Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scotland - Email MSPs about Gender Representation on Public Boards

59 replies

NonnyMouse1337 · 07/06/2020 22:58

Ongoing discussions on this topic are in this thread. -> www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3929533-Scottish-Government-redefines-woman-in-law

I decided to split this off into a separate thread so it is more visible and won't get lost within the pages of the one above.

For Women Scotland have published a template that you can use to email your MSPs. Please do so if you can.
The entire newsletter can be read at mailchi.mp/1c0d4ab1e1dd/onwards-from-the-grr-bill.

The relevant bit for the template is copied below.

--------

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]

OP posts:
terryleather · 13/07/2020 10:47

They do think we're that stupid Nonny but they don't care because they know best - piss down our backs and tell us it's raining.

And as for referring to us as "non-trans women", fuck that noise.

I wish I could say I'm surprised by that reply but I'm not.

NonnyMouse1337 · 13/07/2020 10:53

"piss down our backs and tell us it's raining"

Ugh, that's exactly how it is terryleather.

OP posts:
BetsyM00 · 13/07/2020 11:35

This is from the Stage 1 report:
"As of September 2017, the percentage of women in regulated posts is 45.8 per cent of the total. If you break that down to the level of chairs, where there are far fewer women, women represent 25 per cent of the total. However, excluding chairs, the percentage of board members who are women is 48.9 per cent."

So quoting a figure from 2015 is pointless. And AFAIK no public bodies have yet reported back since the 2018 Act was implemented - so any claim of success is premature. And if the figures include males it is completely meaningless in any case!!

terryleather · 13/07/2020 11:39

Gawd it's even worse than we thought Betsy...

334bu · 13/07/2020 12:26

Still waiting...Sad

BetsyM00 · 13/07/2020 12:52

"the reason the views expressed in the responses relating to the term gender and definition of woman used in the 2018 Act were not reflected in the final regulations and guidance, is that they were not within the scope of the consultation"

Well, this is a flat out lie. These were some of the questions asked in the consultation. Including the very specific question Do you have any comments on the terminology section of the guidance?

Scotland - Email MSPs about Gender Representation on Public Boards
NonnyMouse1337 · 13/07/2020 13:33

Ooohhh well spotted, BetsyM00.

OP posts:
NonnyMouse1337 · 19/07/2020 20:13

An update from For Women Scotland.

mailchi.mp/9e3734aad734/public-boards-and-the-hate-crime-bill

Many thanks to everyone who contacted MSPs to express concerns about the Gender Representation on Public Boards Act and the recent consultation on its statutory guidance. We are still waiting on our reply from the Minister Christina McKelvie, but it seems that she has replied to many of your MSPs with this standard letter.

It may be worth going back to your MSPs with a couple of further questions to ask Ms McKelvie :

  • why were concerns relating to the terms woman and gender disregarded as not being within the scope of the consultation, when question 11 of the consultation specifically asked "Do you have any comments on the terminology section of the guidance? If so, please let us know." ?
  • if the Government strongly supports the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act, why were they not considered applicable for an Act which was attempting to redress the historical under-representation faced by women?

As ever, we look forward to hearing any replies.

If you've been following us on Twitter you may know that we asked for a legal opinion on the possibility of taking action regarding this Act and its re-definition of 'woman', and we hope that by the end of the week we'll be able to give a full update and outline our next steps.

OP posts:
scotsheather · 19/07/2020 21:21

334bu we must be the same area, never tried PO for reasons he gave you. My own msp was suspended for messaging a 16yo, 1 is a wokey cokey TWAW, that leaves a few labour and tory members who can't give a straight answer on any of these issues or don't answer fullstop.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread