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.

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.

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.

There's farsands of 'em! 😁

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

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

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 “.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Me too

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

..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.

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?

This came up on my feed today so came here to see if there was a thread.
lots of people seem to be asking the same question as here, why not chaperone them to the men’s!
their little work around still breaks the law, i hope they get sued

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like the volunteer will be waiting outside the bathroom, not actually going inside with you. Obviously asking a volunteer to listen/smell as someone inside a toilet is too much to ask imo.

Oh, you don't get privacy from TIM.

I assume they would stop any TIM they see whilst you are in the bathroom? Tell them to wait until you finish?

What it’s saying is ‘ooh if you’re so scared of these people who just want to live their lives in peace we will stand outside the door to listen for your screams’ it enforces this idea that we are paranoid and over the top. Fuck our privacy and dignity. Fuck the fact they are encouraging these men’s fetishes. They are just helping us silly women right ?

The notice says "..please do ask one of our clergy or volunteers who will gladly accompany you into the toilets, and wait outside the stall until you have safely used our facilities."

Where does it say the volunteer (or member of the clergy) will ensure no TIM comes in? Or go in first to check whether there is already there?

And presumably one of the clergy could well be a man.

The authorities, steeped as they are in TRA propaganda, think "These stupid TERFs believe they'll be attacked by any and every TW so we'll give them a token bodyguard".

As I say, privacy and dignity dimply don't figure.

There's a comment from someone saying, "I'm ok with this and I'm Jewish." Then when you look at their picture you realise they're a trans-woman.

I'd be curious to know if the volunteer could be a man and what they would do if they saw a transwoman coming into the bathroom. It doesn't say

Either way this whole thing feels very performative. How many transwomen are actually members of their church (I assume it is 0), needless virtue signaling which exposes them to being sued. I hope someone sues them.

Might the Charity Commission have a view on a charity declaring its intention to flout the law?

😂😂😂

And, let’s face it, no guarantee that your ‘escort’ is actually female? Could be a man, could be a transwoman 🤷‍♀️

Like pp, I hope they have some legal reaction.

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.

Came here to share this story - https://www.facebook.com/sunderlandminster/

The comments are open - have to stand up and be counted

Also - this is a perfect case of what I and so many other here have said

it will take WAY MORE than the Supreme Court and the EHRC guidance. it will come down to individual people taking individual places to court, en masse to force the issue

it's a war of attrition that TRAs could win if people lose the energy to fight