Delaying by demanding
On and on it goes, the obstinate refusal to obey the law because it’s only women who are harmed.
Bridget Phillipson is delaying the release of guidance which would bar transgender women from single-sex spaces by demanding the equalities regulator calculate
show much it will cost businesses.
Is that a rule for all such guidance? No.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) submitted the guidance, which sets out how organisations should interpret a Supreme Court ruling from April on the definition of a woman, to Phillipson four months ago but she has yet to approve it.
The equalities minister has told the EHRC it must assess the financial impact of its guidance before it can be approved, despite the regulator arguing that such costs arise from the law itself rather than its interpretation of it.
That “must” is a fiction. She made it up.
Councils, NHS trusts and businesses are still allowing trans women, who are biologically male, to use single-sex spaces. They say that they are waiting for the new guidance before taking action, despite warnings they may be breaking the law after the Supreme Court ruling that sex is defined by biology in terms of the Equality Act.
Never mind that. When it comes to bulldozing women’s rights, it’s worth breaking the law.
Okay, now how about estimating how much non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling may cost businesses in lawsuits. And surely Phillipson would also want an estimate of the drop in Labour support she could expect by defying a decision that most people agree with.
Sumi, that is exactly what I was thinking. From my work in environmental regulations, I know that a cost assessment must consider the costs of alternative actions. What if we do this? It costs businesses $100 a month (just made up numbers). What if we don’t do this? Businesses may well be on the hook for millions in lawsuit payouts if one of the males in the women’s restrooms rapes or otherwise assaults a woman, or is caught pervving on a girl.
The other costs that immediately come to mind is potential loss of business as female customers reconsider patronising some of these businesses (I know there are women who have left gyms and department stores over the treatment they received from fellow patrons, staff, or both), or curtail their time there – I used to linger for long hours in shopping centres and malls, and I now I never do – or boycott the business over its poor treatment of women or pandering to men. Reputational and PR damage is a thing they ought to bear in mind.
Okay, I’m trying to figure out what ‘costs’ could be associated with restoring the status quo of binary spaces. Taking down signage indicating transwomen are welcome in the women’s toilet?
There might be some costs associated with providing a ‘third space’–ie, an increased number of single-patron toilets that are not sex-segregated, since there’s no need for segregation in that instance. But those would be costs not related to the guidance, but rather to the efforts to still accommodate transwomen in some fashion.
Freemage, didn’t you know? There will be tremendous cost in hiring and retaining all the toilet guards who will check genitals! /s