Females and Indians on corporate boards

Jeff Harding has written an excellent blog post on California's recently enacted Senate Bill 826, which mandates that publicly-held corporations put females on their boards.

One thing Jeff does not discuss is how the term "female" is defined in the bill:

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

Does that mean that I, who, last time I looked, have all the "earmarks" of a male, can count as one of the women on a board if I simply choose to self-identify as a woman? But, if the only logical qualification for being defined as a "female" is that I self-identify as such, then isn't the entire purpose of the bill, which is to add to boards the different perspectives and management approaches of females, vitiated?

Here is a related question: If California should ever mandate that other groups, such as "blacks" or "latinos," be represented on corporate boards, then, would it be enough for me to self-identify as black or a latino to qualify? Alternatively, how much "black or latino dna" (if there is such a thing) would I need to have in order to qualify? For example, if the California legislature required American Indians to be represented on boards, would Elizabeth Warren, whose DNA shows evidence of Native American DNA from six to 10 generations ago, qualify as an American Indian?

These are examples of the ludicrous questions that this kind of identity politics leads us to.

As an aside, there was one sentence from Jeff's blog post that struck me in particular, a quote from an abstract of an article by Alice Eagly, a professor of psychology at Northwestern:

Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of evidence‐based policy options.

Amen! If only we all would adopt this sentence as a foundational principle, the world would be a much better place. Of course, a second foundational principle would need to be that advocates and policy makers should follow and be guided by "consensus scientific findings."