Confusion around the term female

[CNfort]

Hi - long time lurker, first time posting on this board.

I was job hunting last night and came across something troubling.

One job was at Newnham College Cambridge which has an all female fellowship and student body.

Part of the job ad stated:

“Under the College Statutes, if the person appointed is female (including transwomen and assigned female at birth non-binary) they are eligible for election into a Fellowship in Category D, which brings with it membership of the Governing Body. If the appointed person is not female, they will enjoy the same benefits and have equal employment rights as a female, including attending and speaking at meetings of the Governing Body.”

Ok, they can employ who they like but I was surprised at the use of the term female to describe a trans woman.

Then I came across an ad for a female care assistant, the ad made a point of being for female people only:

“This position is open to female candidates only as it involves personal care (Occupational Requirement Equality Act 2010, Schedule 9 Part I).”

So if we accept self ID this would make the latter job ad’s parameters meaningless wouldn’t it?

Why can’t the ‘be kind’ people see that this is an issue?

I’m actually really upset and can’t focus my energy to write to the college but I think I will. I doubt they will listen though.

I’m actually really upset and can’t focus my energy to write to the college but I think I will. I doubt they will listen though.

Germaine Greer resigned from her fellowship Newnham in protest at that, ineffectually, as I recall.

So I think your final assessment is correct there. (Unless you have more clout than Germaine).

Got to love the having-it-both-ways female non-binaries there though.

I'd email an excerpt and say "did you mean Transmen? As transmen are female and transwomen are male"

If they excluding transmen, aren't they discriminating against them on their protected characteristic of sex.

Ha, I have no clout at all…

but after reading your post methinks I shall use my energy elsewhere, thank you for the head’s up!

Of course it’s ridiculous, and discriminatory against transmen and ‘non-binary’ people. Female is a biological term.

I think my main concern is that in just one simple job search I came across two different interpretations of the word female.

One of which would have the potential to deny women a privilege, and impose an unwanted male on a vulnerable patient in care.

The other interpretation would protect a patient in care and would also centre women in the other job.

Unless you've missed out a crucial bit, this seems very badly drafted anyway:

Under the College Statutes, if the person appointed is female (including transwomen and assigned female at birth non-binary) they are eligible for election into a Fellowship in Category D, which brings with it membership of the Governing Body. If the appointed person is not female, they will enjoy the same benefits and have equal employment rights as a female, including attending and speaking at meetings of the Governing Body.

If they have the same rights and benefits, does that not include being eligible for election to a cat D fellowship? In which case why make the distinction?

Imagine if I posted a job saying it was open only to men

Why is that a problem? Presumably there is justifiable cause such as intimate care of a man.

I wonder if it's badly worded and it means that only "females" are eligible for membership of the governing body but "males" have the same benefits as those on the governing body.

Although obviously they have completely changed the meaning of what is male and female.

This is what happens when you change the meaning of words. Nothing makes sense.

This is what happens when you change the meaning of words. Nothing makes sense.

exactly