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.

Sorry that was a bit of a rant and a derail!

@NotNatacha It can be “important to the students” all they like but supervisions are not offered on a purely single sex basis for every subject. I had some supervisions with mixed sex groups. Like I said, this may be subject specific.

I understand this doesn’t suit the narrative, it just happens to be true.

We’re writing about different things. I’m writing about supervisions in college, which most students will have in their first year (unless few other students in college do their subject) and possibly all the way through their course if they do a popular subject.

If students have supervisions with people not their college even though there’s someone else in college doing the same paper then, absent friction, disagreement or possibly a vast difference in ability, then that’s something which has changed since I was student.

Well, my supervisions weren’t all in a 2:1 ratio either. So different times, different subjects, different experiences maybe. I’m not saying you aren’t being truthful. I am also being truthful.

Just to be clear, I had some supervisors based in other colleges. Some of them ran mixed supervisions.

Not at all, @CoolBlueBear !

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.

Highlighting the biological differences justifies measures like reproductive freedom, child care, flexible working hours/parental leave etc that enable access to gender parity. Highlighting the commonalities as in cognitive skills & psychological traits justified anti discrimination laws that enabled access to the same work places. How else would you justify women not being the 'weaker sex'? The same way people of colour were justified not being discriminated against. We are all humans & as such cognitively & psychologically interchangeable.

And once the door to interchangeability opens, so does gender identification. Whilst males & females share psychological traits there are typical behaviours more common to one sex than the other due to genetic, hormonal distribution & environmental settings that create behavioural categories distinguishing males from females. Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits. I'm not saying behaviour defines sex. I'm saying there are behaviours & inclinations more common to each sex that create categorical gendered differences at population scale.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'

Of course the schism here is the GC presumption that alluding to typical behaviours is in conflict with psychological interchangeability. But it doesn't because interchangeability & typical behaviours are not mutually exclusive. One does not cancel out the other because individuals aren't necessarily reflective of the norm.

This is logically incoherent. You are arguing that butch women who have more in common with men should use men’s toilets.

We don’t and have never apportioned any services or single sex facilities by personality type. Nor does the Equality Act permit one to do so.

I do not think you could possibly believe in what you’re writing.

I never said anything about policy. It's simply an explanation about how gender identity & feminism align.

It does not follow that just because people share a social category they are therefore entitled to same rights. See: adults & minors.

There is no coherence to any meaningful categorisation of behavioural categories that you seek. You have been attempting to present this argument for nearly a year now.

Because a behavioural category argument will also then include not just some female people, but also some people who are transgender of both sexes and some male people.

What stream of feminist principles involves separating female people into behavioural trait categories?

Yep.

There are quite a few posters on FWR who could write any number of academic papers as you say, Flirts. Wonderfully explorative prose building support for different theoretical premises.

But most of us understand that all that support will be built on beliefs rather than material reality. Established science that categorises humans into male and female using body formation will continue to abide while those theoretical arguments will crumble away. That cycle will, of course, continue.

We have yet to have any poster, even those who declare that they hold doctorate qualifications on gender, provide one skerrick of proven evidence to support their statements that a male person can be categorised as a female person. Their claims around who is even ‘transgender’ or not, amounts to individual people arbitrating who is and isn’t transgender based on their own personal criteria that isn’t even definable.

Yes, the premise of feminism is differences exist but so do commonalities that justify measures to enable gender equality. And it's the commonalities where the disconnect happens for GC feminists in my view.
The commonality of women is they are all Adult Human Female, the differences that GC Feminists recognise is that there is no stereotypical female, that any female can be whatever they what, because there isn't only on type of women.

Sex after all is in essence the traits that distinguish males from females which isn't just limited to reproductive traits.
Biology is not a state of mind, it's a physical reality, the female sex generally has less muscle power than the male because the female physical resources are diverted to carrying and bearing offspring. Which is why even the fittest of women will never be able to run as fast as a semi fit male, or deliver a punch as strong as even the average male. It's the biological differences between the sexes that is the bases for the discrimination of women.

And once the door to interchangeability opens
There is no 'interchangeability' possible because humans are material beings, and a product of their biology, they're not cut and paste identikits.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'
That only works if there is a stereotypical women, which there isn't because although all women are Adult Human Females, females can be whoever they choose to be, they don't have to conform to one and only one stereotype. Which is the essence of GC Feminism. A women who thinks she has 'manly' traits, isn't a man, the traits she has are not 'manly' they are her traits, and because she's a women she has made them 'womanly' traits, it's only the perception based on a outmoded stereotype that considers the traits to be 'manly'.

'Trans' is predicated on there being a stereotypical women, GC Feminists reject the idea that there is only one way to be a women. A woman is an Adult Human Female, and whatever way a women is, is what she is and she is a women for it.

It is an absurd notion, isn’t it, to attempt to convince us that it is ‘feminist’ to separate female people into behavioural traits as a feminist principle?

That poster has attempted to make such statements before and it just isn’t coherent. As you say, it is feminist to protect the concept that a female person can behave and think any way they want to. That then makes it incoherent and regressive to describe any ‘behavioural trait’ as being specifically ‘female’.

However, this is necessary to wedge a group of male people into some academic exercise that allows them to access the terminology that refers to female people. And that language leads to access to female single sex provisions as we have seen .

🙌

This!

That is an excellent way to explain the difference, thank you!

So to summarise your argument:

1.There are significant differences between men's and women's bodies which need to be taken into account so that women can have the same opportunities as men.

2.There is no significant difference between men's and women's brains, so women should have equal access with men to workplace opportunities.

3.Even though there is no significant difference between men's and women's brains, there is such a thing as ladybrain which means that some men think more like most women than most other men. This means that they are actually women.

A trans person is in essence simply saying 'I have more in common & as such identify with the opposite gender category I was born as.'

This person is mistaking stereotypes for reality. If a man thinks he has more in common with women than with other men, then he has to base this on all women, including female bricklayers and weightlifters, not just the fully made up most feminine women.

How can a man, living in a male body, possibly think he has more in common with actual women than with other men? Other than stereotypes and fantasies about lingerie.

I think this is where I fundamentally disagree. To me, there is no meaningful commonality between transwomen and women as a sex class. Sharing the same clothes, interests, hobbies, aesthetics, or even certain personality traits strikes me as a superficial commonality rather than a substantive one.

What has shaped my view is my own experience. I've met many transwomen over the years and I was genuinely open to finding the connection that people describe. I thought perhaps there would be an immediate sense of recognition, a feeling that this person was, at some deep level, another woman. Not because of appearance, femininity, masculinity, or shared interests, but because of that subtle, unspoken sense of mutual understanding that often exists between women regardless of how different they are from one another.

I've never experienced that. What I've found instead is that my interactions with transwomen have felt much more similar to my interactions with men than with women. Obviously that's subjective, and others may feel differently, but it has been consistent enough that it has shaped my conclusions.

So when people argue that transwomen are women because they identify more closely with female typical behaviours or preferences, that doesn't resonate with me.

My understanding of womanhood has never been rooted in clothes, hobbies, personalities, or stereotypes. It's rooted in the shared reality of being female, and I don't think identification or affinity with a gender category can replicate that.

So when people argue that transwomen are women because they identify more closely with female typical behaviours or preferences, that doesn't resonate with me.

indeed especially as when you dig down into it, TW will say things like being submissive or emotional or sensitive - god yes us submissive emotional sensitive women eh? It's not like those are stereotypes we've been trying to escape forever

it's also of course nonsense because TRA determination to force men into women's spaces displays none of those traits whatsoever

Sharing the same clothes, interests, hobbies, aesthetics, or even certain personality traits strikes me as a superficial commonality rather than a substantive one.

But the organic inclinations towards these particular behaviours aren't superficial commonalities is the point. The behaviours are simply an expression of deeper biologically influenced underlying similarities.

I've never experienced that.

Just the opposite for me with both trans women & very effeminate men. Interestingly I don't get any sense of a 'female' connection with butch women just an impression very reminiscent of the 'macho' 'disaggreeable' men I've experienced relationships with. But that's based on anecdotal evidence & my intuition of course.

My understanding of womanhood has never been rooted in clothes, hobbies, personalities, or stereotypes. It's rooted in the shared reality of being female, and I don't think identification or affinity with a gender category can replicate that.

I dunno, I've hung out in many a female dominated & male dominated social settings & the two couldn't be further apart in behaviours. It's absurd to me that people claim there's no difference but I guess maybe it's the company I keep?

CoolBlueBear Sharing the same clothes, interests, hobbies, aesthetics, or even certain personality traits strikes me as a superficial commonality rather than a substantive one.

Baileyonice But the organic inclinations towards these particular behaviours aren't superficial commonalities is the point. The behaviours are simply an expression of deeper biologically influenced underlying similarities.

Are you saying that there is an organic inclination towards clothes, hobbies, interests etc that are typically associated with women?

Do you think that the stereotypes of 'femaleness' are expressions of a 'deeper biological influence'?

I think they are socially constructed, and in support of that I would point to the fact that the behaviours, interests, hobbies, aesthetics, personality traits which are branded 'feminine' have varied over time, and across classes and cultures.

If they were simply an expression of deeper biologically influence[s], wouldn't 'being a woman' be more same-y?

@MarieDeGournay - Are you saying that there is an organic inclination towards clothes, hobbies, interests etc that are typically associated with women?

Are they talking about the Blue Jean Gene do you think. 😂

I wish I felt that Baileyonice had the slightest interest in the actual subject matter of the (any) thread rather than in Baileyonice and what Baileyonice apparently thinks everyone ought to be fascinated by and discuss rather than what the thread was actually about, because it is what Baileyonice has chosen to tell us this time. And the time before. And the time before that. And....

I have met pub bores. On the whole, they bore me. But the assumption that everyone they meet is as fascinated as they are with the doings of their families, or obscure branch railway lines of the 1930s, or the difference between the fuel consumption figures for various different makes and models of cars, fades into insignificance when compared with this. And they don't follow me into my study and try to monopolise my computer.

Morrissey once sung that the World is full of crashing bores.

Whether you like him/his music or not, he was right about the crashing bore bit.

And I’m another Newnham alumna who is very unhappy about the way the college has handled this issue. They’ve basically sold out to gender ideology, and admitting trans-identifying men to a women’s college is surely illegal.

When it comes to crashing bores, Morrissey has very sadly moved into the 'athníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile', 'it takes one to know one' category🙁

Let's just be grateful he isn't doing it at interminable length and at a tangent to other people's more interesting conversations. Or at least that he's not doing it here.