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.

I understood the hairline but significant difference between the colleges’ policies in this century was that Murray Edwards would admit people who declared they were female whereas Newnham required paperwork.

The behaviour of the people admitted to these colleges is completely irrelevant provided it doesn’t breach a rule. There definitely is an argument now that single sex colleges aren’t needed any more - that was what Germaine Greer said actually, the less reported part of the interview where she argued against the appointment of Rachael Padman. I personally would be very sad to see the women’s colleges go mixed sex but it would be very justifiable.

How interesting. I would like to see them make the Sch 12 argument in court.

I'm not convinced it would succeed given that it seems to me it would be arguably seeking to circumnavigate the reasoning of the FWS judgment at para 226-229 and that a decent case can be made that the 'exceptional' circumstance they rely on are actually just discrimination against men without the GR characteristic.

It's not a case of "Only Pool 1 (women) as standard plus anyone from Pool 2 (men) to be also be considered on an individual, exceptional basis."

It's "Only Pool 1 (women) as standard plus Pool 2A (men with the protected characteristic of GR) as standard, but never Pool 2B (men without the protected characteristic of GR)."

Self ID policies at universities aren’t automatically illegal, For Women Scotland protects women’s rights, but no UK court has struck down a self ID admissions policy, though it could be challenged if it unreasonably disadvantages biological women.

Institutions like Cambridge, like many others, are often highly risk-averse and tend to prioritise policies that present them as “inclusive.” In practice, they’re likely making a pragmatic judgement: a trans applicant is far more likely to bring a legal challenge than a gender-critical applicant. So they effectively operate on the basis that the risk of litigation or reputational damage is higher one way than the other.

There's also a counter-argument that there are women who, whether for religious, cultural or personal reasons, would actively avoid a residential educational environment (and Cambridge has strict residency rules) if it were effectively mixed-sex. You can argue that those women are currently being discriminated against by MEds and Newnham.

The Newnham policy linked to above claims:

Schedule 12 of the Equality Act 2010 allows Newnham as a single sex higher education institution exceptionally to admit ‘students of the opposite sex.’

Newnham has decided to continue exceptionally to accept applications from the small number of students who identify as transwomen and hold ID (passport, driving licence or gender recognition certificate) in the female gender.

https://newn.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-10/rationale.pdf

Schedule 12 of the EA applies to places of Further and Higher Education:

Admission to single-sex institutions

1(1)Section 91(1), so far as relating to sex, does not apply in relation to a single-sex institution.

(2)A single-sex institution is an institution to which section 91 applies, which—

(a)admits students of one sex only, or

(b)on the basis of the assumption in sub-paragraph (3), would be taken to admit students of one sex only.

(3)That assumption is that students of the opposite sex are to be disregarded if—

(a)their admission to the institution is exceptional, or
(b)their numbers are comparatively small and their admission is confined to particular courses or classes.

(4)In the case of an institution which is a single-sex institution by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b), section 91(2)(a) to (d), so far as relating to sex, does not prohibit confining students of the same sex to particular courses or classes.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/12

Section 91 is under Part 6 of the EA covering Education and is specific to the admission and treatment of students:

91Students: admission and treatment, etc.

(1)The responsible body of an institution to which this section applies must not discriminate against a person—

(a)in the arrangements it makes for deciding who is offered admission as a student;
(b)as to the terms on which it offers to admit the person as a student;
(c)by not admitting the person as a student.

(2)The responsible body of such an institution must not discriminate against a student—

(a)in the way it provides education for the student;
(b)in the way it affords the student access to a benefit, facility or service;
(c)by not providing education for the student;
(d)by not affording the student access to a benefit, facility or service;
(e)by excluding the student;
(f)by subjecting the student to any other detriment.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/91

The Newnham policy goes on to say:

Newnham is satisfied that the exceptional admission of transwomen students does not prejudice its fundamental character as a single-sex higher education institution for women.

In the next para it contradicts thar description of itself as single-sex:

Newnham is not and has never been a single-sex space. Newnham employs male staff in a range of roles. Newnham has also allowed male guests to stay overnight and use communal facilities for at least 45 years.

IANAL but it seems to me that Newnham is saying that it will admit TIM because:

It isn’t allowed to discriminate against candidates under Section 91;

Anyway there aren’t very many TIM so we can do it on an exceptional basis;

And (for good measure) Newnham is single sex but allows male staff and guests in the building so isn’t really single sex anyway, so what’s the difference if we admit TIMs.

I still don’t see how Newnham (we are the oldest college run by women, for women) can call itself a women’s college if it admits trans identifying males though.

Maybe you mean there have been trans identified women? ( women who 'identify as' men)

The point is that they were male students, not female students and the college was set up to serve women ( female). It is an abuse of trust, and process.

This is why JK Rowling is such a special woman in setting up her Women’s Fund https://jkrwf.org/

But even with support suing is extremely stressful.
Perhaps we can campaign for an amendment of the Equality Act along the lines of

Insertion after s.158 (Single-sex services / accommodation / education):

1. In any admission or recruitment policy for a single sex educational institution or college, a person’s eligibility may be determined only by biological sex at birth.

I think you'll find that the numbers of trans people are much higher in the undergraduate population. But then no doubt you're aware of that.

The media is selling a belief that trans people are inherently dangerous but there is ZERO empirical peer-reviewed scientific evidence for this (and lots of evidence suggesting they are more likely to be victimised).

For someone who’s clearly educated, that’s a clanger of an ‘I’ve drunk the Kool Aid’ statement, @TeachWithMissM. I don’t know anyone who believes trans people are inherently dangerous, nor have I seen that narrative being pushed in any of the media I consume. And the ‘more likely to be victimised’ statement is utterly indefensible, in both life and statistics (and seems to have originated from inflated figures for murders of MtF trans ID sex workers in South America, a group already at high risk for many and varied reasons).

This whole fucking issue and all the conflict around it has arisen because of an aggressive TRA agenda to allow self ID of any man at any time to facilitate access to women’s spaces (and jobs and sports), so it’s totally egregious that this is still the basis upon which women’s colleges are prepared to accommodate men in spite of the Supreme Court ruling.

A ruling which would not have been necessary, had all the agitation around self ID never happened. Fully gender reassigned trans people who were in receipt of a GRC were already fully protected, within their own category, for the purposes of the Equality Act. This allowed both trans people and women to co-exist under the protection of the law without either group being marginalised or affected by the other.

One of the most upsetting and destructive results of this misguided and unnecessary activism is that transitioned people quietly living their lives are experiencing a regressive backlash because of it. This intentional muddying of the waters around the definition of ‘transgender’ and expansion of it to include ‘anyone who says so’ has done nothing but increase misunderstanding and harm both women and trans people.

Self ID does away with all of the checks and protections which prevent paraphiliacs, fetishists and predators (who are overwhelmingly male in this context, as any other) seeking access to women’s spaces for nefarious reasons.

So whilst it’s true there is little to no evidence of fully transitioned transwomen presenting a danger to women and children, there is plenty to suggest that many of the men who seek to self ID without transitioning are very dangerous indeed. And societal acceptance of their fetish being on public display can significantly escalate problematic behaviours. Ministry of Justice statistics alone show that MtF trans ID criminals in the prison system are 5 times more likely than men in the general prison population to be incarcerated for sexually motivated crimes.

But well done for being kind and inclusive.

I think you'll find that the numbers of trans people are much higher in the undergraduate population. But then no doubt you're aware of that.

Allowing this by way of self-id means that any man who fancies being surrounded by women can have his wish. We've seen the potential effect of this in that case in the US where a transwoman (very obviously a man) joined a women's sorority house (female university residence) and apparently spent his time ogling the women with a cushion on his lap. They went to court to try to get him out of their residence, but were not allowed to.

As long I live I will never lose my contempt for those women - like those on this thread (in the "women's rights" board FFS) - who defend men inserting themselves into things that women literally fought for over decades.

@EnjoythemoneyJane there definitely are frequent statements that trans people are higher risk for undesirable behaviour than others out in the media. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise in my view. I also do think boys who have transitioned are vulnerable, because policing of masculinity hasn’t gone away. It certainly has quite a presence on Mumsnet.

The media is selling a belief that trans people are inherently dangerous but there is ZERO empirical peer-reviewed scientific evidence for this (and lots of evidence suggesting they are more likely to be victimised).

I'll ignore whether or not your comment about victimisation is true, and just say that it is completely irrelevant. There are groups of men who are more likely to be victimised than others - gay men, neurodiverse men, men with disabilities. Should they be admitted to women's colleges for protection? Of course not.

It seems to me that with women dominating universities as a whole, adding trans women to women's colleges, even on an exceptional basis, just undermines the whole idea.

I would not be shocked to see them become just openly mixed sex.

If women's boyfriends/partners/spouses are sharing single sex lavatories and bathrooms that is in breach of the law. And TiMs are not disadvantaged - they are men.

And again, can any of those supporting "women's spaces, but including men who are obviously actually women because reasons" please explain why they think it's a good thing to support a movement that thinks there is a fundamental and significant difference between men and women but it is mental rather than physical? Why is that not just base sexism?

But policing masculinity and protecting boys who think they are girls is not women's problem. It's up to men to accept other men who 'present' as women (they are not women) not for women to give up their hard won spaces and rights.

When I went to Cambridge (80s) there were still quotas on women, at least in certain subjects, something I only found out about decades later (after 4 years of imposter syndrome).

Here we are, 40 years later, sexism in another guise.
Same shit different century.

I haven't RTFT so apologies if this point has been made before.

I can't see why any trans identifying man would want to be accepted to either of these colleges for any reason other than validation. This isn't a single-sex space in the same way that toilets are, where the argument is that TW need to use these spaces to be 'safe away from men'. I assume no one is arguing that Cambridge University is some kind of backwater where they just wouldn't be accepted for their 'true selves', there are lots of transpeople all over the university. Indeed it seems compulsory to pick one for your University Challenge team. Honestly, if you wanted an example of women's things being used to validate men, you could hardly pick a better one.

@TeachWithMissM:

The media is selling a belief that trans people are inherently dangerous but there is ZERO empirical peer-reviewed scientific evidence for this (and lots of evidence suggesting they are more likely to be victimised).

Here are the numbers - they show that trans-identifying people are in fact the least vulnerable and victimised of all protected characteristics:

https://thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/

Men in general have never been disadvantaged from receiving education, so when allowing some of them to attend women's colleges solely because they have chosen to start calling themselves women, all that is doing is taking places away from women who would benefit from this and imposing their presence on women who expected a female-only educational environment.