New female single sex student society launched at Cambridge university

[WarriorN]

https://genderblog.net/cambridge-students-launch-single-sex-society-for-women/

this is fantastic news. The background to their story is however concerning. It should have never got this bad.

https://x.com/cusocofwomen/status/1982732118695215164?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I caught up with someone still in the university. The angle of free speech does appear to be helpful and growing so I hope the group finds support there.

I’m a lurker on these boards - I never feel eloquent enough to add anything but am completely dismayed at the spread of gender ideology. I have a vested interest in young lesbians remaining just that.

I’m watching the journey of CU Society of Women and rooting for them but the Varsity article they’ve just appeared in shows the odds are stacked against them. It is madness. Even ‘Butchsoc’ is denouncing them. https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/30556

Then I asked AI if the women’s colleges admit transwomen as the article references them & Butchsoc is a Newnham society
Murray Edward’s policy states applicants who identify as a woman at the point of application are eligible. The policy explicitly includes those ‘identified as male at birth’ provided they ‘have taken steps to live in the female gender (or have been legally recognised as female via the Gender Recognition Act 2004)’
Newnham - The most recent document (2025) states: ‘admit only female students including transwomen and assigned female at birth non-binary people.’ However their earlier policy (2017) stated they would ‘consider at the admissions stage those who are formally recognised as female and are identified as such on a current passport, driving licence, birth certificate or gender recognition certificate’.
I’m rooting for these women but who is going to be brave enough to sign up in the face of such vitriol. I hope all female alumni join

That's correct. Going further, the poster you quote thinks it's permissible to have all female gatherings because of intrinsic disadvantage suffered by women, but not all male gatherings because there's no intrinsic disadvantage suffered by men.

Whatever the ethical issues, that position is not the law. Both all female gatherings (societies) and all-male associations are legal. In each case the association is restricted to members who share a protected characteristic (being women or men respectively.)

More widely, except for the section on affirmative action, the Equality Act 2010 forbids discrimination in both directions; treating someone either worse or better on account of a protected characteristic is unlawful (except for the PC of disability - see section 13(3)).

Whatever the ethical issues, that position is not the law. Both all female gatherings (societies) and all-male associations are legal. In each case the association is restricted to members who share a protected characteristic (being women or men respectively.)

I thought either all-male or all-female is legal if having that separate-sex society or association is a "proportionate means to a legitimate aim"? So it depends on the aims of the specific society. Or is that a different bit of the law?

The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" clause appears as a defence to indirect discrimination, and as a defence to direct discrimination on the grounds of sex in respect of the provision of single-sex/separate-sex/different-per-sex services, as well as a few other places.

Shared-characteristic assocations (other than by colour) are not unlawfully discriminatory (per schedule 16) and do not need a defence, nor do they need to be "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". They are prima-facie legal without justification. Men's clubs, women's clubs, clubs for disabled people, clubs for Jamaicans, clubs for English people - have at it.

Well thank you @MyAmpleSheep - I didn't know that, or about the "other than by colour" rule.

The Equality Act 2010 is a very finely tuned piece of legislation, isn't it? The more I learn about it the more impressed I become.

The Equality Act 2010 is long: the PDF of the Act runs to 348 pages. It's also very complicated and technical with many exclusions, exceptions and special cases. So it's very easy to apply the general principles wrongly in particular examples or to misunderstand those general principles entirely.

I should add that the the parliamentary draughting team (usually among the creme-de-la-creme of barristers) did an excellent job. When I hear lay people (including MPs) opining about what the Act should mean, or shouldn't mean, or what they thought it meant, I suspect they have no idea about the amount of intellectual effort that was put into creating it.

I am confused you say this as I am not sure why it is good given the all the confusion over the meanings and how it interacts with the Gender Recognition Act, or the very loose description of what constitutes Gender Reassignment.

The EA2010 is largely a consolidating act; it gathered up a lot of prior equality legislation into a single place.

Much of the "confusion" was generated by non-neutral actors. That's not the fault of the legislation. The description of what constitututes the protected characteristic of gender reassignment I think is spot on, particularly in the context in which it is written, which is to define who is protected from discrimination on that ground. Since discrimination on the grounds gender reassignment is universally agreed to be a bad thing, it doesn't matter how widely that's defined. At the same time the Act makes it perfectly clear (to those who read it - not to those who can't be bothered) that having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment doesn't turn a man into a woman or vice versa.

When it comes to the interaction of the EA2010 and the Gender Recognition Act, I think the drafters knew exactly what they were doing, and the SC decision was what was always intended.

They are so brave ❤

But the Supreme Court judgement was perfectly clear.
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042

Even if anyone found the Equality Act difficult to follow, they can't claim there's anything confusing in this:
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal [by For Women Scotland]. It holds that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex

What else needs explaining?

Embarrassing seeing the comments in response to this on the Camfess Facebook page. A bunch of cringing handmaidens and a few gobby mansplaining men there to act as the ideological muscle.

Yes, I realise the Supreme Court judgement is absolutely clear.

But not the Equality Act itself which required the Supreme Court case in the first place (after years of confusion and thousands spent on other court cases).

The Telegraph have covered these courageous young women. They've got a crowd funder which is doing very well. People have linked it in in the comments:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/31/cambridge-womens-group-gender-ideology/?recomm_id=825a9ee9-1af0-4e6f-9ced-1505adda7915

Archive link:
https://archive.ph/LApAN

I've sent them a few carrots. They are just over £6K with an £8K target.

Thanks! I also donated to their fundraiser earlier. Going back a few years, I hope that the poster MagicMagpie, who was so brave in Cambridge, is doing OK nowadays.

One of my old tutors is on there, too. Good for him.

I have planted a few seedlings. Money has been tight for the last while, but I was ostracised at school once and I have never forgotten the terror of having to go in every day and face the mean girls, so these strong women get a few 💐 from me.

She also described “the trans agenda” as “a form of propaganda,” adding: “Transgender ideology is the most regressive, homophobic, sexist, crucially misogynistic thing to exist in a very, very long time.”

Shes not wrong.

Google search gofundme Cambridge women will find it if you want to donate and MN won't allow a link to be posted. What feisty young women, I love it!

from the Telegraph article:

“I get a lot of rape and death threats,” says Halligan – a problem that began when she became openly gender-critical while at Bristol.

fucking hell. I'm furious for them. will plant a few carrots later to help me feel better

Funny how threats of sexual violence against women are baked into the behaviour of the "be kind" brigade isn't it?

Just checked and they've already exceeded their original target. I'll be planting a few seeds and hope many others will do likewise.

It’s disgusting

this will be. Pivotal and historic moment in this ‘battle’ as they’ve exploded out of the heart of one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

its an enormous ray of sunlight

This makes perfect sense I think.

There are all kinds of things women, or Jamaicans, English people, blind people, Catholics - all have any number of intrinsic things in common that mean they might like to get together for some kind of event.

But race? I would say on the face of it that is a very differernt thing. There is no inherent positive characteristic that can be found around race, the only things that are there are negative where the law or custom has arbitrarily defined skin colour as creating commonality. And we know that to be false and wrong. A dark skinned Jamaican, Nigerian, Indian, and Australian have nothing intrinsically in common just because they have darker skin. They have totally different ethnicity, customs, histories, and cultural beliefs, not to mention not necessarily being particularly likely to be related genetically.