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.

Aww mate, it’s you that’s not listening.

‘Woman’ is an adult human female. It’s not contestable, the SC has clarified exactly what the word ‘woman’ means in equality law.

It doesn’t matter what you think the social usage of the word ‘woman’ can or should be.

I’m sorry if that it’s hard for you to hear (actually I’m not). I’m still surprised by the amount of sexism and misogyny spouted by those claiming to be ‘progressive’.

You're confused. 'Sex' was defined for the purposes of the equality act not as an all purpose definition of 'woman' to be applied in every context & it can't be because it's also a values/beliefs based concept that by extension relies on social usage for survival.

So as long as Cambridge aren't violating any laws (by treating cis women unfavourably as a result of admitting transwomen which they arent) they are free to interpret trans women as 'women' & treat them accordingly.

So as long as Cambridge aren't violating any laws they are free to interpret trans women as 'women' & treat them accordingly.

I'm not sure about the basis on which Murray Edwards or Newnham Colleges were founded; but that's very much not true for, for example, Girl Guides, or the Women's Institute. Where a charity is provided for the benefit of women, or women and girls, or girls, they're absolutely not free to include trans-women.

Even single-sex female colleges that admit trans-women can do so only on the basis that they are men, under the "exceptional" allowance for enrollment of those of the opposite sex.

So, very much they are not free to treat trans-women as women; they must be treated as men.

They treat trans women the same as women as they are giving them the same access to a single sex school based on exceptionalities.

And what exactly are those exceptional circumstances in this case? One's that align with female oppression? The qualifying criteria in this case being contingent on female associations is effectively treating trans women as women.

They're not allowing trans men to use women's toilets or changing spaces.

The qualifying criteria in this case being contingent on female associations is effectively treating trans women as women.

FWIW, I believe it's plainly unlawful discrimination. The men who are admitted are admitted only on the basis of their GR protected characteristic, which is unlawful.

I’m not confused.

We all know what a woman is. It’s not a philosophical concept.

HTH.