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
FayeRC · 19/03/2026 07:51

Day 4: NHSE witnesses.

DrBlackbird · 19/03/2026 08:03

Keeptoiletssafe · 18/03/2026 21:58

Apologies the cut and paste went a bit wrong there. You can see the BS numbers which are the British Standards.

Your expertise is a thing of beauty @Keeptoiletssafe

Such a shame that we couldn’t have similar expertise in all areas of life. What a difference that would make.

oldtiredcyclist · 19/03/2026 08:09

I am a 67 year old bloke, who has only been aware of this gender ideology since 2018.
This tribunal and particularly the latest questioning of PG by NC has left me stunned. No reasonable person would say what PG said, all the quiet bits out loud. PG has absolutely no regard for women, the wishes of a TW are to be respected at all costs, just crack on and do what you want mate, if the women complain then they are bigots.
I am really worried about the judge here, almost as if they are trying to block NC at times, I am getting the same vibes as the Sandie Peggie case.

KnottyAuty · 19/03/2026 08:31

FayeRC · 18/03/2026 22:15

I was formally released from oath yesterday. Cross examination was such an intense experience.

Thank you for @Jimmyneutronsforehead and @Madcats for sharing tribunal tweets so diligently, and to others for commenting. Your support has been so heart warming ❤

I'm so sorry to hear about your dog Jimmy.

You did so well.

I bought £50 of seeds for your garden this morning - your efforts are providing quite the display already!

ETA current total is £31,511

KnottyAuty · 19/03/2026 08:36

oldtiredcyclist · 19/03/2026 08:09

I am a 67 year old bloke, who has only been aware of this gender ideology since 2018.
This tribunal and particularly the latest questioning of PG by NC has left me stunned. No reasonable person would say what PG said, all the quiet bits out loud. PG has absolutely no regard for women, the wishes of a TW are to be respected at all costs, just crack on and do what you want mate, if the women complain then they are bigots.
I am really worried about the judge here, almost as if they are trying to block NC at times, I am getting the same vibes as the Sandie Peggie case.

Quite!

I heard NC speak on a podcast about how the “training” provided to the judiciary seems to have bypassed many of the critical faculties that they would usually employ in court. We can’t underestimate how much negative impact this brainwashing disguised as training has done. In the lower courts it seems that many judges are starting he hearings with enormous bias that only the higher courts seem to be able to overcome. Let’s hope this is not a Peggie II

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 08:57

Good morning everybody! I've had a good night's sleep and I'm in a much better headspace this morning.

Just a friendly reminder if anybody can, and would like to donate some seeds to FayeRC you can do so by searching for Crowd Justice Faye Russell-Caldicott.

This goes towards legal fees.

We got to see a whopper from Naomi at yesterday's close, and it looks like she's cooking for an appeal or judicial complaint. This is what we love about her, she can give better than she gets, and she's worth every penny, not to forget the wonderful team behind her too who do a fantastic job supporting their cases.

There are 14 days left to get as close to target as possible.

I -should- be available all day today for pasting, but we have made the decision to keep DS at home today. I will let you all know if I need someone to take over or if pasting will be delayed but I think I've got a handle on it today.

Make sure you all eat a good hearty breakfast, and have your beverages ready for 10am.

OP posts:
EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 09:17

Good Morning Jimmy, glad to hear you slept well.

Keeptoiletssafe · 19/03/2026 09:35

DrBlackbird · 19/03/2026 08:03

Your expertise is a thing of beauty @Keeptoiletssafe

Such a shame that we couldn’t have similar expertise in all areas of life. What a difference that would make.

I just collate all things toilet as I can’t stop seeing patterns in incidents that happen in them. It’s nice when I come across the British Standards as it’s obvious people before me did too - thinking about health and safety. The cut and paste was from Network Rail. They have chapters about female and male toilets.

And includes a version of the familiar classic which is along the lines of gapped doors are better for health and safety. The privacy causes problems which we why we have radar keys. Except unisex/ gender neutral that is a free for all we can’t control.

In this case:
2.5.1 Access Control
Accessible and unisex sanitary
accommodation is often subject to
misuse by the general public due to
the self-contained nature of these
facilities. For this reason, accessible
facilities should be fitted with controlled
access through use of a RADAR
(Royal Association for Disability and
Rehabilitation) approved lock.
Unisex sanitary accommodation that is
not designed for use by PRMs, such as
a dedicated gender-neutral WC, should
not have controlled access to safeguard
the availability of the facility for all those
who require it.

I hate to lay it out so bluntly but Faye was being put in a less health and less safe design.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NRGNCIV20004-Public-Toilets.pdf

Edit: to see it through, this is the design that is promoted to make ‘everyone’ happy in gender inclusivity. This design is what the EHRC seems to want more of. All designs are not equal when it comes to health and safety. All mixed sex designs are private.

Cailleach1 · 19/03/2026 09:53

I was struck by something about this whole situation that @FayeRC found herself in.

Women, physically, face more challenges, constraints, and difficulties in their lives than men. Women bear children, and those early years with a young baby can be very wearing. Your body has gone through a lot, and getting back to full fitness can be difficult as you tend to a very vulnerable baby. Feeding, sleeping issues can be wearing.

The one thing that Faye wanted to fit into her day, a run to work and convenient shower, had to come at a cost of male exposure and voyeurism. Of course, one would also worry about worse if you were alone showering, and a man entered. I don’t think I’d trust any man who encroached upon that space. And, it seems one of the creeps (my view) on the Gx panel was quite proud of that fact. Seemed to think it was virtuous to support men in what would amount to a flashing and peeping session in the women’s showers. I think he was quite dehumanising of women in contrast to his obvious support of men who wished to enter women’s showers and expose themselves, and by default get an eyeful of the naked women therein. Women were/are thwarted in having even that crumb of control or dignity in their lives.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 09:58

Today we are reporting day 4 of LS v NHS England (NHSE). LS, also using the pseudonym Faye Russell-Caldicott, is claiming indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion and disability (PTSD) and harassment related to her sex and philosophical belief (gender-critical).

Our substack page on the case is tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/ faye-russell...

It includes our reporting from the earlier days of the hearing.

We are a collective of citizen journalists and work on a voluntary basis. We endeavour to report everything that we hear but do not provide a verbatim report of proceedings.

You can support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio) which funds some travel and our IT costs.

The substack page also includes a full list of the abbreviations we use, including

J: Employment Judge Deeley

P: either of the two lay members sitting with the Judge.

LS, or C: the anonymous Claimant NC - Naomi Cunningham, Counsel for C

NHSE or R - NHS England, the Respondent SC - Simon Cheetham KC, counsel for R

We expect the hearing to begin at 10.00am. Respondent witness Philip Goodfellow (PG) will be on the stand to conclude his witness evidence.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:15

[The hearing is beginning]

[We do not have sound at present, but the Judge is speaking]

J: [is checking up on an email court should have received that may have gone missing. NC will re-send it]

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:19

J: NC yesterday you raised concerns about process. I went to look at the doc you wanted to ask about. Also Mr McCurry's WS. We can see that he discusses this there inc FWS ruling, so colleagues and I think it would be better to put Qs re case law to him.

J: We appreciate he was not around in 2023 but still a better witness to ask. NC: Did you receive my written submissions?

J: No, when sent?

NC: 6.55 am.

J: Ah has just come in now.

NC: In light of what you say I would say that we should move on, though I want to note that it is normally up to Counsel to decide what Qs to put to which witness. So I have just one more Q for PG.

J Offers to read subs and re-think - NC says no, let's not take up that time. PG returns to witness table]

OP posts:
Bunpea · 19/03/2026 10:19

Keeptoiletssafe · 19/03/2026 09:35

I just collate all things toilet as I can’t stop seeing patterns in incidents that happen in them. It’s nice when I come across the British Standards as it’s obvious people before me did too - thinking about health and safety. The cut and paste was from Network Rail. They have chapters about female and male toilets.

And includes a version of the familiar classic which is along the lines of gapped doors are better for health and safety. The privacy causes problems which we why we have radar keys. Except unisex/ gender neutral that is a free for all we can’t control.

In this case:
2.5.1 Access Control
Accessible and unisex sanitary
accommodation is often subject to
misuse by the general public due to
the self-contained nature of these
facilities. For this reason, accessible
facilities should be fitted with controlled
access through use of a RADAR
(Royal Association for Disability and
Rehabilitation) approved lock.
Unisex sanitary accommodation that is
not designed for use by PRMs, such as
a dedicated gender-neutral WC, should
not have controlled access to safeguard
the availability of the facility for all those
who require it.

I hate to lay it out so bluntly but Faye was being put in a less health and less safe design.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NRGNCIV20004-Public-Toilets.pdf

Edit: to see it through, this is the design that is promoted to make ‘everyone’ happy in gender inclusivity. This design is what the EHRC seems to want more of. All designs are not equal when it comes to health and safety. All mixed sex designs are private.

Edited

Yes. People have died in these toilets with floor to ceiling walls and doors. They are not safe at all. Here’s an example…this poor man wasn’t found in time, even though he had been noted as missing and people were out looking for him. https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/five-major-questions-edinburgh-man-32071726

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:24

NC: One final Q. p830 of bundle. Stage 1 grievance outcome. Later on here we see recommendations, 1 being policy development and review. Could you read that section? [PG reading]

NC: In Jan 2024 grievance outcome recommended that the policy group should check reviewing timetable, and do full consultation on various areas. This review has still not happened now, March 2026, has it?

PG: I think we did an EQIA process ... NC: It was begun in 2022 but stalled. And no further action on it. Do you know why? PG: No

J: I have a few Qs. You are Leeds based? PG: Yes [gives list of locations] J: I should say here that I realised I have been the Quarry House Gym 2 or 3 times - not as a member, am not employee of NHSE or DWP - to play a few matches against a team based there.

uh oh judge I'm not sure this is relevant and could lead down a path to bias. Pick your next words very carefully.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:26

J: The dry-side changing rooms, when you come in from the ring road entrance. Can you describe?

PG: Yes [mentions needing a swipe card, describes how you get to swimming pool and changing rooms, a security desk and a controlled door to office part of building]

J [checks about how to get from that area to main office building, PG confirms through secured doors at that point]

J: So how do you get to the dry side changing rooms

PG: corridor to the R of the security desk, they are down there

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:29

J: Who has access to those changing rooms - and is it different working hours vs

non-working

PG: Any members of staff

J: Just NSHE

PG: No, all the organisations based at QH including DWP and various other orgs

PG: Members of the public could also access, once they had got into the foyer, because no separate access control after that, but I think mainly it was assumed they wouldn't, only the pool and poolside area and rooms.

J: And this is during working hours and non-working? Any difference? PG: Public could access at both times eg schools, swimming clubs, not certain of exact opening hours but I know there were evening clubs etc, and, staff cd use outside working hours.

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 10:30

I wonder what NC thinks of these questions.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:32

J: So during 8-6, the C's working hours, the rooms could be accessed by NHSE staff, other org staff, and members of the public? PG: Yes

J: Do we have plans of the area?

SC: I don't think a good one - and NHSE not in the building any more so not sure if we can?

J and SC discuss whether and how PG might be able to get a plan, but noting they did try before the case and didn't get very

good ones]

J: And Wellington Place - any access by members of the public?

PG: Not for gym facilities no - members of the public might attend functions held by orgs, but no access to sport facilities.

J: So, difference QH and WP - public more or less free to roam at the former not the latter?

PG: Yes

J: Will just check if we have any more Qs

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:36

J: Am trying to find paragraph of evidence about the toilets the C was not aware of - was it your WS Mr G or was it VH?

SC: [gives the ref]

J: You were here for C evidence and she

was not aware of the toilets you mention at 44. Where were they?

PG: 5th floor, west side of the building, it's sort of H shaped. These are at both ends of the W corridor.

I'm not sure I like what is brewing here.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:38

J: The C worked on the 4th floor?

SC: Yes

J: So were these facilities duplicated on 4th floor?

PG: No - there were some in the same places, corridor ends, but communal-multiple type (and an acessible)

the point is that it doesn't matter how many or where the rest of the women's bathrooms are, they aren't women's bathrooms if men can use them at their own will.

J: How long to walk from 4th up to the 5th floor ones?

PG: You'd have to walk to the central stairwell, up the two flights, and then along and across to the end of the corridor, it would take me c 1 minute per segment of

that

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:41

J: And on the east side the layout is different?

PG: No, only the ends of the west side corridors, on both floors

J: Thank you, I just wanted us all to be entirely clear on the layouts.

J: Any re-examination?

SC: I hope this doesn't confuse anything, but, going to look at the floor plan - p1059. What is this?

PG: Plan of 4th floor?

SC: To scale?

PG: It doesn't say so that I can see.

SC: Looking at the plan, is there anything that will assist us more about what you were just discussing with the J?

PG: [looking at plan]

PG: I don't think I have anything more to add - this plan is mainly re desks, where teams are allocated

OP posts:
weegielass · 19/03/2026 10:42

in case no one else has noticed / mentioned it above (sorry just catching up). Vivian (viv) hodgekiss, the witness from the other day, has done an Isla Bumba and deleted her linkedin. I should have screenshot it but from memory she had a senior HR role in NHS England and was involved in a few LGBT stuff.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:45

SC: Just in case J you find this plan helpful, draw it to your attention. There's another one here [ref]. Not sure how the two fit together - PG can you assist?

PG: Two different functions - one to scale and clear about doors, access etc - the other is about which work team is allocated where and concentrates on that.

SC: I hope that hasn't confused anything, will leave it there.

J: In case anyone is not familiar - Quarry House is a very well known local building.

OP posts:
ProfNebulousDeadline · 19/03/2026 10:47

Quarry House is also massive as seen from the train and Street View.

Justme56 · 19/03/2026 10:47

Whilst I know NC is a barrister and not a judge she reminds me of the ‘swinging dicks’ judge in the recent US case. She says it how it is / could be, whilst the rest don’t want to face the reality of what they have allowed.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.