Women only Cambridge college Newnham welcome men who ID as trans

@MyAmpleSheep

...marriage and civil partnership is a very unusual PC, and not a good comparator for GR.

It's notable here mainly because of our differing interpretations of S13(4). I interpret it as excluding, from marital status protection, victims of perceptive and associative discrimination, but you think it additionally excludes single people (who I don't think were ever protected in the first place). The net effect is the same, nor do I think we will get any forwarder on this aspect, so it's a moot point.

When we talk about pro-'cis' and anti-'cis' discrimination......how it was applied in practice.

(This was all about definitions and scope. In my posts, I'm using trans to = eligible candidates = men with the PC of GR = men living in the acquired gender 'female' (though only mature students could have a GRC). And I'm using cis to = ineligible candidates = men without the PC of GR = men living in their birth sex. I think that's enough to base a discussion on.)

If we stick with the question of legality of anti-non-GR discrimination, to put it that way, the debate about anti-single discrimination strengthens my argument that it's not legal. Although I was clearly wrong about it - you can discriminate against the person not holding the PC in that case - the reason you can is because in relevant passages the act makes it explicit that you can. That's not the case for GR.

The 'relevant passage' being S13(4), whose interpretation we disagree on (see above). I think anti-cis discrimination is legal because 'cis' is not a PC, whilst you think it's illegal because it's not been removed from the protection of the Act by a 'passage' like S13(4).

Treating an otherwise equal GR person more favourably means to treat someone - less favourably - because of - a protected characteristic. How does that fail to meet the straightforward terms of the definition of direct discrimination?

I understand this perfectly: I just don't see how it can work in practice, particularly in relation to Schedule 9. EHRC and CAB advice is very much written in terms of the victim either having the PC or being mistaken for/associated with someone with the PC.

Why else would it need to be explicitly permitted to treat disabled people more favourably than others, if it's not more generally forbidden to treat (for example) GR people more favourably than others?

Because disabled people must always be treated at least as favourably as others, with no exceptions. Whilst GR people must be treated at least as favourably as others as the default, but there are exceptions.

Schedule 9 allows cis people - but not trans people - to be treated more favourably in the service of an occupational requirement. I read this as a simple exception from the above default treatment of trans people, but you read it as a total ban on more favourable treatment of trans people, even if needed in the service of an occupational requirement.

So, whom can we preferentially employ?

Married people (no protection for single people anyway)
Cis people and single people (Schedule 9 exemptions)
Disabled people (expressly provided)

Whom are we forbidden to preferentially employ (according to your interpretation)?

Able-bodied people (anti-disability discrimination, no exemptions)
Trans people (no Schedule 9 exemption).

How am I going to find a trans director for my trans charity or service provider for trans clients?

But that isn’t remotely the purpose of Newnham. It might be a reason why some (in my experience not many) students choose it: but students choose colleges for all sorts of reasons, big/small/friendly/old/new whatever. Newnham is there for the education of women. It isn’t and never was designed to be a “be-kind” space.

That was my point upthread, and I'll hold to it. Many decades ago I went direct from a single-sex grammar school to a college that had recently become mixed. I floundered, subjected to a campaign of narcissistic abuse from a male fellow student, who subsequently went on to become a serial offender. My tutor and my college did nothing to help, because they valued that male student more than me. After three years I could appreciate that my friends at Newnham had benefited from a kinder environment. So if there are still students at Newnham who need that little bit of extra space when being educated alongside men, then the college is doing its job. Don't you dare dismiss it.

Oh, and just to clarify a point upthread; neither is the college there to provide a space for girls who need “to adjust to mixed-sex education” (how offensive!)

Newnham was founded in the 1800s when there was no mixed-education at Cambridge: the women’s colleges were the only way a woman could study there — and the university still did not grant degrees to women until 1947, even when women were placing higher in the exam results than men. The rest of the colleges did not admit women until the sixties and seventies, and some as late as the eighties: and even now many colleges remain heavily male-dominated, especially at the level of the Fellowship. When other women’s colleges in Oxford and Cambridge have gone mixed, they very quickly become dominated by men as well. (And these are independent private bodies with their own statutes, so they have to decide to go mixed, knowing the likely effects.)

A long tradition of women’s education is not to be given up lightly. We are still not equal, and we have our own educational history and struggles. These explicitly aren’t there for bad faith internet warriors crusading in from the US on behalf of men in frocks to decide to dismantle.

In the early 1900s young men at the university used to hang effigies of women students in the town and once battered in Newnham’s gates with a battering ram shouting “down with women”. Now people like @Howseitgoin are demanding again that women should move over for men. What better example of men’s desire than women should never, ever, be allowed to have anything of their own without men getting to appropriate it too.

I literally held a fellowship at Newnham; but you’re talking shit to me about “dorm rooms” knowing nothing at all about it. The rationale of Newnham being a women’s college is NOT for women’s safety. It’s for women’s education. It’s a college for women, for the promotion of women’s education and for the benefit of women. It’s not a retreat or a padded cell or a refuge. It’s somewhere which was founded for women, just for the benefit of women, to have something of their own in a wider world where still even now men get the vast majority of all the best things: the jobs and the money and everything else, and in which women are still fighting to access these on the same terms as men. And are not treated as equal yet.

It isn’t some kind of American sorority that men with emotional issues need access to in order to protect their delicate sensibilities.

IMO I think the college ought to tread carefully on this issue, because alumnae overwhelmingly feel extremely strongly about this, and the college really doesn’t want to be opening this up as a wider conversation with its alumnae members. But there have always been fellows who are secretly quite keen on going mixed, even though experience from other women’s colleges which have done so suggests that men immediately end up colonising the fellowship and student body, reducing the opportunities available to women in academia even further.

@theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw

The other avenue to explore is whether accepting trans-identifying men into a women's college can be considered positive action under section 158. (I think the Women's Institute is advertising it will use this defence in its defence to a challege to its admission policy.) That is, that trans-identifying men are sufficiently disadvantaged that admitting them is a proportionate means etc. which absolves the inherent otherwise-unlawful discrimination. To argue that case seems to me accept that there is an underlying unlawful discrimination at play that needs to be excused. I obviously think there is.

The Equality Act doesn't have any provisions about discrimination based on marital status, other than those relating to employment.

That's not fair: it does have provisions about discrimination based on marital status in other sections: it says explicitly that PC doesn't count. For example, in the provision of services and public fuctions, section 28(1)(b). But - you have persuaded me that single people aren't protected against discrimination, by pointing me towards those exclusions. The words of the act are persuasive and there is no debate. However, that means that married people aren't protected from discrimination in the provision of goods and services either - that PC only applies to discrimination at work, and nowhere else, it seems. So marriage and civil partnership is a very unusual PC, and not a good comparator for GR.

When we talk about pro-'cis' and ant-'cis' discrimination, it's true that 'cis' and 'trans' aren't protected characteristics. But gender reassignment is. I'm content that there is a sufficient nexus between GR as a PC and 'cis' vs. 'trans' that accepting 'trans' students into a college engages the PC of GR. I agree that's a debatable point, but to the extent it needs to be argued one would have to reach a common understanding of what 'cis' is, or in this example a clear understanding of what the actual criteria used to reject a non-GR man from membership was. That would be down to the policy of the college, how it was described, and more importantly, how it was applied in practice.

If we stick with the question of legality of anti-non-GR discrimination, to put it that way, the debate about anti-single discrimination strengthens my argument that it's not legal. Although I was clearly wrong about it - you can discriminate against the person not holding the PC in that case - the reason you can is because in relevant passages the act makes it explicit that you can.

That's not the case for GR. You point to explanatory note 59 which says:

Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is a protected characteristic listed in section 4. This definition is broad enough to cover cases where the less favourable treatment is because of the victim’s association with someone who has that characteristic (for example, is disabled), or because the victim is wrongly thought to have it (for example, a particular religious belief).

I don't know how that helps you. Courts don't use explanatory notes over and above the text of the Act. Treating an otherwise equal GR person more favourably means to treat someone - less favourably - because of - a protected characteristic. How does that fail to meet the straightforward terms of the definition of direct discrimination?

Why else would it need to be explicitly permitted to treat disabled people more favourably than others, if it's not more generally forbidden to treat (for example) GR people more favourably than others?

A precedent from an appellate court would certainly be helpful.

"No it's not irrelevant if there's no harm in them being included which you can't prove trans people are any more violent than lesbians."

Reader's note:

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people.

There doesn’t need to be any ‘large’ data collection done to prove there are issues either. Because the ‘harm’ is not only about reportable physical harm. There will be a large amount of harm that will never be reported and only partly because women and girls don’t bother reporting crimes where they are the victim to any authority.

However, safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people. There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.

-Violence.

-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.

-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

-Any female person who is displaced because a male person has been included in that provision designed to directly address sexist oppression of female people, and only female people.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for single sex provisions. And trying to focus only on violence is an attempt to distract from the other harms which are important and remain focused on a person's female body which is unchangeable.

The law makes it clear that sex is biological and that 'Sex' as a protected category relates to female people. This is a matter of black and white. The law is clear.

Nuance is understanding that harms do not have to be solely enacted through physical violence, but that female people are harmed when a male person breaches their privacy, and insert themselves without consent.

Nuance is understanding that harm is enacted when a male person uses female people to fulfil a personal fantasy - without their permission. The very 'otherness' of male people in a space meant exclusively for female people is a harm. People with empathy for women and girls understand this.

Transwomen are male people. The male sex and its assertions are at the root of what you are calling 'patriarchy'.

Others on this thread are tackling Newnham's official policy and whether it is fit for purpose post-SC. I and @bymyleftelbow (and others) are pointing out your ignorance of the Cambridge college system - very much at odds with your confident assertions.

Do keep up dear. I suggest you read before you post.

Audrey Ludwig tweeted 22:11 last night 2/11/25 :

https://archive.is/VS1s5

I am quoted in this piece though my very detailed legal explanation was unsurprisingly edited!.
All-female Cambridge college defies Supreme Court ruling and lets in students who were born male

What I said: The starting point in the Equality Act is no discrimination against any protected group. However to ensure this does not cause particular harms in certain situations the Act contains some exceptions. This includes some provision for single sex educational facilities as set out in schedule 12.

In order to use the schedule 12 exception allowing the college lawfully to not admit males, it has to do so strictly in accordance with the terms of the exception. I dont think this policy complies with that requirement.

To explain: the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland case determined that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, that trans women are legally male.

The only circumstance in the school 12(1) exception in which any males can be admitted to a woman’s college is set out in such 12 1(3):

"(3)
….. students of the opposite sex are to be disregarded if—
(a)
their admission to the institution is exceptional, or
(b)
their numbers are comparatively small and their admission is confined to particular courses or classes.”

The Newnham stated policy of allowing admission based on simply on what is stated on passport or driving licence (which is self ID) or by Gender Recognition Certificate could allow up to 100% of admissions to be for males. This could not be described as exceptional, and thus the policy is at serious risk of being determined as unlawful.

https://x.com/audreysuffolk/status/1985107779745366064?s=12

I'll deal with this first:

"This is known as transmisogyny."

There is no such thing, it's logically impossible. Misogyny can only be directed at women; the clue is in the "gyny" part, from Greek meaning women. No man attempting to pass himself off as a woman is a woman.

Transmisogyny is a fabricated term, used to gull naive people into thinking that men trying to pass themselves off as women are a kind of woman.

Unambiguously, they are not. They are men and have no place, or reason to be included in the category of Woman.

End of.

"It is important to note, therefore, that colleges such as Newnham have a particular responsibility to transgender students, whose oppression within and without the University is inextricably tied to their gender. Any space advocating for the rights of women, or offering a space as respite from patriarchy, must acknowledge that trans women are more vulnerable to sexist violence & discrimination, due to which in the ways transphobia & misogyny intersect.

Apart from this being an absolute nonsense, it is now clear that legally, it not only has no force, but us wrong, wrong, wrong.

After the Supreme Court judgment of April 16th this year, men means male at birth and women means female at birth. Men cannot legally be allowed into female single sex spaces, nor sports, nor access services for women.

This is clear and unambiguous, every twist and turn you make is 151° proof bullshit.

Thank you. You have just expressed a gender critical position, that some spaces should not be based on gender identity, but on sex. This is the position of the UK organisation Sex Matters - that sex matters in some circumstances. The only remaining question is where the boundaries lie between spaces where there would be "material harm" to women (and also in theory men) and those where there would not.

Perhaps there is a further question, of how we provide specifically for the needs of trans people who have been, or are at significant risk of being, "materially" harmed. Is this why you suggest that all spaces where there is not a need to reflect sex need to reflect gender? I don't think most spaces need to reflect sex or gender; they can be open to everyone regardless of whether they are men or women, and regardless of their personality. Genuinely single sex spaces where there is [a risk of] "material harm" (which needs definition). So called "third spaces" where trans people successfully advocate for them; these will usually be open to all though. Everywhere else open to all.

I am sick of all these organisations ignoring the law and the SC ruling. Why are they being allowed to get away with it?

Being exposed is a harm. Being leered at is a harm. Being coerced into propping up a male fantasy is a harm.

But laws have to be black and white. Courts can't run on feelings or sometimes or just for these people. There is no nuance in guilty or not guilty.
For laws to work you have to close the loopholes. For single sex to work you have to exclude all males.

I have said it multiple times: transactivists are punching massive holes in rights, protections and opportunities for women and girls. Legal loopholes that bad men will exploit, like the rapid prison onset dysphoria. The only way to close those loopholes now is to go back to single sex based on sex registered at birth.

I get it is hard for transwomen to accept, but transactivists overdemanded and are now just acting like screaming toddlers filled with male entitlement. Compromises are not acceptable for you, so why should it be for us?

Both voyeurism and indecent exposure are paraphilias.

These show up ovwrwhelmingly only in men.

Yup, sounds like a clear cut case of 'misgendering':

^https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/teenagers-jailed-transphobic-attack-harrow^

A very rare case of a group conspiring to carry out an assault. They were imprisoned for GBH on the young man and your main takeaway from this is the complete non crime of misgendering.

Fortunately, as we all know, men trying to pass themselves off as women are absolutely, both percentage wise and numerically, the safest demographic in the UK. Indeed, children under the age of 2 are more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

Stop pissing your pants about this.

Space not organised to reflect gender? As I already mentioned if there's a material harm like elite sports, hospitals, refuges etc..

Spaces to reflect gender? Everywhere else. IE where no harm ensues.

"Are you able to give plain answers to those simple questions?"

Life isn't black & white. There's this thing called 'nuance'.

I think over the coming week, and coming months, this case will be getting a lot of discussion. It will be interesting to see what happens.