Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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
Instructions · 18/03/2026 17:40

Vintage62 · 18/03/2026 17:01

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.

Are there any unions not captured by gender ideology? I am currently not in a union which makes me acutely uncomfortable, but I don't feel able to rejoin unison and can't seem to find any union relevant to me that doesn't embrace twaw

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 18/03/2026 17:46

Thanks @Madcats for copy/pasting Brew Cake

ickky · 18/03/2026 17:48

@Instructions The Darlington nurses started their own Union, not sure if it's just for nurses or anyone.

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 17:49

@Instructions Free speech union, darlington nurses union and there is one other that has been mentioned on FWR but I cant remember their name.

EyesOpening · 18/03/2026 17:54

EyesOpening · 18/03/2026 17:17

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.

Annoyed with myself now as I had planned to phrase it differently 🙄

Therefore illustrating they don’t believe TWAM because women aren’t allowed to use the men’s.

Rightsraptor · 18/03/2026 17:59

ickky · 18/03/2026 17:48

@Instructions The Darlington nurses started their own Union, not sure if it's just for nurses or anyone.

It's for health care professionals, not just nurses.

InconvenientlyMaterial · 18/03/2026 17:59

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.

This needs picking up by a journalist

ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 18/03/2026 18:11

InconvenientlyMaterial · 18/03/2026 17:59

This needs picking up by a journalist

Does anyone know if Nick Wallis is following this case?

Instructions · 18/03/2026 18:14

@ickky @anyolddinosaur thank you!

anyolddinosaur · 18/03/2026 18:43

Actually I think Naomi probably wont to question him so it gets publicity - but I guess she can publish her submissions?

Hedgehogforshort · 18/03/2026 18:50

I would like to recommend a podcast by “inciteful sisters” which interviews a lot of key women in this movement, and has a recent episode with Naomi which is just delightful.

just google it 😁

TheSunjustcameout · 18/03/2026 18:54

Any man demanding access to a woman only space should have to submit his smart devices and internet search history to police for a background check.
That would dissuade 99.999% of these misogynistic men with a woman fetish.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 18/03/2026 18:59

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.
😦

If NC doesn’t put specific questions to the R’s witnesses couldn’t SC argue that the T’s had no chance to dispute certain claims?

SternJoyousBeev2 · 18/03/2026 19:10

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?

Because they have to prove to the men with special feelings that they are still prioritising them over pesky women who won’t just STFU.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 18/03/2026 19:25

SternJoyousBeev2 · 18/03/2026 19:10

Because they have to prove to the men with special feelings that they are still prioritising them over pesky women who won’t just STFU.

I get the mind capture - but surely now some lawyers or HR bods have been de-Stonewalled - I mean NHSE seems to be distancing itself from Stonewall too.

For anyone with PR wit do they not look at Fife and go agree no wee willy winkies in the ladies and so it’s settled.

GreenFritillary · 18/03/2026 19:49

No, they are doubling down - women will learn their place again. They will see to it.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 18/03/2026 19:59

Instructions · 18/03/2026 18:14

@ickky @anyolddinosaur thank you!

Affinity Union: https://workaffinity.co.uk/

Affinity | Affinity Trade Union

https://workaffinity.co.uk

ArmchairSuccubus · 18/03/2026 20:27

Thank you all for the updates, c and p's and commentary, as always, very grateful.

weegielass · 18/03/2026 20:31

I'm not sure if the recommendations for Affinity are just because they don't publicly seem to have a side on sex v gender when perhaps they actually do? I'm just a bit cautious about joining another union after leaving Unison.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 18/03/2026 20:37

GreenFritillary · 18/03/2026 19:49

No, they are doubling down - women will learn their place again. They will see to it.

We do seem to be living in a time where the law is just something on paper and the powerful and fashionable do what they want and enforce it on everyone else. Which makes justice, equality and everything else a thing of the past: you may have only what they choose to let you have as it suits them.

Worse, we have a government that are not only alarmingly weak, but fully in favour of this and using it themselves as a way of life.

I thought the FWS judgment would end this - but I at the time still thought the government was basically ethical and responsible. And I do mean 'basically', I didn't expect a lot.

Catiette · 18/03/2026 20:44

Many thanks again to all, and especially Jimmy.

That ref. to Faye "choosing" not to use the facilities really hit hard for me. Sometimes a witness comes out with something that makes you realise afresh the sheer weight of bias in favour of male "need" over female need. Upsetting.

Catiette · 18/03/2026 20:59

Something else that just occurred to me, which I'd not thought of before: doesn't all this also show how low mental health (as well as physical disability, ofc - Faye should have just used the "inclusive" loo) is in the current hierarchy of vulnerabilities?

It feels telling to see such unquestioning support of the needs of "identity" - which GI emphasises is in no way a MH condition, with the implicit message that this would somehow devalue or demean it - and the contrasting dismissal of PTSD, accepted as a life-limiting MH condition.

And would a TW required to use the males necessarily suffer the same debilitating trauma response as a woman with PTSD encountering a male in an enclosed space? I mean, conscious of my own bias here, I should say I don't know for sure, but I think it's at least significant that the one isn't even considered worthy of consideration by people like PG. Identity's exalted; trauma's a petty irrelevance.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 18/03/2026 21:01

Trauma, feelings, dignity, comfort, diversity, beliefs, all these things are only extended to a man with a gender identity. It is never equally extended to anyone else, especially women. Which means they are not actually held values at all; they've merely been useful words and vehicles to manipulate others into enabling these men's agenda.

DrBlackbird · 18/03/2026 21:08

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.

Do you mean NC is questioning the conduct of how the tribunal is being run?

moto748e · 18/03/2026 21:09

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 18/03/2026 20:37

We do seem to be living in a time where the law is just something on paper and the powerful and fashionable do what they want and enforce it on everyone else. Which makes justice, equality and everything else a thing of the past: you may have only what they choose to let you have as it suits them.

Worse, we have a government that are not only alarmingly weak, but fully in favour of this and using it themselves as a way of life.

I thought the FWS judgment would end this - but I at the time still thought the government was basically ethical and responsible. And I do mean 'basically', I didn't expect a lot.

It reminds me of a quote from a long, long time ago: "Rules are for little people". We are living in such an era again. If the structure of government cannot abide by the law, we cannot lay claim to being a democracy. The only bright spot is that the courts, which I would never expected much from, have shown themselves to be pleasingly sturdy, for the most part. The media, for the most part, should hang their heads in shame.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.