How much has gender ideology cost this country?

[mumsandaunties]

My feed is full of people complaining about how much the EHRC guidance is going to cost, and blaming it on women with the audacity to want a single sex space.

This is completely back to front thinking. The law has always been the same. Public opinion has always been broadly the same, save for a load of unthinking “be kind” people who didn’t think through the logical conclusions of what the “TWAW” slogan meant for women and girls.

I wonder if somebody could calculate the cost that this ideology has incurred in this country. All these unlawful changes to toilets that have to be corrected. All the tribunals. All the workplace costs. All the damaged children and people suffering with unaddressed mental health problems that will struggle to hold down jobs. All the DEI jobs focused on gender rather than other PCs. All the changes made with no basis…all needing to be brought back to lawful and reasonable positions.

And as we are reminded, this is for a tiny minority of people….and even then it’s only a proportion of those who have demanded the world change.

So it got me wondering what the total cost divided by the number of trans-identifying people is. And I concluded we could easily be talking hundreds of thousands…

Any statistically minded folks interested in having a go? I’d love to see that figure on LinkedIn!

I don’t think you can put a number on the costs when you really look into it. And that’s not even counting the personal costs. I’ve said it before but this whole thing reminds me of Bobby being killed off in Dallas for two years then Pam waking up and he was in the shower. I keep expecting the shower moment. Although I do believe it’s getting closer.

Haha so true.

You definitely can’t put an accurate number on it, but I still think it’s an interesting exercise to think about. There’s some crap inflated figure genderists have come up with about “the costs” of returning women only spaces to single sex. It might be good to produce a figure estimating how much has already been wasted.

In our office it could cost somebody half their job. We only have a female cleaner and she needs to check the toilets twice a day. We haven't a clue how to get around this as she has been in the job for 16 years with no issues at all. She is rather concerned we will have to take her part-time and employ a man for the other half of the day, which is rather un-feminist of us. For now we are just going to leave it. Nobody where I work is bothered anyway.

She’s a cleaner not a user - which is what the various codes apply to. It’s like saying you can only use a female plumber to fix the ladies toilets. All your employer needs to do is put a sign up to say the cleaning/checking is done by a female. It’s really simple but I’m sure your employer knows this or if not seems a little out of touch!

1 Cleaner knocks on door and calls "female staff needing to enter"
2 Waits for male users to exit
3 Cleaner puts sign outside stating Cleaning In Process: Female Cleaner
4 Cleaner enters and completes task as normal

Is there literally nobody in your workplace who could think of this? Astoundingly, you can operate the same process with male staff in female spaces.

[I see that I am cross-posting, but what the heck, I've written it now, so I'm going to post it anyway!]

This doesn't make any sense. What would prevent your existing cleaner from checking all the toilets?

It's odd that nobody in your office seems to have thought it through, or even checked basic facts, when you appear to be so worried about your cleaning colleague with 16 years service.

Opposite-sex cleaners are allowed in single-sex spaces. They are there to provide a service, not use the facilities.

The company can buy one of those yellow sings that says a nice clear 'CLEANING IN PROGRESS - FEMALE CLEANER IN ATTENDANCE'.

It's that simple. It's not complicated. No more wondering. No threat to the cleaner's full-time job.
You can all just get on with your jobs, and your cleaner can get on with hers

edited to remove a stray 'not'!

Try harder 😂

And when the people in the room say, "Please don't do that, we don't like it," the toddler shouts "You're a poo-poo head!" and thinks he's clinched the argument.

I have seen this exact process operating in many workplaces.

Me too. It's really very simple. Wlmen cleaners carry a 'female cleaner in progress' plastic triangular so it will stand up sign on their trolley, male ones a male sign. Works fine. And they knock, partially pull the main door open and call out so you can ask them to wait if you're in there.

No one has ever had an issue as far as I'm aware. In fact one of the blokes called out when my colleague thought she was going into early labour in there by herself, and got help for her, so it was a godsend on that occasion.

Yes, simple, isn't it?

But allegedly 'It's all sooooo complicated!' so let's just ignore the law🙄

My attention was drawn to the fact that KG74 seems to work in a place full of people who prefer to catastrophise about the job security of a cleaner rather than go to the 'trouble' of checking the facts, and I didn't think to point out that as this is a workplace, isn't the employer legally required to provide separate facilities?

'For now we are just going to leave it. Nobody where I work is bothered anyway.' - KG74's bosses should be 'bothered'!

There has been a cost to individual women and gay people; and financial costs.

But this week it seems particularly relevant to mention the cost to the credibility of numerous institutions which have willingly embraced batshit craziness.

Haha! Of course you didn’t. You’ll limit yourself to reading only what confirms your own bias.

I honestly doubt it has cost anything financially and I suspect it may even have been a positive to GDP.

When Stonewall employ people they spend their wages in the economy. And all the Pride stuff is no different than any other form of entertainment, it is a net money positive.

Trans had very much become a business.

There are plenty of sensible gender critical arguments, but cost isn’t one of them.

So the millions NHS Fife (for one) have spent are covered by net economical contributions by Stonewall and Pride? I very much doubt it.

Stonewall received large amounts of money from the government so even less likely that they made a net economical contribution

True. And all those DEI posts that ignored every other protected characteristics. Isla Bumba for example.

So tell me this.

If a man comes into a female changing room and waves his willy around, that's indecent exposure and it can have criminal consequences.

If he says "oh but I am a woman and my name is Sarah", that's ok.

How can that be ok? Same penis, same effect on the women in the changing room.

Legally indecent exposure is when someone shows their genitals to another person for sexual pleasure and/or to scare or upset them. There has to be intent & "Sarah" would argue that he does not intend to frighten or upset anyone & gets no sexual pleasure from the action of waving his willy in the Ladies..

She wasn't talking to you 😂