Final day of witness evidence in Nurse Sandie Peggie’s tribunal claim against the Royal College of Nursing. The only witness is Patricia Marquis, Executive Director of RCN England.
208 tweets
Good morning and welcome to Day 6 of Peggie v RCN. Today's only witness, Patricia Marquis Executive Director of RCN England. Here she is arriving at court this morning with Jo Galbraith-Marten Executive Director of Legal, Employment and Member Relations. Live tweets follow…
If you want to follow along on a non-X page – there is a live tweets page which updates this thread very elegantly here – just leave it open on your browser and the whole thing will be there to read:
genderblog.net/live-tweets/
This is a crowdfunded endeavour. Subscribers receive first drop on court reports via email and a subscriber-only newsletter which follows. We are drawing to the end of the trial, but you will remain subscribed to all my future work. More info here.
genderblog.net/donate/
Please remember that everything I tweet is a mere summary or characterisation of what is being said and happening in court. NOTHING is a direct quote unless it is "direct quotes".
Abbreviations (more will get coined as we go along):
J – employment judge Melanie Sangster
PM – Patricia Marquis, RCN witness
DH – David Hay KC RCN advocate (Scots equiv of barrister)
NC – Naomi Cunningham, Sandie Peggie's barrister
SP – Sandie Peggie
At a guess we'll get 90 minutes of evidence in chief from PM by DH up to the morning break then we'll get the cross-examination (xe) by NC for the rest of the day. Proceedings should start at 10am. I'll now head into court. Which, from the outside looks like this.
Did I say we're in Dundee? We're in Dundee.
[court is in session]
J – morning PM
PM – [gives oath]
J pls keep your voice up and speak into the mic whilst giving evidence
DH whats your full name
PM Patricia Anne Marquis
DH employed by RCN
PM yes
DH job
PM Exec Dir RCN England
DH how long
PM I think around 5 yrs
DH how long employed by RCn
PM 30 years
DH job progression
PM activist, officer, regional officer, regional dir and now this job
DH what does your current role involve
PM oversee management and leadership and how they deliver services to members – also work with council
members and leader deciding the overall strat of the org
DH your reports
PM regional directors – they manage staff of varying sizes within the Eng regions
DH for purposes of Eng is that 9 regions
PM yes – 2 regional dirs have two regions connected to larger regions
DH who do you report to
PM CEO and GS Nicola Ranger
DH nursing background?
PM 10 years in Oxfordshire as a specialist nurse in an orthopaedic hospital
DH you sit at a fairly high level within the ops side of the RCN is that fair
PM yes
DH so strategic leadership
PM yes
DH lot of evidence in this case as to whether the RCN has any corporate views on matters and one is to do with a dichotomy in public debate at mo between concepts of GI and bio sex – aware of that dicho?
PM yes
DH and if the RCN were to have a position on that debate would you be expected to know about it given your job
PM yes absolutely I would
DH so far as you are aware does the RCN have any parti position re the concepts of GI (Gender Ideology) rather than bio sex
PM "we have no position on those two concepts"
DH has it ever
PM "no"
DH I presume from time to time the RCN will take policy positions on matters
PM yes
DH such as
PM primarily health and social care, pay and conditions, partic those that members drive us to take positions on
DH how do members (M) go about driving you to positions
PM congress once a year where Ms are able to submit things to be decided, feedback sessions – pay – lack of staff, lack of standing for registered nurses
DH there has been evidence referred to in this case where there are occasions where RCN material includes the Progress Pride (PP) flag – know that
PM I do
DH what is the intention of the RCN when it shows that flag in its material or flies it above the HQ
PM we seek to be
inclusive "and the use of that flag is to demonstrate our inclusivity"
DH what about exclusion – any intention to exclude inds
PM "absolutely not"
DH I'd like to look at some docs in the bundle – I'm going to look at three docs in the main – numerical order – it's one of the slimmer bundles [goes to supplementary bundle 1] p1047
DH this looks like an article which runs to p1049 by Sally Wilson – do you know here
PM don't work with her. Know who she is
DH this is on the RCN website – piece by her – what are we looking at?
DH p1047 – looks like a blog – why put these up on the RCN website
PM blog by sally – prob during pride week, we use blogs as a way of comming news, views etc – it's a sally has written a personal blog and its been put on the RCN website
DH 30 July last year
PM yes
DH p1106 an article to 1114 and looking at p1106 – headers RCN header top right and RCN Magazine – what is the mag and its purpose
PM a way of us again getting messages news and articles on issues that "may well be of interest to some or all of our members"
PM it used to be a paper thing, but now online
DH how many times a year does it get issued?
PM don't know
DH looking at this article you've mentioned there could be a number of reasons why inds might pen articles in the mag…
DH what would your understanding be as to the inc of such an article in the RCN mag
PM the issue of how to care for trans patients has been raised at congress – artic refers to that. It's an artic to help members understand issues for patients who are trans how best to care for
them.
DH "is this a statement of policy by RCN"
PM "no"
DH go to end of bundle p1262
PM "fair care for trans patients"
DH runs to p1278
J not numbered
DH using internal pages – go to the second page – do we see that this would appear to have been issued in 2017
[this is posted on my website at the bottom of yesterday's court report]
DH what is this
PM a clinical guide to help people care for trans people
DH are there many clinical guides produced by RCN
PM many yes
DH as an RCN member what would I be expected to do with them
PM peoples choice to engage with the content or not – it's to help people with
clinical care
DH this is a 2nd edition – produced in 2017 – in the shaded box it says "this publication is due for review in march 2020 – is this 2nd edition current?
PM not to my knowledge – it was updated to 2020, but there is no current copy of FCFTP as it was removed subject to review
DH when was it removed
PM roughly I would say from memory just after the Supreme Court (SC) judgment was issued
DH FWS?
PM yes
DH why was it removed
PM along with another of other docs there are a number of things which were no longer corr and we are now reviewing and waiting for other guidance before we consider published another version
DH it remains a WIP
PM yes it remains a WIP
[genderblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2017-Fair-Care-for-Trans-Patients-2nd-Edition-PUB-005844.pdfhttps://genderblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2017-Fair-Care-for-Trans-Patients-2nd-Edition-PUB-005844.pdf]
DH 4th doc – large bundle p275
PMWhat's this booklet
PM resource to promote equality and inclusion in the workplace
DH p294 – dated Dec 2024 – what is the purpose of this doc
PM pub for Ms to promote inclusion but also help explain some of the terminology and also help understanding what inc and div is
DH as a M how would I get this booklet – would it be automatically sent to me
PM don't believe this is in hard copy – it would be avail on our website
DH you mentioned the doc we were just looking at the FCFTP was removed – is this doc being looked at again
PM not removed, but
being reviewed.
DH we've been talking about FWS SC decision – pls turn to p841 in the big bundle – recognise that?
PM I do
DH it's headed the RCN position on the UKCS judgment in relation to sex and equality act – issued 30 April 2025
DH not long after the judgment – why was this statement made by the RCN
PM not aware of a particular reason – we often will make a public response to sig changes to legislation that impact on our members
DH in the 2nd par – the RCN is carefully considering the judgment the impact on our members and our guidance and advice – does that consideration continue to some extent
PM yes
DH we've looked at some docs re trans patients which might be encountered by t M and nurses – are you aware of any Ms who are trans
PM yes
DH are you aware of Ms who have more gender crit beliefs
PM yes
DH is there any partic approach the RCN takes towards managing their views
PM the word is balance we have mMs who have a range of views – "we are as inclusive as we can be of all the diff views"
DH pls turn to p914 – this runs to p916 – RCN statement on EHRC code of practice for service providers and functions – pub on 21 May 2026
PM yes
DH on p915 on the 2nd par..
… "we want to promote tolerance… understanding… complex and difficult terrain" – why is it diff and complex
RCN trying to navigate a balanced response – incl people who have no strong pos either way is challengin
DH was there a partic – thinking about the EHRC code of practice – was there a partic angle the EHRC would like to see
PM we were hoping to see clearer guidance on how they would be expected to care for patients in their day to day work – the code has not really answered those qs
yet
DH you heard evidence from a number of people – a nurse Jennifer Wilmot – who said there were difffs for nurses, particularly caring for T patients
PM it's their "biggest concern – how they care for patients partic who are T"
DH had some evidence on certain matters in England – we know in Scotland in respect of devising workplace policies there's an approach called Once for Scotland – to what extent in Eng is there the same global approach to dev in imp to NHS workplace pols
PM no Once for Eng approach – sometimes NHS employers might bring in guidance, but no single policy dev
DH how does it work
PM each NHS trust devise their own policy which may or may not follow national guidance
DH does that inv joint negs?
PM at local level, yes
DH we've heard evidence about a doc called On The Case p114 of the big bundle
DH is this a doc you are familiar with – re the provision of legal support and how that may or may not interact with a M having their own legal advice (LA) – have you ever come across people taking their own LA?
PM yes
DH RCN pos
PM normally withdraw
or even if they were a way down the road with this – we would not pick up someone's case along the way. It's a case by case assessment, but in broad terms we would withdraw.
DH pls go to smallest bundle p51 – it's BlueSky post from an ind called Freda Wallace and on p52 we see a zoomed in part of the first photo of the four on p51 – and we can see interiors of a building. Exterior has RCN flag – where is that
PM RCN HQ in London
DH now this post sent on 12 Dec 2025 – appears to be a desc of an event taking place in RCN HQ – what was that event
PM event was for any M to attend to talk about inclusion, but focused on what priority areas they would want us to think about in terms of setting up M networks
DH was it formal training
PM no
DH does the RCN provide formal training for M
PM yes
DH who determined who might speak at this event
PM open invite to Ms anyone could attend – it was more of a workshop – whilst anyone could have spoken, they were not invited speakers.
DH thanks v much PM that's all I have for you – but there will be further qs I am sure
J yes NC – thank you – we'll break around 11.30am
NC I'll look for suitable point – thank you – good morning PM i'm asking qs on behalf of SP
NC you are v senior indeed reporting to NR the CEO – the only way to be more senior is to succeed her in her role
PM in terms of employed position yes, but we have a council who are more senior
NC as a senior person giving evidence for the trust in these proceedings
you are giving evidence on behalf of the RCN
PM no
NC comfortable taking any responsibility for RCN in your evidence
PM yes
NC and you have to deal with political issues
PM yes
NC and you wou;dnt' get the job if you didn't pay attn to current affairs and matters which affect
your Ms
PMs
NC so you've been paying an above average, intelligent and close attn to your Ms
PM I do take notice of issue partic of matters rel to our Ms but also in daily live
NC presumably a strong commitment to EDI -equal div and inc
PM yes
NC and to und EDI you need a workign understanding of discrim law
PM yes not an expert
NC no not a lawyer but need to keep an eye on it
PM yes
NC to keep an eye on EDI you need to keep an eye on how diverse you are as an org
PM yes
NC and you do that by collecting data
PM that's one of the ways
NC p84 of big bundle pls – this is RCNs vol responses to info sent on behalf of SP – SP asked to state bio F members, bio M and how many had PC of GR and how many GC beliefs
NC and you have approx figs 86 F and 12 M – but can't confirm whether they are bio F or bio M as you didn't capture that info – so fair to say RCN has not been accurately collecting data about the sex of its Ms for some time
PM yes
NC now it's prob fair to assume that 85% is fairly accurate as there's only like to be a small number of men who say they're women along that number
PM yes
NC and if you were worried about misogyny in your org you might collect data about F seniority, pay, speaking time
… interruption rates
PM yes
NC that data might be quite badly skewed if you inc'd in your F counting a small number of men who say they are women
[isn't sure]
NC I'll make it concrete – how many people on council – 16?
PM yes
NC have you come across knitting trick – knit one colour whilst F speaking and one colour when M is speaking so you get a visual rep of who is speaking
[looks]
NC well you are now
NC now if you have a man who says he is a woman starts speaking a lot and he is recorded as F it skews the data
[PM is lost. NC tries again]
NC it's going to make a major diff to the results
PM yes
NC and in a small group that is a problem
PM yes
NC now on p85 you don't have any numbers on Ms who have GR nor GC –
PM we didn't collect them until v recently
NC now collecting data on GC beliefs?
PM not specifically – on philosophical beliefs
since July – so it's new
NC "is that a bit of learning from these proceedings?"
PM "no it was already in our EDI strat as an area we needed to improve"
NC you said to DH you were reflective of society in a membership of 600,000
the idea being the larger you are the more reflective you are of soc as a whole
PM not nec, but we think we are reflective of soc
NC pls turn to p790 – that's a YouGov poll on attitudes to TG rights – you know YouGov
PM yes
NC reputable well known market research and polling co
PM yes
NC rigourous with its data
PM not an expert but I would trust it
NC says that attitudes to TG people have hardened to TG people – look at whether people think it's right that people should ID as oppo to their birth sex…
NC now that's quite hard line some might think
PM might do
NC you'd think a lot of people – even GC people would say you can id as a man or a woman or a unicorn or a train if you think it's right so long as it doesn't affect others
PM yes
NC but look at that fig in the last two years its gone from
just under 20% to something just under 40%
PM yes
NC and people who think TG people should not use changing rooms diff from bio sex acc to this survey has gone from 30% to 60% in two years to 2024 – confirm
PM yes
NC And if you turn to p803 – we see that broken down in more detail – in that one page summary of Brit attitudes to TG rights and the pink and dark pink and green and dark green shows split in categories of people who were asked to give their views.
NC see statement TW should be able to use W CRs – a majority disagreed – and the only class who didn't was 18-24 – even Lib Dems were broadly opposed to that proposition
PM yes
NC do you agree that TiM should not be allowed to use W CRs is a statement of something quite a fundamental dissent from GI. Or rather it is a core GC belief.
PM yes that would seem reasonable to say
NC so those majorities who don't think TiMs should use F CRs can be said to be GV
PM don't think it follows
NC didn't you just agree with both propositions
PM don't think they're opposites
NC even though you don't know the views of your M – can you agree that RCN Ms prob think
that TiMs should not use F CRs
PM there will be a mixed range of views
NC no reason to think your members are complete outliers is there – you said they reflect society – so they will hold same view
PM yes [eventually]
NC so it's not an outlying bigot who thinks TiMs shouldn't use F CRs – it's a lot of people who don't want to pay lipservice to GI]
PM wouldn't call someone a bigot who doesn't want a TiM in a CR [agrees with NC proposition]
NC can we got to p260
PM it's a bit cut off
NC that's not helpful – have a look at p264 – section headed "where we started"
PM [doesn't have the full page]
NC that's an issue as this is important
J what pp are you going to use?
[NC says – admit chat – J says she will get those columns printed – mid morning break and I'll arrange to get those pages printed reminds witness she is under oath]
[court rises]
[just realised in the photo at the top of the thread I didn't say which woman is which – the witness – PM is the woman on the left]
[both can be found here: www.rcn.org.uk/About-us/Our-governance/How-we-work/Our-structure/RCN-Executive-Team]
[waiting for J to return with the print offs – court is silent]
[clerk returns with print offs. J returns. court is sitting]
NC you now have p264
PM I do
NC this doc – the EDI strategy dated Dec 2024 – that's 3 years after the Carr review
PM yes
NC and one of the key themes of the Carr review was misogyny male dominance and sexual exploitation
PM yes
NC that would be a worry in any org but partic for such a F dominated one as RCNs
PM certainly was a worry for us, yes
NC okay look at p264 – on LHS there are a couple of columns about "Our Ambition" and then a couple of columns headed "Where we started" – [quotes "reflected…
… on our journey so far… can do better"]
NC it touches on 2021 Bruce Carr review and KPMG – and then says in 2022 congress decided we should be anti-discrim and anti-racist org – cultural systemic change, taking time, 5 year strategy – confident Ms can assert their rights…
NC doc barely mentions sex at all, does it?
PM can't completely see the doc – but will trust what you're saying
NC if I'm wrong DH I am sure will take you back and point it out
NC but going back to middle column where we started – 2023 congress voted to be an anti-racist
and anti-discrim – all a great idea – bit woolly, mightn't your F Ms want you to stop shouting down or discriminating or exploiting women?
PM don't know what you mean
NC Carr review said M Ms dominated women, that Congress was a time for exploitation of women and discrim
PM understands
NC before you start being anti-racist and all those things – shouldn't you try to run before you walk and stop discrimming against W
PM there was a separate work stream on that
NC pls turn to the doc Let's Talk Inclusion at p275 – assuming for a moment that I'm right at the EDI strategy doesn't mention sex at all. – do yours Mems have a right to feel let down that the EDI strategy doesn't mention sex?
PM no
NC think its okay
PM completely sep work on Carr and KPMG report addressed more urgently before this 2024 doc came out – eg how we elect Mems to Council how we promote all that sep to EDI strat and in terms of EDI strat – it's talking in general terms about the broad range of discrim and inc we're
trying to address.
NC are you telling the tribunal that by the time the EDI strat was drafted you'd finished dealing with sex discrim so you didn't need to mention it in your strat.
PM no it was still an issue and is still an issue and one of the things that came out of it was
for instance, collecting data so we can better find out what they think and want us to focus on and work on
NC okay – onto p275 – Inclusion – being the change – turn to the section on gender/sex – p285 – can you see all that?
PM I can thank you
NC [quotes how it blurs gender/sex]
NC so here the RCN deprecates sex in favour of gender which is said to be more inclusive
PM wouldn't agree its deprecating but I can understand that interp
NC all genders and sex can face discrim blurs cat of W and deflects away from misogyny
PM does blur, but don't agree it
deflects fro misogyn
NC any time you want to talk about sex and then have to turn it into gender makes it diff to talk about misogyny
PM don't agree
NC nothing in either of these last two docs say RCN has learned anything since the Carr review
PM disagree [points to panel…
… where she says it is dealt with]
NC okay – we've had a lot of evidence about whether RCN has adopted GI – the RCN's official position that it hasn't
PM yes
NC [some disco about GI and GC] so GI is not bio sex is their inner sense of their own ID
PM it's one intepretation, yes
NC how would you define GI
PM not the def – it's the exclusivity of the def I'm struggling with
NC don't understand what you mean by exclusivity… Norman Provan agreed that the boiled down defs to their simplest essentials – GIs believe TWAW and GCs believe TWAM – make sense?
PM it does, but the part I'm trying to artic are TWATW as opposed to TWAW
NC that's a prop that doesn't belong to either of the two camps – is that RCN's position
PM no
NC your position
PM no
NC the essential conflict is that those who say TW should have access to women's wards prisons CRs and those who say TW are men and shouldn't have access to those things
PM yes
NC and NP said he never thought anyone ever at the RCN had taken a policy – agree same for you?
PM yes
[nor seen any favouring of one side of GI/GC at any level]
NC pls turn to p598 – the one point I want to ask you about is the expression what LGBTQIA+ means?
[PM gets as far as A – but doesn't know A and +]
PM people ID in lots of ways
NC they do. are you aware of furries?
PM vaguely
NC aware its a sexual fetish
PM no
NC some men ID as babies or toddlers
PM yes
NC so when RCN stands in support of LGBTQIA+ members its a bit worrying standing for a group whose parameters can't define
PM yes
NC and that might be people who are furries, adult babies or paedophiles
PM "that's a judgment I'm not going to comment on in terms of people's choices"
NC are you aware that LGBTQIA+ is contested in itself – that it's firmly associated by GIs
PM no
NC you know some LGB people think LGBTQIA is homophobic
PM where there is tension between the various groups
NC know why?
PM know there are diffs in views on all sides, but
don't nec understand their views
NC point is that sex orientation is a real thing and about bodies, but T is about being metaphysical in their essences. to be LGB requires differentiation between bodies
PM some people feel like that. others don't
NC quite a lot of lesbians believe that men calling themselves lesbians dislike that creed and find it homophobic and menacing
PM lots of diff views
NC it's a variation on telling a L they haven't met the right man yet
PM no comment
NC did you write that quote yourself on p599
[about LGBTQIA+]
PM I will have agreed it
NC staffer
PM comms team
NC you have pronouns in your LinkenIn profile
PM no idea
NC ever added pronouns to you anything
PM yes
NC people who see you know you're a woman
PM don't know yes probly
NC so putting pronouns in your sig is just signalling your allegiance with GI
PM don't know
NC by putting your pronouns down you are not saying that these ordinary words which we understand the meaning of are now those for people to use
PM I think some people who think they're trans and they should be addressed as how they feel comfortable
NC but you don't need to do you. you're not trans are you
PM no
NC so why do it
PM not so much about addressing me its about people who aren;'t nec clear can do the same
NC providing cover
PM helping people live comfortably
NC the solicitor Jemma Shepherd who is in court repping RCN – she's from AS] has pronouns in her bio doesn't she
PM don't know
NC and if an RCN member gets through to her for legal advice and she's just got in trouble at work for misgendering the first thing she's going to see is the solicitor signalling her support of GI
[PM accepts but also doesn't know how it works in Scotland and says it's a contested space]
NC can you go to p1051 [more RCN progress pride (PP) flag merch/tat on its way]
NC 57 pages of RCN merch here
PM take your word for it
NC general nursing merch RCN-branded merch, there is historical material, campaigning material about fair play for nurses and these are the sort of things you'd expect RCN to be promoting – generic, historical and campaigning
PM not sure about campaigning
NC not sure it greatly matters, but for example there is on p1094
PM ah okay
NC that's campaigning on a core TU patch
PM not all campaigning materials – it may be event releated
NC not saying there are all – there is what I said to one W as generic nursing tat, historic tat and campaigning –
PM some is event related re COngress et
NC accepts – but the outlier in all this merch is the PP badge and buttons merch
PM this is event-related stuff in Pride month – avail to Ms to wear whenever partic through Pride activity
NC think you agreed with DH and NP agreed that the PP flag is associated with GI
PM its associated for me with being inclusive and people who ID in diff ways
NC say it's not
[as in "are you saying it's not?"]
PM it is
NC so RCN is producing and providing to Ms PP and RCN branded badges – that's taking sides insn't it
PM no supporting members who ID in diff ways – not being exclusive of other views
NC no merch for xtian nurses, muslim nurses, atheist nurses – nothing for all that is there.
PM no
NC no GC or sex realist merch
PM no
NC nothing for IWD
PM we have events, but nothing her I agree
NC it would follow that is somebody made avail a badge in suffragette colours with RCN logo and the slogan "courage calls to courage everwhere" a slogan used by GC people you'd put it in the shop
PM don't know it would have to be considered
NC surely as night follows day – if RCN is completely neutral on GI and GC and thinks both are valid and equal then you must be willing to produce or provide GC badges
PM not an expert – couldn't say whether we would or wouldn't
NC what stops you from being an expert
PM not sure about colours and calls to action etc – in the same way I don't know what is or isn't okay within all the LGB opinions about various things
NC okay go to p1081 a PP RCN badge – if GC and GI are completely equal surely you would agrees to sell a badge using the GC colours and the RCN logo
PM "I can't answer the question"
NC "what's hard about it?"
PM "it's not my area of expertise and I can't answer the q"
NC pls go to p598 – we've already looked at it and established you didn't write, but signed off the quote on p599 – this was an announcement about the listening sessions on the back of the SC judgment – tho not a lawyer you had a reasonable understanding of it
PM yes
NC first time clash between GI and GC had come to a head at the SC
PM don't know – guess so
NC and q in a nutshell was whether TG people with a cert count as women or men as per the EA and the answer was because bio sex had such far reachings connsequences
PM yes
NC so this is the SC deciding that TWAM
PM for the purposes of the EA
NC and this was seen as a resounding vindication of the sex realist position
PM say again
NC resounding vindication – sex realists have been saying for years that TWAM and this was the SC saying yes, TWAM
PM yes it did
NC your quote – "upset worry and concern… lots of negativity… very unsafe… unacceptable" – that's mournful in tone
PM no I don't agree
NC you acknowledge worry and confusion – note it's led to negativity,, emphasize support for LGBTQIA+ members – you're presenting it as bad news which members will find upsetting
PM not intention
NC anything that acknowledges that many members, quite a lot may be, might be rejoicing at this
PM no
NC did you know there was one of your members in the SC courtroom when the judgment was handed down
PM no
NC and you must be aware that W who made the args in the SC had been demonised threatened and sometimes deprived of their livelihoods for years
PM yes
NC you must have been aware that it would feel v raw for your members who took that view
PM yes
NC nothing in your comms about that is there
PM no I accept that
NC and theres nothing about the rage and defiance expressed by TG men in response to the judgment
PM no
NC and as someone who pays attn to CA and news – there was a furious reaction to the SC ruling – men saying they were going to use W toilets etc
PM there was anger on both sides and it's been horrible to witness
NC go on to p613 and this is now slides from the engagement
sessions themselves
PM yep
NC second slide after the title -primes members to think that the SC judgment might give rise to a need for emotional support
PM I think we already knew cos of reax we had before these sessions that it was an emotional thing for many Ms. Or some Ms
NC pls turn to p1005 and that's in the next volume. transcript of J G-M explanation of the legal position and most of it is a perfectly capable exposition of the judgment and what it says. but if you turn to the page before she summarise the EHRC's interim advice and…
… says TW should not be permitted to use the W facilities – sorry p1007 4th par down – and TM not to use the mens. Also says in some circs T people might not be able to use toilets eg masc trans man bio woman whose presents as masc – so SC says they can be excluded, but T
people should not be excluded from ALL facilities which should be easy to do as there are unisex facilities
PM not sure it's easy to do but it should be done
NC and then there's mixed sex facilities and that's explained
PM yes
NC and then there's an explanation of single
lockable cubicles – like they are at home – bathrooms are enclosed and lockable for one person to use at a time.
PM yes
NC so JGB's summary is crystal clear
PM it's clear to me
NC then she goes on to say it's all very complex and diff to say what it means
… and talks about needing more guidance that discrim claims could arise, consultation need etc etc. extraordinary that JGB – RCN's lawyer is taking crystal clear guidance and saying it's all very confusing
PM don't read it like that – it isn't as easy as providing toilets
in the way toilets and CRs have been provided in recent years could be more challenging – and people who've been using one set and are now going to another – not saying that's wrong, but it will have an impact on them and as employers it hasn't been explained where there are exemption and how that translates into healthcare settings where patients have to be cared for and it sounds straightforward to move from one to the other and that's hard to implement in practice and that remains unclear
NC yes people who have taken steps to alter their appearance do cause problems
PM don't think it's the inds – defining those is still as I understand it, unclear
NC what is clear – there may be diff cases where people had altered their appearance but for the great majority of people – irrespective of it actually – there is a rule that people should not be allowed to use oppo sex facilities PM yes for toilets its clear but – practically implementing that and people dealing with that is difficult and there is a big issue with the treatment of trans patients – the majority of the time it will be straightforward, but we want guidance as we don't want our frontline staff being put in a position
NC but the real clear outcome is that nobody should be allowed to use facilities for the oppo sex
PM but no one should be discrimmed for GR and we have to balance the rights of diff groups and whilst SC is clear – balancing the rights against groups is a problem
NC yes GR have rights but if a man who IDs as a woman is told he's not allowed to use the F CR, that's not discrim against him on grounds of GR
[gives non answer. NC tries again]
PM no but if there is no suitable facilities – not a lawyer – but there needs to be somewhere for that ind to change
NC clearly he needs somewhere to go – but it is really clear it's not in the women's [goes back to JGM's advice]. All of that is nonsense isn't it? It's not kneejerk – it's complying with the law.
PM it makes sense to me
NC it's right to hesitate and dither and we should consult before we comply with the law – really saying it's okay to do that
PM yes
NC truth is guidance and SC ruling wasn't unclear it was unwelcome
PM no
NC widely unwelcome – lots of people v v angry and upset
PM some were and some were really pleased it was clear
NC and all people who were horrified at the idea that W might have rights of their own went to work on trying to generate confusion
PM people did push back
NC we don't need to know JGMs views, but her notes put it beyond doubt that the RCN has picked a side
PM no it's about the practical side of implementing the J, not just in terms of toilets but in terms of care – it's is also about considering what for some people will be a sig change with an impact on them and continues to be diff to implement in some areas.
NC now you describe what was happening as a sig change that needed to be dealt with some sensitivity – now for a W whose been changing in the same ss CR for years or decades in complete trust that the sign means what it says on the door – it's a change if she is changing and
meets the eye of a man. And management say she's a woman so she can be in there
PM yes
NC and many of your members will be survivors of sex abuse
PM yes
NC and its a partic sig change for W who are survivors of sex assault and rape
PM it will be for other women as well
NC what steps did you take to ensure that change was handled sensitivity with your female Membership
PM don't know and don't know when it was done
NC truth nothing was done, neither unions nor employers asked women what they thought
PM I don't know
NC the RCN picked the side of the men who said they were women and not the side of the W who said they weren't
PM no
NC and the effect of this piece of good news for your F membership – that they had rights to ss spaces after all – was for you to privilege the rights of a v small
number of men over your overhwelmingly F membership
PM no
NC fair to see this as part of the misogyny that Bruce Carr highlighted in his report in 2021
PM no – we weren't challenging it – we said there is a decision here and we need to discuss implementing it
NC J I have finished that section
J how much longer are you going to be – you said two hours
NC I'm not finished yet – I suspect I'll take the full afternoon
J another two hours?
NC yes
J okay I thought we might finish or have a short lunch. Okay we'll have a full lunch break…
… back here at ten to two.
[warns witness not talk about her evidence – court rises]
Bit complex…
x.com/Charlotty/status/2105257523087327725?s=20
@nickwallis Could be a real money spinner though PM & provide some ⚖️
[court back in session]
J we'll take a break in an hour
NC you said in your e-i-c you would never pick up a case half way through – but witness stephen o'grady from Free Speech Union said you'd done exactly that
PM don't think I said never, I said we wouldn't but on a case by case basis
[goes to RCN SC sessions]
NC two people wrote to say how disgusted they were by how those sessions were handled
PM yes
NC and that wasn't Jenny Wilmot nor Pauline Fox
PM no
NC so we're aware at least 4 people were unhappy
PM yes
NC goes to p600 – this is a partial transcript
of what happened. Were you aware that Jenny Wilmot was called a bigot in the chat
PM was aware the chat was closed
NC woman A talking about why there wouldn't be a convo about not having black people on wards or gay people on wards – do you thinkg the missing word in this transcript likely to be TERFs?
PM can't say
NC but it's pretty hostile to GC women
PM yes
NC shocking isn't that the facilitator thanks Hazel and appears to agree – that they are run from a GI perspective
PM disappointing about the way it was handled
NC not just contributors but facilitators
PM yes not ideal
NC facilitator should have admonished Hazel and said that language is unacceptable and shut her down – not thanked her
PM yes I would agree
NC so way JW and PF are right – this minimised GC voices and privileged TRA voices
PM it is really disappointing the way this was handled
NC RCN taking sides between GI and GC
PM no
NC nothing more here in this bundle about other sessions – but there was a sep engagement session for GC or SR members – and that happened on 21 July 2025 – the then chair of Congress Linda Bailey – Wendy Irwin – head of EDI. PAtricia Mbasani CoS
PM not CoS – head of People and OD
NC and two lay members
PM sounds corr
NC invitation only
PM yes
NC hand-picked, well-behaved polite GC membres
PM no
NC how did these inds get invited?
PM don't know but some who raised concs about the open sessions were given an offer to engage in those sessions or other ways
NC only 2 people were found
PM only two Ms attended – they were face to face not online
NC why weren't they advertised in the same way as the June sessions
PM I'm afraid I'm not
NC face of it it seems odd doesn't it – if you're neutral – you've advertised open sessions which frame FWS as bad news and upsetting and then you hold a secret session for TERFs – very odd way to behave isn't it
PM session at congress, sessions online and then two face to face sessions one for GC and one for GI events that were not advertised
NC so you had some face to face sessions one for each camp – are you saying you didn't advertise either,
PM yes
NC but can't say why not
PM intention was to gather both groups to have a dialogue recognising that it would be diff in a shared space
NC and thats cos TRAs aren't prepared to do this – not the GC side
PM can't comment – I've seen unpleasantness on both side
NC had you advertised a session for GC people "all hell would have broken loose" from TRAs within the RCN.
PM no
NC you could only reach known GCs in this method
PM I agree
NC and people had to travel a long way or not attend
PM yes – we tried to fund travel – time is more tricky – but it was felt that it was easier to create a diff dialogue face to face
NC barest min of grudging engagement with GCs without allowing you to find out what your members actually felt
PM our intention was not realised
NC obvious it wouldn't work because you've never asked them what they think
PM no we haven't and we might but at that point we did try to engage to find out what our members thought and what they might need from us.
NC pls turn to the doc to Fair Care for Trans Patients p1262 [find it here genderblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2017-Fair-Care-for-Trans-Patients-2nd-Edition-PUB-005844.pdfhttps://genderblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2017-Fair-Care-for-Trans-Patients-2nd-Edition-PUB-005844.pdf]
NC that's an RCN doc you spoke about it answering qs from DH – pls turn to internal p6 – how familiar are you with this doc
PM no it reasonably well – read it recently –
NC pls start p5 – "providing healthcare to T people and their communities" – emphasize privacy and keeping
it only to people who need to know. on p6 – care needed to take care of their needs – should be based on self-ID and presentation
PM "this doc is from 2017 and followed what was happening and accepted in the way to allocate patients at the time"
NC that was taking a pos that was bitterly contested from all the way through till 2025 when the SC ruled
PM that's what was happening across health and care settings and that's what we advised our Ms to follow
NC but there was still a debate – between GIs and GCs in that time
PM yes
NC and you say across the NHS the GI was taken that TW were W and should be accommodated across healthcare
PM yes that was the case – it was contested, but accepted practice under the law until it was clarified is the practice in this doc
NC so what you're saying is that GI was accepted across the NHS and RCN was not an outlier – across the trade union movement and the wider public sector – you've still adopted it
PM no we adopted he law at the time until it was clarified by the law
NC but it wasn't the law at the time it was never the law the SC only tells us what the law is
PM thank you for that clarity I don't know – I'm not a lawyer
NC and this doc tells nurses to adopt an uncritically affirming approach to child trans patients
[PM is a bit lost]
NC this is an area of contention – whether to affirm children is a flashpoint between GC and GIs and the RCN tells its nurses that nurses should affirm
PM this is from 2017
NC so this position is consistent with GI
PM I accept people are making a choice about their gender
NC that's not the q – you accepted it was a flashpoint a moment ago – GI say people are whatever sex they say GC people say they might be confused or deluded – it's picked a side here
PM not sure I see it as picking a side I see the argument being made about respectiing people's individual choices.
[sorry – the end part of NC's q also included a line about – just because everyone else was doing it it didn't mean you weren't picking a side]
NC it's right isn't it that there was a Times report about the Dave Dawes affair referring to an "unofficial feminist network" – in 2021 – remember this?
PM not sure
NC remember attempts to set up a feminist network
PM was convos about setting up a women's network
NC may have
been that
PM not aware
NC wasn't that blocked by Dave Dawes?
PM is there any ref material
NC no sorry – if you don't remember – I"ll move on…
[might be this www.thetimes.com/uk/article/royal-college-of-nursing-chief-denies-hostility-to-women-2nq2c8cg0]
NC can you look at p55 in small supp bundle – it's a bluesky post from Freda Wallace saying he'll be at Congress and there is an image of the RCN Pride badge on a card – was that sent out in his delegate pack
PM can't confirm – don't believe those go out with delegate packs
NC so FW could have ordered it from the RCN shop
PM yes
NC on p51 your solicitors have had that image since 30 July since it was sent to them [this is the image I think of FW being at the RCN event]
PM take your word for it
NC and then there was a request for info about FW's
membership status
PM yes
NC and then you would have researched who FW was and what kind of man he was
PM I guess
NC and if you saw the supp bundle for the case you'd then know – if you look at pp47 – 50 and I apologise you might want to flick pass them quite quickly
[these are pics of FW in fetish gear receiving oral sex from a man with the line "Dads like lady penis" or something – it's in yesterday's blog post – not the pic!]
NC and the RCN tried very hard including having a case management hearing earlier this week to stop this material going into the bundle
PM wasn't involved in that
NC and FW remains a member
PM we don't monitor our Ms social media
NC not saying you should
NC but this has been brought to your attention. don't you think you should do some
PM he has access to your spaces, can come to your events. do you think your members would feel comfortable around this man
NC it's an interesting point. Some wouldn't
[takes her to RCN code of conduct]
NC RCN encourages inclusive members – this is not inclusive
PM if that behaviour was happening at our events we would take action or wanted to take up or was in elected office we would action
NC 1.2 says all members must behave in a way which upholds reputation of RCN. Is that happening here
PM CoC also goes on to be v specific about behaviour for elected members about taking action in the members holding offices tells about the circs – in terms of what people choose
to do we're not judging or policing what actions ind Ms choose to do
NC but all Ms are bound by 1.2
PM its fair to refer to CoC in terms of where we are now and what we do in terms of the future – in terms of judging behaviour that's not our role – apart from circs when it is
but in this case, no.
NC one of the things that the RCN was keen to keep out of this court case – were you aware that when FW sent out those pics he tagged a disabled woman whose GC stance is informed by her need for intimate personal care
PM don't know that person
NC and look at what he said to Helen Staniland [calls her a "cunt"]
PM yes
NC is there anything RCN Ms could do in their public life or behaviour that would be worth them being expelled or to check they are reg nurses
PM never really had that debate before today
NC you did report and expel Dave Dawes for his disgusting misogynistic behaviour
PM I wasn't really involved in the details of why he was reported, but I do know he was reported by us to the NMC
[NMC is the nurses regulator RCN is their union and professional body]
NC pls go to p1062 – RCN doc – gender ID glossary "eunuch" – that's a pretty extreme manifestation of GI
PM I don't know
NC go back to p11 about gender-variant children being treated like trans adults – so children who self ID as a eunuch should be affirmed
PM yes
NC do you have a view on that
PM no
NC is it acceptable that a child who self-IDs as a eunuch should be affirmed as a eunuch
PM don't have a view –
NC if a child IDs as a eunuch and adults affirm that they are guilty of horrifying child abuse
PM don't know
NC don't have a view
NC ?
PM don't really understand enough, I have to say
NC pls got to p24 of the small supp bundle
NC you've been at the RCN for quite a while you are presumably aware of why Lisa Mackenzie left her role
PM don't know about LM till I saw the bundle
NC look at Ellie Mulreany's tweets – one says to "kick the ever living fuck" out of people who dissent from GI
PM horrible
PM v unpleasant
NC non unusual is it – that sentiment is out there in the world
PM don't know
NC GT said no women were coming forward with complaints about men in female spaces – not surprising is it given the fear
PM don't know, but fair to say not many people are coming forward
NC at the event FW attended the tables were divided into people with diff protected chars
PM don't know it was a workshop
NC and if FW was put on the W table that would have a profound chilling effect on W ability to speak their minds
NC last topic is Darlington nurses J this is about 20 mins long
[J canvases opinion – no break we're pushing on to the end]
NC pls turn to p953
NC before that the eunuch q – you say you don't have a view – you don't agree that it might be abusive to affirm a child as a eunuch is abuse – your unwillingness to give that answer is eloquent testimony to the climate of fear which exists
PM genuinely don't know enough about it
PM it might be
NC you're too frightened – if you said affirming a boy as a eunuch and allowing him to be castrated was abuse the activists would be after you
PM not worried about them
NC they are very frightening the TRA in the RCN
PM not to my experience no
NC turn to p953 – about Rose using F CR in Darlington – stopped using hormones as he's trying to get his gf preg – so he's told colleagues he's sexually active [reads about how uncomfortable he's making people feel etc] She is describing a shockingly abusive situation
PM uncomfortable
NC can you go further
PM it's shocking and I can see why the word abusive is being used
NC you can't say it's shockingly abusive because of the grip T activism has on your org and pays your salary
PM no I disagree
NC next par – survivor of sex abuse says he's approached someone alone and persistently asked her to change – is that shockingly abusive?
PM yes
NC Bethany Hutchison was asking Nicola Ranger to affiliate with the DN union and support them and she is asking for a meeting – and that gets passed to you. – you were non-committal
PM it was at that stage – we'd normally ask for a local meeting which I arranged and it happened.
NC here on p956 your response says there will be some other Ms who will be affected – is this because you are talking about TRAs
PM we've heard from BH – we'd also want to hear from other Ms inc people potentially who are trans and others
NC quotes more of the letter about aligning sometimes and sometimes not – what were you talking about here?
PM nothing particularly – just thinking about what we might or might not be able to do
NC after that letter you pass it to Sarah Dodsworth and she met with BH on 3 Dec
NC and if we turn to p959 we have SD's account of the outcomes of that meeting and one of those things that came out of that meeting was a questionnaire and p961 was the result – a Staff Safety Survey
PM yes
NC nothing there to say spaces ought to be single sex or to assume that they were
PM no
NC and a lot of yours Ms don't have Eng as a first lang
PM yes not sure in this area
NC and you've got a small number of TiMs in your Membership
PM yes
NC aware of any others than Rose or DU?
PM no
NC so it might not have happened elswhere
PM might not
NC doesn't mean it's not a prob for your F Ms who have to be able to trust the sign on the door and what it means
PM agree
NC and even if it isn't happening it might raise the anxiety of members
PM might
NC and you have to look after the welfare of your Ms even if they are raising it with you
PM we tend to prioritise what our Ms are raising with us or are obvious – eg patients
being cared for in corridors
NC not really telling the tribunal is that the only reason you haven't been telling NHS Trusts to comply with the law is because you haven't got round to it
PM our focus has been internal – trying to get our docs sorted and to push NMC, EHRC and NHSE
to develop the guidance they are responsible for.
NC if there were changes to the small print to the pensions scheme you'd not expect your members to read and know it would you – your job is to draw attn to it and help them understand it
PM yes
NC and if NHS brings in a policy that men can now access F CRs then it's your job to raise it
PM not really come up – people accepted it – possibly unhappily, but we have not made it the top of our agenda – partly possibly because it was so contested
NC you agreed survivors might be partic anxious about M in CR
PM yes
NC do you agree no one should ask to about their trauma
PM yes
NC agree that no one should be forced to disclose their abuse in order to guarantee sss
PM agree
NC this letter from SD to NHS is a model of clarity – shame it took 5 months – but its great
PM thank you
NC but when it was published SD got in hot water with the RCN comms team
PM weren't expecting it to be put in the public domain – but no issue with the letter –
NC can you turn to p1019 of the bundle – know what this is?
PM RCN website
NC site specific searches. So search terms specific to RCN – not restricted as to time and 60 results for the expression LGBTQ you get 60 hits
PM okay
NC 170 hits for "transgender" and for "gender critical" you get 2 results – that's a crude measure but as a crude measure it's quite telling – the RCN is much more for GI people than GC
PM we are as much for GC people as trans people – the focus of much of LGBTQ is around care
and treatment of people as well as discrim of protected char in law – I agree is it disappointing there are only two refs to GC
NC pls turn to p1022 – legal update from the magazine in 2021 about Forstater – you've just said you are interested in GC rights as T people
NC if that were so there would be a message about Forstater saying to your activists here is a really powerful tool to defend the rights of your GC members – because that's what it was
NC people could be sacked or punished for expressing GC views and that's what Forstater did –
PM it is right – it certainly was a landmark case and it started to change the view
NC you'd expect all of your full time officials to be v aware of
PM I would agree
NC quite shocking your full time officials didn't know it
PM it would be shocking but I don't believe we did any training on Forstater
NC but if you had been interested in GC as GI you would have done the training
PM its a point for reflection and yes we should have done
NC look at the way its framed in the magazine – says appeal was successful – quotes judgment – bit about beliefs which fall outside it – and then [reads to framing which] this is all about "needs and preferences" of T people, isn't it?
PM it's just a point of further clarity
showing the impact of the decision across the wider spectrum
NC nothing here says this is an important tool to protect your GC members
PM it's not guidance for staff – this is for members -other internal docs will have been circ'd
NC there's nothing here that says to your Ms
you can come out now – you can say that sex is real and it matters and it matters in a clinical setting and you are protected
PM it does say that
NC where
PM by explaining the result, but I appreciate it doesn't in the way you described
NC does training into Forstater exist?
PM don't know
NC but if there were training or information to staff which sets out the imp of Forstater it would be in evidence wouldn't
PM fair comment, but don't know
NC given all this it's understandable that SF failed to see that SP might be a victim of discrim and not a perp
PM ask that again
NC it's not surprising given when we've seen and haven't seen on info and training provided for staff about access to sss it's not remotely surprising that when SP first spoke to SF in 2024 – it's not surprising he failed to spot she might be a victim of
discrim rather than a perpetrator
PM don't know
NC it's really unfair on officers like SF to leave them with proper info about the legal rights of their GC members
PM yes it is but our Os are not legal experts – they would make a referral to our legal team. it's unusual for
things to be IDd immediately and referred to our legal team.
NC SD understands women have rights to sss and she was prepared to say so in forthright terms to NHS – despite that, she has pronouns in her bio
PM don't know
NC go to p959 see it
PM yep
NC so she's playing lipservice to GI even though she's prepared to take a GC stance for her member
PM not sure how she'd see it. it's about being inclusive to all people
NC would it be okay for someone to write Pronouns: sex-based or Pronouns: biological
PM no not at this stage – we'd need to make further consideration of it
NC so okay for she/her they/them etc pronouns but not someone to dissent from GI
PM not confident – no instruction or edict to display pronouns and we have staff who are trans
NC so you can either manifest your allegiance to GI or remain silent, but you can't manifest dissent
PM don't think staff would see this as a manifestation of allegiance – don't think staff would see it in this way
NC this goes back to the fair care… you're just going along with what everyone's doing – you've adopted so wholesale it's just part of the background of life
PM that's your view yes
NC and the flag has been flying continuously over the RCN HQ since may
PM don't know if it's continuously
NC is it flying today
PM don't know
NC it was last week
NC unions should be fighting for its members
PM yes
NC large chunks of its members
PM yes
NC and it provided behind the scenes support, but there was a "flat refusal" to do or be seen to do anything publicly – because the vice like grip GI on the org
… is behind SF's failure to advise her properly
PM no
NC refusal to provide rep – because that would be public
PM no it's because her case was well underway and because we were asked to do it as NP described and following our usual approach we felt the new case was intrinsically
linked to the existing case
NC and that's also why GT handled SP's request to take various things to the board
PM can I have a ref
NC p459 – the imp part is where she asks the board to confirm three general things about the state of the law…
[PM is reading]
NC so the 3 things SP asks GT to get the NHS board to confirm are general propositions – she's not asking the board to confirm anything specific about her case – it's about the state of the law generally – and she wants it copied to all Ms of the union at her workplace
PM this is an unusual sit. when someone is being supported legally – it's still odd to be repping them internally – although it is a general request it is clearly related to the position SP was in at the time
NC reasonable ask though?
PM I can see the point
NC no good reason not to do this
PM I was not involved directly in the case where someone has legal advice and we are working with them internally
NC no good reason why this couldn't be done – and the reason is was because because it's in the grip of GI
and therefore it couldn't bear to do anything in public to support the sex-based rights of its female members – that's the truth
PM that's not the truth as I understand it, but I wasn't involved directly in this case
NC thank you no further qs
J no qs from me – Mr Hay
DH a little judge
DH you were asked about proactive need for unions to take things forward you mentioned prioritisation of major issues – any others?
PM pay – safe staffing which links to corridor care – general state of provision – social care – immigration cos of impact on staffing levels – education of nurses if its fit for purpose and delivering for nurses – student nurses and their situation off the top of my head
DH pls go to small supp bundle re CoC p31 – in partic to pars 1.1 and 1.2 – partic 1.2 members must conduct themselves… – NC suggested all members were bound by CoC – if we go to p32 in 1.8 every RCN member "when acting on behalf of the RCN"
PM yes that's what I was trying
to find
DH when asked re Dave Dawes did he hold a role at the RCN
PM he was chair of our Council
DH you were taken to Fair Care for Trans Patients… under the heading "psych support" p6
… and in LH column there was use of pronouns and this par says nurses have "a powerful role to play in affirming the true ID of a trans ind" – is this an obligation on your members
PM no it doesn't convey an obligation
DH and if we go to medium sized bundle you were taken to the transcript of the video piece played in advance of the FWS engagement sessions p1007
DH you were taken to the 2nd last par and then over to the first par of the following page and some propositions were put to you – do we see that the last par that was skipped over [reads to it] – employer and healthcare providers…
PM yes that's the issue – it's very complex
DH thank you that's all
J that's your evidence stay or go we'll be finishing shortly – that's end of evidence
DH it is
J subs tomorrow – you've said you can do that in the timescale – how long will it take?
NC depends if you want written subs
J as there are observers I think we should hear oral subs – if you want to speak to a doc that's fine –
NC we haven't discussed this
DH no we haven't
NC two hours each?
[DH agrees]
J that's what I was hoping to hear. okay we'll recovene
at 10am tomorrow.
[court rises]
Okay that's me. Thanks very much for reading. I will be distilling the evidence and bundle docs into a full report on genderblog.net . Subscribers get it via email then a subscriber only newsletter after that.
If you would like to make a small and/or recurring donation, I would be v grateful No matter how small or large or frequent the donation it gets you exactly the same thing – on the mailing list for first drop blog posts and the newsletter. More info:
genderblog.net/donate/
It's a pretty dim business model, but what it means is that you are funding free-at-the-point-of-consumption public interest journalism on this "complex" subject. Thank you.
