THE Provost of Sunderland Minster, Canon Clare MacLaren, has defended the display of a sign that welcomed the use of the church’s women’s toilets by trans women.
Canon MacLaren said this week that transgender men and women “have as much right to privacy, dignity, and safety as cisgender men and women”.
A picture of the sign — “All women [underlined] are welcome to use these toilets” — was shared in a Facebook post — now deleted — describing it as a response to the Supreme Court’s “narrow biological line on the definition of sex”.
It said that, if women were not comfortable using the toilets in the presence of trans women, they could ask for a clergy member or volunteer to accompany them, The Daily Telegraph reported last week.
On Monday, Canon MacLaren said that the sign had been taken down “to safeguard our volunteers from the risk of abuse”.
In May of last year, the Supreme Court ruled that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, “sex” referred to biological sex, not acquired gender (Analysis, 2 May 2025). The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was tasked to provide practical advice to organisations. Its interim guidance was withdrawn in October.
On 21 May, the Government published the EHRC’s code of practice, now approved by ministers. This states that single-sex spaces — such as toilets — must be used on the basis of biological sex, and that transgender people should be offered a third or gender-neutral space.
In a statement first issued to the Telegraph, Canon MacLaren quoted from the code, which says that it “does not impose legal obligations. Nor is it an authoritative statement of the law: only the courts and tribunals can provide such authority.”
She said: “We are not, therefore, doing anything unlawful. The limited toilet facilities in our Grade 2* listed building are difficult and costly to adapt. However, they all have cubicles, as do any public toilets. The only shared space is for hand-washing.
“As a Church, we take our safeguarding responsibilities to all vulnerable adults and children extremely seriously. Our transgender and gender non-binary worshippers and friends at the Minster are very vulnerable and fearful of abuse. I am sorry that some people feel that cisgender women have anything to fear from them.”
Last week, Caroline Watson, a supporter of the group LGB Christians, wrote to the Bishop of Durham’s office, and the Archdeacon of Sunderland, the Ven. Katherine Bagnall. Her letter, seen by the Church Times, says that the sign “not only blatantly flouts the law as clarified by the Supreme Court and explained in the EHRC guidance, but displays intimidating and threatening behaviour towards women who challenge the inclusion of male individuals, however they ‘identify’, in female lavatories”.
She continued: “If the Minster continues down this path, it will find that it is likely to be the subject of highly public legal cases brought by women with standing who are well-supported by feminist organisations. The sign must be removed immediately as the law demands.”
Clare Blom, of the Scottish campaign group Women Won’t Wheesht, said: “The Equality Act is legislation passed by Parliament, not a matter of personal belief. Religious organisations are not exempt from equality law simply because they disagree with it. . . Women attending the Minster itself are contacting us because they feel their rights and boundaries are being dismissed.”
Women Won’t Wheesht confirmed that it had been contacted by individuals connected to Sunderland Minster, including supporters of LGB Christians, who were “deeply unhappy with the church’s position and willing to pursue legal action over the policy if necessary”.
A statement from the diocese of Durham last week said that churches in the diocese were “encouraged to demonstrate care for all people while ensuring that they abide by the law in their policies and practices”. The diocese was “ready and willing to support parishes as they interpret the recent EHRC guidance”.
After the Supreme Court ruling last year, Church House published a document, Resourcing a Pastoral Response.
“Both in public statements and in personal, perhaps private, interactions, responses should affirm the dignity of all persons while recognising that for many people this will be an area of deep emotion and traumatic experience,” it said. “For transgender people, they are navigating a host of aspirations and vulnerabilities, which the recent Supreme Court decision places in stark relief. . .
“Equally, it is important to remain conscious that matters of gender and gender identity have resulted in women facing discrimination because of their sex, sometimes with significant effects on individual lives and families.”
It continued: “Further legal cases are likely. Leaders will need to remain aware of these developments and offer sensitive pastoral responses.”
This week, a Church House spokesperson said that the pastoral response would be “kept under review”.
Speaking in the House of Lords last year, the Bishop of Manchester, Dr David Walker, said that he was “grateful that the [EHRC] interim advice that was issued and caused such widespread alarm was withdrawn, albeit belatedly”. The EHRC had “lost the confidence of many”.
This week, he said that publication of the EHRC guidance last month had “done little to qualm the fears of the transgender women and men I both know and minister alongside”. He spoke of a “genuine concern that the new interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act will be weaponised by vested interest groups and individuals seeking to push the ruling well beyond what the Supreme Court Justices indicated was the law”.
He continued: “Nobody, trans or otherwise, wants to be challenged when accessing a public lavatory, just because some other person chooses to suspect that their sex fails to match the sign on the door. No reasonable business, charity or organisation wants to exclude valued clients, customers or members from its activities or services. Sadly, many may fear that failing to exclude them will lead to lengthy legal battles against well-funded, possibly overseas funded, culture warriors.”
He drew attention to the 2017 vote at General Synod to request liturgical materials marking a person’s gender transition, which “sought to include transgender people in their new — I would say God-given — gender identity”.
He said: “The challenge for churches is not, as I see it, about whether to obey the law or not. It’s about how we live out that Synod vote in the unconditional welcome transgender people receive” (News, 30 June 2017).
On Wednesday evening, a statement from the Sunderland Minster PCC was issued online, saying that it had met on Monday to discuss the social media post. “The post,” it said, “would not have been supported by the trustees if we had been consulted in advance, nor do we support it retrospectively. It is important that we at Sunderland Minster respect the rule of law and the poster has since been removed. The social media post has also been deleted.”
The statement continued: “We are now consulting with the EHRC for specific advice, and we are reviewing a number of our own internal policies, including our use of social media to ensure that all posts are properly considered and scrutinised before publication. We are in touch with the safeguarding team at the diocese of Durham to ensure proper safeguarding procedures are being followed. We would like to apologise to those who have been upset in the last week.
“Please be assured that, as a member of the Inclusive Church network, we will continue to offer pastoral care to all. Sunderland Minster remains committed to the Inclusive Church network, working to end discrimination and inequality.”
This story was updated on 4 June 2026 to include the PCC’s statement