The rationale, as you explained, of the amendments proposed, I believe is mostly pertaining to the equal line method. They want to modify the way it applies. Particularly, it is focused on the notion of crossed regression lines.
By applying the amendment, it would undermine the ability to address those situations. Those situations can occur for an employer, for instance, if there are some classes of female-predominant jobs, where a portion of the regression line is paid above the average of men in a section. It could happen, for instance, in more professional categories. Let's suppose that an employer has lawyers who are female-predominant. It could make the line stand above that of men.
We couldn't apply the principle of equalizing lines in those situations perfectly. It's a special situation that's going to need to be addressed through regulations, because the only way to adjust the lines would require reducing compensation in female-predominant jobs for the portion where they stand above that of men.
It's a special situation. The principle of the legislation will need to be respected, but will need special provisions.