Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:14

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 11:11

Smile I'm multilingual enough to recognise 'toon' and 'tahn' for town, but 'tarn' threw me, temporarilySmile

Come up n visit us in't tarn. Wiv gorra watter fountain n't kids run rand it wen t'weathers alreyt.

OP posts:
catscatscurrantscurrants · 18/03/2026 11:15

Thank God, Jimmy. I thought I might be the only tyke on MN!

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 11:15

VH I believe even one feedback would have opened up the discussion

Faux-naive -
It would also have opened up the woman who gave the feedback to a lot more than 'discussion'😠

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:15

NC sounds as you are well aware of high profile cases threatened, bullied, harrassed.

Heard of Maya Forstater's case. VH: No.

NC you are telling the tribunal you've not heard of MF's case?

VH - yes.

NC - heard of other cases Kathleen Stock?

SC intervenes.

J - VH changed roles in 219. NC - VH says no complaints. High profile of mostly women for expressing GC critcal beliefs gives evidence on silence.

J - Forstater two years later after left role.

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 11:17

So who is going to defend not changing the policy after they did get "feedback"

BIWI · 18/03/2026 11:18

catscatscurrantscurrants · 18/03/2026 11:15

Thank God, Jimmy. I thought I might be the only tyke on MN!

Another Tyke here (although a many-yeared exile to the Sarf)

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:18

NC - wants to continue with questions. Readily admitted being aware of a rash of

cases.

J - looks at dates. VH left role in 2019. Not sure asking re cases reported two years later

NC chronology doesn't matter in the slightest. Became apparent anyone expressing GC views liable to be threatened, dismissed harassed.

J asks date VH left role.

VH November 2019

J pre 2019 cases relate to this witness,

come on judge, anybody with a connection to the internet knows about these cases.

NC Subsquent cases, Phoenix, Stock [more] What I want to suggest there have been risks for women in giving expression to GC views in the workplace.
^^
J - you have asked specifically abt Forstater.

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 18/03/2026 11:19

NC really drilling down to the core issues. Bloke (whatever his intentions) gets green light to do what he wants, irrespective of effect on, and even threat to, women. Women are told they are unreasonable (and even bigoted) if they don’t want to have to put up with this abuse. Women so easily to be deprived of any sense of dignity, safety, or security in order to indulge any bloke who wants to wander in to where women undress. Women (half the population) to be sacrificial lamb of some odd notion of ‘inclusivity’, and ‘kindness’. Women to be deprived of the safe and secure use of facilities which enable an easier participation in society.

CriticalCondition · 18/03/2026 11:20

NC Could be a man whose wife won't stand for it just X dressing at work. No way of knowing.
VH: we have a support package

'A support package' ? WTF does this mean?

A set of stockings, some silky underwear and a swirly skirt? For signing out to a bloke who couldn't get his lady clothes stuffed in his briefcase that morning?

Jesus wept.

DameProfessorIDareSay · 18/03/2026 11:20

BIWI · 18/03/2026 11:18

Another Tyke here (although a many-yeared exile to the Sarf)

Ditto! Been in exile for many years. 😕

ProfNebulousDeadline · 18/03/2026 11:21

Ah, the old, "it was after my time" defence. And they went to a different school.
I can see why NC didn't want all the other witnesses for NHSE sitting watching this.

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 11:21

Dont think Naomi is playing this right. She needs to ask instead about "trans awareness training" and therefore the risks to women in raising this. Also hope she is going to ask how many of these redundancy letter "admin" mistakes there were and how many were sent to women. And more about who the "support package" was for.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:23

VH: FWS, Northumbria and nurses.

NC are you also aware of cases were women have been harassed?

VH: Not surprised.

NC: Telling answer - not surprised that women have been.

Sc intervenes.

NC moves on.

VH: no [complaints] to me or [another g=dept] when I was in role. " a number of routes.. plenty of routes to raise concerns, even anonymous channels.

NC: back to problem of cross dressing for erotic purposes in the workplace - no way for an employer to distinguish b/w a man for erotic purposes and one who longs to be a woman.

missed

Pete the plumber! Pete the plumber! Pete the plumber!

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 11:25

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 11:21

Dont think Naomi is playing this right. She needs to ask instead about "trans awareness training" and therefore the risks to women in raising this. Also hope she is going to ask how many of these redundancy letter "admin" mistakes there were and how many were sent to women. And more about who the "support package" was for.

Edited

The ref to Forstater was unfortunate - the first Forstater case was in 2019 and the tribunal ruled against Maya, so the zeitgeist while VH was in role was that TWAW, and GC beliefs were not WORIADS.

I don't agree obvs, but I see the judge has picked up on it as unfair to VH.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:27

NC - nothing physical or material that distinguishes between those situation. No blood test or scan - just what's happening within his head.

Long pause. VH I don't know.

Very fast questions.

NC - 2 men, unmodified bodies, one is erotic dresser other thinks he is really a woman and desperately wishes he was anything to distinguish between them.

VH: No.

NC: says evidence has taken longer than expected.

SC expresses concern about the break - and need to referral from speaking to witnesses.

J explains tribunal rules. Adjourns to 11.40am

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:32

I'll be back to do 11:40-12, but I'll be leaving at 12. I may be back periodically to check if there's been any updates to take my mind off of things so I don't go to school pick up looking like a blubbery mess.

If Pete the plumber makes an (unlikely, but much wanted) entrance it would make my day. I don't think it will fly with this judge, who seems to be letting NC ask more questions than big Sond did, but doesn't seem to be letting her get anywhere with hypotheticals.

OP posts:
LoudBlueSeal · 18/03/2026 11:35

All the best to you today, and for your beautiful dog

EyesOpening · 18/03/2026 11:36

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 11:21

Dont think Naomi is playing this right. She needs to ask instead about "trans awareness training" and therefore the risks to women in raising this. Also hope she is going to ask how many of these redundancy letter "admin" mistakes there were and how many were sent to women. And more about who the "support package" was for.

Edited

Give her a chance, we don’t know what else she’s got up her sleeve, she might have something that contradicts that or something else relevant. It’s like a TV programme and they reference something, you know it’s not just incidental and it will be relevant later.

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 18/03/2026 11:37

Thank you for posting this morning Jimmy and I hope everything goes as well as can be expected this afternoon. Take care x

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 11:38

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 11:21

Dont think Naomi is playing this right. She needs to ask instead about "trans awareness training" and therefore the risks to women in raising this. Also hope she is going to ask how many of these redundancy letter "admin" mistakes there were and how many were sent to women. And more about who the "support package" was for.

Edited

Naomi does tend to get caught up in theoretical and ideological point making - rather than in pin pointing failures in procedure.

borntobequiet · 18/03/2026 11:38

I think Naomi needs to find a different approach. The current one seems to annoy judges and could be perceived as badgering witnesses, even though it appears reasonable to those familiar with the background and nuance of the issues.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 11:41

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 11:38

Naomi does tend to get caught up in theoretical and ideological point making - rather than in pin pointing failures in procedure.

Just when I'm thinking 'Feet of clay - does she have feet of clay???' she usually draws it all together comes up with one of her killer comments😃

Madcats · 18/03/2026 11:45

I chose a good time to check in; should be home within about 30 mins.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:45

TT

refrain from speaking to witnesses, not referral.


Awaiting updates from TT

OP posts:
SternJoyousBeev2 · 18/03/2026 11:46

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 11:25

The ref to Forstater was unfortunate - the first Forstater case was in 2019 and the tribunal ruled against Maya, so the zeitgeist while VH was in role was that TWAW, and GC beliefs were not WORIADS.

I don't agree obvs, but I see the judge has picked up on it as unfair to VH.

I would say the initial case is relevant to the point being made, ie the impact on women who express GC views etc. VH is trying to say that if one woman had raised concerns there would have been discussions. NC is trying to demonstrate to VH exactly why women are reluctant to complain.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.