Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

I wonder if there are other ways in which they are happy to set aside the implications of the Supreme Court ruling? Will sex discrimination in job selection be ok in future, so long as there are proportions of dress-wearing and trouser-wearing men appointed to roles?

..have to take extra action (call a chaperone) in order to use the toilets with privacy from TW.

Oh, you don't get privacy from TIM. The chaperone wouldn't be making sure there weren't any in the toilets. A TIM would be welcome to use them at the same time. You could still encounter them in the toilets outside the cubicle.

Actual privacy and dignity for women simply don't figure.

Well exactly! At best the comment would just be deleted and at worst a whole ton of abuse followed by attempted doxxing

plus even with all the sunlight, the mangling of language means that a high % of ppl think transwoman means a woman identifying as a man

So a woman who because of religion or race, age (think of young girls coping with first periods, older women coping with heavy menstrual flow who many need to wash blood off), or are suffering miscarriage, or have gender critical beliefs which see transwomen as men (not unreasonable IMO) have to take extra action (call a chaperone) in order to use the toilets with privacy from TW. Counting five types of protected characteristic that are supposed not to be discriminated against there who now have barriers to using a single sex space set up so as to stop discrimination.

Why? So that men claiming trans status can be able to walk into and use the female toilets with no special measure at all. Even men who are known to be predators and have history of violence and threats to women. Think Sarah Jane Baker.

Fund raising for a third space, or chaperoning TW into the male toilets is fairer and more proportionate.

I can see its very difficult if you have a trans son and you wish to protect them, and your congregation may wish to be allies. But I did think that the church was supposed to define inclusion more widely than their own family.

Thinking: Is not Dr Upton's stepfather a Bishop in North of England?

An email to the Bishop of Jarrow might be in order, or since that bishopric is vacant, their boss the Bishop of Durham:
https://durhamdiocese.org/about-us/leadership/bishop-of-durham/

The Diocesan safeguarding policy is here:
https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/61d750a40a35a/content/pages/documents/diocese-safeguarding-policy-2025-final.pdf

Here is the Diversity and Inclusion page:
https://durhamdiocese.org/parish-support/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/

And here is the Women's advocacy page:
https://durhamdiocese.org/parish-support/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/womens-advocacy/

I note that in the brief bio of the new Bishop (Rick Simpson) is this detail:
In addition, he was a member of the Wilkinson-Jay Response Group, contributing to the development of safeguarding practice within the Church of England.

So he should understand safeguarding.

Technically they are providing sex segregated toilets with the 'chaperoning' I suppose. But I think the point people will miss about them 'flouting the law' is their commitment to 'what would Jesus do?' philosophy. Jesus models rule breaking in the face of injustice. Kind of like modern day protesters who break laws.

'Turn the other cheek' is not about looking the other way at injustice that people like to mistakenly believe but more an act of defiance. In other words if you 'slap my cheek'/punish me in an effort to force me to disown my beliefs I will offer you the other one to strike to show you my principles are worth more than my bodily experience'. It's an 'up yours' 'you will not break me at any cost' so to speak.

Well, I suppose she doesn't have to bother about Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women.
I wonder how many of the women in her congregation (who are probably more elderly than the average UK population) feel.

Is it legal to put up a notice implying that you are blatantly flouting the law?

Transubstantiation is the belief that God said “when you eat this bread, you are eating/chewing Me. When you drink this wine, you are drinking Me”. And that it’s true.

He didn’t say “I mucked it up a bit so if you care to fiddle around with what I created, you can live happily ever after “.

But isn't transubstantiation somewhat similar to the claims that people have literally changed sex? Genuine question.

Sometimes, I am very glad to be Catholic. We (humans) are the wonder of Gods creation just as we are.

There's farsands of 'em! 😁

Possibly, but TRA invasions of online support to places that have jack all to do with them (e.g. the hampstead heath ponds) aren't unknown.

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.

I hope someone sues them because only men are welcome to use those toilets.

It doesn't make sense though. They acknowledge that some women may feel "uncomfortable". But they can't take the next logical step as to why some women may feel uncomfortable?

FFS

I noted 'sisters and brothers' in that order. When 'sisters' are men, they come first. Long live the patriarchy.

And what sort of reception would any dissenters get?

Hmm, how many of them actually come from the area....

Agree. Isn't this the point where it should be recognised that men and women are not simply equivalent (not that thy are, of course, but that's the theory), but that women have requirements for privacy that simply aren't required by men. And yet our elected government continues to move in the other direction.

I’m a bit disappointed the toilet supervision doesn’t come with a re-education session delivered through the toilet door whilst you do your business.

Are there any comments about this on their Facebook page @labtest57 ?