In fact, in my humble understanding, the two amendments remained distinct as they concerned two different aspects of representativity. I had made the distinction between biological sex and gender. In the scientific literature in English, these two aspects are grouped together under one term, rather than using two separate terms.
I wanted it to say that there should be an ideal representation or zone to be respected for gender parity. I thought Ms. Atwin's amendment was to clarify paragraph (d), where the text already refers to the various gender identities.
I don't know whether Ms. Atwin wanted to talk about proportionality, parity and a third term that would be added here, or whether she wanted to use just the term “gender” and take out completely the terms that were used here that related to biological sex. That's the question I have.
This is perhaps something new. We are used to talking about male-female gender parity. Here there was something else added.
At this point, in order to make the additions consistent, shouldn't the notion of diverse gender identities, which would end up being included in the notion of parity, be removed from paragraph (d) as well, if we were to decide to combine the two wordings, should such a thing be possible? I know that requires the unanimous consent of the committee.
I've touched on several aspects at once. I don't know if I was clear. I can answer Ms. Atwin's questions, if necessary.