Cambridge University ignoring the Supreme Court ruling?

I think this is where I fundamentally disagree. To me, there is no meaningful commonality between transwomen and women as a sex class. Sharing the same clothes, interests, hobbies, aesthetics, or even certain personality traits strikes me as a superficial commonality rather than a substantive one.

What has shaped my view is my own experience. I've met many transwomen over the years and I was genuinely open to finding the connection that people describe. I thought perhaps there would be an immediate sense of recognition, a feeling that this person was, at some deep level, another woman. Not because of appearance, femininity, masculinity, or shared interests, but because of that subtle, unspoken sense of mutual understanding that often exists between women regardless of how different they are from one another.

I've never experienced that. What I've found instead is that my interactions with transwomen have felt much more similar to my interactions with men than with women. Obviously that's subjective, and others may feel differently, but it has been consistent enough that it has shaped my conclusions.

So when people argue that transwomen are women because they identify more closely with female typical behaviours or preferences, that doesn't resonate with me.

My understanding of womanhood has never been rooted in clothes, hobbies, personalities, or stereotypes. It's rooted in the shared reality of being female, and I don't think identification or affinity with a gender category can replicate that.

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.

Highlighting the biological differences justifies measures like reproductive freedom, child care, flexible working hours/parental leave etc that enable access to gender parity. Highlighting the commonalities as in cognitive skills & psychological traits justified anti discrimination laws that enabled access to the same work places. How else would you justify women not being the 'weaker sex'? The same way people of colour were justified not being discriminated against. We are all humans & as such cognitively & psychologically interchangeable.

And once the door to interchangeability opens, so does gender identification. Whilst males & females share psychological traits there are typical behaviours more common to one sex than the other due to genetic, hormonal distribution & environmental settings that create behavioural categories distinguishing males from females. Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits. I'm not saying behaviour defines sex. I'm saying there are behaviours & inclinations more common to each sex that create categorical gendered differences at population scale.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'

Of course the schism here is the GC presumption that alluding to typical behaviours is in conflict with psychological interchangeability. But it doesn't because interchangeability & typical behaviours are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other because individuals aren't necessarily reflective of the norm.

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.

Highlighting the biological differences justifies measures like reproductive freedom, child care, flexible working hours/parental leave etc that enable access to gender parity. Highlighting the commonalities as in cognitive skills & psychological traits justified anti discrimination laws that enabled access to the same work places. How else would you justify women not being the 'weaker sex'? The same way people of colour were justified not being discriminated against. We are all humans & as such cognitively & psychologically interchangeable.

And once the door to interchangeability opens, so does gender identification. Whilst males & females share psychological traits there are typical behaviours more common to one sex than the other due to genetic, hormonal distribution & environmental settings that create behavioural categories distinguishing males from females. Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits. I'm not saying behaviour defines sex. I'm saying there are behaviours & inclinations more common to each sex that create categorical gendered differences at population scale.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'

Of course the schism here is the GC presumption that alluding to typical behaviours is in conflict with psychological interchangeability. But it doesn't because interchangeability & typical behaviours are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other because individuals aren't necessarily reflective of the norm.

Somewhere along the line, the meaning of Simone de Beauvoir's statement about not being born but becoming a woman got twisted, from meaning something like " Society won't be satisfied with a diamond until it has been cut, polished and made to sparkle" to "If something has been cut, polished and made to sparkle, then it's a diamond."

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.
The commonality of women is they are all Adult Human Female, the differences that GC Feminists recognise is that there is no stereotypical female, that any female can be whatever they what, because there isn't only on type of women.

Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits.
Biology is not a state of mind, it's a physical reality, the female sex generally has less muscle power than the male because the female physical resources are diverted to carrying and bearing offspring. Which is why even the fittest of women will never be able to run as fast as a semi fit male, or deliver a punch as strong as even the average male. It's the biological differences between the sexes that is the bases for the discrimination of women.

And once the door to interchangeability opens
There is no 'interchangeability' possible because humans are material beings, and a product of their biology, they're not cut and paste identikits.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'
That only works if there is a stereotypical women, which there isn't because although all women are Adult Human Females, females can be whoever they choose to be, they don't have to conform to one and only one stereotype. Which is the essence of GC Feminism. A women who thinks she has 'manly' traits, isn't a man, the traits she has are not 'manly' they are her traits, and because she's a women she has made them 'womanly' traits, it's only the perception based on a outmoded stereotype that considers the traits to be 'manly'.

'Trans' is predicated on there being a stereotypical women, GC Feminists reject the idea that there is only one way to be a women. A woman is an Adult Human Female, and whatever way a women is, is what she is and she is a women for it.

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.
The commonality of women is they are all Adult Human Female, the differences that GC Feminists recognise is that there is no stereotypical female, that any female can be whatever they what, because there isn't only on type of women.

Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits.
Biology is not a state of mind, it's a physical reality, the female sex generally has less muscle power than the male because the female physical resources are diverted to carrying and bearing offspring. Which is why even the fittest of women will never be able to run as fast as a semi fit male, or deliver a punch as strong as even the average male. It's the biological differences between the sexes that is the bases for the discrimination of women.

And once the door to interchangeability opens
There is no 'interchangeability' possible because humans are material beings, and a product of their biology, they're not cut and paste identikits.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'
That only works if there is a stereotypical women, which there isn't because although all women are Adult Human Females, females can be whoever they choose to be, they don't have to conform to one and only one stereotype. Which is the essence of GC Feminism. A women who thinks she has 'manly' traits, isn't a man, the traits she has are not 'manly' they are her traits, and because she's a women she has made them 'womanly' traits, it's only the perception based on a outmoded stereotype that considers the traits to be 'manly'.

'Trans' is predicated on there being a stereotypical women, GC Feminists reject the idea that there is only one way to be a women. A woman is an Adult Human Female, and whatever way a women is, is what she is and she is a women for it.

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.

Highlighting the biological differences justifies measures like reproductive freedom, child care, flexible working hours/parental leave etc that enable access to gender parity. Highlighting the commonalities as in cognitive skills & psychological traits justified anti discrimination laws that enabled access to the same work places. How else would you justify women not being the 'weaker sex'? The same way people of colour were justified not being discriminated against. We are all humans & as such cognitively & psychologically interchangeable.

And once the door to interchangeability opens, so does gender identification. Whilst males & females share psychological traits there are typical behaviours more common to one sex than the other due to genetic, hormonal distribution & environmental settings that create behavioural categories distinguishing males from females. Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits. I'm not saying behaviour defines sex. I'm saying there are behaviours & inclinations more common to each sex that create categorical gendered differences at population scale.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'

Of course the schism here is the GC presumption that alluding to typical behaviours is in conflict with psychological interchangeability. But it doesn't because interchangeability & typical behaviours are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other because individuals aren't necessarily reflective of the norm.

Arrogance is also ugly.

Can you explain, as I don't think you have yet, whether you really believe the significant difference between men and women is ia difference in how we think rather than in our bodies? Do you really believe that if a man thinks or feels enough like "a woman" (whatever that means), he might as well be one? And if you do, what evidence did you carefully assess to come to that conclusion and what evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

Because honestly, I can dance on the head of a post-modern pin flirting with all sorts of deconstructions of things we take for granted, and I can write you no end of essays on different ways to reframe woman as a cultural moment, a subversive other, a void for filling, a performance, and all of them would have meaningful insights and valid aspects in their own right.

But none of them, none of them, for all the intellectual onanism, would undo the fact that female bodies exist and are different to male bodies, and that whether you think that division is instrinsicly meaningful or was just a fluke fluttering of a cultural butterfly's wings that could just have easily landed on hair colour or foot shape, that difference now has consequences that don't just evaporate away just because some clever student plays "what if" with language.

So, sure, I understand that many very clever people have talked themselves into believing it's more open minded, progressive, and just damn cleverer to believe men and women are far more nuanced and complicated than boring everyday sex that anyone can know about. I even thought it myself once. But then I thought even harder and realised I was just plain wrong.

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.

Highlighting the biological differences justifies measures like reproductive freedom, child care, flexible working hours/parental leave etc that enable access to gender parity. Highlighting the commonalities as in cognitive skills & psychological traits justified anti discrimination laws that enabled access to the same work places. How else would you justify women not being the 'weaker sex'? The same way people of colour were justified not being discriminated against. We are all humans & as such cognitively & psychologically interchangeable.

And once the door to interchangeability opens, so does gender identification. Whilst males & females share psychological traits there are typical behaviours more common to one sex than the other due to genetic, hormonal distribution & environmental settings that create behavioural categories distinguishing males from females. Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits. I'm not saying behaviour defines sex. I'm saying there are behaviours & inclinations more common to each sex that create categorical gendered differences at population scale.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'

Of course the schism here is the GC presumption that alluding to typical behaviours is in conflict with psychological interchangeability. But it doesn't because interchangeability & typical behaviours are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other because individuals aren't necessarily reflective of the norm.

This is logically incoherent. You are arguing that butch women who have more in common with men should use men’s toilets.

We don’t and have never apportioned any services or single sex facilities by personality type. Nor does the Equality Act permit one to do so.

I do not think you could possibly believe in what you’re writing.

I dunno. I think Feminism can be very varied in its approach, priorities and analysis, but it does at heart need the core belief that female people exist, are fully human with as much to offer the world as men, and matter in our own right.

Whatever the belief system is that believes some men are pretty much women because of the way they think, it ain't Feminism.

Have a good weekend. May courage and honesty triumph.

Sorry that was a bit of a rant and a derail!

We’re writing about different things. I’m writing about supervisions in college, which most students will have in their first year (unless few other students in college do their subject) and possibly all the way through their course if they do a popular subject.

If students have supervisions with people not their college even though there’s someone else in college doing the same paper then, absent friction, disagreement or possibly a vast difference in ability, then that’s something which has changed since I was student.

@NotNatacha It can be “important to the students” all they like but supervisions are not offered on a purely single sex basis for every subject. I had some supervisions with mixed sex groups. Like I said, this may be subject specific.

I understand this doesn’t suit the narrative, it just happens to be true.

Arrogance is also ugly.

Can you explain, as I don't think you have yet, whether you really believe the significant difference between men and women is ia difference in how we think rather than in our bodies? Do you really believe that if a man thinks or feels enough like "a woman" (whatever that means), he might as well be one? And if you do, what evidence did you carefully assess to come to that conclusion and what evidence would you need to see to change your mind?

Because honestly, I can dance on the head of a post-modern pin flirting with all sorts of deconstructions of things we take for granted, and I can write you no end of essays on different ways to reframe woman as a cultural moment, a subversive other, a void for filling, a performance, and all of them would have meaningful insights and valid aspects in their own right.

But none of them, none of them, for all the intellectual onanism, would undo the fact that female bodies exist and are different to male bodies, and that whether you think that division is instrinsicly meaningful or was just a fluke fluttering of a cultural butterfly's wings that could just have easily landed on hair colour or foot shape, that difference now has consequences that don't just evaporate away just because some clever student plays "what if" with language.

So, sure, I understand that many very clever people have talked themselves into believing it's more open minded, progressive, and just damn cleverer to believe men and women are far more nuanced and complicated than boring everyday sex that anyone can know about. I even thought it myself once. But then I thought even harder and realised I was just plain wrong.

I think you'll find that the numbers of trans people are much higher in the undergraduate population. But then no doubt you're aware of that.

So if a previous poster disagrees with you, they must not have gone to university. First-class analysis right there.

How many students and staff are at Cambridge? Over 30k I would say.

But by all means assume that everyone at an institution must think the same way, otherwise they wouldn't have been at university 🙄

To me, one of the most depressing things about trans-exclusionary feminism is the tendency (on the part of many of its adherents at least) to argue that if you don't agree with that point of view, you haven't done any critical thinking / haven't got a brain / etc etc.

It actually is possible for people to assess evidence carefully and come to different conclusions. It happens all the time.

Purity spirals are ugly.