Thread by @tribunaltweets

We'll shortly be resuming after the morning break on day 3 of the employment tribunal of nurse Sandie Peggie (SP) v Fife Health Board and Dr Upton (DU). Earlier coverage and abbrevs here:

Naomi Cunningham will now be examining SP after the panel's Qs

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/1887059243708088485

We return after an extended break.
NC [sound off]
SP A couple of patients but no complaints
NC U were asked about photos, when were they taken?
SP Poss a few weeks later as I'd been asked to take them
J That concludes your evidence, thank you very much. U can leave or stay

J Can you get the next witness please?
Maya Forstater being sworn in (MF)

NC I forgot to check re witness statements [looking for a copy for MF]
J We need the supplementary bundle as I wasn't expecting MF as the next witness. We'll need a few minutes to sort this

NC I'm sorry, I should have thought about that
[Panel leave the courtroom...J returns briefly and discussions about printing out more copies of the WS]

Confirming MF name and formal address and her WS
NC I expect Qs frm JR
JR Yr research area is economics?
No
JR Yr degree
Agriculture
JR And y've been working on this area since 2020?
MF SInce 2019
JR Any post grad degrees?
No
JR So extent of yr quals is agriculture?

MF Yes
JR Since yr agriculture degree, and 2019 y've not worked in S/G area?
MF No
JR U say yr certain about facts and spaces?
Yes
JR U talk about man in these?
Yes
JR They say nothing about TW
MF They refer to all men, I mean by that all males
JR Is an assumption TW males

MF In D is about M in gen, incl TW
JR U believe TW are males/men
MF It's a fact. Fact about groups of ppl who are male.
JR Yr not a biologist?
MF I have degree in agriculture, but not a scientist beyond that
JR What u claim as fact are yr GC beliefs?

MF No, these are facts
JR U say, women's CR is a popular porn category. But no evidence that TW are involved in this.
MF It says is popular but I'm not saying that
JR U refer to international orgs who've given guidance on toilet facilities eg Water Aid report

JR On p298, [discussing paging discrepancy] F Friendly public toilets recommendations listed, 1-6, none mention TW do they?
MF They mention clearly marked M and F, so a TW wld be in category of M
J Q was whether doc refs TW
MF No, it refs M and F
J U need to answer the Q
No

J U must answer the Q asked.
JR Here in 2022 SM report, in yr statement u say is 7062 response survey. Isnt it likely to be responses from GC ppl?
MF I'm not sure ppl who know as was put on general SM asking are u concerned re SS spaces?
J interjects again

MF Wasnt to ppl who specif known the org
J [discussing microphone position for observers]
MF They may not know our org but asked re SSS and why they're valued
JR [repeats statement]
MF I can't remember wording of SM but that's the jist of it
JR A leading q?

MF Yes, was appealing to concerned ppl
JR Tweeted to yr followers?
MF
JR Ppl who follow you likely to be SM supporters?
MF Yes, in general
JR In Annex 1 of report, other research, yougov poll Jan 2022 re 52% want SSS
MF No. Annual response w same Qs w 3 options.

MF Shld only be M&F toilets, add a unisex option, and shld be only unisex option?
35% mixed (incl unisex) and 7% wanted unisex and then dont knows
So 10% or less happy w unisex?
MF No. 41% want both and 56% said uncomfortable in unisex, in a different Q.

JR Presumably uncomfortable as don't want to share w men?
MF Survey asked both sexes. Men also uncomfortable sharing w opposite sex
JR So uncomfortable sharing w men?
MF Q about using unisex facility
JR Doesn't ask about TW, unless they believe like u that TW are men

JR TW are male and evidence is 9 paras - 9 ppl who talk about this, 9 pieces of anecdotal evidence?
Yes, had 7000 responses and they're all illustratrative?
JR Only 9 had this view
No, we couldn't list 7000 responses. Gives a flavour of comments. Isnt numerically representati

JR Under any man is a threat there's only 7 responses?
MF Again these quotes are illustration of kinds of things ppl said. Lots of similar comments. Wldnt print them all for readability.
JR Look at graph 28 please. Prof J Phoenix's report

JR She's performed a study in SG and Idenity in Criminology. Says greatest single greatest predictor is sex?
MF She summarises it as that
JR Isn't controversial. So men more likely to be in criminal stats?
MF Yes
JR Doesnt say anything about TW?

JR No mention of TW is there?
J points out where word trangender appears
JR Isn't about stats but refers to queer criminology which has brought it into Q. Is about theory. She's not examined TW in crime stats. She's mentioned rise of queer criminology and is v in depth, but she

hasnt looked at T people
MF She's arguing for clear data based on sex, from the conclusion. Accurate stats needed on M&F in crim justice system or nothing in this chapter wld be knowable.
JR Many ppl interested in categorising in a certain way but I'm asking re her saying the

JR proportion of TW in the data
MF No as she doesnt have evidence re that group
JR In para 44, the Swedish Study from Karolinka, refers to numbers of convictions for violent crime and trans ppl. Say 324 in study from 73 to 2003 and

JR u say a high prevalence of offending for trans ppl? A fair summary?
MF No. [Can I answer the Q? A cohort medical study under treatment of the institute. Control was ordinary non-T men and women matched for all other factors, eg age. And 324 about 50:50 M & F going thro med &

MF surgical transition. It compared the groups before and after transition. The conclusion, I think, is M who transitioned and had surgery continued to have the same rate of crim convictions as ordinary males. The crime stats didnt look like a popn of Fs but as males, with same

levels of conviction
JR Not quite true. If look at an article by the author on p692, and she says 73-88 group and 89-03 group and the later group didn't have a pattern of M criminality.
MF Issue w later gp is they didnt differentiate between M& F. Is a limit to ability to draw

conclusions and when nos got too small they didnt draw any conclusion. She isn't saying the M had F patterns of offending. They looked at T as a whole for later gp, and didnt compare M v F in the later group. We can send a write up of article if helpful?
JR We weren't saying TW

were a high risk, but in later gp it isn't shown as they had better MH care. So isnt higher levels of criminality in TW
MF I dont agree. This wasn't withdrawn from a peer reviewed article so the article is stood by. The single author in the magazine article is responding to ppl

MF misrepresenting the findings, eg all TW are rapists or at greater risk of being Sex offenders than other males. Not what the study found.
JR Orgs like yrs feed into a narrative that TW are predators?
MF No. These TW had surgery but still had M patterns of criminality

[clarifies her position]
MF I mean: Men as a group are a risk, and men that ID as TW continue to be part of that group
JR Under heading and notes, no study doesnt prove TW are rapists [reads sections report out about crimes of TW v cis men] Bullet points written by author and

not author of study. We're not saying TW are rapists.
JR We have her words saying that the later group didn't demonstrate M criminality
MF No. It isn't what the study says. Can we look at the study please?
JR Where do you want to take us too as I think I've found it?

MF On p76, she says [reads re conviction rates M&F suggesting that higher risk to F controls but not M controls. Suggesting neither incr or decr risk post surgery - this is what to look at rather than ambiguous comments in magazine article
JR [cuts in] Incr risk of arrest if had

SR in first group
MF No, as didnt have enough nos in the study. Limited by nos in the clinic and cldnt differentiate betwn M&F, and just looked at trans
JR What I read out makes a distinction?
MF It makes a distinction between how gps fromed?

JR No, it said
MF No, the group included M&F, and were at incr risk of conviction of any crime after SRS. No signif conclusion made re the 2nd gp.
JR It doesnt say that. Incr risk only signif for 1st gp
MF Cldnt find signif conclusions in 2nd gp
JR No. Not what it says

MF It was unable to find a signif statement re the 2nd gp
JR Only conclusion u can draw, as did the author, who is more experienced is no signif incr.
MF No is different things. Depends on size of sample and stats test used. Saying we didnt find a stats difference to report o

JR Isnt evidence to support the conclusion they're incr risk?
MF Yes, but only cos of nos. The result from 1st group is clear in that they have the same criminality as ordinary men.
JR So there wasnt the evidence for increased criminality in the 2nd group?
MF Correct

JR I think that's a good time to break
J Remind you that you remain under oath and must not speak about these issues to anyone.
[Break for lunch]

@threadreaderapp unroll