Cambridge University ignoring the Supreme Court ruling?

Like all other operational rules it's a social negotiation dependant on the prevailing culture's values & their standards of utility.

An example would be both adults & minors are humans but don't have the same rights because of our values & utility.

Intersectional feminism describes and caters for divisions and groups within women. It doesn't mean "women with a few men added on".

Trans women are included under the umbrella hood of women because of their associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences.

Intersectional feminism inherently includes trans women because of shared oppression. Trans women often face compounded marginalisation (e.g., gender identity overlapping with race, class, or disability) which is the foundational premise of feminist inter sectionalism.

"And "minuscule number," whether true or not, is irrelevant. What if a minuscule number of any other group of men want to attend a women's college - should we let them, just because there aren't very many of them?"

No because they aren't as associated to women as trans women.

Intersectional feminism describes and caters for divisions and groups within women. It doesn't mean "women with a few men added on".

Trans women are included under the umbrella hood of women because of their associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences.

Intersectional feminism inherently includes trans women because of shared oppression. Trans women often face compounded marginalisation (e.g., gender identity overlapping with race, class, or disability) which is the foundational premise of feminist inter sectionalism.

"And "minuscule number," whether true or not, is irrelevant. What if a minuscule number of any other group of men want to attend a women's college - should we let them, just because there aren't very many of them?"

No because they aren't as associated to women as trans women.

I went to New Hall, now renamed Murray Edwards, as a shy, immature 18 year old. It was all-female and a badly needed safe space.

You occasionally saw a boyfriend, but that’s what he was - an occasional visitor attached to another woman. His presence overnight broke the rules so you could have easily had him removed.

Many of the undergraduate rooms are split level shared. The downstairs woman has no privacy from the upstairs one walking through to and from the shared entrance door. I have no idea how this has been resolved architecturally or whether Murray Edwards has a system in place to make sure shy immature 18 year olds don’t find themselves forced to share with a man claiming to be a woman.

I am appalled that Murray Edwards has fallen for the “most vulnerable“ line and lost its understanding of women’s needs in a still sexist society.

Intersectional feminism describes and caters for divisions and groups within women. It doesn't mean "women with a few men added on".

Trans women are included under the umbrella hood of women because of their associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences.

Intersectional feminism inherently includes trans women because of shared oppression. Trans women often face compounded marginalisation (e.g., gender identity overlapping with race, class, or disability) which is the foundational premise of feminist inter sectionalism.

"And "minuscule number," whether true or not, is irrelevant. What if a minuscule number of any other group of men want to attend a women's college - should we let them, just because there aren't very many of them?"

No because they aren't as associated to women as trans women.

I think what I'm struggling with is the criterion you're actually applying.

Earlier you seemed to suggest that sex can remain relevant where sex is the reason a category exists. But now women's colleges appear to be an exception, despite having been created as female-only institutions.

So is your principle actually that sex matters only where excluding it would lead to a clear disadvantage, safety issue, or undermine the purpose of the category?

If so, who decides when that threshold has been met?

For example, in hospitals, refuges, prisons, changing rooms, college accommodation, sports, scholarships, and women's colleges, what is the rule that tells us when sex remains relevant and when gender identity takes precedence?

I'm not asking whether trans women should or shouldn't be included. I'm trying to understand how your framework works consistently in practice, because at the moment it seems to depend on a case by case judgement rather than a general principle.

I am asking what operational rule determines when sex classifications survive and when they don't?

Intersectional feminism describes and caters for divisions and groups within women. It doesn't mean "women with a few men added on".

And "minuscule number," whether true or not, is irrelevant. What if a minuscule number of any other group of men want to attend a women's college - should we let them, just because there aren't very many of them?

Are you saying “women” in “women’s college” means female sex, or self identified gender regardless of sex?

I consider trans women as a sub category of women so both cis & trans women should be included in my view.

Because if it’s the second, then it isn’t a sex based category at all, and I’m struggling to see what makes it meaningfully distinct from a mixed sex college with a feminist ethos.

Well the Cambridge women's college is overwhelmingly sex based with a very small minority of trans women rather than 50/50 mixed so there would be a meaningful distinction not to mention I consider trans women more associated to women in behaviour & patriarchal oppression so it hardly disrupts \ the over arching project.

And just to follow that through: if you mean the latter, how do you square that with your earlier point that sex can still be relevant where it is the reason a category exists?

Why is a women’s college not one of those contexts, given it was originally created as a sex based institution?

Relevant to where circumstances disadvantage or cause harm to women like sports, hospitals, prisons. I don't consider women to be disadvantaged or harmed by being in the company of a few trans women in college classes in fact I think its of benefit to them because they have a shared experience in male/societal oppression.

And despite being created as a sex based institution, the category of woman has broadened with time so its not being inconsistent to include this more sophisticated understanding of sex distinctions particularly given there's a shared history of patriarchal oppression.

Are you saying “women” in “women’s college” means female sex, or self identified gender regardless of sex?

I consider trans women as a sub category of women so both cis & trans women should be included in my view.

Because if it’s the second, then it isn’t a sex based category at all, and I’m struggling to see what makes it meaningfully distinct from a mixed sex college with a feminist ethos.

Well the Cambridge women's college is overwhelmingly sex based with a very small minority of trans women rather than 50/50 mixed so there would be a meaningful distinction not to mention I consider trans women more associated to women in behaviour & patriarchal oppression so it hardly disrupts \ the over arching project.

And just to follow that through: if you mean the latter, how do you square that with your earlier point that sex can still be relevant where it is the reason a category exists?

Why is a women’s college not one of those contexts, given it was originally created as a sex based institution?

Relevant to where circumstances disadvantage or cause harm to women like sports, hospitals, prisons. I don't consider women to be disadvantaged or harmed by being in the company of a few trans women in college classes in fact I think its of benefit to them because they have a shared experience in male/societal oppression.

And despite being created as a sex based institution, the category of woman has broadened with time so its not being inconsistent to include this more sophisticated understanding of sex distinctions particularly given there's a shared history of patriarchal oppression.

Just to be clear on definitions:

Are you saying “women” in “women’s college” means female sex, or self identified gender regardless of sex?

Because if it’s the second, then it isn’t a sex based category at all, and I’m struggling to see what makes it meaningfully distinct from a mixed sex college with a feminist ethos.

Which one are you actually using?

And just to follow that through: if you mean the latter, how do you square that with your earlier point that sex can still be relevant where it is the reason a category exists?

Why is a women’s college not one of those contexts, given it was originally created as a sex based institution?

Are you seriously suggesting that collaborating with a misogynistic cultural norm is somehow a feminist act, because that’s what your argument amounts to.

If a woman must cover her body to walk down a corridor, attend a seminar, or speak to a colleague, then the institution is not supporting her freedom, it’s supporting the cultural norm that says her uncovered face is a problem. Creating a cultural silo that lets women unveil only at their desks isn’t liberation, it’s compliance with the very ideology that restricts women’s movement, education, and autonomy.

Feminism doesn’t mean helping women navigate misogyny more efficiently, it means refusing to let misogyny set the terms in the first place and no amount of “they can still go to seminars” changes that.

Are you seriously trying to argue that making it harder for women to study here is a feminist act? You do realise that the same argument, that women should just put up with the male gaze or else stay at home, has been made by TRAs to undermine women's right to single-sex spaces like changing rooms and loos.

These women aren't confined to their offices. They can veil up and leave the office at any time. This arrangement simply lets them unveil at their desks. They still have meetings with men and go to seminars with men.

If a women's college is permitted to admit anyone who self identifies as a woman, what distinguishes it from a mixed sex college in any meaningful sense?

My own view is that because its such a minuscule number it wouldn't really have a significant impact on the overall 'mission' of a woman's college. And its another opportunity to promote & cater for intersectional feminism that in my view is a more relevant effective manifestation of feminism. Given the college's historical commitment to feminism it makes sense they build on that.

Let's not forget there are substantial differences in mathematical ability particularly at the tail end of distributions between males & females skills that could easily be accounted for in part by differing brain structures, verbal skills included that influences interests.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4270278/

If a women's college is permitted to admit anyone who self identifies as a woman, what distinguishes it from a mixed sex college in any meaningful sense?

My own view is that because its such a minuscule number it wouldn't really have a significant impact on the overall 'mission' of a woman's college. And its another opportunity to promote & cater for intersectional feminism that in my view is a more relevant effective manifestation of feminism. Given the college's historical commitment to feminism it makes sense they build on that.

If a women's college is permitted to admit anyone who self identifies as a woman, what distinguishes it from a mixed sex college in any meaningful sense?

My own view is that because its such a minuscule number it wouldn't really have a significant impact on the overall 'mission' of a woman's college. And its another opportunity to promote & cater for intersectional feminism that in my view is a more relevant effective manifestation of feminism. Given the college's historical commitment to feminism it makes sense they build on that.

If a women's college is permitted to admit anyone who self identifies as a woman, what distinguishes it from a mixed sex college in any meaningful sense?

My own view is that because its such a minuscule number it wouldn't really have a significant impact on the overall 'mission' of a woman's college. And its another opportunity to promote & cater for intersectional feminism that in my view is a more relevant effective manifestation of feminism. Given the college's historical commitment to feminism it makes sense they build on that.

Oh how nice, a long, long term plan to explain away how we're collaborating with a deeply misogynistic regime and helping it to continue with the imprisonment of it's women on our soil.

This is not respect this is compliance, this is the Uni's chasing the petrodollar, and if they have to act as jailers to get the money, why not, it's all about the bucks, principles won't pay the wage bill after all.
If were not willing to apply our 'values' on our own soil then our 'values' are worthless.
Silly me for thinking Human Rights are for all Humans, Women's rights are for all Women, and not collaborating in our own country with a system that denies them to half of it's population would be a good way of us living up to our much vaunted 'values'.

I'm glad we agree that consequences matter and that conflicting rights have to be addressed.

What I'm still unclear on is how your framework works in practice, particularly in relation to the subject of this thread.

If a women's college is permitted to admit anyone who self identifies as a woman, what distinguishes it from a mixed sex college in any meaningful sense?

If sex remains relevant in some contexts, as you've agreed it can, then surely the question is whether a college established for women is one of those contexts.

More broadly, where do you think sex should remain the determining criterion rather than identity, and how would that work in practice? Hospital wards, refuges, changing rooms, prisons and women's colleges all exist because sex has been considered relevant to their purpose. If trans women are categorised as women for those purposes, how are genuinely single-sex spaces or institutions preserved?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm trying to understand how your position translates from a philosophical principle into a workable policy. Because that seems to be the real issue raised by the example in the original post.