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

What a shame, yet again men have multiple options and women who need single sex spaces have none.

I think in the light of the Supreme Court judgement this will also bite them on the bum.

Imagine our top universities so overtly telling women we are less important than men, yet here we are.

Agree, although it doesn't much matter in practice because trans people are rare (and supposedly disadvantaged, oppressed, etc). And there are lots of things that aren't protected characteristics in the first place - discriminate to your heart's content and the law can't touch you.

The WI case which is ongoing is based on sex-discrimination, not discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment.

Other people have replied to this more than adequately, but here's my take, because as a man I find it difficult to resist having my say (tongue in cheek, because NAMALT and SWALT).

I absolutely agree that sex and gender are different. Sex is binary, despite occasional complications in determining which category someone belongs to. Gender is a socially constructed way of describing some aspects of personality, and basically describes dimorphism of personality. Because gender is at least partially socially constructed, concepts of femininity and masculinity are culture-dependent and very poorly defined, so it is debatable how much male and female people overlap in terms of gender traits. Also, we lump together under "gender" all sorts of different personality types – are women typically more nurturing (but that would not exclude men from being nurturing), and are men typically more aggressive (but that would not exclude women from being aggressive)?

For the functioning of society, statistical evidence that men are much more physically dangerous than women is important. But there are also social concepts that are not so easy to deal with on a statistical basis, such as dignity. But we do have crimes that are arguably based on dignity, such as voyeurism, and again the statistics say that men are more likely to be guilty of that. How would one base policy to tackle voyeurism on gender identity instead of sex?

My point about those things being legal is that it's clear they're actually not, and therefore your reading of the law isn't right. Yes, you can legally discriminate against people and in favour of others on lots of unprotected grounds. But gender reassignment is a protected ground. Unlike the protected ground of disability, there is no explict exemption that makes positive discrimination lawful. Ergo - it remains unlawful.

I can think of no job where it would reasonably be a genuine occupational requirement to be 'trans'.

There's been a thread about this before, which you might find interesting:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418813-tnbi-job-ad-for-somerset-and-avon-rape-and-sexual-abuse-support

Unfortunately it's a mixed issue example, because they wanted someone who was trans (PC), non-binary (not a PC), or intersex (??). But I assume you would think their requirement for a trans person alone would be illegal positive discrimination. Since, contrary to the wording of the ad, there is nothing in Schedule 9 to excuse this particular requirement, which must therefore always be illegal, no matter what.

I'm going to read the thread with interest!

But I assume you would think their requirement for a trans person alone would be illegal positive discrimination. Since, contrary to the wording of the ad, there is nothing in Schedule 9 to excuse this particular requirement, which must therefore always be illegal, no matter what.

Yes, I think that would be consistent with the words in the Act. I'm open to being shown to be wrong either by something in the Act itself or a judicial decision setting out a different way the act should be read. GIven that most non-GR people are unlikely so much to want to work in a post where the organization feels it needs a GR person as to take legal action, the fact that this point hasn't been adjudicated isn't much of a surprise.

Two comments from the thread I do agree with - firstly @crossant: They could equally well say they were invoking section 123 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It's ignorant, silly, and shows a misunderstanding of the law, but none of those things are illegal.

And secondly @IrnBruAndDietCoke: Regardless of whether it’s correct in law, you’d have to be a real cunt to apply for that job if you didn’t have the preferred characteristics.

Have a read of the explanatory note to Schedule 9:

787.This paragraph provides a general exception to what would otherwise be unlawful direct discrimination in relation to work. The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work...

I suppose you're saying that there's no need to mention that being (vice not being) a transsexual person doesn't need to be mentioned there, because that kind of discrimination is in fact not "otherwise" unlawful? If the organization advertising the job ad had seen it that way, they would have had no need to mention Schedule 9 at all.

@MyAmpleSheep

I suppose you're saying that being (v not being) a transsexual person doesn't need to be mentioned there, because that kind of discrimination is in fact not "otherwise" unlawful?

Yes (and likewise for being married or in a civil partnership).

If the organization advertising the job had seen it that way, they would have had no need to mention Schedule 9 at all.

Yes. They either agree with your interpretation or have another reason for citing it (intersex as a disability? thought it would look good? just being cautious?)

Yes. They either agree with your interpretation or have another reason for citing it (intersex as a disability? thought it would look good? just being cautious?)

I vote for "aren't really interested that much in the detail of the law, copied it from somewhere else, and hoped it would be good enough." This is pretty technical statutory interpretation, not something most people are interested in.