Women only Cambridge college Newnham welcome men who ID as trans

Yes. They either agree with your interpretation or have another reason for citing it (intersex as a disability? thought it would look good? just being cautious?)

I vote for "aren't really interested that much in the detail of the law, copied it from somewhere else, and hoped it would be good enough." This is pretty technical statutory interpretation, not something most people are interested in.

@MyAmpleSheep

I suppose you're saying that being (v not being) a transsexual person doesn't need to be mentioned there, because that kind of discrimination is in fact not "otherwise" unlawful?

Yes (and likewise for being married or in a civil partnership).

If the organization advertising the job had seen it that way, they would have had no need to mention Schedule 9 at all.

Yes. They either agree with your interpretation or have another reason for citing it (intersex as a disability? thought it would look good? just being cautious?)

I'm going to read the thread with interest!

But I assume you would think their requirement for a trans person alone would be illegal positive discrimination. Since, contrary to the wording of the ad, there is nothing in Schedule 9 to excuse this particular requirement, which must therefore always be illegal, no matter what.

Yes, I think that would be consistent with the words in the Act. I'm open to being shown to be wrong either by something in the Act itself or a judicial decision setting out a different way the act should be read. GIven that most non-GR people are unlikely so much to want to work in a post where the organization feels it needs a GR person as to take legal action, the fact that this point hasn't been adjudicated isn't much of a surprise.

Two comments from the thread I do agree with - firstly @crossant: They could equally well say they were invoking section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It's ignorant, silly, and shows a misunderstanding of the law, but none of those things are illegal.

And secondly @IrnBruAndDietCoke: Regardless of whether it’s correct in law, you’d have to be a real cunt to apply for that job if you didn’t have the preferred characteristics.

Have a read of the explanatory note to Schedule 9:

787.This paragraph provides a general exception to what would otherwise be unlawful direct discrimination in relation to work. The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work...

I suppose you're saying that there's no need to mention that being (vice not being) a transsexual person doesn't need to be mentioned there, because that kind of discrimination is in fact not "otherwise" unlawful? If the organization advertising the job ad had seen it that way, they would have had no need to mention Schedule 9 at all.

There's been a thread about this before, which you might find interesting:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418813-tnbi-job-ad-for-somerset-and-avon-rape-and-sexual-abuse-support

Unfortunately it's a mixed issue example, because they wanted someone who was trans (PC), non-binary (not a PC), or intersex (??). But I assume you would think their requirement for a trans person alone would be illegal positive discrimination. Since, contrary to the wording of the ad, there is nothing in Schedule 9 to excuse this particular requirement, which must therefore always be illegal, no matter what.

My point about those things being legal is that it's clear they're actually not, and therefore your reading of the law isn't right. Yes, you can legally discriminate against people and in favour of others on lots of unprotected grounds. But gender reassignment is a protected ground. Unlike the protected ground of disability, there is no explict exemption that makes positive discrimination lawful. Ergo - it remains unlawful.

I can think of no job where it would reasonably be a genuine occupational requirement to be 'trans'.

Other people have replied to this more than adequately, but here's my take, because as a man I find it difficult to resist having my say (tongue in cheek, because NAMALT and SWALT).

I absolutely agree that sex and gender are different. Sex is binary, despite occasional complications in determining which category someone belongs to. Gender is a socially constructed way of describing some aspects of personality, and basically describes dimorphism of personality. Because gender is at least partially socially constructed, concepts of femininity and masculinity are culture-dependent and very poorly defined, so it is debatable how much male and female people overlap in terms of gender traits. Also, we lump together under "gender" all sorts of different personality types – are women typically more nurturing (but that would not exclude men from being nurturing), and are men typically more aggressive (but that would not exclude women from being aggressive)?

For the functioning of society, statistical evidence that men are much more physically dangerous than women is important. But there are also social concepts that are not so easy to deal with on a statistical basis, such as dignity. But we do have crimes that are arguably based on dignity, such as voyeurism, and again the statistics say that men are more likely to be guilty of that. How would one base policy to tackle voyeurism on gender identity instead of sex?

Agree, although it doesn't much matter in practice because trans people are rare (and supposedly disadvantaged, oppressed, etc). And there are lots of things that aren't protected characteristics in the first place - discriminate to your heart's content and the law can't touch you.

The WI case which is ongoing is based on sex-discrimination, not discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

What a shame, yet again men have multiple options and women who need single sex spaces have none.

I think in the light of the Supreme Court judgement this will also bite them on the bum.

Imagine our top universities so overtly telling women we are less important than men, yet here we are.

That is because 'gender' is nothing more than personality traits which can be found in both males and females. Having a certain sort of personality doesn't change your sex, though.

No, but all men are men..as in male. It is masculine traits and tendencies that are at the root of this oppression you cite....according to your own theory about what feminism is supposed to be, anyway.

Masculine traits and behaviours don't disappear just because a male person adopts a feminine persona. Men invading and colonising what they perceive as femaleness is just another oppression enacted by men on women.

Exactly. And as Howse now agrees gender is different from sex, he can encourage males with a trans identity to use the mixed gender facilities relevant to their sex. And also go work on his fellow men to not be mean to those men presenting in a different way. So we’ve solved it.

Yes, well done, Howse! Gender is arbitrary social convention! Its all optional!

Women can have short hair and wear trousers and enjoy arc welding. It has absolutely no bearing on their sex.

I'm pleased you got there eventually.

This simple and basic understanding seems beyond the reach of gender supporters.

I never said sex was interchangeable but gender was interchangeable between the sexes:

"Gendered behaviours more typical to one sex being interchangeable between the sexes is the point of interchangeability."

If pro-trans discrimination is legal as you believe it to be, you don’t need to consider it to be an occupational requirement to be trans to appoint a trans person to a role. ipIts legal for any reason or for no reason at all.

If pro-GR discrimination isn't captured under “because of a protected characteristic” You can openly advertise and employ only GR people in every role.

For that matter you can openly advertise that your service, shop, organization and public authority charges non-GR people double price over GR people. That would all be lawful. So would barring entry to your shop, library, bar et. al. to any non-GR people.

In your interpretation of the act that’s all permitted.

I doubt that any 'cis' men will ever sue Newnham for admission

Im not sure. There’s legal trouble brewing for the WI who may be sued by a non-GR man to allow him to join.

"Who can apply to Murray Edwards?
For undergraduate admissions, we will consider any student who identifies as a woman at the point of application (i.e. when submitting their initial October application). This information is communicated to the College through the UCAS application and we can only consider those applications that we receive where a student has selected the gender category ‘Woman’."

https://www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/study-us/how-apply

"It is stupid of the college to risk causing a fuss with the alumnae: they can’t afford to alienate their donors."

You are assuming all donors are a monolith & by extension women which would be true to GC form. So much for anti sexism.

You are also assuming prospective students values don't have any impact of a college's bottom line & judging from the JCA elected representatives it aint exactly GC orientated.

Gender is just behaviour. How does that make sex interchangeable? Just because a man wears his hair long and cries at sad films doesn’t mean his bodily sex is any different.

Gender is on a spectrum. Gendered behaviours more typical to one sex being interchangeable between the sexes is the point of interchangeability.

Let's not forget what legitimises equality is shared traits not different ones. It's the psychological overlap that justifies equality. Of course that doesn't mean that barriers to women's equality that are a result of differences are ignored rather that gender expectations is part of that problem.

They aren’t “closely tied”; they are all independent foundations with their own individual statutes. What one does has no bearing on any of the others. Murray Edwards has a mixed fellowship, so does not prohibit men from being college members at all (Newnham does). Lucy Cavendish went mixed at the same time that it ceased being a mature student college - for financial reasons. It’s perfectly open to Newnham NOT to admit any men; I think the decision is right on the edge as to whether it’s lawful, and it’s equally possible that the next Principal decides the opposite way (or that it ends up looking too risky in legal terms). It is stupid of the college to risk causing a fuss with the alumnae: they can’t afford to alienate their donors.

I never said it was that 's why I named it Murray Edwards not Newnham. The point is to show the premise behind where those closely tied colleges were heading at the time.

And if gender is so interchangeable, why is there even a patriarchy? (Presumably if all men in the world put on dresses and said they were trans, we’d suddenly have a matriarchy 🤣)

"Interchangeability" of gender? So gender is a binary in your world? Are you conflating gender with sex?

Murray Edwards is not Newnham — and it has different statutes, which allow for male members (it has a mixed Fellowship). Lucy Cavendish is no longer a women’s college at all.

Oh & here's the logic why Murray Edwards did to keep digging with:

“There is now a greater understanding of the complexities of gender. In order that we remain true to our mission of being open to all outstanding young women we recognise that it is right for anyone who identifies as female, regardless of their born gender, to be able to apply to study with us.”

"In a statement about the new policy, the college said: “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."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/04/women-only-cambridge-college-to-allow-students-who-identify-as-female-murray-edwards