Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:23

PM: No not really - it means we need to think of everyone, avoid discrimination and harassment, and there's no new guidance yet for employers ...

NC: Are you aware of good law project judicial review re EHRC interim statement PM: No

Either fibbing or bad at his job if he hasn't heard of this.

NC: You say in WS that there is missing debate re practical realities, are you saying you think the Supreme Court missed something?

PM: One point yes - it's not clear to me, how we then apply the Equality Act or a policy rather, so as to avoid breaching the Equality Act, when we apply on the ground NC: You don't think the Supreme Court covered that?

PM: No I don't.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:25

McCurry doesn't seem to realise that the supreme court judgment was clarifying the equalities act. He thinks it is a ruling that was somehow detached from the act and that might somehow contradict it in practice.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:25

NC: You say there's no clarity re single sex spaces, and you are grappling with the effects. Is this you saying [missed] PM: No, am saying we must make sure what we do complies with Supreme Court, but doesn't put us in breach of Equality Act.

NC: You say that you have not had a huge volume of staff input / complaints. But surely a staff survey is not the way to decide whether to follow the law?

PM: No it's not.

NC: [ref] update here 2/6/2025 on the intranet, re Supreme Court ruling. The overall tone is mournful? PM: Don't acceppt that

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:27

NC: Message is, this is bad news, will make staff unhappy, look after yourselves. Fair? PM: No not fair.

NC: You say "has significant implications" and care for staff. You stress "inclusive environment", "bring your own selves to work", colleagues with PC of GR

NC: Tone is, we are trying to mitigate the impact?

PM: Lots of press at the time, lots of colleagues worried about what it all meant. NC: Clear message that T id staff would be upset?

PM: Yes but not only that - all staff needs.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:29

Peter McCurry uses pronouns on his Linkedin bio and elsewhere. Naomi seems to be getting to the fact that he is part of the trans vanguard.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:30

NC: Ends with support offer to T staff "during this time". Can only mean 'difficult time' surely.

PM: No, just mean time of reviewing.

NC: Offering support, telling to take care. I say, mournful

PM: Disagree. Context of big organisational change too.

NC: No recognition that some staff will have welcomed the FWS ruling.

PM: True

NC: You finish "bullying and harassment will never be tolerated". Isn't that a warning to staff not to show any pleasure in the verdict

PM: No, not true at all.

PM: The line is important because it sets out our zero-tolerance policy of bullying / harassment / discrimination. By anyone, to anyone.

OP posts:
ArmchairSuccubus · 19/03/2026 12:32

Speed reading to catch up with this morning's activity. Many thanks, wims.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 12:32

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:30

NC: Ends with support offer to T staff "during this time". Can only mean 'difficult time' surely.

PM: No, just mean time of reviewing.

NC: Offering support, telling to take care. I say, mournful

PM: Disagree. Context of big organisational change too.

NC: No recognition that some staff will have welcomed the FWS ruling.

PM: True

NC: You finish "bullying and harassment will never be tolerated". Isn't that a warning to staff not to show any pleasure in the verdict

PM: No, not true at all.

PM: The line is important because it sets out our zero-tolerance policy of bullying / harassment / discrimination. By anyone, to anyone.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

EmpressDomesticatednottamed · 19/03/2026 12:33

PM: The line is important because it sets out our zero-tolerance policy of bullying / harassment / discrimination. By anyone, to anyone.

Bollocks

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 12:34

using PM for both this witness and for panel member is causing confusion here - I imagine it's the witness not the panel member who cant come tomorrow. Wish TT had gone for Pam or something.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:34

NC: There is no balance in this statement. It doesn't say "difficult contested area, some ppl will welcome some will not, everyone behave themselves". Does it? PM: Disagree with your reading

NC: [ref] This implies that someone has worked out that it will no longer be lawful to let trans ID men use W facilities?

PM: Disagree - just someone summarising ruling.

NC: This doc says SC has provided clarity, but now in your WS you say things aren't clear.

PM: It's a very difficult space for employers. I think the SC ruling is clear, but there is still muddle.

NC: If you were to have a rule that single sex means single sex, ppl can use single-occupancy if not OK with that, you say that would cause discrimination claims?}

PM: Yes if we directed s/o to a particular loo.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:34

Naomi now getting to the heart of why he thinks it is all "a muddle", and clarity has not been achieved. ( Because the ideological commitment to 'Gender identity has now been contradicted by the recognition that women have rights too, and that we all know that men are not women)

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 12:36

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 12:34

using PM for both this witness and for panel member is causing confusion here - I imagine it's the witness not the panel member who cant come tomorrow. Wish TT had gone for Pam or something.

I believe today's rubric said they would use P for panel member.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:37

PM: If we didn't offer ppl the choice of which to use, yes I think we wd be in danger of discrimination claims.

NC: Talk here of carefully reviewing policies - this is 9 months ago. How is that review coming along?

PM: Very slowly. Not aware of any policies having been reviewed in light of SC ruling.

NC: Why so slowly?

PM: Many reasons - complicated landscape - lots going on around NHSE ending, competing priorities, redunancies to manage

NC: Is it not the case that the SC ruling is crystal clear, but R doesn't like it?

PM: Disagree

NC: Desperate attempts behind the scenes to try to get round it? Because R committed to gender ideology?

PM: Absolutely not.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:39

NC: NHSE like others is dragging its feet, trying to avoid implementation. PM: Don't agree, and have never had converstaions along those lines.

NC: You talk about lack of adverse feedback on the policy since 2017. p937 of

bundle please.

NC: Letter to someone other than the claimant in Dec 2024 from you.

PM: Yes

NC: Someone else with similar concerns to C. You note that the person you write to has said has been afraid to speak out bcs ppl have lost their jobs.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:42

This should be a very fruitful session. NC has another two and a half hours ( minus lunch) to grill this guy.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:42

NC: Presumably you're aware ofthe rash of cases over the past few years where gender critical ppl have lost jobs etc PM: In general yes

NC: Have heard of Forstater?

PM: Yes aware but don't know well

NC: And since then we have had Phoenix v OU, Meade v Westminster & SWE, Adams v ERCC, Fahmy v Arts Council, Bailey v Garden Court, Pitt v Cambridgeshire COuncil. Were you aware of any of those? PM: Not specifically

NC: Aware of rash of cases though?

PM: Not really, until this tribunal.

NC: Aware of JK Rowling views?

PM: That she has them, not what they are in detail.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:43

Liar, Liar, pants on fire........

MyAmpleSheep · 19/03/2026 12:43

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:43

Liar, Liar, pants on fire........

His pants self-immolated about 25 minutes ago, I think.

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 12:44

Man - can split the atom but can't work out how to say 'no' to unreasonable demands from other men.

mateysmum · 19/03/2026 12:44

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 😠

It's fine, because the special people will gain. The unimportant people with wombs and boobs don't exist.

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 12:45

Pm saying "it means we need to think of everyone, avoid discrimination and harassment" while having admitted that they didnt think about women at all while creating the policy.

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:46

The judge very much wants to keep the focus on the case and on the precise details of workplace policy. He keeps re-buffing Naomi's wider cultural points ( she's trying to illustrate that McCurry is a committed actor within the trans debate and that this is what informed his responses in the workplace)

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 12:47

J: Not sure how JKR views and this witness knowledge of is relevant? NC: My point is that a number of individuals with GC view have suffered in the workplace, and that JKR has had multiple serious death and rape threats.

NC: You would not suggest that the person you are corresponding with is unreasonably afraid to speak up? PM: No indeed, my letter does say nobody in NHSE has lost job, but, thank her for speaking to us.

J: NC if you want to break early for lunch? NC: Yes please - I am a bit worried I may have lost a section of my notes!

J: We will break till 2pm - Mr McMurry you remain on oath.

[LUNCH]

@threadreaderapp please unroll

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App

@tribunaltweets: This is part 2 of the morning of day 4 reporting in LS vs NHS England; part 1 of the session is The court is at present taking a break, and we expect the hearing...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2034595933485240350.html

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 12:48

PM: "No indeed, my letter does say nobody in NHSE has lost job, but, thank her for speaking to us"

I reckon what actually happened was that he told the other complainant that she was the only one that had ever complained.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.