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
Catiette · 19/03/2026 11:28

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.

That doesn't surprise me.

It does remind me to say how amazing I found Knotty and team's work - thank you.

Anyway, sorry for my interruptions to the pastes. I'll stop now - and catch up reading the latest soon.

FranticFrankie · 19/03/2026 11:29

Re NHSE; even the Prime Minister cited it as an example of "over regulation and duplication of bureaucracy"

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 19/03/2026 11:30

I find it worrying that he expects to consult "staff networks" not "staff". "Staff networks" are one-sided. They are not representative. If you want to know what staff think you have to conduct a proper staff survey or get a focus group together where you invite everyone from the relevant group not just members of the "network".

This is why EDI is going tits-up.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 11:33

SC - conflict of interest!

That’s exactly why Naomi had to resign from SM.

They didn’t talk to women about enabling men to become voyeurs in the women’s showers.

They’d hardly speak to a group of women who think sex matters.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:42

This is part 2 of the morning of day 4 reporting in LS vs NHS England; part 1 of the session is x.com/tribunaltweets...

The court is at present taking a break, and we expect the hearing to resume at 11.45am.

Naomi Cunningham (NC) counsel for the claimaint will be continuing her cross-examination of Peter McCurry (PM), witness for NHSE.

OP posts:
moto748e · 19/03/2026 11:46

Is it likely/credible that a NHSE bigwig wouldn't have heard of Sex Matters?

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 11:47

moto748e · 19/03/2026 11:46

Is it likely/credible that a NHSE bigwig wouldn't have heard of Sex Matters?

Very much so. We live in our bubble; they live in theirs.

Londonmummy66 · 19/03/2026 11:48

I do wish NC hadn't mentioned Sex Matters though - SEEN should have been enough.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 11:50

moto748e · 19/03/2026 11:46

Is it likely/credible that a NHSE bigwig wouldn't have heard of Sex Matters?

Given his evidence so far - he’s so far in denial about women and their rights - he’d see a naked man with a beard in the ladies and say hello fine woman, lovely diversity & values.

Would shun anyone who even followed Sex Matters.

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 11:51

Londonmummy66 · 19/03/2026 11:48

I do wish NC hadn't mentioned Sex Matters though - SEEN should have been enough.

Why? They are the leading charity in the space with women who have expertise in this area.

SecretSquirrelLoo · 19/03/2026 11:52

‘removing barriers’! A lot of barriers are for safety

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 11:52

Maybe Sex Matters should have its own “champions” scheme.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:53

Hearing is beginning]

J: Thank you NC for recommendations. And we have now read your subs, do you want to say any more?

NC: No I think water under the bridge, but grateful for you reading them.

OP posts:
DontStopMe · 19/03/2026 11:54

SecretSquirrelLoo · 19/03/2026 11:52

‘removing barriers’! A lot of barriers are for safety

Chesterton's Fence! If you don't see why it was put there, you should find out before you remove it.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 11:56

J: How much longer with Mr McMurry? NC: Hard to tell - certainly will go into the afternoon, safest to say most of the day. J: Remind that you should finish by 3.30 to leave time for panel Qs, as PM cannot be here tomorrow.

is a tribunal allowed to commence without a full panel? Sounds iffy to me.

NC: At para 18 of WS you talk of the need to balance the FWS judgment with diversity of workforce and providing facilities they can use. Everyone is to be provided with suitable and private facilities?
^^
PM: Yes

NC: You say you have reconsidered and have decided that the current balance is the right one. But you mention no documents. And since you didn't concede group disadvantage until last week, fair to say you still did not consider women?

PM. No not fair. We are saying policy avoids issues of harassment and discrimination.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:03

NC: And what about workplace regs 1992, which require single sex provision? PM: I don't think I can comment on that NC: But if the facilities are mixed sex now, then you are relying on the single-occupancy units for your compliance with 1992Regs? PM: Yes

J: [asks if NC and PM could slow down a bit, to facilitate note-taking]

be quick today Naomi, but also slow down.

NC: We know c63% of workforce are
^^
female.
^^
PM: Yes
^^
NC: But we don't know % have GC or religious views.
^^
PM: No
^^
NC: Or % victims of assault. Or % with PTSD as a result.
^^
PM: No

PM: Quarry House had most provision in communal blocks, plus a few individual ones?

NC: Don't know about QH, never been there, but at WP I think it's a bit more than half is communal provision.

NC: We can assume most ppl happy to use communal for their own sex?

PMI guess

NC: But that ppl with T identity might not be?

PM: Agree

NC: And <5 ppl T identity-

[PM corrects - <5 male=TW, c24 in total with T id]

NC: Small population, so not surprising nothing came up until the issues around "person X"?

PM: Yes

NC: So you have one person now not comfortable using the men's. Two possible solutions; he either uses the women's, or the unisex / accessible toilets.

PM: Yes

NC: Accessible are OK for men and

women?

PM: Yes

NC: And not inferior to communal? PM: No.

OP posts:
SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 19/03/2026 12:03

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

It's like a Wile E. Coyote cartoon
'Here, take look in this ticking box'

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:06

NC: If some men have permission to use women's communal loos, they are no longer single sex are they? PM: From logic point of view, yes.

NC: Even if not everyone agrees that, there will certainly be some women that do perceive it like that?

PM: Can't speak to that.

NC: Inevitable consequence of a trans identifying man using women's facilities is a cost to women, loss of single sex facility? PM: Impact rather than cost, but, gain of having workplace that there is a workplace inclusive of ppl not identifying as their sex.

OP posts:
ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 12:08

SecretSquirrelLoo · 19/03/2026 11:52

‘removing barriers’! A lot of barriers are for safety

I wish she'd rephrase as 'removing safeguards'

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:08

NC: It is a gain to women??

PM: No, but, some ppl will gain bcs of the including.

NC: Your WS says that ppl with objections can use accessible or single occupancy, do you accept that C not aware of 5th floor?

PM: Yes

NC: So once C self-excluded, there was only available to her the accessible toilet - one only?

PM: Yes

NC: And if occupied, she just has to wait PM: well yes, but cd happen in communal too.

NC: And if she uses it, s/o with a disability might have to wait?

PM: Yes

OP posts:
EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 12:10

It's a depressing thought that this nitwit is not a sole nitwit but one of a legion of nitwits.
Some people will gain, oh that's alright then, job done 😠

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:14

So instead of the users of that accessible loos being D=disabled staff, it's now D+M (M being women not wanting to share with men). And you don't know what number M is?

PM: No

NC: The other route would have been, tell the man with T id to use accessible loo. Now the number in the accessible loo is D +1

PM: Well, no, D + 24 T-id staff

NC: Fair enough but it's only the <5 M that

we should count here?

PM: Yes, OK, agree D+5

NC: Surely the obvious answer is to have the man who IDs as a woman use accessible? And not the unknown number of women who now self exclude? PM: I can see logic, but not sure if that would breach the Equality Act.

NC: SC and I will address that in subs. But leaving it aside - if we assume no breach, it's the obvious solution.

PM: It's a solution

NC: Not just a - it's the obvious, fair

solution

PM: Tend to agree.

NC: And I suggest that the reason NHSE chose to displace an unknown number of women rather than a tiny number of men, is what you say in WS. "Respecting the gender identity". You refer to this in more than one part of your WS. That is the most salient objective?

PM: No, most salient is just before - balancing, complying EA, PSED.

NC: Part of PSED is fostering good relations?

PM: I believe so.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:15

At least we have now got to the stage when respondents are not quibbling that TW are women. Everyone now feels they have 'permission' to agree that they are male/men.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:17

NC: Is it fostering good relations to take something away from one group and give to another? To prioritise a small group over a much larger group?

PM: I don't think that was our intention. It wsa about removing barriers for a gorup that was facing additional challenges in the workplace. That's what we were trying to do.

NC: I want to suggest that this was all about affirming NHSE position that TWAW and TMAM

PM: I don't think that's our position. Have never had conversations to that effect.

NC: Moving on to For Women Scotland. Supreme Court ruled 16th April 2025. You say in WS that you had been having internal discussions about its impact.

NC: Would it not be reasonable for tribunal to expect that the stalled review of the policy would have been restarted at that point?

PM: Cd be expectation yes - but as I say, an awful lot going on at that time.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:20

NC: It's now 11 months later, and review seems to consist only of a note that that policy is under review. Unless there is more

you can tell us?

PM: I think there have been more discussions on it, and a new framework is developing, but has not yet come to me

NC: A framework about how the review will happen? Is that what you mean?

PM: Yes

NC: Your WS says your considering is about how you can work with FWS, while wanting to retain diversity aims etc. Are you saying they are in conflict?

OP posts:
Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.