Scottish Government redefines "woman" in law.

The government legislation website says:

'Appointed day

1. The day appointed for the coming into force of section 1, sections 3 to 6, sections 9 to 11 and schedule 2 of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 is 29 May 2020. '

Here is a list of the sections for reference:

'Introductory Text.
1.Gender representation objective.
2.Key definitions.
3.Duty when appointing non-executive members.
4.Consideration of candidates.
5.Encouragement of applications by women.
6.Duty to take steps towards achieving objective.
7.Guidance on operation of Act.
8.Reports on operation of Act.
9.Power to modify schedule 1.
10.Application of Act to certain public authorities.
11.Equality Act 2010.
12.Regulations.
13.Commencement.
14.Short title '

Ladies and gentlemen, I now officially declare us McWOKE. 🤬

And funnily enough the one self IDing as wee Jimmy Krankie looks like she let it slide.

Raging.

The production of guidance is mandated by the Act itself so it has statutory authority and force. Doesn't mean it couldn't be reviewed or altered, however, if it is deficient or wrong in some way.

'Section 7 requires Scottish Ministers to publish guidance on the operation of the Act and sets out in subsection (2) those sections of the Act that guidance must in particular cover. Subsections (3) and (4) provide that an appointing person and public authority must have regard to the guidance in carrying out functions under the Act.'

So reading that a woman is anyone who says they are a woman.

@Veterinari my grammar was badly affected by rage!

Sorry my grammar is dreadful today also - perhaps I should have more coffee before I edit anyone else's

@FinallySleeping

Of course though perhaps edit
Why does the definition of women not include women born as adult human females?

To

Why does the definition of women not include women as adult human females?

The period of consultation on the Bill which became this Act is long past. There is no mechanism for anyone to respond to the guidance notes.

There was quite a bit of discussion about this bill on here a couple of years ago.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3201080-URGENTLY-calling-all-Scottish-gender-critical-Mumsnetters?pg=7

LassWiADelicateAir wrote on that thread:

The Act has been passed but only sections 13 and 14 are in force. It is sitting on the statute book but none of it is being put into effect in real life.

It will need secondary legislation (stautory instruments) to create regulations for how it will work. The SNP loves secondary legislation as it is not scrutinised in parliament the way primary legislation is. Secondary legislation is suposed to deal with the nuts and bolts of making law work but the SNP pushes through primary legislation which is so wooly that the SIs end up containing substantive law.

It will go live in the usual piece- meal fashion of Holyrood legislation.

So what has happened between then and now? Did it just get pushed through with no further discussion?

@WaltzingBetty Fab work!

Excellent letters - send to your regional MSPs too (theyworkforyou.com will list them for you)

I will be sending a copy of that letter to my MP and also to the FM, not that she will read it but if enough arrive in her post bag, one of her secretaries might flag it up

Fucking SNP. I feel I may explode with anger.

@WaltzingBetty may I copy your letter? It's great.

As bizarre as it sounds I've enjoyed Scotland during the Covid distraction from my usual stressors of independence, Brexit and anti-women trans agendas. Back to despairing for the future of my country.

The period of consultation on the Bill which became this Act is long past. There is no mechanism for anyone to respond to the guidance notes.

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?

The weaselly, virtue signalling fuckers. How dare they?

Also would it be worth crossposting this to Scotsnet? There are women who don't necessarily read this board who may be interested in this development

@jen1wren

Thank you very much

I've edited your letter a bit as below and sent to my MP this morning.

Dear MSP
The Scottish Government released its guidance notes on the Gender Representation On Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 on 2nd June 2020. Whilst I applaud the Government’s aim of ensuring equal representation of men and women on public boards to temper the historic underrepresentation of women in this area of employment, I note that with the current guidance there is no way that this can be achieved.

The definition of women in the guidance notes does not include those born female - thus a definition aimed at gender representation actually excludes those it seeks to protect and sadly promotes the erasure of women in society.

The definitions of women in the guidance only includes male born people who can be considered women. Similarly no definition of men is given and there is additionally no consideration of people born female who have transitioned to a male self-identity. The guidance focuses firmly on protecting male-born people only, and on establishing their rights over those born female, regardless of current gender status.

A public consultation was held after the original bill was passed and it appears that despite an overwhelmingly negative response to the definition included in the Act the Government has decided to ignore the results of the consultation. This is not how the democratic process should work.
I would be grateful if you could query the following points with the Scottish Government

Why does the definition of women not include women born as adult human females?

Why are men not also defined in the guidance - shouldn’t guidance aiming to support equality give appropriate consideration to both sexes to ensure clarity of understanding?

How does one ‘live as a woman’? Female pronouns are only ever used by others in the third person rather than the person under consideration. Which names are considered by the government to be suitably feminine? What of names that are both feminine and masculine such as Jo, Lyndsay, Leigh etc.? Are people using non-gendered titles such as reverend, doctor or professor unable to be considered as women despite their biology?

This guidance aims to redefine women by excluding those of us who are biological females from the definition whilst opening the door to anyone who ‘self-describes’ as a woman to occupy a woman’s place in a board, without applying similar measures to men. Such a move could result in boards entirely staffed by biological men as their characteristics are protected and further extended to encompass those of women, whilst women’s ‘characteristics’ have been entirely erased or reassigned.

This guidance also contradicts the Equality Act 2010 which lists sex as a protected characteristic, whilst this guidance does not consider female sex at all. How will the Scottish Government resolve the contradictions between these two acts?

I find it deeply concerning that this guidance has been released during the Coronavirus pandemic. That is a tactic more suited to the Westminster Government. It is acknowledged that around 70% of hospital and care staff are women. This guidance is detrimental to women’s rights and to release it when many women are unable to respond due to the pressure exerted by this pandemic is an unethical and disrespectful - especially considering the already established disregard for the democratic consultation responses. Why was money spent on a consultation and then the responses almost totally ignored? Is this not a misuse of public funds and a contradiction of the democratic process?

I would be grateful for an early response to my points.
Yours sincerely

Why does the definition of women not include women born as adult human females?

Because it's so obvious what a woman is that it doesn't actually occur to them to mention her.

Biology is real, and taken for granted.

Alternative interpretation is that MRAs have managed to take a bill designed to support women and forced a guidance on it to make the bill support men instead. Hence W=AHF is irrelevant.

This guidance is detrimental to women’s rights and to release it when many women are unable to respond due to the pressure exerted by this pandemic is unfair

You are missing the point of the guidance. The guidance notes on legislation which has already been passed is intended to be assist in the interpretation and application. At Bill stage notes are included to provide information about the thought processes behind the drafting and those notes are retained and can be referred to once an Act is passed.

The period of consultation on the Bill which became this Act is long past. There is no mechanism for anyone to respond to the guidance notes.

This bit needs rewriting: "Why does the definition of women not include women born as adult human females?"

For Scots, I've written a letter (see below) to be sent to my constituency and list MSPs. if anyone wants to copy and tweak, feel free. Also, any suggestions on wording etc gratefully received. I was a big bit annoyed when I wrote it.

Dear MSP

Gender Representation On Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018

The Scottish Government released its guidance notes on the Gender Representation On Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 on 2nd June 2020. Whilst I applaud the Government’s aim of ensuring equal representation of men and women on public boards to temper the historic underrepresentation of women in this area of employment, I note that with the current guidance there is no way that this can be achieved.

The definition of women in the guidance notes does not include those born female.
The definitions of women only includes male born people who can be considered women.
To be considered a woman, men must use female pronouns or a feminine name in correspondence or documentation but an employer is not allowed to ask for proof of the above.
A public consultation was held after the original bill was passed and it appears that despite an overwhelmingly negative response to the definition included in the Act the Government has decided to ignore the results of the consultation.
Within the guidance notes there is no definition of men.
I find the above points very concerning and at odds with what the original Act was trying to achieve.
I would be grateful if you could query the following points with the Scottish Government

Why does the definition of women not include women born as adult human females?
How can an individual use female or male pronouns when they are used by others in the third person?
Which names are considered by the government to be feminine? What of names that are both feminine and masculine such as Joe, Lyndsey, Lee etc.?
Are people using non gendered titles such as reverend, doctor or professor unable to be considered as women?
Why was money spent on a consultation and then the responses almost totally ignored? Is this not a misuse of public funds?
This guidance is at odds with the Equality Act 2010 which lists sex as a protected characteristic. How shall the Scottish Government resolve the contradictions between these two acts?
I find it deeply concerning that this guidance has been released during the Coronavirus pandemic. That is a tactic more suited to the Westminster Government. It is acknowledged that around 70% of hospital and care staff are women. This guidance is detrimental to women’s rights and to release it when many women are unable to respond due to the pressure exerted by this pandemic is unfair.
I would be grateful for an early response to my points.

Yours sincerely

Incl: Excerpts from the guidance

"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"

This last sentence completely renders the whole paragraph meaningless.
How can you have a "characteristic" that has NO formal criteria?

"2. 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."

F to M, who have been treated as female and treated accordingly all their lives before transitioning, and facing all the discrimination and career and education barriers that come along with being female aren't included in an Act that intends to rectify this discrimination? Yet a M to F colleague, who has faced none of the gender specific discrimination and the negative career impact before transitioning WILL benefit from the protection?

"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 what's the point in having an Act to protect women if you don't need to even prove that you meet the criteria of being a woman?

It's just so non-sensical!

Another good blog post from Excel Pope:

excelpope.wordpress.com/2020/06/06/draft-includer/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The Act's wording includes the Equality Act's definition of gender reassignment but its definition of woman goes beyond that:

• "woman” includes a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (within the meaning of section 7 of the Equality Act 2010) 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. -

The Equality Act: "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".

The Act adds a couple of other criteria. Even more confusing.

There is a considerable difference between a law giving protected status and legal rights based on (legally) reassigning sex by changing attributes of sex and one that leaps from that to the language 'becoming female', as if one actually could as opposed to acquiring legal rights and status as such.

This Act applies only in Scotland whereas the Equality Act applies in England, Scotland and Wales.