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

Lots of people said men were women, until it was tested in law. In fact it took the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to settle the law. I can find you dozens of articles explaining why women were men: they were all, in the end, wrong.

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

Alternatively, there are few cases involving discrimination against single workers because nobody has brought any yet.

A quick look at the cases mentioned in that article don't directly support the supposition that discrimination against single people is lawful, and when it says this: The Act does not protect single workers - I don't think it's correct, on the plain meaning of the words in the Act.

This bit is definitely incorrect: While fewer claims on this ground are brought compared with the other protected characteristics, it is a type of claim that is not available to workers who are not married or in a civil partnership. It ignores the concept of discrimination by perception. It is uncontroversial that there is no need for a claimant actually to have a protected characteristic, so the claim that discrimination on the grounds of marriage is only available to workers who are married or in a partnership fails at the first. That kind of sloppy analysis does little to persuade about the accuracy of the rest of the article.

I'll read through the cases cited more carefully later though. What actual judges have said on the subject is certainly more relevant than what an MP says.

It turns out most attacks on all categories of all people are by men. I guess all categories of all people should go into women only spaces. It’s the only logical solution.

'Socially' female? This is a descriptor I've not heard before. What does it mean?

More institutional abuse of women.

so are you saying transwomen are men now? I mean you’ve just said that they’re male, so therefore men. As such, why do you believe they belong in female spaces? You seem awfully confused. Did you skip the antibac again?

So how do you know these men are in danger in mixed environments?

Most of these posts are pulled out of thin air, to put it politely.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Study shows males retain male pattern offending rates post transition.

Howseitgoin · Today 13:36

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

Side wye when they get on the bus isn't hate crime. As lady LARPers are confident, vocal, often violent and very well supported by other fantasists, to the extent that have had sex realist events cancelled, or disrupted by said zealots, it's facile and illogical to try to argue that TW are unsafe in university environments.

I'd go so far as to say that it's categorically and emphatically untrue.

Side EYE...

We had this before. It was something about jewellery stores and the mall and organic gravitation...

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/check-if-youre-protected-from-discrimination/equality-act-2010-discrimination-and-your-rights/

The Citizens Advice guide on how to work out whether you've suffered discrimination makes it clear that the victim must have the relevant protected characteristic, and have been unfavourably treated because of it.

If it was because of your protected characteristic ...you might have experienced discrimination

The Citizens Advice guide on how to work out whether you've suffered discrimination makes it clear that the victim must have the relevant protected characteristic, and have been unfavourably treated because of it.

It quite literally says exactly the oppostite. Quoting from the webpage:

"If what happened wasn’t because of your protected characteristic
It might still be discrimination if someone discriminated against you either:

• because they thought you had a protected characteristic, even though you don’t
• because of someone else’s protected characteristic

So - no, it makes it very clear that the victim doesn't have to have the relevant protected characteristic. Which, of course they don't.

The point is both women & LGBTQ groups don't report crime. Gallup surveys indicate approximately 13% of LGBTQ report hate crimes which includes violent crime.

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/67cee904ccdbce2dd00f65d0/67e693bb0cbe1e9289d25758_Galop-Hate-Crime-Report-2021-1.pdf

The point is the demonising & dehumanising rhetoric promoted by anti trans groups in the media has heightened a hostile environment generally that has seen an increase in violent hate crimes. Women not being as likely perpetrators of violence aren't a risk to trans people therefore education in their company is a safer option.

"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"

Err, college supervisors aren't exactly known for perpetuating violence against their students & clearly given its a female college, students are overwhelmingly less likely to come into contact with males.

Yes, perceptive and associative discrimination exist (although neither applies to the protected characteristic of marriage or civil partnership). It's still not an invitation to treat a person with a protected characteristic as a comparator for discrimination against people without it. If it was, why would they bother to point out that single people do not have this protected characteristic? It would just be listed, in the same way as male and female are listed under sex, and three different options are listed under sexuality (not including asexual, and they go out of their way to advise that asexual people are therefore not protected from discrimination).

Yes, perceptive and associative discrimination exist (although neither applies to the protected characteristic of marriage or civil partnership).

Of course they do. What is your reasoning for asserting that discrimination by perception doesn't apply to a subset of protected characteristics?

I'm going to stop replying now, as this is a waste of my time.

Social categorisations of gender are how society groups people into categories like 'man' or 'woman' based on social constructs of roles, behaviours, and expectations. The process, known as gender socialisation, begins in childhood and influences how individuals see themselves and others.

Already addressed this upthread.

Because violent hate crimes have increased generally.

"2. Police recorded hate crime
Key results
in the year ending March 2023, there were 145,214 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales (excluding Devon and Cornwall police[footnote 2]), a decrease of 5% from the year ending March 2022 (153,536 offences), the first fall since the comparable time series began in the year ending March 2013
prior to the fall seen this year, police recorded hate crime offences rose between the years ending 2013 and 2022; this prolonged period of increasing offences was thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police and better identification of what constitutes a hate crime
there were 101,906 race hate crimes, a fall of 6% from the previous year when there were 108,476 offences, this was driven by a decrease in racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences
as in previous years, the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated, accounting for 7 in 10 of all such offences (70%; 101,906 offences)
religious hate crimes decreased by 4%, from 8,602 to 8,241 offences
sexual orientation hate crimes fell by 6%, to 24,102 offences, while transgender hate crimes increased by 11%, to 4,732 offences
disability hate crimes fell slightly (by 1%) compared with the previous year, at 13,777 offences
over half (51%) of the hate crimes recorded by the police were for public order offences, 41% were for violence against the person offences and 5% were recorded as criminal damage and arson offences

Transgender identity hate crimes rose by 11% (from 4,262 to 4,732) over the same period, the highest number since the time series began in the year ending March 2012. Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences, or more awareness in the police in the identification and recording of these crimes.

Figure 2.8: Percentage of selected offences resulting in charge/summons, by hate crime strand, offences recorded in the year ending March 2023, England and Wales, 30 forces"

Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office Data Hub

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023

I'm sure I would be safer if I was surrounded only by women, but I fail to see why that means that women have to put up with my company everywhere. It is entirely unreasonable for me to intrude into women's spaces, even if I think I'm more feminine than masculine. Even if gender (whatever it's defined as) is dimorphic, like dimorphic sex characteristics such as height, I am still on the gender spectrum for a man, not on the overlapping gender spectrum for a woman. I just happen to place myself near a male extreme which is more typical of women; this does not change my sex.

In truth, I don't think "femininity" and "masculinity" are well enough defined to measure, and in any culture they are complex combinations of many personality traits, so any mapping of these characteristics onto a scale is a foolish endeavour. So it is, in my opinion, pretty meaningless to try to talk in terms of how masculine a man is, and ridiculous to say that a man is so feminine that he must really be a woman. Masculinity and femininity are just talking points, rather like optimist/pessimist, or introvert/extrovert.

They’ll be more women around the place than in a co-ed college of course, but students are allowed to have guests over both in their rooms and in communal areas so there will still always be men and people of male sex and whatever gender identity they may have chosen around outside of class too. Are you imagining an entire university full of women or something? That’s not what college means in this context.

I don't know why perceptive and associative discrimination don't apply to marriage etc: it's just what the Act says.

Explanatory Note to Section 13:

59.Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is a protected characteristic listed in section 4. This definition is broad enough to cover cases where the less favourable treatment is because of the victim’s association with someone who has that characteristic (for example, is disabled), or because the victim is wrongly thought to have it (for example, a particular religious belief).
60.However, a different approach applies where the reason for the treatment is marriage or civil partnership, in which case only less favourable treatment because of the victim’s status amounts to discrimination. It must be the victim, rather than anybody else, who is married or a civil partner.

"but I fail to see why that means that women have to put up with my company everywhere. It is entirely unreasonable for me to intrude into women's spaces, even if I think I'm more feminine than masculine."

Legal prohibitions are generally underpinned by the potential for harm. Therefore, unless there's a risk of harm, there's no requirement for exclusion. Personal subjective comfort levels don't qualify as harm nor is there any evidence trans women pose a greater risk of harm than a lesbian would to women.

"I just happen to place myself near a male extreme which is more typical of women; this does not change my sex."

No one is suggesting trans women are biological identical to cis women rather they share psychological, behavioural inclinations & cultural associations.

"In truth, I don't think "femininity" and "masculinity" are well enough defined to measure, and in any culture they are complex combinations of many personality traits, so any mapping of these characteristics onto a scale is a foolish endeavour. So it is, in my opinion, pretty meaningless to try to talk in terms of how masculine a man is, and ridiculous to say that a man is so feminine that he must really be a woman. Masculinity and femininity are just talking points, rather like optimist/pessimist, or introvert/extrovert"

There's a difference between agreed social definitions & personal one's. How an individual understands how their physical & psychological disposition fits into societal categorisations is a subjectively personal one. What you don't realise is the idea that males & females should be categorised based purely on birth reproductive traits is an opinion when expressed from the point of view of the individual. IE its personally constructed. You get to decide for your self what you identify more with as do others. The fact that there is a more material element to reproductive traits doesn't make them any more valid from a personal point of view.

Whilst I appreciate that its more pragmatic to organise society based on reproductive traits in certain circumstances, that conflicts with how society categorises gender. Morally, right or wrong, society categorises gender based on typical associations of cis males & females. It's the world we created, & the fact it remains means its of evolutionary utility. Humans need to code quickly in order to categorise phenomena for decision making. Coding males & females on typical associations is a kind of short hand for that which by extension has implications on how we societally distinguish the sexes.

The thing is, if you don't understand the process of how we got to typical associations then can't understand gender distinctions. Gender critical ideology leaning too heavily on purely patriarchal expectations for the manifestation of gendered associations is a sure way to miss the trees for the woods.

This 'interpretation' of Dhejne's study was debunked by none other than Dhejne herself much to the embarrassment of Kathleen Stock & co as they attempted to misrepresent her work in front of UK parliament no less.

"Criminality
In response to questions 38 and 39 Prof Freedman referenced “a well-known Swedish study” to imply that patterns of criminality are the same amongst trans women as they are amongst cis (non-trans) men. In her response to Q40 she alleged there were “Swedish studies” (plural). Additionally, Prof Stock referred to “male patterns” when talking about criminal behaviour in her answer to Q26.
I understand the “Swedish study” to be a single 2011 article published by Cecilia Dhejne and colleagues[1], in which the authors reported on mortality, suicidality, psychiatric care and conviction rates among individuals who transitioned in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.
Dhejne herself rejected this interpretation explicitly in an interview with Cristan Williams of TransAdvocate in November 2015[2]. I attach the full relevant extract in Appendix B. A key point she makes is the study is “certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk” to cis women. Additionally, the study was not focused on investigating criminal behaviour, was drawn from a small cohort in one country, and only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups. The authors therefore conclude that the best outcomes occur when individuals also receive long-term health and social care support in addition to any hormone therapy or surgery that they might require."

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/