Women only Cambridge college Newnham welcome men who ID as trans

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Study shows males retain male pattern offending rates post transition.

Most of these posts are pulled out of thin air, to put it politely.

So how do you know these men are in danger in mixed environments?

so are you saying transwomen are men now? I mean you’ve just said that they’re male, so therefore men. As such, why do you believe they belong in female spaces? You seem awfully confused. Did you skip the antibac again?

More institutional abuse of women.

'Socially' female? This is a descriptor I've not heard before. What does it mean?

It turns out most attacks on all categories of all people are by men. I guess all categories of all people should go into women only spaces. It’s the only logical solution.

Lots of people said men were women, until it was tested in law. In fact it took the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to settle the law. I can find you dozens of articles explaining why women were men: they were all, in the end, wrong.

"There are few cases involving discrimination against single workers, for the good reason that there is no protection for them under equality law"

Alternatively, there are few cases involving discrimination against single workers because nobody has brought any yet.

A quick look at the cases mentioned in that article don't directly support the supposition that discrimination against single people is lawful, and when it says this: The Act does not protect single workers - I don't think it's correct, on the plain meaning of the words in the Act.

This bit is definitely incorrect: While fewer claims on this ground are brought compared with the other protected characteristics, it is a type of claim that is not available to workers who are not married or in a civil partnership. It ignores the concept of discrimination by perception. It is uncontroversial that there is no need for a claimant actually to have a protected characteristic, so the claim that discrimination on the grounds of marriage is only available to workers who are married or in a partnership fails at the first. That kind of sloppy analysis does little to persuade about the accuracy of the rest of the article.

I'll read through the cases cited more carefully later though. What actual judges have said on the subject is certainly more relevant than what an MP says.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-66-issue-03/singled-out-discrimination-for-living-alone/

"There are few cases involving discrimination against single workers, for the good reason that there is no protection for them under equality law"

The Act defines situations in which discrimination against trans people and married people is permissible, but does not do the same for 'cis' people or single people because an exemption is not required (there are no exemptions at all from disability protection).

Alternatively, it does not do the same for 'cis' or single people because it's not permitted.

Can you give me an example where it would be lawful to discriminate against a person for being single?

I have to point out that 13(3) of the Act explicitly allows positive discrimination in favour of the PC of disability. It says If the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.

For every other PC, we understand that (for example) if the protected characteristic is marriage or civil partnership, A does discriminate against B only because A treats a married person more favourably than a single person.

Atkins is just plain wrong on the law.

Again, I remind you that the claim for unlawful direct discrimination stands or falls on the basis on which the decision to provide less favourable treatment is reached; the Act says nothing (other than for disability) in which direction the less favourable treatment is provided.

The majority of the political opposition to trans people is coming from women, so why do you think a transwoman would be safer in an otherwise all-female environment? Or are you suggesting there might be sex-based differences in propensity to violence?

In any case Newnham students have lectures in mixed-sex environments, and many will also have supervisions with students from other colleges or with male supervisors - nobody's escaping a mixed education.

I was assuming that belief only covers belief - or lack of it - about the world, eg TWAW or atheism, not belief about the self, eg 'I am a woman', so the groups involved are not co-terminous (eg some 'cis' people believe TWAW). But I'd love to see the law on transgenderism as a belief system explored further (Article 9, anyone?).

Not quite sure I'm thinking clearly – I'm a bit fuzzy in the head this afternoon – but given that trans identification doesn't have any clear physical basis, isn't the only basis for it "belief"?

If you can't see the difference between why 90% of sexual assaults on women aren't reported but any incident of verbal or physical assault on a trans identifying man within a Cambridge University college would certainly be reported both within the college and the media then I can't help you.

Socially self centred and inconsiderate.

Reproductively male? Sure. Socially? Nope.

Thank goodness even the TRAs accept transwomen are men now. That was some boring ground to go over and over and over.

Under law, the admittance of a few males isn't considered to make a school mixed sex because the overwhelming majority is female.

The "haven’t heard" argument is a well trodden one for denying abuse. We also "haven't heard" the 90% of women who have been sexually assaulted who don't report their attackers. Crime reporting & offending are two very different kettles of fish.

Don't think you should expect there to be credible reasons for any of this nelly. It's not about rationality, integrity or ethics. It's about male power, domination and coercion.

But if you admit a male into a female college it automatically becomes a mixed sex environment, so why would this male not be safe in a mixed sex environment that was already designated as mixed sex? Why would he be safer in one mixed sex environment and not the other?

Sacred caste innit?
Men insisting they're women must have access to all things women cos words have no meanings anymore (unless approved by the trans borg).

This is just chat shit. All the other colleges are mixed sex. There are trans identifying male students at most if not all of them. I haven't read anything about any of them being attacked within the college environment.

You should tell Victoria Atkins then:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2018-09-10/172406/

'Although being single is not a protected characteristic (unlike, for example, race or sex) in the Equality Act 2010, ...'

Even if you misconstrue the definitions of the protected characteristics, it's clear from eg the employment exemptions what is intended. The Act defines situations in which discrimination against trans people and married people is permissible, but does not do the same for 'cis' people or single people because an exemption is not required (there are no exemptions at all from disability protection).

That’s an issue to take up with men and their shocking refusal to accept different gender presentations. I can’t believe somewhere as middle class and liberal as university would be a dangerous place for a gender diverse man?!?

oh it’s Howse!!! Sucked in again lol!