Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:33

NC: "Why don't you acknowledge that her concern is about men?"

Becaue that would make both me and her a bigoted transphobe.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:34

PG - using terminology.
NC - never said she objects to meeting trans people a female person with a PC of gender reassignment. Her objection is to encountering a man, who may have the PC of GR<

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:34

NC - "She never said she objects to meeting trans people - a female person with a PC of gender reassignment. Her objection is to encountering a man, who may have the PC of GR"

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:35

PG - as a panel member.
NC if trans people, then that would be bigoted. She's not. She's objecting to finding people on grounds of sex. You've reframed that.
PG I understand references to transwoman.
NC you've said trans people/person. Could be a woman who IDs as a man.

Odd how nobody ever thinks about the transmen, eh?

Rightsraptor · 18/03/2026 14:36

I did a quick Google of Quarry House leisure centre & couldn't see any mention of changing rooms. How very strange.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:38

Naomi is trying to get the respondent to admit that it was compulsory to accept the idea that 'Transwomen were Women' in NHS policy.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:38

NC - the reason you reframe C's objection to finding men in women's space, as transpeople is because you can't reject NHSE's commitment to gender ideology.
PG - I do not recognise the phrase gender ideology on behalf of NHSE.
PG please explain. Missed.
PG _ Policy that TW have access to female facilities.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:41

NC - definition Trans is an umbrella term .....[the stonewall definition]. Infants are born either male or female?
PG I can understand that's a view. I can't comment on assigned at birth.
NC an ultrasound scan will tell if a child is M or F.
SC interrupts
J - Matter for submissions? Not sure given PG's role whether the questions take us further on these issues. i appreciate. Area of dispute beyond the issues - not sure given PG's role and Qs of VH takes us further.

moto748e · 18/03/2026 14:42

I do not recognise the phrase gender ideology on behalf of NHSE.

Oh, FOTTFSOFATFOSM with this brain-dead bone-headed three monkeys rubbish, it's insulting.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:43

Respondent evasive and slippery by suggesting that saying babies are born either male or female is a 'belief' or a 'view'.

Judge wants the ultimate point that NC is making to be clearer. I suggest she already has demonstrated that compulsory belief in TWAW was NHS policy.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:44

NC - suggesting to PG reason why reframed claim as rejection to trans people not men.
J - you've put that . I have noted response carefully. PG has had opportunity to answer.
J quotes. NC - q abt this sue of language
J - PG didn't draft this policy. You can make subs.
NC all 3 W here to answer on policies. Must be legitimate why PG so determined not to acknowledge her concerns on grounds of sex.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:45

J quotes from notes of evidence. Qs have been put and answered.
NC - Q is about activist language - sex observed at birth. Blatantly used by NHSE - and explains his determination to frame C's objections as transpeople.

GreenFritillary · 18/03/2026 14:45

This idiot does make the point that it is hopeless trying to make a complaint or discuss the issues in the face of such denial.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:49

J asked NC to move on.

NC - difficulty of reviewing policy - too busy for all the negotiations and engagement with stakeholders for reviewing the policy?

PG _ at time of grievance process, we were moving QH to WP, which we hoped would resolve the issues
NC - not sure if yes or no too busy to engage?
PG - ongoing organisational change - challenging to have conducted a review at that partic time when there may have been conflicting priorities. Not phrase too busy - major change of two orgs {merging}

Perhaps it was Christmas, too?

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:49

Judge doesn't quite seem to understand that the respondent's ( PG) reluctance to admit that the claimant had an issue with a man rather than with 'transpeople' per se, was because it was not permitted to question the edicts of gender ideology - that TWAW and TMAM - no debate and no exceptions.

If it was accepted that the claimant's issue was with men, then they too would be a bigot. The policy was to permit no questioning.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:52

NC - para 30 WS - similar - difficulty of just changing the policy?
PG reading....
PG relates to when C had relocated to WP. Policy was under review. Court cases/judgments ongoing at this period of time to consider those outcome. Needs engagement.
NC if policy is unlawful, you don't consult, you just change it.
PG this relates to time post grievance appeal. Updated guidance for our org and Cabinet Offices and we wld need to continue to review policy,

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:52

PG admits awareness of ongoing court cases on the issue and that the policy may have needed reviewing, but claims was too busy to prioritise this in the face of a major re-location.

Cailleach1 · 18/03/2026 14:55

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 14:52

PG admits awareness of ongoing court cases on the issue and that the policy may have needed reviewing, but claims was too busy to prioritise this in the face of a major re-location.

In a situation where over 60% of their workforce are being unlawfully impacted. They are not assigning priority to cease their discrimination against women, who are a majority of their workforce.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:57

NC if outcome of this tribunal is unlawful
SC interrupts - it's the claimant
NC - t applies to all women
J - the point has been raised. PG has answered. Up to Trib to make findings of fact.
J - different complaints - if the trib were to find discriminated against women.
PG was told that policy was under review.
NC - moves on - point for submissions.

The Judge seems a bit grumpy today?

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:59

NC para 44B WS - specific set of SS cubicle facilities you accept she never became aware of them in 7 years at QH. Only ones were the accessible one. NHSE staff are exhorted not to use accessible facilities.
PG - for the individual to assess if they have access needs.
NC - commonsense that you use usual facilities if no disability as make someone else wait. Quite proper to feel great hesitation abt getting in way of someone who needs those facilities.
PG I can understand that.

ProfNebulousDeadline · 18/03/2026 15:00

Madcats · 18/03/2026 14:49

J asked NC to move on.

NC - difficulty of reviewing policy - too busy for all the negotiations and engagement with stakeholders for reviewing the policy?

PG _ at time of grievance process, we were moving QH to WP, which we hoped would resolve the issues
NC - not sure if yes or no too busy to engage?
PG - ongoing organisational change - challenging to have conducted a review at that partic time when there may have been conflicting priorities. Not phrase too busy - major change of two orgs {merging}

Perhaps it was Christmas, too?

I don't understand how moving 15 mins walk down the road means issues will be resolved. The policy should be location blind / across all NHSE sites.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 15:01

[missed - lost a post]
J - if R had done a complete volt face after complaint, the C would still be bringing a claim. We have to look at the evidence for that period in time. Not all in WS is relevant.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 15:04

NC - relevance to proportionate means, whether legitimate aim, balance and credibility of R's evidence. Tribs have to draw inference from a wide range of background factors. It betrayed carelessness, and I should be able to ask questions.
NC: His WS has been drafted with expert assistance, if out before you, unfair that shd not ask it briefly.

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 15:06

judge probably recognising that Naomi is not going to get any more of an answer, so dont spend time on it.

Shouldnt get away with C would still have brought a claim, she hasnt been offered a complete policy change.

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 15:06

Judge doesn't seem to get the gist of many of Naomi's lines of question. She is continually having to spell it out to him.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.