California has a new law: No more all-male boards


California has a new law: No more all-male boards

Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards.

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.

It’s the first such law on the books in the United States, though similar measures are common in European countries.

The measure was passed by California’s state legislature last month. And it was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday, along with a trove of other bills that look to “protect and support women, children and working families,” the governor’s office said in a release.


What happens if the board stays all-male, but submits an affadavit declaring that they all self-identify as female, so can they please be considered a 100% female board? :stuck_out_tongue:


Now that I’m done laughing I can type.

I have to say you raise a valid, good question. California was the first state to offer gender neutral birth certificates (so the child can decide on their gender later).

Unrelated note, “Midori” is also Japanese for green. Is that related to your chosen user name, or just a coincident?


That is how you defeat the cultural Marxists. Force them to double down on their insanity.


For purposes of this law, what do they mean by “headquartered”?

For example, Google is incorporated in Delaware (as are a LOT of companies). Would they be exempt?


I found the answer to both my own question and @midori’s.

From the bill:

SEC. 2. Section 301.3 is added to the Corporations Code, to read:
301.3. (a) No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one female director on its board. A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.

So, it is based on the executive offices listed in the SEC-10K.

Now, to @midori’s question:

(f) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

So, yes, the board can self-identify as a woman and it will meet the requirements.


I love this law. The more restrictions California can put on corporations there, the more we can steal from them through relocation.


Thanks, some people I was having discussions with IRL were wondering about this.


A lot of corporations are just looking for an excuse to move to Arizona or Texas.


Would an all female board run afoul of the law?


Not according to the link I saw.

And, as some have pointed out, an all gender neutral board would run afoul of the law. The members must be female.


I don’t think so. This law appears to have been made in response to findings that something like only 12% of those higher up in companies being women. I don’t think there is much if any concern with a board having to high a percentage of women. The perception is that the advantages lean in the direction of men.


Sounds like it will be a great opportunity for rent seeking for prominent California pols like Feinstein, Pelosi, etc.


Yeah the average woman pops out to the board of directors she sits on every day. It the goal is to help out working people this seems rather off target.


I picked it for Midori in the bird sense-- “beautiful bird”. :slight_smile: But yes, most people think of it in terms of “green”! :slight_smile:


What if they’re all gender fluid, and on the day of the board meeting, they’re all male on that day🤔


Interesting point. Since the law does say that one need only self-identify as female, what are the criteria for determining self-identification? I’m asking in all seriousness. How does CA law determine one’s self-identification of gender? Is it merely a declaratory statement? Or does one have to register with the state?


All joking aside, gender is now whatever the person says it is in the moment.

When transsexualism (I use this word because it’s the original term) first became a diagnosis (in the thirties or forties I believe), first of all it was profoundly rare, mostly a condition found in biological men, etiology was uncertain, although some of them actually had chromosome abnormalities, and a lot of the men just dealt with it by cross dressing.

Female to male transsexualism was vanishingly rare.

But a person generally did not go around making pronouncements about their identity then demand everybody else simply fall in line, no questions asked.


This seems horrifyingly close to a command economy gateway. That is what opportunity of outcome fundamentally requires though, so I shouldn’t be surprised.


I looked at my ID and my birth certificate. Mine are labeled with “sex” (biological). I understand some other states are labeled with gender (social, self identified). I wonder in states where certificates are labeled with sex if it is as easy to get one’s classification on those lines changed.

Dave Chapel, a foul mouth comedian, one asked what I thought was a good question after he had an experience in which someone was offended when he was checking on the well being of someone and used the wrong pronoun. He asked to what degree is he obligated to participate in someone else’s self identity.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit