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.

The absolute nerve of some of the pro comments on the piece remind me how far there is to go still

That's appalling.

That's a sarky comment, not genuine. They're saying if you really think that you're going to be murdered by a lovely transwoman we will come in with you to make sure you're not. Because of course nobody is going ask for a chaperone, it's an intimidation tactic. Deliberately extreme because they think you wanting sex segregation is extreme.

And yes, it's unlawful.

And absolutely bloody yes, as a PP pointed out, is there an equivalent sign on the men's toilets? That men will be accompanied by another man, if they're uncomfortable with a transman in there.

i'd bet my mortgage there isn't.

I'd also be there will be some complaints, and that sign will be taken down soon

Think what a difference this could have made if they'd gone with "you can pee next to me" i.e. welcoming transwomen into men's toilets.

It might have changed a few minds, opened a few eyes and led the way in genuinely being kind and welcoming.

Perhaps the good Rev Canon would like to take a leaf from the Church of England's Holy Bible, revised by His Majesty's special command, A.D. 1611, Appointed to be read in Churches:

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves – Philippians 2:3

(in other words, stop thinking about yourself all the time and being so selfish and blind to other people's needs)

I find it seriously distressing how bloody thick these people are, and apparently they are providing service to communities.

Has this woman seriously got no idea of why women may need single sex spaces, any understanding of the range of needs involved, and what exactly the barriers are? Has this just passed her by somehow, she's never met any of these people? Can someone go and explain about their 'lovely friend' and give some emotively anecdotal examples as that seems to be the level to which you have to drop down to penetrate the idiocy?

It's fine, women will just have to sue. They are entitled to single sex facilities, because of need, they cannot be required to go and get an escort as her truly silly and shallow answer creates a hostile environment and privacy issues, why should women have to disclose this, and this will not remove the barrier for many of these women she's apparently never met and knows fuck all about.

She's breaking the law, it's that simple. And she's breaking it because she does not see women as equal to men. She also needs to face and be made to explain why she is effectively wanting to punish and add difficulty into the lives of women who will not validate her son and other men willingly with their undressed bodies and bodily functions, and what that says about her values and beliefs.

This is not just offensive because it's deliberately opposing the law, but it's also an unpleasant passive aggressive combination of sarcasm and smarminess.

It's so public, so blatant, and so shameless, that they deserve to be challenged by any channels available, not just comments on FB - complaints to the diocese, letters to the local papers, letters, cards, everything. Just an overwhelming amount of clear, preferably polite, objections to this outrageous position.

On their website they have this bizarre statement:
We are striving to be a “Jesus Shaped People” .

Was Jesus shaped like a sarcastic passive aggressive misogynistic small-minded grandstander?

Galatians 3:28

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

It is punishing women for having reasons they cannot service men. It is that ugly.

It's as vile as horrible Andy Burnham's slip about the women who can't are just the broken ones and shouldn't be paid attention to, as if a woman not useful to men is permanently damaged and discardable from society. I long for the 90s, people just were not this vile then.

Thankfully St Paul did not draft Building Regs Document T or EA2010

Jesus Shaped😆

"Was Jesus shaped like a sarcastic passive aggressive misogynistic small-minded grandstander?"

Yes, obviously. With a sideline of hypocrisy and stupidity.
And the CofE wonders why it has lost and alienates people.

Jesus wept.

LOL excellent comment😂

And St Paul was talking about who was a part of the church, not who could use the loos.

I find it seriously distressing how bloody thick these people are, and apparently they are providing service to communities.

Yes, I marvel on a daily basis at the monumental levels of stupidity displayed by these people.

Obviously she doesn't understand that the reason women don't want men in their toilets is not just for safety, but for privacy and dignity too. You'd think it wasn't that difficult to grasp.

And she's breaking the law of course. I don't know why she thinks that's admirable, or why people who want her to follow the law are somehow disgusting or despicable. She deserves to have the arse sued off her.

Yes, this. They’re not really offering a service intended to be helpful. Just making a nasty, snide and blatantly obvious dig at any woman who dares challenge their oh-so-holy dogma.

And in reality of course their virtue-signalling is causing real and undeserved distress to women.

And she's breaking the law of course. I don't know why she thinks that's admirable, or why people who want her to follow the law are somehow disgusting or despicable. She deserves to have the arse sued off her.

this.

And I would like her to be personally questioned by someone like Naomi Cunningham, to watch some scales fall, however incrementally, and however few of them there may be.

And the fact that in Christ all are equal. Equal is not the same,

Paul is admonishing the Galatians that no one is exempt from the teachings of Christ, if they claim to be the children of God.

Not that there is no such thing as male or female (which is ridiculous).

It's a metaphor, and Paul uses this tool a lot, which you would know if you knew anything about the Bible. So not the gotcha you think it is.

But, I'm not going to derail any further. Just thought I should point out that the Rev Canon is being a hypocrite here, in many ways, especially to women.

Surely it’s not just EA10 as I thought volunteers came under the same health and safety legislation as employees in the provision of toilet facilities dependent on sex. Obviously if someone volunteered in a shop it would be unreasonable to say we cover the manager but no one else.

I took a look at the FB page & found that many comments were hidden by FB "Comments were hidden because they may be offensive, off-topic or spam." All the hidden comments I read were perfectly polite & reasonable posts stating things like "You might be happy with a TW in the Ladies but I am not & consent is not transferable."

How is the chaperone meant to stop any man who may already be comfortably settled and recording in the next stall?

As the sign doesn’t specify a female volunteer, the chaperone you’re offered may well be one of those charming TIMs himself. Or any man who enjoys upsetting women, which has to be one popular reason for invading women’s spaces.

I know one of the clergy at Sunderland Minster and they are completely and utterly captured, and completely unpersuadable. In my view (and I speak as a CofE vicar) showing a good deal of what is worst about the Church of England. Just look at the image on the front page of the website. But if you switch the comments on the page from recommended to newest you see a lot of people saying this is illegal.

If she is a "true believer" in gender ideology, I very much doubt even NC could get much more out of the good Reverend other than the canonically-approved Upton-ese that must be upheld, else her entire worldview be upended.

She will have worked herself so inextricably into this mindset that there will be no extracting herself without the usual onslaught of threats of "apostasy" and intimidation from TRAs in her "welcoming" community.

Well, reap what you sow, ironically..,

This isn't a derail, it's interesting to see the Sunderland Minster position being criticised from within their own value system.

The idea that God somehow made a mistake by putting a female gender essence into a male physical body, for instance, is difficult to explain.

The Catholic Church, for all its faults, has been consistently against transgenderism: being male or female is an intrinsic part of how we are created, and it is an affront to the dignity of the human form as created by God to attempt to change the sex of the body.

Which does not mean excluding transgender people, or hating them, or saying they are damned - the idea that you can disagree with, and refuse to condone someone's actions, but not hate them as a human being seems to be too subtle for a lot of people, including, strangely, some Christian churches.

Sunderland Minster could be as open and welcoming towards transpeople as they wish, but that doesn't have to mean agreeing with gender ideology, or ignoring women's rights.

I am Sunderland born and bred and I highly doubt most of these comments are from locals (I clicked on a few which seemed to confirm my suspicion). In addition the church FB page normally has very little engagement but this post has over a thousand likes. I suspect an APB went out.

Surely this is where some male allies are needed? To adopt an identity similar to the moob-flashing Sarah Jane Baker or Isla Bryson’s revealing pink leggings in and around the toilets? They can’t be challenged according to the Church policy but they’d most certainly challenge the resolve of all the volunteers who’d have to spend time in their company when assisting rightfully nervous women?! Maybe best in this case is to lean in to the nonsense and give these people double helpings of what they say they want? Like allegorical tale about whether the sun or wind can get the man to take his coat off?