Dr. Beth Upton, a doctor who was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman, has been at the center of a contentious tribunal case in Scotland. The case stems from an incident involving Nurse Sandie Peggie, who has worked at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy for over 30 years. On Christmas Eve 2023, Peggie confronted Dr. Upton over her use of the female changing facilities. Peggie, who had previously raised objections to Dr. Upton’s use of the women’s changing room, alleged that she felt embarrassed and intimidated during their interactions. Following the incident, Peggie was suspended by NHS Fife after Dr. Upton filed a complaint of bullying and harassment. Peggie subsequently took both Dr. Upton and the Fife health board to tribunal, claiming harassment and unfair treatment.
Dr. Upton, who began her gender transition three years ago, has been adamant that she is biologically female and has the right to use female facilities. During the tribunal hearing, she denied accusations that she tried to assert dominance over Peggie. She stated, "I don’t think there’s any attempt to assert any sort of dominance—I don’t seek to assert dominance over anyone in this context. What I’m trying to do is de-escalate the situation." Dr. Upton also rejected the notion that her use of the women’s changing room was inappropriate, emphasizing that she had been granted permission by senior staff to do so. She argued that her gender identity is valid and that she is entitled to the same respect and dignity as any other woman.
During cross-examination by Peggie’s lawyer, Naomi Cunningham, Dr. Upton repeatedly affirmed her identity as a woman and emphasized that "biological sex" is a vague and undefined term. She explained, "Biological sex is a nebulous term, and it doesn’t really mean anything, because nobody can accurately or usefully define biological sex." Dr. Upton also acknowledged that while biology plays a role in certain contexts, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of biological sex. She dismissed the concept as a "dog whistle" that is often used to undermine the validity of transgender identities. Her lawyer, Jane Russell KC, supported her stance, objecting to some of the more confrontational lines of questioning.
Peggie’s lawyer, Naomi Cunningham, drew parallels between Dr. Upton’s demands and the totalitarian themes in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Cunningham suggested that Dr. Upton was effectively policing Peggie’s language and perceptions, forcing her to "pretend to believe something which you and they both know is false." She compared this to the scene in Orwell’s novel where Winston Smith is tortured into falsely admitting that he sees five fingers when only four are present. Cunningham argued that Dr. Upton’s insistence that Peggie acknowledge her as a woman was an attempt to impose a false reality, akin to the psychological coercion depicted in the novel.
Dr. Upton has maintained throughout the tribunal that she is a woman and that her identity is not up for debate. When Cunningham challenged her assertion that she is biologically female, Dr. Upton stood firm, stating, "I think I’m a woman. I think you will find that many of my colleagues would agree with me." She also rejected the idea that her presence in the women’s changing room was inappropriate, arguing that she had done nothing wrong and was simply trying to go about her work. Dr. Upton’s supporters attended the hearing to show solidarity, and she appeared with her face uncovered after initially concealing her identity during the first two days of the tribunal.
The tribunal has highlighted the complexities and sensitivities surrounding gender identity and access to gendered spaces. Peggie’s suspension and the subsequent legal battle have sparked debates about balancing the rights and comfort of all employees in the workplace. Dr. Upton’s case has also drawn attention to the challenges transgender individuals often face in asserting their identities and accessing spaces that align with their gender. As the tribunal continues, it remains to be seen how the panel will rule on the competing claims of harassment and discrimination. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for workplace policies and transgender rights in Scotland and beyond.
