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 13:19

TT
Resuming now J Apologies for the delay. Given the earlier discussions we needed to hear arguments about whether to have a restricted reporting order. Your client has a list of times NC? We had a quick search and it's mainly in the index SC It is fairly localised and in index

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 13:25

TT
SC It's not easy to redact as it needs checking. We could spend much of the day on this but we need to press on. J Do u still want to see the hearing file TT? If you do, and there's no pressure, we need to consider this more TT [cannot hear]

TT
J If we make it available for TT we may have others attending and requesting access. Your position remains that y'd like to see the file SC A way forward wld be to redact it which wld take some time but we can move on. The refs are only in one section TT I can look tomorrow

TT
J It may take longer than half a day. If the R is able to. TT I'm only here tomorrow J I appreciate y've only seen the witnes statements. We're going to break for lunch. Who is next witness? SC Vivien Hodgskiss J Anything else

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 13:29

TT
NC I'd like 2nd and 3rd witnesses to not be in the hearing room and not follow TT live during the 1st witness cross. They do this in Scotland. I will be asking the same Qs about the reasons for the PCPs of all 3 and it'll be hard for them to come to an answer

TT
NC w/out thinking of the others answers SC I completely disagree. We have their witness statements and they'll be found out if they change it J We'll need to think about this [she explains the difference between England and Scotland and examination in chief]

TT
J We will resume at 2.30pm COURT ADJOURNS

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:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 13:31

Is there anybody around who can take over from 2:30pm while I do the school run?

If not there might be about an hours delay but I will play catch up when I'm back.

OP posts:
Rightsraptor · 17/03/2026 14:03

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 11:16

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

We don't know that this TiM is a medic.

CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 14:25

Rightsraptor · 17/03/2026 14:03

We don't know that this TiM is a medic.

Fair point. I was making an assumption based on the NHS employer, the high number of junior medics who in recent years have left the UK to persue their careers in Oz and the TWAW policies that seems to prevail over there.

Of course, it could be Bob/Belinda from Accounts who's decided they'd rather balance the books where the weather is a bit better.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:35

I'm going to try posting from the car park but please be patient because the signal is horrible over here.

TT
Good afternoon. Welcome to the afternoon session on day 2 of LS v NHS England (NHSE) at Employment Tribunal. The afternoon hearing will begin at 2.30pm

May be some formatting differences from my phone.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:37

Abbreviations:

LS, or C - the anonymous Claimant NC - Naomi Cunningham, Counsel for C

NHSE or R - NHS England, the Respondent SC - Simon Cheetham, counsel for R

J - E Judge Deeley

P - either of the two lay panel members sitting with J

223

&

DO NO HARM

@tribuna...

23m

Tribunal Tweets

The first witness this afternoon will be VH - Vivien Hodgskiss

whom we understand to have been the lead on the policy the LC is claiming against when it was implemented in 2017.

The hearing will begin at 2.30pm.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:40

Tribunal Tweets

@tribunalt... 1m

Replying to @tribunaltweets

[Hearing is beginning]

J [welcomes everyone]

J: Re excluding R witnesses until they have given evidence. This is not the norm in England. We have discussed. We have decided that excluding witnesses would not be in interests of justice.

J: No evidence witnesses would / have influenced each other, so we will stick to England norm and witnesses will be present.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:43

NC: This document - is the contemporaneous version of the GIRES template for employers. [To add to bundle I think]

J: Only particular pages will be referred to? NC: Yes - suggest I use its internal pagination

J: [asks for email copy too]#

J: [invites VH to witness table; VH reads oath]

SC: [takes VH to her WS; confirms name, address, current job role, that WS is true]

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:46

NC: First Qs re demographics of workforce. You are best placed to answer these?

VH: Not sure -

NC: Approximately is fine. How many employees NHSE?

VH 17,000

NC: How many women and men?

VH: About 60% women

NC: How many assert trans identity?

VH: We don't capture that, only marker for M or F. Consistent across all of NHS.

NC: Do you expect ppl to give true answer re sex, or GI, or what?

VH: I don't know

NC: We have talked of 1 male employee with trans ID, "X", how many trans ppl have you

come acrross at work?

VH: One, when drawing up policy. We do see TW in the office but they may not be NHS employees.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:49

NC: IS the person you mention re policy, is

that person X?

VH: No, different.

NC: What sex?

VH: Biologically male.

NC: So that is two ppl - neither still works for NHS?

VH: Yes. My current job I wouldn't come into contact with many such ppl

NC: C solicitor asked these demographic Qs last week in correspondence - could you get that info for a subsequent witness?

J: [intervenes] we have not seen this correspondence [there is discussion but J hard to hear]

NC: These are basic Qs about make up of workforce, surely a fair Q in context of policy design?

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:52

NC: I'm not making an application - I can if you want - but it seems to me pragmatic to ask witnesses basic Qs re their organisation. J: OK

NC: So VH you cd get the information?

VH: Yes I could.

NC: Para 6 of your WS. You say that when the trans equality policy and procedure were done in 2017 you were Stonewall Diversity members and Workplace Index. Was a competitive list of who Stonewall thought were doing things the way they wanted?

VH: Yes - when it first started was LGB, then Tadded

NC: Quite onerous task, taking part?

VH: Yes, quite onerous.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:55

NC: Stonewall tell you in some detail what policies they think you should have, and then rank you according to how well you have complied?

VH: Not policy-setting exactly, but yes they tell you what you need to do to get higher

score.

NC: They have their idea of what you should do, and that's how they rank you, on how compliant with what they wanted you to do? VH: [missed but was 'yes kind of]

VH: NSHE took part until I think 2022 so wd have been on 2023 listings, but I think they then stopped participating about that time.

NC: Viewed in your sector as an important accrediation at the time you said?

VH: Yes at the time

NC: Not now?

VH: No, though I don't really work in that area any more.

OP posts:
CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 14:57

Well, this is interesting.

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 14:59

NC: You mention LGBT arm of Unison, and LGBT+ staff network. You would have mentioned if you'd engaged with any women's rights orgs?

VH: Yes, but at the time we had no relation with any such groups.

NC: You say you can't remember if there was

a women's staff network? VH: I think it was sort of beginning around then, we were starting "Springboard" to help women through glass ceiling, so I think women's network grew out of that.

NC: [ref to bundle] this is the stage 1 grievance outcome. If you look at its page 8 Says: C Hopson says, we agree important to consider all; but women's network didn't exist when policy created. You agree? VH: Yes.

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:03

NC: So to recap - you consulted LGBT Unison function and LGBT staff network. Those were the ppl you thought wd be the experts?

VH: Not exclusively - consultation with

unions more generally, HR function. I think it was a Unison member suggested LGBT+Unison. Working collaboratively.

NC: But no work on the impact on women? VH: No, but many of the people involved were women. HR team predominately

female.

NC: Women's interests sufficiently covered by just the fact that some women were involved?

VH: We did EQIA, so looked at the protected characteristics, so we did always try to ensure we got rounded feedback.

OOOOOooh an EQIA was done, wonder what it says about religion

OP posts:
Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:05

NC: You didn't identify a need to consult on the impact on women's rights?

VH: As you know we have not been able to locate the EQIA, but if we had done such consulting it would have been recording so fair to say we didn't.

Ah foiled again by administrative issues.

VH: That was at the time. I don't think we'd have the same approach now.

NC: You will engage with women's groups and GC groups when redesigning?

VH: I don't work in that area any more so can't speak to that.

NC: I said it was rather a casual approach, you agree?

VH: There have obviously been many developments eg Supreme Court.

OP posts:
CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 15:05

We do see TW in the office but they may not be NHS employees.

But, but how can you tell these people are TW? Hmm?

SixthWorstOption · 17/03/2026 15:09

Well, well... Schrödinger's EQIA making another tribunal appearance...

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 17/03/2026 15:09

NC: You've said cd not find formal EQIA, but we do have an EQI statement - [bundle ref].

NC: Heading "Equality Impact Assessment" - this is what you mean?

VH: EQIA itself would have been much more extensive - all PCs.

NC: So you say in WS you don't recall if formal assessment?

VH: What I'm saying is that these days we have a much more comprehensive EQIA process than we did back in 2016/7 - much more data captured, more sophisticated approach now.

NC: Your WS says "EQIA statement" - is that what we looked at?

VH: No it's this document here.

NC: And more elaborate now?

VH: Yes

need to wait to pick up DS in playground now. I'll be back in a nebulous amount of time.

OP posts:
CriticalCondition · 17/03/2026 15:17

Ah, it's another one of those special self-destructing EQIAs. Read once and never heard of again. It's like an episode of Mission Impossible (one for the oldies there).

weegielass · 17/03/2026 15:20
Bow Down GIF by Christine Gritmon

oh Naomi how i love you so

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:25

I'm going to start pasting (15 mins behind by the looks of things)
VH: We did save every document to do with the process at the time, but that server was removed in an upgrade. But I do truly believe that we did the process right as per the time.
NC: If we look at the equality impact assessment document. Talks of inclusion, removing discrimination per [lists PCs but has gender not sex] NC: This is standard EDI liturgy really? VH: We're saying we've done the necessary process - can you ask again?
NC: Am saying it's just an apple-pie statement, nobody cd disagree with it VH: Don't know. NC: And no consideration of impact on women? VH: If it had arisen it would be in there.
NC: It wd have been a bit controversial? VH: Yes NC: Also no consideration of women faith groups? VH: Can I back track - when I said didn't think about women, I thought you meant gender-critical beliefs/ NC: That's not what I asked or you said. VH: Can you ask Q again.
NC: I asked, no consideration of women and you said no, if there had been I'd remember and we'd have taken legal advice. VH: It was the Q about being controversial, and what I meant was, if GC or religious Qs had been raised I'd have remembered.

Madcats · 17/03/2026 15:28

NC: But if you had even considered the possibiloity that treating M as W in all circs might have issues, that wd in itself have been a gender-critical thought. That's why your thoughts jumped to GC? VH: Don't really know.
NC: A policy that says men who claim to be women can use F SSF, that means the spaces are mixed sex. VH: We will have thought that wsa proportionate at the time.
NC: Let me ask differently, can you think of an example of a way Qs might have been raised that would not have made you think 'gender critical'? VH: [pause] VH: Am not avoiding the Q VH {pause]
VH: Can you ask again? NC: Can you think of any concern about this policy's impact on women, that would not have been gender-critical, that might have been raised? [pause]
VH: Access availability, um NC: What do you mean by that? VH: Um occupancy - difficult isn't it - my mind is a blank.
NC: Am not trying to torment you, and I know it's a hard Q, my point is that the only way s/o could raise objection to the trans policy is to acknowledge sex is real, which is a gender critical position? VH: I can't answer that.
NC: You did not consider women with PTSD as a result of male violence? VH: No we didn't NC: I don't think I got an answer about whether you considered Muslim women?
VH: We will have considered religion as part of the EQI process, but I don't remember any specific converstaions.
NC: Following Stonewall's rules meant paying no attention to the impact on women? VH: We were very much encouraged to take part in the Stonewall procecss, the workplace index.
NC: You said it would have been ticklish if any of this had come up. I suggest that this is because within NHSE it was taboo to discuss. VH: NHS or more widely? NC: Am asking you about NHSE. VH: Trades Unions would not have let us shut conversations down.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.