Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scottish Government redefines "woman" in law.

162 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 05/06/2020 08:28

www.gov.scot/publications/gender-representation-public-boards-scotland-act-2018-statutory-guidance/pages/2/

2.12 Section 2 of the Act provides that for the purposes of the Act, "woman" includes "a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010[2]) if, and only if, the person is living as a woman and is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of becoming female".

2.13 To be included, a trans woman without a UK Gender Recognition Certificate or without gender recognition from another EU Member State[3] must therefore meet the 3 following criteria:

  1. have the characteristic of gender reassignment as defined in the Equality Act 2010.

The definition of gender reassignment in the Equality Act 2010 is – "a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex". This definition includes those reassigning their sex from male to female as well as those reassigning their sex from female to male. A person who meets this definition is not covered by the definition of "woman" in the Act unless they also meet the following two criteria. The person does not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery[4]

  1. be proposing to undergo, is undergoing or undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning their sex to female

This element of the definition means that a person with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is only covered if they are proposing to undergo, is undergoing or have undergone a process to reassign their sex to female. A person reassigning their sex from female to male would not be included in the definition of woman for the purposes of the Act.

  1. be living as a woman

This would not require the person to dress, look or behave in any particular way. However, it would be expected that there would be evidence that the person was continuously living as a woman, such as – always using female pronouns; using a female name on official documents such as a driving licence or passport, or on utility bills or bank accounts; using female titles; updating the gender marker to female on official documents such as a driving licence or passport; describing themselves and being described by others in written or other communication as a woman.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
NonnyMouse1337 · 22/07/2020 20:52

I'm not on Twitter Nonny but this is fantastic news! Will be awaiting news of next steps here. Very exciting!

Yes, I'm keeping my fingers and toes crossed. Can't wait to read what happens next!

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 22/07/2020 19:38

“You’ll be delight to know that one mixed sex group of people is now more represented than this other mixed sex group of people”

OhHolyJesus · 22/07/2020 19:22

If you've been following us on Twitter you may know that we asked for a legal opinion on the possibility of taking action regarding this Act and its re-definition of 'woman', and we hope that by the end of the week we'll be able to give a full update and outline our next steps.

I'm not on Twitter Nonny but this is fantastic news! Will be awaiting news of next steps here. Very exciting!

NonnyMouse1337 · 22/07/2020 16:16

If you have had a reply from one or more of your MSPs, you could ask some follow up questions.

For Women Scotland had the following to say about the response from Christina McKelvie MSP.

mailchi.mp/9e3734aad734/public-boards-and-the-hate-crime-bill

Many thanks to everyone who contacted MSPs to express concerns about the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act and the recent consultation on its statutory guidance. We are still waiting on our reply from the Minister Christina McKelvie, but it seems that she has replied to many of your MSPs with this standard letter.

It may be worth going back to your MSPs with a couple of further questions to ask Ms McKelvie :

  • why were concerns relating to the terms woman and gender disregarded as not being within the scope of the consultation, when question 11 of the consultation specifically asked "Do you have any comments on the terminology section of the guidance? If so, please let us know." ?
  • if the Government strongly supports the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act, why were they not considered applicable for an Act which was attempting to redress the historical under-representation faced by women?

As ever, we look forward to hearing any replies.

If you've been following us on Twitter you may know that we asked for a legal opinion on the possibility of taking action regarding this Act and its re-definition of 'woman', and we hope that by the end of the week we'll be able to give a full update and outline our next steps.

Winesalot · 22/07/2020 15:43

We should be glad, now they've changed the definition of woman, we're now more represented on boards! hmm

And I have every confidence that they will be the type of women who have lived experience to offer those roles representing women. Hmm

Ladyjohngray · 22/07/2020 15:35

I've just had a reply from MP:
Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018

Thank you for writing to me with regard to the Statutory Guidance now issued for this legislation.

Pauline McNeill, the Scottish Labour Shadow Spokesperson on Equalities, wrote to the Minister for Older People and Equalities Christina McKelvie MSP, to bring these concerns to her attention.

The Minister has now replied, and I attach the correspondence for your information.
(see images)

We should be glad, now they've changed the definition of woman, we're now more represented on boards! Hmm

Scottish Government redefines "woman" in law.
Scottish Government redefines "woman" in law.
dkl55 · 15/06/2020 14:23

Im so angry about this too - its all just been highlighted to me with what has been happening on social media and JK Rowling. Noone I know even new that the consultation was taking place. Can we start a new thread in a more visible board toget women in Scotland to write to their MSPs? I feel like with this and the schools issue many women are angry and feel they are being thrown under the bus?!

Lordfrontpaw · 15/06/2020 08:09

Well ‘womans right are human rights’ - doesn’t that sound a bit like women aren’t human? Wasn’t there a campaign for apes in captivity along that line?

Fallingirl · 15/06/2020 00:12

I just followed the link above to forwomen.scot’s twitter, and saw this.

Asda have been sending out materials to schools from an organisation Called diversity role models, that includes a quote “love has no age limit”.

twitter.com/forwomenscot/status/1272279401166757890?s=21

This is beyond insidious.

Scottish Government redefines "woman" in law.
spottedelk · 14/06/2020 23:48

.

bishopgiggles · 12/06/2020 10:12

Bumping for people looking for info on why JK Rowling is talking about all this now.
I've not really been on these threads much because I'm partly in disbelief and partly too furious.

NonnyMouse1337 · 10/06/2020 20:35

The YouTuber is GNC Ben, I believe. Very sensible, articulate young woman.

That's her name! Thanks, Xpectations. Smile

tawt For Women Scotland are good. You can sign up for their newsletter via their website or follow them on twitter. They had great guidelines for filling in the GRA consultation.
forwomen.scot/

There's also Women and Girls Scotland who were going to run an independent analysis on the consultation responses published by the Scottish Government, which of course hasn't happened yet.
wgscotland.org.uk/

Murray Blackburn Mackenzie have some great analysis.
murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/

I'm guessing you already know about the SNP Women's Pledge?
www.snpwomenspledge.com/

isofatso · 10/06/2020 20:30

Disgraceful

forwomen.scot/

tawt · 10/06/2020 19:19

I am beyond devastated about this and moving onto white hot rage.

I am a fully paying member of the SNP. I responded to the consultation on the GRA. I waited with baited breath for them to release the results of it.

I'm so fucking angry.

I need to calm down before I go back to my usual rational self and take some form of action.

JKR's piece has tipped me over the edge tonight.

I haven't heard of For Women Scotland so I will be starting there.

Any other pointers would be greatly appreciated you wonderful women.

Xpectations · 09/06/2020 23:12

@NonnyMouse1337

I think many trans men have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't speak out because of their 'male privilege' compared to the 'transmisogyny' experienced by trans women. I can't remember the name of the young American woman who used to identify as a trans man. She described in a YouTube video how these trans support groups that she went to were predominantly a mix of older men who identified as trans women, and lots of young girls / teens who identified as trans men. And these older men would dominate conversations and lecture the young girls on their 'privilege' as a man and how they should let the 'women' speak because they were clearly more oppressed than the trans men. And lots of other questionable and sexualised conversations. Very creepy.

So yes, I can't see any trans men speaking up about this. They are happy to imagine they have left womanhood behind and see themselves as men with the privileges that come with it. (Except they don't really have male privileges. Men know exactly what a woman is when it suits them and don't hesitate to exclude females from their spaces.)

The YouTuber is GNC Ben, I believe. Very sensible, articulate young woman.
dementedma · 09/06/2020 21:01

Several letters to MSPs gone out today. I will update on any responses

Needmoresleep · 09/06/2020 16:41

Yes. Last para of the article

“The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill abolishes the offence of blasphemy, at the same time introducing a more far-ranging equivalent that seeks to protect new “sacred” beliefs. If it is successful, its impact will not stop at the Scottish border.“

BatShite · 09/06/2020 14:43

Seemingly only woman thats redefined. Not men. Oddly.

NonnyMouse1337 · 09/06/2020 10:09

That's a good article, Needmoresleep.

wibdib · 08/06/2020 12:55

I haven’t read all the linked to articles but...
This has made me wonder if there is a deliberate reason for not including the equivalent opposite definition of a man - inheritance of titles.
I don’t know the specifics of Scottish law but seem to remember that in England if you change from female to male (ignoring the whole technicality of changing sex!), if you can’t inherit any title should the eldest male in a family be entitled to one and if you're turning into a male...

If the definition of a woman changes to include men that identify as women then you would think that the opposite is equally true... but they haven’t mentioned it. This makes me wonder if they have left it out on purpose so that the official definition remains - excluding women who identify as men, thereby enabling the ‘real’ men to keep their titles (and inheritances!) from any pesky females that might want to identify as men in order to claim them...

So maybe one way to raise awareness of this daft definition would be to (in all innocence HmmGrin) query with some titled folk in Scotland whether this means that women can now leapfrog younger brothers to claim titles etc by claiming to be men and how are the mechanics of this going to work - will it just be going forwards or will it also change retrospectively? Hopefully it would put the cat among the pigeons enough to get some discussion going - at least enough for someone to point out that either they need to put the equivalent sentence defining men into the legislation to make it equal (and then deal with the hereditary peer fallout) or if they refuse to do so on the basis that it’s not possible because they don’t want to deal with the hereditary fallout as they’re not real men etc - then that becomes a reason to say that it can’t be one definition for men and a different not-equivalent definition for women so they need to align them and remove the men that day they are women from the definition of a woman.
Either way shining some light on to it - especially for males that might stand to lose a lot by sisters that change their id to male - sadly might be a good way to bring it to the attention of the general public.
And if it’s raised initially as a general ommission for completeness and fairness’ sake - without pointing out the consequences so that someone can just confirm that the definition of a man is the opposite of the definition of the female - or not - then it becomes much easier to raise levels of general outrange and incredulity.

Sorry, that’s a bit convoluted but hopefully you get what I’m trying to say rather than getting too bogged down in the niceties!

dementedma · 07/06/2020 18:28

I will do this tomorrow

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 07/06/2020 16:39

Thanks for that NonnyMouse1337 excellent work by FWS as always

NonnyMouse1337 · 07/06/2020 15:04

For Women Scotland have published a template that you can use to email your MSPs. Please do so if you can.

Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018

The vast majority of responses to the Government's consultation on statutory guidelines for the GRPBA objected to the definition of "woman" (see the article in the Scotsman). Despite this, the Government quickly pressed ahead with publication of guidelines which enforce the Act, and which leave the definition unchanged.

We have sought legal opinion on pursuing a judicial review to challenge this Act, and initial advice looks promising. We'll keep you updated as we progress, but in the meantime it would be helpful if everyone could contact all 8 of their MSPs to express concern and ask them to take further action.

A template is provided below but please amend it as you wish. To contact your constituent MSP and your 7 regional MSPs just put in your postcode here. www.theyworkforyou.com/scotland/

Dear [Name of MSP],

I am writing to you regarding the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. An analysis of responses to the public consultation, published on 3rd April, found that "much of the feedback focused on concerns raised regarding terminology and definitions used in the Act. More specifically, the term "gender" and the definition of "woman" for the purposes of the Act."

www.gov.scot/publications/analysis-consultation-implementation-gender-representation-public-boards-scotland-act-2018/

The Government failed to take these concerns into account and have since published the Statutory Guidance for the Act, with the definition unchanged.

The test for "living as a woman" in the guidance is offensive and seems to exclude many women, as well as include many men into the category of women. In no way does this contribute to the stated aim of the Act, ie. to improve the representation of women on the boards of Scottish public authorities.

As we already have an established definition of "woman" in the Equality Act as being "a female of any age", I would ask you to write to Christina McKelvie, Minister for Equalities to request the Government urgently reconsiders the Statutory Guidance.

Could you also ask Ms McKelvie on what grounds the Government disregarded the majority of responses to the consultation, and what legal advice the Government received regarding its authority to undermine key definitions in reserved legislation?

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]

BetsyM00 · 07/06/2020 15:03

But am I right in thinking the guidance is not part of the Act, ie it could be withdrawn or rewritten? Or is that pathetic wishful thinking?

Yep, I think this is the key part. Statutory Guidance can be revised at any point - and since it was introduced after disregarding the majority of views objecting to the definition of "women" in the public consultation, it is perfectly reasonable for us all to write to our MSPs asking for it to be reconsidered.