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
weegielass · 18/03/2026 16:13

aw @Jimmyneutronsforehead I remember when our DDog died last year, its very hard. sending hugs.

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 18/03/2026 16:20

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 16:03

People have an expectation of privacy in the showers, remember - so if you notice someone else's genitals you are at fault for not walking around with your eyes shut. Therefore you dont need any warnings as you wont see them. But of course it is only women expected to do that.

Heaven forfend if women want to keep a wary eye on the naked men in showers because said women couldn't be in anyway made unsafe by NAKED MEN IN THE FUCKING SHOWERS, oh dear me no, the delicate fragile NAKED MEN might get distressed, women of course are incapable of experiencing distress if NAKED MEN turn up in their showers.
Sorry for the shouty capitals but for fucks sake.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 16:37

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 18/03/2026 16:04

Hi all, I'm back but my brain isn't in an information absorbing state so I'm going to go out and enjoy some sunshine and fresh air. Thank you so much @Madcats again for taking over, X is also being really iffy for me too but had wondered if it was my signal.

DDog went peacefully, but he managed to get a few bits in while I was trying to get him in the car, and did wee on me. They sedated him first and I think he was so weak the sedation did the job, but they did administer the rest just to be sure. He has had a lovely morning walking round the garden like we've been fibbing about his mobility issues, he laid in his favourite spots, he had some chicken nuggets, and I cuddled his head while he went.

I am feeling a lot of relief, and should be fine to take over tomorrow although there may still be some delays as DS won't be at school.

You couldn't have done more for Ddog all through his life with you, and you let him go when that was best for him.
Today must have been so difficult, sending lots of hugs and sympathyFlowers

borntobequiet · 18/03/2026 16:37

The stuff that is coming out in this tribunal is gobsmacking, even after all the other tribunals.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 16:40

Your home will feel a bit empty tonight, Jimmyneutrons. I can probably cover the schoolrun.

TT have now caught up....

Madcats · 18/03/2026 16:45

NC: para14 of your WS. You contrast 2 things – C’s gender-critic beliefs, and, NHSE desire to be inclusive and respect gender identity, you say sometimes things are mutually exclusive. You are saying C beliefs irreconcilable with NSHE position?
PG: Yes
NC: [bundle ref] – under “not upheld” you say NHSE position is TW will be treated as women and TM as men, and you contrast C’s position to that, to similar effect?
PG: Can you repeat?
NC: You say NHSE say TWAW and TMAM and you contrast that to the C’s position. “Cannot reconcile”.
PG: Yes
NC: You say can’t reconcile because of “differing beliefs”. You mean C’s beliefs and NHSE’s beliefs, and contrasting them?
PG: Yes
NC: You say that NHSE’s view is that letting a TW use a facility is not letting a man use it, and contrast that to C’s view of matters?
PG: Yes, that views are different.
NC: What we see very clearly is that NHSE is not neutral between gender ideology and gender critical beliefs. NHSE has taken a side, gender ideology.
PG: We were balancing different characteristics.
NC: Not what I was asking. Let’s take different beliefs – Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus – and atheists too. NHSE would not take a position on those.
PG: We would be inclusive of all.
NC: Not quite the Q. NHSE is not a Christian organisation or a Muslim one, for example.
PG: Yes that’s right
NC: But in this instance, we see that NHSE is subscribing to gender ideology.
PG: Don’t think we would use that way of putting it.
NC: You refer to C’s view that a TW is a biological male, and you say that is the opposite of NHSE belief. Shall I stop saying “gender ideology” – let’s put it more that NHSE actively rejects gender critical beliefs
PG: When it comes to using facilities, yes
NC: So we can agree that it’s a belief, a position, and the C is free to dissent from it? PC: Anyone can dissent.
NC: From NHSE position
PG: It was NHSE policy rather. Actively supported TW access to F facilities, yes
NC: Your WS again para 14. You are saying that to support someone’s transition, you – plural, NHSE – will treat TW as W in all respects.
PG: Yes per NHSE policy.
NC: And if we look at the GIRES document. Talks of “use of single sex facilities” – fair to say that this document is part of the reason NHSE thought that?
PG: Haven’t come across this document before. [reading] Yes this was used as a reference doc I think, we heard so earlier.

BamsWereAtIt · 18/03/2026 16:48

Do they know how demented they sound?

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 16:48

I just read on TT, very testy from NC.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 16:48

NC: [bundle ref]
PG: Unison factsheet?
NC: Yes that’s it
NC: Says that trans workers should use single sex facilities according to gender they attend work in
PG: Yes
NC: So NHSE thought TW should use the facilities because all these expert advisers told them so
PG: Did not draw up policy but yes I understand that they consulted bodies like this.
NC: NHSE thought the Supreme Court judgment in FWS was very bad news didn’t it? SC: [Objects to the Q]
J: PG did not work on the policy.
NC: This is a matter of evidence – I am not going to ask Mr G to read the judgment or opine on it or anything.
SC: How can something that happened in 2025 be relevant to events of 2023?
NC: relevant to atmosphere of policy and also of C’s grievance.
NC: I only have a few Qs and quickest way forward is to let me ask; if panel decide not relevant you can just ignore them
J: What page did you want to go to?
NC: 953
J: 2ndJune 2025, refers to April 2025 judgment [J is reading the doc]
J: Cannot have been in PG mind when he managed the grievance, so I do not see why this is being put to this witness?
NC: Because probative of NHSE attitude to women’s rights, heart of this claim. NHSE policy aims are claimed to be proportionate, and C claim is that that is not so and that rights of men saying they are women outweigh rights of women.
NC: This doc is evidence that even post FWS ruling the R was fighting tooth and nail to preserve its position, prioritising the demands of a small number of men over their thousands of women employees.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 16:49

Questions conduct of how tribunal is being run. Serious vibes.

Wish some journos were in the room and reporting on it.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 16:50

J: You could make this point in submissions
NC: R should be able to speak on things before I make submissions on them.
J: SC can we agree that this document can be included in C submissions?
SC: yes J Then we should move on.
[pause] NC: I do object to being unable to put the C’s Qs to this witness. I will make subs but if cannot Q on this then I have no more Qs for PG.
NC: Want to put down marker about this and my concerns about the way this hearing is being conducted. And shall need to take instructions overnight.
NC: If the panel decides to ignore a few Qs and the As then you are at liberty to do that.
J: I think that given these objections and various matters, I need to discuss with my colleagues. And that we should therefore adjourn for the day. I remind PG that he remains on oath and must not discuss the case overnight.

      FIN
MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 16:51

NC you are saying C beliefs irreconcilable with NSHE position?
PG: Yes

Wow. WORIADS, but not in NHSE. Explicitly.

Cailleach1 · 18/03/2026 16:53

PG: Wouldn’t say she can’t use it, she chooses not to.

About women’s fully open plan showering and changing room, about a policy choice by NHSE that let whatever men wish to roam in, exposing himself if using the shower and getting to gawk at the non consenting women whilst they shower.

So PG seems to think nothing of exposure and voyeurism by men against women, a sexual offence. And we know men who commit these types of crimes can escalate their offending. If a woman doesn’t want to be subjected to male exposure and voyeurism, then he seems to insinuate that is a choice she makes, and the non compliant woman doesn’t get to use the ‘women’s’ facilities.

As for the mixed sex facilities in the basement. Are they trying as hard as possible to set women up to be assaulted. Or worse.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 16:54

[pause] NC: I do object to being unable to put the C’s Qs to this witness. I will make subs but if cannot Q on this then I have no more Qs for PG.
NC: Want to put down marker about this and my concerns about the way this hearing is being conducted. And shall need to take instructions overnight.
😦

BamsWereAtIt · 18/03/2026 16:55

These people are insane and I'm a resentful taxpayer.

MarieDeGournay · 18/03/2026 16:56

PG: Wouldn’t say she can’t use it, she chooses not to.

I wouldn't say transwomen can't use the men's toilet, they just choose not to..
but heaven and earth must be moved to facilitate their choice😠

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 17:00

PG has been very honest about their bias. Not sure that getting him to say that they dont want to comply with the law achieves anything. Not worth irritating the tribunal over it.

Vintage62 · 18/03/2026 17:01

ProfNebulousDeadline · 18/03/2026 15:42

Good point. And they seem to be blaming it on HMRC policy which I would hazard a guess is exactly aligned with NHSE.

Not necessarily. If there was involvement from a Union representing staff in HMRC that would be PCS, and they may* have had different views or at least written policies in a different way.
*I say “may” because I am aware that PCS is currently one of the Unions considered “captured” by gender ideology.

moto748e · 18/03/2026 17:05

This doc is evidence that even post FWS ruling the R was fighting tooth and nail to preserve its position, prioritising the demands of a small number of men over their thousands of women employees.

Naomi Cunningham has indeed had her Weetabix this morning.

Hedgehogforshort · 18/03/2026 17:07

Wowser the TT is only a summary of her questions

she is giving him a right old battering over the head for his approach to the grievances

She has said balanced my arse, and successfully demonstrated bias.

And to boot threatened the judge with appeal already !!!

Go sister !!!!!

EyesOpening · 18/03/2026 17:17

Shortshriftandlethal · 18/03/2026 15:15

Naomi illustrates that a TW could have used any facility they chose: Male, female, unisex, yet the claimant could not ( she couldn't have used used the male facilities)

Therefore illustrating they may believe TWAM but they’re special women as the ordinary women aren’t allowed to use the mens, they don’t get the same choice, they are not the same.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 17:17

I’m still baffled as to why this hasn’t settled? We’ve had FWS, we’ve had Darlington, even Peggie said you can’t force sex realists and individuals aping the other sex together in a changing room.

So why are they here? Why are they defending this?

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 17:23

They are defending it because they dont want to follow the law. They'd rather pay out some money to anyone who complains.

Madcats · 18/03/2026 17:24

How does NHSE fund their legal stuff? Presumably not like the Trusts who have medical negligence claims to defend for the bulk of their cases?

I appreciate that NHSE is probably expecting a lot of redundancies, but you would think that somebody would query why they are throwing money at this?

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 17:38

NHSE probably self insures, that is normal for government agencies. So the only comeback is if your line manager/ the government tell you not to waste public money. Sometimes Parliament gets involved through the Public Accounts Committee. If the tribunal tells them they are breaking the law and they go on doing so not sure if that counts as contempt of court.

I can see I'm going to be writing to my (utterly useless on this) MP again. I might try writing to Was Streeting.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.