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
AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 11:49

Hello folks. @Jimmyneutronsforehead - solidarity today. The passing of a pet is hard. Thanks for the posting & updates. Love the tours about the place and local dialects.

I get annoyed whenever people get annoyed at how Naomi presents the case. Fuck them to be honest. Women have lived in FEAR while men have had their dicks out in women’s spaces. Swathes of enablers played the be kind and inclusive cards. Now Naomi asks very relevant questions and it’s seen as too direct. She may get poor judgments at first instance from weak judges who want people to play nice and be kind to the trans… but she’s right on the law, she’s right on the facts and the cases in the main will be won.

I’ve seen her in action. People bristle because she is speaking truth to power. more power to her elbow.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:50

Back in court.

J asks NC abt timing.

NC: email to large # of NHSE staff introducing Person X.

VH hasn't seen email before so takes time to read it.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:54

NC: emphasises TP can use whichever facilities they choose, and must use name and Person X has flexibility in how he presents.

VH - yes,

NC - X is free to dress in (conventional male clothes and use female service). Vh Yes

NC so he can dress how he likes and still use female facilities.

VH: Yes

NC a partic TI man can exercise flexibility by saying a gender non conforming way so can turn up to work dressed as a man.

VH - at odd with other part of policy. NC - logic of this page that UM sent to all staff. Entitled to use SS facilities and have flexibility of dress.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 11:57

NC - what all 50 colleagues were told.

Colleagues were still required to remember to address him as she. VH : Yes some flex in early days.

missed.

NC effect of email and policy requires colleagues to particpate in their own gaslighting.

J no definition of gaslighting NC - does w understand word gaslighting?

VH - my children use it

oomph

NC : a way that is calculated to confuse them and loosen their grip on reality VH that suggested that MRs Mr X Person X's flexibility. I no [info on the case]

OP posts:
AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 11:58

Ok so a man dressed as a man can use the women’s toilets & changing room. Pete….. is that you.

So batshit. Can we name the idiot that wrote that email?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 12:01

NC: Clear message to staff they must deal with X as a woman or they risk disciplinary. VH No [missed] Some policies appended. NC Respect at work policy - you may be in

breach of that policy.

J we haven't seen the RAWP. Not in bundle.

J if relevant, we'd like a copy. SC not sure what the relevance is. We're not arguing abt Person X and pronouns.

J starts talking. NC offers to move on.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 12:03

Ok my lovelies, I'm off to spend my last hour with DDog, who you would not believe is actually walking round the garden now like 2 hours ago he wasn't just having to be lifted up and down 2 garden steps.

Thank you everybody for all of your kindness. It means the world to me and it's made me feel a lot less fragile.

I shall look forward to reading the updates with an ice cream in hand later on.

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 12:03

NC should have left this where she was yesterday. Policy didnt consider women, explicitly said trans could do what they like. Should go on to other witnesses and why policy was not changed.

pawsedforthought · 18/03/2026 12:04

Sending love to @Jimmyneutronsforehead, I hope everything this afternoon is peaceful and calm. Your DDog is very loved and will carry that over the rainbow bridge.

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 12:10

Naomi is good but not perfect, she was distracting from a point already well made. . She's back on track now making it clear that women couldnt speak up.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 12:11

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 11:41

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😃

Yes, she does......but because she's so au fait with the ideological construction of 'gender identity' she enjoys displaying that....and i imagine that to some she might come across as thinking she's too clever by half, which could rub some judges up the wrong way.

ArmchairSuccubus · 18/03/2026 12:12

Jimmy I am sending love to you and your dear doggie [hugs]

ThreeWordHarpy · 18/03/2026 12:13

What’s with the second guessing of NC this morning? Let’s let her do her job.

honestly, it’s like being at the match and everyone in the crowd getting on a players back when they didn’t play the ball in a way the crowd thought they should.

[edit as posted too soon] NC is on the pitch in the room, has seen the evidence and looked the panel in the eye. We’re only following on TT.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 12:14

J we haven't seen the RAWP. Not in bundle.
J if relevant, we'd like a copy.
SC not sure what the relevance is. We're not arguing abt Person X and pronouns. J starts talking. NC offers to move on.
NC - Trans Equality Procedure para 6.4 - same point - promote NHS E values. Any incidents of bullying , harassment will be taken very seriously. Clear message to staff they have to act in accordance with TEP.
VH Dignity and Respect value - you would expect of formally raised RATP and could lead to disciplinary
NC para 5 Makes it clear that GC or religion or belief is no excuse for not particpating in the pretence that Person X is female.
J: Pause. Difficult case. range of belief. Words important. Not sure word pretence shd be used. C is not complaining of harassment by PersonX

MyAmpleSheep · 18/03/2026 12:16

J: Pause. Difficult case. range of belief. Words important. Not sure word pretence shd be used. C is not complaining of harassment by PersonX

I hope the fundraising for the appeal is going well.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 18/03/2026 12:17

Oh FFS judge! X is not female, what else would you call bring forced to treat him as if he was female if not a pretence?!

MyAmpleSheep · 18/03/2026 12:18

If the judge keeps that up, there’ll be grounds to vacate an adverse finding on grounds of bias.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 12:19

NC Effect of 6,5 is to warn X's collegues that they must pretend to think of him as female.
J: Well.
NC even if they don't. C think this is a man and she's been asked to pretend he's a man.
J [missed] appreciate v diff topics in these cases. Other courts have wrestled with it. If C's case the effect of email is that she must pretend use that.
SC - Not C's evidence. Not sure where this takes you, actually.
NC moves on. GC belief is not going to be an excuse.
VH - they must not discriminate on grounds of her protected characteristic.
NC quotes from policy. Falls just short of saying self excluding from facilities that have been made mixed sex by man using them.
VH - not the [intention.]
NC - PC of religion or belief doesn't allow them to refuse.
VH - no hierarchy - intention of that para.
NC distain of GC [/religious belief] is clear. VH: Not clear at all.
NC - Erk Gunce's email following Trans awareness session - EG says conscious of psychological safety of our LGBT staff who run the TA sessions if asked questions about safety... specially considering GC beliefs recently deemed as protected under case law.
NC: Asks for help on where we draw the line on ... missed if staff suggest trans staff are dangerous, is this permissible, when no evidence they are at risk. Clear distain. He thinks GC beliefs present a risk of harassment to trans staff.
VH - first time I've seen it. It's subjective. Not sure how I can answer other than give my opinion.
NC -missed VH - ask q again.
NC implies failure to accept TIM are women ais a prejudice out of which staff must be educated.
VH no - this group faced particular prejudice and we must support [them]
NC: GIRES guidance- case study - Alex lived as woman in 2010 after Eq Act. Guidance tells you Alex, pictured with his beard is woman. that's ridiculous and insulting.
VH I don't find it insulting.
NC does that imply you find it ridiculous.
VH not takes issue with word insulting. missed.
VH Trans colleagues seen in work place - present more traditionally as a woman. Don't know how to answer it.
NC - nothing to stop someone looking like Alex with a beard coming into work an being treated as a woman.
NC nothing less than deliberate intimidation...
VH not our intention.
NC - a victory parade . Triumph over reality so they can show a man with a beard,

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 12:23

SternJoyousBeev2 · 18/03/2026 12:17

Oh FFS judge! X is not female, what else would you call bring forced to treat him as if he was female if not a pretence?!

Edited

There is a legal use of the word 'pretend' which is to claim; a judge in the 1980s referred to families with lesbian parents as 'Pretend families' and the defence against the objections to it was that he mean claiming to be a family.

The Young Pretender was claiming to be the heir not pretending to be one.

So why is this judge complaining about 'men pretending to be women' in a legal setting?
[rhetorical q/tongue in cheek/etc etcWink]

Madcats · 18/03/2026 12:24

SC does that help?
J: refer back to the C's denied list of issues - discussed and agreed, in private part of hearing on Monday am.
SC is saying is q relevant to specific claim?

NC: para 14 is relevant issue.

J: for those who are listening, important they understand what we have to decide. Claim of harassment - R's polices of allowing TW to use SS facilities, violating C's dignity [missed], and 2nd claim re unwanted behaviour re GC beliefs, hostile environment.

Phew - I was wondering what SC was trying to claim - thank you, J

Madcats · 18/03/2026 12:26

J - ... perhaps you can explain how q helps us with what we need to decide.

NC: the policy refer to GIRES document - does it have the purpose of creating a hostile environment, humiliating .[too fast] Alex - with a beard is designed to gaslight and intimidate GC staff and anyone who sees reality. Don't understand why not directly germane to this issue..

Madcats · 18/03/2026 12:30

J - take a break to discuss with colleagues and early lunch. VH - still on oath - do not discuss with anyone. Back at 1.30pm.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 12:34

ThreeWordHarpy · 18/03/2026 12:13

What’s with the second guessing of NC this morning? Let’s let her do her job.

honestly, it’s like being at the match and everyone in the crowd getting on a players back when they didn’t play the ball in a way the crowd thought they should.

[edit as posted too soon] NC is on the pitch in the room, has seen the evidence and looked the panel in the eye. We’re only following on TT.

Edited

I'm not second guesssing I was sharing an observation during the break.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 12:39

NC: "The effect of 6,5 is to warn X's collegues that they must pretend to think of him as female"

MyAmpleSheep · 18/03/2026 12:40

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 11:49

Hello folks. @Jimmyneutronsforehead - solidarity today. The passing of a pet is hard. Thanks for the posting & updates. Love the tours about the place and local dialects.

I get annoyed whenever people get annoyed at how Naomi presents the case. Fuck them to be honest. Women have lived in FEAR while men have had their dicks out in women’s spaces. Swathes of enablers played the be kind and inclusive cards. Now Naomi asks very relevant questions and it’s seen as too direct. She may get poor judgments at first instance from weak judges who want people to play nice and be kind to the trans… but she’s right on the law, she’s right on the facts and the cases in the main will be won.

I’ve seen her in action. People bristle because she is speaking truth to power. more power to her elbow.

This is not wrong. Yet there is a difference between powerful advocacy for a cause and advocacy that will win your client’s case. The power of the British legal system is that your barrister doesn’t need to take on your cause to take on your case, because a disinterested advocate can often present a more compelling argument to a disinterested tribunal than a passionate campaigner can.

If it takes “kind and inclusive” to win for the client, then…

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.