Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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 14:29

J- we are continuing with evidence of PM NC - a q about maternity leave, if C is on leave she's still an employee, may come in, can access the facility

PM - yes

NC - and if she returns to work next week, she will still be subject to the same issues and access

NC - an answer given to another trans employee is an example of a trans person is given a choice of which facilities to access

PM - this is an example of us attempting to accommodate and support an individual at work

NC - as with TiM, if the only facilities available to her

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:31

It seems X may be having some issues again, I'm getting a cannot retrieve posts at this time error message. I shall persist and see if it gets any better but may be delays

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:33

were the individual unisex and also the womens....contrast with C who can only use the individual disabled fac, and therefore may be required to wait

J - that would be correct

NC - referring to a letter that says SC decision is applicable immediately, and is clear and no need to

wait for EHRC guidance, she's right in that isn't she?

PM - the SC ruling is clear, I am still not secure in the court ruling could not result in a claim through the EA which is what we would be seeking to avoid.

NC - you say in statement that understanding of day to day impact

being missing, and difficulties in policing access to facilities and knowing who is trans and who isn't

PM - you mean para 26

NC - yes, thank you, you say you can't enforce a rule, but practical difficulties don't mean you can't have a rule PM - agreed

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:34

PM -" the SC ruling is clear, I am still not secure in the court ruling could not result in a claim through the EA which is what we would be seeking to avoid"

The SC ruling was clear about the sorts of conditions a claim could be brought under, wasn't it?

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:36

PC only seems bothered about potential " claims" from trans identified men, not claims from women.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 19/03/2026 14:37

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:34

PM -" the SC ruling is clear, I am still not secure in the court ruling could not result in a claim through the EA which is what we would be seeking to avoid"

The SC ruling was clear about the sorts of conditions a claim could be brought under, wasn't it?

Notable that he had zero fucks to give though about the prospect of a pesky woman making claims.

I think he’s either stupid or a liar.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:38

NC - refers to speeding as a rule

PM - yes, but it's easy to measure speeding NC - so if you make a rule that says use facilities of bio sex, most people would follow the rule

PM - but we might get a claim NC - leave that aside, as a general statement

PM - yes, but there are practicalities NC - and if someone breaks the rule, you could speak to him or her, or disciplinary process

PM - yes

NC - so if a TW can pass convincingly as a woman, they are unlikely to be caught PM - Yes

NC - so if there is a rule, and someone breaks it

you won't always catch them but that doesn't mean you can't have a rule. PM - I would agree with the end of that question

NC - you draw a parallel with 2 people wanting a prayer room, one of them must give way, it's a bad analogy because both of them have a right to the space

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:39

SternJoyousBeev2 · 19/03/2026 14:37

Notable that he had zero fucks to give though about the prospect of a pesky woman making claims.

I think he’s either stupid or a liar.

He's most certainly disingenuous.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 19/03/2026 14:39

“But….but….but”.

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 14:40

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:34

PM -" the SC ruling is clear, I am still not secure in the court ruling could not result in a claim through the EA which is what we would be seeking to avoid"

The SC ruling was clear about the sorts of conditions a claim could be brought under, wasn't it?

OFFS.

The SC judgement clarifies the EA, it doesn't contradict it. There is no conflict.

The only conflict is between Stonewall et al.'s nefarious interpretation of the EA and the actual EA as clarified by the SC.

How can people not understand this?!

ETA: this was directed at your italicised quote, not your commentary!

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:40

Naomi pins him down and he has to admit that 'balancing' rights did not extend to women...who had their facilities removed without question. He agrees this is "bad".

AssignedTERFatbirth · 19/03/2026 14:41

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 14:40

OFFS.

The SC judgement clarifies the EA, it doesn't contradict it. There is no conflict.

The only conflict is between Stonewall et al.'s nefarious interpretation of the EA and the actual EA as clarified by the SC.

How can people not understand this?!

ETA: this was directed at your italicised quote, not your commentary!

Edited

Cognitive dissonance- they literally can’t handle the truth or indeed the law.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:41

PM - yes, it's not a great example, it shows our attempts to balance

NC - the reason it's a bad example is because the workplace regs require SS toilets in the workplace and you've taken away SS toilets from all of your female employees to accommodate TiMs. PM - I agree bad

example, not sure for same reasons.

NC - lets walk through one step at a time: workplace regs require SS toilets

PM - yes

NC - admitting men makes them not SS or women have reason to fear they are not SS PM - yes

NC - therefore done to affirm handful of TiMs

PM - we did to try and accommodate a small number of employees,

NC - your defense of this claim is actually an exercise in blame shifting isn't it? You want to say it is the fault of the Tribunal,

PM - I disagree

NC - it's a cowardly way to proceed, there is something worse

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:42

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 14:40

OFFS.

The SC judgement clarifies the EA, it doesn't contradict it. There is no conflict.

The only conflict is between Stonewall et al.'s nefarious interpretation of the EA and the actual EA as clarified by the SC.

How can people not understand this?!

ETA: this was directed at your italicised quote, not your commentary!

Edited

Because they've only been listening to the aggrieved noise about the ruling on social media, rather than reading the ruling for themselves.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 19/03/2026 14:43

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 14:40

OFFS.

The SC judgement clarifies the EA, it doesn't contradict it. There is no conflict.

The only conflict is between Stonewall et al.'s nefarious interpretation of the EA and the actual EA as clarified by the SC.

How can people not understand this?!

ETA: this was directed at your italicised quote, not your commentary!

Edited

Like I said, he’s either stupid or a liar. I am coming down on the side of liar. He KNOWS that his life would be made a living hell if he tried to enforce SSS. A few women complaining and the odd tribunal is just white noise in comparison to the actions of TRAs.

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:44

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:40

Naomi pins him down and he has to admit that 'balancing' rights did not extend to women...who had their facilities removed without question. He agrees this is "bad".

Retraction: He says his was a "bad example......" He's very slippery and always trying to cover his arse.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:44

about it that blaming the Tribunal, it's also shifting blame to the C, weeping through her evidence, describing her trauma and fear, it's saying 'look what she made us do' PM - I completely reject that assertion, I have sympathy and respect for C, NC - I have no more qs.

OP posts:
Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:46

PM -" we did to try and accommodate a small number of employees,
NC - your defense of this claim is actually an exercise in blame shifting isn't it? You want to say it is the fault of the Tribunal
PM - I disagree
NC - it's a cowardly way to proceed, there is something worse"

Shortshriftandlethal · 19/03/2026 14:46

NC.".....about it that blaming the Tribunal, it's also shifting blame to the C, weeping through her evidence, describing her trauma and fear, it's saying 'look what she made us do
' PM - I completely reject that assertion, I have sympathy and respect for C,
NC - I have no more qs"

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:46

J - C - do you need a break?

NC/C - no

J - Ms Hodkiss was asked about ability to raise anonymous feedback, I think from memory, she talked about a system on the intranet for anonymous feedback, is it still there

PM - there is a mechanism on our intranet (portal) and that I'm

assuming can be anonymous. We also have 'freedom to speak up' and its outwith NHSE and its for the guardian to then advocate for the person and their issue. J - as far as you're concerned, ability to give feedback on portal is still in place

PM - I couldn't say for certain,

J - are you aware of anything having changed

PM - no reason for anything to have changed

J - I don't have anything else but my colleagues may?

Ps - <indicates negative>

J - re-exam?

SC - no

OP posts:
moto748e · 19/03/2026 14:47

If I was one of these NHS managers who was going to be called up in front of a tribunal, I think I'd make damn sure I had a good understanding of the other recent tribunals and court cases, and, indeed, legislation, regardless of my personal views. And yet they rock up and make out like they don't know shit.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:49

J - so some housekeeping, it is Eid tomorrow, we will not be hearing submissions before 11 am.

NC - C will make her observations the

following day, SC and I have already discussed timetabling. We will exchange written submissions at 12 and send to tribunal, then appear

for brief oral submissions at 2 pm. SC - we can't be very long in oral

submissions

J - I hope you will stick to that....

SC - yes

<J & Ps discussing>

J - we'd like to be finished by 4 pm, can you limit oral submissions to 45 minutes, that gives us a bit of flexibility

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:52

SC - we will send or provide hard copies to the Tribunal, someone will walk them around

J - that would be most helpful, we are very short staffed because of the holiday, SC - will email and deliver hard copy. One thing - I'm proceeding on the basis you're

dealing with


X being slow again, bare with me

OP posts:
DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 19/03/2026 14:54

moto748e · 19/03/2026 14:47

If I was one of these NHS managers who was going to be called up in front of a tribunal, I think I'd make damn sure I had a good understanding of the other recent tribunals and court cases, and, indeed, legislation, regardless of my personal views. And yet they rock up and make out like they don't know shit.

Anyone working in HR or HR adjacent or undertaking any HR related function like grievances, disciplinaries, etc. bloody well should be keeping up to date with tribunal outcomes and law changes/clarifications, employment and equality law guidance and whatnot.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 19/03/2026 14:54

liability only.

J - yes, given the time for deliberations, I think we're likely to reserve judgments, would counsel be able to attend remotely? SC/NC - (agreed)

J - discussing remote arrangements further,

SC - if you were minded to make any recommendations on policy changes

we'd probably need to provide evidence. J - should we pencil in dates for a potential remedy hearing? Bring your diaries tomorrow, I'm not saying we've made a decision, just it's difficult to organise dates via email, we may need 2 days?

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.