SCOTTISH GRA REFORM ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT FORWARD

having looked at the Gender Representation consultation, I'm thinking I'll only answer question 11. I'm broadly in favour of the legislation, if it defines 'woman' correctly', but not knowledgable enough to add any value I think

do any of you more knowledgeable types think that approach would be OK?

Please fill in the consultation and tell them what misogynistic crap they are writing.

Jamie is unisex
Munro is actually a boys name in Scotland

This here 'female name,' what would that be in Scotland?

Sandy? Pat?

Rory and Blair are both girls names across the Atlantic.

2.15 The Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.

So they don’t need to do nothing to prove they are a woman

Nothing nada nothing
So the 50% women represented which is the aim could all be men 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

So I'm female because of the name on my gas bill?

And that's it?

The whole cunty bleedy birthy breastfeedy monopausy bit is neither here nor there when defining the half of the human race that is female/woman /girl, and that 99.99999999999% of the world population know exactly what it means?

So I experience sexism when young because of the name on my gas bill that I didn't even have yet as I was too young to have a gas bill?

OK then misogynists, interesting.

Given you can’t ask them , they don’t need to do anything.

Those definitions are utterly demeaning and ridiculous.

So male, makes no material changes to self (not that that makes a difference anyway), changes pronouns on utility bills and 6 months later Bob’s your auntie?

Do they even need to change their actual name?

So a person is a woman if living as a woman (gas bill) AND ALSO proposing to undergo or undergoing part of a process for the purpose of becoming female.”

Since that latter clause is materially impossible, how does any human being born male meet this definition of woman? I would argue that the law as written specifically excludes males from the definition of woman.

Just as law that requires anyone who wants to be legally a bird must be undergoing the process of growing wings would currently exclude all human beings from the definition of bird, and for the same reason.

Just what is the process they imagine a man undergoing to become female? That needs unpacking.

That definition of woman - who wrote that?

It's in a consultation paper: Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018: consultation on implementation. The link was posted by BetsyM00 earlier in the thread.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could write something as absurd as that in a government document.

You also have to consider what the implications of this are in the context - which is basically sex discrimination in appointment to public boards. The implication therefore is that people are under represented on public boards because they have a ‘feminine’ name on their utility bill...

That definition of woman - who wrote that? What does "female language" actually mean?

I assume what they mean to say is something along the lines of "addressed in the manner normally associated with people of the female sex" .

Greater and greater knots being tied.

So, to summarise....

1. to write the law, you have to have a definition

2. they know the definition previously used was rife with sexist stereotypes and people had noticed, so had to bin it

3. they replaced it with a definition based on gas bills

4. since it's blindingly obvious that a gas bill definition is as bad as a liptstick definition, they insert a clause saying men don't need to bother with the definition

Do I have that right?

Pencils, no the one I was thinking of was hand written and I think specific to prisons in Scotland.

Great to hear there are other documents with this approach as well :/

DuMonde don’t be silly, he doesn’t need to go as far as have any feelings on the matter beyond wishing to claim the category of ‘woman’

2.15 The Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.

JFC

They can call us walking lipstick or walking gas bills, whichever they prefer. But they can do what they like.

Oh, so we’re back to the ‘feeling in a man’s head’ then? The gas bill is just a way of illustrating the feeling but no one is actually going to look at it anyway?

Niiice.

But don’t worry about whether men meet the definition of women after all:

2.15 The Act does not require an appointing person to ask a candidate to prove that they meet the definition of woman in the Act.

I don’t want to be a gas bill 🤦‍♀️

Yes. In trying to circumvent us accusing them of turning us into walking lipstick/high heels, they've turned us into walking gas bills

Holy fuck! They have!

We used to say ‘a woman is not a feeling inside a man’s head’ now we’ll have to argue that ‘a woman is not an administrative process’.

but isn't assessing the impact of a proposed change on equality looking at outcomes?

Can't they just do it like they did the one for putting transwomen into women's prisons, that some one saw a copy of and posted on here?

Section for impact on protected characteristic of sex, just write 'n/a', jobs agoodun.

MenuPlant, I think you might be thinking of the impact assessment they did for the first Scottish GRA consultation.

See Annex N at the end of the consultation document here:

consult.gov.scot/family-law/review-of-the-gender-recognition-act-2004/

It was shocking! They know they fucked it up though, that was clear from the statement.

Worryingly, the EHRC now appear to be downplaying the importance of Equality Impact Assessments more broadly. This was a response from Rebecca Hilsenrath giving evidence to the Equality Act Inquiry:

One recommendation that we have asked to be taken forward is on whether the public sector equality duty could be more effective going forward. Our proposal is that, instead of the broadly process-orientated way it works at the moment, in terms of carrying out equality impact assessments, we want to look at it much more in terms of outcomes.

data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/enforcing-the-equality-act-the-law-and-the-role-of-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/oral/102794.html

Something current that we can do is challenge this legal definition of women which was posted upthread

Yes. In trying to circumvent us accusing them of turning us into walking lipstick/high heels, they've turned us into walking gas bills.

It's fucking insulting.

The case of Green established that the comparator class for men in such circumstances (ie only en route to a GRC) is a similarly situated male.

Legally, I don't see how including men without a GRC is correct? You can only carve out a group for special treatment based on a protected characteristic, in this case sex... and only men who have fully transitioned and hold a GRC are ever eligible to be treated as their new "legal gender" (and even then, can be excluded under as exemptions ...).