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

On the contrary the 'governance' was responsible for the inclusion of trans women from 2017 & more recent efforts to maintain that so kinda sounds pretty 'official' not to mention democratic:

JCR = "Elected representatives of the students"

Howse the ham tasting now? 😂

https://newnhamjcr.uk/

I think this is a huge strategic mistake by Newnham. It makes them look like dupes to the majority of their alumni who (presuming the wider UK stats apply) think that this is all hogwash. The current principal is apparently a true believer, but there is by no means consensus among the fellows, if the few I’ve talked to are indicative. They are a lot of very clever women, after all, and don’t have a culture of gentle agreement. This opens for massive and bitter conflict, which the only remaining feminist bastion in Cambridge doesn’t need. They are letting themselves be led towards the rocks by the demands of a few men. There are feminist battles in today’s society where Newnham could take the lead, but this isn’t one of them. The SC judgement gave them a quiet way out and they should have taken it.

Never heard of Denis Healey’s first law of holes, I see.

Let me explain. The College is a charitable trust governed by certain members of the Fellowship, who are Trustees under the college’s statutes and the Charity Commission (the UK govt regulator of charities). That is the college’s “governance”.

The JCR is the student social society. The students elect members to be on the committee each year, like President, Vice President, Entertainments Officer, Communications Officer, Treasurer, etc. Any post that the JCR decide they want. Like any student society, once “elected”, the JCR committee can write any statements they like based on their own opinions. They don’t even need to represent any consensus by the student body. The document you link to is the personal opinions of that year’s student social committee, and nothing to do with the college’s governance.

Anyone can submit evidence to a government consultation and it gets recorded in Hansard. You don’t fully understand the material you’re making reference to. I imagine it’s because you don’t have a clue about the U.K., which is painfully obvious to all of us here.

I agree — and there are several other colleges in Cambridge who have recently generated conflicts with their own alumni over issues exactly like this, and it’s taken out at least two Heads of House so far (ie. they were scuppered by their own fellows for generating not only a lot of negative publicity for the college, but also conflicts amongst members and alumni. For at least one, a similar issue was used as the reason to pressure the HoH to go).

But Alison R is reaching the end of her term as Principal, so I guess she thinks she has nothing to lose. They’re on the process of electing a new HoH.

Seems like the 'governance' clearly agreed with the representatives of the students no? Otherwise how did the rules change? The 'governance' & the students were of one mind that's why.

Still digging?

Oh and yes, I agree that it definitely isn’t a culture of gentle agreement! And the alumnae are not dear old ladies. They are fierce as all hell and tough as old boots (and the college depends very much on them giving their money to it…)

Um, I'm not the one trying to pretend the governance isn't in agreement with the students when it's patently obvious by the admission of trans women since 2017 they are.

Please feel free to post any evidence they are not. I won't hold my breath….

Oh & here's the logic why Murray Edwards did to keep digging with:

“There is now a greater understanding of the complexities of gender. In order that we remain true to our mission of being open to all outstanding young women we recognise that it is right for anyone who identifies as female, regardless of their born gender, to be able to apply to study with us.”

"In a statement about the new policy, the college said: “Many of us within the college have sympathy with the idea that gender is not binary and have concerns that narrow gender identities and the expectations associated with them are damaging both to individuals and to wider society."

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/04/women-only-cambridge-college-to-allow-students-who-identify-as-female-murray-edwards

Murray Edwards is not Newnham — and it has different statutes, which allow for male members (it has a mixed Fellowship). Lucy Cavendish is no longer a women’s college at all.

"Interchangeability" of gender? So gender is a binary in your world? Are you conflating gender with sex?

And if gender is so interchangeable, why is there even a patriarchy? (Presumably if all men in the world put on dresses and said they were trans, we’d suddenly have a matriarchy 🤣)

I never said it was that 's why I named it Murray Edwards not Newnham. The point is to show the premise behind where those closely tied colleges were heading at the time.

They aren’t “closely tied”; they are all independent foundations with their own individual statutes. What one does has no bearing on any of the others. Murray Edwards has a mixed fellowship, so does not prohibit men from being college members at all (Newnham does). Lucy Cavendish went mixed at the same time that it ceased being a mature student college - for financial reasons. It’s perfectly open to Newnham NOT to admit any men; I think the decision is right on the edge as to whether it’s lawful, and it’s equally possible that the next Principal decides the opposite way (or that it ends up looking too risky in legal terms). It is stupid of the college to risk causing a fuss with the alumnae: they can’t afford to alienate their donors.

Gender is on a spectrum. Gendered behaviours more typical to one sex being interchangeable between the sexes is the point of interchangeability.

Let's not forget what legitimises equality is shared traits not different ones. It's the psychological overlap that justifies equality. Of course that doesn't mean that barriers to women's equality that are a result of differences are ignored rather that gender expectations is part of that problem.

Gender is just behaviour. How does that make sex interchangeable? Just because a man wears his hair long and cries at sad films doesn’t mean his bodily sex is any different.

"Who can apply to Murray Edwards?
For undergraduate admissions, we will consider any student who identifies as a woman at the point of application (i.e. when submitting their initial October application). This information is communicated to the College through the UCAS application and we can only consider those applications that we receive where a student has selected the gender category ‘Woman’."

https://www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/study-us/how-apply

"It is stupid of the college to risk causing a fuss with the alumnae: they can’t afford to alienate their donors."

You are assuming all donors are a monolith & by extension women which would be true to GC form. So much for anti sexism.

You are also assuming prospective students values don't have any impact of a college's bottom line & judging from the JCA elected representatives it aint exactly GC orientated.

If pro-trans discrimination is legal as you believe it to be, you don’t need to consider it to be an occupational requirement to be trans to appoint a trans person to a role. ipIts legal for any reason or for no reason at all.

If pro-GR discrimination isn't captured under “because of a protected characteristic” You can openly advertise and employ only GR people in every role.

For that matter you can openly advertise that your service, shop, organization and public authority charges non-GR people double price over GR people. That would all be lawful. So would barring entry to your shop, library, bar et. al. to any non-GR people.

In your interpretation of the act that’s all permitted.

I doubt that any 'cis' men will ever sue Newnham for admission

Im not sure. There’s legal trouble brewing for the WI who may be sued by a non-GR man to allow him to join.

For those feeding someone who is feeding some LLM AI and getting back gibberish - it’s like eating junk food. Feels ok in the moment but a minute later you think why bother.

Since gender is a rainbow 🌈 & unicorn 🦄 all inclusive mind bending self imagined spectrum - it follows no rational or legal rules can truly be applied. So Howsey is trying bless him but it’s hard to make sense of nonsense.

Let’s hope the new HoH is not into gender woo and dials back on the discriminatory policy for the sake of college funding.

I never said sex was interchangeable but gender was interchangeable between the sexes:

"Gendered behaviours more typical to one sex being interchangeable between the sexes is the point of interchangeability."

This simple and basic understanding seems beyond the reach of gender supporters.

Yes, well done, Howse! Gender is arbitrary social convention! Its all optional!

Women can have short hair and wear trousers and enjoy arc welding. It has absolutely no bearing on their sex.

I'm pleased you got there eventually.

Exactly. And as Howse now agrees gender is different from sex, he can encourage males with a trans identity to use the mixed gender facilities relevant to their sex. And also go work on his fellow men to not be mean to those men presenting in a different way. So we’ve solved it.

No, but all men are men..as in male. It is masculine traits and tendencies that are at the root of this oppression you cite....according to your own theory about what feminism is supposed to be, anyway.

Masculine traits and behaviours don't disappear just because a male person adopts a feminine persona. Men invading and colonising what they perceive as femaleness is just another oppression enacted by men on women.

That is because 'gender' is nothing more than personality traits which can be found in both males and females. Having a certain sort of personality doesn't change your sex, though.