Thomas Köllen Editor

Sexual Orientation
and Transgender
Issues in
Organizations
Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce
Diversity
Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in
Organizations
ThiS is a FM Blank Page
Thomas K€
ollen
Editor

Sexual Orientation and

Transgender Issues in
Organizations
Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce
Diversity
Editor
Thomas K€ollen
Institute for Gender and Diversity in Organizations
Department of Management
Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU)
Vienna, Austria

ISBN 978-3-319-29621-0 ISBN 978-3-319-29623-4 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938220

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland
Preface

Over the past decade, workforce diversity has attracted much scientific attention.
Given the shortage of literature on issues related to homosexual, bisexual, and
transgender employees, compared with other facets of workforce diversity, this
book opens up several new perspectives on this issue. The book places special
emphasis on the equal consideration of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
issues, covering the unique experiences of L, G, B, and T employees (or issues
that are related to them) in different contexts. In management practice, many
organizations use the term LGBT (or GLBT) to designate the target group of
organizational practices (e.g., diversity management), although, in reality, these
usually only target lesbian and gay employees. Thus, the book itself is a critique of
the usage of the term LGBT, inasmuch as the term is frequently used as a category
that lumps together more or less unrelated phenomena. As one’s gender identity is
not directly related to one’s sexual orientation, subsuming transgenderism into this
umbrella term, together with different sexual orientations, marginalizes the unique
stressors transgender employees have to face. Unique experiences of transgender
employees, for example, can appear before, within, and after transitioning. In this
context, it is especially satisfying that ten chapters focus exclusively on workplace-
related trans-issues, and several more have included these issues into their analyses,
thereby giving a voice to transgender employees within the (diversity) management
discourse. Furthermore, many other chapters enrich the discourse on lesbian, gay,
and bisexual issues in the workplace by important national perspectives that were,
until now, more or less invisible, by analyses being based on innovative method-
ological approaches, and by applying to this field of research new and hitherto
unapplied theoretical frameworks.
This book broadens the understanding of both issues related to employees’
sexual orientation (such as being bisexual, lesbian, gay, and also being heterosex-
ual), and issues that are specifically related to employees’ gender identity (such as
having a trans- or a cisgender identity). The book provides delineations and
evaluations of organizational initiatives and practices aiming at a higher degree
of inclusion for transgender, gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees and aiming at
reducing the harmful effects of homophobia and transphobia by reducing
v
vi Preface

heteronormativity and cisnormativity in the workplace. Additionally, this book

opens up numerous new insights upon which organizational practices can build
and several new starting points for future research.
I want to thank the authors for their thoughtful contributions and for their
limitless support during the review and feedback process of this book; it has been
a pleasure and a privilege to work together with them on this project. I would also
like to thank Alex Scott Fairley. Besides being very important to me as a person,
and being very supportive and encouraging during the whole process of finishing
this compilation, his immeasurable help in again and again checking and proof-
reading documents has been absolutely essential for the successful outcome of the
project. I would also like to thank Irene Barrios-Kežić and Rocio Torregrosa from
Springer for their support and their guidance during the whole process of finalizing
this book.

Vienna, Austria Thomas K€ollen

Contents

Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management

Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Thomas K€ollen
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace
Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Katina Sawyer, Christian Thoroughgood, and Jennica Webster
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a
Female-to-Male Transgender in the Indian Organizational Space . . . . . 43
Animesh Bahadur and Kunal Kamal Kumar
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace
Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Ciarán McFadden and Marian Crowley-Henry
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’
Job-Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Nick Drydakis
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia . . . . . . . . . 101
Tiffany Jones
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited
Bases of Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Salvador Peran
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Gerald Hunt and Michael Pelz
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Todd Brower

vii
viii Contents

Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of

Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Issues in Pakistan, Bangladesh,
and Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Abdullah Al Mamun, Mariano L.M. Heyden, and Qaiser Rafique Yasser
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT
Clergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Eric M. Rodriguez and Chana Etengoff
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand . . . 197
Busakorn Suriyasarn
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of
LGBT Employees in Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Emir Ozeren, Zeki Ucar, and Ethem Duygulu
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Judit Takács
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile:
An Exploratory Quantitative Study on Stigma, Discrimination,
Victimization, Happiness and Social Well-Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Jaime Barrientos, Manuel Cárdenas, Fabiola Gomez, and Monica Guzmán
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace:
Implications for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
M. Paz Galupo and Courtney A. Resnick
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice
and in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Jukka Lehtonen
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing Disclosure
of Homosexuality at the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Rahul Mitra and Vikram Doctor
Daily Work Out?!: The Relationship Between Self-Representation,
Degree of Openness About One’s Gay or Lesbian Identity, and
Psychological Stress in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Florian Meinhold and Dominic Frohn
The Limits of Inclusion: Stories from the Margins of the
Swedish Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Jens Rennstam and Katie Sullivan
The Career Development of Bisexual Sex Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
James D. Griffith, August Capiola, and Lucy Gu
Contents ix

Discrimination at Work on the Basis of Sexual Orientation:

Subjective Experience, Experimental Evidence, and Interventions . . . . 367
Melanie C. Steffens, Claudia Niedlich, and Franziska Ehrke
On the Violence of Heteronormativity within Business Schools . . . . . . . 389
Nick Rumens
The Role of Apparent Sexual Orientation in Explaining the
Heterogeneity of Wage Penalties Among Gay Employees . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Thierry Laurent and Ferhat Mihoubi
The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Gender on Perceptions of
Successful Leadership Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Nicholas P. Salter and Benjamin Liberman
Tolerance in the Polish Workplace Towards Gay Men and Lesbians . . . 451
Ewa A. Golebiowska
Understanding the Identity Work of LGB Workers Using the Practice
Theory Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Emir Ozeren and Alper Aslan
When Supervisors and Managers Tolerate Heterosexism: Challenges,
Opportunities, and Implications for Workplace Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Trevor G. Gates
Sexual Orientation Diversity Management in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
Jo~ao G
ois, Francisco Duarte, Jo~ao Pinheiro, and Kamila Teixeira
Incorporating Inclusivity: How Organizations Can Improve the
Workplace Experiences of Trans* People Across the Trans* Spectrum:
A US Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Annelise Mennicke and Andrew Cutler-Seeber
LGBT Company Network Groups in the UK: Tackling Opportunities
and Complexities in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Fiona Colgan
Transgressing Gender Binarism in the Workplace? Including
Transgender and Intersexuality Perspectives in Organizational
Restroom Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Monika Huesmann
Implementing LGBT-Diversity Management in a Global Company:
The Case of SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
Jorge Martins, Niarchos Pombo, Mariana Tomiyoshi, Marcelo Trein,
Moya Watson, Miguel Castro, Claudia Schmidt, Adriana Kersting,
Paula Miyuki, Debora de Souza, Mariana Zatti, Denise Blume, Leonardo Nunes,
Jeffrey Mastrangelo, and Hartmut Bohn
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within
the Diversity Management Discourse

Thomas K€
ollen

1 Introduction1

By using the term LGBTI many organizations purport to explicitly consider inter-
sexuality and trans-identities as part of their diversity management activities.
LGBTI, then, is often defined as the name of the target group for organizational
initiatives that focus on the dimensions of “sexual orientation/identity” and “gender
identity”: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons. However, a
closer examination of the concrete actions that are implemented on this issue by
most organizations reveals that the target group in most cases is reduced to lesbian,
gay, and (partially) bisexual employees. Only very rarely do organizations imple-
ment actions that explicitly address transgender employees, and intersexuality
remains totally excluded from consideration when it comes to concrete organiza-
tional practices and initiatives. This shows that the usage of the term LGBTI in the
context of organizational diversity management practices is predominantly moti-
vated by being somehow “politically correct” and trying, at least on the level of
semantics and language, to be all-inclusive. Because of this, how far the single
elements of this term share any commonalities, and how this would potentially
legitimize grouping them together (or not), has rarely, if ever been called into
question.
In this context, this chapter provides a closer examination of those categories
included in the term LGBTI that are infrequently, if at all, considered in the

1
A shorter German version of this chapter, entitled “Intersexualität und Transidentität im Diver-
sity Management”, appears in: Genkova, P, Ringeisen T. (Eds.). 2016. Handbuch Diversity
Kompetenz: Gegenstandsbereiche. Heidelberg: Springer.
T. K€ollen (*)
Institute for Gender and Diversity in Organizations, Department of Management, Vienna
University of Economics and Business (WU), Vienna, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_1
2 T. K€
ollen

discourse on diversity and diversity management: Intersexuality and transgender-

ism. The different theoretical approaches to both phenomena will be outlined, along
with a discussion of what both phenomena have in common with each other, and
where they fundamentally differ from each other. As a result it will be shown that
intersexuality and transgenderism are gender/biological sex categories that are,
indeed, by definition related to different sexual orientations, as they are defined
by the gender/sex of the desired and the desiring subjects. However, there are
substantial ways in which both phenomena do not have anything in common with
different sexual orientations, and actually, within the discourse of diversity and
diversity management, they should be integrated into a more holistic concept of the
category of gender. This, then, creates an opportunity to redefine and to rethink the
present approach to “gender” as one dimension of diversity, and to question
whether it is justifiable at all to separately treat gender and sexual orientation as
two distinct categories. It will be argued, rather, that gender/biological sex, gender
identity, and sexual orientation should be seen as one related dimension or category.
This carries with it several implications for developing and modifying adequate
diversity management approaches and initiatives that include transgenderism and
intersexuality.

2 Sexuality, Sex, and Gender

Distinguishing between sex and gender has become a widespread standard in social
sciences. It differentiates sex, as the biological bodily aspect, from gender, the
socially constructed, cultural aspect (Oakley 1972; Gatens 1983) of being a man or
a woman, or of being masculine and feminine respectively. In English, these two
terms cover perforce the whole spectrum of possibility in naming the sex and/or
gender of an individual; in everyday speech, as well as in many scientific disci-
plines, “sex” and “gender” are often used interchangeably when referring to the
categories of being a man or a woman, e.g. when labeling this category in a
passport, or on a form listing personal information. Some other languages, espe-
cially Romance languages, have borrowed the concept of gender by using an
equivalent for the Latin word “genus” in their language (such as “genere” in Italian
or “genre” in French), or by adding the word “social” in the given language, to the
word for “sex”. However, in many languages, the English term “gender” is today
frequently used in its “original” English form, instead of being translated (e.g. in
German, Hungarian, and Polish). The word is frequently used very inconsistently,
especially in language areas that have introduced the English word “gender” as a
technical term. In many cases this contributes significantly to confusion over
precisely what, in concrete terms, is being talked about; moreover in English-
speaking areas themselves, the inconsistent use of “sex” and “gender” sometimes
causes confusion.
Up until the 1970s, women’s studies, and sex- or gender-studies were mainly
shaped by trying to explain social aspects of the sexes biologically. This subsequent
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 3

conceptual distinction between gender and sex, however, provided an opportunity

to question the assumed predestinating and determinative impact that biological sex
has on sex roles and sex-specific behavior. Henceforth, the social and cultural
aspects of male and female bodies could be interpreted as phenomena that are
produced on a daily basis, without solely having to refer to biological explanatory
models. Gender-research could now focus on precisely these processes of socially
producing men and women, or femininity and masculinity. As it is conceivable that
these processes could work on a basis other than the “traditional” gender-related
stereotypic images, the emergence of the concept of gender has broadened the
scope of their potential individual self-conceptualizations for both men and women.
Meanwhile, the term “gender” is often used in a political way, for example in the
context of “gender mainstreaming” approaches. However, the political usage of the
term gender often reveals its inconsistent usage. These approaches frequently
assume different needs of men and women as a given, and they typically do not
focus on the social production and construction of these need-differences, but on
the goal of achieving equal opportunities and an equal allocation of resource
between the biological sexes.
For a long period the distinction between gender and sex adhered to a binary
model of only two sexes, namely men and women. Though the concept or construct
of “gender” sometimes has a broader approach in terms of potential manifestations
of different genders, it often embodies the tendency to assume only two types of
genders that oppose each other in a bipolar way: masculinity and femininity. To a
certain degree trans-identities might, conceivably, be able to be aligned with this
world order, but for the phenomenon of intersexuality, at least, this is much more
problematic.
In very basic terms, trans-identities, or transgenderism and transsexuality, rep-
resent an incongruence between one’s biological sex, and one’s gender identity.
Trans-persons, then, can aim at resolving this incongruence to different degrees, in
different ways, in order to adjust their body and their appearance to their gender
identity. For trans-persons, both their biological sex and their gender identity may,
in many cases, fit into a model of only two sexes and two genders. Thus, transgen-
der individuals often have a clearly male or female gender identity. However, it
remains in question as to what extent this gender identity can be equated with the
concept of a social “gender”. The latter was created primarily to make the processes
of social construction, and their inherent interchangeability and mutability com-
prehensible; biological sexes are thereby frequently forced into tight corsets of
characteristics, and to these biological sexes are ascribed certain gendered scripts,
and related expectations about the behavior of each sex (Hanappi-Egger 2015).
However, this gender perspective focuses on the level of societal ascriptions,
attributions, and expectations. For trans-persons, on the other hand, their gender
identity represents the level of an individual’s acquisition of gender identity. Thus,
it is not about ascribing a bundle of preconceived role expectations to an individual,
it is much more about breaking with these stereotypes, and acquiring another
identity. It is not about the constrictions of society, and its methods of confining
the individual, it is much more about that individual him-, her-, or *self, and the
4 T. K€
ollen

individual’s way of expressing a societally non-conforming gender identity. Thus

the gender focus moves from the level of being a social ascription, to the level of
being an individual sensation and expression. Indeed, one could hold the opinion
that that individual can only acquire and express what “society” made available as
being acquirable. However, many concrete gender identity-concepts of trans-
persons do not reflect this (see e.g. Engel 2002). The estimations about the number
of trans-persons within society differ wildly, between 0.04 % and 5 % of the
population, depending on how the term “trans” is applied, and what trans-identities
are subsumed under it (Olyslager and Conway 2007).
Intersex or intersexuality questions the model of having only two sexes and two
genders to a far greater degree than transgenderism does. Biologically and medi-
cally, intersex is often described as a sexual ambiguity. However, this “ambiguity”
results solely from the fact that in biological and medical terms only two sexes are
provided for, unambiguously classifying the sex of an individual. Intersex-persons
are classified as persons who possess sexual characteristics from both sexes. The
prefix “inter” describes exactly the intermediate position between the “unambigu-
ous” sexes, namely men and women. However, a system is eminently conceivable
in which intersex persons can be taken as that which they are, without pressing them
into a binary or dichotomizing sex system by attaching a (mostly negatively
connoted) intermediate position to them. This would reflect much more accurately
the self-image of many intersex people, and it would much more adequately serve
the biological and medical spectrum of phenomena that are subsumed under the
category of “intersex”. Just as with trans-persons, the estimations about the number
of intersex-persons within society differ widely. The estimates range from
0.0002 % to 1.7 % of the population, depending on which medical diagnoses are
subsumed under the term “intersex”, and which scientific sources are cited (Sax
2002).
In the English language it is nowadays very common to use the words “intersex”
and “intersexuality” synonymously. However, the use of the latter is responsible for
a certain confusion, in English, as well as in other languages. The second part of the
word “-sexuality” is due to an inexpert transfer of the Latin term “sexus” into
German, that was first applied by Goldschmidt in the formulation of the term
“Intersexualität”. In his English publications he translated this term as “intersexu-
ality” (Goldschmidt 1917, 1931). Thus, intersexuality is not related to the way the
terms “Sexualit€ at” in German and “sexuality” in English are used in everyday
speech in their respective languages, as intersexuality does not include the aspect
of “sexual desire” at all. The term “sex”, as the English equivalent of the Latin
“sexus”, covers, more or less, the concept of the Latin term (which allows the
distinction between sex and gender linguistically). Therefore, the English term
“intersex” refers more precisely to a medical biological level, but the term “inter-
sexuality” intuitively creates false associations, that are related more to the level of
sexual desire. These ambiguous (and partly false) connotations that are related to
the term “intersexuality” also exist in other languages. Sharing the same prove-
nance in translation from Latin to German to English (Benjamin 1966), the same
confusion can occur when using the term “transsexuality” (instead of
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 5

“transgender”, “trans*”, etc.). However, expressions such as “LGBTI” falsely

appear to make sense in this context, as all parts of the initialism seem to represent
different sexualities or sexual orientations.
In the next two sections the phenomena of trans-identities and intersexuality will
be looked at more closely, and from different perspectives. From this will be
derived those aspects that are relevant for workplace settings, and that serve as
starting points for diversity management initiatives that aim to create a supportive
work environment, and an appreciative and inclusive climate for transgender and
intersex employees.

3 Intersexuality

Until the 1950s the term “intersex” was not in widespread use in the English-
speaking world, and intersex-persons were frequently designated “hermaphrodite”,
a term which continued to be used as synonymous with “intersex” even after that
word had gained more currency. In present-day English, the term “hermaphrodite”
is now used exclusively for plants and animals in the fields of botany and zoology,
but in other languages, such as in Danish or German, it is partially still in usage as a
synonym for “intersex”. The term derives from Hermaphroditos, the son of Aph-
rodite and Hermes in Greek mythology, who fused with the nymph Salamakis, and
from then on possessed traits of both male and female sexes (Zajko 2009). Another
term that is related to intersexuality is “androgyny”. Androgyny is composed of the
ancient Greek word for man (“andros”) and woman (“gyne”) and is used for
persons that express both male and female characteristics. However, there is no
clear definition about the commonalities and differences of the concepts of intersex
and androgyny, and different intersex people use androgyny in their self-images
and self-concepts in different ways and intensities; many, too, do not use the
concept at all (Rosselli 2015).
In his book Symposium, for example, Plato has Aristophanes tell the story of the
three original types of people, who were spherical, each individual having two
bodies that were attached back-to-back. There were those that had two male bodies
fused together, those that had two female bodies fused together and, finally, those
that had one male, and one female body fused together. These last beings were
androgynous. Because of some infraction against divine will, so the story goes, the
gods split each of these dual-beings into two halves, and, from then on, each half
formed a sexual desire that compelled it to search for its former second half. Not
only did Plato, as an extrapolation of this story, expressly indicate that homosex-
uality was “normal”, he used, for the first time, the term “third sex” for the
androgynous individuals, an expression that also nowadays is frequently used in
the context of intersexuality (Groneberg 2008; Herdt 2003).
In 1917, the German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt came up with the term
“intersexuality” for the first time in one of his publications in English language
(Goldschmidt 1917). In the same period he also used the term “Intersexualit€ at” in
6 T. K€
ollen

his publications in the German language (Goldschmidt 1931). His publications are
seen as the reason that this expression became widely accepted, both in the English-
and German-speaking worlds, especially in medical discourse (Stern 2010;
Morland 2014). Goldschmidt combined the Latin word “inter” (“in between”)
and “sexus” (“sex”), which, as already explained, is less ambiguous in the English
language than it is in other languages, such as German. In public discourse, and also
on the level of individuals’ self-declarations, “hermaphrodite” and other equivalent
expressions are still sometimes used, especially in other languages than English
(Zehnder 2010). In order to take account of the vast number of different individual
self-concepts and related sex- and gender-identities, “inter*” has become a more
inclusive, and more frequently used term (Remus 2015). However, by using the
prefix “inter”, the binary model of only having two sexes is still not called into
question. In international medical discourse, the term “intersexuality” is increas-
ingly being replaced by the pathologizing term “disorders of sex development”
(DSD) (de Silva 2008), or in a less pathologizing way, the word “disorder” is
replaced by “differences” or “divergences” (Kl€oppel 2010, p. 21; Diamond and Beh
2008; Reis 2007).

3.1 Social Constructivist Perspective

The scientific discourse on intersexuality is primarily shaped by medical perspec-

tives (Kl€ oppel 2010). However, there are perspectives in the sphere of social
sciences that consider biological sex to be mutable, rather than stable, and less
binary than it is frequently taken to be. Sex can be seen as a product of a Euro-
American discourse (Yanagisako and Collier 1987), within which sexual charac-
teristics are interpreted as visible signs that index humans as being either male or
female as the only possible sexes (Errington 1990). Closely related to this binary
division of sexes is the cultural interpretation of bodies and their sexual character-
istics on the basis of their functional meaning for the reproductive process (Moore
1994). Although her work has been largely overlooked for some considerable time
(Gildemeister 2005; Gildemeister and Wetterer 1992), as early as 1984 Hagemann-
White (1984) considered “being-a-man” or “being-a-woman” not as a biological
matters of fact, but rather as “symbols in a social system of meaning” (Hagemann-
White 1984, p. 79) that through individuals’ interactions are permanently created
anew. At the beginning of the 1990s, the works of Judith Butler contributed to a
re-evaluation of the strict distinction between sex and gender, since the biological
sexed body can also be seen as a discursively constructed cultural product (Butler
1990, 1993). The emergence of this perspective—often labelled as a postmodern
(or queer) approach—was paralleled by a process of reducing and constraining
bodies and sexes as phenomena that are solely constituted linguistically, as dis-
courses can only proceed via language as vehicle.
Feminism had initially converted the established ideology that “biology is
destiny” into “biological differences are shaped culturally”; postmodernism further
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 7

changed this ideology to (Behrend 1994, p. 176) “culture is destiny; everything is

culture, including biology” (Landweer and Rumpf 1993, p. 4, in Behrend 1994).
Thus, biological determinism made way for a social or cultural determinism. In
Western societies this sex-shaping discourse springs from the assumption of only
two sexes. In order to make “sense” in cultural or social terms, a sexed body has
either to represent a man or a woman. Thus, Western discourse normalizes the
sexual possibilities of being (Wetterer 2004). For intersexual persons (as well as for
their parents and physicians) this creates a cultural pressure to disambiguate their
sex into one direction. This approach to sex as a product of cultural forming, that
gets its content (or essence) only by permanently discursively performing it,
expands individuals’ scope of action, and makes other performances or “stagings”
of one’s sex thinkable. Butler introduced the term “performativity” in this context.
This perspective liberates intersexual persons from their pathological status, as
every sex is produced and constructed socially anyhow. It also follows, therefore,
that its essence and meaning are changeable and modifiable, and there is no reason
to declare certain constellations of sexual characteristics as deficient or deviating
from any standard, as there cannot, perforce, be any legitimate standard from which
something can deviate. For intersexual persons, taking this perspective can be a
relief, psychologically speaking.
However, as mentioned above, the medical perspective on intersexuality is still
the dominant one in Western societies. It is therefore important to comprehend this
perspective as well.

3.2 Biological-Medical Perspective

From a biological or medical perspective on intersexuality, there are three

sex-characteristics that are indicative for different types of intersexuality: chromo-
somes, gonads and genitals. For most people all three of these indicators are
corresponding and indicate the direction of being either male or female (Calvi
2012, p. 54):
1. The genetic/chromosomal sex is determined at the time at which the sperm cell
fertilizes the egg cell and mostly leads to the development of a male (46, XY) or
female chromosome complement (46, XX); these chromosomal complements
then indicate an individual’s male or female sex development, respectively.
2. The gonadal sex is determined by the gonadal tissues present. Individuals with a
male chromosome complement mostly have testes that produce testosterone as
the principal male sex hormone, and individuals with a female chromosome
complement usually develop ovaries that produce estrogens and progesterone as
the principal female sex hormones.
3. The phenotypic sex is indicated by individuals’ reproductive organs/genitals,
thus by having a vagina, labia, and clitoris in the case of a female, or by
possessing a penis and scrotum in the case of a male (see Calvi 2012, p. 54).
8 T. K€
ollen

Table 1 Classification of DSDs according to the Chicago Consensus Statement (Hughes

et al. 2006a, p. 2)
Sex chromosome DSD 46,XY DSD 46,XX DSD
(A) 45,X (Turner (A) Disorders of gonadal (testicular) (A) Disorders of gonadal
syndrome and variants) development (ovarian) development
1. Complete gonadal dysgenesis 1. Ovotesticular DSD
(Swyer syndrome)
(B) 47,XXY (Klinefelter 2. Partial gonadal dysgenesis 2. Testicular DSD
syndrome and variants) (e.g. SRY+, dup SOX9)
3. Gonadal regression 3. Gonadal dysgenesis
(C) 45,X/46,XY (mixed 4. Ovotesticular DSD (B) Androgen excess
gonadal dysgenesis, (B) Disorders in androgen synthesis 1. Fetal (e.g.,
ovotesticular DSD) or action 21-hydroxylase deficiency,
11-hydroxylase
deficiency)
(D) 46,XX/46,XY 1. Androgen biosynthesis defect (e.g., 2. Fetoplacental (aroma-
(chimeric, ovotesticular 17- hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase tase deficiency, POR)
DSD) deficiency, 5 alpha reductase
deficiency, StAR mutations)
2. Defect in androgen action (e.g., 3. Maternal (luteoma,
CAIS, PAIS) exogenous, etc.)
3. LH receptor defects (e.g., Leydig (C) Other
cell hypoplasia, aplasia)
4. Disorders of AMH and AMH (e.g., cloacal extrophy,
receptor (persistent Müllerian duct vaginal atresia, MURCS,
syndrome) other syndromes)
(C) Other
(e.g., severe hypospadias, cloacal
extrophy)

Intersexuals can possess different constellations of these three types of

sex-characteristics that do not have to point in the same sexual direction. They
may also have differing manifestations of each of these sex-characteristics. There
are different medical approaches to categorize these controversially-labeled “dis-
orders of sex development” (DSD). According to the Chicago Consensus Statement
DSD “is proposed, as defined by congenital conditions in which development of
chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical” (Hughes et al. 2006b: 149).
There is a proposed distinction to be made between 1) sex chromosome DSD, 2) 46,
XY DSD, and 3) 46,XX DSD (Hughes et al. 2006b). Table 1 gives an overview
about how DSDs can be classified.
The first group also includes persons with 45,X0 or 47,XXX karyotypes, who
often do not show any bodily differences. There are also individuals with different
chromosomes at different somatic cells, who then possess some kind of chromo-
somal mosaic. The second group comprises persons whose gonads are not fully
developed or who have male and female (sometimes not fully developed) gonads
and/or genitals (Reis 2007; Meyer-Bahlburg 1994). Until very recently it was the
established medical practice for a newborn child with a DSD diagnosis to be
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 9

“disambiguated” into one sexed direction, via an operation and, often, subsequent
hormone therapy (Richter-Appelt 2004). In order to be socially and culturally
viable, it was assumed that humans had to be either men or women. The doctor’s
job was to maintain an illusion of unambiguousness as far as was possible through
medicinal, operative, and psychological treatment. With the emergence of the
voices of intersex-associations decrying this coercive treatment, medical practice
has, now, largely changed, though the former practices of “medical disambigua-
tion” have not fully disappeared. The insight that it is quite possible to live a life as
an intersex person, has gained in both prominence and importance over the past few
years, and thus, more and more diagnoses of DSD do not coercively lead to a sexed
“disambiguation”; the one major exception is where “medical disambiguation” is
necessary to save a newborn’s life, but this is only very rarely the case. In not
performing this sexed “disambiguation” on newborn babies, the individual is given
the opportunity to decide by him- or her- or *-self what way of life he/she/* wants to
live in terms of his/her/* sex-identity (Voß 2012).
As outlined in Table 1 there are many types of intersexuality with different
medical designations. Without going more into detail here, it can be seen that there
is a broad variety of sexed possibilities of being that question the dichotomous
model of only two sexes as the only valid organizational system of ordering. The
question then arises as to how organizations or companies can deal with this.

3.3 Intersexuality and Diversity Management

The social constructivist perspective on sex would help to destigmatize intersex

persons and to take away the pressure on them to conceal their intersexuality, or to
assign themselves to one sex. However, very rarely does diversity management
practice take this perspective. Most diversity approaches assume two sexes as a
given, and diversity management then equals either the direct, and one-sided,
support and promotion of women; or the attempt to create framework conditions
that offer the same opportunities to both men and women. The starting points of
such approaches are frequently either the recognition of the different (stereotypic)
needs of men and women, or the organizational compensation of societally existing
disadvantages for men and women, e.g. by implementing quotas and women-only
networks or mentoring programs. From the perspective of assuming men and
women to be nothing more than culturally- and socially-shaped sexed bodies both
of these starting points would find little favor, since from this perspective one would
not wish to be the means of perpetuation of the maintenance and performative
construction of the dichotomous sex paradigm, any more than one would wish to be
an active agent or conduit for its performative staging. In this context, it is
misleading to label this dimension of diversity as “gender” and to allege that it is
only about the social and cultural aspect of gender/sex and therefore also about the
overcoming or dispersal of the stereotypic social ascriptions to the different sexes.
The decomposition of certain stereotypic ascriptions to men or women (which lead
10 T. K€
ollen

to an unequal allocation of opportunities and resources) might be an intermediate

goal or a valued side effect of some diversity management initiatives. However,
ultimately this all promotes the inclusion, equal treatment, or selective empower-
ment of biological sexes. In no way does it dissolve sex-categories, since such
dissolution would then remove the starting point for balancing the framework
conditions for men and women. To include intersexuality within the so-called
diversity dimension of “gender”, it would seem, would carry with it the danger
that, in terms of the respective sex (out of two sexes) that is contextually under-
privileged, the point of origin for any political claim could get lost, since that point
of origin would be, perforce, a seemingly unambiguous biological sex.
It seems that intersex persons cannot really expect a great deal of support or
positive assistance from the current diversity management approach to the dimen-
sion of “sex/gender”. In fact, quite the contrary seems to be true. Although
intersexuality is clearly a phenomenon that represents a manifestation of the
category “sex/gender”, it is (on those occasions when it is mentioned at all), always
grouped together with (or “disposed of” to) the diversity dimension of “sexual
orientation”. This widespread practice occurs despite the fact that intersexuality
really has little to do with diverse sexualities or sexual orientations, except in so far
as all humans (can) have a sexuality or sexual orientation. However, this would
connect all the other dimensions of diversity with “sexual orientation” in the same
way, as every human also has, for example, an age or a skin color. Linguistically
this grouping together of LGBTI is legitimized by the false assumption that—in the
case of “T” being interpreted as transsexuality (instead of transgender or trans-
identity)—all of these letters represent a broad spectrum of sexualities (homo-, bi-,
trans-, and inter-sexuality) which can then be addressed and served conjointly by
“adequate” diversity management practices. As already outlined, this misunder-
standing is largely due to a questionable linguistic application of the Latin word
“sexus” to an English-language term (via German). Nowadays, the meaning of the
term “sexuality” is exclusively concerned with sexual desire, and erotic interest and
practices. Therefore, by using this word in relation with “trans-” and “inter-”, the
misunderstanding outlined here is already linguistically predetermined.

4 Trans-Identities

By using the different terms “trans-identity”, “transgender”, and “transsexuality”,

attempts are often made to emphasize different trans-facets. However, in everyday
language, as well as on the level of trans-persons’ self-designation, these terms are
sometimes used synonymously, and conversely sometimes assigned individually
different meanings. In order to respect the plurality of trans-identities, and to avoid
narrowing down the ways of interpreting and describing trans-identities available to
individuals linguistically, a frequently used term employed to cover the whole
spectrum of trans-identities without having to name them is “trans*”. All of these
terms have in common that they describe individuals who (in different ways)
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 11

perceive their gender identity as being different from the way that their biological
sex would, conventionally speaking, be socially determined. The usage of the term
“transsexuality” would seem to originate with Magnus Hirschfeld (Pfäfflin 2008).
He coined the term “transsexualism” in 1923 in his German article “The Intersexual
Constitution” [“Die intersexuelle Konstitution”] (Hirschfeld 1923). In this article,
he developed the concept of “psychic transsexualism” [“seelischer Transsex-
ualismus”] (Cauldwell 2006) as a desire that exceeds transvestism in not only
adapting one’s “vestiture” to that of the other sex, but also adapting one’s body.
Hirschfeld had already proposed the concept of the “transvestite” as a distinct
category in 1910 (Hirschfeld 1910), to make the concept of transvestism distinct
from that of homosexuality. His motivation for this was largely so as not to
endanger his primary political goal of abolishing Paragraph 175 of the Imperial
Penal Code in force in the German Empire at the time, which criminalized homo-
sexual practices between men as “unnatural fornication”; a goal which he perceived
as being jeopardized by the increased visibility of, and domestic “scandals”
(Eulenburg-Affair) surrounding gay men in the entourage and cabinet of the then-
Kaiser, Wilhelm II (Herrn 2005; Domeier 2014; Hekma 2015; Beachy 2010;
Oosterhuis 1992). Amongst the trans-terms, “transsexuality” is the term most
related to the physical body, and is often associated with actions that aim to adjust
the individual’s biological body to the individual’s gender identity surgically and/or
hormonally (Benjamin 1967; Reiche 1984).
Trans-identities do not, by and large, challenge the binary model of only two
sexes, neither on the level of social genders, nor on the level of biological sexes.
Transsexual persons are mostly biological men or women with a gender identity in
the other sex respectively, who wish to adjust their body into this direction, often
ideally in such a way that they are perceived publicly and societally as having a
sexed body that totally corresponds with their gender identity.
The term “transgender” is often used or adopted if one’s individual self-concept
does not exactly fit into a binary gender model. This term is often noted as being
coined by Virginia Prince in 1969. Prince uses “transgender” to designate persons,
who express their gender identity “solely” through their dress and their appearance,
without having the wish to adjust their biological bodies according to their gender
identity that does not conform their biological sex (Papoulias 2006). She herself,
however, refused to be seen as the initiator of this concept, as her primary intention
was to draw a line of distinction between gay men and male transvestites (Ekins and
King 2006). As a relatively new term “trans-identity” covers a much broader
spectrum of possible self-concepts. One’s trans-identity then may contain a bodily
adjustment, but, equally, it may not; it may also be a potentially “new” or very
individual and unique self-concept or gender identity that results from a perceived
incongruence between one’s biological sex and the rejection of the related, socially-
expected gender identity. Trans-identities can also oppose the societal pressure of
having to assign oneself to a clearly-delineated, distinct sex or gender at all; one
might, instead, perceive oneself as being “somewhere in between” (e.g. as
genderqueer, intergendered, multigendered, or gender fluid), or one might
12 T. K€
ollen

deliberately opt to elude gender or sex classification at all (Kuper et al. 2012; Dargie
et al. 2014).

4.1 Medical Perspective

In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association recognized transsexuality as a

“mental disorder”, revising this designation more specifically in 1994 as a “gender
identity disorder”. In 2013 the the term for diagnosis was changed to “gender
dysphoria” in order to make it sound less pathological (Zucker 2015). Another
term that has been used in order to de-pathologize the diagnosis of trans-identities is
“gender incongruence” (Drescher et al. 2012). The WHO defines transsexualism as:
“. . . a desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied
by a sense of discomfort with, or inappropriateness of, one’s anatomic sex, and a wish to
have surgery and hormonal treatment to make one’s body as congruent as possible with
one’s preferred sex” (WHO 2015).

Once an individual has been given a medical diagnosis of gender incongruence,

gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, the public health care systems of
many countries, as well as many health insurances, will cover the costs for
necessary medical treatment, such as sex reassignment surgeries, or hormonal
treatments. In most countries operations pertaining to gender reassignments are
legally regulated. In Germany, a person is obliged to prove that it is very unlikely
that he or she will ever change his or her gender identity through psychological
assessment, before he or she can officially request a change of civil status (Franzen
and Sauer 2010). Since 2011 proof of one’s infertility is no longer a precondition for
requesting this change in Germany; however, in many other countries this still
remains a necessary precondition (Rauchfleisch 2014).

4.2 Societal Perspective

As already outlined above, instead of challenging the binary model of only two
sexes, trans-identities often rather oppose the coercive assignment of a certain
gender identity to the respective biological sex. Whether one adheres to the binary
model on the level of one’s gender identity is something that differs from person to
person, and is expressed in individually diverse self-concepts and identities. Many
trans persons clearly assign themselves to one gender, whilst others see themselves
more as being somewhere in between or outside these gender categories. These
“new” constellations or alignments of sex and gender identity categories within one
individual are still not fully accepted within many socities, and this non-acceptance
is frequently an enormous obstacle for trans-persons’ desire to live a “normal” life
within their gender identity. As soon as an individual is perceived as being trans,
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 13

they often have to face incomprehension, animosities, and vilifications in their

everyday live. The direct perceptibility of their trans-status often differs strongly
between trans-women and trans-men. While trans-men (female-to-male trans per-
sons) can initiate some of the changes of male puberty to a certain degree by taking
male hormones, trans-women (male-to-female trans persons) are largely unable to
undo the effects of the male puberty that they have already undergone. Thus, the
bodily frame, the height and the pitch of the voice of trans-women frequently make
them identifiable as such, whereas trans-men are often more able to pass as
cisgender men. “Going stealth” is much more a possibility for trans-men than it is
for trans-women, and it “enables” them to live a life within their gender identity,
without being permanently identified as a trans-person. Therefore, on average,
trans-women experience much more non-acceptance in their everyday life than
trans-men. Closely linked to this is the fact that the public image, and the public
perception, of transgender-issues has been, and continues to be, much more shaped
by trans-women then by trans-men.
Something of a disjunction exists in the seeming compatibility of, on the one
hand, the political trans*-claim for a higher degree of societal acceptance for
individuals living their lives in their gender identity, and, on the other hand, certain
feminist claims. Interpreted restrictively, transsexuality (and also transgender and
trans-identity) is a clear gender identity that differs from a clear biological sex
within a binary model of two sexes and two genders. This seems to confirm the
feminist standpoint and line of argumentation based on a model that allows the
separation of the phenomena of biological sexes from the phenomena of social
genders. Transsexuals or transgender-persons seem to be ideal examples to support
the claim that biological women are not (and do not have to be) per se feminine
(or female), and consequently they do not have, per se, to be restricted by the corset
of “appropriate” gender stereotypes that produces and legitimizes their societal
secondariness (Elliot 2009, 2012; Snyder 2008). The big difference between the
trans-claim for recognition (and appreciation) and feminist striving for equality is
that trans-identities address (sometimes stereotypic) self-ascriptions, whilst the
demand for gender-equality addresses stereotypic ascriptions that are ascribed by
others (or, indeed, by society as a whole). To put this in its most exaggerated and
least nuanced form, this means that, for example, trans-women may (possibly) wish
to adopt an idea of femininity, and a possibly ultra-feminine lifestyle that, from a
feminist perspective, is often perceived as highly problematic. Taking into account
the fact that transgender persons may not necessarily wish, need, or be able to adjust
their bodies to their gender identity (neither as far as possible, nor gradually) in
order to live within their gender identity, this causes the notion of “solidarity” with
feminist claims to falter, since here the very categories of sex and gender them-
selves are called into question. This might be welcomed from a queer-theoretical,
postmodern perspective (Halberstam 2005; Bendl et al. 2008). However, politi-
cally, this involves the danger of blurring the important starting point for all
political claims for equality and redistribution, namely the dichotomy of being-a-
man or being-a-woman.
14 T. K€
ollen

4.3 Trans-Identities and Diversity Management

Until very recently, trans* has been a marginalized issue in diversity management
(Ozturk and Tatli 2016). If it has been mentioned at all, it has largely only been as
one element of the initialism LGBT (or LGBTI). Within employee resource groups
that use this initialism, then, trans-persons are officially included verbally, but,
when it comes to concrete network activities, they are largely unacknowledged.
Equalization guidelines or corporate codes of conduct do not, by and large, include
one of the trans-terms in their written versions; furthermore, to the terms “sex” or
“gender” (or their equivalents in other languages) is only rarely added the word
“identity”. The self-evidently and seemingly consensually perpetuated
non-integration and non-consideration of transsexuality and trans-identity as one
facet of the diversity dimension of “gender” would seem to reveal that the societal
normalization of appropriate gender identities is widespread, even within the field
of diversity management.
The shunting of the “T” (as well as the “I”) here into a miscellaneous category
that nebulously groups it together with diverse sexual orientations highlights that
little weight is given to trans-identities. Furthermore, it indicates the way that
diversity initiatives monopolize the dimension of gender (or sex) for cisgender
men and women, i.e. for biological men or women, whose gender identity corre-
sponds to their biological sex, and how those initiatives can actually work to
exclude, rather than include, some dimensions. That said, there are indeed several
organizations that do explicitly recognize trans* by having implemented very clear
guidelines on how to handle transitionings within the organization. These guide-
lines have, of necessity, to cover formal and bureaucratic aspects, and they also
have to clarify how a change of a civil status is handled within the organization, in
order to minimize the danger of the trans employee having to running the gauntlet
of potential everyday embarrassments and incomprehension. Furthermore these
guidelines must state how the organization handles potential emerging uncertainty
within the workforce in the case that someone decides to initiate transitioning, and
how the trans person is supported during this phase. It should be noted that besides
helping the trans-person, organizations that implement such guidelines do them-
selves benefit from them. Were an employee to decide to start his or her transition
during employment in a specific organization, one without specific guidelines in
place, the employer or manager, or superior of that individual may find themselves
uncertain of how to handle such a situation, which they may have previously never
encountered. Out of ignorance, misapprehension, fear, or, indeed, in trying to
overcompensate from a fear of doing or saying something wrong, the employer
or manager may inadvertently behave in a hurtful, unsupportive or disrespectful
way, and, as a consequence, the transitioning individual might leave the organiza-
tion. Guidelines can establish clarity, can provide space and opportunities to
address insecurities, and to search for solution possibilities together. In the long
term, therefore, they can help the individual, the employer, the co-workers and the
company itself form a more reciprocally supportive and nurturing framework,
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 15

which can only strengthen and benefit the organization as a whole, and all of the
individuals within it.
In summation, an outline will follow of a potential diversity management
approach, which considers trans-identities and intersexuality to be an integral and
equal component for the goal of creating an integrative and inclusive work envi-
ronment and organizational climate. The key to this reconceptualization lies in a
more integrative approach to the dimensions of gender/sex, gender identity, and
sexual orientation, which no longer treats these dimensions as if they are phenom-
ena that are separable from each other.

5 Conceptualizing an Integrative Diversity Management

Approach on Gender/Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual
Orientation

As already mentioned above, if trans-identity and intersexuality are mentioned in

the context of diversity management at all, they are usually grouped together with
“sexual orientation” into one very heterogeneous residual dimension of diversity.
This grouping together in, for example, the initialism LGBT(I) follows the ques-
tionable but common practice of defining the individuals that are represented by
these letters as one “community”, although their social recognition goals are quite
heterogeneous. On the level of language this aggregation gains legitimacy, as
(in the case of the “T” being interpreted as transsexuality) all of these letters
seem to represent different “sexualities”, namely homo-, bi-, trans-, and inter-
sexuality. As has already been outlined, this “commonality” is based solely on
the specious (and for many languages outright fallacious) use of the term “sexual-
ity” within the terms “intersexuality” and “transsexuality”, where “sexuality”
derives from the Latin term “sexus” which designates the biological sex. Within
the terms “homosexuality” and “bisexuality”, on the other hand, “sexuality” stands
instead for a sexual desire or sexual interest. Whilst in English this ambiguous
usage of the term sexuality is merely confusing, in other languages, such as in
German or Polish, it is outright incorrect. Trans- and inter-sexuality represent sex-
or gender categories. However, the diversity dimension of gender/sex is related to
the dimension of “sexual orientation”, insofar as the manifestations of the different
sexual orientations are defined by the desiring and the desired gender/sex, for
example as a same sex/same gender or as opposite sex/opposite gender sexual
desire.
When considering the integration of intersexuality and trans-identity into diver-
sity management programs, one should possibly pre-empt this consideration by
asking oneself why one should follow, or should want to follow, a diversity
management strategy at all. One fundamental idea of diversity management is
that management practice should break away from stereotypic images of the
different manifestations of the different dimensions of diversity. Management
16 T. K€
ollen

practice should rather work towards an ideality where these manifestations are no
longer criteria for organizational allocations of resources and opportunities. For
employees’ career development, and the intra-organizational allocation of tasks and
responsibilities, it should ideally not matter at all whether an employee is intersex-
ual or a trans-man. The only considerations that should be valid are the individual’s
capabilities and the individual’s potential contribution in accomplishing the orga-
nizational goals, and these should be based on parameters such as experience or
talent, rather than founded in stereotypic dimension-related pre-assumptions about
his or her capabilities and contributions. In order to come close to this ideality in
terms of intersexuality and trans-identity, the dimension of “gender/sex” has to be
understood in a much broader und much more integrative way. The dimension
should lose its characteristic of only being understood in a binary way, as being
represented solely by cisgender men and women, i.e. by men and women who have
a gender identity that corresponds to their unambiguous biological sex. The goal of
this integrative approach has to be that the concrete manifestations of one’s sex or
gender become less important, as with it an individual’s self-pigeonholing into a
fixed template of legitimate manifestations would become less important. If an
organization could succeed in creating such a climate of inclusion, or at least if an
organization come close to this ideal, intersex and trans employees would not be
forced anymore to permanently legitimate, defend, or categorize themselves, and
they would no longer have to develop and to apply any debilitating coping strate-
gies. It is true that such a goal of diversity management might smack of an
unrealizable utopian construct, but this is precisely because of the declining, but
still prevalent, societal pressure to unambiguously self-categorize oneself within a
binary model of only two sexes, and to live a gender identity that mostly corre-
sponds to one’s biological sex. Nevertheless, this seems to be the right overall
objective, as it helps to avoid mistakes on the level of concrete actions and
initiatives that might prejudice the related objective of achieving a higher degree
of inclusion for intersex and trans* employees. A working climate that has rid itself
of the pressure to categorize oneself as belonging to a certain sex and gender, and
therefore of attaching to oneself a certain sex- or gender-value, would automatically
make the diversity-dimension of sexual orientation pointless and irrelevant, as it
would need an unambiguous gender/sex assignment by definition (see
e.g. Lewandowski and Koppetsch 2015).
In terms of designing organizational diversity management initiatives this
necessitates the consideration of the dimensions of sex/gender, gender identity,
and sexual orientation as being one common and conjoint field of action, or one
conjoint dimension of diversity. Care must be taken, when addressing the three
layers of this dimension, to address the whole spectrum of potential manifestations
in a value-neutral and unweighted way. Special care should be taken in allowing
space for individually differing identities, self-concepts, and self-designations. A
rough scheme of different manifestations is as follows (Table 2):
Analogous to the concept of trans*, cissexuality or cisgender stands for the
congruence of one’s biological sex and gender identity (Taylor 2010; Sigusch
1991). One’s sexual orientation then can be defined by one’s biological sex or by
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 17

Table 2 Manifestations of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation

Dimension of diversity Manifestations
Sex Woman—intersex/inter*—man
Gender identity Transgender/transsexual/trans*—cisgender/cis*
Sexual orientation Homosexual—bisexual/*sexual—heterosexual

one’s gender identity. Whether, for example, a trans-women who is sexually more
interested in women defines herself as being lesbian, or whether she defines her
sexual orientation in another way is individually different.
Having the diversity goal of unshackling individuals’ developmental possibili-
ties and scopes within the organization from their sex, gender identity, and sexual
orientation, must go hand in hand with an approach which keeps in mind and
integrates all of its manifestations, in the case where one of these levels is
addressed. Employee networks that are established around the dimension of sexual
orientation, for example, should also invite, and be open to, heterosexual
employees (K€ ollen 2016). The term LGBT(I) should be avoided, as it might have
a negative impact on two accounts: for one thing, it mixes up different dimensions
and with it different claims; for another thing, it includes only selected manifesta-
tions of these dimensions, which might effectively stabilize the polarization and
hierarchization amongst the manifestations. It is entirely conceivable that initiatives
could be developed that conjointly address the three dimensions, but these initia-
tives must then address the whole spectrum of manifestations of all these dimen-
sions. In this context one must be critical of initiatives that aim at the advancement
or promotion of exclusively women (or exclusively men) as well as of one-sided
mentoring programs, or quota systems. Furthermore, one should approach the
question of applying a gender-neutral language with care. One should at least be
aware that, if linguistically men and women are included in address, this is anything
but gender neutral, as it of course reproduces and stabilizes the binary model of only
two sexes and genders; this is an issue that is especially relevant in, for example
Romance, Slavic, and Germanic languages.
The integration of intersexuality and trans-identity into diversity management
programs opens up a new perspective on approaches to diversity management, and
to the dimensions of diversity management in general. This reframing can be used
to refresh or enlarge one’s interpretation of the term of “inclusion”. In terms of
trans* and intersexuality, inclusion has to mean giving intersex and trans employees
the scope and opportunity to develop individually. Organizations should aim at
creating an organizational diversity climate (K€ollen 2015) that considers every sex
and every gender identity to be equal, a climate which removes and forestalls any
pressure to demonstrate legitimacy, and any pressure on intersex and transgender
employees to justify themselves within the workplace.
18 T. K€
ollen

References

Beachy, R. (2010). The German invention of homosexuality. The Journal of Modern History, 82
(4), 801–838.
Behrend, H. (1994). Mothers do not make Babies: Zur Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der
Ethnologie. Zeitschrift f€
ur Ethnologie, 119(2), 175–183.
Bendl, R., Fleischmann, A., & Walenta, C. (2008). Diversity management discourse meets queer
theory. Gender in Management: An international Journal, 23(6), 382–394.
Benjamin, H. (1966). The transsexual phenomenon. New York: The Julian Press.
Benjamin, H. (1967). Transvestism and transsexualism. JAMA – The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 199(2), 136–136.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
€
Calvi, E. M. (2012). Eine Uberschreitung der Geschlechtergrenzen?: Intersexualit€ at in
der“westlichen Gesellschaft”. Baden-Baden: Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Cauldwell, D. O. (2006). Psychopathia transexualis. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The
transgender studies reader (pp. 40–44). London: Routledge.
Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Pukall, C. F., & Coyle, S. M. (2014). Somewhere under the rainbow:
Exploring the identities and experiences of trans persons. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 23(2), 60–74.
de Silva, A. (2008). Geschlechter-und sexualpolitische Annahmen in zeitgen€ ossischen
medizinischen Empfehlungen zur Behandlung von Intersexualität. In E. Tuider (Ed.), Quer
Verbindungen (pp. 51–67). Münster: LIT Verlag.
Diamond, M., & Beh, H. G. (2008). Changes in the management of children with intersex
conditions. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 4(1), 4–5.
Domeier, N. (2014). The homosexual scare and the masculinization of German politics before
World War I. Central European History, 47(4), 737–759.
Drescher, J., Cohen-Kettenis, P., & Winter, S. (2012). Minding the body: Situating gender identity
diagnoses in the ICD-11. International Review of Psychiatry, 24(6), 568–577.
Ekins, R., & King, D. (2006). Virginia Prince: Pioneer of transgendering. Binghamton: Haworth
Press.
Elliot, P. (2009). Engaging trans debates on gender variance: A feminist analysis. Sexualities, 12
(1), 5–32.
Elliot, P. (2012). Debates in transgender, queer, and feminist theory: Contested sites. Farnham:
Ashgate Publishing.
Engel, A. (2002). Wider die Eindeutigkeit: Sexualit€at und Geschlecht im Fokus queerer Politik der
Repr€ asentation. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Errington, S. (1990). Recasting sex, gender, and power: a theoretical and regional overview. In
J. M. Atkinson & S. Errington (Eds.), Power and difference: Gender in island Southeast Asia
(pp. 1–58). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Franzen, J., & Sauer, A. (2010). Benachteiligung von Trans* Personen, insbesondere im
Arbeitsleben. Berlin: Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes.
Gatens, M. (1983). A critique of the sex/gender distinction. In J. Allen & P. Patton (Eds.), Beyond
Marxism? Interventions after Marx (pp. 143–160). Leichhardt: Intervention Publication.
Gildemeister, R. (2005). Carol Hagemann-White: Sozialisation: Weiblich — Männlich? In
M. L€ ow & B. Mathes (Eds.), Schl€ usselwerke der Geschlechterforschung (pp. 194–213).
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Gildemeister, R., & Wetterer, A. (1992). Wie Geschlechter gemacht werden: Die soziale
Konstruktion der Zweigeschlechtlichkeit und ihre Reifizierung in der Frauenforschung. In
G.-A. Knapp & A. Wetterer (Eds.), TraditionenBr€ uche. Entwicklungen feministischer Theorie
(pp. 201–254). Freiburg: Kore Verlag.
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 19

Goldschmidt, R. (1917). Intersexuality and the endocrine aspect of sex. Endocrinology, 1(4),
433–456.
Goldschmidt, R. (1931). Intersexualität und menschliches Zwittertum. DMW – Deutsche
Medizinische Wochenschrift, 57(30), 1288–1292.
Groneberg, M. (2008). Mythen und Wissen zu Geschlecht und Intersexualität: Eine Analyse
relevanter Begriffe, Vorstellungen und Diskurse. In M. Groneberg & K. Zehnder (Eds.),
“Intersex”: Geschlechtsanpassung zum Wohl des Kindes? Erfahrungen und Analysen
(pp. 83–144). Freiburg: Academic Press Fribourg/Paulusverlag Freiburg Schweiz.
Hagemann-White, C. (1984). Sozialisation: Weiblich – M€ annlich? Alltag und Biografie von
M€adchen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Halberstam, J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives.
New York: NYU Press.
Hanappi-Egger, E. (2015). Gender scripts as access codes to management positions. In A. M.
Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in management: Getting in,
getting on, getting out (pp. 61–73). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hekma, G. (2015). Sodomy, effeminacy, identity: Mobilizations for same-sexual loves and
practices before the Second World War. In D. Paternotte & M. Tremblay (Eds.), The Ashgate
research companion to lesbian and gay activism (pp. 15–29). Farnham: Ashgate.
Herdt, G. H. (Ed.). (2003). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and
history (3rd ed.). New York: Zone Books.
Herrn, R. (2005). Schnittmuster des Geschlechts: Transvestitismus und Transsexualit€ at in der
fr€
uhen Sexualwissenschaft. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Hirschfeld, M. (1910). Die Transvestiten – Eine Untersuchung u€ber den erotischen
Verkleidungstrieb: mit umfangreichem casuistischen und historischen Material. Berlin: Alfred
Pulvermacher & Company.
Hirschfeld, M. (1923). Die intersexuelle Konstitution. Jahrbuch f€ ur sexuelle Zwischenstufen unter
besonderer Ber€ ucksichtigung der Homosexualit€ at, 23, 3–27.
Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., & Lee, P. A. (2006a). Consensus statement on management
of intersex disorders. Archives of Disease in Childhood, Topic, 11, 1–10.
Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., & Lee, P. A. (2006b). Consensus statement on management
of intersex disorders. Journal of pediatric urology, 2(3), 148–162.
oppel, U. (2010). XX0XY ungel€
Kl€ ost. Hermaphroditismus, Sex und Gender in der deutschen
Medizin. Eine historische Studie zur Intersexualit€at. Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld.
K€
ollen, T. (2015). Organisationales Diversity-Klima. In E. Hanappi-Egger & R. Bendl (Eds.),
Diversit€at, Diversifizierung und (Ent)Solidarisierung - Eine Standortbestimmung der
Diversit€atsforschung im deutschen Sprachraum (pp. 223–236). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Köllen, T. (2016). Lessening the difference is more—the relationship between diversity manage-
ment and the perceived organizational climate for gay men and lesbians. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1088883.
Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual
orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. The Journal of Sex
Research, 49(2-3), 244–254.
Landweer, H., & Rumpf, M. (1993). Kritik der Kategorie “Geschlecht”. Deutsche Studien Verlag:
Weinheim.
Lewandowski, S., & Koppetsch, C. (Eds.). (2015). Sexuelle Vielfalt und die UnOrdnung der
Geschlechter: Beitr€ age zur Soziologie der Sexualit€at. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. (1994). Intersexuality and the diagnosis of gender identity disorder.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(1), 21–40.
Moore, H. L. (1994). A passion for difference: Essays in anthropology and gender. Bloomington,
IL: Indiana University Press.
Morland, I. (2014). Intersex. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2), 111–115.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.
20 T. K€
ollen

Olyslager, F., & Conway, L. (2007). On the calculation of the prevalence of transsexualism. In
World Professional Association for Transgender Health 20th International Symposium, Chi-
cago, 2007.
Oosterhuis, H. (1992). Homosexual emancipation in Germany Before 1933: Two traditions.
Journal of Homosexuality, 22(1-2), 1–28.
Ozturk, M. B., & Tatli, A. (2016). Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: broadening diversity
management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(8).
Papoulias, C. (2006). Transgender. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 231–233.
Pfäfflin, F. (2008). Transsexuelles Begehren. In A. Springer, K. Münch, & D. Munz (Eds.),
Sexualit€aten (pp. 311–330). Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Rauchfleisch, U. (2014). Transsexualit€ at–Transidentit€
at: Begutachtung, Begleitung, Therapie.
G€ ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Reiche, R. (1984). Sexuality, identity, transsexuality. Beitrage zur Sexualforschung, 59, 51–64.
Reis, E. (2007). Divergence or disorder? The politics of naming intersex. Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, 50(4), 535–543.
Remus, J. (2015). Inter*Realitäten. In F. Schmidt, A.-C. Schondelmayer, & U. B. Schröder (Eds.),
Selbstbestimmung und Anerkennung sexueller und geschlechtlicher Vielfalt (pp. 63–74).
Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Richter-Appelt, H. (2004). Intersexualität und Medizin. Zeitschrift f€ ur Sexualforschung, 17(3),
239–257.
Rosselli, D. (2015). Sexual ambiguity: Development of judgement and evaluation criteria over the
centuries. In C. Trombetta, G. Liguori, & M. Bertolotto (Eds.), Management of Gender
Dysphoria (pp. 13–17). Milan: Springer.
Sax, L. (2002). How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling. Journal of Sex
Research, 39(3), 174–178.
Sigusch, V. (1991). Die Transsexuellen und unser nosomorpher Blick: Zur Enttotalisierung des
Transsexualismus. Zeitschrift f€ ur Sexualforschung, 4(3), 225–256.
Snyder, R. C. (2008). What is third‐wave feminism? A new directions essay. Signs, 34(1),
175–196.
Stern, C. (2010). Intersexualit€ at: Geschichte, Medizin und psychosoziale Aspekte. Marburg:
Tectum Verlag.
Taylor, E. (2010). Cisgender privilege: On the privileges of performing normative gender. In
K. Bornstein & S. B. Bergman (Eds.), Gender outlaws: The next generation (pp. 268–272).
Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
Voß, H.-J. (2012). Intersexualit€at-Intersex: eine Intervention. Münster: Unrast Verlag.
Wetterer, A. (2004). Konstruktion von Geschlecht: Reproduktionsweisen der Zweigeschlech-
tlichkeit. In R. Becker & B. Kortendiek (Eds.), Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung
(pp. 122–131). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
WHO (2015). ICD-10 Version: 2015. F64.0 Transsexualism. http://apps.who.int/classifications/
icd10/browse/2015/en#/F64.0.
Yanagisako, S. J., & Collier, J. F. (1987). Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship. In J. F.
Collier & S. J. Yanagisako (Eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis
(pp. 14–50). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Zajko, V. (2009). ‘Listening With’ Ovid: Intersexuality, Queer Theory, and the Myth of Her-
maphroditus and Salmacis. Helios, 36(2), 175–202.
Zehnder, K. (2010). Zwitter beim Namen nennen - Intersexualit€ at zwischen Pathologie,
Selbstbestimmung und leiblicher Erfahrung. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Zucker, K. J. (2015). The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. In C. Trombetta,
G. Liguori, & M. Bertolotto (Eds.), Management of gender dysphoria (pp. 33–37). Milan:
Springer.
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding
Transgender Workplace Experiences

Katina Sawyer, Christian Thoroughgood, and Jennica Webster

1 Chapter Outline and Rationale

While the literature on LGBT individuals’ workplace experiences is growing, there

is a comparative dearth of peer-reviewed studies that focus on transgender
employees specifically. Those studies that do include transgender employees
often group them together with sexual minorities. In so doing, the implicit assump-
tion is that issues related to gender discrimination and sexual minority discrimina-
tion are similar, or even identical, to one another. However, sexual minority status
is considered an invisible identity category, while gender is considered a visible
category. The visibility of gender, as defined by societal gender markers, creates
uniquely challenging circumstances for individuals who are transitioning or plan-
ning to transition to another gender, as well as for those who are gender
non-conforming. Because gender is one of the most salient categories which people
use to define their interactions with others, such that individuals often automatically
and unconsciously categorize others by gender (Maccoby 1988), transgender indi-
viduals face unique challenges at work that vary from those of sexual minorities.

K. Sawyer, Ph.D. (*)

Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Villanova University,
Villanova, PA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Thoroughgood, Ph.D.
D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Management and Organizational Development,
Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Webster, Ph.D.
College of Business Administration, Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI,
USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 21

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_2
22 K. Sawyer et al.

“Doing gender” (West and Zimmerman 1987)—the act of dressing, interacting,

and performing in accordance with gender norms—is an activity that most
cisgender males and females participate in almost continuously. Gender is learned
at a very young age, with infants at the age of 5 months being able to recognize
gender in still photos (Fagan and Shepherd 1982; Fagan and Singer 1979) and stable
individual differences with regard to sex-typing emerging by the age of four
(Jacklin et al. 1984). Interestingly, Pascoe (2011) found that the primary motivation
for bullying of LGB individuals was not, in fact, their sexuality. Rather, students
reported that the perceived break with gender norms was the driver of their
mistreatment, primarily the perceived alignment with feminine norms for gay
males. This research highlights the bitter reality that teenagers often learn quickly
that departing from gender norms may be met with swift punishment from peers. As
a result of this conditioning, by the time individuals reach working age, they have
been exposed to and may have cemented a wide array of gendered norms, stereo-
types, and ways of thinking. Within the body of this chapter, we will highlight the
strong stigma that transgender employees face in the workplace, which is grounded
in their perceived breaks with well-learned societal gender norms. To properly
address this stigma, we believe employers should put into place interventions to
protect transgender employees from harmful workplace environments and work to
promote more inclusive workspaces overall. We also believe that researchers can
inform these practices by providing scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these
interventions in workplace settings.
Thus, in order to encourage a greater emphasis on transgender employees’
unique concerns in research and practice, we first outline the need for transgender
inclusivity by providing transgender population estimates and legislation informa-
tion, both within the U.S. and globally. Second, we summarize the literature on
transgender workplace discrimination globally, in order to provide an impetus for
more inclusive workplace practices and programs of research. Third, best practices
for supporting transgender employees in organizations are outlined. Finally, direc-
tions for future research that support more inclusive workplaces are presented.
More generally, it is the goal of this chapter to shed light on the challenges faced by
a frequently forgotten and widely misunderstood portion of the LGBT population,
the transgender community, with the hope of providing avenues for progress within
academic and practitioner communities interested in transgender workplace
equality.

2 U.S. and Global Estimates of Transgender Populations

Before discussing the effects of workplace discrimination on transgender

populations, we will examine the prevalence of transgender identity in the popula-
tion overall. Estimates suggest there are at least 700,000 transgender individuals in
America (Gates 2011). However, it is difficult to estimate the actual number of
transgender individuals within the population because the U.S. Census does not
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 23

collect this information. Further, there are many transgender individuals who, once
they transition from one gender to another, no longer wish to categorize themselves
as transgender but rather choose to identify as their current gender. Thus, it is likely
that these estimates are lower than the actual percentage of the population qualify-
ing as transgender. Global estimates, which are also likely to be underestimated,
demonstrate that transgender individuals make up anywhere from 0.1 to 1.1 % of
the world’s population (UNAIDS 2014). Again, it is difficult to estimate statistics
on specific country-level data, given the lack of official collection of this data.
However, the European Union produced a report in 2013 (European Union
2013) on LGBT populations in the EU, which showed that about 7 % of their
survey respondents identified as transgender. Yet, this does not offer an estimate of
how many individuals within the general population (non-LGBT) identify as
transgender. As such, we will not attempt to provide specific statistics for individual
countries, but rather suggest this is an area within which future research might be
conducted. In many countries where transgender identity is particularly tenuous, it
may be impossible to collect this information without transgender individuals
fearing repercussions. Yet, even using the lowest estimate (0.1 % of the world’s
population), there are likely 7,000,000 individuals worldwide who stand to benefit
from more inclusive transgender laws (not including their friends, family, and those
who advocate with the community). Given the opportunity for transgender law to
better address the concerns of the transgender community, we now discuss trans-
gender discrimination and the law at a societal level, both in the U.S. and
internationally.

3 Transgender Discrimination and the Law: Global

Perspective

International law surrounding transgender populations is constantly evolving.

However, there are some countries which specifically include gender identity in
their national protections. For example, the UK and Spain allow transgender
individuals to change their name and gender without having to complete gender
reassignment surgery (Human Rights Campaign 2015b). South Africa and Australia
also formally prohibit transgender discrimination (Human Rights Campaign
2015b), while Argentina allows individuals to legally change their gender and
name as they please (Wojcik 2014). Additionally, the UN put forth the Yogyakarta
Principles in 2007, which provide international guidelines for LGBT inclusivity
(The Yogyakarta Principles 2015). These principles call for the enforcement of
basic human rights for LGBT individuals, including the right to be free of discrim-
ination, harassment, and violence. However, like the U.S. context, these laws have
not prevented transgender discrimination from occurring at a higher rate than
within general or other minority populations (Open Society Foundations 2013).
24 K. Sawyer et al.

Finally, some countries recognize a third gender as an official gender category.

For example, India legally recognizes a third “hijra” gender (Wojcik 2014). Nepal,
Bangladesh and Pakistan also have a third gender category that is legally recog-
nized (Park and Dhitavat 2015). Thailand may be moving in a similar direction,
given its large number of transgender citizens (Park and Dhitavat 2015). While this
does not mean that transgender individuals are free to live as a third gender without
discrimination, the legal acceptance of a third gender category pushes the bound-
aries of the two-gender system that rules most of the world. A three-category
system does not rid society of categories overall, but it does create the opportunity
for individuals to question whether or not a two-category system is truly “natural”
or if it is merely a social construction. While some individuals within the transgen-
der community may choose to transition from one “side” of the binary to another
(male-to-female or female-to-male transgender individuals, for example), it is our
contention that these individuals still lie outside of traditional gender binaries, in
that they “queer” gender by highlighting the social construction and performative
nature of gender expression overall. While many non-cisgender individuals identify
as gender queer or non-binary in their gender expression, it is our contention that all
transgender individuals, even those who choose more traditional expressions of
gender identity, create progressive avenues for exploring gender as a display—not
as a natural imperative that follows from biological sex.

4 Transgender Discrimination and the Law:

U.S. Perspective

Within the U.S., transgender individuals are, in some ways, offered more societal
legal protection than LGB individuals. For example, the EEOC found in 2012
(Macy v. Holder) that court cases which involve gender identity are covered
under Title VII as gender discrimination (Transgender Law Center 2012). This
court case was filed after a transgender woman, who was exceptionally qualified
and hired as a man, was denied a job as a ballistics technician after transitioning
genders. Thus, transgender individuals experiencing discrimination at work may
have greater legal protection than those who identify as LGB and will only receive
federal protection through the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
(ENDA). Outside of the workplace, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009, which includes gender
identity as a category covered under federal hate crimes law and allows states to
receive federal funding to combat transgender violence (National Center for Trans-
gender Equality 2012). However, as we discuss in the following sections, these
federal protections against violence and discrimination do not stop these events
from happening.
Additionally, transgender individuals have not historically received equal cov-
erage in terms of health insurance (Transgender Law Center 2004). Many insurance
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 25

programs do not cover procedures related to transitions (e.g., hormones, surgery,

etc.), and many individuals may not be judged as qualified for particular procedures
(e.g., a male-to-female transwoman being judged as unfit for a prostate exam, even
without sex reassignment surgery). As health care law changes in the U.S., trans-
gender individuals may benefit from more inclusive coverage, but this is yet to be
determined. Finally, for individuals in states that do not recognize same-sex
marriage, individuals who marry as an opposite-sex couple and become a same-
sex couple (through the transitioning of one of the partners) may be forced to legally
defend their marriage as viable under state law (although they are likely to prevail
under these circumstances if they plan properly; Human Rights Campaign 2015a).
However, in states that do not allow gender markers to change on birth certificates
and which also do not allow same-sex marriage, marriage to a post-surgery trans-
gender individual who is now of a different gender than their partner may not be
allowed (American Civil Liberties Union 2013). Given the laws outlined above, it is
clear that navigating a gendered legal system is much more nuanced and fraught
with complications for transgender individuals at work and in their personal lives.

5 Transgender Discrimination: Societal-Level

Before delving into transgender discrimination in the workplace, it is important to

note the broader discrimination that transgender individuals may face in society.
Due to the inherent connections between work and family life, it is important for
organizational scholars to be aware of the many challenges that transgender indi-
viduals may face outside of the workplace as well. For example, research has shown
that almost half of transgender individuals have experienced harassment or violence
at some point in their lives and a quarter have experienced an incident of violence
(Lombardi et al. 2001). Further, U.S. data from self-report surveys, hotlines, and
police reports demonstrate that violence against transgender people begins during
youth, occurs frequently and in varying forms, and is more likely to be sexual in
nature compared to the general population (Stotzer 2009). Social support is lacking
for transgender individuals too, with transgender siblings reporting less support
than their non-transgender siblings (Factor and Rothblum 2008). In fact, transgen-
der youth are more likely to be rejected by their families, leading to increased rates
of homelessness and a greater likelihood of attempted suicide (even when com-
pared to other homeless individuals) (Cochran et al. 2002; Quintana et al. 2010).
Indeed, while estimates specific to transgender populations are difficult to locate,
20 % of homeless youth identify as LGBT more broadly (Quintana et al. 2010), in
turn leading to a higher risk for personal harm. Further, one in five transgender
individuals will likely experience homelessness at some point in their lives
(National Center for Transgender Equality 2015).
Rejection in school settings is also prominent for transgender individuals. In a
survey by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, 38 % of transgender
students reported feeling unsafe, 55 % reported being verbally harassed, and 23 %
26 K. Sawyer et al.

reported suffering verbal and physical harassment, respectively, because of their

gender identity. Finally, 11 % of students reported having been physically attacked
at school due to their gender identity, with the majority of these students choosing
not to report the incident because they felt no one would care. The ramifications of
this harassment on educational pathways seems clear—LGBT students were almost
twice as likely not to finish high school or to attend college compared to the general
population.
This combination of physical and verbal violence and a lack of support from
parents and peers can drive transgender individuals to self-harm. A study of
transgender individuals in San Francisco found that almost one-third had attempted
suicide in the past (Clements-Nolle et al. 2006). Furthermore, a study of 55 trans-
gender youths revealed that nearly half had contemplated suicide and one-fourth
had attempted to kill themselves (Grossman and D’Augelli 2007). Those who
attempted suicide were more likely to have experienced parental abuse and to
have lower confidence in their bodies. Finally, 41 % of transgender individuals in
a large-scale study reported having attempted suicide before, compared to 4.5 % of
the general population and 20 % of LGB individuals, within a US context (Grant
et al. 2008). Overall, it is critical to remember that transgender people have likely
fought the “gender battle” since childhood and may have compounded reactions to
workplace discrimination. Additionally, they may have decreased support at home
to lessen the emotional burden stemming from a stressful and/or discriminatory
workplace environment.

6 Transgender Discrimination in the Workplace

Transgender employees, similar to transgender populations in society more

broadly, have historically faced stigmatization (Badgett et al. 2007; Irwin 2002).
Thus, achieving authenticity at work is challenging for these individuals given the
inherent fear of discrimination (Budge et al. 2010; Connell 2010; Schilt and
Connell 2007) and associated stress of deciding to openly express their identities
or not (Button 2004; Clair et al. 2005). Transgender individuals may wish to display
their authentic gender identities and/or to disclose their transgender status, yet feel
unable to within an intolerant workplace. However, research suggests authentic
identity expression leads to positive outcomes, including greater psychological
wellbeing and life satisfaction (Goldman and Kernis 2002; Ryan et al. 2005;
Sheldon et al. 1997) given that individuals are able to achieve an authentic sense
of self at work (Griffin 1992). For this reason, transgender individuals are likely to
benefit from being gender authentic at work but may feel unable to do so given the
threat of prejudice. This “push and pull” between happiness and being shielded
from discrimination has also been documented in lesbian and gay populations (Ellis
and Riggle 1996).
Because transgender employees may face high levels of discrimination, they
may feel unsafe and unwelcomed at work. The Level Playing Field Institute reports
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 27

that more than two million transgender professionals turn over each year due to
unfairness, costing U.S. employers roughly $64 billion annually (Human Rights
Campaign 2008). Within the U.S., the National Transgender Discrimination Survey
(Grant et al. 2008), found that roughly 90 % of transgender employees have
experienced harassment, mistreatment or discrimination. The report also found
that 47 % reported being either fired, not hired, or denied a promotion due to
their transgender status and over a quarter reported having lost a job due to their
transgender status. These findings were compounded for African American trans-
gender participants. Finally, the report showed that while a majority of individuals
reported hiding their transgender status at work, a vast majority of those who did
transition in the workplace reported feeling more comfortable at work and
experiencing higher levels of job performance as a result.
However, once transgender individuals make the transition from male to female
or from female to male, the battle against gender norms does not end. Schilt (2006)
found that female to male transgender individuals received higher performance
appraisal ratings post-transition, while Schilt and Wiswall (2008) found that male to
female transgender employees suffered a decrease in pay after transition. Further,
Schilt and Connell (2007) found that same-gender employees often took transgen-
der employees “under their wing” after transition. However, this same-gender
grooming was not always favorable for transgender employees. For example,
female to male transgender employees reported being exposed to sexist language
from male coworkers, causing greater discomfort for these previously female-
identified employees (Schilt and Connell 2007).
While the above cited research is a starting point for assisting organizations in
creating safer spaces for transgender employees, research on transgender
populations in the workplace is still in its nascent stages. Further, studies examining
transgender discrimination outside of the U.S. are even more scant. For this reason,
it may be difficult for organizations to determine best practices for fostering
inclusive workplaces for transgender individuals. In the following section, we
outline a number of interventions that organizations are currently utilizing to
cultivate safe spaces, as well as suggestions for best practices for facilitating
transgender workplace fairness.

7 Recommendations for Creating Trans-Inclusive

Workplaces

Organizations wishing to create inclusive work environments for transgender

employees often look to the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index
(CEI) for guidance (Human Rights Campaign 2014). The CEI measures the extent
to which companies conform to a set of best practices for LGBT inclusion at work.
The 2015 CEI report found that 66 % of Fortune 500 companies included gender
identity in their non-discrimination statement. One-third of Fortune 500 firms had
28 K. Sawyer et al.

transgender inclusive healthcare policies, which is ten times as many companies

compared to 5 years ago. The CEI tracks whether companies have LGBT friendly
policies, benefits, training, public commitment to LGBT issues, a lack of missteps
with regard to LGBT discrimination, and holding people accountable to LGBT
inclusivity via metrics and surveys.
As a result of instituting the CEI, many companies, especially those on the
Fortune 500 list, have strived to become more LGBT inclusive, as it serves as a
marker of being progressive and sensitive to the diverse needs of their workforces.
However, not all companies have utilized the CEI, organizations that do not apply
for ranking are not evaluated, and instituting the CEI recommendations does not
guarantee that an organization’s culture will fully support LGBT employees. Thus,
we are unaware of many firms’ standing in terms of true LGBT equality. For this
reason, it is useful to outline some best practices for organizations interested in
creating positive workplace climates for transgender employees. Many of these
suggestions (though not all) are also highlighted in the Transgender Law Center
(2013) Model Transgender Employment Policy, which provides a detailed account
of the specific procedures to follow with regard to transitioning employees in the
workplace. It should also be noted that these recommendations may be more easily
followed within national contexts which are already more accepting of transgender
individuals overall. Thus, employers should take time to consider how these
suggestions might be best implemented within their particular cultural context,
with a constant focus on prioritizing the safety and well-being of transgender
employees overall.
First, it is important that organizations recognize the gravity of having proper
name change policies for transgender employees. While this appears to be a
straightforward issue, it is possible that firms might keep track of employee data
in many places, making it difficult to ensure that there will be no confusion about
proper naming as individuals move throughout the organization. For example,
while it may not be offensive for an employee who gets married and changes her
last name to be referred to at work by her maiden name from time to time, this kind
of naming slippage is likely to be much more upsetting for individuals who are
transitioning to a different gender. Further, even if an individual does not enact an
official name change, coworkers should honor an employee’s request to be called
by a different name. Finally, education for employees on proper pronoun usage is
also important. Transgender employees may wish to be referred to using traditional
or alternative pronouns (such as “ze”). Determining one’s preferred name and
pronouns is a vital way to show commitment to ensuring comfort through the
transition process.
Second, gender neutral restrooms and/or other degendered spaces (e.g., locker
rooms) also encourage comfortable work environments for transgender employees.
Determining which restroom to use when going through a transition or when one is
gender non-conforming can be highly stressful. Providing gender neutral spaces at
work can help alleviate some of this stress. Privacy is also important within these
spaces, given transitioning and gender non-conforming employees may not have
undergone surgery and might feel uncomfortable, whether it be in restrooms or
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 29

locker rooms (Human Rights Campaign 2015c). Gendered spaces within organiza-
tions may go unnoticed by many who are traditionally gender identified. Yet, these
spaces can be highly contentious for those attempting to navigate the many nuances
of transitioning genders at work.
Third, gender neutral dress codes can also help transgender employees feel
comfortable and formally supported by their organizations. By providing
employees with a dress code that outlines professional articles of clothing, without
assigning particular styles of dress to different genders, workplaces make it clear
that clothing and gender are not conflated. This may also help organizations from a
legal standpoint given there is some precedent for the illegality of gender-based
clothing requirements (Fiske et al. 1991). Providing employees with clear, unam-
biguous messages that wearing gendered clothing is not required will allow gender
non-conforming employees to confidently wear the styles of clothing they wish to.
Fourth, transgender education, as well as gender education more broadly, may
also help employees to better understand the importance of transgender inclusivity,
as well as the socially constructed nature of gender overall. Including information
about transgender employees may also promote the effectiveness of diversity
trainings, given consideration of the challenges that transgender individuals’ face
may cause employees to question their basic assumptions regarding gender and
other social categories. Moreover, this level of education and awareness may affect
other organizational policies, such as requiring employees to check “male” or
“female” in job applications without providing other options. In fact, it has been
demonstrated that reactions of coworkers to transgender employees is a mediating
mechanism between disclosure and a variety of important workplace outcomes
(Law et al. 2011). Thus, including this content within training and education pro-
grams may create greater support for transgender employees after disclosure,
leading to more positive experiences for those who have disclosed.
Fifth, as demonstrated in LGB samples (e.g., Ragins et al. 2007), proximal
organizational policy is a strong predictor of outcomes for stigmatized employees.
As such, zero tolerance policies for harassment and open channels for reporting
within organizations are likely critical for transgender employees as well. Law
et al. (2011) found that organizational support was related to both the likelihood of
disclosure and to important workplace outcomes, including satisfaction and com-
mitment within a sample of transgender employees. Thus, it is wise for companies
to make it clear that discrimination based on gender identity will not be tolerated
and to provide genuine support for employees who may have experienced prior
discrimination. Further, because employees may face new forms of prejudice when
living as a different gender, it is also important to inform transitioning employees of
these potential challenges and to support them in coping with such challenges. For
instance, Schilt (2006) found that while female to male transgender employees
reported experiencing less sexual harassment following their transition, Schilt and
Wiswall (2008) found that male to female transgender employees reported
experiencing sexual harassment for the first time after transition.
30 K. Sawyer et al.

Sixth, work-family conflicts (WFC) may also take on different forms within
transgender versus traditionally gendered populations. While we are not aware of
any studies of WFC within transgender populations, as we noted earlier, transgen-
der employees may have less social support from family and friends. The presence
of social support is important in lowering family-to-work conflict (FWC; Adams
et al. 1996). For this reason, it may be the case that transgender employees
experience higher levels of FWC (or life-to-work) conflict. Additionally, changing
relationships (e.g., when individuals change their gender identity and must
reconfigure their sexual partnerships to reflect opposite-sex or same-sex partner-
ships) may create stress for transgender employees. Finally, health concerns related
to transitioning may also create life-to-work stress for transgender employees.
While coworkers may be naturally sympathetic toward other coworkers who are
facing major health-related issues (e.g., cancer), transgender employees may not
enjoy this same level of support with regard to their unique health issues, particu-
larly those related to the transition process. In sum, it is vital that employers
recognize the added life stressors that transgender employees may be facing and
be empathetic to these unique concerns.
Finally, it is important to think about intersectionality within the transgender
community. Intersectionality is the idea that identities are layered and interlocking,
such that being a Black lesbian female represents a qualitatively different experi-
ence than being either Black, lesbian, or female only (Crenshaw 1989). As noted
earlier, African-American transgender employees fare much worse on important
outcomes than their peers (Grant et al. 2008). Thus, paying attention to additional,
intersecting identity categories when examining outcomes for transgender
employees may be important. Creating surveys to assess the climate toward diverse
groups of employees, which include items specifically about transgender
employees, should be examined at the sub-group level as well if possible (e.g.,
Black transgender employees versus White transgender employees).
In order to support the interventions outlined above (as well as any other
interventions for increasing transgender inclusivity at work), additional research
must be conducted in order to demonstrate their necessity and merit. In the
following sections, we outline directions for future research on transgender
populations, as well as methodological recommendations for studying transitioning
transgender employees.

8 Future Directions for Transgender Research

in the Workplace

Despite the encouraging signs that show there is a burgeoning interest among
scholars in studying the unique work experiences of transgender people, large
gaps in our understanding still remain. The following sections discuss these gaps
and highlight opportunities for future research.
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 31

8.1 Methodological Considerations

Researchers interested in studying the work experiences of transgender people face

a number of design and measurement challenges. Perhaps the most pressing
challenge is the implementation of research designs that explicitly consider the
issue of time. For instance, in studying the inherent changes in identity associated
with gender transition procedures, it is important to recognize that these processes
are dynamic in nature and unfold over a series of phases—each marked by varied
focal issues and obstacles. Although research has yet to offer theoretical models
regarding the unique identity-related changes and trajectories that transgender
individuals experience at work over the course of the gender realignment process,
Devor’s (2004) influential work provides some insight. Devor put forth a frame-
work that describes a long-term, multiple stage approach conceptualizing transsex-
ual identity development. Inherent in this process is the notion of a developmental
sequence that occurs over time. For example, this multi-stage process is theorized to
begin with interpersonal discomfort and exploration of new identities (e.g., trans-
sexualism), leading to progression through the transition to a new gender, and
culminating in learning to live with a new gender identity. Clearly this process,
or even one phase of it, might occur over the course of years and even decades. In
order to study this type of long-term temporal process and the changes that may
occur both within and between individuals, scholars would need to employ a time
series or panel study design. These types of longitudinal designs require the
collection of repeated measurements on the same individuals over time (see
Newson et al. 2012 for an accessible treatment of longitudinal design and analysis).
Aside from this developmental approach to examining long-term temporal
processes that transgender people experience, researchers may be interested in the
day-to-day lived experiences of these individuals at work. This approach also
requires the consideration of time and a different type of research design. For
example, some researchers have argued for the application of the Minority Stress
Model to transgender samples in order to examine the more immediate impact of
daily stress on health and wellbeing (Hendricks and Testa 2012). This model
proposes that people with stigmatized identities experience greater interpersonal
mistreatment, such as experienced discrimination and violence due to their minority
status. To capture the short-term impact of this daily stress on proximal outcomes
for transgender people, researchers would need to employ an experience sampling
methodology or daily diary design. These types of intensive longitudinal designs
require the collection of momentary assessments on mood, emotion, affect, expe-
riences, and/or situational context one or more times per day over the course of one
to several weeks (see Bolger and Laurenceau 2013 for an accessible overview of
these intensive longitudinal designs).
In addition to design-related concerns, there are issues of measurement to
consider when conducting research with transgender samples. Chief among these
issues is the lack of validated measures that tap their unique experiences. Although
there have been promising advances in this arena (e.g., Brewster et al. 2012;
32 K. Sawyer et al.

Bauerband and Galupo 2014), greater empirical attention needs to be given to the
development of measures of key constructs unique to the transgender experience.
Researchers interested in pursuing this endeavor should consider beginning with
prior qualitative studies. The rich, qualitative insights generated from this work can
serve as a useful theoretical basis for understanding work-related experiences that
are highly relevant to transgender employees. For example, Nadal et al. (2012)
employed a qualitative research design to develop a theoretical taxonomy of subtle
forms of discrimination, or microaggressions, directed towards transgender people.
This study provides a foundation on which to base the development and validation
of a high-quality measure of this construct.
The dearth of measures devoted to transgender populations has led researchers to
rely on measures adapted from the LGB literature. Underlying this approach is the
assumption, as noted earlier, that the experiences of transgender people and sexual
minorities (i.e., LGB individuals) are one and the same, and thus these groups can
be represented as a single homogeneous group. In addition, this approach assumes
that the items comprising these measures are equally relevant and similarly expe-
rienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, and that the psycho-
metric properties of these measures are equivalent in a transgender population
(Moradi et al. 2009). While research has shown that lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender individuals share many similar characteristics and experiences
(Fassinger and Arseneau 2007), there are few studies that have tested these
assumptions or provided evidence for the applicability and psychometric properties
of the adapted measures for transgender people. One noteworthy exception is a
recent study by Brewster and colleagues (2012), which modified three commonly
used measures of constructs in the LGB literature to improve their applicability to
transgender people [i.e., Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire
(Waldo 1999), the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory
(Liddle et al. 2004), and the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure
(Anderson et al. 2001)]. In this study, the authors present evidence for the reliabil-
ity, factor structure and criterion validity of the adapted measures. Future research
should continue to move away from relying on adapted LGB-related measures
without a more rigorous examination of the psychometric properties and applica-
bility of these measures to transgender populations.

8.2 Shifting of Social Roles and Power Dynamics

Gender identity is not only fundamental to one’s internal identity but also one’s
social identity. The gender identity one enacts carries with it a set of normative role
prescriptions derived from deeply rooted social and cultural practices and beliefs,
which guide the ways in which we think about ourselves and interact with other
people (Shotter 1993). These social roles are organized and structured along the
idea that gender is a binary status comprised of only two genders, male and female.
Moreover, it is assumed that these gender roles are static; one is either male or
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 33

female and one does not change roles. The male and female gender roles carry with
them unique privileges and liabilities. At work, this is reflected in gendered
disparities in opportunities for advancement in pay and promotions that advantage
men and disadvantage women (Catalyst 2013; Elliott and Smith 2004; Haveman
and Beresford 2011).
Transgendered people do not necessarily conform to the gender binary, and their
gender role may not be static. Thus, as they change from one gender to another they
experience a change in their social role as well. That is, they may move into a
different social group that has different privileges and liabilities. This notion of
moving between social roles brings with it a number of intriguing questions. For
example, how do transgendered people reconcile the attitudes formed by experi-
ences shared among members of one role with attitudes and behaviors shared
among members of their new role? It may be that previously held attitudes and
beliefs are misaligned with the attitudes and beliefs expected of the new role. Such
misalignment may, in turn, create considerable cognitive dissonance. For example,
in a recent qualitative study, several participants who were born female and
identified as male reported the struggle of reconciling their attitudes about male
advantage with their new male identity (Levitt and Ippolito 2014). Levitt and
Ippolito note that, “participants who were self-identified feminists, explained
how, on the one hand, being male-identified fit their own sense of their gender
but, on the other hand, they were disturbed by their entry into the position of power
they had struggled against as women” (p. 53).
To help alleviate this cognitive dissonance, it seems the person has at least three
options. First, they might work to discard their previous attitudes to better align
with those expected in their new role. This essentially involves accommodating the
new identity by conforming to role expectations and adopting the attitudes and
beliefs of the new social group. Second, they may maintain their attitudes but
choose to conceal them and act covertly to express them. This would involve subtly
seeking out ways to influence or even subvert the system. Third, they may openly
reveal their disparate attitudes and directly challenge the system. Research should
examine this process of reconciling the attitudes and beliefs shared by those in
one’s previous social identity and the attitudes and beliefs shared by those in one’s
new social identity, as well as identify the conditions under which individuals are
more or less likely to engage in these different strategies.

8.3 The Impact of Role Change on Coworkers

As important as it is to understand the shift in social roles experienced by those who

are transgender, it is also important to understand how the change of social roles
impacts members of the social group that is ‘receiving’ the new member. If, owing
to policies and practices, we can assume that transgendered people do not imme-
diately face aggression or discrimination in terms of job loss, or by being bullied
and harassed, there are a range of other reactions members of the receiving social
34 K. Sawyer et al.

group may have. They may reject the transitioned person’s new identity and only
allow them nominal membership in the group. Group members may ostracize the
individual by excluding them from all but formal interactions in the group
(Williams 2007). They may also engage in incivility, a form of low intensity
interpersonal mistreatment marked by rude and discourteous acts with ambiguous
intent to do harm (Cortina et al. 2001). The ambiguity surrounding incivility is
problematic given the instigators can hide their aggressive motives, thereby
avoiding sanctions (Cortina 2008).
On the other hand, members of the receiving group may accept the transitioned
person’s new identity and allow them full membership in the group. This would
involve accommodating the individual and assimilating them into the group. The
results of a qualitative study by Schilt and Westbrook (2009) provides several
examples of how this accommodation and assimilation process occurs through
the use of gender rituals to reinforce gendered norms for behavior. For example,
when describing those who underwent female to male transitions, these authors
noted several instances in which coworkers attempted to make the person feel like
‘one of the guys’. These included heterosexual men encouraging the transitioned
person to express sexual desire for women and engaging in physical gestures (e.g., a
slap on the back) that are consistent with masculine gender role norms. Schilt and
Westbrook also report women asking female to male transgendered individuals to
lift and carry objects and engage in similar gender role-consistent behaviors. Future
research examining the conditions under which rejection or assimilation occurs is
important. Beyond focusing solely on the role of individual differences among
transgender employees and their coworkers, or the role of organizational-level
characteristics it is important to examine how characteristics of the work group
influence rejection or assimilation processes.

8.4 Explanatory Mechanisms

As noted earlier, transgender individuals often face a number of unique identity-

related issues and challenges at work—challenges that may produce both negative
and positive psychological outcomes not captured by cross-sectional investigations.
For example, gender realignment processes are inherently dynamic in nature,
producing various time-contingent effects on one’s achievement of a stable, authen-
tic sense of self. In the early stages of transitioning, individuals are likely to
experience anxiety and stress as they mull over and monitor for potential negative
reactions from their colleagues. Indeed, the decision to express a stigmatized
identity at work is often made with trepidation over fear of negative consequences
(Ragins 2008; Ragins et al. 2007). Over time, however, such discomfort may
subside and be replaced by positive feelings and stronger emotional bonds to
coworkers who are supportive and accepting. Conversely, in situations marked by
a lack of support for the transitioning individual, anxiety and stress may intensify
and result in rapid deteriorations in one’s psychological wellbeing. Because of the
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 35

temporal nature of gender realignment processes and the lack of within-person

examinations of transgender individuals’ daily work lives, there exists a need for
research that explores the mechanisms that explain the potentially negative and
positive outcomes related to these individuals’ experiences at work. Below, we
discuss two promising areas for research in this domain.
Given the physical salience of transgender individuals’ stigma, combined with
their deviation from entrenched gender norms and the lack of policies that suffi-
ciently address issues of gender identity and expression in organizations (Heller
2006), this population is likely to be especially susceptible to pervasive states of
paranoid cognition and emotional arousal at work. Following Kramer (2001), state
paranoia reflects “a form of heightened and exaggerated distrust that encompasses
an array of beliefs, including organizational members’ perceptions of being threat-
ened, harmed, persecuted, mistreated, disparaged, and so on, by malevolent others
within the organization” (p. 6). State paranoid arousal includes heightened levels
of distrust, fear and anxiety, and perceptions of threat, which, in turn, promote state
paranoid cognitions, including rumination, hypervigilance, and sinister attributions
regarding others’ intentions (Chan and McAllister 2014; Kramer 1998). In a recent
study of 165 full-time transgender employees, controlling for trait paranoia and trait
negative affect, Thoroughgood et al. (2015) found that perceived transgender
discrimination was related to decreased job satisfaction and higher turnover inten-
tions and emotional exhaustion, with state paranoid cognitions mediating these
links.
From a theoretical standpoint, given transgender individuals often deviate from
societal gender norms in highly visible ways, they may attract intense evaluative
scrutiny, leading to self-consciousness and paranoid arousal (Kramer 2001). Per-
ceived scrutiny is associated with feelings of uncertainty around others, leading to
extensive self-evaluation and speculation regarding others’ perceptions of oneself
(Frable et al. 1990; Lord and Saenz 1985). Indeed, state paranoia is largely thought
to reflect an adaptive set of responses to uncertainty experienced within one’s social
milieu (Averill 1973; Beehr and Bhagat 1985; Coyne and Gotlib 1983; Marr
et al. 2012; O’Driscoll and Beehr 1994). According to Hogg (2001), the motivation
to reduce uncertainty inherent to one’s social world and one’s place within it is a
fundamental human need. Relatedly, Kanter (1977) argued that “token” group
members not only experience disproportionate attention from majority group mem-
bers, but may also experience imagined scrutiny—even when the majority group
treats them no differently from non-token individuals. This highlights the important
point that individuals with stigmatized identities may often interpret uncertain
contexts in ways that construct social threats even when they are not there. As
such, state paranoia may stem from real or imagined threats (Freeman et al. 2008).
Given many transgender people have suffered pervasive mistreatment and intense
stigmatization across life domains, including the workplace, their experiences of
state paranoia at work may be equally likely to result from actual or perceived
discrimination. In turn, this creates the need for employers to not only be active in
rooting out discriminatory threats inherent to the work environments they promote,
36 K. Sawyer et al.

but to also to be cognizant and understanding of transgender employees who may

be particularly sensitive to perceived mistreatment.
Despite their likely susceptibility to state paranoia at work, especially during the
early stages of the gender transition process, transgender individuals may enjoy a
number of positive outcomes, including greater psychological health and life
satisfaction, as a result of openly expressing their true selves at work (Goldman
and Kernis 2002; Ryan et al. 2005; Sheldon et al. 1997). However, little is known
regarding the mechanisms that explain why open expressions of identity may
benefit those with stigmatized identities, especially transgender individuals. We
turn to the authenticity literature for potential clues. Authenticity refers to the
“unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self in one’s daily enterprise” (Kernis
2003, p. 13). Authenticity is related to physical and psychological health, including
lower levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and negative affect and greater life
satisfaction (Goldman and Kernis 2002; Ryan et al. 2005; Sheldon et al. 1997). The
concept of authenticity encompasses four interrelated facets: awareness, unbiased
processing, action, and relational authenticity (Kernis 2003). While awareness and
unbiased processing refer to being conscious of and honest about self-relevant
cognitions, respectively, action refers to enacting behaviors consistent with one’s
internal self-concept rather than engaging in behaviors as result of external pres-
sures or expectations. Relational authenticity refers to achieving a sense of self
around others that is consistent with one’s self-concept (Kernis 2003). In terms of
gender identity, we focus on the latter two facets given the former two are related to
identity formation and coherence, which are internal, rather than behaviors and
relationships that manifest in the workplace.
In terms of transgender employees, action authenticity involves situations in
which individuals engage in gender-relevant behaviors that align with their inner
representations of their gender (e.g., West and Zimmerman 1987). Given the strong
societal norms associated with being male or female and the routine feeling
experienced by many transgender people of having physical characteristics that
do not align with their inner gender identity, action (in)authenticity likely reflects a
pervasive concern for such individuals. When one’s inner gender identity and
outward expressions of gender are misaligned at work, such situations may produce
an ongoing state of felt dissonance (Festinger 1962) between one’s internal con-
ceptualization and outward behavioral expressions of gender. Relational authen-
ticity, applied within the context of gender identity, can be characterized by
situations in which one’s inner conceptualizations of their gender identity are
shared and affirmed by others (in this case, coworkers, supervisors, customers,
and other key stakeholders affiliated with the organization). This idea is consistent
with self-verification theory (Swann 1983, 1987), which suggests people have a
fundamental need for others to perceive them in a manner consistent with how they
perceive themselves. However, when others fail to recognize or affirm a transgen-
der employee’s gender identity, relational inauthenticity is experienced.
When transgender individuals attempt to align their inner gender identities with
their external appearance at work, whether through gender realignment procedures
(e.g., hormone therapy, surgery) or more cosmetic changes (e.g., wearing gender
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 37

consistent clothing), they should experience greater freedom from the internal
conflicts between their inner gender identities and their outward expressions of
gender, leading to greater action authenticity. These outward, physical changes may
further promote action authenticity given individuals may feel less restricted in
enacting gender-relevant behaviors at work that align with their inner gender
identities. Action authenticity, whether through gender realignment or other
authentic expressions of gender, may further serve to align self- and others’
perceptions of one’s gender, fostering greater relational authenticity. That is,
when individuals are able to achieve greater congruence between their inner
representations and outward expressions of gender and coworkers are supportive
of their true self, this is likely to produce greater “fit” assessments between self- and
others’ perceptions of one’s gender identity. Higher levels of action and relational
authenticity, in turn, may promote a number of positive employee outcomes. For
example, in a recent study of 173 full-time transgender employees, Martinez
et al. (2014) found that individuals who had fully transitioned had higher job
satisfaction and person–organization (P–O) fit perceptions and experienced less
perceived discrimination than individuals who had not begun the transition process.
This study’s results align with findings from Law et al. (2011), who found that
disclosing one’s transgender status was related to higher job satisfaction, as well as
recent qualitative analyses that point to the benefits of being gender authentic at
work, including reduced fears of discrimination and more positive interactions with
coworkers (e.g., Budge et al. 2010; Davis 2009; Schilt and Wiswall 2008).

9 Conclusion

The purpose of the present chapter was to begin to illuminate the unique issues,
concerns, and experiences of transgender individuals, both in and outside of the
workplace, in order to spur future research on this largely forgotten stigmatized
identity group in organizations. To date, the organizational psychology and man-
agement literatures have almost completely overlooked the many theoretically
intriguing and practically important questions surrounding transgender people in
the workplace. This seems to be at least partly due to a prevailing assumption that
transgender individuals face similar, or even identical, social stigmas and chal-
lenges as those of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals (i.e., sexual minorities).
Indeed, the general labelling of individuals as “LGBT” has most likely contributed
to this erroneous assumption. However, as our discussion highlights, gender iden-
tity and sexual identity are not one and the same and have different social impli-
cations for members of these different identity groups at work and in social
situations more generally. The lack of research on transgender individuals’ work-
place experiences is further compounded by the inherent difficulties associated with
accessing this unique population and the challenges of recruiting identified indi-
viduals, who are often highly concerned about anonymity, given job alternatives are
frequently scarce (due to the strong societal stigmas operating against them).
38 K. Sawyer et al.

Finally, we would also like to note a general trend we have observed toward studies
that frame issues of stigmatization and identity in broad, non-sample specific terms.
More precisely, there seems to be an unfortunate focus in many top-tier manage-
ment journals on using unique samples (for example, LGB employees) to study
broad topics like stigmatization, identity management, and authenticity. While such
work may provide some theoretical insights, namely within the context of qualita-
tive, grounded theory examinations, they presuppose the experiences of study
participants generalize across different stigmatized identity groups and further
reinforce misplaced assumptions that overlook important distinctions between
these groups. It is our view that more comprehensive theories and overarching
claims should only be made after carefully considering and examining the poten-
tially unique experiences of different stigmatized identity groups at work. It is our
hope that the present chapter brings into focus and provides an impetus for
researchers to consider the unique work-related experiences of transgender indi-
viduals, so that employers may begin to provide empirical support for and discover
new types of organizational solutions which promote transgender inclusivity
at work.

References

Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement,
family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Know your rights—Transgender people and the law.
Accessed March 21, 2015, from https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/know-your-rights-transgen
der-people-and-law
Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., Chung, Y. B., & DiStefano, T. M. (2001). Developing an
assessment of sexual identity management for lesbian and gay workers. Journal of Career
Assessment, 9, 243–260.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 80, 286–303.
Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of
sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Insti-
tute, University of California.
Bauerband, L. A., & Galupo, M. P. (2014). The gender identity reflection and rumination scale:
Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92,
219–231.
Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Introduction to human stress and cognition in organizations.
Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations, 3, 19.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary
and experience sampling research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2012). Transgender individuals’ work-
place experiences: The applicability of sexual minority measures and models. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59, 60–70.
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work experiences of transgender
individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57, 377–393.
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 39

Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A
quantitative investigation. Group and Organization Management, 29, 470–494.
Catalyst. (2013). Catalyst quick take: Women’s earnings and income. New York, NY: Catalyst.
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state
paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39, 44–66.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing
invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30, 78–95.
Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons: The
influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 53–69.
Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by
homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless
adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92,
773–777.
Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences
of transpeople. Gender and Society, 24, 31–55.
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.
Coyne, J. C., & Gotlib, I. H. (1983). The role of cognition in depression: A critical appraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 472–505.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago
Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.
Davis, E. C. (2009). Situating “fluidity”(trans) gender identification and the regulation of gender
diversity. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 15, 97–130.
Devor, A. H. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen stage model of transsexual identity
formation. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8, 41–67.
Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological
Review, 69, 365–386.
Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. (1996). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness about
one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 75–85.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2013). European Union for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender survey, results at a glance. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://
fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu-lgbt-survey-results-at-a-glance_en.pdf
Factor, R. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (2008). A study of transgender adults and their non-transgender
siblings on demographic characteristics, social support, and experiences of violence. Journal of
LGBT Health Research, 3, 11–30.
Fagan, J. F., & Shepherd, P. A. (1982). Theoretical issues in the early development of visual
perception. In M. Lewis & L. Taft (Eds.), Developmental disabilities: Theory, assessment and
intervention. New York, NY: S. P. Medical and Scientific Books.
Fagan, J. E., & Singer, L. T. (1979). The role of single feature differences in infant recognition of
faces. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 39–45.
Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”:
Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 19–49).
Washington, DC: APA.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science
research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American
Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060.
40 K. Sawyer et al.

Frable, D. E., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social
interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140–149.
Freeman, D., Pugh, K., Antley, A., Slater, M., Bebbington, P., Gittins, M., & Garety, P. (2008).
Virtual reality study of paranoid thinking in the general population. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 192, 258–263.
Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? The Williams
Institute, UCLA Law School. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association,
5, 18–20.
Grant, J. A., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Kiesling, M. (2008). Injustice at
every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Retrieved from http://
transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. Journal
of Homosexuality, 22, 167–196.
Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2007). Transgender youth and life-threatening behaviors.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 37, 527–537.
Haveman, H. A., & Beresford, L. S. (2011). If you’re so smart, why aren’t you the boss?
Explaining the persistent vertical gender gap in management. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 639, 114–130.
Heller, M. (2006). More employers broadening nondiscrimination policies to include transgender
workers. Workforce Management, 85, 62–63.
Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with trans-
gender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the minority stress model. Pro-
fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 460–467.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Self-categorization and subjective uncertainty resolution: Cognitive and
motivational facets of social identity and group membership. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, &
L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal
behavior (pp. 323–349). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Human Rights Campaign (2008). Transgender inclusion in the workplace (2nd ed.). Retrieved
February 19, 2016 from http://www.fs.fed.us/cr/HRC_Foundation_-_Transgender_Inclusion_
in_the_Workplace_2nd_Edition_-_2008.pdf
Human Rights Campaign. (2014). Corporate equality index 2015. Accessed March 21, 2015, from ht
tp://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/CEI-2015rev.pdf#__utma
¼ 149406063.824689562.1426638163.1426645485.1426908860.4&__utmb ¼ 149406063.2.10.
1426908860&__utmc ¼ 149406063&__utmx ¼ &__utmz ¼ 149406063.1426908860.4.4.utmcsr
¼ google|utmccn ¼ (organic)|utmcmd ¼ organic| utmctr ¼ (not%20provided)&__utmv ¼ &__
utmk ¼ 233756318
Human Rights Campaign. (2015a). Transgender people and marriage: The importance of legal
planning. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/transgender-
people-and-marriage-the-importance-of-legal-planning
Human Rights Campaign. (2015b). International law protecting transgender workers. Accessed
March 21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/international-laws-protecting-trans
gender-workers
Human Rights Campaign. (2015c). Restroom access for transgender employees. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/restroom-access-for-transgender-
employees
Irwin, J. (2002). Discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and transgender people working in
education. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14, 65–77.
Jacklin, C. N., DiPietro, J. A., & Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Sex-typing behavior and sex-typing
pressure in parent–child interaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 413–425.
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 41

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses
to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry,
14, 1–26.
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and acting in the shadow of
doubt. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 251–275.
Kramer, R. M. (2001). Organizational paranoia: Origins and dynamics. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 23, 1–42.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Trans-parency in the
workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 710–723.
Levitt, H. M., & Ippolito, M. R. (2014). Being transgender navigating minority stressors and
developing authentic self-presentation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 46–64.
Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career Assessment,
12, 33–50.
Lombardi, E. L., Wilchins, R. A., Priesing, D., & Malouf, D. (2001). Gender violence: Transgen-
der experiences with violence and discrimination. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 89–101.
Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive
consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 49, 918.
Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765.
Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motivation
to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought,
suspicion behavior, and social rejection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 117, 285–297.
Martinez, L., Sawyer, K., Thoroughgood, C. N., & Ohle, L. (2014, May). Transitioning at work:
The impact of gender realignment on workplace attitudes. Symposium presented at the 29th
Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E. (2009). Counseling psychology
research on sexual (orientation) minority issues: Conceptual and methodological challenges
and opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22.
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and systemic microaggressions
toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counsel-
ing, 6, 55–82.
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2012). Ending anti-transgender violence. Accessed
March 21, 2015, from http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NCTE_Blue
print_for_Equality2012_Ending_Violence.pdf
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2015). Housing and homelessness. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NCTE_Blueprint_
2015_HousingHomelessness.pdf
Newson, J. T., Jones, R. N., & Hofer, S. M. (2012). Longitudinal data analysis: A practical guide
for researchers in aging, health, and social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,
141–155.
Open Society Foundations. (2013). Transforming health: International rights based advocacy for
trans-health. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/
default/files/transforming-health-20130213.pdf
Park, M., & Dhitavat, K. (2015). Thailand’s new constitution could soon recognize third gender.
CNN. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/world/third-gender-
thailand/
42 K. Sawyer et al.

Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Quintana, N. S., Rosenthal, J., & Krehely, J. (2010). On the streets: The federal response to gay
and transgender homeless youth. American Progress. Accessed March 21, 2015, from https://
cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/06/pdf/lgbtyouthhomelessness.pdf
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing
invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33, 194–215.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.
Ryan, R. M., LaGuardia, J. G., & Rawsthorne, L. J. (2005). Self-complexity and the authenticity of
self-aspects: Effects on well-being and resilience to stressful events. North American Journal
of Psychology, 7, 431–448.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys? How transmen make gender visible at work. Gender and
Society, 20, 465–490.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make gender trouble? Gender,
Work and Organization, 14, 596–618.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity “gender normals” trans-
gender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender and Society, 23, 440–464.
Schilt, K. R., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and
workplace experiences. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 8, 1–26.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-
role variation in the big five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity
and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.
Shotter, J. (1993). Becoming someone: Identity and belonging. In N. Coupland & J. F. Nussbaum
(Eds.), Discourse and lifespan identity (pp. 5–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 170–179.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In
J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K., Webster, J., & Martinez, L. (2015). State paranoia at work:
Empirically examining transgender employees’ work experiences. In Poster to be presented at
the 30th Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists.
Philadelphia, PA.
Transgender Law Center. (2004). Transgender health and the law: Identifying and fighting health
care discrimination. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://translaw.wpengine.com/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/07/99737410-Health-Law-Fact.pdf
Transgender Law Center. (2012). Frequently asked questions: What the EEOC’s decision in the
Macy v. Holder case means for you? Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://translaw.wpengine.
com/issues/employment/eeocfa
Transgender Law Center. (2013) Model transgender employment policies. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/model-work
place-employment-policy-Updated.pdf
UNAIDS. (2014). Transgender people. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.unaids.org/
sites/default/files/media_asset/08_Transgenderpeople.pdf
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Wojcik, M. E. (2014). Male. Female. Other. India requires legal recognition of a third gender.
International Law News, 43, 4.
Yogyakarta Principles. (2015). Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.
org/principles_en.pdf
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges
of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male
Transgender in the Indian Organizational
Space

Animesh Bahadur and Kunal Kamal Kumar

1 Introduction

In the Indian social space, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
community encounters varying levels of recognition and acceptance. Though
traditional narrative may provide spaces for the conventional ‘third gender’ like
the Hijra/Aravani1 community or other queer identities like the Jogappas2, but
these spaces lie on the margins. The binaries that emerged with India’s colonial
encounter with Britain often stigmatize any modern queer identities (Penrose
2001). It is hence not unusual to see the contemporary queer identified person as
‘diseased’ and ‘unnatural’ in the mainstream discourse, often making them vulner-
able to identity based discrimination and sexual violence (Shaw et al. 2012).
One of the major struggles for any member of the queer group is to assert a
positive identity in the societal context. In this context, coming-out at the workplace
is seen to be a major milestone as it targets workplace integration through identity
affirmation (Ward and Winstanley 2005; Woods and Lucas 1993). Like in the rest
of the world, coming-out makes employees from the group more satisfied at the
workplace in the Indian context as well (MINGLE 2012). The challenge of coming-
out however has its unique complexities for the transgendered person who often
challenges the binary view of gender that tends to polarize ‘men’ and ‘masculinity’
and ‘women’ and ‘femininity’. The transgender person challenges this polarity by
often framing the identity as liminal though moving towards one side of the binary

1
Umbrella term for several traditional identities including biological men identifying as women,
MSMs, eunuchs, hermaphrodites; often knit as a community with its own social system.
2
‘Feminine Boys’ dedicated to the Goddess Yellamma who often lead a same-sex relationship
(Bradford 1983).
A. Bahadur (*) • K.K. Kumar
T A Pai Management Institute (TAPMI), Manipal, India
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 43

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_3
44 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

(Wilson 2002; Diamond et al. 2011). As some scholars (Connell 2010; Schilt and
Connell 2007; Schilt 2006) argue, the transgender subject is often conveyed
expectations of acting like the destination gender and is often guided for gender
conformity. The transgendered person’s own efforts at transgression are hence
often conditioned by the societal and organisational view on ‘being’ a man or a
woman; in the organizational context, the sanction to prevention of transgression
could also be supported by various rules and policies including the organization’s
commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion. In the Indian context, the issue
complicates further since there is a tendency to identify the ‘third gender’ with the
aforementioned Hijra or Aravani community (Reddy 2005), the members of which
are by and large identified with feminine behaviour even if they are biological
males. This often implies lack of social cognition and legitimation for transition and
sex reassignment. The situation is even more difficult for female-to-male transgen-
der person (Edelman 2009), as no prominent traditional male-to-female transgender
groups exist in the mainstream; coming-out among the female-to-male transgender
persons is hence often associated with major problems of identity formation and
negotiation in order to be accepted (Zimman 2009).
This chapter discusses the case of Arjun (name changed), a transman (male-to-
female transgender person) who had an open transition (Schilt and Connell 2007)
i.e., transition from the gender at birth to destination gender without changing his
job or workplace. Working in a consulting firm in Mumbai, Arjun chose to come
out at his workplace and shared the news of his transition with all his office
colleagues. While coming-out reduces self-stigma (Morris et al. 2001), it creates
barriers, both in personal as well as professional life (Kalra 2012; Sebastian Maroky
et al. 2014). Even though Arjun’s gender-shift got acceptance from his office
colleagues, it posed its own challenges. The chapter looks at the coming-out and
transition of Arjun in the Indian context. We endeavour to look at to what extent the
transsexual experience gets impacted by traditional queer identities and how the
transgender subject negotiates gender identity with pressures to conform either to
gender at birth or destination gender. We further probe the way a transgender
person deals with tensions between the tradition and the modern perspective in
transgenderism.

2 Gender-Identity in India: A Socio-Linguistic Enquiry

The Indian mythological scene is filled with stories of third gender, suggesting the
prevalence as well as acceptance of the queer community (Doniger 1980). The
word ‘Tritiya Prakriti’ (the third form/neuter) is an indispensable part of the ancient
Indian text, with frequent reference to it in the Sanskrit treatises (Wilhelm 2003).
As per a popular folk narrative, when Rama3 went to forest in approval of his

3
Rama is worshipped as an incarnation of Vishnu, one of the most prominent gods of the Hindu
pantheon.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 45

father’s judgement of 14 years’ exile, a large number of people followed him. Rama
ordered that all the males and females return immediately, effectively giving no
specific order to the third gender who opted to remain in the forest. Impressed with
their devotion, Rama granted several boons and honour to the queer community
(Vyas and Shingala 1987). The Indian religious tradition is full of such incidents
that bestow religious sanction on the identity of the queer community.
While ancient treatises of India give a prominent space to the queer community,
their identity has also been affirmed in the languages of the era. Sanskrit language,
the parent language of most of the dominant languages of the Indian subcontinent,
is a highly infected language that gives a prominent space to gender-neutral words
(gender assignment in Sanskrit is done through three categories, viz. Masculine,
Feminine, Neuter). In fact, third sex is itself divided into many different categories
wherein the variance is in terms of physical and psychological characteristics. Such
elaborate categories suggest the larger social acceptance and understanding of the
‘other’ gender in ancient India.
In the medieval times, while the respect of the queer community declined, they
retained a prominent space in the royal courts of the Islamic rulers. The queer
people were seen as powerful people who had close association with the Indian
royalty (Reddy 2005). This phenomenon could also be seen in the linguistic space:
Urdu language, a language associated with Muslim community of modern day India
and Pakistan, retained the gender inflection property of Sanskrit language. It may be
noted that the word Hijra has its roots in the Arabic word ‘hjr’ that means ‘leaving
one’s tribe’. The Hijras, as a community separated from the mainstream, is thus
acknowledged from the medieval times itself. This recognition of the Hijras along
with their separation from the mainstream represents the hallmark of the attitude of
the society towards the genderqueer. While there is recognition for the unique status
the representative of the third gender representatives, there is also their separation
from the mainstream that is visible.
The advancement of the European colonialists in the Indian subcontinent led to
the decline of the queer community. The decline was most prominent at the end of
the nineteenth Century which saw the dominance of the British government across
major parts of the Indian subcontinent (Chatterjee 1999). Marked by Victorian
conservatism, the colonial rulers promoted a binary understanding of gender and
consequently suppressed the people belonging to the third gender (Kugle 2002). It
may also be noted that most Romance languages have binary gender inflections,
reflecting the sentiments of the social setup wherein gender is seen in binary terms;
the same is the case with medieval and modern English. Gradually, the colonial rule
with its Victorian English perspective led to a largely binary perspective on gender:
the linguistic bifurcation ultimately led to the loss of queer identity (Chatterjee
2002).
When the British emerged as the single largest colonial power in the Indian
subcontinent, they further crushed the identity of the queer community though
passage of law. The British saw the queer community as a mentally deranged
community and ‘punished’ them inhumanly: such treatment was given legal sanc-
tion through the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871. Under this law, people belonging to the
46 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

queer community could be arrested without warrant and sentenced to imprisonment

up to 2 years. The community enjoyed very little civil rights: they could neither
adopt nor act as guardians to minors; they had no power to write a will. There was
systematic persecution of the queer community—a complete deviance from the
Indian cultural tradition. Though this law was modified within 2 years of the British
leaving India, its remnants had already impacted the Indian cultural scene as the
legacies of binary gender continued (Agrawal 1997).
The independence of India in 1947 could not change the situation of the third
gender representatives and they still lacked the respect they once had (Sharma
2014). While this made life difficult for those who were biologically neither male
nor female, those who found themselves to be psychologically at odds with their
biological sex were also fearful of coming-out because of the deep stigma attached
to non-conformance to binary genders. This further led to suppression of their right
to expression and their right to be one with their self-determined, self-identified,
and self-chosen gender. In a way, their right to choice was curtailed and their right
to lead a dignified life was attacked. Nonetheless, despite the odds that they faced,
the queer community was able to maintain an identity of their own by forming a
close knit ‘community’ like the Hijras or Aravanis.

3 Transgenderism: Structural Boundaries of Identity

Transgenderism, which may be seen as a discursive act that ‘both challenges and
reifies the binary gender system’ (Gagné and Tewksbury 1998) often depends on
institutional definitions and community acceptance since the ‘structuration’ is
located in daily life. The challenge posed by the transgendered person is often
limited to challenging only select elements of the gender schema in a given context
while largely adhering to the societal definitions of conformity. This conformity in
‘doing gender’ (Connell 2010; Schilt and Connell 2007; Schilt 2006) is first and
foremost to the acceptance of either male or female identity as defined by the
modern institutions. This definition does not just come as an imposition from the
mainstream but also from the transgender groups themselves, some of whom reject
the liminal existence (Wilson 2002) though there is a huge diversity on who the
transgender person may choose to deal with the issue of gender. In the Indian
context, this is also coupled with the unique interaction of traditional
non-conformist gender identities and British colonial perspective on gender.
As discussed above, the classical Indian literature, especially Sanskrit literature,
often asserts the fluidity of gender (Narayanan 2003). From men who became
women (including the warrior Arjuna in the epic Mahabharata) to God assuming
male and female form together in esoteric traditions, there are enough myths to
uphold the idea of gender transition as well as oscillation as defined in the
contemporary gender studies. The problem however arises due to the gap between
the classical liberalism and the prevalent institutional values. Both the traditional
codes (including the Smriti literature that has been a reference for modern civil law)
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 47

and the existing norms have clear roles and identity markers for males and females.
Secondly, the very myths that accept the fluidity of gender often metamorphose into
folklore dismissive of the fluidity, much in line with the binary gender view of the
West: for example, the use of the name Shikhandi, a hermaphrodite character from
Mahabharata as typifying someone who is not ‘man enough’ (Custodi 2007). More
importantly, the Indian co-existence process, based on institutional exclusivism has
put the traditional gender non-conformist groups on the margins, with stigmatized
status. These non-conformists include religious communities like Jogappas who we
mentioned in the introduction part and the Sakhis or the female acting mendicants
dedicated to Lord Krishna in Vrindavan.4 The second group is the actors who enact
female roles in exclusively male performing arts like Jatra, Bhandgiri and
Shumang Lila. All the above groups are generally isolated from the mainstream
and often sexually exploited. The third major group is the Hijras or Aravanis, which
includes eunuchs and is expected to dance, beg, or be a sex worker. Like with the
other transgender groups, these identities are also shaped by the mainstream norms
related to these communities with the phobic and the erotic often combined through
religious sanction. The predominance of the above groups in gender
non-conformity has led to a stereotype of anyone who does not fall into the socially
acceptable gender norms as a representative of one of the above identities. Due to
the absence of a strong queer-assertive movement (as of now dominated by Hijras/
Aravanis, gays and lesbians) there is little recognition of the transgender groups like
transsexuals in the society. Overall, it is not unusual for people to equate the
genderqueer with a Hijra/Aravani. Even the famous NLSA Judgement of Supreme
Court mentioned in the next section often uses Hijra and transgender
synonymously.

4 Modern Institutions, Work and Gender Non-conformity

India’s colonial encounter added another dimension to the gender stereotyping. In

the process of subjugating the Indians, the British identified their own traits and
actions as masculine while dismissing the local non-assertive petty bourgeoisie as
well as other subjects as either less than masculine or too aggressive. In her study on
the production of ‘manly Englishman’ and ‘effeminate Bengali’ in the nineteenth
Century colonial Bengal, Sinha (1995) points out how the categorization of British
considered ‘Oxbridge masculinity’ defined by choice of professions, ability to
protect women, involvement in certain kinds of sports, and reaction to military
work, as the defining features of being a man. Such constructs have shaped the
definition of ‘man’ at work and in turn influenced the laws and norms that came into
place. The British laws and norms finally came to define being a man in the Indian
workplace: this included dress codes, rules and protocols. This reinforced and

4
Vrindavan is a city near Delhi, the capital city of India.
48 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

further cemented the male–female binary, often exacerbating the stigmatized status
for the non-conformists, as already discussed above with reference to the Criminal
Tribes Act 1871. The legacy lives on with digression in the above rules leading to
disciplinary action against the identified non-conformist. The high level of stigma
came to the fore in the case of D K Panda, a police officer from the state of Uttar
Pradesh, who was holding the highest state-level police rank of Director-General. In
line with the above mentioned Sakhis tradition, the police officer had started using
female make-up and veil identifying himself as ‘Radha’, the beloved of Krishna
(The-Hindu 2005; Tripathi 2005). However, this not only led to negative media
coverage of the officer, but also disciplinary action against him for violating the
dress code (Rediff 2005).
Even though the recent decades have witnessed a revivalist trend emphasizing
the classical stories of gender non-conformity, and the emergence of LGBT move-
ment in India (Vanita and Kidwai 2000; Pattanaik 2014), it is still the gender binary
that dominates the public spheres including the workplace. The colonial laws are
often ushered in action against those who represent gender non-conformity or
display same-sex desire. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1861 still exists in
the same form criminalizing any act of sex ‘against the order of nature’ (Narrain
2009). With respect to Hijras, the police is often reported to use Sections 294 and
268 of the Indian Penal Code 1861 that deals with action in case of obscene acts in
public that “cause annoyance to others” creating public nuisance (Ratnam 2014).
On the positive side, the changes that help the transgendered persons’ struggle for
identity and acceptance include a judgement by the Supreme Court of India in 2014
(popularly known as the NLSA judgement) affirming the rights of the transgender
community and suggesting affirmative action for them. The judgement provides
support to self-identification and affirmative action for the transgendered persons
(Boyce 2015). Another positive trend has been emergence of debate on the question
of queer identified persons in the media, which has led to better awareness on the
issue.

5 Framing the Gender Identity at Workplace

The paradox of classical liberalism and contemporary exclusionism poses its own
challenges for framing of gender identity in a ‘masculine’ modern workplace. The
classical and esoteric traditions espouse androgyny in concepts like
Ardhanariswara (half male–half female God), thus showing acceptance of gender
and sexual ambiguity (Chakraborty and Thakurata 2013). However, the assertion of
the colonially inspired gender binary negates the liminal identities and a person is
expected to accept the social constructs of ‘male’ or the ‘female’ as unchangeable
and inalienable. In this context, the case of Arjun (the subject of current research)
represents a change in the above dichotomous response from the society. While
Arjun experienced apathy and to some extent transphobia in the larger community,
he found relatively more acceptance for his transition at the workplace.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 49

Gender identity, like any other mark of identity is considered as jointly produced
where the institutional context may shape the normative definition which in turn
interacts with the agent’s interpretation of the identity leading to the final structur-
ation of the concept of male or female. Since gender is both contextual and
dynamic, it poses challenges of definition in the context of space and time. This
challenge is often manifest in conflict between the normative view and the inter-
pretation. The gender binaries as perpetuated by the medicalized view of identity
have shaped the male and female identity, corresponding to roles based on biolog-
ical sex. This binary view, has in turn, either moved the other gender identities to
the margins, or has identified them as deviant. In spite of the queer movement and
alternative affirmations, the binary view of gender still typifies the norms and roles
in the habitus of a given industrial or post-industrial society. Since modern work
was shaped by the same paradigm that supported the male–female dichotomy,
modern institutions have been instrumental in reinforcing gender definition through
organizational systems. The transgender person, in spite of challenging the pre-
dominant view, has to negotiate the identity in conformity with the normative view.
Given the lack of understanding about the transgender identities, the modern
workplace may often lack the wherewithal to help the transgender person feel safe
and accepted. The diversity policies, which cater to a range of identities, often fail
to address the specific question of transgender identity. This could be due to the
tendency to club all the queer identities together (Zimman 2009). Secondly, the
multiplicity of non-normative gender identities (ranging from cross-dressers to
those who have undergone sex reassignment surgery) and their fluidity also fails
to give a standard identity model. Such lack of standard model creates confusion at
the level of policy framing. Lastly, the overall discomfort with liminal identities
makes both the structure and the agent identify with one pole of the gender binary
thereby negating gender radicalism (Wilson 2002). This effectively closes the
scope of negotiation for any third gender or related alternative assertions.
The above factors make it imperative to look at the experiences of the transgen-
dered persons as they assert and negotiate their identities in the workplace. It is
especially necessary to look at the identities in the context of South Asia where the
traditional ‘Third Gender’ identities including the Hijras often dominate the trans-
gender discourse thereby creating certain stereotypes (generally negative) about
gender non-conformity.

6 Coming-Out as a Transgendered Person

All the queer identified persons including transgender groups share a few features
of coming-out. First, there is no specified age or clear phase in life when a person
would come out. Secondly, there are generally several phases of coming-out
beginning with one’s own self, follows by some trusted confidantes, and then at
work. Thirdly, coming-out need not always be to everyone given the needs of self-
preservation. Here, however the physical changes in a transsexual person may act as
50 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

a compulsion to come out (though there are enough transgendered persons who
have undergone sex reassignment but have not come out). Despite notable similar-
ities in the coming-out process, the acceptance and sharing of the non-conformist
identity for a transgender person is qualitatively different from that of sexual
minorities like gays and lesbians (Ruvio and Belk 2013). While the coming-out is
often a static event in the case of gays and lesbians (barring the case of coming-out
to new colleagues or clients), it happens in many stages in the case of a transgender
person. Moreover, the transgender identity is not just an addition to the larger
identity of the person but tends to shape the basic gender identity (Gagne
et al. 1997). It can sometimes be a total transformation that erases all the previous
markers as in the case of a transsexual who has undergone hormone treatment and
sex-reassignment surgery (Zimman 2009; Wilson 2002).
The coming-out in case of a transgendered person often corresponds to the stages
in the transition and given the pressures to conform, the person often accepts the
socially acceptable gender identities (Beemyn and Rankin 2011). The pressure to
conform emanates from several sources: Gagné and Tewksbury (1998) identify the
need for community acceptance (which includes both the mainstream and the
reference group or the transgender community itself) and self-preservation
(employment, economic reasons, and safety) as primary sources. These pressures
often lead to clear movement towards one gender as preferred by the larger
transgender groups as well as employers. Some transgendered persons however
choose to avoid coming-out or hide their gender dysphoria in order to preserve their
status and well-being (Bell et al. 2011). One major fear that plays at such times is
the fear of losing job given the pressures to conform at work (Jones et al. 2015).
Nonetheless, it is not easy for a transsexual/transgender person undergoing sex
reassignment surgery to hide her/his emerging identity given the physical markers
of the same. In such cases the coming-out and acceptance is negotiated with move
towards a clear identity including erasure of all marks of the previous or socially
assigned gender. The coming-out at work is thus largely linear.
While there are pressures to conform to an identity when one comes out at
workplace, the process of coming-out at work has been found to positively affect
one’s well-being and job satisfaction (Griffith and Hebl 2002). This is because an
employee spends most of the productive years at workplace and it is here that most
of the relationships beyond the family are made. This process helps overcome the
sense of deception or moral lack (Zimman 2009) and thus feel comfortable with the
colleagues. Even in case of non-acceptance, many people find it better to come out
so that they can be comfortable being who they are.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 51

7 Male-to-Female Vis-a-Vis Female-to-Male Transition

Most scholars emphasize the lack of congruence between gender identity, sex and
sexual orientation. The need for transition, if felt strongly, would be first established
through certification of gender identity dysphoria by a psychiatrist. This is generally
followed by intake of hormones followed by surgery. While these elements are
common in both male-to female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals, it
is generally more obvious in the FTM case due to the conspicuous changes in the
face including emergence of beard. This often calls for being cautions of the facial
features if a transman is not keen to come out. In either case, the transition will lead
to marked shifts in doing gender due to hormonal change as well as the emergence
of the biological traits of the other sex. A shift in the use of gender-based rest rooms
may just be one such transition in behaviour. It additionally leads to pressure to
change informal groups (to socialize) that are often formed on gender basis. The
acceptance in the destination gender group becomes an important factor in the
transition (Schilt and Connell 2007). It is here that the person may often encounter
rejection at work if the transition is not complete. However there is enough
literature to show that the acceptance is high for both MTF and FTM transitions
in a workplace when the transition is clearly towards male or female identity (Schilt
and Connell 2007; Schilt 2006).
Given the above context of transgender identity and coming-out, we examine the
narrative of Arjun, a transman (female-to-male transgender), who has undergone
sex reassignment surgery and is now in the process of changing sex in all his
identity documents. The endeavour is to look at the mechanism of gender negoti-
ation and adjustment in the larger milieu of traditional perspective on transgender
identities with special reference to his workplace.

8 Arjun’s Experience

8.1 The Case Context

Coming from a traditional middle-class family from Maharashtra in Western India,

Arjun who lives with his father in Mumbai was born as a biological female at the
end of 1970s. He always acted as a ‘tomboy’ (sic) and dressed in male clothes. From
the age of nine, he was confused by his attraction to girls in his class. This confusion
continued and led him to believe that he is a lesbian since ‘gay’ and lesbian’ were
the only words known to him at that time. He was in the same mind-set when he
went for his undergraduate education. He had a very hard time at college due to his
confusions related to gender identity and related sexual attraction. However, given
his mother’s health condition, he did not focus on his own life and concentrated on
taking care of her. In 2001 (1 year after completing his undergraduate degree),
Arjun got a job as Receptionist-cum-Coordinator in the property/real estate vertical
52 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

of XYZ Consultants, his current employer. The vertical was not doing well and
hence Arjun was moved to the company’s HR Consultancy arm in 2002 along with
his current boss and one more colleague; they have been together ever since.
XYZ Consultants, a private company established in 1992 is into recruitment
consultancy largely for the manufacturing sector. The company has clients in UAE,
parts of Europe, and India. The key accounts are largely from multinational
corporations. The total employee strength of the company is fifteen, which is
distributed in five teams. Being a small company, they have a flexible structure
with no standardised designations and predominance of a team system. Arjun’s
team consists of his immediate boss who is the Key Accounts Manager, Arjun as
Consultant, and another Executive Member. They together take care of four key
accounts. The culture of the company is marked by family spirit, with the Founder-
CEO taking care of each of the employees’ needs. It values the contribution of
employees and supports them in their personal contingencies. The CEO did not
hesitate in giving Arjun long leaves whenever he needed it to take care of his
mother. Four employees, including Arjun, his immediate boss, and the third mem-
ber of the team, have been with the company for almost 15 years. Arjun himself has
grown from the post of Receptionist to Consultant over a period of 13 years. Having
worked with the same immediate boss has led to a strong bonding between them,
making him strongly identify with the group. Arjun strongly identifies with his
workplace, considering it his second home. To him it was never been a ten-to-six
job as he always worked in a supportive environment with considerate and com-
mitted team members.

8.2 Realization of Transgender Identity

In 2005, Arjun came across some lesbians on Orkut, some of whom became his
friends. However, he found that he was different from them as they were quite
comfortable being females while he was not. In 2008, he got in touch with a
transman online who made Arjun realize and accept that he is a man trapped in a
woman’s body. Arjun could not start his transition immediately since his mother’s
condition had further deteriorated and she was bed-ridden and totally dependent on
him. His life all this while was largely about work and home.
In 2011, Arjun’s mother expired. It was then that he started contemplating
transition. Since it would be a life-changing event, he gave himself a year and
finally resolved for the rites de passage in 2012. He got the support from another
transman and both started their transition providing mutual support to each other.
The first phase was getting in touch with a psychiatrist to ascertain the gender
identity dysphoria (GID). He got the GID certificate after two sittings and then
contacted an endocrinologist for prescription of hormones.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 53

8.3 Transition and Coming-Out

Arjun shared the news of his starting of hormonal shots with his immediate boss.
During our interview with Arjun, he mentioned that she was the first person to
whom he came out beyond his transman friend. However, Arjun found that she was
sceptical about the whole process since she was not sure how it would ultimately
affect Arjun. After 4 months of hormonal shots, there were manifest changes in
Arjun’s body, including growth of facial hair and increase in weight. This change
boosted his confidence and he started coming-out to those who currently constitute
his support system. This included his maternal aunts who have been supportive. He
also came out to his brother and father in due course but his support system included
his friends and aunts only.
His colleagues at work were noticing the visible changes but no one questioned
him. However, before his top surgery in 2013, he felt the need to share his decision
with his CEO who had always been supportive to him in the past. He came out to his
CEO and shared his condition and his plans to go for surgery. The immediate
reaction of the CEO according to Arjun was, “How can I help you?” The CEO
added that though he did not understand the issue as narrated by Arjun, he would
support him. He added that Arjun should do whatever makes him happy. The CEO
subsequently approved a loan for Arjun’s surgery as well and allowed him to
proceed for 1 month’s leave. The acceptance could be seen as one of the factors
of why Arjun strongly identifies with the organisation and feels integrated at the
workplace; this is much in line with the coming-out related literature (Ward and
Winstanley 2005).

8.4 Coming-Out to All Colleagues

In 2014, Arjun felt that there is need to be out to all his colleagues. He was feeling
‘fed up of the dual life’ and wanted to have this ‘burden (of truth) off his chest’. He
hence wrote a mail addressed to all his colleagues as well as the CEO stating his
transition. In response, the CEO wrote a mail marking all the employees stating that
the company supported him in his transition. Arjun himself felt that this made him
more comfortable though he was not sure of the reaction of some of his colleagues
in other teams. To his surprise, the subordinate in his team, ‘who is not even a
graduate’ and is not considered so ‘broad-minded’, started calling him Arjun, the
new name that he adopted.
54 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

8.5 The Identity at Work

The transition process of Arjun was marked by varying degrees of acceptance for
him at work. While the subordinate in his team showed acceptance of his changed
gender identity and accepted his new name, many others did not start calling him by
his new name. This includes Arjun’s immediate boss who though never addressed
him as a female in the past, suddenly become conscious of Arjun’s past and started
to call him by his past name only. Arjun admitted that this had a lot to do with his
own inevitable adherence to his past identity that remained with him due to his
identification as a female in all the legal documents. He felt that he might need to
speak to all his colleagues to explain his perspective on his transition and his need to
be identified as a man including the adoption of a new name.
The CEO on his part had mentioned that he and the others would take their own
time getting used to his new identity and hence he needed be patient. Arjun
observed that though the CEO did not start addressing him as a ‘he’, he tended to
use gender-neutral terms while conversing. This phase can be understood in terms
of transition, which once complete, helps in the acceptance among the members of
the destination gender (Schilt and Connell 2007).

8.6 Female at Work, Male Beyond

Arjun was very clear that he wanted to make a new start and forget the past identity
that incorporated bad memories. He hence adopted a new name and started apply-
ing for change of name in his documents of identity. He got his name and gender
changed in the Election Card, one of the most widely accepted proofs of identity in
India and recently in his personal (income tax) account number, better known as
Permanent Account Number (PAN).
At work, where the formal identities are dependent on his past name even today,
he remains a female. All his official correspondence is with the old name. Addi-
tionally, many of the old clients whose accounts he handles are yet to know of his
transition. However, what annoys him is not the official identity but the refusal of
his colleagues, particularly his immediate boss, to accept his identity. The rein-
forcement of gender binaries by his colleagues is in line with the discussion in the
previous sections where one tends to negate gender radicalism (Wilson 2002) which
is visible here, as Arjun’s transition is not yet complete. This liminality represented
by identity markers from both the genders is a way to subvert the gender schema
(Thanem and Wallenberg 2014) but it is often not appreciated by the mainstream
that is used to the binary view.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 55

8.7 Negotiating Identity

There is no way that all documents (including social security related documents) at
work will reflect Arjun’s new identity. He hence plans to quit the job once he gets
his name changed in all major identity proofs and re-join the office with the new
identity, as suggested by his CEO. He feels that once he re-joins, he will have
reasons to insist that everyone address him as Arjun. He is ready to wait for that. He
has also planned coming-out to his clients after the change in the documents. He is
sanguine that the clients will take it positively since they are more concerned about
the quality of work irrespective of his gender identity. Moreover, in past, he
interacted with one client who was quite impressed with Arjun’s resolve to go for
transition and he hopes the others will also react the same way. He has already
started interacting with the candidates who apply for jobs through his agency as a
male only.
The current inability to influence his colleagues to change their perspective is in
his view partly due to his own lack of effort to understand their view. In his view, it
is both he and his colleagues who are going through the phase of adjustment: years
of working together has concretized the pre-transition identity, making it difficult
for them to change their perspective; this he feels will change once he erases the
elements of his female identity. He also points out the general view of identifying a
transgendered person with Hijras creates many misconceptions about the MTF and
FTM transsexuals and other transgender groups. He feels that it would require a lot
of awareness for the people to look at transgender persons beyond the traditional
identities and accept transmen or transwomen as representing unique gender iden-
tities in a continuum.

8.8 Masculinity in the Informal Work Context

Arjun clearly identifies himself with males but does not want to be considered the
part of ‘butch’ stereotype. He does not feel the need to adhere to the ‘macho’ image
often projected by transmen and identified with acts of smoking, drinking, ‘hating’
cooking, aggression in social interactions, and looking down on women (sic). He is
focused on acceptance as being a man through change in the markers of his past
female identity. He adheres to the same perspective at the workplace and feels
comfortable therein. His narrative hence relates to the reported undoing of gender
where the transgender subjects identify their own ways of expressing the gender
with their own choice of elements from the past and the destination gender (Connell
2010; Hines 2010).
Arjun also does not feel he is sidelined in the ‘masculine’ discussions focused on
topics like sports, as he himself is interested in sports. Nor does he feel the need to
project any image through specific actions given the informal and largely family-
like setting at work. He however feels that the situation would have been different if
56 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

the company he worked for was a large one or if the CEO was also not the owner of
the firm. In his own experience, he came across several transmen who had to quit
their job due to lack of acceptance in a formal set-up. It is hence the informal system
and support from the top management that makes his journey easier. Due to the
influence of the CEO, no one questions him or forces him to act in a way. He is
hence largely comfortable being a male at work except when he is addressed by his
past name by his colleagues and when he is expected to be a part of gender-centred
events at work (like best dressed male/female competition), which he avoids. He
finds acceptance more at work than with immediate relatives including his elder
brother. The inclusion of Arjun in informal talks of men though not exactly an
example of ‘interning’ under men as reported by Schilt and Connell (2007), does
reflect of greater acceptance and recognition of Arjun’s male identity.
A liberating fact for Arjun is that he can be a ‘man’ in all respects that matter to
him once he is out of the office. He has become more accepting of the dichotomy of
identity at work as compared to his identity in personal life. He is hence no longer as
disturbed about the way his colleagues address him as he used to be earlier.

9 Discussion

The study of Arjun is one of the first about a transgendered person in the work
context in India (the authors could not find any writing on the topic beyond articles
in newspapers and magazines). However, the story of Arjun largely reinforces the
findings of the past researchers from different parts of the world. Like the examples
cited in the quoted studies (Gagné and Tewksbury 1998; Zimman 2009; Wilson
2002), a clear move towards one side of the gender binary is visible in the case of
Arjun. He frames the identity by the method of erasure (removing all major markers
of the past including his name) to achieve a new embodied, cognitive, as well as
legal identity. He also asserts his male identity through his expectation of being
accepted as a male by his colleagues and the society.
Though Arjun (like others subjects reported in the past studies) negotiates and
accepts a male identity through erasure, he does not agree to the community identity
based on overt ‘macho’ acts. This does not negate the view in the existing literature
about the role of transgender community shaping its members’ identity by
according acceptance to a particular set of behaviours. The transsexuals in India
are a recent phenomenon and are represented majorly by informal groups and
networks. Given that the transmen in India do not have any strong forum of
solidarity (the few exceptions represented by forums like ‘Umang’ in Mumbai
that includes both lesbian/bisexual woman and transmen), the situation offers
several reference or informal groups (other than just the butch category) that one
can identify with. This also offers a scope to ‘undo’ gender in terms of transgressing
the boundaries set by the binary view and incorporating many acts that subvert the
view on masculinity or femininity and the stereotyped associated with them
(Thanem and Wallenberg 2014). This rejection of stereotypes can also be seen as
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 57

his challenge to the prevailing norms of gender. His love for cooking and dislike for
looking down upon women question the view of masculinity among transmen.
However, this is within the larger social definition of what defines a man and hence
as discussed above, the issue of transgenderism challenges as well as reifies the
existing gender definitions.
The process of coming-out and acceptance in Arjun’s case has followed the same
path that has been reported in other researches. He had a linear coming-out based on
move towards a specified gender, starting with a close confidante at work and then
moving to the whole group. The relationships at work reduced his fears of negative
impact of coming-out and motivated him to be out, which in his view was inevi-
table, as he did not want to lead a dishonest life. Use of terms like ‘dual life’ and
‘burden off (his) chest’ display his focus on the moral argument (Zimman 2009).
Since Arjun is also a counsellor for many struggling transgendered persons and a
part of queer activism, he wants to build a positive image about the identity in
which coming-out is a major step.
The uniqueness of Arjun’s experience comes from his negotiation of identity
despite hailing from a traditional family and while working in a small company that
does not have specific record of promoting diversity. The way both the employer
and Arjun cooperated to assert his new identity, shows the significance of the role of
the top management in promoting diversity and acceptance. The acceptance from
one of his clients and his plan to come out to all the major clients can be seen in the
context of the emerging understanding about the need for diversity with the
inclusion of queer identified groups. Arjun cites the positive impact of an episode
of the popular talk show ‘Satyamev Jayate’ that focused on queer identities includ-
ing featuring an interview with one MTF transsexual. In his view, the apathy about
the transgender issues can best be countered by such information dissemination.
The uniqueness of the Indian context as already mentioned comes from confus-
ing the transgender identities with Hijra identity. With the juxtaposition of the two,
there is a tendency to associate exclusion with the transgender person as is com-
monly the case in dealing with the Hijras. However, Arjun encountered his
misconception only outside work; colleagues at work did not question his identity
due to the support of the CEO. In addition, there was a clear message that while the
CEO did not understand what Arjun was doing, he wanted him to do whatever could
make him happy. The examples from workplace are hence not of affirmation of an
identity but an acceptance based on the definition given by the agent. They are
partly jointly produced, but given the apathy on the matter, Arjun may represent the
ideal type FTM transsexual for his colleagues, which may include their own
interpretations of his behaviour.
The example of Arjun, while highlighting the challenges faced by a transgen-
dered person in India, does not exemplify as a typical example. Much of the
acceptance and assertion in his case could be due to contextual factors such as
organizational supportiveness, which positively affects the coming-out process
(Law et al. 2011). In many cases, there can be fear of loss of job, lack of acceptance,
and the general censure from the family that may make many transgendered persons
closeted. Similarly the work context even in the ‘inclusive organizations’ could
58 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

often be dominated by specific masculine/feminine identities and their enactment,

making it difficult for the transgendered person to find spaces there (Priola
et al. 2014). Apart from the above structural factors, Arjun’s location in India’s
largest metropolitan area meant easy access to both emotional and medical
resources (connected with sex reassignment); it may not be so easy for the transmen
and transwomen living in smaller towns and cities. It is also about the resolve of the
given individual and their ability to develop the support system that makes transi-
tion and coming-out possible. Nonetheless, the process of coming-out, negotiating
identities, and developing acceptance in Arjun’s case can act as a reference point to
other studies and hence represents an addition to the literature on queer identities
at work.

10 Conclusion

A major problem with modern transgender identity at workplace is the ascription of

gender roles in the institutional context. This relates not just to gender based
recruitments in certain jobs but also to the way informal structures are shaped in
a given organisation. Often the discussions and leisure activities relate to gender
identity, posing a major challenge for a transgendered person who may not be
accepted by the gender they identify with and they themselves may have given up
identifying with the socially assigned gender. Given such challenges, a strong
mental state is required for shifting one’s gender. Arjun had those qualities, and
he chose to be one with his psychological sex. He no longer felt trapped in ‘his’
body, but was now one with the body. However, the society around him would not
let his old identity go—it was yet not ready to accept that Arjun had changed.
Gradually, acceptance was manifest but it was coupled with the demand for
complete change. The community around Arjun, including some of his colleagues
and fellow transmen wanted him to be bereft of all the female characteristics. This
is the challenge that not one Arjun but all the ‘Arjuns’ face—the onus of bowing to
the gender binary. Arjun’s struggle is ongoing, given that the society is yet to look
beyond the binary gender system. It is time we learn to respect the rights of the
queer groups—to give them their freedom so that their right to lead a dignified life
is restored. It needs institutional support as well as sensitization of the mainstream
in order to achieve the rights of transgender groups.

References

Agrawal, A. (1997). Gendered bodies: The case of the ‘third gender’ in India. Contributions to
Indian Sociology, 31(2), 273–297. doi:10.1177/006996697031002005.
Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 59

Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and
diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–146. doi:10.1002/hrm.
20401.
Boyce, B. (2015). Sexuality and gender identity under the constitution of India. Journal of Gender,
Race and Justice, 18(1), 1–64.
Bradford, N. J. (1983). Transgenderism and the cult of Yellamma: Heat, sex, and sickness in South
Indian ritual. Journal of Anthropological Research, 39(3), 307–322.
Chakraborty, K., & Thakurata, R. G. (2013). Indian concepts on sexuality. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry, 55(Suppl 2), S250–S255. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.105546.
Chatterjee, I. (1999). Gender, slavery, and law in colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Chatterjee, I. (2002). Alienation, intimacy, and gender: Problems for a history of love in South
Asia. In R. Vanita (Ed.), Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture and
society (pp. 61–76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender?: Learning from the workplace experiences
of transpeople. Gender and Society, 24(1), 31–55. doi:10.1177/0891243209356429.
Custodi, A. (2007). ‘Show you are a man!’: Transsexuality and gender bending in the characters of
Arjuna/Brhannada and Amba/Sikhandin(i). In S. Brodbeck & B. Black (Eds.), Gender and
narrative in the Mahābhārata (pp. 208–229). New York, NY: Routledge.
Diamond, L., Pardo, S., & Butterworth, M. (2011). Transgender experience and identity. In S. J.
Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research
(pp. 629–647). New York, NY: Springer.
Doniger, W. (1980). Women, androgynes, and other mythical beasts. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Edelman, E. A. (2009). The power of stealth: (In)visible sites of female-to-male transsexual
resistance. In E. Lewin & W. L. Leap (Eds.), Out in public: Reinventing lesbian/gay anthro-
pology in a globalizing world (pp. 164–179). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gagné, P., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Conformity pressures and gender resistance among transgen-
dered individuals. Social Problems, 45(1), 81–101. doi:10.2307/3097144.
Gagne, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over: Identity
formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender and Society, 11(4), 478–508.
doi:10.1177/089124397011004006.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming
Out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.
6.1191.
Hines, S. (2010). Queerly situated? Exploring negotiations of trans queer subjectivities at work
and within community spaces in the UK. Gender, Place and Culture, 17(5), 597–613. doi:10.
1080/0966369X.2010.503116.
Jones, T., Bolger, A. d. P. d., Dune, T., Lykins, A., & Hawkes, G. (2015). Female-to-male (FtM)
transgender people’s experiences in Australia: A national study (Springer briefs in sociology).
New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Kalra, G. (2012). A psychiatrist’s role in “coming out” process: Context and controversies post-
377. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(1), 69–72. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.94652.
Kugle, S. (2002). Sultan Mahmud’s makeover: Colonial homophobia and the Persian-Urdu literary
tradition. In R. Vanita (Ed.), Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture
and society (pp. 30–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Trans-parency in the
workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 710–723. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.018.
MINGLE. (2012). ‘Out’-numbering in India: LGBT workplace diversity and inclusion survey
2011-12. Mission for Indian Gay and Lesbian Empowerment (MINGLE).
60 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar

Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and outcomes of
outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(1),
61–71. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.61.
Narayanan, V. (2003). Gender in a devotional universe. In G. Flood (Ed.), The Blackwell
companion to Hinduism (pp. 569–587). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Narrain, A. (2009). ‘That despicable specimen of humanity’: Policing of homosexuality in India.
In K. Kannabiran & R. Singh (Eds.), Challenging the rule(s) of law: Colonialism, criminology
and human rights in India (pp. 48–78). New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd.
Pattanaik, D. (2014). Shikhandi and other tales they don’t tell you. New Delhi: Zubaan and
Penguin Books Limited.
Penrose, W. (2001). Hidden in history: Female homoeroticism and women of a “third nature” in
the South Asian past. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 10(1), 3–39. doi:10.1353/sex.2001.
0018.
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence: Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations’. British Journal of Man-
agement, 25(3), 488–502. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12043.
Ratnam, D. (2014). Ground report: Crime and punishment. Accessed October 22, 2015, from http://
www.livemint.com/Leisure/5XCUSYRBJYDccUROFjs4bM/Ground-Report-Crime-and-puni
shment.html
Reddy, G. (2005). With respect to sex: Negotiating hijra identity in South India. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Rediff. (2005). IG ‘Radha’ charged with breaching police code. Accessed October 22, 2015, from
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/17radha.htm
Ruvio, A., & Belk, R. (2013). Conflicting selves and the role of possessions: Exploring trans-
genders’ self-identity conflict. In A. A. Ruvio & R. W. Belk (Eds.), The Routledge companion
to identity and consumption (pp. 141–148). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys?: How transmen make gender visible at work. Gender and
Society, 20(4), 465–490. doi:10.1177/0891243206288077.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make gender trouble? Gender,
Work and Organization, 14(6), 596–618. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00373.x.
Sebastian Maroky, A., Ratheesh, A., Viswanath, B., Math, S. B., Chandrashekar, C. R., &
Seshadri, S. P. (2014). ‘Ego-dystonicity’ in homosexuality: An Indian perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Social Psychiatry. doi:10.1177/0020764014543709.
Sharma, D. C. (2014). Changing landscape for sexual minorities in India. The Lancet, 383(9936),
2199–2200. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61070-9.
Shaw, S. Y., Lorway, R. R., Deering, K. N., Avery, L., Mohan, H. L., Bhattacharjee, P.,
et al. (2012). Factors associated with sexual violence against men who have sex with men
and transgendered individuals in Karnataka, India. PLoS One, 7(3), e31705. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0031705.
Sinha, M. (1995). Colonial masculinity: the ‘manly Englishman’ and the’ effeminate Bengali’ in
the late nineteenth century. Manchester, New York, New York: Manchester University Press,
Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press.
Thanem, T., & Wallenberg, L. (2014). Just doing gender? Transvestism and the power of
underdoing gender in everyday life and work. Organization. doi:10.1177/1350508414547559.
The-Hindu. (2005). Senior cop turns into ‘Doosri Radha’. Accessed October 22, 2015, from http://
www.thehindu.com/2005/11/14/stories/2005111413710300.htm
Tripathi, R. D. (2005). Time up for cross-dressing cop? Accessed October 22, 2015, from http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4440504.stm
Vanita, R., & Kidwai, S. (2000). Same-sex love in India: Readings from literature and history.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Vyas, M. D., & Shingala, Y. (1987). The life style of the eunuchs. New Delhi: Anmol Publications.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 61

Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2005). Coming out at work: Performativity and the recognition and
renegotiation of identity. The Sociological Review, 53(3), 447–475. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.
2005.00561.x.
Wilhelm, A. (2003). Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the third sex: Understanding homosexuality,
transgender identity, and intersex conditions through Hinduism. Tinucum, PA: Xlibris
Corporation.
Wilson, M. (2002). ‘I am the prince of pain, for I am a princess in the brain’: Liminal transgender
identities, narratives and the elimination of ambiguities. Sexualities, 5(4), 425–448. doi:10.
1177/1363460702005004003.
Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. H. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in
America. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Zimman, L. (2009). ‘The other kind of coming out’: Transgender people and the coming out
narrative genre. Gender and Language, 3(1), 53–80. doi:10.1558/genl.v3i1.53.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans*
Careers and Workplace Experiences

Ciarán McFadden and Marian Crowley-Henry

1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings of a systematic literature review conducted on the
workplace experiences and careers of trans* people in the Western world. Trans* is
the most inclusive and recent term used to denote the large variety of people who
identity with the transgender spectrum of identities (Collins et al. 2015), including
transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, and asexual (see Collins
et al. 2015, for more detailed explanation of the different terms). Trans* will be
used throughout this chapter to denote all those within the transgender umbrella.
The primary research question guiding this review is: what are the primary issues
that a trans* person faces in the workplace and during their career? This chapter
builds on the results of an earlier systematic literature review on lesbian, gay,
bisexual and trans* (LGBT) workplace experiences and careers (McFadden
2015). From a review of 263 articles, it is apparent that the careers of the trans*
subgroup are under-explored (McFadden 2015). A great dearth of study is present
on the topic of trans* careers and workplace experiences (Carroll et al. 2002;
Pepper and Lorah 2008; Sangganjanavanich 2009; Law et al. 2011). In many
cases, the titles of articles found during the earlier systematic literature review
included the word trans* or a variant, but did not focus in any great detail on the
unique aspects of this subgroup’s careers or workplace experiences, a problem also
noted by Pepper and Lorah (2008). Chung, in 2003, calls for theory development
and empirical research to fill in this large gap in the business, management and
career literatures over the next decade. This chapter, written over a decade later,
highlights how well this call has been answered, and examines where further
research is needed.

C. McFadden (*) • M. Crowley-Henry

School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 63

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_4
64 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

In total, 30 articles focused (either solely or as a large part of a broader study) in

detail on trans* experiences—20 of these were specific to the subgroup and the
remaining 10 were as part of a broader study, but focused a considerable portion of
the overall discussion on trans* issues which, as noted above, was rare. These
30 articles make up the review in this chapter, which discusses the extant research
according to major stages in the trans* person’s career. In the vast majority of cases,
the studies were conducted in and/or about the USA, with others taking a broadly
Western perspective. Within this chapter, what is known about trans* careers and
workplace experiences is elucidated. Importantly, what is not known is also
explored, and recommendations for future research are given to fill the large gap
in knowledge on trans* careers and work experiences.
This systematic literature review follows closely the methods used by Tranfield
et al. (2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004). The five-step method consists of an initial
study, where general search terms (in this case, transgender, transsexual, trans etc.)
are used to scope the field. From this, more search terms are discovered that are
used in the pilot study, which tests the effectiveness of the search string, and is
repeated if felt necessary. Literature is then included or excluded from the review
according to metrics of quality, and remaining articles are categorized to a theme
using open coding techniques. The themes identified in the literature on trans*
careers were Pre-career, The job search, General-career, and Transitioning in the
workplace. Each of these are considered in more detail in relation to trans*
careers next.

1.1 Research on Trans* Issues

The work-lives of trans* people are still very much unknown. Although academic
research on lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees—with whom the trans*
community are historically, socially and culturally associated—has advanced sub-
stantially in the last decade, very little study has been conducted specifically on
trans* workers in the management literature (McFadden 2015). As mentioned
above, and shown in Table 1, those articles that have been written on trans* issues
in the workplace take a Western standpoint, particularly focusing on the USA.
There may be a number of reasons for this deficit. Trans* people still suffer from
much stigma; more even, than their LGB contemporaries, who are currently gaining
ground in terms of both civil rights and workplace policies throughout Europe. The
disparity between the research on each group may be as a result of the further
progress the gay civil rights movement has made in the last couple of years, in
comparison to the trans* rights movement. The trans* population has been esti-
mated to be 0.3 % of the United States population (Gates 2011) and 0.1 % in the
United Kingdom (Reed et al. 2009). However, as Gates (2011) points out, people
may not wish to give potentially stigmatizing information about themselves. The
stigma that still surrounds being trans* may then result in an underrepresented
population.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 65

Table 1 Details of the articles reviewed

Country/
Author(s) and Year Focus Perspective Methodology
Badgett et al. (2009) Discrimination USA Quantitative
Barclay and Scott (2006) Transitioning UK Qualitative
Berry et al. (2004) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Brewster et al. (2012) Research issues USA Quantitative
Brown et al. (2012) General career USA Qualitative
Budge et al. (2010) Transitioning USA Qualitative
Chung (2003) Research issue Western Conceptual
Collins et al. (2015) HR Western Conceptual
Connell (2010) Gender USA Qualitative
Datti (2009) Career USA Conceptual
counseling
Davis (2009) HR USA Conceptual
Dietert and Dentice (2009) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Dietert and Dentice (2009) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Dispenza et al. (2012) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Hines (2010) General career UK Qualitative
Irwin (2002) Discrimination Australia Quantitative
Kirk and Belovics (2008) General career USA Conceptual
Law et al. (2011) General career USA Quantitative
Mathy (2006) Disclosure USA Qualitative
O’Neil et al. (2008) Career USA Conceptual
counseling
Pepper and Lorah (2008) Career USA Conceptual
counseling
Rudin et al. (2014) Inclusion USA Quantitative
Sangganjanavanich (2009) Transitioning USA Conceptual
Sangganjanavanich and Headley Transitioning USA Conceptual
(2013)
Schilt (2006) Gender USA Qualitative
Schilt and Connell (2007) Transitioning USA Qualitative
Schilt and Wiswall (2008) Transitioning USA Quantitative
Scott et al. (2011) Pre-career USA Conceptual
Sowden et al. (2015) General career USA Qualitative
Taranowksi (2008) General career USA Conceptual

Using these estimates, we can infer that the trans* population makes up a very
small minority of the global workforce. As such, trans* people may not represent a
priority for companies or, consequentially, academic researchers in the business
and management domain. However, research on trans* workplace experiences will
not only benefit the trans* community, but also provide insight into the challenges
and workplace experiences of other workplace minority groupings. Because
research on trans* workplace experiences and careers is extremely limited, it is
66 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

even more important to set a research agenda for the future. This chapter outlines
what research has been conducted and gives recommendations for scholars in the
relevant areas for future areas of research, and practitioners who wish to promote
trans* inclusiveness in their workplace.

2 The Systematic Literature Review

The selection of the papers that make up this literature review was performed within
a number of steps that follow Tranfield et al. (2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004):
(1) Initial Study, (2) Pilot Study, (3) Categorization of Literature, (4) Review of
Literature, (5) Synthesis of Review.

2.1 Initial Study

The initial step of the systematic review is concerned with the identification of the
key scholars across the disciplines publishing on the research topic and the creation
of a search string that may be used to effectively and efficiently query the electronic
databases (Pittaway et al. 2004; Tranfield et al. 2003). For the purpose of this
review, the following databases were used: EBSCO Academic Source Complete
(over 13,600 journals over a number of fields), EBSCO Business Source Complete
(more than 2400 peer-reviewed journals in the business and management areas),
Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge (over 23,000 journals in various fields) and
the Google Scholar search engine. The first step of the initial study was a simple
search of the databases using a broad search string, using keywords based on the
author’s prior experience (Pittaway et al. 2004), relating to both the Sample of
interest in this research (the trans* population) and the Context (the workplace, the
career, employment, etc.). These articles were then filtered down by searching only
within the title; only within the subject terms, excluding those not in peer-review
journals, excluding those in an irrelevant field (for example, biology or chemistry)
and those that were not in the English language (c.5 %).
The remaining articles, still numbering in the thousands, were then filtered down
further by selecting for relevance to the research question; this included selecting
only those that exhibited the key words, phrases and areas of relevance to the
research question (what are the primary issues that a trans* person faces in the
workplace and during their career?), and by deselecting those that were irrelevant.
The citation histories of the remaining articles were then analyzed. The key authors
within the field were identified based on the number of citations each had received,
the databases were queried with the names and initials of these key authors and
additional, relevant papers by them were added to the review. The articles that cited
these key authors’ articles were then reviewed, and included or excluded based on
their relevance to the research question.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 67

By reviewing the titles and examining the myriad of keywords, synonyms and
themes of each of the articles that had been chosen so far, a definitive search string
was created with which to query the databases. This larger search string was
constructed in a similar fashion to the initial search string (i.e., Sample and
Context), but now included the various synonyms of the initial search terms
(including transgender, transsexual, career, work, job, employment etc.).1

2.2 Pilot Study

The second step of the systematic review, the pilot study, tests the effectiveness of
the search string created in the initial study (Pittaway et al. 2004), and gathers
potential articles that will make up the basis of the review. Any changes to the
search string that were felt necessary were performed in an iterative process early in
the pilot study, and consisted of additional synonyms being added to the string, and
words that resulted in more false positives than actual positive results were
removed. The three databases were then queried with the established search string,
and articles were included or excluded as per the criteria outlined above.

2.3 Categorization of Literature

The third stage of the systematic review involved including or excluding the articles
that resulted from the previous steps from the review according to their relevance to
the research topic: the workplace experiences and careers of trans* people.

2.4 Synthesis of Review

The review was synthesized by taking note of a number of the characteristics of

each article after reading. These included the area in which the study was based, the
year it was published, the sampling methods used in the research, the methods used
in data collection (interview, survey etc.), and the gaps in the extant literature

1
Complete search string:
Lesbian, lesbians, gay, gays, bisexual, bisexuals, transgender, transgendered, transsexual,
homosexual, homosexuals, homosexuality, bisexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexu-
ality, sexual minority, same-sex, same-gender, queer, queering, female-to-male, male-to-female,
LGBT, GLBT, GLB, LGB, heterosexism, heterosexist, identity disclosure, coming out, come out,
homophobia, homophobic, workplace closet, stigma.
Workplace, work, working, employment, employee, employer, employed, job, career, organi-
zation, organizational, workforce, diversity, vocation, vocational, career development.
68 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

identified by the author(s) of the article. A number of themes that overarched many
of the articles were identified, and each publication was assigned to one or two of
these themes. In assigning a theme to each article we gain an overview of the major
directions in which the literature has, and continues to, progress, and an impression
of the topics that require further development (Thomas and Harden 2008; Pope
et al. 2007).

3 Results

Steps one and two of the process, the Initial Study and the Pilot Study, resulted in
30 articles. From analysis of these papers, four meta key themes related to the
careers and workplace experiences of the trans* population emerged. They are:
1. Pre-career—Exploring personal, educational and social experiences that trans*
people go through that have an effect on their later careers.
2. The Job Search—Articles relating to the trans* person’s search for employment
or a career. Most articles focused on post-transition.
3. General Career—Articles relating to general issues trans* people face in their
career, with the exceptions of transitioning and searching for employment.
4. Transitioning in the Workplace—These articles deal directly with the trans*
worker’s transition process, the consequences and the social issues
surrounding it.
Some of the papers reviewed discussed only one of themes above (e.g., Schilt
and Connell 2007, discuss transitioning in the workplace), while other articles (e.g.,
Pepper and Lorah 2008) included discussion of a number of themes.

3.1 Characteristics of Literature

Examining the characteristics of a literature may tell us much about the nature of
the extant knowledge on this particular topic or phenomenon. Figure 1 shows the
number of reviewed papers that were published from 2000 onwards in the EBSCO,
Reuters Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar databases; we can observe a
growth in the interest surrounding trans* people and their careers in the past decade.
In many cases we may only speculate as to why this recent surge has come about,
but as Taranowksi (2008) suggests, the increasingly liberal society in the Western
world will encourage more trans* people to publically transition to their desired
gender. As the population increases, there is an increased impetus on scholars
within the business, management, sociology and career theory areas to examine
it, for the sake of both trans* employees and organizations.
As shown in Table 1, research carried out in the United States dominates the vast
majority of the literature pertinent to this review, with 25 out of 30 papers from or
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 69

Number of Articles 5

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year of publication

Fig. 1 Number of publications on trans* workplace/career experiences per year, 2000–2015

based in this country. A limitation of the existing limited studies on trans*

employees in the workplace is the USA-centricity. Even though the sample of the
literature mostly comes from the USA, it may still inform researchers in other
countries, where research on the topic may be scarce, but perhaps only on the major
issues that trans* people and their employers may face (Fig. 2).
There is a relative lack of quantitative study performed in the business and
management areas on trans* issues (also noted by Law et al. 2011), with just <20 %
of the literature reviewed containing such research. The very low numbers of trans*
people (Gates 2011), as well as issues concerning identity disclosure and fear of
stigmatization, may render quantitative studies that focus solely on the trans*
population very challenging to perform. We can observe in Fig. 3 that the literature
on the careers and workplace experiences of trans* people is mostly comprised of
semi-structured interview-centered articles, which seek to explore the phenomenon
at first hand; or general explanatory articles, which seek to better understand it.
This tells us, perhaps, that the career of the trans* person, and the common
experiences and occurrences within it, remains somewhat of a mystery to the career
scholar; there is too little theory built for it to be tested, or to be connected with
more well studied contexts and frameworks, as the research is still in its infancy.
Even in the literature surrounding the careers and workplace experiences of the
LGBT population, there exists little on specific trans* issues (Law et al. 2011).
Where trans* experiences are noted, it is only as an aside, even in those articles that
include the “LGBT” acronym in its title (Pepper and Lorah 2008). It appears that
the career and business literature surrounding the trans* population is somewhat of
an island, small and almost uninhabited, cut off from the mainland. There is very
little research that bridges the links between the careers of this subpopulation with
the larger LGBT group, a fact that this may have repercussions in the pursuit of
effective and equitable workplace policies and guidelines which assist both the
individual and the company.
70 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

Fig. 2 Type of research

conducted in the
30 reviewed articles

Conceptual:
10
Qualitative:
14

Quantitative:
6

Fig. 3 Types of method

used in the 30 reviewed
articles

Survey: 6

Conceptual: 9 Case Study: 2

Semi-Structured
Interview: 10

3.2 Pre-career

The pre-career theme deals with career-related issues of trans* people before they
actually enter employment, and mostly involves articles on personal, educational
and social experiences. There is a very large gap of literature on the issues facing
trans* students, compared to research on lesbian, gay and bisexual students (Scott
et al. 2011). This translates into a lack of informed knowledge for those in positions
to help trans* students, such as career or guidance counselors in universities. As
Goodrich (2012) points out, many college counselors are not knowledgeable about
trans* issues. As explored below, there are a number of unique challenges that
trans* people go through during their careers, including discrimination,
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 71

transitioning and interpersonal problems surrounding their gender, so it is critical

that information is available for those trans* people who are just about to enter the
workforce.
Schmidt and Nilsson (2006) find that LGB youth face a bottleneck when it comes
to career development, because so much of their psychological resources are taken
up with identity development. This may therefore lead to trouble before and during
their early career, as proper preparation has not been taken. This bottleneck
hypothesis has been widened to include trans* students (Scott et al. 2011), who
face similar identity development issues, and also experience added pressures to do
with their transitioning to another gender presentation. Effrig et al. (2011) find that
trans* college students, whether or not they were seeking treatment, had higher
levels of distress and victimization in comparison to their cisgender (non-trans*)
peers. Worries surrounding discrimination at school, future workplace discrimina-
tion or presenting as a new gender successfully at work compound to cause
additional psychological stress that distracts some trans* students from in-depth
vocational decision making and thinking (Scott et al. 2011). However, as Datti
(2009) suggests, processing internal psychological issues surrounding one’s gender
identity may be crucial for optimal career planning.
The lack of detailed and specific information and support available for trans*
students may be a crucial determinant in their future career success. With many
unique obstacles and challenges to navigate, yet very limited resources upon which
to draw, trans* students find that they alone have to guide themselves through their
career. However, the challenges they face before they enter the workplace mean
they are unable to devote themselves fully to the task. Trans* people and companies
alike would benefit from the provision of expertise in school and university career
guidance resources, in order to encourage more open communications with trans*
employees in the workplace, over the course of their careers.

3.3 The Job Search

Articles in this theme were associated with the issues trans* people face while
looking for employment. Searching and applying for a job presents unique issues
for the trans* person who has transitioned, and who may have career experience
obtained primarily under a different gender presentation and name (Pepper and
Lorah 2008; Sangganjanavanich 2009). Walworth (2003) finds that starting at a
new job can make it easier for those who have transitioned when it comes to
interpersonal relations with colleagues. Even if one desires to start afresh, however,
institutional factors may make it difficult for one to leave their old life behind.
Budge et al. (2010) describe the difficulty trans* people have in gaining employ-
ment in the USA. Not passing as one’s preferred gender in job interviews was cited
as a major reason, with employers realizing that the interviewee was trans* and
discriminating against them. Sometimes this is not openly communicated but was
still suspected by the applicants to be the reason (Brown et al. 2012). In Ireland, a
72 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

report by McNeil et al. (2013) found that 14 % of the trans* respondents believed
they had denied a job on the basis of their trans* identity, and 24 % were
unemployed and seeking work.
Even for those who successfully ‘pass’, a variety of problems still exist when
searching for jobs in the trans* person’s life. The move from one gender expression
to another, usually accompanied by a new name, can affect any trans* person’s
career capital. Career capital is the assets that one has that can aid the success of
one’s employment and overall career (Inkson and Arthur 2001), and is divided into
knowing-why (the motivation and sense of purpose one has for one’s career),
knowing-how (the skills and knowledge one has) and knowing-whom (one’s repu-
tation, relationships and network). For example, the skills and experience that one
can bring to a role may be misjudged or not seen by potentially new employers, if
most of this experience occurred before transition (Sangganjanavanich 2009),
affecting the perceived knowing-how capital of that person. To fully show their
experience and skills built up during their career, a person may have to disclose
their trans* status to the potential employer, running the risk of discrimination and
stigma, and ruling out the possibility of a completely fresh start in their new gender
expression. 7 % of respondents in a report by McNeil et al. (2013) said that they had
not provided references from a previous job due to their gender history, in effect,
cancelling out their knowing-whom capital. 8 % of respondents reported not apply-
ing for certain jobs due to fear of being discriminated against or harassed at work,
similar to participants in Brown et al.’s (2012) study. This suggests that the
motivation and identification with one’s work that makes up one’s knowing-why
capital may also be affected if one is trans*. This also highlights that companies
have a definite role to play in signaling to potential job applicants that their
workplaces are inclusive of trans* people.
Being trans* may also have an impact on the types of jobs or industries one
wishes to work in. Brown et al. (2012) found that, in their sample of male-to-female
trans* participants, many of the respondents had initially, before transitioning,
worked in typically masculine and male-dominated fields, in an attempt to fulfill
societal and familial expectations to act like a man. Post-transition, however, these
pressures alleviated, and many participants moved to more traditionally female
careers, which allowed them to express previously hidden aspects of their
personality.

3.4 General Career

Articles in this theme are related to the general issues that trans* people face during
their career that are not directly related to transitioning or looking for employment.
The majority of these articles dealt with that discrimination that trans* people face
in the workplace. Employment discrimination is a prevalent issues for a large
number of trans* people, including, difficulty in getting a job (as explored
above), losing jobs or being denied a promotion, healthcare coverage problems
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 73

and interpersonal sexual or verbal harassment. Employment discrimination against

trans* people is an ongoing problem. For instance, in Ireland today, 43 % of
respondents in one study (McNeil et al. 2013) report problems with work due to
their trans* identity. This included being fired or dismissed from their job (9 %) and
leaving a job due to harassment or discrimination (9 %). In many countries, it may
be easier for trans* people to hide their trans status, if they wish, but in Ireland,
where the population is much smaller, this may prove more difficult. One who
wants to appear as cisgender in the workplace may then find themselves being outed
at work, or at least be fearful of that happening, causing anxiety.
Dispenza et al. (2012) outline the multitude of types of harrassment and dis-
crimination that trans* people can face in the work: from interpersonal remarks or
subtle micro-aggressions, for example, a colleague deliberately using incorrect
gender pronouns when addressing the trans* person, to more institutionalised
discrimination, like workplaces not offering enough protection for trans* people
who have been discriminated against. Trans* people can also face covert discrim-
ination like malicious gossip and deliberate isolation from colleagues (Sangganja-
navanich 2009). In addition, interpersonal discrimination can lead to a large amount
of continuous psychological stress for trans* people (Budge et al. 2010; Dietert and
Dentice 2009; Irwin 2002). Awareness of this within organizations would encour-
age counselling services specifically tailored to trans* issues to be developed, as
well as diversity training for the entire staff.
Collins et al. (2015) discuss how trans* people suffer from exclusion in the
workplace due to implicit gender roles and stigmatization, and offer suggestions as
to how HRD practioners can encourage the inclusion of trans* people in the
workplace. These include introducing a zero-tolerance policy for discriminatory
actions and language; having inclusive dress codes that allow fluid gender expres-
sion; modifying workplace policies to be inclusive of all gender identities; and
learning how other companies have improved their workplace with regard to trans*
issues.

3.5 Transitioning in the Workplace

Most of the literature on trans* careers reviewed focuses on the transition stage.
Transitioning is the term used to describe one’s change from one gender expression
to another, and may refer not only to those who have crossed the gender binary,
[i.e., male-to-female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) individuals], but also those
who have begun and are in the midst of a gender presentation change (Brown
et al. 2012).
A transition is a very complex and multi-faceted process that includes many
challenges, both psychological and social (Sangganjanavanich and Headley 2013).
Transitioning may be subdivided into three distinct stages: Pretransition, During
Transition, and Posttransition (Budge et al. 2010), but naturally may not always
represent every person’s experience. Pretransition involves coming out as trans* to
74 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

HR and colleagues but may not necessarily involve changing one’s gender presen-
tation yet (Budge et al. 2010; Grant et al. 2011).
The next phase of the transition includes changing one’s presentation to match
that of one’s innate gender identity. Changing one’s gender presentation to another
may include wearing clothes associated with that gender; changing the pronouns
with which others identify you, including he, she or the gender-neutral they, zie and
hir; or acting in a manner traditionally associated with that gender. During transi-
tion, typically gendered behaviors, conversation and social groups may change; this
might be difficult for the transitioning person, particularly if social standing and
relationships change also (Schilt and Connell 2007). This phase of transitioning
may also involve the “real life experience” (RLE). The RLE is a period where the
trans* individual lives in their desired gender presentation, and depending on the
jurisdiction, may be a requirement before gender reassignment is performed
(Sangganjanavanich 2009). Transitioning in the workplace can lead to the trans*
person facing a loss of respect, subtle stigmatization, emotional abuse, and physical
threats (Budge et al. 2010).
Post-transition, trans* people report that the changes in their gender presentation
lead to changes in how they are treated both socially and professionally. Interper-
sonal harassment that one faces because of their transition may lead to their leaving
a job (Dietert and Dentice 2009) or being absent from work due to mental health
problems (Davis 2009), which may lead to obvious problems with their career
progression and workplace performance. Some male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals
report that their skills and abilities become devalued after they transition (Schilt and
Connell 2007) also find that, while conversely, female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals
report increases in perceived authority and respect post-transition (Griggs 1998),
suggesting that, similar to cisgender people, gender-based discrimination is at play.
Similarly, Schilt and Connell (2007) find that their MTF respondents report a loss of
earnings of almost one third, while their FTM respondents report a slight increase in
earnings. These findings suggest that it may be useful to study trans* populations
separately, rather than treating them as a homogenous sample—there clearly are
unique challenges that each must face, intertwined with and related to more
traditional issues of gender. Additionally, as mentioned above, research like this
on trans* issues is relevant for employee groupings beyond the trans* population, in
this instance broader gender-related matters.

4 Implications for the Workplace

4.1 Education

A characteristic of the literature that is noted above is the relatively large proportion
of the literature that was dedicated to explaining and clarifying concepts surround-
ing trans* people. This highlights the lack of understanding in many places of what
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 75

a trans* person feels, and experiences. Without a basic grasp of this concept,
however inaccessible it may be to cisgender practitioners, it is difficult to imagine
how practices and policies that can help the trans* employee could be introduced,
or even entertained. As Collins et al. (2015) propose, there still exists confusion
over how to treat trans* people, because of traditionally accepted gender roles. A
portion of the stigma surrounding being trans*, and the resultant discrimination,
may then be due to ignorance rather than sheer inherent malice on the part of
colleagues or bosses. To combat this, information must be disseminated to all
members of the company. Collins et al. (2015) highlight how HRD practitioners
can aid the dissemination of information and the support of trans* employees.
Being proactive in this regard, rather than reactive, is important to ensure that
trans* people feel welcome in the workplace. For instance, interviews and/or focus
groups with trans* employees, openly sharing their experiences would benefit
organizational stakeholders in better understanding the specific challenges they
face in the workplace.

4.2 Hiring Trans* Employees

Employers have a large role to play in promoting the hiring of trans* people, who,
as discussed above, may feel alienated from a particular industry or workplace due
to their trans* identity. Employers should be aware that a trans* person’s work
experience may have been undertaken using a different name and gender presen-
tation. An open dialogue is therefore encouraged between HR practitioners and
candidates who have openly identified as trans*. In practical terms, when following
up on work references for a candidate, it is recommended that the prospective
employer to check with the candidate if their referees know them by a different
name, in case they inadvertently “out” them, harming interpersonal relations and
the candidate’s career capital.
Employers can also ensure that their workplace is seen to be inclusive of trans*
people by promoting diversity in their hiring materials, for example, their website
or graduate recruitment information. Applying to be included on a list of diversity
champions (e.g., the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index in the
USA, or Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index in the UK) will provide both a
checklist of criteria to increase one’s inclusivity and a chance to promote it to the
public.

4.3 Bathroom Facilities

In the past, many employers preferred employees undergoing transition to their

desired gender to use single-room bathroom facilities or those available to people
with disabilities, in order to avoid incidents of discrimination or complaints from
76 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

other employees (Pepper and Lorah 2008), or customers (e.g., as in Brown

et al. 2012). Trans* rights organizations (Human Rights Campaign 2015; Trans-
gender at Work 2015) are unequivocal in advocating that a trans* person must be
allowed use the bathroom corresponding to their full-time gender presentation,
whether or not they have fully transitioned yet. As Pepper and Lorah (2008) point
out, trans* individuals who are forced to use a bathroom not corresponding to their
gender presentation will suffer considerable damage to self-esteem and confidence.
From a HR perspective, this lowered morale may lead to less productivity (Pepper
and Lorah 2008) and a very toxic work environment for trans* employees. One
alternative may be to offer gender-neutral bathrooms for the use of all employees
(Collins et al. 2015). The HRD function of an organization, (or, if this is not
available, a HR manager) should contain in its initial training program generalized
guidelines for employees on trans* issues in the workplace (Collins et al. 2015),
ensuring that employees are knowledgeable about their issues, and are able to ask
questions, without singling out any trans* people in the workplace as an example.

5 Recommendations for Future Research

5.1 Income Disparities

Many wage differential studies have been performed for the lesbian and gay
community (examples include Allegretto and Arthur 2001; Badgett 1995, 2001;
Blandford 2003; Carpenter 2005; Klawitter and Flatt 1998), but only a small
number (e.g., Schilt and Wiswall 2008) have been performed to assess how the
income of trans* people differs from their cisgender peers. Those that do study this
question, however, include in their sample only direct male-to-female or female-to-
male transsexuals, i.e., those who have directly crossed the binarized gender line;
research on the income of gender-queer, intersex and other non-gender binary
identified workers is still required. As described below, most research is confined
to the United States; for tailor-made recommendations to take place, localized wage
studies must be performed.

5.2 Identity Management

Identity management refers to the strategies and decisions involved in choosing if

and how to disclose one’s trans* status, sometimes known as “coming out”. Whilst
a relatively large amount of research has been conducted on the strategies, ante-
cedents and consequences of a lesbian or gay person’s identity management
strategies in the workplace (e.g., Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Ragins et al. 2007;
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 77

King et al. 2008; Madera 2010), less is known about the corresponding process with
trans* workers.
Similar to other members of the LGBT community, it may not just be a case of
being “out” or “not out”; it is likely that there is a wide variety of strategies the
trans* person uses over the course of their life, according to the context, the
workplace or group of people they are addressing. Knowing what antecedents
would lead a trans* person to come out in the workplace may be important in
promoting an inclusive workplace for trans* employees; however, more research is
required to fully understand this phenomenon.

5.3 Research Methods

A number of research methods are not represented in the reviewed article, for
example, longitudinal studies and diary methods. Diary methods may be useful in
this regard as it would allow the respondent complete control over the content of the
data; as trans* experiences have had not been researched much, the more explor-
atory aspect to diary methods may open avenues of investigation that would not
occur to a researcher using semi-structured interviews or survey methods, and
highlight previously unseen phenomena or experiences. Longitudinal studies
would provide more detailed information on ongoing phenomena, such as gender
transition in the workplace.

5.4 Areas of Study for Future Research

As noted above, most of the research conducted on trans* issues has taken place in
the USA. These studies may inform scholars and practitioners interested in this
topic of the major issues affecting trans* employees, however, different cultural,
policy and legislative contexts should also be taken into account. As American
states differ greatly in the presence and scope of LGBT anti-discrimination laws, as
well as cultural, religious and social perceptions of LGBT people and civil rights
legislation, this may prove problematic when attempting to generalize U.S. studies
for other countries, and even other U.S. states. For example, results from studies
based in California will not be similar to results from studies based in India, where
there is a very different social, political and historical landscape, and so any
conclusions or implications drawn may not be of benefit. Many of the studies in
this review were performed using participants from only one or two states, and thus
may not be generalizable to another, more or less liberal state or area. Studies
situated in other parts of the world are recommended to remedy this problem.
Studies from a non-Western perspective were not found in this review (although
articles not in the English language were excluded from the search). Academics,
78 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

practitioners and trans* people in non-Western countries therefore do not benefit

from the limited amount of study that has been performed.

6 Conclusion

This chapter presented a systematic review conducted on the academic literature

related to the careers and workplace experiences of the trans* population, and
examined the primary issues that a trans* person faces in the workplace and during
their career. The main themes unpacked in this chapter, pre-career, the job search,
general-career, and transitioning in the workplace, all had a background of ongo-
ing stigmatization for trans* people, who can face challenges at every part of their
career. The literature on trans* issues was found to be USA-centric, with most of
the articles containing researched conducted in this country. While this research can
indeed inform other countries practices, more specific knowledge which included
political, cultural and social findings would help local trans* populations, particu-
larly those in non-Western countries. As previously noted by the first author
(McFadden 2015), many studies contained the acronym ‘LGBT’ in their title, but
did not contain much discussion on the trans* population. While there are many
historical, social and political connections between the subgroups, in some cases,
trans* experiences may be different, and therefore require separate unpacking, or
indeed separate studies.
Tran* research, whilst nominally focused on one tiny population, may be useful
in informing the general diversity debate. For example, to study trans* issues is to
draw attention to issues of gender and the hegemonized gender binary, as discussed
by Schilt and Connell (2007) and Collins et al. (2015), and so could inform debate
about the wider cisgender workplace population.
This is only the second major review of the literature surrounding the careers and
workplace experiences of the trans* population, the first being Chung (2003). It is
the first to look solely at the trans* population, rather than the aggregate LGBT
grouping, and so highlights in more detail the challenges and issues that this
subpopulation face in the workplace and during their careers. It is also the first to
review the literature in a systematic fashion, a method that is growing in popularity
in the business and management fields. This chapter is relevant not only to the
trans* individuals who are facing or perhaps will face some of the issues raised
here, and plan accordingly, but also to HR practitioners and line managers who are
increasingly encountering issues surrounding workplace transitions (of both a
physical and social nature) and the challenges associated with them. Scholars
interested in diversity within the business setting may also take interest in the
policies recommended here.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 79

References

Allegretto, S. A., & Arthur, M. M. (2001). An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male

earnings differentials: Unmarried and unequal? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(3),
631–646.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726–739.
Badgett, M. V. L. (2001). Money, myths, and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Badgett, M. V. L., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2009). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence
of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination 1998–2008. Chicago-Kent Law
Review, 84, 559–595.
Barclay, J. M., & Scott, L. J. (2006). Transsexuals and workplace diversity—A case of “change”
management. Personnel Review, 35, 487–502.
Berry, P. E., Mcguffey, K. M., Rush, J. P., & Columbus, S. (2004). Discrimination in the
workplace: The firing of a transsexual. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
8, 225–239.
Blandford, J. M. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of
earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 622–642.
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2012). Transgender individuals’ work-
place experiences: The applicability of sexual minority measures and models. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 60–70.
Brown, C., Dashjian, L. T., Acosta, T. J., Mueller, C. T., Kizer, B. E., & Trangsrud, H. B. (2012).
The career experiences of male-to-female transsexuals. The Counseling Psychologist, 40(6),
868–894.
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. (2010). The work experiences of transgender
individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 377–393.
Carroll, L., Gilroy, P. J., & Ryan, J. (2002). Counseling transgender, transsexual, and gender-
variant clients. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 131–139.
Carpenter, C. S. (2005). Self-reported sexual orientation and earnings: Evidence from California.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58, 258–273.
Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences
of transpeople. Gender & Society, 24, 31–55.
Collins, J. C., McFadden, C., Rocco, T. S., & Mathis, M. K. (2015). The problem of transgender
marginalization and exclusion: Critical actions for Human Resource Development. Human
Resource Development Review. doi:10.1177/1534484315581755.
Chung, Y. B. (2003). Career counseling with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons:
The next decade. The Career Development Quarterly, 52(1), 78–86.
Datti, P. A. (2009). Applying social learning theory of career decision making to gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgender and questioning young adults. The Career Development Quarterly, 58
(1), 54–64.
Davis, D. (2009). Transgender issues in the workplace: HRD’s newest challenge/opportunity.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 109–120.
Dietert, M., & Dentice, D. (2009). Gender identity issues and workplace discrimination: The
transgender experience. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(1), 121–140.
Dispenza, F., Watson, L. B., Chung, Y. B., & Brack, G. (2012). Experience of career-related
discrimination for female-to-male transgender persons: A qualitative study. The Career Devel-
opment Quarterly, 60, 65–81.
Effrig, J. C., Bieschke, K. J., & Locke, B. D. (2011). Examining victimization and psychological
distress in transgender college students. Journal of Employment Counseling, 14(2), 143–157.
Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? Los Angeles:
The Williams Institute.
80 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry

Goodrich, K. M. (2012). Lived experiences of college-age transsexual individuals. Journal of

College Counseling, 15, 215–232.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at
every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Griggs, C. (1998). S/he: Changing sex and changing clothes (dress, body, culture). London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Hines, S. (2010). Queerly situated? Exploring negotiations of trans queer subjectivities at work
and within community spaces in the UK. Gender Place and Culture, 17, 597–613.
Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Restroom access for transgender employees. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/restroom-access-for-transgender-
employees
Inkson, K., & Arthur, M. B. (2001). How to be a successful career capitalist. Organisational
Dynamics, 30, 48–61.
Irwin, J. (2002). Discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and transgender people working in
education. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14(2), 65–77.
Kirk, J., & Belovics, R. (2008). Understanding and counseling transgender clients. Journal of
Employment Counselling, 45(1), 29–43.
King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times—Exploring dual
perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 33,
566–601.
Klawitter, M. M., & Flatt, V. (1998). The effects of state and local antidiscrimination policies for
sexual orientation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 658–686.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Trans-parency in the
workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 710–723.
Madera, J. M. (2010). The cognitive effects of hiding one’s homosexuality in the workplace.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 86–89.
Mathy, R. M. (2006). Self-disclosure: A dance of the heart and a ballet of the mind. Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy, 10, 109–121.
McFadden, C. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender careers and human resource
development: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14,
125–162.
McNeil, J., Bailey, L., Ellis, S., & Regan, M. (2013). Speaking from the margins: Trans mental
health and wellbeing in Ireland. Dublin: Transgender Equality Network Ireland.
O’Neil, M. E., McWhirter, E. H., & Cerezo, A. (2008). Transgender identities and gender variance
in vocational psychology. recommendations for practice, social advocacy, and research.
Journal of Career Development, 34, 286–308.
Pepper, S. M., & Lorah, P. (2008). Career issues and workplace considerations for the trans-sexual
community: Bridging a gap of knowledge for career counselors and mental health care
providers. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 330–343.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and
innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5, 137–168.
Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence:
A guide to methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of
perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.
Reed, B., Rhodes, S., Schofield, P., & Wylie, K. (2009). Gender variance in the UK: Prevalence,
incidence, growth, and geographic distribution. London: Gender Identity Research and Edu-
cation Society.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 81

Rudin, J., Ruane, S., Ross, L., Farro, A., & Tejinder, B. (2014). Hostile territory: Employers’
unwillingness to accommodate transgender employees. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 33, 721–734.
Sangganjanavanich, V. F. (2009). Career development practitioners as advocates for transgender
individuals: Understanding gender transition. Journal of Employment Counseling, 46,
128–135.
Sangganjanavanich, V. F., & Headley, J. A. (2013). Facilitating career development concerns of
gender transitioning individuals: Professional standards and competencies. The Career Devel-
opment Quarterly, 61, 354–366.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys?: How transmen make gender visible in the workplace.
Gender & Society, 20, 465–490.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do gender transitions make gender trouble? Gender, Work, and
Organization, 14, 596–618.
Schilt, K., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and
workplace experiences. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 8, 1935–1682.
Schmidt, C. K., & Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The effects of simultaneous developmental processes:
Factors relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career
Development Quarterly, 55, 22–37.
Scott, D. A., Belke, S. L., & Barfield, H. G. (2011). Career development with transgender college
students: Implications for career and employment counselors. Journal of Employment Counsel-
ing, 48, 103–113.
Sowden, B., Fleming, J., Savage, T. A., & Woitaszewski, S. A. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender-identified school psychologists: A qualitative study of their professional experi-
ences. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 1–9.
Taranowksi, C. J. (2008). Transsexual employees in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Behav-
ioral Health, 23(4), 467–477.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in
systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Manage-
ment, 14, 207–222.
Transgender at Work. (2015). Restroom access issues. Accessed March 20, 2015, from http://
www.tgender.net/taw/restroom.html
Walworth, J. (2003). Transsexual workers: An employer’s guide. Washington, DC: Center for
Gender Sanity.
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery
and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction

Nick Drydakis

1 Introduction

In studies have examined how job satisfaction is moderated by sex (men, women)
and sexual orientation (Drydakis 2015; Leppel 2014). However, none of the studies
have evaluated how job satisfaction is moderated when employees reassign their
sex (i.e., from male to female—through vaginoplasty-, and from female to male—
through phalloplasty). In general, workplace studies—and in particular quantitative
studies on the relation between transgenderism, sex reassignment surgery and
employment outcomes (occupational access, unemployment, earnings, job satis-
faction, commitment)—are scarce (exceptions include Schilt and Wiswall 2008;
Law et al. 2011). What we do know from qualitative research is that, compared to
cisgender people, transgender people (i.e., people who have reassigned their gender
role without having had sex surgery, people who are in the process of having a sex
reassignment surgery, people who have had a sex reassignment surgery) experience
higher levels of discrimination in housing, health care, education, employment,
legal systems, and even in their families (Grant et al. 2011; Morton 2008; Equalities
Review UK 2007). This study aims to go one step further and to open the discussion
on the relation between job satisfaction, transgenderism and sex reassignment
surgery in the UK, suggesting that it is valuable to examine whether people who
have had a sex reassignment surgery function well in their employment in order to
offer some preliminary evidence that may be of interest to researchers, social
planners and the transgender community.

N. Drydakis (*)
Department of Economics and International Business, Lord Ashcroft International Business
School, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
Institute for the Study of Labor, IZA, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH, Bonn,
Germany
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 83

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_5
84 N. Drydakis

Were people who have had a sex reassignment surgery to report lower levels of
job satisfaction than before their sex reassignment surgery, this might suggest that
they are victims of mistreatment and discrimination from employers, colleagues
and customers, and/or they might face higher adverse mental health symptoms due
to social/personal/physical/mental and workplace conditions that should be exam-
ined and evaluated in a systematic way for research based policy implications. On
the other hand, if individuals who have had a sex reassignment surgery face more
positive job satisfaction adjustments than before their sex reassignment surgery,
this should be noted, as well, in order for the potential factors that affect this relation
(for instance better mental health status), to be highlighted, and a framework for
reference to be demonstrated.
Examining transgender people’s job satisfaction is of considerable importance,
given that transgender employees are valuable assets for organizations. Studies in
the UK have found that transgender people have higher average educational levels
than the wider UK population and also that transgender people are more likely to
work in professional and managerial occupations compared to the wider UK
population (Whittle et al. 2007; Morton 2008). In turn, the (dis)satisfaction of
highly educated employees might provide a number of insights into the most
important labor market behaviors, such as quitting, turnover and complaint
procedures.
In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999, which amended the Sex
Discrimination Act 1975, make it unlawful to discriminate in employment and
vocational training against an individual who intends to undergo gender
reassignment, who is undergoing gender reassignment, or who has undergone
gender reassignment (National Archives 1999). The Act covers all aspects of
employment, including recruitment and selection processes, employment-related
benefits, and facilities, including training, career development and references
(National Archives 1999). Thus, we can identify one additional important reason
for a job satisfaction study for transgender employees. If people who have under-
gone gender reassignment face lower job satisfaction than before it might be an
indicator of how effective the anti-discrimination law is in protecting transgender
employees.
In this study, UK transgender men and women who have had a sex reassignment
surgery (vaginoplasty or phalloplasty) were periodically interviewed (twice a year)
in the city of London during the 2012–2014 period, in order to enable an examina-
tion of how their sex transition has affected the satisfaction they received from their
workplace. One important strength of this study is that longitudinal data (five
volumes) is utilized, and that job satisfaction dynamics both before and after the
sex reassignment surgery can therefore be observed. Interestingly, valuable infor-
mation regarding individuals’ masculine and feminine traits, life satisfaction, health
and mental health status (among others) was obtained, and additional correlations
between job satisfaction and the aforementioned variables can therefore be offered.
Potential underlying factors and channels that might affect transgender employees’
job satisfaction such as masculinity/femininity, and life satisfaction are examined in
a process, which allows interesting patterns to be captured.
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 85

The current study will add to the extremely sparse body of empirical literature
concerning transgender individuals’ experiences in the workplace during and after
their sex transition. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the next section,
the study’s main hypothesis is presented. In Sect. 3, the data set and variables’
definitions are presented. In Sect. 4, the descriptive statistics and the empirical
estimations are offered. The last section, meanwhile, offers a discussion.

2 Job Satisfaction and Study’s Hypothesis

From the perspectives of research and practice, the most focal employee attitude is
job satisfaction (Saari and Judge 2004). The construct of job satisfaction is gener-
ally defined as a positive emotional state that reflects an affective response to a job
situation (Locke 1976, 1984). Employees with high job satisfaction appear to hold
generally positive attitudes toward their jobs, and those who are dissatisfied appear
to hold generally negative attitudes toward their jobs (Robbins 1993). The existence
of relations suggests that the analysis of the employee’s subjective well-being, and
the understanding of what makes different groups of employees satisfied, such as
interaction with colleagues, respect for one’s individuality, support on special
conditions, benefits and rewards, can provide a number of insights into the most
important labor market behaviors: higher productivity, better performance, lower
absenteeism, lower likelihood of quitting, better work behavior, better health, and
better emotional adjustment (see Drydakis 2015 for detailed references).
In addition, the literature has identified good mental health status, life satisfac-
tion, and certain personality traits, as main predictors of job satisfaction. Indeed, a
meta-analysis of studies published from 1967 to 2008 showed that job satisfaction
is positively related to life satisfaction, happiness, and other subjective well-being
variables (Bowling et al. 2010). Interestingly, and in relation to the scope of this
paper, since current studies suggest that transition from male to female, and female
to male is related to (i) improved life satisfaction, (ii) improved body satisfaction in
relation to gender, (iii) improved quality of life and health related quality of life,
(iv) reduced depression, anxiety, and stress, and decrease in mental health service
use, (v) improvements in the quality of sex lives, (vi) reduced self-harm for the
majority of those who had a history of self-harm, (vii) reduced avoidance of public
and social spaces (McNeil et al. 2012; Colton Meier et al. 2011; Davis and Meier
2014), one might suggest that these factors may have a direct positive effect on the
job satisfaction of transgender employees.
Furthermore, based on Morton’s study (2008) people who have had a sex
reassignment surgery often find that they can bring so much more to their work-
place than they did prior to having this surgery. It is suggested that transitioning
might liberate employees from the worries that are engendered by their own
unhappiness with their own self-perceptions and their self-worth. Transgender
people themselves highlight that they take more pride in their work, and that they
can concentrate on what they are doing rather than merely marking time until they
86 N. Drydakis

are able to leave the workplace and return home (Morton 2008). Moreover,
workplace colleagues find that people who have undergone sex transition are
more helpful, productive, more approachable and gregarious (Morton 2008). Addi-
tionally, after successfully changing gender, an employee is likely to have excellent
communication and negotiation skills, the confidence to make difficult but neces-
sary decisions, good self-organization skills, and an innovative and constructive
approach to problem-solving (Morton 2008). From a labor economics point of
view, one might suggest that, after sex transition, core productivity characteristics
could be positively enhanced, which should have a positive effect on the job
satisfaction experienced by transgender people.
Since studies suggest that sex transition positively affects not only the mental
health, but also life satisfaction, quality of life, and organizational skills of trans-
gender people, it might be suggested that, for transgender employees, their sex
transition, (as examined in this study by the sex reassignment surgery binary
variable), might contribute positively to their job satisfaction function. This paper
suggests, therefore, that sex reassignment surgery might be associated with positive
job satisfaction adjustments (Study’s Hypothesis).
Importantly, however, two features must be highlighted. Firstly, the relation
between job satisfaction and life satisfaction (which is a function of happiness, and
quality of life) is, in general, believed to be reciprocal, meaning that people who are
happy with their life, tend to be satisfied with their jobs, and people who are
satisfied with their jobs tend to be happy (Bowling et al. 2010). Thus, endogeneity
between job and life satisfaction is perceived to be prevalent. Secondly, one may
suggest that the positive adjustments following a sex transition might partially be
the result of workplaces which (i) encourage and foster work environments in
which transgender employees feel comfortable enough to be open, (ii) collaborate
with transgender employees to make the workplace an inclusive environment for
people of all gender identities and sexual orientations, and (iii) provide equal career
development opportunities for transgender people. In the current study, it is
suggested that support provided by firms to transgender people in all facets of
their transition might also impact positively on transgender people’s job and life
satisfaction function. It is suggested that if transsexual employees feel protected
from biased treatments in the workplace, they will also feel valued and respected,
and this will impact positively not only on their job satisfaction, but also on their
personal/social/life well-being. In turn, due to endogeneity, higher personal/social/
life well-being will also affect their job satisfaction and work attitudes (including
organizational skills and job commitment).
For clarity, Fig. 1 represents the predicted relations. If sex reassignment surgery
can affect employees’ mental health, life satisfaction, organizational skills etc. then
these factors may positively affect also job satisfaction. Whilst, employees’ job
satisfaction, mental health, life satisfaction, and even the decision for sex
reassignment surgery, are all expected to be affected by firms’ supportiveness
towards transgender employees.
In order to build a relevant hypothesis and test the data quantitatively (although
the current study does not have indexes regarding firms’ support toward transgender
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 87

hypothesis
Sex reassignment surgery Job satisfaction (+)

· Mental health (+)

· Life satisfaction (+)
·satisfaction
Improved body and mental
in relation to gender
identity (+)
·jobSelf-organization
commitment (+)
skills and

Organizational support in relation to transgender employees (+)

Fig 1 Hypothesized relationships of factors influencing transgender employees’ job satisfaction

who have had sex reassignment surgery

people who decide to surgically reassign their gender) it is suggested that a positive
workplace environment might affect the interaction between job satisfaction, self-
organization skills and life satisfaction. In this study, by utilizing job satisfaction
and suggesting that it is a relevant index that can offer prompt information regard-
ing employees’ general workplace happiness, the paper will attempt to offer new
results to make an important contribution to the extremely sparse empirical litera-
ture concerning the employment of transsexual employees.

3 Data Set and Definition of Variables

The data-gathering period lasted between August 2012 and April 2014 (five vol-
umes). In February 2012 the research team approached three transgender associa-
tions based in London (UK) and presented the aims of the project; that is to work
with transgender men and women who were in the process of having a sex
reassignment surgery (vaginoplasty or phalloplasty) in the very near future. The
cooperation of the transgender associations was sought for this. Through mass mail-
outs they forwarded the questionnaires (with clear information/guidelines regarding
the longitudinal study and the target population) to their members. Also, the unions
were asked to let the research team participate in their open days and members’
activities in order to promote the study. Additionally, between February and June
2012 the research team had the chance to participate in five large-scale events
organized by the associations where additional transgender people were
approached. During events and bi-annual gatherings the organizers devoted some
minutes to speaking to the public regarding the project.
88 N. Drydakis

At the end of the first data gathering volume 118 transgender people had
forwarded their questionnaires to the research team. Up to the end of the data-
gathering period 27 of them had either terminated their collaboration, or important
missing data made the use of their questionnaires impossible. Of the 91 remaining
people, 46 of them had reassigned their sex surgically. However, six out of those
who had surgically reassigned their sex were unemployed, or inactive at least in one
volume of the data gathering period and their observations therefore were put aside.
Thus, the valid sample of this study consists of 40 employed transgender partici-
pants who, as of December 2012 had not undergone a sex reassigned surgery, but
who, as of April 2014, had all had a sex reassignment surgery. Regarding the
biological sex of the participants in December 2012, 23 were males and 17 were
females.
In this study, participants’ age, ethnicity (White-British), higher education
degree, years of actual working experience, white-collar employment, annual
gross salary, and hormone replacement therapy were controlled for. Regarding
the most important variables of this study, total job satisfaction was included in
the questionnaire. There are many methods of measuring job satisfaction, the most
common of which is the Likert scale (1932). The format of a typical five-level
Likert item was followed here. Employees were asked to rate total job satisfaction
on a scale from 1, “very dissatisfied,” to 5, “very satisfied.” In addition, the same
scale was used to measure life satisfaction.
Mental health symptoms were measured by the scale defined by the Centre for
Epidemiology Studies (CES-D, 20 items), which measures the existence of adverse
mental health symptoms (e.g., depressed, everything an effort, restless sleep, not
happy, lonely, sad, could not get doing, and did not enjoy life) in the previous week
(Meads et al. 2006). The possible range of scores is zero to 60, with the higher
scores indicating the presence of more depressive symptoms. To measure health
status, the classic self-rated health condition was used, which asks respondents to
rate their health as excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor (Bowling 2004). The
possible range of scores is 1–5, with the higher scores (5) indicating poor health.
Finally, to measure masculinity and femininity the short version of the Bem Sex
Role Inventory (Archer and Lloyd 2002; Bem 1981) was used. The instrument has
ten items traditionally associated with masculinity and ten items associated with
femininity. The stereotypical descriptions of men and women have emerged from
repeated observations of men and women in different social roles. Bem (1981)
supposes that masculinity and femininity are separate continuums allowing indi-
viduals to endorse both characteristics (Archer and Lloyd 2002). Based on Bem’s
(1981) theoretical predictions, traits are called masculine if they are evaluated to be
more suitable for men than women in society (such as, one being assertive,
dominant, and acting as a leader). Feminine traits are those that are evaluated to
be more suitable for women than men (such as, one being gentle, warm, and
affectionate). Individuals indicated on a 7-point scale (ranges from never or almost
never true to always or almost always true) the extent to which each of the
20 personality traits described themselves. Masculinity equals the mean self-rating
for all endorsed masculine items, and femininity equals the mean self-rating for all
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 89

endorsed feminine items (Archer and Lloyd 2002). Recent attempts to validate the
contents of the BSRI masculinity and femininity scales have provided evidence for
the persistence of these stereotypes across different countries (Archer and Lloyd
2002; Ozkan and Lajunen 2005; Xiumei et al. 2012).
The next section will present the study’s descriptive statistics, longitudinal
correlation matrix and multivariate specifications.

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

In Table 1, the longitudinal descriptive statistics for the period 2012–2014 are
offered. As is observed in Panel I, for males to females the mean age is 35.8 years,
65.2 % hold a higher education degree, 78.2 % are white collar employees, and the
annual gross salary is £33,843.4. In Panel II, for females to males the measures
show that the mean age is 34.1 years, 47.0 % hold a higher education degree, 64.7 %
are white-collar employees and the annual gross salary is £33,776.1. Also, during
the 2012–2014 period both groups of individuals have not changed jobs, that is,
before and after their sex reassignment surgery they were employed in the same
firm. Furthermore, the great majority of them were undergoing hormone replace-
ment therapy. In addition, an interesting piece of qualitative information suggests
that for males who became females, before sex reassignment surgery 78.3 %
preferred to be known as transgender women (trans women) and 21.7 % preferred
to be known as women. After sex reassignment surgery 100 % preferred to be
known as women. While before and after sex reassignment surgery 85 % generally
preferred male patterns, 10 % generally preferred both male and female patterns,
and 5 % generally preferred female patterns. Furthermore, for females who became
males, before sex reassignment surgery 100 % preferred to be known as transgender
men (trans men). After sex reassignment surgery 90 % preferred to be known as
men, and 10 % preferred to be known as trans men. Also, before and after sex
reassignment surgery 80 % generally preferred female patterns, and 20 % generally
preferred both female and male patterns.
Table 2 shows the reported levels of job satisfaction, and satisfaction with life, as
well as measures for health status, adverse mental health symptoms, femininity and
masculinity. The coefficients α of reliability of these composites are at least 0.86.
For males to females, in Panel I, measures are offered before sex reassignment
surgery, and in Panel II, measures are offered after sex reassignment surgery.
Similarly, for females to males, in Panel III, measures are presented before sex
reassignment surgery, and in Panel IV, measures are presented after sex
reassignment surgery.
As can be seen, for males to females before sex reassignment surgery, the most
frequent response for all measures of job satisfaction is dissatisfied (56.5 %).
90 N. Drydakis

Table 1 Descriptive statistics; employed individuals for the 2012–2014 period (5 waves)
Males to females Females to males
Mean s. d. Mean s. d.
Age (years) 35.87 (7.61) 34.15 (6.87)
Ethnicity (%) 86.95 (0.33) 94.05 (0.50)
Higher education (%) 65.21 (0.47) 47.05 (0.50)
Working experience (years) 12.45 (6.41) 12.81 (6.89)
White-collar employees (%) 78.26 (0.41) 64.70 (0.48)
Annual gross salary (£) 33,843.48 (6966.82) 33,776.14 (6774.21)
Working for the same firm during the 100 100 100 100
2012–2014 period (%)
Hormone replacement therapy (%) 79.13 (0.40) 88.23 (0.32)
Observations 115 85
Notes: Longitudinal descriptive statistics. Standard deviations are in parentheses

However, after sex reassignment surgery, the most frequent response is neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied (69.5 %). The differences are statistically significant
(p ¼ 0.00). It can be observed also that for males to females before sex reassignment
surgery the most frequent response for all measures of life satisfaction is neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied. However after sex reassignment surgery the most frequent
response is satisfied (43.4 %). The differences are statistically significant (p ¼ 0.00).
Moreover, as can be observed for males to females before sex reassignment
surgery a lower percentage of individuals have a very good health status before sex
reassignment surgery than after (47.8 % versus 52.1 %, respectively). However, the
patterns are statistically insignificant (p ¼ 0.45). Furthermore, for males to females
before sex reassignment surgery individuals face a higher level of adverse mental
health symptoms before sex reassignment surgery than after (23.5 versus 19.7,
respectively). The difference is statistically significant (p ¼ 0.00). Also, it can be
seen that males to females before sex reassignment surgery report as being charac-
terized by lower femininity traits than after sex reassignment surgery (4.8 versus
5.1, respectively). The difference is statistically significant (p ¼ 0.00). On the other
hand, for males to females their masculinity traits are higher before than after sex
reassignment surgery (4.1 versus 3.8, respectively). The difference is also statisti-
cally significant (p ¼ 0.00).
For females to males, qualitative comparable patterns are observed regarding
satisfaction with job, satisfaction with life, health status and adverse mental health
symptoms. However, for females to males before sex reassignment surgery, fem-
inine traits are higher than after, and masculine traits before sex reassignment
surgery are lower than before.
For completeness, in Table 3, we present the measurements of the aforemen-
tioned variables, wave by wave, with the first data wave showing measures before
sex reassignment surgery and the last data wave showing measures after sex
reassignment surgery. The general patterns suggest that for males who became
females, and for females who became males, the transition entails positive effects
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 91

Table 2 Descriptive statistics; employed individuals; comparisons between first and final data
volume
Panel I Panel II
Males to females Females to males
First Fifth First Fifth
volume volume volume volume
2012a 2014b 2012a 2014b
a. Satisfaction with job (ordinal)
i. Very dissatisfied (%) 4.34 0.00 5.88 0.00
ii. Dissatisfied (%) 56.52 13.04 70.58 11.76
iii. Neither (%) 39.13 69.56 23.52 88.23
iv. Satisfied (%) 0.00 17.39 0.00 0.00
v. Very satisfied (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Difference test x2 ¼ 12.34 (p ¼ 0.00) x2 ¼ 14.51 (p ¼ 0.00)
Observations *** ***
n ¼ 23 n ¼ 17
b. Satisfaction with life (ordinal)
i. Very dissatisfied (%) 4.34 0.00 11.76 0.00
ii. Dissatisfied (%) 21.73 4.34 58.82 5.88
iii. Neither (%) 65.21 52.17 29.41 76.47
iv. Satisfied (%) 8.69 43.47 0.00 17.64
v. Very satisfied (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Difference test x2 ¼ 9.33 (p ¼ 0.02)** x2 ¼ 13.87 (p ¼ 0.00)
Observations n ¼ 23 ***
n ¼ 17
c. Health status (ordinal)
i. Excellent (%) 30.43 39.13 17.64 35.29
ii. Very good (%) 47.82 52.17 82.35 58.82
iii. Good (%) 21.73 8.69 0.00 5.88
iv. Fair (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
v. Poor (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Difference test x2 ¼ 1.57 (p ¼ 0.45) x2 ¼ 2.66 (p ¼ 0.26)
Observations n ¼ 23 n ¼ 17
d. Adverse mental health symptoms (contin- 23.95 19.73 23.11 18.70
uous—mean)
Difference test t ¼ 2.47 (p ¼ 0.01)** t ¼ 2.31 (p ¼ 0.02)**
Observations n ¼ 23 n ¼ 17
(continued)
92 N. Drydakis

Table 2 (continued)
Panel I Panel II
Males to females Females to males
First Fifth First Fifth
volume volume volume volume
2012a 2014b 2012a 2014b
e. Femininity (continuous—mean) 4.80 5.17 4.41 3.90
Difference test t ¼ 3.11 (p ¼ 0.00)*** t ¼ 5.410 (p ¼ 0.00)
Observations n ¼ 23 ***
n ¼ 17
f. Masculinity (continuous—mean) 4.11 3.83 4.73 5.18
Difference test t ¼ 2.86 (p ¼ 0.00)*** t ¼ 4.82 (p ¼ 0.00)***
Observations n ¼ 23 n ¼ 17
Notes: x2-tests have been used to measure distribution of job/life satisfaction and health status.
t-tests have been used to conduct tests for difference in means
P-values are in parentheses
a
Before sex reassignment surgery
b
After sex reassignment surgery
(***) Significant at the 1 % level
(**) Significant at the 5 % level

on their job and life satisfaction, and mental health status. In addition, after the
transitions, males who became females are characterized by higher femininity than
masculinity. The opposite holds for females who became males.
In Tables 4 and 5 the longitudinal correlation matrix (with p-values) is presented
for males to females, and for females to males, respectively. Regarding the most
important variables in this study, job satisfaction, it can be observed in Table 4 that
for males to females there is a correlation between job and sex reassignment surgery
(p ¼ 0.00), job satisfaction and femininity (p ¼ 0.00), and job satisfaction and life
satisfaction (p ¼ 0.00). On the other hand, there is a negative correlation between
job satisfaction and adverse mental health symptoms (p ¼ 0.00). Of further impor-
tance is the positive correlation between sex reassignment surgery and satisfaction
with life (p ¼ 0.00), and sex reassignment surgery and femininity (p ¼ 0.00). More-
over, of further importance is the negative correlation between sex reassignment
surgery and adverse mental health symptoms (p ¼ 0.00), and the negative correla-
tion between sex reassignment surgery and masculinity (p ¼ 0.00).
In Table 5, the longitudinal matrix for females to males suggests that job
satisfaction is positively correlated with sex reassignment surgery (p ¼ 0.00), life
satisfaction (p ¼ 0.00), and masculinity (p ¼ 0.00). Also, there is a positive corre-
lation between sex reassignment surgery and satisfaction with life (p ¼ 0.00), and
between sex reassignment surgery and masculinity (p ¼ 0.00). Furthermore, there is
a negative correlation between sex reassignment surgery and adverse mental health
symptoms (p ¼ 0.00), and between sex reassignment surgery and femininity
(p ¼ 0.00).
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 93

Table 3 Descriptive statistics per data volume; employed individuals

Panel I Panel II Panel III Panel IV Panel V
First Second Third Fourth Fifth
volume volume volume volume volume
2012aa 2012b 2013a 2013b 2014ab
a. Males to females
Satisfaction with job—mean 2.34 2.47 (0.66) 2.69 2.95 3.04
(0.57) (0.70) (0.63) (0.50)
Satisfaction with life—mean 2.78 2.95 (0.63) 3.04 3.21 3.39
(0.67) (0.70) (0.73) (0.58)
Health status—mean 1.91 1.86 (0.69) 1.86 1.82 1.69
(0.73) (0.69) (0.71) (0.63)
Adverse mental health symp- 23.95 23.00 21.39 20.47 19.73
toms—mean (6.81) (6.85) (5.92) (5.12) (4.51)
Femininity—mean 4.80 4.86 (0.43) 5.02 5.08 5.17
(0.37) (0.42) (0.40) (0.43)
Masculinity—mean 4.11 3.97 (0.36) 3.96 3.92 3.83
(0.27) (0.38) (0.37) (0.38)
Sex reassignment surgery—% 0.00 26.08 52.17 82.60 100.00
(0.44) (0.51) (0.38)
Observations 23 23 23 23 23
b. Females to males
Satisfaction with job—mean 2.17 2.29 (0.58) 2.35 2.64 2.88
(0.52) (0.60) (0.60) (0.33)
Satisfaction with life—mean 2.17 2.35 (0.60) 2.52 2.70 3.11
(0.63) (0.62) (0.68) (0.48)
Health status—mean 1.82 1.76 (0.43) 1.76 1.76 1.70
(0.39) (0.43) (0.56) (0.58)
Adverse mental health symp- 23.11 22.17 21.58 20.58 18.70
toms—mean (6.75) (6.06) (5.36) (4.78) (4.04)
Femininity—mean 4.41 4.24 (0.27) 4.13 4.01 3.90
(0.22) (0.27) (0.33) (0.31)
Masculinity—mean 4.73 4.88 (0.29) 4.93 5.01 5.18
(0.25) (0.36) (0.35) (0.28)
Sex reassignment surgery—% 0.00 17.64 35.29 70.58 100.00
(0.39) (0.49) (0.46)
Observations 17 17 17 17 17
Notes: Standard deviations are in parentheses
a
Before sex reassignment surgery
b
After sex reassignment surgery

The general pattern for both groups of employees suggests that job satisfaction is
positively affected by sex reassignment surgery. However, a multivariate analysis is
needed in order to verify whether the assigned pattern continues to exist when
several core heterogeneities are taken into account.
94 N. Drydakis

Table 4 Longitudinal correlation matrix; employed individuals; males to females

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Satisfaction with
job
2. Satisfaction with 0.25
life (0.00)***
3. Health status 0.05 0.06
(0.58) (0.47)
4. Adverse mental 0.33 0.06 0.10
health symptoms (0.00)*** (0.46) (0.28)
5. Femininity 0.47 0.12 0.04 0.20
(0.00)*** (0.17) (0.63) (0.02)**
6. Masculinity 0.15 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.24
(0.19) (0.84) (0.55) (0.22) (0.00)***
7. Sex reassignment 0.53 0.38 0.09 0.32 0.28 0.40
surgery (0.00)*** (0.00) (0.32) (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.00)***
***
Notes: N ¼ 115. Spearman correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both
ordinal variables. Rank-Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations
between ordinal and nominal variables. Phi correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations for both nominal variables. Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations between ordinal and quantitative variables. Point-Biserial correlation coefficient has
been used to estimate correlations between nominal and quantitative variables. Pearson correlation
coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both quantitative variables
P-values are in parentheses
(***) Significant at the 1 % level
(**) Significant at the 5 % level

4.2 Estimations

In Table 6 random effect estimations are presented. In Model I, it can be observed

that for males to females, sex reassignment surgery positively and statistically
significantly affects job satisfaction, even after controlling for several heterogene-
ities such as age, higher education, annual gross salary, and life satisfaction. Based
on the assigned estimations, the study’s hypothesis is accepted, that sex
reassignment surgery might entail positive job satisfaction adjustments for males
to females. Estimating interaction effects between sex reassignment surgery and
masculinity/femininity, adverse mental health symptoms and satisfaction with life
two statistically interesting and significant patterns can be observed. The estima-
tions suggest that, after sex reassignment surgery femininity, the job satisfaction of
males to females is positively affected. That is, for biological males who actively
(surgically) disconfirm the male gender stereotype by acting and becoming more
like women, this transition positively affect their job satisfaction. It is also
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 95

Table 5 Longitudinal correlation matrix; employed individuals; females to males

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Satisfaction with
job
2. Satisfaction with 0.74
life (0.00)***
3. Health status 0.16 0.18
(0.12) (0.08)*
4. Adverse mental 0.39 0.51 0.25
health symptoms (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.01)**
5. Femininity 0.50 0.42 0.03 0.15
(0.00)** (0.00)*** (0.78) (0.15)
6. Masculinity 0.30 0.38 0.20 0.63 0.24
(0.00)** (0.00)*** (0.06)** (0.00)*** (0.02)**
7. Sex reassignment 0.65 0.63 0.06 0.36 0.53 0.48
surgery (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.53) (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.00)
***
Notes: N ¼ 85. Spearman correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both
ordinal variables. Rank-Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations
between ordinal and nominal variables. Phi correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations for both nominal variables. Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations between ordinal and quantitative variables. Point-Biserial correlation coefficient has
been used to estimate correlations between nominal and quantitative variables. Pearson correlation
coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both quantitative variables
P-values are in parentheses
(***) Significant at the 1 % level
(**) Significant at the 5 % level
(*) Significant at the 10 % level

confirmed that, after sex reassignment surgery, life satisfaction positively affects
their job satisfaction.
Similarly, in Model II, it can be observed that, for females to males, sex
reassignment surgery positively and statistically affects job satisfaction signifi-
cantly, when core heterogeneities have been considered. For females to males,
the study’s hypothesis regarding the positive relation between sex reassignment
surgery and job satisfaction can also be accepted. Moreover, the interactions
suggest that having sex reassignment surgery, masculinity, and life satisfaction
positively affect job satisfaction for females to males. It seems that biological
women who are becoming more like men in terms of masculine traits face positive
job satisfaction adjustments.
96 N. Drydakis

Table 6 Job satisfaction estimations; employed individuals

Model I Model II
Males to females Females to males
Sex reassignment surgery 0.511 (0.097)*** 0.259 (0.105)**
Masculinity 0.002 (0.242) 0.249 (0.168)
Femininity 0.348 (0.076)*** 0.077 (0.172)
Hormone replacement therapy 0.029 (0.081) 0.168 (0.099)
Adverse mental health symptoms 0.004 (0.011) 0.024 (0.011)
**
Health status 0.124 (0.092) 0.168 (0.114)
Satisfaction with life 0.011 (0.072) 0.134 (0.055)***
Age 0.134 (0.076)* 0.004 (0.015)
Working experience 0.159 (0.081)* 0.055 (0.029)**
Higher education 0.185 (0.053) 0.088 (0.214)
***
Ethnicity 0.585 (0.312) 0.476 (0.254)
White-collar employee 0.901 (0.340)*** 0.236 (0.177)
Annual gross salary 0.357 (0.299) 0.002 (0.000)
***
Sex reassignment surgery x masculinity 0.042 (0.057) 0.055 (0.024)***
Sex reassignment surgery x femininity 0.132 (0.043)*** 0.076 (0.064)
Sex reassignment surgery x adverse mental health 0.015 (0.011) 0.007 (0.006)
symptoms
Sex reassignment surgery x satisfaction with life 0.083 (0.035)*** 0.112 (0.051)***
Wald x2 127.39 149.48
Prob > x2 0.000 0.000
Observations 115 85
Notes: Random effect order probit estimations
Standard errors are in parentheses
(***) Significant at the 1 % level
(**) Significant at the 5 % level
(*) Significant at the 10 % level

5 Discussion

This study has examined a largely under-studied population in terms of the relation
between job satisfaction and transitioning through sex reassignment surgery using
longitudinal empirical techniques for the 2012–2014 in London (UK). Using
information from 40 individuals before and after their sex reassignment surgery,
a positive association between job satisfaction and sex reassignment surgery was
estimated. In this study, it was hypothesized that, if sex transition is accompanied
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 97

by better mental health, higher life satisfaction, improved body and mental satis-
faction in relation to masculinity, femininity, and more commitment to work due to
better psychology, then these adjustments (due to sex reassignment surgery) might
also positively affect job satisfaction, since the aforementioned factors are per-
ceived to have a direct impact on the satisfaction individuals experience at the
workplace. Indeed, extrapolating from the available data, the multivariate analysis
has shown that though having sex reassignment surgery, (i) life satisfaction,
(ii) femininity for males to females, and (iii) masculinity for females to males,
can positively impact on job satisfaction for transgender employees. It seems that
the interactions between sex reassignment surgery, life satisfaction, and masculin-
ity/femininity can have effects on the attitudes of employees towards their lived
experiences in their jobs. The longitudinal correlation matrix, meanwhile, has also
highlighted potential channels that might affect the relation between sex transition
and job satisfaction. It was estimated that sex reassignment surgery might have had
a negative relation to adverse mental health symptoms; that is, that after sex
reassignment surgery employees might face fewer adverse mental health symptoms
and this feature might have a direct impact on job satisfaction. People who have
previously had to live with the pressure of gender dysphoria might have found this
to have a direct impact on their job and life satisfaction. However, transsexual
persons who have completed a reassignment of sex through surgery might well
emerge happier and better workers.
Although the study did not have indicators regarding the degree of supportive
workplace environments towards people who reassign their gender, it was
suggested that, if transgender employees have supportive coworkers who respond
positively toward them, they might also tend to be more satisfied at work, and more
committed to their organizations, because they genuinely enjoy working there.
Thus, a variety of arguments can be employed in order for the study’s main thrust
to be evaluated, and implications to be offered. However, it is difficult to quantify
how much of the job satisfaction advancement due to sex reassignment surgery can
be attributed to supportive coworkers and firms, improvements in mental health,
and life satisfaction. This study does not permit a clear ordering of which effect
works on the relation under consideration, and in what degree. A combination of
endogenous relations, rather, might have affected the results presented. Thus, social
planners, social workers, health providers and employers should work on factors
that can affect transgender individuals’ quality of life and mental health, and try to
foster a diverse social and workplace environment in which transgender employees
could function well, progress, and fulfill their potential. The social cost of a
minority population excluded from employment is perceived to be significant. On
the other hand, good relations between employers and employees increase the
openness of transgender employees, and improve job attitudes, as well as benefit-
ting the firm as a whole, given that teamwork is a very important aspect of
productivity and success.
98 N. Drydakis

Importantly, the characteristics of the data set should be taken into account
whilst evaluating the study’s patterns. The data set is not random, and thus a
generalization is not feasible; furthermore, the study has limited observations that
restrict any generalization. The outcomes are also specific to one geographical
location, considering that this study focuses on employees working in London.
Urban characteristics and extant anti-discrimination laws might have driven the
patterns. Importantly, the participants are employed. Severe discrimination against
transgender unemployed and inactive individuals is highlighted in the literature.
Also, studies suggest that during and after sex reassignment surgery some
employees either quit, or are fired from their jobs. In this study, the participants
have been working in the same firm before and after their sex surgery. This might be
a sign that these employees might have received support from their jobs and
colleagues, which would have affected the assigned patterns.
This study, also, utilizes information from those transgender men and women
who were undergoing a sex reassignment surgery in the near future. One might
expect different patterns to emerge, either if transgender men and women were in
the preliminary stages of the transition, or if they had undergone the sex
reassignment surgery years before. Furthermore, the study’s participants belong
to transgender social networks. This detail might have also affected the outcomes.
Support from other transgender people might have a positive impact on several
observed variables such as mental health. In addition, sex reassignment surgery,
hormone replacement therapy, and masculinity/femininity are highly correlated. As
well as, job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health are also highly corre-
lated. Multicollinearity issues in the regression stage might be a real problem. Any
attempt to deal with the aforementioned features, and points on the data set’s
characteristics would be an extension of this study. Finally, this study examines
transgender employees’ job satisfaction before and after their sex reassignment
surgery. We cannot infer whether males to females, and females to males are worse
off or better off than non-transgender people in terms of job satisfaction after
having a sex reassignment surgery. Additionally, the effect of sexual orientation
on job satisfaction was not examined in this study. These issues highlight that new
studies could offer new insights.

References

Archer, J., & Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem sex role inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bowling, A. (2004). Measuring health (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the
relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 915–934.
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 99

Colton Meier, S. L., Fitzgerald, K. M., Pardo, S. T., & Babcock, J. (2011). The effects of hormonal
gender affirmation treatment on mental health in female-to-male transsexuals. Journal of Gay
and Lesbian Mental Health, 15, 281–299.
Davis, S. A., & Meier, C. B. (2014). Effects of testosterone treatment and chest reconstruction
surgery on mental health and sexuality in female-to-male transgender people. International
Journal of Sexual Health, 26, 113–128.
Drydakis, N. (2015). Effect of sexual orientation on job satisfaction: Evidence from Greece.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 54, 162–187.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Justin, T., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice
at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
The National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Trans-parency in the
workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 710–723.
Leppel, K. (2014). Does job satisfaction vary with sexual orientation? Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, 53, 169–198.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140,
1–55.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organisational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A. (1984). Job satisfaction. In M. Gruneberg & T. Wall (Eds.), Social psychology and
organizational behaviour (pp. 92–117). London: Willey.
McNeil, J., Bailey, L., Ellis, S., Morton, J., & Regan, M. (2012). Trans mental health study 2012.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Transgender Alliance.
Meads, D. M., McKenna, S. P., & Doward, L. C. (2006). Assessing the cross-cultural compara-
bility of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Value in Health, 9,
A324–A324.
Morton, J. (2008). Transgender experiences in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Transgender
Alliance.
National Archives. (1999). The sex discrimination (gender reassignment) regulations 1999.
Norwich: National Archives.
Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). Masculinity, femininity, and the BEM sex role inventory in
Turkey. Sex Roles, 52, 103–110.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies, and applications. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43, 395–407.
Schilt, K., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and
workplace experiences. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 8, 1–28.
Whittle, S., Turner, L., Al-Alami, M., Rundall, E., & Thom, B. (2007). Engendered penalties:
Transgender and transsexual people’s experiences of inequality and discrimination. London:
The Equalities Review.
Xiumei, Y., Meifang, W., & Qing, Z. (2012). Effects of gender stereotypes on spontaneous trait
inferences and the moderating role of gender schematicity: Evidence from Chinese undergrad-
uates. Social Cognition, 30, 220–231.
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender
Employees in Australia

Tiffany Jones

1 Introduction

1.1 A New Visibility

Female to Male (FtM) transgender people have been less ‘visible’ in Australian
culture and media in the past, even in comparison to other people on the trans-
spectrum. Possible reasons include a difference in the physical visibility of
Australian masculinities compared to femininities generally, and the lack of cabaret
and show-based cultures around these identities seen with some trans femininities.
The past decade has however seen an increasing level of visibility specifically for
FtM people, particularly online. In 2001, the FTM Australia website was formed by
two New South Wales men to provide quality information and support for men who
transitioned FtM in Australia (http://www.ftmaustralia.org/). In addition, there has
been increasing visibility for FtM identities on Australian TV Shows and media
(e.g., X Factor 2011, The Hungry Beast 2011 and others). Increased visibility has
also stemmed from new United Nations anti-discrimination efforts (United Nations
2012); and the reframing of transgender identity diagnoses from psychological
disorder to the less-pathologizing ‘Gender Dysphoria’ in the DSM-5 (Drescher
2013). All Australian states and territories have prohibited discrimination in
employment on the basis of gender identity, and Australia now has federal anti-
discrimination protection in place as of 2013 (Jones et al. 2014). Guidelines to
address disparate state requirements around surgery and sterility were also released
(Australian Government 2013). However despite their increased visibility in media,
social networking and legislation, FtM transgender people remain a particularly
under-researched group. This chapter first explores the lack of sociological research

T. Jones (*)
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 101

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_6
102 T. Jones

on FtM transgender people, and then aims to meet the need for more research
considering their experiences as employees in light of the new Australian employ-
ment protections, through outlining a recent Australian study.

1.2 Lack of Research

Globally, the literature on transgender people has focused more strongly on MtF
transgender people than FtMs, and has typically been consisted of small sample
sizes in medical environments (gender clinics, sexual health centres, and hospitals).
Topics explored have included increased HIV risk and other issues of sexual health
(Clements-Nolle et al. 2001; Edwards et al. 2007; Jones and Mitchell 2014), sex
reassignment surgery (De Cuypere et al. 2005; Lawrence 2005), and mental health
(Haraldsen and Dahl 2000; Hepp et al. 2005; Grossman and D’Augelli 2007).
Research with a social focus was less common. A few studies considered transgen-
der and gender questioning youths’ experiences of family rejection (Grossman
et al. 2005). Most studies focused exclusively on female-to-male (FtM) samples
came from North America (Barrett 1998; Pazos 2000). Barrett (1998) discussed the
disappointment that could occur with the surgeries available—particularly for
genitalia. Pazos (2000) reflected on counselling experiences with several of her
FtM clients, and noted the recurrence of feelings of difference as early as 5 years of
age, magical thinking and daydreaming about becoming a boy, and early attempts
at ‘making the change’ through trying to urinate standing up and engaging in
attempts to look or act like boys. Across these studies where employment was
discussed, for MtF populations, it was discussed mainly in relation to discrimina-
tion or abuse in sex work for example.
There has been limited research on Australian FtM transgender people, mainly
focused on a broader transgender population (Couch et al. 2007; Harris and Jones
2014; Smith et al. 2014), or broader GLBTIQ population (Hillier et al. 2010; Jones
2012). Tranznation (Couch et al. 2007) focused on a sample of 253 Australian and
New Zealand sample of FtM and MtF transgender people, with only 229 Australians
and only a third of the portion for FtM transgender people as there were MtFs
represented. Its findings revealed that the most commonly accessed health service
by transgender people was mental health. Three quarters of the sample had accessed
hormonal treatment and most of the sample had not received any surgeries. Most of
the sample had suffered stigma or discrimination on the basis of gender. Writing
Themselves in 3 (Hillier et al. 2010) included a sample of 91 gender questioning
youth aged 14–21, within a broader group of 3134 same sex attracted and gender
questioning youth. The gender questioning youth were found in further analyses to
be more likely to be out than same-sex attracted youth but let less likely to get
support from the people they disclosed their identities to, and were more likely to
have dropped out of or moved schools as a result of discrimination (Jones and
Hillier 2013). They were also at greater risk of homelessness, physical abuse, self-
harm and suicide. However, they had higher engagement with activism against
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 103

homophobia and transphobia, particularly in their schools (Jones and Hillier 2013).
From Blues to Rainbows (Smith et al. 2014) further explored the activism trans-
gender and gender diverse young people aged 14–25 engaged in through a survey
(n ¼ 189) and interviews (n ¼ 16). In total 91 % of participants had engaged in
activism, and 62 % had done so to make themselves feel better; activisms ranged
from anonymous acts like sharing or making anti-transphobia webpages through to
acts in which the individual made themselves ‘visible’ as transgender such as giving
speeches at school or organising rallies. There was little information on work
experiences across these studies; which are now particularly important in the
Australian context given the new anti-discrimination protections applying to
employment. The likelihood of differing cultures around visibility, extent of tran-
sition and other factors influence likely differences for FtM transgender people
(compared to MtF or broader transgender populations) make the lack of informa-
tion on their work/employment experience a poignant gap.

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Key Debates

A very brief history of key debates on FtM people in theory will aid understanding
of the position taken in this study. FtM transgender variance before the nineteenth
century was not always read in relation to identity in European theory, but in
relation to female violation of social roles (Foucault 1980). By the end of the
nineteenth C masculinity in female-bodied people was associated in a Freudian
psycho-analytic frame with the psychological disorder of ‘inversion’ (which com-
bined early concepts of lesbianism, role confusion and penis envy) and feminist
preoccupations (Freud 1905). ‘Masculine women’ generally became associated in
psychoanalysis and sexology with aberrant sexual desire emanating from severe
cross-gender identification, and were cast by conservatives as a sign of the ‘ills of
modern life’—a coarsening of females, loss of separation of gender spheres and
family structures, and degeneration of the species (Halberstam 2012). During
World War 1 these anxieties were furthered as women took over ‘male’ factory
jobs and domestic tasks. Weininger argued that the social, political and aesthetic
desires of women for liberation were innate for those great achievers (e.g., Sappho)
whom he deemed virtual men; but only falsely acquired by more feminine women
(Weininger 1906). He pushed for the liberation of the psychically male ‘invert’, but
was against the broader women’s movement. Liberal feminists in the 1960s pushed
back against such thinking because it functioned to limit their rights, and since the
1970s some extremist radical feminists argued to exclude transgender people from
liberation movements and cast them as victims reproducing the patriarchy’s gender
roles (Tuttle 1986). Post-structuralist feminisms from the 1980s influenced by
Patrick Califia, and Queer theory popularised in the 1990s by Judith Butler, do
104 T. Jones

not declare such enmity with FtM transgender people or butch lesbians (Butler
1990; Califia 1981). These frames instead attack essentialist notions of identity
(male, female, or otherwise), positing gender as discursive (culturally constructed),
although they sometimes overlook embodiment and material experience. Trans-
gender studies, stimulated by The Empire Strikes Back (Stone 1991), aims at
affirming self-definition, embodiment and the right to positive representation.
There are also frames based on brain sex which theorise FtM transgender people
as having had brain areas develop as ‘chemically male’ through hormonal exposure
in the womb (Pease and Pease 2003). Such new frames do not simply ‘replace’
older ones, but co-exist in tension with them and each-other, along with residual
psychological frames re-shaping inversion into Gender Identity Disorder/GID and
more recently gender dysphoria.

2.2 Research Frame and Aims

Queer allows a kind of relative authenticity to FtM identities—a ‘male identity’ is

seen as no more authentic when enacted by one who was declared male at birth as
by one who was not, the authenticity allowed is in a non-essentialist frame (Butler
2005, 1990). In this theory gender and employment identities are understood as
performatively constructed through iterations and intersections of culturally
established behaviours and expectations. This study also applies Queer’s interest
in (de)constructions of sex and gender, and Transgender Studies’ interests narra-
tives of self-definition, experience and embodiment (Nagoshi and Brzury 2010).
The study particularly aimed to explore how FtM transgender people experienced
their identity in relation to employment and the perceptions of transgender people
in worksites. ‘FtM transgender’ is used as a fractured and discursively contested/
constructed umbrella term, associated with a range of identities with multiple
meanings to multiple people (who experience it according to their particular
framework/s of reference). This broad frame was used to allow for the participants’
own self-definitions and therefore did not limit the data, or exclude people with
variant experiences. Specific research questions included: How do FtM transgender
Australians experience their own identity as employees; how do they experience
employment opportunities and obstacles; and which contexts and practices were
most supportive or useful in their experience?

3 Design of the Study

The study used an emancipatory approach—aiming to conduct research on, with

and for the FtM transgender community towards social justice goals (rather than
simply to generate knowledge for its own sake). A small reference group of
individuals from the FtM transgender community therefore advised on the study,
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 105

from development through to recruitment and final reporting. A mixed methods

approach was used including a combination of an online survey and an online blog
forum. The survey questionnaire was hosted by University of New England (UNE),
using the program Qualtrics. It contained both forced-choice (quantitative) and
open-ended (qualitative) questions; gathering basic descriptive data on the partic-
ipants’ demographics (age, background, employment status), identities (allocated at
birth and gender identity), and work experiences. The survey was anonymous and
took approximately 10–15 min. The blog forum was contrastingly used for deeper
explorations of key themes over time, and for interactive engagement with other
participants. The forum was hosted by UNE, using the program Moodle. The forum
included a main section (for people over 18) and a separate section (for people aged
16–17). The researcher moderated and reviewed the posts on the forum daily. The
key topics explored further on the forum included more detailed examination of
employment opportunities, legal issues and other topics. All participants were able
to choose their own pseudonym to use across the survey and blog forum, and these
pseudonyms are used in reporting individuals’ comments in this chapter.
Ethical approval was obtained for this project from the University of New
England Human Research Ethics Committee. The survey and forum were opened
in April 2013, when active recruitment began. The target group was Australian FtM
transgender people aged 16 and over. All participants gave their own informed
consent to participate—including younger participants who were not required to
seek parental approval in recognition of the discrimination and abuse that research
has shown many transgender youth experience at home. Advertising and a press
release were promoted through a range of media to promote the project: FtM
transgender networks, mainstream and transgender media (print, electronic and
radio), websites, e-lists and word-of-mouth. Gender Centres and FtM groups
around Australia displayed leaflets and posters with information about the project.
The survey and forum were closed at the end of July 2013, after a total of fourth
months. Data were downloaded from the survey site and then transposed into
quantitative (SPSS v10) and qualitative (Leximancer, Excel) computer programs.
Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were undertaken, and thematic
analyses of written responses. All significant differences in the report are calculated
at 0.05.

4 Findings and Discussion

4.1 Basic Demographics

In total, 273 Transgender FtM people participated in the project; the largest number
of FtM people in an Australian study [others who did not fit the criteria of age (16+),
location (reside in Australia) or identification as FtM transgender (in its broadest
sense—including people who were born intersex, people who are genderqueer and
106 T. Jones

so on) were excluded]. Participants mainly came to the study through informal
posts and paid advertising featured on webpages (41 %), FtM and gender centre
networks (31 %) or through a friend (27 %). They ranged in age from 16 to 64—the
majority of were aged in their 20s and 30s, the average age was 30.5. The
participants represented a range of culturally and linguistically diverse back-
grounds: most were of European descent (77 %), Asian descent (5 %), and to a
lesser extent people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent and a range of
other backgrounds (African, mixed and so on). The group mostly lived in stable
situations with their loved ones: a partner (36 %), their family (26 %), or friends
(14 %). Around 14 % were living alone, 8 % in other arrangements (military bases,
with foster children, or between states for example). Only 2 % reported couch-
surfing arrangements or homelessness—possibly an under-representation given
anecdotal reports and past research (Jones and Hillier 2013). Whilst 17 % of the
group identified themselves as having one or more disabilities (mainly related to
mental health: anxiety, bipolar or borderline personality disorder and depression).
Notably; the large majority of FTM Australians notably did not frame their gender
dysphoria as a disability. This reflected the dominant ‘non-deficit’ position of
transgender activists in international debates on the classification of gender dys-
phoria (Drescher 2013).
Whilst efforts were made to recruit respondents from all states of Australia, they
were more concentrated in Victoria and in urban areas than the broader population.
Themes emerging in the qualitative data seemed to support the likelihood that cities
like Sydney and Melbourne were more popular with the group due to their
increased services and gender clinics specifically catering to transgender people,
particularly in relation to transitioning—that were largely unavailable elsewhere.
Over four fifths of the participants (86 %) had no religious affiliation—contrasting
with only one fifth of the general Australian population (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2012b). The strong emphasis on traditional gender roles in the key book
religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.), and a history of transphobic positions
held by many religious organisations (Gahan et al. 2014; Gahan and Jones 2013)
may be contributing factors. Also, whilst almost half (43 %) of the participants were
in monogamous relationships the majority had never married, which may corre-
spond to the requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman in
Australian law. Only one quarter of the group were attracted solely to the opposite
sex (36 % were sexually attracted to both sexes, 15 % were same sex attracted, 14 %
were sexually fluid/changeable and 10 % were uncertain).

4.2 Gender Identity and Transitions

Overall, 97 % of the participants were allocated a female sex at birth, 3 % intersex.

In terms of gender identity, most participants (51 %) identified simply as ‘male’
(see Fig. 1). This largest group tended to have known their identity from a young
age, and had mainly struggled with the development of secondary sex
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 107

100%

Percentage of Participants 75%

50%

25%

0%

Gender Identity

Fig. 1 Gender identity of FtM transgender participants

characteristics during puberty. The group generally did not identify as being ‘trans’
but as having a ‘transgender history’—which was seen as now in their past rather
than ‘who they are’. However, there was a second group who embraced a trans-
gender component in their identification: 20 % identified as ‘FtM transgender’, 7 %
as ‘Transsexual male’, and a further 4 % gave other terms, including for example
transman, male with a twist, boi, myself and so on. Such participants explained that
referring to themselves only as only as male would deny a (transgender-related) part
of themselves. Many of this second group were unsure about their identity until
later in life, and had simply felt during their development years that they inexpli-
cably did not feel right rather than always seeing themselves as ‘a male in the wrong
body’. Finally, ‘Genderqueer’ was the preferred way to self-identify for those who
rejected pressures to fit into female–male binary model or stereotypes (15 %)—
either since they did not relate to or agree with the binary, or due to an uncertainty
about gender. Reading post-structuralist feminist or Queer books, study and reflec-
tions on gender binaries were all often part of this latter group’s path of discovery.
Despite such differences, all the participants expressed strong negative feelings
about being referred to by female pronouns, regardless of their diverse gender
identities and backgrounds.
Transitioning can include any or all of personal/internal, social, legal and
physical elements and may constitute direct modifications on the path to realising
or affirming male identity, or simply increased natural expression of a genderqueer
or alternate identity for example. In terms of physical transitions, non-surgical
measures were the most common (see Fig. 2), which made sense in light of their
lower cost, accessibility and relevance to a range of conceptions of identity or
transition/self-affirmation. A strong majority had used binding and hormones
(87 %). In addition, 71 % were using some kind of gear to give the appearance of
a penis. Of the surgical interventions possible, chest surgeries (reconstruction or
reduction) were privileged. Few had had genital surgery, and this reflected inter-
national findings on concerns about its effectiveness (Barrett 1998). Almost half of
108 T. Jones

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Fig. 2 Physical modifications FtM transgender study participants have engaged in

the participants spent between $1000 and 10,000 towards their transition
(or affirmation), although prices ranged from nothing to over $100,000. Many
participants (69 %) had received a diagnosis of depression and anxiety within the
previous 12 months, and over two thirds had self-harmed and over one third had
attempted suicide largely on the basis of their discomfort around their transgender
status. However, the great majority (97 %) expressed that simply engaging in some
form of personal modification (whether changing their clothes or engaging in
surgeries) made a positive difference to their life and the way they felt.

4.3 Employment Status

Whilst around a third of the survey participants were engaged in study, the majority
were employed (58 %): full-time (34 %), part-time (22 %), or in an apprenticeship
(2 %). However, a sizeable portion of the participants were unemployed (15 %)—a
difference in comparison to the general Australian population that is perhaps made
more poignant by the fact that this was a highly educated group, with an average
age of 30.5 (an age level associated with greater employment stability in Australian
culture). The rate of unemployment was higher than the 9 % for the Australian
transgender population cited in Tranznation (Couch et al. 2007).
Around a third were engaged in study rather than work: attending university
(21 %), school (5 %), or vocational education (4 %). Most already had a post-
secondary schooling qualification (69 %), a higher portion than in the general
Australian population (57 %, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012a). The partici-
pants were relatively divided between having post-graduate degrees (19 %) and
undergraduate degrees (25 %), TAFE qualifications (25 %), and secondary school
certificates (27 %). This reflected other Australian findings that transgender people
were well-educated (Couch et al. 2007). One explanation is the average age of
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 109

participants (30.5); and their need to be competitive in the changing contemporary

work-force. However exploration of the qualitative data suggests that places of
post-school study (universities, TAFEs) are perceived as ‘safer’ spaces to transition
or express one’s gender identity than the workforce. Participants who were
prolonging their years of study intentionally discussed how a potential employer
can look into one’s gender history indirectly when investigating references and so
on, and referred to the mixed levels of protection for transgender people in the past
in Australia.

4.4 Income

Participants had a range of annual incomes. At first glance the income earned by the
group seems relatively low, with the majority (52 %) under $41 K per year.
Moreover, 43 % were earning less than $20 K—a significantly larger portion than
the 22–35 % in other Australian studies which included MtF transgender
populations (Couch et al. 2007). Perhaps this could be partially explained by the
fact that a third of the respondents were engaged in study, 24 % had a reduced
earning capacity due to working part-time or within an apprenticeship, and 15 %
were unemployed. There were also participants earning a range of salaries: 15 %
earned $41 K–$60 K, 11 % earned $61 K–$80 K, and 8 % earned $81 K–$100 K,
3 % earned over $100 K. So whilst a smaller portion of the participants were
earning the higher wages than across Australian populations more broadly, and they
seemed to be earning less than expected for such a well-educated group, the data
showed it was certainly achievable for this population to be gainfully employed.
While other factors (such as study, other priorities or perhaps particular issues in
gaining work) might be impacting the group’s income, the fact that transgender
people have repeatedly been seen to earn less than the general Australian popula-
tion in other studies confirmed that there are likely issues related to transgender
status impacting employment, pay rates and promotions for this group.

4.5 Employment Obstacles

To further understand the distinct nature of the issues that arose for FtM transgender
people around unemployment and lower incomes according to the quantitative
survey data, participants on the forum were asked whether their gender identity
had ever become an obstacle for their career aspirations. This investigation uncov-
ered a range of issues that varied depending on whether the participant was not ‘out’
but being read as their allocated birth sex by colleagues, was in the process of some
kind of transition, or had transitioned and was being read as ‘male’ (and not
transgender).
110 T. Jones

Most participants expressed that they were not ‘out’ (but generally being read as
their allocated birth sex by colleagues), and they had concerns about losing their job
if they were to disclose their gender identity or consider transitioning further.
Junk000 (a younger male who does not yet ‘pass’) is not out at his current job.
He has been applying for jobs outside of it but the employers ‘keep fretting about
‘but which bathroom will you use?’ and how I am ‘a HR nightmare’; ridiculous
things like that’. He fears he will lose his current job or miss out on job opportu-
nities if he comes out, and worse that he won’t even be informed about it; ‘I’m sure
they’re vaguely aware that’s against some law somewhere. They will still do it, they
just won’t tell me’. Fang (FtM transgender, 29 years) had similar fears, and said that
at his job he had only disclosed his transgender status to one person; ‘I am afraid if I
disclose it I will be excluded until I leave, yet I am also concerned that when I am
passing as male it will not go unnoticed’. Yet he hates being called a ‘she’ in the
meantime. He described this Catch-22 as ‘a constant source of anxiety in the
workplace’. Many people in this group felt like there was no escape from the stress
at work. But they were unlikely to invest in ‘coming out’ if they wouldn’t be at the
job for a long period. Maddox (male/FtM/transman, 21 years) was an example of a
participant who chose not to come out at such a job pre-transition, but only to come
out to colleagues after having left such a role and later on in his journey.
For the second largest group of participants (who were in the process of
transitioning in some way), it was not uncommon to avoid work altogether. Within
this group, some said they engaged in study during the period of transition to delay
their need to become employed and declare a more stable identity. But even for
those engaged in study and internships towards their chosen career, there could be
problems; Kafka said that when studying law he still faced difficulties, mainly
around ‘all the questioning’. A few did look for work at times, but cited a sense of
confusion about how to apply for work given their conflicting gender identity,
presentation and/or history; or non-conforming expression. For example, Draconem
(FtM transgender, 24 years) said, ‘I feel like it’s only made it hard for me to figure
out how to apply for work’. Several participants reported confusion over how to
apply for police checks. They were unsure whether they were to tick ‘m’ or ‘f’ on
the form about their history, and whether that would out them to potential
employers in fields where police checks were mandatory (care, education and so
on). Others particularly did not want to have to work ‘as a female’, and had waited
for (and were waiting for) particular transition milestones to pass before engaging
in employment. For example, Harry said;
Besides the depression and anxiety, which kept me unemployed, I didn’t want to have to out
myself at work or have to work as a female. So I waited until I was passing consistently
enough not to have to worry. Luckily this only took three months on (testosterone).
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 111

4.6 Going Stealth

A third smaller group of participants who had either already transitioned, been read
as ‘male’ socially or were otherwise living their life in a way congruent with their
gender identity, had not discussed their gender identity at work at all to prevent
career obstacles. Several people spoke of the concept of ‘stealth’: either passing as a
man without aids, transitioning fully and not telling anyone about their gender
history, or presenting as a masculine female/gender fluid person without specific
explanation or coming out processes. They used phrases like ‘need to know basis’,
‘if you don’t need to know there is no way I’m telling’, ‘as stealth as possible’, ‘I just
want to be a normal cis guy’ and so on. For people who were stealth and passed as
male or had transitioned as male, they sometimes explained that they wanted to be
perceived fully as a man: ‘I don’t want to be known as a trans, I want to be known as
a man. Nothing else, just a man’. Several mentioned that coming out meant being
analysed for signs of femininity, which made them uncomfortable: ‘I don’t want
people picking the feminine features out and chucking them in my face’ said one,
‘Some people start trying to find ways they might have been able to tell (e.g., small
hands, no Adams apple)’ said another. Others worried they would not be treated ‘as
every man is treated’. It was clear that relying on transgender people to advocate for
their own right to non-discrimination in the workplace, or to ‘explain themselves’,
is simply an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation for many FtM transgender
employees to take up.
However, commencing work as a male could still present problems. Garfield
(male, 31 years) recounted how he had intended to be socially transitioned before
starting his first job, in order to avoid being seen as female or transgender.
Unfortunately, while he managed to get the right name on his degree, he was still
presenting as female when he started his first job, so he did not come out regarding
his transition process. That led to ‘some interesting moments’ when being
interviewed for his second job as a male, particularly in terms of reference
checking. He explained, ‘I think the boss at the new job just convinced himself he
misheard the pronouns on the phone to my old boss when he was doing the
reference checking’. However, the second job involved a lot of travel in the outback
with other male staff members. This often involved camping in areas where toilet
facilities were often non-existent. ‘I didn’t have a useable ‘stand to pee’ device. I
spent most of that job absolutely terrified of discovery’. This meant that he changed
career directions to avoid his gender history becoming revealed, despite really
enjoying the work.
Particular environments were also more problematic for a transitioned male. For
example, Doc79 (male, 33 years) recounted the pressure to put up with or even
conform to workplace cultures of engaging in transphobic banter and abusive
pranks in all-male warehouse environments, because he was perceived as a male
and not a transgender person. There were times when his supervisor called him a
‘big girl’ and engaged in acts which constituted sexual harassment—that were later
brushed off as something he should be able to ‘handle’. He noticed that joining in
112 T. Jones

jokes and pranks actually benefitted his career, even to the extent of taking and
‘giving back’ relatively transphobic language.
I had one guy joke around with me that I was probably a guy with a fanny who had
testosterone injections to grow a beard. That made me feel a little nervous as I thought he
knew something I didn’t want him to. But when I made a joke about him being a twat
himself everyone laughed, and nothing was said again.

Such transphobic exchanges negatively impacted participants’ confidence over

time. This showed that employers cannot make assumptions about the gender
identity or history of their staff, or about the ways in which transphobic cultures
might be impacting any of their staff members.

4.7 Practicing Advocacy

Although it was difficult, a few individual transmen took it upon themselves to act as
educational or social advocates about trans-identity. Bearcooking (male, 58 years)
had been living full time as a male for quite a number of years, but discussed his
gender history with people he knew were ‘open to difference’ in order to educate
them. He reflected: ‘Being open is a plus, and helps people to understand differences
and similarities, taking the mysticism out of the ‘Hollywood version’’. Jay (male,
30 years) commented that he was ‘more than happy’ to educate people on trans
issues and who he was, but only if they were open and willing to listen. Others felt
that in coming out and discussing other GLBTIQ issues freely, they added to the
many voices that were helping young people in the future to have an easier experi-
ence. There were some who limited their advocacy to GLBTIQ or transgender
contexts only due to reasons of safety and community generativity, helping newer
transgender people or their allies in safe spaces through sharing their experiences.

4.8 Employment Supports

Regardless of the new anti-discrimination workplace protections in Australia on the

basis of gender identity, many participants reported they felt vulnerable due to the
nature of their casual or contract employment basis. For example, Fang (FtM
transgender, 29 years), who said, ‘I know there are new guidelines but I have
trouble seeing how this protects me at the moment, being in casual employment’.
Ramir (transgender, 25 years) commented on the fact that there is greater support
available in creative and care-based industries, compared some of the more con-
servative or gender conforming industries ‘I work in the creative arts and disabil-
ities, so there is alot more understanding and embracing of difference in all it’s
forms’. Xzaclee (male, 35 years) took advantage of working in a medical environ-
ment with particular supports. There were also participants who engaged in self-
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 113

employment or were on benefits as a means of creating supportive contexts for

themselves for a time. The spirit of non-discrimination supports—that transgender
Australians could engage in any type of employment in which their skills-base
fell—appeared to have been challenged, with many feeling restricted to ‘safer’ or
‘more accepting’ options.
In contexts where participants had enjoyed supportive environments, there was
also often a sense that this was a ‘one-off’—a trait of a particular business or group
of people. For example, Darkneko (FtM transgender, 21 years) commented that at
his old job, employers and staff ‘were fine with’ his gender identity and transition.
But he was concerned about getting employment again; ‘I know I will have to be a
male at work too. I couldn’t stop even if I wanted to’. Batman (other/transitioning,
27 years) reflected that the organisation he had worked at for over 2 years had been
‘very supportive’ of his transition, which had been ongoing over the past year. He
asked his supervisor to speak to his colleagues and Head Office for him about the
matter, and reported that ‘within a few days the majority of staff were calling me by
my preferred name as if nothing had happened’. They were very supportive when
he took time off for chest surgery and he was able to return on light duties without
issue. This example showed how clear support from management and supervisors,
combined with clear guidelines for the employee’s colleagues, can enable FtM
Australians to experience the kind of workplace environment that they all have
every right to enjoy. It was overall very clear from the participants’ stories that
leadership on this issue could make a big difference in the employees’ experiences
and the workplace culture around gender identity, for better or worse.

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

Whilst a few transgender FtM people found advocacy in their workspaces fulfilling,
others reported in the qualitative data that they preferred to relinquish their gender
history entirely. This research therefore underlined that FtM transgender people
may not be willing or able to engage in advocacy and that this must not be an
expectation of them in any workplace. It seems likely that this finding may also be
transferrable to MtF populations also; although further research on the willingness
of MtF people to engage in advocacy in their own work places would be valuable to
explore this. International (and in Australia, national and state) anti-discrimination
law now makes discriminatory treatment of transgender people unlawful in many
places, thus employers and all staff across industries need to be made aware of these
requirements. Workplace Equity training should include transphobia and guidelines
for dealing with transgender issues in the workplace regardless of whether or not a
space is ‘perceived’ to have FtM transgender (or any transgender) employees—this
study showed very clearly that a workplace may have transgender staff regardless
of whether this is known by employers. Training should incorporate mention of the
national and state protections around gender identity relevant to the work site’s
location. Unions could consider a particular targeting of male environments for
anti-transphobia campaigns centred on the new national anti-discrimination law
114 T. Jones

protections around gender identity and expression, with such cultures highlighted
for potentially supporting transphobic and homophobic language in the workplace.
There were participants in this study who had experienced direct or indirect
transphobia at work and who had changed professions in order to increase their
feelings of safety or belonging. Yet with non-discrimination as ‘the ideal’ and
indeed the rule of law, FtM transgender people should not feel so restricted to
working in particular fields (creative arts, care) as they reported in this study, or feel
the need to ‘hide out’ in higher education; but must be enabled to pursue the careers
best fitting their skills and interests. This is also the case for MtF transgender
people, and further research on this group would be useful to understand the extent
to which they have perhaps also felt limited in their employment options. Where
FtM people in this study reported additional complications around navigating
expectations of masculinity in the workplace, it is likely that MtF people may
also face additional complications related to issues of sexism that could place
different kinds of limitations on their employment options. Leadership from super-
visors, management and equity officers is ultimately needed in combatting
transphobia in the general culture of an organisation and several participants had
outlined promising practices from leaders—including ongoing consultation with
the staff member about their needs and being flexible in work arrangements as
needed. Leadership is also important during recruitment and promotion. Working
with any individual staff member who does come forward as transgender or
transitioning is necessary to determine their particular preferences, and needs
around medical concerns and use of facilities, or around swiftly and sensitively
promoting the employee’s preferred pronouns and forms of address if asked—
ultimately due to the diversity of preferences in the data, the employee needs to
have the dominant say on how these issues are addressed if at all. Research on FtM
transgender issues by FtM transgender people is rare and further work could greatly
enhance the field by potentially helping it move further away from its history of
pathologizing medical tropes. While some research will be generalizable across
different transgender groups (MtF, FtM, genderqueer etc.) researchers must note
that some elements of research are more specific due to the influences of the valuing
of different types of masculinity, sexism and other factors. Research into trialling of
workplace training models towards reducing transphobia and improving cultures is
an imperative, especially where these embrace the potential of the internet to
enhance accessibility for those working in contexts beyond urban areas where
most supports are concentrated.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012a). 1301.0—Year book Australia: Educational Attainment.

Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/
[email protected]/mf/1301.0. Accessed 1 Feb 2013.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012b). 1301.0—Year book Australia: Religious Affiliation.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/
[email protected]/mf/1301.0. Accessed 1 Feb 2013.
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 115

Australian Government. (2013). Guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender. Barton: Com-
monwealth of Australia.
Barrett, J. (1998). Psychological and social funciton before and after phalloplasty. International
Journal of Transgenderism, 2(1), 1–8.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Califia, P. (1981). What is gay liberation? Heresies, 3(12), 30–34.
Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., Guzman, R., & Katz, M. (2001). HIV prevalence, risk behaviours,
health care use, and mental health status of transgender persons: Implications for public health
intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 915–921.
Couch, M., Pitts, M., Muclcare, H., Croy, S., Mitchell, A., & Patel, S. (2007). Tranznation: A
report on the health and wellbeing of transgendered people in Australia and New Zealand.
Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society.
De Cuypere, G., T’Sjoen, G., Beerten, R., Selvaggi, G., De Sutter, P., & Hoebeke, P. (2005).
Sexual and physical health after sex reassignment surgery. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6),
679–690.
Drescher, J. (2013). Controversies in gender diagnoses. LGBT Health, 1(1), 9–13.
Edwards, J. W., Fisher, D. G., & Reynolds, G. L. (2007). Male-to-female transgender and
transsexual clients of HIV service programs in Los Angeles County, California. American
Journal of Public Health, 97(6), 1030–1033.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality (J. Strachey, Trans., 1961 ed.). London:
Penguin.
Gahan, L., & Jones, T. (2013). From clashes to coexistence. In L. Gahan & T. Jones (Eds.), Heaven
Bent: Australian lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex experiences of faith, religion
and spirituality. Melbourne: Clouds of Magellan.
Gahan, L., Jones, T., & Hillier, L. (2014). An unresolved journey: Religious discourse and same-
sex attracted and gender questioning young people. The Social Scientific Study of Religion, 25
(1), 202–229.
Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2007). Transgender youth and life threatening behaviour.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, 37, 527–537.
Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., Howell, T. J., & Hubbard, S. (2005). Parents’ reactions to
transgender youths’ gender nonconforming expression and identity. Journal of Gay and
Lesbian Social Services, 18(1), 3–16.
Halberstam, J. (2012). Boys will be. . . Bois? Or, transgender feminism and forgetful fish’. In
D. Richardson, J. McLaughlin, & M. E. Casey (Eds.), Intersections between feminist and queer
theory. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Haraldsen, I. R., & Dahl, A. A. (2000). Symptom profiles of gender dysphoric patients of
transsexual type compared to patients with personality disorders and healthy adults. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 276–281.
Harris, A., & Jones, T. (2014). Trans teacher experiences and the failure of visibility. In Queer
teachers, identity and performativity. In A. Harris & E. Gray (Eds.), Queer teachers, identity
and performativity’. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hepp, U., Kraemer, B., Schnyder, U., Miller, N., & Delsignore, A. (2005). Psychiatric comorbidity
in gender identity disorder. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 259–261.
Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., et al. (2010). Writing
themselves in 3: The Third National Study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same-sex
attracted and gender questioning young people. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in
Sex, Health and Society.
Jones, T. (2012). Sexual subjects: GLBTIQ student subjectivities in Australian education policy.
Doctoral thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
116 T. Jones

Jones, T., Gray, E., & Harris, A. (2014). GLBTIQ teachers in Australian education policy:
Protections, suspicions, and restrictions. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 14
(3), 338–353.
Jones, T., & Hillier, L. (2013). Comparing trans-spectrum and same-sex attracted youth: Increased
risks, increased activisms. LGBT Youth, 10(4), 287–307.
Jones, T., & Mitchell, A. (2014). Young people and HIV prevention in Australian schools. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 26(3), 224–233.
Lawrence, A. A. (2005). Sexuality before and after male to female sex reassignment surgery.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(2), 147–166.
Nagoshi, J. L., & Brzury, S. (2010). Transgender theory: Embodying research and practice. Affilia,
25(4), 431–443.
Pazos, S. (2000). Practice with female-to-male transgendered youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, 10(3–4), 65–82.
Pease, B., & Pease, A. (2003). Why men don’t listen and women can’t read maps. London: Orion
Publishing Group.
Smith, E., Jones, T., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Mitchell, A., & Hillier, L. (2014). From blues to
rainbows: The mental health and well-being of gender diverse and transgender young people
in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society.
Stone, S. (1991). The empire strikes back: A posttranssexual manifesto. In J. Epstein & K. Straub
(Eds.), Body guards: The cultural politics of gender ambiguity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tuttle, L. (1986). Encylopedia of feminism. London: Arrow Books.
United Nations. (2012). Born free and equal: Sexual orientation and gender identity in interna-
tional human rights law. New York, NY: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High
Commissioner.
Weininger, O. (1906). Sex and character. London: William Heinemann.
On the Necessity of Including Gender
in Spain’s List of Prohibited Bases
of Discrimination

Salvador Peran

1 Shifting from Sex to Gender as a Term of Reference

Sex is a paradigmatic example of what in law is known as an indeterminate legal

concept, which can be problematic in practice. Spain certainly lacks a unitary legal
concept of sex that can give a satisfactory answer to the different social situations
with which Spaniards have to cope in modern life. When analyzing the prohibition
of differential and derogatory treatment of human beings based on their gender, we
must understand the various situations in which the social body disadvantages
certain social groups due to their sex or based on their personal relationship
with sex.
However, the fact that there is not a unitary legal concept of sex, sexuality,
sexual orientation or identity, does not necessarily mean that the law has a passive
attitude towards the standardization and normalization of the sexual behavior that is
tolerable and belongs to a particular historical moment. The law has been a source
of discrimination against women, gays, and transgender people as well as a source
of practices prevailing morality, despite being legitimized in medical terms.
One example is the way Michel Foucault regarded modern homosexuality in the
late nineteenth century. He regarded homosexuals as “characters that had been
made up by psychiatric discourse” (Foucault 1978). In his view, the law aimed to
regulate, complement and keep consistency with segregation by gender (Foucault
1978). The same modus operandi persists today, where the law has a subordinate
relationship with medicine, which ultimately determines what is understood by
“sex” in people and what degree of legitimacy an individual must have to be able to
decide on their sexuality or gender identity. It is worth examining how social
structures have been able to regulate or influence these “power” forces and change

S. Peran, Ph.D. (*)

University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 117

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_7
118 S. Peran

or reshape their course of action. In fact, Foucault’s negative view must be

completed by proactive views that highlight—in this particular example—the
construction of a “homosexual” identity before it can be psychiatrized, while
aiming at its social legitimation (Eribon 1999).
Indeed, the contemporary legal or judicial definitions of sex have evolved in
accord with the way that understanding sexuality has changed socially. Thus, sex is
understood as a continuum in an individual’s life, rather than as an unchangeable,
unique fact. A number of elements integrate the concept of sex, which includes not
only the physical or physiological constitution of the individual—generally referred
to as organic sex—but also as the sex inherent to an individual’s awareness, which
might or might not match the organic sex and which is called sexual identity. While
genitalia is exclusively biological, organic sex refers to anatomical, physiological
or genetic connotations that differentiate men from women, whereas sexual identity
derives from an individual’s sense of belonging to a certain organic sex, whether it
is their own or that of the opposite sex. Therefore, sex derives from biology, insofar
as it shapes human psyche, as well as from the social environment, broadly
speaking (Goodrich et al. 1989).
In this sense, the genealogy of contemporary legal standards reveals the extent to
which social, feminist and other movements have played a key role in shaping
societies that are pluralistic and respectful towards sexual diversity. The link
between sex and women’s oppression has certainly been a useful tool for both the
feminist movement and feminist legal studies, as it has allowed for a comprehen-
sive analysis of how male dominance sexually develops. However, it is also true
that the legal instruments that fight gender-based discrimination are proving inef-
fective in solving the deep sexual segregation in the labor market, leaving aside
gender identity-related conflicts.
From a legal standpoint, we could say that the regulations against sexual
discrimination are based on the idea that sex precedes gender as a category and is
more real than gender (Franke 1995). In other words, these regulations assumed that
male and female identities are different from male and female characteristics; the
latter depended on natural, biological principles. The gender perspective suggests a
different view though, as it understands that sex is subordinate to gender. Thus, the
set of demands related to inequality and sexual discrimination—or to sexual
identity—are mainly based on gender norms and normative roles.
Gender is therefore a cultural and social classificatory concept. It builds on a set
of mechanisms that shape personality, behavior, attitudes and social roles of what is
culturally and historically considered as masculinity and femininity. But it is not a
purely symbolic issue. Instead, it is the set of practices produced by social relation-
ships. These practices make it possible to talk about a world dominated by male
heterosexual subjectivity, subjected to inequality parameters and supported by
certain ideologies of power that naturalize and reproduce such inequality. Follow-
ing this line of thought, the position of different social groups in the social structure
has been automatically assumed as a given phenomenon, inherent in human nature
and resulting from social classifications of which social beings are mere products.
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 119

In other words, gender is a complexity that can never be permanently completed.

Rather, it is an open set of practices that allows for multiple similarities and
differences without having to obey a definition of a normative goal that is written
in stone (Butler 1990). This provides a favorable scenario for political action.
The main innovation introduced by the gender perspective when analyzing the
phenomenon of discrimination between men and women, as well as other forms of
discrimination based on sexual identity or sexual orientation, is the weakening of
sex—understood as a set of biological differences—as a reference category in the
analysis. Thus, the focus is on the set of social arrangements that assign different
expectations and values to different social groups. This involves a weakening of
historical trends that have traditionally favored the naturalization of social con-
structions around sex and sexuality, as well as a conceptual tool to understand how
gender is produced.
The present paper suggests that gender-based discrimination—understood in a
broad sense—affects objective and subjective situations that are significantly dif-
ferent from situations of sex-based discrimination. These two types of discrimina-
tion must complement each other, so as to provide us with a greater level of
protection against discrimination. In the Spanish context, the following two specific
cases of application are suggested.

2 Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Gender

The starting point here is judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court 26/2011,
which uses family circumstances as a category of discrimination for the first time.
This is an important change, as this reason was not explicitly listed in Article 14 of
the Spanish Constitution (hereinafter SC), although the article allows for an open
interpretation. In the judgment, protection was granted to a father who requested a
change of work shifts in order to look after his two children.
Although the court decided that there was discrimination here and therefore a
violation of Article 14 SC; the problem remains how to shape this clearly discrim-
inatory event within the prohibited bases of discrimination established in Article 14.

2.1 Work-Life Balance from a Gender Perspective

The right to a work-life balance has a particular impact on employment, as it

significantly affects the organization of working time and incorporates formulas
aimed at providing flexibility at work through a number of tools, such as family-
related leave, leave on personal grounds, or adaptation and distribution of working
hours. This leads to the development of new tools aimed at increasing flexibility at
work. These tools have traditionally been used as a means to facilitate a work-life
balance, or rather to adapt work to the company’s production needs with the
120 S. Peran

purpose of improving their productivity. This social and business practice is

currently reinforced by European employment policies with their principle of
‘flexicurity’.
But we must not lose sight of the importance of the right to a work-life balance,
which aims at protecting workers against corporate organizational interests. This
should displace the traditional discussion on the need to articulate fundamental
rights and public freedoms under the employment contract (including potential
shortcomings) towards the weighting of these rights. In this regard, the relevant
case law of the Spanish Constitutional Court (hereinafter SCC) should be pointed
out. The SCC establishes that the “measures aimed at facilitating employees’ work-
life balance, from the working women’s right to non-discrimination on the basis of
sex, to the mandate for the protection of family and children, must prevail and
provide guidance to solve any potential issue of interpretation” (Judgment of SCC
3/2007 January 15).
The above idea is reinforced by EU legislation, which considers
co-responsibility to be an appropriate instrument to achieve real and effective
equality between women and men. In this line, the ECJ has ruled on important
situations, such as the one contained in the judgment of the ECJ March 19, 2002 in
Lommers, where the Court granted a father who was looking after his children on
his own the same advantages in accessing subsidized child care traditionally
granted to women as a positive action measure. Cases like this force a reinterpre-
tation—from a gender perspective—of the Spanish constitutional principles of
equality, non-discrimination and social, economic and legal protection of fami-
lies—included in Articles 14 and 39 SC.
Work-life balance standards were integrated into the Spanish labor regulation
through two main statutes: Act 39/1999 to promote employees’ work-life balance
and the Spanish LOI (Organic Law) 3/2007 on effective equality between women
and men (hereinafter LOI). While acknowledging the shortcomings (especially of
the former), these acts definitely set the grounds for a new model of commitment
between women and men, aimed at achieving a balanced sharing of responsibilities
in the professional and private spheres of life, well beyond the coherence of
principles advocated in the Explanatory Memorandum and the precepts—not to
mention the results—of these acts.
Both acts acknowledge subjective rights of a particular structure, where the
legislation has sought a consistent balance between the organizational demands
of companies and the legitimate aspirations of employees to enjoy a work-life
balance. The exercise of this right is conditioned on specific circumstances of the
company in question. In order to be consistent, this balance should also include the
effects of rights of conciliation on the efficacy of the principle of equality and
non-discrimination, as these rights are usually used as tools to ensure real equality
between women and men at work and in employment.
In addition to the above considerations on rights aimed at achieving work-life
balance with a descriptive and comprehensive purpose, it is worth remembering
some of the peculiarities that distinguish these rights based both on their legal
nature and on practical implementation. The focus will be on provisions of Article
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 121

37.5 of the Spanish Statute of Workers (hereinafter SW) on the reduction of

working hours for taking care of children under eight—with a corresponding and
proportional reduction of pay; and provisions of Article 34.8 SW on the adoption
and distribution of working hours in favor of achieving work-life balance. The
former has a universal and subjective nature. It represents a genuine recognition for
both parents regardless of their gender, although such recognition is limited to the
particular circumstances of the company. The latter has a universal nature too,
although the right to work-life balance here will depend on the specific implemen-
tation established by collective bargaining or individual contract.
A number of factors have led to a broad interpretation by the SCC, which has
provided guidelines for poorly operationalized and ineffective legal standards on
the right to work-life balance (Montoya 2011). However, with regard to progressive
case law guarantees of these rights, it is worth mentioning that there is a lack of
solid criteria with which to interpret the principles of co-responsibility and work-
life balance based on Article 44.1 LOI.
Regardless of the systematic nature of the article and the objections that might
arise when transferring it to the Statute of Workers—via Additional Provision 11th
LOI, this precept contains a clause that aims to legitimize a comprehensive set of
measures and incorporates important elements. First, regarding the scope of imple-
mentation of the right to work-life balance, it states that the purpose and ultimate
goal is to promote a balanced assumption of family responsibilities. Second,
regarding the subjective nature of the right to work-life balance, it reinforces
equal recognition to all workers regardless of their gender. And third, it establishes
that the aforementioned teleological framework must respect the ultimate aim of
preventing any discrimination based on the exercise of such rights.
Thus, Article 44.1 LOI becomes the regulatory and interpretive reference by
which the SCC governs, therefore contemplating changes in working times in
accord with a work-life balance, especially in cases where the object of debate
lies in the measures established by Articles 34.8 and 37.5 SW. More specifically in
the latter case, Judgments of the Spanish Constitutional Court (hereinafter JSCC)
3/2007 January 15 and 24 + 26/2011 March 14 are worth discussing.
JSCC 3/2007 is important because it incorporates relevant criteria, which will
eventually integrate the content of the principle of equality between women and
men; but above all, it is important because it will require balancing the interests at
stake. This means that, on the one hand, it is worth analyzing the extent to which
this resolution was necessary in terms of constitutional relevance to the institution it
serves. On the other hand, it requires assessing the organizational difficulties that
stem from its implementation in companies. However, limits on the exercise of the
right to organize working hours based on legal guardianship will have to be justified
according to the constitutional dimension of this right—that is to say based on the
mandate for the protection of family and children (via Article 39 SC), or on working
women’s right of non-discrimination on the basis of sex (Article 14 SC).
Nonetheless, that case law was not applied in JSCC 24/2011 March 14, where
the SCC denied protection and distinguished JSCC 3/2007 because the female
employee in question did not ask the company for a reduction of working hours
122 S. Peran

to take care of her daughter under Article 37.5 SW. However, because she was
subject to rotating shifts, she requested to work only morning shifts so that she
could take better care of her newborn baby.
Indeed, they are very similar yet different situations. It is worth stressing that the
Spanish SW distinguishes between the following two cases: first, the possibility of
requesting a reduction of working hours to take care of children with the
corresponding and proportional reduction of pay, recognizing an enforceable
right under Art. 37.5 SW (this was the second option chosen by the employee
whose case was finally decided in JSCC 3/2007); and second, any other case
requesting an adaptation of the length and distribution of the workday in order to
accommodate the worker’s specific needs to achieve work-life balance, which is
enshrined in Article 34.8 SW.
The rationale for denying a violation of the right to non-discrimination on the
basis of sex is simple and clear: unlike Article 37.5 SW, Article 34.8 SW conditions
the intended changes in the workday—without reduction of working hours nor
pay—to the existence of a collective or individual agreement. In other words, the
legislation believed that the exercise of the right to adapt the workday was condi-
tioned on collective bargaining agreements or interested parties’ contracts
(employer and employee), and without such agreements the reduction could not
be exercised.
Returning to the main resolution which motivated this discussion, JSCC 26/2011
is strikingly different from its sister JSCC 24/2001, at least when it comes to facts.
While both judgments contain identical cases, in the former the request was carried
out by a woman who was a single parent, whereas in the latter it was a man, a father
of two, who shared family responsibilities with his working wife. The main
difference lies in the absence, in the former case, of the corresponding contractual
support needed to make the right contained in Article 34.8 SW legally effective.
Putting aside any discrimination in the above facts, it is clear that the judicial
solution in this case raises some questions—to say the least—about the meaning of
work-life balance and standards of gender equality. The first case shows a literal
interpretation of Article 34.8 SW, which subordinates the adaptation and distribu-
tion of the workday to what is established in the collective agreement, or, in the lack
thereof, to the agreement reached between employer and employee, without taking
into account the constitutional dimension the precept must obey. However, in the
second case, the hour reduction given to the employee in his regular workday for
legal guardianship was not interpreted by the SCC in terms of strict legality but
rather by balancing the constitutional dimension of the measure, both from the
perspective of the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex, and the protection
of family and children. Once the particular circumstances of the case were
addressed, the employee was assigned a fixed shift and could choose to work on
certain days of the week. Thus, the SCC took into account the importance of the
right to a reduction in working hours for family reasons when it came to the
effectiveness of the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex (Cabeza and
Fernández 2011).
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 123

Although Article 34.8 SW makes it clear that the employee does not exercise an
absolute right to decide his work schedule, but rather is subject to what is
established by the individual or collective agreement (unlike the right enjoyed by
women victims of domestic violence), nevertheless it is questionable that, in the
absence of such right, its exercise is denied. This is particularly undesirable when
the situation itself involves a violation of the right to non-discrimination. An
interpretation according to the constitutional dimension of the rights claimed
should allow, in the absence of an individual—and obviously collective—agree-
ment, for employees to go to court to resolve discrepancies. Consequently, the
judge should weigh the particular circumstances under JSCC 3/2007 (Cordero
Gordillo 2010).

2.2 The Legal Form of Gender-Based Discrimination

JSCC 26/2011 paradigmatically shows the SCC’s power concerning the new
dimension that co-responsibility policies incorporate—or should incorporate—
into the Spanish legal system, especially regarding the integration of such policies
into freedom of business organization. This is a highly sensitive area that demon-
strates the mainstreaming of these principles and their effect, starting with recog-
nition of the linkage between the employees’ right to work-life balance and control
over work schedule, since these rights involve more participation by employees in
identifying and organizing their own workday.
The term ‘paradigmatic’ is used here in a negative sense, as the SCC replicates
the same caution and doubts that the legislation incorporated in the regulations. The
regulations are ambitious with respect to the principles inspired by the EU, but
conservative in their standardization, a fact that has been criticized by EU jurisdic-
tion. In other words, progress has been made yet some grey areas remain. Progress
because there is an implicit recognition of the inevitable interplay between the
sexist division of family roles and differential access to childcare leaves (Mi~narro
2011).
Grey areas remain because case law on this subject is not solid. Instead, it limits
the legal framework and can even jeopardize its legal significance considering that
the rationale does not provide many guarantees. It is true that there has been a
certain reluctance to recognize the right to work-life balance, in particular its
constitutional significance, which is what justifies its preferential protection against
corporate organizational interests. Such reluctance is evident in the strongly con-
ditional legal drafting and the restrictive interpretation by Spanish social
jurisdiction.
There is no doubt that, in order for the constitutional dimension of articles to
protect the particular circumstances, the latter must adhere to the area of discrim-
ination, which in turn must be related to gender. The integration of a gender
equality perspective involves a reformulation of the classic tension between the
formal and material meaning of the mandate on equality and the prohibition of
124 S. Peran

sex-based discrimination. It is worth mentioning that sex, like any other ground
established in Article 14 SC, does not per se constitute an objective reason for legal
standards to provide differential treatment (JSCC 7/1983 December 21). Instead,
subjective elements are needed, that is, de facto differences between women and
men sufficient to justify legal intervention that is not aimed at overprotecting
women, but at balancing the material inequalities between individuals, based on
their gender and in the workplace.
Thus, the egalitarian principle is affected not only when legal standards ignore
women who are pursuing their rights, but also when rights are granted to women in
order to place them in a advantageous position in relation to achieving work-life
balance, thus reinforcing the discriminatory linkage between women and family
burdens. Indeed, the legal principle in these cases is real—or material—equality
between women and men, which is conditioned by gender norms and materialized
in an allocation of household and family responsibilities differentiated by gender.
Furthermore, the complaint is reinforced because, although the aforementioned
judgment advances the integration of a gender perspective, i.e., along the line of
facts, it undermines and weakens its integration by assigning it to personal circum-
stances as a discriminatory factor, to the point that it can even jeopardize future case
law on the subject. This is certainly a weak argument that shows a clear contem-
porary trend, aimed at reducing discrimination on the basis of sex (Cabeza and
Fernández 2011) and gender.
Personal circumstances as a discriminatory factor do not meet the constitutional
definition of bases for discrimination. This is because, although it does not need to
be listed among the prohibited discrimination bases in Article 14 SC, it does need to
respond to the basic premise defining discriminatory reasons: the collective nature
of the social group that is the object of historically rooted differences, placing
individuals who belong to that group in a disadvantaged position, as well as in a
position openly contrary to human dignity under Article 10.1 SC. This is clearly not
the case with regards to fatherhood.
The problem arises from the difficulty of the court to redirect this situation from
a perspective of sex-based discrimination, as the subject of discrimination in this
case is not a woman but a man, thus breaking the connection between belonging to a
socially excluded group and differential treatment. By not being able to assess the
violation of a third party’s right, indirect discrimination on the basis of the sex of the
worker’s spouse is excluded. Indeed, this rationale could have involved controver-
sial and contentious arguments, considering the classic difficulties in proving
discriminatory behavior and the essential factor needed for granting protection
against such behavior. This is because the acts of discrimination usually present
multiple nuances that are often hidden under the guise of legality.
The idea that the refusal to recognize the right to work-life balance of a father-
employee favors the perpetuation of difference between mothers and fathers in
family roles (which involves indirect discrimination against women based on their
gender), distorts the discrimination since here the subject of discrimination is the
man, not because of his sex, but because of the break with socially established
gender norms. The discrimination in this case is the refusal to grant him leave for
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 125

taking care of his children, a fact that is completely disconnected from whether or
not this man is married or what sex his partner is.
However, should the case be considered as a gender-based discrimination, the
rationale would have been much stronger. As a consequence, the corporate refusal
to recognize the right to work-life balance demanded by this employee should have
been considered as gender-based discrimination, given that the anti-discrimination
dimension of work-life balance standards is subjectively possessed by male and
female employees.
In this way the Spanish Constitutional Court refuses to carry out a significant
shift in perspective. This change would have been really important, with a major
impact on a society that is demanding the displacement of traditional family roles.
Moreover, an alternative view could have been contemplated: conceiving family
responsibilities as a right rather than as a burden, and placing the legal issue in its
proper terms. In short, the new Spanish constitutional case law should start by
recognizing the constitutional importance of the principle of gender equality and by
considering co-responsibility as an inspiring principle for a new set of policies on
equal opportunities, aimed at achieving real equality and weakening social gender
norms that create discriminatory circumstances in Spanish society.

3 Prohibition of Gender Identity Discrimination

3.1 General Aspects

Before analyzing the development of this legal anti-discrimination tool, it is worth

referring to its historical background. Spain is in debt to the victims of the darkest
period of its recent past. The Spanish fascist dictatorship represented a deep black
mark in which discrimination against women was standardized together with
repression of homosexual and transgender people, through two legal standards
that were particularly terrifying: the Vagrancy Act and the Dangerousness and
Social Rehabilitation Act, which were an outrage and showed the extent to which
human brutality can be imposed on the most basic ideas of social justice: forced
internments, assassinations, torture or “re-education” in the values of the regime.
Today’s society has failed to compensate dignity of these persons for this collective
sense of shame.
This dark past ties in with the current parliamentary gridlock in which Parlia-
ment finds itself regarding the Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination Act
(LITND in Spanish) by the Spanish right-wing party. The bill aims to establish a
minimum regulatory framework to contain fundamental definitions of Spanish anti-
discrimination law, while it harbors basic anti-discrimination guarantees. More-
over, the difficulty in fighting discrimination today is not so much in recognizing
the problem but in the real and effective protection of the victims.
126 S. Peran

In this way, protection against discrimination would involve a proactive dimen-

sion aimed at removing the real obstacles to effective equality and
non-discrimination. Yet the integration and recognition of diversity in Spain has
encountered fierce political opposition. Again, equality and non-discrimination
policies have faced resistance from the conservative direction, which seeks to
draw an unrealistic picture of the country around undemocratic values.
However, we must ask ourselves whether this act is necessary in a country like
Spain in the twenty-first century, whether the current anti-discrimination mecha-
nisms are really insufficient and whether inequality and discrimination are social
problems or instead are the result of the lack (or ineffectiveness) of current legal
standards.
To answer these questions, first we must address the right to equality and
non-discrimination not merely as an issue affecting minorities, which needs to be
recognized and protected through specific actions, but rather as a whole set of
necessary actions towards change in the collective subjective, so that the social
body may naturally reject social inequality and derogatory treatment. Therefore it is
necessary to strengthen comprehensive legal standards that seek to prevent and
eradicate any form of discrimination as well as seek to protect victims. This is
achieved by combining a preventive approach with a restorative one.
Consistently, protection of the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination
should establish a set of procedures to effectively provide protection, through a
system of reasonable and proportional offenses and penalties to compensate victims
of discrimination. This area sheds light on the weaknesses of the Spanish anti-
discrimination system, which does not protect in the same way in every case, since
it depends on the type of discrimination in question.
The aforementioned aborted government bill contained a reinforced protection
against discrimination on the basis of gender identity, thus incorporating gender
identity as a basis for prohibited discrimination for the first time in the Spanish legal
system.
The implications are enormous, as it prohibits discrimination against transgen-
der people in all spheres of political, economic, cultural and social life, and
particularly in employment, education, health, social services, access to goods
and services, including housing, social or political participation, and the media;
thus establishing a set of obligations that unconditionally bind public authorities. In
other words, it opens the door to positive action in favor of historically discrimi-
nated groups, without necessarily shielding behaviors that violate equal treatment,
either directly or indirectly.
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 127

3.2 Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual

Identity in Spain

The Spanish Parliament is deadlocked regarding this important act; however, this
should not overshadow the important progress made toward equality of opportuni-
ties in this country. Spain has taken bold and advanced measures that have made it a
benchmark country in the field of gender equality. Some of these acts are as
follows: LOI (Organic Law) 1/2007 on comprehensive protection measures against
gender-based violence, Act 2/2010 on sexual and reproductive health and voluntary
interruption of pregnancy, Act 15/2005 July 8, which amended the Spanish Civil
Code and the Code of Civil Procedure concerning separation and divorce, and the
aforementioned LOI 3/2007 on effective equality between women and men.
In the same vein, Act 13/2005 July 1 amended the Civil Code concerning the
right to marry—allowing marriage between people of the same sex—and Act
3/2007 March 15 regulated the Registry note rectification regarding sex, allowing
for the correction of sex in the Civil Registry in order to match sexual identity.
While these were important steps towards achieving legal equality and eliminating
certain areas of sexual orientation or identity, discrimination, there are a number of
reasons why they are insufficient: First, because Spain lacks an explicit regulatory
prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity.
LITND was meant to be the first act in Spain to include both forms of discrimina-
tion among the prohibited bases of discrimination. Second, this legal gap has not
been sufficiently bridged by case law from the Spanish Constitutional Court, as was
the case regarding protection against gender discrimination. Third, there is still
significant political and social resistance preventing non-discriminatory treatment
of these social groups.
Indeed, the lack of a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation
has important practical implications. On the one hand, there are implications
resulting from its objective and subjective realization, which is the logical conse-
quence of the lack of a legal definition of sex and thus sexual identity. On the other
hand, instruments that aim to protect different but similar situations—such as
discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation—are needed, in order to define
the framework of protection for this prohibition.

3.2.1 Scope of Application

It is difficult to establish a legal definition of discrimination based on sexual

identity, especially because—as it has been highlighted throughout the text—
Spain lacks a regulatory text that consistently and comprehensively defines sex,
and thus sexual identity. There is no such text in the Spanish legal system or in
international law. Therefore, the instruments used to combat this type of discrim-
ination mainly derive from a variety of case law, which does not always include the
nature of the prosecuted facts.
128 S. Peran

From the perspective of this paper, discrimination based on sexual identity takes
place when a person suffers a differentiated, derogatory and unfair treatment due to
the expression of a feeling of sexual belonging that does not match their socially
assigned sex, and he or she acts accordingly. From the perspective of case law,
some powerful differences can be noted, which can help define the specific area of
protection to be applied.
Here it is worth highlighting judgment of the ECJ on April 30, 1996, P. c. S. and
Cornwall County Council, where the dismissal of a transsexual employee who had
begun her sex change procedure was ruled discriminatory. The case dealt with a set
of definitions of sex and sexual identity as a feeling of belonging that was not
technically elaborated—a fact that has received criticism (Peral 2000)—, yet laid
the foundation for Europe to recognize this form of discrimination.
This judgment is interesting because it draws a parallel between discrimination
based on sexual identity and differentiated, derogatory and unfair treatment suf-
fered by people who, albeit physically belonging to one sex, feel they belong to the
other, and therefore pursue a consistent, unambiguous identity either through
medical treatment or surgery aimed at adapting their physical characteristics to
their psychology.
This is a quagmire, particularly given the differentiation between transsexuality,
transgender, gender non-conformity and gender dysphoria (WPATH 2011). This
can involve a decrease in anti-discriminatory protection, by focusing on cases
where there has been a somatic transition due to a hormonal treatment and/or sex
reassignment surgery. While it is true that this judgment is not new, and was
intended to respond to a particular instance and not to create a general anti-
discrimination framework for sexual identity, it is also true that its subjective
scope is limited, because it identifies the protected social group only as post-
operative transsexuals (In Spanish the term ‘transsexual’ is broadly used without
making a distinction between pre- or post-operative status, whereas this distinction
is relevant in English). In any case, its importance lies in applying anti-
discrimination policies to any action that aims to socially penalize a person—
through a disciplinary dismissal in this case—motivated by his or her sexual
identity.
In another vein, case law has consolidated around a definition of sex that tends to
overcome purely biological conceptions in order to place it in the psychosocial
field, as established by the European Court of Human Rights in judgments of July
11 2002 in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom and I. vs. UK. These
judgments recognize the full legal consequences of sex change, which is certainly
important, although it has not been easy (European Court of Human Rights,
judgments in Van Oosterwijc v. Belgium and Rees v. UK).
In Spain, Act 15/2005 recognizes the transsexual status of a person without
having to undergo all the necessary sex change steps and, in particular, without
having to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Therefore it is enough for a person to
provide a medical or clinical psychologist’s report stating that he or she has been
diagnosed with gender dysphoria and medically treated for at least 2 years, in order
to accommodate their physical characteristics to the corresponding claimed sex.
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 129

However, although the legal recognition of sex change is relevant, it is not the
object of the present study, which now turns to SCC judgment 176/2008 December
22. Here the Court had to decide whether changing a transsexual person’s visitation
rights to see his son when he was legally separated and in the process of reassigning
his sex was discriminatory. The Court held that there was no discrimination in the
denial of visitation motivated by the father’s transsexuality, since the right to
visitation is a child’s right, not the parents’, and this situation represented potential
psychological harm to the child in question. The issue is complex, and the conclu-
sion is questionable. In any case, this has been the first statement—and so far the
only one—to analyze discrimination based on sexual identity.
Beyond the casuistry, the SCC missed a great opportunity to legally define
discrimination based on sexual identity as a protected basis under of Article 14 of
the Spanish Constitution.

3.2.2 Normative Instruments for Protection

Since there is little evidence of an explicit recognition of discrimination based on

sexual identity, those instances where such recognition was possible—both in
national and EU case law—were made possible by anti-discrimination instruments.
In many ways, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex has opened a
door to the recognition of this discriminatory behavior. Knowledge of the legal and
judicial solutions given to cases of sexual identity discrimination will certainly be
useful. Similarly, it is worth highlighting the settled case law, both internationally
as well as from the Spanish Constitutional Court, on the prohibition of discrimina-
tion based on sexual orientation (JSCC 41/2006 February 13, 2006) as a similar
legal situation, although not an identical one.
As shown above, judgment of the ECJ on April 30, 1996, P. c. S. and Cornwall
County Council, discussed the legality of a dismissal that was questioned in light of
Council Directive 76/207/EEC February 9, 1976 on implementation of the principle
of equal treatment between men and women in access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions.
An overhaul of the hateful mindset and motives behind discrimination is
required, in order to specifically address sexual identity. This adaptation should
be gradually achieved. In this regard, UN Resolution 17/19 was the first UN
resolution on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The approval
of the resolution paved the way for the first official report of the United Nations on
the subject, elaborated by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) and entitled Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of
violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity,
together with the report, We are born free and equal: sexual orientation and gender
identity in international human rights standards, which claimed to be the foundation
on which specific international standards should be based.
The absence of this foundation in primary EU law particularly stands out. The
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—Art. 21—includes sexual
130 S. Peran

orientation as a hateful cause of discrimination; and the Treaty on the Functioning

of the European Union—Art. 19—addresses the fight against discrimination
because of sexual orientation, among others. But the prohibition of discrimination
on the basis of sexual identity is missed.
From the perspective of Spanish law it should be noted that, while discrimination
because of sexual orientation is not explicitly mentioned in Art. 14 SC as one of the
specific instances in which discriminatory treatment is prohibited, it can undoubt-
edly be considered a circumstance per the clause “any other condition or personal or
social circumstance” to which the prohibition of discrimination refers.
The conclusion is twofold: (1) transsexuality has proven to be a historically
rooted difference along with the other instances mentioned in Art. 14 SC. Given the
deeply rooted prejudice against this group of people, transsexuals are therefore at a
disadvantage (through the action of public authorities as well as social practice) and
that disadvantage is contrary to human dignity as acknowledged in Art. 10.1
SC. (2) the examination of ex Art. 10.2 SC (JSCC 176/2008) serves as an interpre-
tative source of Art. 14 SC.

3.3 Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Gender

Identity

While progress has been limited at the national level, it is worth highlighting the
progress made by Spanish Autonomous Regions in using their legislative powers to
significantly advance the protection of these issues. This paper is proud to pinpoint
the Act of his Autonomous Region of Andalusia, among others: Act 2/2014 on
non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and recognition of the rights of
transsexual people in Andalusia. Likewise, the Transsexualism and Gender Identity
Unit of Malaga (where this research is based) is a pioneer in Spain by showing the
legislative progress made in this area.
Protective acts are beginning to spread, via autonomous regions, as shown in the
following examples: Act 8/2014 on non-discrimination based on gender identity
and recognition of the rights of transsexual people in the Canary Islands; Act
11/2014 to guarantee the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex
people and to eradicate homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in Catalonia;
Regional Act 12/2009 on non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and
recognition of the rights of transsexual people in Navarra; and Act 2/2014 on equal
treatment and non-discrimination against lesbian, gay, transsexual, bisexual and
intersex people in Galicia.
The importance of these acts stems from two key issues: first, they represent a
genuine legal recognition of freedom of self-determination of gender of each person
as a fundamental human right. The recognition of gender identity as a subjective
individual right breaks with traditional views of sex changes as a psychological
disorder about individual recognition of one’s own sexuality. The new regulatory
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 131

framework aims to guarantee the right to gender self-determination of people who

express a different gender identity from their assigned sex at birth. Therefore, it
aims to protect individuals’ right to freely enjoy their own sexuality.
Consistently, the concept of gender identity refers to the internal and individual
experience of gender as each individual deeply feels it, including a personal sense
of the body, of dress, of speech, and manners. Gender identity is usually accompa-
nied by the desire to live and receive acceptance as a member of that gender, or the
inexorable desire to modify one’s body, by hormonal, surgical or any other
methods, to make it consistent with the felt sex-gender.
Second, there is a trend to depathologize transsexuality, in line with the Yogya-
karta Principles (Yogyakarta Principles 2006) on the application of international
human rights legislation on sexual orientation and gender identity. Principle
no. 18 addresses protection against medical abuses and establishes that, “notwith-
standing any classification to the contrary, a person’s sexual orientation and gender
identity are not, in and of themselves, medical conditions and are not to be treated,
cured or suppressed”.
This trend was reinforced by the European Parliament Resolution of December
12, 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union
(2010–2011). General Recommendation no. 98 complains “that several Member
States still consider transsexuals as mentally ill” and “urges Member States to
introduce procedures for the legal recognition of gender, according to the Argen-
tinean model, and to revise the established conditions for the legal recognition of
gender (including forced sterilisation)”, while it calls on the European Commission
and the World Health Organization “to abolish gender identity disorders from the
list of mental and behavioral disorders, and ensure a reclassification of such
disorders as non-pathological disorders.”
The preceding regulatory texts must be seen as pioneers in Spanish law as they
represent a major step in shaping non-discrimination based on gender identity. Not
only because they establish the material basis for protection against discriminatory
treatment by recognizing self-determination of sexual and gender identity, but also
because they definitely question a normative model of sexuality and give individ-
uals freedom to enjoy and develop their own sexuality as the most intimate
expression of their personality.

References

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cabeza, J., & Fernández, M. (2011). Comentario a las Sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional 24 y
26/2011, de 14 de marzo. Relaciones laborales: Revista crı́tica de teorı́a y practica, 21(2),
811–840.
Cordero Gordillo, V. (2010). La concrecion horaria de la reducci on de jornada por motivos
familiares. Aranzadi Social: Revista Doctrinal, 18(2), 33–42.
Eribon, D. (1999). Réflexions sur la question gay. Paris: Flammarion.
132 S. Peran

Foucault, M. (1978). A verdae e as formas jurı́dicas. Rio de Janeiro: Pontifica Universidade

Catolica de Rio de Janeiro.
Franke, K. M. (1995). The central mistake of sex discrimination law: The disaggregation of sex
from gender. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144(1), 1–99.
Goodrich, T., Rampage, C., Ellman, B., & Halstead, K. (1989). Feminist family therapy: A
casebook. New York, NY: Norton.
Mi~narro, M. (2011). Prohibicion de discriminacion por circunstancias familiares versus division
sexista de roles en la pareja: el afortunado reconocimiento a nivel constitucional del papel del
padre en el cuidado de la prole. Revista de Derecho Social, 56, 149–162.
Montoya, D. (2011). Dimension constitucional de los derechos de conciliaci on de la vida laboral,
personal y familiar (comentario a las SSTCO 24/2011 y 26/2011, de 14 de marzo). Aranzadi
Social, 4, 265–282.
Peral, L. (2000). Concepto de sexo y discriminacion por raz on de sexo en el Derecho Social
Comunitario Europeo: la contradictoria sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades
Europeas en el asunto Grant respecto de su jurisprudencia en el asunto P./S. Derechos y
Libertade Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas, 5(8), 393–428.
WPATH. (2011). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender
nonconforming people. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Accessed
August 25, 2015, from www.wpath.org
Yogyakarta Principles. (2006). Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to
sexual orientation and gender identity. Accessed June 20, 2015, from http://www.
yogyakartaprinciples.org/
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal,
Medical and Labour Union Activities

Gerald Hunt and Michael Pelz

1 Introduction

In recent years, Canada has been at the forefront of global efforts to advance human
rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) persons. In 2005, Canada became the
first country in the Western hemisphere, and fourth in the world, to legalize
marriage equality nation-wide. Significant anti-discrimination provisions exist in
numerous pieces of legislation that protect LGB-identified persons. There is also a
growing movement to improve inclusion for lesbians, gays and bisexuals in a
variety of public spheres, including in schools through the development of
gay-straight alliances, and athletics through such things as partnerships between
the national LGBT human rights association (Egale) and the Canadian Olympic
Committee (Egale 2011).
Inclusive protections for transgender persons however, have lagged behind those
for the LGB community. Even now, there are no explicit protections for transgender
persons in the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Considerable evidence suggests that this is a group of people in need of
human rights interventions; only recently have the legal, medical, psychological,
and workplace issues that are particular to the transgender community moved closer
to the political and social spotlight (Hines 2013; Egale 2011; Nameste 2011).
Transgender is a term used to describe people who do not conform to a narrow
conception of gender identity or gender expression based on their birth assigned sex
(OHRC 2014). It encompasses people who challenge “norms” about appropriate

G. Hunt (*)
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Pelz
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 133

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_8
134 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

dress, cosmetics, and behaviour. Gender identity, in particular, refers to a person’s

sense of their own gender along the male–female spectrum. Gender expression, in
contrast, refers to the way in which a person publicly presents their gender in terms
of such things as hairstyle and voice. As a result, transgender refers to people who
have transitioned from their assigned birth sex (trans woman—male-to-female;
trans man—female to male), often with surgical and hormonal interventions, as
well as those who maintain their biological sex, but express themselves in gender
non-conforming and variant ways (OHRC 2014). Historically, transgender people
have experienced very high levels of overt discrimination ranging from taunts and
name-calling, to rape and murder (Paisley et al. 2006; Bender-Baird 2011; Zabus
and David 2014; Hines 2013; Connell 2010; Budge et al. 2010). In many instances,
this group has been denied equal access to housing and employment opportunities.
In one large sample of Canadian students, trans-identified youth reported the
highest levels of verbal and physical harassment, of any group (Egale 2011). A
2011 survey of 433 trans-identified adults in Ontario, found only 37 % of respon-
dents were employed full-time, and 15 % part-time, and 20 % indicated they were
unemployed. The median income for the group was $15,000. Thirty-two percent
thought their gender had influenced hiring decisions, and 18 % indicated they were
certain they had been turned down for a job because of their gender (Trans Pulse
2011). Consequently, transgender people are thought to be one of the most eco-
nomically marginalized populations in the country.
In this paper we assess the current legal situation for transgender individuals. We
find that most Canadian provinces have anti-discrimination protections in place for
this group, but progress continues to lag at the federal level. Even though broad
legal protections for sexual and gender minorities are well established in Canada,
what this actually means for transgender people is harder to ascertain. On the one
hand, it is clear that denying a transgender person equal access to housing or
employment would contravene the human rights code of most jurisdictions, and if
proved, penalties would ensue. At the same time, it is not clear what steps organi-
zations must take to ensure there is no discrimination once a transgender person is
hired, or when an employee initiates a gender transitioning process.
In Canada, each province is responsible for managing its own healthcare system
within a framework of universal coverage, and gaps exist between what is covered
in one province but not in another. As a result, we also assess the degree to which
the various provincial healthcare systems cover, or do not cover, the medical and
psychological needs of transgender people, especially in relation to the costs
incurred in gender transitioning (assessment availability, transportation costs to
specialized centers, and hormone/surgical interventions). We find there is consid-
erable variation and gaps in the level of coverage across jurisdictions, including
some provinces that offer exceptionally limited coverage, or no coverage at all.
This creates openings for employers to pick up the slack through work-based
supplementary healthcare insurance schemes, and for labour unions to negotiate
such coverage in collective agreement language. Accordingly, we also consider the
actions unions have taken in terms of policy recognition and collective bargaining
on issues related to transgender people. Here, we find several unions have taken
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 135

good initial first steps, but that much more could be done by organized labour to
represent this group.

2 Methodology

To determine the extent of legal coverage for transgendered people we reviewed the
contents of the Federal and Provincial Human Rights Codes on-line, as well as
reviewing relevant newspaper articles on gender identity and expression clauses
within human rights legislation.
Determining the extent of medical coverage across the provinces proved to be
more difficult. As a result, several search methods were used. First, a search was
undertaken of each provincial healthcare website to determine what medical pro-
cedures are covered, and what costs are left to individuals, such as transportation to
an approved facility for assessment and surgical procedures. This was followed-up
by a review of the web site of transgender activist groups where we found summa-
ries of the extent and type of medical services available in each jurisdiction. This
information was supplemented in several cases when information seemed unclear
or contradictory, by telephone or email contact with provincial health officials.
One of the earliest and more assertive supporters of lesbian and gay rights in
Canada was labour unions (Hunt and Eaton 2007). It is therefore reasonable to
imagine that unions have also taken steps to protect and accommodate a broader
range of sexual minorities, including transgender people. To determine the extent to
which labour unions have engaged with transgender issues, we undertook a multi-
pronged investigation. First, we examined the non-discrimination policy of the
seven largest unions in the country which as a group represent about 75 % of
unionized workers, to see if gender identity or gender expression was specifically
mentioned in the constitution. We also sought more details about what, if any,
additional initiatives these unions had taken such as educational programs and
publications or brochures designed to inform members about transgender rights,
as well as to see if these unions were encouraging their locals to include transgender
rights as specific bargaining demands. Next, we undertook a key word search of
“Negotech,” a Federal government on-line data bank of collective agreements in
Canada, searching for the inclusion of gender identity and/or gender expression in
collective agreement language. Our next step was to uncover the inclusion of
transgender health coverage in the collective agreements in a selected group of
unions. We also reviewed a number of collective agreements representing Federal
government workers, many of which are currently in the bargaining stages. In a
number of cases, the information obtained from collective agreements was
supplemented by conversations with union officials to clarify actual coverage in a
supplementary medical plan if this was not clear.
136 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

3 Findings

In this section, we outline our findings relative to the legal situation for transgender
persons in Canada. This is followed by a summary of the availability of sex
reassignment surgery under the various provincial healthcare plans. We enlarge
this analysis to include more specific information about what actual coverage
means in terms of access to services and out of pocket expenses since most
provinces do not have the medical facilities available for reassignment surgery.
We then examine how comprehensively selected labour unions have incorporated
transgender issues into policy and collective bargaining strategies.

3.1 Legal Coverage

Table 1 summarizes the recognition of gender identity and gender expression in the
Federal and Provincial Human Rights Codes in Canada. There are currently no
explicit protections for transgender persons in the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some efforts have been made to
rectify this gap in legal protections. Bill C-279, a private-members bill originating
from the opposition New Democratic Party, would amend the Human Rights Act
and Criminal Code to include gender identity as a protected ground of discrimina-
tion. However, despite passing the House of Commons in March 2013, the bill has

Table 1 Recognition of gender identity and gender expression in federal, provincial, and territo-
rial human rights codes
Jurisdiction Gender identity Gender expression Notes
Canada ✗ ✗
Alberta ✓ ✓
British Columbia ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Manitoba ✓ ✗
New Brunswick ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Newfoundland and Labrador ✓ ✓
Nova Scotia ✓ ✓
Ontario ✓ ✓
Prince Edward Island ✓ ✓
Quebec ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Saskatchewan ✓ ✗
Northwest Territories ✓ ✗
Nunavut ✗ ✗
Yukon ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 137

faced significant resistance and delays in the Senate. Additionally, a separate

initiative to include gender identity in the Criminal Code through an anti-cyber-
bullying bill also failed. It appears that such initiatives were low priority for the then
governing Conservative Party, with many members of parliament questioning the
merits of the legislation, despite support for the bill from the Canadian Human
Rights Commission (which administers and receives complaints connected to the
Human Rights Act). In March 2015, Conservative Senators passed an amendment
that would limit the applicability of the bill in certain sex-segregated spaces, such as
public washrooms or shelters. Conservative Senators argued the amendment was
necessary to protect women, and other vulnerable groups from potential predators,
such as biological males who could use the law to gain access to women’s
washrooms (King 2015). Transgender advocacy groups, as well as opposition
Senators, argued these amendments would greatly limit the efficacy of the law by
allowing transgender discrimination in a variety of public spaces (McGregeor
2015). The Senate and House of Commons were required to vote on the proposed
amendments before the Bill could become law, however this failed to occur ahead
of the fall 2015 election, ultimately killing the legislation. A more progressive
Liberal government was elelcted in October 2015, and it has indicated more
readiness to advance the trangender file.
Greater success has been achieved at the provincial and territorial levels of
government. As outlined by Table 1, seven out of ten provinces and one out of
three territories now include gender identity within their human rights legislation.
In 2002, the Northwest Territories became the first jurisdiction in Canada to include
gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination within its Human Rights
Code. Since then, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and most recently, Alberta, have added
gender identity to their provincial human rights codes. Five provinces also include
gender expression as a protected ground.
For many of these provinces, the stated rationale behind enumerating gender
identity protections was to help clarify and raise awareness about the protections
available to transgender persons. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, a
policy brief accompanying the legislative change explained that it would help raise
awareness of the unique challenges and forms of discrimination facing transgender
persons within the province (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, News
Release 2013). In Manitoba, the government has argued including gender identity
within human rights legislation will provide the Manitoba Human Rights Commis-
sion additional tools to combat transgender discrimination (Canadian Civil Liber-
ties Association 2012). Alberta has gone beyond the inclusion of gender identity
and gender expression within its Human Rights Act. The province now mandates
that gay-straight alliances, which often serve as important safe-spaces for transgen-
der students, must be allowed in any school where they are requested. In the
provinces that lack explicit protections on the basis of gender identity or expression,
provincial human rights commissions have indicated they will accept cases involv-
ing gender identity under the ground of “sex.”
138 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

3.2 Medical Coverage

One of our goals was to examine whether the increased number of Canadian
jurisdictions including explicit gender identity protections has led to any meaning-
ful and tangible outcomes for the day-to-day lives of transgender Canadians. As
mentioned earlier, we chose to examine the availability of sex reassignment surgery
in Canada (SRS). For many transgender persons, SRS is a medically necessary
component of living as their preferred gender. In their latest guidelines, the World
Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) explains that for many
transgender persons “. . .relief from gender dysphoria cannot be achieved without
modification of their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics to establish
greater congruence with their gender identity” (WPATH 2012, p. 54). SRS can
also help patients feel more “at ease” in their day-to-day lives, while WPATH finds
that SRS has numerous positive postoperative outcomes, such as improved subjec-
tive well-being and sexual function (ibid., p. 55).
However, despite the medical importance of SRS, the procedures have often
been restricted across Canada. In 2009, Alberta and Manitoba offered no public
coverage of SRS, while Ontario de-listed the procedures between 1988 and 2009.
Nova Scotia also briefly threatened to stop funding SRS in 2013. Many other
provinces determined whether they would provide public coverage of SRS on a
limited case-by-case basis. In 2014, we find that SRS coverage has expanded, as
eight out of ten provinces now have official programs for SRS coverage, up from
only five in 2009. Only New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island do not provide
any SRS coverage. We have excluded the three territories from this analysis, given
the limited data, and that most decisions on SRS appear to be made on a case-by-
case basis (personal correspondence with authors).
Despite the larger number of provinces now having official SRS programs,
Table 2 offers a rather misleading picture, as the provinces vary significantly in
the ease in which clients seeking SRS can actually acquire publicly funded treat-
ment. Indeed, the provincially mandated requirements necessary to gain SRS, and
the costs borne by the patients vary significantly by jurisdiction. In Table 3, we

Table 2 Availability of sex reassignment surgery in Canadian Provinces

Jurisdiction 2009 2014
Alberta ✗ ✓
British Columbia ✔ ✓
Manitoba ✗ ✓
New Brunswick ✗ ✗
Newfoundland and Labrador ✗ ✓
Nova Scotia ✓a ✓
Prince Edward Island ✗ ✗
Ontario ✓ ✓
Saskatchewan ✓ ✓
Quebec ✓ ✓
a
Nova Scotia briefly attempted to de-list SRS in 2013
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 139

Table 3 What does coverage mean? Access to services and initial diagnosis
Province Ranking
Quebec 5
British Columbia 4
Alberta 3
Manitoba 3
Nova Scotia 3
Ontario 2
Newfoundland and Labrador 1
Saskatchewan 1
New Brunswick 0
Prince Edward Island 0
Ranking scale
5—Decentralized assessment requirements, most procedures performed within province
4—Partially-centralized assessment requirements, aided by high degree of publicly available
information and shorter wait times
3—Decentralized assessment requirements, mitigated by few physicians specializing in trans-
gender health within province
2—Centralized assessment requirements with long wait times
1—Requires out of province travel for assessment prior to government approval
0—No coverage

begin unpacking the requirements necessary to be approved for SRS procedures.

Provinces are ranked from least restrictive to most restrictive.
Of the provinces that do provide SRS coverage, Saskatchewan, as well as
Newfoundland and Labrador receive the lowest rankings, as both provinces require
patients to travel to Toronto to attend the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health
(CAMH), a specialized gender identity clinic, before surgery can be approved. This
is a significant obstacle to coverage, as the clinic is known to have wait-times as
long as 1-year before a patient can be seen. Ontario is ranked at two, since it
requires all presumptive SRS patients to be seen at CAMH before the government
will consider funding, which given the long wait times, creates a significant
bottleneck in the system. Moreover, for many patients outside of the Toronto
area, significant travel will be necessary to attend the clinic. Next up are Alberta,
Manitoba, and Nova Scotia, all of which offer a decentralized initial assessment. In
practice, these provinces require two physicians knowledgeable about transgender
health working within the patient’s province of residence to jointly recommend
SRS directly to the government. This eliminates potentially long wait times at
specialized government-approved clinics. However, the more decentralized system
may be less useful in reality if there are only a few physicians within each of these
provinces available to treat transgender clients. For example, a provincial report
compiled for Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health (CPATH)
notes only three psychiatrists routinely see transgender patients in Alberta (CPATH
2012).
140 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

While admittedly a subjective distinction, British Columbia is ranked as having

better initial access to services than Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Alberta, despite
maintaining a partially centralized assessment system. In part, this stems from
greater flexibility than Ontario’s centralized system, as some procedures only
require one government-approved assessor to sign off on surgery (BC Ministry of
Health). In addition, patients are not required to attend a specialized clinic, as is the
practice in Ontario. Lastly, unlike the provinces awarded a three, information about
SRS procedures is widely available, and there is an extensive transgender
healthcare program run through Vancouver Coastal Health. Quebec is ranked as
having the least restrictive requirements, as patients are only required to provide a
letter from two physicians within the province, and according to CPATH there are a
good number of physicians working with the transgender community in the prov-
ince (CPATH 2012).
In Table 4, we outline the out of pocket expenses that patients seeking SRS are
expected to cover. As in Table 3, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are
ranked at zero as they do not provide any official coverage for SRS. Newfoundland
and Labrador, as well as Saskatchewan require patients to travel to Toronto for
assessment at CAMH, which leads to significant upfront costs for patients. In
British Columbia, while the initial assessments can occur within province, the BC
Medical Services Plan (MSP) will not cover transport or accommodation for
surgeries performed out of province (many of which take place in Quebec). Alberta

Table 4 What does coverage mean? Out of pocket expenses for patients
Province Ranking
Quebec 5
Nova Scotia 4
Alberta 3
Ontario 3
Manitoba 3
British Columbia 2
Newfoundland and Labrador 1
Saskatchewan 1
New Brunswick 0
Prince Edward Island 0
Ranking scale
5—Within province initial assessment, most procedures performed within province
4—Within province initial assessment, province covers airfare and some accommodation costs
for out of province procedures
3—Within province initial assessment, province covers only airfare/transport costs for out of
province procedures
2—Within province initial assessment, patients must pay travel costs for procedures out of
province procedures
1—Patients are required to travel out of province for initial assessment, many procedures occur
out of province
0—No coverage
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 141

and Ontario, by contrast, do provide some travel costs for out-of-province surgeries,
while Nova Scotia provides limited accommodation assistance in addition to
airfare. Lastly, by virtue of many procedures occurring within province, Quebec
ranks as the least expensive for patients seeking SRS within the country. These
findings, though limited in scope and using at times subjective rankings, do clearly
highlight that SRS coverage varies significantly across the country.

3.3 Labour Union Engagement

Our third area of investigation was to consider how the labour movement has
responded to transgender issues by way of non-discrimination policies and incor-
poration of transgender issues into their representational strategies. The only other
study we know of that has looked at this issue was undertaken by Eaton (2004). Our
work builds on his findings, and suggests that unions are only now moving towards
implementing more progressive policies towards transgender persons in collective
bargaining. As Hunt and Eaton (2007) explain, the inclusion of non-discrimination
grounds within collective agreements is important “. . .because they provide
workers with a local grievance mechanism, making redress quicker than through
human rights appeals; [and] they also provide an affirming statement to broader
union membership” (Hunt and Eaton 2007, p. 138). As will be shown below, many
collective agreements lag behind recently changed provincial human rights codes,
and while most agreements include sexual orientation as a protected ground, a far
smaller number include gender identity or gender expression. On a more positive
note, in some cases unions have moved to include gender identity in their collective
agreements in absence of provincial or territorial requirements to do so, such as in
British Columbia and the Yukon. While tentative, this suggests that some Union
locals are increasingly aligning their bargaining goals with jurisdictions that do
explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination (as well as implementing union
policies from national headquarters).
Indeed, in recent years several major Canadian unions have started to develop
specific policies at the headquarters level, to combat discrimination on the basis of
gender identity and expression. As outlined by Table 5, nearly all of the larger
Canadian unions now include specific policies and guidelines for improving inclu-
sion for transgender workers. For example, UNIFOR, the largest private sector
union in the country, recently published a set of guidelines for how best to address
and support workers in transition (UNIFOR, Workers in Transition: A Practical
Guide for Union Representatives). The guidelines also call for the inclusion of
gender identity in anti-discrimination clauses, and for medical coverage, and leave,
for patients seeking SRS. The large public sector union, PSAC, also includes the
addition of gender identity in anti-discrimination clauses as a specific bargaining
demand.
Yet, the translation of union policies supportive of transgender rights into
specific language within collective agreements is still a work in progress at the
142 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

Table 5 Transgender human rights: union engagement

CLC UNIFOR PSAC CUPE CUPW USW TU
Gender Identity in Human Rights ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Policy
Transgender policy paper or res- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
olution adopted
At least one collective agreement ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
with non-discrimination covering
gender identity
Inclusion of gender identity/ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
expression in anti-discrimination
provisions as bargaining demand
Inclusion of SRS paid leave as ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
bargaining demand
Supplementary health plan cover- ✔ ✔ ✔
age for SRS procedures not cov-
ered by province, and other
transition-related expenses
Transgender awareness and edu- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
cation initiatives
Abbreviations: CLC Canadian Labour Congress; UNIFOR Union for Canada; replacing Canadian
Auto Workers Union AND Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; PSAC
Public Service Alliance of Canada; CUPE Canadian Union of Public Employees; CUPW Cana-
dian Union of Postal Workers; USW United Steel Workers; TU International Brotherhood of
Teamsters

Table 6 Current collective Search term No. of agreements

agreement containing “gender
Gender identity 133
identity” or “gender
expression” in Canada Gender identity and/or expression 43
Expanded anti-discrimination clauses 26

local level. A keyword search using the term “gender identity” in the Negotech
database, which contains most collective agreements in Canada, revealed a growing
number of collective agreements with references to gender identity. After account-
ing for agreements that had expired, a total of 133 current agreements have
references to gender identity at least once within the agreement. In two current
agreements, gender identity was not listed in anti-discrimination clauses, however
references to this ground were found in specific transgender human rights policies.
Forty-three agreements also contained references to gender expression. By contrast,
a keyword search of “sexual orientation” in the same database returns over 2000
agreements (Table 6).
Table 7 delves into the collective agreements in greater detail by sector. The
largest single group of collective agreements containing gender identity is for
public sector employees, many represented by PSAC. Examples of the types of
collective agreements represented in this category include government employees,
housing authorities, as well as public transit workers. The second largest sample
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 143

Table 7 Collective Sector No. of agreements

agreements containing
Government/Public sector 65
“gender identity” by sector
Education/Universities 40
Private sector 26
Other 2
Total 133

Table 8 Gender identity in Jurisdiction No. of agreements

collective agreements by
Ontario 53
jurisdiction
Northwest Territories 18
Nunavut 15
British Columbia 11
Newfoundland and Labrador 9
Yukon 8
Quebec 5
Alberta 3
New Brunswick 3
Saskatchewan 3
Nova Scotia 2
Manitoba 1
Prince Edward Island 0

group emerged from the education sector, and involved agreements covering both
academic and non-academic staff at many Canadian universities. Interestingly,
universities appear to have frequently included gender identity in their collective
agreements even when not required to by provincial rules (e.g., in Alberta prior to
2015, Saskatchewan prior to 2014 as well as New Brunswick). Private sector
agreements were the third largest grouping, and included large agreements recently
concluded for workers at GM and Chrysler Canada.
Table 8 provides a breakdown of collective agreements by jurisdiction. Ontario
has the largest number of collective agreements containing gender identity or
gender expression. This is an unsurprising finding given that it has the largest
population in Canada, and was among the first provinces in Canada to include
gender identity in its human rights code. Since the law was passed in 2012, a large
number of agreements have come up for renewal, and now include gender identity
and expression as a protected ground. More interesting, however, is the large
number of agreements in Yukon and Nunavut containing explicit protections on
the grounds of gender identity, despite the term not being included within their
territorial human rights codes. This suggests that unions in these two territories
have increasingly followed standards set by national headquarters and other juris-
dictions that do explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. The large number
of agreements from the Northwest Territory is indicative of the jurisdiction’s early
144 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

adoption of explicit gender identity protections in its territorial human rights

legislation. Indeed, the Northwest Territories was the first in the country to include
these provisions in 2002, and many agreements have come up for renewal since the
law has been changed.
By comparison, many of the other jurisdictions have changed their laws only
recently, including Alberta in 2015 and Saskatchewan in 2014, which suggest that
many agreements will lag behind a growing national standard until such agreements
come up for renewal. The case of Manitoba is interesting, as there is only one
current collective agreement containing gender identity in the Negotech database.
Given that the province passed gender identity protection shortly after Ontario, this
highlights either a slow uptake of this provision into collective agreements, or that
very few agreements have come up for renewal since the legislative change in 2012.
The only sub-national jurisdiction without any agreements including references to
gender identity or expression is Prince Edward Island. Currently, many of the
Federal government collective agreements are up for renewal, and we were able
to determine that the inclusion of gender identity anti-discrimination protections as
a bargaining demand is present in at least 4 of 27 agreements being negotiated.
While our key word search of the Negotech database indicated a growing
adoption of protections for gender identity and/or gender expression in collective
agreements, far less progress has been made in references to paid SRS leave, or
supplementary medical coverage. Only one agreement, from the University of
Western Ontario, included specific language on sex reassignment surgery as a
collective benefit. As a result, we decided to undertake an intensive content analysis
of the health care plans negotiated by the largest universities in the Toronto area
since the specific information about medical coverage for transgender persons
would be unlikely to show up in the collective agreements. We selected universities
for further study because of the frequency in their collective agreements of cover-
age for transgender protections (relative to other collective agreements under
review), and because the researchers could reasonably gain access to the details
of these collective benefits.
In Table 9, we list collective agreements from Toronto area universities. The
universities were ranked according to the inclusivity of their gender identity anti-
discrimination language, as well as the provision of SRS leave. York University
ranks as having the most inclusive language, and also includes paid leave for
teaching assistants undergoing SRS. In addition, and unique among collective
agreements surveyed, this agreement has a transgender fund which provides recip-
ients of SRS up to a maximum of $15,000 in financial assistance. The collective
agreement representing teaching assistants at the University of Toronto also pro-
vides paid leave for SRS, although it does not provide any supplementary medical
coverage. At present, collective agreements at Ryerson University do not provide
for paid SRS leave or supplementary medical coverage. More broadly, our research
indicates that no health plans provide additional supplementary coverage for SRS
procedures within collective agreements. Given the significant gaps in provincial
coverage, this can leave many lacking sufficient coverage to afford treatment.
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 145

Table 9 Transgender health coverage in collective agreements: Toronto area universities

Gender
identity Paid Additional medical Separate
inclusion SRS coverage beyond union funds/
Collective agreement scale leave provincial coverage support
York University (Cupe 4 Yes No Yes
3903—Teaching
Assistants)
York University (Faculty 4 No No No
Association)
University of Toronto 4 Yes No No
(Cupe 3903—Teaching
Assistants)
University of Toronto 2 No No No
(Faculty Association—
Professors)
Ryerson University 2 No No No
(Teaching Assistants—
CUPE 3904)
Ryerson University (Fac- 2 No No No
ulty Association)
Inclusion scale ranking
4—References gender identity/gender expression, sex, sexual orientation, and other affirmative
clauses (such as transition status)
3—References gender identity/gender expression, sex, sexual orientation
2—References sex and sexual orientation only
1—References sex only
0—No anti-discrimination references

4 Conclusion

Over the last 20 years, Canada has developed one of the best records on gay, lesbian
and bisexual rights in the world (Rayside 2008). It was an early adopter of inclusive
human rights legislation and one of the first countries to enshrine same-sex mar-
riage in law. However, our research indicates that Canada’s record on extending
rights to transgender citizens has been slower and is far from complete. Although
most provinces and territories now have human rights protections for transgender
persons, coverage for medical and psychological services vary widely across the
country, highlighting a lack of national standards. For patients seeking SRS, even if
surgeries are publicly funded, gaining the necessary government approvals often
require onerous travel requirements, significant out of pocket expenses, and long
wait-times. Moreover, in many instances, the final decision about what procedures
to cover and what not is made on a case-by-case basis.
Clearly, there is considerable room for labour unions to improve the lot of
transgender individuals. Our examination uncovers some movement toward the
inclusion of transgender as a separate category in collective bargaining
146 G. Hunt and M. Pelz

non-discrimination language, even if not legally required to by federal, provincial

or territorial laws. However, many agreements continue to lag behind provincial or
territorial rules requiring explicit protection on the grounds of gender identity.
Moreover, in only a very small number of cases are there specific provisions for
the types of benefits that are unique to transgender persons such as paid leaves and
topping-up of the costs associated with sex reassignment. Our investigation reveals
little evidence that unions are negotiating additional medical or psychological
assistance beyond what is already available from the state.
This was a first look at the issues faced by transgender persons in Canada. It
paves the way for more in depth assessment. It would, for example, be instructive to
undertake a survey of what non-unionized organizations are doing in this regard,
especially since the passage of non-discrimination legislation is quite recent. A
content analysis of a larger sample of collective agreements, including the medical
plans that have been negotiated, would also have the potential to yield valuable
insights. Lastly, some of the initiatives undertaken by the York University collec-
tive agreement highlight what could be done by unions.
This study was limited to the Canadian situation. It would be of interest to
compare these findings to other settings, especially countries with comparable
records for lesbians and gays. This would allow speculation about whether a good
record on gay and lesbian issues is likely to act as a predictor for a progressive
response to the transgender community as well. Looking at the institutional
response of labour unions to transgender issues is useful since labour positions
itself as fighting for the equality and protections of all workers, and it is important to
test this rhetoric. Comparing organized labour’s response across several national
jurisdictions would add an interesting comparative approach to the work we have
completed in Canada.
This research was conceived as a first level investigation into transgender rights
in Canada. We focused on the legal advances, medical coverage, and labour union
interventions that have been achieved so far. One thing we uncovered is that the
issue is a relatively new one for unions, and in a number of cases has been identified
for action. As a result, progress in the area may be quite dramatic over the next few
years as more and more collective agreements come forward for renewal.

References

Bender-Baird, K. (2011). Transgender employment experiences: Gendered perceptions and the

law. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Budge, S., Tebbe, E., & Howard, K. (2010). The work experiences of transgender individuals:
Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of Counselling
Psychology, 57(4), 377–393.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association/PBSC. (2012). Manitoba to add gender identity and social
disadvantage to Human Rights Code. Accessed April 6, 2015, from http://www.ccla.org/righ
tswatch/2012/05/24/manitoba-bill-to-add-human-rights-protections-for-gender-identity-and-soci
al-disadvantage
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 147

Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences
of transpeople. Gender and Society, 24(1), 31–55.
Eaton, J. (2004). Transitions at work: Industrial relations responses to the emerging rights of
transgender workers. Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 11, 113–141.
Egale. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia,
biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Accessed December 15, 2014, from http://
egale.ca/all/every-class
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (News Release). (2013). Amendment introduced to
Human Rights Act. Promotes inclusion and well-being of all residents. Accessed November
5, 2014, from http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2013/just/1121n07.htm
Hines, S. (2013). Gender diversity, recognition and citizenship: Towards a politics of difference.
London: Palgrave Macmillian.
Hunt, G., & Eaton, J. (2007). We are family: Labour responds to gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender workers”. In G. Hunt & D. Rayside (Eds.), Equity, diversity and Canadian labour
(pp. 130–155). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
King, R. (2015). Transrights bill amendment would bar trans people from public washrooms.
Toronto Star. Accessed April 16, 2015, from http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/
25/trans-rights-bill-amendment-would-bar-trans-people-from-public-washrooms.html
McGregeor, J. (2015). Transgender rights bill gutted by transphobic Senate. CBC News. Accessed
April 16, 2015, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-gutted-by-
transphobic-senate-amendment-1.2975024
Nameste, V. (2011). Sex change, social change: Reflections on identity, institutions and imperi-
alism (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.
OHRC (Ontario Human Rights Commission). (2014). Gender identity and gender expression
(brochure). Accessed December 12, 2014, from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/gender-identity-
and-gender-expression-brochure
Paisley, C., Juang, R., & Price Minter, S. (Eds.). (2006). Transgender rights. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Rayside, D. (2008). Queer inclusions, continental divisions: Public recognition of sexual diversity
in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Trans Pulse. (2011). Trans Pulse project survey. Accessed December 15, 2014, from http://
transpulseproject.ca/resources/trans-pulse-survey/
World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2012). Standards of care for the health of
transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, 7th version. Accessed November
5, 2014, from http://admin.associationsonline.com/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%
20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf
Zabus, C., & David, C. (Eds.). (2014). Transgender experience: Place, ethnicity and visibility.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences
of Trans Persons in the United States

Todd Brower

1 Introduction

According to Weeks (1998), sexual citizenship encompasses enfranchisement,

inclusion and belonging. However, in the workplace, lesbian, gay, bisexual and
trans (LGBT) people often are excluded from the world of work—either explicitly
when they are fired or not hired, or implicitly, when they are not promoted or
otherwise marginalized in the workplace. These experiences are complicated
because if LGBT persons remain silent, others assume that they are not gay or
trans (Rich 1983). This assumption permits some sexual minorities to push their
identity underground in order to evade the negative consequences of visibility.
Nevertheless, this closeting or minimizing of identity does not resolve LGBT
mistreatment; forced invisibility constitutes both a cause and a symptom of inequal-
ity (Schacter 1997) as the data presented here will demonstrate.
Although a significant literature exists on the workplace treatment of lesbians
and gay men, the employment experiences of trans persons are less well studied.
Drawing on data from a recent, wide-ranging study of discrimination in the United
States against trans people, Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National
Transgender Discrimination Survey (Grant et al. 2011),1 this chapter asks if and
how minority gender identity and its visibility or invisibility affects trans and

1
The study and report by Grant et al. (2011) contains significant detail regarding employment
discrimination and workplace mistreatment of trans and gender nonconforming persons. This
chapter, however, concentrates on a subset of those data to facilitate a comparative discussion of
the work experiences of trans persons and sexual orientation minorities along the axes of visibility
of sexual orientation and gender identity. Persons interested in more detailed data on trans persons’
workplace treatment are directed to the report itself. The author was not an author of that study and
report, although he has written extensively on LGBT issues.
T. Brower (*)
Western State College of Law, Fullerton, CA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 149

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_9
150 T. Brower

gender nonconforming persons’ workplace treatment. Moreover, it questions

whether the interactions between trans persons’ identity and work are similar to
or distinct from the experiences of LGB individuals with whom they are often
grouped. Grouping together both sexual orientation and gender identity, while
frequent, assumes that these characteristics share a common dynamic, despite the
former centering on emotional or sexual affiliations or desires and the latter
revolving around identification with gender and gender roles or expression.

2 Language, Naming and Identity

The experience of same-sex orientation is often, but not exclusively, mediated by

gender (Brower 1997) and race (Hutchinson 1997). These differences are important
and frequently necessitate distinguishing among those categories and recognizing
their intersectionalities (Harris and Bartlow 2015; Holvino 2010). Moreover, bisex-
uality both shares and is distinct from lesbian or gay identity (Tweedy and
Yescavage 2015). Nevertheless, because they constitute a secondary aspect of
this chapter, it groups LGB people together for simplicity and uses the term “sexual
orientation minorities” to refer to lesbians, gay men and bisexuals collectively. The
chapter primarily focuses on and contrasts trans and gender nonconforming per-
sons’ work experiences with those of sexual orientation minorities. Accordingly,
except where necessary to examine a particular aspect of trans or gender
nonconforming persons’ workplace treatment or identity disclosure, the significant
differences between lesbian, gay, and bisexual individual’s identities are elided.
On the other hand, since people disparately understand the term “transgender,”
this chapter follows the lead of Grant et al. (2011) and specifies one term for those
who seek, desire to, or identify with the goal of transitioning from one gender to
another (trans persons), and another for those who do not do so (gender noncon-
formers). That latter designation includes genderqueer people, cross-dressers, the
androgynous, and those whose identity encompasses gender nonconformity. As in
most minority groups, identity descriptors within trans and gender nonconforming
communities are in flux. Gender identity and expression terminology is
intersectional and varies by race, culture, age, class, education, and geography
(Boylan 2014). The terminological diversity used by study respondents (Grant
et al. 2011) illustrates the variety of gender and gender expression language within
transgender and gender nonconforming communities. Thus, the study confirmed the
findings of Kuper et al. (2012) that gender identity and expression are multifaceted
dimensions that are customized by individuals. Accordingly, where appropriate,
this chapter distinguishes between trans and gender nonconforming identities and
sometimes also by gender within the categories.
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 151

2.1 Visibility of Identity for Gender and Sexual Orientation

Minorities

Much data exist on visibility of sexual orientation at work and its effects. Sexual
orientation measurement is complicated and data depend on whether one studies
identity or behavior (Brower 2011). However, Badgett (1996) found that identity is
often the salient characteristic in the workplace. Due to the more developed
literature on sexual orientation minority visibility, this chapter initially reviews
that issue before moving to gender identity openness.
Because most LGB people are not visibly identifiable (Blumenfeld and
Raymond 1993), Eskridge (1997) showed minority sexual identity was usually
revealed through express communication because silence encourages others to
assume heterosexuality—what Adrienne Rich (1983, p. 177) called “compulsory
heterosexuality.” Compulsory heterosexuality allows some LGBT persons to pre-
vent others from learning their identity in order to minimize or evade the negative
consequences of visibility (Eskridge 1997).
LGB people must carefully choose their words or activities, and measure
disclosure against silence (Goffman 1959; Karst 1995; Cullen 2000). Publicly
acknowledging one’s LGB identity constitutes continual choices calibrated to the
environment, dependent on theirs and others’ comfort level, and responsive to an
assessment of possible consequences (Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Yoshino 2006).
Different disclosure trade-offs exist in various environments (Badgett 1995; Woods
and Lucas 1993)—with disclosure often initially made to confidants, family, or
other gay people (Ragins et al. 2003; Friskopp and Silverstein 1996; Eskridge
1997). Another strategy is to not volunteer information about sexual orientation,
but only answer direct questions (SF Examiner 2000).
Nevertheless, hiding does not resolve mistreatment; forced invisibility is itself
inequality (Schacter 1997). As one employee disclosed:
As a gay employee there is not much that I can say about this delicate subject [sexual
orientation discrimination at work] because I cannot even be myself at my place of
employment. I have to lead two different lives. Sometimes my co-workers ask me if I
have a girlfriend, if I am married, how many children I have, and I have to answer with a lie.
All this makes me feel very unhappy. In addition, sometimes the people that I work with
make fun of gay people in front of me, and I have to laugh about it and pretend that it does
not bother me (NJSC 2001, pp. 48–49).

As related above, silencing identity reinforces LGB marginalization; it permits

sexual minorities to negate an essential difference between their coworkers and
themselves (CAJC 2001; Halley 1989). They may not share in common workplace
social interaction in order to shield certain parts of their lives (LACBA 1994; Ho
2006). Self-imposed distance may further estrange LGB employees from coworkers
and trigger even more discomfort for everyone (HCBA 1995; LACBA 1994).
Thus, open self-identity is more significant for LGB people than for heterosex-
uals (Eskridge 1997) and has greater consequences. The LACBA (1994) found that,
whatever their sexual orientation, almost one half of attorneys surveyed stated that
152 T. Brower

merely revealing the sex of one’s partner would harm an LGB attorney’s career.
Conversely, heterosexuals need not explicitly voice their sexual orientation at work
(Brower 2015), but may simply rely on contextual clues: an opposite-sex pronoun
when describing joint activities, photos of a spouse or children on their desks, or
allowing people to presume heterosexuality (Biewen and Siegel 1997). Although
these employment data are from an earlier time when gay rights were less secure
and sexual orientation visibility more risky than in the present, other more recent
data demonstrate that attorney jobs and legal employment may not have changed
significantly, and recent studies contain similar negative findings (Brower 2015;
NALP 2013).
These findings have analogues in trans persons’ workplace experiences, but the
fundamentals are different. As demonstrated above regarding photos and other
expressions of family or sexuality, sexual orientation visibility at work—whether
LGB or heterosexual—often is made manifest by showing the person with whom
one is intimately or emotionally involved. This finding is unsurprising given that
the core difference in sexuality inherently revolves around those choices. In con-
trast, for trans and gender nonconforming persons, revealing sexuality or intimacy
exposes nothing about the identity that makes them different from their work
colleagues. Axiomatically, the relevant identity characteristics disclosed were
gender and gender expression.

2.2 Trans or Gender Nonconforming Visibility at Work

Like their LGB peers, trans or gender nonconforming people’s disclosure process
was graduated, both in terms of express communication or other means, and also
temporally or spatially. To explore how visibility affected transgender and gender
nonconforming respondents, multiple trans survey questions established basic
visibility categories, “generally out” and “generally not out.” Fifty-nine percent
of respondents were generally out, while 41 % were generally not out. In answering
if they explicitly tell people their transgender/gender non-conforming status,
respondents said: never 12 %; only to close friends 68 %; only to family 42 %;
only to casual friends 26 %; out to work colleagues 22 %; out to everyone 15 %
(Grant et al. 2011, p. 28). Thus, significant numbers of trans respondents opted to
expressly communicate their identity at work, similar to LGB people.
Trans and gender nonconforming survey participants who reported being
employed demonstrated workplace visibility on two dimensions. First as noted
above, some respondents explicitly told work colleagues they were transgender or
gender nonconforming. Thirty-eight percent reported informing work colleagues of
their transgender or gender nonconforming identity. Disaggregated by identity
group, the data are: MTF 41 %, FTM 48 %, all Trans 44 %, gender nonconformers
33 % (Grant et al. 2011, p. 52). Visibility varied little by race or age.
Second, irrespective of explicit disclosure, 35 % of respondents said that most or
all work colleagues knew of their gender identity or gender nonconformity. Slightly
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 153

more (37 %) reported some or a few colleagues knew that information, and a lesser
number (28 %) said no one was aware of those identities. Those who had
transitioned reported higher rates of knowledge: most or all—50 %, some or a
few—34 %, no one—16 % (Grant et al. 2011, p. 52). Thus, like their LGB
counterparts, trans and gender nonconforming persons’ open identity decisions
changed with different people and in different environments.
Finally, in addition to respondents explicitly informing coworkers about their
gender identity/nonconformity, the study found a group of respondents were “visual
nonconformers.” That label was based on respondents’ answers to the survey
question: “People can tell I’m transgender even if I don’t tell them.” The data
showed that others often made these judgments on respondents’ physical charac-
teristics, voice, mannerisms, and gender-coded beliefs about appropriate male/
female roles (Grant et al. 2011, p. 27). Those visual nonconformers were more
likely to suffer discrimination and violence at a rate similar to that experienced by
their open lesbian or gay counterparts.
These data on openness of trans and gender nonconformity raise an intriguing
possibility: that gender identity visibility at work may vary over time according to
where trans persons are in their physical, psychological and social transition
process. As Badgett (1996) noted, racial and other visible minority identity in the
workplace is different from sexual orientation minority identity, which may be and
is often hidden. Thus, disclosure and openness are facets of workplace experiences
for LGB people that others may not face. As subsequently discussed workplace data
illustrate, trans and gender nonconforming workers may hide or time their gender
transition or expression and minimize, resign themselves to, or capitalize on the
visibility that results. Finally, post-transition, some respondents report being
completely accepted in their proper gender at a new workplace, and may not be
seen or identify as trans at all (Grant et al. 2011). Thus, they may move from a
hidden identity (like their LGB colleagues) to one that is visible (like their
coworkers with racial minority identities), and post-transition perhaps travel
through to invisible again.
Interestingly, the literature on bisexual persons and their coming out process
includes issues not usually faced by lesbians or gay men, but with analogues in trans
persons’ experiences. One complication of declaring one’s bisexuality to others is
the further requirement to explain what that identity means and justify its legiti-
macy. Some bisexuals report that people conflate that sexual orientation with
indiscriminate or uncontrolled sexual behavior—as purely conduct and not true
identity. Others insist that the identity is merely a self-delusion or a way station on
the path to admitting homosexuality (Tweedy and Yescavage 2015; Chamberlain
2012). One can see echoes of these extra hurdles in a gender nonconforming
respondent’s description of coming out to health professionals. “I rarely tell doctors
of my gender identity. It just seems so hard to explain what “genderqueer” means in
a short doctor’s appointment. . .” (Grant et al. 2011, p. 81). Other trans people report
dealing with confusion about trans identity or disbelief that the identity is real
(Lowe 2015). Although the underlying reasons may be different from the experi-
ences of bisexuals, trans and gender nonconforming people may also face similar
154 T. Brower

skepticism and additional burdens on identity. These supplemental liabilities of

disclosure may make it even more difficult for trans and gender nonconforming
persons to be themselves at work and may contribute to their negative treatment and
experiences.
Accordingly, trans/gender nonconformity data on workplace openness are
important, and should be viewed in relation to data on LGB employment experi-
ences. Studies on sexual orientation disclosure at work have demonstrated signif-
icant pressure to hide or minimize sexual orientation. Moore (1993) found that well
over a third of Americans stated that they did not want sexual orientation minorities
to disclose their sexuality. Some might object to “private behavior”/sexuality
appearing in the public sphere of the workplace; others may resent the openness
of sexual minority persons because it forces them to confront their otherwise latent
antipathy towards LGBT persons (Badgett 2001). Other empirical studies confirm
these findings, and conclude that legal antidiscrimination requirements play an
important but not determinative role in open sexual minorities’ identity and work-
place experiences (Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Croteau 1996).
Once again, although the data are older, the shift in attitudes about LGBT people
has been uneven and inconsistent. Public opinion polls routinely show a significant
number of Americans still maintain negative attitudes about LGBT people and gay
civil rights, despite advances in these areas in marriage and military service (Gallup
2015; Pew Research Center 2015). Moreover, legal protections against sexual
orientation or gender identity employment discrimination remain spotty. There is
no federal legislation barring discrimination against LGBT people and most states
also lack those provisions (Lambda Legal 2015). Consequently, future studies on
trans persons’ workplace treatment should see what lessons can be taken from prior
empirical data on sexual minorities’ employment experiences.
In addition to studies on coworkers’ beliefs, LGB workplace reports also include
data on sexual orientation minorities’ own interactions between identity visibility
and legal, jobsite, and social norms. Ragins et al. (2007) found that concerns
associated with LGBT visibility and disclosure correlated with psychological
strain, work attitudes, and environment and career outcomes. Law and workplace
norms influence LGBT identity disclosure and sexual minority employee experi-
ences. Professors Ragins and Cornwell (2001) also speculate that in more hostile
environments disclosure may trigger more reported discrimination. Axiomatically,
disclosure of one’s sexual orientation is necessary for direct sexual orientation
discrimination since the protected identity must form the basis for disparate treat-
ment (Badgett 1995; Green 2003). As in other workplaces (Croteau 1996; HCBA
1995; LACBA 1994), a study of court employees found that open LGBT employees
often experience more discrimination and negative treatment. Respondents thought
that people used sexual orientation to devalue the credibility of some LGBT
employees; that openly LGBT employees did not have the same chance of promo-
tion or work assignments as heterosexuals, and that it was harder to be hired if
people suspected you were LGBT (Brower 2015).
Accordingly, this chapter reviews the work of Grant and her colleagues to see if
they reveal similar consequences for trans visibility at work. If so, are there insights
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 155

from sexual orientation minority studies that can be used to contextualize and
advance research on trans and gender nonconforming persons on the job? Brower
(2015) found that open LGB identity is important to integration into the workplace
and societal institutions, and to self-worth generally. It forms an additional dimen-
sion when studying LGBT persons’ experiences that is typically irrelevant in other
visibly diverse populations like race (Badgett 1996). Parallel to the effects that
visibility has on LGB people’s workplace experiences, it also affects the employ-
ment treatment of trans persons in multiple ways.

3 Employment Experiences, Workplace Treatment,

and Visibility

The data on transgender and gender nonconforming people’s employment issues

are important. We spend a significant portion of our waking hours at work (Bureau
of Labor Statistics 2013). Work forms part of our self-identity and adds to a feeling
of dignity and accomplishment (John Paul II 1981; Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Article 23). Because of variations in samples and time periods, direct
comparisons between the workplace experiences of LGB persons and trans and
gender nonconforming individuals would be inappropriate. However, concordant
data patterns are noted where possible.

3.1 Adverse Job Actions

As previously mentioned, there are few legal protections in the U.S. from employ-
ment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Moreover, even
where they do exist, the predominant structure of the laws requires that negative job
actions be taken because of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity in
order to be actionable (Brower 2009). Discrimination protections arise from a
plaintiff falling within a protected category: race, color, sex, national origin, age,
etc. Without knowing (or believing they know) a person’s membership in a
protected category, an employer or fellow employee cannot disparately treat
those individuals based on the protected identities (Green 2003). Accordingly,
knowledge of that identity or lack of it is crucial to the jurisprudential foundations
of legal protection. Moreover as a practical matter, whether sexual orientation or
something else was the reason for an adverse job action is often the factual crux of
the case, often determining whether the plaintiff wins or loses (Dawson 2005; Rene
2002).
Where they exist, legal protections for trans workers are based on a parallel
paradigm that discrimination must occur on the basis of the employee’s trans status
(e.g., Macy 2012). The trans survey demonstrated the close relationship between
156 T. Brower

visibility of gender identity/gender nonconformity and negative treatment in the

workplace. Nearly one half of survey respondents reported that their transgender
identity or gender nonconformity was the reason for an adverse job action: a failure
to hire, promote, or job termination. Over a quarter of respondents stated they were
fired due to their gender identity/expression (Grant et al. 2011). For example, one
respondent noted: “I was highly regarded at my new workplace until one of my old
co-workers came in for an interview there and saw me. During his interview he told
them all about me. He didn’t get the job, but I soon lost mine” (Grant et al. 2011,
p. 53). This respondent’s statement reflects the correlation between visibility and
negative treatment. Once his/her identity was disclosed, respondent was dismissed.
Job losses were compounded by subsequent unemployment or underemploy-
ment. Seventy-seven percent of those with job terminations also reported work
histories containing underemployment because of their gender identity/expression.
One respondent noted:
I was fired from a good job because I tried to transition on the job. I then lived on menial
employment for over 3 years before finally landing another good one that was full-time job
and had benefits. At one point, I had an offer of employment withdrawn after the would-be
employer found out I was transgender (Grant et al. 2011, p. 67).

Respondents reporting job loss due to bias were currently unemployed (26 %) at
nearly four times the rate of their general population counterparts (7 %). Twenty-
eight percent of respondents with job loss also reported work in the underground
economy or as sex workers. Like the respondent in the following quote, these data
suggest once trans people are discriminatorily terminated, they are often unable to
find reemployment (Grant et al. 2011, p. 53).
I was a very respected lawyer before all of this, but lost my practice and clients, and have
not been able to attract any new clients or get referrals or even get a job in my field for the
past 8 years. Very frustrating because I don’t feel any less intelligent or less qualified, but
others, both the public and lawyers, perceive me that way (Grant et al. 2011, p. 55).

The data on negative job actions have parallels in LGB employee experiences.
Like trans respondents, LGB court employees also reported being passed over for
promotions, losing jobs once their sexual orientation identity was known, and
facing hiring and job assignment difficulties (Brower 2015). A UK court employee
stated: “[I]n short, 15 years ago I was offered the post of Principal Private Secretary
of the Lord Chancellor; [I] came out; and the offer was withdrawn.” (Brower 2003,
p. 40). In each of these reports, job offers were withdrawn once LGBT identity was
made manifest. Therefore, if other work experiences are parallel, we should expect
to see similar patterns in trans persons’ treatment to what we find with LGB
workers.
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 157

3.2 Workplace Harassment and Abuse

Empirical studies of LGB persons frequently reported workplace harassment

(Badgett 1996; Brower 2015; Croteau 1996; Friskopp and Silverstein 1996). Nev-
ertheless, jobsite harassment and mistreatment, including being required to take
bias-avoidant actions that adversely affected their welfare or career trajectories,
were nearly unanimous experiences for transgender and gender nonconforming
people. Ninety percent of respondents reported verbal harassment, breaches of
confidentiality, physical and sexual assault, or they reported engaging in deleterious
behaviors to avoid negative treatment such as concealing their true gender, post-
poning transition, or remaining employed in a position that they would have
preferred to leave (Grant et al. 2011, p. 56).
Like their LGB peers, the most common negative workplace experience was
harassment (Grant et al. 2011, p. 58). However, while the types of harassment were
similar, the specifics differed. As might be expected, much workplace harassment
of trans and gender nonconforming persons revolved around traditional binary
gender divisions and identity. Accordingly unlike most LGB employees’ work
experiences, access to gender appropriate toilets/restrooms were a particular source
of disparate treatment at work for trans and gender nonconforming persons (Grant
et al. 2011, p. 61). One respondent noted:
When one of my colleagues found out I was born female, I was forced to use the bathroom
in another part of the building where I worked, because he said that I made the ‘real’ men
uncomfortable with my presence. Now, I look like a bio-male, and the only reason they
knew about my status is because a supervisor found out, and spread my business to the other
supervisors and friends. I had to walk 5 minutes to another building, which impeded my
break times (Grant et al. 2011, p. 60).

Another stated: “At the job I came out at, most were ok and accepting; but the
HR manager blocked any attempts for me to arrange a bathroom, even after I
pointed to a local law allowing me to use the correct bathroom.” (Grant et al. 2011,
p. 61).
The effect of coworkers’ rigid binary division of gender roles at work played out
slightly differently for sexual orientation minorities and trans employees. Forty-five
percent of trans survey respondents reported work colleagues “repeatedly and on
purpose” referred to them by the wrong pronouns (Grant et al. 2011, p. 61). This
interaction was a form of gender policing to force trans employees back to their
biological gender. That dynamic was repeated in other work experiences. Over
two-fifths of respondents described coworkers asking inappropriate questions about
respondents’ transgender or surgical status. Nearly one half stated that supervisors
or colleagues inappropriately shared confidential information about the respondent.
One noted that his/her former employer outed him/her each time a prospective
employer called (Grant et al. 2011, pp. 61–62).
In contrast, similar gender policing and workplace harassment of lesbians and
gay men were not designed to force them to return and conform to their biological/
birth sex. Lesbian and gay male workers’ gender identities were consistent with
158 T. Brower

their original sex assignment. Nevertheless, colleagues of some LG workers used

incorrect gender markers and pronouns to diminish or ostracize LG persons (Daw-
son 2005; Rene 2002). That gender policing was more a comment on homosexu-
ality than on gender identity (Brower 2009). In that context, it stressed the
perceived cross-gender characteristics/identity of sexual orientation minorities
(Brower 2015). For example, in Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. (2002), coworkers
the referred to plaintiff, a gay man, by female pronouns and called him, “mu~neca”,
Spanish for doll (feminine)—a term which is used to refer to women. In Dawson
v. Bumble & Bumble (2005), Dawn Dawson, a lesbian, was called “Don” by fellow
employees. Despite the incorrect gender markers, there are no indications in either
case that coworkers were confused about the actual gender of their gay or lesbian
colleagues, Rene or Dawson.
For trans persons, who actually have a gender identity different from their
biological birth sex, the goal is to enforce biological sex over gender identity. In
a way, these workplace interactions are a schizophrenic conflation of trans, gender
nonconforming, and LG identities. Commentators have shown that judges,
employers and coworkers often use inaccurate social schemas to attribute cross-
gender identity to sexual orientation and vice versa, leading to mistreatment of
LGBT employees and erroneous legal decisions (Brower 2009). For lesbians and
gay men, whose gender identity is congruent with their biological sex at birth, the
goal is to insist that they in fact have a cross-gender identity opposite from their
birth sex. For trans or gender nonconforming workers who may in fact have a
gender identity at odds with their birth sex, they may be forced into complying with
stereotypical and rigid biologically-determined gender roles inconsistent with their
identity.
Indeed, it is this aspect of anti-LGBT discrimination—that it is based upon
notions that “real men/women” behave in ways that sexual orientation and gender
identity minorities do not—which forms part of the underpinnings of recent
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decisions that sexual
orientation and trans discrimination are both covered by Title VII of the federal
Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 2015 Baldwin decision found that sexual orientation
discrimination was based upon the enforcement of traditional gender norms.
Accordingly, the EEOC concluded that LGB discrimination is a form of sex
discrimination prohibited by Title VII (Baldwin 2015). A similar gender
stereotyping rationale was the foundation for an earlier EEOC decision that dis-
crimination against trans persons was also sex discrimination covered by Title VII
(Macy 2012). Thus, the intersection of sexual orientation, gender, and gender
identity can be seen in negative court decisions conflating these characteristics
(Brower 2009) and in recent legal doctrine protecting LGBT persons in
U.S. administrative agencies and tribunals.
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 159

3.3 Attempts to Avoid Discrimination

Faced with negative workplace actions, a significant number of trans people tried to
avoid mistreatment through inaccurate gender presentation or misleading gender
identity behaviors. Most study respondents “hid” (71 %) or “delayed” (57 %) their
gender transition. Moreover, nearly three-quarters of respondents believed they
were obligated daily to conceal their identity for job security. Nearly a third of
respondents stated they needed to present in the wrong gender to stay employed.
Since the survey did not ask if that mis-presentation was an employer requirement
or a self-imposed response to discrimination fears, further research is needed to
clarify that issue (Grant et al. 2011, p. 60).
Other responses to job treatment affected work or career progression. Forty-five
percent remained in jobs they desired to leave and nearly a third did not pursue
raises or promotions. Over two-fifths reported taking new employment to avoid
discrimination. Like their LGB colleagues (Brower 2015), earlier negative work-
place experiences affected future employee behavior. As expected, those trans or
gender nonconforming respondents who had previously lost work because of
workplace mistreatment took the most steps to avoid discrimination (Grant
et al. 2011).
Inaccurate presentation of gender identity corresponds to work experiences of
lesbians and gay men who may falsely present as heterosexual. That similarity
portends pessimistic outcomes for trans people in that setting. In reports of LGB
people in legal employment—and despite explicit workplace protections for sexual
orientation—every jurisdiction studied reported at least one respondent who passed
as heterosexual rather than face mistreatment as LGB (NJSC 2001; Brewer and
Gray 1999b; Brower 2003, 2005; Moran 2006). One employee stated:
I am not open about my lifestyle at my job for fear of retaliation and/or job loss. I have
appeared in many of the different county courthouses as a part of my State job. I have heard
and seen, countless times, gay/lesbian jokes, comments, disparaging looks, mocking
behavior, etc. I have seen many instances of discrimination towards gays and lesbians in
the New Jersey courts. [. . .] How surprised all the judges and lawyers I deal with on a
continuing basis would be if I was allowed to be open and honest about my life (NJSC 2001,
p. 49).

Like trans survey respondents, LGB study participants report hiding or mini-
mizing identity to avoid discrimination. Unsurprisingly, workplace studies also
found LGBT workers were less likely to reveal their sexuality when they suffered
or witnessed discrimination (Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Croteau 1996; Schneider
1986; Badgett 1996). Hiding had only marginal protective effects, however. At a
higher rate than the experiences of their open LGB colleagues but similar to that of
trans persons, these closeted LGB employees’ narratives express frustration and
fear about visible sexual identity and their inability to ameliorate their unequal
treatment or to have legal norms and protections address those issues (Brower
2015). Given the data on sexual orientation minorities, future studies on trans
persons should focus on the consequences of inaccurate self-presentation in the
160 T. Brower

workplace in order to see if trans researchers can replicate or build on the work
of the colleagues on LGB persons. Although gender identity and sexual orientation
are distinct, in this context it appears that the workplace dynamics operate
analogously.
Further complicating the prognosis for trans people who hide or delay their
gender identity, empirical studies demonstrate that even successful passing as
heterosexual may produce negative job-related, economic effects for LGB individ-
uals (Badgett 1995; Escoffier 1975; Mohr 1988). Passing may create greater
absenteeism or employment turnover (Ragins and Cornwell 2001) and the energies
expended to pass as heterosexual diminished productivity or increased stress
(Escoffier 1975; HCBA 1995).
Furthermore, the energy required to pass meant some lesbians and gay men
sidestepped potential social interactions at work where sexual minority identity
may be discovered (Badgett 1996). A gay attorney said:
I knew that I would lose work if any of the [bosses] found out that I was gay. I did not reveal
this fact to anyone except my closest friends at the firm. I was conscious of having to remain
somewhat distant to most people. I did not get close to people because in their natural
course of conversation most people talk about their spouses and families and I had resolved
never to lie by fabricating an opposite-sex spouse. . . I only spoke about work-related
matters, never joined any group of coworkers for a drink, and never went to any firm
events except those that were absolutely obligatory, and then I left as soon as possible
(HCBA 1995, p. 37).

Related to passing is the phenomenon of covering, being nominally open as

LGBT but minimizing the differences between minority and majority sexuality
(Yoshino 2006; Carbado and Gulati 2000; Goffman 1963). Open, but covering,
LGB employees may not respond to negative comments affecting them (Brower
2005) or may not publicly attend workplace social events with a same-sex partner
(LACBA 1994). By underplaying their sexuality, they try to increase the comfort
level of their coworkers by allowing others to ignore identity difference (McNish
2006; Kaplan 2006). This phenomenon also occurs in trans and gender
nonconforming communities (Rouner 2014).
The earlier data on hiding or delaying gender transition demonstrate that, like
passing as heterosexual, downplaying LGBT sexuality is not cost-free (Badgett
2001). Avoiding social interactions that might highlight differences between sexual
minority and heterosexual employees may mean that others perceive those LGBT
coworkers as standoffish or abnormal.
[At social events] gay and lesbian attorneys are most likely to feel and be perceived as
‘different’—usually attending events without a date/spouse, making it more difficult to
enjoy the event and participate fully. As a result, they are often perceived by other attorneys
as antisocial or mysterious . . . not fitting in (LACBA 1994, p. 33).

One employer noted that when LGBT employees concealed their sexual orien-
tation it was nearly impossible for them to partake in workplace culture as peers;
minimizing genuine personal interactions interposed barriers between LGBT
workers and their colleagues. Over time, those workers may be driven from their
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 161

jobs, with the consequence that both the employees and the employer lost oppor-
tunities (HCBA 1995).
Estrangement from work colleagues and diminished participation in workplace
life are particularly significant because engaging in social interactions in parity with
heterosexual colleagues is one employment practice that Ragins and Cornwell
(2001) found had the strongest inverse relationship to perceived discrimination.
Although disclosure was higher when the jurisdiction had gay-protective legislation
and gay-supportive policies at work, neither was as significant as inclusive social
interactions.
Similarly, not participating equally in these events may mean that LGBT
employees fail to develop allies or mentors important for advancement (Ragins
and Cornwell 2001; Kantor 1977). In corporations, the lack of mentoring and
placement of women where they lacked contacts and experience led to fewer
promotions and the glass ceiling (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995).
Frank (2004) found a parallel phenomenon with LGBT workers.
One noticeable data point missing from studies on trans persons’ workplace
experiences concerns reporting negative treatment or efforts to ameliorate that
mistreatment. Without appropriate reporting or other attempts to remedy discrim-
ination, it is hard to imagine positive change at an offending jobsite. This pessimism
is particularly acute because data on LGB people at work often demonstrate a lack
of improvement even after attempts to end the discrimination. Some sexual minor-
ity employees did not report anti-gay incidents because they were afraid of being
perceived by coworkers as LGBT (NJSC 2001). This fear was given as the reason
that over 7 % of California court employees (Brewer and Gray 1999a) and more
than 9 % of UK court employees (Brower 2003) who were treated negatively at
work did not report it. Some bisexual employees did not complain about mistreat-
ment for fear of being perceived as rocking the boat or as troublemakers (Tweedy
and Yescavage 2015), an apprehension echoed by lesbians and gay men. “[N]
egative comments/jokes about gay/transsexual people in particular are common at
work and you are a troublemaker if you don’t keep your head down or join in with
the ‘joke’—or you are very ‘p.c’—and as a result not ‘one of the group’” (Brower
2005, pp. 554–555). Other LG employees felt invisible or shunned by colleagues
after reporting mistreatment of gay people (Brewer and Gray 1999a). One
employee noted that after reporting anti-lesbian harassment to management, the
employee “became even more of a pariah. . .[and eventually] resigned under the
pressure and strain of the ordeal” (NJSC 2001, p. 54). Another detailed how he or
she either kept quiet or even participated in anti-gay comments so as to deflect
suspicion that he or she was not heterosexual (NJSC 2001). These data are unfor-
tunate omens for correcting trans persons negative work experiences. Future study
will need to confirm or disconfirm whether trans people have similar fears and
consequences of forced identity disclosure, ostracism, or other negative workplace
actions.
162 T. Brower

3.4 Experiences Post-transition

Along with increased discrimination risks, researchers on LGB persons have found
that disclosure to associates or family may generate a positive effect on lesbians’
and gay men’s identity creation and on intimate and social bonds (Savin-Williams
1989; Meyer 2003; Eliason 1996). Studies on LGB people have correlated visibility
with positive social and economic outcomes and workplace perceptions. Griffith
and Hebl (2002) linked openness with lower job anxiety. Open LG workers were
more satisfied with that degree of visibility than were more closeted employees
(Croteau 1996). Day and Schoenrade (2000) found that open LGBT employees had
greater commitment to their workplaces, higher job satisfaction, and lower conflict
between home and work.
Similarly, this chapter inquires whether openness about transgender status or
gender nonconformity had affirmative or protective effects. One might expect that
respondents who were living full-time with their appropriate gender identity had
improved employment experiences. Unfortunately, the data and conclusions are
mixed. Nearly four-fifths of trans men and women reported feeling more relaxed
and noted improved job performance. One said:
When I started my transition, the place that I was working was very supportive. My boss
had a family member who is transgender. I was treated with respect by everyone. I had
worked there for many years and everyone assumed that I was gay until then and they knew
my partner. I guess they just figured I would still be me. Except for growing facial hair and
going bald, I am the same, only better and more free (Grant et al. 2011, p. 64).

Nevertheless, even those respondents who reported their own improved work
performance continued to experience rates of workplace mistreatment similar to
other, more closeted transgender and gender nonconforming employees. For exam-
ple according to Grant et al. (2011, p. 64), 51 % of those reporting their job
performance increased after transitioning also reported workplace harassment,
while the harassment rate for the total survey sample was 50 %—a statistically
insignificant difference. This disjunction between individuals’ own increased work-
place well-being and reduced stress, and their continued mistreatment by others has
also been reported in employment studies of sexual orientation minorities (Brower
2015; Croteau 1996). Indeed one study noted that disclosure of LGB identity
sometimes just meant that coworkers simply avoided making negative comments,
etc. around that individual. The negative behaviors were simply driven under-
ground without changing either the workplace culture or life for other minority
workers (Brower 2003).
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 163

4 Conclusion

Like their LGB colleagues, transgender and gender nonconforming people face
significant harassment and mistreatment at work. Also like their LGB counterparts,
visibility of identity and the process of disclosure carries with it significant risks and
some benefits. Once employed, most respondents who transitioned recounted
increased workplace comfort and improved job performance. However, many
respondents could not obtain that advantage because they deferred their gender
transition or presented in the wrong gender in order to evade mistreatment. This
dilemma of increased openness and attendant mistreatment or bias-avoidant behav-
ior and forced invisibility is also present in other hidden identity situations, like
sexual orientation, religion, and sometimes disability (Bond et al. 2009; Bouton
2013; Ragins 2008). The centrality of identity and the impact of visibility sharpen
the consequences of those choices for trans and gender nonconforming people.
Many of the workplace recommendations of the trans study by Grant
et al. (2011) suggest that what is needed is more and better federal, state, local
and workplace nondiscrimination protections and policies to protect trans and
gender nonconforming people. Naturally, increased legal and employer nondiscri-
mination protections are important. However, if studies on LGB workplace expe-
riences provide guidance, persistent mistreatment of trans persons may survive
formal workplace policies, legal regimes and even supervisorial commitment to
ending discrimination (Brower 2015). Nevertheless, data indicate acceptance at
work of sexual minority identity is a significant factor in workplace equality.
Further, data on the societal change in attitudes towards LGBT people and their
civil rights often correlate with increased openness and the ability of others to know
or have a personal relationship with sexual and gender minorities (Herek and
Capitanio 1996; Skipworth et al. 2010). Accordingly like their sexual orientation
minority peers, transition and correct gender expression in the workplace are not
only central to trans individuals’ own well-being, but may also contribute to
improved workplace environments and productivity for themselves and others,
and potential positive societal and cultural shifts.

References

Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726–738.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1996). Employment and sexual orientation: Disclosure and discrimination in
the workplace. In A. L. Ellis & E. D. B. Riggle (Eds.), Sexual identity on the job: Issues and
services (pp. 29–52). Philadelphia: Hayworth Press.
Badgett, M. V. L. (2001). Money, myths and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baldwin v. Foxx (Secretary, Department of Transportation). (2015, July 15). 2015 WL 4397641
(EEOC).
164 T. Brower

Biewen, J., & Siegel, R. (1997, October 21). Gay teacher files first amendment lawsuit in Utah. All
Things Considered (NPR).
Blumenfeld, W. J., & Raymond, D. (1993). Looking at gay and lesbian life. Boston: Beacon.
Bond, S., Hollywood, E., & Colgan, F. (2009). Integration in the workplace: Emerging employ-
ment practice on age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. Manchester: Equality and
Human Rights Commission.
Bouton, K. (2013, September 21). Quandary of hidden disabilities: Conceal or reveal? New York
Times, Business Day. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/
business/quandary-of-hidden-disabilities-conceal-or-reveal.html?_r¼0
Boylan, J. F. (2014, August 15). Trans community can change minds by changing discourse. Los
Angeles Times. Accessed January 1, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-
adv-boylan-transgender-language-20140817-story.html
Brewer, D. J., & Gray, M. J. (1999a). Report on sexual orientation fairness in California Courts.
Brewer, D. J., & Gray, M. J. (1999b). Survey data, preliminary report Draft 3/31/99. Reported in
4/9/99 materials of the Subcommittee on Sexual Orientation Fairness. p 21.
Brower, T. (1997). “A stranger to its laws:” Homosexuality, schemas, and the lessons and limits of
reasoning by analogy. Santa Clara Law Review, 38, 65–152.
Brower, T. (2003). Report on the survey of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, rainbow network:
Sexual orientation fairness in the courts of England and Wales. UK: The Lord Chancellor’s
Department.
Brower, T. (2005). Report on the 2005 survey of the Department for Constitutional Affairs,
Rainbow Network: Sexual orientation fairness in the courts of England and Wales. UK: The
Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Brower, T. (2009). Social cognition “at work”: Schema theory and lesbian and gay identity in title
VII. Journal of Law and Sexuality, 18, 1–77.
Brower, T. (2011). Twelve angry—And sometimes alienated—Men: The experiences and treat-
ment of lesbians and gay men during jury service. Drake Law Review, 59, 669–706.
Brower, T. (2015). Courts as workplaces for sexual orientation minorities. In F. Colgan &
N. Rumens (Eds.), Sexual orientation at work (pp. 58–72). London: Routledge.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2013). American time use study. Accessed
July 25, 2015, from http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/
California Judicial Council—Access and Fairness Committee. (2001). Sexual orientation fairness
in the California courts. San Francisco: Administrative Office of the Courts.
Carbado, D. W., & Gulati, M. (2000). Working identity. Cornell Law Review, 85, 1259–1308.
Chamberlain, B. (2012). Stonewall workplace guides: Bisexual people in the work-place: Prac-
tical advice for employers. STONEWALL, pp 2–3. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.
stonewall.org.uk/documents/bisexual_people.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/E3KA-ZUTP
Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people: An
integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 195–209.
Cullen, D. (2000, June 7). A heartbreaking decision. Salon.com. Accessed January 1, 2015, from
http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/feature/2000/06/07/relationships/print.html
Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual
orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay
and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346–363.
Debate over grade school teacher divulging he’s gay. (2000, June 11). S.F. Examiner, A-3
Eliason, M. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 30(3), 31–58.
Escoffier, J. (1975). Stigmas, work environment, and economic discrimination against homosex-
uals. Homosexual Counseling Journal, 2, 8–17.
Eskridge, W., Jr. (1997). A jurisprudence of ‘coming out’: Religion, homosexuality, and collisions
of liberty and equality in American Public Law. Yale Law Journal, 106, 2411–2443.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Report. Washington, DC: Federal Glass Ceiling
Commisssion.
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences of Trans Persons in the United States 165

Frank, J. (2004). Gay glass ceilings (Discussion Papers Series 2004–20). London: Royal
Holloway, University of London.
Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1996). Straight jobs, gay lives: Gay and lesbian professionals, the
Harvard Business School, and the American workplace. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.
Gallup. (2015). Gay and lesbian rights gallup historical trends. Accessed July 25, 2015, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliff, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at
every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Green, T. K. (2003). Discrimination in workplace dynamics: Toward a structured account of
disparate treatment theory. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38, 91–157.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: ‘Coming
out’ at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Halley, J. E. (1989). The politics of the closet: Towards equal protection for gay, lesbian, and
bisexual identity. University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 36, 915–976.
Harris, A., & Bartlow, S. (2015). Intersectionality: Race, gender, sexuality and class. In
J. DeLameter & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities. Handbooks of
sociology and social research (pp. 261–271). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Hennepin County Bar Association Lesbian and Gay Issues Subcommittee. (1995). Legal
employers’ barriers to advancement and to economic equality based on sexual orientation.
Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County Bar Association.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, conceal-
able stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.
Ho, J. (2006, August 8). Attracting gay MBAs. BusinessWeek Online. Accessed January 8, 2015,
from http://archive.is/YqjTs
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization
studies. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3), 248–277.
Hutchinson, D. L. (1997). Out yet unseen: A racial critique of gay and lesbian legal theory and
political discourse. Connecticut Law Review, 29, 561–645.
John Paul II. (1981, September 14). Laborem exercens (on human work). Encyclical Letter.
Accessed January 8, 2015, from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/
documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html
Kantor, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kaplan, E. A. (2006, July 12). The roots of racial pride. Los Angeles Times, Part B, p 13.
Karst, K. L. (1995). Myths of identity: Individual and group portraits of race and sexual orienta-
tion. University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 43, 263–287.
Kuper, L., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual
orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. The Journal of Sex
Research, 49(2–3), 244–254.
Lambda Legal. (2015). Know your rights. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.lambdalegal.
org/know-your-rights/workplace/laws-that-protect-you
Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Sexual Orientation Bias. (1994). Report. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Lowe, K. (2015, April 24). Bruce Jenner to anyone who thinks otherwise: ‘This is not a publicity
stunt’. Deadline Hollywood. Accessed 25 July 25, 2015, from http://deadline.com/2015/04/
bruce-jenner-to-anyone-who-thinks-otherwise-this-is-not-a-publicity-stunt-1201416238/
Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, (2012, April 20). 2012 Westlaw 1435995.
McNish, J. (2006, June 14). Can lawyers be too gay? Globe and Mail (Toronto). Accessed January
8, 2015, from http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060614.wxlawcolumn14/
GIStory/
166 T. Brower

Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674–697.
Mohr, R. (1988). Gays/justice: A study of ethics, society and law. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Moore, D. W. (1993). Public polarized on gay issue. Gallup Poll Monthly, 331, 31–34.
Moran, L. J. (2006). Judicial diversity and the challenge of sexuality: Some preliminary findings.
Sydney Law Review, 28, 565–598.
NALP. (2013, January). LGBT representation up in 2012. NALP Bulletin. Accessed July 25, 2015,
from http://www.nalp.org/lgbt_representation_up_in_2012
New Jersey Supreme Court. (2001). Final report of the task force on sexual orientation issues.
Trenton: New Jersey Supreme Court.
Pew Research Center. (2015, June 8). Support for same-sex marriage at record high, but key
segments remain opposed. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/files/
2015/06/6-8-15-Same-sex-marriage-release1.pdf
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing
invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194–215.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of
perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.
Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do race and
gender matter? Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 45–74.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118.
Rene v, MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc).
Rich, A. (1983). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell, &
S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (pp. 177–205). New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Rouner, J. (2014, August 27). Bathroom battles: Scaremongering abounds about transgender
bathroom usage. Houston Press, Blogs. Accessed January 8, 2015, from http://blogs.
houstonpress.com/news/2014/08/bathroom_battles_scaremongering_abounds_about_transgen
der_public_restroom_choice.php?page¼3
Savin-Williams, R. (1989). Coming out to parents and self-esteem among gay and lesbian youths.
Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1–2), 1–35.
Schacter, J. S. (1997). Romer v. Evans and democracy’s domain. Vanderbilt Law Review, 50,
361–371.
Schneider, B. E. (1986). Coming out at work: Bridging the private/public gap. Work and Occu-
pations, 13(4), 463–487.
Skipworth, S. A., Garner, A., & Dettrey, B. J. (2010). Limitations of the contact hypothesis:
Heterogeneity in the contact effect on attitudes toward gay rights. Politics and Policy, 38,
887–906.
Tweedy, A. E., & Yescavage, K. (2015). Employment discrimination against bisexuals: An
empirical study. William and Mary Journal of Women and Law, 21(3), 699–741.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23.
Weeks, J. (1998). The sexual citizen. Theory, Culture and Society, 15(35), 1–19.
Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in
America. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York, NY: Random
House.
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic
Countries: An Overview of Workplace
Diversity and Inclusion Issues in Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Malaysia

Abdullah Al Mamun, Mariano L.M. Heyden, and Qaiser Rafique Yasser

1 Introduction

Workplaces are an essential part of helping individuals realize their sense of self
and social belonging (Vries 2012). In a world where dichotomized gender roles are
already askew, transgender individuals face particular challenges that have been
hitherto underemphasized in the diversity literature. A transgender person is some-
one who has a gender identity, physiology, and/or enacts behaviors not traditionally
associated with dichotomously categorized birth sex in a particular social context
(Kenagy 2005). Although some countries have made preliminary legislative pro-
gress in relaxing binary gender categories (e.g., Germany, US, India), in others,
especially those where legislation is often defined along religious lines (e.g., Asian
Islamic countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan), it can still be illegal to be
transgender (Cáceres et al. 2006).
Transgender individuals challenge socially accepted sex classifications (i.e.,
male versus female) and their associated gender-specific roles (Harrison and
Lynch 2005). As a result they are often stigmatized, bullied, and sometimes even
persecuted (Stotzer 2009). Transgender individuals, therefore, often face serious
repercussion by revealing a gender identity that does not conform to expected
gender categories prescribed by a particular context (Looy and Bouma 2005).
Research shows that individuals who are unable to express their gender identity
often face issues such as stress, depression, and health problems that could impair
their performance and satisfaction in the workplace (Neal and Davies 2000). This
poses challenges for organizations, both in extracting the value from a diverse

A.A. Mamun • M.L.M. Heyden (*)

The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
Q.R. Yasser
University Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 167

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_10
168 A.A. Mamun et al.

workforce, as well as providing a space for nurturing individuals’ psychological

safety needs and sense of belonging (Parkes et al. 2007).
In this chapter, we provide a preliminary account of transgender issues and how
they manifest themselves in the context of Asian Islamic countries. We focus
particularly on the contexts found in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia. These
three countries are some of the fastest-growing emerging economies in South and
Southeast Asia (Moyeen and West 2014). Since diversity and inclusion policies
have been shown to be important for fueling economic growth (Roland and Kahrl
2011), understanding and appropriately dealing with transgender issues are impor-
tant from an organizational policy and management perspective. Unfortunately, the
specific challenges facing transgender individuals in these contexts have barely
been addressed in policy discussions; in which religious laws still define socially
legitimate gender roles (Abdullah et al. 2012; Khan et al. 2009; Owoyemi and Sabri
2013; Peletz 2002; Sabri et al. 2014).
In the following sections, we first clarify the importance of gender identity in the
workforce then discuss the general challenges faced by transgender individuals in
organizations. Our discussion then focuses on the Asian Islamic view and the
specific challenges faced by transgender individuals in Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Malaysia. We conclude the chapter with a suggested future research agenda.

2 Importance of Gender Identity in the Workplace

Identifying with a pre-defined sex category is often a standard prerequisite for

employment—even if for no other reason than administrative purposes. Thus,
transgender individuals are often forced to choose between male or female as an
operational basis of gender role expectations. In addition, many jobs tend to be
associated, explicitly or implicitly, with specific genders (Gorman 2005) and some
job openings (especially low-skilled ones) often specify the sex of the applicant
being recruited (Bonoli and Hinrichs 2012). For instance, clerical staff are often
female (Gurney 1985), whereas construction workers are often male (Fielden
et al. 2000). Thus, to be part of the workplace, transgender individuals have to
nominate a “box” which does not necessarily capture their true gender identity. This
is further complicated by the fact that, although some transgender individuals
identify with a binary sex category, others do not. Such forced gender nominations
have significant implications for the ability of transgender individuals to feel part
of, and be a productive contributor to, the workplace.
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of Workplace. . . 169

3 Implications of Revealing Transgender Identity

in the Workplace

Over the past few decades, the term “coming out” has been commonly used by
those studying gender and sexuality issues (Zimman 2009). The term identifies the
process an individual goes through when deciding to exhibit himself/herself as a
different sex than the one that people have traditionally associated with him/her—in
other words, when the individual reveals his/her true and/or desired gender identity
(Gagné et al. 1997). Empirical evidence (Gagné et al. 1997) describes coming out as
a complex and difficult process. Most research has been primarily focused on the
coming out experiences of lesbians and gay men (Zimman 2009), but there is now
also an emerging literature concerned with the issues of coming out for transgender
individuals.
The transgender literature documents an increased risk of stress, frustration,
crime, lack of self-control, and even suicide among transgender individuals who
choose to come out (Gagné et al. 1997). Gender role incongruity creates social
uncertainty (Himsel and Goldberg 2003) because it violates accepted social gender
categories (Schilt and Westbrook 2009). The resulting ostracization affects the
ability of transgender individuals to perform at their utmost potential because
interdependent others may be reluctant to work with them for fear of negative
social contagion (Wiesenfeld et al. 2008). In addition, transgender individuals are
less likely to be recipients of organizational rewards and face reduced career
opportunities (Elk and Boehmer 2015). In extreme cases this may include abusive
supervision, bullying, and even dismissal (Hall 2009). Because of the anticipatory
injustice associated with “coming out” (Shapiro and Kirkman 1999; Zimman 2009),
transgender individuals face the difficult choice between disclosing their transgen-
der identity for intrapersonal harmony versus the interpersonal backlash from
doing so.
Psychological research finds that acts that require willful attempts to deny and
conceal one’s “true” or desired “self” consume psychological resources (Inzlicht
and Gutsell 2007). When psychological resources are depleted beyond a critical
point, individuals experience increased stress, frustration, and loss of self-control,
which can lead to an inability to perform organizational tasks effectively (Hall
et al. 2013; Meyer 1995; Wiesenfeld et al. 2008). Thus, transgender individuals
tend to face higher levels of stress; at times two to three times more than cisgenders
(Case and Ramachandran 2012). In extreme cases, their stress leads to burnout,
substance abuse, criminal acts, or even suicide (Huebner et al. 2004; Kelleher 2009;
Rothe 2011). Yet, many transgender individuals engage in self-denial as a psycho-
logical coping mechanism and conceal their preferred transgender identity in
organizations because of the fear of stigmatization, discrimination, and prejudice.
They act out gender roles that do not necessarily reflect their true gender identity in
their interactions with others or in performing their daily organizational tasks, thus
leaving themselves open to the psychological stresses associated with denial of
their true selves.
170 A.A. Mamun et al.

In spite of the known problems associated with forcing gender stereotyping and
the advantages of diversity in the workplace, our understanding of how policy
makers and managers deal with diversity and the inclusion of transgender individ-
uals in the workforce is slight. The discussion in this chapter is, therefore, timely.

4 Global Developments in the Acknowledgement

of Transgender Identity

Some countries in the West, such as Germany, the UK, and the US, have begun to
acknowledge transgender people as a minority group with specific needs. This is
important for the wellbeing of transgender individuals and their performance in
organizations (Poteat et al. 2013). As one survey reports, transgender individuals
have limited (and, in the majority of cases, no) access to employment (Poteat
et al. 2013).
As a result of the high levels of prejudice and discrimination, steps to include
issues faced by transgender individuals have become part of a broader human rights
framework. For instance, Amnesty International suggests that everyone, regardless
of sexual orientation or gender identity, should be given equal human rights
(O’Flaherty and Fisher 2008). Consistent with this, some countries such as Ger-
many, Ireland, and Australia (Van den Brink et al. 2015), have started to take
commendable strides, with progressive gender recognition acts (Agius 2013). In
these countries, transgender individuals have a legal framework that acknowledges
non-binary (physiological) transgender identity, which can form the basis of sup-
port for the expression of their desired gender identity.
Advances in other parts of the world have been much slower, though there are
some notable exceptions. For instance, according to the Japanese Ministry of
Health, Labor and Welfare, in 2000 and 2001 the Women and Family Development
Ministry announced its intention to look into the needs of the transsexual commu-
nity, and to provide as much assistance as they could (Terri Chih-Yin 2008). India
has also made strides and has acknowledged a “third sex/gender”, granting such
people the right to vote since 2009 and putting quotas in place for employment in
government jobs and educational institutions (Khaleeli 2014; Lerum 2009).
However, inclusion of transgender individuals in the workforce remains a thorny
issue in many Asian countries, where religious norms often serve as concrete scripts
of gender roles. Asian Islamic countries, in particular, have barely explored the
issue (Abdullah et al. 2012; Khan et al. 2009; Owoyemi and Sabri 2013; Sabri
et al. 2014). In Asian Islamic contexts, in fact, daily affairs must be conducted in
accordance with Quranic verses and Hadith. The Quran and the Hadith dictate
tradition, culture, and norms. Norms of behavior towards gender that are based in
religious doctrine and teaching are particularly prominent in countries such as
Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia (Anzar 2003). Herein lies an opportunity to
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of Workplace. . . 171

highlight key issues and challenges for transgender individuals in organizations in

Asian Islamic contexts and allied policy opportunities.

5 The Asian Islamic View Towards Transgender

Individuals

Asian Islamic countries are often governed by theocratic legislation (O’Halloran

2015). “Conservative” interpretations of Islam often claim that transgender indi-
viduals are sinners who do not have the right to practice Islam (Ishak and Haneef
2014). Transgender individuals are, therefore, often deprived of religious “inner-
peace”, which often forms an important dimension of social, family, and legal
identity in Asian Islamic contexts. In practice, this further translates into transgen-
der individuals being denied education, housing, and employment, for example in
Bangladesh. As a result transgender individuals often end up homeless and need to
resort begging and/or crime (Rumbach and Knight 2014).
In the following sections we draw on examples of how policy recommendations
are being implemented in three contexts and we identify opportunities for
improvement.

5.1 Pakistan

According to Country Reports, 2010, Hijra is a name given to “transvestites,

eunuchs, and hermaphrodites” in section 8, sub-section 6 of the Pakistan Penal
Code. Regulators and academics depict this group as eunuchs, transvestites, inter-
sex, emasculated, impotent, transgender, and/or sexually dysfunctional. Some
scholars have attempted to categorize transgender individuals as belonging to a
distinct third gender (Lal 1999). Others, like Nanda (1986) however, posit that it is
hard to understand or describe the gender category of Hijras. A BBC report
estimates that 300,000 Hijras live in Pakistan (BBC, 23 December 2009). A
human rights group in Pakistan, in turn, estimates that approximately 400,000
men “live as women” in the country (Sayah 2010). Hijras do not have the same
privileges and/or rights as those who are identified as exclusively male or female.
Hijras are often harassed, face prejudice, are discriminated against and, in the
majority of cases, are subjected to violence simply because of their gender identity
(Lal 1999). The Country Reports, 2010 claims that schooling, hospital admission,
ability to rent or buy property, and even inheritance are often denied to Hijras. Thus,
there is no “equal access” for transgender individuals in Pakistan to education and
labor opportunities. When attempting to enroll in schools, transgender individuals
experience numerous obstacles, such as forming bonds with peers (Cserni and
Talmud 2015).
172 A.A. Mamun et al.

Given the importance of religious participation in Pakistan, the ability to engage

in (collective) worship is important and significant for the social wellbeing of
individuals (Tabassum and Jamil 2014). However, transgender individuals are
often denied access to mosques. Even during the two most important religious
celebrations of the year, Eid-ul-Adha and Eid-ul-Fitr, in the country, transgender
individuals confine themselves to their homes instead of joining the celebrations.
A survey conducted on Pakistani Hijras found that, although providing for and
protecting a child is the responsibility of the child’s family in the Pakistani culture,
this provision is barely complied with for transgender children (Tabassum and
Jamil 2014). Instead, families often turn their back on transgender children and
some parents are even relieved when their transgender offspring leave home
(Abdullah et al. 2012). Due to discrimination and lack of acceptance by even
their closest relatives, transgender individuals in Pakistan seek acceptance and
emotional shelter with other individuals facing similar social hardships (Tabassum
and Jamil 2014). Older transgender individuals may teach younger ones who join
them how to dance at various celebrations (such as marriage ceremony, births, and
carnivals) to gain some form of income.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered, in 2009, that Hijras must be allowed to
identify themselves as a distinct gender in order to ensure their rights in the society
(Abdullah et al. 2012; Tabassum and Jamil 2014). However, this order has yet to be
implemented and acknowledged (Abbas et al. 2014). This is because religious law
is more highly regarded than is state law. Pakistan still has no effective initiatives in
place for transgender individuals’ identity, social, and labor rights (Abdullah
et al. 2012; Nanda 1986).

5.2 Bangladesh

Bangladeshi state legislation is also grounded in Islam, with the Muslim population
comprising over 90 % of the total population (Karim 2004). Given the strong
religious culture, there is little room for gender identities other than male–female
classifications, and transgender individuals are not readily embraced in mainstream
society (Khan et al. 2009). Transgender individuals are even denied a legal identity
(Stenqvist 2015). The International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research
Bangladesh (ICDDRB) conducted an ethnographic study on Hijras, aiming to
comprehend the challenges they face. The study concluded that transgender indi-
viduals in Bangladesh are excluded from every aspect of society—including not
having the right to vote (ICDDRB 2008). The findings highlighted limited access to
employment opportunities, struggle to gain daily commodities, and hurdles to
livelihood opportunities in terms of social entertainment, housing, income, land,
and working conditions.
Transgender individuals in Bangladesh also have no access to education, health,
or legal services. Like the circumstances of transgender individuals in Pakistan,
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of Workplace. . . 173

those in Bangladesh often find they are marginalized and can only find acceptance
among other transgender individuals (Khan et al. 2009).
Transgender individuals often face neglect, physical abuse, and there are even
documented cases of transgender individuals being chained and kept confined by
their own family members (Khan et al. 2009). Such physical and mental tortures
eventually force them to flee from home and find shelter in other places. One
individual explained the following situation:
When my father died I did not go to bury him. If I had gone there, the relatives and others
would not take part in the burial.
(Khan et al. 2009, p. 445).

The challenges in the workplace mirror the hardships faced in society. For
instance, transgender individuals are often fired once it is revealed that they are
transgender. One particular challenge identified is that of sexual abuse in the
workplace. For instance, one transgender individual said:
I have worked in a garment factory for about a year. I could not even go to the toilet, as I
was scared that the boys would go there to see me. They always tried to have sex with
me. When there was a night shift, the threat was higher. Once my supervisor forced me to
have sex with him, and I had no choice but to do it. But when it became public, I was
dismissed from my job, as if it was my fault.
(Khan et al. 2009, p. 445)

Due to such adverse experiences in the workplace, transgender individuals earn

a living mainly as prostitutes and/or by dancing at marriage ceremonies, celebra-
tions of newly born babies, and/or extortion in local markets (Khan et al. 2009).
Voice Bangladesh1 conducted a survey on 600 transgender individuals in the
country. The study reported that 54.3 % of transgender individuals in Bangladesh
live with the fear of their gender identity being revealed in the society. The study
also revealed that the majority of participants in the survey admitted that they would
marry the opposite sex (opposite to their socially recognized sex, e.g., if someone is
identified as male in the society, they would marry a female) because of social
opposition, religious value judgments, and family pressure. In addition, the research
also reported that 56.9 % of survey participants would not change their gender
identity even after marriage. To help address some of these issues, some non-profit-
organizations, such as Badhan Hijra Sangha and Shustha Jibon, have recently been
formed, with the aim of assisting transgender people in terms of health issues and
vocational education (ICDDRB 2008).

1
Voice Bangladesh is a Bangladesh-based activist, rights based research and advocacy organiza-
tion working on issues of corporate globalization.
174 A.A. Mamun et al.

5.3 Malaysia

Activists have estimated that there are around 100,000 transgender individuals in
Malaysia (Ng, 19 July 2011). The number of transgender individuals in the capital
city, Kuala Lumpur, alone is estimated to be 50,000. This estimate translates into
more than one out of every 200 individuals being transgender in Malaysia (Lynn
2005). In Malaysia, the term ‘transgender’ generally refers to those individuals who
act inconsistently with their physiological sex (e.g., if a male acts as female) (Teh
2001). The number of female-to-male transgender individuals is smaller than those
who are male-to-female transgender (Khairuddin et al. 1987). An apparently
increasing number of overt transgender individuals in Malaysia has caught the
attention of authorities (Sabri et al. 2014).
A study performed recently, which involved 77 transgender individuals,
revealed that, in Malaysia, transgender individuals are severely neglected and
discriminated against both at home and in the workplace (Low 2009). Transgender
individuals’ sexual orientation and identity are widely misunderstood, with claims
that such orientations are aberrant and immoral (Owoyemi and Sabri 2013). With
minimal levels of acceptance from family members, the majority of transgender
individuals are frequently asked to prepare for marriage along with being sent for
medical treatment (Teh 2001). Transgender individuals also experience physical
abuse and violence—even from authorities—in most places, from educational
institutions to local restaurants at which they may be working (Sahri et al. 2014).
In addition, conservative religious proponents have claimed that the prevalence of
transgender individuals is nothing but the ideological influence of Western thinking
and lifestyles (Low 2009).
Some, admittedly controversial, studies concerned with Malaysian samples of
transgender individuals emphasize the need to treat transgender issues as a (social-)
psychological disorder. For example, Sabri et al. (2014) claim that there are
environmental and intrinsic factors which influence the transgender issue and
cause transgenderism in society. Intrinsic factors include lack of conquering inbuilt
desire, sexual emotion, infant sexual experience, and individual characteristics.
Environmental factors include associating with the “wrong crowd”, lack of mutual
consideration, and distance from religious practices (Owoyemi and Sabri 2013). All
these factors, it is claimed can be “cured” through counseling, faith, honesty, trust,
advice, enlightenment, and monitoring.
While Malaysian scholars debate whether transgenderism is natural or ideolog-
ical, the government of Malaysia has been reluctant to give transgenderism social
and legal recognition. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Abdul Razak, warns
against the encroachment on freedom and heterogeneity in favor of transgenderism
in Malaysia and hints at the government’s position to fight against the “scourge”
(Malaysiakini 2012). The Prime Minister also strongly opposed transgender iden-
tity and rights inclusion in the ASEAN2 declaration of human rights (Zulfakar

2
Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of Workplace. . . 175

2012). He pointed out that Malaysia rejects transgenderism because of moral values
and norms, but, he argues, this does not necessarily mean that the country has a
weak human rights standard.
In contrast to the situation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Malaysia at least pro-
vides some means for transgender individuals to earn an income. However, in the
majority of the cases, transgender individuals are strongly silenced at the organi-
zational level, they have little job security and fewer opportunities to achieve
promotions.

6 Discussion and Future Research Agenda

Our overview shows that Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia tend to marginalize
the transgender community within their societies, and that they do so for many
reasons, particularly because of religious beliefs. We believe this topic is important
and needs to be addressed, both for the better functioning of organizations, and for
the sense of identity of individuals within those organizations. Debates in the
diversity management literature revolve prominently around “male versus female”
issues in the quest for equity in organizations (Faulkner 2000). Transgender indi-
viduals represent “shades of gray” in gender identity that are still poorly under-
stood. Because the needs of transgender individuals remain largely unaddressed,
such individuals are left with no appropriate channels through which to address
issues impacting upon them, leaving them marginalized, underrepresented, and
misunderstood. The anecdotal evidence on transgender individuals in institutions
seems to contradict the notion that organizations increasingly embrace different
forms of diversity (Lopuch and Davis 2014). This is despite best-practice recom-
mendations that encourage organizations to enable individuals to express their
gender identity freely (Riccò and Guerci 2014) because doing so enriches the
organization’s human capital and, ultimately, work performance (Murrell
et al. 2008). In line with such recommendations, we propose that managers in
Asian Islamic countries should de-emphasize the sex/gender criteria when
recruiting, as well as in day-to-day operations.
The transgender conversation is, though controversial, attracting the attention of
academic scholars, media, politicians, and corporations. Many commentators and
scholars argue the case for comprehensive empirical and theoretically-informed
research in Asian countries. The negative attitudes of the general public and
religious proscription highlight the urgency of this line of research. We suggest
future research should be conducted from three different dimensions: (a) multi-
theory assumptions on the transgender issue; (b) multi-level empirical analysis, in
order to examine the effect of social views towards transgender individuals; and
(c) social and organizational performance of transgender identity in relation to
coming out and not coming out.
176 A.A. Mamun et al.

6.1 Multi-theory Assumptions

Despite the dearth of research on transgender issues in the context of Asian nations,
most empirical and conceptual writing on Western economies is developed on a
single theory assumption. Many scholars have been drawn on stigma theory to
examine the transgender issue (Inzlicht and Gutsell 2007; Inzlicht et al. 2006).
However, we suggest further research should include social identity theory and
apply multi-theoretical perspectives to examine whether Westernized theory is
consistent and applicable to a similar extent in the Asian Islamic context. Multi-
theory approaches may help identify the theoretical distinctions between Western
and Asian contexts.

6.2 Multi-level Analysis

The majority of empirical studies on transgender issues mostly build upon single
loop statistical analysis (Kelleher 2009), in which scholars only examine the
implications of negative attitudes from certain cisgender populations towards
transgender persons. However, since transgender individuals are part of a society
where organizations play a significant role in changing the environment, we suggest
conducting a multi-level analysis in order to examine the effects of multilevel
variables. For example organizations, educational institutions (both conventional
and religious) and political leaders (especially government policy makers) are
nested in society; each may have different views towards transgender issues.
Therefore, the different views of all these nested variables could be examined by
using a multi-level analysis in relation to transgender issues.

6.3 Social and Organizational Performance

Both theoretical and empirical studies on transgender issues predominantly focus

either on the phenomenon of different trans-identities conceptually, or they analyze
health effects of discrimination. There is a paucity of empirical research with
relation to social and organizational performance of transgender individuals.
Thus, we suggest future research to include to what extent transgender individuals
contribute to society and organizations, and how significant that contribution can be
in conjunction with that of cisgender in both Western and Asian Islamic contexts. A
better understanding can help Asian Islamic countries tap into this
underemphasized element of their potential human capital.
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of Workplace. . . 177

References

Abbas, T., Nawaz, Y., Ali, M., Hussain, N., & Nawaz, R. (2014). Social adjustment of transgender:
A study of District Chiniot, Punjab (Pakistan). Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3
(1), 61–71.
Abdullah, M. A., Basharat, Z., Kamal, B., Sattar, N. Y., Hassan, Z. F., Jan, A. D., & Shafqat,
A. (2012). Is social exclusion pushing the Pakistani Hijras (Transgenders) towards commercial
sex work? A qualitative study. BMC International Health and Human rights, 12(32), 1–9.
Agius, S. (2013). Third gender: A step toward ending intersex discrimination. Spiegel Online
International. Accessed February 12, 2015, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/
third-gender-option-in-germany-a-small-step-for-intersex-recognition-a-917650.html
Anzar, U. (2003). Islamic education: A brief history of Madrassas with comments on curricula and
current pedagogical practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.
BBC. (2009, December 23). Pakistani eunuchs to have distinct gender. Accessed February
20, 2015, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8428819.stm
Bonoli, G., & Hinrichs, K. (2012). Statistical discrimination and employers’ recruitment: Practices
for low-skilled workers. European Societies, 14(3), 338–361.
Cáceres, C., Konda, K., Pecheny, M., Chatterjee, A., & Lyerla, R. (2006). Estimating the number
of men who have sex with men in low and middle income countries. Sexually Transmitted
Infections, 82(suppl 3), iii3–iii9.
Case, L. K., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2012). Alternating gender incongruity: A new neuropsychi-
atric syndrome providing insight into the dynamic plasticity of brain-sex. Medical Hypotheses,
78(5), 626–631.
Cserni, R. T., & Talmud, I. (2015). To know that you are not alone: The effect of internet usage on
LGBT youth’s social capital. Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies
in Media and Communications), 9, 161–182.
Elk, R., & Boehmer, U. (2015). The challenges remain: Needed next steps in alleviating the burden
of cancer in the LGBT community. In R. Elk & U. Boehmer (Eds.), Cancer and the LGBT
community (pp. 313–328). Heidelberg: Springer.
Faulkner, W. (2000). The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to
engineers. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 87–119.
Fielden, S. L., Davidson, M. J., Gale, A. W., & Davey, C. L. (2000). Women in construction: The
untapped resource. Construction Management and Economics, 18(1), 113–121.
Gagné, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over identity
formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender and Society, 11(4), 478–508.
Gorman, E. H. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation
in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Sociological Review, 70(4),
702–728.
Gurney, J. N. (1985). Not one of the guys: The female researcher in a male-dominated setting.
Qualitative Sociology, 8(1), 42–62.
Hall, C. (2009). Sticks and stones may break my bones but will the law ever protect me: Ensuring
educational access through federal prohibition of peer-on-peer harassment. Children’s Legal
Rights Journal, 29, 42.
Hall, S., Winlow, S., & Ancrum, C. (2013). Criminal identities consumer culture: Crime,
exclusion and the new culture of narcissm. London: Routledge.
Harrison, L. A., & Lynch, A. B. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role
orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 227–236.
Himsel, A. J., & Goldberg, W. A. (2003). Social comparisons and satisfaction with the division of
housework implications for men’s and women’s role strain. Journal of Family Issues, 24(7),
843–866.
Huebner, D. M., Rebchook, G. M., & Kegeles, S. M. (2004). Experiences of harassment,
discrimination, and physical violence among young gay and bisexual men. American Journal
of Public Health, 94(7), 1200–1203.
178 A.A. Mamun et al.

ICDDRB. (2008). Disentangling inequities in Bangladesh: A social exclusion and health analysis.
Background Paper for Social Exclusion Knowledge Network, 11, 3–6.
Inzlicht, M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2007). Running on empty neural signals for self-control failure.
Psychological Science, 18(11), 933–937.
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of
prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262–269.
Ishak, M. S. B. H., & Haneef, S. S. S. (2014). Sex reassignment technology: The dilemma of
transsexuals in Islam and Christianity. Journal of Religion and Health, 53(2), 520–537.
Karim, L. (2004). Democratizing Bangladesh State, NGOs, and Militant Islam. Cultural Dynam-
ics, 16(2–3), 291–318.
Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen-
der, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(4),
373–379.
Kenagy, G. P. (2005). Transgender health: Findings from two needs assessment studies in
Philadelphia. Health and Social Work, 30(1), 19–26.
Khairuddin, Y., Low, W. Y., & Wong, Y. L. (1987). Social and health review of transsexuals.
Unpublished paper presented at the Seminar mak nyah ke arah menentukan identiti dan status
mak nyah dalam masyarakat. Law Faculty, Universiti Malaya
Khaleeli, H. (2014). Hijra: India’s third gender claims its place in law. The Guardian. Accessed
April 20, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/16/india-third-gender-
claims-place-in-law
Khan, S. I., Hussain, M. I., Parveen, S., Bhuiyan, M. I., Gourab, G., et al. (2009). Living on the
extreme margin: Social exclusion of the transgender population (hijra) in Bangladesh. Journal
of Health, Population and Nutrition, 27(4), 441–451.
Lal, V. (1999). Not this, not that: The hijras of India and the cultural politics of sexuality. Social
Text, 61(4), 119–140.
Lerum, K. (2009). India officially recognizes third sex/gender. The Society Pages. Accessed
March 2, 2015, from http://thesocietypages.org/sexuality/2009/11/13/india-officially-recog
nizes-third-sexgender/
Looy, H., & Bouma, H. (2005). The nature of gender: Gender identity in persons who are
intersexed or transgendered. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33(3), 166–178.
Lopuch, V. S., & Davis, D. C. (2014). The role and value of diversity to learning organizations and
innovation. In N. D. Erbe (Ed.), Approaches to managing organizational diversity and inno-
vation (pp. 213–236). Hershey: IGI Global.
Low, W. (2009). Malaysian youth sexuality: Issues and challenges. Journal of the University of
Malaya Medical Centre, 12(1), 3–14.
Lynn, W. E. (2005, February 1). Neither here nor there: The legal dilemma of the transsexual
community in Malaysia. The Malaysian Bar. Accessed May 10, 2015, from http://www.
malaysianbar.org.my/gender_issues/neither_here_nor_there_the_legal_dilemma_of_the_trans
sexual_community_in_malaysia.html
Malaysiakini. (2012). Najib: No place in Malaysia for LGBTs. Accessed April 15, 2015, from
http://wvvw.malaysiakini.com/news/201913
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36(1), 38–56.
Moyeen, A., & West, B. (2014). Promoting CSR to foster sustainable development: Attitudes and
perceptions of managers in a developing country. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Adminis-
tration, 6(2), 97–115.
Murrell, A. J., Forte-Trammell, S., & Bing, D. (2008). Intelligent mentoring: How IBM creates
value through people, knowledge, and relationships. Armonk: IBM Press.
Nanda, S. (1986). The Hijras of India: Cultural and individual dimensions of an institutionalized
third gender role. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(3–4), 35–54.
Neal, C., & Davies, D. (2000). Issues in therapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
clients. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of Workplace. . . 179

Ng, E. (2011, July 19). Malay transsexual loses court bid to change gender. Yahoo News. Accessed
May 25, 2015, from http://news.yahoo.com/malay-transsexual-loses-court-bid-change-gender-
053645639.html
O’Flaherty, M., & Fisher, J. (2008). Sexual orientation, gender identity and international human
rights law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles. Human Rights Law Review, 8(2),
207–248.
O’Halloran, K. (2015). The adoption process in an Islamic context. The Politics of Adoption, 603–
635. Springer Netherlands.
Owoyemi, M. Y., & Sabri, A. Z. S. A. (2013). LGBT; nature or ideology: The view of a former
LGBT Practitioner in Malaysia. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 8(4), 104–111.
Parkes, T., Welch, C., Besla, K., Leavitt, S., Ziegler, M., et al. (2007). Freedom from violence:
Tools for working with trauma, mental health and substance use: Resource tool kit. Vancouver:
Ending Violence Association of British Columbia.
Peletz, M. G. (2002). Islamic modern: Religious courts and cultural politics in Malaysia.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Poteat, T., German, D., & Kerrigan, D. (2013). Managing uncertainty: A grounded theory of
stigma in transgender health care encounters. Social Science and Medicine, 84, 22–29.
Riccò, R., & Guerci, M. (2014). Diversity challenge: An integrated process to bridge the “imple-
mentation gap”. Business Horizons, 57(2), 235–245.
Roland, D., & Kahrl, H. F. (2011). Economic modeling study: Exploring an innovative market
scheme. California: Berkeley Economic Advising and Research.
Rothe, A. (2011). Popular trauma culture: Selling the pain of others in the mass media. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Rumbach, J., & Knight, K. (2014). Sexual and gender minorities in humanitarian emergencies. In
L. W. Roeder (Ed.), Issues of gender and sexual orientation in humanitarian emergencies
(pp. 33–74). Heidelberg: Springer.
Sabri, A. Z. S. A., Owoyemi, M. Y., & Mangsor, F. (2014). Leading by example: Causes and
treatment by an experienced LGBT counsellor. International Journal of Innovation and
Scientific Research, 10(2), 255–261.
Sahri, M., Murad, K., Sirajuddin, M. D. M., Adil, M. A. M., & Daud, N. M. (2014). Analyzing the
Islamic and legal awareness of the Muslim male students in Malaysia of the prohibition on
cross dressing. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(10), 1718–1723.
Sayah, R. (2010, June 2). Pakistan jails couple over gay marriage allegation. Cable News Network.
Accessed June 26, 2015, from http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/02/pakistan.
gay.marriage/index.html?_s¼PM:WORLD
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity “gender normals”,
transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender and Society, 23(4),
440–464.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to the change to work teams: The
influence of “anticipatory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1),
51–67.
Stenqvist, T. (2015). The social struggle of being HIJRA in Bangladesh-cultural aspiration
between inclusion and illegitimacy. Malmo: Malm€o h€ogskola/Kultur och samhälle.
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(3), 170–179.
Tabassum, S., & Jamil, S. (2014). Plight of marginalized: Educational issues of transgender
community in Pakistan. The Review of Arts and Humanities, 3(1), 107–119.
Teh, Y. K. (2001). Mak nyahs (male transsexuals) in Malaysia: The influence of culture and
religion on their identity. International Journal of Transgenderism, 5(3), 97–103.
Terri Chih-Yin, H. (2008). Enacting privacy and everydayness online: The case study of the
Spiteful Tots community. MPhil Thesis, University of York.
180 A.A. Mamun et al.

Van den Brink, M., Reufs, P., & Tigchelaar, J. (2015). Out of the box-domestic and private
international law aspects of gender registration. European Journal of Law Reform, 17(2),
283–293.
Vries, K. M. (2012). Intersectional identities and conceptions of the self: The experience of
transgender people. Symbolic Interaction, 35(1), 49–67.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Wurthmann, K. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2008). The stigmatization and
devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 33(1), 231–251.
Zimman, L. (2009). “The other kind of coming out”: Transgender people and the coming out.
Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Zulfakar, M. (2012). ASEAN leaders ink rights declaration. Accessed June 20, 2015, from https://
sg.news.yahoo.com/asean-leaders-ink-rights-declaration-060002372.html
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials
and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy

Eric M. Rodriguez and Chana Etengoff

1 Introduction

The United States of America was largely founded in an effort to create a protected
space for religious and political freedom. While the original language of the
Declaration of Independence (1776) focused on the rights of man and initially
only extended to white men—Congress and the Supreme Court subsequently
extended many of these rights and protections to various minority groups. Yet,
while significant federal progress has been made to protect individuals from
employment discrimination based on race, gender, and dis/ability status—at the
time of this writing the Human Rights Campaign (2015) reported that employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal in 58 % of the country (29 states)
and gender identity related employment discrimination is legal in 64 % (32 states).
As of 2015, the more inclusive protections offered by the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) remain theoretical as congress has yet to pass
this legislation.
However, even with the many protections offered by ENDA, the rights of LGBT
religious employees in America remain unprotected by the proposed bill due to a
broad religious exemption. While the religious exemption was not featured in the
original bill, it was later introduced to address concerns that the proposed bill
violated First Amendment religious freedoms (Dabrowski 2014). However, legal
scholars have argued that the ENDA religious exemption extends beyond ministe-
rial exemptions outlined by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

E.M. Rodriguez, Ph.D. (*)

New York City College of Technology, City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C. Etengoff, Ph.D.
Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 181

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_11
182 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

Commission that “allow religious organizations the freedom to discriminate in the

hiring and firing of employees who publicly represent the religious views of the
organization” (Dabrowski 2014, p. 1960). Although the American Civil Liberties
Union continues to protest the practice of using religion to justify discrimination,
their focus is largely upon amending ENDA’s religious exemptions to more closely
resemble current ministerial exemptions—and the employment rights of LGBT
clergy continue to be granted or denied at the discretion of individual congregations
and denominations.
Although religiously conservative organizations in the U.S. have become the
public voice of media coverage regarding America’s “culture wars,” the current
legislative ambiguity has led to a diverse range of religious responses and institu-
tional conflicts among progressives, moderates and conservatives. Debates regard-
ing LGBT clergy rights are particularly challenging to resolve as they are centered
at the intersection of both religious and secular politics. In other words, a religious
institution’s ordination and appointment of an LGBT religious leader requires
progressive congregational views regarding both political issues as well as the
role of religion in the age of modernity (e.g., historical-critical scriptural interpre-
tation). And while many more conservative religious denominations (e.g., Church
of Latter Day Saints, Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism) have issued statements
declaring their support for “secular protections” such as LGBT housing rights or the
protection of LGBT individuals from violent acts, same sex sexual behavior
continues to be viewed as a sin by these denominations.
While social scientists have begun viewing LGBT individuals as religious and
spiritual beings in and of themselves, religiously conservative organizations in the
United States (US) continue to advocate that homosexuality is an abomination in
the eyes of God (Rodriguez 2010; Rodriguez and Follins 2012). Indeed, recent data
suggests that while tolerance towards sexual minorities in such areas as gay
marriage, gay adoptions and general attitudes towards homosexuality continues to
increase, <19 % of Judeo-Christian congregations in the U.S. allow openly gay or
lesbian individuals to assume leadership positions (Whitehead 2013). However,
establishing protections for LGBT clergy is imperative if LGBT individuals are to
be afforded the equal opportunity to be mentored and supported by religious leaders
who join them in the task of “forging sometimes tenuous truces between seemingly
irreconcilable principles and beliefs” (Alpert et al. 2001, p. I). Moreover, many
LGBT clergy feel that their profession is an integral aspect of their own identity and
religious/spiritual fulfillment. And, while Jewish and Christian leadership opportu-
nities within LGBT congregations have formally existed since the 1970s, many
have voiced concerns that it is dangerous to exile the spiritual and religious voices
of LGBT clergy to LGBT congregations—as this leads to the silencing of any
protests within the larger religious institution. The sociocultural significance of
progressive religious institutions, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
American and Reform Judaism in the United States is, therefore, paramount as
their histories offer a template for the task of religious and sexual reconciliation and
the integration of LGBT clergy into denominational life.
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 183

In order to help translate the efforts of the progressive religious minority to

conservative and fundamentalist stakeholders, it is imperative for scholars across
disciplines to study the religious pathways of LGBT clergy inclusion. However,
current scholarship is largely focused on compiling personal stories from specific
gay or lesbian clergy (e.g., Alpert et al. 2001; Murray 2008; Perry 1990; Robinson
2008; White 1994) and their coming out experiences within their respective
denominations. While personal narratives provide important insight into individual
experiences, they are unable to provide statistical evidence of dominant trends or
the individual and communal outcomes of such experiences. Moreover, the limited
social science research related to homosexuality and clergy largely focuses on
heterosexual (both allied and opposition) clergy’s perspectives (e.g., Barnes
2013; Childs 2003; Glesne 2004; Olson and Cadge 2002) or longitudinal, historical
accounts of acceptance (or lack thereof) of LGBT civil rights across denominations
(e.g., Fletcher 1990; Hazel 2000; Holmen 2013; Rogers 2009). There is currently a
need for an interdisciplinary exploration of LGBT clergy workplace experiences—
one which acknowledges the role of the individual in negotiating the tension
between contemporary cultural experiences and historical traditions.
The present chapter, therefore, aims to introduce a sociocultural framework that
can be applied to the study of LGBT clergy workplace experiences by presenting
cultural-historical case studies of both progressive Jewish and Christian denomi-
nations which allow LGBT clergy to preside over their congregations—the Evan-
gelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and American Reform Judaism. After
exploring the religious and political developments leading to the acceptance of gay
and lesbian clergy within these congregations, the chapter concludes with a review
of the major theoretical approaches that can be applied to future inquiries focusing
on broadening our understanding of LGBT clergy workplace experiences.

2 LGBT Clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church

in America

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was established in 1988 with
a merger between the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Lutheran Church
in America (LCA)—forming one of the largest Mainline Protestant denominations
in the United States (Nezu et al. 2006; Holmen 2013). At present, the ELCA counts
almost 4,000,000 members (ELCA 2015; Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
2008). Prior to the formation of the ELCA, ALC and LCA Lutherans had quite a
progressive history when it came to being supportive of LGBT issues and lay
members (see historical timeline in Table 1). For example, “Lutherans Concerned”
was formed in the 1970’s to provide support for gay and lesbian Lutherans and a
series of organizations were created to assist LGBT individuals who felt called into
Lutheran ministry. This culminated in the creation of Extraordinary Lutheran
184 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

Table 1 Key historical LGBT clergy events in both American Reform Judaism and the Evangel-
ical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
Reform Judaism ELCA
Year Key event Year Key event
1873 Rabbit Isaac Mayer Wise founded 1988 ELCA founded with the merger of
the Union for Reform Judaism the American Lutheran Church
(ALC) and the Lutheran Church in
America (LCA), creating the largest
Lutheran denomination in the USA
1977 CCAR passed a resolution that called 1989 ELCA Church Council published
for “legislation which decriminalizes Definitions and Guidelines for Dis-
homosexual acts between consenting cipline which stated that homosex-
adults, and prohibits discrimination ual genital activity constitutes
against them as persons.” conduct incompatible with ministe-
rial office
1977 Union for Reform Judaism passed a 1990 Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Minis-
resolution stating that “homosexual tries (LLGM) created to provide
persons are entitled to equal protec- financial support for LGBT
tion under the law” and affirmed Lutheran pastors. Leads to the extra
their opposition to “discriminating ordinum ordinations of non-celibate
against homosexuals.” gay and lesbian pastors (Jeff John-
son, Ruth Frost and Phyllis Zillhart)
in San Francisco
1988 Rabbi Stacy Offner became the first 1991 First of many resolutions passed by
lesbian Rabbi hired by a mainstream the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly
Jewish synagogue (Shir Tikva in to welcome gays and lesbians while
Minnesota) vows of celibacy remain a require-
ment for out LGBT clergy
1990 Resolution on Homosexuality and 1993 Extraordinary Candidacy Project
the Rabbinate (ECP) formed to provide credentials
for LGBT Lutherans called to
ministry
2003 First transgender rabbinical student 2001 Church begin an 8 year study pro-
accepted to Hebrew Union College cess of whether or not to endorse
same sex marriage and to allow gays
and lesbians to serve as clergy
2003 Commission on Social Action of 2006 Rev. Megan Rohrer becomes the
Reform Judaism issued a resolution first ordained transgender pastor in
on the inclusion and acceptance of the ELCA
the transgender and bisexual
communities
2006 Rabbi Elliot Kukla became the first 2007 Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries
ordained transgender Rabbi (ELM) created by the merging of
the LLGM and the ECP. Mission is
to provide support for LGBT
Lutheran rostered clergy
2015 Commission on Social Action of 2009 ELCA votes to allow gays and les-
Reform Judaism added resolutions bians in committed relationships to
on the rights of transgender and serve as members of the clergy
gender non-conforming individuals
(continued)
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 185

Table 1 (continued)
Reform Judaism ELCA
Year Key event Year Key event
2015 CCAR appoints first lesbian leader, 2010 ELCA begins conducting “Rites of
Rabbi Denise Eger, stating “It’s Reception” to bring 46 removed gay
important for gay and lesbian Jews to and lesbian pastors back onto the
have positive religious role models” active clergy roster of the church
Currently Meetings scheduled to ratify “Rights 2013 Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin elected
of Transgender and Non-conforming ELCA’s first gay Bishop in the
Individuals.” Southwest California Synod
Note: Information compiled from Holmen (2013) and the Central Conference of American Rabbis’
digital archive (ccarnet.org)

Ministries (ELM) in 2007 whose mission is to provide financial, moral and social
support for LGBT Lutheran rostered clergy.
In 2009, the ELCA reached a landmark decision and the ordination of LGBT
clergy was approved at the annual Churchwide Assembly by the exact margin
necessary for the resolution to pass (Holmen 2013; Luo and Capecchi 2009;
Steinmetz 2009). Getting there was not an easy task, however. An 8 year “study
process”, beginning with the 2001 task force on human sexuality, aided and led to
this decision (Dart 2009). The 2001 task force led to years of debate and a rich
proliferation of ELCA writings arguing either for or against the proposed changes
(e.g., Childs 2003; Djupe et al. 2006; Glesne 2004; Hazel 2000; Olson and Cadge
2002; Rogers 2009). During this study process, charges of hypocrisy arose within
the church—why was it acceptable for laity to be LGBT but not for clergy? This
double-standard lasted for years and caused a lot of friction and problems for the
newly formed denomination, including LGBT clergy being removed from the
church roles and entire congregations being either censored and/or removed from
the church (Holmen 2013). Following the 2009 Churchwide Assembly’s decision in
favor of LGBT ordination, the ELCA atoned for these actions by conducting a
series of “Rites of Reception” in 2010 to bring defrocked LGBT pastors and
expelled congregations back into the fold (Goodstein 2010; Holmen 2013).

2.1 Notes on Transgender Clergy in the ELCA

The ELCA’s landmark 2009 decision to allow gays and lesbians in monogamous
same-sex relationships to be called as pastors into the church did not just have an
enormous impact on gay and lesbian clergy, but on transgender clergy as well. As a
result of this decision, in February 2014 the ELCA installed the Reverend Megan
Roherer (ordained in 2006) as the first out, transgender lead pastor of a congrega-
tion in San Francisco, California (Nahmod 2014). Reverend Roherer’s ordination
and installation represents an important step forward in advancing the employment
rights of transgender clergy and also illustrates the power of the progressive
186 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

Christian social justice message—especially when applied by a transgender pastor

to the larger LGBT and heterosexual community.
At the same time as the ELCA’s landmark decision regarding the ordination of
LGBT clergy, the organization also published a Social Statement on Human
Sexuality which provided explicit support for gender minorities in multiple differ-
ent places throughout the document (ELCA 2009). For example:
This church. . . must work toward greater understanding of sexual orientation and gender
identity. It must seek that which is positive and life-giving while protecting from all that is
harmful and destructive. . . This church. . . recognizes that a positive sense of one’s own
body supports a healthy sense of one’s gender identity. . . The church will also attend to the
need for equal protection, equal opportunities and equal responsibility under the law, and
just treatment for those with varied sexual orientation and gender identity (pp. 24, 29 and
33).

This powerful, pro-transgender language is, however, offset by the ongoing

double-standard within the church, as the ELCA’s Statement on Human Sexuality
also acknowledges dissenting, more politically and religiously conservative, view-
points as being equally valid, thus undermining their support of sexual and gender
minorities.
This church recognizes that, with conviction and integrity: On the basis of conscience-
bound belief, some are convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to
biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law. They believe same-gender sexual
behavior carries the grave danger of unrepentant sin. . . On the basis of conscience-bound
belief, some are convinced that homosexuality and even lifelong, monogamous, homosex-
ual relationships reflect a broken world in which some relationships do not pattern them-
selves after the creation God intended (p. 20).

The ELCA thus leaves open a large loophole where workplace discrimination
against transgender (as well as gay and lesbian) clergy is still implicitly permitted at
the local and regional level. Moreover, the prejudice underlying this language is not
in any way diminished by reframing such anti-LGBT bias as “conscious bound
belief.”

2.2 Workplace Issues for the ELCA’s LGBT Clergy

Workplace issues for LGBT clergy in the ELCA have changed radically as a result
of these major policy changes. However, many of the appointment decisions still
depend on the individual congregation, with liberal churches (e.g., West Coast,
Northeast) being more comfortable with LGBT clergy than more conservative
churches (e.g., South). As a result, shades of the ELCA’s original double-standard
regarding laity’s and clergy’s sexual identity still appear in the twenty-first century.
LGBT clergy in the ELCA are, however, able to mediate these conflicts by relying
on two key concepts from Martin Luther to guide them in their ecclesiastical
workplaces: Grace and Vocation (Holmen 2013). Sociocultural scholars refer to
this integration of religious values into contemporary life as a form of cultural tool
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 187

use—the process of appropriating and modifying socially constructed and histori-

cally situated physical, symbolic, or abstract means in order to effect change
(Etengoff and Daiute 2013, 2014, 2015).
Martin Luther’s concept of Grace is based on the idea that individuals are not
saved because of what they do or not do (i.e., the concept of works), but because
God loved humans so much that He sacrificed his only son for our sins. Martin
Luther argued that all human beings are saved, because Jesus Christ was born,
crucified, died and resurrected (McCain 2006)—something an out gay ELCA
pastor, known by the first author, referred to as “God’s Love at Christ’s Expense.”
Luther’s concept of Grace (for all) has become an important tool for more progres-
sive members of the ELCA and LGBT Lutheran ministers to create a more
egalitarian and supportive workplace environment regardless of the pastor’s sexual
orientation or gender identity (Holmen 2013).
The concept of Vocation was also important for Martin Luther as he believed
that God could be found in the everyday labors of everyday people. Vocation is a
person’s “calling, the work that individuals are called to do”—simply defined as
how one uses their secular occupation to serve others and (above all) to serve God
(McCain 2006). For many LGBT clergy, what they do is their vocation—they are
called to the ministry to do God’s work, regardless of their sexual orientation or
their gender identity. An LGBT Lutheran Christian vocation can thus create a
powerful and positive counter-narrative to the religious right’s anti-LGBT (and
arguably anti-Christian) message.

3 LGBT Clergy1 in Reform Judaism

Sociocultural scholars approach religion as a practice-based cultural phenome-

non—individually and communally mediated in response to the variations of
everyday environments, social interactions, and sociopolitical contexts such as
LGBT rights (Belzen 1999; Etengoff 2011, Etengoff and Daiute 2013, 2014,
2015). Similar to the development of the ELCA, Reform Movement within Judaism
gives voice to this multifaceted exchange between the individual, their religious
community and sociopolitical contexts (e.g., see historical timeline in Table 1).
While the Movement originally began as a splintered minority, it is now the most
common affiliation at 35 % of all American Jews—a significant percentage con-
sidering that only 50 % of American Jews affiliate with a synagogue at all (Alpert
et al. 2001; Pew Research Center 2013). The Reform Movement is also distinct in
that it was the first Jewish movement to welcome gay and lesbian community
members and clergy (e.g., rabbis and cantors) (Alpert et al. 2001).

1
In most forms of Judaism, including the Reform Movement, “clergy” includes both Rabbi’s
and Cantors. Due to space considerations, only the experiences of Rabbi’s will discussed here—we
leave consideration of LGBT Cantors to future work in this area.
188 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

Religious historians largely agree that the American Reform Movement was
born out of the newly emancipated and enlightened Jew’s desire to bridge the
“marginality between his religious culture and secular order” (Steinberg 1965,
p. 129) coupled with the synagogue’s inability to enforce social sanctions (e.g.,
fines, communal censure) in nineteenth century America (Steinberg 1965). The
Pittsburg Platform of 1885 codified this new movement by reinventing Judaism as a
“progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason.”
To this end, only the moral laws (e.g., charity) and those ceremonies that “elevated
and sanctified” (e.g., elements of the Sabbath) were retained and all other biblical
commandments were viewed as “reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age”—all
that was not “adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization” was rejected
as it was foreign to the “mental and spiritual state” of the contemporary Jew (e.g.,
kosher dietary laws, family purity, religious attire, etc.) (Jacob 1985). At its
founding, the premise of Reform Judaism was to align Jewish values with the
larger social norms and systems of nineteenth century America (Steinberg 1965)—
the sociocultural revolution was focused on Judaism rather than upon (secular)
society at large. It was only after the moral devastation of the Holocaust that reform
rabbis and theologians such as Rabbi Emil Fackenheim, began consciously
redirecting the revolutionary focus of the Reform Movement upon global social
justice issues—the Reform Movement’s primary focus was no longer to emulate the
secular world, but rather to heal, mend and repair moral lapses (Rosenthal 2005).
The resurrection of the Talmudic and Kabbalistic principle of Tikkun Olam [com-
pleting God’s creation] was born in twentieth century America and the Reform
movement gathered under the banner of Tikkun Olam to fight for peace, civil rights,
environmental reform and LGBT rights (Rosenthal 2005).
However, given the many voices within the movement, it took some time before
the progressive Tikkun Olam call for action was formally codified as a foundational
principle of the Reform Movement. While the Movement did not reference the term
in their first post-Holocaust platform of religious principles in 1976—Tikkun Olam
became unequivocally revived in 1998 with the “Ten Principles of Reform Juda-
ism” and “social and action and social justice” was reaffirmed as “a central
prophetic focus of traditional Reform belief and practices” (Rosenthal 2005,
p. 237). The statement defines Tikkun Olam as “increasing the spiritual dimensions
of our material existence in ways that can repair our shattered world [via public and
private initiatives] to work for the cause of the poor and oppressed as the Torah
commands us, and for the protection of the earth. . .to help redeem the new century
in modernity, striving to transform it into a realization of Israel’s great messianic
hope for the establishment of truth and justice, for moral and spiritual discipline,
compassion and integrity, and at long last, a world repaired, a world at peace”
(Union of American Hebrew Congregations 1998). The Ten Principles list Tikum
Olam as the third principle, preceded only by the reaffirmation of monotheism and
the need to integrate Jewish values into modern society (Union of American
Hebrew Congregations 1998). The last principle noted reaffirms the “equality of
all people of God. . .regardless of gender, age, belief, physical condition, or sexual
orientation [as they] are all created in the image of the Holy One” (Union of
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 189

American Hebrew Congregations 1998). Moreover, the document concludes with

the Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis’ (CCAR) promise to help all
children and people of God “fulfill their divine potential to contribute to a world
transformed.” This overarching theme of social justice was later reiterated in an
abbreviated form in 1999 at the CCAR’s Pittsburg Convention (i.e., the Pittsburg
Principles, see Alpert et al. 2001).

3.1 Reform Judaism and LGBT Rights

The gap between the evolution of post-Holocaust social justice thought and a
codified social justice policy was particularly relevant to the Reform Movement’s
stance on LGBT rights. For example, a 1981 CCAR “responsa” regarding the
“Homosexual in Leadership Positions” vacillated between acknowledging the
discrimination faced by homosexuals and the Reform Movements’ emphasis on
civil rights (e.g., 1977 CCAR resolution to decriminalize homosexuality) on the one
side and biblical prohibitions and the traditional role of the leader on the other side.
The responsa ultimately concluded that “overt heterosexual behavior or overt
homosexual behavior which is considered objectionable by the community disqual-
ifies the person involved from leadership positions in the Jewish community. We
reject this type of individual as a role model within that Jewish community. We
cannot recommend such an individual as a role model nor should he/she be placed
in a position of leadership or guidance for children of any age (CCAR 1981).”
While the original question only stated that the individual was a “known homosex-
ual” and “quiet open about their homosexuality”—the implication was clear; a
disclosure of a non-heterosexual identity was viewed as an admission of morally
deviant behavior.
A little less than a decade later, the implied CCAR prohibition against religious
leaders’ sexual orientation disclosure was explicitly revoked in the 1990 Resolution
on Homosexuality and the Rabbinate (full text can be accessed via CCARnet.org’s
digital archive). The Resolution began with the acknowledgment that “. . .the
inability of most gay and lesbian rabbis to live openly as homosexuals is deeply
painful. . .” (CCAR 1990). Moreover, the committee urged “that all rabbis, regard-
less of sexual orientation, be accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation
that they have chosen”. However, the Resolution regretfully admitted that a rabbi’s
sexual orientation disclosure remained “a personal decision that can have grave
professional consequences”, potentially impacting their “ability to serve a given
community effectively” (CCAR 1990). The Resolution was further limited as the
CCAR could not guarantee the tenure of LGBT rabbis. The resolution ultimately
concluded by acknowledging the contradiction between congregants’ generally
positive views regarding LGBT civil rights and “the unique position of the rabbi
as a spiritual leader and Judaic role model [that] make[s] the acceptance of gay or
lesbian rabbis an intensely emotional and potentially divisive issue” (CCAR 1990).
The controversy within and between Reform congregations regarding LGBT clergy
190 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

was aired and a call was made for community “education and dialogue” (CCAR
1990).
It was only when the values2 of Tikkun Olam became formally integrated into
Reform identity in 1999 and when LGBT rights (e.g., gay marriage) gained more
legislative traction in the twenty-first Century that the integration of LGBT clergy
within the Reform Movement gained momentum, culminating with the first
appointment of a lesbian president to the CCAR in 2015, Rabbi Denise Egger. In
addition to this appointment representing the newly found employment protections
for LGBT Reform clergy, it also addressed the need for LGBT Reform Jews to have
positive religious role models.

3.2 The Rights of Transgender Reform Rabbis

The rights and protections afforded transgender individuals pursuing religious

leadership positions within the Reform Movement have only recently begun to
evolve. For example, the first transgender rabbinical student was accepted to the
Reform Movement’s flagship institution, Hebrew Union College, in 2003—
followed by the first transgender ordination in 2006. These ordination decisions
lead to the 2015 Commission on Social Action in Reform Judaism, a joint instru-
mentality of the Union for Reform Judaism and the CCAR, on the inclusion and
acceptance of transgender and bisexual individuals (full text can be accessed via
CCARnet.org’s digital archive). The commission focused on the disparity between
sexual and gender minority rights with the statement that “while progress has been
made in bringing greater equality and acceptance of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in
North American society, too often transgender and gender non-conforming indi-
viduals are forced to live as second-class citizens” (Commission on Social Action in
Reform Judaism 2015). The commission then continued by acknowledging that
“the non-discrimination statement of the Rabbinical Placement Commission does
not yet require that congregations and other organizations seeking a rabbi commit
to avoiding discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” After noting the
disparity between religious policies and the Movement’s more liberal political
model, the commission grounded their call for gender minority inclusion in the
biblical principle that all of humanity is created in b’tzelem Elohim (the Divine
image)—”from this bedrock principle stems our commitment to defend any indi-
vidual from the discrimination that arises from ignorance, fear, insensitivity, or
hatred. Knowing that members of the transgender and gender non-conforming
communities are often singled out for discrimination, high rates of violence, and

2
The Reform Movement’s traditional exchange between secular and religious values was embod-
ied by the committee’s review of medical and psychological studies regarding the origin of sexual
identity, legal literature, and documents “prepared by Christian groups grappling with the status of
homosexuals and homosexuality within their own denominations with a specific focus on the
question of ordination” (CCAR 1990).
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 191

even murder, we are reminded of the Torah’s injunction, “do not stand idly while
your neighbor bleeds” (Leviticus 19:16).” Moreover, many within the Reform
Movement believe that there is more to be done to protect gender minority rights
within the Movement and follow-up meetings continue to be scheduled. To date,
there have been over 12 resolutions regarding LGBT rights within Reform Judaism
addressing issues of LGBT clergy, transgender conversion, same-sex marriage and
same-sex congregations.
The above review of the Reform Movement’s and Evangelical Lutheran
Church’s policies regarding LGBT clergy offer an exemplar of how larger political
movements and religious values interact—creating social revolutions in each
domain. Sociocultural psychologists refer to this process as cultural mediation—
and scholars such as Vygotsky (1978) root this understanding of human develop-
ment within the Marxist principles of an individual’s power to create social change.
While the media continues to emphasize the religious Fundamentalists’ and Con-
servatives’ unyielding responses to the needs of spiritual and religious LGBT
individuals, sociocultural and positive psychologists have embarked upon the
study of how the seeming contradictions between ancient religious and contempo-
rary humanitarian values can be reconciled and integrated (e.g., Etengoff and
Daiute 2014, 2015; Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000; Rodriguez and Vaughan
2013). Emerging studies of LGBT-friendly faith communities and the process of
religious and sexual identity integration therefore offer a progressive model for
change as they acknowledge the complexity of addressing LGBT clergy’s employ-
ment rights within religious congregations.

4 Theoretical Considerations and Suggestions for Future

Research

Both the ELCA and Reform Judaism permit LGBT clergy in monogamous relation-
ships to serve in ministerial positions. However, as progressive as these two
denominations are, both explicitly state that the decision to hire an out LGBT
clergy-person is left entirely up to an individual congregation. What does this mean
from an employment perspective? What theories best address the unique individual,
organizational and community workplace issues faced by LGBT clergy serving in
progressive congregations? Space considerations do not allow us to consider the
full spectrum of theoretical possibility. Other than Vygotsky’s social change theory
(1978) which we have already mentioned, we limit our discussion here to two
theories that we find particularly applicable to the topic at hand: Coming Out
Growth (Seligman and Csikzentmihalyi 2000) and empowerment (Perkins and
Zimmerman 1995).
192 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

4.1 Coming Out Growth

Coming Out Growth (COG) is a term that falls under the auspices of Seligman and
Csikzentmihalyi’s (2000) three-pillar model of positive psychology (character
strengths and virtues, subjective experience and positive institutions). COG is
defined as the self-perceived growth directly attributed to the unique experiences
and identity development of sexual and gender minorities (Rodriguez and Vaughan
2013). Thus turning “coming out” from the difficult, stressful process that is
typically presented in the social scientific literature into an opportunity for personal
advancement, increased self-confidence and improved psychological health. The
coming out process can thus be reframed as an opportunity for LGBT individuals to
become more honest and authentic, both internally and relationally.
COG can also be understood as a form of Stress Related Growth (SRG); the idea
that stressful life events can potentially lead to positive developmental outcomes
such as enhanced self-esteem and improved coping abilities (Vaughan and
Rodriguez 2014). Within the context of the development of a stress-related growth
measure for sexual minorities, Vaughan and Waehler (2010) identified five domains
of growth that contribute to forming a healthy sexual minority identity: (1) mental
health/wellbeing, (2) authenticity/honesty, (3) social/relational gains, (4) identity-
related growth, and (5) advocacy/generativity. Combined together, COG, SRG and
these five general domains of growth provide a powerful foundation with which to
explore the workplace experiences of LGBT clergy as pivotal contexts for individ-
ual and cultural development.
For example, Holmen (2013), in his book titled Queer Clergy, discusses the
significance of the “Ministry of Presence”—the cultural impact (i.e., social/rela-
tional gains, advocacy/generativity) of openly LGBT pastors and lay members (i.e.,
authenticity/honesty). In the early days of Lutherans Concerned, the visibility of
LGBT pastors and lay members (i.e., coming-out), was a powerful avenue for
advocacy that directly led to the ELCA’s 2009 landmark decision to ordain
LGBT pastors. Alpert et al. (2001) make similar arguments regarding the positive
impact of the first gay and lesbian rabbis’ sexual orientation disclosures in the
1970s—at both the individual (i.e., mental health/wellbeing and identity-related
growth) and communal (i.e., social/relational gains, advocacy/generativity) levels.
LGBT clergy’s visibility gave them power, and their new found power enabled
them to reshape their respective movements into a more inclusive religious envi-
ronment for LGBT people of faith—leading to a safer workplace for LGBT clergy.

4.2 Empowerment

The community psychology theory of empowerment is an underutilized theory in

the social scientific study of LGBT people of faith, which is puzzling as this theory
can inform our understanding of LGBT clergy’s experience at both individual and
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 193

organizational levels. Empowerment is defined as a psychological mechanism

whereby people take back control of their lives (Perkins and Zimmerman 1995).
Empowerment operates on three distinct levels: individual (e.g., priest/clergy),
organizational (i.e., ELCA, CCAR), and communal (e.g., individual congregations)
(Perkins and Zimmerman 1995). Within these three levels, psychological
researchers make a distinction between empowerment values, empowering pro-
cesses, and empowered outcomes. According to Zimmerman (1996), empowerment
values are an orientation whereby professionals work with and for communities
seeking empowerment rather than simply advocating for them. Empowering pro-
cesses refer to the community’s agentive development of skills, the accumulation of
resources, and the establishment of social connections. Lastly, empowerment out-
comes are the assessments of empowerment interventions (Zimmerman 1996).
Maton and Salem (1995) uncovered four key characteristics of empowered
organizations: (1) a strength-based belief system that inspires group and individual
growth; (2) dynamic and meaningful role opportunities accessible to members of
various strengths (3) an overarching peer-based support system that provides a
strong sense of community while relying on an array of economic and social
supports; and (4) talented and inspiring leaders that are accessible and committed
to both the organization and its members (Maton and Salem 1995). This framework
is particularly relevant to the study of religious communities, as Maton and Salem
(1995) note: “[Religious organizations] represent potentially important local com-
munities in which individuals, through active participation with others, can gain
power, resources and achieve primary personal goals” (Maton and Salem 1995,
p. 632).
Based on Maton and Salem’s (1995) four characteristics of empowered organi-
zations, both the ELCA and American Reform Judaism can be viewed as
empowered organizations (or even empowered communities) that attempt to assist
LGBT self-actualization by (re)connecting religious and spiritual LGBT individ-
uals to the word of God. Moreover, the empowerment model speaks directly to how
LGBT clergy have reclaimed their religious vocations in the face of both explicit
and implicit anti-gay discrimination from many in the ELCA and Reform Judaism.
By becoming a Lutheran pastor or a Reform rabbi, LGBT clergy became
empowered and empower others to integrate their sexual, gender and religious
identities into a new positive whole that is more than the sum of its parts.

5 Concluding Thoughts

While the religious right dominates the media discussion around religion and
sexuality in the United States, it is actually the more progressive denominations
that are trailblazing the way to allow LGBT clergy to serve God in their own way.
However, despite the substantive changes that have been made by more progres-
sive Judeo-Christian groups, the experiences of LGBT clergy is a drastically
understudied area. Yet, the need for further research regarding LGBT clergy
194 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

workplace experiences is imperative as LGBT clergy’s employment rights vary

widely between and within denominations—due to both legal loopholes and insti-
tutional policies. Thus elements of discrimination still remain, even in progressive
congregations. Perhaps these experiences of discrimination and invisibility are
most acute for bisexual clergy as bisexuals who marry same-sex partners tend to
get covered under gay and lesbian issues, while bisexuals who marry opposite-sex
partners can potentially “pass” as part of a heterosexual couple. Unfortunately, the
lack of information in this chapter regarding bisexual clergy’s experiences is
reflective of the cultural silencing of the issue across denominations—and further
work is needed to understand the distinct experiences of this community.
America’s diverse sociocultural landscape surrounding issues of religion and
sexuality presents a rich opportunity for researchers to understand LGBT clergy’s
experiences from a variety of perspectives, including workplace and employment
issues. In addition, multiple theoretical perspectives lend themselves to the study of
LGBT clergy workplace experiences in progressive Judeo-Christian denomina-
tions, such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978), Coming Out Growth
(Seligman and Csikzentmihalyi 2000) and Empowerment Theory (Perkins and
Zimmerman 1995). When these theories are applied together, the appointment of
LGBT clergy can be understood as a case study on how individuals can agentively
mediate powerful institutions, thereby impacting their own as well as their
community’s empowerment and development. This framework is accessible to
both qualitative and quantitative researchers—both of which are needed to supple-
ment the extant historical and autobiographical work. It is critical that both
employers (i.e., religious institution) and employees (i.e., LGBT clergy) have
access to research that systematically assesses and describes what is actually
going on in LGBT clergy’s lives in order to understand current and predict future
trends.

References

Alpert, R. T., Elwell, E. S. L., & Idelson, S. (Eds.). (2001). Lesbian rabbis: The first generation.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Barnes, S. L. (2013). To welcome or affirm: Black Clergy views about homosexuality, inclusivity,
and church leadership. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(10), 1409–1433.
Belzen, J. A. (1999). Religion as embodiment: Cultural-psychological concepts and methods in the
study of conversion among “Bevindelijken.”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38
(2), 236–253.
Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) (1981). American Reform Responsa 14: Homo-
sexuals in leadership positions (Vol. XCI, pp. 67–69). Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://
www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=781
Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR). (1990). Resolution on homosexuality and the
Rabbinate. Accessed March 30, 2015, from https://ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/resolutions/1990/
homosexuality-and-the-rabbinate-1990/
Childs, J. M. (Ed.). (2003). Faithful conversation: Christian perspectives on homosexuality.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy 195

Commission on Social Action in Reform Judaism. (2015). The rights of transgender and gender
non-conforming individuals. Accessed March 30, 2015, from https://ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/
resolutions/all/rights-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-indiv/
Dabrowski, J. (2014). The exception that doesn’t prove the rule: Why congress should narrow
ENDA’s religious exemption to protect the rights of LGBT employees. American University
Law Review, 63(6), 1957–1957.
Dart, J. (2009). Study process aided Goods gay breakthrough. Christian Century, 126(19), 14–15.
Djupe, P. A., Olson, L. R., & Gilbert, C. P. (2006). Whether to adopt statements on homosexuality
in two denominations: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(4),
609–621.
ELCA. (2009). A social statement on human sexuality: Gift and trust. Accessed March 30, 2015,
from http://www.elca.org/en/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality
ELCA. (2015). Evangelical Lutheran Church in America website. Accessed March 30, 2015, from
http://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/ELCA-Facts
Etengoff, C. (2011). An Exploration of religious gender differences amongst Jewish-American
emerging adults of different socio-religious subgroups. Archive for the Psychology of Religion,
33(3), 371–391.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2013). Sunni-Muslim American religious development during emerg-
ing adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(6), 690–714.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2014). Family members’ uses of religion in post—Coming-out
conflicts with their gay relative. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(1), 33–43.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2015). Clinicians’ perspectives of religious families’ and gay men’s
negotiation of sexual orientation disclosure and prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(3),
394–426.
Fletcher, B. (1990). Clergy under stress: A study of homosexual and heterosexual clergy in the
Church of England. Woonsocket, RI: Mowbray Publishing.
Glesne, D. N. (2004). Understanding homosexuality: Perspectives for the local church. Minne-
apolis: Kirk House.
Goodstein, L. (2010, July 26). Lutherans offer warm welcome to gay pastors but divisions remain
in Church. New York Times. Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://nyti.ms/18XZAlP
Hazel, D. (2000). Witness: Gay and lesbian clergy reporting from the front. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox.
Holmen, R. W. (2013). Queer Clergy. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press.
Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Resources: Employment non-discrimination act. Accessed
March 30, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/employment-non-discrimination-act
Jacob, W. (Ed.). (1985). The changing world of Reform Judaism: The Pittsburgh Platform in
retrospect: Papers presented on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Pittsburgh
Platform, February, 1985 and The proceedings of 1885. New York, NY: Rodef Shalom
Congregation.
Luo, M., & Capecchi, C. (2009, August 22). Lutheran group eases limits on gay clergy. New York
Times. Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/us/22lutherans.
html
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community
settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),
631–656.
McCain, P. T. (2006). Concordia: The Lutheran confessions: A readers edition of the Book of
Concord. St. Louis, MO: Concordia.
Murray, P. M. (2008). Life in paradox: The story of gay Catholic priest. London: Circle
Publishing.
Nahmod, D. E. (2014, February 27). Lutherans install trans pastor. Bay Area Reporter. Accessed
March 30, 2015, from http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec¼news&article¼69518
Nezu, C. M., Farley, D. E., & Nezu, A. M. (2006). Lutherans. In E. T. Dowd & S. L. Nielson
(Eds.), The psychologies in religion: Working with the religious client (pp. 69–85). New York,
NY: Springer.
196 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff

Olson, L. R., & Cadge, W. (2002). Talking about homosexuality: The views of Mainline Protestant
clergy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(1), 153–167.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569–579.
Perry, T. D. (1990). Don’t be afraid anymore: The story of Reverend Troy Perry and the
Metropolitan Community Churches. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008). United States religious landscape survey.
Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-land
scape-study-full.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2013). A portrait of Jewish Americans. Accessed March 26 and 30, 2015
from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/
Robinson, V. G. (2008). In the eye of the storm: Swept to the center by God. New York, NY:
Seabury.
Rodriguez, E. M. (2010). At the intersection of church and gay: A review of the psychological
research on gay and lesbian Christians. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(1), 5–38.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Follins, L. D. (2012). Did God make me this way? Expanding psychological
research on queer religiosity and spirituality to include intersex and transgender individuals.
Psychology and Sexuality, 3(3), 214–225.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious
identity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive church. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 333–347.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Vaughan, M. D. (2013). Stress-related growth in the lives of lesbian and gay
people of faith. In J. Sinnott (Ed.), Positive psychology and adult motivation (pp. 291–307).
New York, NY: Springer.
Rogers, J. (2009). Jesus, the bible and homosexuality: Explode the myths, heal the Church.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Rosenthal, G. S. (2005). Tikkun ha-Olam: The metamorphosis of a concept*. The Journal of
Religion, 85(2), 214–240.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 55(1), 5–34.
Steinberg, S. (1965). Reform Judaism: The origin and evolution of a “church movement”. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5(1), 117–129.
Steinmetz, D. (2009, September 10). Lutherans reverse active gay clergy ban. Quest: Wisconsin’s
Gay News Leader, 16(1), 4.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations. (1998, August). Ten principles for Reform Judaism:
Preamble: Who are we reform Jews? New York, NY: Reform Judaism Magazine. Accessed
March 30, 2015, from http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/1198tp.html
Vaughan, M. D., & Rodriguez, E. M. (2014). LGBT strengths: Incorporating positive psychology
into theory, research, training and practice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 1(4), 325–334.
Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. W. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing and assessing
stress-related growth associated with coming out as gay or lesbian. Journal of Adult Develop-
ment, 17(3), 94–109.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, M. (1994). Stranger at the gate: To be gay and Christian in America. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Whitehead, A. L. (2013). Gendered organizations and inequality regimes: Gender, homosexuality
and inequality within religious congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52
(3), 476–493.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1996). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community
levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), The handbook of community psychol-
ogy. New York, NY: Plenum.
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT
Workers in Thailand

Busakorn Suriyasarn

1 Introduction

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) has
been recognized in international law, and developments in recent years have led to
increased focus on the prevalence of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transsexual (LGBT) persons around the world. While some countries have
adopted legal provisions prohibiting discrimination against LGBT persons, most
countries have not.
LGBT workers face discrimination in various aspects in the job market through-
out the employment cycle. There is a growing concern within governments and
international trade union federations regarding violations of the rights of LGBT
persons. However, specific information about discrimination against LGBT
workers is not available in many countries, in particular developing countries like
Thailand.
As part of a series of country studies that examines the discrimination faced by
LGBT people at work, the International Labour Organization (ILO) commissioned
a study to map the patterns of discrimination faced by LGBT persons in Thailand’s
world of work. (Other countries in the country study series include Argentina, Costa
Rica, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Montenegro, and South Africa.)

B. Suriyasarn, Ph.D. (*)

Bangkok, Thailand
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 197

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_12
198 B. Suriyasarn

2 Research Methodology

2.1 Research Aim and Approach

The research was the first major study in Thailand that focused on discrimination
against LGBT workers and therefore was exploratory in approach. It aimed to
identify key issues and patterns of discrimination in the employment and occupa-
tion of Thai LGBT persons for policy considerations and recommendations. The
qualitative research included two components, legal review and field research, and
was conducted in close collaboration with the Thai LGBT networks and the ILO
tripartite partners.
The legal review involved analysis of existing Thai national laws, regulations
and policies that guarantee LGBT rights to equality and non-discrimination, dis-
criminatory provisions thereof, as well as gaps in legal protection for LGBT rights,
and recent legislative and policy changes to promote gender equality and LGBT
rights.
The field research involved in-depth interviews, focus groups and meetings in
four cities with over 80 individuals from LGBT organizations, academics, and
representatives of the ILO tripartite partners from the government, workers’ and
employers’ organizations, and civil society.

2.2 Field Data Collection

Field data were collected during June 2012 and February 2013. In-depth interviews
and focus group discussions were conducted in four cities, including the capital
Bangkok, the city of Chiang Mai and the industrial town of Lamphun in the North,
and the city of Pattaya in the East.
Twenty-one (21) in-depth interviews were conducted with 29 individuals. Ten
(10) focus groups were conducted with 54 respondents aged 20–54 from various
sub-groups within the Thai LGBT community, with 12 email interviews to supple-
ment data from the focus groups. The research respondent profiles are presented in
Table 1.
In addition, the author participated in two meetings with a number of LGBT
individuals and government representatives and four seminars on LGBT rights.
The personal interviews, focus groups and supplementary email interviews were
provided and arranged with the assistance of the following organizations:
• Lesbian organizations: Anjaree Group, Sapaan.
• Organizations supporting gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM):
Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand (RSAT), Bangkok Rainbow Organization
(BRO), Mplusþ.
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 199

Table 1 Research respondent profiles

Personal in-depth interviews Focus group discussions
Category of respondents Number Category of respondents Number
LGBT activists 12 Lesbian and bisexual women (1 FG) 9
Academics 2 Gay men (2 FGs) 11
NGOs 7 MTF transgender persons (3 FGs) 15
Government officials 3 Trans women (1 FG) 4
Employers’ representatives 3 Trans men (1 FG) 3
Workers’ representatives 2 MTF transgender sex workers (1 FG) 9
Lesbians (email interviews) 10 Gay male sex workers (1 FG) 3
Gay men (email interviews) 2 (MTF ¼ Male-to-Female)
Subtotal 41 Subtotal 54
TOTAL 95

• Transgender organizations: Sisters, Center for Transgenders (supporting trans-

gender sex workers), Thai Transgender Alliance (TGA), Trans Female Associ-
ation of Thailand (TFAT).
• Foundation for SOGI Rights and Justice (FOR-SOGI).
• Teeranat Kanjanauksorn Foundation (TKF, advocating gender justice).
• The Poz Home Center (supporting people living with HIV).
• Service Workers In Group (SWING, supporting sex workers).
• Women’s Health Advocacy Foundation (WHAF).
• People’s Empowerment Foundation.
Efforts were made to obtain balanced perspectives from respondents, who came
from all walks of life and various educational and social backgrounds. While the focus
groups were conducted in four provinces, the respondents came from all regions of
Thailand. They ranged from university students and university-educated urban pro-
fessionals and gender/LGBT rights advocates, to low-income workers and sex workers,
to less educated, unemployed/underemployed persons in rural and urban areas.

2.3 National Validation of Findings

The research findings were validated at a national workshop on 4 June 2014,

attended by 163 people from various organizations, including over 80 members
of LGBT community from across Thailand, 26 representatives of relevant govern-
ment agencies, and workers’ and employers’ organizations, over 30 interested
academics and individuals from civil society, and around 20 staff members of
various United Nations agencies. Many respondents in the research were among
the workshop participants.
Workshop participants largely confirmed the research findings. They were asked
to give their feedback on the findings in a brief 10-question questionnaire. In total,
200 B. Suriyasarn

90 people returned a completed questionnaire. Seventy-three per cent of the ques-

tionnaire respondents identified themselves as LGBT. The majority of the respon-
dents (78 %) said they were not surprised by the findings. Nearly half (43 %) said
the findings reflected their own experience and 78 % the experience of LGBT
people they knew. As high as 87 % of self-identified LGBT respondents said the
findings reflected their own experience and others in their LGBT communities.
Some self-identified heterosexual respondents commented that they were surprised
by the findings because they were unaware of the problems before, especially the
extent of discrimination against trans women (MTF transgender persons).
The research findings also confirmed findings of the national participatory
review and analysis in Thailand under the “Being LGBT in Asia initiative”
supported by United National Development Programme (UNDP) and United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), in particular that discrimination
against LGBT people in Thailand starts before employment, that transgender
persons face the severest discrimination due to their visibility, and that LGBT
people are pressured to hide their diverse gender identities at work or face lack of
career progress (UNDP-USAID 2014).

2.4 Data Limitations

The data tend to favor younger, urban, educated LGBT populations. Despite efforts
to obtain interviews with older LGBT respondents, most active LGBT organiza-
tions tend to involve the younger LGBT generation and most active LGBT indi-
viduals who agreed to participate in the study were in their twenties and thirties, and
some in their forties. As a result, the information received is somewhat skewed
toward younger LGBT persons in the early and middle stages of their career. This
was rectified to some extent by supplementary email interviews with older
respondents.
As most interviews and focus groups were conducted in large cities, there is a
slight skew toward vocational- and university-educated, urban LGBT population in
white-collar and non-governmental jobs. This is particularly true for the lesbian
group. Supplementary data were added for balance from a master’s thesis on
“tomboy” factory workers in an industrial estate in a rural province of Lamphun
in Northern Thailand.
No concrete good practice examples on promoting employment of LGBT
workers and gender diversity by Thai employers were reported by the research
respondents. While efforts were made to obtain inputs from representatives of
employers’ organizations, perspectives of employers are limited in this study.
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 201

3 Findings

The research findings are summarized in two parts: 3.1 protection for LGBT rights
under Thai law; and 3.2 reality of LGBT discrimination in Thailand’s world of
work, which includes key observations and patterns of discrimination experienced
by Thai LGBT workers in employment and occupation.

3.1 Protection of LGBT Rights Under Thai Law

3.1.1 Equality Protection and Anti-discrimination Provisions

Thai law does not criminalize homosexuality. Sodomy was decriminalized in 1956.
However, legal protection of LGBT rights in Thailand has been relatively limited.
In general the Thai legal system strictly and explicitly identifies persons in the law
only by the male and female genders. Laws and regulations that discriminate
against LGBT persons still exist even if there have been some positive legislative
progress in recent years to ensure equal rights between men and women and to
recognize LGBT rights.
Until very recently there was no Thai law that recognized the rights of persons of
diverse sexualities. There is also no specific anti-discrimination law covering
employment and occupation. Thai LGBT communities have actively advocated
for more legal recognition and protection of their rights with some success.
The two previous constitutions of Thailand (1997 and 2007) guaranteed equality
for all persons and between men and women. Section 30 of the Constitution of
Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), abrogated by the 22 May 2014 coup d’état, prohibited
discrimination on the ground of sex among the twelve prohibited grounds. LGBT
advocates lobbied unsuccessfully due to objections from conservative lawmakers to
include “sexual diversity” as a prohibited ground in the anti-discrimination provi-
sion. However, they negotiated to have protection against discrimination based on
“sexual identity,” “gender” and “sexual diversity” annotated as inclusive in the
ground of sex in the accompanying Intentions of the Constitution which provided
guidelines for application. The Interim Constitution of Thailand imposed by the
military junta since 22 July 2014 contains no gender equality protection or anti-
discrimination provisions. The latest, military-supported draft Constitution of
Thailand expected to be put to a referendum in August 2016 has no mention
of gender diveristy, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Persons of diverse sexualities were recognized for the first time in Thai law in
the November 2012 National Social Welfare Promotion Commission (NSWPC)
Regulation, issued under the 2007 amendment of the Social Welfare Promotion Act
B.E. 2546 (2003). The 2012 NSWPC regulation identifies “persons of diverse
sexualities” as one of the 13 target population groups requiring assistance to access
social services. It gives comprehensive definitions of LGBT identities, including
202 B. Suriyasarn

homosexuals (gay men and lesbian women, including toms); bisexuals; transgender
persons (Thai: khon kham phet, katoeys, sao praphet song, ying kham phet);
intersex persons; and queer persons (Royal Gazette 2012, November 16). LGBT
advocates provided extensive input to the drafting of the Regulation which sets out
key measures to increase opportunity in employment, education and participation in
policymaking, among others.
In recent years gender expressions and identities have become diversely identi-
fied in Thai society. Besides common English terms such as “gay”, “lesbian,”
“bisexual,” “transgender” and “intersex” adopted into usage in the Thai language
with additional nuances, there are many specific Thai terms for various gender
expressions and identities in the Thai context:
• “Gay” is used exclusively with men who are attracted to men. Thai women who
are attracted to women are not referred to as “gay women,” but “tom,” “di,”
“les,” or ying rak ying, literally “women who love women.” Gay men are also
called chai rak chai, “men who love men.” The latter two terms are
relatively new.
• “Lesbian” is used to refer to women who are attracted to women but is generally
not favored by Thai “women who love women” because it is perceived to carry a
negative connotation that lesbians are mentally abnormal. However, many
lesbian women refer to themselves simply as “les.”
• “Bi” is an informal Thai term for “bisexual” used as in English, although few
Thais openly identify themselves as bisexual.
• “Tom,” from English “tomboy,” refers to a woman with a masculine gender
expression/identity who is attracted to women, often but not always, a “di.”
• “Di,” from English “lady,” refers to a woman with a feminine gender expression/
identity who is attracted to women, often but not always, a “tom.”
• “TG,” shortened from “transgender,” is a new term of self-identification among
Thai transgender activists and members of the male-to-female (MTF) trans
community.
• “Katoey” is an old but still widely used Thai term referring to a person who was
born male but has a feminine appearance, expression and behavior more con-
sistent with that of a female person. The term has historical meaning as “her-
maphrodite,” which medically means a person who has both male and female
sexual organs, and historically used to mean either a MTF or female-to-male
(FTM) transsexual person. In current usage, katoey refers exclusively to MTF
trans persons. Some MTF trans women do not favor this term and find it
derogatory, while those who take pride in their unique, in-between gender
identity of katoey embraces it.
• “Sao praphet song,” literally “woman/women of the second category,” refers to
katoeys and trans women. This term is widely acceptable to MTF trans persons.
• “Tut,” from Tootsie, the Dustin Hoffman film, is equivalent for the English term
“fag,” or “faggot.” This adopted term is widely used but highly pejorative for
gay men, katoeys and MTF trans people, although some gay men among the
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 203

younger generation may embrace it and use it subversively. However, in general

usage it is best avoided.
• “Phet thi sam,” literally “the third gender,” refers collectively to individuals who
are not heterosexual. This term is generally not favored by Thai LGBT people, as
it is perceived to reinforce gender hierarchy.
• “Khon kham phet” is the direct translation of “transgender person,” used for both
MTF and FTM.
• “Ying kham phet” is the Thai term for “trans woman.”
• “Chai kham phet” is the Thai term for “trans man.”
• “Phet kam-kuam” is the Thai term for “ambiguous sex” of intersex persons.
The Gender Equality Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Royal Gazette 2015, March 13) was
the first major Thai law that guarantees protection from gender discrimination for
LGBT persons as follows:
‘Unfair gender discrimination’ refers to any direct or indirect action or non-action which is
an unfair distinction, exclusion or restriction of any right or benefit because the person is
male or female, or has a gender expression different from his/her birth sex [my emphasis].
(Sec. 3, para. 1)

While the Act is recognized as an important milestone for LGBT rights in

Thailand, its content concerns mostly with the establishment and duties of two
gender equality commissions tasked with promoting gender equality and reviewing
gender discrimination complaints. The Act has received mixed reception from Thai
LGBT activists, many of whom expressed concerns about Section 17 which may
provide a legal loophole to allow discrimination against LGBT persons if done to
provide protection and safety or according to religious principle or national security
(Yingcharoen 2015).
Traditionally Thai law protected only women and children from sexual violence.
In the last decade, there has been a move towards a more inclusive definition of
sexual rights and wider protection to also cover men and people of diverse sexu-
alities. The Criminal Code Amendment Act (No. 19) B.E. 2550 (2007) has
expanded the definition of rape to cover raping of people of all genders and all
types of sexual penetration, and imposes more severe penalties (up to 20 years
imprisonment) on offenders in all forms of rape and sexual abuses. However,
concerns remain about effective law enforcement and law enforcement officers’
insensitivity for rape victims, especially transgender persons.
In employment and occupation, the Labour Protection Act B.E. 2541 (1998) and
No. 2 amendment B.E. 2558 (2008), which provides protection for workers in the
private sector, contains provisions that guarantee equal treatment for male and
female workers (Sec. 15) and equal pay for work of equal value (Sec. 53). The
Labour Protection Act also prohibits sexual harassment against all workers includ-
ing men (Sec. 16). The Act does not apply to central, provincial and local admin-
istration, and state enterprises under the law governing state enterprise labor
relations. The Ministry of Labour Regulation on Thai Labour Standards, Social
Responsibility of Thai Businesses B.E. 2547 (2007) prohibits discrimination
against workers on the basis of sex as well as personal sexual attitude.
204 B. Suriyasarn

3.1.2 Discriminatory Provisions

Discriminatory provisions persist in some laws, regulations, and administrative

rules. Some discriminatory provisions have been addressed, while others remain.
Until 2012 transgender/transsexual males were still officially described as
“mentally ill” as the basis of an exemption from mandatory military conscription.
The wording “permanent mental disorder” was commonly recorded on the reserved
military service exemption document, known as Sor Dor 43, for exempted trans
persons but who are still required to report for compulsory military draft along with
all 21-year-old Thai males. Sor Dor 43 is often required for Thai men in job
applications as proof of military service or exemption thereof, resulting in many
MTF trans persons with such a document being rejected or deterred from applying
for formal jobs.
Thai LGBT networks heavily lobbied the Ministry of Defense to discontinue
certifying the Sor Dor 43 documents with the “mental disorder” wording. The
military agreed in March 2006 but refused to revise previously issued papers. The
real change came in September 2011, following a court order in a case filed by a
27-year-old transgender person against the Ministry of Defense in 2006 for the use
of such wording. The Central Administrative Court issued a landmark ruling
ordering the Ministry of Defense to stop labeling transgender persons as having a
“permanent mental disorder” and correct the wording on the plaintiff’s Sor Dor
43, stating that such a wording was “inaccurate” and “unlawful.” On 11 April 2012
Ministerial Regulation No. 75 B.E. 2555 (2012) was issued under the 1954 Military
Service Act to use the term “gender identity disorder” in military service exemption
for transgender persons. Exempted transgender persons can now request a new Sor
Dor 43 with the new wording. This was progress, but the new wording “gender
identity disorder” continues to stigmatize as a form of psychological abnormality.
Ambiguous language in laws and regulations sometimes lead to discrimination
resulting from arbitrary interpretation and application of the law, limiting the
opportunities of transgender people (and other population groups, in particular
persons with disabilities). One key example is the Civil Service Act B.E. 2551
(2008) which defines a disqualification for civil service applicants on the basis of
“being morally defective to the extent of being socially objectionable” (Sec. 36, B
(4)).

3.1.3 Gaps in Legal Protection

Thailand is known for world-class medical skills in sex reassignment surgeries and
a high visibility of transgender people in society, yet ironically the Thai legal
system fails to recognize transgender identity. Sex reassignment surgeries are
legally permissible for those aged 18 and above, but transgender persons who
have had sex change are not allowed a legal change of their gender. Legally Thai
citizens are either male or female according to their sex registered at birth. At
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 205

present only intersex persons with ambiguous or both male and female sexual
organs can apply for a legal title “correction,” after a medical procedure has been
completed to keep either male or female sexual organs.
Thai law also allows only a man and a woman to be legally married. Thailand’s
Civil Code stipulates that only persons with a legal marital status can be considered
a legal heir of the spouse. Without legal recognition of the union, same-sex partners
in Thailand are deprived of many legal spousal entitlements and benefits and the
capacity to conduct legal transactions as legal spouses, for example, the right to
co-manage spousal assets, tax benefits, alimony, social security benefits for spouses
through the employer and the state, life insurance benefits (Preechasilpakul 2013).

3.2 Reality of LGBT Discrimination in Thailand’s World

of Work

3.2.1 Persistent Stigma and Discrimination of LGBT Persons in Thai

Society

The overwhelming majority of respondents in this research believe there is no real

acceptance of LGBT people in Thai society due to persistent and prevalent preju-
dices, misconceptions and lack of understanding about SOGI rights. Thai LGBT
persons face stigma and many forms of discrimination in education, at work and in
life. Some are rejected by their own families.
Different groups of LGBT respondents experience varying degrees of social
acceptance, but those with visibly different gender expressions, in particular trans-
gender persons—katoeys, sao praphet song, trans women and trans men—as well
as toms and intersex persons face the strongest and most extensive discrimination
and exclusion by mainstream Thai society. While there is more social acceptance
for LGBT people now than in the past, the perception that Thailand is an LGBT
heaven is more an illusion than reality. One extreme example is a sign in front of a
restaurant in Pattaya that says “katoeys are not allowed,” along with dogs and
durians, the local pungent fruit.
The respondents in this research generally characterized Thai society’s accep-
tance of LGBT people as: “It’s OK, as long as they are not my children.” Their
observation from the research is to some extent supported by two national polls
conducted in 2013 and 2015, each with 1250 respondents nationwide (SE  1.4).
The poll results indicate that while Thais are generally open and accepting of LGBT
friends and colleagues and, to a lesser extent, family members, they are much less
willing to support LGBT legal rights. Nonetheless, there are slight increases in
support for the right to a legal gender title change for transgender persons and for
legal same-sex partnership (see Table 2 below).
Another survey conducted with 868 LGBT people from eight provinces in
2012–2013 revealed that 27 % experienced violence in the family, with the highest
percentage (38.4 %) among MTF trans, and most did not report violence to
206 B. Suriyasarn

Table 2 NIDA Poll—acceptance of LGBT at work and in family in Thai society (2013, 2015)
2013 2015
Poll question Answer (%) (%)
LGBT friends and colleagues Can accept 88.49 88.72
Cannot accept 8.79 10.00
No answer/Not 2.72 1.28
sure
LGBT family members Can accept 77.56 79.92
Cannot accept 17.25 16.80
No answer/Not 5.19 3.28
sure
Transgender persons should have the right to a legal gender Agree 43.53 53.20
title change Disagree 42.01 39.44
No answer/Not 14.46 7.36
sure
Legal same-sex partnership Agree 52.96 59.20
Disagree 33.84 35.04
No answer/Not 13.18 5.76
sure
Add alternative gender(s) besides male and female in all Agree – 59.36
official documents Disagree – 35.12
No answer/Not – 5.52
sure
Source: NIDA Poll, “What does Thai society think of the third sex?” http://goo.gl/ix2Qaj.
Accessed 5 August 2015

authorities (Samakkeekarom and Taesombat 2013). MTF trans also reported sexual
harassment and rape or attempted rape during reserved military conscription and
training.

3.2.2 Hetero-normative Pressure and Exclusion of Trans People

Discrimination and exclusion against LGBT people is an extension of the larger

gender inequality that still exists in society based on heterosexual normative values,
which perpetuate and reinforce the distinction and expectations of masculine and
feminine gender roles and behaviors. Those who do not conform to traditional
gender norms are censured, marginalized or excluded for being different. These
norms are reinforced by social conditioning at home, at school and at work, and
sanctioned through laws, rules and regulations. For example, the male versus
female school and work uniforms have been a source of difficulties for many
Thai trans people, as increasingly covered by Thai media in recent years.
While Thai society can be said to tolerate transgender persons who have had a
full transformation to the preferred sex, there is less tolerance for those whose
gender identity is ambiguous, “in between,” neither “man” nor “woman.” Trans
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 207

people tend to be the target of the strongest discrimination and violence among all
LGBT populations.

3.2.3 Discrimination at All Stages of Employment, Starting from

Education

The majority of LGBT respondents in the research have experienced discrimination

in many aspects and stages of employment, starting from education and training, to
access to employment, career opportunity and advancement, as well as in access to
pension and other social security benefits.
MTF trans more than other groups reported being pressured at home and by
teachers to choose “soft” subjects and fields of study (such as communication,
humanities and social science) and discouraged from others, often high status, fields
such as teaching, psychology, medicine, and engineering. Transgender university
students, both MTF and FTM, are sometimes barred from examination and training
courses due to strict dress code.
A MTF trans trainee teacher in Northern Thailand was not allowed by her
university to wear a female student uniform during her teacher’s training after
4-year university course work. (Thailand is one of the few countries in the world
where university students are required to wear uniform.) Although the school where
she applied for teacher’s training accepted her as a trainee teacher in a female
uniform, the university objected citing the university’s dress code, arguing that a
trainee teacher must be an appropriate role model for school pupils, and if she
insisted on wearing the female uniform she would not be allowed to graduate and
become a teacher. With the intervention of a local NGO and the National Human
Rights Commission, the matter was resolved. The university gave a special per-
mission to allow her to wear a female uniform during her training (Suriyasarn 2015,
Box 4.2, p. 49).
Some trans respondents reported having been denied scholarship due to their
transgender identity. Some gay male and trans students experienced harassment and
violence, from verbal abuse to bullying and physical assaults from peers as well as
teachers, resulting in school dropout or change of school, even attempted suicide.
A feminine gay male was bullied and physically assaulted by classmates when
he was a technical school student in Bangkok. He studied industry logistics, a male-
dominated field, and received top marks in class. In his first year he was chosen as
the school’s representative in a competition. His classmates were unhappy because
they felt that industry logistics was a ‘manly’ field. One day he was ganged upon by
eight classmates who tried to undress him to take pictures and make a video clip to
post on the school web board, which at the time featured clips of katoey students
forced undressed by fellow students. He fought back and screamed until a teacher
came to rescue him. The classmates told the teacher they were “humiliated” that a
katoey was chosen to represent them. The classmates were punished but the
bullying worsened. Finally he moved to a new school and changed his major to
business (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.7, p. 66).
208 B. Suriyasarn

Many gay research respondents revealed that they hid their sexuality while they
were high school students and not associated themselves with gay or katoey
classmates in fear of being found out and subsequently teased or bullied.
A 2014 study on bullying of LGBT students in Thai schools, which surveyed
2070 students in five provinces in Thailand, of which 11.9 % self-identified as
LGBT, confirmed high prevalence of bullying of LGBT students. The study
revealed that 56 % of students self-identified as LGBT reported having been bullied
in the past month, and 25 % of students who did not identify as LGBT reported
being bullied because they were perceived to be transgender or same-sex attracted.
The bullying ranged from verbal abuse (e.g., face-to-face and online name calling),
physical abuse (e.g., slapping, kicking), social exclusion, and sexual harassment,
which included public sexual humiliation (e.g., placing victims into sexually
humiliating positions, mimicking rape). Toms were the least liked group, with
recent emergence of anti-tom hate groups (Mahihol University, Plan International
Thailand, UNESCO 2014).

3.2.4 Least Access to Job Opportunities for Trans and ‘Toms’

While masculine gay men and feminine lesbian women have comparable access to
jobs as heterosexual men and women, MTF trans, lesbian tomboys and trans men
face the biggest barrier to access to jobs, especially in public institutions and large
private companies. Several trans respondents (referring to MTF trans, self-
identified trans women and trans men in this research) said they were asked
intrusive questions about their sexuality in job interviews, and denied jobs at the
interview stage once their legal gender title was known to be different from their
outward appearance. Trans job applicants are also commonly given psychological
tests not given to other applicants.
A self-identified trans man in his late twenties, a respondent in this research, said
he was unemployed for 2 years after university, despite graduating with honors. He
struggled with having to wear skirts to job interviews and being asked questions
about his sexuality, e.g., “why did you choose this sex, why do you want to become
a man, which toilet will you use?” He said one job interviewer told him, “We are
open-minded here but we still have rules. Can you wear the female uniform to
work?” He was eventually hired by a bank but only worked there for a brief period
before leaving the job due to anti-LGBT slurs from co-workers. He became an
international LGBT activist.
Trans people feel almost completely excluded from employment in the civil
service which enforces strict sex-specific dress codes. For trans people to gain
employment in the civil service, they must observe the dress code at work according
to their birth sex. Not many are willing to do so. A MTF trans social worker related
her experience applying for a job with the government:
I had to cut my hair short and dress as a man to apply for the job because I was afraid I
would not be considered otherwise. After having worked for a period I still kept my hair
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 209

short but I started telling my direct superiors [of my real gender identity]. They acknowl-
edged it and I started dressing as normal, as a woman (Suriyasarn 2015, p. 52).

Transgender identity is also a problem for some employers in the private sector.
In a case that went to the Labour Court in Bangkok in 2007, a MTF transgender
person was already hired by the Thailand country office of a multinational company
but the hiring was retracted because of her “cross-dressing” (Suriyasarn 2015, Box
4.3, p. 54). Recent positive changes in new acceptance for transgender workers in
some jobs (such as flight attendant, elected local government official) remain
exceptions rather than a real change on a larger scale.
Interestingly, most MTF trans respondents in this research said the improvement
of wording in the military exemption document has no significant impact on their
employment opportunity because the real obstacle in getting mainstream jobs is the
mismatched physical appearance and legal identity.

3.2.5 Ghettoization of Employment for Trans People

Often denied jobs in the formal sector, most trans people, including those highly
qualified, are left with limited stereotypical job choices where they are more
accepted, in entertainment as cabaret performers or beauty pageants, in the beauty
industry as make-up artists and sale persons in cosmetic department, and in a few
service jobs such as public relations. Many MTF trans resort to sex work. Trans in
poor rural communities also find themselves at the margin of the rural informal
economy as unpaid or poorly paid family workers, irregular hired laborers, home-
based workers at the bottom of the manufacturing supply chains, or even as spiritual
mediums.
At a workshop on human rights with 27 mostly university-educated trans
contestants in the world-famous Miss Tiffany beauty pageant in Pattaya in April
2013, the contestants shared their experience in employment discrimination: “We
were often denied jobs because we were judged as abnormal, different, and less
valuable than women and men, but in truth we have no different capacity and can
also be doctors, prosecutors, judges, etc.” (Suriyasarn 2015, p. 55).

3.2.6 Differential Preference for Tomboy Factory Workers

During the past decade or so toms have become workers in demand by factories in
the manufacturing industry which have traditionally employed a large number of
women. According to a 2011 master’s thesis (Chailangka 2011), toms have become
desirable workers because they are perceived to have combined feminine and
masculine qualities (“nimble” and “detailed oriented” like women and “strong”
like men).
210 B. Suriyasarn

3.2.7 Gay Workers Staying in the Closet for Job Security

Many gay and lesbian workers tend to play heterosexual roles to avoid possible
rejection, gossips and anti-LGBT comments that can amount to a hostile work
environment (unless they work in an LGBT-specific organization). Generally,
homosexual men and women hide their sexuality in the early stages of their career
and only come out later after they feel some security in their job. This largely
depends on the workplace culture and the profession. Non-heterosexual gender
identity is perceived to damage credibility in leadership and in some traditional
high-status jobs, for professions such as lawyers and judges. A lesbian respondent
in this research who was a Muslim and worked as a lawyer said that she hid her
sexuality at work for fear of losing her professional credibility in the male-
dominated field and in particular among her Muslim colleagues. She explained:
In the Muslim culture, being a lesbian would mean excommunication . . . The locals would
say [lesbianism] is a sin and satanic (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.4, p. 59).

3.2.8 Unfair Treatment at Work for Trans and ‘Toms’

Access to toilets is an issue for both MTF and FTM transgender employees. Often
neither male co-workers nor female co-workers like katoeys, sao praphet song or
toms and trans men to use their restrooms. Very few workplaces in Thailand have
special restrooms for trans people.
Trans and toms face more discrimination at work. They are often not fairly
treated in terms of recognition for their work. Although toms are accepted in some
jobs such as factory and construction and some enjoy job promotion, others are
pressured to resign from their job as a result of harassment and unfair treatment,
feeling their work is not fairly valued and compensated (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.5,
p. 61). Incongruous legal identity also poses an obstacle in career advancement to
managerial positions for some trans employees (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.6, p. 62).

3.2.9 Hostile Work Environment, Sexual Harassment and Violence

Many members of all LGBT groups in the research reported having experienced
various forms of gender-based harassment and violence at school and at work, from
verbal harassment in forms of mild teasing, taunting, gossip, slurs and insults, to
groping and more serious forms of physical and sexual violence, including bullying,
physical assaults and rape.
Many MTF trans and feminine gay respondents reported having experienced
being called the pejorative term “tut,” Thai for “faggot.” The word katoey itself is
sometimes also used as an insult, and large, unfeminine, or heavily built trans are
often called “katoey kwaay,” “buffalo trans” (buffalos are seen as large and stupid
in Thai culture). Many LGBT respondents have experienced strong judgmental
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 211

comments from people in various situations, often described as “phit phet,” mean-
ing “sexually abnormal” or “sexually perverse.” They have also been told that theirs
was a “wasted life.”
Hostile work environment commonly experienced by LGBT respondents in the
research involves gossip and slurs, insensitive jokes, sexual comments or intrusive
questions about their private lives and sexuality. Some reported having experienced
their co-workers telling jokes about trans and toms being raped or gang raped. Some
lesbian respondents complained about male co-workers watching pornographic
films at work and making suggestive comments about lesbian sex acts.
While MTF trans respondents reported harassment and violence more than other
groups, lesbians are also subject to sexual violence. Some respondents reported rape
and attempted rape of tomboy lesbians by male friends and co-workers, rape and
attempted gang rape of intersex persons because of their ambiguous gender identity,
and rape of trans detainees in male prisons. There have also been media reports of
rape and murder of lesbians that fit the definition of hate crime but are not
recognized as such by the Thai police, as noted by the International Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC 2012).

3.2.10 Opting Out of Mainstream Jobs

Due to repeated rejection, hostile work environments, limited freedom of gender

expression at work, and limited career advancement opportunities, many LGBT
respondents in the research said that LGBT people tend to opt out of formal
employment in large public or private organizations to seek jobs where they can
express themselves more freely in smaller enterprises and non-government organi-
zations, or they set up their own business. Others choose jobs that allow them to go
outside of the workplace such as sales or become freelance workers in various fields
such as computer programming, architecture, interior design, etc.

3.2.11 Lower Job Security and Limited Access to Social Protection

and Services

Many in the Thai LGBT community find themselves in the informal, often lower-
paid jobs which afford them less job security, often with lower pay and fewer
benefits. Even gay men do not have job security like heterosexual men.
A real estate manager was fired after 5 years on the job for being gay. He became
aware that he had been fired when a notice was posted on the company’s public
notice board, stating the reason of his termination that he was “a person with two
genders [gay] who abused his power and tried to gain acceptance from others.” The
manager filed a lawsuit with the labor court for unlawful termination. With inter-
vention from the National Human Rights Commission the case ended in a settle-
ment with the employer offering him an apology and 8-months severance pay
(Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.8, p. 74).
212 B. Suriyasarn

Most LGBT respondents do not feel a strong sense of job or life security, in a
large part due to the lack of the legal right to marry. Hence they cannot access many
benefits and rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, such as joint bank loans. Poor
LGBT people with lower education and social status in the rural areas struggle to
sustain their livelihoods amid strong cultural prejudices and have little access to
regular employment, credit, capital, and social security. There is a phenomenon of
katoeys in rural areas in Northern Thailand reinventing themselves as spiritual
mediums as a strategy to sustain their livelihood, gain respect and build a support
network within their own community (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.9, p. 76).
Many LGBT respondents complained about discrimination in access to public
health services, with trans people having the most difficulties due mostly to
prejudices and insensitivity towards trans identity and inflexible hospital rules
(e.g., MTF patients must be treated as male). Gay men and trans persons are also
presumed to have a “risky lifestyle” with a higher risk of contracting HIV and are
often refused insurance or required to pay higher insurance premiums.

3.2.12 Double Stigma and Discrimination for LGBT People Living

with HIV (PLHIV)

There is no law in Thailand prohibiting discrimination in employment on the

grounds of HIV status. PLHIV have been found to be denied employment or not
to be eligible for promotion, more often due to discrimination than poor health.
Although there have been significant improvements in access to antiretroviral
treatment, PLHIV continue to face problems with involuntary HIV screening and
confidentiality being violated by employers and hospitals, despite codes of practice.
According to The Poz, an NGO supporting gay men living with HIV in Bangkok,
HIV-screening in job application remains common in factories, businesses in the
service sector including retail, hospitality (hotels) and sales, as well as in major
businesses and state enterprises. Violation of confidentiality and gossip often result
in the employees leaving the job.

3.2.13 Discrimination and Harassment of Transgender Sex Workers

Transgender sex workers are routinely harassed and extorted by police in red light
districts popular with foreign tourists in Bangkok, Pattaya, Chiang Mai, and Phuket.
Compared to freelance female sex workers, freelance or street-walking transgender
sex workers are much more vulnerable to being arrested and “fined” for solicitation.
Police often cite “bad image” (for Thai tourism and culture) as the reason for
cracking down on transgender sex workers. Transgender sex workers in this
research said they were perceived to make “more money” and hence have more
to pay “fines.”
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 213

3.2.14 Increasing But Limited Social Dialogue

So far there has been limited discussion on labor issues among LGBT organizations
but even less among government, workers and employers organizations, although
discrimination in employment is one of the major complaints within the LGBT
communities. No LGBT organizations in this study work actively to promote labor
rights for LGBT people, and LGBT rights are not a priority issue in employers’ and
workers’ organizations. However, LGBT organizations have recently begun to
coordinate with some government agencies on LGBT rights issues, specifically
on legal same-sex partnership and access to social services.

3.2.15 No Dedicated Agency to Tackle Employment Discrimination

The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC) has served as the de
facto agency that LGBT organizations turn to in times of need, including when the
grievances concern labor rights. However, the NHRC has limitations in resources
and mechanisms to ensure timely and effective redress. There is as yet no dedicated
agency that specifically addresses discrimination in employment and occupation in
the country.

4 Conclusion and Recommendations

Recent positive legislative changes mean LGBT rights are finally on the road to
recognition in Thai law after more than a decade of advocacy. However, major gaps
still exist in legal protection for LGBT people in Thailand: notably, no legal
recognition of transgender identity or marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Persistent stigma and prejudices, lack of understanding about SOGI rights com-
bined with gaps in legal protection, have led to extensive discrimination in many
areas of life and various aspects of employment and occupation for Thai LGBT
people. While discrimination, exclusion and marginalization are particularly acute
for transgender persons, Thai LGBT people as a population group do not yet enjoy
the full range of fundamental rights and equal opportunity and treatment and as a
result are unable to reach their full potential.
Full rights cannot be exercised and full participation is not possible, unless
society accepts all members as equal before the law and entitled to the same
human and workers’ rights. The gaps in legal protection of SOGI rights require
further policy mobilization to include LGBT in the full protection against discrim-
ination under Thai law, including in the forthcoming constitution and the Labour
Protection Act. Importantly, transgender persons must be allowed a legal gender
title change and same-sex partnership legally recognized.
214 B. Suriyasarn

The lack of anti-discrimination legislation specific to employment and occupa-

tion can be remedied by seeking useful guidance in international instruments, in
particular the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. 111). Good practice examples from other countries are worth considering,
such as establishing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as an advisory
and monitoring body with effective implementation mechanisms to ensure equal
opportunity and treatment for all workers.
Effective action against discrimination of LGBT in the workplace involves
responsive laws, policies and mechanisms, responsive human resources and prac-
tices, as well as more education and social dialogue towards a better understanding
about LGBT rights and acceptance of LGBT people as full and equal members of
society. More cooperation from all key stakeholders is needed.
The government, LGBT communities, educational institutions at all levels,
media, and civil society, all have a role to play in promoting awareness and
understanding about gender equality and diversity and LGBT rights in school, at
work, in the media and in society at large. Workers’ and employers’ organizations
need to step up measures to prevent and eliminate hostile work environment and
violence to ensure safe workplace for workers of all sexual orientations and gender
identities, while law enforcement and the judiciary also need better understanding
about LGBT and SOGI rights.
Concrete qualitative and quantitative data about LGBT and SOGI rights are
fundamental to program and policy actions to bring about societal change. This
research is part of the first steps to build such a knowledge base in Thailand. Thus
far there is insufficient information about LGBT workers in the informal economy.
Further research is needed about this group of workers, especially in the poor, rural
areas. More information is also needed on good practices and perspectives of
companies and of employers and workers’ organizations on LGBT discrimination,
to promote social dialogue that focuses on discrimination against LGBT people in
employment and ways to prevent and redress it.

References

Chailangka, R. (2011). Lesbian identity construction: Different life styles of female workers in
Northern Region industrial estate Lamphun Province (in Thai). Master thesis, Chiang Mai
University.
IGLHRC. (2012, March 29). 15 targeted killings of lesbians in Thailand since 2006: IGLHRC
report. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Accessed August 3, 2012,
from http://iglhrc.org/content/15-targeted-killings-lesbians-thailand-2006-iglhrc-report
Mahidol University, Plan International Thailand, UNESCO. (2014). Bullying targeting secondary
school students who are or are perceived to be transgender or same-sex attracted: Types,
prevalence, impact, motivation and preventive measures in 5 provinces of Thailand. Bangkok:
UNESCO. Accessed August 5, 2015, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002275/
227518e.pdf
NIDA Poll. (2013, 2015). What does Thai society think of the third sex? (in Thai). Accessed
August 5, 2015, from http://goo.gl/ix2Qaj
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 215

Preechasilpakul, S. (2013, June 19). Persons of diverse sexualities in the legal system (in Thai).
Presentation at Faculty of Law, Thammasat University.
Royal Gazette. (2012, November 16). Regulation of the National Commission on Social Welfare
Promotion on the Specification of Persons or Groups of Persons as Target Groups for the
Receipt of Social Welfare. Ratchakitchanubeska, 129 (Special Issue 173 Ngo). Accessed April
3, 2015, from http://www.m-society.go.th/article_attach/1363/2081.pdf
Royal Gazette. (2015, March 13). Gender Equality Act, B.E. 2558 (in Thai). Ratchakitchanubeska,
132, 18 Ko. Accessed April 3, 2015, from http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/
2558/A/018/17.PDF
Samakkeekarom, R., & Taesombat, J. (2013, June 19) Partnership and making family for LGBT:
Meaning, needs and violence (in Thai). Presentation at Faculty of Law, Thammasat University.
Suriyasarn, B. (2015). Gender identity and sexual orientation in Thailand: Promoting rights,
diversity and equality in the World of Work (PRIDE) Project. Bangkok: ILO. Accessed March
29, 2015, from http://www.ilo.org/asia/whatwedo/publications/WCMS_356950/lang--en/
index.htm
UNDP-USAID. (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: Thailand country report. Bangkok. Accessed March
29, 2015, from http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1861/Being_LGBT_in_
Asia_Thailand_Country_Report.pdf
Yingcharoen, T. (2015, September 7). Gender Act loophole ‘denies equality’. Bangkok Post.
Accessed September 20, 2015, from http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/683196/gen
der-act-loophole-denies-equality
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering
the Experiences of LGBT Employees
in Turkey

Emir Ozeren, Zeki Ucar, and Ethem Duygulu

1 Introduction

Today, employees with diverse backgrounds and unique characteristics who are
often associated with major sources of change, creativity and innovation (Frohman
1997) may potentially provide invaluable contributions to their organizations.
However, they might also be subject to unfair, unequal treatment and discrimina-
tory behavior in the workplace due to their minority status. In the given circum-
stances, these employees feel compelled to remain silent in the face of various
concerns and issues. The notion, conceptualized as “organizational silence” in the
literature, is likely to pose a serious challenge to the development of the pluralistic
organization that appreciates differences among employees and encourages the
expression of multiple ideas and thoughts (Morrison and Milliken 2000).
Minority groups are, indeed, more likely to be vulnerable to being silenced by
the rest of the organizational members who hold the majority and power in
organizations. Among minority groups in organizations, LGBT employees are the
most silenced and the least studied subjects, particularly within the Turkish work
context. In a study focused on voice, silence and diversity, Bell et al. (2011)
described LGBT employees as invisible minorities who provide valuable focal
points that can be used to examine employee voice mechanisms. They examined

E. Ozeren, Ph.D. (*) • E. Duygulu, Ph.D.

Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Z. Ucar, Ph.D.
Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis, Turkey
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 217

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_13
218 E. Ozeren et al.

the negative consequences of LGBT silence in the workplace and discussed the
ways their voices might be heard. Bowen and Blackmon (2003) also argued that the
fear and threat of isolation are particularly powerful for members of sexual
minorities.
Previous research on organizational silence conducted by Morrison and Milliken
(2000) and Pinder and Harlos (2001) was built on the assumption of the heterosex-
ual work environment without an adequate emphasis on the availability of
non-heterosexual employees. Only Bowen and Blackmon (2003) focused on the
dynamics of silencing sexual minorities at work by using “spiral of silence”, as
proposed by Noelle‐Neumann (1974). Hence, this chapter aims to unveil the major
factors leading to LGBT silencing in the workplace, considering the paucity of
research directly investigating employee silence from the viewpoint of LGBT
individuals based on their unique experiences and own stories.
Given the fact that the literature on LGBT studies is predominantly based on
Anglo-Saxon contexts, there are calls for further research (Priola et al. 2014; Tatli
and Özbilgin 2011; Syed and Ozbilgin 2009) to explore under-represented terri-
tories to compare and contrast the existing findings, mostly generated by the USA
and UK with different contexts, and this chapter sheds some light on silencing at
work from the viewpoint of LGBT individuals, being one of the most under-
researched minority groups in Turkey. Thus, the chapter contributes to both fields
of diversity management and organizational silence by highlighting the voices of
LGBT people in order to be heard in the scholarly arena. It represents one of the few
empirical studies to challenge the silence around LGBT workers’ experiences in
Turkey.

2 Relevant Literature and Previous Research Evidence

The fear and anxiety against differences in the socio-psychological sense and the
discourse of “unlike us” portray “others” as a potential target through biases and
stereotypes. As evidence of this situation, widespread discrimination against LGBT
employees has been well documented in various academic publications (Barclay
and Scott 2006; Day and Schoenrade 2000; Croteau 1996; Ragins and Cornwell
2001; Fassinger 2008). Bowen and Blackmon (2003) addressed the issue of self-
disclosure of sexual minorities at work, and how LGB employees are silenced by
the organizational dynamics within the framework of the theory of spirals of silence
based on Noelle‐Neumann (1974). Spiral of silence is defined as a process experi-
enced by an individual when he/she realizes that there is a lack of public support for
the idea that he/she has been defending (Noelle‐Neumann 1974, p. 44). Those who
are willing to express their own ideas are obliged to self-censor based on the fear of
isolation. Accordingly, employees are more likely to tell a lie or choose to remain
silent given the lack of support from their work colleagues or perceived resistance
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 219

against raising different voices. In other words, people avoid raising their voices
openly and honestly due to the threat and fear of isolation. This spiral of silence
eventually limits constructive discussions for organizational change and
development.
Bowen and Blackmon (2003) focused on fear and the threat of isolation that
hinder LGB employees from coming out and publicly acknowledging their sexual
orientation. Brinsfield (2009) indicated that employees tend to remain silent in the
workplace due to the fear of retaliation. Ryan and Oestreich (1998) highlighted in
their study that even though employees themselves are self-confident, they hold the
view that speaking up might pose a risk for them (Premeaux and Bedeian 2003).
Moreover, Detert and Edmondson (2006) pointed out that silence caused by fear
influences not only employees at the lower level but also those at the middle and
senior levels. The lack of legal protection in some national contexts, the relative
lack of organizational equality policies and trade union support, the widespread
negative attitudes toward homosexuality and the deeply rooted heterosexist culture
in organizations may result in more silence for LGBT employees than for other
minorities (Bell et al. 2011, p. 139) and exacerbate the climate of silence (Priola
et al. 2014, p. 2). As an example, LGBT people in Turkey are still in jeopardy each
time they want to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity due to overt
hostility towards them, which is a powerful indicator of the first-wave research
agenda where blatant abuse of LGBT workers forms the central issue in question
(Colgan and Rumens 2015; Ozturk 2011). For instance, transwomen in Turkey are
subject to violence and discrimination by the state apparatus as well as by society at
large and they have severe difficulties in securing jobs, other than becoming a sex
worker (Szulc 2011).
In previous literature, the issue of silence points out that employees are silenced
based on the fear of not being able to gain promotion or losing their jobs (Morrison
and Milliken 2003; Milliken et al. 2003; Detert and Edmondson 2008; Dutton
et al. 2002). For example, Woods and Harbeck (1992) conducted in-depth phenom-
enological research of twelve lesbian physical education tutors’ work experiences
in relation to their identities as lesbians and teachers. All respondents in this
research indicated that they would lose their jobs if their sexual orientation was
revealed, and that female physical education teachers are negatively stereotyped as
being lesbian. They frequently engaged in identity management strategies designed
to conceal their lesbianism, such as passing as a heterosexual, self-distancing from
others at school, and self-distancing from issues pertaining to homosexuality.
The disclosure of one’s sexual orientation is a critical decision and a cumber-
some process for sexual minorities in the workplace which eventually brings both
positive and negative consequences (Chrobot-Mason et al. 2001; Ozeren 2014).
Woods and Lucas (1993) argued in their book, The Corporate Closet, that gay
individuals mainly adopt three different strategies to manage their gay identity in
their professional working life, which are, counterfeiting, avoiding and integrating.
In the counterfeiting strategy, an individual creates a fictitious heterosexual identity
for himself/herself; in the avoiding strategy the individual tends to avoid sharing
any personal information consciously; and lastly, in the integrating strategy the
220 E. Ozeren et al.

individual discloses his/her sexual identity and manages the consequences of their
decision. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that this type of separation in
managing one’s sexual identity does not seem to be relevant for transgender
employees since concealing gender identity for them is almost impossible (Barclay
and Scott 2006; Chrobot-Mason et al. 2001). They have specific and unique
concerns and issues with respect to their career development during the transition
process, and organizations cannot adequately address how to deal with transgender
employees undergoing a transition in the workplace (Davis 2009).
In their study of discrimination experienced by lesbian employees, Levine and
Leonard (1984) made a crucial distinction between formal and informal discrimi-
nation in the workplace. Formal discrimination refers to firing or not hiring some-
one due to their sexual minority status, being passed over for promotion and raises
and being excluded from benefits, such as partner benefits and family leave.
Besides, lesbian employees felt negative discrimination during the hiring process
and currently employed lesbian employees are forced to resign or leave their jobs.
On the other hand, informal discrimination consists of behaviors such as harass-
ment, loss of credibility and lack of acceptance and respect by co-workers and
supervisors (Bell et al. 2011; Croteau 1996).
It has widely been argued in the literature that the presence of LGBT friendly
workplace policies, perceived organizational support, the possible treatment of
work colleagues towards LGBT employees when they are out at work certainly
influences the disclosure or non-disclosure decision of sexual minorities (Griffith
and Hebl 2002; Bowen and Blackmon 2003; Huffman et al. 2008). Also, Chrobot-
Mason et al. (2001) indicated that a supportive organizational climate has an impact
on the coming out of sexual minorities. Bowen and Blackmon (2003) claim that if
LGB employees feel they are not supported by their colleagues, they will not be
able to openly raise their voices. In other words, if LGB employees do not feel they
are safe regarding support from their heterosexual colleagues or think there is
possible resistance to their voices, they remain either silent or tend to show fake
reactions. The latter tactic brings some psychological costs, for pretending to be
heterosexual generates tremendous anxiety over possible sanctions as well as
severe strain from pretending to be what they are not.

3 Methodology

A qualitative research method was adopted to gain an in-depth understanding of the

silencing of LGBT employees in the workplace. The exploratory design was
employed in particular since the notion of employee silence has not been subject
to investigation before from the perspective of sexual and transgender minorities in
Turkey, therefore, the current study can be considered as a preliminary attempt for
subsequent researches in this field.
In order to gain greater and more exploratory insights into the research topic, the
method of focus group discussions was found to be the most appropriate and useful
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 221

way to obtain qualitative data that provide detailed descriptions of experiences/

beliefs and different views of the participants (Morrison-Beedy et al. 2001). Lin-
coln and Guba (1985) suggest four criteria for establishing trustworthiness of focus
group data: credibility, dependability, transferability, and conformability. For this
study, to establish the trustworthiness of the focus group data by addressing these
four criteria, the techniques suggested by Morrison-Beedy et al. (2001) and Shenton
(2004) were also used. Two focus group discussions were conducted, each with five
participants, to gather the full range of views and experiences with regard to how
they are silenced at work, which forms of silence are the most influential, their
sexual identity management strategies, and overall perceptions on equality and
inclusiveness in their current or previously employed organizations. Each group
session was carried out with a moderator (the first author). Focus groups were
conducted at the venue of the Black Pink Triangle Association in Izmir on July 9th,
2014. A moderator guide was developed comprising focus group ground rules and
primary open-ended questions. Each focus group discussion took two and half
hours, resulting in five hours of tape recording which formed the database for this
study.
Data in the study were analyzed via the descriptive/interpretative and inductive
approaches used in qualitative research (Marshall and Rossman 2006). Each inter-
view was tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts of the audiotapes
were proofread and corrected. Each transcript was repeatedly read to enable
complete familiarity with, and immersion in, the data. The next stage was to code
and analyze the participants’ statements using narrative, interpretative and decon-
structive analytical techniques, and then discuss the codes for each group to arrive
at meaningful themes. The same process was used for each focus group and then
across the groups to detect the commonalities and salient patterns across the data.
As a result, the major themes of LGBT silence at work were identified.
Research on LGBT issues is a sensitive area of research in Turkey and the
“hidden” nature of the LGBT population in organizations raises a number of
methodological issues. In order to overcome these challenges, LGBT participants
were reached and recruited via the fifth largest civil society organization on the
LGBT movement in Turkey, which is the Black Pink Triangle Association in Izmir.
A number of access routes were used to contact LGBT employees including
e-mails, internet sites, invitations via social media and word of mouth. Thus,
snowballing sampling was employed to ask each LGBT respondent whether
he/she could bring a friend from the same community to the focus group discussion.
Since the visibility of the LGBT population is a major concern in Turkey, only ten
participants were reached and they were split into two different focus groups. Both
discussions were conducted on the same day (July 9th, 2014) at the same venue; the
first one started at 14:00H and the second at 17:30H. This is, in itself, an interesting
research finding and illustrates the hidden nature of much of the LGBT population
even in the city of Izmir that is often called “the most modernized and westernized
part” of Turkey. In order to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of partici-
pants, pseudonyms were used throughout. The demographic profiles of participants
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Participants’ profiles in focus group interviews
222

Participants’ demographic information

Total work Work experience Sex and
experience in the current org. Position in the current Sexual gender
Pseudonyms Age Education (years) (years) Occupation organization orientation identity
Ali 30 Bachelor (cur- 5 3 Musicology Project expert and LGBT Gay Male/
rently a Master’s activist Cisgender
student)
Kemal 32 High school 4 3 Employee in a Project coordinator Gay Male/
civil society Cisgender
organization
Mustafa 26 Bachelor 3 Unemployed Art assistant None Gay Male/
Cisgender
Manolya 32 Vocational 12 3 Sex worker Human rights and trans – Trans-
school activist woman
Arda 30 Bachelor (cur- 10 0 Assistant director Working freelance in movie Gay Male/
rently a Master’s production sector Cisgender
student)
Sevgi 35 Bachelor 16 12 Radiology tech- In charge of radiology unit Lesbian/ Woman/
nician in a in a hospital Bisexual Cisgender
hospital
Feride 24 High school 3 months 3 months Sex worker Sex worker – Trans-
woman
Deniz 25 Bachelor 1 1 – Customer representative in Queer Queer
a maritime firm
Nazan 23 Bachelor 3 1 – Responsible for administra- Lesbian Woman/
tive affairs in a university Cisgender
dormitory
Can 22 Bachelor 3 1 Salesperson Employee in a book store Gay Male/
Cisgender
E. Ozeren et al.
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 223

4 Findings

This section focuses on emerging themes from the research on LGBT people at
work in Turkey from the viewpoint of employee silence. Three major dimensions of
employee silence (defensive, acquiescent, and pro-social) were found as being
relevant and meaningful in explaining how LGBT individuals are silenced at
work. Thematic findings are presented below along with the salient statements of
the participants, based on the focus group interviews.

4.1 Defensive Silence

Participants are inclined to exhibit silence as an intentional, conscious and proac-

tive behavior in various ways in order to cope with the fear of losing their job,
position or status. The participants underlined that they found various kinds of jokes
and implicit remarks in the workplace so stressful and psychologically painful that
they sometimes have to remain silent due to a fear of being an object of derision and
being stigmatized at work. This form of silence adopted by the participants is called
a “defensive silence” that includes withholding relevant thoughts, information or
ideas for the purpose of self-protection based on the fear of negative labeling and
exposure to social isolation. For the purpose of this study, it was preferred to use the
label “defensive silence” rather than “quiescent silence” to avoid any possible
confusion with the several other meanings of quiescence (such as compliance or
agreement) in line with Van Dyne et al. (2003).
A friend of mine is a transwoman who is currently working as a hostess in an airline
company. She entered this job by declaring that she is a biological woman. Actually, she
physically looks like a biological woman. She believes that if her “real” identity is
understood by others, especially by the employer, she will be dismissed immediately.
Her company does not know anything about her past life at all. . . .I think that a transwoman
can be employed in a public sector with a woman’s identity rather than her transwoman
identity. (Arda)
I have been the subject of derogatory remarks and jokes because they were questioning
me whether I had a girlfriend or not. Since I didn’t have a girlfriend for one and half years,
they were teasing me, such as “are you a faggot?” (Can)
We were discussing an issue, should LGB individuals come out, unlike heterosexuals?
This is not a personal choice for us. Indeed, in working life you (let’s say as a LGB person)
don’t generally have the chance of coming out with your real identity. Theoretically, you
may come out. But practically once you are out at work, you are likely to be dismissed,
subject to discrimination or you are forced to resign. (Deniz)

A lesbian physician chooses to remain silent about her sexual orientation

because she thinks that her lesbian identity poses a significant risk or threat to her
career if she reveals her true identity in the workplace. As can be seen from the
participant statements below, LGBT individuals have a fear of negative labeling
and exposure to social isolation.
224 E. Ozeren et al.

I keep myself secret at work; nobody except a few friends knows my lesbian identity. You
know, as you might guess, there there’s a lot of gossip and tittle-tattle in the hospitals. I am
not “out” at work because of my position as I don’t want everyone to talk about my sexual
identity. I know some of my gay friends in the hospital who experience problems at work
due to their sexual orientation. (Sevgi)
There is a lot of gossip about me at work because of my transgender identity. I was
working at a bar of the hotel and became successful in selling drinks to customers. Then the
other employees started gossiping, as in, I am absolutely having sex with other men so that I
receive great tips. In fact, I didn’t have a sexual relationship with anyone during my
working experience in this hotel. Because I knew that, although I didn’t participate in
this kind of behavior, they were talking behind me as if I did. If I really had had sex with
someone in the hotel, I couldn’t imagine what they would say about me? (Manolya)

In some cases LGB participants are silenced since they have a fear of becoming a
target if they expressed their sexual orientation once they are out in the workplace.
I believe that if there were conflict with my boss or colleagues at work, they would use my
sexual orientation against me and make some implicit remarks about my sexuality. Assume
a heterosexual did exactly the same thing with me, for example, he made a mistake, and in
this case, the straight guy wouldn’t be subject to a conversation about his sexuality. So why
am I? How would I overcome such arguments related to my sexual orientation? Therefore,
many LGBT people generally have to remain silent and closeted. (Mustafa)

One of the reasons why participants are silenced is due to their fear of being
unable to be promoted. As can be seen from the following quotation, a gay male
participant expresses his deep concerns and worries related to his promotion
decision. He thinks that although he deserved to get this promotion, he was
precluded due to his sexual orientation.
I remained closeted in my former workplace. However, something was still understood. I
worked there for one and half years. During this time, I didn’t have any girlfriends and this
situation was found very strange by the others. . . There was a vacant position in warehouse
administration. A woman secretary had left the job. They recruited a new person for this
position. Usually when a new position arose, they tried to fill this position from within the
company first. But this time they preferred a new job candidate from outside. For instance, I
had enough relevant experience, and did the internship as well as the secretary, but they
didn’t choose me. I know that the real reason was my sexual orientation. (Can)

The statement below shows how a lesbian physician is worried about being
perceived as a “threat” by her heterosexual colleagues working in the same hospital.
In line with this situation, she is constantly trying to regulate and control her own
behavior in order to avoid any possible “misunderstanding” in the eyes of her
heterosexual counterparts.
When I have a short break while sitting in the hospital yard, if I look at a woman by chance
for a few seconds or more, as everyone does, I have the feeling I am bothering her. I usually
use the same dressing room with all the women physicians together and they don’t know
my lesbian identity, but I think to myself, do I disturb them or do they feel uncomfortable? I
feel under pressure about doing something wrong or giving the wrong impression to my
colleagues. Therefore, I always have a need to control myself. (Sevgi)

Based on several gay participants’ statements, it is argued that gay males

sometimes tend to adjust their behavior according to the context they are engaged
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 225

in. This situation can also be explained by the degree of self-monitoring whereby an
individual observes, regulates and controls how well he or she is fulfilling the social
expectations of his/her role within a particular context (Clair et al. 2005, p. 87;
Snyder 1979). Accordingly, high self-monitors are likely to conform to societal
expectations whereas low self-monitors are likely to emphasize self-expression in
spite of those societal expectations. Especially for those with high self-monitoring,
they are more likely to adapt and alter their behavior based on the context and/or
societal expectations.
In my previous job, I was working in a coffee shop. I was not out at this job. I guess I
pretended to be heterosexual. Nevertheless, I was sometimes unable to hide my gay
identity. From my gestures, customers thought that I could be gay. Once, they did ask me
whether I was a gay, I immediately refused to define myself as a gay. I replied saying, “what
are you talking about?” Well, I think I was trying to conform myself to the prevailing
circumstances and behave how they expect me to behave. (Kemal)
Finding a job as a homosexual person is so difficult that LGBT individuals have to mask
their real identities, pretend to be heterosexual, and try to behave in a masculine way as if he
is gay, otherwise he will suffer oppression. If he can conceal his identity (as much as he
can), he will do so in order to survive in his employment. (Manolya)
A transwoman can still work but in line with the societal expectations. Our society
accepts and labels us as sex workers as one of the very few professional options we are
allowed to do. Almost all career paths are closed to transwomen other than becoming a sex
worker. If you are lucky and you really have a good voice and if somebody is supporting
you, perhaps you can become a singer in a third class night club (laughing). . . There are just
a few exceptions: celebrities such as Bülent Ersoy in Turkey. Ironically, she never identifies
herself as a transwoman, instead, just a woman. However, for “normal” jobs, as you can
understand, such as a teacher, doctor, lawyer, it is almost impossible to see a transwoman.
(Manolya)

Conversely, some participants disagree with the idea or implicit assumption

about themselves to behave necessarily in line with the societal expectations. Those
individuals who adopt “integrating” or “accepting self” as an identity management
strategy reveal their sexual identity status at work and manage the consequences of
this decision. People with high self-esteem and low self-monitoring tend to accept
their sexual minority status which entails embracing their identity openly in ways
that make it clear to others (Griffin 1992; Woods and Lucas 1993).
I don’t need to conceal my sexual identity. . . I am myself and a gay man as you can see. . . I
really don’t care whether I should look more masculine or behave like a heterosexual man.
People around me should accept my existence as a gay man. (Mustafa)

Several participants exert extra effort to separate their work and life domains as
an avoidance strategy to manage their sexual minority status at work. This involves
actively eluding any references to personal information and maintaining strong
boundaries between personal and business lives (Woods and Lucas 1993). In these
cases, employees tend to create LGB friendly spaces in their private lives whereas
they conform to heteronormativity in the workplace. They engage in silence about
their sexual orientation in order not to face any discriminatory and repressive
treatment they are most likely to experience at work. The evidence of these
fictitious lives, also addressed by a lesbian participant below, is consistent with
226 E. Ozeren et al.

Levine and Leonard (1984, p. 702) who argued that most lesbian employees tend to
cope with discrimination by living a dual life; at work they “pass for heterosexual,
complete with imaginary boyfriends and during evenings and weekends with
homosexual friends, they let their hair down.”
I am living a dual life, in the hospital and outside the hospital. I have a social life outside but
I never bring my work colleagues to my social space where I spend some time with my
homosexual friends. (Sevgi)

In another example, a gay salesman adopts avoidance as an identity management

strategy, such as maintaining a quiet and reserved demeanor in the presence of
heterosexuals and being exposed to degrading, homophobic remarks by colleagues
without saying anything. Participants who use these strategies opted not to lie or
fight back but simply suffer in silence and be invisible (Della et al. 2002, p. 381).
I am currently working as a salesman in a bookstore. When a LGBT customer comes to our
store, my colleagues, who don’t know I am a gay man, point and say to me, “hahaha. . . look
at that guy!” and start making fun of him. (Can)
One of my friends came to the hospital for an examination and I took him to a doctor
who is also my friend. The doctor soon turned and asked me “where do you know this guy
from, he is gay, what are you doing with him?” Then, in the same examination room, there
were also other doctors. Once my friend (patient) entered this room, there were five doctors,
each of them was the head of their own division, and they stared at him, and it was so
disturbing. . . I am sure that after we left this room, they began to chat about my friend for a
long time. (Sevgi)
I can personally say why are we always expecting homosexuals to come out at work
unlike heterosexuals do? For example, do heterosexual employees come out saying “we are
heterosexuals.” I prefer not to disclose my sexual identity at work. (Arda)

Male dominated workplaces are also likely to increase perceived discrimination,

as experienced by the participants. Several difficulties were observed for the gay
participants in being open about their sexual identities in hostile and, especially,
male dominated work settings. In the eyes of their heterosexual colleagues, their
differences and outsider status are constantly asserted and reinforced by comments
about their appearance, bodies and physical difference (Wright 2013).
The cinema industry is really male dominated. There are a few women working in this
sector. Especially, the work being done depends on physical strength. Under these circum-
stances, we were very marginalized as we were perceived as “skinny”, “weak” and “homo”.
(Mustafa)
The field of theatre is also so masculine. Most men in the theatre with whom I worked
made me feel like I potentially had a sexual desire towards all of them, which was so
disgusting. . . It was such a male dominated arena that swearing, using bad, masculine
words were highly common without considering the presence of women on the scene.
Actually, women in this sector were accustomed to such words and they were calling
themselves, for example, “where is this fucking bitch, does she know what time it is
now?. . .” Under these circumstances, I tried to put forward my masculine qualities as
well. (Kemal)

Similarly, the participants exert significant effort to “fit in” with the heterosexual
norms imposed by male dominated workplaces. The acceptance of LGBT people in
such hostile work settings is closely related to what extent they are able to conform
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 227

to heteronormativity permeating the organization. Thus, the self-presentation at

work through dress, appearance, gestures, posture, tone of voice and behavior is a
major concern for the participants seeking to fit into this environment.
As long as you, as a gay man, do not constitute a “threat” to others, they can accept you
waggishly. I mean “threat” as a gay person should not hit on someone in the workplace
since it is usually unwelcome, unlike what heterosexual people do. It is so stressful even to
think about a possibility of a gay man falling in love with someone in the workplace,
especially male dominated ones. . .If you adapt yourself to living with the rules of such a
heterosexist environment, they will accept you. They will probably say “we are very
tolerant and not discriminating towards anyone as long as he (the gay person) conforms
to our rules.” (Arda)
In my ex-workplace, they treated me like a heterosexual. To be honest, I also tried to
conform to this situation since I had to spend all day with my colleagues. I didn’t want to
create a conflict all the time, hence I simply pretended to be heterosexual. (Kemal)
In the workplace, as a homosexual person, you can normally discuss everything with
your friends whom you are out, but for other people you should limit your conversation, and
your discourses become restricted by the heteronormativity dominating the workplaces.
(Nazan)

In several other cases, as described below, participants were silenced through

social isolation by the group members and they were not allowed to participate in
several group activities. Hence, they experienced a feeling of exclusion in the
workplace, as well as a worry of decreasing social communication.
We were shooting a movie scene of rolling a car down the street and all the men were ready
to push the car. I came towards them to participate but they said “look you, stop!” I stopped
there for a while without saying anything. For me, it was a feeling of exclusion from my
colleagues although we were all doing the same thing. They didn’t see me as a “real” man,
psychically so strong and masculine in heterosexist terms, that they did not include me. It
was a feeling of shame but I got used to it. (Arda)
I was previously acting in a theatre. In acting, physical contact is considered to be very
important. However, neither female actresses nor male actors were willing to be closer to
me while acting. I remember once, a woman actress had a fiancée. We were acting together.
I learned one day her fiancé allowed her to act closely with me (such as “you can touch him
as he is not actually a real man”), since I was perceived as “almost” a woman in his eyes.
What shocked me just a few days later, her fiancé changed his mind as he learned that gay
men have also masculine characteristics and they are “somewhat” men and he warned his
fiancée to stay away from me. (Kemal)
I think that discrimination occurs on a more subtle level in terms of putting psycholog-
ical pressure on the shoulders of homosexual employees who are out in the hospital, such as
not being invited to a dinner, leaving them alone during lunch or not being able to
communicate with them closely and easily. (Sevgi)

LGBT employees are particularly vulnerable to bullying and harassment at work

and, hence, they can suffer from discrimination.
A friend of mine living in İzmir is a lesbian woman who works in a coffee shop. She was
being harassed by her boss and she was working overtime and doing the most difficult tasks
in her job. Whenever her homosexual friend came, she felt she was being watched by her
boss as he was staring at her. She was really under great pressure and finally she had to
resign from her job. (Mustafa)
In my previous workplace, I heard about a LGBT individual who used to work there
before but it was a terrible experience for him because he was out. They made life
228 E. Ozeren et al.

unbearable for him, such as tagging him with nicknames. In fact, he was bullied at work.
(Can)
I also found it hard at a job in a resort hotel. At first I was sexually harassed by
coworkers and almost all hotel employees at all levels (laughing. . .) When I complained
to the general manager, they put me in a very distant place within the hotel, the bar, and it
seemed that it was an isolated location. . . There were only three of us in our new location,
but the other two guys were still watching and staring at me, which I found very irritating.
As the time passed, I got used to my new location, especially, the hotel customers found me
very interesting to talk to since I guess they were coming to the bar not only to have a drink
but also to chat with me. . . I was selling more drinks than expected and the hotel
administration was very happy. If I were a straight person, I am sure that customers
wouldn’t show such an interest. (Manolya)

4.2 Acquiescent Silence

Several participants hold the belief they will not be able to change anything by
raising their ideas, concerns or any information related to their sexual orientation as
they have already accepted their defeat against the status quo in the organization.
They avoid expressing their views because they simply assume that they will not be
able to create any difference in their organizations, even if they speak up. Under
these circumstances, they feel a sense of resignation and adopt mainly a passive
approach in the form of “employee acquiescence”.
I am really exhausted struggling with my boss and colleagues to change their ideas about
my sexual identity. I know very well that whatever I say to them, it does not make any
difference. I totally disengage and do not have any willingness to exert any effort to get
involved in any discussions since I am aware of the fact that it never works. (Ali)
Well I think I am not motivated enough to come out at work. If I come out one day, my
supervisor and some of my colleagues will absolutely judge me. No way out! I am sure.
There are rules of the game you have to obey, whether you like or not. I have to accept. As
far as I can see, there is no LGBT-friendly company in Turkey. Companies don’t care about
us. We are totally ignored not only by companies but also by trade unions. So I cannot rely
on unions. Have you ever seen a LGBT member in a union in this country? If yes, I am sure
very few exist. Frankly speaking, I am not Don Quixote as I cannot fight against these huge
mental barriers. Silence is inevitable. (Deniz)

4.3 Pro-Social Silence

Individuals who adopt pro-social silence behavior withhold many ideas, informa-
tion, or opinions with the goal of benefiting other people or the organization—based
on altruism or cooperative motives (Van Dyne et al. 2003, p. 1368). Consistent with
this view, the lesbian physician plays a partner role for her male colleague to protect
him in a pro-social way in order for him to overcome the challenge of promotion.
One of my friends, who is a medical doctor, came to me one day and asked me to do a favor
for him. He said that he was alone, single and needed a partner, a girlfriend, a fake one
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 229

(laughing). . . I was kindly asked to become a fake girlfriend, actually his fiancée for a
temporary period. He was gay but totally closeted. He thinks if his sexual orientation is
understood by the senior professors in the department, the associate professorship for which
he had already applied could be under great risk. I pretended to be his fiancée in the
hospital. We continued this so-called fake relationship for 6 months due to his fear about
the promotion, but then we gave up completely. (Sevgi)

5 Conclusion

This chapter reveals the daily workplace experiences of LGBT workers via focus
group interviews drawn from a sample of ten participants in the city of Izmir,
Turkey. It seeks to understand how LGBT people are silenced and in which ways
they can manage and cope with their sexual and gender identities at work. Defen-
sive silence due to fear and threat of isolation, acquiescent silence due to giving up
hope of change, and pro-social silence due to withholding ideas in favor of other
people or their own organization, were identified as the main emerging themes of
silence based on the participants’ accounts. Discussions took place about the
various reasons behind their decisions to engage in silence at work, which are,
the risk of being exposed to social isolation or exclusion, the fear of dismissal and
career obstacles, as well as the fear of being an object of derision and stigmatized at
work, bullying, prejudicial reactions and direct formal discrimination (e.g., job
termination and not being able to gain promotion). In addition to the direct formal
discrimination, there were also other ways to marginalize LGBT people in the
workplace, for example, unwanted jokes and innuendos. “Silence” is one of these
more subtle forms of discrimination experienced by the LGBT individuals in their
everyday work activities. In line with Ozturk’s (2011) study similarly carried out
within the Turkish context, this chapter also illustrates that most LGB workers have
to remain in the closet and very few of them are able to come out safely at work.
This situation can be better explained by the heteronormativity permeating through
the workplaces that still remain entrenched and largely unchallenged (Öztürk and
Özbilgin 2015). A heteronormative culture of organizations may result in silencing
of sexual minorities at work.
The major findings addressed in the chapter refer to the first wave of research in
Turkey (overt forms of abuse directed at LGBT employees in situations in which
legal and institutional protection is generally lacking) that seems contradictory
considering the recent significant advances in a number of other countries which
have reshaped the legislative landscape in terms of LGBT rights (Colgan and
McKearney 2011, p. 625). In other words, sexual orientation and gender identity
equality at work in Turkey continues to lag far behind the goals of the second
research wave agenda (defined as: where LGBT employees have recognition in the
public sphere and, as such, the research focuses on how effectively these rights are
put into practice) (Ozturk 2011), as pursued by some EU member states, particu-
larly the UK. The participant statements provide critical reflections that point out
230 E. Ozeren et al.

the prevalent assumptions of hegemonic masculinity that is culturally embedded

and strongly influences the perceptions of homosexuality in Turkey (Ertan 2008).
Consistent with this view, and with evidence put forward by this study, LGB
individuals are likely to remain in the workforce as long as they conceal their true
sexual orientation at work and even outside the workplace. In the case of transgen-
der individuals, due to their visibility, they have to overcome the additional
challenges derived from the heteronormative work environment, unlike their het-
erosexual or LGB colleagues. Most transgender people in Turkey remain outside
the formal employment sphere and they are compelled to become sex workers to
maintain their survival. The findings highlighted in this chapter potentially offer HR
managers and organizational policymakers a greater awareness of the harmful
effects of silencing LGBT employees on work outcomes, as well as several voice
mechanisms; once they are applied to sexual and gender minorities, it may provide
strategies for the inclusion of LGBT employees.
The main conclusion derived from this in-depth exploratory investigation based
on the narratives of LGBT participants is as follows: the over-whelming cultural
norms based on heteronormativity within Turkish society, the absence of legal
protection, and the relative lack of organizational equality policies and trade union
support contribute to silencing LGBT individuals at work. Thus, the effective way
of tackling the sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination issue in Turkey
urgently calls for holistic change in cultural norms, social institutions, and legal
frameworks, as well as in organizational and trade union policies.

References

Barclay, J. M., & Scott, L. J. (2006). Transsexuals and workplace diversity: A case of “change”
management. Personnel Review, 35(4), 487–502.
Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and
diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–146.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on
organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417.
Brinsfield, C. (2009). Employee silence: Investigation of dimensionality, development of mea-
sures, and examination of related factors. Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. Accessed June
10, 2015, from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:
osu1236294604
Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity management
strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45(5–6), 321–336.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: How people
manage invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1),
78–95.
Colgan, F., & McKearney, A. (2011). Spirals of silence: Guest editorial. Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(8), 624–632.
Colgan, F., & Rumens, N. (2015). Understanding sexual orientation at work. In F. Colgan &
N. Rumens (Eds.), Sexual orientation at work: Contemporary issues and perspectives
(pp. 1–27). London: Routledge.
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 231

Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An
integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2),
195–209.
Davis, D. (2009). Transgender issues in the workplace: HRD’s newest challenge/opportunity.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 109–120.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual
orientation, antidiscrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay
and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346–363.
Della, B., Wilson, M., & Miller, R. L. (2002). Strategies for managing heterosexism used among
African American gay and bisexual men. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(4), 371–391.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Latent voice episodes: The situation-specific nature of
speaking up at work (Harvard Business School Working Paper 06–24). Boston, MA.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The nature and sources of implicit theories of voice. In
Presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Anaheim, CA.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light:
Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13(4),
355–369.
Ertan, C. (2008). Hegemonic masculinity and homosexuality: Some reflections on Turkey.
ETHOS: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences, 1(4), 1–11.
Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for
psychology. American Psychologist, 63(4), 252–268.
Frohman, A. (1997). Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal initiative.
Organization Dynamics, 25(3), 39–53.
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. In
K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet (pp. 167–196). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Griffith, K., & Hebl, M. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: Coming out at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a diverse work-
force: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay employees? Human
Resource Management, 47(2), 237–253.
Levine, M. P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the workforce. Signs, 9(4),
700–710.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence:
Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies,
40, 1453–1476.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–731.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice
and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353–1358.
Morrison-Beedy, D., Cote-Arsenault, D., & Feinstein, N. F. (2001). Maximizing results with focus
groups: Moderator and analysis issues. Applied Nursing Research, 14(1), 48–53.
Noelle‐Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Commu-
nication, 24(2), 43–51.
Ozeren, E. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace: A systematic review of
literature. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1203–1215.
Ozturk, M. B. (2011). Sexual orientation discrimination: Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay
and bisexual employees in Turkey. Human Relations, 64(8), 1099–1118.
232 E. Ozeren et al.

Öztürk, M. B., & Özbilgin, M. (2015). From cradle to grave: The lifecycle of compulsory
heterosexuality in Turkey. In F. Colgan & N. Rumens (Eds.), Sexual orientation at work:
Contemporary issues and perspectives (pp. 152–165). London: Routledge.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as
responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
20, 331–369.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of
selfmonitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies,
40, 1537–1562.
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘ınclusive organizations’. British Journal of Man-
agement, 25(3), 488–502.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of
perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(6), 1244–1261.
Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1998). Driving fear out of the workplace: Creating the high-trust,
high-performance organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12,
85–128.
Syed, J., & Ozbilgin, M. (2009). A relational framework for international transfer of diversity
management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12),
2435–2453.
Szulc, L. (2011). Contemporary discourses on non-heterosexual and gender non-conforming
citizens of Turkey. International Review of Turkish Studies, 1(2), 10–31.
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2011). An Emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work:
A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 326, 1–22.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee
voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.
Woods, S. E., & Harbeck, K. M. (1992). Living in two worlds: The identity management strategies
used by lesbian physical educators. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3), 141–166.
Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. H. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in
America. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wright, T. (2013). Uncovering sexuality and gender: An intersectional examination of women’s
experience in UK construction. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), 832–844.
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor
Market

Judit Takács

1 Introduction

Same-sex activity between consenting adults was decriminalized in Hungary by

1961. After the political system change, social attitudes towards homosexuality
became somewhat more permissive than before (Takács 2007). However, there
have been several manifestations of institutionalized discrimination against lesbian,
gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) citizens, including the different age of consent for
same-sex and different-sex partners before 2002, the present lack of legal institu-
tions such as same-sex marriage or any forms of joint adoption by same-sex
couples, the lack of legislation on gender recognition and disproportionately low
funding for gender reassignment treatments for transgender persons, and most
recently an exclusionary definition of family—being based on marriage and the
relationship between parents and children—in the fourth amendment to the Funda-
mental Law in 2013. In present day Europe, Hungary belongs to those homophobic
societies where the acceptance of the freedom of LGBT lifestyles is not at all well
developed, an aspect which can play an important role in the functioning of social
exclusion mechanisms affecting gay men and lesbian women (Takács and Szalma
2011; Takács 2015).
In the present Hungarian labor market context there are only very few visible
signs that lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans workers exist at all. These include the
LGBT Employees Resource Groups that are established in a few multinational
companies (such as IBM and Morgan Stanley), and LGBT employment related
cases of the Equal Treatment Authority. Even though the existing Hungarian equal
treatment legislation provides an appropriate legal framework for protecting LGBT

J. Takács (*)
Institute of Sociology, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest,
Hungary
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 233

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_14
234 J. Takács

people from workplace discrimination, there can be serious problems with its
practical implementation. Most LGBT employees are not aware of their rights,
and only very few workplaces have diversity policies or anti-discrimination codes
of conduct, which are not only theoretically but also practically in place.
Since the establishment of the Equal Treatment Authority in 2005 there has been
a low but steady number of complaints submitted by LGBT people (annually about
five cases): most of the cases were submitted by gay men, a few by trans people and
very few by lesbian women. There are many more complaints submitted on other
grounds, mainly on the grounds of disability and Roma ethnic origin (annually
50–80 cases), and motherhood (annually 30–50 cases) (EBH 2015). Most com-
plaints are employment related and typically harassment cases; this is also true of
the LGBT cases. In employment discrimination cases most complainants typically
turn to the Equal Treatment Authority after they have already left the workplace
where they had been victimized, or when they get to the state that they are ready to
leave and look for another job.
Several studies conducted with LGBT respondents point to the problems deriv-
ing from their social invisibility. Previous research findings indicate that those
“lesbians and gay men who have escaped social condemnation have, more often
than not, lived a life hidden from public view, altering behavior, avoiding certain
places and people in an effort to retain an outward ‘air’ of heterosexuality. . . In
contrast, those who have lived openly have often faced social, political, economic
and religious condemnation, sometimes receiving the blame for acts or events that
are unrelated to their sexual orientation” (Rivers and Carragher 2003, p. 375).
Others refer to the life strategy based on the decision to remain hidden in pri-
vacy—as a form of “unbearable comfort” (Švab and Kuhar 2005), which can also
have high personal costs—in order to avoid negative experiences and
discrimination.
Discrimination against LGBT people can remain hidden in many instances
because coming out of invisibility is a very critical process for most LGBT people,
involving risks of being ostracized in a heteronormative social environment. How-
ever, if disadvantages are not made socially recognizable, it is very hard to
articulate interests and defend rights. The hidden nature of discrimination against
LGBT people can also be explained in part by the lack of appropriate responsive-
ness and incentives on the institutional level. Institutions may exist but function
inefficiently and this can also contribute to the fact that certain forms of discrim-
ination remain hidden.
The level of legal and social invisibility of trans people seems to be especially
high. For example, in contrast to the EU level protection that provided gay, lesbian
and bisexual people with the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orien-
tation in the employment directive, trans people are not protected explicitly from
discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression. Although the case
law of the European Court of Justice has recognized that gender identity is covered
under sex discrimination (Case P v. S. and Cornwall County Council 1996) and the
Gender Directive mentions gender reassignment in its recital (Recital 3 of the
Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 235

2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal

treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)
states that the principle of equal treatment “also applies to discrimination arising
from the gender reassignment of a person”—Transposition of Recast Directive
2006/54/EC 2011), the awareness of this protection is extremely limited amongst
trans people, decision-makers and society in general.

2 European Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender

Identity Based Discrimination

There is comparative European data available on sexual orientation and gender

identity based discrimination in the Special Eurobarometer (2008, 2009, 2012)
large scale general population surveys, conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2012 within
all European Union member states (more precisely: data on gender identity based
discrimination can be found only in the last survey). Additionally, an online survey
with a huge (N ¼ 93.076) self-selected sample of persons aged 18 years or over,
with self-identification of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, was
conducted in 2012 in 27 EU member states and Croatia by Gallup Europe with
the active cooperation of ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) and its member organiza-
tions. The results of this survey serve to illustrate certain trends as well as their local
variations regarding the discrimination experiences and perceptions of LGBT
people in Europe. For example, awareness of a law that forbids discrimination
against persons because of their sexual orientation when applying for a job char-
acterized only 31 % of the Hungarian respondents, while the average rate was 56 %
among the European respondents (FRA 2014).
Figure 1 provides an overview of the perceived prevalence of sexual orientation
based discrimination within 20 selected European countries, including Hungary,
according to the results of the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 2009 and 2012.
The figure shows the proportion of the “very widespread” and “fairly widespread”
answers to the question on how widespread or rare sexual orientation based
discrimination is in a given country.
Figure 2 presents 2012 data from the same countries on the perceived scope of
sexual orientation as well as gender identity based discrimination (by showing the
proportion of the “very widespread” and “fairly widespread” answers to the ques-
tions on how widespread or rare sexual orientation and gender identity based
discrimination is in a given country). However, caution is advised when
interpreting these results: we should keep in mind that these are perceptions that
can reflect more the levels of discrimination-awareness (largely depending on the
specific socio-cultural norms and practices of the examined societies) than the
actual scope of discrimination. According to the Hungarian findings there was
hardly any change regarding the perceived prevalence of sexual orientation based
236 J. Takács

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GR

AT
PL
PT

SI
BE

CZ

IT

NL
BG

DK
DE

ES
FR

HU

RO

SK
FI
SE
UK
EU27

2009 2012

Fig. 1 Perceived prevalence of sexual orientation based discrimination (2009, 2012). Source:
Special Eurobarometer 317, 393 (2009, 2012)

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GR
ES

NL
IT
HU

AT
BE

DK
DE

PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
EU27

BG
CZ

FR

UK

Sexual orientation Gender identity

Fig. 2 Perceived prevalence of sexual orientation and gender identity based discrimination
(2012). Source: Special Eurobarometer 393 (2012)

discrimination during the examined period: in 2009 44 % of Hungarian respondents

thought that it was (very or fairly) widespread, and in 2012 this rate decreased to
42 %. On the other hand, gender identity based discrimination was perceived to be
less widespread (34 %) than sexual orientation based discrimination in 2012.
However, the latter result can equally signal the lower prevalence of gender identity
based discrimination and the lower level of awareness regarding this kind of
discrimination in comparison with sexual orientation based discrimination.
Figure 3 provides an overview of the perceived prevalence of discrimination
according to eight grounds: ethnic origin, age in two dimensions (being older than
55 and younger than 30), disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and
religion or belief. In Hungary discrimination of older people was seen as the most
widespread form of discrimination: 75 % of Hungarian respondents expressed this
view, which result was the highest among the examined European countries.
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 237

80% 75% 70%

70%
60% 56% 54%
46%
50% 45% 46% 44% 42% 45%
39%
40% 34%
31% 27% 25%
30%
20% 18% HU
10% EU27
0%

Fig. 3 Perceived prevalence of discrimination on different grounds (2012). Source: Special

Eurobarometer 393 (2012)

Discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin was also perceived to be prevalent in

Hungary (70 %), followed by disability (54 %), gender (44 %) and sexual orienta-
tion (42 %) based discrimination. It was the first time in 2012 when discrimination
on the grounds of gender identity and younger age (being under 30) was examined
in the Eurobarometer survey: in Hungary more than a third (34 %) of respondents
thought that gender identity based discrimination was widespread. 27 % of Hun-
garian respondents regarded discrimination based on young age as widespread,
while 25 % had the same view about discrimination on the grounds of religion or
belief. The average values of the European results were lower than the Hungarian
ones regarding discrimination on grounds of older age (45 %), ethnic origin (56 %),
disability (46 %), gender (31 %) and younger age (18 %), while regarding discrim-
ination on grounds of sexual orientation (46 %), gender identity (45 %) and religion
or belief (39 %) the European results were the higher ones. However, it should be
pointed out again that these results can equally reflect different levels of discrim-
ination prevalence as well as awareness about discrimination on the basis of the
examined grounds. In any case, in comparison with the European findings the
Hungarian results reflect lower levels of discrimination prevalence or discrimina-
tion awareness.
Figure 4 summarizes the rates of respondents who reported having lesbian, gay
or bisexual friends or acquaintances in selected European countries in 2008 and
2012 (by showing the proportion of the “Yes” answers to the questions “Do you
have friends or acquaintances who are homosexual?” in 2008 and “Do you have
friends or acquaintances who are lesbian, gay or bisexual?” in 2012), while Fig. 5
summarizes the rates of respondents who reported having transsexual or transgen-
der and lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances in 2012 (by showing the
proportion of the “Yes” answers to the questions “Do you have friends or acquain-
tances who are transsexual or transgender?” and “Do you have friends or acquain-
tances who are lesbian, gay or bisexual?”).
238 J. Takács

90%
80%
70%
60%
41%
50%
34%
40%
30%
8%
20% 6%
10%
0%
HU
RO

GR
SI
BG
PL

DK

UK
SK
CZ

PT

IT
AT

DE

ES

NL
EU27
FI
LT

BE

FR

SE
2008 2012

Fig. 4 Having homosexual/lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances. Source: Special

Eurobarometer 296, 393 (2008, 2012)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
GR
RO
HU

SK

UK
BG
PL

CZ

PT
SI

IT

ES

DK
AT

DE

NL
EU27
LT

FI

FR
BE

SE

TG/TS L/G/B

Fig. 5 Having transsexual/transgender and lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

Source: Special Eurobarometer 393 (2012)

According to the Eurobarometer findings, direct social contact with citizens

from social minority groups can have a positive effect on discrimination awareness:
thus a higher level of sexual orientation based discrimination awareness can be
expected in countries where people have more gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or
transgender friends and acquaintances. In 2008 only 6 % of Hungarian respondents
reported having homosexual friends or acquaintances, while the EU27 average was
34 %. By 2012 there was a slight increase in both rates: in Hungary 8 % of
respondents reported having lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances,
and the European average was 41 %.
On the basis of these results, it can be assumed that in Hungary, similarly to other
post-socialist countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, there is very low
level of awareness regarding sexual orientation based discrimination in comparison
with other Western and Northern European countries. Regarding transsexual or
transgender friends and acquaintances, the figures are even lower than in the case of
having lesbian, gay or bisexual friends: in 2012 only 3 % of Hungarian respondents
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 239

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% HU
10%
EU-27
0%

Fig. 6 Perceived potentially disadvantageous factors for job applicants in Europe and Hungary
(2012). Source: Special Eurobarometer 396 (2012)

reported having transsexual or transgender friends, while the European rate was
7 %.
In the 2012 survey, three aspects of equal opportunities in employment were
examined: factors that can put job applicants at a disadvantage; support for mea-
sures to promote diversity in the workplace; and perceptions about whether enough
is being done to promote diversity. In order to test perceptions of equal opportuni-
ties in access to employment, respondents were asked which factors might put job
applicants at a disadvantage if a company had to choose between two candidates
with otherwise equal skills and qualifications (The question was the following:
“When a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two candi-
dates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may, in
your opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage?”). These factors included the job
applicant’s age (being over 55 or being under 30), look (manner of dress or
presentation), disability, skin color or ethnic origin, physical appearance (size,
weight, face etc.), way of speaking (accent), expression of a religious belief (such
as wearing a visible religious symbol), gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
name, and address. Figure 6 provides an overview of the Hungarian and the
European results of 2012. It shows that 19 % of the European and 20 % of the
Hungarian respondents thought that the candidate’s sexual orientation would put a
job applicant at a disadvantage, while 19 % of the European and 18 % of the
Hungarian respondents thought the same regarding gender identity.
Figure 7 compares the results of the same question from 2009 to 2012. However,
in 2009 smoking was still included among the potentially disadvantageous factors,
while in 2012 three new factors were added: age over 50 and age under 30 replaced
“age”, and it was the first time that gender identity was included into this question.
Regarding sexual orientation in 2009 16 %, while in 2012 20 % of the Hungarian
respondents thought that being gay or lesbian would put a job applicant at a
disadvantage. Regarding gender identity in 2012 18 % of the Hungarian
240 J. Takács

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% HU 2009
10% HU 2012
0%

Fig. 7 Potentially disadvantageous factors for job applicants—Hungarian data from 2009 to
2012. Source: Special Eurobarometer 317, 396 (2009, 2012)

respondents thought that being transgender or transsexual would put a job applicant
at a disadvantage.
Additionally, both in 2009 and 2012 the surveys included questions on the
perceived effects of the economic crisis on discrimination in the labor market as
well as policies promoting equality and diversity. In 2009 37 % of the European and
40 % of the Hungarian respondents thought that the economic crisis would con-
tribute to an increase of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the labor
market. In 2012, 36 % of the European and 40 % of the Hungarian respondents
thought that the economic crisis was indeed contributing to the increase of this
specific form of discrimination, while 41 % of the European and 39 % of the
Hungarian respondents thought the same regarding gender identity based
discrimination.
In 2012 the majority of the European respondents (54 %) and 61 % of the
Hungarian respondents shared the view that due to the economic crisis, policies
promoting equality and diversity are regarded as less important and receive less
funding. Respondents were also asked to rate the effectiveness of efforts made in
their country to fight all forms of discrimination: in Hungary the majority view
(53 %) was that the measures to fight all forms of discrimination were ineffective,
and only 11 % thought that these measures were very effective, while European
respondents seemed to be more satisfied with the developments in this field (only
31 % of them said that the efforts to fight discrimination were ineffective, and 22 %
reported that they were very effective). Regarding sexual orientation and gender
identity based discrimination only 10 % of Hungarian respondents agreed that
enough is being done to promote diversity in their work place as far as sexual
orientation and gender identity are concerned, while about every fifth respondent
(21 and 22 %) disagreed with this statement. Additionally, 9 % agreed that “there is
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 241

no need to promote diversity” concerning sexual orientation and 6 % expressed the

same view regarding gender identity.
On the basis of the results of the Special Eurobarometer surveys, Hungary can be
described as a country characterized by a moderate level of awareness of sexual
orientation and gender identity based discrimination, where most people do not
have direct social contact with (openly) LGBT people. In the context of the
workplace, sexual orientation and gender identity were not seen as being potentially
very disadvantageous factors for job applicants. At the same time most Hungarians
think that there is not enough being done to promote diversity in their work place as
far as sexual orientation and gender identity are concerned, while being convinced
that due to the economic crisis, policies promoting equality and diversity are
regarded as less important and receive less funding.

3 The Potential Misfit Between LGBT People and Their

Workplace Environment

A useful theoretical paradigm describing the links between the individual and the
environment is the Person-Environment Fit Theory (Edwards et al. 1998) that
proposes that stress arises from a misfit between individuals and their environment.
Thus we can assume that if the sexual orientation and gender identity expression of
LGBT people does not match with the heteronormativity—and, in some cases, the
expressed homophobic and transphobic climate—of many workplaces, it can lead
to experiences of minority stress on the part of LGBT employees (Waldo 1999).
The concept of minority stress is based on the premise that LGBT people in a
heterosexist social environment are subjected to chronic psychosocial stress related
to their stigmatization. Minority stressors include internalized homophobia, the
internalized negative attitudes that LGBT individuals can have about their own
sexuality and gender identity expression; stigma consciousness, related to expec-
tations of rejection and discrimination; and actual experiences of discrimination
and violence that can range from hearing an anti-gay joke to being physically hurt
(Meyer 1995, 2003; Kelleher 2009). LGBT-specific minority stressors were shown
to affect the mental and physical well-being of LGBT people, and predict negative
health outcomes from a young age (Kelleher 2009; Berghe et al. 2010; Ingram and
Smith 2004). Similar to experiences of young LGBT people at school, the sense of
belonging to a workplace, referring to feelings of being accepted, respected,
integrated, and supported within a given environment (Osterman 2000), can be
reduced by manifestations of “occupational heterosexism” (McDermott 2006,
p. 195).
Concerning the negative work-related experiences of LGBT people, it was
shown that “the bulk of the evidence from studies by economists and others fits
the hypothesis that lesbian, gay and bisexual people face employment discrimina-
tion in the labor market in the United States and in some other countries” (Badgett
242 J. Takács

2006, p. 161). Nowadays, when the beneficial effects of paid employment on health,
compared with those of unemployment and economic inactivity, are widely recog-
nized (McDermott 2006), there is increased attention paid to factors that can hinder
the employment prospects of potential employees. Regarding the situation of
LGBT people in the labor market, there is growing empirical evidence indicating
that the perception of being LGBT can be a factor preventing even mere entry into
the labor market: for example, Weichselbaumer (2003) examined discriminative
practices in hiring lesbian women in Austria, and Drydakis (2009) showed that gay
men have poorer market hiring prospects in Greece than their heterosexual
counterparts.
In a Hungarian LGBT discrimination survey, conducted in 2007 (N ¼ 1122)
more than a third (36 %) of respondents reported negative experiences in relation to
the workplace, spanning a wide spectrum of phenomena including not getting
promoted, being dismissed or not even getting the job in the first place (Takács
et al. 2008). Workplaces were often described as having a heteronormative climate,
where everyone is assumed to be heterosexual. International research findings also
indicate that the risks of being out as an LGBT person in the workplace can lead to
increased levels of workplace discrimination and stress, the loss of advancement
opportunities and less positive regard by co-workers (Brenner et al. 2010). On the
other hand, while coming out can lead to more external stressors, such as victim-
ization, it can also decrease internal stressors by contributing to the development of
a more positive self-image (DiPlacido 1998), and may bring increased psycholog-
ical well-being and less discordance between vocational and non-vocational life
spheres (Brenner et al. 2010). Other studies found that “out” employees were
characterized by higher job satisfaction, more commitment to their organization,
less conflict between work and home, and they also perceived top management to
be more supportive of their rights (Day and Schoenrade 1997; Griffith and Hebl
2002). Additionally, it was also emphasized that being out can potentially lead not
only to higher levels of individual performance but also to a higher level of
organizational performance (Powers 1996). For example, higher levels of organi-
zational success can be achieved by increasing specific “organizational citizenship
behaviors” (OCBs), especially “helping behaviors” on behalf of as well as towards
LGBT co-workers, reflecting “voluntary efforts intended to help others or prevent
the occurrence of problems in the workplace” (Brenner et al. 2010, p. 324).
According to the findings of a focus group research-based Hungarian qualitative
study on homophobia and transphobia, conducted in 2010, participants agreed that
it is easy to avoid discrimination if one’s sexual orientation related issues are kept in
secret (Takács and Dombos 2012). However, it was also recognized that this self-
constrained silencing itself constitutes discriminating disadvantage. Some partici-
pants reported on experiences of LGBT people internalizing the majority’s (hetero)
normative perspectives and in this context coming out was interpreted as a form of
self-protection from minority stress and unnecessary loss of energy. This approach
was based on the recognition that while secrecy can contribute to the maintenance
of one’s social integrity by helping to avoid stigmatization, at the same time it can
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 243

also have serious negative consequences, including stress deriving from informa-
tion management and leading a double life.
According to the results of the most recent Hungarian LGBT discrimination
survey, conducted in 2010 (N ¼ 2066) more than half (56 %) of LGBT respondents
reported that people almost never or only very rarely assume their LGBT identity,
while only 2 % of them said that they are almost always assumed to be LGBT
(Dombos et al. 2011). Comparable results were shown by another Hungarian survey
where 60 % of LGB respondents (N ¼ 200) reported that most people would never
guess that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual, while it was only 6 % of male
respondents and 11 % of female respondents who said that they are often identified
as lesbian or gay (EBH 2011). These findings can empirically support the assump-
tion about the limited social visibility of LGB people: as most of them are hard to
recognize by their bodily features or appearance at the first sight, most of the time it
is up to them whether they share the information on their sexual orientation and/or
gender identity with others, and dare to risk being excluded from the ordinary
functioning of heteronormative society. It seems to be a common experience of
LGBT people that they can come out in different ways to different degrees in
different social contexts—but in 2010 most (85 % of) LGB respondents agreed with
the statement that one cannot lead a complete life without being open about their
sexual orientation (Dombos et al. 2011).
Regarding economic activity, Hungarian LGBT surveys tend to show relatively
high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. These features can
reflect the sample composition, where people from Budapest and those with higher
levels of education tend to be over-represented. In 2010, for example, 58 % of the
LGBT respondents were employed, 11 % were self-employed or had only odd jobs,
22 % were studying, and 6 % were unemployed (Dombos et al. 2011)—while the
average rate of unemployment among the Hungarian population aged 25–54 was
around 10 % (KSH 2012). At the same time, the labor market situation of trans
people seemed to be much worse than the average within the LGBT sample: their
unemployment rate was for instance double (12 %) in comparison with that of the
others. This tendency was also reflected in the fact that 62 % of trans people
reported on experiencing at least 3 months long unemployment period in their
life, while only 39 % of cisgender respondents had the same experience.
The available Hungarian research findings suggest that most trans people are in a
very vulnerable situation in the Hungarian labor market. According to a represen-
tative of the TransVanilla Transgender Association (interviewed by the author in
December 2012) “if a person’s appearance does not fit into any genders, it will put
the person at such a disadvantage that cannot be compensated for. Trying to get a
job by a recognizable transgender person in the Hungarian labor market is mission
impossible”. Trans people can face serious educational disadvantage due to prob-
lems of fitting into the traditionally gender-conform school environments. Gender
non-conformity or “gender atypicality” has been shown to be associated with
increased risk of victimization, harassment, and even suicide of LGBT youth in
the international literature (Remafedi et al. 1991; D’Augelli 2003). Educational
disadvantage, often manifested in high levels of early drop-out rates, can lead to
244 J. Takács

limited career opportunities. In some cases transsexual people can get into such a
desperate situation, that the only work that is available for them is prostitution, but
this is not typical in Hungary.
Transsexual people—especially during their transition period—can face specific
difficulties as gender re-assignment treatments can take longer periods of time,
when transsexual employees have to stay away from their workplace, and longer
leaves are typically not regarded favorably by employers. In this respect
transwomen (MtF) can face more problems, as a transman activist explained
(in an interview conducted by the author in December 2012): for transmen (FtM)
it takes about half a year of hormone treatment that the outside world would see him
as a “real man”, while for transwomen to reach “convincing” transition results can
be more complicated. Giving a convincing gender performance can be crucial in
certain jobs: participants of a trans focus group interview (conducted in November
2012 by the author) reported on hiring problems they have encountered in relation
to not having the “right voice”, the “right look”, and the “right name”, or the
combination of any of these. Those who started their gender transition in a work-
place complained that co-workers still call them by their old name, or they don’t
want to see them in the changing room or using the toilet that would accord with
their new gender.
In comparison with LGB employees trans people can have specific claims about
what makes a workplace trans-friendly, such as having gender-neutral toilets and
dressing rooms that can be used by everyone, not just “gender-neutrals”. These
demands are not always easy to reconcile with specific claims voiced by women’s
groups about what can make a workplace safe for women, such as providing
separate, safe facilities for them. However, it should be noted that in the present-
day Hungarian labor market context the introduction of gender-neutral toilets and
dressing rooms does not seem to be an urgent priority either. Another very impor-
tant issue for trans people is having effective protection of their right to privacy in
order to avoid any irrelevant disclosure of their gender history or their former name
to the employer and other co-workers. For example, in 2011 the Hungarian Office
of Health Authorization and Administrative Procedures found that forcing a
transwoman to reveal her trans identity through her pharmacy license was a
violation of human dignity (to become a Certified Pharmacist one needs to apply
for an official ‘pharmacy license’, with which one can lead a pharmacy in Hungary).
The case arose because the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State refused to
issue a new license with just the woman’s new name, insisting that her birth name
should be included on the license thereby forcing her to reveal her trans identity
every time she produced it. The Office of Health Authorization and Administrative
Procedures ordered the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State to issue a
license without reference to the woman’s birth name and gender (ILGA 2011).
Similar to the rest of society, interpreting issues related to sexual orientation and
gender identity as a private matter is widespread also among LGBT people.
However, at a closer look it is not difficult to see that private matters can often
turn up in everyday discussions in the workplace environment, too: LGBT respon-
dents reported that discussions at the workplace frequently cover issues such as
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 245

Stayed home from work 10%

Changed workplace 11%
Searched for a different job 11%
Felt distracted from work 19%
Avoided certain people at work 27%
Avoided social events at work 29%
Avoided talking with colleagues 38%
Not mentioned partner at official… 41%
Lied about partner's gender 59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Fig. 8 Negative experiences at the workplace. Source: Hungarian LGBT discrimination

research—2010 (Dombos et al. 2011)

relationship matters (82 %) or leisure programs such as weekend programs (89 %),
or even sex (63 %). Consequently, it is in fact very hard to avoid talking about
private matters at the workplace. Thus if one wants to hide the details of one’s
personal life, it is not enough to keep silent about certain topics; one is often forced
to invent lies in order to keep the heterosexual cover story intact. For example, 59 %
of the LGBT respondents reported on inventing different-sex partners for them-
selves when talking with co-workers and 41 % avoided mentioning their (same-sex)
partner in official documents at their workplace (Fig. 8).
In 2010 13 % of the LGBT respondents reported on personal experiences of
discrimination at their workplace. The most common forms of discrimination
included rumors going around about their sexual orientation or gender identity
(81 %) and perceptions of the workplace climate as homophobic or transphobic
(72 %). 31 % mentioned that they did not get a job because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity, 32 % were sacked for the same reason, and 41 %
reported on cases of harassment and humiliation. LGBT victims of discrimination
were not very likely to submit a formal complaint: only 15 % of them did
so. However, the submitted complaints were not handled in a very effective way
either: only one fifth of the complaints led to thorough investigation and impeach-
ment of the perpetrator(s). 21 % of the respondents reported that their employer had
some sort of equal treatment policy, such as an equal opportunity strategy or code of
conduct with anti-harassment clauses, but not all of them included sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity as protected categories.
The importance of employment discrimination was reflected by the fact that
more than 80 % of all LGBT respondents thought that working towards ending
discrimination at the workplace should be one of the main goals LGBT NGOs
should prioritize on. Respondents had to evaluate the importance of fifteen issues
including same-sex marriage; making the (existing) registered partnership legisla-
tion closer to that of marriage; making childbearing easier; eliminating workplace
discrimination; eliminating discrimination at school; covering the costs for gender
246 J. Takács

re-assignment treatments (GRT) by public health insurance; clarifying the legal

conditions of gender recognition; combating violent anti-LGBT attacks; struggle
against hate speech; struggle against HIV/AIDS; development of health awareness;
increasing the level of general social acceptance; increasing the level of self-
acceptance; increasing diversity within the LGBT community; organizing LGBT-
friendly leisure programs.
Gender recognition refers to the legal recognition of a person’s gender
reassignment, which entails the following stages: the applicant submits a request
to the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice asking for a change of gender
and name. The request has to be supported by forensic documents stating that the
applicant “suffers from transsexualism” according to criteria set by the WHO’s
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems
under “F64.0”. The request is submitted for a supporting opinion to the Ministry of
Human Resources—dealing with issues of public health—and the ministries
involved have 30 days to deliver a decision. If authorized, the local registrar is
ordered to amend the birth registry within 8 days and accordingly alter the gender
and name of the applicant. With the birth registry amended, the applicant is fully
recognized in his/her new gender. This procedure is consistently applied but not
codified thus there is a fair chance of arbitrariness in its application.
Legislation in force since December 2006 puts gender reassignment treatments
(GRT) in the category of treatments only partially funded by public health insur-
ance: a government decree sets fees at 90 % of the cost of the treatment, thus by the
National Health Insurance Fund covers only 10 % of the costs of gender
reassignment treatments; however, the actual cost paid for treatments can vary
significantly between health care providers and on a per patient basis as well. Since
there are no established funding protocols, it is not clear 90 % of what to pay, prices
are often negotiated on an individual basis.
Table 1 provides an overview of the results according to sexual orientation
categories, and shows that 83 % of lesbian women and gay men, 77 % of bisexuals,
84 % of questioning people and 87 % of heterosexuals (who were included into the
LGBT sample because of their—transsexual or other trans—gender identity)
expressed the view that eliminating workplace discrimination is one of the most
important goals LGBT NGOs should strive for. Table 2 provides an overview of the
results according to gender identity categories: the same views were expressed by
96 % of transsexual people, 89 % of other trans respondents (who identified with
both or neither of the two gender categories), 82 % of the gender non-conformist
respondents (whose attributed and preferred gender identities overlapped, however
they did not identify completely with their assigned gender roles), and 81 % of
cisgender respondents (most of whom were lesbian women and gay men).
Another recent Hungarian survey, focusing on equal treatment awareness of the
general population as well as people with disabilities, Roma and LGBT people,
found that, in regard to employment-related discrimination experiences, there are
differences between female and male respondents within the examined LGBT
population (EBH 2011). Female LGBT respondents reported higher levels of
disadvantage in the fields of recruitment and selection, as well as promotion,
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 247

Table 1 Organizational priority issues of LGBT people according to sexual orientation categories
Lesbian/Gay Bisexual Questioning Heterosexual
Priorities—according to sexual (%) (%) (%) (%)
orientation N ¼ 1652 N ¼ 513 N ¼ 152 N ¼ 40
Violent attacks 90 87 84 91
Social acceptance 89 86 85 82
Self-acceptance 88 87 90 78
HIV/AIDS 87 88 84 87
Hate speech 86 82 80 74
Discrimination at school 85 79 85 92
Discrimination at work 83 77 84 87
Health awareness 75 79 78 74
Registered partnership—marriage 68 61 65 48
Having children 68 60 64 61
Internal diversity 65 61 65 68
Leisure programs 61 59 70 56
Same-sex marriage 60 56 59 52
Gender recognition legislation 46 50 48 70
GRT financing 29 34 34 57
Source: Hungarian LGBT discrimination research—2010 (Takács and Dombos 2012)

Table 2 Organizational priority issues of LGBT people according to gender identity categories
Transsexual Other Gender Cisgender
Priorities according to gender (%) trans (%) non-conform (%) (%)
identity categories N ¼ 75 N ¼ 91 N ¼ 143 N ¼ 2188
Discrimination at school 98 91 77 84
Discrimination at work 96 89 82 81
Violent attacks 96 94 83 89
Gender recognition legislation 89 70 48 45
Social acceptance 89 94 80 88
Self-acceptance 89 92 80 88
Hate speech 87 92 74 85
GRT financing 85 53 20 29
HIV/AIDS 83 89 89 87
Health awareness 81 87 77 75
Having children 80 70 66 66
Internal diversity 74 78 57 64
Registered partnership— 72 69 64 66
marriage
Same-sex marriage 66 74 63 60
Leisure programs 66 74 63 60
Source: Hungarian LGBT discrimination research—2010 (Takács and Dombos 2012)
248 J. Takács

Table 3 Realization of equal treatment practices at the workplace

Realization of equal treatment practices at the present (or last) LGBT LGBT LGBT
workplace (%) all women men
Recruitment, selection 34.5 28 42
Training 35.5 33 38.5
Promotion 31.5 26 37.5
Work contract type 37 33 42
Work conditions 36 33 40
Work tasks 34.5 29 41
Waging 42 34 51
Harassment 25 21 29
Dismissal, discharge 32.5 24 42
Source: Hungarian Equal Treatment Awareness Survey—2010 (EBH 2011)

Table 4 Non-realization of equal treatment practices at the workplace

Non-realization of equal treatment practices at the present LGBT LGBT LGBT
(or last) workplace (%) all women men
Recruitment, selection 32 33 31
Training 31 30 32
Promotion 36 36 36
Work contract type 28.5 30 27
Work conditions 29 30 28
Work tasks 31 34 28
Waging 28 29 27
Harassment 37 37.5 36.5
Dismissal, discharge 30.5 33 28
Source: Hungarian Equal Treatment Awareness Survey—2010 (EBH 2011)

work tasks, wage levels, and dismissal and discharge. Tables 3 and 4 provide a
detailed overview of the findings, and show that in the view of LGBT respondents
the most problematic areas of employment-related discrimination are promotion
and harassment. It should also be mentioned that none of the respondents reported
on having diversity trainings and communications addressing sexual orientation
and gender identity, or Employee Resource Group for LGBT employees, or any
(other) openly LGBT employees at their workplace.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that social security services—such as
medical care, pension entitlements and other benefits such as parental leave—are
available to LGBT workers living in same-sex registered partnerships on the same
terms as they are for heterosexual married couples. Act No. XXIX of 2009 on
Registered Partnership and Related Legislation and on the Amendment of Other
Statutes to Facilitate the Proof of Cohabitation (RPA) was adopted by the Hungar-
ian Parliament in May 2009 and came into force on 1 July 2009. The RPA finally
created a family law institution for same-sex couples. The aim of the RPA was to
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 249

provide a constitutionally acceptable institution for same-sex couples: the law

establishes a general equivalence between marriage and registered partnership
with a few notable exceptions. The so-called general reference rule in Article
3 (1) stipulates that unless the RPA otherwise provides or explicitly excludes the
application of it, the rules governing marriage shall be applied to registered partner-
ships as well. The RPA specifies three areas where this general reference rule is not
applicable: (1) registered partners cannot jointly adopt a child, registered partners
cannot adopt each other’s child, and the presumption of paternity is not applicable
to registered partners; (2) the rules on bearing each other’s name cannot be applied;
and (3) registered partners cannot take part in assisted reproductive services. At
present there is no Hungarian research data available on the labor-market situation
of same-sex registered couples, partly because of the relatively low number of
same-sex registered partnerships: between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014
altogether 296—206 male and 90 female—same-sex couples entered into regis-
tered partnership (KEKKH 2015). The very low number of female same-sex
registered partnerships can partly be explained by the institutional discrimination
regarding the impossibility of assisted reproduction for women living in a lesbian
partnership (See: Article 167 of the Hungarian Health Care Act—No. CLIV.
of 1997).

4 Coping with Discrimination: Conclusion

In many cases Hungarian LGBT workers chose to keep their sexual orientation
and/or gender identity hidden for fear of negative consequences. Clearly, many
LGBT people fear discrimination and harassment if they come out; and the expe-
riences of many open LGBT workers do suggest the fear is often well founded. The
very limited visibility of Hungarian LGBT employees also means that employers
and other labor market institutions often have the impression that they do not have
any LGBT people working for or around them, and thus they do not have to deal
with these issues. For many Hungarian employers and employment organizations,
LGBT people are always somewhere else: in other workplaces or even in other
countries.
In the present Hungarian context it is especially important to focus on potential
good practices that would lead to an enabling environment for coming out as LGBT
in the world of work. There are very few good practice workplaces in present day
Hungary, where diversity and tolerance for LGBT persons is actively promoted.
Thus it was very timely that in 2010 the Hungarian Business Leaders Forum
published a leaflet on “Lesbian Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Co-workers at the
workplace”, which included the following recommended components of develop-
ing LGBT-friendly workplaces:
250 J. Takács

• Formal commitment of the management to diversity and acceptance of LGBT

employees (which should be reflected not only in formal mission statements or
diversity policies but also in their personal communication);
• Equal Opportunities Plan inclusive of the grounds of sexual orientation and
gender identity;
• Re-examination of internal (HR) files and official documents to eliminate
discriminative practices towards LGBT employees (with special focus on rec-
ognizing same-sex partners);
• Code of Conduct inclusive of anti-discrimination measures on the grounds of
sexual orientation and gender identity;
• Diversity trainings (to make all employees aware of these developments);
• Support for LGBT Employee Resource Groups (where LGBT employees and
their friends can meet, and LGBT-related employment issues can be discussed in
an organized setting).
The recognition that workplaces characterized by a non-homophobic or a
non-transphobic climate can provide advantages for all, and creating LGBT-
friendly workplaces can actually have more benefits than costs was reflected by
the “Nyitottak vagyunk” (We’re open) initiative. In 2013 just a few weeks before
the Budapest Pride March the We’re Open campaign was launched by three
companies (Google, Prezi and espell), encouraging other groups to join them:
“Being open is a good thing. As open companies, we regard it as a fundamental
corporate value that our employees and our partners are judged solely on the basis
of their actions and their work performance, and without regard for their sex, age,
sexual orientation, national or ethnic background, political convictions, physical
abilities, or other characteristics. Our openness—to new ideas, innovative solutions,
to one another and to the world—is one of the keys to our success. We know that
there are lots of you out there who share our values. Nyitottakvagyunk.hu (We’re
open) has been created for those companies, organizations and communities that
would like to join us in a commitment to openness and to inspire others to do the
same” (Nyitottak vagyunk 2013).—The “We’re open” initiative conveyed several
important messages in the world of work in Hungary: not only did it serve as a great
example of solidarity with LGBT people but it also pointed to the advantages of
providing equal opportunities at the workplace from the business case perspective,
which can serve as an inspiration for others, too.

References

Badgett, M. V. L. (2006). Discrimination based on sexual orientation: A review of the literature in

economics and beyond. In W. M. Rogers III (Ed.), Handbook on the economics of discrimi-
nation (pp. 161–186). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Berghe, W. V., Dewaele, A., Cox, N., & Vincke, J. (2010). Minority-specific determinants of
mental well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 40(1), 153–166.
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 251

Brenner, B. R., Lyons, H. Z., & Fassinger, R. E. (2010). Can heterosexism harm organizations?
Predicting the perceived organizational citizenship behaviors of gay and lesbian employees.
The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 321–335.
Case P v. S. and Cornwall County Council. (1996). Case C-13/94, Judgment of the Court of
30 April 1996. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://archive.equal-jus.eu/116/
D’Augelli, A. (2003). Lesbian and bisexual female youths aged 14 to 21: Developmental chal-
lenges and victimization experiences. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 9–30.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships
between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel Psychology,
50, 147–163.
DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: A consequence of
heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orienta-
tion (pp. 138–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dombos, T., Takács, J., PToth, T., & Mocsonaki, L. (2011). Az LMBT emberek magyarországi
helyzetének r€ovid áttekintése (Short review of the Hungarian situation of LGBT people). In
J. Takács (Ed.), Homof obia Magyarorsz agon (Homophobia in Hungary) (pp. 35–54). Buda-
pest: L’Harmattan Kiado.
Drydakis, N. (2009). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics,
16, 364–372.
EBH [Equal Treatment Authority]. (2011). Az egyenlő b an
asmoddal kapcsolatos jogtudatoss ag
n€ovekedésének mértéke—f okuszban a nők, a rom ak, a fogyatékos és az LMBT emberek.
Kutatasi zar
ojelentés. [The extent of equal treatment awareness—With special focus on
women, Roma, people with disabilities, and LGBT people. Research report]. Budapest: EBH.
Retrieved February 7, 2013 and Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://www.
egyenlobanasmod.hu/tamop/data/MTA_1hullam.pdf
EBH [Equal Treatment Authority]. (2015). Jogesetek (Cases). Accessed October 25, 2015, from
http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/article/index/jogesetek
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-environment fit theory:
Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FRA [European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights]. (2014). EU LGBT survey. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming
out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
ILGA-Europe. (2011). ILGA-Europe annual review 2011. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://
www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/annual_rewiev_inside.pdf
Ingram, K. M., & Smith, N. G. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian,
gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of Counsel-
ling Psychology, 51(1), 57–67.
KEKKH [Central Office for Administrative and Electronic Public Services]. (2015). Statistical
data. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://www.kekkh.gov.hu/hu/statisztikak
Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen-
der, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(4),
373–379.
KSH. (2012). Gyorstájékoztato—Report on unemployment of 2012 September 28—Hungarian
Central Statistical Office. Accessed October 25, 2015, from www.ksh.hu
McDermott, E. (2006). Surviving in dangerous places: Lesbian identity performances in the
workplace, social class and psychological health. Feminism Psychology, 16, 193.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36(1), 38–56.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress and mental health in lesbian, gay and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674–697.
252 J. Takács

Nyitottak vagyunk. (2013). “We’re open” site. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://
nyitottakvagyunk.hu/en
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 323–367.
Powers, B. (1996). The impact of gay, lesbian, and bisexual workplace issues on productivity. In
A. L. Ellis & E. D. B. Riggle (Eds.), Sexual identity on the job: Issues and services. New York,
NY: Haworth Press.
Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A., & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay
and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87, 869–875.
Rivers, I., & Carragher, D. J. (2003). Social-developmental factors affecting lesbian and gay
youth: A review of cross-national research findings. Children and Society, 17, 374–385.
Special Eurobarometer 296. (2008). Discrimination in the EU in 2008. Accessed October 25, 2015,
from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf
Special Eurobarometer 317. (2009). Discrimination in the EU in 2009. Accessed October 25, 2015,
from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_317_en.pdf
Special Eurobarometer 393. (2012). Discrimination in the EU in 2012. Accessed October 25, 2015,
from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
Švab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2005). The unbearable comfort of privacy. The everyday life of gays and
lesbians. Ljubljana: Mirovni Inštitut.
Takács, J. (2007). How to put equality into practice? Budapest: New Mandate.
Takács, J. (2015). Homophobia and genderphobia in the European Union. Stockholm: SIEPS.
Takács, J., & Dombos, T. (2012). Az LMBT-emberek társadalmi integráci oját segı́tő tényezők
Magyarországon (Factors contributing to the social integration of LGBT people in Hungary).
In I. Kovách et al. (Eds.), T
arsadalmi integr
aci
o a jelenkori Magyarorsz agon (Social integra-
tion in present-day Hungary) (pp. 383–397). Budapest: Argumentum Kiad o.
Takács, J., Mocsonaki, L., & PToth, T. (2008). A leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális és transznemű
(LMBT) emberek társadalmi kirekesztettsége Magyarországon. (Social exclusion of LGBT
people in Hungary). Esély, 19(3), 16–54.
Takács, J., & Szalma, I. (2011). Homophobia and same-sex partnership legislation in Europe.
Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(5), 356–378.
Transposition of Recast Directive 2006/54/EC—Update 2011. (2011). Accessed October
25, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/recast_update2011_final_en.
pdf
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10
(6), 629–642.
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender
Persons in Chile: An Exploratory
Quantitative Study on Stigma,
Discrimination, Victimization, Happiness
and Social Well-Being

Jaime Barrientos, Manuel Cárdenas, Fabiola Gomez, and Monica Guzmán

1 Introduction

In 2012, Chile passed an antidiscrimination law to protect and guarantee equal

treatment by the state for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals
(LGBT), among others. Despite this law, the LGBT population is still discriminated
against in different contexts and situations. Recent studies reveal a high prevalence
of events involving violence against the LGBT population (MOVILH 2015a). For
example, a recent study conducted by the Homosexual Liberation Movement
[MOVILH being the Spanish acronym] (2013) indicates that 74.5 % of the subjects
interviewed report experiencing at least one discrimination event due to their sexual
orientation or gender identity during their lifetime, and 30.4 % in the past month.
The same study reveals that 40.2 % of participants were discriminated against in
public places, and 23.4 % at their work place or school. Another study carried out in
Santiago in the context of the Chilean LGBT Pride Parade in 2007 indicates that
about 80 % of the LGBT subjects interviewed report discrimination and aggression.
Mockery, insults, and threats are the most frequent situations reported, and the
places most often indicated are their own neighborhood, religious environments,
and school. The high levels of discrimination reported are not only found in Chile,
as similar data have been reported in questionnaires administered in Brazil (Assis
et al. 2006), Colombia (Brigeiro et al. 2009) and Mexico (Brito et al. 2012).

J. Barrientos (*) • M. Guzmán

Escuela de Psicologı́a, Universidad Catolica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Cárdenas
Universidad de Valparaı́so, Valparaı́so, Chile
F. G
omez
Escuela de Psicologı́a, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 253

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_15
254 J. Barrientos et al.

In Chile, compared to gay men and lesbians, MtF transgender individuals are the
least favored and the most exposed to stigmatization, discrimination, and victimi-
zation (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014; Barrientos et al. 2010). MtF transgender
individuals are often socially excluded from neighborhoods, families, and other
social structures (Pinto et al. 2008). Their unfavorable social status could be
explained by the greater stigmatization to which they are subjected, compared to
gay men and lesbians (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014), given their greater social
visibility. MtF transgender individuals are usually characterized by high unem-
ployment rates and scarce access to education and professional training processes
(Barrientos et al. 2010; Clements-Nolle et al. 2006). Thus, these subjects are often
connected to sexual work as their main economic activity (Barrington et al. 2012).
Sexual work has effects on health and results in greater levels of stigmatization, as
the profession itself is stigmatized. Considering the violence to which LGBT
populations are subjected in the Chilean context, and the need to design policies
to resolve the health, education, and work problems of these populations, interest in
learning about the demographic and social characteristics of homosexual and
transgender individuals is increasing. However, few studies in Chile describe and
characterize these populations, and even fewer examine their quality of life
(Barrientos et al. 2014).
Specifically, studies on the quality of life of gay men and lesbians reveal a
positive association between stigma, discrimination, victimization, and mental
health indicators (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2013). Other studies support these
results in MtF transgender individuals (Barzagan and Galvan 2012; Bockting
et al. 2013; Clements-Nolle et al. 2006), providing evidence of the effects that the
perception of a context as threatening can have on people’s health (Meyer 1995,
2003).
Although great advances have been made in understanding the negative effects
of homophobia and transphobia on victims’ physical and mental health (Burgess
et al. 2007; Herek et al. 1999; Warner et al. 2004), few studies have documented
this association in the Latin American LGBT population (Ghorayeb and
Dalgalarrondo 2011), and even fewer in the MtF transgender population. Therefore,
it is relevant to examine the possible impact of violence against the LGBT popu-
lation on its physical and mental health, paying attention to positive indicators.
To address the lack of contextualized studies on sexual minorities in Chile and
the eventual impact that stigma and discrimination could have on different aspects
of their lives (personal, social, and work), this paper examines sociodemographic
characteristics, levels of perceived stigma and discrimination, and levels of well-
being, in a convenience sample of self-identified cisgender gay men and male-to-
female (MtF) transgender individuals.
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 255

2 Method

2.1 Sample and Procedure

A type of Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS) was used for gay men. A profile of
the target gay men group was defined, and then seeds fulfilling this profile were
selected. Three demographically diverse initial participants were non-randomly
selected as seeds in each city (Arica, Valparaiso, and Santiago), with input from
key informants in each city as the starting point for recruitment. Criteria for seed
selection included: gay men with many network connections in each city, city of
residence, age (three seeds from three different age ranges: 18–29, 30–44, and 45 or
older), and written informed consent. After completing the survey, each seed was
instructed to invite three gay men who met the eligibility criteria to participate in
the study. If the seed was acquainted with a possible participant, the research team
contacted him for the study. This new seed was provided with a brief description of
the project. This process was repeated in four waves until the desired sample size
was achieved (RDSAT 6.0.1 function “Estimate Number of Waves Required” for
equilibrium data, making it possible to approach a sample size that is pseudo-
representative of the hidden population).
In the case of the MtF transgender sample, snowball-type sampling was used.
Participants were contacted in each city. To do so, the key informants were MtF
transgender individuals who belonged to MtF transgender organizations with many
network connections in each city. Eligibility criteria included self-identification as a
MtF transgender, being over 18 years old, city of residence (Arica, Valparaiso, and
Santiago), and written informed consent.
The final sample consists of 437 participants between 18 and 75 years old
(M ¼ 32.22 and SD ¼ 10.22), 325 gay men (74.4 %) and 112 MtF transgender
individuals (25.6 %). Gay men’s ages range from 18 to 64 years old (M ¼ 30.82
and SD ¼ 9.81), while MtF transgender individuals’ ages range from 18 to 75 years
old (M ¼ 36.22 and SD ¼ 10.37). The questionnaires were collected from May to
July 2011 in Arica (21.2 %), Valparaiso (33.8 %), and Santiago (45 %).

2.2 Instrument/Questionnaire

The instrument consists of three sets of questions designed to: (a) collect
sociodemographic data, (b) measure the levels of stigma, discrimination, and
victimization, and (c) measure the levels of happiness and social well-being of
the sample.
256 J. Barrientos et al.

2.2.1 Sociodemographic Measures

The sociodemographic measures include “Age” (later re-categorized into 3 age

groups: 18–29, 30–44, and 45 or older), “City of residence” (Santiago, Valparaiso,
or Arica), “Educational level” (seven response categories ranging from incomplete
primary school to a university degree studies), “Socioeconomic status” (measured
with ESOMAR from the World Association of Market Research (Adimark 2014),
which combines educational level and the occupational category of the head of the
household to which the participant belongs in one matrix), “Religiosity” (measured
with the question “Do you consider yourself a religious individual?” and a scale
measuring the importance given to religious ideas and one’s religious community).
In addition, some questions were asked about testing to detect HIV/AIDS, the
diagnosis (positive or negative), and the time the individual had lived with the virus.

2.2.2 Stigma and Discrimination Measures

Victimization events (Barrientos et al. 2010). A 10-item scale examines aggression

events experienced by gay men and MtF transgender individuals attributed to their
sexual orientation and gender identity. Respondents were asked whether they had
ever experienced one or more of ten different victimization events in their lives.
The scale includes physical, verbal, and psychological violence events. Response
options are dichotomous (yes/no). In addition, the importance given to the situa-
tions experienced is examined: How much have you been affected by this event?
Likert-type response options range from 1 (almost nothing) to 6 (a lot). A moder-
ately high internal consistency was obtained for this application (Cronbach alpha
0.97).
Discrimination events (Barrientos et al. 2010). A 10-item scale examines aggres-
sion events experienced by gay men and MtF transgender individuals attributed to
their sexual orientation and gender identity. Respondents were asked whether they
had ever experienced one or more of ten different discrimination events in their
lives. The scale includes discrimination in the family, at school, and in public
places, among others. Response options are dichotomous (yes/no). In addition, the
importance given to the situations experienced is examined: How much have you
been affected by this event? Likert-type response options range from 1 (very little)
to 6 (a lot). High scores on this scale indicate high levels of discrimination. A high
internal consistency was obtained for this application (Cronbach alpha 0.97).
Subjective Index of Stigma and Discrimination (or SISD for its acronym in
English,) (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014). A 6-dimension self-administered scale
was used that included statements with which the participants had to agree or
disagree. The scale consists of 23 Likert-type items, and responses range from
1 (“completely in disagreement”) to 5 (“completely in agreement”), grouped
together to represent the 6 indicators that make up this part of the scale. The
Cronbach alpha for this application was 0.86.
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 257

2.2.3 Happiness and Social Well-Being Measures

Subjective Happiness Scale The Subjective Happiness Scale designed by

Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) was used. It was adapted and validated for the
Chilean population by Vera-Villarroel et al. (2011), with good reliability indicators
(Cronbach alpha 0.87). The version used consists of four Likert-type items whose
final score is obtained by adding up the scores obtained and dividing them by the
total number of items (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Response options range
from 1 (“Unhappy”) to 6 (“Very happy”). A moderate internal consistency index
was obtained for this application (Cronbach alpha 0.65).
Social Well-Being The Social Well-Being Scale designed by Keyes (1998) was
used. It was translated by Blanco and Dı́az (2005) and validated in the national
population by Cárdenas and Barrientos (2013), with good reliability indicators
(Cronbach alpha 0.87). The version used consists of 33 items distributed in
5 dimensions: Social Integration, Social Acceptance, Social Contribution, Social
Actualization, and Social Coherence. Likert-type response options range from
1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). High scores indicate good social
adjustment. Suitable psychometric properties are obtained for the total scale
(Cronbach alpha 0.89) and for its dimensions: Social Integration, α ¼ 0.63, Social
Acceptance, α ¼ 0.83, Social Contribution, α ¼ 0.38, Social Actualization,
α ¼ 0.64, and Social Coherence, α ¼ 0.86.

2.3 Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted by using the software package SPSS 20.0 for
Windows. To provide a description of the sample, means and standard deviations
were calculated for each variable. Next, several t-tests were conducted to compare
the scores of the two samples (gay men and MtF transgender individuals) on
measures of stigma and discrimination, levels of victimization, discrimination,
happiness, and well-being. Analyses included effect size calculations (Cohen’s d)
in G*Power 3.1.6 (Faul et al. 2007, 2009).

3 Results

3.1 Sociodemographic Profile

Differential patterns are observed in the socioeconomic profile of the sample

(Table 1), showing that MtF transgender individuals are in a more unfavorable
position than gay men. More than 85 % of MtF transgender individuals must be
included in the middle-low or low socioeconomic status, compared to 15.7 % of gay
258 J. Barrientos et al.

Table 1 Sociodemographic profile of gay men and MtF transgender samples

Gay men MtF transgender
(%) (%)
Variables (N ¼ 325) (N ¼ 112)
Socioeconomic status Very high (A) 4.0 0.0
High (BC1) 12.0 0.0
Medium high (C2) 32.9 6.0
Medium (C3) 35.5 8.4
Medium low (D) 13.9 72.3
Low (E) 1.7 13.3
Educational level Degree 3.1 0.0
College 22.2 3.6
Incomplete college/complete 35.5 6.4
technical
Complete secondary/incomplete 30.1 20.0
technical
Incomplete secondary 4.7 33.6
Complete primary 0.3 26.4
Incomplete primary 1.2 10.0
Religiosity Religious 36.1 69.4
Non-religious 63.9 30.6
Political self- Left 48.0 53.2
categorization Center 31.7 30.6
Right 20.3 16.2
HIV/AIDS tested Done 84.7 71.2
Not done 15.3 28.8
HIV/AIDS diagnose Positive 18.5 16.5
Negative 81.5 83.5
MtF Male-to-female

men. In addition, none of the MtF transgender individuals have a high or very high
socioeconomic status, while 16 % of gay men belong to these socioeconomic
groups.
The educational level of the gay men falls into two main categories: “complete
secondary and incomplete technical education” (30.1 %) and “incomplete college
education” (38.5 %). By contrast, MtF transgender individuals are categorized as
“complete primary education” (26.4 %), “incomplete secondary education”
(33.6 %), and “complete secondary and incomplete technical education” (20 %),
which reveals the lower educational level of this group. Regarding the main work
activities reported, 74.7 % of MtF transgender individuals work in sexual com-
merce. In the case of gay men, the type of work is much more varied.
Moreover, 36.1 % of gay men and 69.4 % of MtF transgender individuals
consider themselves to be religious people. Most of the religious subjects from
both groups describe themselves as Catholic (78 % and 83.3 %, respectively). Only
19.5 % of gay men and 13 % of MtF transgender individuals ascribe to Christian
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 259

religions other than Catholicism, mainly Evangelical, with 8.1 % and 7.4 %,
respectively.
Regarding their political ideas, most participants opt for the left wing (48 % and
53.2 %, respectively), although an important number of them choose the political
center (31.7 % of gay men and 30.6 % of MtF transgender individuals).
Some questions were posed to learn about HIV/AIDS detection tests, their
diagnosis, and the time spent living with the virus. Most of the sample had taken
the test (84.7 % of gay men and 71.2 % of MtF transgender individuals), while
18.5 % of gay men and 16.5 % of MtF transgender individuals had been diagnosed
with HIV/AIDS. Of those diagnosed with the virus, 62.5 % are gay men and 50 %
are MtF transgender individuals who were informed of their condition more than
3 years ago. Only a small number had found out about their condition recently (four
subjects in each group).

3.2 Subjective Index of Stigma and Discrimination

Table 2 shows both groups’ results on the SISD total score and on each dimension
of the scale. Statistically significant differences are observed between gay men and
MtF transgender individuals (t(435) ¼ 2.48; p < 0.05; d ¼ 0.26) on the SISD
scores. Additionally, differences are observed in 3 dimensions: disadvantages in
the presence of authorities (t(435) ¼ 2.83; p < 0.005; d ¼ 0.31), discrimination at
work (t(435) ¼ 3.78; p < 0.005; d ¼ 0.41), and institutional exclusion
(t(434) ¼ 4.25; p < 0.001; d ¼ 0.46). These results confirm that the gap between

Table 2 Means and standard deviation in SISD dimensions for gay men and MtF transgender
individuals
Gay Men MtF transgender
(N ¼ 325) (N ¼ 112)
Dimension M (SD) M (SD) t gl p d
(SISD) Total score 4.11 (1.05) 4.43 (1.40) 2.17 156 0.03 0.26
Stigma and discrimination 4.79 (1.19) 4.71 (1.62) 0.52 154 0.06
experiences
Disadvantage in presence 4.21 (1.48) 4.67 (1.53) 2.83 435 0.005 0.31
of authorities
Discrimination at work 3.73 (1.41) 4.33 (1.51) 3.78 435 <0.001 0.41
Expression of sexual or 3.87 (1.52) 4.18 (1.56) 1.82 434 0.07
gender identity
Institutional exclusion and 3.58 (1.52) 4.31 (1.65) 4.08 178 <0.001 0.46
rights denial
Religious discrimination 4.46 (1.25) 4.30 (1.65) 0.93 155 0.35
Response options range from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate more stigma and discrimination
MtF Male-to-female
Significance level: p<0.05
260 J. Barrientos et al.

the two groups on the total scale and the dimensions mentioned above can be
considered significant (even though the mean scores on the SISD (and the mean
scores on their dimensions) of both groups must be considered high because values
can range from 1 to 5).

3.3 Relation Between SISD, Victimization Measures,

Discrimination and Minority Stress, and Measures
of Happiness and Social Well-Being

Table 3 shows the high percentage of subjects from both groups who report
victimization events due to their gay or MtF transgender condition. Events most
frequently reported include mockery and insults. Both groups report that they are
used to these events, which have occurred in different contexts since school. In the
case of MtF transgender individuals, greater public visibility involves greater

Table 3 Percentages of having experienced victimization and discrimination for gay men and
MtF transgender individuals
Gay men MtF transgender
Victimization events (%) (%)
Mockery 73.2 88.1
Insults 55.8 87.4
Threats 26.7 66.7
Physical aggression attempt 21.6 66.7
Physical aggression 16.6 61.3
Sexual aggression attempt 14.7 46.8
Sexual aggression 11.5 40.5
Blackmail 18.9 40.7
Non-violent robbery 22.4 61.3
Violent assault 13.7 53.2
Discrimination events
Not hired or fired from work 22.3 57.8
Not allowed to enter or stay in a public place 14.2 49.5
Ill-treated by public officials 25.8 59.1
Not accepted or banned from school 9.3 46.8
Not accepted or rejected by a group of friends 19.8 42.3
Disturbed or harassed by neighbors 32.5 52.7
Not accepted or banned from a social group 10.6 34.9
Not accepted or rejected by the family 18.0 48.2
Not accepted or banned from a religious group 16.1 40.0
Verbal or physical aggression or denial of help by the 19.3 70.0
police
MtF Male-to-female
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 261

vulnerability to these events, but the number of subjects reporting assaults or

robbery (61.3 %), physical aggression (61.3 %), and sexual aggression (40.55) is
quite surprising, perhaps because most of the subjects in the sample work in sexual
commerce on the street.
Regarding the question about the extent to which these events had caused an
impact on their lives, subjects give them relative importance, which is an interesting
result to analyze (Table 4). For example, for MtF transgender individuals mockery
has a more enduring and profound effect on their lives (M ¼ 4.55) than other events
that could be judged as more violent, e.g., sexual aggression (M ¼ 3.55). In com-
paring the impact reported by the two groups, mockery, insults, threats, sexual
aggression attempts, violent robbery and assault are scored significantly higher by
MtF transgender individuals, thus producing a greater impact on their lives. No
differences are found in the impact of physical aggression attempts, actual physical
aggression, sexual aggression, or blackmail, although the MtF transgender sample
has experienced them to a greater extent.
Table 3 shows the percentages of each event for both groups, as well as the mean
for the life impact reported. Data suggest a differential impact of each discrimina-
tion event, regardless of its magnitude. Thus, the event causing the most impact on
gay men could belong to the private context (rejection by the family), while for MtF
transgender individuals the events given the highest scores are those from the public
context (verbal or physical aggression, being denied help from the police, and being
rejected or banned from school). Table 4 shows that, although the MtF transgender
group reports a higher percentage of these actions, only two differences are
statistically significant: “not being accepted or being banned from school”
(t(97) ¼ 3.45; p ¼ 0.001; d ¼ 0.65) and “verbal or physical aggression”
(t(145) ¼ 3.56; p ¼ 0.001; d ¼ 0.59). These results confirm the greater exposure
and vulnerability of MtF-transgender individuals, due to their greater visibility.
The possible impact of perceived stigma and discrimination on happiness and
social well-being will be analyzed below. In analyzing the means of both groups,
statistically significant differences are found for happiness (t (434) ¼ 2.53; p < 0.05;
d ¼ 0.25), social integration (t (435) ¼ 2.19; p < 0.05; d ¼ 0.22), and social coher-
ence on the scale of social well-being (t (434) ¼ 4.65; p < 0.001; d ¼ 0.53).
Results indicate that the gay men report higher levels of happiness (they are
happier and assess their lives as such) and a significantly greater degree of social
integration (they assess the quality of their relations with society and the commu-
nity more positively). At the same time, they report significantly lower levels of
social coherence; in other words, they assess the quality, organization, and func-
tioning of the social world more negatively and are more concerned about what
happens in the world.
In dividing the groups according to the median on the SISD (gay men ¼ 4.13 and
MtF transgender individuals ¼ 4.89), a comparison can be made between partici-
pants with high and low scores on happiness and the different dimensions of social
well-being. These analyses reveal that, at higher levels of perceived stigma and
discrimination, effects are observed in the assessment of the levels of happiness and
well-being.
262 J. Barrientos et al.

Table 4 Impact of victimization and discrimination events on the lives of gay men and MtF
transgender individuals
MtF
Gay men transgender
(N ¼ 325) (N ¼ 112)
M (SD) M (SD) t gl p d
Victimization events
Mockery 3.50 (1.56) 4.55 (1.77) 5.33 337 <0.001 0.63
Insults 3.47 (1.77) 4.25 (1.89) 3.40 283 0.001 0.43
Threats 3.29 (1.79) 4.14 (2.01) 2.95 156 0.004 0.61
Physical aggression attempt 3.48 (1.94) 4.41 (1.93) 2.96 164 0.004 0.48
Physical aggression 3.77 (2.01) 4.27 (1.87) 1.55 142 0.12
Sexual aggression attempt 3.11 (1.98) 3.95 (1.99) 2.40 126 0.02 0.42
Sexual aggression 3.28 (2.09) 3.55 (2.07) 0.77 112 0.44
Blackmail 3.39 (2.05) 3.54 (2.11) 0.41 125 0.68
Non-violent robbery 3.28 (1.87) 4.01 (1.93) 2.37 151 0.02 0.38
Violent assault 3.29 (2.01) 4.05 (1.96) 2.13 123 0.03 0.38
Discrimination events
Not hired or fired from work 3.61 (1.74) 4.00 (1.95) 1.32 157 0.19
Not allowed to enter or stay in a 2.87 (1.77) 3.52 (2.08) 1.83 112 0.07
public place
Ill-treated by public officials 3.51 (1.81) 3.91 (1.92) 1.38 161 0.17
Not accepted or banned from 2.91 (1.55) 4.11 (1.84) 3.52 96 0.001 0.65
school
Not accepted or rejected by a 3.51 (1.73) 3.87 (1.98) 1.10 129 0.27
group of friends
Disturbed or harassed by 3.13 (1.58) 3.53 (1.98) 1.38 108 0.17
neighbors
Not accepted or banned from a 3.21 (1.73) 3.44 (1.98) 0.60 94 0.55
social group
Not accepted or rejected by the 4.01 (1.84) 3.74 (1.92) 0.84 129 0.40
family
Not accepted or banned from a 3.38 (1.77) 3.75 (1.93) 1.09 114 0.28
religious group
Verbal or physical aggression or 3.59 (1.82) 4.63 (1.72) 3.56 145 0.001 0.59
denial of help by the police
Response options range from 1 to 6. Higher scores indicate greater impact on life
MtF Male-to-female
Significance level: p<0.05
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 263

Table 5 Means and statistical values on the SISD for high and low groups of gay men and MtF
transgender individuals in happiness and social well-being dimensions
Dimensions SISD Gay men t MtF transgender t
Social integration LOW 4.00 3.54** 3.33 6.03**
HIGH 4.32 4.52
Social acceptance LOW 3.36 4.36** 3.20 4.25**
HIGH 3.84 4.04
Social contribution LOW 3.52 4.40** 3.24 3.85**
HIGH 3.98 4.06
Social actualization LOW 3.15 6.40** 3.13 3.91**
HIGH 3.77 3.95
Social coherence LOW 2.67 3.80** 3.30 2.45*
HIGH 3.19 3.79
Happiness LOW 4.03 2.84** 3.20 6.14**
HIGH 4.35 4.54
MtF Male-to-Female
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Results from the group of gay men reveal significant differences on all measures,
except victimization. A similar pattern is shown by the MtF transgender group,
although no differences are observed in the impact attributed to discrimination
events in this group. Table 5 shows the means for happiness and social well-being in
subjects scoring above or below the SISD mean, and their respective statistical
tests.
These results support the idea that subjects who perceive greater stigma and
discrimination due to their sexual and gender identity also report more serious
effects on their happiness (they report lower levels of happiness) and social well-
being (they assess their contribution to society more negatively). All the compar-
isons are statistically significant, regardless of whether they are for gay men or MtF
transgender individuals.

4 Discussion

This paper represents one of the first attempts to describe and characterize the gay
men and MtF transgender population in Chile, thus allowing the construction of a
baseline to compare with future research, and formulating and proving hypotheses
and creating new lines for future studies. Most previous studies have been designed
exclusively to examine homophobia (Cárdenas and Barrientos 2008; Caro and
Guajardo 1997). To better understand the specific needs of sexual minorities in
areas such as health, education, and work, more data are needed about these
populations, beginning with sociodemographic data and those related to the main
problems they are affected by: stigma and discrimination. Only by learning more
about the characteristics of these populations and the way they experience stigma
264 J. Barrientos et al.

and discrimination can policies be designed to solve various problems faced by gay
men and MtF transgender individuals. This issue is relevant because many studies
have shown that the LGBT population is heterogeneous in age, education, or place
of residence, and they differ on variables such as violence, health, and access to
work (IOM 2011; Kertzner et al. 2009; Meyer 2003).
Results also show that perceived stigma, discrimination, and victimization
remain, as reported in previous studies (Barrientos et al. 2010, 2012); MOVILH
2015a), in spite of the fact that studies on the general population reveal that
homophobia may be decreasing (MOVILH 2012, 2013). This divergence increases
the need to consider the point of view of the victims in order to understand
homophobia and its effects (Gomez and Barrientos 2012; Barrientos et al. 2014).
In addition, data indicate that MtF transgender individuals are particularly
subjected to high levels of stigma and discrimination. Thus, transphobia is a serious
problem in Chile. MtF transgender individuals perceive disadvantages in the
presence of authorities, discrimination at work, and institutional exclusion, indi-
cating the need to protect the social rights of this population. Moreover, MtF
transgender individuals are often poorer and less educated than gay men, lesbians
or heterosexual individuals, and MtF transgenders are often involved in sexual
work, as shown in this study, so that the discrimination they suffer is multi-layered
(De Santis 2009). Therefore, it was very important to include MtF transgender
individuals in this study, as empirical data about this population are limited
(Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014). As in other studies in the region (Silva-Santisteban
et al. 2012), sexual work is the main economic activity of this group, reflecting the
lack of opportunities for MtF transgender individuals in Chile. This finding is an
indicator of the so-called secondary victimization: forms of discrimination/victim-
ization such as a lack of job opportunities, resulting from victimization processes
that are legal or widely condoned.
With regard to the perceived stigma and discrimination, three ambits are notice-
able: disadvantages in the presence of authorities, discrimination at work, and
institutional exclusion. This study confirms previous findings reported in studies
on the LGBT Pride Parade in 2011 (Barrientos and Bozon 2014), particularly those
from recent reports on the situation of the country’s LGBT population (MOVILH
2015b). For example, violence by police authorities toward the LGBT population in
Chile still exists. Although this violence has decreased in recent years, there are still
cases of mistreatment by the police and arbitrary detentions. As reported by
Barrientos and Bozon (2014), there are security guards in Chile who control the
entrances to many public places and are responsible for security in many different
contexts (Gobierno Regional Metropolitatno de Santiago 2012). They are often
retired police officers or young people who recently finished their military service.
These men perform a type of hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt
2005) and often act as guardians of this type of masculinity. Therefore, based on
previous studies, because gay men and, especially, MtF transgender people would
be expected to show a more atypical gender appearance or behavior that does not
conform to the gender role expectations for men, they could experience more
victimization than lesbians (Katz-Wise and Hyde 2012).
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 265

Regarding discrimination at work, MOVILH (2015a) reports that discrimination

events at work still exist. This type of discrimination at work is due to sexual
orientation and gender identity. Many subjects report that their rights are violated
by the arbitrary and unfair use of the Chilean labor legislation. Chilean law still
allows firing based on the company’s need, thus hiding the actual reasons for it,
such as sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, discrimination perceived
at work by the MtF transgender population could be due to their main type of work,
i.e., sexual commerce. Discrimination at work due to sexual orientation or gender
identity has scarcely been studied in Latin America (ADEIM et al. 2006). Thus,
future studies should examine it more in depth.
Regarding victimization and discrimination events, a study related to the
national context (Barrientos and Bozon 2014) indicates that mockery is a common
way to express violence toward sexual minorities. This finding is very important
and might not be understood outside the Chilean context. In our country, verbal
violence is frequent and practiced toward anyone who is different; it is a frequently
reported form of discrimination perceived by diverse discriminated groups (Merino
et al. 2008). Likewise, anti-gay and anti-transgender language is one of many
mechanisms through which heterosexism is enacted; it communicates hostility
toward gay men and MtF transgender people and contributes to the establishment
of an unwelcoming and unsafe environment for them (Burn 2000).
Results also reveal that gay men particularly report lower levels of happiness,
compared to the Chilean general population (Vera-Villarroel et al. 2011). However,
compared to similar studies in the country, subjects in the present study report
higher levels of social well-being (Gomez and Barrientos 2012). In the case of gay
men, this could be because the sample mostly has a middle and middle-high
socioeconomic status. They would be part of a more protective context in terms
of prejudice (higher educational levels, mainly young people), allowing them
access to higher quality services, such as healthcare, which in a country like
Chile is private and for a fee. Thus, the characteristics of the gay men sample
(middle-high socioeconomic status, high educational level, and mainly young
people) may influence the results and produce a bias that future studies should
address. This is important because studies indicate that the LGBT population faces
several barriers that prevent them from having equal access to health services, a fact
that could have a strong impact on their quality of life (IOM 2011). In the case of
MtF transgender individuals, the results reveal their great vulnerability and the
negative effects of discrimination on their well-being.
This study has several limitations. One of them is the use of self-report measures
(Greenwald and Banaji 1995). Hence, future studies on the adaptation of indirect
(non-reactive) measurements are needed to allow access to people’s internal states
and attitudes without directly asking about them. These measurement procedures
require quicker and less conscious appraisals that make it more difficult to adjust
responses to expectations.
Another limitation could be that the SISD is not specifically for gay men or MtF
transgender individuals. A recent study recommends the use of specific measures
for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people, which, in this study, would
266 J. Barrientos et al.

involve examining stigma in gay men and MtF transgender individuals as separate
constructs (Worthen 2013). This differentiation is relevant and may contribute to
increasing our understanding of stigma and discrimination in various populations.
Moreover, as gay men and MtF transgender individuals are considered Men who
have sex with other Men (MSM) in Latin America and in Chile, they are thought to
be similar in terms of some characteristics related to their vulnerability to HIV,
which is often the reason for studying these groups in the country and the region
(Organizacion de las Naciones Unidas para la Educacion, La Ciencia y la Cultura,
Chile, Ministerio de Salud, VIVOPOSITIVO and ASOSIDA 2012). Future studies
should separately address the specific needs of these populations.
Moreover, future studies should balance the presence of MtF transgender indi-
viduals belonging to a middle-high socioeconomic status because this study could
only interview MtF transgender individuals with a low and middle socioeconomic
status.
Finally, sampling difficult-to-access populations is a huge challenge for social
research. This study used a type of sampling that does not allow the random
selection of participants, making it difficult to generalize findings to the whole
Chilean gay men and MtF transgender population. Future studies should include
other sampling methods for difficult-to-access populations, such as respondent-
driven sampling (Mantecon et al. 2008; Cárdenas and Ya~nez 2012) or sampling
based on meeting places and schedules of group members (Salganik and
Heckathorn 2004).

Appendix: Subjective Index of Stigma and Discrimination

(SISD)

Next, indicate you agreement or disagreement with the statements below. Use the
following scale: 1 ¼ “totally in disagreement” and 6 ¼ “totally in agreement”.

1. In our society, many homosexuals are often insulted on the street 1 2 3 4 5 6

because of their sexual orientation
2. In our society, many homosexuals have been victims of homophobic 1 2 3 4 5 6
aggression
3. In our society, many homosexuals are threatened on the street because 1 2 3 4 5 6
of their sexual orientation
4. Mocking homosexuals is a common practice at school 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Many homosexuals have had to leave home at an early age because of 1 2 3 4 5 6
their sexual orientation
6. If a homosexual denounces aggression, his account could be 1 2 3 4 5 6
questioned
7. The account given by a homosexual individual could be discredited 1 2 3 4 5 6
and ignored by authorities
(continued)
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 267

8. If a homosexual individual gets involved in an incident, authorities 1 2 3 4 5 6

will always tend to blame him because of his sexual orientation
9. I think I could be fired from a job because of my sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. I think I could be rejected for a job because of my sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. If people knew about my sexual orientation, I could be harassed at 1 2 3 4 5 6
work
12. I have felt harassed at work or at school because of my sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6
orientation
13. If I compete for a job with a heterosexual individual, he/she will 1 2 3 4 5 6
probably get the job despite our similar training and expertise
14. In our society, a homosexual individual does not compete for a job in 1 2 3 4 5 6
similar conditions
15. I avoid talking openly about my homosexuality at work 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. I would never dare to say that I am a homosexual at work 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. In a society like ours, a homosexual will never be able to express his 1 2 3 4 5 6
ideas freely
18. In our society, a homosexual individual may miss a chance to have 1 2 3 4 5 6
social benefits because of his sexual orientation
19. I think I could be banned from an educational institution (high- 1 2 3 4 5 6
school, tertiary education center, college, etc.) because of my sexual
orientation
20. I could be arbitrarily detained by the police because of my sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6
orientation
21. Religious discourse is homophobic 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. I have felt discriminated against in my religious community because 1 2 3 4 5 6
of my sexual orientation
23. Extremely religious people discriminate against homosexuals 1 2 3 4 5 6

References

ADEIM-Simbiosis, Artemisa, Cattrachas, Criola, IGLHRC, & Red Nosotras. (2006). La

invisibilidad aseguraba el puchero, Lesbianas y discriminaci on laboral en Colombia, Bolivia,
Brasil, Honduras y México [Invisibility guaranteed food on the table, Lesbians and job
discrimination in Colombia, Bolivia, Brasil, Honduras and Mexico]. Buenos Aires: Comisi on
Internacional de Derechos Humanos para Gays y Lesbianas (IGLHRC).
ADIMARK. (2014). El nivel socio econ omico ESOMAR. Manual de Aplicaci on. Informe Técnico,
Chile, 2000 [ESOMAR socioeconomic level. Application manual. Technical report]. Accessed
July 22, 2014, from http://www.microweb.cl/idm/documentos/ESOMAR.pdf
Assis, J., Carrara, S., Facchini, R., & Ramos, C. (2006). Polı́tica, directos, violencia e homossex-
ualidade. Pesquisa 9ª parada do orgulho GLBT-S^ ao Paulo 2005. Rio de Janeiro: CEPESC.
Barrientos, J., & Bozon, M. V. (2014). Victimization against gay men and lesbians in Chile in the
context of the XIII sexual diversity pride parade—Santiago 2011: Two types of discrimination
or just one? Revista Interdisciplinaria, 31(2), 323–339.
Barrientos, J., & Cárdenas, M. (2013). Homofobia y Calidad de Vida de Gay y Lesbianas: Una
Mirada Psicosocial [Homophobia and quality of life in gay men and lesbians: A psychosocial
view]. Psykhe, 22(1), 3–14. doi:10.7764/psykhe.22.1.553.
268 J. Barrientos et al.

Barrientos, J., & Cárdenas, M. (2014). Construction and validation of a subjective scale of stigma
and discrimination (SISD) for the gay men and transgender women population in Chile (SISD).
Sexuality and Social Policy Research, 11(3), 187–198.
Barrientos, J., Cárdenas, M., Dı́az, J., & Mu~noz, F. (2012). Derechos, polı́ticas, violencia y
diversidad sexual: segunda encuesta marcha por la diversidad sexual—Santiago 2011 [Rights,
policies, violence and sexual diversity: Second survey—Santiago 2011]. Santiago: Universidad
Catolica del Norte/Movimiento por la Diversidad Sexual.
Barrientos, J., Cárdenas, M., & Gomez, F. (2014). Caracterı́sticas Socio-demográficas, homofobia,
VIH y bienestar en una muestra chilena de hombres gay [Socio-demographic characteristics,
subjective well-being, and homophobia experienced by a sample of gay men from three cities
in Chile]. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 30(6), 1259–1269.
Barrientos, J., Silva, J., Catalán, S., Gomez, F., & Longueira, J. (2010). Discrimination and
victimization: Parade for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pride, in Chile.
Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 760–775.
Barrington, C., Guardado, M. E., Nieto, A., & Bailey, G. P. (2012). Social network characteristics
and HIV vulnerability among transgender persons in San Salvador: Identifying opportunities
for HIV prevention strategies. AIDS and Behavior, 6(1), 214–224.
Barzagan, M., & Galvan, F. (2012). Perceived discrimination and depression among low-income
Latina male-to-female transgender women. BMC Public Health, 12, 663.
Blanco, A., & Dı́az, D. (2005). El bienestar social: su concepto y medici on [Social well-being: Its
conception and measurement]. Psicothema, 17, 582–589.
Bockting, W. O., Miner, M. H., Swinburne, R. E., Hamilton, A., & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma,
mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. American
Journal of Public Health, 103, 943–951.
Brigeiro, M., Castillo, E., & Murad, R. (2009). Encuesta LGBT: Sexualidad y Derechos.
Participantes de la Marcha de la Ciudadanı́a. Brasil: Instituto de Medicina Social, CLAM.
Brito, A., Jiménez de Sandi, A., Sı́vori, H., Lacerda, P., Glockner, N., & De la Garza, L. (2012).
Polı́tica, derechos, violencia y sexualidad Encuesta de la Marcha del Orgullo y la Diversidad
Sexual de la Ciudad de México—2008. Rio de Janeiro: CEPESC.
Burgess, D., Lee, R., Tran, A., & Ryn, M. (2007). Effects of perceived discrimination on mental
health and mental health services utilization among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
persons. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3, 1–14.
Burn, S. M. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to deride one another: A contributor
to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40(2), 1–11.
Cárdenas, M., & Barrientos, J. (2008). Actitudes explı́citas e implı́citas hacia los hombres
homosexuales en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios en Chile [Explicit and implicit
attitudes toward gay men in a university sample in Chile]. Psykhe, 17, 17–25.
Cárdenas, M., & Ya~nez, S. (2012). Nuevas formas de muestreo para minorı́as y poblaciones
ocultas: muestras por encuestado conducido en una poblaci on de inmigrantes sudamericanos
[New forms of sampling for minority and hidden populations: Respondent samples conducted
in a south American immigrant population]. Universitas Psychologica, 11(2), 571–578.
Cárdenas, M., & Barrientos, J. (2013). Social well-being scale: Adaptation and validation in an
university chilean sample. Unpublished manuscript.
Caro, I., & Guajardo, G. (1997). Homofobia cultural en Santiago de Chile. Un estudio cualitativo
[Cultural homophobia in Santiago de Chile. A qualitative study]. Chile: Flacso.
Clements-Nolle, K., Mark, R., & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons:
The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 51
(3), 53–69.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender Society, 19, 829–859.
De Santis, J. P. (2009). HIV infection risk factors among male-to-female transgender persons: A
review of the literature. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 20(5), 362–372.
doi:10.1016/j.jana.2009.06.005.
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 269

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41,
1149–1160.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 175–191.
Ghorayeb, D. B., & Dalgalarrondo, P. (2011). Homosexuality: Mental health and quality of life in
a Brazilian socio-cultural context. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 57, 496–500.
Gobierno Regional Metropolitano de Santiago. (2012). Estudio de Oferta de Servicios de
Seguridad Privada en la Regi on Metropolitana de Santiago [Study of the offer of private
security services in the metropolitan region of Santiago]. Accessed July 22, 2014, from http://
www.gobiernosantiago.cl/Estudio%20Oferta%20Seguridad%20Privada%20RMS/Informe%
20Final_Estudio%20Seguridad%20Privada%20RMS.pdf
Gomez, F., & Barrientos, J. (2012). Efectos del prejuicio sexual en la salud mental de gays y
lesbianas, en la ciudad de Antofagasta, Chile [The effects of sexual prejudice on the mental
health of gays and lesbians in Antofagasta, Chile]. Sexualidad, Salud y Sociedad, 10, 100–123.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
Herek, G. H., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,
945–951.
Institute of Medicine [IOM]. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people:
Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Katz-Wise, S., & Hyde, J. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 142–167.
Kertzner, R., Meyer, I., Frost, D., & Stirratt, M. (2009). Social and psychological well-being in
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 500–510.
Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. A. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
Mantec on, A., Juan, M., Calafat, A., Beco~na, E., & Román, E. (2008). Respondent-Driven
Sampling: un nuevo método de muestreo para el estudio de poblaciones visibles y ocultas
[Respondent-driven sampling: A new sampling method for studying visible and hidden
populations]. Adicciones, 20, 161–170.
Merino, M. E., Quilaqueo, D., & Saiz, J. L. (2008). Una tipologı́a del discurso de discriminaci on
percibida en mapuches de Chile [Discursive typology of perceived discrimination against
mapuches in Chile]. Revista Signos, 41(67), 279–297. doi:10.4067/S0718-
09342008000200011.
Meyer, I. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36, 38–56.
Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2012) X Informe anual de derechos
humanos de la diversidad sexual en Chile [X annual report of human right of sexual diversity
in Chile]. Accessed October 22, 2012, from http://www.movilh.cl/documentacion/informe-
ddhh-2011/Informe-ddhh-Movilh-Chile-2011.pdf
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2013) XI Informe Anual de Derechos
Humanos de la Diversidad Sexual en Chile, Hechos 2012 [XI annual report of human right of
sexual diversity in Chile]. Santiago: Author. Accessed October 10, 2012, from http://www.
movilh.cl/documentacion/XI_Informe_de_DHH_Movilh_Hechos_2012.pdf
270 J. Barrientos et al.

Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2015a). Primera encuesta nacional.

Diversidad sexual, Derechos Humanos y Ley contra la discriminacion [Homosexual liberation
and integration movement. First national survey. Sexual diversity, human rights and law
against discrimination]. Santiago: Author. Accessed March 10, 2015, from http://www.
movilh.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Encuesta-Nacional-Diversidad-Sexual.pdf
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2015b). XIII Informe Anual de Derechos
Humanos de la Diversidad Sexual en Chile, Hechos 2012 [XIII annual report of human right of
sexual diversity in Chile]. Santiago: Author. Accessed March 10, 2015, from http://www.
movilh.cl/documentacion/2014/XIII%20Informe%20de%20DDHH%202014-web.pdf
ONUSIDA, Organizacion de las Naciones Unidas para la Educaci on, La Ciencia y la Cultura,
Chile, Ministerio de Salud, VIVOPOSITIVO, & ASOSIDA. (2012) I´ndice compuesto de
estigma y discriminaci on hacia hombres homosexuales, otros HSH y mujeres transgénero en
Chile (ICED): sı́ntesis de estudio [Index of stigma and discrimination towards gay men, MSM
and women transgender in Chile: A synthesis]. Santiago: Autores.
Pinto, R., Melendez, R., & Spector, A. (2008). Male-to-female transgender individuals building
social support and capital from within a gender-focused network. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, 20(3), 203–220.
Salganik, M., & Heckathorn, D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden population using
respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 193–239.
Silva-Santisteban, A., Raymond, H. F., Salazar, X., Villayzan, J., Leon, S., McFarland, W., &
Caceres, C. F. (2012). Understanding the HIV/AIDS epidemic in transgender women of Lima,
Peru: Results from a sero-epidemiologic study using respondent driven sampling. AIDS and
Behavior, 16, 872–881.
Vera-Villarroel, P., Celis, K., & Cordova, N. (2011). Evaluaci on de la felicidad: análisis
psicométrico de la Escala de Felicidad Subjetiva en poblaci on chilena [Evaluation of happi-
ness: Psychometric analysis of the subjective happiness scale in Chilean population]. Terapia
Psicologica, 29, 127–133.
Warner, J., McKeown, E., Griffin, M., Johnson, K., Ramsay, A., Cort, C., & King, M. (2004).
Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 479–485.
Worthen, M. G. F. (2013). An argument for separate analysis of attitudes toward lesbian, gay,
bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68(11–12),
703–723.
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions
in the Workplace: Implications for Policy

M. Paz Galupo and Courtney A. Resnick

1 Introduction

Though strides have been made in the fight for workplace equality for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified Americans, LGBT employees are still
discriminated against in workplaces in alarming numbers. In 2011, the Williams
Institute published a report that included data from the 2008 General Social Survey
(GSS), which indicated 42 % of LGB respondents had experienced workplace
discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in their career (Sears and
Mallory 2011). Even more startling are the experiences of transgender employees.
A 2011 report published by the National Center for Transgender Equality indicates
that 90 % of transgender persons surveyed reported experiencing harassment or
mistreatment on the job (Grant et al. 2011).

1.1 Microaggressions

LGBT research in the workplace has primarily focused on documenting overt forms
of discrimination and harassment. However, more subtle forms of mistreatment,
called microaggressions, also occur. Microaggressions have been described as
everyday verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or
unintentional, that convey hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward
members of oppressed groups (Nadal 2008). In their seminal article on racial

M.P. Galupo (*)

Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C.A. Resnick
College of Arts and Sciences, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 271

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_16
272 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

microaggressions, Sue et al. (2007) classified microaggressions into three broad

categories: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. More specifically,
they define microassaults as explicit derogation characterized primarily by a verbal
or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling,
avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions. Within this taxonomy,
microassaults are most closely aligned with “traditional” forms of heterosexism.
Referring to a colleague as “fag,” “dyke,” or “tranny” are examples of
microassaults. Whereas microassaults are considered more blatant expressions of
microaggressions, microinsults and microinvalidations tend to be more subtle.
Microinsults are described as communications that convey rudeness or insensitivity
and demean a person’s identity—these are likely occurring unbeknownst to the
perpetrator, but clearly disparage the recipient. For example, if a supervisor repeat-
edly ignores or fails to acknowledge the ideas and opinions of their LGBT
employees, a message of worthlessness is sent. Lastly, microinvalidations are
defined as communications that negate or nullify the psychological thoughts,
feelings, or experiential reality of the marginalized group. If an employee discloses
their sexual orientation to a colleague and in response hears, “Wow, I’m so
surprised. You don’t look or sound gay!” the message is one that questions the
authenticity of the employee’s identity and experience.
LGBT microaggression research is in its infancy and has mainly focused on
developing a typology of LGBT microaggressions (Nadal et al. 2010; Platt and
Lenzen 2013; Sue and Capodilupo 2008), the negative side effects of LGBT
microaggressions (Burn et al. 2005; Nadal et al. 2011a, b), LGBT microaggressions
in counseling settings (Shelton and Delgado-Romero 2013) and transgender
microaggressions in friendships (Galupo et al. 2014). Though the workplace has
been identified and discussed as a context where microaggressions occur (Nadal
2011) no empirical research has examined the experience of microaggressions
based on an employee’s sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace.
The present research seeks to expand on the previous LGBT microaggression
research by exploring microaggressions that occur on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity in the workplace.

1.2 Workplace Discrimination Toward LGBQ Employees/

Workplace Policy

Title VII of the Civil Rights acts protects U.S. employees on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, and gender; however, there is no federal legislation that
protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination. In the U.S., approxi-
mately nine million people identify as LGBT (Gates 2011) making this a civil rights
issue that deserves attention. While 20 states and Washington D.C. have adopted
workplace non-discrimination policies on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity and two states have workplace non-discrimination policies based on sexual
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 273

orientation only (“Statewide Employment Laws and Policies” 2016), the lack of
federal policy sends a message of approval or permissiveness toward LGBT
employment discrimination.
Workplace non-discrimination policies and their effects on LGBT employees
have been studied by a handful of researchers. Badgett et al. (2013) issued a report
that identified and reviewed research related to the impact of LGBT-supportive
employment policies and the benefits of such policies to individual employees and
organizations. Although the number of studies identified was small (36 in total), key
findings included (1) LGBT-supportive policies and support from colleagues is
associated with greater likelihood that an LGBT employee will feel comfortable
disclosing their sexual orientation, which is related to improved psychological
health among LGBT employees; (2) LGBT employees who work in organizations
with non-discrimination policies report higher job satisfaction; and, (3) LGBT
employees who are covered by non-discrimination policies are linked to improved
relationships with co-workers and supervisors.
Even with the presence of non-discrimination policies in the workplace, LGBT
employees are still at-risk to experience discrimination, particularly in the form of
microaggressions, as they may not be covered under conventional non-discrimination
policies. There is some evidence to support this. King et al. (2011) explored the
presence of racial and gender microaggressions in a random sample of workplace
discrimination court cases in federal court. Their findings indicate that all three types
of microaggressions appear in court cases; however, only microassaults increased the
likelihood of a favorable outcome for plaintiffs. Therefore, further examination of
workplace policy and microaggressions is warranted.

2 Methods

2.1 Participant Demographics

Participants were 100 working adults who self-identified as asexual, bisexual, fluid,
gay, lesbian, pansexual and/or queer (see Table 1). Of the 100 participants,
13 (13.0 %) also identified as transgender, transsexual, gender variant, or as having
a transgender history. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 66 (M ¼ 34.01,
SD ¼ 10.82).
Participants resided in 27 different U.S. states and represented all regions of the
continental U.S. Table 1 also includes participant demographics with regard to
racial/ethnic diversity and socio-economic status. There was limited racial/ethnic
diversity within the sample, with 73.0 % identifying as White/Caucasian and
27.0 % of participants identifying as a racial/ethnic minority. Table 2 provides
additional workplace and education demographics.
274 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

Table 1 Participant Sexual orientation %

demographics
Gay 32.0
Lesbian 27.0
Queer 21.0
Bisexual 12.0
Asexual 2.0
Pansexual 3.0
Other 2.0
Fluid 1.0
Gender identity
Cisgender 85.0
Trans* or Trans* History 13.0
No answer 2.0
Race/Ethnic identity
White/Caucasian 73.0
Bi/Multiracial 10.0
Asian/Asian American 4.0
Hispanic/Latino 6.0
Black/African American 4.0
American Indian/Alaskan 2.0
Other 1.0
SES
Lower-middle class 24.0
Working class 13.0
Middle class 40.0
Upper-middle class 19.0
Upper class 3.0
No answer 1.0

2.2 Measures

The present study used a mixed method approach to best capture the everyday
workplace experiences of the survey respondents. Using an online survey, partic-
ipants answered questions regarding their experiences of microaggressions in their
workplace. Recruitment announcements, including a link to the online survey, were
posted on social media sites including Facebook and Twitter and online study
repositories including Social Psychology Research Network and Gay Research.
Survey participants responded to a series of open-ended questions regarding
their experience of microaggressions in the workplace. The questions were
designed to target the three categories of microaggressions (microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidations). For each, participants were provided a def-
inition and then asked to provide an example from their own personal experience.
Prompts were specific to each of the categories and were framed to make the current
workplace context salient.
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 275

Table 2 Education and Education %

occupation demographics
High School Graduate 3.0
Some college 16.0
College degree 33.0
Master’s degree 35.0
Doctoral degree 10.0
Other 2.0
No answer 1.0
Primary occupation
Education, training, and library 35.0
Office and administrative support 11.0
Arts, design, media, entertainment 6.0
Healthcare practitioners and technical 9.0
Community and social service 9.0
Food preparation and serving 7.0
Government and public sector 6.0
Sales 7.0
Computer, IT, or technology 4.0
Business and finance operations 4.0
Legal 2.0
Outness at work (at primary occupation)
Out to everyone 37.0
Out to some people 26.0
Out to most people 24.0
Out to no one 13.0

Following each of the qualitative prompts, participants were provided a series of

Likert-type questions to rate their level of agreement (strongly agree, agree,
slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree, strongly disagree). Participants
responded to the following prompts: “Experiences such as these. . .” (1) are
offensive to me; (2) negatively impact my mood for the rest of the day; (3) nega-
tively impact my sense of wellbeing; (4) cause me to question how my colleagues
view me; (5) negatively impact the relationships I have with coworkers; (6) decrease
my job satisfaction; (7) cause me to be less productive at work; and (8) make me
think about leaving my current job.

2.3 Data Analysis

For the quantitative data, frequencies were calculated based on the percentage of
individuals who indicated at least some level of agreement with each statement
(strongly agree, agree, slightly agree). Participants who did not provide an answer
to the question, or who indicated N/A were not included in the calculation of
percentages.
276 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

For the qualitative data, we analyzed all examples of microassaults,

microinsults, and microinvalidations together in our thematic analysis. We used a
recursive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) to explore microaggressions in
the workplace. Our analysis began with both authors independently coding data
looking for themes related workplace microaggressions. The research team met and
discussed the coding categories and agreed upon an initial set of codes. Participant
responses were then sorted into the coding categories and discussed. The team
agreed upon the final coding structure and met several additional times to discuss
and choose final representative quotes. Final quotes were chosen to simultaneously
exemplify each theme and to ensure that illustrative quotes used best represented
the diversity of workplace experience and identities endorsed by the sample.

3 Results

Table 3 presents descriptive findings for items related to how microaggressions

impact LGBT employees. Across all three types of microaggressions, the majority
of participants agreed that microaggressions are offensive to me (89.7–95.3 %),
negatively impact my mood for the rest of the day (82.4–87.3 %), negatively impact
my sense of wellbeing (75.9–82.5 %), cause me to question how my colleagues view
me (75.4–82.0 %), negatively impact the relationships I have with coworkers
(72.4–83.3 %), decrease my job satisfaction (75.4–82.0 %), cause me to be less
productive at work (50.9–59.0 %), and make me think about leaving my current job
(52.8–69.4 %).

Table 3 Impact of microaggressions on employees: percentage of participants who agreed with

statements
Microassaults Microinsults Microinvalidations
Experiences such as these. . . (in %) (in %) (in %)
Are offensive to me 95.3 89.7 92.2
Negatively impact my mood for the rest 87.3 86.0 82.4
of the day
Negatively impact my sense of 82.5 75.9 76.5
wellbeing
Cause me to question how my col- 75.4 83.6 84.0
leagues view me
Negatively impact the relationships I 72.4 83.3 79.6
have with coworkers
Decrease my overall job satisfaction 80.3 75.4 82.0
Cause me to be less productive at work 59.0 50.9 51.0
Make me think about leaving my current 59.3 52.8 69.4
job
Note: Percentages include those who indicated slightly agree, agree, or strongly agree to each of
the statements. Percentages do not include those who indicated ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘No Answer’
on the six point Likert Scale
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 277

Participants were asked to provide examples from their current job(s) to illus-
trate how they have experienced microaggressions in their workplace. Thematic
analysis revealed three distinct themes for LGBT workplace microaggressions:
(1) workplace climate; (2) organizational structure; and (3) workplace policy. The
following quotation can be used to briefly introduce the three themes and to
understand how they converged as a context for this participant’s experience.
A colleague made a comment about how a transgender inmate who was asking to transfer to
a different housing unit was being manipulative. I tried to explain that she may simply not
feel safe in a housing unit with young males. My comments were received with stares and
shoulder shrugs. The message I got from that was that staff thought she should simply put
up with the harassment. Again I found the encounter offensive and upsetting. (Government
and Public Sector Occupations, California)

In this case, the participant was in conversation with a colleague who made a
derogatory comment or assumption regarding an individual who identified within
the LGBT community. Typical to microaggressions, hearing this comment was
both offensive and upsetting on a personal level. Past research has established that
microaggressions such as these are related to a decrease in sense of personal safety
and well-being (Nadal et al. 2011a, b). Given that this interpersonal exchange
occurred in the context of the workplace these threats to wellbeing and safety
contribute to the experience of a hostile workplace climate. In addition, by nature
of the organizational structure, this microaggression took on increased importance
as the participant is limited in terms of what they are able to do for the clients they
are collectively charged with serving. The situation is potentially more upsetting
given the lack of workplace policy around transgender issues, in this case, to create
a means for advocating for the individual. In their discussion of microaggressions,
participants’ experiences spoke to each of these themes as creating a unique
experience of LGBT microaggressions in the workplace. This experience was
differentiated from their general (non-workplace) experience of LGBT
microaggressions, and from the workplace experience of cisgender/heterosexual
colleagues.

3.1 “Unwanted and Like a Misfit”: Microaggressions

and Workplace Climate

The most common theme regarding LGBT workplace microaggressions centered

on the way microaggressions contributed to a hostile and/or heterosexist workplace
climate. Workplace microaggressions were similar in content to general LGBT
microaggressions (Nadal et al. 2010, 2012) but they were experienced uniquely
because of the significance of their occurrence within the context of the workplace.
For example, participants described their coworkers and supervisors misgendering
them, tokenizing/exoticizing their identities, using derogatory language when
referring to members of LGBT communities in general, not acknowledging the
278 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

relationships and families of LGBT employees, and excluding LGBT employees

from the social environment within the workplace.
One of the nurses who I work with engaged me in a conversation with the impression that
she wants to know more about Africa since I am originally from Africa. I told her that I used
to be a social worker while I was in Africa and I act as case manager for the LGBT
community, immediately the expression on her faced changed and she said ‘you work with
those kind of people?’ and I responded YES and I am gay too. She said to my face, ‘God
forbid.’ I was shocked because I never expected a nurse will act this way towards me and I
was wondering how she got her license with this kind of bad attitude towards the LGBQ
community.” (Community and Social Service Occupations, Illinois)

I work in an agency that is 20 % Orthodox Jewish, which includes the Executive Director.
Within Orthodoxy, there is a fundamental belief that homosexuality is wrong, and against
Torah Living, and LGBTQ people have no place in the community. I feel that I am not able
to be open in my workplace because I would be subject to overt or unspoken judgment that I
am not a “good Jew” and/or that I am perverted. Although it is rarely spoken of, I feel that I
will be shunned in my workplace if I come out. (Community and Social Service Occupa-
tions, Maryland)

My coworker used the homophobic f-slur in describing one of her friends from outside
work. . . I didn’t really know how to react because I try to avoid controversial discussions at
work especially regarding LGBTþ issues so as not to reveal anything about myself. . . It
made me want to cry that she threw it out there so casually and didn’t even think twice
about it. I don’t think it has ever even occurred to her that I or any of our other coworkers
might not be straight. (Sales Occupations, Georgia)

For participants who had not disclosed their LGBT identity in the workplace,
microaggressions were seen as further confirmation that it was not safe to do
so. Worrying about potential consequences of having their identity known in the
workplace made it particularly difficult for participants to process and respond to
microaggressions, “Knowing that everyone in that environment assumes I’m some-
thing that I’m not and I can’t stop it or speak up about it for fear of being fired makes
me very uncomfortable.” For those who chose to disclose their LGBT identity in the
workplace, their disclosure was often met with microaggressions and often caused
participants to question their relationships with coworkers and supervisors.
About a year ago, when I told a coworker I was engaged to a woman, he got very quiet, and
then, about 5 seconds later, said, OH, in this very shocked, rude kind of tone. He tried
recovering quickly, so it wasn’t really within his awareness, but it was profoundly awk-
ward. Again, I know I wasn’t saying anything wrong, but I immediately regretted telling
him I’d gotten engaged. (Community and Social Service Occupations, Illinois).

I use they/them pronouns, and have made some effort to alert my colleagues by including
these pronouns (and a link to a website about gender queerness and gender variant pronoun
usage) in my email signature. I have also alerted some co-workers on brief occasions.
However, many colleagues will invariably use the wrong pronoun for me when they speak
to me, or speak to others about me. It happens so often and so casually, that I often feel bad
about constantly correcting people—as a result, I usually say nothing. Internally, this makes
me feel ashamed for not speaking up (on behalf of my own dignity, and as an example to
others who might also be trans/gendervariant). Externally, I maintain a neutral or passive,
even appeasing, affect. (Education, Training or Library Occupations, Washington)
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 279

I am just beginning a position working in two public alternative high schools that share a
building. One of these schools is well-known for attracting queer and trans students,
because of the school culture’s emphasis on gender equity and queer/trans positivity.
When being introduced to my colleague, who works at another school, this white
cis-woman stated that I must be a good fit for the student body because of my “gender
issues”. Given her tone and the “compliment” she seemed to be trying to give me, I felt
externally compelled to pretend as if I didn’t notice she had used such a hurtful and
obviously-demeaning Freudian slip—I didn’t want to cause a scene, attract more attention
to the microinsult, or make her feel bad for saying something offensive. Internally, I felt
hurt, humiliated, and somatically disassociated from the interaction and from my body for
many hours later. (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Washington)

When their identity was known, LGBT employees often spent considerable time
and effort negotiating microaggressions and their impact on workplace interactions.
Sometimes microaggressions made clear that coworkers/supervisors/clients were
intentionally negotiating around their LGBT identities.
I oversee a program that specifically provides services to sexual minorities. To ensure our
work is reflective of the community 90 % of my staff is queer. While walking by other
office suites I have heard staff members referring to our team as the “fag” group. (Com-
munity and Social Service Occupations, Maryland)

I have a coworker who has refused to speak to me since she found out I am queer and
partnered with a woman. She’s very cold and tries to avoid being in the room with me. I’ve
recently brought it to my boss’s attention, and she says she’ll work on talking to this person
about it. It makes me feel deeply uncomfortable and like I did something wrong by
revealing my sexual orientation at work. I realize this isn’t logical, but I do have this
feeling of guilt about it, like I could have prevented it, when in reality it likely would have
come out eventually no matter what. (Community and Social Service Occupations, Illinois)

When students address me as “sir” or “sir-ma’am.” . . . When people pretend to care but
really just wish I’d go away. When students express anti-LGBTQ sentiments under their
breath and refuse to have an intelligent conversation about the issues. All of these things
make me feel angry, unwanted, and like a misfit. (Education, Training or Library Occupa-
tions, Georgia)

There is one man who always has something to say about me and my girlfriend being gross.
. . He talks about me all the time according to other coworkers. I get mad sometimes. I only
confronted him once but I went about it the wrong way by getting in his face and yelling and
making a scene and was reprimanded at work for it. I try now just to ignore his ignorance
but it is very hard. . . and I’ve found that it makes him mad when I hear about it and don’t
react negatively. Inside it tears me apart though. He doesn’t even know me but he’s so
offended by the way I live my life and who I love. (Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations, Indiana)

3.2 “She Was My Supervisor”: Microaggressions

and Organizational Structure

Participants also described LGBT microaggressions in ways that situated them

within the organizational structure of the workplace and reflected the power
280 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

dynamic inherent to the employees’ position. These microaggressions were often

experienced within an employee-supervisor or employee–client relationship.
My supervisor made a comment during a staff meeting about how “gay men think they
know everything about home décor.” I was offended but did not respond to it because I
couldn’t think of a good response and she was my supervisor. (Government and Public
Sector Occupations, California)

I serve on our university’s commission for LGBT people, which represents staff, faculty,
and students on our campus. Our university chancellor has met with the group four times in
the past three years, and has never actually said the name of the commission or the words
“gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender” or even “homosexual”. Instead, each time he meets
with us he either says “you people” or, once, he was nice enough to say “your community”.
Complaints about this were directed to the vice-chancellor for diversity, who suggested that
we just be more understanding of the chancellor’s age and background as a wealthy white
heterosexual male. (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Tennessee)

I am a manager in my workplace, so although there have been times that some verbal
actions have occurred, nobody has ever said anything directly to me. Strangely, it’s like
whispers I hear as I walk away from other workers who are in positions below mine. No
response or actions have ever been taken. I try not to feel upset, but it’s a sad thing that
people do things like that in the first place. (Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations, Maryland)

As a lesbian, I am not femme but I am not hard butch. I am a tomboy who dresses as an
“LLBean soccer mom” most of the time. Yet, I encounter the following regularly:
Students addressing me as “sir” when I am quite obviously a “ma’am.”
Students creating a new term and addressing me as “sir-ma’am.” (Education, Training
and Library Occupations, Georgia)

Employee I was giving a write up to picked up a screwdriver and said she was going to cut
my faggot balls off. (Business and Finance Operations Occupations, North Carolina)

As illustrated above, microaggressions often impact workplace relationships.

They may also impact the actual job expectations and evaluation. For example,
participants described the ways certain job expectations were added or removed
based upon the way their LGBT identity is being sexualized and/or tokenized.
I was asked to hire two new employees for our department. One of the managers hired two
female-identifying women without notifying or consulting me. She explained to me that she
simply wanted the process to move faster, since she would have needed to approve my
selections beforehand anyway. I was later informed that this manager told another manager
that she did not want me to interview and hire the new recruits because I would try to hire
“hot chicks to date.” (Office and Administrative Support Occupations, California)

The programs that I oversee are typically left out of any University publications. No one on
my staff is recognized for our contributions to the University and are always left out of
promotional material. (Community and Social Service Occupations, Maryland)

One thing that I have noticed is that at times, if there is any event or situation that is
expected to draw a particularly queer audience, I am expected to be there. In other words, I
become “the resident gay.” I don’t always feel like that should be my role, or that I am
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 281

needed in order for others to interact with or create meaningful relationships with our queer
constituents. For example, sometimes if we are trying to cultivate a donor who happens to
be gay, I am invited as the young, gay staff member, in hopes that we will connect in some
extra special way—however I am not invited to meet other donors who might be female, or
straight males. (Arts, Design, Media, Entertainment Occupations, Washington)

3.3 “I Am Not a First Class Citizen”: Microaggressions

and Workplace Policy

The third theme described by LGBT participants centered on workplace

microaggressions that were specifically related to workplace policy. These
microaggressions were enforced or supported by existing formal or informal policy
regarding dress code or bathroom usage, for example, or were related to decisions
made at a leadership level. Sometimes these microaggressions were understood as
being more likely to happen because of the lack of policy.
When I first started working at my job I wore men’s button up shirts and/or polo shirts and
khaki pants. I was told after several weeks working there that I would need to go buy
women’s clothing to wear to work. I should consider it like a uniform. I was told that my
appearance would negatively affect patient’s/client’s perception of the practice. (Office and
Administrative Support Occupations, Maryland)

People have made threatening comments about my safety as a transman in the men’s
bathroom, while I was in the restroom, pretending they did not know I was in the stall.
(Sales Occupations, Washington)

I work for a small privately owned business (a clothing boutique) so we don’t have
corporate rules or regulations. My boss staunchly refuses to hire men because all employees
need to be able to work in the fitting room where people (mostly cis women) change
clothes. Since this policy is in place, it makes me feel like if my boss knew a girl working
there was gay or queer, she would fire them because she may see them working in the fitting
room as being similar to a straight man working back there. Similarly it makes me feel like
she would probably discriminate against trans women even though they’re women because
she would see them as male cross dressers. This is the main reason I have not come out at
work. (Sales Occupations, Georgia)

An optional diversity survey was sent around to the employees, and it had a question about
employees’ sex. First, I was annoyed that they chose sex instead of gender. But it really
aggravated me that the only available options were male and female.
It kind of shocked me to see it; it felt backwards and antiquated. Sure, they didn’t have
to put MtF or FtM, but at least put the option for intersex or other (or leave it open-ended),
right? I felt as though I should have said something to a manager about making the survey
more inclusive, but at the time it was at the end of the day and I was tired, and quite frankly,
I didn’t really care much about the survey—in fact I didn’t even complete one. (Govern-
ment and Public Sector Occupations, Maryland)

In many cases these microaggressions revealed a disconnect between (1) an

existing workplace policy and the ability or willingness to enforce the policy;
282 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

(2) the workplace diversity statement and existing policy; and, (3) state laws and
workplace policy.
My HR person discussed transition related surgery in front of my peers violating my
HIPAA rights. (Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations, New York)

Some time ago, a staff member forwarded an email to the department’s distribution list
about an upcoming election. The email solicited support of a proposition that would define
marriage between one man and one woman; thereby, excluding LGBT couples from being
recognized in domestic partnerships, etc. I responded rather quickly and let the individual
that the email was inappropriate and that the company’s email system was not to be used to
voice personal opinions. (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Arizona)

I went through a frustrating process in order to get my legal name replaced in my

organization’s email address system with my real name. My name is not a traditional
one, and when I finally got approval from HR to change the “display name” (not the actual
email address) on my account, I had to work with someone from the IT department to make
the change. Initially, this cis-gendered man refused to help me when I asked him to make
the change for me, even after I cited my conversation with HR. To brush my request off
once and for all, the worker told me that he wouldn’t be allowed to change his name to
Batman (a fictional cartoon character), so I shouldn’t expect him to change my legal name
to my real name. Externally, I felt compelled (in a kneejerk reaction) to smooth the situation
over, to appease him, and to draw less attention to myself by just laughing and disengaging.
But internally, I felt angry and humiliated—this conversation took place in front of a
colleague who shares an office with me (a colleague who also chose not to come to my
defense). (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Washington)

Our university has a campus-wide “civility campaign” with a motto of “Welcoming to all,
hostile to none,” but our university does not provide partner benefits of any kind to same-
gender couples, even if they are married in other states. (Education, Training and Library
Occupations, Tennessee)

I had to fill out a university domestic partnership certification form since my marriage from
another state is not recognized in the state in which I reside. Policy situations such as these
anger and sadden me. It makes it clear I am not a first class citizen. (Office and Adminis-
trative Support Occupations, Utah)

I am also a social work field instructor and part of my benefit is receiving 50 % off my
partner’s tuition at the local University. Since Utah does not recognize our same-sex
marriage, I had to complete a domestic partner certification form and will be taxed on
this benefit, unlike a heterosexual marriage. It is a reminder that my marriage is not
considered as valid as a heterosexual marriage and that I really do not have access to
equal benefits. (Office and Administrative Support Occupations, Utah)

4 Discussion

The present research makes a significant contribution to the literature by providing

an understanding of LGBT microaggressions through considering their occurrence
in workplace settings. Due to the amount of time spent in the workplace, and the
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 283

fact that we generally cannot choose our coworkers, the workplace is a distinct
setting in which to explore microaggressions. This is particularly true for LGBT
employees in the U.S., who lack protection from discrimination federally, and in
some cases, by state and/or organization. Because coworkers have been strongly
linked to higher rates of job satisfaction and commitment to one’s organization
(Chiaburu and Harrison 2008) the role of coworkers is integral to LGBT
employees’ workplace experience. In addition, LGB supportive workplaces have
been found to increase job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Huffman et al. 2008);
therefore, the understanding of microaggressions in workplaces of LGBT
employees provides insight into the challenges of negotiating sexual orientation
and gender identity within varying workplaces.

4.1 Implications for Workplace Policy

The present findings established that the experience of LGBT workplace

microaggressions varies based on the employee’s colleagues and the organizational
structure of the workplace. In many of the respondent’s experiences, workplace
policy played a role in allowing the microaggression to occur. When a workplace
non-discrimination policy did exist, microaggressions often occurred in grey areas
where the employee was clearly offended, but there was no policy that covered the
offense. For example, multiple participants discussed feeling left out or excluded
from office events. While these instances are not likely covered under anti-
discrimination policies, they may be directly related to an organization’s mission,
vision, or values. One participant illustrated this when describing their workplace
motto that includes the phrase “hostile to none”; however, the organization does not
provide benefits to partners or recognize same-gender marriages from other states.
Such exclusions may be considered hostile to LGBT employees who work there.
Organizations should review their stated policies in light of the vision, mission, and
values of the organization to ensure there is no disconnect, as inconsistencies may
send confusing messages to employees.
Many times, discrimination policies are written in general terms, such as “We do
not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation. . .” Broad defini-
tions leave discrimination up for interpretation depending on the reader.
Fahrenhorst and Kleiner (2012), suggest that anti-bias workplace policies should
be specific, precise, and comprehensive and that employees should be advised on
how to avoid discriminatory acts. Providing definitions of microaggressions to
employees in addition to concrete examples may assist in recognizing discrimina-
tory behavior that employees do not realize is offensive. Further, Brewster
et al. (2014) suggest that when working with transgender employees, providing
training related to gender transitions to their coworkers can lead to increased
sensitivity and understanding.
In addition to creating policies, organizations need to ensure their employees are
aware these policies exist and have means to enforce the policies. Our participants
284 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

provided examples where existing policies were being violated such as disclosing
protected medical information and changing the display name on a work e-mail
address. In the latter example, Human Resources approved the name change, but
the individual met resistance when working with another department. If an
employee is permitted to change their preferred name at work, including their
e-mail address, all relevant offices must be informed on how to facilitate the
change. This ensures a smooth transition where employees are not asked to explain
themselves multiple times or face scrutiny when trying to navigate the process.
Further, we recommend that organizations evaluate language written in the policy
to ensure inclusiveness for the range of identities within the LGBT community. For
instance, sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and gender expression have differ-
ent implications for individuals and thus, each should be addressed in written policy
and practice.

4.2 Limitations

One limitation of the present research is that our participants represent a conve-
nience sample collected online. Online recruitment and sampling is particularly
useful for LGBTQ research where participants may have heightened concern about
privacy and where participants may not otherwise have access for participation
(Riggle et al. 2005). Samples recruited and collected online, however, have been
shown to disproportionately represent educated, middle class, White individuals
(Dillman et al. 2008) and the present sample is no exception. Thus, interpretation of
these data should be noted within the sample demographics. The majority of our
participants (73.0 %) identified as White which could have led to more positive
experiences being reported, as LGBT individuals of color are at a greater risk for
vulnerabilities including discrimination and violence (Ahmed and Jindasurat 2014;
Grant et al. 2011; Xavier et al. 2005).
Even though our participants described microaggressions on the basis of both
sexual orientation and gender identity, it is important to note that our recruitment
announcement was targeted toward “sexual minorities” which may not have reso-
nated with potential transgender participants. Although 13.0 % of our sample
identified as transgender, their experiences may not represent those of transgender
individuals who are heterosexually identified or who do not identify within the
larger LGBT community. As this is the first study on LGBT microaggressions in the
workplace we focused on describing them generally and did not explore patterns of
experiences across sexual orientation or gender identity. However, because of the
literature documenting unique microaggressions based on sexual orientation (Sue
2010) and gender identity (Galupo et al. 2014; Nadal et al. 2012) future research
should focus on differentiating sexual orientation and gender identity workplace
microaggressions. In addition, past research has documented unique workplace
experiences (K€ ollen 2013) and unique experiences of microaggressions for bisexual
individuals (Sarno and Wright 2013). Experiences of transgender microaggressions
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 285

have been shown to differ across gender identity (e.g., transfeminine,

transmasculine, non-binary; Galupo et al. 2014). Together, this research suggests
that future work should explore differences in LGBT microaggressions in the
workplace across sexual orientation and gender identity.
Despite the limitations of recruitment, we received a geographically diverse
U.S. sample with a strong representation across work settings. Future research
might focus on differences in the experience of microaggressions by occupation
or geographic region, including international differences. Lastly, much of the work
related to microaggressions has employed qualitative methods. Though the present
study used mixed methods, future studies that use quantitative methods could be
beneficial to the literature.

5 Conclusion

The present research extends the current LGBT microaggression research by

exploring microaggressions in the workplace. Participants described LGBT
microaggressions as they contributed to a hostile and/or heterosexist workplace
climate, were situated within the organizational structure of the workplace
reflecting the power dynamic inherent to the employees’ position, and were specif-
ically related to workplace policy. In many cases these microaggressions revealed a
disconnect between an existing workplace policy and the ability or willingness to
enforce the policy, the workplace diversity statement and existing policy, and/or
state laws and workplace policy. Focusing on LGBT microaggressions in the
workplace provides unique insight into the challenges of negotiating LGBT identity
within organizations.

References

Ahmed, O., & Jindasurat, C. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected
hate violence in 2013 (pp. 1–135). National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Retrieved
from http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/2013_ncavp_hvreport_final.pdf
Badgett, M. V. L., Durso, L. E., Kastanis, A., & Mallory, C. (2013). The business impact of LGBT-
supportive workplace policies (pp. 1–37). Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School
of Law.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic
content analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(2), 159–169. http://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000030
Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 23–38. http://doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_02
286 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and
meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The
tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
Fahrenhorst, R., & Kleiner, B. H. (2012). How to write effective anti-bias policies. Nonprofit
World, 30(4), 6–7.
Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Davis, K. S. (2014). Transgender microaggressions in the context
of friendship: Patterns of experience across friends’ sexual orientation and gender identity.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 461–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/sgd0000075
Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? (pp. 1–8).
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at
every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey (pp. 1–228). National
Center for Transgender Equality. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/
downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a diverse work-
force: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay employees? Human
Resource Management, 47(2), 237–253. http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20210
King, E. B., Dunleavy, D. G., Dunleavy, E. M., Jaffer, S., Morgan, W. B., Elder, K., et al. (2011).
Discrimination in the 21st century: Are science and the law aligned? Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 17(1), 54–75. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021673
K€ollen, T. (2013). Bisexuality and diversity management—Addressing the B in LGBT as a
relevant “sexual orientation” in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 122–137.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.755728
Nadal, K. (2008). Preventing racial, ethnic, gender, sexual minority, disability, and religious
microaggressions: Recommendations for promoting positive mental health. Prevention in
Counseling Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Training, 2(1), 22–27.
Nadal, K. (2011). In E. DeSouza, C. Paludi, & M. Paludi (Eds), Praeger handbook on under-
standing and preventing workplace discrimination. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Nadal, K. L., Issa, M. A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011a). Sexual
orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 234–259. http://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.584204
Nadal, K., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. (2010). Sexual orientation and transgender
microaggressions in everyday life: Experiences of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender
individuals. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics,
and impact (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Wiley.
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and systemic microaggressions
toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counsel-
ing, 6(1), 55–82. http://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2012.648583
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M. A., Meterko, V., Leon, J., & Wideman, M. (2011b). Sexual
orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping mechanisms for lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(1), 21–46. http://doi.org/10.1080/
15538605.2011.554606
Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of
sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(7), 1011–1034. http://doi.org/10.1080/
00918369.2013.774878
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues
and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_01
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 287

Sarno, E., & Wright, A. J. (2013). Homonegative microaggressions and identity in bisexual men
and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 63–81. http://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.
756677
Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2011). Documented evidence of employment discrimination and its
effects on LGBT people (pp. 1–20). The Williams Institute. Retrieved from http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sears-Mallory-Discrimination-July-20111.
pdf
Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions: The experi-
ence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 59–70. http://doi.org/10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.59
Statewide Employment Laws and Policies. (2016). Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.
hrc.org/state_maps
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. New
Jersey: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation microaggressions:
Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. In D. W. Sue & D. Sue (Eds.), Counseling the
culturally diverse (5th ed., pp. 105–130). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L.,
et al. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice.
American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
Xavier, J. M., Bobbin, M., Singer, B., & Budd, E. (2005). A needs assessment of transgendered
people of color living in Washington, DC. International Journal of Transgenderism, 8(2–3),
31–47. http://doi.org/10.1300/J485v08n02_04
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual
and Trans Youth on Career Choice
and in the Workplace

Jukka Lehtonen

1 Introduction

Young people typically work in various kinds of temporary or part-time jobs, often
while studying. Many young people also plan their educational and career choices,
and they may find it difficult to choose the right path. These aspects also hold for
non-heterosexual and trans youth, but some of them feel marginalized because of
their gender identification or sexual orientation. This is also typically a period when
non-heterosexual and trans youth are constructing their views on sexuality and
gender, and negotiating how to express their sexuality and gender in their environ-
ment. These considerations make it important to analyze LGBT issues in the work
environment from the perspective of young people.
Very little research has been done in this area internationally (for example Gedro
2009; Lyons et al. 2010; O’Neil et al. 2008; Schmidt and Nilson 2006; Takacs 2006;
Willis 2011) or in Finland (Lehtonen 2002, 2004a, b, c, 2010, 2014a). In this
chapter I focus on three themes: educational and career choice among
non-heterosexual and trans youth, the expression and hiding of sexual orientation
and gender identity in the workplace, and normative culture and unjust behavior in
the workplace. I look at these themes from the perspective of heteronormativity and
young people’s experiences and agency. The context is Finnish culture and society,
a Nordic welfare state within which equality and non-discrimination are highly
prized. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expres-
sion is prohibited by legislation. The new anti-discrimination law, which came into
force in 2015, demands that all workplaces with more than 30 employees make
equality and anti-discrimination plans to tackle discrimination at work. But there

J. Lehtonen, Ph.D. (*)

Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki,
Finland
e-mail: jukka.p.lehtonen@helsinki.fi

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 289

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_17
290 J. Lehtonen

are still many problems in relation to youth, sexual orientation and gender diversity
in the work environment. This chapter focuses on the key aspects with which young
non-heterosexual and trans persons have to deal when they try to find a place for
themselves in the labor market.
I use “heteronormativity” to refer to a way of thinking or reacting that refuses to
see diversity in sexual orientation and gender, and that considers a certain way of
expressing or experiencing gender and sexuality to be better than another. This
includes normative heterosexuality and gender normativity, according to which
only women and men are considered to exist in the world. Men are supposed to be
masculine in the “right” way and women feminine in the “right” way. According to
heteronormative thinking, gender groups are internally homogeneous, are each
other’s opposites, and are hierarchical, in that men and maleness are considered
more valuable than women and femaleness. The heterosexual maleness of men and
the heterosexual femaleness of women are emphasized and are understood to have
biological origins. The existence of other sexualities or genders is denied, devalued
or othered (see also Rossi 2006; Martinsson and Reimers 2008; Butler 1992).
An undesirable, even silent, place for non-heterosexuality and trans persons thus
forms in a community where a person is normatively expected or hoped to be
heterosexual (normative heterosexuality) and to perform behaviors in line with
gender norms (gender normativity) (see Lehtonen 2003). By “non-heterosexual”, I
mean a qualitative term used to describe a person who has sexual feelings towards
their own gender, or practices with their own gender, or self-definitions that refer to
these feelings or practices (such as lesbian, gay, or bisexual).1 “Trans” refers to a
person who challenges the gendered norms and expectations in ways that conflict
with their gender design at birth. In this chapter, by “transmasculine” is meant a
person who was designated at birth as a girl, and by “transfeminine” is meant a
person who was designated at birth as a boy, both of whom later defined themselves
as trans, or questioned their gender identity in some other way. Non-heterosexual
and trans youth participate in the heteronormative processes in education and in the
work environment but, being active agents as well, strive to challenge and interpret
the expectations directed at them in their own ways (see also Blackburn 2007;
Talburt 2004).

1
Similarly, I define “heterosexual” as a person who has sexual feelings towards a different gender,
or who practices their different gender, or has self-definitions that refer to these feelings or
practices (such as “straight” or “heterosexual”). This means that a person can be either
non-heterosexual, heterosexual, both—or neither—in a case where she/he does not practice any
of these deeds (feelings, practices or self-definitions) in her/his life at present.
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 291

2 Methods and Data

Data for the analysis is from a research project and survey titled “The well-being of
rainbow youth”. It was a joint project on the part of Seta, the national GLBTI
human rights organization, and the Finnish Youth Research Network. The project
was funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture.2 I was a member of the group
planning the questionnaire and commenting on the project reports. The project
itself is one of the focus areas in my current research project on Seta’s youth work.3
My focus is on non-heterosexual and trans youth under 30 years old (N ¼ 1861).
The non-heterosexual respondents’ group (N ¼ 1374) was clearly larger than the
trans respondents’ group (N ¼ 487). I divided these groups into four categories,
according to the interpretation of gender at the time of their birth, to make it
possible to analyze the effects of gender on their experiences.4 These diverse groups
comprised people with many kinds of gendered identities and they expressed their
gender in various ways, but they were, typically, brought up according to the
assumptions surrounding gender at the time of their birth.5 The four categories

2
Katarina Alanko wrote the first report and Riikka Taavetti the second (Alanko 2013; Taavetti
2015). The survey was produced in 2013 with 2515 respondents, both young and adult,
non-heterosexual, heterosexual, transgender and others. Alanko and Taavetti focused on 1623
participants between 15 and 25 years old. Alanko’s report was based on statistical analysis.
Taavetti did qualitative analysis on the stories of young people in the survey. Both of them also
wrote on work environment issues.
3
My current research project is a part of the research collaboration projects Engaging
South African and Finnish youth towards new traditions of non-violence, equality and social
wellbeing (2013–2016) and Social and Economic Sustainability of Future Working Life: Policies,
Equalities and Intersectionalities in Finland (2015–2017), which are funded by the Academy of
Finland. My research focus is on non-heterosexual and transgender young people and the youth
work done with them in Seta.
4
I left some respondents out of my data to make it possible to create the four groups of
respondents. Initially, I removed from both groups those responses, which did not mention their
gender at the time of their birth. This also meant that I did not take into account, in my analysis, the
experiences of intersexual respondents. Trans people may have various kinds of sexual orienta-
tions and non-heterosexual people may express their gender in different ways. I wanted to create
four separate groups and I divided them mainly using the question “Are you trans?”. If respondents
answered in the negative, they were grouped separately from the ones who answered either “yes”
or “I don’t know”. The trans groups then included respondents who were either sure that they were
trans, or unsure, if they were trans. Of the other group, I removed heterosexual respondents who
defined themselves as heterosexual but did not report that they would have a sexual interest
towards persons of their own gender. The survey was designed so that it was possible to express the
diversity of both sexuality and gender in various ways. However, this also created problems in
finding a way to group respondents based on gender (in this case the interpretation of gender at the
time of their birth).
5
In the non-heterosexual women’s group, most frequent definitions of their sexual orientation
were bi/bisexual (47 %), lesbian (43 %), and sexual minority (37 %). Non-heterosexual male
respondents found gay (in Finnish homo, 81 %), sexual minority (33 %), and bi/bisexual (24 %)
the most popular definitions. Of these, they could choose from 12 different alternatives (or propose
their own), and many chose more than one. Women were more likely than men to also choose
292 J. Lehtonen

used for analysis were: (1) non-heterosexual men (N ¼ 380), (2) non-heterosexual
women (N ¼ 994), (3) transfeminine youth (N ¼ 83) and (4) transmasculine youth
(N ¼ 404).
My main focus is on the stories of non-heterosexual and trans youth. I recently
published an article that was based on statistical analysis of this data (Lehtonen
2014a). In the current article I will refer to the results and use them as reference points
in a study of the stories. Stories based on three questions linked to career choice and
workplace experience were used. The first was on the influence of attitudes related to
sexual orientation and gender identity in choosing a career, the second on the influence
of these attitudes to relationships in the workplace, and the last was more general—on
experiences in relation to the work environment. There were altogether 235 stories or
answers to questions. There were more stories by non-heterosexual respondents
(N ¼ 171) than trans respondents (N ¼ 64). Relatively more non-heterosexual
women (N ¼ 126) and transmasculine respondents (N ¼ 59) answered these ques-
tions, compared to non-heterosexual men (N ¼ 45) and transfeminine respondents
(N ¼ 5). There were fewer stories about the influence of attitudes on their choice of
career (N ¼ 68) or on their workplace relationships (N ¼ 60) compared to the more
general topic of experiences in the work environment (N ¼ 107).
The information was collected from those willing to take part, and it was not a
statistically representative sample.6 It is, though, the biggest ever survey of young
non-heterosexual and trans youth. For now this survey and its responses make it
possible to create an idea of the current situation of non-heterosexual and trans
youth in relation to their work environment and career planning.

3 Career Choice and Gendered Expectations

Both non-heterosexual and trans youth reported that societal attitudes related to
sexual orientation or gender diversity influenced on their educational and career
choices. Statistical analysis of the survey responses reveled that trans respondents
experienced the effect of attitudes more often than non-heterosexual respondents
(Lehtonen 2014a). Transfeminine respondents related the effect of attitudes to their

queer and pansexual as their definitions, and many responded that they did not want to define their
sexuality. In the trans groups, the most popular ways to define their relation to gender were: those
who were unsure of their gender position (44 %), transsexual or transsexual background (26 %),
transgendered, trans or other-gendered (28 %), genderless (24 %), and queer/genderblender
(30 %). There were only a few respondents defining themselves as transvestites (6 %), and the
majority of them were interpreted as women at the time of their birth.
6
The data was balanced in many ways. There were relatively more responses from Southern
Finland and the capital area of Helsinki than other parts of the country. More highly educated
respondents were more active in responding to the survey. The majority of all respondents were
still studying or at school: 64 % of non-heterosexual men and over 70 % in the other groups of
respondents.
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 293

educational choice (40 %) and career choice (36 %) almost as often as

transmasculine respondents (educational 42 % and career 32 % choice). However,
one fifth of transfeminine respondents reported that these attitudes greatly
influenced their educational choices, while only 13 % of transmasculine respon-
dents told the same. Non-heterosexual men were more likely to report the effect of
attitudes on their educational (25 %) and career (27 %) choices, compared to
non-heterosexual women (educational 13 % and career 16 % choice). Even though
quite a few reported that the attitudes had an effect on their educational or career
choice, the majority of respondents did not regard this to be the case.7
The stories of non-heterosexual and trans respondents described the influence of
sexual orientation and gender identity on their career planning. Being a
non-heterosexual was seen to be a challenge to those who chose some professions,
such as the security sector, teaching, working with children, or working in religious
contexts. It was also regarded as a reason to choose certain other professions, which
were understood to be popular among non-heterosexual people, such as working as
a flight attendant or an artist, or other professional fields that were seen as welcom-
ing LGBT people.

In police academy or in police profession they are not always friendly

towards homosexuals, and I am afraid that I ruin my possibilities to study
and get a job by telling [about my sexuality]. (non-heterosexual woman)8

Also, trans respondents reported that being trans could be a hindrance, or a

motivation to finding a career or workplace that was suitable for trans people.

I work in a very male-dominated field, while I feel that I am in many aspects

more of a man than a woman. (transmasculine respondent)

7
In my earlier research (Lehtonen 2004a, b, 2010), the influence of attitudes related to sexuality
and gender was also described by adult respondents. Non-heterosexual men were more likely to
report the influence of attitudes than non-heterosexual women. Among trans responses there was a
slightly different situation: many transvestites often chose male-dominated careers and did not
experience the influence of attitudes as important, unlike other trans respondents (Lehtonen
2004b). This was partly related to the fact that most of the transvestites, responding to the survey
in the early 2000’s, were older men who typically were hiding their transvestite status at work. In
the current youth survey, only a few respondents defined themselves as transvestites, and the
majority of those were women. In earlier research, transwomen reported being more influenced by
attitudes to their career choices than transmen (Lehtonen 2004b). In the new survey of young
people, there were found to be more similarities between transfeminine and transmasculine
respondents, though transfeminine respondents felt more pressure, based on societal attitudes,
than transmasculine respondents.
8
These citations have been edited to increase their anonymity and clarity.
294 J. Lehtonen

In some narratives, working alone was seen as an option for a trans or

non-heterosexual person. Avoiding personal contact with clients or work mates,
or work via internet contacts, or having your own company were seen in my earlier
research (Lehtonen 2004a, b) as possibilities in which one is not so dependant on
other people’s acceptance.

I work in a branch in which I hardly need to meet other people. Surely my

self-esteem is better after accepting myself, and people don’t make me afraid
that much anymore, but working with animals feel good, while they accept
you as you are. (transmasculine respondent)

The narratives tell of gendered practices and the culture of professions or

workplaces, which were seen as either problematic or positive in relation to the
choice of a career. Some women and transmasculine respondents expressed the
wish to work in a field which emphasized their gendered interests and which
matched their gender identity and expression. This could mean avoiding
heterofeminine demands while at work.

I have always searched for jobs in which age, look, religion, or sexual
orientation are not meaningful factors. Often my straight work mates have
reacted with delight when I have stated that I am bisexual. I am often “one of
the guys” which might be related to my experience of being raised up in the
middle of boys and men in my childhood, and I find working with guys more
pleasurable than with women. (non-heterosexual woman)

Non-heterosexual men, on the other hand, reported that they avoided

heteromasculine careers and workplaces, or that they saw the female-dominated
fields as more accepting and friendlier.

I favor female-dominated fields, while I enjoy more in the company of

women and it is easier to be myself with them. With men I am never sure
how they react to my sexual orientation. Most of my colleagues were women
in all my jobs. (non-heterosexual man)

In my earlier research (Lehtonen 2004a, 2010), I found that quite a few

non-heterosexual women found it difficult to find a career for them. This was
related to their difficulty into figuring out who they were when thinking about
their sexuality. These kinds of stories did not appear in this survey, but some trans
respondents reported that their being trans, or the resulting crises when they
realized they might be trans, or the process of transitioning itself, was using up so
much energy that they did not have space to think about their career choice. Some
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 295

of them also mentioned that either they were not yet aware of their being trans or
that their concealing was the reason for its not affecting their choice of career.

It has not effected to anything yet, while I have kept it as a secret that I don’t
belong to my biological sex. (transmasculine respondent)

Some respondents reported that they did not have a career or career plan yet.
Some of the respondents were still very young, but I also interpret that their
situation was influenced by their unclear image of themselves. Quite a few respon-
dents had dropped out of their education. This was particularly the case with trans
respondents (Lehtonen 2014b). One third of trans respondents had dropped out of
their education, and so had one fourth of the non-heterosexual respondents. Of the
trans respondents, 26 % reported that social attitudes related to sexual orientation
and gender diversity influenced them to drop out of education, compared to 4 % of
non-heterosexual respondents. A change of career or dropping out of the educa-
tional field was mentioned by the respondents, as well.

I dropped out of my earlier study place, while I experience that I cannot work
as othergendered. (transmasculine respondent)

The stories emphasized the need to be oneself and gain acceptance by others.
Sometimes it could even mean a change of workplace and some forfeit of benefits.

I made a choice to study for becoming a teacher before I was aware of being
bisexual. When I came out of the closet, I have been pondering upon on my
career choice: can I be open in my workplace, how people react to me being
active in the GLBT organization. (non-heterosexual women)
In this new job salary is smaller and work times are lousier, but I am still
happy about changing the place. I thought that I rather clean shitty toilets with
little money, than work for idiots. At least I am accepted as I am and I don’t
have to listen to disparage of sexual minorities. (non-heterosexual woman)

For some the whole labor market was seen as problematic, and this was the case
particularly for some trans respondents.

I don’t try to find a workplace, while I am afraid of discrimination.

(transfeminine respondent)

Binary gender thinking in the labor market was seen as an obstacle, and
discrimination and unjustifiable treatment were feared. Trans respondents were
296 J. Lehtonen

more pessimistic about finding a good job in the future compared to

non-heterosexual respondents. Transfeminine respondents were both most pessi-
mistic (21 %) and least optimistic (54 %). Transmasculine respondents were not as
pessimistic (10 %), and there was more optimism expressed (61 %). Most optimis-
tic were non-heterosexual men (84 %) and women (76 %). Of them <5 % were
pessimistic about finding a good job in the future.

I am afraid of starting work life, and on if I get workplace, and if I would be

accepted as genderless person. (transmasculine respondent)

Some respondents saw their being a non-heterosexual or trans as a resource in

the labor market, and some wanted to make the world a better place for others, or
they expressed a wish to advance equality and respect for human rights.

Thinking of gender was one factor in getting interested in societal and justice
related issues. (transmasculine respondent)
I want to support sexual minority rights at my work through art!
(non-heterosexual man)

Though the majority of respondents reported that attitudes related to sexual

orientation and gender diversity did not have an influence on their educational or
career choice, only a few mentioned this in their responses.

My gender identity or anything related to that have not effected to my career

choice. (transmasculine respondent)

I think many young people would like to see themselves as independent agents,
who are not bound by outside influences (Lehtonen 2010; see also Blackburn 2007;
Talburt 2004). People have a need to see themselves as making individualistic
choices. While it seems, based on the responses and my earlier research (Lehtonen
2004a, b), that non-heterosexual and trans youth challenge gendered expectations
more often in their career choice, it is not possible to argue that gendered norms
would not have influenced their choices. Even if there are many young
non-heterosexual and trans people who challenge gendered expectations when
thinking about their career choices many of them do choose according to gendered
norms and expectations. Finland has one of the most gender-segregated labor
markets in Europe, and that influences the possibilities young people have when
choosing their career. Gender matters.
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 297

4 Expressing and Hiding Gender and Sexuality at Work

The majority of both non-heterosexual and trans youth hide their sexual orientation
or gender identity at work. It was typical of them to reveal their sexuality or gender
to only a few, more trust-worthy work mates, and hide it from most of the others.
Non-heterosexual men (27 %), compared to women (20 %), had revealed their
non-heterosexuality to all their colleagues in their workplace. On the other hand,
men were also more likely to hide their sexual orientation (41 %) than women
(36 %) from all their colleagues.

I think that sexuality does not belong to workplace. I never revel anything
about my sexuality at workplace. (non-heterosexual man)

Trans respondents hid their gender identity more often than non-heterosexual
youth hid their sexual orientation. Transfeminine respondents (46 %) hid their
gender identity less often, compared to transmasculine respondents (60 %).

I haven’t told about my gender identity. Let them be surprised. There are
often situations in which a new person thinks that I am a man, but when I need
to present myself with my girl’s name (in the contract there is my official
name which I use), they are surprised. (transmasculine respondent)
Trans and gender issues and work have hardly met each other. I did my
alternative military service in 2006–2007. There I kept my identity as a
secret. Other jobs I haven’t had. (transfeminine respondent)

Many non-heterosexual and trans respondents feared unjust treatment if their

sexual orientation or gender identity were disclosed. They were afraid of being
shunned in the workplace. This was typical of non-heterosexual men especially:
only 29 % mentioned, that they were not afraid of it. This could be explained by the
fact that the majority of them were working in male-dominated workplaces, where
it is not desirable to differ too much from others. Male-dominated workplaces were
also seen in the responses to be more homophobic and heteronormative than
female-dominated workplaces. Exclusion was feared a lot by trans respondents
(25 %), but also by quite a few non-heterosexual men (17 %) and women (15 %)
were very fearful of it.

There are that many anti-gay attitudes in the air that I don’t want to tell.
(non-heterosexual man)
298 J. Lehtonen

In fact, only a minority of those who had expressed their sexuality or gender in
the workplace, were treated badly. They were more likely to be treated with
acceptance or tolerance.
At my workplace I came out very visibly already in the first workplace party,
when I asked my partner to join me. The workmates expected a girlfriend, but they
met a boyfriend. No one blinked an eye. There are many workmates who are in gay
or lesbian relationships, and the atmosphere has always been open. I am grateful for
that. (non-heterosexual man)

Work mates reacted positively to my gender reassignment process.

(transfeminine respondent)

This might be related mostly to the fact that many thought carefully about how
they would speak to their superiors or to other workmates about their gender and
sexuality.
At workplace you can notice from people’s attitudes and behavior that not all are
tolerated. Some of them are nastier than others. That is why I don’t tell right away to
all about my relationship with a man. (non-heterosexual man)
The respondents stressed that it took energy to ponder on the situation, to decide
whether to tell or not, where, when, to whom, and in which way, but concealment
could also be stressful. Hiding one’s sexuality or gender could also have an impact
on other choices, in both the workplace and in one’s free time. The respondents
admitted to avoid certain topics, certain people and certain practices, like dressing
and behaving in non-normative ways.

At work I have tried to avoid discussions related to sexual orientation and

relationships. I think many would accept it, but there are also many who find
it difficult to accept. The issue will not stay hidden forever, and that’s good.
(non-heterosexual man)
I ponder upon sometimes if I can write about certain things in the social
media, while I have there some workmates as friends. And I think how to
dress when meeting workmates outside the job. (transmasculine respondent)

For some it was not just workmates or employers they had to worry about.
Clients’ reactions were also feared by respondents. Many young people work in the
service sector or in other jobs where they deal with people.

As a substitute teacher I feel I cannot respond honestly, when kids ask me, if
I have a girlfriend, when they see my engagement ring in my finger.
(non-heterosexual man)

(continued)
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 299

I have not been ready to be open at work, while these jobs have been till now
at the service sector. I try to be neutral, while I think it is part of the job. I have
not tried to pretend the opposite to what I am, which would be wrong. Just a
little bit more neutral. (transmasculine respondent)

Young non-heterosexual and trans people reported that they commonly

questioned whether it would be wise to express their sexuality or gender in part-
time or short time jobs, such as summer jobs or workplace training.

I didn’t want tell them that I am not a hetero, while I had so stupid work
mates. And it was just a short work relationship, so I don’t need to tell them
all about me. (non-heterosexual woman)

Many would find it easier to speak about same-sex relationships at work than
define them as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

I have been totally open at work the last 2 years (summer jobs). Earlier I
wanted to be, but as a single I felt it was awkward to come out. So I didn’t tell
unless I was directly asked about. Nowadays, when I have been in a serious
relationship for 2 years, coming out feel easy. I don’t think it that much while
now the main point is to tell “what I did last weekend with my partner” more
than telling that “I am not straight”. (non-heterosexual woman)
I have not come out at work. This is to do with the fact that at the moment I
am in a relationship with a man. There are hardly any situations where I could
fluently tell about my orientation. I am annoyed that I am not out at work, but
on the other hand I am working in a part-time job, so I am not annoyed for a
long time. (non-heterosexual woman)

Being in a heterosexual relationship was easier to admit at work than a relation-

ship with a same-sex partner, but that cannot always be considered proof of one’s
heterosexuality. Any relationship with a trans person was reportedly hidden as well.

At work I didn’t want to tell about my relationship with a woman. Now they
know that I am married with a man, but they don’t know that he is a transman.
(non-heterosexual woman)
At work everybody thinks that I live a perfect heterosexual ideal life, as I
live in some ways. But I live in my own apartment and only occasionally visit
my wife and kids. (non-heterosexual man)
300 J. Lehtonen

Respondents reported that sexual orientation or gender identity was not some-
thing to talk about at work. It was not seen as an appropriate subject.

I don’t advertise my sexuality. (non-heterosexual man)

It has not influenced at my workplace, while I find it easier to hide it,
because it does not related to my work in any way. (transfeminine respondent)

On the other hand, in other reports, gender or sexual orientation or same-sex

relationships were seen as important issues, which should be recognized at work as
worthy of discussion.

I got a job right after my education, and when I was a trainer at my work I
didn’t even think of telling. It is not something you would like to tell to
strange people. Now time is passing and I am annoyed that I didn’t tell right
away. I don’t know how to tell. I don’t talk anything about my life. Although
people know that I am engaged. Only my superior knows about it and for her
it is same with whom I share my life. It does not influence on my work, but I
feel myself awkward, when I don’t tell my work mates, who talk about their
life this and that. I wonder why they don’t ask. (non-heterosexual woman)

Disclosure and hiding of one’s gender or sexual orientation at work was the
theme raised most often in the reports of young respondents. It is a key topic,
particularly for young people, who are starting work and often change jobs and
sometimes colleagues. It seems that young people are constructing their
non-normative sexual and gender identities earlier than before (Alanko 2013;
Lehtonen 2004b, c). This also makes it more likely that when they enter the labor
market they already have defined their non-normative identity, and face the
dilemma of whether or not to tell about it in the workplace.

5 Challenges in Heteronormative Workplaces

One fifth of all the respondents had faced bullying, discrimination or other unjust
behavior at work (Lehtonen 2014a). These experiences were typically experienced
more by trans respondents, compared to non-heterosexual youth. Some of the
respondents had stayed at home instead of going to work, sometimes based on
this kind of negative experiences. Also, this was more typically a trans youth
experience.
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 301

Trans and homophobic atmosphere in my earlier workplace make it impos-

sible for me to return there (even if I could). I don’t have energy for this
environment. It makes working hard and very stressful. (transmasculine
respondent)

Attitudes related to sexual orientation and gender identity also influenced rela-
tionships in the workplace. Trans respondents experienced this more often than
non-heterosexual respondents. Transfeminine respondents (39 %) and
non-heterosexual men (27 %) experienced this more often than transmasculine
respondents (30 %) and non-heterosexual women (22 %), which might have to do
with the fact that they worked more often in male-dominated workplaces, and men,
or presumed men, had to control their gendered behavior more.

Awful “joking” which was mainly directed to men at my workplace: faggot,

fairy, bum boy. My workplace is fairly male-dominated, a big institution,
where an attack is seen as the best defense. (non-heterosexual woman)
I am aware that my biological sex helps quite a bit. Especially men seem to
understand better the love between girls than the relationships between men.
And a woman “in a men’s job” is quite often just “a cool chick”.
(transmasculine respondent)

Negative joking and opinions, as well as bullying and discrimination, were

reported to influence young non-heterosexual and trans people’s ability to concen-
trate on their work. They were told to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity
as a response.

In a workplace dominated by engineers, one woman commented during the

lunch break something about gay relationships. They all were talking con-
stantly about their home and family issues, but I didn’t while as a new
summer-time worker I wanted to get an idea of the atmosphere first. A
male worker opposite me said sharply that “oh fuck, I wouldn’t want to
hear anything about home evenings of gays, they can do what they want,
but no need to tell at work”. I had difficulties to keep my face, but I wanted to
say that “then I will not tell anything about my life in the future either”.
(non-heterosexual man)

This also limited possibilities for questioning disrespectful treatment, and homo-
and transphobic comments.
302 J. Lehtonen

In the fear of disclosure I haven’t dared to challenge the discriminatory

language, which is very common at my workplace. (non-heterosexual
woman)

Some respondents reported that negative talk or practices were questioned, but
many seemed to criticize them more in their own minds than openly.

I have kept my mouth shut after school from my experience, but when there
have been discussion on gender minority related issues, I haven’t been afraid
of expressing my opinion. This has made me being belittled and I got strange
looks from others. (transfeminine respondent)
Respondents reported that heteronormative practices and the experience of
not fitting into the workplace culture made people keep their distance from
their workmates.
I have avoided so called homophobes, and those who like bad jokes.
(non-heterosexual woman)
I don’t keep contact to my workmates after work. I am not sure how they
would react when hearing about my sexual orientation. (non-heterosexual
man)

Non-heterosexual and trans youth also reported that employers or fellow

employees were pressuring them to behave according to the gendered norms
(Lehtonen 2014a). This was a more typical experience for transfeminine people,
compared to transmasculine respondents, as well as for non-heterosexual men
compared to non-heterosexual women.

In summer jobs I didn’t dare to talk about it and I have been suffering about
oppressive situations, in which I have been treated as a girl, even in a sexist
way. For example my workmates did not give me tougher jobs, because they
saw me as a girl. Clients have called me girl and told that I should let my hair
grow longer so that I would look like a girl. Also the gender-based work
clothes (which I find totally unnecessary) are oppressive. (transmasculine
respondent)

Trans youth also described various kinds of problematically gendered practices,

which made their situation oppressive or difficult at work.
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 303

I haven’t dared to ask at work to be called with my calling name instead of my

official name, even if I have used the calling-name already about 10 years
regularly. I don’t have energy to explain myself to people, and I am afraid that
“the name-mess” would influence attitudes towards me. I haven’t dared to
change my official name to be my calling name, while I should probably explain
that change in job interviews if having a different name in my work certificate.
That might give a negative image of me. (transmasculine respondent)
It was a big mess when I started to use men’s dressing room. There was
needed many phone calls, discussions and doctor’s statement, but finally I
succeeded. I had changed my name and been on hormonal treatment 6 months
at that stage. (transmasculine respondent)

Trans and non-heterosexual youth described in their responses how they had to
negotiate with the heteronormative practices on a daily basis. They also reported that
their own behavior influenced gendered and sexualized culture in the workplace.

I work at the construction site. That is very male-dominated branch and at

workplace everyone knows that I am not a norm hetero. It is easy to see that
also from the way I am dressed. It is normal that my workmates call me
sometimes with my male nickname and they see me often as one of the guys.
But then suddenly I am a woman for them and they keep me the door open
and offer to carry some heavier stuff. When I came out, some of my work
mates are joking less about gays and other minorities. I give credit to them.
(transmasculine respondent)

Even though there are many problems in the workplace, based on these
responses, they also reveal that support from their workmates is available to
many. A minority of the respondents in the survey had faced discrimination and
bullying based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, but the majority still
had to face heteronormative practices at work.

At work I have always been openly gay and I have never faced discrimina-
tion, if you don’t count gay jokes. Those are anyway rather difficult to avoid.
(non-heterosexual man)
In one workplace my colleagues were excited about my orientation. They
were curious, but it didn’t matter. When we got married all were happy for us
and wanted to know how the marriage planning and the party itself succeed.
When I got pregnant they were excited and were guessing whether the baby is
girl or boy, and they waited the movements of the baby and my growing belly.
(non-heterosexual woman)
304 J. Lehtonen

These reports reveal a constant heteronormative pressure at work. The extent of

heteronormative culture varies from workplace to workplace, from location to
location, and from one workmate to another. Young people can hardly ever trust
that the workplace will have policies and everyday practices, which intentionally
try to prevent all kinds of discrimination and maltreatment based on sexual orien-
tation and gender identity or expression. Often it seems, based on the reports, young
people are active agents, criticizing heteronormative practices openly or in their
minds, but they are typically left to tackle the problems alone.

6 Gendered Expectations and Different Choices

Gender and gendered expectations are meaningful issues for non-heterosexual and
trans youth at work, and when they choose their educational and career paths. In
society and in their intimate surroundings they are treated typically as either girls or
boys based on the presumptions made at their birth. They are trained to become
either girls or boys, and this limits their chances, both educationally and in the labor
market. This is true particularly in Finland, where both vocational education and the
labor market in general are very gender-segregated. Boys and presumed boys
(many transfeminine respondents) are pressured to act in masculine ways and
make choices suitable for men. This affects the possibilities for non-heterosexual
men and transfeminine respondents and limits their range of career choices. They
might distance them from homophobic and heteronormative male-dominated work-
places, or try to fit in with them by hiding their non-normative sexuality and gender.
Also, non-heterosexual women and transmasculine respondents are expected to act
according to gendered expectations, and adopt heterofeminine behavior and make
feminine choices, but there is more space for them to bend the norms. Some of them
resist heterofemininity and challenge gendered expectations by their educational
and career choices, but many work in female-dominated workplaces, which they, as
some non-heterosexual men and transfeminine respondents found, are often more
positive towards sexual and gender minorities.
For quite a few trans respondents, career choice and entering the labor market
were seen as difficult, and sometimes even impossible. They saw their situation as
worse than that of non-heterosexual respondents, who were more positive towards
the possibilities of finding a good job in the future. Trans youth also reported hiding
their gender at work more often, compared to non-heterosexuals hiding their sexual
orientation, and they often reported more experiences of maltreatment and discrim-
ination at work. For trans youth, their experience of not fitting into the workplace
culture because of their hidden or visible gender markers can be really challenging.
They could face bullying and misunderstanding, based on their non-normative
gender expression. Non-heterosexual youths are treated better than trans youths
in this respect, and they have more space to decide whether to reveal their sexual
orientation or not. In my earlier research (Lehtonen 2009), I found that in
non-heterosexual groups gender expression was an influential aspect of their
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 305

work situation: feminine men and masculine women reported more discrimination
at work, and they reported that attitudes related to sexual minorities influenced their
career choice more often than those non-heterosexual respondents who were more
gender normative in their expression.
Non-heterosexual and trans youth are a vulnerable group in society in general,
but especially in the labor market. They are that because of their non-normative
gender identity or sexual orientation (or both), but also because of their age. But
obviously also because of other intersecting differences and experiences, such as
the ones related to their location (urban–rural), social class, health, possible dis-
ability, and ethnic, cultural, religious or language background. These different
aspects should be researched and analyzed, and taken into account when changes
in the work environment are planned and put into practice. In Finland, as in some
other countries, legislation has been introduced which prohibits discrimination
based on age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and some other differences.
While this is good, workplaces and institutions, which actively prevent maltreat-
ment of non-heterosexual and trans youth, and create space that is safe and free
from heteronormative expectations, are all too rare.

References

Alanko, K. (2013). Hur mår HBTIQ-unga i Finland? [How well are LGBTQ young people doing
in Finland?]. Helsingfors: Ungdomsforskiningsnätverket och Seta.
Blackburn, M. (2007). The experiencing, negotiation, breaking, and remaking of gender rules and
regulations by queer youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 4(2), 33–54.
Butler, J. (1992). Gender trouble. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gedro, J. (2009). LGBT career development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1),
54–66.
Lehtonen, J. (2002). Non-heterosexual youth at work and in the military service. In J. Lehtonen
(Ed.), Sexual and gender minorities at work (pp. 65–76). Helsinki: Ministry of Labor.
Lehtonen, J. (2003). Seksuaalisuus ja sukupuoli koulussa [Sexuality and gender at school].
Helsinki: University Press.
Lehtonen, J. (2004a). Occupational choices and non-heterosexuality. In J. Lehtonen & K. Mustola
(Eds.), “Straight people don’t tell, do they?” Negotiating the boundaries of sexuality and
gender at work (pp. 154–180). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Lehtonen, J. (2004b). Trans people and their occupational choices. In J. Lehtonen & K. Mustola
(Eds.), “Straight people don’t tell, do they?” Negotiating the boundaries of sexuality and
gender at work (pp. 181–192). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Lehtonen, J. (2004c). Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth in the labour market. In J. Lehtonen &
K. Mustola (Eds.), “Straight people don’t tell, do they?” Negotiating the boundaries of
sexuality and gender at work (pp. 137–153). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Lehtonen, J. (2009). Sukupuolimoninaiset ei-heteroseksuaaliset ty€ ontekijät [Gender diverse
non-heterosexual employees]. Naistutkimus, 22(4), 61–64.
Lehtonen, J. (2010). Gendered post-compulsory educational choices of non-heterosexual youth.
European Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 177–191.
Lehtonen, J. (2014a). Ei-heteroseksuaalisten ja transnuorten kokemukset ty€ oelämästä [Experi-
ences of non-heterosexual and trans youth in work environment]. Ty€ oel€
am€antutkimus, 12(3),
285–291.
306 J. Lehtonen

Lehtonen, J. (2014b). Sukupuolittuneita valintoja? Ei-heteroseksuaaliset ja transnuoret

koulutuksessa [Gendered choices? Non-heterosexual and trans youth in education].
Sukupuolentutkimus, 27(4), 67–71.
Lyons, H., Brenner, B., & Lipman, J. (2010). Patterns of career and identity interference for
lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 503–524.
Martinsson, L., & Reimers, E. (Eds.). (2008). Skola i normer [School in norms]. Malm€ o: Gleerups.
O’Neil, M., McWhirter, E., & Cerezo, A. (2008). Transgender identities and gender variance in
vocational psychology. Journal of Career Development, 34(3), 286–308.
Rossi, L.-M. (2006). Heteronormatiivisuus. Käsitteen elämää ja kummastelua [Heteronormativity:
Queering the concept and its brief history]. Kulttuurintutkimus, 23(3), 19–28.
Schmidt, C., & Nilson, J. (2006). The effects of simultaneous developmental processes: Factors
relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career Develop-
ment Quarterly, 55(1), 22–37.
Taavetti, R. (2015). “Olis siisti€ aa€ritell€
a, jos ei tarttis m€ a. . .” Kuriton ja tavallinen sateenkaar-
inuoruus [“It would be cool, not to have to define yourself”. Undisciplined and ordinary
rainbow youth]. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura ja Seta ry.
Takacs, J. (2006). Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in
Europe. Brussels: ILGA-Europe and IGLYO.
Talburt, S. (2004). Constructions of LGBT youth. Opening up subject positions. Theory Into
Practice, 43(2), 116–121.
Willis, P. (2011). Laboring in silence: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identifying
worker’s negotiations of the workplace closet in Australian organisations. Youth and Society,
43(3), 957–981.
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing
Disclosure of Homosexuality at
the Workplace

Rahul Mitra and Vikram Doctor

1 Introduction

That organizations are not neutral entities, but both raced and gendered has been
well-documented. Scholars have noted that, despite exhortations to “leave your
personal life at home,” the professional, personal, and organizational lives of
workers intersect constantly in a number of ways, such as work-life balance,
socialization initiatives, and human resource development (e.g., Acker 1990;
Ashcraft and Mumby 2004; Buzzanell 2000; Tracy and Scott 2006). In particular,
the heteronormative framework of organizational life privileges heterosexual con-
structions of the “good worker,” and various researchers have sought to queer
organizational practices by recognizing the lived experiences of marginalized
members (Embrick et al. 2007; Hearn et al. 1989; Rumens 2008). Our chapter
extends this work by examining how gay professionals in India “pass” as hetero-
sexual, disrupting both the heteronormative ideal of the workplace, and mainstream
conceptions of passing as entirely passive and counterproductive.
Theorized by Goffman (1963) as a defensive strategy of stigma management,
passing has long been critiqued as a communicative practice that potentially causes
deep psychological unrest and reiterates mainstream heteronormative assumptions
(Eguchi 2009; Mohr 1992). Research on passing in organizations—scant as it is—
has focused on North American and European contexts, tracing how lesbian, gay
and bisexual (LGB) organizational members negotiate homophobia to maintain a
somewhat “normal” working life (Hall 1989; Spradlin 1998; Ward and Winstanley

R. Mitra, Ph.D. (*)

Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
V. Doctor
Mumbai, India
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 307

T. Köllen (ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_18
308 R. Mitra and V. Doctor

2006). Less is known, however, about cultural norms and institutions in other
geographical contexts, which might influence how LGB individuals engage in
passing, the response by heterosexual coworkers, and the possibilities to actively
resist masculine and heterosexual stereotypes at the workplace (de Neve 2004).
With the advent of more interconnected global spaces, it becomes crucial to explore
these questions, noting how they both diverge and converge from socialization
practices and consequences in more familiar contexts.
Thus, our chapter reports the results of a qualitative study, drawing on interviews
with 14 gay professionals in India, across managerial levels and different industries,
to trace why and how they pass at the workplace. We find that our respondents
experienced passing as an ongoing and tensional practice, always involving partial
disclosure, and often with the implicit knowledge of coworkers, to negotiate
dominant ideals of masculinity and heterosexuality. Using the constant comparison
approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990), described below, we trace the contextual
particularities that instigate passing, the strategies used to pass, and the unfolding
socialization practices with coworkers as a result. We close this chapter by
discussing directions for future research, especially tracing the potential of passing
for building resilience among LGB workers.

2 Heteronormativity and Passing in Organizations

Research on sexual minorities in the workplace has focused on three broad lines—
discrimination against LGB workers, negotiations of individual identity, and insti-
tutionalized organizational processes (e.g., human resource policies) (Ward and
Winstanley 2006). Increasingly, scholars have begun to trace the intersections of
these themes—that is, how interaction and other forms of communication between
LGB and heterosexual workers shape organizational practices over time (e.g.,
Ragins et al. 2007; Rumens 2008; Rumens and Broomfield 2012). For instance,
Ward and Winstanley noted that despite official policies at a firefighting organiza-
tion that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexuality, most members actively
discouraged talk from LGB colleagues implying their sexuality, did not want to
work with them, had deep fears about being aroused/approached by gay colleagues,
and often segregated them during social/informal activities. Nevertheless, positive
affirmations of LGB identity at the workplace also abound, as in Rumens’ (2008)
study on friendships among gay colleagues, extending valuable emotional and
instrumental support to one another; Ward and Winstanley also observed instances
when highly respected team leaders went out of their way to welcome LGB
members to augment a culture of inclusivity. Humphrey (1999) thus argued that a
“dialectical conscience-raising process” (p. 142) was evident, once LGB workers
disclosed their sexuality to colleagues, who came to pay greater heed to sexual
ignorance and injustice over time, in fits and starts, eventually leading to greater
workplace cohesion.
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing Disclosure of Homosexuality at. . . 309

Such a dialectical process of LGB disclosure recognizes the deeper organiza-

tional structures at stake, rather than blame only societal homophobia. Even as
Humphrey (1999) noted the prevalence of familial metaphors at the workplace,
“which confine lesbian and gay identities, relationships and lifestyles to the realms
of deviance and decadence” (p. 140), others have traced how situated discourses of
brotherhood and hypermasculinity have long bolstered worker solidarity in the face
of increasing encroachment and surveillance by management, and even to counter
social stigmas about particular lines of work. For instance, shop-floor workers
discursively emphasize their masculine identity in contrast to service economy
and white collar workers, to make sense of the decreasing privileges afforded to
manufacturing in the West (Mumby 1998). Tracy and Scott (2006) found that
correctional officers and firefighters often played down the perceived feminine
downsides of their jobs (e.g., caring for marginalized members of society like
drug addicts making a 911 call, or convicts) by emphasizing their hypermasculine
elements (e.g., fetishization of the red fire-truck, self-deprecating humor
constructing correctional officers as “tough”). Law enforcement is also character-
ized by heteronormative and hypermasculine ideals, perhaps as a coping mecha-
nism—you have to be ”tough enough” or “man enough” to be a cop (Miller
et al. 2003; Rumens and Broomfield 2012). Given these deeply situated processes
of meaning-making, disclosure of sexual minority status is particularly risky in
workplace situations, despite evidence that coming out of the closet is psycholog-
ically healthier for LGB individuals (Embrick et al. 2007; Hall 1989; Spradlin
1998). There is a need, then, to rethink conventional models of stigma manage-
ment—and especially, passing—at the workplace.
For Goffman (1963), stigma arises from a disjuncture between actual and
expected social identity, so that the central problematic is one of conformity, or
acceptance of the stigmatized individual by his or her peers/community. The
stigmatized “stranger”—someone categorically different—may be “reduced in
our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. . . It
constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity”
(pp. 2–3). Drawing from his work, and recent scholarship by critical management
and organizational communication theorists (some of which has been reviewed
above), we argue that passing signifies the intentional management of discreditable/
discrediting information by individuals, enacted through everyday communicative
practices. First, we note that crafting hypermasculinity at the workplace is an
ongoing act of discursive labor, whereby some forms of masculinity are privileged
over others, while others are “covered over”—as in the case of competitive aggres-
sion over cooperative collaboration (Connell 1995). This implies that, rather than
only a minority of stigmatized people feeling the need to pass, “almost all persons
who are in a position to pass will do so on some occasion by intent” (Goffman 1963
p. 74). Thus, entirely disavowing passing in favor of “complete” disclosure of one’s
alternative sexuality may be unrealistic in workplaces characterized by deep dis-
cursive structures of hypermasculinity and heteronormativity.
Second, we argue that passing constitutes an ongoing, co-negotiated, and partial
mode of identity disclosure, instead of a categorical denial of information.
310 R. Mitra and V. Doctor

Although several conventional passing strategies denote complete denial (e.g.,

disidentifying with particular symbols, avoiding certain conversation topics or
social gatherings entirely), there is the possibility that “less rigid means of disclo-
sure are used. . . [so that] fleeting offers of evidence may be made—purposeful
slips, as it were” depending on the interactional context (p. 101). For instance,
strategic ambiguity may be used to send mixed messages about gender/sexual
identity (Spradlin 1998), or purposely cultivated images conveying difference
used to distract from more discreditable stigma (e.g., “feminist” instead of “les-
bian”) (Hall 1989)—centering the ongoing meaning-making between LGB and
heterosexual workers rather than a one-way cloak of secrecy.
Third, because of its co-negotiated and partial nature, we take passing to be a
strategic act of communication, capable of resisting and disrupting organizational
heteronormativity from “within,” and often aided by tacit support by coworkers.
Meisenbach (2010), for instance, argues that stigmatized individuals transition
across different strategies (viz., accepting, avoiding, evading, denying, or reducing
stigma) depending both on how they accept or challenge public understandings of
the stigma, and if they perceive that stigma to apply to themselves in a given
context. Highlighting the potentially subversive nature of passing, Toyoki and
Brown (2014) noted that prisoners often appropriated the label for themselves, or
put it into conversation with other coveted social identities, and positioned them-
selves as otherwise “good” persons to downplay the material force of this stigma.
Hall (1989) also observed the value of “token disclosure” or partial passing to resist
hegemony without endangering oneself: “Some respondents made an art of
transforming their feelings in hostile situations, taking pride in how well the act
went. When one woman heard anti-gay comments, she simply asked if the person
being discussed did a good job. ‘That usually shuts them up’, she said.” (p. 132).
It should be noted that the bulk of research on sexual minorities at the workplace
is focused on U.S. and British contexts, so that few empirical studies have examined
non-Western contexts (like India) that have their own cultural discourses shaping
ideals of both gender and the good worker (e.g., Menon 2007). For instance, Chopra
(2007) examines the discursive “invisibility” of male domestic laborers in India,
who must operate within the household with the mistress of the home, and are thus
somewhat feminized to neutralize the male gaze, even as they always remain at the
periphery of interpersonal closeness—they are perennial strangers, then, stigma-
tized by virtue of their gender, which is otherwise a source of privilege outside the
home/workplace. In another example, the construction of masculinity among
workers in the Indian textile industry was traced by de Neve (2004), locating the
exercise and capacity of agency crucially along both class lines and community
connections. While such works are useful to understand how (hyper)masculinity,
capitalism, and culture intersect at the Indian workplace, they do not address the
experiences of sexual minorities. On the other hand, despite a large body of
literature on the LGB identity negotiations in India that indicates a very nuanced
take on gender/sexuality that rejects Western dichotomies of “gay versus straight,”
few of them study workplace contexts and remain rooted in the context of family
relationships or social movement organizing (e.g., Narrain and Bhan 2005). Our
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing Disclosure of Homosexuality at. . . 311

chapter thus fills an important gap in this literature. The research question guiding
our inquiry may thus be stated: how do gay professionals in India pass to negotiate
their heteronormative workplace structures?

3 Method

Qualitative methods were used for this study. A questionnaire was emailed to
members of an online listserv for LGB Indians maintained by the second author
(who also works for a prominent nonprofit on LGB issues in the country). The
questions were structured but open-ended, and respondents were free to answer
them as they saw fit (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). A total of 14 gay men, employed
both by Indian and foreign companies, participated in the study, choosing their own
pseudonyms to preserve their anonymity. Half the respondents were mid-level
professionals, while three were senior management and four were at the junior
level. Up to 57 % categorized their company as large, and of the remaining, three
said their company was small, one said it was medium-sized and the other two did
not answer. Most respondents (64.3 %) worked for an Indian firm, three for global
multinationals, and two did not answer the question. Industries represented
included software/IT, banking, media, manufacturing, engineering, publishing,
marketing, and fashion design.
We utilized Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) constant comparison approach to
analyze the data to reveal underlying concepts and categories, in three stages of
coding. First, during the stage of open coding, “the data [were] broken down into
discrete parts, closely examined, compared for similarities and differences, and
questions [were] asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data” (p. 62). A line-
by-line coding was enacted to identify first-order categories, with their attendant
properties. Second, axial coding connected categories with their constituent
sub-categories, according to paradigmatic properties of causal conditions, contexts,
interactional strategies involved, and consequences generated (pp. 97–109). Last, in
selective coding, categories and their properties were integrated, so that a central
storyline emerged that best described participant’s passing at the workplace, and
encompassed the secondary categories. At each step, detailed code memos were
maintained, depicting the category dimensions.

4 Findings

As per the constant comparison approach, a central storyline emerged around

passing as the core category—taking into account contextual conditions, commu-
nicative strategies adopted, and ensuing socialization with coworkers, described
below. While all participants said they passed at some stage or the other of their
careers, 64.3 % (9 of 14) said they were out to some colleagues, but there were still
312 R. Mitra and V. Doctor

several people at the workplace who assumed they were heterosexual, and thus for
whom they passed. Of the remaining five men who claimed they were entirely
closeted at work, one had been out at a previous position.

4.1 Contextual Conditions

The presence (or lack) of a formal policy on nondiscrimination pertaining to

sexuality was important in the decision to disclose homosexuality. Only three
respondents reported such a policy in their firm. Moreover, policy was not sufficient
in itself to enable disclosure; SS, in a senior-level position at a mid-sized IT firm,
noted that despite an “explicit cause about alternative sexuality in the equal
opportunities section, many people hold conservative, right-wing views about
Muslims, Dalits, women, and fighting with them is itself quite a job”. Similarly,
Press-messenger said that although gender sensitivity training was mandatory for
employees, “the floor where I am are about 75 % filled with veiled homophobes.”
While noting that his company had no official policy in place, Mike said, “The
management has said that it will do whatever it has to [do to] comply with the laws
of the land. . . There are comments every so often, and a few derogatory remarks
(when speaking in general) but they tend to be largely respectful for privacy if
speaking of anyone in specific.” A few respondents (like Vik) even felt a formal
nondiscrimination policy was unnecessary, since “We [the firm] are too small to
have this sort of a policy in place (or even need one for that matter).”
In addition to formal policy, perceptions of public opinion were key to respon-
dents’ decisions to pass. Just-me recounted that he had “faced a lot of homophobia”
at his previous job, a large radio station, and “that was the reason I did not come out
then.” In other cases, while colleagues were not seen to be actively homophobic,
neither were they supportive. Hi-pal said, “I have not come across anything
discussed elaborately. There have been just statements like, nowadays there’s
more of gay activity near my house during Sundays, or like, those two are too
close to each other, may be gay. Neither really contemptuous nor supporting.” Both
younger colleagues and companies were perceived as more tolerant; for Salil, “I
suspect many of my younger (age 35 or less) colleagues might not be phobic, but
being a large old Indian company, most policy making positions are with older
people and/or people with a less cosmopolitan upbringing—which leads me to
believe they would be phobic.” Moreover, industries like IT, media/advertising, and
fashion design, were perceived to be more open, as with Vik, who noted, “I would
describe my work environment as gay-friendly. But then again, the marketing/
advertising/PR field is very gay-friendly to begin with.” Conversely, more tradi-
tional sectors, like engineering and banking, were perceived to be less gay-friendly.
Key to respondents’ decision to pass was the anticipated interactions and
communication with coworkers, should their homosexuality be disclosed. This
was true both for those who were comfortable with the idea of coming out (i.e.,
to friends and family), and those who were more securely in the closet. Coming out
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing Disclosure of Homosexuality at. . . 313

at work was not necessary for most respondents, “unless and until it is really
warranted” (Hi-pal), largely because they did not want to cause discomfort by
doing so. Hi-pal continued, “One fear is that I have perfectly straight relationships
with most of my male colleagues and coming out could unnecessarily amount to
reassuring/clarifying etc. I just feel this is a hassle.” Similarly, Seafoam, who
owned his company, said, “There would be snide remarks behind my back and
any staff members close to me would be UNJUSTLY teased [if I came out openly].
Eventually, all staff would distance themselves merely to prove they are not gay.”
Conversely, some respondents feared that colleagues would go to the other extreme
of political correctness: “they may feel obliged to display excessive sensitivity; and
it might get irritating. It would just rather work here and live outside.” (Mike).
Interestingly, Ravi believed that “it wouldn’t be that bad if I come out,” because his
coworkers seemed very open, yet reiterated “I don’t have that courage to open
up”—suggesting an internalized distinction of work and life (Burrell and Hearn
1989). Although most respondents (11 of 14) did not fear repercussions to their
current job if they came out, eight of them believed disclosure would affect long-
term career prospects. Hi-pal said, “I do not think that it could affect my stature in
work, but I feel it would unnecessarily become a permanent issue which I may have
to handle on an ongoing basis.”

4.2 Communicative Strategies of Passing

Respondents utilized five communicative strategies to pass at the workplace, rather

than disclose their homosexuality outright to coworkers. These were: distanciation,
concealment, reframing via non-stigmatic attributes, appropriating lesser stigmas,
and partitioning.
First, respondents distanced themselves from coworkers, avoiding verbal over-
tures of intimacy, not spending too much time with them at work, or not socializing
after-hours, as with Arun, who said, “Mostly, I don’t interact with colleagues if I
don’t have work with them, just the design team.” Vik distanced himself from
conversations related to LGB issues, saying that he “avoid[ed] the issue unless and
until someone is [really] contemptuous.” Some respondents actively cultivated the
persona of a private person, who guards his personal life from outsider coworkers;
SS said, “People can draw their own conclusions, but I make it quite clear that I
value my privacy, and regard many personal questions, especially from strangers or
casual acquaintances, as an invasion of it.”
Second, respondents actively concealed non-heteronormative symbols or signals
at work, by censoring demonstrative behavior or using gender-neutral language.
When asked about his personal life, Lakshman said, “I answer them honestly, but
I’m never really asked about ‘who’ I’m seeing, i.e., I answer gender neutral in
context.” Mike, who was in a relationship at the time, said that in response to such
questions, “I say I am seeing someone or living with someone and that we are not in
a position to marry because of legal complications. When between relationships, I
314 R. Mitra and V. Doctor

extended the same kind of gender neutral language.” His allusion to “legal com-
plications” was a good example of partial passing, rather than a complete cover-up
of his sexuality—given that homosexuality remains illegal in India. Respondents
also ensured they did not make overtures to anyone they might find attractive at
work, although sometimes they downplayed their concealment strategies using
over-the-top humor. For instance, Hi-pal laughed it off as avoiding “flaunting
one’s sexuality publicity,” indirectly blaming gay workers for potential homopho-
bia if they let slip their sexual identity.
Third, respondents reframed their discourse on non-stigmatic attributes (e.g.,
focus on work, family) that effectively silenced queries about their homosexuality.
For instance, Vik, who was out to colleagues on a “need to know” basis, averred, “I
work with several single men and women (who’re not gay to the best of my
knowledge) and they rise and fall within the industry according to their ability
(not marital status/sexuality).” Marital status was another non-stigma that some gay
professionals draw on to pass; although none of our respondents were married,
Arun identified others at his workplace “who are closeted, maybe because they are
married.”
Fourth, attributes less stigmatic than being gay were also appropriated by
respondents to pass. For example, Seafoam said, “I am divorced and just say I am
Devdas [a well-known fictional character] and will not marry ever again but die
longing for my wife.” In this case, the lesser stigma was that of failing to hold onto a
marriage and family, which still suggested he was heterosexual. Salil, on the other
hand, used his status as a still-unsteady professional to excuse his lack of spouse and
family; “I have been telling people that I am looking for a job change and shall then
marry. [I] did not tell any that I would not be marrying [at al]—I thought it is too
close to coming out!” Some of these lesser stigma may even serve as code for gay
professionals to suggest their homosexuality, without coming out entirely (e.g.,
being artistically inclined). SS admitted, “It is common knowledge that I am
unmarried, live on my own, lead a bohemian lifestyle, and have many friends
who are artists and theatre-people.” Hi-plan noted how an acquaintance used the
“confirmed bachelor” label to evade uncomfortable questions about being gay,
although most people understood what it meant: “He’s around 40 and unmarried
in a good post, and has slept with at least a few of his senior executives! He was not
at all good looking, but he said that the fact that he was a confirmed bachelor had
facilitated all these advances from his bosses!”
Fifth, respondents partitioned people and spaces within specific groups,
according to different degrees of disclosure (e.g., colleagues in same and other
departments, extra-organizational friends in the industry, clients). These partitions
enabled respondents to strategically choose how to pass, to what extent, and
deliberate the consequences of disclosure. Press-messenger said, “My ultimate
boss knows that I am gay and it’s a dead end for me in this department. I will see
no growth for me in this organization until I move out to a totally different
department. I have seen him walking out of the washroom just because I was inside
there. I do have a small circle of closeted gay friends in my organization, though we
belong to different departments and different locations.” For him, (partial)
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing Disclosure of Homosexuality at. . . 315

disclosure was possible only with workers in a particular space, since attempts at
passing within his own department were superficial at best, with his supervisor
knowing about and censuring him for his homosexuality. Meanwhile, for Vik,
“With colleagues it’s [being gay] not a problem. My clients haven’t yet asked me
any personal questions, neither do I expect them to.”

4.3 Socialization (and Resistance) While Passing

Strategically passing had ongoing consequences for respondents’ socialization with

coworkers both in and out of the workplace, and these interactions were not risk-
free. Flash noted that using lesser stigmas like the “confirmed bachelor” archetype
to pass risked being perceived as lacking in professional commitment: “I’ve caught
married superiors advise unmarried by partnered colleagues not to waste their time
on romance and to focus on work.” At the same time, lack of familial commitments
leads to some passers being assigned last-minute jobs, continuous travel, and other
work that “family-oriented” workers might be spared. Paradoxically, for Mike, “A
couple of my bosses have directly told me that being single will not help me much
in my career, though it was veiled under ‘social support system�