Scottish Governments Gender Equality Bill Lunacy

[user1497798084]

Long term lurker and have just joined because I'm fizzing mad.

The Scottish Government have just published a Bill that will require 50/50 Male/Female but will allow people to SELF IDENTIFY GENDER. WTAF?
It's beyond parody.

"Gender representation objective
Section 1 of the Bill sets a gender representation objective for a public board:
50% of non-executive members who are female or who identify as female; and
50% of non-executive members who are male or who identify as male."

Please, someone read this and tell me that I'm wrong
www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/06/6939/3

(I will change my name in a minute)

Oh, bloody hell! I've just had a quick look at it and I'm fizzing mad too.

I'll look at it later when I've more time and no doubt crank up the MSP letter writing machine - again!

Well, I really wish I was a fly on the wall in those meetings, where they're negotiating which one of the blokes will start wearing dresses and saying they're a woman!

Plus of course, any woman disillusioned by this who can scupper all sorts of things by going 'ahem, I'm afraid I identify as male today'

They wanted this, they get it. Have fun with the consequences.

I know Choc. It's mental and of course it can go both ways. And there will be some trans % included for 'diversity'.

But it's all so ludicrous. Why bother when none of the stats will mean anything anyway?

where they're negotiating which one of the blokes will start wearing dresses and saying they're a woman!

Don't forget, a man is not expected to wear a dress or makeup or make any external changes whatsoever in order to be accepted as a woman if he declares it to be so.

Don't forget, a man is not expected to wear a dress or makeup or make any external changes whatsoever in order to be accepted as a woman if he declares it to be so.

You're right, so it's status quo, business as usual - when you sign the minutes to say you attended the AGM, one of the items on the agenda will just have to be who are the statutory women and men today. Totally progress, totally.

Ok, changed name.

A further change in wording was proposed with regard to the phrases "who are female, or identify as female" and "who are male or identify as male". Several respondents suggested simplification to "who identify as female" and "who identify as male", arguing that this would be more inclusive, and that to distinguish between people who "are" and "identify as" male or female is unnecessary and could have a detrimental effect on transgender people, particularly those without a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Did you see this part? The arrogant assumption that to 'identify' as a woman is a better term to use than being a woman.

This nonsense disqualifies actual, sane women.

I mean, what actual woman identifies as woman? If you are a woman, that'd be pretty pointless.

What do you think, would they let me join if I stated that I identify as member of the Scottish government?
(I'd even go so far to wear a kilt to prove my Scottish identity. I mean, I was actually Assigned German At Birth, but who cares, right?)

LOL Vestal. It's very depressing though

VestalVirgin

This nonsense disqualifies actual, sane women.

I mean, what actual woman identifies as woman? If you are a woman, that'd be pretty pointless.

Bit of a tangent but I have a real issue with Girlguiding UK because technically you can only be a member (whether that's as a young girl or an adult leader) if you identify as a girl or woman. So really I'm not welcome in their organisation even though they're desperate for adult leaders near me. I hate the way the world is changing so that actually being a biological woman no longer has any meaning. In fact, to state that I'm a woman solely because of my biology is now bigoted and transphobic. I don't identfy as a woman, I have female biology, but apparently it's offensive to believe that.

So they can have 100% biological men and call themselves progressive. *slow clap

To be fair, if self identified 'men' get the places, it could set the catch amongst the pigeons. I doubt it would work out that way, but hey

cat

There will be as many real women as before any kind of effort was made to improve equality - i.e. as many woman as the men in charge want to have in there.

But they get to claim they have equality. Very nice for them, and the complete annihilation of everything feminism fought for.

We'll be back at "Um, somehow, this seems unfair, but I guess it could all be coincidence?", and have to do all the work of pointing out the inequality again ... but with the added obstacle of not being able to use official statistics.

I think I'm concerned as this is the start of it. I know about the Westminster Private Member's Bill by Maria Miller but that doesn't stand too much chance of passing soon. I thought. Who knows given Canada's C16.

It's just so fucking depressing. I always quite liked Nicola Sturgeon. Don't agree with a lots of her politics but thought she was quite honourable. But now she and other women are throwing themselves under the bus here in the name of being 'progressive' when they seem not to have a fucking clue what's actually going on. Nicola Sturgeon certainly likes to present the SNP as progressive. I believe that they want to be. How the fuck does one tell a political party that their stance is regressive misogynist bullshit. I honestly despair

Im wondering is it worth contacting Mps as we did with the Maria Miller bill? Mind you mine didnt bother to reply to any of my emails and letters. I just feel doing something practical may make us feel less despairing

MP's support this. Its coming. They think we are 'bigots' who need 're-educating', and I'm quoting Maria Miller, her report and my MP.

Nicola Sturgeon is a real "watch what she does rather than what she says" politician.

I think this will get worse, before it gets better. Something big will have to happen to show everyone why it is so wrong.

I think the 2020 olympics will be interesting for this reason. Some countries are already taking advantage of self-identification and will likely try to enter men as women, which should cause a bit of a stir I think?

I think I will start writing letters. It's bloody ridiculous. Why bother introducing a proposal for 50% representation at all, when the 'identify thing make it all in to big huge farce?

I think the world has gone mad.

I think if you stick to the concept of biological sex and legal gender as two separate things, then the double think is clear. The trans* lobby seek to amalgamate the two, but women tend to be discriminated against on the grounds of all things associated with biological sex. It is less clear where the discrimination falls as regards legal gender.

My biological sex is female. I don't have a legal gender. I am paid less, able to work less because I am a woman with children. Women have historically suffered multiple levels of inequality. It is a case of stating over and over that women are discriminated against on the grounds of biological sex.

A transgender woman has a legal gender of female. Her biological sex is not female, though. On what grounds is she discriminated against? That question would need to be established. And the solution to that problem would not necessarily be the same as for women who are female biologically.

I think it is quite possible to respect trans people's legal gender without accepting the fallacy that this equals biological sex. The danger is the institutionalised acceptance of that fallacy, to the extent that it is that the categories of men and women are meaningless and obsolete.

Making a specific legal point one Public Body respondent noted that the Bill refers to "gender" as if it were a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, when the correct term is "sex", and that sex and gender are not synonymous terms.
It was therefore suggested that it is not clear how this Bill interacts with the Equality Act 2010. It was also observed that the devolution of equal opportunities set out in the Scotland Act 2016 relates solely to "Equal opportunities so far as relating to the inclusion of persons with protected characteristics in non-executive posts on boards of Scottish public authorities with mixed functions or no reserved functions". Since "protected characteristics" include "sex" but not "gender", the respondent expressed concern that the Bill as drafted may not lie within devolved competence and could be open to challenge. It was suggested that if the intention of the Scottish Government is to include gender reassignment within the definition of protected characteristics, this should be addressed on the face of the Bill and not left to interpretation.

Ok, own up - who was it?! Quite brave of whoever it was, to actually point out that gender ≠ sex. A minor point in the consultation but one which might provoke some hesitation. Could be a useful wedge for letters to politicians: a way for opposition MSPs to challenge the Bill without appearing transphobic?

Well done that person!

This is the issue isn't it - by trying to take the word 'Woman' and redefine it to mean 'gender' not 'sex' they're attempting to silently hijack a load of laws - all of which were written on the basis of sex not gender.

In other situations this would definitely be fraud - like changing your name to match someone else's and using their reputation to further your business.

I can remember last year on a trans thread pointing out that the only thing needed for someone to legally be a woman is to say it out loud. This was on the back of Maria Miller's self identification proposals.

Apart from feminists, this was met with derision and incredulity. 'It will never happen'.

But with the explosion of gender politics, even her proposals seem to have been bypassed.

Or am I reading this wrong?

Are people just accepting that you can be either sex regardless of your legal status?

So a public board has to be made up of 50% people and, well, 50% people. Very progressive and down with the zeitgeist