It'll need more than a few.
In theory a transgender woman who later has a change of heart and goes on to self-identify as a homosexual man could be the holy grail of boardroom appointments, but the problem there is that the good ones are already taken. 
Is trans-BME a thing yet? 
Google Rachel Dolezal. Though that Little Mix singer with the fake everything might be one too.
I believe the term is transracial. I think it's a pile of sh*t, so I'm probably transracist.
It's just a haircut @krish , give it a few weeks and you'll soon be back to your old self again. 
I think an arbitrary target is certainly at risk of causing adverse results. Both in potentially undermining those appointed ("you only got the job because you're a woman") and in pushing companies to take lower quality candidates.
But it could help. If it pushes companies to do more mentoring of junior talent and develop a pipeline of future candidates that would be a good thing. But I'd hate to be a male junior candidate who didn't have that same assistance.
Exactly, it should be put in place to encourage all potential talent, male or female. Just aspiring to 35% in itself will do no good. I'm all for equality, but that has to mean it doesn't come at the expense of others. It's not very equal if one sex is given preference.
You only have to look at this though to see people will complain no matter what.
'Staggering' failure to pick woman for MPC
If the selection criteria is correct then this is purely on merit, yet we still have someone claiming sexism. Does genuine belief in equality no service whatsoever.
During the survey my employer came out as 25% of the workforce being female.To be honest I suspect that reflects the percentage in the total resource pool, may even be higher.
So they have immediately set a target to increase that to 28% by the end of the year.
Very interested how they will achieve that
1) have a redundancy scheme that targets only men
2) increase the headcount and take on only women
3) rely on the natural churn and replace leavers only with women
Cheers,
Nigel
This is about looking at an individual rather than pre-judging them. THAT is bad business.
This is exactly what I thought if when I read this one:
"the issues covered are extremely complex"

Give the job to who ever is best qualified/ experienced imo. But don't fall for the muh diversity/ gender game just to make up numbers.
Or the opposite then it is fair.