This is the problem with these rules, there is no consistency. You really have to decide first of all how you want to approach the Vinaya: should you just keep the Pali Vinaya or do you want to take more of a text-critical approach. The former is relatively straightforward, since the text is a given. With the latter approach, it seems to me that you would have to compare all extant Vinayas to make informed decisions. This is obviously quite an undertaking, although Ven. Dhammānandā’s work would be a good starting point. I made the conscious decision to rely on the Pali, since my knowledge of the other Vinayas is very limited.
Hardly anyone, including most hard-core Vinaya adherents, keep all the minor rules. To take one example, there is a sekhiya rule - the most minor rules of the pātimokkha - against giving a Dhamma teaching while standing if the listener is sitting down. You can see why this is a rule. At the same time such a rule makes no sense in a modern lecture theatre, for instance. Hardly any monk I know of would refuse to stand in such a situation. Indeed, the rule itself allows you to do so, as I have argued above. So I really don’t think anyone can criticise any monastic, whether it is a bhikkhunī or a bhikkhu, for not keeping minor rules that are culturally inappropriate, especially since they most likely do not keep many such rules themselves.
In any case, I would not worry too much what these hard-core Vinaya adherents say. You will be criticised no matter what you do, and trying to please others has no end. It is much better to arrive at a practice of the Vinaya that is in line with the word of the Buddha, that has integrity, and that is satisfactory for yourself. The word of the Buddha is much more flexible, especially in Vinaya matters, than it is normally given credit for.