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
AmaryllisNightAndDay · 17/03/2026 17:07

Isn't it nice to see Naomi Cunningham do for GIRES what Ben Cooper did for Stonewall? To think people paid for their advice.

Thanks to @Jimmyneutronsforehead and @Madcats And all respect to FayeRC for hanging in there, I hope she's OK.

Keeptoiletssafe · 17/03/2026 17:15

Just catching up.

NC mentioned toilet gaps! ❤️ The ones for health and safety I write about so much. The ones that British standards at the time of the 1992 legislation said were advantageous for cleaning, ventilation, supervision (which is particularly important for medical stuff), and prevention of misuse.

So much of this is deja-vu territory with my toilet design research. Very similar happened with the consultation for Document T for toilets. Most long term health conditions were forgotten about but they did talk about analysing urinal heights for non binary people.Their design evidence was a paper on transactivists preferences in New York nightclubs. The people who were commissioned to do that report won a Stonewall award.
Even looking at the government analysis in the consultation, the ‘women’ safety bit was phrased so weirdly it was easy to google it came from a set of Stonewalled organisations.

The Department of Education had missing equality impact statements and risk assessments on their toilet designs too. They didn’t hold them in their department when I asked.

MarieDeGournay · 17/03/2026 17:15

GreenFritillary · 17/03/2026 17:06

Where SC made me swear out loud wasI'm not challenging yr GC beliefs but want to understand them.
Bullshit. He understands all this stuff fully.

Yeah but he has to say something, it's his job.
Embarrassing for him that his job entails making himself look like a right buck-eejit, but that's what he's paid to doSmile.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 17:16

Just because it's been quite a few pages since I last mentioned it, if you want to support FayeRC and have the means to do so, she does have a crowd justice page where you can donate.

It is to support her legal fees, and as we know, Naomi and her team do an excellent job and are worth every penny.

There is currently less than 15 days left to reach the target amount of 70k. And this morning the figure was just over £31000, I think it was £31056 when I checked at 8am.

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 17/03/2026 17:22

Keeptoiletssafe · 17/03/2026 17:15

Just catching up.

NC mentioned toilet gaps! ❤️ The ones for health and safety I write about so much. The ones that British standards at the time of the 1992 legislation said were advantageous for cleaning, ventilation, supervision (which is particularly important for medical stuff), and prevention of misuse.

So much of this is deja-vu territory with my toilet design research. Very similar happened with the consultation for Document T for toilets. Most long term health conditions were forgotten about but they did talk about analysing urinal heights for non binary people.Their design evidence was a paper on transactivists preferences in New York nightclubs. The people who were commissioned to do that report won a Stonewall award.
Even looking at the government analysis in the consultation, the ‘women’ safety bit was phrased so weirdly it was easy to google it came from a set of Stonewalled organisations.

The Department of Education had missing equality impact statements and risk assessments on their toilet designs too. They didn’t hold them in their department when I asked.

How exciting for you, Keep!
It was definitely a sign. 😉

anyolddinosaur · 17/03/2026 17:27

What SC means is I want you to explain your belief to the judge so I can counter it with my client's view. We dont know SC's own views on this, or even if he has a personal view. He doesnt come across as a raging TRA and he may even have advised his client not to contest for all we know - but it's his job to put their case for them.

Rather a pity Naomi cant refer to the American judge's dissenting opinion and use "swinging dicks" but an English judge wouldnt like that.

MarieDeGournay · 17/03/2026 17:53

anyolddinosaur · 17/03/2026 17:27

What SC means is I want you to explain your belief to the judge so I can counter it with my client's view. We dont know SC's own views on this, or even if he has a personal view. He doesnt come across as a raging TRA and he may even have advised his client not to contest for all we know - but it's his job to put their case for them.

Rather a pity Naomi cant refer to the American judge's dissenting opinion and use "swinging dicks" but an English judge wouldnt like that.

If somebody said that in an English court, the judge would peer over his half-spectacles and say in a cut-glass accent:
'End what exectly IS a <consults notes> 'swinging dick'?
😁

FaithHopeCarnage · 17/03/2026 17:54

Sending hugs for tomorrow @Jimmyneutronsforehead

YellowRoom · 17/03/2026 18:01

Glad this is a distraction from ddog 💐

RedToothBrush · 17/03/2026 18:02

I definitely think when doing inclusiveness training it must be compulsory to state if women may come across penises and that they must not only accept them but also not self exclude because that's a micro aggression.

If this demand of these numbskulls who write these policies was actually written down in plain English so everyone fully understood, I suspect there would be less support.

We know that in medical trials there's a point where sometimes more information can lead to less uptake of a treatment. So there's a moral dilemma when it's a course of action that's actively recommended as the desired outcome. Margaret McCartney talks about this with particular reference to bowel cancer screening and what constitutes informed consent and what does not.

It is fascinating to see it in this context.

MarieDeGournay · 17/03/2026 18:02

Echoing AmaryllisNightAndDay in sending good wishes to Faye, hoping she's OK after what must have been an ordeal.

Thank you Faye for taking your case to this point, where NC has the opportunity to set out so clearly was wrong with Stonewall-captured DEI.

Catiette · 17/03/2026 18:18

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.

Just catching up - thanks to the pasters.

I can't fathom the incompetence and stupidity these tribunals expose. Sorry for a maddened excess of "literally"s in the following (but at least it's in its literal sense!)

A group of bright Year 7s could literally (I really do mean that) do a better job in some of these respects.

I mean, the whole "didn't consider or think there would be an impact on women" thing? Why the hecketty heck do these people think single sex spaces exist in the first place?! I just don't understand how they can all say, Oh, it didn't occur that changing a service from its literal raison d'être to the literal opposite of that may, just perhaps, be a bit of an issue for the original demographic. It's so nonsensical as to be playground-logic laughable.

And the paperwork? Much of the paperwork I've processed through the years is far less significant than a missing EQIA, but I can state with near certainty that, if asked, I could find the most obscure, comically mundane piece of irrelevant nothingness amongst it all going back to the early 00s, given 20 minutes or so. Despite various job changes - and system updates - across the years.

I just find it astounding. I spent so much of my early professional life assuming the people above me knew what they were doing. If these standards are anything like the norm, I actually (literally) should be running the country right now...

moto748e · 17/03/2026 18:22

Exactly. Time after time we see well-educated professionals beclown themselves like a job-lot of Isla Bumbas. Because they can't say out loud that 2+2=4.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 18:22

Catiette · 17/03/2026 18:18

Just catching up - thanks to the pasters.

I can't fathom the incompetence and stupidity these tribunals expose. Sorry for a maddened excess of "literally"s in the following (but at least it's in its literal sense!)

A group of bright Year 7s could literally (I really do mean that) do a better job in some of these respects.

I mean, the whole "didn't consider or think there would be an impact on women" thing? Why the hecketty heck do these people think single sex spaces exist in the first place?! I just don't understand how they can all say, Oh, it didn't occur that changing a service from its literal raison d'être to the literal opposite of that may, just perhaps, be a bit of an issue for the original demographic. It's so nonsensical as to be playground-logic laughable.

And the paperwork? Much of the paperwork I've processed through the years is far less significant than a missing EQIA, but I can state with near certainty that, if asked, I could find the most obscure, comically mundane piece of irrelevant nothingness amongst it all going back to the early 00s, given 20 minutes or so. Despite various job changes - and system updates - across the years.

I just find it astounding. I spent so much of my early professional life assuming the people above me knew what they were doing. If these standards are anything like the norm, I actually (literally) should be running the country right now...

I'd vote for you but it's also cool with me if you want to go for more of a benevolent dictator sort of position.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 18:25

I think VA did a good job today at saying the quiet part out loud, by admitting that they had practically copied and pasted Stonewall policies and were told to shut dissenting conversations down.

I sensed that Naomi felt a bus coming that somebody was going to get chucked under which is why she clarified that there is nobody else suited to answer questions relating to 2017.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 18:32

I don't know why I've said VA and not VH, you'd have thought those initials would be scorched into my brain by now

OP posts:
Catiette · 17/03/2026 18:37

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 18:22

I'd vote for you but it's also cool with me if you want to go for more of a benevolent dictator sort of position.

Thank you for your vote!

And re. benevolent dictatorship, Churchill certainly had a point...

Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

On a different note, I'm very sorry about your dog. He looks gorgeous, and very happy in that photo.

Also, thank you and bon courage to Faye, should she visit.

CompleteGinasaur · 17/03/2026 18:43

Donated, and thanks to @Jimmyneutronsforehead and @Madcats for the updates.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 17/03/2026 18:46

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 17/03/2026 16:42

Yes, absolutely agree, it is reasonable for women to not want to be seen by a naked male colleague whose eyeballs she has no control over!

I think that I am beginning to understand the NHSE position

  • You can only tell that the fella standing next to you in the showers has an erection if you look at it
  • If you notice his erection you are invading his privacy and will be dealt with by HR

Have I captured the policy correctly?

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 19:13

Is this helpful for those FSS shower dilemmas?

• If you look at the chap next to you and notice he has a penis - he's a woman and you shouldn't look 'cos that's like harassment against trans people

• If the chap next to you has a penis and he looks at you - he's a woman and you mustn't mind cos that's like discrimination against trans people

Yup, it all makes sense. Just stay at home you bigot.

DustyWindowsills · 17/03/2026 19:21

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 16:48

I think I touched on it on FayeRCs own post and definitely on my gardening post where there's a lot of people that share both boards, but not really here so I don't think you've missed anything.

Basically after I offered to start a thread, the day after our elderly dog really went into decline. He's been like it on and off, he was exactly like this over christmas but then improved a bit, but this time he isn't going to improve so we've decided it is time to do the right thing for him and put him to sleep while he's surrounded by everybody. The thread has been a lifesaver for my sanity.

Really sorry to hear that. Our dog is my first one ever, and I'm humbled by the love and joy he brings us. ❤️

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 17/03/2026 19:28

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 19:13

Is this helpful for those FSS shower dilemmas?

• If you look at the chap next to you and notice he has a penis - he's a woman and you shouldn't look 'cos that's like harassment against trans people

• If the chap next to you has a penis and he looks at you - he's a woman and you mustn't mind cos that's like discrimination against trans people

Yup, it all makes sense. Just stay at home you bigot.

Yup, it all makes sense. Just stay at home you bigot.

I'm not sure that staying at home would be acceptable as this would likely be viewed as denying someone's gender identity - a crime that will get you added to the little book (see contemporaneous notes)

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 19:42

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 17/03/2026 19:28

Yup, it all makes sense. Just stay at home you bigot.

I'm not sure that staying at home would be acceptable as this would likely be viewed as denying someone's gender identity - a crime that will get you added to the little book (see contemporaneous notes)

All this don't look at me but observe my femininity talk reminds of that meme of the dog with the ball in it's mouth: Don't take. Only throw.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 19:42

This one.

Tribunal discussion thread supporting FayeRC in case against NHS England starting 16/03/26
OP posts:
KnottyAuty · 17/03/2026 20:01

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 17/03/2026 18:46

I think that I am beginning to understand the NHSE position

  • You can only tell that the fella standing next to you in the showers has an erection if you look at it
  • If you notice his erection you are invading his privacy and will be dealt with by HR

Have I captured the policy correctly?

Edited

Where is the laugh emoji response?!
🤣🤣🤣🤮

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.