|
‘I’m biologically female’, insists trans NHS doctor
Dr Beth Upton tells employment tribunal that trans women have a right to get
changed in front of female colleagues https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gi98S8uXgAAYWRU.jpg Dr Beth Upton, who was born male and now identifies as a woman, stated in evidence to an employment tribunal that “I’m biologically female” and said sex had “no defined or agreed meaning in science”. Said the Doctor. Dr Upton (6 foot) is at the centre of a landmark case after Sandie Peggie (5 foot 4), a female nurse, claimed she faced harassment as the result of being forced to share female changing rooms with the A&E doctor. https://www.spectator.co.uk/wp-conte...3972.jpg?w=512 Nurse Sandi Peggi Ms Cunningham said: “You say you’re a trans woman. It follows that you’re not someone who has a biologically female body?” Dr Upton replied: “The term biologically female or biologically male is completely nebulous. It has no defined or agreed meaning in science, as far as I’m aware. I’m not a robot, so I am biological and my identity is female. Without wanting to appeal to the dictionary too much, I’m biologically female.” Dr Upton had been given permission to use the women’s changing rooms at Victoria Hospital in Fife by a manager, the tribunal heard, and continued to use them after noticing in August 2023 that Ms Peggie appeared uncomfortable with sharing. On the third occasion on which the pair met in the changing rooms, on Christmas Eve that year, there was a confrontation provoked by Ms Peggie. That led to Dr Upton making a formal complaint and the nurse being suspended from work and investigated for bullying. The tribunal has previously heard evidence from Ms Peggie about a traumatic incident when she was 17, when she was sexually assaulted by a doctor who made an excuse to examine her breasts unnecessarily. Ms Peggie has said the trauma caused by that incident contributed to her desire to have access to single-sex spaces at work. The tribunal continues. full article here: Spoiler: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...tor-born-male/ |
Good point from the Glasgow Herald today..
What better way to side-track the liberal left from their main goal of relieving poverty and opposing capitalism than by promoting an imaginary dogma of oppression? There’s a reason why corporate power and public sector influence has swung behind the campaign for trans rights. If you can convince sincere and well-motivated people that this is the moral crusade that defines the age then you can be left relatively undisturbed to amass your profits. And what better way of doing this than by conjuring up an ethereal and contrived suite of slogan and declarations: trans rights are human rights; love is love? |
What a selfish creep if a man.
|
I'm not sure I'd want to be treated by someone who doesn't understand biology...
|
This is a political hot-potato of a case and also a bit of smoke and mirrors; I actually sympathise with both of the supposed "sides" here because I don't think they are the actual sides - the dispute isn't or shouldn't actually be between the two staff members - the tribunal is about policy.
In short - the issue and the fault lies with the policy or management that allowed the situation to arise and didn't adequately rectify it - probably on ideological grounds. So you can't take ideology entirely out of the equation - but - the issue (legally) is not with the doctor for doing something that was allowed within policy, and not with the staff member who took issue with the policy either. That is also the facts of the case if you look into it by the way; the court dispute is between the affected nurse and the NHS service provider, not directly between the two parties. But that's not juicy news/political debate in the same way. The pictures the media are using of the doctor are also misleading as they suggest it's a full bearded bloke presenting as a bloke but "identifying as female" using the changing facilities. They're actually using old photographs and the staff member in question does now (and did at the time of the complaint) "present as female". I'm not saying that particularly matters interms of whether or not other people should be comfortable with it. I do as always fully stand by the idea that women should have safe female-only facilities available. But nonetheless it's worth pointing out when the media is deliberately skewing something, even if only slightly. This has become a football though, the facts and specifics of this individual case are going to be completely buried under the online discourse around the "issue in general". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Making a statement like "I'm biologically female" can only help people realise how far and how ridiculous this stuff has gone - on the plus side. Such a shame for the actual female staff having to put up with this crap though, nursing is a difficult enough job as it is without having to face this stuff every time you go to work as well
|
Quote:
Yes it is wrong |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Gorgeous girlie, some people are just jealous that she is stunning and they could never compare.
|
|
i think it's borne from the generation that believe alternative facts when the absolute truth is a known certainty. It's enabled all this subsequent bs.
If i was the health board, i would be striking off the doctor for that viewpoint though |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This person is a doctor; they should ask them about a clinical setting; e.g. if they were to be treated for a specific medical condition, should they be clinically assessed as having female internal anatomy. Very difficult for a medical professional to talk their way around that question. Again, though, the waters are being muddied; the court proceedings are not about the doctor's fitness to practice, they are PURELY about the employment dispute between the nursing staff member and the NHS employer. Someone could raise fitness to practice concerns about the doctor, but that would be a totally separate process and (crucially) it wouldn't be a public one in courts, their registration would be assessed by the GMC and (tbh) I expect what this individual would be willing to concede in that setting would be very different to what they'll openly say in public. I do understand why. And I genuinely think in this case it's the employer that's made errors (repeatedly) and not actually the fault of either staff member. We're now well into the realms of defensiveness. |
I can’t defend this guy.
|
Society is cooked! .
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Another mental case who thinks hes a woman. Section him.
|
boswelltoday @boswelltoday
Day 10 - Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr Upton - Morning Session The Walls Close In on NHS Fife It is becoming increasingly clear that NHS Fife’s defence is built on quicksand, and today’s session only hastened the collapse. Esther Davidson, the latest in a long line of floundering witnesses, spent the morning dodging reality like her career depended on it. Naomi Cunningham, however, was not having it. With her usual forensic precision, she dismantled the ever-shifting justifications for suspending Sandy Peggie, exposing what everyone already knew: this was never about patient safety, bullying, or professionalism. It was about enforcing gender ideology, and punishing anyone who refused to play along. Davidson, who had no problem stating that Dr Upton "identifies as female", completely refused to acknowledge biological reality. When pressed on whether Dr Upton was a man, she deflected, dodged, and twisted her words beyond recognition. Naomi Cunningham laid it out plainly: "Whatever is in his head, or how he dresses, he is still a man." Davidson’s response? A pathetic, "It is how you say your views." That is the game, right there—pretending that truth is subjective, so long as it keeps the activists happy. It is not about fairness, or safety, or even logic. It is about enforcing a belief system under threat of professional consequences. The most damning part of the morning was Naomi Cunningham’s exposure of NHS Fife’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies, which gave Dr Upton an absolute right to use the female changing room while leaving Sandy Peggie with no rights at all. Davidson admitted outright: "I was told I could not exclude Beth from the changing room." And there it is. An institutionally imposed fantasy, where self-declared identity trumps every consideration—privacy, dignity, common sense, even basic safeguarding. There was never any attempt to balance rights, never a suggestion that Dr Upton might use a separate space, and certainly no recognition that Peggie had a legitimate right to object. As Naomi Cunningham took apart NHS Fife’s reasoning for suspending Sandy Peggie, the contradictions piled up. One minute, it was about the changing room. Then suddenly, it was about patient safety. But no evidence was ever presented that Peggie had endangered a patient. The so-called concerns had not even been raised at the time of her initial suspension. It all boiled down to Dr Upton’s perception—a man, in a women’s space, feeling uncomfortable because a woman said what everyone was thinking. And for that, she was suspended. Naomi Cunningham then turned to the wider impact of NHS Fife’s policies, pointing out the obvious reality that no other staff had raised complaints—not because they had no issue with Dr Upton, but because they knew what would happen if they spoke up. "They are frightened," Naomi Cunningham said bluntly. Davidson refused to acknowledge this, but the tribunal could see what was happening—this was not an atmosphere of openness and inclusion, but one of institutional intimidation. Staff members had witnessed what had happened to Peggie, and had drawn the only logical conclusion—stay quiet or suffer the same fate. Then came the knockout punch: Naomi Cunningham introduced DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. She laid it out plainly—Sandy Peggie was the victim in this case, and Dr Upton the aggressor, yet the roles had been deliberately reversed. Dr Upton’s presence in the changing room made Peggie uncomfortable, and when she stood her ground, she became the problem. NHS Fife framed Peggie as the troublemaker, the one causing harm, the one in need of punishment. Naomi Cunningham asked Davidson directly if this reversal had happened with the full approval of the NHS Fife board. Davidson denied it, of course—but by this point, her credibility was already in tatters. Naomi Cunningham then put the real question to Davidson—why had NHS Fife allowed a situation where Peggie, a woman who had already been through trauma, was forced to share a space with a male colleague, and was then punished for saying no? Davidson had no answer. NHS Fife had backed itself into a corner, where admitting the truth would mean conceding that their entire handling of this situation was an outrageous failure. But clinging to the fantasy was becoming harder by the second. By the end of the session, NHS Fife’s defence lay in ruins, but the real disgrace lies with its board and executive leadership, who have allowed this farce to unfold unchecked. No genuine justification was given for suspending Sandy Peggie, no credible denial of institutional bias, and no willingness to acknowledge the fundamental reality that single-sex spaces exist for a reason. This was never about fairness or inclusion—it was about enforcing a rigid ideological stance at the expense of a female colleague’s dignity and career. And while today’s evidence made it clear that the organisation is completely captured, the bigger question now is this: how much longer will those in leadership pretend that this was ever justifiable? |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.