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
Mmmnotsure · 19/03/2026 12:51

This chappie, frrom the NHS, resumably has never heard of Sandie Peggie, either. Or the Darlington nurses.

(Judge is a woman, youngish, apparently.)

FayeRC · 19/03/2026 12:54

It's Peter McCurry

anyolddinosaur · 19/03/2026 12:57

Perhaps Naomi wished simply to show that this is a man who has made zero attempt to consider the views of those opposed to men in womens facilities. He doesnt follows court cases relevant to his supposed area of expertise (incompetent then) and has not made the slightest attempt to consider that there may be other views. It's another example of we dont really think about women at all unless they complain. She could use this in submissions.

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 12:58

It was interesting and illuminating that he spoke of the FWS SC judgement and the Equality Act as being in conflict, when the whole point of FWS was to clarify the EA. This is where only listening to TRA/GLP dogma leads.

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:13

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.

And of course, the SC ruling made it clear that a woman could bring a case for harrassment against a man knowingly intruding in on a female single sex facility.

The standard 'No bullying or harrassment' in their mind relates purely to the trans identified.

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:14

I'm unclear how this relates to Mr McCurry?

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 13:19

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:14

I'm unclear how this relates to Mr McCurry?

Do a search of his name in the document. He features heavily as a witness for the respondent.

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:24

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 13:19

Do a search of his name in the document. He features heavily as a witness for the respondent.

Can you give us a quick precis of McCurry's involvement and the outcome, please?

Is it that he has a history of not taking claimants seriously?

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 13:30

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:24

Can you give us a quick precis of McCurry's involvement and the outcome, please?

Is it that he has a history of not taking claimants seriously?

Edited

I've only just speed read the document and so unable to provide a precis. It seems (from a very quick skim) that McCurry might suffer heavily from inertia when performing his duties, but does so in such as way as it's hard to pin intent on him.

borntobequiet · 19/03/2026 13:30

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 13:30

I've only just speed read the document and so unable to provide a precis. It seems (from a very quick skim) that McCurry might suffer heavily from inertia when performing his duties, but does so in such as way as it's hard to pin intent on him.

That’s my impression too.

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 13:31

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 13:30

I've only just speed read the document and so unable to provide a precis. It seems (from a very quick skim) that McCurry might suffer heavily from inertia when performing his duties, but does so in such as way as it's hard to pin intent on him.

Yes, I can see he failed to respond promptly on numerous occasions ( in that document) I reckon Naomi will skewer him, though. She already seems to have his measure.

Mmmnotsure · 19/03/2026 13:31

borntobequiet · 19/03/2026 13:30

That’s my impression too.

Yes - added to my question of what on earth do these people actually DO all day?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 13:34

ProfessorEmeritaVeraAtkins · 19/03/2026 13:30

I've only just speed read the document and so unable to provide a precis. It seems (from a very quick skim) that McCurry might suffer heavily from inertia when performing his duties, but does so in such as way as it's hard to pin intent on him.

Ah another one of those: it's not my job to do my job types.

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 19/03/2026 13:39

FayeRC · 19/03/2026 12:54

It's Peter McCurry

Hello Faye, hope you're doing OK✊
NC doing her usual great job, eh?Smile

KnottyAuty · 19/03/2026 13:41

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

What rubbish - there will be a full plan of the whole building by the fire panel which is almost always next to the front door. Always an easy way to get the floor plan of any public building (without national security protocols anyway). PG didn’t want to get one so didn’t bother trying

SternJoyousBeev2 · 19/03/2026 13:49

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 12:58

It was interesting and illuminating that he spoke of the FWS SC judgement and the Equality Act as being in conflict, when the whole point of FWS was to clarify the EA. This is where only listening to TRA/GLP dogma leads.

He is mistakenly (perhaps deliberately so) of the opinion that the PC of GR means that they have to treat TW as women or else they are discriminating against them. He doesn’t understand (or pretends not to) that the correct comparator for a man with the PC of GR is a man without the PC of GR. I am sure he doesn’t misunderstand his responsibilities for other PCs. For example I am sure he us all over what could be regarded as ‘reasonable’ when it comes down to reasonable adaptations for those with the PC of disability.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 13:59

We expect the afternoon session of Day 5 in LS vs NHSE to begin at 2 pm. It may be a short session. Our coverage of earlier sessions and background on the case can be found on our Substack here:

open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw...

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:10

Just while we wait for the court to rejoin, the Crowd Justice page is currently sitting at 31641 seeds out of 70000 seeds, with 14 days to get as close to a full garden as possible.

All gardening goes towards the legal fees of this case, and supports a cause that women won't relinquish our rights in the workplace.

We've had another fantastic day of Naomi exposing institutional impotence when it comes to caring for or understanding women's rights.

If you can garden, and want to, please do so by searching for Crowd Justice Faye Russell-Caldicott.

I can see we keep popping in and out of trending so I'm hoping this reaches a wider audience who also want to show how much they care about the work of Naomi and her legal team, as well as our very lovely own @FayeRC

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:10

Naomi seems confused, and thought she had far more ground to cover with McCurry.....another short break.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:12

Afternoon session is starting. J reminding attendees, no hot drinks allowed. Witness

PM will resume.

J - SC you mentioned a floor plan?

SC - have one, sent to Cs team.

J - NC have you had a chance to speak to C's do you have further qs?

NC - I was perplexed because

I was nearer the end than I expected. I do have the floor plan.

J - Clerk, can you print off 4 copies? NC - would you like to look at it

NC - would like to take instruction quickly

J - apologies, everyone has to leave the room and the remote

discussion of recalling previous witness who must leave today>

J - how long will you need NC

NC - no longer than 10 minutes

J - fine, bring everyone back at 14:20, can everyone in the audio room log out?

<<break - back in 10 minutes>>

OP posts:
Keeptoiletssafe · 19/03/2026 14:24

I love a good floor plan.

What I find interesting is how many men don’t understand periods. Not surprising as biology textbooks used to say ‘a small amount of blood passes through’. It is amazing the number of men who think the different sized tampons are for different sized vaginas, that you can ‘hold in’ the blood and that it’s only a couple of tablespoons and that urine and blood come out the same ‘hole’.

It would be really good if the judge was one who had experience of someone close to them with heavy periods, flooding, endometriosis.

That’s what I was hoping the judge was thinking when the man was being asked to describe how to get to the loos this morning.

When the headteacher proudly displayed the upholstered seats he had got for assembly, the female teachers and I raised eyebrows. The cleaners (female) were not pleased, causing them more work. Cleaning up for the bad decision of a man who doesn’t understand until he had to admit defeat and replace the chairs. Reality and biology.

In terms of large buildings and fire evacuations, imagine the difference of firemen having to open each unisex toilet room door off a corridor. I could check the boys and girls block in seconds with doors that fell in the open position and gaps to see shoes. Deaf people are particularly disadvantaged if there’s not a visual alarm in each unisex toilet room (there should be).

edit: apologies two different posts merged into one here. I have been mulling over this case at lunch

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:26

We're back.

J - I understand we haven't received the document.

SC - clerk has given her personal email, will send to her

J - perhaps you can bring up your laptop <NC brings laptop to show J & panel> Inaudible discussion now as no one is near a microphone.

SC - now pointing out

access.

J - question - which of those labels are relevant, we don't need to recall Mr Goodfellow if we could just have confirmation

SC - GL17 is female

J - thank you Mr Goodfellow, you won't be recalled as a witness you are free to observe or to leave

OP posts:
Cailleach1 · 19/03/2026 14:28

‘SC - GL17 is female’

It’s really not if any man can ‘self-identify’ his access to it.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.