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
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 09:59

@tribunal...

Post

Tribunal Tweets

We are a collective of citizen journalists and work on a voluntary basis. We endeavour to report everything that we hear but do not provide a verbatim report of proceedings. You can support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio) which funds some travel and our IT costs.

C

3

DO NO HARM

@tribunal...

2m

Tribunal Tweets

Abbreviations:

LS, or C - the anonymous Claimant,

employee at NHS England

NHSE or R - NHS England, the Respondent

E - Elizabeth McGlone, solicitor for C

NC - Naomi Cunningham, Counsel for C

SC - Simon Cheetham, counsel for R

J - E Judge Deeley

2

DO NO HARM

@tribunal...

2m

Tribunal Tweets

GC - gender critical

GN - gender neutral

NB - non binary

TSP - trans staff policy

F- female

M - male

CR - changing room

EHRC - Equalities and Human Rights

Commission

SC - Supreme Court

ElA - equality & impact assessment

PSED - public sector equality duty

EA - Equality Act 2010

18

A

&

DO NO HARM

@tribunal...

3m

Tribunal Tweets

PC - protected characteristic

X - original office building

Y - later office building

Ix - investigation

IO - investigation officer

Gx - grievance

SS - single sex

DM - Dr Montgomery

JR - John Ross, Head of Corporate Estates

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:00

Sorry guys the do no harm is being copied from their logo, just in case it is confusing.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:08

While we wait for more updates just another reminder that you can donate to support FayeRC on Crowd Justice by searching for crowd justice Faye Russell-Caldicott on your search engine of choice.

There is 15 days left to donate and there's 39k to go until target.

Yesterday there was a £1000 increase.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:25

I'm not sure if mumsnet is having issues, I can't seem paste on my laptop or phone on mobile data.

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 10:27

Is anyone else wondering how the Reddit crowd is going to slur LS as a Muslim woman? SP was called a whole string of names there yesterday, and “dehumanized” by being referred to as “it” rather than “she”. I’m curious what will be said about LS, and whether she will be insulted for her religion. It must be quite a challenge for those who consider themselves to be On The Right Side Of History.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:27

There we go, continuing.

TT

J [waiting for everyone to settle down and giving instructions re phones and checking sound levels] J Formal start now. Repeating details of the panel and that a joint decision will be made and she can be overruled by the other panel members

TT
J Reminder of the anonymity and restricting reporting orders. There must be no publication of any info that leads to the identification of the claimant. J Asks TT member about our request for the hearing file. SC [can't hear him]

TT
J We may be able to do that by redacting X from the file. A copy hasnt been made available yet. We're not saying you cannot access the file but further redactions may be needed. [Request for SC to speak up has been made]

TT

J I appreciate you need time to take instructions SC and maybe also NC NC Our position is neutral. The C has no desire to name X. Maybe TT could say they wouldnt give the name of person X J I am aware of other observers in the tribunal and any solution wld need to work for all

TT
J Should we take a break now SC so you can take instructions and we 3 can talk together. SC [can't hear] [Discussion about remote sound and temperature of court room] J Do u need to raise anything NC? NC No thanks J What about the page numbers? NC I neglected to check them

TT
NC But will do so soon J Anything to raise SC? SC No J We discussed using a pseudonym yday. WHat wld u like to be called? LS LS please SC Good am. In MArch 23 u have a mtg about yr concerns and we'll look at the notes of that mtg soon. But before we'll look at the policy

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:32

TT
SC at the heart of this case. You have it in 2 files? Begins p147. On p160, we find para 4.11 of SS facilities. Can u read through it? This was the policy u disagreed with, which yr entitled to do LS Yes SC Re the 9 March mtg notes: these are yr notes? LS Yes

TT
LS Made during and afterwards. A write up of the meeting. SC On p494, a para on "the wording" of SS spaces. [reads re threat of disc action and a silent threat about the terminology of SS facilities (SSF). LS Yes SC This page is about respect and enacting the orgs values. If a indiv refused to work w a T person this wld be a disc issue

TT
SC Where does it say about disc issue re policy LS The same piece. Para 65, 3rd line. Says refuse to work [reads re cultural views / belief / religion and refusing to share facilities w T ppl] My reading of this - and "share facilities". I've never refused to work w a T person

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:37

TT
LS It's about sharing facilities SC The policy says refusing to work w a Trans person LS I cld not share a SSF because of my religion. In 2nd row it says on 2nd row, religion or beleif, Islam obvs, I thought it wld allow me to refuse. I took to mean NHSE was trying to prevent

TT
me from not sharing facility w a male SC It doesnt threaten ppl trying to discuss this? LS WHen I spoke to HR bus partners I explained the policy gives a silent threat, refering to this policy. It's trying to convey a msg to not object on religious grounds. Or else there'll be disc measures

TT
SC Have u had disc measures raised against u LS No. I did think they were trying to get rid of me at one point, but it turned out not to be the case SC Y've never raised disc measures so does that reassure you LS I accept was an admin mistake. Was trying to say that when

TT
going against para 6.5 and policy I didnt know what wld go against me. When I complained to EG on 4th Jan using the word discrimination, I received a letter from the owner of the T policy saying my post was at risk from redundancy I found it v upsetting [in tears]

OP posts:
ProfNebulousDeadline · 17/03/2026 10:42

"Admin error" that only Faye received a threat of redundancy after asking questions? Very fishy.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:43

TT
LS I found it v scary. [EG = Erk Gunce] I was awake at night time and panicking and asking if anyone else in my team or others in directorate had received a notification re redundancies. But no-one has had. I knew that I wasnt in alignment w the org re religion and belief and

TT
LS the person was also responsible for redundancies and the TSP. The admin ppl assured me it was a mix up with staffing issues. SC We covered this yday J Are u sure u dont need a break SC Y're issue was w policy and not person X LS Yes

TT
SC Just picking up on a few points. There's no issue w yr April 23 Gx. It's a lenghthy doc LS Yes SC It led to a lengthy and detailed Ix. Turn to p497 which are the ToR for the Ix. Were these accurate refelction of yr complaint?

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:47

TT
LS Is this the piece of work by Kate Howlett? SC I can check. MY Q is broader LS I remember the emphasis wasnt quite how I wld have done it but it covered sex, religion and PTSD so I was happy to proceed on that basis. I knew the Ix meetings allowed me to raise more. But happy

TT
SC Mtg on 4 July. PG (Philip Goodfellow) said u cld work from site Y. LS I knew ppl were moving but not my team SC The notes w yr edits begin on p630. LS It's a draft SC Yes. This is where u cld add yr comments LS I'd prefer to use the final version SC The part we're looking at dont look a mess

TT
SC [reads re looking at the policy and realsising how much it wld affect you. Email went to 300 ppl and u wldnt work w DM. Although it wld have direct impact on you too. LS Yes SC Yr Gx based on hypothetical rather than personal LS I met him during covid on Teams. We worked

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:52

TT
LS together in 2021-ish SC Not face to face? LS Not in an office SC Work in same office? LS I think so yes, but his team and LM worked in same place SC I'm referring to person X and not DM. Did u have a f2f w Person X? LS No

TT
LS I've never met irl. Had Teams w Person X. But we've had no work together since and then I went on leave. J We're just trying to work out yr contact w Person X SC So 2 Teams mtgs. On p?, and yr 3 May 24 appeal mtg, which is after u submitted yr claim

TT
SC When did that person cease NHSE employment LS I think Jan23 but I didnt know that then. I saw Australia on LinkedIn SC Roughly when LS Many months later. He had already left. For me it was always about the policy and not indivs. I wasnt keeping tabs on ppl

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 10:57

TT
SC On p633, u deal with the trans awareness session. Now p637. The 2nd para u say [reads re not using showers at work day to day] U told us this yday and mostly used GN toilets? Correct LS This was after the email so I moved to GN toilets J It was quite some time after?

TT
J We have a clear timeline in our head LS I moved from F to GN toilets in 2023 SC We're not in dispute about many of the facts here. Is it fair to say in Ix mtg in July u felt listened to? LS Yes. The IO was polite, willing to listen. Felt was my incapacity to express myslef

TT
SC Some may say u cld express yrself v clearly in yr Gx J Do u want a break? LS I do in most parts [tearful] SC Shld we take a short break LS Except for the PTSD parts, I express myself clearly. I was dreading that part of the mtg. In the mtg, I was thinking how will I express myself

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:02

TT
LS And I didnt say what I wanted to. Was the 1st time I tried to talk about impact of PTSD on me. I'm doing much better now talking about it. SC Yes, was nearly 3 years ago LS It was much harder then. The IO did nothing wrong but is the nature of the trauma that makes it hard

TT
LS to talk about. J Shall we have a break now? LS Yes please J Is 10 mins enough? LS Yes J Court adjourned until about 10 past. Can the rmote person disconnect please? COURT ADJOURNED

TT
@threadreaderapp
unroll

Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) on X

I'm a 🤖 to help you read threads more easily. Reply to any tweet of a thread and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll give you a link back 😀

https://x.com/threadreaderapp

OP posts:
SixthWorstOption · 17/03/2026 11:13

I'm so frustrated that yet another woman has to relive and justify her trauma in order to get what she should be entitled to as a matter of course Angry

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 11:16

And another TIM medic causes grief and then swans off to Australia.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:17

TT
We'll be returning for the second morning session of day 2 of LS v NHS England shortly. Here is this morning's earlier session

TT
J Good am everybody NC Those 2 pages aren't in the bundle but SC says he doesn't plan to use them J Will you rely on them? NC Possibly, one of them SC I read them as docs that weren't likely to be material J Best for us to have them SC I have taken info re person X but will

TT
SC deal w later J I have a duty to ensure y're well enough to give evidence but I'll be led by you LS SC The IO report is on p752. The conclusions, p759, let's refresh ourselves. Looking esp at para 8.5.14 re sex as reference points for us. Also 8.5.23 re disability

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:22

TT
SC 8.5.35 relates to religion LS Is about a specific aspect of religion SC Yes, I can see this. The IO recommended going 4wd w a Gx hearing. Yr evidence is 7 Nov 23 u received a pass for Place Y. We know that was yr new place of work and then u went on leave

TT
LS Yes. I went to buiding Y twice. I went on a mandatory tour of all floors by estates team. Then later in Nov we had a team day when my manager received their pass. The whole team came in that day. SC How long did tour last LS About an hour but hassle getting pass etc so spent half a day in building

TT
LS There was a lot of walking and it was mandatory. I cldnt do it earlier as all the slots were fully booked for 3 weeks. SC Then when MM got his pass? Why did u go? LS It was a whole team day. Called see the new premisis day. Was half a day. We went for lunch. A good few hrs

OP posts:
ICouldHaveCheckedFirst · 17/03/2026 11:24

Im confused. Judge says "There must be no publication of any info that leads to the identification of the claimant."
Yet there are names and positions published, of colleagues and managers, and office layouts too. How does that not compromise LS' anonymity?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:26

TT
SC Later u say u were happy w changing and showering facilities at place Y. LS Based that on the tour but not using the facilities, and I later changed my mind. Superficially I was happy SC U didnt use the facil on the tour or in Nov LS No, seemed superfic better than building X

TT
SC U used GN toilets LS Yes, as policy still in place SC There was a Gx hearing. we have your response to the IO report. I'm not trying to challenge yr difficulty w PTSD, but yr unhappy w the entire legal framework and set things out as u wanted to

TT
LS I find it easier to talk about PTSD if I talk as if a policy issue on all women. I have it diagnosed. I struggle w talking about it and bringing up the nuances if someone doesnt get it. The IO didnt get it altho was v polite. I was trying to challenge some of his findings

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:32

TT
SC No-one has criticised u for bringing the Gx LS No. No criticism or shutting down in interviews of panel mtgs but felt panel ppl lacked insight into the issues. eg telling her to just go the GN facil if she doesnt want to change w a male

TT
SC Mtg w Chris Hobson on p? He says we have 1 specific question we want to ask you. Look at p826, it's in a box. Read the box and the following one to yourself please. SC We see the ref I picked up on re u using the GN toilets. We see yr response there

TT
LS The reason why I said.. SC I havent asked my Q yet. U say [reads re using GN is discrim to me] That's the essence of yr case LS No, it;s the impact of the policy on me. The essence of my claim has always been the method of comms. I dont want to pin it on X but is the policy

I can't see Simon but I'm giving him the eye daggers.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:36

TT
LS impact on 1000s of ppl. Using the facilities in both sites. I refer to health conditions, and tell CH I've previously referred to them, eg periods. I was worried about the avail of the GN facilities at site X

TT
LS as I had flooding periods and if it wasnt available I wld have to go to another part of the building. One day I had good access and another day I didnt . I asked CH if this was sufficient for me to have a 50:50 experience.

TT
SC The Gx outcome was on 23rd Jan and it wasnt upheld. LS Yes SC U then appealed? On p843 is yr appeal docs. General rationale and proposed solution, proportionality etc. The appeal was partially successful LS Yes SC On some of the minor points only

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:40

TT
SC Upheld re unreasonable long time - no dispute there. Also T awareness training, inadeq showers at site X. LS Yes SC So parts upheld LS This is where I didnt understand it. As open plan facil was inadequate, but I was happy w open plan w just women

TT
LS The said they cldnt exclude TW cos of the legislation. SC The trib is aware of this LS U claim harassment wrt sex. Saying the policy had the effect of [sound issues]. Wrt to yr GC beleifs. U claim the purpose of the policy was to impact yr beleifs

I think that second LS is meant to be SC.

TT
SC A purpose of the policy was to offend people? LS We were labelled t'phobic SC U beleive a purpose of the 2019 was to cause offence to GC ppl LS They tried to stop ppl from complaining SC No-one tried to stop u from complaining. y've agreed w me on this

OP posts:
borntobequiet · 17/03/2026 11:42

The astonishing thing is that there is so little understanding of the physical needs of women and the reality of their lives, even in the NHS.

But thinking of the disgraceful shortcomings in, e.g., maternity care, no surprise really.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:45

TT
LS The trans awareness shut me down SC Y've never been shut down LS The policy itself and mandatory EDI training shutting me down. Saying I shldnt refuse to share facil is offensive. Oct 2022 issues we havent touched were v difficult for me and I took to shut me down

The only word that comes to mind here about Simon is gaslighting.

TT
J This isnt part of yr claim LS Not providing an answer, the silence, I took to mean I was being shut down [correction policy was from 2017] J Was a purpose in 2017 to offend ppl who may disagree w the policy LS It was creating a culture of fear in employees

TT
LS I have never been so scared in my professional life. It was intended to shut down dissidents. SC I'm not challenging yr GC beliefs but want to understand them. Look at appeal hearing doc, and p870. CP, Clare Panniker, says put GRC to the side [reads re a TW and passing]

OP posts:
Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.