Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 · 18/03/2026 14:07

Anna Tregorran is back on the Archers (Helen's barrister when she got a bit stabby).

No examination from SC.
SC Mr McCurry can't be here on Friday. Wonders whether to McC today.
NC_ solemn promise that we wouldn't go beyond tomorrow.
SC - we can't always control the timing.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:08

NC: would have spent lunchtime differently if had known McC. Will cut my coat according to my cloth.
NC Hopes to finish Goodfellow this afternoon.
SC - VH was due to finish by 10.30a,
J if You commit to finish examination by 3.30pm tomorrow, NC, then PG next.
PG sworn in.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 14:08

I just worked out that PM = panel member😏
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?

Good question, PM!

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:09

Is Mr McCurry a union rep?

Cailleach1 · 18/03/2026 14:10

All these organisations. Inviting activist ‘advisors’ to create greenhouse/nursery conditions which allow for men to engage in pretty much what amounts to a paraphilic proclivity which walks all over the human rights of women as a sex class.

Maybe there are some men who wouldn’t wander in to places where women undress, who have become emboldened by what amounts to encouragement. Many a male fetish wouldn’t have been encouraged, and given the chance, to be unleashed on real, live women and girls. Who are intimidated, and made to feel their employment is dependent on them ignoring their own safety, privacy and dignity.

Effers.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:11

PG= Philip Goodfellow
SC - Find yr witness statement Currently employed as Dep Director of Estates and panel member of [investigation].
PG confirm WS is true.

nauticant · 18/03/2026 14:11

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 14:08

I just worked out that PM = panel member😏
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?

Good question, PM!

Did you think Starmer had popped in to do some legal stuff? You know, to keep a hand in?

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 14:12

Admire the way the judge sidestepped ruling on Naomi's language.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 14:12

VH _ talks about unions. Asks for q again.
PM - why the women?

I like this PMSmile

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 14:13

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 14:12

VH _ talks about unions. Asks for q again.
PM - why the women?

I like this PMSmile

I don’t think that this PM thinks TWAW, rather women are women and TW are TW.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:13

NC - re aims of TIC policy and procedure - dealt with at para 12 & 5 of yr WS re outcome grievance procedure?
PG - ref to policy in Para 30.
NC difficulty if changing the pol - not the reasons.
NC - you say excluding the class of people you call W, which I call men who ID as women, would cause discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. refers to bundle p 889

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:15

NC - you say simply counting women and TW would not [work] - a real risk or would be unlawful unjustifiable unlawful direct discrimination to exclude just one TW.

Ah Stonewall Law

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 14:16

PM question is a bit of a mixed blessing - employer can say they thought unions represented their members so didnt consult women directly. Not a great argument when they did directly consult Stonewall et all but still.

Have to hope the union member on the panel recognises that unions have badly failed women.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:16

PG Yes NC if direct discrimination, then not something you can do. If then statement PG Yes Shd not do it.
NC No balance you just have to comply with the law.
PG Yes

Skewered!

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 14:17

All very well the gazes through the mists of time to 2017 - but nothing changed or updated since then. So VH can say things were different then but not one step has been taken to revise that policy, re-assess the EQIA, create a safe space for LS and acknowledge the wrong done to her.

We are post SC - why have they not acknowledged they got it wrong????

Another batch of wasted money, stressed out employees and a claimant with her life on hold.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:19

Missed. NC to do you now accept that yr understanding of the law at the time was wrong?
PG - my 1st perspective as a panel member was that I understand that NHSE was doing it's best to align with the policy of NHSE.
NC not my Q. You've agreed understanding has changed since FWS last April.
PG - I don't belief we were wrong with the Equality Act at the time, and looking back at time the grievance was raised. The guidance has changed.
NC - you talk abt yr obligation, nt to discriminate unlawfully against trans identified individuals. You talk abt yr values as an inclusive employer.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:21

PG - "I don't belief we were wrong with the Equality Act at the time, and looking back at time the grievance was raised. The guidance has changed"

The revised guidance has yet to be issued.

Rightsraptor · 18/03/2026 14:22

The guidance doesn't apply to employers/employees. Only to providers of services.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:23

NC - so if you had anything else about the balance to say to the tribunal, it'd have been in yr WS?
PG - yes. differentiates between panel and his own WS.
NC - ongoing access problem as toilets often occupied when C wanted to use them. Not suggesting she was wrong about that?
PG - not at all.
NC q about another account by C.
PG rereads it. No not at all.
NC - same question on para 82-84.
PG - No.
NC - Qs on communal showers.
PG Quarry House.
NC - GIRES Transgender equality guide page 19

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 14:24

Supreme Court didnt change the law, they just listened to Stonewall's idea of what the law should be.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:27

NC right that acc to yr policy which refer through to this, acceptable for someone looking like Alex could stride in looking like Alex and stand next to women taking a shower.
PG - not our space.
NC - looking like Alex is nothing but contempt for women.
PG a range of presentation by TW and this could be one.
NC In yr view is it acceptable for men looking Alex to use the women's shower.
PG - not personal - organisational policy. I couldn't comment on view of other individuals.
NC - takes PG to a sequence of pages in bundle.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:30

NC - C says I do not want to use toilets and undresss in presence of a biological male.nor be in presence of a male when he uses those facilities.
P506 - Long fast quote on research re sexual assault - TIMs similar to other men,
NC - more quotes - married muslim women I know are junior women - not likely to raise complaints. Missed. Policy creates environment where women can view and be viewed a biological man in a state of undress.

ProfNebulousDeadline · 18/03/2026 14:31

Now we know it is Quarry House it is possible to look up the leisure centre and see it is open to the general public to be members. I wonder if they are referring to other showers that are provided to staff only.

Rightsraptor · 18/03/2026 14:32

How do these hapless fools get selected to appear for the NHS? It's far from the first time we've been through all this blame shifting, 'that was before I was in post', 'it's policy' blah blah. Do they do it to people they want rid of? Being grilled by NC would be way above any pay grade I've ever occupied.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:32

NC - quotes the grievance finding fast. Options for LS to avoid the potential risk. C is consistent - object to presence of a male or a man. You've translated that to a concern about a trans person. Why don't you acknowledge that her concern is about men?

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.