If, as a "normal" member of the public, I was asked if I wanted to be in a CA on gender, I'd probably decline, as I wouldn't think it was relevant to me, or that I wouldn't understand the concepts discussed. So I'd imagine that CA would comprise mainly people who already knew something about the area and had relatively set opinions and views.
I think this is a good point - when the NACWG published their recommendations which included the 'intersectional gender architecture' & 'gender beacons' what you describe is exactly what this incoherent nonsense does - puts people off getting involved, either because the terminology says very little about what it actually means or what it's intent is, it it's deliberately elitist or overly academic meaning it doesn't translate into everyday life. There is a very real issue with wilful obfuscation of key terms, issues & language being used. If GRA reform I'd explained in basic terms that makes clear exactly what it means, it sounds so insane that people genuinely think you're talking total nonsense. That in itself is a huge problem & the constant shifting of terminology being used makes it even more difficult to keep up.
I am a normal member of the public and I have very little grasp of it, and, as a result, very little interest in it. I wouldn't consider myself a stakeholder, as I don't consider myself to have a "gender"- or rather, if I do, and it's just my sex, it's just a part of me that I can't change and have no need or desire to change, but it's not something that defines who I am. Parts of being a woman do of course (motherhood, pay, family life, bodily functions and hormones, health services and so on) but I don't see my "gender" (or sex) in itself as that important to me.
And again, same thing. Scotgov have done everything possible to avoid this becoming a widely known issue. It should be couched in terms that people can fully understand how it's relevant to them (not just those who claim a trans ID) and the ways in which that is of a material interest. But, the policing of language (especially now with the HCB) has created further difficulty in making that possible. Particularly when people are taking offence at any reference to male/males when you try and discuss the conflicting arguments.
You may genuinely not see the point or be interested in this issue, which is fair enough. But I think the lack of clarity on this is deliberate & makes it that bit more difficult for a lot of people to understand what it's about and what it means for the population as a whole. It's a very shady way to address legislation IMO.