Scottish Government redefines "woman" in law.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

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.

Could someone please clarify, is this a proposed change to the law in Scotland, or has it already happened?

It has happened. The quotes are from the statutory guidance that has been published. (The notes technically only apply to this particular bill)

It’s an easy fix for getting female quotas - like the Private Eye cartoon ‘if Bill juts identifies as a woman we hit our target’. Oh how we laughed...

The notes technically only apply to this particular bill

What bill is that?

Does this mean that the definition of woman is different for different laws?

Yes, there are comments, Lord, but I had to log in to read them. Mostly 'women are adult human females' or variations thereof.

Does this mean that the definition of woman is different for different laws?

I'd really like to know this.

Happy to throw my not inconsiderable weight behind any challenge to this.

@JellySlice

The notes technically only apply to this particular bill

What bill is that?

Does this mean that the definition of woman is different for different laws?

The Gender Representation on Public Boards bill. www.gov.scot/publications/gender-representation-public-boards-scotland-act-2018-statutory-guidance/pages/2/

I'd guess that the statutory guidance, whilst only applying to this bill will now be used as leverage elsewhere.

As with all things driven by the trans ideology, the language makes and always challenging subject (law) even harder to follow.

So, if I understand correctly, the Scottish government have issued an explanation of the anti-discrimination laws, stating that it is acceptable to discriminate against women who do not conform to feminine stereotypes. But only when appointing people to public boards.

At the same time, they have diluted the meaning of the word woman to mean both male and female. But only when appointing people to public boards.

So the legal definition of woman currently varies according to the situation. But a precedent has been set to extend this poppycock across all laws in Scotland, and write women out of existence.

Have I understood this correctly?

This is quite an interesting read:

excelpope.wordpress.com/2020/06/06/draft-includer

It certainly is!

Everything else is just padding to disguise the starkness of the vision where pronouns, the sex indicator on your passport, the name the bank uses when they write to you, things which are supposed to reflect reality, have instead become the arbiters of it.

So, legally speaking, women are the subset of human beings who choose to call themselves women? That's it? An entirely meaningless category? Bye bye sex discrimination protection, bye bye women's participation in sport, bye bye accurate medical statistics, bye bye protection for vulnerable females. Woman is a club anyone can join, just sign here.
How utterly mind-bogglingly idiotic.

@JellySlice

As with all things driven by the trans ideology, the language makes and always challenging subject (law) even harder to follow.

So, if I understand correctly, the Scottish government have issued an explanation of the anti-discrimination laws, stating that it is acceptable to discriminate against women who do not conform to feminine stereotypes. But only when appointing people to public boards.

At the same time, they have diluted the meaning of the word woman to mean both male and female. But only when appointing people to public boards.

So the legal definition of woman currently varies according to the situation. But a precedent has been set to extend this poppycock across all laws in Scotland, and write women out of existence.

Have I understood this correctly?

It is all set out in the opening post but it is indeed confusing. This guidance relates only to the Act governing appointments to public boards in Scotland, not to all discrimination laws, and the definition is for the purpose of this Act only.

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.

Another good blog post from Excel Pope:

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

"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!

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

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

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.

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.

@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

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

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?

@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.

Fucking SNP. I feel I may explode with anger.