Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

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
anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 16:48

A remedies hearing being set for August means they are not looking to run forever. However they are going to very mindful of language, the judge having sidestepped neatly earlier to avoid commenting on Naomi's use of pretence. The judge has been reminded she cant adopt a particular viewpoint - but she does also have to be respectful of those who claim they are women. We dont - and shouldnt - know if she considers them genuine or crazy. It is enough that for discrimination purposes they are legally their sex at birth.

PrettyDamnCosmic · 20/03/2026 16:50

GreenFritillary · 20/03/2026 16:43

J said August

It's August for the remedy hearing when they decide the amount of damages that Faye will get. The R has already conceded most of the claim.

WFTCHTJ · 20/03/2026 16:55

Thanks so much @Jimmyneutronsforehead for all the updates - as I've not been able to follow in real time, any delays for ice cream have been purely hypothetical at this end, although I am now craving a mint cornetto! I'm also loving Naomi's response to the suggestion that it's ok that NHSE had the law wrong because everyone else did too. Hopefully it's as much of a slamdunk as it appears.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 16:58

OdeToTheNorthWestWind · 20/03/2026 16:14

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

I agree (except for the blue….a tub with copped nuts and a flake all the way).

very grateful for you running this thread this week @Jimmyneutronsforehead

CriticalCondition · 20/03/2026 17:00

Thank you @Jimmyneutronsforehead .
This bit stood out for me as I'd read about the 'decommissioning' threats a couple of days ago on another thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5503475-the-usual-suspects-have-another-target

NC: Am grateful to SC for withdrawal of ref to intemperate and emotive language, but do want to comment here. Totalitarian control of language has been a feature of gender ideology, to extent that until recently even in court cd not name reality
that TW are men.
NC: That taboo is in retreat, particularly since FWS, but it's one that is still being quite viciously defended - including in this case. In Sandie Peggie case there were calls for public to prevent J and me speaking as we wished.
NC: The same individual has talked in context of this case of 'decommissioning' me. This is part of the totalitarian attempt to prevent - even in court - the use of plain language.
NC: That viciousness is why I ask this tribunal (and I appreciate again SC withdrawal) to also refrain from criticising language, and tone policing.

I'm glad she put this before the tribunal and into the public domain. This is real and happening right now. To lawyers trying to do their jobs. I bet she told SC about it and he thought better of his criticism of her language.

The Usual Suspects have another target | Mumsnet

A man who goes by the handle latsot on twitter has been called to a police interview for 'malicious communications', and someone pretending to be a Da...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5503475-the-usual-suspects-have-another-target

MarieDeGournay · 20/03/2026 17:05

It would be good if 'somebody' went back and researched what the legal profession as a whole were saying c.2017, not Stonewall-lawyers.

I hate to say it, but I think if the whole legal zeitgeist/environment was saying TWAW, it was not unreasonable for organisations to believe they were obliged to act accordingly.

But if there was also a strong counter-current at the time which said what the Supreme Court later re-stated, the 'Stonewall said it was all right' defence is weakened.

pawsedforthought · 20/03/2026 17:05

CriticalCondition · 20/03/2026 17:00

Thank you @Jimmyneutronsforehead .
This bit stood out for me as I'd read about the 'decommissioning' threats a couple of days ago on another thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5503475-the-usual-suspects-have-another-target

NC: Am grateful to SC for withdrawal of ref to intemperate and emotive language, but do want to comment here. Totalitarian control of language has been a feature of gender ideology, to extent that until recently even in court cd not name reality
that TW are men.
NC: That taboo is in retreat, particularly since FWS, but it's one that is still being quite viciously defended - including in this case. In Sandie Peggie case there were calls for public to prevent J and me speaking as we wished.
NC: The same individual has talked in context of this case of 'decommissioning' me. This is part of the totalitarian attempt to prevent - even in court - the use of plain language.
NC: That viciousness is why I ask this tribunal (and I appreciate again SC withdrawal) to also refrain from criticising language, and tone policing.

I'm glad she put this before the tribunal and into the public domain. This is real and happening right now. To lawyers trying to do their jobs. I bet she told SC about it and he thought better of his criticism of her language.

Another way of phrasing the threats in order to avoid language filters that I came across the other day was "Societal reduction"!

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 17:08

I do wonder what happens behind the scenes, especially at Old Square Chambers with Ben Cooper KC, SC and RMW.

anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 17:18

Naomi's mention in court of changes to the Bench Books probably spelt out to SC that he was not going to get away with trying to control her language.

Keeptoiletssafe · 20/03/2026 17:21

Was Victoria McCloud involved in the benchbook changes?

WingBingo · 20/03/2026 17:24

Thank you for this thread.

I work for NHSE at this location (WP) and I’ve previously raised this issue and I was shut down.

One male member of staff actually compared me to a racist for not wanting males in a female space.

Last week I came across a half naked male leaving a shower cubicle and then take a massive shit in the toilet next door. Hard not to hear it.

All whilst I was doing my hair and make up (commute on a bike) right next to the cubicle. Yep, no female spaces STILL, in WP, if you need a shower. (They are separate cubicles, but still don’t want to be in there)

Not heard back about my concerns but I do wonder if this case may have a bearing on that.

anyolddinosaur · 20/03/2026 17:38

@WingBingo Have you raised it as a formal grievance? If not you could do so now, mentioning that it is discrimination and that has been admitted in this court case. You would only have 3 months and a day to take it to your own tribunal if this one is successful.

@Keeptoiletssafe We are not allowed to know where judges get their training and advice. Questions have been asked and basically the reply is not telling you.

Biscofffan · 20/03/2026 17:45

WingBingo · 20/03/2026 17:24

Thank you for this thread.

I work for NHSE at this location (WP) and I’ve previously raised this issue and I was shut down.

One male member of staff actually compared me to a racist for not wanting males in a female space.

Last week I came across a half naked male leaving a shower cubicle and then take a massive shit in the toilet next door. Hard not to hear it.

All whilst I was doing my hair and make up (commute on a bike) right next to the cubicle. Yep, no female spaces STILL, in WP, if you need a shower. (They are separate cubicles, but still don’t want to be in there)

Not heard back about my concerns but I do wonder if this case may have a bearing on that.

Wow @WingBingo your words really bring home the reality of this kind of situation. Absolutely shocking and utterly disgusting. No woman should have to put up with this.

HosannainExcelSheets · 20/03/2026 17:47

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 17:08

I do wonder what happens behind the scenes, especially at Old Square Chambers with Ben Cooper KC, SC and RMW.

If my experience in one of the legal professions is anything to go by, GC individuals keep their heads down and mouths shut. RMW is regularly invited by my profession's Diversity and Inclusion group to give talks, and it would be career suicide to question the TWAW narrative. Oddly no one cares about TM...

Our inclusivity campaigns rarely champion women any more, and although I think there are a good proportion of people that are GC there's no momentum to speak up or speak out. The recent approval of a very controversial Trans Inclusion policy where I work was all about making TW feel comfortable with their preferences.

WingBingo · 20/03/2026 17:53

I haven’t formerly raised it, @anyolddinosaur but I think I should.

Madcats · 20/03/2026 18:07

Thank you Jimmy and others for enabling me to catch up.

Nick Wallis has been chirruping (or is it X’ing?) so I would urge any NHSE staff to get in touch (asking for anonymity, if need be) to update him on current practice.

Ice cream vans, eh?! I’m unclear where Leeds ETs occur, but I guess it is a metropolitan substitute for Ben’s wren!

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 18:44

Biscofffan · 20/03/2026 17:45

Wow @WingBingo your words really bring home the reality of this kind of situation. Absolutely shocking and utterly disgusting. No woman should have to put up with this.

Absolutely. And evidence (if we were ever in doubt) that there is a culture issue to intimidate women into staying quiet.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 20/03/2026 18:47

HosannainExcelSheets · 20/03/2026 17:47

If my experience in one of the legal professions is anything to go by, GC individuals keep their heads down and mouths shut. RMW is regularly invited by my profession's Diversity and Inclusion group to give talks, and it would be career suicide to question the TWAW narrative. Oddly no one cares about TM...

Our inclusivity campaigns rarely champion women any more, and although I think there are a good proportion of people that are GC there's no momentum to speak up or speak out. The recent approval of a very controversial Trans Inclusion policy where I work was all about making TW feel comfortable with their preferences.

Thanks for the insight. Love that Ben Cooper is Deputy Head of Chambers so hopefully he doesn’t have to keep his head down.

Xiaoxiong · 20/03/2026 18:50

The connection with the EQIAs is hard to understate. The point of having to carry out an impact assessment is that people have biases and blind spots and they need processes and checklists to reveal them. The EQIA was supposed to force people to sit down and really consider all the protected characteristics and how they might be particularly affected negatively, even if a different protected characteristic was possibly being positively helped.

The EQIA process is meant to recognise that protected characteristics a) are not a hierarchy and b) policies to benefit one group may be of detriment to another.

It's also meant to flush out the situations as we see here - the policy is there to improve access. Therefore there can't be any negatives as that goal is just so laudable and good.

The fact that over and over again, the EQIAs are missing or attenuated is a feature, not a bug. Whatever people thought in 2017 about the law, if they had carried out a proper EQIA they should have immediately realised the effect on women.

But when I also think about how many EQIAs were apparently done but then "lost"...there is a distinct possibility that some HR departments DID start doing EQIAs at the time, and downed tools halfway through when the cognitive dissonance of TWAW and what Stonewall/GIRES was telling them got too much and they deleted it, claiming they lost it.

Institutional cowardice.

Conxis · 20/03/2026 18:51

So NHSE have admitted Faye was discriminated against due to their policies not being legal but they didn’t know the policies were wrong until April 2025.
Will the fact they’ve done nothing to address this over the last year now they know they are not legal mean Faye will likely get a larger compensation payout, anyone know?

nocoolnamesleft · 20/03/2026 18:55

Impressed by NC. Very clear. And Eid Mubarak to Faye.

Conxis · 20/03/2026 19:07

oh and Eid Mubarak @FayeRC
Have a lovely time celebrating

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 19:27

WingBingo · 20/03/2026 17:53

I haven’t formerly raised it, @anyolddinosaur but I think I should.

Edited

I know it's easy for us to say that but if you could do so, please will you?

KeepupKardigans · 20/03/2026 19:49

So now we wait and hope for single sex provision per FWS for LS as per her right. No male: ifs, butts or maybes in SSS. What the ideologists don’t seem to appreciate is we’d all get along so much better if sexual boundaries are respected. Women in my experience are kind, thoughtful and caring but threaten our safety and we will fight back tooth and nail unless of course we are silenced and cowed by ideology particularly in the workplace. Recently, instinctively, I have about-turned to face a would be (fortunately not) attacker. It seems that those in authority really don’t get that women outside a known safe space are instinctively on alert and extremely uncomfortable sharing what should their safe and private spaces. The more cases that come before tribunals the better; whether you agree with the sentiments or not at least issues are discussed in the public domain and dissent should/cannot be blithely dismissed as bigotry by ubiquitous HR departments.

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 19:51

@wingbingo - do you know about
seeninhealth.org/

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread