Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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
Jerabilis · 20/03/2026 10:32

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 08:09

Freedom To Speak Up Guardians were mentioned during the hearing. Superficially that sounds like something anyone in Faye's position should involve very early on but I don't remember that being so unless I missed it.

Various reasons for not using that service occur to me, from Faye (and others) not knowing it exists to it being a tool management use to entrap the gullible, with many options in between.

Has anyone here used it, what happened, was it a useful thing to have available to you, is there any point in it?

I also work for NHSE and tried raising my concerns through freedom to speak up a few months after the supreme court judgement. It was absolutely useless. They just kept suggesting that the policy was under review and that was sufficient.

oldtiredcyclist · 20/03/2026 10:35

I am still absolutely stunned by this, that certain people and organisations, are making up what they wish the law to be, their interpretation of the law, instead of the law set out by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, serving as the final court of appeal for civil cases throughout the United Kingdom and criminal cases in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Established in 2009, it replaced the judicial functions of the House of Lords.
Binding Authority: Its decisions are binding on all other courts in the UK.

In my humble opinion (IANAL), any judge who comes to a verdict, which is based on going against the Supreme Court ruling, should be permanently struck off and the verdict declared null and void.
Any organisation which has internal policies, which contravene the decision of the Supreme Court ruling and uses those policies to bully and coerce staff, should be prosecuted.

IfalldownbutIgetupagain · 20/03/2026 10:48

I used the gym in Quarry House ( yes the Kremlin) in 1990’s when I worked at one of the Leeds hospitals. From what I remember it was the whole ground floor of the building, so are they saying Faye should have gone down to a cellar below this, effectively very cut off from the offices, to use facilities? That sounds unsafe, particularly if anyone using the gym ( any Leeds nhs employee at that time) could have made their way down there.

I still remember having to go to physio along a basement corridor in St James’ hospital and being absolutely petrified as a young woman pretty much alone down there.

anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 10:49

For anyone in NHS England who has not yet done so instructions on how to make contact are here. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/freedom-to-speak-up/how-to-speak-up-to-us-about-other-nhs-organisations/#can-I-speak-up-anonymously

It would be a good day to send an email saying why you hate their policy on this and why you dont feel able to speak up publicly. Maybe we could find Faye's solicitor's email to send them a copy.

NHS England » Speaking up to NHS England

NHS England » Speaking up to NHS England

https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/freedom-to-speak-up/how-to-speak-up-to-us-about-other-nhs-organisations#can-I-speak-up-anonymously

MyAmpleSheep · 20/03/2026 11:05

NHS England is being abolished and its functions taken over by the DHSC. I’m not sure what that will mean for who is responsible for its policies. Probably the same Jeanettes, autrement coiffées, but the fancy programmes will disappear and be replaced by differently named and equally fancy but ineffective fancy programmes.

anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 11:07

NHS England has not fully gone yet and they said HR was going to be the last part to go. So still time to register a complaint.

FranticFrankie · 20/03/2026 11:28

Carrelli · 20/03/2026 09:57

This part is so fascinating and such a clear example of the way that people prioritise threats from men when risk assessing.

He’s talking about a historic decision he made to prioritise the risk of facing a male complainant over female complainants. Innately he is more worried about the male complainant so prioritises them, even tho he has no examples of them complaining.

I’ve seen this so often in promotion discussions. It’s infuriating.

Although it’s historic, it’s also present. he says that he is still in the same state of mind today, his main worry is the male complaint. Even when he’s sat in a tribunal because of a female complainant, being cross examined by a female barrister, in front of a female judge, the phantom male complaint is more important. It’s so depressing.

Illustrates who has the power here, it's the poor marginalised, most-vulnerable- members-of-society, downtrodden victims of a literal genocide

🐂💩

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 11:28

MyAmpleSheep · 20/03/2026 11:05

NHS England is being abolished and its functions taken over by the DHSC. I’m not sure what that will mean for who is responsible for its policies. Probably the same Jeanettes, autrement coiffées, but the fancy programmes will disappear and be replaced by differently named and equally fancy but ineffective fancy programmes.

Total derail, sorry but..
is 'Jeanettes, autrement coiffées' a thing? I don't recognise it, but it sounds like another version of bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet

[French for 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' - that's what makes translating between two languages such fun, finding the equivalent as opposed to the literal translationSmile]

Of course I agree with your serious points too, Ample, but I'm very easily distracted by languageGrin

PrettyDamnCosmic · 20/03/2026 11:34

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 11:28

Total derail, sorry but..
is 'Jeanettes, autrement coiffées' a thing? I don't recognise it, but it sounds like another version of bonnet blanc, blanc bonnet

[French for 'six of one and half a dozen of the other' - that's what makes translating between two languages such fun, finding the equivalent as opposed to the literal translationSmile]

Of course I agree with your serious points too, Ample, but I'm very easily distracted by languageGrin

The phrase is usually la même Jeannette autrement coiffée.

DavefromtheShed · 20/03/2026 11:39

certain people and organisations, are making up what they wish the law to be, their interpretation of the law, instead of the law CONFIRMED by the Supreme Court.
Some are trying to do this because of ideology, but most? are just trying to make their own jobs easier. The perennial idea that working for the government must be made ever easier.
Lazy Bastards!

MyAmpleSheep · 20/03/2026 11:42

PrettyDamnCosmic · 20/03/2026 11:34

The phrase is usually la même Jeannette autrement coiffée.

Yes. I left the même in English, and changed the Jeannette (which I misspelled in error) to plural, as there are many Jeannettes responsible for policies and not just one. In my head I translate the phrase as “it’s the same Jane with a different hair-do”.

It usually refers to ideas and things, not people, which is why it amused me to apply it to a group of individuals some of whom might actually be called Janet.

KittyWilkinson · 20/03/2026 11:44

Quarry House sounds like something from Slow Horses. I'm imagining that's where they make the decision to send the difficult people to Slough House.

Keeptoiletssafe · 20/03/2026 11:51

Unisex toilets in the basement and the don’t look at the person next to you talk, reminds me of this picture. The different ways women and men subconsciously ‘look’ where they are going. It’s important in the cubicle or changing room too. Women are very much scanning their immediate vicinity all the time. You can scientifically prove men and women see the world differently.

Tribunal discussion thread supporting FayeRC in case against NHS England starting 16/03/26
ProfNebulousDeadline · 20/03/2026 11:53

KittyWilkinson · 20/03/2026 11:44

Quarry House sounds like something from Slow Horses. I'm imagining that's where they make the decision to send the difficult people to Slough House.

There used to be a civil service pub/social club in Quarry House, would have sweetened the deal if still there.

ProfDrLapwing · 20/03/2026 11:58

Keeptoiletssafe · 20/03/2026 11:51

Unisex toilets in the basement and the don’t look at the person next to you talk, reminds me of this picture. The different ways women and men subconsciously ‘look’ where they are going. It’s important in the cubicle or changing room too. Women are very much scanning their immediate vicinity all the time. You can scientifically prove men and women see the world differently.

Wow. That’s quite eye opening, literally. It’s men’s experience of life vs women’s in a nutshell.

ProfPerformativeBewildermentOBE · 20/03/2026 12:06

MyAmpleSheep · 20/03/2026 11:42

Yes. I left the même in English, and changed the Jeannette (which I misspelled in error) to plural, as there are many Jeannettes responsible for policies and not just one. In my head I translate the phrase as “it’s the same Jane with a different hair-do”.

It usually refers to ideas and things, not people, which is why it amused me to apply it to a group of individuals some of whom might actually be called Janet.

Edited

Love this derail

I read it as a French equivalent of ‘same problems, different office’ or as a serial job-hopping career-ladder-climbing friend says, ‘same shit, different wallpaper’

AssignedTERFatbirth · 20/03/2026 12:33

anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 10:49

For anyone in NHS England who has not yet done so instructions on how to make contact are here. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/freedom-to-speak-up/how-to-speak-up-to-us-about-other-nhs-organisations/#can-I-speak-up-anonymously

It would be a good day to send an email saying why you hate their policy on this and why you dont feel able to speak up publicly. Maybe we could find Faye's solicitor's email to send them a copy.

https://didlaw.com/who

From Crowd Justice these are the lawyers acting….

The Team | didlaw

View the team of specialist employment & discrimination lawyers here at didlaw. Our team includes recognised leaders in the field.

https://didlaw.com/who

AssignedTERFatbirth · 20/03/2026 12:35

Faye had previously posted…..

pleased to announce that I'll be represented by solicitor Elizabeth McGlone from didlaw and Naomi Cunningham, barrister from Outer Temple

IfalldownbutIgetupagain · 20/03/2026 12:51

ProfNebulousDeadline · 20/03/2026 11:53

There used to be a civil service pub/social club in Quarry House, would have sweetened the deal if still there.

I remember the bar in the gym area, we spent more time in there than the gym itself. My purse was stolen in there and I remember being furious that they still charged me £20 for a new membership card.

eta sorry I didn’t mean to derail with a trip down memory lane

InconvenientlyMaterial · 20/03/2026 13:05

Keeptoiletssafe · 20/03/2026 11:51

Unisex toilets in the basement and the don’t look at the person next to you talk, reminds me of this picture. The different ways women and men subconsciously ‘look’ where they are going. It’s important in the cubicle or changing room too. Women are very much scanning their immediate vicinity all the time. You can scientifically prove men and women see the world differently.

Such a good point (and fascinating link).

Looking is a survival instinct for women.

ickky · 20/03/2026 13:16

spannasaurus · 19/03/2026 18:02

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

Is NC saying here that she thinks the reason for NHSE wanting a tribunal rather than settling or changing policy is so they can say they were forced by the tribunal to prevent men from using female facilities.

Yes, NC said the same on one of the previous cases, I can't remember which one, there have been so many.

The organisation doesn't want to or can't bring themselves to implement the SC ruling, so waits until the courts force them. They can then do their hand wringing, so sad, we had no choice statement like the WI statement.

As NC said COWARDLY FUCKERS or words to that effect.

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 13:18

ProfPerformativeBewildermentOBE · 20/03/2026 12:06

Love this derail

I read it as a French equivalent of ‘same problems, different office’ or as a serial job-hopping career-ladder-climbing friend says, ‘same shit, different wallpaper’

I'm glad my derail was OK. I'm a bit of look-a-squirrel when something in a post catches my eye, but I am careful to restrain that instinct if the topic is very serious, I wouldn't want to appear flippant.

I lived in France/spent lots of holidays there and never hear the 'Jeanette' saying - lovely to know that there's still so much to learn, and every day a school day (a nice one) on here!

Merci, Mouton😄

Xiaoxiong · 20/03/2026 13:19

his main worry is the male complaint. Even when he’s sat in a tribunal because of a female complainant, being cross examined by a female barrister, in front of a female judge, the phantom male complaint is more important.

This is what amazes me about these tribunals. In many of them the HR people have stood up and earnestly told us all that they made these policy decisions to avoid discrimination and remove barriers etc. They seem to have no self-awareness of the fact that they are saying these things while sitting in a tribunal for having caused just that...to the women they never consulted or considered.

The lack of the equality impact assessment is pervasive through all these cases as well. Never considered women might be impacted. Never consulted women's groups or networks. I do wonder how much the fact that HR departments are often majority women plays into this - well, we're mostly women here so we're our own focus group.

The influence of TWAW is also clear. If you do an impact assessment while only consulting or considering TW, then you are considering the impact on women right? Well, only if you believe TWAW...

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 13:19

DavefromtheShed · 20/03/2026 11:39

certain people and organisations, are making up what they wish the law to be, their interpretation of the law, instead of the law CONFIRMED by the Supreme Court.
Some are trying to do this because of ideology, but most? are just trying to make their own jobs easier. The perennial idea that working for the government must be made ever easier.
Lazy Bastards!

I think they are holding off in the hope that they will get thrown a rope attached to a massive rescue dinghy so that they don’t have to do anything to update their policies. I think it’s for ideological reasons for some, fear from others and yes of course laziness from men like the Leonardo guy, the two HR blokes from Darlington and this guy from NHSE

Impossiblenurse · 20/03/2026 13:21

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 08:09

Freedom To Speak Up Guardians were mentioned during the hearing. Superficially that sounds like something anyone in Faye's position should involve very early on but I don't remember that being so unless I missed it.

Various reasons for not using that service occur to me, from Faye (and others) not knowing it exists to it being a tool management use to entrap the gullible, with many options in between.

Has anyone here used it, what happened, was it a useful thing to have available to you, is there any point in it?

I did.. we had a brief email exhange. After FWs ruling. I asked for review of materials on our intranet, specifically as it related to gender and my concern about Trust misinformation and allowing men to access to SS spaces for women. I also explained I was a Trust employee using an anonymous email address because I feared retribution. FTSU Guardian asked me what did I want her to do, and she wished me luck with my "campaign". It just felt so futile...but at least she can't say she didn't know...

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.