Another women's college changes trans policy

[Spartacus002244]

Last year Lucy Cavendish College in Cambridge announced their position that they would accept male-born students who had a GRC and were legally recognised as female (www.lucy-cav.cam.ac.uk/news-blog/latest-news/statement-on-transgender-students)

Less than a year later, this has changed to include both these individuals and anyone who 'has taken steps to live in the female gender' (www.lucy-cav.cam.ac.uk/news-blog/latest-news/statement-on-transgender-students-update )

What on earth does this mean? Saying 'I am a woman?' Wearing a dress? Considering that until about 1947 being a woman would have meant being ineligible to receive a Cambridge degree, it's very disheartening. I'd have thought that female academics would recognise the harm that 'gender' does to women.

Note also that this college is for students aged 21+ so it isn't out of concern for 17-year-old trans applicants who haven't yet been able to apply for a GRC.

I know also that there are young women from very conservative countries who have been able to come to study in the UK precisely because of the existence of the women's colleges. But I suppose they're acceptable casualties of identity politics.

Imagine the ruckus if they were to down an internet-famous-transwoman?

Crowdfunded legal challenge, office staff subjected to a torrent of abuse via phone/email, negative press coverage.

You’d probably end up admitting them with a couple of B grade A levels just to avoid the drama.

‘Transwomen are women, but they are very special, super-oppressed women who you are not allowed to say no to. Ever’

I wouldn't expect or want an academic to rule a medical condition in or out at interview.

Am very indignant at the implication here that colleges picking from the pool is effectively getting left with the dregs. Many fine candidates come from the pool [picked from the pool for my place at a previously all male college]

Lucy Cavendish is missing a trick by not becoming the first all-trans college, natal sex irrelevant, for students who have never felt comfortable in their bodies, have a greater percentage of MH problems and are gender nonconforming. That won't look anything like any other student body anywhere, certainly not.

Am very indignant at the implication here that colleges picking from the pool is effectively getting left with the dregs.

I think I'm the only person to mention the pool, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that! (My DD was pooled). The pool allows applicants of sufficient calibre to be offered places rather than the less popular colleges having to take less qualified direct applicants. (It also allows some balancing of subjects, and sex ratio in mixed colleges). The point is that a significant number of women who get places in the women's colleges applied to mixed ones or made 'open' applications with no preference. So it is simply not the case that women who've specifically applied to a women's college who deserve a place at the uni will be denied a place. There's more supply than demand.

Doesnt mean that the women who end up there should he lead to believe it's all women them discover it's men as well.

Theres a huge difference between knowingly being in a mixed environment and being in one which not only expects you to believe someone else's delusions but study some where that openly reduces women to a feeling Inside a men's head.

If this is the level of critical thinking at a Cambridge college then I am seriously worried

This. With bells on.

So as well as trying to determine whether someone has the intellectual rigour to succeed at Cambridge and the personality to thrive there, admissions tutors also need to be able to tell the difference between a "genuine" and a "fake" transwoman?

Blimey, maybe they ought to just stuff the GRC panels with these people rather than the doctors and other experts who currently comprise them

But what specific need is there for this? Surely there is ample opportunity in mixed colleges for TW to be comfortable and welcomed and not bullied. That should be the aim and I think this move is not proportionate in law.

Also, even if only one student, exactly what effect would that have? It is very dependent on the personality and views of the individual. Would the TW try to stop views on bioogical fact being centred? Who would this afect the dynamic? Would women feel that they have to be more obviously kind to the TW, out of socialisation of fear.

How much can the college even ask about this in interview? Can they ask more or less than they would about potlical views? Or dysphoria? Could they ask for the same level of info about disability? Can they ask whether the person beileive they truly have female biology, then screen them out if they see fit. (and they may not, who knows.)

I think the college is leaving themselves open to all manner of legal challenges for discrimination eg if a rejected TW decides to go to court (with their free human rights barristers) arguing that they weren't judged to be enough of a woman or the right type of woman.. and really they would probably have a chance at winning if they were stood next to a GNC woman dressed andorgynously with short hair. I mean who is living more as a woman (if biology is not a factor, only gender expression). What guidleines would the coolege have to comeup with as part of the critieria? Because if challenged n court they wold have to be ready to prove that it was academic or soemthing and not discrimination going against their own policies.

This is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Sorry for spelling and typos. Brain problems. Clearly I am not going to get into LC!!!

Agree completely with Giles upthread, being mixed sex openly is one thing, doing it by stealth and effectively deceiving those women who are unaware of the trans agenda is another. Plus then trying to gaslight and bully any woman who goes "you can't change sex!" into the TWAW line.

This will exclude women who for religious or cultural reasons would not / would not be allowed by their parents to do a degree in a mixed sex environment.

I went to Cambridge as an undergraduate (long time ago now). I remember clearly one of my female supervisors encouraging me to speak up in supervisions, and said it frustrated her that so many women/ girls that she supervised let the male students do all the talking, and telling me that when I spoke up what I said was of value. She actually said something about how a lot of the most vociferous male (usually private or public school educated) students quite often were wrong in what they were saying and for me to pay attention and notice this, trust my own knowledge, and not assume they were right just because they were super super confident when they said it. It was one of the most helpful pieces of advice I've ever received. At my college most of the supervisions, especially in the first year, were done entirely in house i.e. only with other students from your own college. So being at an all female college could be a huge advantage in this scenario.

At staff level (at least, those who decide these things) most are/were strongly against. There was incredibly strong lobbying from the LGBTQ group, with as far as I can tell, general support from the student body (though it's hard to tell), spearheaded by one student in particular. They didn't want to change the rules. Unsurprisingly at a women's college, with staff being the age they are, most are traditional feminists, some radical.

As an aside, I attended one meeting of the LGBTQ group, and no more, because the entirety of the serious discussion part of the meeting was about trans rights, and especially trans women's rights – in a group made up entirely of lesbian and bi women. It centred around the campaigning against the bigoted old behind-the-times staff.

There is seemingly no place for students who aren't whole-hearted believers in the current trans ideology in Cambridge University. All women's groups and events are now "women and non-binary" (and non-binary includes men and women of every type of apparent gender presentation). I've never met one student who expressed any dissenting opinion.

I keep my mouth shut.

That is horrible LC. :(

It sounds awful, @LCStudent - although I shouldn't be too surprised that it was one person in particular who was very vocal about it. At least it wasn't led by the staff, though.

It's very disappointing for me because I'm starting at Cambridge in a couple of months and I was looking forward to joining women's/feminist groups there. It sounds as if women aren't allowed to meet without also inviting men who aren't completely happy with masculine sex role stereotypes (and who is?) to join in.

Unfortunately I think that the dissenters are more likely to just stay away from the groups and events than to voice their opinions, and I include myself in this.

Some of this will apply to LC and some not, but for comparison:

I went to ME (before it changed names). I think Ineeda hit the nail on the head that supervisions are where it’s going to hurt most. My personal tutor (pastoral tutor) was a fiercely feminist sociologist who had a massive issue with women statistically underperforming at Cambridge. But, at the time, whilst the women’s colleges were very low on the general league tables, if you stripped men out they shot up to near the top. All women performed less well than men, but those in women’s colleges performed better than those who were being educated alongside men. I didn’t share a supervision with a male student until my final year, and rarely then, and it was bliss to not be talked over/shouted down/ unable to get a word in, unlike at school.

Re the living arrangements, when I was at ME first year rooms were absolutely not en suite, they had shared shower facilities. All kitchens were shared and it was not unusual to find women in them in varying states of undress. First year mainly seemed to be other students strolling around to showers in a towel at various times of day, and occasionally stopping for a chat with just the towel. Laundry room was full of women in hot pants pyjamas and little vests or oversized t shirts (maybe just cos I was always there with all the other grotty arts students...). HOWEVER middle of the night fire alarms would demonstrate just how many men were sleeping there every night 😁 but It was always something we thought was quite funny, and they were just “overnighting” they didn’t have a say in anything.

I wasn’t surprised when I heard, ME was libfem at best in my time, but actually a lot of them were of the “urgh, no, I’m not a feminist” mindset. Same for the friends I had at LC. Newnham was where the feminists were. (I applied to Newnham and got pooled to ME, they had a glut for my subject that year...)

As for the LBT soc, I went to one meet up and never went back, there were only 3 of us, and the LBT officer was unbelievable unfriendly, no surprises there was hardly anyone there!

Oh, and speaking as a former girls’ school teacher who used to help with the applications to Oxbridge, with the notable exception of the medics and scientists, I used to read most of the personal statements thinking “Oh look, we’re banging on about gender again...”

For the last 3-4 years the Oxbridge calibre girls I’ve taught have been obsessed with “gender issues”. And they don’t mean sexism.

when I was at ME first year rooms were absolutely not en suite,

They definitely are now. That's a bit of a red herring.

Add engineers to your exceptions, they're still very much in the world of old fashioned sexism. But these are the students with full timetables who don't have so much time to indulge in student politicking even if they were so inclined.

I'm glad to hear from LCStudent that the staff are largely against this. They're the ones who get to decide who actually gets admitted and how the supervisions are organised. So, although I entirely agree that the change is regrettable, I'm still not convinced that the result will be anything like as damaging as some fear.

Fair enough Errol, but Orchard Court makes up a massive chunk of the accommodation still, and between that and the houses I should think the majority of accommodation is not en suite. And any students are free to wonder around OC whenever they want. So male bodied people walking around while you’re heading to the shower is a possibility. Don’t get me wrong, that won’t bother lots of people, I can remember having a chat with a porter in my towel, but for some students that will be really problematic. So first years are saved from it, but everyone at the bottom of the room draw gets stuck.

Anyway, I still think the supervisions is the biggest issue.

Yes, engineers would be on the list, I’ve just never taught one 🙂

I don't know about all all staff but rather the ones who were required to make a decision (which I why I said "those who decide these things" – I shouldn't have used the word "all" because I don't know).

I sincerely doubt it would make a difference to admissions. Discrimination in admissions is one of the hottest topics at the university. And they certainly do not take anything like disability into account (other than if any adjustments are required for the admissions process) during admissions, to whoever mentioned that!

Spartacus, I suspect there are students who are uneasy, and far more who don't give a shit. But I think it would be extremely difficult to express any dissent. Student politics there has very very good trans representation too.

I'm going to sign off now; LC is a small college and I'm a coward (and I've already outed myself as one of the small number who've attended any LGBTQ meetings).

Completely understandable, LCStudent. If you're still at Lucy next year, you'll have at least one quiet ally there.

Correction: I didn't say all, did I? I said most. But I haven't conducted a staff poll or anything.

Good to have been able to express my discomfort here – just wanted to dispel this idea that those in charge were all for it (why do you think LC was the last hold-out? )

Its the law the college knows it would face a huge legal bill and would lose , at least they are following due legal process in requiring a GRC

that's been the law since 2004 , the EA 2010 can not retrospectively affect the GRA 2004

heres the legal position yet again

Section 9. Subsection (1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman

Foxy - The changes being discussed are the extension of recognising the GRC, which all the women's colleges already do (I think, Newnham too?) to also consider applications from males with no GRC who 'have taken steps to live in the female gender'.