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.

Oh, I'm just going to have to hide this thread, it's too enraging.

MEN CANNOT BE WOMEN. THE END.

They can & they can't. The can't in that they don't experience menstruation, pregnancy, menopause & the associated issues that go along with that. But they can in that they present as women & are treated/discriminated/oppressed in similar ways & are inclined towards their common interests.

1. How are trans women oppressed in the same way women are oppressed that black men aren’t?
2. Please give an example of how they ‘present as women’

Oh it's impossible to engage rationally with this sort of bollocks. The question is are these colleges going to start to behave legally or is this going to have to be another bloody court case? Or worst case scenario, will the colleges stop being 'women only' because they can't face the climb down from their high horse?

Are you suggesting there aren't more common behaviours to women than men that are reflected in consumerist, employment, special interest & life choices?

Yes. Women are not behaviourally a monolith.

A married woman with children has less in common with me, behaviourally, than a single childless man does. Her life's timetable and activities, her purchasing decisions, and the hours or even type of her employment are dictated by her parenting commitments. She will lack time for special interests. The better fathers out there are similarly limited by their parenting commitments.

By contrast, the single childless man and I enjoy considerable freedom.

Yes, the married mother and I continue to share sexual assault concerns that will cause us to limit our activities, the trivial example being an unwillingness to run alone after dark. We continue to require female-specific health care, such as smears. But day-to-day, our lives are wildly different.

I'm not sure it's illegal for the colleges to choose their own membership. What is a violation of the law is if they refuse to provide single-sex facilities within the college.

Self identification.

Any category that can be self-identified into is a meaningless and pointless category. It serves no purpose and should not be acknowledged in law.

You seem to be confusing the competing rights that flow from this with validity but competing rights don't invalidate categorical differences.

The Supreme Court was extremely clear that women's rights are allocated to us based on sex.

Isn't it exhausting?
Posting on a board of predominantly women trying to pretzel Stonewall's demands as 'legal" reasons why women aren't entitled to single sex changing rooms, hospital wards, sport etc.

The hyperbole is endless - nobody's being forcibly excluded from public life. Men are simply being told they've no legal right to watch women undress, everyone in society must respect the law & the rights of others (which used to happen every day until a certain group decided only their rights mattered).

My patience for this endless whining is at an end. If people don't have the skills to exist in a democratic society where everyone's rights are respected, then they need some swift re education.

Since AI started posting on Mumsnet. AI isn't very intelligent.

human categorisations are based on associations

First, define "association" in this context. The one association I'm in, using the EA2010 meaning of association, is a small amateur orchestra. This confers zero legally-important categories. I get no rights as a musician, nor as a trumpet player.

Exactly 0% of "social usage" is relevant to Newnham. What they can and can't do is prescribed by law, so the legal usage of "woman" is the only one that counts.

Far too many of them have children and wives. They seem to use their wives and children (particularly their daughters) as props in their fantasy.

I read an interview with Jan Morris where the interviewer offered to help clear the table after they've had tea (made by Morris's wife of course). Morris says that should be left to his wife as it's women's work. He seems to have treated his wife and daughter appallingly.

Jane Fae (John Ozimek) decided to tell his daughter he was trans just before her A level exams. I don't think this improved her grades.

The role these men play is dressing in women's clothing and getting a sexual thrill from it.

"Exceptional admissions" in the single-sex school instance can be things like:

1. Admitting the sons of staff members to an otherwise all-girl private school where the staff get free or reduced-fee enrolment of their kids as part of their pay package.
2. Admitting boys to specific subject classes at the sixth form of a girls' school as a means of two or more schools pooling resources to deliver subjects with low take-up.

The exception has to be of sufficient importance to stand up in a court of law. In the case of (1), it's to avoid sex discrimination by association against the staff by denying them employment benefits on the basis of the sex of their child. In the case of (2), the boy is not enrolled at the girls' school but is admitted as a visiting student to specific classes.

"Exceptional admissions" doesn't mean "letting in any man who puts on a skirt and claims special feelings".

Sex Matters don't have standing to take Newnham to court. Do you understand English courts at all?

To have "standing", a claimant would have to:

• Be a female Newnhamite who had been disadvantaged by a TW being present.
• Be a female applicant who had been declined a place because Newnham was full and could demonstrate that her place had gone to a man.
• Be a man without the PC of GR who had been denied a place on the basis of not identifying as a TW.
• Be a woman with the PC of GR who had been denied a place on the basis of not identifying as the woman she in fact is.

The third of those options is the most likely to occur, at which point Newnham will become officially mixed to make the case moot.

A formal complaint isn't a court case.

SM lack standing to take Newnham to court.

How on earth are we going to break it to Alice Cooper, KISS, Finntroll, Dimmu Borgir, Cradle Of Filth, Robert Smith of The Cure, and Tuomas of Nightwish that their interest in makeup makes them women?

It's not Sex Matters who shouted racialised abuse, including "you should get a weave", at a black woman entering a venue that FILIA and several other events were being held at. That was a TRA who I think might have also been a Green Party member.

If you can supply any evidence of racism or misogyny from Sex Matters, please post screenshots to this thread.

99% of male transitioners in IT do so because they want to be a "hot geek girl" instead of the 1000-a-penny "plain geek guy" they are.

The experience of actual women in IT is not very pleasant. They tend to be viewed as "fake" and, once they've demonstrated their credentials, have to field endless sexual advances.

Ah well you see, that's where the Feminism comes in.

Feminism is all about freeing people who just want to wear makeup and be girly from gendered expectations about who has to clean the toilet.

99% of male transitioners in IT do so because they want to be a "hot geek girl" instead of the 1000-a-penny "plain geek guy" they are.

Having worked with 'geek' guys, that intuitively makes a lot of sense.

I'm with you, lost the will quite a while ago! Are we still arguing with Mr. AI Word Salad?

@Wishesandhorses said it best:

This is about costume and access to biological women

I'm going with that from now on. It's no more complicated than that.

SabrinaThwaite
you’ve rambled on with a word salad

Y'know, I don't think "word salad" is the right descriptor. Salad is far too light and digestible, and even, arguably, good for you. It can also contain lts of different ingredients rather than the same thing over and over and over again.

I think "word boiled suet pudding" is closer to the mark, for both this person's monologues and the strange ramblings of President Trump (which are very similar as regards actual content).

"Word boiled suet pudding without even raisins".

But there isn’t a gif for

word boiled suet pudding without raisins 🫤

Oh hold on
my mistake @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

@Baileyonice

Your premise seems to be that men can be women if they do and like things that biological women generally do, except if the men do things that require biology, like ejaculation. But, additonally, if men do and like things that women traditionally do they aren’t women unless they say they are.

In short two biological men could like and do exactly the same things that traditionally align with women’s common perceived likes (despite no common biologically sexed experiences) but if one says they are a man, they are a man and if the other man says he is a woman he's a woman.

Truly amazing, slow hand clap.

Alas.