This article on CNN states the following:

That's according to a new law, enacted Sunday, which requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 — or face a penalty.

It also requires companies with five directors to add two women by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors to add at least three more women by the end of the same year.

Say a company with five directors were to add two trans women to their board, would this company face a penalty?

If so, must the individual have completed their transition or can a pre-transition trans-women be considered a woman on the board of directors?

If a pre-transition trans-women qualifies then it appears to me that this law could be circumvented by having men claim to be pre-transition trans-women. The natural issue with this being that men could easily be doing this in bad faith which would require the state government to determine if this is being done in bad faith or not.

In the article it is stated that similar laws exist in Europe, has this issue arisen there?


  • This is a question about interpretation and application of a law, not about the political process which created it. I will migrate it to law stack exchange. – Philipp Oct 2 '18 at 8:05
  • They will count as women as long as they have valid government-issued identity document saying they're women. – Greendrake Oct 2 '18 at 12:01
  • 1
    how many straight males got gay-married for health care? We heard a lot about the "problem" in 2012, but it doesn't seem to be common. Given the potential backlash such a board would face not only from the anti-normalization religious, but also from trans activists for "faking", and from feminists for "cheating", it seems like a losing proposition. – dandavis Oct 2 '18 at 19:20
  • 1
    Pretending to be someone or something you are not in bad faith for financial gain is already a crime. It would generally fall under fraud. While there could be some interesting questions on the details, these kinds of 'loophole' scenarios are just silly outside of a movie plot. – Tal Oct 3 '18 at 18:21

The new California law 301.3(f)(1) says that

“Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

  • A direct citation from the law in question seems pretty authoritative. The law itself does seem a tad vague, though; I mean, is self-identification merely saying "yeah, I'm a woman"? Does it even require the self-identified "female" to identify exclusively as female, or are they also allowed to identify as male too? And would a board that's composed entirely of biological females who identify as, say, gender-fluid, be in violation of the law? – Nat Oct 2 '18 at 16:15
  • The question about exclusivity is quite on point: we will see, perhaps. – user6726 Oct 2 '18 at 17:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy