Cambridge University ignoring the Supreme Court ruling?

[yoursweetpotatoesarebland]

Dd is going to the Cambridge open day coming up, I got an email through about the colleges and was having a read through. There’s a section about “gender identity” and how it impacts on what colleges you can apply to. There are two women’s colleges but both accept anyone who identifies as a woman!

This is from Murray Edwards:
“At the admissions level, we will consider any student who, at the point of application, identifies as a woman“

How can this still be allowed? It’s self ID too so has NEVER been legal for the purposes of the eqA.

Just to be clear on definitions:

Are you saying “women” in “women’s college” means female sex, or self identified gender regardless of sex?

Because if it’s the second, then it isn’t a sex based category at all, and I’m struggling to see what makes it meaningfully distinct from a mixed sex college with a feminist ethos.

Which one are you actually using?

And just to follow that through: if you mean the latter, how do you square that with your earlier point that sex can still be relevant where it is the reason a category exists?

Why is a women’s college not one of those contexts, given it was originally created as a sex based institution?

And yet the gap between male and female scores has changed over time, and only applies to the very highest achievers:

For reasons that are not well understood, current ratios of males to females at the high end are not as extreme as in the earlier studies, with male:female ratios among those scoring 700 or more on the SAT-M before age 13 now being less than 4:1 (Blackburn, personal communication, August 4, 2005). Stanley, who studied mathematically precocious youth for decades, explained that 25 years ago there were 13 boys for every girl who scored above 700 on the SAT-M at age 13. Now the ratio is only 2.8:1, which is a precipitous drop that has not been widely reported in the news media. According to Stanley, “It's gone way down as women have had the opportunity to take their math earlier” (quoted in Monastersky, 2005, ¶ 45). There are no studies exploring the reasons for the decline, although possible reasons include that fact that high-school mathematics coursework for boys and girls has become more similar and more girls are getting more encouragement in the form of special programs and mentoring to encourage their participation in higher-level math courses. Regardless, these results suggest that the male advantage for mathematical skills may be limited to the upper end of the ability distribution.

This link should take you to the right section of the paper you linked to:
The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics - PMC

This is quite an old paper (2007), so when there is a mention of "25 years ago" they are referring to the early 1980s. It would be interesting to see what the figures look like now, nearly 20 years after this paper was published.

Intersectional feminism describes and caters for divisions and groups within women. It doesn't mean "women with a few men added on".

And "minuscule number," whether true or not, is irrelevant. What if a minuscule number of any other group of men want to attend a women's college - should we let them, just because there aren't very many of them?

Are you seriously suggesting that collaborating with a misogynistic cultural norm is somehow a feminist act, because that’s what your argument amounts to.

If a woman must cover her body to walk down a corridor, attend a seminar, or speak to a colleague, then the institution is not supporting her freedom, it’s supporting the cultural norm that says her uncovered face is a problem. Creating a cultural silo that lets women unveil only at their desks isn’t liberation, it’s compliance with the very ideology that restricts women’s movement, education, and autonomy.

Feminism doesn’t mean helping women navigate misogyny more efficiently, it means refusing to let misogyny set the terms in the first place and no amount of “they can still go to seminars” changes that.

But that's like saying that women's refuges offering women who are domestic abuse survivors temporary accommodation to escape domestic violence are collaborating with the men who committed violence against them.

Are you saying “women” in “women’s college” means female sex, or self identified gender regardless of sex?

I consider trans women as a sub category of women so both cis & trans women should be included in my view.

Because if it’s the second, then it isn’t a sex based category at all, and I’m struggling to see what makes it meaningfully distinct from a mixed sex college with a feminist ethos.

Well the Cambridge women's college is overwhelmingly sex based with a very small minority of trans women rather than 50/50 mixed so there would be a meaningful distinction not to mention I consider trans women more associated to women in behaviour & patriarchal oppression so it hardly disrupts \ the over arching project.

And just to follow that through: if you mean the latter, how do you square that with your earlier point that sex can still be relevant where it is the reason a category exists?

Why is a women’s college not one of those contexts, given it was originally created as a sex based institution?

Relevant to where circumstances disadvantage or cause harm to women like sports, hospitals, prisons. I don't consider women to be disadvantaged or harmed by being in the company of a few trans women in college classes in fact I think its of benefit to them because they have a shared experience in male/societal oppression.

And despite being created as a sex based institution, the category of woman has broadened with time so its not being inconsistent to include this more sophisticated understanding of sex distinctions particularly given there's a shared history of patriarchal oppression.

the category of woman has broadened with time

It hasn’t. Woman still means adult human female. The category of woman does not include male people.

The stupidity of the 'minuscule number' argument is easier to illustrate using French (or any other gendered language). If the Stade de France were filled to capacity with 80,000 women, the pronoun for the crowd would be 'elles', feminine. If one of those women is replaced by a man, the pronoun for the crowd becomes 'ils', masculine.

You think female students benefit from having a few men around? That what a women’s college really needs is a few chaps?

Ok I’m going to go and do something involving hitting or kicking stuff - nailing things or drilling or a bit of footy practice or something. Do you not see how incandescently appalling a thing that is to say? What an insult, to every woman that’s ever gone through an educational institution, or found barriers put up to their education, barriers that DID NOT EXIST for the ones with cocks? Footlights was barred to women until Eric Idle changed the rules in 1962 or thereabouts so thee were lots of opportunities for guys to wear dresses and pearls and by all accounts plenty of them did, a lot, probably while referring to actual women as either bluestockings (mostly unfuckable but would probably end up marrying one because socially acceptable) or secretaries (not posh enough). So fucking what? You think any of this is new? It’s the same old shit.

Very very luckily (and actually, thanks to Harriet Harman, though she would deny it now) we have a law that says that you ‘reckoning’ some male people have some kind of indefinable psychological similarity to women is IRRELEVANT. Thank fuck.

I consider trans women as a sub category of women so both cis & trans women should be included in my view.

A subcategory of what definition of woman?
Woman for the context of single SEX is not gender based so they are not a subcategory are they?

Please explain how a biological man can be a subcategory of the group woman on a sex basis.

I think what I'm struggling with is the criterion you're actually applying.

Earlier you seemed to suggest that sex can remain relevant where sex is the reason a category exists. But now women's colleges appear to be an exception, despite having been created as female-only institutions.

So is your principle actually that sex matters only where excluding it would lead to a clear disadvantage, safety issue, or undermine the purpose of the category?

If so, who decides when that threshold has been met?

For example, in hospitals, refuges, prisons, changing rooms, college accommodation, sports, scholarships, and women's colleges, what is the rule that tells us when sex remains relevant and when gender identity takes precedence?

I'm not asking whether trans women should or shouldn't be included. I'm trying to understand how your framework works consistently in practice, because at the moment it seems to depend on a case by case judgement rather than a general principle.

I am asking what operational rule determines when sex classifications survive and when they don't?

Intersectional feminism describes and caters for divisions and groups within women. It doesn't mean "women with a few men added on".

Trans women are included under the umbrella hood of women because of their associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences.

Intersectional feminism inherently includes trans women because of shared oppression. Trans women often face compounded marginalisation (e.g., gender identity overlapping with race, class, or disability) which is the foundational premise of feminist inter sectionalism.

"And "minuscule number," whether true or not, is irrelevant. What if a minuscule number of any other group of men want to attend a women's college - should we let them, just because there aren't very many of them?"

No because they aren't as associated to women as trans women.

Like all other operational rules it's a social negotiation dependant on the prevailing culture's values & their standards of utility.

An example would be both adults & minors are humans but don't have the same rights because of our values & utility.

Please explain what associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences a trans woman has that other men don’t have or that all biological women do have that trans men don’t?

Any example will do.

Honestly your stereotyping is mad.

I can not think of one inclination or experience I have had that a trans woman also has that a man or trans man doesn’t…..

I’ll wait..

“Trans women are included under the umbrella hood of women because of their associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences.”

Meaning any male person who shares behavioural traits, inclinations and experiences with some female should then also be included in intersectional feminism.

This is an argument to include male people into feminist focus.

I'm against allowing trans-identifying males into a female college and like you used to share one of the split-level rooms. However, looking at the ME website, it does seem that these rooms are only used for one person now.

That's an interesting view you have, and you're welcome to group yourself of course how ever you see fit, but you can hardly redefine 'woman' to forcibly include all women. I for one certainly don't share your view or find I have anything in common with a trans identified man that is different to what I have in common with any other man.

This is why options of single sex and mixed sex work, where nothing else ever will.

Trans women are included under the umbrella hood of women because of their associations in behaviour, inclinations & experiences.

Behaviours like this?

If I've understood correctly, your position is that whether a category remains sex based or becomes gender based is ultimately decided through social negotiation according to contemporary values and perceived utility.

If that's right, then two questions follow:

1. What constrains that process beyond majority preference? In other words, what makes one outcome more correct than another rather than simply more popular?
2. If the justification is utility, utility for whom and measured how? Different groups can reach very different conclusions about the utility of keeping a category sex based.

For example, someone could argue that women's colleges continue to serve their original purpose better if they remain female only. Under your framework, if enough social and cultural influence shifted in favour of that view, would you regard it as legitimate?

I gather @Baileyonice is sticking to the “women are defined as people who behave like women and women’s behaviour is defined as what women do”

Which means a lot of women are actually men.

I don’t think this philosophy needs any further examination.

Baileyonice
The context being discussed was the validity of gender identity.

The context you were banging on about was and is the validity of gender identity. Other people who haven't yet given up on you as a completely wooden-headed bore were continuing to point out the fallacies in the monologue you persist in calling a discussion.

OldCrone
Most colleges are mixed sex. Why can't these men just go to one of them instead? Why do they feel the need to invade a rare single-sex space for women? It's just for validation, isn't it?

The only reason I can think of would be that the entrance qualifications are less stringent for Murray Edwards than for Kings or Trinity or Peterhouse, but that surely must be nonsense? So yes, probably just validation, or to spoil or destroy something which wasn't intended for men like them. Dog-in-a-manger behaviour is not the best way to win anyone to your "cause", but maybe they don't see that.

Intersectionality is all about recognising that we as individuals are members of many different groups both by choice and by birth, and that these differences intersect to give different outcomes to others who may be in some of the same groups but not all.

The origin of intersectional feminism was Black feminists and their understanding that ones race changes how one experiences sexism and ones sex changes how one experiences racism. Crucially, both sex and race were recognised.

Isn't it weird therefore that some people's idea of "intersectionality" seemingly demands that there must be recognition of a group of people who share "behaviour, inclinations & experiences" but are different in sex, and yet no recognition of a group of people who share the same sex but are different in "behaviour, inclinations & experiences"?

To use Intersectionality to argue that one of the intersecting groups is simply a subset of the other is to gravely misunderstand intersectionality.

The "sex is only relevant as a subdivision of gender" view only works if one ignores the needs of female people, who face social disadvantages because of their sex regardless of where they may identify on the "behaviour, inclinations & experiences" scale. One might even consider it to be clear mis-whatever-the-name-for-the-half-of-people-who-are-female-might-be-y to recognise the validity of the first group but not the second.

One might think, if it were truly the case as some assert that is no widespread social, legal or cultural recognition of the group of female people as distinct from male, that in itself justifies the emergence of a social change movement for recognition of sex and sex-based rights and protections to exist.

We could call it whatever-the-name-for-the-half-of-people-who-are-female-might-be-ism, perhaps.

Because sex exists, socialisation based on sex exists, discrimination, abuse and exploitation based on sex exist, and women aren't stupid. Every day more of us see through the Genderist neo-sexist wordplay, and the more we are forced into living by it the more the lie becomes clear.

How is “women do woman-behaviour” any different in principle from the historic sexism that stopped women being admitted to study for the law, medicine, any other profession?

Even if “woman behaviour” is no longer thought certain to include fits of the vapours and a tendency to hysterics, surely a job opening for a tyre fitter is clearly unwomanly (overalls rather than a spinny skirt for instance) and can therefore legitimately be offered only to men as a genuine occupational requirement?

I don’t understand how anyone with brain cells can pursue this line of argument.

MyAmpleSheep
I don’t understand how anyone with brain cells can pursue this line of argument.

Just so.