Sandie Peggie case brings absurdity of gender ideology into sharp focus

The first phase of the eye-opening Employment Tribunal in the case of A&E nurse Sandie Peggie concluded earlier this month, with the case set to resume in July.

Already we have heard allegations that Mrs Peggie, a nurse with 30 years’ experience, was reprimanded, investigated, suspended for months for simply objecting to sharing NHS Fife’s female changing rooms with Dr Upton, a man who purports to be a woman.

Astonishingly, NHS Fife’s HR department – in the name of ‘inclusivity’ and respecting someone’s self-declared gender identity – defended the right of the male-bodied doctor to be present while Mrs Peggie and other female members of staff changed for work.

The case has brought into sharp focus the issue of institutional capture by gender ideology.

Tribunal

In May 2024, Sandie Peggie brought an action before an employment tribunal against NHS Fife and Dr Upton for sexual harassment and for discrimination over her recognition of biological reality.

No sooner had the proceedings got underway than the Trust requested that the tribunal judge impose an order on Mrs Peggie to prevent her from referring to Dr Upton as a man, calling it unlawful harassment.

Judge Kemp, who is presiding over the case, acknowledged that while the correct (male) pronouns are “liable to be painful and distressing” to Dr Upton, the nurse’s representatives should be allowed to use them, as long as they did not do so “gratuitously and offensively on a repeated basis”.

During the course of the hearing, it came to light that NHS Fife had called the beleaguered nurse to face a further disciplinary hearing for, among other things, ‘misgendering’ Dr Upton.

Legal obligations

Media coverage of policies and practices relating to single-sex changing facilities at NHS Fife, along with pending NHS Scotland guidance on ‘transitioning’, has piqued the interest of the Equality and Human Rights Commissions (EHRC).

Writing to Health Secretary Neil Gray, who has already expressed full confidence in NHS Fife’s handling of the case, the EHRC reminded him of its role in enforcing Equality Act compliance across Britain in relation to the provision of single-sex services and spaces.

It told Gray that it had also written to NHS Fife to highlight its obligations under the 2010 Act “specifically in relation to the protection of individuals from discrimination and harassment on the basis of protected characteristics, including sex, religion or belief and gender reassignment”.

The letter has been seen as a rebuke to the Trust for failing to provide single-sex changing rooms. It seems the health board may even have failed in its legal duty to produce an impact assessment of its pro-trans policy.

Political fall-out

Two years ago, Scottish Government plans to make it much easier for gender-confused people to choose their own legal sex were quashed by Westminster. The debacle, some commentators argue, contributed to Nicola Sturgeon’s downfall as First Minister.

Scotsman columnist Euan McColm observes that Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and First Minister John Swinney have similarly been caught up in the wreckage of the gender reform debacle.

Sarwar recently backtracked on his support for the Scottish Government’s ‘sex swap’ gender law and thrown his support behind Mrs Peggie and her sex-based rights.

Speaking on the Holyrood Sources podcast he declared: “If we are going to stop falling into divisive culture-war politics, and we are going to make progress as a nation, we have got to say, quite clearly, we support single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.

However, he has yet to persuade his party to perform a similar U-turn. Following the Labour leader’s pronouncement, the party’s annual conference defeated a motion which called for single-sex spaces for children “based on biology”.

Swinney also finds himself the victim of his own dithering. While he purports to be in favour of women-only spaces on the basis of biological sex, his Government is up against For Women Scotland (FWS) in court, contending that men who identify as women can take women only-positions on public boards.

Swinney’s Government argues that possessing a Gender Recognition Certificate changes one’s sex “for all purposes” in law. That seems to include instances where biological males wish to use NHS staff changing rooms reserved for women.

McColm concludes: “Sarwar and Swinney must accept the circle cannot be squared, that there is absolutely no balance to be struck between the necessary rights of women and the demands of trans activists.”

One woman’s objection to being forced to get changed in front of a man, and her fight for legal redress, has generated enormous public sympathy and provoked widespread media coverage. It may yet prove to have significant legal and political ramifications.