Murray Edwards College Cambridge

in this particular case the people in question are 17/18 yo undergrad applicants so 'man' seems a bit wide of the mark either way!

Perhaps they'll let people identify as different ages too. So they'll let 52 year old male CEOs join?

Rumandraisin - yes, she doesn't seem to have bought the full TRA dogma. Which may be good though it seems surprising that she sounds naively unaware of it.
*
' they have experienced something different as a man.' ...

'they've lived as a man for several decades and reached positions of power than women can only dream of.' *

in this particular case the people in question are 17/18 yo undergrad applicants so 'man' seems a bit wide of the mark either way!

The reality of this is likely to be that they now might take an occasional dysphoric transgirl who would otherwise have gone to a mixed college, and that a girl who had applied to a mixed college but was pooled will be offered a place at a mixed college rather than at ME.

YY Rum and Datun. Suspect the transactivists won't like that.

So now we don't just have men telling us what it means to be a woman but they're also teling us that they can do it better?

Rumandraisin1

My baser self can only hope that they get picked up on that. Counter-productive though it is for TRAs to show themselves up, that outcome never seems to occur to them.

If they are true to form, they will spot that glaring bit of terfery and demand a written apology, in triplicate, signed with blood and notarised by the Queen.

They are able to spot the inequalities women face very quickly, because they have experienced something different as a man.

Ooh, rather TERF-y comment, there. Saying that 'transwomen' have been men and experienced male socialisation/privilege. I thought transwomen were women, had always been women and had (somehow) never experienced male privilege or male socialisation, even when they've lived as a man for several decades and reached positions of power than women can only dream of.

They are able to spot the inequalities women face very quickly, because they have experienced something different as a man.

What does that even mean? Because they want to be women, they can spot the inequalities between men and women, despite reinforcing them every step of the way???

While there remains gender inequality in the world, there is a need for an institution such as ours that can focus on women’s confidence, learning and skills — to meet the challenges of education and those of the workplace.

How can they even. What kind of idiotic brain freeze does it take to agree that there is inequality in the power dynamic between men and women, and then include men in your quotas to negate it.

< fights yet another uncontrollable urge to shake somebody>

They are able to spot the inequalities women face very quickly, because they have experienced something different as a man.

I think we can do that very efficiently for ourselves, thanks all the same President.

The President of Murray Edwards has replied to criticism, saying

www.ft.com/content/547fcf02-712d-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9

"
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at www.ft.com/tour.
www.ft.com/content/547fcf02-712d-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9

While there remains gender inequality in the world, there is a need for an institution such as ours that can focus on women’s confidence, learning and skills — to meet the challenges of education and those of the workplace. I also believe that transgender women can be our allies in this mission. They are able to spot the inequalities women face very quickly, because they have experienced something different as a man.

"

Exactly so whoputthecatout. Whilst some have managed to see their line as being progressive when it's the opposite, cementing gender stereotypes and suggesting most accept gender.

TAs don't seem able to grasp that, on the one hand they believe gender is not binary, yet what they are doing is reinforcing gender stereotypes and beliefs. Doh. All stemming from the fact that they are unable to tell the difference between gender and sex.

They say this: Many of us within the college have sympathy with the idea that gender is not binary, and have concerns that narrow gender identities and the expectations associated with them are damaging both to individuals and to wider society.

Which I agree with. Gender is imposed on us from a young age (if not birth). It is damaging to individuals and to society and "narrow gender identities" not only limit us all but in my opinion lead to some starting to believe if they don't identify with the gender deemed to be for your sex then they must be the wrong sex...which decisions like this perpetuate in saying anyone can define as a particular sex.

ATailofTwoKitties that's why I think single sex education can be important (though feel in an ideal world it wouldn't need to be as gender wouldn't be so pervasive). At many girls' schools the STEM subjects are widely taken up - Maths is the most taken A Level in my year group and I know of another girls' school near me which I have some friends at where computing is taken by many and they have very active coding and robotics groups. I feel single sex education can help break down ideas of gender and go some way to freeing us from it, though would prefer this wasn't needed and for those who don't have single sex education not to find gender is imposed on them more.

These are historically places of male privilege: going to one of those schools massively improves your chances in life. So why wouldn't parents want to send their daughters there, if they can afford it?

There are plenty of excellent girls' schools, many of which perform far better than those two (as do plenty of other boys' and mixed schools). I don't see any way going to those schools improve life chances which wouldn't also apply to an equally privileged woman (in terms of social class) who'd attended a top private girls' school; the only thing pupils at those and other boys' schools have over those girls is male privilege which wouldn't be afforded to a girl/woman even if she started "identifying as male". Because girls' education wasn't valued for so long those institutions are seen as more "prestigious" due to how long they've existed.

It's an interesting point on the issue of identifying as a girl/boy and being legally entitled to be treated as such though.

Terfing indeed, or the many members' clubs in London (and doubtless beyond) which don't allow women to join and where many decisions and deals are made, promotions in many professions decided and so forth as Baronness Hale, President of the Supreme Court, has spoken of before in terms of how many judges and senior members of the legal profession are members of a particular one.

Apologies for the long and rather garbled message.

Who wants to send the e-mail to the 'Pitt Club' then, asking if they'll take a self-identified man?

Like MrsFrumble, I've been wondering about the impact of the proposed legislation on prestigious boys' school such as Eton and Harrow.

Up until now, all the concern has - rightly - been about men invading women's spaces. But if you simply have to say that you "identify" as the opposite sex to be treated as a member of that sex, then how could Eton or Harrow legally block a girl who said she identified as a boy? I can't see any justification for it.

These are historically places of male privilege: going to one of those schools massively improves your chances in life. So why wouldn't parents want to send their daughters there, if they can afford it?

I think part of the problem here is that the current focus on an equality rhetoric has now lost the language to talk about why single-sex colleges are a good thing (I attended what was at the time a womens college at Oxford, and Newnham at Cambridge). Forgotten feminism. So, for example, whilst there are now more women than men going to uni, this does not address the differences between subjects, and the differences for women as you go up the career ladder. As a physicist at a womens college, I think my experience was very different to those at mixed colleges, where it was often one (token) woman amongst a bunch of men in a year, as opposed to all women at my college (Institute of Physics, around 20% figure for females at A-level). Since teaching is with your college group, or sharing with one other college, this matters. Given the way men and women tend to be listened to differently and interact differently in mixed groups. Add in other aspects (like damn easier to come out as a lesbian at a single sex college compared to the horrendous experiences some of my friends had at mixed colleges). But if all we have is the blunt 'equality' perspective, rather than the feminist perspective, you can't argue why single-sex matters -- and why this doesn't include transwomen because although they are disadvantaged for their gender identity or presentation, they are not disadvantaged for the same reasons as females coming to university. Sex not gender (and as an aside I could cite the anecdotal preponderance of transwomen in IT areas, not an area where females predominate!).

I found the ME statement, not sure if there's already a link.
www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/Murray%20Edwards%20College

Note that it is not an all-women environment- the fellows and staff are mixed. Its not a 'safe space' for vulnerable women - apparently a nighttime fire alarm will reveal quite a lot of male visitors. And in terms of men taking women's places - the truth is that ME and Newnham don't get enough direct applicants so quite a lot of the students are from the pool having not actually chosen a women's college.

So, while it's disappointing to see academics apparently conflating sex and gender (but perhaps in reality not entirely in the broadest feelz way), the practical result of this change is probably going to be minimal.

On the issue of single sex education, I don't feel strongly about it, and I certainly don't think that women are delicate flowers who have to be protected from boys or men at all times. I feel much the same as I do about any women-only space. Sometimes I just don't want to be around men

I went to an all-female college. It was somewhat noticeable in my subject that although more or less equal numbers of men and women started the tripos, by the third year the proportions were 10 women to 130 men. Six of those remaining 10 women went to all-female colleges, where they were not the odd one out to be condescended to.

I don't think that's pure coincidence.

There's such a school near by own which has discussed on here before. They allow pupils in the sixth form to "identify as boys", insisting they're referred to by all with male pronouns etc. To me this is ridiculous and perpetuating gender, doing the opposite of what I feel my school has helped do for me (reject gender).

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

Surely if you identified as male, you wouldn't want to be in a girl's school anyway? I can't imagine that would help anyone's dysphoria

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

I think the school are treating it like a fad, and dealing with it in the least disruptive way possible. Almost like saying " OK, we'll call you luke and you can change in the loos, now get back to lessons ".

Somewhat reassuring although I have issues with the idea of "living as a woman" or as it's put here "the female gender" as I still feel it perpetuates regressive notions of gender being innate to most.

The Times today has a bit more detail and nuance

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-only-murray-edwards-college-cambridge-admits-transgender-applicants-dtnmdpbpb?shareToken=16ea0342ee2ea462c2860f5b4befe829

The stance sounds in part somewhat gender critical, and note that it is not sufficient for an applicant to merely have 'identified' as female, but has also taken 'steps to live in the female gender' or be legally recognised as such ie GR cert. - which as someone mentioned, is impossible for a 17/18 yo applicant. So, while it seems like an unnecessary move ( given the abundance of mixed colleges) it does seem more aimed at 'transsexual' applicants.

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

Nor can I. I attend one myself and fear this policy would be made official should the issue arise (remarkably I'm not aware of anyone declaring they're a bot yet despite widespread support for such viewpoints). I think it's ridiculous, regressive and goes against what girls' schools should stand for which is rejection of gender and the freedom of all girls from it (well, I think all schools and society generally should be such not least in terms of bringing up children but in the context of culture as it is). Schools with such policies are reinforcing gender to pupils, telling in this example girls that it's legitimate to feel if they don't identify with the gender ascribed to their sex they are really boys.

LadyinCement

I agree. And I think people are realising more, that there is a militant aspect to this and people will deliberately push boundaries.

This was a talk at which Bex Stinson was invited to speak. (She is the one from Stonewall who refused to speak at the gender critical feminist talk resulting in the speakers corner debacle).

www.hrla.org.uk/event/progress-and-challenges-in-advancing-equality-for-trans-people-in-the-uk/?instance_id=27

Gender critical feminists attended, but were not listened to. They have said that the ideology is extremely well funded, highly focused and organised. In education, health, and government.

Chillingly, the term 'strategic litigation' was used by the pro trans lobby.

This is no longer about any kind of inclusivity, niceness or tolerance. It's a deliberate attempt to effect social change, which will be highly detrimental to women.

If I had to make a guess, I would say strategic litigation means forcing issues, left right and centre. To cement and prove the law and make precedents happen.

So where people might be on the fence about a mild transwoman who passes, using female resources, but not so much with a 6 foot four man in a beard, acting stroppy and making no effort, 'strategic litigation' would make mincemeat of their objections. Of any objections in fact.