It is time to restore reality to the boardroom: true women's rights rely on acknowledging biological distinctions, not on high-risk corporate activism that sacrifices safety and merit for a perfect diversity score.
Corporate America has increasingly drifted from neutral business practices toward adopting controversial social agendas, often prioritizing ideology over merit and shareholder value. A significant portion of these recent business decisions implicates "transgenderism" and the rights of girls and women (see, for example, here, here, and here). Yet, these sweeping policies are frequently enacted without a transparent assessment of the risks involved. In response, the National Center for Public Policy Research, where I am the Executive Director of the Free Enterprise Project, is now submitting "Women's Rights Audit" proposals to some major public companies. These proposals seek a return to fiduciary responsibility by asking boards to report on whether their decisions are fully informed by the biological reality of what a "woman" is and the specific risks their policies pose to female stakeholders.
At the heart of this issue is a definition gap. The proposals assert that corporate decisions cannot be considered "fully informed" if the corporation has inaccurately defined "woman" or simply ignores the risks associated with erasing sex-based distinctions. Consequently, the audit specifically requests that companies assess their decisions based on a definition of "woman" that limits the word to adult females. Without this clear biological definition, protecting "women's rights" in the workplace becomes theoretically impossible, as the category itself becomes subjective rather than objective and protective.
The risks of ignoring this definition are not merely academic; they impact privacy, safety, and fairness. Current corporate policies often result in biological males being forcibly inserted into women’s private spaces—including restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas—under the guise of "transgender rights.” The proposals highlight that such policies threaten women's privacy and safety. Furthermore, the erasure of biological distinctions has extended to athletics. The supporting statements for these proposals point to a United Nations study revealing that men claiming to be women have won nearly 900 medals in women's competitions, displacing female athletes and rendering the playing field fundamentally unfair.
Despite these risks, many corporations are apparently driven into politicized waters by external pressure from organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The HRC’s "Corporate Equality Index" (CEI) awards top scores to companies that integrate gender ideology into every facet of their operations. To achieve a perfect score, companies often must recruit based on sexual identity issues and may even discriminate against vendors that do not promote these divisive policies. Furthermore, companies are pressured to support legislation like the Equality Act, which would federally mandate the access of biological men to women-only spaces and compel healthcare providers to participate in sex-denying care.
This ideological alignment also carries significant financial and legal liabilities. Many corporations now cover transgender-related costs for employees and their children, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgeries. These benefits often extend to minors, escalating healthcare costs and exposing companies to future lawsuits from "detransitioners" who were harmed by these irreversible medical interventions. Reports indicate that such practices shift focus from core healthcare goals to activism, heightening risks like discrimination suits and reputational harm. Independent monitors have even rated some major corporations as "High Risk" for prioritizing these agendas over merit and shareholder value.
The "Women's Rights Audit" is a necessary corrective. The requested report would provide needed transparency, allowing shareholders to properly value their shares and assess whether the company is engaging with socially significant issues in a way that is consistent with its fiduciary duties. It asks simply for an assessment—prepared at a reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information—of whether the board has made decisions related to transgenderism on a fully informed basis.
It is time for corporate boards to stop ignoring the risks of forcing gender ideology into the workplace and to start protecting the distinct status, privacy, and safety of women.
