Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 20/03/2026 15:48

nobody in 2017 took any thought at all for the real effect on women of a policy generated by activism

<Stands up and cheers>

Well said Naomi!

The excuse 'but Stonewall (lied) and said this was the law, and we didn't check, or think about the sources we were taking advice mindlessly from, and it didn't occur to any of us that we should think about equality for women or care that they were excluded and affected, and we ignored and silenced any women who dared dissent' is an appalling one on all fronts.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 15:49

GloomyWednesday · 20/03/2026 15:40

I'm imagining NC pausing mid submission to nip out to get a Funny Feet lolly

I've not seen a funny feet icelolly for years.

We got a blue (don't want to say bubblegum as it tastes mostly of banana) twin cone with a flake and e-number salad sprinkles and a Mr Bubble tongue stainer ice lolly.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 15:56

This is part 2 of day 5 in the case of LS vs NHSE England: part 1 of this session's tweeting is at x.com/tribunaltweets...

The court is at present taking a short break, and we expect to resume about 3.45pm.

We are restarting.

J: Anything on Debique, NC? NC: I think SC and I are agreed that it doesn't take us forward; group disadvantage in this case has been agreed, so we don't need to go there.

J: So thinking about dates. How about 6th-7th August, Thursday & Friday?

NC & SC agree

J: So we have provisional dates for potential remedy hearing.

J: I think R wanted to submit a witness statement for that?

SC: And I think possibly the C too?

NC: Yes

J: [formalities of docs which might be needed for remedies hearing]

J: Is there anything else either of you want to raise?

NC & SC No

J: Thanks counsel, C, R witnesses. We echo honest, helpful and candid evidence from witnesses, and courteous behaviour of witnesses including those remotely.

J: We will adjourn now, and it will be a reserved judgment. Will aim for ASAP and will keep parties updated on our timings. Thank you everyone.

[END OF HEARING]

threadreaderapp please unroll

Thread by @tribunaltweets on Thread Reader App

@tribunaltweets: This is part 2 of day 5 in the case of LS vs NHSE England: part 1 of this session's tweeting is at The court is at present taking a short break, and we expect...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2035017347543556445.html

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 15:59

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 20/03/2026 15:48

nobody in 2017 took any thought at all for the real effect on women of a policy generated by activism

<Stands up and cheers>

Well said Naomi!

The excuse 'but Stonewall (lied) and said this was the law, and we didn't check, or think about the sources we were taking advice mindlessly from, and it didn't occur to any of us that we should think about equality for women or care that they were excluded and affected, and we ignored and silenced any women who dared dissent' is an appalling one on all fronts.

Edited

Yeah, it's as if those things called 'women' hadn't been invented in 2017 so there was no reason to consider them😒

If the NHSE thought they were doing OK because Stonewall said so, and it now turns out that they were breaking the law, let them sue Stonewall😠

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 16:01

Am I alone in not knowing what/who Debique is?
Unless it's going up before Debique😄

Hedgehogforshort · 20/03/2026 16:06

DeBique is a case about a female soldier from a commonwealth country who was held to have been discriminated against on both grounds of sex and race, because of an MOD PCP requiring to be available at all times despite being a single parent,

It was a bout a combination of two characteristics.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 20/03/2026 16:07

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 15:59

Yeah, it's as if those things called 'women' hadn't been invented in 2017 so there was no reason to consider them😒

If the NHSE thought they were doing OK because Stonewall said so, and it now turns out that they were breaking the law, let them sue Stonewall😠

Edited

It was fantastically sexist and discriminatory, thoughtless and stupid on all fronts.
A bunch of activists turn up and say 'do this' and everyone just goes 'ok'. I can only think it was all so successful because everyone loved and bought into the sexism.

To now claim that the best thing to do is go on ignoring the law until Godot arrives with the whatever document by that point is required to prove that they do have to comply with the law - this involves going on openly ignoring and harming women, and breaching the law.

You would think the smallest amount of brain would identify that if there remains doubt in the mind of the slow on the uptake, the best thing to do is provide ss and third space immediately while awaiting the sufficiently clear version with pictures, very small words and Mr Tumble signing it, in order to avoid culpability on all sides. Which means I am seething at the suggestion that the J should help them get away with this by avoiding finding in Faye's favour, as it would lay so many work places currently breaking the law open to cases by other women defending their actual legal rights.

GOOD, bring on the cases! Wtf is with defending people breaking the law!

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 16:11

Hedgehogforshort · 20/03/2026 16:06

DeBique is a case about a female soldier from a commonwealth country who was held to have been discriminated against on both grounds of sex and race, because of an MOD PCP requiring to be available at all times despite being a single parent,

It was a bout a combination of two characteristics.

Thank you.

KittyWilkinson · 20/03/2026 16:13

Well made point also from Naomi that NHSE as an employer should respect staff beliefs, but this does not mean that they adopt those beliefs.

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 20/03/2026 16:14

PrizedPickledPopcorn · 20/03/2026 15:32

NC is a joy to listen to. So succinct and specific.

Huge thanks to @Jimmyneutronsforehead for the posting, especially given the week she has had. Definitely above and beyond the call.

Great ice-cream too, love the blue Grin

KnottyAuty · 20/03/2026 16:21

Just picking up on a few of the things that SC has said in response to NC's submissions:

SC: Now of course as Miss Hodgskiss acknowledged a women's network would have been involved, but in 2017 there was not one. We must not apply hindsight incorrectly either in terms of attitudes or the law.

To me this seems a straight admission by the Rs that they didn't consider that any balancing was required or carried out. Men want this - women budge up!

SC: Before FWS the R genuinely believed that they had to allow T access to single sex spaces, and they are not alone in that.
SC: There is no doubting the impact of the Supreme Court ruling. We know now how the EA should be read. But tribunal cannot ignore how it was read at the time.

I wasn't aware that ignorance of the law was a reliable defence!?
An harassment is now about the intention - it is how it is received....

SC: NHSE was not only not unique, it was acting the same way as every other public body I know of. Stonewall's involvement in that not unclear. NHSE not acting in isolation.
SC: We can say now that that information is tarnished - but the R did not have that foresight at the time.

So there we have on the record the NHSE understand that "Stonewall Law" was incorrect. Yet 1 year on they have done nothing since to amend their policies. I am sad that NC didn't ask which EDI scheme they were now signed up to in relation to T rights? I bet they signed up to a similarly flawed scheme since April 2025 and we have to ask why?

SC: Legitimate aim of allowing access NC says, meaningless. please recall R evidence esp from PG about restrictions re the estate. Lease clear that NHSE not responsible for the facilties.

More garbage logic - if the NHSE had let premises where there was a problem with the fire escapes or the legionella testing they would just say - OK that is fine, it's not in our lease so we won't bother? No I don't think so

SC: And re harassment. Am not putting forward any argument that C did not suffer the feelings she had, but, we do argue the case on R intent.

Thanks SC - you have admitted that the R's harrassed C. Intent is irrelevant.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 20/03/2026 16:22

Thank you @Jimmyneutronsforehead Wishing you a well earned peaceful weekend. Flowers

moto748e · 20/03/2026 16:25

As you say, Knotty, the very simple and well-known point that ignorance of the law is no defence. SC's rebuttals very weak.

KnottyAuty · 20/03/2026 16:28

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 20/03/2026 16:22

Thank you @Jimmyneutronsforehead Wishing you a well earned peaceful weekend. Flowers

2nd that! thanks!

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 16:30

moto748e · 20/03/2026 16:25

As you say, Knotty, the very simple and well-known point that ignorance of the law is no defence. SC's rebuttals very weak.

Also, I don't believe that nobody knew that women objected to men in their spaces in 2017. They may have dismissed them as rights-hoarding dinosaurs, etc.,but the very vehemence of their response shows that they were aware of women who wanted women's spaces to be women only.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 20/03/2026 16:34

Thank you all for putting up with my delays.

I think Naomi made some excellent points in submissions, it really didn't seem like Simon had anything prepared at all.

Nobody followed the law back then so you can't hold these people accountable is not an excuse but it seems to be all he's got at this point.

Eid Mubarak to Faye and anybody else celebrating.

Thank you to all who have been able to help garden, as well as everybody who has engaged with this thread. We have popped in and out of trending a few times and this will definitely have helped.

If anybody would still like to and can garden, donations can be made by searching for Crowd Justice, Faye Russell-Caldicott and it goes towards legal fees.

This case so far has shown us that the NHSE by their own admission hasn't consulted women, and if your beliefs are at odds with gender ideology they're irreconcilable with the NHS position, and just to wave goodbye to hopes of an actual EQIA. This could be any one of us in any of our jobs experiencing the same thing, simply because we are women. If you choose or have chosen already to donate, you're helping hold one of England's most well known organisations accountable, and sending a message to employers everywhere that we won't just accept policies that put us in danger, that go against our faith, that go against our beliefs and put us at a disadvantage.

OP posts:
Londonmummy66 · 20/03/2026 16:35

Thank you to @Jimmyneutronsforehead for the TT cut and pasting. I hope that you and @FayeRC manage to have an OK weekend after the weeks you have both had.

anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 16:35

Ignorance of the law not being a defence was discussed at length in threads on the Sandie Peggie tribunal, when we had a lawyer commenting. I think I remember it basically being a mitigation when assessing liability. SC is now trying to limit the bill, the comments about opening the floodgates speak to that. But I think there are time limits on bringing ET claims.

Naomi was on fire - especially liked the references to the changes in the Bench books. (guidance to judges, if anyone hasnt come across them before). Although that operate in the R favour - even judges were influenced by Stonewall.

Catching back up - I hold you lot responsible for me raiding the freezer, havent had an ice-cream van around for years.

DrSpartacularsMagnificentOctopus · 20/03/2026 16:36

Thanks again Jimmy Brew Cake

This one has been nice to follow as it feels very straightforward. Naomi's closing was very clear. All fingers crossed for Faye now Flowers

moto748e · 20/03/2026 16:39

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 16:30

Also, I don't believe that nobody knew that women objected to men in their spaces in 2017. They may have dismissed them as rights-hoarding dinosaurs, etc.,but the very vehemence of their response shows that they were aware of women who wanted women's spaces to be women only.

Sure, of course.

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 20/03/2026 16:41

I may be being overly optimistic, but did anyone else have the impression that the judgement could come as early as next week? Given that Sara Morrison is still awaiting the judgement from her November ET, that would be amazing.

Edited for spelling

GreenFritillary · 20/03/2026 16:43

J said August

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 16:45

I'm glad to see Naomi got a 'metaphysical' in again after SC challenging the word hard a couple of days back.

allthingsinmoderation · 20/03/2026 16:45

Look ,we thought the law said something it didn't back in the day (before SC clarified things). We thought gender identity trumped sex and that we "had "to allow males who identify as women access to women's spaces/services. We didn't think we had to consider the impact on women at all or even ask the little womens opinions!
You cant judge us for not following the law because loads of people thought as we did at the time!
It absolutely beggars belief and Naomi Cunningham needs sainting .......

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 20/03/2026 16:46

GreenFritillary · 20/03/2026 16:43

J said August

I thought that was just dates for a potential remedies hearing, assuming the case goes for Faye.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.