Women only Cambridge college Newnham welcome men who ID as trans

In what spaces should society be organised to reflect "gender"? And by implication, you are saying that some spaces should not be organised to reflect "gender". What spaces are those?

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

Indeed.

The forced teaming under the ‘patriarchy oppression’ umbrella gets pulled out as well.

Voyerism is illegal.

Hope that helps.

"Women should not be shamed by reminders of ‘social responsibility’ into agreeing to allow direct harm to female people because we should have to take on the responsibility of looking after this group of male
people."

Yep nice try but the proviso was harm as I clearly stated which isn't always present. See Newnham.

Yes Helleofabore.
Trying (and failing) to weaponise the social contract which has forever enshrined the need to safeguard women from dangerous men when undressing / vulnerable.

It's quite the display these men make as they see their access to unconsenting girls and women being removed.

"It is also really important to keep reminding people that the single sex provision that is Newnham College is one that provides for single sex needs to overcome oppression based on sexism. The inclusion of any male person in that provision directly displaces a female person who needs that provision."

You not only don't get to speak on all women's behalf but that of Newnham who specifically stated its purpose was to provide a "sanctuary from patriarchal culture "& that trans women qualified because they were victims of it.

"If any male person is part of an oppressed group, special provision should be campaigned for. Members of that group of people should not be accessing the provisions for the other sex as a response to their oppression. That access causes direct harm to the group who the provision has been designated for."

On the contrary trans women being victims of patriarchal culture represent how it oppresses society more broadly which serves to also highlight how societal gender norms oppress people. Cis & trans women being abused is the symptom of the problem not the actual cause of it which gender critical ideology obscures often with impractical feckless solutions & finger pointing.

It is remarkable just how hard some male people attempt to wheedle their way into female single sex provisions.

The arguments being used on this thread are not new at all. It is something though to see the argument of social responsibility being used.

Women should not be shamed by reminders of ‘social responsibility’ into agreeing to allow direct harm to female people because we should have to take on the responsibility of looking after this group of male
people.

A female single sex provision of a
college at university already includes female people with transgender identities. Why do people feel they should shame female people into including some male people with particular philosophical beliefs while excluding all other male people?

Female people are neither a group of male people’s security service nor their therapeutic service.

The Equality Act doesn't have any provisions about discrimination based on marital status, other than those relating to employment. So we can agree: at work, married are protected, single are not: outside work, neither are protected.

That leaves only the question of whether 'anti-cis' discrimination is illegal. I think not, because if the Act was intended to protect everybody without a particular protected characteristic, other than from perceptive or associative discrimination, Explanatory Note 59 would have said so - it's too important to omit.

For example, if I have a justifiable occupational need to preferentially employ a trans person, how can I avoid illegal discrimination using Schedule 9? This Schedule has two asymmetric exemptions:

One: exceptionally permissible to preferentially employ a single person, but not to preferentially employ a married person. We agree(albeit for different reasons) that the latter exemption is unnecessary.

Two: exceptionally permissible to preferentially employ a cis person, but not to preferentially employ a trans person. I consider the latter exemption unnecessary, but you have said that it's been left out deliberately. Why? 'Cis' isnt even a protected characteristic, so why is anti-cis discrimination so important that it can't even be excused in the service of an occupational requirement (this is a degree of protection otherwise only afforded to disabled people)?

In any case, people do preferentially employ trans people, it's an obvious public good, and no-one has ever sued. I'm going to continue to assume that this is because it was never illegal discrimination in the first place.

So, if Newnham rebrands itself as a single-sex college that exceptionally lets in a few lads, Derry Girls style, it doesn't need to worry about the rights of the ineligible cis-male would-be candidates. (Only its founding instrument, the college statutes, and the meaning of the word 'exceptionally'.)

Yes. Voyeurism is also a sex crime - as is indecent exposure. All these men so desperate to decriminalise these crimes display very clearly their motivation for wanting to remove single sex spaces for women.

So parents magically know their unborn boy is going to decide when he's 18 that he thinks he's a girl and therefore buy him pink clothes, dolls, and tell everyone "she'll be a lovely little homemaker when she grows up"?
That'll be why all the trans identified young men at my university are taking part time jobs at the nursery* and making coffee at all student union meetings?
*Don't worry, they aren't. Just some lovely students who are mainly either mature students who are ex childcare workers or are studying child development, or both.

It’s like being subjected to a DDoS. I scroll past those posts and read the others. Ignoring the whole thread means the spam bots have won.

Privacy and dignity are the prime reasons that we have established single sex protections in certain types of circumstance. If you had empathy and true understanding you would already know this.

Voyeurism is a harm.

The point of feminism is to liberate women and fight for the rights of women and girls.

One might reflect on the absurdity of a man telling women about feminism.

£10 Howseit went to Hallowe'en in a pleather Nemo jacket. And tripped over his own feet cause of wearing sunnies in the dark.

Quite the word salad display for a Monday morning.

A man from the other other side of the world sneering at women with his googlings about feminism, education, a Cambridge college - all in order to compel girls and women to allow men to observe them while undressed.

The answer's still no.

"Patriarchal expectations' arise from centring male people, their needs and desires over those of female people.

For every other PC, including GR, you must be "blind" to the PC. You simply cannot lawfully take that protected characteristic into account - you must not even consider it - when making a decision to treat one person more unfavourably than another.

Interesting discussion on how the EA and PCs apply in law. I think the debate is whether the person with the PC or the PC itself is protected but might well have this wrong. Ample said something about everyone being protected. The discussion points to the complexity in law.

Irrespective of these ‘safety’ derails and the egoism of believing everyone on these threads needs re-education, isn’t Newham college just another case of a sportswoman or woman failing to take the podium or short list because a TiM has taken her place with a female?

This time being denied admission to a Cambridge college because a TiM has taken up a space that would’ve otherwise gone to a female. Though likely hard to prove in any court case.

Yup the streets are full of women who would love nothing more than their dignity being preserved by not having to get naked in front of other women but alas its harm not discomfort that underpins the justice system.

It is also really important to keep reminding people that the single sex provision that is Newnham College is one that provides for single sex needs to overcome oppression based on sexism. The inclusion of any male person in that provision directly displaces a female person who needs that provision.

There is no way to hide this direct harm behind philosophical theory.

If any male person is part of an oppressed group, special provision should be campaigned for. Members of that group of people should not be accessing the provisions for the other sex as a response to their oppression. That access causes direct harm to the group who the provision has been designated for.

Dignity and the privacy of one's sex are the main reasons we have the provisions we do. This is based on a millennnia of experience of relations and patterns of behaviour between the sexes, and on the practical wisdom that results when it comes to the arrangment of public spaces in which the body or biological function is in heightened focus.

Opens thread

sees it's been Howsed in the night

closes thread

Males are the problem. Trying to hide that maleness behind the trans label is thoroughly disingenuous.

Males exhibit greater tendency to all sorts of behaviours which render females more vulnerable around them. This is why we have the established protections we do.

Feminism centres female people. Males with trans identities remain male, and quite clearly retain all sense of male privilege, along with a total lack of empathy for actual women. A male person with empathy for a female person would not need to have it explained to them over and over again why women have the established protections they do.

"In saying that though, if the immediate reaction to seeing exactly what is included in ‘hate crime’ statistics is to the mention extreme examples as if those thankfully very few examples somehow proved a pattern that supported the point you (general you) made, it shows how poorly supported that point is."

Irrelevant. Surveys (as in the one posted) like those for women show most very violent crimes go unreported & as the data shows clearly isn't confined to misgendering. Reporting isn't anywhere near offending but points in that direction & that direction is decidedly violent. You can't have it both ways.

"However, the collection of hate crime data for the group of male people who demand to be treated as if they are female is irrelevant as to whether female people should have single sex provisions that exclude that group of male people."

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.

"That provision is also based on privacy and dignity and for allowing female people to continue to overcome a millennia of oppression based on our sex category."

Which Newnham claim that trans women experience hence their inclusion.

"Always drill down further."

As in self reporting to gage offending patterns? Good point! If it's good enough for cis women its good enough for trans women.

Once you see it, it cannot be unseen. The perspective simply keeps building. I guess that is what happens- as the Matterhorn grows, people see more clearly.