Women only Cambridge college Newnham welcome men who ID as trans

[YouCantProveIt]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15249729/All-female-Cambridge-college-defies-Supreme-Court-ruling.html

That is not correct. Being disabled, being married or civil-partnered, and gender reassignment are all protected characteristics that do not have a protected complement.

All there has to be is an exceptional circumstance. Given the current political climate it could be reasonably argued that at present in the UK, its unsafe for this individual to be educated in an all male or mixed environment. So the reason is purely about safety.

Women are safer in a single sex environment. His presence compromises the women's safety.

Why do women have to sacrifice their safety for his?

You misunderstand the EA2010, in a really important way.

It's not the holder of a protected characteristic that is protected. The EA doesn't define groups of people who get protection.

The EA protects everyone from discrimination which is done on the basis of a list of characteristics.

The characteristic of being married or in a civil partnership is still the criterion being used unlawfully to discriminate against a single person - it's the yard stick against which they are being measured. The use of "married" as the yardstick is the unlawful element. Not the outcome of that measurement ("they aren't married.")

Only in the case of disability is it lawful to treat someone who holds a PC better than someone who doesn't. For every other PC, including GR, you must be "blind" to the PC. You simply cannot lawfully take that protected characteristic into account - you must not even consider it - when making a decision to treat one person more unfavourably than another.

I would disagree with your use of the word "reasonably" in your second sentence. I don't think that's an accurate use of the word.

This is an oversimplification.

Different groups of people violently offend at different rates. IE, Younger poorer heterosexual men offend at significantly higher rates than older, wealthier or homosexual men. Lesbian women offend at significantly higher rates than heterosexual women. In fact studies show that lesbian women violently offend at higher rates than gay men. Should the college therefore be refusing to admit lesbians?

In any case, given the minuscule trans woman population 0.5%, numbers are statistically insignificant to make any conclusions. And it's not as if th college can't individually risk assess applicants.

It is if you consider the increase in hate crimes against trans people.

In Cambridge specifically? 😅

That’s an issue to take up with men and their shocking refusal to accept different gender presentations. I can’t believe somewhere as middle class and liberal as university would be a dangerous place for a gender diverse man?!?

oh it’s Howse!!! Sucked in again lol!

You should tell Victoria Atkins then:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2018-09-10/172406/

'Although being single is not a protected characteristic (unlike, for example, race or sex) in the Equality Act 2010, ...'

Even if you misconstrue the definitions of the protected characteristics, it's clear from eg the employment exemptions what is intended. The Act defines situations in which discrimination against trans people and married people is permissible, but does not do the same for 'cis' people or single people because an exemption is not required (there are no exemptions at all from disability protection).

This is just chat shit. All the other colleges are mixed sex. There are trans identifying male students at most if not all of them. I haven't read anything about any of them being attacked within the college environment.

Sacred caste innit?
Men insisting they're women must have access to all things women cos words have no meanings anymore (unless approved by the trans borg).

But if you admit a male into a female college it automatically becomes a mixed sex environment, so why would this male not be safe in a mixed sex environment that was already designated as mixed sex? Why would he be safer in one mixed sex environment and not the other?

Don't think you should expect there to be credible reasons for any of this nelly. It's not about rationality, integrity or ethics. It's about male power, domination and coercion.

The "haven’t heard" argument is a well trodden one for denying abuse. We also "haven't heard" the 90% of women who have been sexually assaulted who don't report their attackers. Crime reporting & offending are two very different kettles of fish.

Under law, the admittance of a few males isn't considered to make a school mixed sex because the overwhelming majority is female.

Thank goodness even the TRAs accept transwomen are men now. That was some boring ground to go over and over and over.

Reproductively male? Sure. Socially? Nope.

Socially self centred and inconsiderate.

If you can't see the difference between why 90% of sexual assaults on women aren't reported but any incident of verbal or physical assault on a trans identifying man within a Cambridge University college would certainly be reported both within the college and the media then I can't help you.

Not quite sure I'm thinking clearly – I'm a bit fuzzy in the head this afternoon – but given that trans identification doesn't have any clear physical basis, isn't the only basis for it "belief"?

I was assuming that belief only covers belief - or lack of it - about the world, eg TWAW or atheism, not belief about the self, eg 'I am a woman', so the groups involved are not co-terminous (eg some 'cis' people believe TWAW). But I'd love to see the law on transgenderism as a belief system explored further (Article 9, anyone?).

The majority of the political opposition to trans people is coming from women, so why do you think a transwoman would be safer in an otherwise all-female environment? Or are you suggesting there might be sex-based differences in propensity to violence?

In any case Newnham students have lectures in mixed-sex environments, and many will also have supervisions with students from other colleges or with male supervisors - nobody's escaping a mixed education.

The Act defines situations in which discrimination against trans people and married people is permissible, but does not do the same for 'cis' people or single people because an exemption is not required (there are no exemptions at all from disability protection).

Alternatively, it does not do the same for 'cis' or single people because it's not permitted.

Can you give me an example where it would be lawful to discriminate against a person for being single?

I have to point out that 13(3) of the Act explicitly allows positive discrimination in favour of the PC of disability. It says If the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.

For every other PC, we understand that (for example) if the protected characteristic is marriage or civil partnership, A does discriminate against B only because A treats a married person more favourably than a single person.

Atkins is just plain wrong on the law.

Again, I remind you that the claim for unlawful direct discrimination stands or falls on the basis on which the decision to provide less favourable treatment is reached; the Act says nothing (other than for disability) in which direction the less favourable treatment is provided.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/journal/issues/vol-66-issue-03/singled-out-discrimination-for-living-alone/

"There are few cases involving discrimination against single workers, for the good reason that there is no protection for them under equality law"