vagina and connects to the womb - or at least that’s what I understood when midwives were talking about dilation during the birth of my children- and doctors as they take smears (shudders at memory of same)

Newborns don’t make gametes; neither do post-menopausal women, nor many infertile women, nor women who’ve had hysterectomies

No, she was born with her lifetime supply of gametes. We don't make new eggs during our lifetime.

Poppycock.

Female being defined as the sex class that produces large immobile gametes is a standard biological classification first used in 1888 not a philosophical one.

Oh don't, this is hilarious from someone who can't even say if there's any difference between a man and a woman under gender ideology

Biology textbooks have used “female” across the animal kingdom to refer to groups by the gametes they produce.

The idea that we should decide whether an individual person is female by their gamete type was proposed by philosophers about five years ago. In practice no one has ever identified a person’s sex that way — not in 1888, not now.

Even its proponents can’t define people that way — it fails in too many cases. So they have to say “produces, or would produce if…”, which is a judgement about what the body should have done, not an observation of what it does.

My post was tongue in cheek. I’m aware of female biology. My point was IW offered to show his cervix.🙄

Its fascinating that we were all in our grandmother's wombs. It is a link that connects women (the actual ones) down the generations.

So, let's say we all agree with our confused friend that the terms female, woman, male and man have no meaning. No-one knows what they mean when they say it. No-one understand what anyone else means by it. There are no consistent criteria and it's utterly unknown as to why or how anyone could try and make a distinction.

That renders transitions meaningless.
When a TW says they are female that is meaningless and when they say they are male that is meaningless.

There's now no such thing as trans people because they're not transitioning from or to anything; there's no such thing as gender identities aligning with sexes or not, because you can't meaningfully distinguish between any of them; you've eradicated trans people.

This is barrel scrapingly desperate

This has crossed into the ridiculous now.

The body of a female person is one who has the formation around the production of either large or small gametes. Whether or no they are producing those gametes at the time or at any time is not relevant as to the formation of the body.

It is hypocritical for you to twist arguments after all your accusations that others have done this to your arguments. But hey, if this is how you support your belief and how you support people with transgender identities, then it is great that we see this.

Just highlighting this as it is important to get clarity to continue this discussion /

Do you believe that a female patient can give consent that is with full knowledge and no coercion if a male doctor (who they expect to understand the difference between male and female humans and who they trust would act ethically and that they have to trust to treat them) presented themselves as being the female doctor that they requested?

It is a yes or no question. Do you believe they can give consent based on this scenario or not?

Sorry, not really about your post, more to do with India’s offer showing no understanding of female anatomy despite pretending to be female

I agree. It really is fascinating and something only women have in common.

The body of a female person is one who has the formation around the production of either large or small gametes. Whether or no they are producing those gametes at the time or at any time is not relevant as to the formation of the body.

An observation about what it is doing currently is actually irrelevant to the categorisation of whether a body is female or male.

A person will be female whether they ever release ova or not.

It's like those Russian matryoshka dolls.

Yes!

Oh dear, Lacksie. You talk of women and girls making gametes. We don't do that.

When a female infant is born she already has all the eggs in her tiny ovaries and, as her body matures, her eggs do too. This is the normal, expected pathway for females and of course it sometimes goes awry: it'd be odd if every single human throughout humanity - billions of us - had been born 'perfectly constructed' if I may call it that.

It's males that make their gametes as they go along. I think you're confusing males with females.

"Nobody has ever applied “female” by checking for eggs. "

And yet, people DO check for ovaries or ovary tissue when they are testing to categorise a human as being either female or male.

Luckily, it might just start with an observation which could be incorrect, hence there is a handy screening test that can be done with a cheek swab so no internal investigation is needed.

So, actually, people do check for 'eggs' in that they are checking for ovaries which will have those 'eggs' in any stage of development.

proposed by philosophers about five years ago.

We’ve been arguing with you on MN about it for longer than that 😂😂😂

Any idea about what ‘leaking’ referred to?

Is the definition leaked or the women?

How did the definition leak?

what the fuck happened five years ago?