The result of this tribunal does not define the success of its motivator, SexMatters.
It is deeply disheartening that Dr Beth Upton can be referred to without, shamefully what has become, the privilege of anonymity. Employment tribunals only see the groggy light of media attention if it fits the narrative of a broader agenda, of which this case, which has only one victim given Peggie admitting to being the only harasser, was the perfectly imperfect piece in the “case-by-case” puzzle.
Dr Upton fell victim to a court-sanctioned smear campaign in the national press, from the judiciary who knowingly threw her identity at its core into the hands of those who wish to tear it apart. With the employment judge presiding over the case Antoine Tinnion saying the threat of Beth facing gender-critical motivated violence is “theoretical, not real”, is it a surprise that Upton and NHS Fife’s plea for privacy fell on deaf ears?
Despite Upton’s legal team bringing awareness to the emotional distress misgendering causes her, the Judiciary, in their reflection of the intrinsically transphobic ‘understanding’ of gender identity that has become embedded in the institutions, decided to allow that distress providing it isn’t “offensive”…
A term that implies the responsibility of the hurt individual for their principles being violated, rather than the aggressor for their manifestation of oppressive ideals.
It has the underlying function of reinforcing ‘control’ over who a person is in relation to the system they must contribute to, taking away the weight of their being manipulated by that system’s inherent discriminatory harm.
(much like the very nature of this tribunal)
The incidents in which Peggie claims to have constituted harassment against her have as little credibility as the “Darlington Five” in their Christian Concern-funded attack of NHS single-sex spaces. On all three occasions, Peggie confronted Beth Upton with discriminatory hostility, when all she did was follow NHS guidance and the law under the Equality Act 2010, to which Peggie’s hostility violated. Implying Beth’s “presence in the changing rooms to be analogous to that of a sexual predator” in her comparison of “the situation in prisons”. Which, in a Hail Mary of pinning that comparison to Isla Bryson rather than the foundational reasoning for saying such a thing, Sandie denied. Additionally, it has been claimed that Peggie went as far as neglecting patient safety in her refusal to work with Beth.
Following her suspension in January 2024, Peggie’s initial complaint was that of sexual harassment or harassment related to protected beliefs under the EA2010. NHS Fife Board and Beth Upton’s Barrister Jane Russell probed Peggie on the nature of the incidents, saying;
“What you have complained about is Dr Upton’s mere presence in the changing room, not anything she said or did.”
”That’s right”
“There’s certainly no physical abuse or harassment of you”
“That’s correct”
Only one woman committed harassment contrary to the EA2010 and NHS guidance. It certainly isn’t Dr Upton. Despite the best efforts of the press to persuade otherwise, this has been confirmed in the courts.
Cunningham’s not so cunning plan
SexMatters saw this, in what would be a morally just society, open-and-shut tribunal, as fuel to their goal of inducing an environment of fearful compliance with non-existent legislation, publicising and dragging it out by whichever means possible to make it look as “unpleasant” as possible, encouraging pre-emptive footwork from service providers and businesses, due to the potential of expensive legal proceedings and a damaged reputation, pre-emptive submission from trans people due to the potential of financially devastating legal proceedings and a destroyed life.
They are clear in this motivation.
Expected by many, SexMatters put forward Naomi Cunningham to act as Peggie’s barrister in a private capacity. Giving them yet another foothold in a case that runs not only the risk of lost rights but the guarantee of further stigmatisation. Given the disgraceful decision to publicly out Beth and explicitly allow her misgendering, an immeasurable amount of coal was thrown into the fire of Goebbels’s propaganda machine otherwise known as British legacy media. The details discrediting Peggie’s claims are of little relevance to her motivators and those who are paid to report them with a disregard for journalistic and moral integrity, the broader damage will be done regardless.
In her use of the women’s facilities, Dr Beth Upton did nothing other than follow the law and NHS policy as it currently stands. This is the very thing with which the anti-trans movement wishes to change, with SexMatters also having intervened in the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers supreme court case challenging the definition of “woman” and “man” in the 2010 Equality Act. Much like with the Australian Federal Court stating Helen Joyce has no expertise or capacity to define such a thing, in this tribunal, Forstaters submitted written evidence wasn’t treated as evidential. It’s almost as though, and call this intuition if you will, basing a foundational argument behind science denial will lead to its disregard.
The grounds for suspension are sound, Cunningham has had to drop all claims bar its ‘discriminatory nature’ of contradicting the Equality Act’s, often abused, right to “protected beliefs”. Though the means in which a belief is manifested is an entirely different matter, much to the dismay of those who wish to be the abuser.
This tribunal has been shaped in such a way as to harass a recognised victim, with Cunningham’s council’s argument stretched so thin they have resorted to claiming Beth lied about patient negligence, in so accusing her trade union, the British Medical Association, of complacency in their pushing her to complain in a professional capacity. Which unsurprisingly did not land with the intended impact, but her motivation was adjourning the hearing.
Painfully for Beth, Naomi Cunningham satisfied her motivation with 3 days to prepare for a cross-examination. Given to her after the accusatory desperation of proposing the investigation process led to “puzzling” issues.
The tribunal is approaching its closure, for Upton however, this will be carried with her for the rest of her life. It was likely anticipated by many that NHS Fife would have dropped support or provide nothing but empty support, thankfully they saw this harmful exaggeration as “unnecessary” and are trying to combat Cunningham’s not-so cunning plan. Besides this, Upton was met with institutional hatred from all other angles, it is frankly appalling that her life can be torn apart under the guise of “public interest” when that “interest” is entirely manufactured to serve a wider purpose.
The outcome will be of detrimental effect to the trans community regardless of whether the judiciary can overcome the institutional desire to oppress trans women and rule in Beth’s favour. Should they sway towards an inherently transmisogynistic ruling, a precedent will be set. It will be manipulated to provide ammunition for the anti-trans crusade for trans segregation. Repealing the Equality Act would require leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, if those who are so closely aligned with the political class, that are so desperate to achieve such a tragic loss to humanitarian progress, can build enough of a case study to facilitate this, then the potential for that regression runs the risk of accelerating uncontrollably.
In the meantime, with an ideologically captured Equality and Human Rights Commission, still under the spiteful hands of Kishwer Falkner, the consequences of the aforementioned regression will be experienced by the trans community even if by some grace of evidentially backed empathy the tribunal rules in Upton’s favour. The EHRC Draft Code of Practice provides the potential for trans exclusion from single-sex spaces whilst giving protection to the, again often abused, “protected beliefs” and how they are manifested. Should that become statutory guidance, the “gender critical movement” can gain the soldiers of service providers and businesses, who due to the fear of meeting the same fate as NHS Fife, will comply before the fateful day of leaving the ECHR approaches.
How this must feel for Beth is incomprehensible, the chances of this crossing the minds of those involved in the weaponisation of this tribunal, in any form of empathetic consideration, are even smaller than the chance of those who are facilitating the upcoming revival of hegemonic masculinity accepting any responsibility when they are inevitably affected too.