Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Tribunal discussion thread supporting FayeRC in case against NHS England starting 16/03/26

1000 replies

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 15/03/2026 23:58

Thanks for joining in this discussion in support of @FayeRC and the case against NHSE.

This is a private tribunal case, so there will be no live viewing, however TT will be covering and I'll be doing my best to cover it here, however my Monday has become very busy, so any support from PPs is welcomed!

Groundskeeping rules, let's all remain respectful in our discussions. I'm sure TT will cover the Judges expectations for coverage in the morning. This should be a lot smoother as this tribunal isn't open for public viewing and so a lot less scope for error, however discussion should be about what is accurately being reported on and not misrepresented.

FayeRC is a pseudonym and so I ask that if anybody recognises FayeRC throughout the tribunal we respect the anonymity requested.

There will also be current, and frequent gardening requests on the crowd justice page, please search Faye Russell-Caldicott crowd justice if you can support. We have less than 17 days to help raise another £40,000.

"I have issued an employment tribunal complaint against NHS England for indirect discrimination on the basis of sex (women), religion (Islam), philosophical belief (gender critical) and disability (PTSD) for having a policy in place which effectively renders the supposed single-sex toilet, changing room and showering facilities as mixed-sex.
According to NHSE’s trans staff policy, transwomen (born males) can use female facilities in addition to male and gender neutral facilities. Which means that NHSE expects women to share female facilities with biological males. If a woman is not happy with that, she is directed to use the gender neutral toilets, and transwomen (males) can continue using the female facilities. The policy is blatantly discriminatory against women, especially in those office bases where the showers are open plan.
Simultaneously, my claim also includes claims of direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation related to my philosophical belief (gender-critical).
This is one of the first cases in England where a court will be asked to decide whether such a trans staff policy is discriminatory against employees with other protected characteristics. There has been no Equality Impact Assessment conducted in relation to the policy. When developing the policy, NHSE did not thoroughly consider the needs of women or the implications of trauma and religion, or the normal and common boundary a female member of staff might assert that she just simply does not want to shower in direct line of sight with a biological male.
The response from NHSE has been extremely disappointing. I have been told that all staff members are expected to follow the policy. I have been told that NHSE is already offering single-sex female facilities, which can be used both by “those born female, and those who identify as female.” Their rationale for not excluding transwomen from women’s facilities is that “even if there would only be one transwoman excluded from the female facilities, we would consider that unjustifiable unlawful discrimination.” In its response, NHSE effectively denies the relevance of biological sex as the basis for single-sex spaces.
My claim is that the current staff policy is discriminatory on the basis of sex, religion, belief and disability and the facilities should be made female-only by excluding males.
I will be applying for full anonymity, which will be essential for me to take the case forward, given my personal circumstances. If my application for anonymity is not accepted at the preliminary hearing, I will pass all remaining donations to another case of my choice which seeks to secure women’s single-sex facilities or services.
Please help by donating and sharing the link. Like with all court cases, there is a risk of losing. This crowdfunding pays for my legal fees. I will not be benefitting financially from the crowdfunding because the money raised will go directly to my legal team’s client account. Any compensation from the employer is likely to be modest. I am pursuing this case because women’s rights to safe spaces, safeguarding and consent should not be overridden.
Yours faithfully,
Faye Russell-Caldicott"

From FayeRC's own thread, here is the broad summary of events that has lead to this tribunal:

  • A male colleague transitioned in 2022. We were told the person would use facilities of their preference. Staff in my Directorate were told what was expected from us and this was in effect immediately.
  • We had open plan changing room and showers and usual cubicle toilets.
  • I am an actual woman, Muslim, gender critical and have PTSD. I cannot share facilities with males.
  • Following this, I raised in 2022 that facilities were effectively mixed sex. NHSE disagreed and said they were offering single-sex facilities for those born female and those who identified as female.
  • Raising these issues internally was extremely difficult for me and did not lead to any changes to staff policy. I argued ‘sex’ in EqAct 2010 meant biological and therefore could not include males who identified as women. They did not agree. Their interpretation was that if even one transwoman was excluded from female facilities that was discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. I did tell them nearly all transwomen retained their penis and those who had it removed were males nevertheless.
  • I was effectively pushed out from female facilities to use gender neutral toilets which I have continued to use to date.
  • One would have thought Fife, Darlington and SC ruling were helpful but they have not prompted any changes to policy to date.
  • After SC ruling an all staff announcement was made in support of everyone, including those with trans supportive views and ‘other views’. Policy was put on hold and under review but not removed. It remains so for nearly a year later.
  • They have been waiting for EHRC guidance (on public service provision). I have told them they are waiting for a wrong piece of guidance. This is an employer-employee matter.
  • Policy was created with support from trade unions, Stonewall and GIRES. No women’s organisations, trauma support organisations or religious organisations were involved in policy drafting.

As mentioned earlier, I'll do my best to keep up with TT, but I've had a curveball thrown at me this weekend which will take up a chunk of Monday, however I shall keep you all posted so if somebody can take over when I am not available for all those that aren't on TwiX that would be great, alternatively I'll be sure to post the summaries at each break and redirect to Nitter in the interim.

Thank you to everybody who has already shown FayeRC their support, let's get this some traction and help a fellow wim out.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:30

NC: You are saying TU stand up for women, when in conflict with trans policies? VH: No I mean that nothing cd have been hidden or removed, and, Stonewall not only body - lots of inclusion work eg disability.
VH: Other PCs too - lots of inclusion and equality work going on. Lots of effort going into making NHSE inclusive and a good place to work for lots of protected groups. That was the leadership message.
NC: We don't have the 2017 EQIA but we do have a draft one from 2022. [bundle ref] NC: Exchange between Erk Gunce and Eddie Phillips re the EQIA draft, and then the doc itself.
VH: Yes
NC: Says neutral per PC disability. Says neutral re religion and belief, neutral re sex. NC: So in 2022 it has not crossed anyone's mind that having men in F SSF might adversely impact women. VH: I had no input to the document. Are you asking just my opinion?
NC: Am suggesting this is the best evidence we have of what the 2017 EQIA said? VH: Disagree. different group of people this time round. This is different. Ours had lots about the groups consulted, the feedback we had.
VH: I don't know how this group went about it, whether they consulted. NC: Erk Gunce was leading this time?
VH: Understand so.
NC: We can agree it says, "sex - neutral"
VH: Yes
NC: There is no reason to think anyone considered any adverse effect on women, or any subgroup of women, in 2017? VH: We will have documented and mitigated anything if it came up.
NC: Do you agree now there are impacts on women? VH: Have heard a lot the last couple of days, and yes, can see there are some impacts.

anyolddinosaur · 17/03/2026 15:31

Trade unions would have encouraged them to shut conversations down, they were stonewall influenced too.

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:32

NC: NHSE grounds of resistance say, no adverse impacts are accepted. So that the time GoR drawn up, there is no recognition of any adverse impact on women.
VH: [reads] no
NC: [another ref] email 4/3/26 from NHSE to tribunal re Prof Phoenix's evidence - they do now accept adverse impact on women, esp re PTSD. First evidence of such acknowledgment?
VH: Yes it acknowledges.

Xiaoxiong · 17/03/2026 15:35

Something I wish they'd ask when these equality impact assessments "go missing due to server upgrades" is - what else is now missing in your organisation? A whole server lost between 2017 and today, that also wasn't backed up...there must have been masses of documents on there that are gone, not just the 2017 EQIA. It must be causing total havoc with data retention policies etc.

Of course, occam's razor would suggest that there never was a full EQIA, just this abbreviated "statement" that is in the bundle.

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:36

NC: I put it to you, you suggest in WS that you arrived at the policy via a careful balancing exercise. But the impacts on women were not acknowledged until a couple of weeks ago. So you can't have done any such balancing between women, and men with trans identities.
VH: Me personally? NC: NHSE VH: Can't speak for anyone since my involvement in 2017
NC: Your WS says you considered impact on all staff. But you did not have in mind any adverse impacts for women at all, because you didn't acknowledge there were any at all. VH: [missed]

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 15:36

I do love it that NC uses a word like 'ticklish' whilst reducing a witness's evidence to shreds.

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:37

NC: Can you give an example of an impact on women that you did consider?
VH: Well, TW using women's toilets.
NC: And the impact of that on women?
VH: We would have thought about it.
NC: But if we look at the 2022 EQIA - says "sex neutral" - if 2017 had been different, you would be able to tell the tribunal about it.
VH: If there had been a major conversation I'd remember, but, there wasn't that I recall.

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:39

NC: Are you saying you did put something in the impact column re 'sex', and you documented mitigations? At the time?
VH: We would have discussed about TW using women's loos vs disabled ones or men's one.
NC: [missed a Q and R here]
J: Is this a good point to take a break? [it's agreed]
J: Break till 3.50. [BREAK]

MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 15:40

Waiting for the “are you really saying it was considered in 2017, wasn’t considered in 2022, and is now considered again?”

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:42

@Madcats thank you so much. Would you like me to take back over now I'm back or would you like to keep going while you're on a roll?

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 17/03/2026 15:48

"We would have considered it" but we dont have any evidence that we did except for me not saying we would have done. Hope NC is going to ask if you did why didnt you see what you have now admitted - there is an impact and it's negative?

How they can say these things with a straight face escapes me.

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 15:50

This witness can sense the hole they've dug but hasn't yet realised how big it is.

God, I wish watching clips of Naomi's cross-examination were made compulsory in gaining whatever Mickey Mouse EDI qualifications these people get. The whole shitshow would stop dead.

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:51

I am happy to hand over the reins, @Jimmyneutronsforehead

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:52

Replying to @tribunaltweets

The court is currently taking a short break and will resume at 3.50pm. Naomi Cunningham (NC) will be continuing cross examination of Vivien Hodgskiss (VH), a witness for NHS England

5

172

DO NO HARM

@tribunal... 29s

Tribunal Tweets

[Hearing resumes]

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:55

J: Any more Qs Miss Cunningham? NC: Yes. Qs re structure of your WS.

Introduce yourself 1-3, then you go on to say you have not been able to find much documentation re 2017 policy in #4. Fair summary?

VH: Yes.

NC: Next paras are about who you consulted when drawing up the policy - please read

VH: Yes

NC: #10 is aims of police, #11 is re EQI process.

VH: yes

NC: You go on to discuss more about who consulted, and you finish by saying you had had no complaints about the policy.

VH: Yes

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:59

NC: So the only bit about the aims of the policy and procedure is your para 10? VH: [reading] It's a summary of the aims. NC: I haven't missed anything elsewhere re

aims?

VH: No you haven't. Was about supporting colleagues through transition and thereafter.

NC: The only aim is about trans colleagues and respecting their identity?

VH: Well aim was about all colleagues but primarily.

NC: You are the only witness re 2017, and best placed to discuss?

VH: Yes

NC: So thinking about impacts on women. The communal women's loos in both locations are the kind with gaps top and bottom?

VH: Some and some.

NC: I am only talking about the communal ones, not the full-room gender neutral ones.

VH: Oh I see, yes, gaps.

oh yes, the gaps. The gaping holes at the top and bottom of the stall.

OP posts:
OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 17/03/2026 16:01

I wonder if she's realised yet, that there's a gaping hole she is about to step into?

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 16:02

I have a feeling Naomi is about to point out a few other gaps.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 16:02

NC: Is it the case that at least some women would object to using such a cubicle in close proximity to male colleagues? VH: Have heard in last 2 days yes

NC: I don't mean trans identify colleagues - any male colleague. You've always known that surely?:

VH: I see - yes.

NC: Some women won't want to adjust hair or make up in front of male colleagues, or when dealing with period.

vh: yyes

NC: Muslim women won't want to adjust hijab in a room where a man might walk in. VH: Yes

NC: Muslim women might feel all that particularly strongly?

VH: I suppose.

NC: Women with PTSD particularly likely

too?

VH: Probably true

NC: And other women might object for other reasons?

VH: Yes

NC: And perfectly reasonable to have such objections, for whatever reason?

VH: Yes I suppose, but, there were other options - single-use ones

here we go

OP posts:
CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 16:04

Is that you, Pete?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 16:05

NC: But surely, all those various preferences are the exact reason why we have single sex spaces in the first place? VH: I suppose.

NC: I was asking about male colleagues in general. But there's no obvious reason why those women would feel differently about male colleagues asserting a trans identity? VH: Well that's more subjective I think.

J is intervening about the Q but too muffled to hear]

NC: Not every Q to a witness has to have been pleaded.

J: Cd you put Q a different way?

NC: If you cd explain the objection to the way I have put it?

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 16:05

Yes I suppose, but, there were other options - single-use ones

this is absurd. What purpose does she think the “women” sign on the door of a communal room is for if the only way to be confident there are no men in the room is to use a single user facility? Why even bother with the sign?

weegielass · 17/03/2026 16:05

love her love her love her

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 16:09

J: SC you objected?

SC [cannot hear much at all] [I think asking for Qs to be more tactfully put]. [Something about 'describing TW as male colleagues is contentious I think]

SC: Am not suggesting NC or C should not have their strong views, but, ask for tactful questioning.

You pesky women, using your words.

J: NC's job is to put C's case as strongly as possible, tribunal's job is to consider the evidence [now too muffled]

NC: I will try a slightly different formulation. I described 'being trans' as a metaphysical belief. Will ask - a 'trans woman' is still male, yes?

VH: Don't agree or disagree. Policy development is not one person, collaborative, my views are not relevant.

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 16:10

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 16:09

J: SC you objected?

SC [cannot hear much at all] [I think asking for Qs to be more tactfully put]. [Something about 'describing TW as male colleagues is contentious I think]

SC: Am not suggesting NC or C should not have their strong views, but, ask for tactful questioning.

You pesky women, using your words.

J: NC's job is to put C's case as strongly as possible, tribunal's job is to consider the evidence [now too muffled]

NC: I will try a slightly different formulation. I described 'being trans' as a metaphysical belief. Will ask - a 'trans woman' is still male, yes?

VH: Don't agree or disagree. Policy development is not one person, collaborative, my views are not relevant.

I’m sorry, but fuck off. Just, fuck off.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.