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 12:41

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.

Ha - my thoughts exactly.

A man who dresses like a man gets to use the ladies at will. Big email sent out to 50
people telling them to treat him as he were a woman even if dressed as a man.

If that isn’t a pretense I don’t know what would qualify as one.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 12:46

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.."

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 12:51

MyAmpleSheep · 18/03/2026 12:40

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…

Edited

Agreed - but as a lawyer I get frustrated when people suggest better ways of Naomi doing her job.

She has said in interview this is a war, she has said she’s taking part in that war. These claimants have all asked for her for her expertise but also the validation of her being clearly aligned with the very concept that they’re at tribunal over.

This isn’t a win in technicality type case. It’s not for the meager settlement. These are actual cases of principle. It’s important to have these points and words on the record. The claimants know and accept that.

Niazi Fetto did a great job on Darlington, and SC wasn’t bad to be fair to him. These claimants can easily pick Niazi who is less in your face.

Naomi has been chosen for that reason.

If I had a similar case I’d choose her for
the long term impacts and strategic advantage rather than a marginal win at first instance.

For LS - this is a case of principle. If she wasn’t allowed to be anonymous she said she’d pass on the funding. This is a campaigner with a crusader. Not Jane who is looking for £20k compensation.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 13:37

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 think our mild, rare criticisms of NC are the equivalent of 'Ref, that was a clear penalty!' shouted not from the stands, but from a sofa in someone's front room, possibly in a house which is not even in the same country as the stadium😄

In other words, not to be taken too seriously, least of all by the referee in question!

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 13:37

One of the reasons I like Naomi is that she has said herself there are better barristers out there. And when she makes a mistake she is swift to realise that and adapt her arguments.

She was poiltely questioned about using examples from after this indiviual left the job. That was a mistake and she has pivoted to focusing on how what happened at the time the woman was in post was harassment. the judge is not going to stop her doing that. If he has a problem with the word pretence he'll say so - I'd hope that after giving it due consideration he'll say that is the claimiant's belief and her lawyer must be allowed to express it. If he doesnt Naomi can say that while her client is not complaining about the individual the respondent's support for the trans belief is at the heart of the harassment claim.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:45

J - notes the points made by NC re the GIRES guidance. That matter has been dealt with. Further points a matter for submissions.
NC: no further points on that.
J - VH still under oath.
NC - apologies - one further Q. use for single sex facilities - makes it clear that a woman who doesn't like [sharing the space] it is she not he who must find alternative facilities.
VH Yes
NC: two possible solution of what a biol man sues - communal or the women's facilities.
VH Yes
NC - if a man uses them, any woman not comfortable uses the single unisex facilities. VH - yes or another floor.
NC - not just staff but pol applies to visitors too so doesn't go away if no TIM on staff. Missed
VH a number of gender neutral facilities.
NC and you are comfortable that enough for women not sharing.
VK yes.

Keeptoiletssafe · 18/03/2026 13:46

Men have said they are transwomen when they have been dressed in men’s clothes and gone into women’s toilets to assault women or for voyeurism. In one particular pedophile case I remember, he spoke in a high pitched voice from a cubicle to the police. Magically they turn back into men after they are out of the women’s toilets. No one ever thought they were transwomen according to the court reports. But with these policies what can you do? Bad men will take advantage of loopholes.

The design of these female toilets was a single sex design for a single sex environment. So for Health and Safety purposes and building regulations and for adhering to British Standards that design should not have been used for mixed sex. That’s never not been the case. Gender is irrelevant. If the nhs had this policy and wanted to keep the right side of regs and standards, they should have changed every single cubicle to mixed sex rooms. No more urinals. The mixed sex rooms containing a sink and dryer need to lead out directly onto a corridor.

For these toilets there’s only 3 options:

  1. like they did in this case it’s a free for all. But to do this you have to scrap the health and safety legislation, British Standards, and revise aspects of the Sexual Offences Act. Overall health and safety standards decrease.
  2. change every toilet to a mixed sex room with a sink hand dryer in each, leading out into a corridor. This works in very small buildings. Because this is England though, to fulfil Document T and refurbishments since 2024, if you have several toilets, these still have to be divided into female, male and then unisex if the quotas are fulfilled. In bigger buildings the difference in design will just be a pictogram on the door and a sanitary bin in the female and unisex. They could have a bin for men with prostate issues in the men’s. Health and Safety standards decrease and they are more difficult to maintain, keep clean and supervise.
  3. keep single sex toilets as single sex toilets.
Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:47

NC - comfortable but hadn't taken steps to find out what proportion of F workforce would self exclude?
VK No.
NC so in theory could many women in yr thousands of staff as hadn't done anything to find out.
VK - No.
VK - theoretically no way of telling how many women have that view
NC Haven't asked them VK No. NC must be so that enough unisex facilities for the TIMs.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:49

NC do you agree if TIMs were told their only provision if not comfortable using the men's, the only option was unisex, there'd be enough space.
VK yes.
NC asked Q abt stats - so 5 or fewer TIMs.
VK - yes - not just Leeds. Small number.

Cailleach1 · 18/03/2026 13:50

Calling it ‘respect’ to go along with bs. You have to be forced to willingly (on pain of discipline) suspend belief in reality, because any logical or rational examination would show it up for a load of old hogwash.

Women being forced to willingly go along with their own gaslighting by their employer, activist orgs, and trade unions.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:51

NC - safe bet more women uncomfortable than TIMs.
VK Not unreasonable assumption.
NC-Missed - so a larger # of women have to budge up to make room for one or two men. reality of the situation?
VK Yes
VK In 2017 it felt proportionate and reasonable at the time.
NC - what it is about - not a pragmatic balance but affirming NHSEs policy that TWAW.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 13:53

In what way could it have been considered "proportionate and reasonable" - regardless of whether it was then, rather than now?

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:54

VK Policy goes deeper than that.
NC reason is nothing re striking humane balance of difference staff group - demonstrating NHSE's adherence to TWAW.
VK - missed VK I am not affirming TWAW
NC that choice was made with no regard to the impact on women.
VK - I recognised yesterday there was an adverse impact.

Yeah, but you should have done a proper EQIA in 2017 and spotted it then (or admitted that you were wrong and not forced Faye into court)

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:55

J intervenes.
NC last q. the reason is that to do anything else is to admit that biological sex is real and has consequences on the world, which NHSE wasn't will to do.
VK I can't comment.
J - asks Q on stats [which we don't have] Oct 2022 data - Leeds staff?
VK - one table yes - Leeds

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 13:55

2017 is a different country. They did things differently then...
😒

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:56

J - lists sites in Leeds inc Quarry Houe & Wellington Place. Do you know how many people had QH as their base?
VK: IDK.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 13:59

J - how many at QH Oct 2022-Nov 2023?
VK - when closed majority moved to WP. Majority of Leeds staff were in QH.
VK - majority were doing 2-3 days in office hybrid if not a home contract. Working up to 5 days not the norm. J -C noted 40% was standard.

So was that eleventy billion staff or about 50? Surely you would know an approximate number?!

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:00

J - Qs on leases
VK - yes colleague.

(looking hopeful that I'll catch the Archers before the next witness is sworn in at this rate)

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:01

Panel member: Was yr role to engage in drafting or collate policy?
VK - Buiness partner and another colleague did the drafting with Stonewall etc which were sent out to colleagues. I chaired the committee.
To make sure the feedback from Staff network and others were coordinated.

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 18/03/2026 14:01

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.

Support package = dressing up box?

(sorry, bit behind, had a ceiling to paint)

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:03

"VK - suggests that policies were supported by staff networks - no significant debate so I think we relied on advice we were getting from Stonewall and LGBT National Adviser. i don't recall anything sensitive"

That will be because it was implicit in workplace culture that there was to be no " significant debate". 2017 was the year the Labour party mantra was " TWAW" and " No Debate".

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:04

PM _ Did you challenge or overturn any propossals.
VK - suggests that policies were supported by staff networks - no significant debate so I think we relied on advice we were getting from Stonewall and LGBT National Adviser. i don't recall anything sensitive.

PM: the decision to require women not comfortable for sharing with TW, was there any debate or discussion why women who dissented were required to do that, and not the transwomen?
Any debate at all?

No, that would have been mean and bigotted to ask the staff most affected by mixed sex facilities

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 14:05

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:00

J - Qs on leases
VK - yes colleague.

(looking hopeful that I'll catch the Archers before the next witness is sworn in at this rate)

There's a MN emoji for thatArchers
I think it's the pub in the Archers?
I wonder what the toilets are like there😄

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:05

VH _ talks about unions. Asks for q again.
PM - why the women?
VH - because that's how we interpreted the guidance at the time. that's all I can say. We go through line by line with trade unions. We would have discussed it but I can't recall any challenges at the time.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:07

She's suggesting that it was the unions that were pushing through " No debate" and that she went along with that because they were the ones who were supposed to represent the workforce.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.