Adding other categories is actually worse than that, because it creates the need to specifically appoint an asian catholic female age 35-49. An asian catholic female in the 50-74 age group is no good because then the younger age group is underrepresented, a hispanic catholic female in the 35-49 age group is no good because then asians are underrepresented, etc. So the last board member not only can't be chosen on merit, they basically have to be ordered from a catalog of people whose function is to fit into whatever weird shaped box is formed by the composition of the existing board members. And if anyone leaves they either have to be replaced by someone of the same gender, race, religion and age or you have to discharge other existing board members and reconstitute the board.
What? You point out the problems with how dumb this law is and then turn around and accuse anyone of objecting to it being a sexist?
Logically speaking it's the other way around. People who are for this law are sexists (they want discrimination on the basis of sex) and the people against it are the non-sexists (appoint purely on merit). Obviously it will be inverted in many discussions: Orwell didn't invent the term doublespeak for no reason.
A woman is defined in CA law, and the answer I gave is derived from that definition.
Personally, I favor far more liberal gender role freedom, and I prefer it precisely for the reasons given here.
More liberal gender norms would allow for greater personal expression, and covers these cases better.
People simply saying they identify as female is difficult to discern from those willing to game a law to get what could be an attractive board position, or present as a compliant group without actually complying.
Not all trans people fully transition. I never implied they must, or do.
However, the State of CA does require a few things to get that "F" on a drivers license, and those things involve a status change and some material effort to present as female.
Finally, some do feel they are better off staying as they were born. No worries, but doing that does also mean they are not going to be seen as women in the current law either.
All OK. I truly do not care what people do. People need and work best when they are able to be themselves. I much prefer meeting and interacting with the real person anyway.
I am getting downvoted. That is OK. CA requires a few things for Trans people to qualify as a gender other than the one indicated at birth. A complete transition is not required.
Frankly, gender fluidity and greater gender role freedom are two things I fully expect to play out in court. Both need to be addressed, and then more normalized.
Interesting times ahead.
There is also a real concern with regulation like this is that the current climate of discussion is such that the negative effects are difficult to discuss in civil society. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who object to this are sexists.
EDITED because I'd interpreted the article wrong