Two more members of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) have come forward following news that Sandie Peggie is suing the union for failing to support her in her case against Fife NHS.
Ms Peggie was suspended after she raised concerns about sharing a female changing room with a transgender colleague, Dr Beth Upton, and is claiming discrimination based on her gender-critical beliefs at a tribunal in Dundee.
Now, two other Scots nurses have provided a detailed account of what they call the “extremely hostile atmosphere” they experienced for raising concerns about women’s single-sex spaces, such as bathrooms and changing rooms.
This came to a head during two RCN online engagement sessions on the Supreme Court Judgment on Legal Definition of Sex in the Equality Act 2010. Between them, they have more than 60 years of practice experience in nursing.
One of them, Jenny Willmott, said she was subjected to a ferocious onslaught by other members when she sought to provide her views on the Supreme Court judgment. The other, a globally renowned specialist in clinical nursing and a Quality Improvement Chair, wishes to remain anonymous for the time being as she considers future options. She said she’d been “thrown out of the session” after she’d attempted to voice concerns about some of the responses she was hearing.
Read more
- Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife: The key points you may have missed from tribunal
-
Sandie Peggie's case against NHS Fife is more important than Supreme Court judgment
This is the verbatim account of what each of them told me over the course of Saturday and Sunday.
Jenny Willmott has been a practice nurse for more than 20 years. She said: “I received an email from the RCN inviting members to sign up for one of the six online sessions and two in-person sessions to discuss the Supreme Court verdict.
“These were described as a chance to re-shape the union’s professional guidance and positioning. They were framed as safe and inclusive spaces to share our thoughts. The opening statement in the email invitations included a lengthy message of support of all ‘LGBTQIA-plus members’.
“I’m one of the founders of Scottish Lesbians [a pressure group] and we had been invited to make an intervention in the Supreme Court proceedings. As such, I emailed the RCN, stating who I was and asking if there was anything I could do to help with these engagement sessions. I received no reply.
“There were around 40 participants and the session began with an introduction from the facilitator, who was also the professional lead for the RCN. She talked about issues around psychological safety and how some people might be feeling overwhelmed. She also warned that if the meeting became unsafe then it could be ended prematurely.
“There then followed a video by the director of Legal Employment and Member Relations. The video recounted what had led to the Supreme Court judgment. It was very clear and succinct and there was no hint of any spin. She made it clear that the RCN should wait for EHRC guidance.
“I said I was from Scottish Lesbians and that I’d felt relieved when the judgment was announced.
“I expressed concern that the ruling was being framed as complicated when it was actually quite simple. I was thanked for saying this ‘in a respectful manner’.
“A man identifying as a woman said he disagreed with me completely, but did so in what I considered to be a reasonable and respectful manner. The Facilitator said it was good that there was a diversity of opinion.
“Then the online chat facility opened up. One person was unhappy about the ‘diversity of voices’ and added: ‘Are we going to invite Tommy Robinson next’? And then ‘there’s a bigot in every community’. This was clearly directed at me.
“The insults went on and on. It’s not nice to hear these things being said about you. The atmosphere had turned to one of absolute hostility.
“There was a clear assumption that anyone who falls into the category of LGBTQI-plus would be horrified by the Supreme Court result. No one imagined that anyone could have welcomed it.
“An incident at the end left me very shaken. One woman said that views like mine were racist; that I was a terf; that exclusionary people like me shouldn’t be given a platform and that my words were a danger to vulnerable people.
“Making an accusation like this is the worst you can level at a nurse.
"I raised my hand to speak. However my microphone wasn’t enabled and so I never got the chance.
“I came out of that session feeling that, while it might have been safe for others, it certainly wasn’t a safe space for me.”
The second RCN member who approached The Herald, had attended a different online engagement session on June 25. She said: “This was an RCN event billed as being about the legal ramifications and impact on the nursing profession of the Supreme Court judgment.
“Initially I thought: ‘this sounds interesting and it feels like progress. The RCN might be wanting to engage with taking it forward in a collegiate and safe way to ensure compliance with the law and upholding the main tenets of nursing: caring compassion’.
“The letter I received from the RCN alluded to sensitivities and safety issues, but I didn’t see any of them being mitigated. I thought it would be a straightforward discussion about policy to ensure it was at one with current law. Why would that be unsafe … unless you’re predicting that something unprofessional was taking place? Professionalism implies an element of safety.
“When the event began, I noticed that the chat facility was closed and that our mics and cameras were off. You had to put up a virtual hand up if you wanted to say anything.
“However, the Q&A facility was open and there were about 40 participants. The chair was the professional lead for the Executive Nurse network. She is also a Professional Learning Facilitator. She was followed by the RCN Executive Director Legal, Employment and Member Relations who made a presentation on what the Supreme Court had said. It was clear and concise and I was encouraged by it. She described what it meant and how we had to develop policy and practice around that.
“We then watched a video in which a two-year trans-identified male said he’d felt unable to venture out of the house after the Supreme Court judgment.
“I wanted to say: ‘Fear not: your rights have not been rolled back. We’ll all make sure your protected characteristics are the same as women. We’re all going to be equal now’.
“I tried to unmute my mic and my camera, but kept getting a screen pop-up saying the organisers had disabled my mic and camera. I tried logging in and out, but to no avail.
“A number of uniformed female nurses, who all seemed to be on duty, made comments about how terrible they felt about the Supreme Court judgment and how their trans friends were very upset. There was no policy discussion.
“The facilitator then said: ‘I just want to reassure everyone we are engaging with a range of opinions of stakeholders around governing policy’. This included a trans organisation.
“I asked: ‘How are you engaging with women’, but my question was held ‘in review’.
“Then I got a private reply from the Equality, Diversity and Programme lead, asking me to email her privately.
I asked her in turn if she was telling me that they weren’t engaging with women. But she continued to insist that I get in touch with her privately to discuss the matter. Yet, this was meant to be an open session about developing policy.
“I made a comment to the effect that gender isn’t a protected characteristic but that gender-re-assigned was. I said that all minorities need protected. And that we needed to be careful that we operate within the law and according to guidance.
“That drew gasps from a previous speaker, who then started to cry. There were expressions of shock.
“Some participants became very upset and stated how discriminatory my comment was. Yet all I’d stated was fact.
“It was jaw-dropping stuff. Where has my profession gone? This session was meant to be about developing policy for everyone. Why was it being hijacked by an exclusively trans discussion? It was assumed that if you said anything in accordance with the law it was discriminatory.
Read more
“I said we needed to be careful about the language we use in developing policy. We need to be sure as a profession and as a Royal College that we are in step with what is understood in the law and not by a policy group. However, my comments were all held in review and not shown.
“Then I found out that I’d been kicked out of the session. I knew this because my screen went blank and a message flashed up saying: ‘You’ve left’.”
An RCN spokesperson said: “We have been holding a variety of online and in person engagement events regarding the Supreme Court decision. It is vital that the RCN hear views from our members on this subject. We recognise that our members have diverse views and do stress that they should engage in a respectful way.
'The well-being of those who attend and participate in such events is a priority for the RCN as set out in our earlier messaging regarding these events. We are therefore saddened to hear of the experiences of these members and will reach out to the member identified.”
Share