New female single sex student society launched at Cambridge university

They are so brave ❤

The EA2010 is largely a consolidating act; it gathered up a lot of prior equality legislation into a single place.

Much of the "confusion" was generated by non-neutral actors. That's not the fault of the legislation. The description of what constitututes the protected characteristic of gender reassignment I think is spot on, particularly in the context in which it is written, which is to define who is protected from discrimination on that ground. Since discrimination on the grounds gender reassignment is universally agreed to be a bad thing, it doesn't matter how widely that's defined. At the same time the Act makes it perfectly clear (to those who read it - not to those who can't be bothered) that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't turn a man into a woman or vice versa.

When it comes to the interaction of the EA2010 and the Gender Recognition Act, I think the drafters knew exactly what they were doing, and the SC decision was what was always intended.

I am confused you say this as I am not sure why it is good given the all the confusion over the meanings and how it interacts with the Gender Recognition Act, or the very loose description of what constitutes Gender Reassignment.

The Equality Act 2010 is long: the PDF of the Act runs to 348 pages. It's also very complicated and technical with many exclusions, exceptions and special cases. So it's very easy to apply the general principles wrongly in particular examples or to misunderstand those general principles entirely.

I should add that the the parliamentary draughting team (usually among the creme-de-la-creme of barristers) did an excellent job. When I hear lay people (including MPs) opining about what the Act should mean, or shouldn't mean, or what they thought it meant, I suspect they have no idea about the amount of intellectual effort that was put into creating it.

Well thank you @MyAmpleSheep - I didn't know that, or about the "other than by colour" rule.

The Equality Act 2010 is a very finely tuned piece of legislation, isn't it? The more I learn about it the more impressed I become.

The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" clause appears as a defence to indirect discrimination, and as a defence to direct discrimination on the grounds of sex in respect of the provision of single-sex/separate-sex/different-per-sex services, as well as a few other places.

Shared-characteristic assocations (other than by colour) are not unlawfully discriminatory (per schedule 16) and do not need a defence, nor do they need to be "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". They are prima-facie legal without justification. Men's clubs, women's clubs, clubs for disabled people, clubs for Jamaicans, clubs for English people - have at it.

Whatever the ethical issues, that position is not the law. Both all female gatherings (societies) and all-male associations are legal. In each case the association is restricted to members who share a protected characteristic (being women or men respectively.)

I thought either all-male or all-female is legal if having that separate-sex society or association is a "proportionate means to a legitimate aim"? So it depends on the aims of the specific society. Or is that a different bit of the law?

That's correct. Going further, the poster you quote thinks it's permissible to have all female gatherings because of intrinsic disadvantage suffered by women, but not all male gatherings because there's no intrinsic disadvantage suffered by men.

Whatever the ethical issues, that position is not the law. Both all female gatherings (societies) and all-male associations are legal. In each case the association is restricted to members who share a protected characteristic (being women or men respectively.)

More widely, except for the section on affirmative action, the Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination in both directions; treating someone either worse or better on account of a protected characteristic is unlawful (except for the PC of disability - see section 13(3)).

I’m a lurker on these boards - I never feel eloquent enough to add anything but am completely dismayed at the spread of gender ideology. I have a vested interest in young lesbians remaining just that.

I’m watching the journey of CU Society of Women and rooting for them but the Varsity article they’ve just appeared in shows the odds are stacked against them. It is madness. Even ‘Butchsoc’ is denouncing them. https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/30556

Then I asked AI if the women’s colleges admit transwomen as the article references them & Butchsoc is a Newnham society
Murray Edward’s policy states applicants who identify as a woman at the point of application are eligible. The policy explicitly includes those ‘identified as male at birth’ provided they ‘have taken steps to live in the female gender (or have been legally recognised as female via the Gender Recognition Act 2004)’
Newnham - The most recent document (2025) states: ‘admit only female students including transwomen and assigned female at birth non-binary people.’ However their earlier policy (2017) stated they would ‘consider at the admissions stage those who are formally recognised as female and are identified as such on a current passport, driving licence, birth certificate or gender recognition certificate’.
I’m rooting for these women but who is going to be brave enough to sign up in the face of such vitriol. I hope all female alumni join

I caught up with someone still in the university. The angle of free speech does appear to be helpful and growing so I hope the group finds support there.

Yes.

There was a minor kerfuffle recently when one of the women's colleges excluded TW from applying for some grant or other.

Good luck to these brave young women. I am so proud of them.

That article is deeply troubling. I am quite shocked by some of it.

LW and the fox botherer can both do one. Nasty pathetic individuals. Be kind my arse.

They lost at tribunal for discrimination and a harassment campaign against Jo Phoenix for being gender critical and setting up a gender critical network. Their legal team should be aware of this.

i really doubt that they will get the endorsement/ recognition of the SU, I don’t see anyway that will happen, but to see these young women actually stand up against the rhetoric is so heartening. I really hope they encourage other women to start to do the same. Being for women, doesn’t mean you are against trans women, or trans men, and I really hope that one day that really large point can be recognised.

I Hope they have locked the society to avoid being flooded with handmaidens trying to destroy their work from inside...

Didn’t the open university get taken to an employment tribunal over similar, where they lost? They are at the complete opposite of the prestige spectrum to Cambridge, so I’m not sure that it’s a problem specifically with the most prestigious institutions

That man is pure scum. He should have been charged with criminal harassment a long time ago.

Newnham's guest policy:

You can have an overnight guest (defined as from 12 midnight to 6am) in your room for not more than three nights in a “rolling seven-night period”. You must not accommodate a guest in your room if you are absent. All overnight guests must be signed in with the Porters’ Lodge whether the student lives on the main site or in a College house, in order to comply with the fire and safety regulations.

I very much doubt the rules were much laxer than that 45 years ago. (They may well have been much stricter.) Any boyfriend living "pretty constantly" in a student's room would be doing something explicitly not allowed. This is hardly a basis for a policy!

Yes - it gives hope for the future.

I agree. It is one of the best, most logical and lucid statements ever made on the subject of real females’ senses of identity. It is memorable. It should be printed out.

That is a wonderful INCLUSIVE statement.

These are courageous young women and we all need to have their backs against the tide of misogyny that being spewed all over them by the "be kind" bullies.

Evidence as those of us with young adult children and who work with children keep saying - so many young people now see this ideology for the aggressive bullying cult that it's become. Well done to them.