...to be literally speechless after reading this?

[CSLewis]

https://apple.news/AxiPl_cmVRTeudBZ6Kc4mRg

*Funnily enough when I was at an Oxford College (80% men in my year, so I reckon there was a need for the option of female only colleges) my tutorials were almost always all female. For some reason we had 2-3 women in some groups and 2-3 men in others. I'm not sure if this was to encourage the women to speak up and men not dominate or just to put people with their friends (as I was always with friends).

Total digression and as stated above I agree with the OP.*

I'm not sure it is a digression, at least not from the issue of whether at university level any degree of separate sex education is required. The issue of men tending to dominate discussions in a mixed group is pertinent, but it seems to me that allowing students to state a preference for single sex or mixed tutorial groups might be a rather simple solution to that.

I'm a huge fan on single sex secondary education being available, not sure it matters so much at uni.

Sex isn't as clear as that. As many as 1 person in 100 has some form of “DSD,” a difference/disorder of sex development. Yes, there are two distinct binary sexes, male and female, but there are variations in between. Chromosomal sex is a process, not an assignation.
Anatomy, hormones, cells, and chromosomes are actually not usually aligned with one binary classification. That's why it's not as black and white as being male or female.

Oh FFS. People with sex development disorders or intersex disorders are not a bloody variation, an in between sex, a third sex or whatever bloody else the TRA's are claiming we are.

I have an intersex disorder and it is a bloody nightmare to live with. I am infertile as a result of it and I have/had several health problems because of it.

Quite frankly it pisses me off when people bring intersex disorders into these discussions because it is always without fail done in a 'oh, but look at this, some people don't have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes, so this means that sex isn't as black and white as people say it is' way. It makes it sound like we just have a nice little quirk and that's all there is to it when in reality it is often very debilitating to live with.

I remember reading a very offensive post on Facebook a while ago from a science teacher who listed a bunch of intersex disorders, supposedly as a way of shutting down transphobia (um, what?). The worst thing is is that there were hundreds of comments praising her and lots of gushing over these people who have chromosomal abnormalities. I tried several times to post a comment myself but kept getting the rage whenever I tried to type anything. I just wanted to scream that if they really thought that having a chromosomal abnormality was so nice and worthy of gushing over then they could have mine and take all the bloody health issues that come along with it.

People with chromosomal abnormalities are still either male or female. Despite my disorder, I am still female. An infertile female who has never and never will have a period but I'm still a woman. I am not some bloody mutant who is in the middle of the two sexes. How bloody offensive.

WhenBarryMetSally I for one didn't know that. Thank you for explaining. Aside from the debate I'd just like to give you some .

Universities are not in the public sector - they are independent, private-sector institutions. So, just as private schools have the right to operate as single-sex institutions, so do these colleges.

I fail to see how 3 out of Oxford and Cambridge's (I think?) 69 being all female discriminates against men; if women hadn't been discriminated against in the first place these three colleges wouldn't exist and men would still only have 66 to choose from!

In any case, whether or not the college should be female-only is beside the point; it describes itself as being for females only. Since higher education is now a marketplace and students are paying for an education there I think they would have a case for false advertising! Might as well just make it co-ed.

whenbarry I'd often wondered how people with intersex conditions felt about having their condition hijacked and exploited by the trans-lobby.

TabbyMumz "I just can't see the need." That's OK, all you need to do is recognize some women would like this, and it doesn't hurt men. I didn't feel the need for it either, but I don't feel I need to understand why some women want it, it just doesn't hurt women or men.

you do know more women go to university then men right now? largest gender gap ever with i think the figure is 56% of all university places taken up by women. I am not saying its a bad thing that women are more likely to go to university now but that's the fact.

Can you imagine the outrage if there were male only collages.

I do think I was digressing because this is more about whether self identification can give "access all areas" than whether it's more sensible to give a choice of single sex tutor groups or some single sex colleges.

I also can't remember if the groups were all female/ male because someone had actually thought about it or just because of friendships. Plus I don't know if it happened any more widely that just my subject at that particular time, at that particular college.

I do remember there being some "private halls" that were all male within the university. But it looks as though they have become mixed now except one that is just for Jesuit priests.

you do know more women go to university then men right now? largest gender gap ever with i think the figure is 56% of all university places taken up by women.

Yes. But the ratio at Cambridge is still only 48% female to 52% male which suggests Cambridge still has some male bias.

I dont know if this is a digression or not... when both my DDs went to uni and applied to halls they were given the option of applying for accommodation in single or mixed sex flats in halls. So if they had chosen a female flat for whatever reason, they might actually not be in a 100% biologically female flat? so Eve next door might still be Steve?

Yes... it would be interesting to know whether 'single sex' flats (or in some cases, whole corridors or halls) are allowing trans now, and if this is causing any issues. Given that presumably nowhere now excludes opposite sex visitors (well, maybe a few oddities like ones for trainee priests!) would it necessarily make any real difference? Uni accommodation is not 'safe space' for a vulnerable group.

I looked up my old Uni last night (Kent) and couldn't see anything about gender identity, just that you can choose to be in all female or all male accommodation.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/10/does-university-challenge-prove-we-still-need-women-s-colleges

Yes. But the ratio at Cambridge is still only 48% female to 52% male which suggests Cambridge still has some male bias.

Cambridge has a high number of international students, many from countries which still value male education much more highly than female, which may account for the difference. In fact, given the U.K. had a high number of overseas students overall, the imbalance in domestic male students is even bigger.

However, this is not necessarily a bad thing, as men have much better access to highly paid jobs which don't require degrees in industries like construction and engineering. Women, however are often shut out from these jobs and need to follow the uni route to succeed.

@ErrolTheDragon

48% vs 52% doesn't bother me whatsoever.

Significant differences over a longer period of time do. It's quite likely that males born from 1998-2003 were more intelligent than females of the same age.

Striving for perfect 50% splits makes a mockery of what feminism used to stand for. The only way to get perfectly even ratios is through quotas and they make me sad.

We are not all the same; as races, classes, sexes, individuals ... we're all different.

If you think that 4% signifies bias, you miss the point although I've no doubt you "have" several post-grad qualifications in stats!

Trends, not small samples, are what show the true picture.

You object to men self identifying as women? And vice versa? Isn't that a bit anti equality and diversity

No, its pro logic and science.

You can't be a woman just because you say that's how you feel. FACT.

granntomine in that case, make it a co-ed. that's a different argument altogether.

48% vs 52% doesn't bother me whatsoever

It doesn't bother me that much, other than it being the correct statistic for Cambridge.

4% is a small difference, but may suggest some bias, when compared with the statistics elsewhere (and data such as A level results). We might well be selling women short if we were aiming for a 50:50 split - I'm not, I'm aiming for equity.

Trends, not small samples, are what show the true picture.

Absolutely. The data since 2011, which is all I know how to get, shows a gradual change from 54:46

in that case, make it a co-ed. that's a different argument altogether. That should definitely happen and would stop all the hysteria.

It should not happen. Why should we get rid of all womens spaces just because men can't accept they can't get into them? For a sodding millenia universities were a male only domain, for a few decades women have been allowed in, and there are a tiny amount of women only colleges. Why shouldn't we have them?

If a person born as a man, feels they are a woman, and identifies as a woman, and thinks they are a woman, then how do we define woman? We can't, and the whole idea is logically impossible.

Why do you think you're a woman? The answer is usually 'I think like a woman and I fee like a woman' - but women don't thinks certain way nor do they feel a certain way - this is gender, and gender is a societal construct that needs a bloody good takedown.

It's not sex. Gender stereotypes fail us all - but sex is immutable. You cannot become a woman. And if you think that dressing/'acting like a woman (however the fuck women are supposed to act) makes you a woman then youve misunderstood the difference between sex and gender.

Anyone should be able to wear and dress what they want. There shouldn't be all this shitty gender stereotyping. But sex isn't mutable. It just isn't.

I think all colleges should be coed.
Some spaces require sex segregation for safety. Not many, but areas like requesting a woman to give you a smear test, requesting a female career, changing rooms, rape crisis, refuges. They need to remain sex segregated.

Until the day males aren't a threat to females.

@ErrolTheDragon

4% is a small difference, but may suggest some bias, when compared with the statistics elsewhere (and data such as A level results)

I wonder if the difference is due to courses offered and the selection process.

I wish I had kept an article I read recently which spoke about how, in tests, women with higher levels of testosterone did better in interview-type situations. I wonder if it's the structure of assessments of Oxbridge candidates which means it's bucking the trend of M:F ratios. I believe the reason for girls tending to do better than boys in GCSE and IB is the method of assessment and the reverse until 10-ish years ago.

An alternative explanation may be the type of course offered. Either because they attract men more than women or because they are more suited to male brains than female.*

Do you accept that a (hypothetical) course could be 99% male students and still be absolutely equitable? Would going out of your way to attract girls to the course be equitable?

@existentialmoment

Why shouldn't we have them?

Why should we?

I assume that you are against them being for men only. Is this about a taste of 'their' own medicine or do you have a reason for wanting them to continue?

I don't want female spaces because it implies that I need protecting. I don't. You may be happy to be classed as that but it isn't fair to lump us all in together.

*not trying to be provocative. There are differences. The debate is whether this is nature or nurture.

yolofish
when both my DDs went to uni and applied to halls they were given the option of applying for accommodation in single or mixed sex flats in halls. So if they had chosen a female flat for whatever reason, they might actually not be in a 100% biologically female flat? so Eve next door might still be Steve?
Technically, once a man starts the process of applying for a GRC he gets legal protection, and no one can 'discriminate' against him by excluding him.
He does not actually have to make any physical change, just live as a woman for 2 years to obtain a gender recognition certificate (GRC). But protection starts when he begins the process.

All a man has to do is say 'I identify as a woman' and claim they have started the 2 year process. There is no burden of proof for this.
Registered sex offenders and convicted rapists are free to do it, and if they obtain a GRC they get given a clean slate.

There are some legally accepted exceptions such as Rape Crisis centres and domestic violence shelters, but a lot of places are afraid of being tied up in litigation.

I can't see why it matters.

It's accessing education - the ever-present fear of a man in the cubicle next to you whilst you have a period argument seems to have little connection.

Yeah, it's really stupid.

Also, felt compelled to point out that there are in fact 3 Cambridge women only colleges- Lucy Cavendish also only admits women as well as Newnham and Murray Edwards (previously New Hall).

However, there are no women only colleges at Oxford at all, so maybe single sex colleges have had their day. Although on second thoughts maybe not, given the seemingly rising levels of misogyny in the world. If we are to keep them, they need to be women only though- biological women or post-operative trans women diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Not Danielle Muscato.