Murray Edwards College Cambridge

[TheWeeWitch]

The statement from the Women-only college, who are now to allow both women and women with penises to join their ranks, reads as per the typical inane trans-enamoured response to such things:

“In order that we remain true to our mission of being open to all outstanding young women we recognise that it is right for anyone who identifies as female, regardless of their born gender, to be able to apply to study with us."

Luckily, Germaine is on the case:

“If [Murray Edwards] really don’t believe that gender is binary, then they really shouldn’t be a single sex college. Their position is ridiculous. The only sane thing for them to do is to cease discriminating on the basis of assigned gender of any kind... There are plenty of women who have served their time in women’s colleges, who are pretty whiskery, but nobody did a DNA test on them. But they had to live women’s lives - with all the disabilities that that entails.”

Link here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/10/03/women-only-cambridge-college-allow-students-simply-identify/amp/

Sorry to read of that Ereshkigal and I would entirely agree with your objections. I meant more that with many being afraid to dissent from the TRA line on this, some women may want to object but fear accusations of "transphobia" if hey do. They shouldn't be being in the position in the first place of course.

No I agree with you. It's just something I feel very strongly about!

That's good to know Lass. When I was at uni I don't think the people who had to share got a choice about it, so things may have changed.

I can very much understand why - it's such an important issue!

"how we define women is changing"

And what about how we define men? Surely that has to change too? What will happen when a 13 year old natal female who identified as male wants to go to Charterhouse or Harrow? What will happen then?

It's bound to happen sooner or later and I'll be fascinated by the outcome.

So this is how it’s going to have to be from now on? Women have been “redefined” and we just have to put up with it.

Fat bloody chance we’ll be seeing any such redefining of men or boys that will freely let girls into Harrow or Eton.

Disappointing. I don't suppose all the students there are 'thrilled'.

Any transboy at Harrow would get mocked anyway because they can't inherit the title under current legislation anyway......I guess their sister at Cambridge would inherit even with their identification as a woman, so the House of Lords isn't redefining man whatever the uni says.

So you turn up at Murray Edwards, see your room mate... and they are a bloke. And you can't complain because that would be offensive and discriminatory.

Presumably it would have to be a pretty militant trans person who would apply specifically to Murray Edwards when there are so many other colleges. And so, perhaps, they would then be keen to push the boundaries (every pun intended) and request a shared room as a challenge; if the authorities denied the request it would be discrimination.

What will happen when a 13 year old natal female who identified as male wants to go to Charterhouse or Harrow?

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

(The other thing I absolutely hate about that telegraph piece is that they put a pic of mel giedroyc up and caption it that sue perkins went to murray edwards. So they're saying that they're interchangeable or the same person - or any old bird off the bakeoff will do.)

On the issue of single sex education, I don't feel strongly about it, and I certainly don't think that women are delicate flowers who have to be protected from boys or men at all times. I feel much the same as I do about any women-only space. Sometimes I just don't want to be around men, and there are fewer and fewer opportunities to be only around women. I don't hate men (I am married to one and have three sons after all), but I also like being in the company of women, and I resent being told that men have the right to infiltrate a women-only space. It seems as though the right to associate with a group of women is being eroded.

I don't want to undermine the rights of vulnerable young people either, but I can't help thinking that their needs can be better met in different ways, and that this change is not an altogether positive step for the rights of women.

Sex is a protected class, so at some point here's going to be a test case to see if having a penis makes you female, or excludes you from women only spaces and puts you with other people who have a penis..
Test cases make me nervous.

Lady - the college's first year rooms are all single en-suite - it doubles as conference accommodation. The allocation of rooms in higher years, as I understand it does preclude having to share with anyone unless they positively want to, and groups can request rooms in blocks. In this case the 'dorm' scenario does appear to be not as much of an issue as some might fear.

LadyinCement

I agree. And I think people are realising more, that there is a militant aspect to this and people will deliberately push boundaries.

This was a talk at which Bex Stinson was invited to speak. (She is the one from Stonewall who refused to speak at the gender critical feminist talk resulting in the speakers corner debacle).

www.hrla.org.uk/event/progress-and-challenges-in-advancing-equality-for-trans-people-in-the-uk/?instance_id=27

Gender critical feminists attended, but were not listened to. They have said that the ideology is extremely well funded, highly focused and organised. In education, health, and government.

Chillingly, the term 'strategic litigation' was used by the pro trans lobby.

This is no longer about any kind of inclusivity, niceness or tolerance. It's a deliberate attempt to effect social change, which will be highly detrimental to women.

If I had to make a guess, I would say strategic litigation means forcing issues, left right and centre. To cement and prove the law and make precedents happen.

So where people might be on the fence about a mild transwoman who passes, using female resources, but not so much with a 6 foot four man in a beard, acting stroppy and making no effort, 'strategic litigation' would make mincemeat of their objections. Of any objections in fact.

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

Nor can I. I attend one myself and fear this policy would be made official should the issue arise (remarkably I'm not aware of anyone declaring they're a bot yet despite widespread support for such viewpoints). I think it's ridiculous, regressive and goes against what girls' schools should stand for which is rejection of gender and the freedom of all girls from it (well, I think all schools and society generally should be such not least in terms of bringing up children but in the context of culture as it is). Schools with such policies are reinforcing gender to pupils, telling in this example girls that it's legitimate to feel if they don't identify with the gender ascribed to their sex they are really boys.

The Times today has a bit more detail and nuance

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-only-murray-edwards-college-cambridge-admits-transgender-applicants-dtnmdpbpb?shareToken=16ea0342ee2ea462c2860f5b4befe829

The stance sounds in part somewhat gender critical, and note that it is not sufficient for an applicant to merely have 'identified' as female, but has also taken 'steps to live in the female gender' or be legally recognised as such ie GR cert. - which as someone mentioned, is impossible for a 17/18 yo applicant. So, while it seems like an unnecessary move ( given the abundance of mixed colleges) it does seem more aimed at 'transsexual' applicants.

Somewhat reassuring although I have issues with the idea of "living as a woman" or as it's put here "the female gender" as I still feel it perpetuates regressive notions of gender being innate to most.

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

I think the school are treating it like a fad, and dealing with it in the least disruptive way possible. Almost like saying " OK, we'll call you luke and you can change in the loos, now get back to lessons ".

DH teaches in a private girls' school and their current policy is you have to be a natal female to join the school but if you want to transition once there that's acceptable. Can't really see the logic in that.

Surely if you identified as male, you wouldn't want to be in a girl's school anyway? I can't imagine that would help anyone's dysphoria

There's such a school near by own which has discussed on here before. They allow pupils in the sixth form to "identify as boys", insisting they're referred to by all with male pronouns etc. To me this is ridiculous and perpetuating gender, doing the opposite of what I feel my school has helped do for me (reject gender).

On the issue of single sex education, I don't feel strongly about it, and I certainly don't think that women are delicate flowers who have to be protected from boys or men at all times. I feel much the same as I do about any women-only space. Sometimes I just don't want to be around men

I went to an all-female college. It was somewhat noticeable in my subject that although more or less equal numbers of men and women started the tripos, by the third year the proportions were 10 women to 130 men. Six of those remaining 10 women went to all-female colleges, where they were not the odd one out to be condescended to.

I don't think that's pure coincidence.

I found the ME statement, not sure if there's already a link.
www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/Murray%20Edwards%20College

Note that it is not an all-women environment- the fellows and staff are mixed. Its not a 'safe space' for vulnerable women - apparently a nighttime fire alarm will reveal quite a lot of male visitors. And in terms of men taking women's places - the truth is that ME and Newnham don't get enough direct applicants so quite a lot of the students are from the pool having not actually chosen a women's college.

So, while it's disappointing to see academics apparently conflating sex and gender (but perhaps in reality not entirely in the broadest feelz way), the practical result of this change is probably going to be minimal.

I think part of the problem here is that the current focus on an equality rhetoric has now lost the language to talk about why single-sex colleges are a good thing (I attended what was at the time a womens college at Oxford, and Newnham at Cambridge). Forgotten feminism. So, for example, whilst there are now more women than men going to uni, this does not address the differences between subjects, and the differences for women as you go up the career ladder. As a physicist at a womens college, I think my experience was very different to those at mixed colleges, where it was often one (token) woman amongst a bunch of men in a year, as opposed to all women at my college (Institute of Physics, around 20% figure for females at A-level). Since teaching is with your college group, or sharing with one other college, this matters. Given the way men and women tend to be listened to differently and interact differently in mixed groups. Add in other aspects (like damn easier to come out as a lesbian at a single sex college compared to the horrendous experiences some of my friends had at mixed colleges). But if all we have is the blunt 'equality' perspective, rather than the feminist perspective, you can't argue why single-sex matters -- and why this doesn't include transwomen because although they are disadvantaged for their gender identity or presentation, they are not disadvantaged for the same reasons as females coming to university. Sex not gender (and as an aside I could cite the anecdotal preponderance of transwomen in IT areas, not an area where females predominate!).

Like MrsFrumble, I've been wondering about the impact of the proposed legislation on prestigious boys' school such as Eton and Harrow.

Up until now, all the concern has - rightly - been about men invading women's spaces. But if you simply have to say that you "identify" as the opposite sex to be treated as a member of that sex, then how could Eton or Harrow legally block a girl who said she identified as a boy? I can't see any justification for it.

These are historically places of male privilege: going to one of those schools massively improves your chances in life. So why wouldn't parents want to send their daughters there, if they can afford it?

Who wants to send the e-mail to the 'Pitt Club' then, asking if they'll take a self-identified man?

ATailofTwoKitties that's why I think single sex education can be important (though feel in an ideal world it wouldn't need to be as gender wouldn't be so pervasive). At many girls' schools the STEM subjects are widely taken up - Maths is the most taken A Level in my year group and I know of another girls' school near me which I have some friends at where computing is taken by many and they have very active coding and robotics groups. I feel single sex education can help break down ideas of gender and go some way to freeing us from it, though would prefer this wasn't needed and for those who don't have single sex education not to find gender is imposed on them more.

These are historically places of male privilege: going to one of those schools massively improves your chances in life. So why wouldn't parents want to send their daughters there, if they can afford it?

There are plenty of excellent girls' schools, many of which perform far better than those two (as do plenty of other boys' and mixed schools). I don't see any way going to those schools improve life chances which wouldn't also apply to an equally privileged woman (in terms of social class) who'd attended a top private girls' school; the only thing pupils at those and other boys' schools have over those girls is male privilege which wouldn't be afforded to a girl/woman even if she started "identifying as male". Because girls' education wasn't valued for so long those institutions are seen as more "prestigious" due to how long they've existed.

It's an interesting point on the issue of identifying as a girl/boy and being legally entitled to be treated as such though.

Terfing indeed, or the many members' clubs in London (and doubtless beyond) which don't allow women to join and where many decisions and deals are made, promotions in many professions decided and so forth as Baronness Hale, President of the Supreme Court, has spoken of before in terms of how many judges and senior members of the legal profession are members of a particular one.

Apologies for the long and rather garbled message.