Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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 11:48

TT
SC [reads re potentially a rare TW might have been in hte same facilities as her as pass so well] LS I was thinking out loud re the question from both sides. This is my thinking SC I read the passage that there may be some occasions that a TW may pass as a W and use SSF

TT
LS It's a bit nuanced. When I say I may have been in the same WC as a TW and not realised, ppl pass u very quickly. Theoretically it's possible I've been in a space w a TW and not realised, due to a fleeting encounter. I dont beleive a M can look like a W all the way through

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:53

TT
LS When she said looks fully like a F as I dont believe a man can SC [reads out ] LS That was me trying to be polite, and we've had the SC since then. Some theoretically passing TW shldnt ??use the facilities due to their sex. When she said "on a human level" I thought

TT
LS "what about on a human level for me"? I thought she was pulling my heart strings. I was trying to be polite. I pointed out [too quiet] SC I dont want to formally finish my cross exam w/out seeing that document. Let me read it [NC has previously emailed it to him]

TT
J Asks for it to be sent to the tribunal SC Can I have 5 mins please? J We're going to adjourn so he can read it and take instructions. Let's make it 10 mins in fact. ADJOURN

OP posts:
Keeptoiletssafe · 17/03/2026 11:55

SC doesn’t seem that prepared.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 11:59

I've got to say I don't like the angle that SC is taking, he is determined to try and show a transphobic bias, whilst also downplaying the seriousness of the trauma that women experience. I don't know how many times LS can say it isn't about the person, it's the policies in place before he gets it into his head.

OP posts:
SternJoyousBeev2 · 17/03/2026 12:02

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

This.

I can hear his voice through these tweets. I know he has a job to do but he comes across as a 🤐

Keeptoiletssafe · 17/03/2026 12:07

This bit is interesting:
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

I think what it’s saying is the nhs agreed the design wasn’t suitable for mixed sex so they’ve admitted he’s not a woman. This is what I keep saying about toilets. The DESIGN has to change in order for it to be mixed sex. You then get a less healthy and safe design. Once WFS judgement happened , and now it’s absolutely clear what single sex is, you would have to change the design of every toilet cubicle and shower in the country to make it an enclosed room. Everything becomes mixed sex design.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:12

TT
We return J I just need to get the clerk to restart the recording [waiting]

TT
J SC did u have a chance to.. SC Yes, it's the letter re impending redundancy that was an admin error NC There were 2 docs attached to the email. It looks like this SC No, I don't have it. NC My sent items show.. J Your firewall may have removed it. Any ref to discrim and

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:16

TT
J harassment was often blocked which is v hard when yr an employment lawyer NC I have just messaged SC with it SC It's v short. Thank you and no Qs on it J What was the doc NC It was a quick Q from an EDI session [reads]. Yes, it's the one from the Ws

TT
J Does that complete yr cross exam SC? SC Let me check. Those are our Qs. Thank you v much J Just bear w us one moment please. The 3 of us had a discussion and y've been v clear LS so we dont have any Qs. Do u NC? NC Yes, I do. U were asked, for completeness, about the diagram on p869

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:20

TT
NC Looking at this next to para 10 of your WS. It shows 3 urinals and 4 basins for men and 4 cubicles for women. U describe multi use toilets had 3 and not 4 toilets. LS I think one side of the building had 3 and the other had 4. But otherwise the same as described.

TT
NC In the Gx appeal outcome, u said "they said they cldnt exclude a TW because of the legislation". Look at p?, LS This is not mine.. NC I think I'm confusing you. The doc says what is says so I dont think I'll continue on this

TT
LS It does look like someone was raising similar issues to me SC What page is this? NC The last subject SC asked about, re yr answer to CP re whether they pass or not and being polite. WHat do u really feel? J I'm not sure.. [missed]

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:27

TT
J The Q originally put by SC [reads out Q and response at length very quickly] I wonder if the Q y're asking is too broad NC I wont press it if you feel it isnt appropriate. In that case I have no further Qs [ C is dismissed] J I have a few other issues but it might be a good time

TT
J to break. I still dont have the EDI Q so can you send that to me NC It's so short I cld prob read it out loud to a witness J Then the availability of the file for TT SC I've taken instruction. We're concerned that person X cannot be contacted as we don't know where they are

TT
SC So that's not sensible. Doing nothing doesnt seem approp to us. Within this politicised debate this info may not be used fairly. Any reporting may not be fair altho no criticism. Since the parties refer to person X we ask for a restricting order that reaches the same conclusion

OP posts:
Xiaoxiong · 17/03/2026 12:27

It boggles my mind that NHSE is even defending this, in March 2026 STILL trying to defend their policies.

I'm also v much appreciating tribunal tweets and the pasting here, but I'm finding it quite hard to follow as there is no livestream. Is anyone in the room itself, or reporting afterwards? Nick Wallis maybe?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 17/03/2026 12:28

ProfNebulousDeadline · 17/03/2026 10:42

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

ISTR Edinburgh Rape Crisis did exactly the same kind of “admin error” in Roz Adams’ successful tribunal case. NC was the claimants barrister there too so I doubt that will fly.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:31

TT
SC This is a sensible practical solution. We cld ask the tribunal to consider this J We can think about this NC I wont oppose s49 order but there has to be a signif need to oppose open justice. There has to be a Q re openess and I'm not putting a ?positive case

TT
J We havent reached a conclusion on this yet. where no press or 3rd parties we muddle along. There are all sorts of possibilities and things may change. What about the witness statements? Cld u provide these w that one redaction? SC That seems find with [...] redacted. The name

TT
SC is in the 3 Oct email only. J Do u object to the statements being made available to TT? NC A Ctl Search cld find this name easily J Sometimes word search works well in pdfs but not always. It depends on whether has been scanned or not so someone wld have to check

OP posts:
weegielass · 17/03/2026 12:31

poor Faye, I'm not sure what the cause of her PTSD is but I can probably guess.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:35

TT
NC My client has a list of every time the name appears. It's a small nos of documents J Someone still needs to check. It may not be over the lunchtime break. Can someone provide TT with the statements SC I have a clean copy I can pass over J That's a fair amount of reading

TT
J to read in full. Y'd need to remain in the room SC Can we emphasise that J Yes, they need to remain in the hearing room. Shall we take a short break so I can discuss the file w my colleagues. We need to get to the bottom of it but it's important

TT
SC NC has requested a document which hasnt arrived yet and she cant progress without it. It's being printed out at the moment. J Ok. I'll ask the clerks to let you back in when we're ready. Thank you and we'll see you shortly. ADJOURN

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:39

I'm not sure how long they're actually planning to break for here. I'm going to go and boil the kettle while I keep a close eye on my phone.

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 12:40

Am I understanding that X is a TiM that LS worked with but who has now left the country?

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:41

Yes, I believe that's the case. Flew off to Oz.

OP posts:
MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 12:59

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 12:41

Yes, I believe that's the case. Flew off to Oz.

There’s a lot of that going on.

SixthWorstOption · 17/03/2026 13:06

And is he being redacted from the docs to preserve his anonymity, or Faye's? (I was struggling to follow the TTs)

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 13:07

I think it's to protect his, though I'm not sure.

I don't know if the mantra of don't talk about someone if they're not here to defend themselves extends into the legal world but it feels like that's the premise they're choosing to take.

OP posts:
SixthWorstOption · 17/03/2026 13:10

Thanks. I can see why Faye and NC would want to go along with it - it reinforces their point that it's not about the individuals, it's the overall effect of the policy.

Xiaoxiong · 17/03/2026 13:11

I think not talking about or identifying X also strengthens Faye's case that this wasn't about any one individual, it's about the policies they're implementing.

Xiaoxiong · 17/03/2026 13:13

Ahh cross post @SixthWorstOption

MyAmpleSheep · 17/03/2026 13:13

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 13:07

I think it's to protect his, though I'm not sure.

I don't know if the mantra of don't talk about someone if they're not here to defend themselves extends into the legal world but it feels like that's the premise they're choosing to take.

I’m not sure there’s any suggestion that X has done anything wrong. He’s not a defendant, nor even a witness. So he really has nothing to defend himself about or from. It seems fair to leave him be.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.