Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

439 replies

labtest57 · 26/05/2026 22:21

This is from their Facebook page today. No consideration for the women who do not want men in their spaces.

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
ScrollingLeaves · 27/05/2026 14:13

labtest57 · 26/05/2026 22:21

This is from their Facebook page today. No consideration for the women who do not want men in their spaces.

That is so smug. If I ever go there I think I’ll ask them to accompany me to the Men’s and wait.

WarriorN · 27/05/2026 14:13

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 14:10

Yes they’re shutting down dissenters.

So Jesus like. Anyone have any screenshots?

Only the one below and lots from feminists. And the idiot one I posted above

MarieDeGournay · 27/05/2026 14:12

WarriorN · 27/05/2026 14:09

Thankfully I saved this one for prosperity

They shut it down before the dislikes can assert themselves =
gerrymandering!
Thank you for saving it, WarriorN.

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 14:10

WarriorN · 27/05/2026 14:08

All comments on the fb post have been deleted.

👀

Yes they’re shutting down dissenters.

So Jesus like. Anyone have any screenshots?

MarieDeGournay · 27/05/2026 14:09

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 14:06

Perfect

Its a starter for 10

Spoooooky - I wrote my Univ Challenge post before seeing your 'starter or 10' post...
Shush don't tell anybody - the ploppers will take it as evidence of hive mind/echo chamber😁

WarriorN · 27/05/2026 14:09

Thankfully I saved this one for prosperity

Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling
SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 14:09

MarieDeGournay · 27/05/2026 14:01

I agree it's a great letter, and many thanks to SexRealistic for the draft.

I'd just like to suggest that there's a place for short, informal, to-the-point communications simply saying something like that what they're doing is unacceptable, offensive to women, and seems to completely ignore the law, and safeguarding practices.

Also, that their statement is unpleasant and sarcastic, and dismissive of women's expriences and feelings.

Religious people could point out to them that they are not showing much Christian charity to women, and the tone of their statement is not giving a very good example..

And then there's the open goal they've left - simply asking them why they don't accompany transwomen to the men's toilet, to ensure their safety in the facilities designated for their sex.

A range of varied communications alongside SexRealistic's great letter will, I think, add impact and make it less dismissible as an orchestrated pile-on.

I hope I have said enough times that I am not saying anything negative about the long, detailed letter, thank you for the draft, it's very thorough.

I totally agree - all comms will be meaningful.

My only concern is like the Facebook comments the Minister will shut down dissent & collude with those supporting her lawlessness.

Direct meaningful emails should cc safeguarding lead and diocese offices at a minimum.

No shade on letter - I’ve found that a legal consequence incites a response.

WarriorN · 27/05/2026 14:08

All comments on the fb post have been deleted.

👀

MarieDeGournay · 27/05/2026 14:07

(the suffragan Bishop in whose diocese the Minster sits
'Suffragan Bishop' was an answer on University Challenge the other night.
None of them knew the answer. I did.
I confess there's always a slight buzz in knowing something neither of the teams know.Grin

Pity they don't have a Suffragette Bishop, eh?🙄

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 14:06

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 27/05/2026 13:32

Great letter!
I would only add to

  1. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.
and ensure these are published, accessible, and prominently displayed on Sunderland Minster's public-facing website.

(or some such wording)

Sorry about the 1. Can't get rid of it for some reason!

Perfect

Its a starter for 10

MarieDeGournay · 27/05/2026 14:01

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 27/05/2026 13:32

Great letter!
I would only add to

  1. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.
and ensure these are published, accessible, and prominently displayed on Sunderland Minster's public-facing website.

(or some such wording)

Sorry about the 1. Can't get rid of it for some reason!

I agree it's a great letter, and many thanks to SexRealistic for the draft.

I'd just like to suggest that there's a place for short, informal, to-the-point communications simply saying something like that what they're doing is unacceptable, offensive to women, and seems to completely ignore the law, and safeguarding practices.

Also, that their statement is unpleasant and sarcastic, and dismissive of women's expriences and feelings.

Religious people could point out to them that they are not showing much Christian charity to women, and the tone of their statement is not giving a very good example..

And then there's the open goal they've left - simply asking them why they don't accompany transwomen to the men's toilet, to ensure their safety in the facilities designated for their sex.

A range of varied communications alongside SexRealistic's great letter will, I think, add impact and make it less dismissible as an orchestrated pile-on.

I hope I have said enough times that I am not saying anything negative about the long, detailed letter, thank you for the draft, it's very thorough.

loislovesstewie · 27/05/2026 13:56

Aisha176 · 27/05/2026 11:14

It's a statement about equality & if you knew anything about Christianity you would know that.

And if you knew anything about what a place of worship of God is you would know its a house of trust not suspicion.

Considering the number of priests/vicars / other religious who have abused children and adults over the years, I'm not taking any advice from them.

Mmmnotsure · 27/05/2026 13:53

Niminy · 27/05/2026 13:09

'Friends of' organisations don't have any governance influence on CofE churches. They are there to fundraise, normally for the building. The incumbent clergy and Parochial Church Council hold responsibility for safeguarding. You'd normally raise with incumbent/PCC in the first instance and then with the Archdeacon. There should be details of Church Wardens on the website (they share responsibility for the building with the incumbent clergy), and normally arrange insurance.

Edited

Agreed, but what happens with the clergy and in the church/cathedral has ramifications for people who are involved, eg as volunteers, and associated with it.

Many of the individuals who are involved in the support organisations, fundraising etc, will have a professional background and a reputation to uphold. I know from experience they would be less than impressed to end up being dragged by association into the fallout of a situation where the institution is acting unlawfully and possibly raising concerns re insurance. That kind of thing makes people walk.

MyAmpleSheep · 27/05/2026 13:53

Flunkit · 27/05/2026 12:37

Anyone know which high up to complain to (one in the temporal world ideally).
Also what would I say

Yes, I posted the details earlier. Complain to the Bishop of Durham (the big boss Diocesan Bishop) or the Bishop of Jarrow (the suffragan Bishop in whose diocese the Minster sits (Strikeout because Durham doesn't operate an area scheme.)

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 27/05/2026 13:32

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 13:19

Here you go

Draft Complaint Letter
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
The Directors / PCC / Relevant Authority
Sunderland Minster
[Full Address of Sunderland Minster – e.g., via their website or public records]
CC:

  • Diocese of Durham (Bishop and relevant safeguarding/ legal officers)
  • Employers’ Liability and Public Liability Insurers (if known, or request details)
  • Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
  • Charity Commission (if applicable as a registered charity)
Subject: Formal Complaint – Non-Compliance with Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Equality Act 2010 Implications, Safeguarding Failures, and Insurance Invalidity at Sunderland Minster Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally complain about Sunderland Minster’s public position and practices regarding single-sex toilets and related policies, which appear to place the organisation, its directors/PCC members, staff, volunteers, and the wider Diocese in breach of legal obligations. 1. Breach of Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Following the High Court judgment in Good Law Project v EHRC (and related clarification of the law post-For Women Scotland), it is clear that Regulation 20 of the 1992 Workplace Regulations requires suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences, with separate rooms for men and women (based on biological sex), unless each convenience is in a separate lockable room for single occupancy.2327 Sunderland Minster has publicly posted a notice acknowledging a breach of these regulations by failing to provide single-sex toilets based on biological sex. You have also publicly stated your intention to continue permitting biological males (trans women) to use female facilities. This directly contravenes the requirement for single-sex provision “for reasons of conventional decency” and privacy.2 2. Public Intention to Breach the Law and Insurance Implications Your organisation is on record stating that it intends to continue this policy despite the clarified legal position. A deliberate and public intention to breach statutory health and safety regulations is likely to invalidate both employers’ liability insurance and public liability insurance. This exposes directors/PCC members personally, as well as the organisation, to significant financial and legal risk in the event of any incident, claim, or regulatory action. I request full details of your current insurance policies and confirmation that insurers have been notified of this stated position. 3. Website and Policy Non-Compliance Your website and public materials appear to lack appropriate, up-to-date policies compliant with current equality and health & safety law. In particular, there is a concerning absence of clear, lawful safeguarding policies that reflect the legal position on single-sex spaces. This falls short of expected standards for an organisation open to the public, including families and children. 4. Safeguarding and Child Protection Concerns Your public statement invites teenage girls (and other women) who feel uncomfortable to ask clergy or volunteers (unknown adults) to accompany them to the toilets and wait outside the stall. This involves unknown or minimally vetted adults being alone with or in close proximity to children in a state of undress in a supervisory capacity.2 This raises serious safeguarding issues, including:
  • Potential lack of DBS checks, specific training, or insurance for such supervision.
  • Risk of distress, inappropriate interaction, or safeguarding breaches.
  • Failure to prioritise the dignity, privacy, and safety of girls and women.
Such practices have direct implications for the personal liability of directors/PCC members (“Friends of the Sunderland Minster” or equivalent) and potential reputational and legal exposure for the Diocese of Durham. I urge you to immediately:
  1. Revert to full compliance with the 1992 Workplace Regulations by providing single-sex toilet facilities based on biological sex (or adequate single-occupancy alternatives).
  2. Remove or correct the non-compliant notice and public statements.
  3. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.
  4. Notify insurers and conduct a full risk assessment.
  5. Engage with the Diocese for oversight and support.
I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the HSE, Charity Commission, relevant regulators, and/or pursue other legal remedies if not addressed promptly. I look forward to your full response within 14 days, including details of steps taken to achieve compliance. Yours faithfully, [Your Full Name]

Send to the people linked above including Directors and Diocese emails. Also safeguarding lead.

  • Customise with your details and any specific evidence (e.g., screenshots of the notice/Facebook post).
  • Consider sending via recorded delivery/email with read receipts.
  • If you are a regular attendee, parent, or local resident, mention your legitimate interest.

Is there is WRN group or similar who could coordinate?

Great letter!
I would only add to

  1. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.
and ensure these are published, accessible, and prominently displayed on Sunderland Minster's public-facing website.

(or some such wording)

Sorry about the 1. Can't get rid of it for some reason!

InconvenientlyMaterial · 27/05/2026 13:31

Mmmnotsure · 27/05/2026 09:14

That's nasty.

"Wait outside the stall until you have safely used our facilities."

What a huge burden to put on a female visitor. They are basically saying, come and tell us you have a difficulty and we will label you unkind, a bigot, etc.

What woman wants someone else - certainly someone who is not with them - waiting outside the door? We know that people are embarrassed at being heard.

Safety - the assertion that women are only concerned about safety. What about privacy? Dignity? Obviously those don't count for Sunderland Minster.

And as pps have already pointed out, this only goes one way. Sunderland Minster obviously does not care about, or fully recognise, women.

Trans rights again. No concern for or interest in women's rights. Sections of the CofE are lost.

It reads as such a cruel dismissal of the trauma that many women suffer due to male sexual violence.

Echoing the attitude of the police and health professionals in the aftermath. The kind of dehumanising, retraumatising dismissal that stops so many women even reporting in the first place.

How deeply entrenched misogyny is.

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 13:31

DialSquare · 27/05/2026 13:25

Well, when he doesn’t, they’ll have to repent (motherfuckers!)

Given tone and behaviour I can’t see the fruits of the Spirit in any of it.

On the other hand the law….

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 27/05/2026 13:30

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

DialSquare · 27/05/2026 13:25

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 13:21

Jesus will save them if they’re doing the right thing no doubt.

Unsafe self focused muppets.

Well, when he doesn’t, they’ll have to repent (motherfuckers!)

OldCrone · 27/05/2026 13:21

Grammarnut · 26/05/2026 23:17

They don't care because the rev. canon can only see through trans eyes how it hurts people like her (poor) son if they cannot be validated in a woman's loo.

She seems to have a so-called 'trans son' (i.e. a daughter who thinks she's a man), who I presume will be using her shewee in the inclusive men's toilets.

RareGoalsVerge · 27/05/2026 13:21

It's direct discrimination if people with a belief in the reality of sex (which is a belief established in law to be worthy of resoect in a democratic society and is perfectly compatible with Christian beliefs) does not have the same freely available immediate access to toilet facilities as others, and must go through additional procedures and be escorted in a way that is clearly intended to be demeaning, undignified and "othering" and if that person also has complicated issues with heavy period bleeding or urge incontinence they are going to feel thoroughly unwelcome in that church. What a shitty thing to do. There is nothing stopping the church from having male and female facilities and a unisex option for anyone who doesn't want to use the facilities for their sex. Clearly and wholeheartedly trans people are welcome and loved and belong in the body of Christ and need access to loos just as much as the next person, but the church has had several hundred years (since we stopped burning eachother for wrongthink) at accommodating people with different and incompatible beliefs within the same church. We have done that by upholding that the only core beliefs to which we all subscribe are the words of the Nicene Creed and beyond that people are free to follow their own conscience. Belief in the validity of ordination of women, in transubstatiation, in the perpetual virginity of St Mary, and in the reality of a person's gender beliefs over-ruling their sex are all optional things that specific people may or may not agree with but respect and uphold the rights of other Christians to hold the opposite view.

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 13:21

DialSquare · 27/05/2026 13:04

I suspect they are going to massively regret opening this can of worms!

Jesus will save them if they’re doing the right thing no doubt.

Unsafe self focused muppets.

SexRealistic · 27/05/2026 13:19

Flunkit · 27/05/2026 12:37

Anyone know which high up to complain to (one in the temporal world ideally).
Also what would I say

Here you go

Draft Complaint Letter
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[City, Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
The Directors / PCC / Relevant Authority
Sunderland Minster
[Full Address of Sunderland Minster – e.g., via their website or public records]
CC:

  • Diocese of Durham (Bishop and relevant safeguarding/ legal officers)
  • Employers’ Liability and Public Liability Insurers (if known, or request details)
  • Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
  • Charity Commission (if applicable as a registered charity)
Subject: Formal Complaint – Non-Compliance with Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Equality Act 2010 Implications, Safeguarding Failures, and Insurance Invalidity at Sunderland Minster Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally complain about Sunderland Minster’s public position and practices regarding single-sex toilets and related policies, which appear to place the organisation, its directors/PCC members, staff, volunteers, and the wider Diocese in breach of legal obligations. 1. Breach of Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Following the High Court judgment in Good Law Project v EHRC (and related clarification of the law post-For Women Scotland), it is clear that Regulation 20 of the 1992 Workplace Regulations requires suitable and sufficient sanitary conveniences, with separate rooms for men and women (based on biological sex), unless each convenience is in a separate lockable room for single occupancy.2327 Sunderland Minster has publicly posted a notice acknowledging a breach of these regulations by failing to provide single-sex toilets based on biological sex. You have also publicly stated your intention to continue permitting biological males (trans women) to use female facilities. This directly contravenes the requirement for single-sex provision “for reasons of conventional decency” and privacy.2 2. Public Intention to Breach the Law and Insurance Implications Your organisation is on record stating that it intends to continue this policy despite the clarified legal position. A deliberate and public intention to breach statutory health and safety regulations is likely to invalidate both employers’ liability insurance and public liability insurance. This exposes directors/PCC members personally, as well as the organisation, to significant financial and legal risk in the event of any incident, claim, or regulatory action. I request full details of your current insurance policies and confirmation that insurers have been notified of this stated position. 3. Website and Policy Non-Compliance Your website and public materials appear to lack appropriate, up-to-date policies compliant with current equality and health & safety law. In particular, there is a concerning absence of clear, lawful safeguarding policies that reflect the legal position on single-sex spaces. This falls short of expected standards for an organisation open to the public, including families and children. 4. Safeguarding and Child Protection Concerns Your public statement invites teenage girls (and other women) who feel uncomfortable to ask clergy or volunteers (unknown adults) to accompany them to the toilets and wait outside the stall. This involves unknown or minimally vetted adults being alone with or in close proximity to children in a state of undress in a supervisory capacity.2 This raises serious safeguarding issues, including:
  • Potential lack of DBS checks, specific training, or insurance for such supervision.
  • Risk of distress, inappropriate interaction, or safeguarding breaches.
  • Failure to prioritise the dignity, privacy, and safety of girls and women.
Such practices have direct implications for the personal liability of directors/PCC members (“Friends of the Sunderland Minster” or equivalent) and potential reputational and legal exposure for the Diocese of Durham. I urge you to immediately:
  1. Revert to full compliance with the 1992 Workplace Regulations by providing single-sex toilet facilities based on biological sex (or adequate single-occupancy alternatives).
  2. Remove or correct the non-compliant notice and public statements.
  3. Review and update all policies, including safeguarding, equality, and health & safety, to ensure legal compliance.
  4. Notify insurers and conduct a full risk assessment.
  5. Engage with the Diocese for oversight and support.
I reserve the right to escalate this matter to the HSE, Charity Commission, relevant regulators, and/or pursue other legal remedies if not addressed promptly. I look forward to your full response within 14 days, including details of steps taken to achieve compliance. Yours faithfully, [Your Full Name]

Send to the people linked above including Directors and Diocese emails. Also safeguarding lead.

  • Customise with your details and any specific evidence (e.g., screenshots of the notice/Facebook post).
  • Consider sending via recorded delivery/email with read receipts.
  • If you are a regular attendee, parent, or local resident, mention your legitimate interest.

Is there is WRN group or similar who could coordinate?

Shortshriftandlethal · 27/05/2026 13:15

Aisha176 · 27/05/2026 11:59

Whatever you think about the short comings Christianity, my point here is to explain how it conflicts with gender critical views & other exclusionary ideologies. Whether you like it or not it's an inclusionary philosophy that happens to underpin Western Civilisation that you are going to have to reckon with.

The very fact of biological sex is 'exclusionary'. If you are male you are not female. The church is, and has always been aware that there are two sexes.
And when mainstream religion meets reality we find that the dignity and privacy of one's sex tends to be a thing.

Christianity can interpreted and viewed through many lenses - according to one's temperament or personal prejudices - but there has never been a teaching that men are women, or that female dignity has no bearing on our organisation of society.

Splooterer · 27/05/2026 13:14

So they're breaking the law. Hope someone sues.