St Peter’s College, Oxford - vacancy for ‘Female-identifying’ Welfare Officer

[FaithHopeCarnage]

https://www.spc.ox.ac.uk/asset/Welfare-Officer-FPs-2026-V2.pdf

Can this be legal? Not so much the job title, but the advert states:

”St Peter’s seeks to promote inclusion and diversity. We are committed to ensuring that our Health, Wellbeing and Welfare Team is as diverse as possible to better support the diverse population of our College. We are particularly keen to receive applications from people of colour, people who identify as LGBTQIA, and others who will enhance the diversity of our team.”

It’s the postscript that’s interesting: “*Please note that it is an occupational requirement for St Peter’s College to maintain a balanced number of male and female Welfare Officers.” In the further particulars this is slightly amended to “1 Please note that it is an occupational requirement for St Peter’s College to maintain a balanced number of male-identifying and female-identifying Welfare Officers.”

In short, no. If they are relying on the exemption to say that being a woman is a genuine occupational requirement, then the role can only be open to women.

Isn't that what the whole FWS/Supreme Court business was about?
It wasn't - sorry TRAs! - about who can pee where, it was about whether a female-identifying male counted as a female in the context of balanced representation:
This appeal arose in response to the definition of the term “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (“ASP 2018”) and associated statutory guidance.
For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court

So
"Please note that it is an occupational requirement for St Peter’s College to maintain a balanced number of male and female Welfare Officers.”

has to mean biological males and biological females.

Like, duh, St. Peter's College Oxford🙄

Hello 2024, did you want your job advert back?

I thought of FWS too - in terms of balanced representation, not toilets ;)

It seems egregious for this particular role - they are expected to complete the University’s training on supporting those who have been impacted by sexual violence. So sex very definitely matters.

Vacancy currently advertised on Conference of Colleges

”St Peter’s College invites applications for the post of Welfare Officer (female-identifying1) at St Peter’s College, to start on 30th September 2026. The closing date for applications has been extended to 12 noon on Tuesday, 12 May 2026. Interviews are expected to be held on Thursday, 21 May 2026.”

Do these people live under a rock, or do they try their luck in the hope no-one will notice? Both St Peter's College's welfare team as well as HR are clearly incompetent if they think this is legal.

Seems dodgy to me - my understanding is that occupational requirements are a permitted form of sex discrimination, but if they aren't actually discriminating on strict sex grounds but mixing in "identity", I reckon that could undermine their justification for the OR, particularly if they DID end up appointing someone of the wrong sex to the role, & could put them at risk of sex discrimination claims from other candidates. I'd have thought it might also be potential discrimination on grounds of GC belief, as only GI believers would "identify as" anything? And if students of one sex don't end up with a welfare rep of the same sex when they're meant to have one, that wouldn't look great either...

If they didn't quote the part of the act that provides for a job only being open to someone of one of the two sexes, I am not sure what law they are breaking.

Could someone who is gender critical / believes that sex is biological put in a complaint to say they are being discriminated against.

ie does the phrase female or male identifying exclude them as they dont "identify" that just know that that is what their biology is.

I would have thought there is a much better case to be brough against them for not providing appropriate Welfare Care. ie they will be imposing on those for whom the service is provided with inappropriate care if a female request a female welfare officer and it told the welfare officer provided "identifies" as female but isn't actually female.

I wonder how they describe the type of support that Welfare Officers are meant to provide.

Its a bit like IamSarah being told she can get support as a victim of rape but only in the guise of the political agenda of the provider.

"Please note that it is an occupational requirement for St Peter’s College to maintain a balanced number of male and female Welfare Officers.”

Surely if they say they have male WOs and female WOs, they have to employ people according to their biology, not how they ID?

Yes I am sure that is right.

But this seems to be either intentional or some unthought out way of trying to get round the Supreme Court ruling and the already existing Single Sex provision within the EA.

And as a PP pointed out the wording of the ad contradicts itself by saying it is open to self identifying and then going on to say it is a requirement to maintain a balance of male and female employees, but dont reference self identifying.

I wonder if a legal person was consulted before the ad was posted or whether it was some junior member of staff left to put something to together with some vague indication it should be about identifying.

Assuming I have linked to the right college it is interesting to note the description of the Dean for Wlefare

https://www.spc.ox.ac.uk/student-life/health-wellbeing-welfare

Have just seen that in the download version of the ad it says:

Please note that it is an occupational requirement for St Peter’s College to maintain a balanced number of male-identifying and female-identifying Welfare Officers.

What about the they/thems since they identify as neither sex?

Won't someone think of the they/thems?!?!?!?!

They'll be so sad. Ah well, never mind.

Sad Times, in fact.

I don't think this is a new ad - I think I've seen it, with the same language around self-identifying, around a decade ago - so I think no one has reviewed it against the judgement, rather than it actively trying to get round it.

A few Oxford colleges have these and they're odd/niche positions, as they usually require the person to also be a PhD student, or sometimes a postdoc, and the welfare bit is usually an added responsibility that comes with accommodation and a bit of money on the side rather than a full job. They obviously should still be going through normal HR processes, but I'm not shocked they aren't always.

I've read a bit more about the role, and am a bit perplexed by it.

I can see that at some time in the past having someone to talk through issues around getting work done or whatever might have been a straight forward appointment.

But maybe I mis-read but the current role seems to imply, as the word welfare does, more about personal issues. Some of which may not be that complex but part of growing up.

But how would someone in this sort of amateur position be able to offer "welfare". Let alone if the student was a young woman and finds that the "female" welfare officer she is assigned turns out to be a TW.

Sometimes it feels like all those situations in life might be difficult enough and then it is imposed on you that you have to accept someone's personal "belief" that they are the opposite sex.

Whatever the issues around the T Q and I, the A seems even more ludicrous in a job advert.
What does someone being asexual have to do with how they can do their job? I mean, the Q is also blatantly ridiculous, but the A...that's something else again.