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.

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

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

@WaltzingBetty Fab work!

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?

@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?

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

@Veterinari my grammar was badly affected by rage!

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

There was a consultation. The executive summary states "It should be noted 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/pages/1/

This appears to have been entirely ignored.

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

@teawamutu

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?

Section 7 – Guidance on operation of Act.

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.'

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 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 '

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.

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]

Thanks for that NonnyMouse1337 excellent work by FWS as always

I will do this tomorrow

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 ) 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!

www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/06/emma-webb-scotlands-new-hate-crime-bill-imposes-a-new-system-of-blasphemy-it-urgently-needs-rejecting.html

That's a good article, Needmoresleep.

Seemingly only woman thats redefined. Not men. Oddly.

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.“

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

@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.

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.

Disgraceful

forwomen.scot/