Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Cambridge University ignoring the Supreme Court ruling?

336 replies

yoursweetpotatoesarebland · 11/06/2026 23:27

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.

OP posts:
ProfessorDrPrunesqualer · Yesterday 13:20

From a blogpost
by
Cambs Women Together
Two steps forward one step back
Sophie Watson

.’ Newnham wasn’t established in order to exclude anyone. It was established in order to meet the needs of a class of people who were already excluded.

In 1871, thriving British suffragette movement notwithstanding, women had very few of the rights under law which men already took for granted. Many of the young women who arrived at Cambridge to study had never had any kind of formal schooling before.

The women who founded Newnham (and the men who helped them) did so in the belief that this was not an inevitable state of affairs, and that given enough preparation and support their female students were entirely capable of succeeding at degree-level work. In 1890, Philippa Fawcett outclassed every male student in the Mathematics Tripos when (sitting the examinations despite not having the right to be awarded a degree) she was ranked above the Senior Wrangler.

If you are reading this blogpost, you will likely already be aware that women’s right to single-sex spaces of all kinds (not just colleges) is under attack. The vitriol of these attacks makes them initially very startling, but they begin to make sense once placed in the proper historical context.

In 1897, the University Senate voted on the question of whether female students (just about tolerated to attend lectures and sit examinations) should be awarded degrees and allowed full membership of the university. There is a photograph in my book, taken from above Market Square, of hundreds of male undergraduates protesting outside the building while the Senate deliberated - the familiar pavements have been transformed into a roiling, angry sea of gentlemen’s hats. When the motion was voted down, they celebrated by letting off fireworks and doing thousands of pounds of criminal damage. A few decades later in 1921, a similar motion was proposed and defeated. This time, male undergraduates celebrated their victory by storming Newnham’s gates and attempting to batter them down with a handcart. Blanche Athena Clough (then principal of the college) stood alone on the other side, facing the jeering men down.

There have always been men who try to destroy that which women create for themselves. The difference today, exactly a hundred years after the storming of Clough Gates, is that they have convinced some women to help them.

“all [women’s colleges] do is put women atop the hierarchy instead of dismantling it.” But what hierarchy are women and girls at the top of?

Between 2014 and 2018, the number of reported rapes and sexual assaults in UK universities rose by 82%, with the number of incidents at Cambridge coming second only to the University of East Anglia. Sexual violence is experienced disproportionately by women – the female sex, not anyone who identifies as a woman or “transfeminine.”

Women are not at the top of any hierarchy. Yet we are supposed to believe that we are selfish for standing on the shoulders of the women who came before us, and fiercely protecting the rights that they fought for. As a strategy, this has been very successful - not only at causing women to disavow their own interests, but to police the behaviour of other women when they refuse to do the same.

The student organisation of which I am Co-president (the Cambridge Radical Feminist Network) is a source of ongoing concern for student council members at Newnham; the same people who regularly lobby the college to admit males on the basis of self-ID. The success of any strategy which makes feminists the enemy relies on cutting women off from our collective history.
Another (openly feminist) member of the CRFN was taken to task recently for “appropriating the genderqueer colours” in her profile picture. Much frustration and some hilarity ensued when she told us this – reader, they were the suffragette colours. Purple, green, and white.

Being a female student in Cambridge today is far easier than it was 150 years ago. Being a feminist, however, is not so different. They still call us names, only now we’re “TERFs” and “SWERFs” rather than “nasty, forward minxes.” The sentiment behind these insults has remained constant for over a century: women who say no, women who won’t sit down and shut up - and who fight for our rights on our own terms, rather than accept the scraps society throws us - are selfish and contemptible.

I hope that my college stands firm when I leave it, and refuses to betray the women who came before me or cheat the women who will come after me by opening admissions up to men; but I can no longer be naive about this. The situation is dire - but perhaps its solution hasn’t changed much in the last 150 years either. Millicent Fawcett, mother of Philippa and one of Newnham’s founders, wrote that: “Courage calls to courage, everywhere, and its voice cannot be denied.” I’m grateful to the women of CambsWomen Together for creating new spaces in which women can come together while the world seeks to erode our established ones; and for being that voice of courage and helping me to find mine.’

Written before men were allowed in Newnham

Sadly it seems womens colleges are betraying the women they were set up for.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 13:20

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 11:35

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.

No part of the university is compelling these women to veil in mixed-sex areas. That's their families' doing.

If we hadn't quietly grouped these women into side offices, they would have been veiled all the time on campus. If they wanted to work in a mixed-sex office, they could request that. None of them ever do...

Sometimes, helping women navigate misogyny more efficiently is the most feminist option available to us. Examples of this include allocating female counsellors to rape victims, operating female-only DV shelters, and running female-only swimming sessions and gyms. We aren't going to end rape and DV any time soon, so we try to ease the aftermath for women. We aren't going to make muslims and orthodox jews change their views on uncovered women's bodies any time soon, so we offer female-only fitness sessions so they can at least exercise.

No university has the power to change Saudi law and culture. No university has the power to change the stricter interpretations of Islam. But we can make things easier for Saudi women studying with us, right now.

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 13:44

Here's a list of entities that could meaningfully pressure Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc for improvements to women's rights:

  • FIFA
  • IOC
  • ICC
  • in fact the international governing bodies of any popular sports

Banning a nation's men's team from competing until they field a women's team, with accompanying legal changes to let the women train and compete in public, would make a huge difference to the status of women worldwide very quickly.

Please note that the admin staff of university subject departments are not on that list.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 14:06

I think that any research into the performance of male vs female mathematics performance needs to first start with the basic acknowledgement that still today there is a situation where groups of girls are receiving messages from different parts of society, including from media (not overt necessarily) and particularly from peers that ‘maths isn’t for girls’.

I watched a class of year 3 girls tell each this 10 years ago. It wasn’t a message from teachers. It was them telling each other.

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · Yesterday 14:15

And yet you do still get girls succeeding in doing maths in spite of societal pressure on them trying to convince them that girls can't do maths. Thinking about it, that suggests that they are in fact better at maths than equivalent boys, since the pressure against doing it is greater for females than males. And I don't think the ones who really shine are bears dancing: there are too many of them.

Baileyonice · Yesterday 14:41

CoolBlueBear · Yesterday 12:53

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?

What constrains that process beyond majority preference? In other words, what makes one outcome more correct than another rather than simply more popular?

Once legislated? Deference to Human Rights & Common Law.

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.

Government's considering change via public pressure, lobby groups or other means assess positive outcomes, harms & legal ramifications through expert consultation.

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?

Once legislated? Not unless It has met legal standards in common law & human rights.

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 14:47

Baileyonice · Yesterday 14:41

What constrains that process beyond majority preference? In other words, what makes one outcome more correct than another rather than simply more popular?

Once legislated? Deference to Human Rights & Common Law.

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.

Government's considering change via public pressure, lobby groups or other means assess positive outcomes, harms & legal ramifications through expert consultation.

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?

Once legislated? Not unless It has met legal standards in common law & human rights.

Don't you see that you're rejecting that process that you say validates and justifies a way of being because it IS legislated, it's just been confirmed in law. It IS compatible with Human Rights law because the part you struggle with is that women and gay people have article 8 rights TOO - its not compatible with Human Rights to just shift to the preferences and wishes of other groups at the cost of stripping rights from those you find inconvenient. The guidance and the SCJ is a way to meet ALL needs.

You're saying if you could get that legislation YOUR chosen way then you'd respect it and expect everyone else to. That's pointless as you're demonstrating: anyone who doesn't agree can just ignore it and work to push it to their own personal preference to inflict on everyone else: why should they respect it if it changes to what you want, when you don't respect what is in place now?

Edited to add on reflection: this seems to be something far too many legislators can't realise either. Once you have devalued and thrown away any respect for law, it becomes pointless, and it will be very hard to ever go back from that destruction. You can change it to whatever you like; you've modelled the end of anyone caring or respecting it if they don't agree with it and given up on the idea of an objective rational middle ground. It then just becomes a battle between extremists and whoever currently has the most power, but it's just for more worthless, pointless words on paper that no one needs to care about anyway.

Baileyonice · Yesterday 14:57

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 14:47

Don't you see that you're rejecting that process that you say validates and justifies a way of being because it IS legislated, it's just been confirmed in law. It IS compatible with Human Rights law because the part you struggle with is that women and gay people have article 8 rights TOO - its not compatible with Human Rights to just shift to the preferences and wishes of other groups at the cost of stripping rights from those you find inconvenient. The guidance and the SCJ is a way to meet ALL needs.

You're saying if you could get that legislation YOUR chosen way then you'd respect it and expect everyone else to. That's pointless as you're demonstrating: anyone who doesn't agree can just ignore it and work to push it to their own personal preference to inflict on everyone else: why should they respect it if it changes to what you want, when you don't respect what is in place now?

Edited to add on reflection: this seems to be something far too many legislators can't realise either. Once you have devalued and thrown away any respect for law, it becomes pointless, and it will be very hard to ever go back from that destruction. You can change it to whatever you like; you've modelled the end of anyone caring or respecting it if they don't agree with it and given up on the idea of an objective rational middle ground. It then just becomes a battle between extremists and whoever currently has the most power, but it's just for more worthless, pointless words on paper that no one needs to care about anyway.

Edited

Don't you see that you're rejecting that process that you say validates and justifies a way of being because it IS legislated, it's just been confirmed in law.

Critics, advocacy groups, and legal scholars argue that certain interpretations and applications of the new EHRC guidance risk violating human rights law so UK legislation isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

SqueakyDinosaur · Yesterday 15:06

Which legal scholars, apart from Stephen Whittle, who has too much skin in the game to be considered impartial?

ETA not bothering with critics because it's self-referential, or advocacy groups because THAT'S THEIR ACTUAL JOB.

Rednorth · Yesterday 15:50

Baileyonice · Yesterday 05:09

Let's not forget there are substantial differences in mathematical ability particularly at the tail end of distributions between males & females skills that could easily be accounted for in part by differing brain structures, verbal skills included that influences interests.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4270278/

Edited

Just considering how baby girls are more likely to be encouraged to play with toys etc that encourage imaginary and verbal skills, whereas boys are given toys more likely to encourage reason, logic and spacial awareness stuff.

Get to school, and girls are least likely to have a specific learning issue with maths and number picked up, especially if they are on target and above in everything else...meaning the gap widens even further.

Avezaveza · Yesterday 16:08

@Baileyonice

you may have missed my question

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..

TwoLoonsAndASprout · Yesterday 17:03

SwirlyGates · Yesterday 11:27

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?

Agree. Women are not a subset of the group women.

Cambridge University ignoring the Supreme Court ruling?
CoolBlueBear · Yesterday 17:32

Baileyonice · Yesterday 14:41

What constrains that process beyond majority preference? In other words, what makes one outcome more correct than another rather than simply more popular?

Once legislated? Deference to Human Rights & Common Law.

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.

Government's considering change via public pressure, lobby groups or other means assess positive outcomes, harms & legal ramifications through expert consultation.

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?

Once legislated? Not unless It has met legal standards in common law & human rights.

When you refer to lobby groups, are you thinking of organisations such as Stonewall, Mermaids and the Good Law Project?

We've now had roughly a decade of governments, public bodies, lobby groups, courts and campaigners debating these questions. During that period, a number of significant legal decisions have been reached after considering human rights obligations, statutory interpretation and common-law principles.

For example, the Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland, the Forstater litigation, and other cases concerning sex, gender identity and protected beliefs.

Given that these are precisely the kinds of legal processes and human-rights frameworks you've pointed to as the source of legitimacy, do you regard these legal precedents as legitimate? If not, what is the basis for rejecting them?

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 18:34

I’d like to know what womanly ‘behaviours and inclinations’ I’m supposed to be exhibiting so that I fall under the ‘umbrella of womanhood’.

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 18:44

Baileyonice · Yesterday 14:57

Don't you see that you're rejecting that process that you say validates and justifies a way of being because it IS legislated, it's just been confirmed in law.

Critics, advocacy groups, and legal scholars argue that certain interpretations and applications of the new EHRC guidance risk violating human rights law so UK legislation isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

And others, including advocacy groups, legal advisors, barristers and those who were working for the EHRC at this time that this was done, and a panel of judges from the Supreme Court, disagree with you.

Women and gay people have article 8 rights too. I'm sorry you don't like this or agree, but Human Rights are not just for trans identified men. If this ever goes to the ECtHR they will have to give equal weight to the rights and interests of women and gay people as well as trans identified men - and let's be honest its only those men this is about.

As I would assume, you would not want to see those men lose their legal protections at the hands of more currently fashionable groups, you cannot want to see women and gay people lose theirs either. The whole point of these acts is balanced interests. The SCJ balances those rights. It requires that these men cannot remove women's or gay people's rights in their own interests, and while they have the accessible provisions they need, they cannot prevent or remove accessible provisions from others for no better reason than that they dislike them existing. That is fundamentally NOT what Human Rights were ever intended for. There is, obviously and rightly, no 'right' of a man to have access to a non consenting woman in a state of undress. Who on earth would think otherwise?

selffellatingouroborosofhate · Yesterday 19:34

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 18:44

And others, including advocacy groups, legal advisors, barristers and those who were working for the EHRC at this time that this was done, and a panel of judges from the Supreme Court, disagree with you.

Women and gay people have article 8 rights too. I'm sorry you don't like this or agree, but Human Rights are not just for trans identified men. If this ever goes to the ECtHR they will have to give equal weight to the rights and interests of women and gay people as well as trans identified men - and let's be honest its only those men this is about.

As I would assume, you would not want to see those men lose their legal protections at the hands of more currently fashionable groups, you cannot want to see women and gay people lose theirs either. The whole point of these acts is balanced interests. The SCJ balances those rights. It requires that these men cannot remove women's or gay people's rights in their own interests, and while they have the accessible provisions they need, they cannot prevent or remove accessible provisions from others for no better reason than that they dislike them existing. That is fundamentally NOT what Human Rights were ever intended for. There is, obviously and rightly, no 'right' of a man to have access to a non consenting woman in a state of undress. Who on earth would think otherwise?

Edited

There is, obviously and rightly, no 'right' of a man to have access to a non consenting woman in a state of undress. Who on earth would think otherwise?

Rapists, voyeurs, and the kind of misogynist who thinks that women should be property would think otherwise.

SwirlyGates · Yesterday 20:15

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 18:34

I’d like to know what womanly ‘behaviours and inclinations’ I’m supposed to be exhibiting so that I fall under the ‘umbrella of womanhood’.

I suggest: preferring knitting to football; having long hair; wearing dresses sometimes; struggling with maths; liking pink. If you ticked all those boxes, congratulations, you're a woman, If you ticked none, you're a man. If you have a mix, I suggest you go with non-binary.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 20:29

Rednorth · Yesterday 15:50

Just considering how baby girls are more likely to be encouraged to play with toys etc that encourage imaginary and verbal skills, whereas boys are given toys more likely to encourage reason, logic and spacial awareness stuff.

Get to school, and girls are least likely to have a specific learning issue with maths and number picked up, especially if they are on target and above in everything else...meaning the gap widens even further.

This .

There are many aspects to this argument about female people and spatial awareness and maths to be covered before any hypothesis can be given credibility about male people being naturally better at this aspect of STEM than women. I think it would be very foolish to believe that female people are biologically different in that specific aspect than male people at this point.

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 20:52

SwirlyGates · Yesterday 20:15

I suggest: preferring knitting to football; having long hair; wearing dresses sometimes; struggling with maths; liking pink. If you ticked all those boxes, congratulations, you're a woman, If you ticked none, you're a man. If you have a mix, I suggest you go with non-binary.

Damn!

I’m obviously not womanning well enough to come under the woman umbrella and I will have to consign myself to being an enby tending towards bloke.

If I opt for bloke, will I get a pay rise?

Wishesandhorses · Yesterday 22:34

I'm failing womanliness too. Oddly enough though it doesn't seem to have opted me out of the menopause. It's almost like whatever my inner thoughts and ideas, my embodied reality just cracks on anyway.

Baileyonice · Yesterday 23:04

CoolBlueBear · Yesterday 17:32

When you refer to lobby groups, are you thinking of organisations such as Stonewall, Mermaids and the Good Law Project?

We've now had roughly a decade of governments, public bodies, lobby groups, courts and campaigners debating these questions. During that period, a number of significant legal decisions have been reached after considering human rights obligations, statutory interpretation and common-law principles.

For example, the Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland, the Forstater litigation, and other cases concerning sex, gender identity and protected beliefs.

Given that these are precisely the kinds of legal processes and human-rights frameworks you've pointed to as the source of legitimacy, do you regard these legal precedents as legitimate? If not, what is the basis for rejecting them?

The working EHRC guidelines that come from them are quite possibly not as
they may violate the European Convention Of Human Rights.

"While the EHRC maintains its guidance aligns with UK law, international watchdogs have raised serious red flags. Key areas of dispute include: [1]
Right to Private and Family Life (Article 8): The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights have warned that denying transgender individuals access to single-sex spaces aligning with their gender could void the practical meaning of their legal gender recognition. Conversely, the EHRC has argued in parliamentary sessions that Article 8 does not mandate blanket trans inclusion in all single-sex services, creating a direct clash of interpretations. [1, 2, 3, 5]

Freedom from Discrimination (Article 14): Article 14 protects against unfair treatment and discrimination. Gender-critical campaigners argue the guidelines appropriately protect women's safety. However, advocates argue that allowing businesses to exclude trans individuals from everyday spaces creates an unacceptable "intermediate zone" that breaches both the ECHR and Equality Act 2010protections. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Potential for Legal Challenge: The UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) and legal advocacy groups have signaled that if the guidance forces the exclusion of trans people from everyday life, it could result in successful applications to the ECtHR in Strasbourg. [1, 2, 3]"

PinkNews on Instagram: "The UK’s approach to new guidance on trans rights may be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Europe’s human rights watchdog has warned. Michael O’Flaherty, the Human Rights Commissioner for the Council...

3,245 likes, 51 comments - pinknews on October 14, 2025: "The UK’s approach to new guidance on trans rights may be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Europe’s human rights watchdog has warned. Michael O’Flaherty, the Human Ri...

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPytCZZDA85/

Baileyonice · Yesterday 23:11

Avezaveza · Yesterday 12:20

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..

The phrase I used was "typical" (common) which is different to 'stereotypical' (expectations) so your question is irrelevant.

ProfessorDrPrunesqualer · Yesterday 23:23

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 20:52

Damn!

I’m obviously not womanning well enough to come under the woman umbrella and I will have to consign myself to being an enby tending towards bloke.

If I opt for bloke, will I get a pay rise?

Not just a pay rise but the quickest route to that boardroom

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 23:25

Baileyonice · Yesterday 23:11

The phrase I used was "typical" (common) which is different to 'stereotypical' (expectations) so your question is irrelevant.

It’s not irrelevant at all. And I don’t think you used the word ‘typical’ in your post of 12:12 today:

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

What, in your opinion, are the behaviours, inclinations & experiences of women?

ProfessorDrPrunesqualer · Yesterday 23:34

SabrinaThwaite · Yesterday 23:25

It’s not irrelevant at all. And I don’t think you used the word ‘typical’ in your post of 12:12 today:

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

What, in your opinion, are the behaviours, inclinations & experiences of women?

I googled it
the answers are from Stonewall and the like so prepare yourself if that pp comes back

this reason is hilarious

‘ Community Integration: Trans women actively participate in, contribute to, and form bonds within women's spaces, sports, and advocacy groups’ 🤣