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
thirdfiddle · 21/03/2026 10:22

Overall impression: tribunal was conducted in an organized and respectful manner and refreshingly efficient. Maybe that's what happens when half the case is conceded in advance. I think I need to go over the summaries again to understand what exactly was conceded and what was still contested.

Bunpea · 21/03/2026 10:48

thirdfiddle · 21/03/2026 10:22

Overall impression: tribunal was conducted in an organized and respectful manner and refreshingly efficient. Maybe that's what happens when half the case is conceded in advance. I think I need to go over the summaries again to understand what exactly was conceded and what was still contested.

Hi, it would be great if you could share your summary of what was conceded, and what was still argued, if you have time.

I was only able to dip in and out, so summary of that would be really good. Thank you in advance.

RovingPublicEnquiry · 21/03/2026 11:06

Just wanted to say a big thank you to @Jimmyneutronsforehead for running this thread and to the others for taking over copying the TTs at times. I've planted some seeds. Fingers and toes crossed for you @FayeRC!

MyAmpleSheep · 21/03/2026 11:10

KnottyAuty · 21/03/2026 09:02

It beggars belief!

But there was a witness that seemed to peak on the stand? Was the woman HR bod who realised during questioning tgat she was asking women to be OK with naked males in the open plan showers… It’s going to be very slow but there will be more and more HR people realising what they’ve been doing to others in the name of “inclusion”. I was relieved to see that the witness realised and admitted it… which makes space for others to do the same 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻

She has already submitted herself for reprogramming; the cognitive dissonance of being on both sides of history at the same time was too much to bear.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 21/03/2026 11:46

Yes I am sure her re-education is already underway.

StellaAndCrow · 21/03/2026 12:01

I've just seen that the GMC is having a consultation on personal beliefs.

Doctors GMC personal beliefs consultation - BMJ article
GMC guidance: https://www.gmc-uk.org/.../personal-beliefs-and-medical...
GMC public consultation open until June 11th:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/.../personal-beliefs-and-medical...
GMC: Doctors to get new rules on their personal beliefs and work

The GMC has NOT widely publicised this - doctors usually get an email about GMC consultations - they haven't about his one.

I wonder if this should be a separate thread?

GloomyWednesday · 21/03/2026 12:01

I'm a bit skint but managed to plant some seeds for the very brave @FayeRC 💐

I take this piss out of MN in general but the powerhouse that is the FWR board and the actual tangible achievements from women (and the Brighton SS school dad!) that have occurred are bloody amazing.

StellaAndCrow · 21/03/2026 12:01

Doctors GMC personal beliefs consultation - BMJ article
GMC guidance: https://www.gmc-uk.org/.../personal-beliefs-and-medical...
GMC public consultation open until June 11th:
https://www.gmc-uk.org/.../personal-beliefs-and-medical...
GMC: Doctors to get new rules on their personal beliefs and work
Adrian O’Dowd
Rules regarding ways doctors must keep their personal beliefs in check when treating patients are being updated by the General Medical Council.
The regulator has launched a consultation1 on proposed changes to its personal beliefs and medical practice guidance,2 which was last fully updated in 2013.
The GMC said it was updating the guidance to reflect legal, social, and cultural changes. Examples include the government’s recently published guidance on defining “anti-Muslim hostility”3 and debates over assisted dying legislation.
The regulator said it wanted to allow doctors to practise in line with their beliefs and values, while respecting patients’ own beliefs and “maintaining good and safe care.”
It follows cases such as that of Kent GP Richard Scott, who was given a formal warning by a medical practitioners tribunal in 2023 after telling a vulnerable young patient seeking mental health treatment that he needed to reconnect with God.4
The GMC clarified that the guidance does not relate to beliefs expressed outside of work.
The proposed changes will apply to all doctors, physician associates, and anaesthesia associates working in the UK.
It has been updated to ensure it is consistent with the law and aligned with other relevant professional standards, such as the GMC’s Good Medical Practice.5
GMC chief executive Charlie Massey said, “Personal beliefs and values—which might be religious, moral, or philosophical—can be central to the lives of registrants as well as to their patients.
“It is important our guidance remains up-to-date, relevant, and applicable across UK healthcare, and helps create workplaces that are respectful, fair, supportive, and compassionate.”
A new aspect of the draft guidance is its focus on core principles, so it is applicable across a wide range of circumstances and operational environments. One example is a core duty to be open about how personal beliefs might affect professionals’ practice, which previously fell under the “conscientious objection” section of the guidance.
The GMC said it has sought to make the guidance easier for professionals to navigate. This includes moving all content relating to children and young people into a single section.
It added that it has also updated the tone of the guidance to give a clearer acknowledgment that a wide variety of belief systems coexist.
The guidance explains that personal beliefs can cover religious, moral, or ethical concerns that might influence the way doctors practise, such as a conscientious objection to providing some treatments or procedures.
If doctors have such an objection, the revised guidance now explicitly says “the patient must be prioritised,” and that such an objection must not prevent someone being able to access the care or service they need.
The GMC said the new guidance has an increased focus on talking to patients to understand what is important to them, which could include their beliefs and how those might shape their preferences and priorities about their care.
An unchanged element from existing guidance is that when a patient refuses a procedure or treatment because of their beliefs, doctors must respect that decision, even if they disagree.
Another unchanged aspect is that if a patient requests care, treatment, or a procedure that is not for medical reasons but relates to religious beliefs or cultural practices—such as male circumcision—doctors should ensure they have appropriate consent and possess the knowledge and skills to provide it safely.
The draft guidance also reasserts the position that doctors should never impose their personal beliefs on patients in the workplace. The existing guidance states that a doctor is only allowed to talk to a patient about their own beliefs “if a patient asks you directly about them, or indicates they would welcome such a discussion.” The new draft guidance has removed the wording on patients indicating they would welcome a discussion, however, because the GMC said its research had found this was not always clear.
The draft guidance also updates the section on how doctors can talk to their employers about how their beliefs might influence their practice, as well as workplace interactions with colleagues.
One change explicitly states that doctors must “treat colleagues with kindness, courtesy, and respect.” Another new addition is to state that doctors must not treat their “colleagues poorly based on any assumptions you have about their beliefs or because you disagree with their views or beliefs.”
The consultation runs until 11 June, with a final version to be published early next year.

DameProfessorIDareSay · 21/03/2026 12:05

It is open to patients as well as health professionals:

It’s vital that our Personal beliefs and medical practice guidance reflects the needs and experiences of everyone it affects. We want to hear from patients and those who support them, doctors, PAs, AAs, a wide range of healthcare professionals, and healthcare organisations.

thirdfiddle · 21/03/2026 12:41

Bunpea · 21/03/2026 10:48

Hi, it would be great if you could share your summary of what was conceded, and what was still argued, if you have time.

I was only able to dip in and out, so summary of that would be really good. Thank you in advance.

Claim as originally brought (quoting from the crowd funder)

  • Indirect discrimination relating to sex (woman)
  • Indirect discrimination relating to religion (Islam)
  • Indirect discrimination relating to disability (PTSD)
  • Harassment relating to sex
  • Harassment relating to philosophical belief (gender critical)
Points conceded (paraphrasing from the crowd funder)
  • substantial disadvantage to women,
  • substantial disadvantage to Muslim women,
  • substantial disadvantage to women with PTSD
Not conceded based on the 'correction' posted to the crowdfunder on 14th march
  • disadvantage to muslims in general not just muslim women (is this important? I don't know why either side is bothered about the distinction between muslims and muslim women here, unless it's with an eye on limiting other potential claims?)
  • individual disadvantage (my understanding: the disadvantage was there in principle but was the claimant personally affected?)
  • proportionality (my understanding: can the indirect discrimination be justified as being proportionate to meet a legitimate aim?)
  • the two harassment claims (as listed above)

I'm not very sure whether individual disadvantage was conceded on some of the points though.

This interaction from NC's summing up suggests maybe it was?
J: Miss Cunningham, in your subs you say R has conceded both group and individual disadvantage but I am not sure that SC agrees, re Muslims / Muslim women?
SC: We have agreed re Muslim women, but felt 're Muslims' in general was too broad.

Very grateful for any corrections from legal bods, or indeed anyone who's followed better than me.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/03/2026 13:09

Rightsraptor · 20/03/2026 22:11

In Faye's ET it was revealed that women were expected to make blokes feel 'welcome' in women's spaces. Be welcoming to a naked man in the female showers? I don't think so. These people have no idea what they're talking about.

One of my early peaking incidents (2015ish) was a guy in the US army saying women weren’t supposed to shower with a towel round them when trans identified males were present because it was “othering”.

thirdfiddle · 21/03/2026 13:24

One of my early peaking incidents (2015ish) was a guy in the US army saying women weren’t supposed to shower with a towel round them when trans identified males were present because it was “othering”.

I'm not sure how one showers with a towel around them - doesn't it fall off when you lift your arms to wash your hair? - but that's fricking grim. And in the military where they presumably don't have any choice to say no thanks then, I'll shower when I get home.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 21/03/2026 13:40

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/03/2026 13:09

One of my early peaking incidents (2015ish) was a guy in the US army saying women weren’t supposed to shower with a towel round them when trans identified males were present because it was “othering”.

The women civil servants who were formally schooled in not turning round and walking out on finding a man in a dress in the women's toilets at work was one of my peaking moments.

The CPS "school guidelines" attempting to coerce girls into welcoming males into their changing rooms and toilets alerted me to how important targeting the young is for these intimidating men.

borntobequiet · 21/03/2026 13:48

So a male doctor who believes he is a female doctor - and any other staff that believe him - can’t require patients to subscribe to his/their beliefs? Where does that leave him/them if the patient has been deliberately misled via pronouns or presentation?

The whole thing looks like an enormous can of worms, given the captured nature of the NHS.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 21/03/2026 14:44

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/03/2026 13:09

One of my early peaking incidents (2015ish) was a guy in the US army saying women weren’t supposed to shower with a towel round them when trans identified males were present because it was “othering”.

Quite. Women, undress and present your body to this man and sacrifice every last vestige of your dignity and autonomy to perform how much you respect his ego and will obediently and submissively enable what he ordains is reality. Trying to hold on to anything for yourself, witholding your nakedness from him, is committing some perceived sin that he might not feel fully validated in whatever (he says) might be happening between his ears.

Oh fuck that sideways, seriously. That man has a very serious problem, and forcing unhappy, humiliated women to strip for him isn't the cure.

And yet there are men lining up gleefully to make sure women know men still own them and even their minds and what they are supposed to perceive and say. Worse, many of those awful men will claim to be 'feminists'.

That is not the word for it.

Keeptoiletssafe · 21/03/2026 15:52

There have been many cases where male doctors have set up hidden cameras in toilets, either that staff and/or patients use. Not just in this country either. Obviously this is a less risky voyeurism method and you capture more women but it is incredibly risky to your career and reputation if you get caught. It’s a thing with male teachers too. I don’t understand what the motivation is. Hidden cameras appear to be, I don’t know how else to put this, a more ‘white collar’ type of sexual offence. Bit like the Scottish MP (allegedly) though that appears to have been looking at men in the chamber inside Holyrood. It seems to be they target people they interact with rather than a random peeping tom who is physically trying to see something. I can’t understand why so many doctors (male, it’s always male) do this when they must see biological processes and parts all the time.

Bunpea · 21/03/2026 19:13

thirdfiddle · 21/03/2026 12:41

Claim as originally brought (quoting from the crowd funder)

  • Indirect discrimination relating to sex (woman)
  • Indirect discrimination relating to religion (Islam)
  • Indirect discrimination relating to disability (PTSD)
  • Harassment relating to sex
  • Harassment relating to philosophical belief (gender critical)
Points conceded (paraphrasing from the crowd funder)
  • substantial disadvantage to women,
  • substantial disadvantage to Muslim women,
  • substantial disadvantage to women with PTSD
Not conceded based on the 'correction' posted to the crowdfunder on 14th march
  • disadvantage to muslims in general not just muslim women (is this important? I don't know why either side is bothered about the distinction between muslims and muslim women here, unless it's with an eye on limiting other potential claims?)
  • individual disadvantage (my understanding: the disadvantage was there in principle but was the claimant personally affected?)
  • proportionality (my understanding: can the indirect discrimination be justified as being proportionate to meet a legitimate aim?)
  • the two harassment claims (as listed above)

I'm not very sure whether individual disadvantage was conceded on some of the points though.

This interaction from NC's summing up suggests maybe it was?
J: Miss Cunningham, in your subs you say R has conceded both group and individual disadvantage but I am not sure that SC agrees, re Muslims / Muslim women?
SC: We have agreed re Muslim women, but felt 're Muslims' in general was too broad.

Very grateful for any corrections from legal bods, or indeed anyone who's followed better than me.

Thank you so much. This is a big help for me in understanding what’s gone on.

Hope the claimant gets satisfaction on the outstanding points.

thanks again.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 21/03/2026 19:20

32450 little flower seeds have been sown. 🌼🏵🌸🌹

There is less than 11 days left to garden, with a target of 70000 seeds.

If you have followed the tribunal or are just catching up, and you both can and would like to support @FayeRC with her legal fees this is the perfect time to do so.

The tribunal hearing has concluded, oral submissions have finished and we are awaiting a verdict. All transcripts can be found on the TT substack, or if you'd prefer a third hand account with commentary from us lovely lot you can find the entire tribunal on this one thread.

FayeRC has been represented by Naomi Cunninham in court, and supported by a lovely team at didlaw. It is evident from the hearing that they all ate their breakfast before they came to work for this case and they've really put forward their best case that could not only benefit FayeRC, but many other female NHSE employees too.

If your family is like mine, you will have someone female within your family that works in the NHS. I don't know many families at all where this isn't the case. Perhaps it was our grans or our great aunts or our mums or our sisters or perhaps it's even you.

All of those women deserve respect, dignity and safety in the workplace without the risk of having to go through a disciplinary process, or have their concerns dismissed for months or years and blamed on policy.

Let's hold the NHSE accountable and turn them from an organisation that claimed they didn't know they were breaking the law because every other organisation was doing the same thing and into an organisation that says we do the right thing so other organisations will follow suit.

Your seeds really matter, so if this sounds like something you can get behind, please search for Crowd Justice Faye Russell-Caldicott in your search engine to show your support.

Thank you.

OP posts:
EyesOpening · 21/03/2026 23:24

Thank you for the thread, just caught up with the last two days although I had seen on Twitter that they’d admitted they got the law wrong. Wonder if his client had agreed to him saying that!

With yesterday being the first day of spring, it’s the perfect time to be planting some seeds, let’s hope we have a bumper harvest in month or so.

anyolddinosaur · 22/03/2026 07:55

£32,595 seeds now, still growing. They admitted before it came to court that there was discrimination, couldnt do that without the respondent's agreement. I dont do twiitter, care to copy exactly what was said?

Chainlinkferry · 22/03/2026 08:58

borntobequiet · 21/03/2026 13:48

So a male doctor who believes he is a female doctor - and any other staff that believe him - can’t require patients to subscribe to his/their beliefs? Where does that leave him/them if the patient has been deliberately misled via pronouns or presentation?

The whole thing looks like an enormous can of worms, given the captured nature of the NHS.

Or by the GMC themselves with registering their ‘gender’ but not their sex?

KnottyAuty · 22/03/2026 09:14

anyolddinosaur · 22/03/2026 07:55

£32,595 seeds now, still growing. They admitted before it came to court that there was discrimination, couldnt do that without the respondent's agreement. I dont do twiitter, care to copy exactly what was said?

Given that Sandie Peggie won on her claim of being harassed, why didn’t the NHSE just admit that too?

EyesOpening · 22/03/2026 16:59

anyolddinosaur · 22/03/2026 07:55

£32,595 seeds now, still growing. They admitted before it came to court that there was discrimination, couldnt do that without the respondent's agreement. I dont do twiitter, care to copy exactly what was said?

I think it was this I saw
“This thread is quite something. NHS England climbing down in real time. Their defence is essentially: "we didn't know we weren't doing it properly - everyone else was doing it wrong too". Not the strongest hand to take to a tribunal. These people are supposed to have brains.”

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/2035022122871820529?

LewisFerrux · 22/03/2026 17:42

EyesOpening · 22/03/2026 16:59

I think it was this I saw
“This thread is quite something. NHS England climbing down in real time. Their defence is essentially: "we didn't know we weren't doing it properly - everyone else was doing it wrong too". Not the strongest hand to take to a tribunal. These people are supposed to have brains.”

https://x.com/nickwallis/status/2035022122871820529?

Edited

'Everyone else was getting away with it so we thought we would too' really isn't the best of ideas, is it?

KnottyAuty · 22/03/2026 17:45

LewisFerrux · 22/03/2026 17:42

'Everyone else was getting away with it so we thought we would too' really isn't the best of ideas, is it?

Waving Bad Guy GIF

Had a touch of surrender/throwing the towel in…

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.