Sunderland Minster refusing to comply with Supreme Court ruling

[labtest57]

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

Thanks!

@SexRealistic "Judges decided access to private areas such as lavatories should be based on gender which is a matter of biological fact and not choice."

Erm. Either they haven't been paying attention or they are using AI to automatically replace the word 'sex' with 'gender' regardless of whether it makes sense

Well, the DM article is full of incorrect info among the correct information, so I don't think it's going to make anything clearer for anyone who doesn't already under the issues.

The DM said the SC ruling stated that toilets should be segregated by gender, and that the Minster has 40 days before they have to comply with the law. So a bit of a mess really. Let's hope other media get the facts straight.

I know this church, sort of. I went when I was having a difficult time and the canon and her team were extremely kind to me. I was saddened to hear about this as I do feel it shows a real lack of understanding and compassion for women and girls. It’s also quite out of step with the community that it serves. This is a city which has sadly just voted in a reform council ffs. The people are generally not woke af guardian readers.

as a city centre church it attracts a lot of students and refugees and it does do a lot for vulnerable people in the city which is why I feel so saddened that it is doubling down on this but I do feel that the canon’s family circumstances are skewing things here.

I noticed when I was hunting down their safeguarding policies that the Diocese states that Durham Cathedral is a separate entity and has their own policies and procedures.
They are saying the same about Sunderland Minster.
It's a bit odd to have the big 'venues' running their own safeguarding, isn't it?

This bit was very unsatisfactory:
encouraging local churches to take a pastoral approach to all the complex and often sensitive issues which have to be considered in the light of the Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment concerning the legal definition of sex

How about encouraging local churches to take a law-abiding approach - in a sensitive pastoral manner by all means, but ultimately the law is the law.

The Law of Sanctuary hasn't applied for many centuries, so the law is the same law for everybody.

Every single word of this is true and upholds the universal nature of God's love and Jesus's redemption.

Not a single word of it is incompatible with a church providing facilities on the basis of biological sex, as well as a parallel unisex option for those who don't want to use the facilities that are for their biological sex, in accordance with the law.

In Christ there is no male or female, but it's a utopian fantasy to think that therefore we can pretend that male and female do not exist and do not have different strengths and vulnerabilities that are not within the control of any individual to over-rule - only that in Christ neither is better, and therefore whether you are actually male or female biologically, and whether you present as male or female in your gender expression, has no effect on how loved, included and welcome you are. But the Church surely knows that it is not immune from some members of the church needing protection from others, otherwise it has not yet learned any safeguarding lessons at all.

Thank you, it's really interesting to have ideas challenged from within the same faith system as the one that Sunderland Minster operates under.

The list is, as you say, perfectly valid, but doesn't tell the whole story about humanity.

I can't remember whether it was Bruce Springsteen or U2 who said
Here we are Lord, this mess, in Your image.

I notice that lesbians and gays don't get a mention in their list, we're just also rans amongst the 'alphabet wanderers'😒

And presumably if you are uneducated or upper class you can get lost.

That's the problem with "inclusive" lists.

I'm also wondering how much tolerance you would find if you were a "literal-minded" "straight-talking" "justice warrior" for the rights of women in general, and lesbians in particular, to spaces of their own.

Cathedrals are legally separate from the diocese in which they're located. They are funded differently and have different methods of governance and oversight. Then each parish church (or benefice, group of churches or, in this case, Minster) is a separate charity, and has its own governance. So the Diocese of Durham isn't wrong when it says that Sunderland Minster is a separate entity. But I agree that when it comes to the law the statement is weasel words.

Ding ding ding

Been to local leisure centre today. We no longer have women's or mens toilets. All unisex now, I thought this is what would happen.

If they are still rooms with cubicles with gaps around doors those are not compliant with building regs for unisex loos. Unisex loos needs to be fully enclosed with handwash facilities in the cubicle. Putting a unisex label on a normal communal room does not comply with the law.

They are compliant. They just changed the signs on the doors.

So the men never had a urinal? Just a toilet pan?

My leisure centre has done the same, although they are enclosed with washbasins inside so are compliant. The Management are very proud of having put them in. I live nearby so don't have to use them and can go at home.

I do wonder if we get more and more unisex loos how long will it be before men get fed up with having to queue as women have to.

And as soon as they put in a urinal they will be discriminating against women - hello small claims court

I'm pretty sure men in general would not be happy with loos with no urinals! And rightly so. But this is the kind of result you can expect from this idiocy.

Has anyone ever run surveys of transmen to find out how many have actually been in the habit of using gents' facilities, and how many have been using the ladies' all along?

Because it strikes me that if men are so transphobic that transwomen as big as they are don't want to share with them, you'd be daft, as a trans man, to risk yourself in the gents' unless you are unusually big and strong or very very good at passing.

If a lot of transmen who fit neither of these categories have been using the ladies' all the time, then the number whose routine is now being disrupted will be smaller than anticipated and easier to accommodate.

If they've been using the gents', as recognisable transmen, quite happily, then the gents' may not be as dangerous as it is painted.

So is there any data on this?

I think Christians are often vulnerable to a "be kind" mentality, forgetting that to "love one's neighbour as oneself" and that being called as Christians to "love one another as Christ loved the Church" can be challenging to work out, not just a matter of being nice. In my experience the CofE seems particularly prone to this "niceness". No tipping over tables or calling out hypocrisy for us nice people!

But truth also matters, and real love is sometimes tough love.

Well I didn't know until yesterday as I obviously didn't use the gents but no they can't have. If they did and they've removed it they've done a great job as there is no evidence of one being removed.

They managed at home so I'm sure they will cope.

Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

See, other people can use proof texts.

Seriously, it is foolish to be too trusting. I have met many people who are not as they seem, even in churches.

That's just daft.

Why? Men are perfectly capable of using a normal toilet, they don't need a urinal. If men actually need urinals why aren't they in the accessible toilets? Bit of disability discrimination.