The governing body of Sunderland Minster has repudiated its own Canon Provost, saying it would not have approved the transgender toilet sign that made national headlines last week and does not support it retrospectively. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) met on Monday, 1 June, and published a statement that reversed the position Canon Clare MacLaren had publicly and repeatedly defended.
The statement read:
“The governing body of Sunderland Minster (the PCC) met on Monday 1 June to discuss the recent post on our social media account challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of sex. The post 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. 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.”
The Minster limited comments on the post.
The statement is a comprehensive institutional repudiation of Canon MacLaren’s handling of the matter. She had posted the sign in the colours of the transgender flag on the Minster’s women’s toilets following the UK Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. When the Equality and Human Rights Commission laid its draft Code of Practice before Parliament on 21 May — reinforcing that single-sex facilities must be designated by biological sex — she published a statement on social media affirming that the sign “will remain,” and offering a clergy chaperone to any woman uncomfortable sharing the facilities with transgender women. That post was later deleted, but not before attracting wide national coverage and criticism.
Canon MacLaren had defended her actions on legal grounds, arguing the EHRC Code carried no binding force during its 40-day parliamentary scrutiny period and that the Equality Act itself stated “the code does not impose legal obligations.” She had also defended the sign on pastoral grounds as an expression of the Minster’s identity as an Inclusive Church.
The PCC’s statement makes no mention of those arguments. It says only that the rule of law must be respected, that the trustees were not consulted, and that they are now seeking specific legal advice from the EHRC itself — the body whose guidance Canon MacLaren had publicly challenged.
The reference to the Diocese of Durham’s safeguarding team is the most opaque element of the statement. The PCC says it is “in touch with the safeguarding team at the Diocese of Durham to ensure proper safeguarding procedures are being followed,” without specifying what safeguarding concern has arisen or in what direction the inquiry runs. The Diocese of Durham, in its own statement of 29 May, had already distanced itself from the Minster, noting that the two bodies are “separate legal entities” and that the Minster had “not consulted the Diocese” before acting.
The Diocese of Durham’s 29 May statement said local churches were “encouraged to demonstrate care for all people while ensuring that they abide by the law in their policies and practices,” and offered diocesan support in interpreting the EHRC guidance. It noted pointedly that the Minster had not consulted the Diocese before the sign or the social media post appeared.
Canon MacLaren is listed as a speaker at a Trans Rights Sunderland rally on 14 June.
The PCC statement makes no reference to that engagement, nor to Canon MacLaren directly. It does not say whether she remains in her post.