Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is the second afternoon session of submissions, Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Dr Upton

NC FWS makes it clear that SS exceptions can only be operated on biological sex basis 211,217,224 sections. From 215-217 most useful, ssservices lawful. Gateway conditions cannot be coherently applied if sex doesn't carry its biological meaning. Gives egs, eg cancer screening

NC [reads] The meaning of bio sex. R position is capable of being characterised as another abiding mystery in this case. It's not wrong that bio sex is determined by chromosomes etc - it is defined in Bellinger. R appear to be unable or unwilling to comprehend

that in the vast majority of cases, gonads chormosomes and genitals are in alignment. Where they are not, the law needs to find a way to decide. The court needed to decide which case he was. But this case isn't about sexual development. It may be a distraction

to create confusion in tribunals mind about something which is very simple. No arguable doubt - factually too, as ultimately Maggie Currer had to admit, and KS and others more readily admitted. Bio sex is binary and socially important. rare edge cases doesn't mean it's not a binary

just like life and death is a binary.
NC Inferences - tribunal should do this on basis of what is more probable or not. You will need to draw inferences on another mystery - what did Du record on his phone, when record it, and why so many obstacles thrown up to make C unable

to get info and put [IT expert] through embarrassment of admitting it was the sixth best way of dealing with the information on the phone. On a teams call with DU uploading info. Was JR who pressed on whether Du having lied was only explanation of result.
J [asks for a citation]

NC Rest of note sections

Given that they were dropped they were plainly disproportionate. In relation to issue 5H Ms Miles evidence - which was novel - suggesting need for supervision was to protect C from allegations but was spun to C by R re whether she could be trusted

without supervision in light of patient care allegations.
NC By way of conclusion. To talk more c importance of Pete. His point is that he is indistinguishable from DU. DU's gender reassignment is not relevant to proceedings- this is C complaint. Therefore Pete is legally and

practically indistinguishable from DU> Some of R witnesses had to agree that if Pete - with no changes of name/hair/clothes - he was as much a woman as DU. An inevitable conclusion . Subscribers to GI belief ..
J TW doesn't appear in Act. No definition.
NC No.

NC No legal definition;. GI people say if only a man who says he's a woman. A circular definition.
NC R has put at heart of case in a way not wholly clear is that no one else other than SP had raised disquiet with DU presence in w CR. Suggest abundantly clear to Tribunal

why that is. What happened to SP when raised: first time and second time nothing, then all hell broke loose and she treated as aggressor.
Even if Sp a racist. Even racist women shouldn't be forced to undress in front of someone she sees as a man. One joke in 7 years not a racist

R efforts to find evidence of people agreeing with SP.
SP named 4 and 13 people in her evidence with great reluctance (to her credit) not wanting to get colleagues in trouble. Did R try to find those people and bring them to tribunal? No. People brought last minutes

to give evidence were Fiona Wishart and {?]
NC Conclusion. Many weird things about this case. Nurses and doctors who don't know what sex is, or tell what sex someone is, and an NHS employee with immunology qualification.
JR constant intervention re my language despite your

ruling.
Comments c great distress of DU contrasted with his demeanour when giving evidence - which was self assured, tending to smug. His own interventions and unruly behaviour c lang. Booards attempt to have whole case heard in private - extraordinary application.

Absence of documentation, no consultation of female staff or their union to let men self id into female spaces in hospital. Not following JTinnion c providing documentation. All of those, and more, are peculiarities of case and manner litigated. Related or not?.

I suggest obvious explanation for bizarre behaviour or R and representatives - organisation in the grip of a delusion. Sexed bodies matter when m and w are undressing in spaces for single sex. Board have taken up GI. Not just board.

I Bumba taken to NHS policies - not a rare delusion. One deliberately fostered - as seen in M Forstater evidence. A number of policies in private and public sector - assumptions that Self id is the law. That was wrong and delusional in all those different places.

Because it is delusional it can only be enforced by bullying. That is why C was put to vicious heresy hunt - cos of her refusal to undress in a room with a man. And it explains all the other mysteries too.

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp Please unroll

@threadreaderapp @threadreaderapp unroll please