Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

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
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:48

J [releases PG as witness]

J: Anything to address before next witness? [No]

J: Mr McMurray come to the table.

SC [Takes Peter McCurry through ID, WS. Joined NHSE in 2024]

NC: Para 2 of your WS, you say you are policy owning director inc of the trans policy. Is it fair to say you are the right person to ask about it?

PM: Yes.

oh aye, let's see how long it takes before he chucks someone under the bus now. Bingo cards at the ready

NC: And if justification for policy had changed between 2017 and now, you would have said so?

PM: Yes

NC: And you didn't, so it hasn't? PM: Yes

NC: [reads aims of inclusion, diversity etc] Is it fair of me to say those are such high level nicenesses that they are not useful? PM I don't agree

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 10:52

Sounds like the judge is working out her own chance of seeing swinging dicks when she next visits the building. Regulations are different for service providers and employees but this is clearly an employee facility, even if other people, including school children, are allowed in.

PG sounds like a TRA.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:53

NC: You don't address how letting men use women's facilities goes towards those

aims?

PM: Not specifically no. NC: Would you like to do so now?

NC: Giving you opportunity to say to tribunal why the nice aims require that action, men in women's changing rooms. PM: We wanted to give employees a choice, recognise that for some people - that we signalled - diversity - value

NC: That that choice signalled their value? PM: Yes

NC: Your WS also doesn't say why those benevolent aims mean facilities should be accessed per gender identity instead of sex.

PM: No

NC: Your WS says in context of EQIA that if any impact on others comes up, balancing needed. Does that also mean that if nothing came up, there would be no balancing?

PM: Yes I'd agree

NC: And no evidence at all that in 2017 anything at all came up about the needs of female staff or any subgroup of women?

PM: No.

gosh they're really saying all the quiet bits out loud. Shouting them, with a megaphone.

NC: And you only do a balancing exercise if you think there is evidence of impact? PM: I think - we try to balance, to remove

barriers that some groups are facing.

OP posts:
KeepupKardigans · 19/03/2026 10:53

Nicenesses …brilliant characterisation as always.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:55

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 10:52

Sounds like the judge is working out her own chance of seeing swinging dicks when she next visits the building. Regulations are different for service providers and employees but this is clearly an employee facility, even if other people, including school children, are allowed in.

PG sounds like a TRA.

Good catch about the school children. I hope this is caught and considered in court that the NHSE policy is exposing minors due to their staff policies.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 10:57

NC: In the absence of you having identified any impacts on women or a subgroup, it doesn't really help to tell tribunal what you would have done, because you didn't do them, becasue you didn't identify? Is that fair?

PM: I think - I'm talking about what we would do if we needed to, but you're right that we didn't then, but going back to the removing barriers - I would hope we would also weigh up then.

NC: But there's no evidence at all you did so?

PM: Was not there then

NC: You=NHSE. No evidence?

PM: No.

NC: And no evidence that a retrospective exercise of consideration has been done since 2017?

PM: No

NC: No evidence of consideration of women with PTSD or religious sensibilities. And no consideration of freedom of speech either, re forced pronoun use?

PM: No

OP posts:
EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 10:57

Would you like to do so now?😂
I bet he'd rather not.

Signalled diversity, wanker.
Why is it that the word diversity always seems to be coupled with words like embrace and signal?

Edited to add, has Naomi had her breakfast? Possibly not.

ItsCoolForCats · 19/03/2026 10:58

ProfNebulousDeadline · 19/03/2026 10:47

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

It's nickname locally is the Kremlin.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:01

NC: Or of neurodivergent staff who might find speech control particularly burdensome?

PM: No

I am actually really happy she's representing this, alexinomia is a huge issue that causes a lot of workplace friction that is never really discussed.

NC: Is it not the case that you (NHSE) should have seen a mile off that a policy that men could use women's facilities, especially when communal showers, would have an impact on women?

PM: We were looking at it as, removing barriers for a group that faced them.

NC: And it was not until 4th March, just before these proceedings, that NHSE conceded that women were disadvantaged (by conceding some claims)

PM: I think when drawn up, it was trying to do best practice, I think we assumed ppl wd "live in gender" for 12 months ...

well you know what they when you assume...

NC: Not quite my Q. Asking why the disadvantage for women was not identified between 2017 and 4th March PM: I can't give you an answer to that.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:03

NC: I suggest that it was because of NHSE profound commitment throughout to gender ideology - TWAW, TMAM, all the mantras - that NHSE is so devoted to benefitting its T staff that nothing at all can be seen?

PM: Disagree, I have only ever seen attempts to remove barriers where people face them, if ppl raise issues we have attempted to address in considered and caring way for those individuals.

NC: So you don't agree with my explanation, but you don't have an alternative one to offer? PM: I don't, no

PM: Your WS talks of NHSE thinking its policy was based on understanding of the law at the time. [gives bundle ref to a 2022 doc]

OP posts:
Mmmnotsure · 19/03/2026 11:03

Keeptoiletssafe · 18/03/2026 21:57

Yes theres calculations for the number of men and women’s provision to achieve equity.

Heres where I show I am not the only full-on toilet geek:

Men and Women
Women require a higher level of public
toilet provision than men, as they
require longer to use the toilet, and
have more reasons to use the toilet. [1b]
Women require twice as many
appliances as men to achieve equal
waiting time (see section 2.2), and have
historically been under-provided
with toilets, therefore it should not
be assumed that existing facilities
for women are adequate in terms of
quantity. When calculating the numbers of
appliances required, one urinal should
be counted as equivalent to one WC.
Then
The average time a person takes to use
the facilities should be taken as 1.5
minutes for women and 0.75 minutes
for men. Therefore, assuming an equal
number of male and female users, there
should be twice as many female units. From BS6465-4:2010, 11.2.3.4.3 (Time a person taken to use the facilities).
The levels of WC provision required will
be affected by several factors across
stations; the calculations shown here
are indicative only and WC provision
should be considered on an individual
station basis.
Network Rail’s recommends that 1 unit
(WC/urinal) be provided per 2500 -
3000 passengers of daily throughput.
Therefore, the recommended method
for calculating provision is as follows:
AM 3 hour peak x 4 = Daily peak Daily
peak / 3000 = Total units required
The ‘AM 3 hour peak’ is the total number
of passenger entries/exits on a typical
weekday between 07:00 - 09:59.
The average time a person takes to use
the facilities should be taken as 1.5
minutes for women and 0.75 minutes
for men. [2] Therefore, assuming an equal
number of male and female users, there
should be twice as many female units
provided as male units.
To calculate the provision required for
female/male WC’s:
Total units required x 2/3 = Female
Units
Total units required x 1/3 = Male Units
These calculations are only for the
provision of separate-sex facilities;
unisex facilities should be provided in
addition to the calculated ‘total units
required’ (see section 2.4).
Further guidance on calculating
provision is available within BS6465-
4:2010, and BS6465-1:2006.

  1. BS6465-4:2010, 11.2.3.4.3 Time a person takes
to use the facilities Example Liverpool Street Station AM 3 hour peak arrivals and departures = 79,687 (2017) 79,687 x 4 = 318,748 daily peak 318,478 / 3000 = 106 total units 106 x 2/3 = 71 female units 106 x 1/3 = 35 male units

This is the amount of planning that goes toilet provision. Which then all goes down the pan when a wrong policy affects the whole lot.

I'm surprised at the shortness of time - 1.5 minutes for women v .75 for men. I understand the point is that it's twice as long, for the maths, and that the actual time might not be so important, but even so.

How does it work over a lifetime? Perhaps post-menopausal women could be seen as balancing older men - prolapse/prostate. But throughout a lifespan only .75 minutes can't possibly give time for changing period products (especially when young girls are getting used to it all) or take into account that many women will be wrangling small children at the same time.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:06

NC: We can if we need to look at correspondence from Erk Gunce - do you need me to show you? PM: No am happy to accept.

bit late to roll over and show your belly now

NC: So here we see emails saying trans policy being reviewed, saying that EQIA has been requested by EG and asking about consultation groups inc women. We've seen that there was no women's group at the time?

PM: That's right.

NC: Your WS says that review was halted bcs EQIA not adequate and would be reviewed differently later. You learned this from EG?

PM: No, never met him NC: So who gave you the information?

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:10

PM: [I think, via members of his team]

NC: If an EQIA is inadequate, would one route not be to do an adequate one? Why was that not chosen?

I can hear the supercharger, the suspension has been lifted, a bus is on it's way. Tickets, please.

PM: I think there was a lot of work going on over the organisational mergers, which would have included putting 3 policies together, and I assume that it wsa to be bundled up in that.

NC: And do you know why there has still be no progress at all on the recommendations of the grievance outcome doc?

PM: Yes, the plan for the merger was that HR would be merged last if you see what I mean - so that didn't start until 2025, and so that was when we could start, and we are still working through merging all policies inc this one

PM: And then it was announced that NHSE was going to dissolve and merge into DHSC.

PM: And. This particular policy is a particularly difficult one.

J [asks about timings of NHSE dissolution, PG replies]

OP posts:
anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 11:11

So we'll address it in a "considered and caring way for those individuals" but we wont give a seconds thought to the impact on other employees.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:12

NC: So you can't really explain why a review that started in 2022 ground to a halt in Nov 2022.

NC: Isn't it the case that this was going to be dealt with the same as 2017 - just ignore any problems. And then along comes a pesky woman, the C, showing that there are problems, and it gets dropped.

PM: Don't agree.

NC: But no other explanation to give?

PM: Burden of work. NC: But your WS says that the review stopped because the EQIA was insufficient. Not that it was burden of

work.

OP posts:
EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 11:13

Funny how dismantling womens rights to single sex spaces wasn't regarded as a particularly difficult policy.

FranticFrankie · 19/03/2026 11:16

ItsCoolForCats · 19/03/2026 10:58

It's nickname locally is the Kremlin.

Reminds me of the Ministry of Truth from 1984
Oh the irony

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 11:17

Where were the fine sounding words on inclusion when they realised the EGiA was inadequate.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:18

NC: I am saying that NHSE simply refused to countenance considering any impact on women.

PM: Don't agree. I was not present, but I believe there was intention to do better EQIA, but other work got in the way.

NC: This is what you are saying now, burden of work, but in your WS you say it was bcs EQIA was not sufficient.

PM: I believe ppl did want a sufficient EQIA

NC: If NHSE does ever review this policy, what experts will you consult? PM: Staff network groups, broad range of stakeholders.

NC: Which of your staff networks will you consider experts on impacts on women? PM: Well, women's network, after hearing

this week

NC: Would you consult SEENinHealth? PM: Not heard of. NC [bundle ref]

NC: Gender critical staff network for the NHS

PM: Have not read through newsletter, but will take your word on it.

NC: Would you consult them?

PM: Yes I think we should.

NC: And do you agree - your colleagues have talked about consulting Stonewall, do you agree that the obvious external group to consult on the impact on women would be Sex matters?

OP posts:
Catiette · 19/03/2026 11:19

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 06:57

If I was any good at it, I'd draw a protected characteristics hierarchy of need triangle, like Maslow's triangle. It would be the most obtuse isosceles triangle every, with TIMs just above every other characteristic.

I find Maslow helpful in understanding this issue. I've posted about it before.

I'd say women's physiological needs (first tier) and safety/security (second tier) are being sacrificed to male demands for self-esteem and self-actualisation (the privileged top tiers).

I guess TRAs would argue that their own needs are a similarly essential baseline: that their access to female-only spaces is about physiological and safety/security, too.

The only rational response at that point is to assess the relative strength of the conflicting claims. But that's not what happens, and that's where you really see the misogyny.

I mean, you could argue the EQIA fulfils this function - but that ignores an uncomfortable truth: you only get to the point of an EQIA after making the assumption that trans "inclusion" should be the default in relation to which other needs are considered. It shows that any preliminary, balanced assessment of competing needs has been leapfrogged in favour of foregrounding one group.

I mean, I'd argue the existence of single sex spaces should be enough. Women were given them because they need them, full-stop - so, how else can we accommodate transwomen?

But in the absence of that happy little daydream, where's the very least women should expect - careful consideration of a knotty problem? Where's the research into the function of single sex spaces / the consideration of physical difference and relative strength / the statistical analysis of proportionate risks / the anonymous surveys on staff views / the utilitarian consideration of proportionate numbers affected?

No. Instead, if women are very lucky, the company leaps to the EQIA stage. And if they're very, very lucky, this is completed with reference to the correct PCs of sex, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, and disability etc.

And just occasionally, in very unusual cases not unlike a postcode lottery win - the EQIA is even filed for the future, in respectful recognition of its importance.

DameProfessorIDareSay · 19/03/2026 11:19

Every bloody witness we have seen in the various tribunals involving the NHS seem to do actual bugger all. They are all paid far more than frontline nurses and I am sick of it! Yet we are supposed to keep chucking buckets of money at it. 😡

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:21

SC: Conflict of interest!

NC: No. I have no current involvement with SM.

SC: Should still mention.

NC: PM have you heard of Sex Matters, I used to be involved. Regulated charity. A proper group to consult?

PM: I haven't heard of till this week, but we would probably ask staff networks for recommendations of groups to consult.

J: Is this a good time to take a break? NC: Yes - could I ask for a slightly longer than usual break, so that tribunal can read my written submission from this morning during it?

J: Yes of course.

OP posts:
FarriersGirl · 19/03/2026 11:21

Having a totally inadequate EQIA in the NHS is not only usual it is pretty much required. Knotty's audit findings didn't find a single NHS trust where it was adequate. Most of them used NHSE info as a basis for their approach.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:24

J: Apologies for some documents taking time to be processed - we have a lot of staff on leave - but I do apologise. NC: No probs.

J: Break till 11.45 then.

[BREAK]

@threadreaderapp please unroll

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App

@tribunaltweets: 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...…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2034565945952207214.html

OP posts:
ProfNebulousDeadline · 19/03/2026 11:25

Not heard of SEENinhealth, says it all really. CS SEEN should also cover NHSE.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread