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
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 22/03/2026 19:26

🌼🏵🌸32675🌸🏵🌼 and 10 days left ❤️

OP posts:
LizMcGlone · 22/03/2026 20:08

Thank you for this thread.

lcakethereforeIam · 23/03/2026 02:06

Just quickly leaving this here because it's late. To the surprise of no-one

https://archive.ph/NICUq

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/22/judges-given-training-trans-groups/

KnottyAuty · 23/03/2026 07:14

lcakethereforeIam · 23/03/2026 02:06

Just quickly leaving this here because it's late. To the surprise of no-one

https://archive.ph/NICUq

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/22/judges-given-training-trans-groups/

Glad to see this being reported. The Scottish rulings have been downright odd up to now…

Bluebootsgreenboots · 23/03/2026 07:30

lcakethereforeIam · 23/03/2026 02:06

Just quickly leaving this here because it's late. To the surprise of no-one

https://archive.ph/NICUq

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/22/judges-given-training-trans-groups/

Well I think that’s great. Surely it means that no one can object if Sex Matters go in to run a few training sessions.

borntobequiet · 23/03/2026 08:04

Good article, except that they should have used “made-up statistics” instead of just “statistics”.

They also presented judges with statistics on the issues faced by trans people in the workplace

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 23/03/2026 09:07

KnottyAuty · 23/03/2026 07:14

Glad to see this being reported. The Scottish rulings have been downright odd up to now…

It seems odd that Judges were getting advice from groups that believe TWAW when the law (as confirmed by FWS) is the opposite

SternJoyousBeev2 · 23/03/2026 09:51

KnottyAuty · 23/03/2026 07:14

Glad to see this being reported. The Scottish rulings have been downright odd up to now…

This. The one I am the most confused about is the Leonardo one.

Londonmummy66 · 23/03/2026 10:19

SternJoyousBeev2 · 23/03/2026 09:51

This. The one I am the most confused about is the Leonardo one.

That judge is understood to be captured.

Keeptoiletssafe · 23/03/2026 10:24

The Leonardo one was the most bizarre. And wrong.

Keeptoiletssafe · 23/03/2026 11:48

This document is still the one that put gender above its remit of looking at toilet designs for people with long term health conditions for the government.

It could have looked at heart conditions, diabetes, epilepsy, endometriosis, menorrhagia, drug addiction, cardiac arrest. These long term health conditions affect millions. Cardiac arrest is important because 11% happen on the toilet. But none of the above were mentioned. It did look at stroke and handrails which was good but not for if a person has a stroke.

Periods were only referenced at the back for transmen. Non binary crotch heights were discussed. Toilets were enclosed design because of the evidence of transactivists preferences. The company won a Stonewall Award.

If anyone wants an example of a Stonewalled document this is it:
https://consult.communities.gov.uk/energy-performance-of-buildings/toilet-provision-in-buildings-other-than-dwellings/supporting_documents/Annex%20D%20research%20on%20toilets.pdf

Despite the hyperlink saying it’s for energy performance it is for ‘research into the requirements of the population of England in the built environment, in particular disabled people and people with long-term health conditions’.

The irony of course is that a long term health condition doesn’t discriminate. I want safe toilet design for all but you are never going to get a mixed sex design that’s not completely private, because of men’s voyeurism and everyone’s discomfort. We need single sex design for main provision, with the tradition door gaps for ventilation, cleaning, prevention of misuse (assaults, drug use, vandalism) and supervision if there’s a health emergency or you get stuck.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 23/03/2026 14:04

Keeptoiletssafe · 23/03/2026 10:24

The Leonardo one was the most bizarre. And wrong.

Edited

A captured judge as @Londonmummy66 says seems the most likely reason.

I don’t expect a positive result for the BFF tribunal as I think ‘political’ influences will have a major impact. I know that is not about SSS though.

I hope we hear some news about the appeals process in the Leonard’s case soon. I’m still shocked by the result. Maria was a very compelling witness versus the numpty from Leonardo who set the bar for the HR reps from Darlington.

ItsCoolForCats · 23/03/2026 14:28

SternJoyousBeev2 · 23/03/2026 14:04

A captured judge as @Londonmummy66 says seems the most likely reason.

I don’t expect a positive result for the BFF tribunal as I think ‘political’ influences will have a major impact. I know that is not about SSS though.

I hope we hear some news about the appeals process in the Leonard’s case soon. I’m still shocked by the result. Maria was a very compelling witness versus the numpty from Leonardo who set the bar for the HR reps from Darlington.

Yes, I've been wondering when we will have an update regarding an appeal in the Leonardo case. I heard the Sandie Peggie appeal is unlikely to be before 2027. I wonder if the Leonardo appeal will be heard this year (assuming it is going ahead)?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 23/03/2026 18:31

Less than 9 days to go for gardening.

There's £32,770 in the seed bank.

I can't believe how much support has been offered just from the beginning of this tribunal, it really just goes to show what can happen when communities come together.

Thank you so much to everybody that has contributed, and thank you to everybody that has engaged and kept this thread active.

Every small action adds up and is meaningful. ❤️

OP posts:
stickygotstuck · 23/03/2026 19:35

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 23/03/2026 09:07

It seems odd that Judges were getting advice from groups that believe TWAW when the law (as confirmed by FWS) is the opposite

I know, right?

I do wonder how many of these judges were listening to this training and suddenly thought, hang on, that's not right. Anyone?

Although I'm not sure what would be worse, that none of them noticed or that all of them pretended not to. Incompetence v. Cowardice 🤔

Changednameagain999 · 23/03/2026 20:13

I think cowardice. I have spoke out in real life and got attacked. Our young people have been brainwashed. They don’t even listen to what you say. I only was saying that that boxer imane Khalif shouldn’t have been boxing against women. It’s not even to do with trans he isn’t trans he has a dsd. He is biologically male but boxing against women and got an Olympic gold. He has pulled out of all future boxing now that mandatory dna testing has been brought in. All I had said was men shouldn’t be boxing against women and i got so badly attacked. That was when I started looking into all of it. And i am absolutely GC.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 23/03/2026 21:20

stickygotstuck · 23/03/2026 19:35

I know, right?

I do wonder how many of these judges were listening to this training and suddenly thought, hang on, that's not right. Anyone?

Although I'm not sure what would be worse, that none of them noticed or that all of them pretended not to. Incompetence v. Cowardice 🤔

I wonder how long it will be before a new training session will be arranged for the the relevant Judges that describes the law as it is?

Hint: I'm not holding my breath

Hedgehogforshort · 23/03/2026 21:36

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 23/03/2026 21:20

I wonder how long it will be before a new training session will be arranged for the the relevant Judges that describes the law as it is?

Hint: I'm not holding my breath

The judges do not have training on what the law actually is they are supposed to stay abreast of the case law and rulings in their own area of expertise.

Judges can take up awareness raising sessions about issues for defendants and victims, in terms of how they manage hearings so for example why SV victims may have memory recall problems, or may need a screen.

What appears to be happening in Scotland is that judges are allowing their own. POV (as influenced by their political environment), to interfere with the approach they take to the law.

MyAmpleSheep · 23/03/2026 23:33

Hedgehogforshort · 23/03/2026 21:36

The judges do not have training on what the law actually is they are supposed to stay abreast of the case law and rulings in their own area of expertise.

Judges can take up awareness raising sessions about issues for defendants and victims, in terms of how they manage hearings so for example why SV victims may have memory recall problems, or may need a screen.

What appears to be happening in Scotland is that judges are allowing their own. POV (as influenced by their political environment), to interfere with the approach they take to the law.

I was thinking about this; isn't it fair to say that it is counsel who are expected to stay abreast of the case law and present to the bench the precedents they feel should be followed?

I don't think judges are expected or allowed to introduce their own independent knowledge of case law into a ruling - which is why having a barrister who knows the law is so important.

Hedgehogforshort · 23/03/2026 23:52

MyAmpleSheep · 23/03/2026 23:33

I was thinking about this; isn't it fair to say that it is counsel who are expected to stay abreast of the case law and present to the bench the precedents they feel should be followed?

I don't think judges are expected or allowed to introduce their own independent knowledge of case law into a ruling - which is why having a barrister who knows the law is so important.

You are right about the fact that judges must not introduce their own cases to a court in pleadings in the lower courts. But that is not so beyond high Court.

But in Courts of appeal they do look in the round at case law, where those on offer by the barristers, are linked to other case law, or the barristers have missed something important.

The judge in such instances must allow for submissions regarding whatever case law they want to consider.

Interestingly in this case the judge invited NC and SC to consider an obscure case to do with the military NC declined, and the judge has no choice as it is not an appellant hearing.

I cannot say for sure but i think the judge picked this case because the employment tribunal ignored the immigration rules in its findings against the MOD, but it was not binding anyway.

RandomHypatia · 24/03/2026 20:55

Did some gardening. Still a week left if anyone else is able to contribute

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 24/03/2026 21:31

🌹🌼🏵🌸£32,923🌸🏵🌼🌹

Sorry, I would have posted earlier today but have been caught up in some EHCP business.

This was posted by FayeRC on the CJ page after the tribunal for anybody that hasn't had a chance to read it:

Post Tribunal Update
Dear all,

Last week concluded my employment tribunal proceedings for now. If the judgement goes my way then there will be a two-day remedies session later in the year, including more witnessing on the impact and nature of remedies. Therefore I would be grateful for your support towards those legal costs, too.

There will be no court session on Monday because we ran well on time so the panel will be deliberating on Monday. However, we are expecting a reserved judgement with no exact set timing.

Cross examination was an intense experience. I will be enjoying the amazing spring weather and retreat to my allotment (the actual one, not Mumsnet code word for the crowdfunder).

I would like to thank Naomi Cunningham of Outer Temple, Elizabeth McGlone, Manuela de Castro and Beatrice Young of Didlaw for their fantastic work. I would also like to thank all my supporters for your donations, sharing on social media, commenting on X and Mumsnet and showing incredible support by attending the court hearing in person and by audio. Thank you.

Tribunal Tweets reported all the way through the cross examinations so you can read on that on X. I would like to thank the volunteers of TT as well, you do important work for open justice.

I will share updates once we have new developments.

Yours faithfully,

Faye


Once again, thank you to everybody for your support, whether that has been gardening, or simply interacting with the thread. As you know every interaction bumps the thread up in the Most Recent updated section under the feminism board and is likely to reach like minded individuals who may wish to support but haven't yet had the opportunity to do so.

This case was brought forward on the grounds of sex, faith and belief and disability discrimination but policies that enable discrimination are still rife within NHSE and many other employers. This could be any of us at the stand if our employers aren't held accountable for ensuring their policies and procedures are lawful.

We're down to the last 7 full days before the deadline.

Any help you can offer is appreciated. It is an investment in showing that we won't be silenced by supporting someone who has already taken a stand to expose poor practices and shown bravery, courage and composure throughout.

Thank you again, and I hope you all have a lovely night.

OP posts:
AssignedTERFatbirth · 24/03/2026 22:32

SternJoyousBeev2 · 23/03/2026 09:51

This. The one I am the most confused about is the Leonardo one.

The most batshit indeed. Easily appealed, so fundamentally and objectively wrong.

nauticant · 25/03/2026 09:18

End of thread.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.