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

The Equality Act doesn't have any provisions about discrimination based on marital status, other than those relating to employment. So we can agree: at work, married are protected, single are not: outside work, neither are protected.

That leaves only the question of whether 'anti-cis' discrimination is illegal. I think not, because if the Act was intended to protect everybody without a particular protected characteristic, other than from perceptive or associative discrimination, Explanatory Note 59 would have said so - it's too important to omit.

For example, if I have a justifiable occupational need to preferentially employ a trans person, how can I avoid illegal discrimination using Schedule 9? This Schedule has two asymmetric exemptions:

One: exceptionally permissible to preferentially employ a single person, but not to preferentially employ a married person. We agree(albeit for different reasons) that the latter exemption is unnecessary.

Two: exceptionally permissible to preferentially employ a cis person, but not to preferentially employ a trans person. I consider the latter exemption unnecessary, but you have said that it's been left out deliberately. Why? 'Cis' isnt even a protected characteristic, so why is anti-cis discrimination so important that it can't even be excused in the service of an occupational requirement (this is a degree of protection otherwise only afforded to disabled people)?

In any case, people do preferentially employ trans people, it's an obvious public good, and no-one has ever sued. I'm going to continue to assume that this is because it was never illegal discrimination in the first place.

So, if Newnham rebrands itself as a single-sex college that exceptionally lets in a few lads, Derry Girls style, it doesn't need to worry about the rights of the ineligible cis-male would-be candidates. (Only its founding instrument, the college statutes, and the meaning of the word 'exceptionally'.)

It is remarkable just how hard some male people attempt to wheedle their way into female single sex provisions.

The arguments being used on this thread are not new at all. It is something though to see the argument of social responsibility being used.

Women should not be shamed by reminders of ‘social responsibility’ into agreeing to allow direct harm to female people because we should have to take on the responsibility of looking after this group of male
people.

A female single sex provision of a
college at university already includes female people with transgender identities. Why do people feel they should shame female people into including some male people with particular philosophical beliefs while excluding all other male people?

Female people are neither a group of male people’s security service nor their therapeutic service.

"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."

You not only don't get to speak on all women's behalf but that of Newnham who specifically stated its purpose was to provide a "sanctuary from patriarchal culture "& that trans women qualified because they were victims of it.

"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."

On the contrary trans women being victims of patriarchal culture represent how it oppresses society more broadly which serves to also highlight how societal gender norms oppress people. Cis & trans women being abused is the symptom of the problem not the actual cause of it which gender critical ideology obscures often with impractical feckless solutions & finger pointing.

Yes Helleofabore.
Trying (and failing) to weaponise the social contract which has forever enshrined the need to safeguard women from dangerous men when undressing / vulnerable.

It's quite the display these men make as they see their access to unconsenting girls and women being removed.

"Women should not be shamed by reminders of ‘social responsibility’ into agreeing to allow direct harm to female people because we should have to take on the responsibility of looking after this group of male
people."

Yep nice try but the proviso was harm as I clearly stated which isn't always present. See Newnham.

Voyerism is illegal.

Hope that helps.

Indeed.

The forced teaming under the ‘patriarchy oppression’ umbrella gets pulled out as well.

In what spaces should society be organised to reflect "gender"? And by implication, you are saying that some spaces should not be organised to reflect "gender". What spaces are those?

Are you able to give plain answers to those simple questions?

I think over the coming week, and coming months, this case will be getting a lot of discussion. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Space not organised to reflect gender? As I already mentioned if there's a material harm like elite sports, hospitals, refuges etc..

Spaces to reflect gender? Everywhere else. IE where no harm ensues.

"Are you able to give plain answers to those simple questions?"

Life isn't black & white. There's this thing called 'nuance'.

Yup, sounds like a clear cut case of 'misgendering':

^https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/teenagers-jailed-transphobic-attack-harrow^

A very rare case of a group conspiring to carry out an assault. They were imprisoned for GBH on the young man and your main takeaway from this is the complete non crime of misgendering.

Fortunately, as we all know, men trying to pass themselves off as women are absolutely, both percentage wise and numerically, the safest demographic in the UK. Indeed, children under the age of 2 are more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

Stop pissing your pants about this.

Both voyeurism and indecent exposure are paraphilias.

These show up ovwrwhelmingly only in men.

But laws have to be black and white. Courts can't run on feelings or sometimes or just for these people. There is no nuance in guilty or not guilty.
For laws to work you have to close the loopholes. For single sex to work you have to exclude all males.

I have said it multiple times: transactivists are punching massive holes in rights, protections and opportunities for women and girls. Legal loopholes that bad men will exploit, like the rapid prison onset dysphoria. The only way to close those loopholes now is to go back to single sex based on sex registered at birth.

I get it is hard for transwomen to accept, but transactivists overdemanded and are now just acting like screaming toddlers filled with male entitlement. Compromises are not acceptable for you, so why should it be for us?

I am sick of all these organisations ignoring the law and the SC ruling. Why are they being allowed to get away with it?

Being exposed is a harm. Being leered at is a harm. Being coerced into propping up a male fantasy is a harm.

Thank you. You have just expressed a gender critical position, that some spaces should not be based on gender identity, but on sex. This is the position of the UK organisation Sex Matters - that sex matters in some circumstances. The only remaining question is where the boundaries lie between spaces where there would be "material harm" to women (and also in theory men) and those where there would not.

Perhaps there is a further question, of how we provide specifically for the needs of trans people who have been, or are at significant risk of being, "materially" harmed. Is this why you suggest that all spaces where there is not a need to reflect sex need to reflect gender? I don't think most spaces need to reflect sex or gender; they can be open to everyone regardless of whether they are men or women, and regardless of their personality. Genuinely single sex spaces where there is [a risk of] "material harm" (which needs definition). So called "third spaces" where trans people successfully advocate for them; these will usually be open to all though. Everywhere else open to all.

I'll deal with this first:

"This is known as transmisogyny."

There is no such thing, it's logically impossible. Misogyny can only be directed at women; the clue is in the "gyny" part, from Greek meaning women. No man attempting to pass himself off as a woman is a woman.

Transmisogyny is a fabricated term, used to gull naive people into thinking that men trying to pass themselves off as women are a kind of woman.

Unambiguously, they are not. They are men and have no place, or reason to be included in the category of Woman.

End of.

"It is important to note, therefore, that colleges such as Newnham have a particular responsibility to transgender students, whose oppression within and without the University is inextricably tied to their gender. Any space advocating for the rights of women, or offering a space as respite from patriarchy, must acknowledge that trans women are more vulnerable to sexist violence & discrimination, due to which in the ways transphobia & misogyny intersect.

Apart from this being an absolute nonsense, it is now clear that legally, it not only has no force, but us wrong, wrong, wrong.

After the Supreme Court judgment of April 16th this year, men means male at birth and women means female at birth. Men cannot legally be allowed into female single sex spaces, nor sports, nor access services for women.

This is clear and unambiguous, every twist and turn you make is 151° proof bullshit.

Audrey Ludwig tweeted 22:11 last night 2/11/25 :

https://archive.is/VS1s5

I am quoted in this piece though my very detailed legal explanation was unsurprisingly edited!.
All-female Cambridge college defies Supreme Court ruling and lets in students who were born male

What I said: The starting point in the Equality Act is no discrimination against any protected group. However to ensure this does not cause particular harms in certain situations the Act contains some exceptions. This includes some provision for single sex educational facilities as set out in schedule 12.

In order to use the schedule 12 exception allowing the college lawfully to not admit males, it has to do so strictly in accordance with the terms of the exception. I dont think this policy complies with that requirement.

To explain: the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland case determined that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, that trans women are legally male.

The only circumstance in the school 12(1) exception in which any males can be admitted to a woman’s college is set out in such 12 1(3):

"(3)
….. students of the opposite sex are to be disregarded if—
(a)
their admission to the institution is exceptional, or
(b)
their numbers are comparatively small and their admission is confined to particular courses or classes.”

The Newnham stated policy of allowing admission based on simply on what is stated on passport or driving licence (which is self ID) or by Gender Recognition Certificate could allow up to 100% of admissions to be for males. This could not be described as exceptional, and thus the policy is at serious risk of being determined as unlawful.

https://x.com/audreysuffolk/status/1985107779745366064?s=12

Others on this thread are tackling Newnham's official policy and whether it is fit for purpose post-SC. I and @bymyleftelbow (and others) are pointing out your ignorance of the Cambridge college system - very much at odds with your confident assertions.

Do keep up dear. I suggest you read before you post.

Transwomen are male people. The male sex and its assertions are at the root of what you are calling 'patriarchy'.

Nuance is understanding that harms do not have to be solely enacted through physical violence, but that female people are harmed when a male person breaches their privacy, and insert themselves without consent.

Nuance is understanding that harm is enacted when a male person uses female people to fulfil a personal fantasy - without their permission. The very 'otherness' of male people in a space meant exclusively for female people is a harm. People with empathy for women and girls understand this.

The law makes it clear that sex is biological and that 'Sex' as a protected category relates to female people. This is a matter of black and white. The law is clear.

Animal kingdom rules don’t apply to imaginary animals

"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."

Reader's note:

Safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people.

There doesn’t need to be any ‘large’ data collection done to prove there are issues either. Because the ‘harm’ is not only about reportable physical harm. There will be a large amount of harm that will never be reported and only partly because women and girls don’t bother reporting crimes where they are the victim to any authority.

However, safety is but one aspect of the safeguarding needs for female people. There are numerous harms.

Harms include:

-Rape and sexual assault.

-Violence.

-Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

-Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

-Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.

-A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

-A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

-Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

-Any female person who is displaced because a male person has been included in that provision designed to directly address sexist oppression of female people, and only female people.

Narrowing the discussion to sex and violence offences does not remove these other harms from consideration for single sex provisions. And trying to focus only on violence is an attempt to distract from the other harms which are important and remain focused on a person's female body which is unchangeable.

Really well put - thank you for sharing