[Crimson Dynamo]

Dr Beth Upton tells employment tribunal that trans women have a right to get
changed in front of female colleagues



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.


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:

A transgender NHS doctor who got changed in front of women colleagues has claimed to be a biological female.

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”.

Dr Upton is at the centre of a landmark case after Sandie Peggie, a female nurse, claimed she faced harassment as the result of being forced to share female changing rooms with the A&E doctor.

In tense exchanges at the tribunal with Naomi Cunningham, Ms Peggie’s lawyer, the doctor repeated the claim of being female and suggested that colleagues uncomfortable with a trans woman using female-only spaces held “misinformed, biased, unpleasant or bigoted” views.

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.

‘Misinformed views about trans people’
Dr Upton said some colleagues might have felt uncomfortable with women’s facilities being used by a transgender person but that “doesn’t automatically override a trans person’s right to access the changing room that aligns with their gender identity”.

The doctor added: “As a trans person, I’m aware that people hold misinformed, biased, unpleasant, bigoted or transphobic views about trans people. It’s possible I work with some people who hold those views, and they may be unhappy.

“Those people may be opposed to the inclusion of trans people. Why they might be uncomfortable with me is up to them. I would disagree that I am male. I would disagree that my presence is an invasion of their privacy or their space, but I can’t speak for how they feel.”

Ms Cunningham questioned Dr Upton about how a female would be defined, asking about a hypothetical large-bearded character called “Pete” who appeared to be male in all respects but asserted that they were a “gender non-conforming woman”.

The lawyer asked if Dr Upton believed “Pete” would have the right to use a women’s changing room.

Dr Upton did not give a direct answer, saying the example was “frankly unbelievable”, and adding: “As someone who lives in a transphobic society, I accept there are unfortunately and sadly prejudices, a lack of willingness to explore variety and the spectrum that is gender and gender expression.

“Society is not yet at the stage where it understands gender in a more general, more messy way. What all trans people want is to be treated with respect, dignity, and [to] be safe.

“If Pete is a gender non-conforming woman, she may wish to use the women’s changing room. She may feel unable to, she may feel open to discussions with her workplace about whether or not that’s appropriate.”

‘Not demanding anything other than basic respect’
Ms Cunningham went on to compare Dr Upton to the torturer in George Orwell’s novel 1984, who forces the protagonist, Winston Smith, to state that he can see five fingers when in reality he is holding up four.

“The ultimate submission and humiliation demanded of Winston is that he affirmed something that both he and his torturer know to be false,” the lawyer, who referred to Dr Upton using male pronouns, said.

“I want to suggest to you that your demand of Sandie was of the same sort. You were demanding that she should submit to you by pretending you’re a woman, even though you both know that’s false.”

Jane Russell, representing Dr Upton and NHS Fife, objected before Dr Upton could answer. “Is my opponent really comparing Dr Upton to the torturer in 1984?” she asked. “That’s worse than what the claimant did, which is comparing her to a convicted rapist. I object.”

In her evidence, Ms Peggie has admitted raising the case with Dr Upton of Isla Bryson, the transgender rapist who was initially placed in a woman’s jail. However, she claimed she had been trying to make a general point about males in women’s spaces, rather than implying that Dr Upton was a rapist.

Following Ms Russell’s objection, Ms Cunningham rephrased her question to remove the reference to the torturer in 1984.

Dr Upton replied: “I’m not demanding anything of her other than basic respect. I’m certainly not asking anyone at work to submit to me in any capacity. I’m simply asking that she respects who I am.”

‘Nebulous dog whistle’
The doctor went on to claim that the term biological sex “doesn’t really mean anything” as it was impossible to “accurately or usefully define” what it meant.

“We would have to explore all the different things that make up one’s sex,” Dr Upton added, saying this could encompass “endocrine sex”, “primary and secondary sexual characteristics”, “reproductive sex”, “societal, cultural and assumed sex” and other factors.

Dr Upton added: “Not all those things are what you might call concordant with the other. There are very few people who don’t think understanding of some aspect of somebody’s biology is important in some situations. But there is no agreed definition of biological sex. It’s a nebulous dog whistle.”

The tribunal heard that Dr Upton, 28, is 6ft tall, while Ms Peggie, 50, is 5ft 4in.

Ms Cunningham said the disparity raised doubts over claims, raised earlier in proceedings, that Ms Peggie had “cornered” Dr Upton in the changing rooms on Christmas Eve, but Dr Upton said: “I don’t think a feeling of being cornered is purely based upon physical attributes.”

The doctor denied attempting to “assert dominance” over Ms Peggie during the incident and claimed to have been trying to “de-escalate” the situation, while being faced with transphobic harassment.

‘A very tricky situation’
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.

Dr Upton expressed sympathy with Ms Peggie but did not agree that women who had experienced sexual trauma should have access to single-sex changing facilities that exclude trans women.

“Trans women are not males, so she would be asking specifically for trans women to be excluded from that space,” said Dr Upton. “It’s a very tricky situation... I do not think somebody’s trauma justifies them behaving in an unpleasant and disrespectful manner to their colleagues.

“We should be doing as much as is reasonably possible to make accomodation for safety. But I don’t think you can use that to put restrictions on other people who have a right to access that space.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...tor-born-male/

[Crimson Dynamo]

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?

[Beso]

What a selfish creep if a man.

[Oliver_W]

I'm not sure I'd want to be treated by someone who doesn't understand biology...

[user104658]

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".

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

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".

Do you think the doctor in question believes he is biologically female ?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Do you think the doctor in question believes he is biologically female ?

People believe all sorts of things so possibly - my suspicion would be probably not in a literal sense ("stonewall stance" resulting in toeing the line) but whether they do or don't is irrelevant in what's actually going on here - the doctor isn't directly involved at all, this isn't a fitness to practice medicine question, the dispute is between the nurse and the employer regarding the changing facilities policy.

[Niamh.]

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Yes
it is wrong

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Everything I was going to say.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

yep and of course it was the female nurse who was suspended let the transwoman used disabled toilets to change, that is what they want women to do

[UserSince2005]

Gorgeous girlie, some people are just jealous that she is stunning and they could never compare.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[bots]

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

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bots

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

Yeah, if I'm going to see a Doctor I'm not trusting them to treat me if they don't know what biologically male and female bodies are

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

They're allowing semantics by not phrasing the question specifically enough which opens the door to "political answers".

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.

[Redway]

I can’t defend this guy.

[GoldHeart]

Society is cooked! .

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bots

If i was the health board, i would be striking off the doctor for that viewpoint though

That's not an individual health board decision, medical professionals are registered by the GMC (who would do the striking off at a national level) and a health board can't separately end someone's employment on those grounds without being sued (and they'd be successfully sued for career and reputational damage, which for a doctor could be into seven figures).

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

They're allowing semantics by not phrasing the question specifically enough which opens the door to "political answers".

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.

The ‘incompetent to practise’ remarks are a little tongue-in-cheek. No-one’s seriously disputing their competence as a doctor. Just that … you’d expect a doctor to be able to, at the very least, know and accept indisputable biology. When all’s said and done, cis. is cis. and trans is trans. I say that as someone who supports trans rights probably more than most people. I still have the sense to draw the buck somewhere.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Redway

The ‘incompetent to practise’ remarks are a little tongue-in-cheek. No-one’s seriously disputing their competence as a doctor. Just that … you’d expect a doctor to be able to, at the very least, know and accept indisputable biology. When all’s said and done, cis. is cis. and trans is trans. I say that as someone who supports trans rights probably more than most people. I still have the sense to draw the buck somewhere.

This is the problem though how do you draw lines with the mantra "trans women are women"? there has to be a clear distinction and woman already had a clear definition which is now being distorted (really aggressively trying to be distorted) because of that mantra. Transwomen are not women, this is why I don't like the description "cis", by accepting that label you're saying that cis and trans are both types of women and that just isn't true. Transwomen are men who prefer to present as a woman which is fine, no issue with that just don't try to change laws around that to make it a more unsafe and uncomfortable world for women and girls. We rely on clear language so we can have the protections and spaces we need. This case is just proving how a simple gesture like repeating that mantra to "be kind" can snowball and end up eating away at women's rights

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

This is the problem though how do you draw lines with the mantra "trans women are women"? there has to be a clear distinction and woman already had a clear definition which is now being distorted (really aggressively trying to be distorted) because of that mantra. Transwomen are not women, this is why I don't like the description "cis", by accepting that label you're saying that cis and trans are both types of women and that just isn't true. Transwomen are men who prefer to present as a woman which is fine, no issue with that just don't try to change laws around that to make it a more unsafe and uncomfortable world for women and girls. We rely on clear language so we can have the protections and spaces we need. This case is just proving how a simple gesture like repeating that mantra to "be kind" can snowball and end up eating away at women's rights

Be Kind only works one way it seems, this transwoman took delight in making a fellow colleague feel uncomfortable and when she complained directly which was the correct thing to do rather than running to HR was accused of bullying and suspended, not too much kindness being shown in this case ....most kind people would take into consideration if they were making about person whether they be male or female uncomfortable, that is a kind act,not what is happening in this case

[Beso]

Another mental case who thinks hes a woman. Section him.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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?

[Crimson Dynamo]