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

Oh, you're on about the 'nanny' state? I see. No equity, no feminism. Just a pure MRA supremacist. Well done mate. Are you going to start going on about pills, next?

"So what makes you think they are feminists?"

Well they understand the basic premise & practically stand by it for starters.

"And again, if men are vulnerable in male spaces, that’s on men. Not women. "

There's this thing called the social contract you need to read up of which is the condition of social responsibility in exchange for social entitlements. IE the benefits of living in civilisation as opposed to the state of nature. You don't get to get protection from society if you aren't prepared to give it. (I can't actually believe I need to explain this but here we are…)

You know MRA's say the exact same thing about women requiring protection from men right? Oh wait…

I think that was last week. I think it depends what Andrew Tate has been peddling as I’m sure some of the opinions by one poster in particular are straight from the MRA playbook. I just love it when cowards who are too weak and scared to call out men for their bad behaviour decide to spend their time scolding women online instead. It’s getting boring now though. I think I’ll just stick to engaging with sane posters from now on.

"Therefore, all spaces must be mixed sex? Dont be silly."

The obtuseness is breathtaking. The point of feminism is to highlight how patriarchal expectations of gender harm society. Pointing only to trans people as the cause isn't helping educating men it distracts from it. Trans exclusion is a perfect illustration of how oppressive these expectations are of which gender ideology engages in.

No one is suggesting that this means all spaces should be mixed rather that gender isn't as rigid as patriarchy thinks therefore in some circumstances society should be organised to reflect that.

Well folks, I gave it my best shot….🤪

Readers note: No one is dismissing atrocious crimes are committed. The point of posting explanations about what ‘hate crime’ statistics measure is not dismissing horrific crimes.

In saying that though, if the immediate reaction to seeing exactly what is included in ‘hate crime’ statistics is to the mention extreme examples as if those thankfully very few examples somehow proved a pattern that supported the point you (general you) made, it shows how poorly supported that point is.

Yes, those horrific crimes happened. Of course, there is a huge depth of evidence that supports that female people need single sex provisions away from ALL male people. Which immediately contradicts the demand of a group of male people to access female single sex provisions.

Imagine if women could post overwhelming numbers of what could be considered ‘hate’ crimes against female people if there was such crime category. Maybe if we too could simply make such claims of ‘look at these hate crime statistics, we need protection’ these cyclical discussions about single sex provisions would end.

However, the collection of hate crime data for the group of male people who demand to be treated as if they are female is irrelevant as to whether female people should have single sex provisions that exclude that group of male people. That information is presented as an emotionally manipulative leverage. It is misused because those using it fail to mention all the crimes that fall under that category. The existance of those crimes are also irrelevant to female people’s needs.

Hate crime statistics are misleading for several reasons.

One because of the breadth of the category, it treats misgendering the same as murder. Because this hate crime data was not about proportionality, it was about adding a motivational aspect to any crime.

Another reason is because there is no comparative category for crimes committed against female people.

Another reason is because the protection of female people having single sex provision is not only, and was never only, based on safety from sex crimes and violent crimes. Although, that is part of it. That provision is also based on privacy and dignity and for allowing female people to continue to overcome a millennia of oppression based on our sex category.

If you see activists using hate crime against people with the philosophical belief they are transgender to support access to a single sex provision that is for the opposite sex to what a person’s body form materially is, it is good to understand exactly what that hate crime statistic includes, ie to support a male person getting access to a female single sex provision. Always drill down further.

I love the fact men with a trans identity claim to be unsafe in male spaces. They’re not. They just want validation. They could go to any mixed sex college they wanted, but of course it has to be the female only one. It’s so annoying men won’t let women have anything for themselves. I think it’s a mix of male entitlement and narcissism.

@YouCantProveIt

I think the education exception they are relying upon has to be founded on - we need to make up numbers in a small cohort year / course that isn’t full etc. It’s not carte blanche to say - men can come in is they have special paperwork.

It's unfortunate that there are no explanatory notes at all, but I think it must be wider than just making up numbers, as it covers things like mixed sixth forms and access to courses unavailable in a same-sex single-sex setting. The 'exceptionality' seems to be deliberately vague.

...that is as another poster said discriminatory to a group of men who don’t have special paperwork.

I disagree but will address in a separate post.

Once you see it, it cannot be unseen. The perspective simply keeps building. I guess that is what happens- as the Matterhorn grows, people see more clearly.

"In saying that though, if the immediate reaction to seeing exactly what is included in ‘hate crime’ statistics is to the mention extreme examples as if those thankfully very few examples somehow proved a pattern that supported the point you (general you) made, it shows how poorly supported that point is."

Irrelevant. Surveys (as in the one posted) like those for women show most very violent crimes go unreported & as the data shows clearly isn't confined to misgendering. Reporting isn't anywhere near offending but points in that direction & that direction is decidedly violent. You can't have it both ways.

"However, the collection of hate crime data for the group of male people who demand to be treated as if they are female is irrelevant as to whether female people should have single sex provisions that exclude that group of male people."

No it's not irrelevant if there's no harm in them being included which you can't prove trans people are any more violent than lesbians.

"That provision is also based on privacy and dignity and for allowing female people to continue to overcome a millennia of oppression based on our sex category."

Which Newnham claim that trans women experience hence their inclusion.

"Always drill down further."

As in self reporting to gage offending patterns? Good point! If it's good enough for cis women its good enough for trans women.

Feminism centres female people. Males with trans identities remain male, and quite clearly retain all sense of male privilege, along with a total lack of empathy for actual women. A male person with empathy for a female person would not need to have it explained to them over and over again why women have the established protections they do.

Males are the problem. Trying to hide that maleness behind the trans label is thoroughly disingenuous.

Males exhibit greater tendency to all sorts of behaviours which render females more vulnerable around them. This is why we have the established protections we do.

Opens thread

sees it's been Howsed in the night

closes thread

Dignity and the privacy of one's sex are the main reasons we have the provisions we do. This is based on a millennnia of experience of relations and patterns of behaviour between the sexes, and on the practical wisdom that results when it comes to the arrangment of public spaces in which the body or biological function is in heightened focus.

It is also really important to keep reminding people that the single sex provision that is Newnham College is one that provides for single sex needs to overcome oppression based on sexism. The inclusion of any male person in that provision directly displaces a female person who needs that provision.

There is no way to hide this direct harm behind philosophical theory.

If any male person is part of an oppressed group, special provision should be campaigned for. Members of that group of people should not be accessing the provisions for the other sex as a response to their oppression. That access causes direct harm to the group who the provision has been designated for.

Yup the streets are full of women who would love nothing more than their dignity being preserved by not having to get naked in front of other women but alas its harm not discomfort that underpins the justice system.

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.

Interesting discussion on how the EA and PCs apply in law. I think the debate is whether the person with the PC or the PC itself is protected but might well have this wrong. Ample said something about everyone being protected. The discussion points to the complexity in law.

Irrespective of these ‘safety’ derails and the egoism of believing everyone on these threads needs re-education, isn’t Newham college just another case of a sportswoman or woman failing to take the podium or short list because a TiM has taken her place with a female?

This time being denied admission to a Cambridge college because a TiM has taken up a space that would’ve otherwise gone to a female. Though likely hard to prove in any court case.

"Patriarchal expectations' arise from centring male people, their needs and desires over those of female people.

Quite the word salad display for a Monday morning.

A man from the other other side of the world sneering at women with his googlings about feminism, education, a Cambridge college - all in order to compel girls and women to allow men to observe them while undressed.

The answer's still no.

The point of feminism is to liberate women and fight for the rights of women and girls.

One might reflect on the absurdity of a man telling women about feminism.

£10 Howseit went to Hallowe'en in a pleather Nemo jacket. And tripped over his own feet cause of wearing sunnies in the dark.

Privacy and dignity are the prime reasons that we have established single sex protections in certain types of circumstance. If you had empathy and true understanding you would already know this.

Voyeurism is a harm.

It’s like being subjected to a DDoS. I scroll past those posts and read the others. Ignoring the whole thread means the spam bots have won.

So parents magically know their unborn boy is going to decide when he's 18 that he thinks he's a girl and therefore buy him pink clothes, dolls, and tell everyone "she'll be a lovely little homemaker when she grows up"?
That'll be why all the trans identified young men at my university are taking part time jobs at the nursery* and making coffee at all student union meetings?
*Don't worry, they aren't. Just some lovely students who are mainly either mature students who are ex childcare workers or are studying child development, or both.

Yes. Voyeurism is also a sex crime - as is indecent exposure. All these men so desperate to decriminalise these crimes display very clearly their motivation for wanting to remove single sex spaces for women.