"Contrary to what Kishwer Falkner is suggesting (Letters, 28 October), MPs' problem with the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) guidance was not that it failed to address every conceivable scenario, but that it set out fundamentally unworkable instructions to businesses that go far beyond what the supreme court actually ruled, and which places them at risk of costly litigation."
"The EHRC's guidance places the onus on businesses to police whether people are using a bathroom that corresponds with their sex assigned at birth. However, there is no practical way for businesses to know whether someone is transgender based solely on their appearance and challenging people risks humiliation for trans people and others whose appearance doesn't neatly fit with society's expectations."
The EHRC guidance instructs businesses to police whether people use bathrooms corresponding to sex assigned at birth, a requirement that exceeds the supreme court ruling and is practically unenforceable. Businesses cannot reliably determine transgender status from appearance, and challenging individuals risks humiliation and harm to transgender people and others with nonconforming appearances. Reports exist of women being aggressively challenged while queuing for restrooms. Policing bathroom use exposes businesses to both reputational damage and costly litigation. The supreme court allowed exclusion of trans people only as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, not as a mandatory requirement. The EHRC leadership has ignored warnings about these legal contradictions.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]