transgender in workplace essay

Transgender

15 challenges transgender and queer employees face at work, transgender and non-binary employees experience obstacles cisgendered do not..

Posted June 5, 2021 | Reviewed by Vanessa Lancaster

• Find a therapist who understands gender identity
• Transgender employees are challenged with workplace bullying and harassment, and coping with inadequate or no employment health benefit coverage.
• Trans folks report workplace issues like daily microaggressions, and uncertainty over speaking up against hetero/cisgender bias.
• Despite progress, transgender employees still face heightened stress and anxiety, rejection, ridicule, hostility, or institutional persecution.

In recent years, lesbian, gay, bisexual , transgender , and queer (LGBTQ) rights at the workplace have seen progress in countries worldwide.

For some LGBTQ professionals and employees, being open about gender orientation and gender identity on the job no longer have the same stigma and repercussions as they might have in the recent past.

However, many challenges remain for LGBTQs, including whether to “come out” at work, how to respond when a manager, colleague, client, or customer makes homophobic remarks, how to respond when being treated as “different” or “strange,” how to deal with negative office gossip, how to deal with workplace bullying and harassment, and how to cope with inadequate or no employment health benefit coverage for LGBTQ significant others and dependents, to name just a few examples.

In particular, for transgender and non-binary (gender-queer) employees, there continue to be significant difficulties regarding how to conduct themselves in various workplace environments. There may be heightened stress and anxiety over scenarios that may lead to rejection, ridicule, hostility, or institutional persecution.

Here are 15 challenges transgender and non-binary/genderqueer employees often experience in the workplace, with references from my books How to Let Go of Negative Thoughts and Emotions and How to Communicate Effectively and Handle Difficult People . Depending on the individual and her/his/their circumstances and environment, the number and degree of difficulties differ.

1. When meeting or being introduced for the first time, how to deal with managers’, coworkers’, clients’ or customers’ surprised, often automatic and disconfirming verbal and nonverbal social cues (i.e., starring incredulously, avoiding eye contact, etc.).

2. How to respond when identified and called with the incorrect pronoun, either mistakenly or deliberately, by managers, colleagues, staff, clients, and/or customers.

3. How to fill out employment and human resource documents (i.e., healthcare, marital status, life insurance, disability insurance, retirement , other benefits) which allow only “male” and “female” designations. Relatedly, whether they will receive gender-affirming healthcare, life, and disability insurance coverage.

4. How to deal with professional exclusion at the office (i.e., not called on during meetings, not engaging in eye contact, not asked for input, not invited to join projects and task groups).

5. How to deal with professional exclusion from meeting clients, customers, or visitors due to transphobic/queerphobic discomfort and embarrassment .

6. How to deal with transphobic/queerphobic comments, stereotypes, or questions (i.e., “YOU want to have children?”) whether such utterances are made innocently or maliciously.

7. How to deal with transphobic/queerphobic micro-aggressions and passive-aggressions on the job (i.e., teasing, sarcasm, avoidance, incompliance, procrastination , excuse-making, project sabotage).

8. How to deal with social exclusion at the office (i.e., excluded from “watercooler talk,” informal office conversations, an invitation to coffee, lunch, or other employee social activities).

9. How to deal with transphobic/queerphobic negative gossip at work and on colleagues’ social media .

10. Potential complaints from coworkers, clients, and/or customers who do not wish to work with/be serviced by a transgender/queer staff.

11. Whether to use the “women’s” or “men’s” restroom at the office due to lack of gender-neutral facility or inadequate signage. Relatedly, how to deal with potential complaints from coworkers, clients, and/or customers not comfortable with the transgender/queer employee using gender-specific public restrooms.

12. Whether they will be allowed to participate in networking and professional development opportunities intended for “women professionals.”

13. When well-qualified (or best qualified), deal with rejection from promotions, advancement, and other opportunities due to possible transphobia/queerphobia.

14. How to deal with openly transphobic/queerphobic bullying, hostility, aggression , and abuse from coworkers, customers, or clients.

15. How to deal with demotion or layoff from employment due to potential transphobia/queerphobia, with inadequate legal employment protection against gender orientation and gender identity discrimination .

For tips on how to handle homophobia and sexual identity/sexual-orientation-related stress, see references below.

© 2021 by Preston C. Ni. All rights reserved worldwide. Copyright violation may subject the violator to legal prosecution.

Ni, Preston. How to Let Go of Negative Thoughts and Emotions . PNCC. (2014)

Ni, Preston. Are You Highly Sensitive? How to Gain Immunity, Peace, and Self-Mastery! . PNCC. (2017)

Ni, Preston. How to Communicate Effectively and Handle Difficult People — 2nd Edition . PNCC. (2006)

Ni, Preston. How to Reduce Anxiety & Increase Certainty in Difficult Situations – A Practical Guide . PNCC. (2016)

Apple, Delta Airlines, Amazon Speak Out on LGBTQ+ Rights, Equality Act

www.out.com/news/2021/4/30/apple-delta-airlines-amazon-speak-out-lgbtq-…

Amazon, Apple, Google and other corporate giants back LGBTQ worker protections in upcoming Supreme Court battle

www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-apple-google-and-other-corporate-giant…

Business Coalition for the Equality Act

www.hrc.org/resources/business-coalition-for-equality

The Changing Landscape of Global LGBTQ+ Rights

www.cfr.org/article/changing-landscape-global-lgbtq-rights

Preston Ni is a professor, presenter, private coach, and the author of Communication Success with Four Personality Types and How to Communicate Effectively and Handle Difficult People.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Cookies in use

Transforming policies to practice: a new toolkit to promote transgender inclusion in the workplace.

by HRC Staff • November 16, 2016

More than ever before, America’s largest companies are leading the way on LGBTQ inclusion.

Post submitted by Deena Fidas, HRC's Director of Workplace Equality and Beck Bailey, HRC's Deputy Director of Employee Engagement

More than ever before, America’s largest companies are leading the way on LGBTQ inclusion. Most strikingly, employers are committing to expanding and developing policies, practices and benefits that ensure the equal treatment of their transgender employees.

Since its inception in 2002, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI) has tracked the phenomenal progress employers have made toward achieving full LGBTQ workplace inclusion. Today, 87 percent of CEI-rated companies provide employment non-discrimination protection based on gender identity to their employees in the U.S. and abroad. That’s up from 5 percent when the CEI was introduced 14 years ago.

The 2016 CEI report found that a record-breaking 511 employers – 60 percent of the companies rated in the index – specifically affirm coverage for transgender healthcare in at least one of their employer-provided plans. This is up from a mere handful of companies less than a decade ago. The progress has been steady.

These policies and benefits are not just words on a paper or a score in a report. They translate into countless transgender workers gaining life-saving healthcare and life-affirming support. We see the success stories: transgender people who successfully come out in the workplace with company support and are able to continue to happily and productively contribute in their jobs.

But despite this progress, we continue to hear the frustration of a highly-qualified transgender woman who makes it to the final in-person interview for the ‘perfect role’ only to see the palpable confusion on the interviewer's face when she walks through the door -- a look that tells her she’s never getting a call back. We know the familiar story of the transgender man who never experiences overt hostility or harassment from his colleagues, but suffers in isolation - never getting asked to lunch or to be on the project team - with his productivity nose-diving right alongside his spirit.

We see talented, young, gender non-conforming and genderqueer people questioning whether there is a place for them to be their full, authentic selves at work. Allies who championed critical policy changes know they are just beginning a journey to full inclusion. Unfortunately, few tools exist to promote inclusion and tackle difficult conversations internally.

That is why HRC Foundation is releasing Transgender Inclusion In the Workplace: A Toolkit for Employers , a comprehensive resource to guide employer transgender inclusion efforts. The toolkit includes HRC’s best practice guidance on transgender inclusive policies and practices (including sample policies) as well as guidance for implementing transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits. Addressing the gap in training and education materials, the toolkit includes scenario-based learning that uses real life examples from HRC’s work with businesses to illuminate the everyday experiences of transgender workers on the job.

To help bring the everyday experiences of transgender people to life, the toolkit includes a five-part video series featuring transgender and gender non-conforming workers alongside HRC staff and the chief diversity officer of the Brown-Forman Corporation, Ralph de Chabert. An ally at one of the nation’s largest wine and spirits companies, he describes the company’s journey:

“ At Brown-Forman, when we realized we had gaps in our inclusive approach for transgender people, we quickly got over the disappointment we felt in ourselves and took the necessary steps to effect change. We had meetings with transgender speakers; we began networking within the transgender community and we made it clear that we are an organization where transgender people will have an equal opportunity to be hired, to be developed and to succeed.

We are encouraged by the steps we have taken with our policies, practices and healthcare benefits yet we know that there is so much more that we need to do, if our ambitions are going to be realized. To that end, we continue to educate our employees in order to create an environment of understanding and openness because exclusion hurts. It is an awful feeling that gets in the way of being creative, productive and innovative. Quite frankly, it is unhealthy for the individual, our company and our communities in which we live and work.”

There is still much work to do. The good news is that so many major employers are already invested in transgender inclusion, and with this toolkit they can strengthen this investment and take the necessary next steps to promoting a true culture of inclusion.

As corporations continue to embrace inclusive policies, practices and benefits for transgender workers, we know that businesses have significant work ahead before every workplace experience and culture is truly and fully inclusive of transgender people. Every worker deserves opportunity to thrive and produce in a safe, welcoming, and innovative workplace.

Check out the entire toolkit at www.hrc.org/transtoolkit .

This week, HRC marks Transgender Awareness Week, dedicated to the progress, continued challenges, and unfinished work in the fight for transgender equality. Throughout the week, HRC will dedicate each day to urgent and important issues facing the transgender community, including support for youth and families, workplace equality, access to life-saving and inclusive health care, and combatting violence against the transgender community. The week concludes with with Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20 when the community comes together for vigils around the country to honor those lost in the past year. Learn more at hrc.im/TransAwarenessWeek.

Related News

April 4, 2024 | Jose Soto

A Celebration in Mexico City: Recognizing Achievements At Our Executive Event

April 2, 2024 | Jose Soto

Honoring Meraxes Medina, Young Trans Woman Killed In Los Angeles

March 31, 2024 | HRC Staff

Trans Activists You Need To Know

Love conquers hate., wear your pride this year..

100% of every HRC merchandise purchase fuels the fight for equality.

Choose a Location

• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Puerto Rico
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia

Leaving Site

You are leaving hrc.org.

By clicking "GO" below, you will be directed to a website operated by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, an independent 501(c)(3) entity.

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Better together: a model for women and lgbtq equality in the workplace.

• Faculty of Psychology, Work and Organizational Psychology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

Much has been achieved in terms of human rights for women and people of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer (LGBTQ) community. However, human resources management (HRM) initiatives for gender equality in the workplace focus almost exclusively on white, heterosexual, cisgender women, leaving the problems of other gender, and social minorities out of the analysis. This article develops an integrative model of gender equality in the workplace for HRM academics and practitioners. First, it analyzes relevant antecedents and consequences of gender-based discrimination and harassment (GBDH) in the workplace. Second, it incorporates the feminist, queer, and intersectional perspectives in the analysis. Third, it integrates literature findings about women and the LGBTQ at work, making the case for an inclusive HRM. The authors underscore the importance of industry-university collaboration and offer a starters' toolkit that includes suggestions for diagnosis, intervention, and applied research on GBDH. Finally, avenues for future research are identified to explore gendered practices that hinder the career development of women and the LGBTQ in the workplace.

Introduction

Gender has diversified itself. More than four decades have passed since Bem (1974) published her groundbreaking article on psychological androgyny. With her work, she challenged the binary conception of gender in the western academia, calling for the disposal of gender as a stable trait consistent of discrete categories ( Mehta and Keener, 2017 ). Nowadays, people from the LGBTQ community find safe spaces to express their gender in most developed countries (see ILGA-Europe, 2017 ). Also, women-rights movements have impulsed changes for the emancipation and integration of women at every social level, enabling them to achieve things barely imaginable before (see Hooks, 2000 ).

However, there is still a lot to do to improve the situation of women and people from the LGBTQ community ( International Labour Office, 2016 ; ILGA-Europe, 2017 ). Some actions to increase gender inclusion in organizations actually conceal inequality against women, and many problems faced by the LGBTQ originate within frameworks that anti-discrimination policy reinforce (see Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 , 2012 ; Verloo, 2006 ). For example, the gender equality, gender management, and gender mainstreaming approaches overlook most problems faced by people from the LGBTQ community and from women of color, framing their target stakeholders as white, cisgender, and heterosexual (see Tomic, 2011 ; Hanappi-Egger, 2013 ; Klein, 2016 ). These problems seem to originate in the neoliberalization of former radical movements when adopted by the mainstream (see Cho et al., 2013 ). This translates into actions addressing sexism and heterosexism that overlook other forms of discrimination (e.g., racism, ableism), resisting an intersectional approach that would question white, able-bodied, and other forms of privilege (see Crenshaw, 1991 ; Cho et al., 2013 ; Liasidou, 2013 ; van Amsterdam, 2013 ).

The purpose of this paper is to support the claim that gender equality shall be done within a queer, feminist, and intersectional framework. This argument is developed by integrating available evidence on the antecedents and consequences of GBDH against women and people from the LGBTQ community in the workplace. The authors believe that GBDH against these groups has its origin in the different manifestations of sexism in organizations. A model with the antecedents and consequences of GBDH in the workplace is proposed. It considers an inclusive definition of gender and integrates the queer-feminist approach to HRM ( Gedro and Mizzi, 2014 ) with the intersectional perspective ( Crenshaw, 1991 ; McCall, 2005 ; Verloo, 2006 ). In this way, it provides a framework for HRM scholars and practitioners working to counteract sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination in organizations.

GBDH in the Workplace

GBDH is the umbrella term we propose to refer to the different manifestations of sexism and heterosexism in the workplace. The roots of GBDH are beyond the forms that discriminatory acts and behaviors take, being rather “about the power relations that are brought into play in the act of harassing” ( Connell, 2006 , p. 838). This requires acknowledging that gender harassment is a technology of sexism, that “perpetuates, enforces, and polices a set of gender roles that seek to feminize women and masculinize men” ( Franke, 1997 , p. 696). Harassment against the LGBTQ is rooted in a heterosexist ideology that establishes heterosexuality as the superior, valid, and natural form of expressing sexuality (see Wright and Wegner, 2012 ; Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ). Furthermore, women and the LGBTQ are oppressed by the institutionalized sexism that underscores the supremacy of hegemonic masculinity (male, white, heterosexual, strong, objective, rational) over femininity (female, non-white, non-heterosexual, weak, emotional, irrational; Wright, 2013 ; Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). In addition, GBDH overlaps with other frameworks (e.g., racism, ableism, anti-fat discrimination) that concurrently work to maintain white, able-bodied, and thin privilege, impeding changes in the broader social structure (see Yoder, 1991 ; Yoder and Aniakudo, 1997 ; Buchanan and Ormerod, 2002 ; Acker, 2006 ; Liasidou, 2013 ; van Amsterdam, 2013 ). The next paragraphs offer a definition of some of the most studied forms of GBDH in the workplace.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment was first defined in its different dimensions as gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion ( Gelfand et al., 1995 ). Later, Leskinen and Cortina (2013) focused on the gender-harassment subcomponent of sexual harassment and developed a broadened taxonomy of the term. This was motivated by the fact that legal practices gave little importance to gender-harassment forms of sexual harassment, despite of the negative impact they have on the targets' well-being ( Leskinen et al., 2011 ). Gender harassment consists of rejection or “put down” forms of sexual harassment such as sexist remarks, sexually crude/offensive behavior, infantilization, work/family policing, and gender policing ( Leskinen and Cortina, 2013 ). The concepts of sexual harassment and gender harassment were initially developed to refer to the experiences of women in the workplace, but there is also evidence of sexual and gender harassment against LGBTQ individuals ( Lombardi et al., 2002 ; Silverschanz et al., 2008 ; Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ). In addition, studies have shown how gender harassment and heterosexist harassment are complementary and frequently simultaneous phenomena accounting for mistreatment against members of the LGBTQ community ( Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ).

Gender Microaggressions

Gender microaggressions account for GBDH against women and people from the LGBTQ community that presents itself in ways that are subtle and troublesome to notice ( Basford et al., 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Following the taxonomy on racial microaggressions developed by Sue et al. (2007) , the construct was adapted to account for gender-based forms of discrimination ( Basford et al., 2014 ). Gender microaggressions consist of microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations, and although they may appear to be innocent, they exert considerably negative effects in the targets' well-being ( Sue et al., 2007 ; Basford et al., 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). As an example of microassault imagine an individual commenting their colleague that their way of dressing looks unprofessional (because it is not “masculine enough,” “too” feminine, or not according to traditional gender-binary standards). A microinsult is for example when the supervisor asks the subordinate about who helped them with their work (which was “too good” to be developed by the subordinate alone). An example of microinvalidation would be if in a corporate meeting the CEO dismisses information related to women or the LGBTQ in the company regarding it as unimportant, reinforcing the message that women and LGBTQ issues are inexistent or irrelevant (for more examples see Basford et al., 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Because gender is not explicitly addressed in microaggressions, it can be especially difficult for the victims to address the offense as such and act upon them (see Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Hence, they are not only emotionally distressing, but also tend to be highly ubiquitous, belonging to the daily expressions of a determined context ( Nadal et al., 2011 , 2014 ; Gartner and Sterzing, 2016 ).

Disguised Forms of GBDH

It is also the case that some forms of workplace mistreatment constitute disguised forms of GBDH. Rospenda et al. (2008) found in their US study that women presented higher rates of generalized workplace abuse (i.e., workplace bullying or mobbing). In the UK, a representative study detected that a high proportion of lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents have faced workplace bullying ( Hoel et al., 2017 ). Specifically, the results indicated that while the bullying rate for heterosexuals over a six-months period was of 6.4%, this number was tripled for bisexuals (19.2%), and more than doubled for lesbians (16.9%) and gay (13.7%) individuals ( Hoel et al., 2017 ). Moreover, 90% of the transgender sample in a US study reported experiencing “harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job” ( Grant et al., 2011 , p. 3). These findings suggest that many of the individuals facing workplace harassment that appears to be gender neutral are actually targets of GBDH. Hence, they experience “ disguised gender-based harassment and discrimination” ( Rospenda et al., 2009 , p. 837) that should not be addressed as a gender-neutral issue.

Intersectional, Queer, and Feminist Approaches in Organizations

In this section, a short introduction to the feminist, queer, and intersectional approaches is given, as they are applied to the analyses throughout this article.

Feminist Approaches

In the beginning there was feminism.

In the words of bell hooks, “[f]eminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” ( Hooks, 2000 , viii). However, feminism can be a movement, a methodology, or a theoretical approach, and it is probably better to talk about feminisms than considering it a unitary concept. In this paper, different feminist approaches (see Bendl, 2000 ) are applied to the analysis. Gender as a variable takes gender as a politically neutral, uncontested variable; the feminist standpoint focuses on women as a group; and the feminist poststructuralist approach searches to deconstruct hegemonic discourses that perpetuate inequality (for the complete definitions see Bendl, 2000 ).

Gender Subtext

The gender subtext refers to an approach to the managerial discourse that brings attention to how official speeches of inclusion work to conceal inequalities ( Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ). Its methodology -subtext analysis- brings discourse analysis and feminist deconstruction together to scrutiny the managerial discourse and practices in organizations ( Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ; Bendl, 2000 ; Bendl, 2008 ; Benschop and Doorewaard, 2012 ).

Integration and Applications of Feminist Approaches and the Gender Subtext

The gender subtext serves to understand the role that organizational factors play in the occurrence of GBDH. Gender as a variable serves to underscore how the hegemonic definition of gender excludes and otherizes the LGBTQ from HRM approaches to gender equality. The feminist standpoint is applied in this paper as a framework in which two groups—women and the LGBTQ—are recognized in their heterogeneity, and still brought together to search for synergies to counteract sexism as a common source of institutionalized oppression (see Oliver, 1992 ; Franke, 1997 ). Finally, the feminist-poststructuralist approach enables conceiving gender as deconstructed and reconstructed, and to apply the subtext analysis to the organizational discourse (see Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ; Monro, 2005 ).

Queer Approach

Queer theory and politics.

The origins of the queer movement can be traced to the late eighties, when lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the transgender took distance from the LGBT community as a sign of disconformity with the depoliticization of its agenda ( Woltersdorff, 2003 ). However, the “Queer” label was later incorporated in the broader movement ( Woltersdorff, 2003 ). In terms of queer theory, the most recognized scholar is Judith Butler, whose work Gender Trouble (1990) was revolutionary because it made visible the oppressive character of the categories used to signify gender, and insisted in its performative nature (see Butler, 1990 ; Woltersdorff, 2003 ).

Queer Standpoint, the LGBTQ, and HRM

In the presented model, queer theory brings attention to the exclusion of the LGBTQ community from the organizational and HRM speech. This exclusion is observed in the policies and politics supported by the HRM literature and practitioners, as well as in the way the LGBTQ are otherized by their discursive practices (e.g., validating only a binary vision of gender, Carrotte et al., 2016 ). Although the categories that the queer theory criticizes are applied in this model, its constructed nature is acknowledged (see Monro, 2005 ). In this way, McCall's (2005) argument in favor of the strategic use of categories for the intersectional analysis of oppression is supported. This analysis is conducted adopting a queer-feminist perspective ( Marinucci, 2016 ) and the intersectional approach.

Integration of Intersectionality With the Queer and Feminist Approaches

Origin and approaches.

The concept of intersectionality was initially introduced to frame the problem of double exclusion and discrimination that black women face in the United States ( Crenshaw, 1989 , 1991 ). Crenshaw (1991) analyzed how making visible the specific violence faced by black women conflicted with the political agendas of the feminist and anti-racist movements. This situation left those women devoid of a framework to direct political attention and resources toward ending with the violence they were (and still are) subjected to ( Crenshaw, 1991 ). Intersectionality theory has evolved since then, and different approaches exist within it ( McCall, 2005 ). These approaches range from fully deconstructivist (total rejection of categories), to intracategorical (focused on the differences within groups), to intercategorical (exploring the experiences of groups in the intersections), and are compatible with queer-feminist approaches (see Parker, 2002 ; McCall, 2005 ; Chapman and Gedro, 2009 ; Hill, 2009 ).

The intracategorical approach acknowledges the heterogeneity that exist within repressed groups (see Bendl, 2000 ; McCall, 2005 ). Within this framework (also called intracategorical complexity, see McCall, 2005 ), the intersectional analysis emerges, calling for attention to historically marginalized groups, [as in Crenshaw (1989 , 1991 )]. The deconstructivist view helps to de-essentialize categories as gender, race, and ableness, making visible the power dynamics they contribute to maintain (see Acker, 2006 ). The intercategorical approach takes constructed social categories and analyzes the power dynamics occurring between groups ( McCall, 2005 ).

Integration: Queer-Feminist Intersectional Synergy

Applying these complementary approaches helps to analyze how women and people from the LGBTQ community are defined (e.g., deconstructivist approach), essentialized (e.g., deconstructivist and intracategorical approaches), and oppressed by social actors (e.g., intercategorical approach) and institutionalized sexism (e.g., Oliver, 1992 ; Franke, 1997 ). It also allows the analysis of the oppression reinforced by members of the dominant group (intercategorical approach), as well as by minority members that enjoy other forms of privilege (e.g., white privilege), and endorse hegemonic values (deconstructivist and intracategorical approaches). In addition, the analyses within the inter- and intra-categorical framework allow approaching the problems faced by individuals in the intersections between sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, and monosexism (e.g., transgender women, lesbians, bisexuals), as well as considering the way classism, racism, ableism, and ethnocentrism shape their experiences (e.g., disabled women, transgender men of color).

Support for an Integrative HRM Model of GBDH in the Workplace

This section describes an integrative model of GBDH in the workplace ( Figure 1 ). First, the effects of GBDH on the health and occupational well-being of targeted individuals are illustrated (P1 and P2). Afterwards, the model deals with the direct and moderation effects of organizational climate, culture, policy, and politics (OCCPP) on GBDH in the workplace. OCCPP acts as a “switch” that enables or disables the other paths to GBDH. OCCPP's effects on GBDH are described as: a direct effect on GBDH (P3), the moderation of the relationship between gender diversity and GBDH (P3a), the moderation of the relationship between individual characteristics and GBDH (P3b), and the moderation (P3c) of the moderation effect of gender diversity on the relationship between individual's characteristics and GBDH (P4). In other words, when OCCPP produce environments that are adverse for gender minorities, gender diversity and gender characteristics become relevant to explain GBDH. When OCCPP generate respectful and integrative environments, gender diversity, and gender characteristics are no longer relevant predictors of harassment.

Figure 1 . Integrative model of GBDH in the workplace. Continuous paths represent direct relationships. Dashed paths represent fully moderated relationships. The double-ended arrow signals the relationship between gender diversity and OCCPP, which follows a circular causation logic.

Consequences of GBDH in the Workplace

Gbdh and individuals' health.

Evidence suggests that exposure to sexist discrimination and harassment in the workplace negatively affects women's well-being ( Yoder and McDonald, 2016 ; Manuel et al., 2017 ), and that different forms of sexual harassment can constitute trauma and lead to posttraumatic stress disorder ( Avina and O'Donohue, 2002 ). In their meta-analysis ( N = 89.382), Chan et al. (2008) found a negative relationship between workplace sexual harassment, psychological health, and physical health conditions. Regarding the LGBTQ at work, Flanders (2015) found a positive relationship between negative identity events, microaggressions, and feelings of stress and anxiety among a sample of bisexual individuals in the US. This is consistent with Galupo and Resnick's (2016) results about the negative effects of microaggressions for the well-being of lesbian, bisexual, and gay workers. In another study, Seelman et al. (2017) found that microaggressions and other forms of gender discrimination relate to lowered self-esteem and increased stress and anxiety in LGBTQ individuals, with the most negative effects reported by the transgender. In a study among gay, lesbian, and bisexual emerging adults in the US, exposure to the phrase “that's so gay” related to feelings of isolation and physical health symptoms as headaches, poor appetite, and eating problems ( Woodford et al., 2012 ). In the literature on gender discrimination, Khan et al. (2017) found that harassment relates to depression risk factors among the LGBTQ. Finally, according to Chan et al. (2008) meta-analysis, targets of workplace sexual harassment suffer its detrimental job-related, psychological, and physical consequences regardless of their gender.

Proposition P1: GBDH negatively affects women and LGBTQ individuals' health in the workplace .

GBDH and Occupational Well-Being

Occupational well-being refers to the relationship between job characteristics and individuals' well-being ( Warr, 1990 ). It is defined “as a positive evaluation of various aspects of one's job, including affective, motivational, behavioral, cognitive, and psychosomatic dimensions” ( Horn et al., 2004 , p. 366). It has a positive relationship with general well-being ( Warr, 1990 ) and work-related outcomes like task performance ( Devonish, 2013 ; Taris and Schaufeli, 2015 ).

There is robust evidence on the negative effects of GBDH on indicators of occupational well-being, such as overall job satisfaction, engagement, commitment, performance, job withdrawal, and job-related stress ( Stedham and Mitchell, 1998 ; Lapierre et al., 2005 ; Chan et al., 2008 ; Cogin and Fish, 2009 ; Sojo et al., 2016 ). Its negative effects have been reported among women ( Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ), gay and heterosexual men ( Stockdale et al., 1999 ), lesbians ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ), and transgender individuals ( Lombardi et al., 2002 ), to name some.

Proposition P2: GBDH negatively affects the occupational well-being of women and people from the LGBTQ community in the workplace .

Antecedents of GBDH in the Workplace

Direct effect of occpp on gbdh.

In the next lines, the direct effects of OCCPP on GBDH against women and people from the LGBTQ community are explored, supporting the next proposition of this model.

Proposition P3: OCCPP affect the incidence of GBDH against women and the LGBTQ .

Organizational Culture and GBDH

Organizational culture refers to the shared norms, values, and assumptions that are relatively stable and greatly affect the functioning of organizations ( Schein, 1996 ). The most plausible link between organizational culture and GBDH seems to be the endorsement of sexist beliefs and attitudes. This is supported by evidence that sexism endorsement encourages GBDH attitudes and behavior (see Pryor et al., 1993 ; Fitzgerald et al., 1997 ; Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Stoll et al., 2016 ). The literature on sexism has mainly adopted a binary conception of gender (see Carrotte et al., 2016 ). However, the last decade more research has focused on heterosexism and anti-LGBTQ attitudes, uncovering their negative effects in the lives of LGBTQ individuals.

Sexism Against Women

Scholars focusing on sexism against women have categorized it in different ways. Old-fashioned sexism refers to the explicit endorsement of traditional beliefs about women's inferiority ( Morrison et al., 1999 ). Modern and neo sexism define the denial of gender inequality in society and resentment against measures that support women as a group ( Campbell et al., 1997 ; Morrison et al., 1999 ). Gender-blind sexism refers to the denial of the existence of sexism against women ( Stoll et al., 2016 ). Benevolent sexism defines the endorsement of an idealized vision of women that is used to reinforce their submission ( Glick et al., 2000 ). Finally, ambivalent sexism is the term for the endorsement of both hostile and “benevolent” sexist attitudes ( Glick and Fiske, 1997 , 2001 , 2011 ).

Sexism Against the LGBTQ

Sexism directed against the LGBTQ takes different forms, that can be also held by members of the LGBTQ community, as the evidence about biphobia and transphobia points out (see Vernallis, 1999 ; Weiss, 2011 ). Heterosexism is the endorsement of beliefs stating that heterosexuality is the normal and desirable manifestation of sexuality, while framing other sexual orientations as deviant, inferior, or flawed (see Habarth, 2013 ; Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ). Monosexism and biphobia refer to negative beliefs toward people that are not monosexual , namely, whose sexual orientation is not defined by the attraction to people from only one gender (see Vernallis, 1999 ). Cissexism (also transphobia ) refers to “an ideology that denigrates and subordinates trans* people because their sex and gender identities exist outside the gender binary. Transgender people are thus positioned as less authentic and inferior to cisgender people” ( Yavorsky, 2016 , p. 950). Hence, transgender individuals experience concurrently sexism, heterosexism, and cissexism/transphobia in their workplaces (see Yavorsky, 2016 ).

Organizational Climate and GBDH

Organizational climate reflects the “social perceptions of the appropriateness of particular behaviors and attitudes [in an organization]” ( Sliter et al., 2014 ). There is evidence linking organizational climate with workplace harassment ( Bowling and Beehr, 2006 ), sexual harassment ( Fitzgerald et al., 1997 , p. 578), and gender microaggressions ( Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ).

Diversity climate is “the extent to which employees perceive their organization to be supportive of underrepresented groups, both in terms of policy implementation and social integration” ( Sliter et al., 2014 ). Hence, a gender-diversity climate reflects the employees' perceptions of their workplace as welcoming and positively appreciating gender differences ( Jansen et al., 2015 ). It has been associated with an increased perception of inclusion by members of an organization, buffering the negative effects of gender dissimilarity (i.e., gender diversity) between individuals in a group ( Jansen et al., 2015 ). Sliter et al. (2014) found a negative relationship between diversity climate perceptions and conflict at work. Also, it has been suggested that it plays a crucial role for workers' active support of diversity initiatives, which is determinant for their successful implementation ( Avery, 2011 ). A similar construct, climate for inclusion has also shown to be a positive factor in gender-diverse groups, protecting against the negative effects of group conflict over unit-level satisfaction ( Nishii, 2013 ).

Heterosexist climate refers to an organizational climate in which heterosexist attitudes and behaviors are accepted and reinforced, propitiating GBDH against the LGBTQ (see Rabelo and Cortina, 2014 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). For example, Burn et al. (2005) conducted a study using hypothethical scenarios to test the effects of indirect heterosexism on lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. The participants of their study reported that hearing heterosexist comments would be experienced as an offense, affecting their decision to share information about their sexual orientation ( Burn et al., 2005 ). In addition, it has been found that LGBTQ-friendly climates (hence, low in heterosexism), can have a positive impact on the individual and organizational level ( Eliason et al., 2011 ). Examples of positive outcomes are reduced discrimination, better health, increased job satisfaction, job commitment ( Badgett et al., 2013 ), perceived organizational support ( Pichler et al., 2017 ), and feelings of validation for lesbians that become mothers ( Hennekam and Ladge, 2017 ).

Workplace Policy and GBDH

Workplace policy plays an important role in the incidence of GBDH. Finally, evidence shows that policy affects the extent to which the work environment presents itself as LGBTQ-friendly, influencing the experience of LGBTQ individuals at work ( Riger, 1991 ; Eliason et al., 2011 ; Döring, 2013 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ; Gruber, 2016 ). Eliason et al. (2011) found that inclusive language, domestic partner benefits, child-care solutions, and hiring policies are relevant for the constitution of a gender-inclusive work environment for the LGBTQ. Calafell (2014) wrote about how the absence of policy addressing discrimination against people with simultaneous minority identities (e.g., queer Latina) contributes to cover harassment against them. Galupo and Resnick (2016) found that weak policy contributes to the incidence of microaggressions against people from the LGBTQ community. Some of the situations they found include refusal of policy reinforcement, leak of confidential information, and refusal to acknowledge the gender identity of a worker ( Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Moreover, existent policy may serve to reinforce inequalities if its discourse is based on power binaries (e.g., rational/masculine vs. emotional/feminine) that discredit, oppress, and marginalize minority groups ( Riger, 1991 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). For example, Peterson and Albrecht (1999) analyzed maternity-policy and found how discourse is shaped to protect organizational interest at the cost of the precarization of women's conditions in organizations. Finally, it is very important to address the mishandling of processes and backlash after GBDH complaints are filed, since they keep targets of harassment from seeking help within their organizations (see Vijayasiri, 2008 ).

Organizational Politics and GBDH

Organizations are political entities ( Mayes and Allen, 1977 ). In the workplace, power, conceived as access to information and resources, is negotiated through political networks embedded in communication practices ( Mayes and Allen, 1977 ; Mumby, 2001 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). These communication practices operate within power dynamics in which the majority group sets the terms of the discussion and frames what is thematized ( Mumby, 1987 , 2001 ). Since gender affects the nature of these power relations, the effects of politics in gender issues and of gender issues in politics must be considered.

Full Moderation of OCCPP of the Relationship Between Gender Diversity and GBDH

Gender diversity refers to heterogeneity regarding gender characteristics of individuals in an organization. Broadly, an organization in which most workers are cisgender, male, and heterosexual would be low in gender diversity, and one in which individuals are evenly distributed in terms of their gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, would be high on gender diversity. In this section, the moderation effect of OCCPP on the relationship between gender diversity and GBDH is discussed to support the next proposition of the model.

Proposition P3a: The relationship between gender diversity and GBDH is fully moderated by OCCPP. When OCCPP propitiate a hostile environment for gender minorities, low gender diversity will lead to high GBDH. When OCCPP propitiate a context of respect and integration of gender minorities, low gender diversity will not lead to higher GBDH .

Male-Dominated Workplace

In male-dominated organizations, a hypermasculine culture is predominant, male workers represent a numerical majority, and most positions of power are occupied by men (e.g., Carrington et al., 2010 ). These organizations present an increased frequency and intensity of GBDH against women, men who do not do gender in a hypermasculine form, and individuals from the LGBTQ community ( Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Street et al., 2007 ; Chan, 2013 ; Wright, 2013 ). Women in a male-dominated workplace may be confronted with misogyny at work ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 ), becoming targets of more intense and frequent GBDH as they depart from the policed gender-rule that demands them to behave feminine, submissive, and heterosexual ( Berdahl, 2007 ). Women refusing sexual objectification in these contexts may become targets of serious forms of mistreatment, with the case that certain women “—including lesbians and those who present as butch, large, or black—may be less able to access emphasized femininity as a resource and thus [become] more subject to open hostility” ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 , p. 383). In other words, the more they depart from the sexist and heteronormative standard, the worse is the mistreatment they will face. At the same time, the strategies some women apply to avoid hostility have a high cost for their identity and validation at work, as pointed by Denissen and Saguy (2014 , p. 383),

the presence of lesbians threatens heteronormativity and men's sexual subordination of women […] [b]y sexually objectifying tradeswomen, tradesmen, in effect, attempt to neutralize this threat. While tradeswomen, in turn, are sometimes able to deploy femininity to manage men's conduct and gain some measure of acceptance as women, it often comes at the cost of their perceived professional competence and sexual autonomy and—in the case of lesbians—sexual identity.

However, GBDH is not only directed to women in hypermasculine contexts, as suggested by Denissen and Saguy (2014) , who observed that “tradesmen unapologetically use homophobic slurs to repudiate both homosexuality and femininity (in men)” ( Denissen and Saguy, 2014 , p. 388). Hence, men working in a male-dominated context are also expected to perform hegemonic masculinity, being punished when they do not comply. This leaves men who do not present dominant traits, that are feminine, or that are not heterosexual, at risk of becoming targets of GBDH ( Franke, 1997 ; Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Carrington et al., (2010) .

Female-Dominated Workplace

Female-dominated workplaces are those where women represent a numeric majority. It has been suggested that in these contexts (e.g., nursing) women with care responsibilities can find more tools to balance work-family schedules ( Caroly, 2011 ), and face less harassment ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). However, evidence about heterosexism and harassment against people from the LGBTQ community uncovers heteronormativity in female-dominated workplaces (e.g., among nurses, see Eliason et al., 2011 ). For example, an experiment about discrimination of gays and lesbians in recruitment processes showed that while gay males were discriminated in male-dominated occupations, lesbians were discriminated in female-dominated ones ( Ahmed et al., 2013 ).

Representation of the LGBTQ in the Workplace

At the moment this paper is being written, the authors have not found research that specifically targets LGBTQ-dominated organizations. There is evidence suggesting that having more lesbian, gay, and non-binary coworkers contributes to the development of LGBTQ-friendly workplaces ( Eliason et al., 2011 ). In addition, evidence supports the positive effects of having LGBTQ leaders that advocate for the respect and integration of LGBTQ individuals in organizations ( Moore, 2017 ).

Gender Diversity, Tokenism, Glass Escalator, and GBDH

When gender-minority individuals are pioneers entering a gender-homogeneous workplace, they face a heightened probability of experiencing tokenism ( Maranto and Griffin, 2011 ). Tokenism refers to the performance pressures, social isolation, and role encapsulation that individuals from social minorities face in organizations in which they are underrepresented numerically ( Yoder, 1991 ). Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) conducted a study comparing the effects of male- and female-dominated work environments on individuals' well-being and tokenism experiences. They found that women, in comparison to men, experience the highest levels of tokenism and discrimination in male-dominated sectors, and that they endure more pressure than men, even in female -dominated contexts ( Gardiner and Tiggemann, 1999 ). There is also an increasing number of reports on the experiences of tokenism by the LGBTQ ( LaSala et al., 2008 ; Colvin, 2015 ) and research on how to hinder the negative consequences of tokenism against them in organizations ( Davis, 2017 ; Nourafshan, 2018 ). The fact that men in female- dominated work settings report less levels of pressure than women in male dominated workplaces is compatible with Yoder's (1991) conception of tokenism as the oppression of social-minority members who are simultaneously a numerical minority. Because white men are a social majority, they do not experience the negative effects of tokenism when they are underrepresented numerically. Actually, evidence on the glass escalator effect shows that white men experience advantages when they enter female-dominated fields ( Williams, 1992 , 2013 , 2015 ; Woodhams et al., 2015 ). However, tokenism might be also present in female-dominated settings, as can be inferred from studies on LGBTQ experiences in women-dominated professions ( Eliason et al., 2011 ; Ahmed et al., 2013 ). Moreover, research in the US suggests that female CEOs tend to advance policies related to domestic-partner benefits and discrimination against women, but not necessarily advocate for a wider range of LGBTQ-inclusion policies ( Cook and Glass, 2016 ).

Gender Diversity, Contradictions, and the Role of OCCPP

The evidence on the effects of gender diversity in organizations is not free of contradictions. It has been found that the integration of male coworkers in female-dominated workplaces increases conflict between women ( Haile, 2012 ), and that as the proportion of male doctors in workgroups increases, the same happens with sexual harassment against female doctors ( Konrad et al., 2010 ). If taken together, it makes sense to consider an interaction of OCCPP and gender diversity to explain GBDH. In other words, it seems that gender diversity alone is not enough to end GBDH in the workplace, but can interact in a positive way with organizational factors to diminish conflict and GBDH (see Nishii, 2013 ). White, middle class, cisgender, heterosexual men would most likely not be targeted for GBDH in female-dominated contexts, since they are not a social minority, rather benefiting from their underrepresentation (see Williams, 1992 ). Finally, it is expected that gender diversity and OCCPP present a circular causation (see double-ended arrow in Figure 1 ), so that a higher representation of a particular minority group will traduce into OCCPP that promote inclusion for that group. At the same time, an organization whose OCCPP invites to respect and integrate gender minorities will attract more women and LGBTQ individuals (see Bajdo and Dickson, 2001 ; Moore, 2017 ).

OCCPP Full Moderation of the Relationship Between Individuals' Characteristics and GBDH

Individuals' gender characteristics intersect with race, class, ethnicity, and disability configuring complex identities and dynamics that affect individuals' experience of inequality in organizations (see Oliver, 1992 ; Acker, 2006 ; Verloo, 2006 ; Cunningham, 2008 ; Ericksen and Schultheiss, 2009 ; Cho et al., 2013 ; Donovan et al., 2013 ; Liasidou, 2013 ; Wright, 2013 ; Calafell, 2014 ; Moodley and Graham, 2015 ; Senyonga, 2017 ). In other words, it is difficult to isolate causes for exclusion, since they derive from complex power dynamics that shape individuals' experience. It was mentioned above that women and the LGBTQ tend to be more targeted for GBDH than white heterosexual men. However, it is in sexist organizational contexts that gender characteristics are made salient to propitiate GBDH.

Proposition P3b: The link between individuals' gender characteristics and GBDH in the workplace is fully moderated by OCCPP. This means that in a context of sexist OCCPP, individuals with gender-minority status will experience more GBDH. In contexts in which OCCPP propitiate respect and integration of gender minorities, GBDH will be low .

In other words, if the organizational context is tolerant of GBDH, harassment will occur based on individuals' sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, gender expression, or an intersection of those ( Crenshaw, 1991 ; Pryor et al., 1993 ; Franke, 1997 ; Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). Some examples of how gender characteristics are used as grounds for GBDH are described in the following lines.

Sex assigned at birth refers to the gender category assigned to individuals according to their physical characteristics at birth ( ILGA-Europe, 2016 ). At the moment, the intersex category for those whose physical characteristics do not match the binary conception of gender at birth is not officially recognized in many countries ( ILGA-Europe, 2016 ).

Gender identity is the “deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth” ( International Commission of Jurists, 2009 , p. 6). Despite the claims to adopt inclusive conceptions of gender, organizations continue to direct their gender-equality programs to white cisgender women, excluding the transgender and genderqueer (see Carrotte et al., 2016 ; Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ).

Gender expression is the way people handle their physical or external appearance so that it reflects their gender identity ( European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014 ). In highly sexist organizations, gender policing and harassment is directed against less gender-conforming individuals (e.g., Stockdale et al., 1999 ; Wright, 2013 ).

Sexual orientation refers to the “person's capacity for profound affection, emotional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender” ( ILGA-Europe, 2016 , p. 180). It is often the case that family policy in organizations consider only workers whose families are conformed by heterosexual couples and their children (e.g., Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). This excludes those who are in same-sex or non-monosexual partnerships and families, sending the message that they are “different,” abnormal, or unnatural (see Galupo and Resnick, 2016 ). There is evidence that gender-exclusive language (using he and his instead of gender-inclusive forms) negatively affects the sense of belongingness, identification, and motivation of women in work settings ( Stout and Dasgupta, 2011 ). In the same way, the exclusion of people with non-binary or non-heterosexual gender characteristics in the organizational discourse makes them experience feelings of exclusion and otherization ( Carrotte et al., 2016 ).

Double Moderation of OCCPP: Its Effects on the Moderation of Gender Diversity of the Relationship Between Individuals' Characteristics and GBDH

Considering the literature on tokenism, gender characteristics (e.g., transgender) are expected to be a relevant predictor of GBDH if there is a reduced number of people with those characteristics in the organization (i.e., low gender diversity). Also, it is expected that this relationship will only take place in those situations in which the OCCPP propitiate a discriminatory and harassing environment for gender minorities.

Proposition P3c and P4: When OCCPP propitiate a discriminatory and harassing environment for gender minorities, women and the LGBTQ will experience more GBDH in a context low in gender diversity. If the OCCPP configure an environment that is inclusive and respectful of gender minorities, a low gender diversity will not lead to GBDH against women and the LGBTQ in that organization .

Recommendations for Academics and Practitioners

Need for industry-university collaborations: from the lab to the field.

Research that emerges from industry-university collaboration (IUC) is needed to better understand and counteract GBDH. Porter and Birdi (2018) identified twenty-two factors for a successful IUC. Some of these factors are: capacity of the stakeholders to enact change, a clear and shared vision, trust between the actors, and effective communication ( Porter and Birdi, 2018 ). Rajalo and Vadi (2017) developed a model of IUC, according to which success is more likely when preconditions from the involved partners (i.e., academics and practitioners) match. These preconditions are explained in terms of absorptive capacity (ability to process and incorporate new information), and motivation to collaborate ( Rajalo and Vadi, 2017 ). In other words, those involved in IUC need top management support, economic resources, a shared vision of gender equality, trust in each other, effective communication channels, and high motivation to collaborate. It is not a simple endeavor, but it is a necessary and possible one (see Porter and Birdi, 2018 ).

In collaborations, scholars and practitioners have the opportunity to work together in the design, development, implementation, and follow-up of HRM strategies. This must be done ensuring that projects are appropriate for each organization, and that the raised information is suitable for research purposes. Evidence on IUC spillover points out that firms and academics benefit from these collaborations (see Jensen et al., 2010 ). In the case of HRM, scholars can gain access to samples that are difficult to reach and economic resources to finance their research, while practitioners benefit from the academic expertise (see Jensen et al., 2010 ). In the context of gender equality, this can be useful to develop and implement evidence-based procedures to counteract GBDH (see Briner and Rousseau, 2011 ). To build the networks necessary for such collaborative alliances, public and private initiative must be taken (see Lee, 2018 ). Congresses and events that approach gender issues in organizations and aim to build bridges between the industry and the academia can offer opportunities for collaboration to occur. Finally, practitioners must gain awareness of gender issues in the workplace, and organizational-feminist scholars should write and reach for the practitioner audience as well.

A Small Help to Begin With: The Gender-Equality Starters' Toolkit

We know that for practitioners and researchers that are not familiarized with the poststructuralist, intersectional, queer-feminist theories, our recommendations may sound quite cryptic. For this reason, we developed a very simplified starters' toolkit ( Table 1 ). In its “HRM diagnose” section, we suggest ways to develop a first diagnose of the organization in relation to gender issues. The “HRM interventions” section refers to actions that can be taken in case further intervention is needed. In the “applied-research” section, we provide applied-research ideas to better understand GBDH and develop evidence-based tools for HRM. Finally, in the “references and resources” section we include references that support and complement the suggestions provided. Each row of the toolkit refers to one of the components of our model (health and occupational well-being were grouped together). As mentioned, the aim of this toolkit is to provide material for a first approach to GBDH in organizations, and inspire those interested in conducting applied research on GBDH in the workplace.

Table 1 . Recommendations for HRM practitioners and applied researchers: a starters' toolkit.

A Change of Perspective: Looking at the Organization with Queer-Feminist Lens

Change organizational politics, change the organization.

Organizational politics result from the interplay of discursive practices and power negotiations, and refer to who and how is determining the terms of these negotiations ( Mumby, 1987 , 2001 ). To understand organizational politics, the hegemonic discourse has to be analyzed utilizing deconstructive lens that uncover the operating power dynamics (e.g., Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ; Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). In other words, when deconstructing the organizational discourse, the researcher or practitioner analyzes both the content and structural elements of the particular text (see Peterson and Albrecht, 1999 ; Buzzanell and Liu, 2005 ). Organizational-text examples are: the sexual harassment policy of the organization, brochures from the last organizational-change campaign, the transcript of interviews on gender issues, the chart of values of the firm. The analysis of this material allows to observe the way gender issues are approached and defined (or not approached nor defined), to develop a first diagnose and lines of action (for an example see Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). Some questions that may help in the analysis are:

How is gender defined? (Whose gender is [not] validated?),

What actions or behaviors are constitutive of GBDH in this organization? (What forms of aggression and discrimination are hence allowed?),

What are the procedures if action is to be taken? (What is left out of procedure leaving space for leaks or inadequacies?), and

What is the organizational history in relation to GBDH claims? (Who has enjoyed impunity? Whose claims are [not] listened to?).

For example, the researcher or practitioner may realize that the sexual-harassment policy of a particular organization refers to cisgender individuals only. Moreover, it may be that this policy defines GBDH as harassment of men against women, excluding same-sex sexual harassment (see Stockdale et al., 1999 ). Furthermore, it may become evident that this policy is framed in a discourse of binary logics that serve to blame the victims and victimize harassers (see Dougherty and Goldstein Hode, 2016 ). Finally, after a follow-up of archived organization's processes, it may come out that harassers have historically enjoyed impunity (see Calafell, 2014 ). This initial analysis might be useful to develop a plan for change. Continuing with the example, this policy may be redefined so that it adopts an integrative conception of gender. In addition, it can be adapted to include cases of same-sex sexual harassment. It can be also reframed using a discourse that allows fairness for all parties involved. Finally, cases from the past may be analyzed to avoid committing old mistakes in the future, and if some of these cases are recent, rectification may be considered.

Reading Between the Lines: Disguised Forms of GBDH

Bullying and mobbing as disguised gbdh.

We argue that at least some workplace mistreatment that appears as “gender neutral” is actually gendered. Available evidence points to a higher frequency of bullying/mobbing against women and the LGBTQ in the workplace ( Rospenda et al., 2008 , 2009 ; Grant et al., 2011 ; Hoel et al., 2017 ). Hence, once data on workplace mistreatment is raised, it is advisable to evaluate gender disparities (e.g., statistically comparing means) that may point to cases of disguised GBDH. The importance of addressing disguised GBDH (i.e., “sexist” mobbing and bullying) lies on solving the problem (i.e., mistreatment) at its roots. According to our model, if sexist OCCPP are intervened and changed, their consequences (i.e., overt and disguised forms of GBDH) should disappear.

Disguised GBDH at the Task Level

We also believe that disguised GBDH might take place through task allocation processes. In other words, it may be that the processes of task allocation are such that they keep gender minorities away from career-development opportunities. Evidence signaling that women receive less challenging tasks that are relevant for career development suggests that the process of task allocation is not gender neutral ( de Pater et al., 2009 ). There is also research on the effects of illegitimate tasks that suggests that their assignation to individuals in organizations may be gendered ( Omansky et al., 2016 ). Illegitimate tasks are perceived as unreasonable and/or unnecessary by the person that undertakes them, and constitute a task-level stressor ( Semmer et al., 2010 , 2015 ). It was found that illegitimate tasks exert a stronger negative effect on perceptions of effort-reward imbalance (ERI) among male than female professionals ( Omansky et al., 2016 ). One explanation is that women are socialized to undertake these tasks, which is why they feel less disrupted by them ( Omansky et al., 2016 ). However, if this causes women to undertake more illegitimate tasks than men, that might bring negative consequences for their occupational development and well-being. Available evidence shows no gender differences in the reports of illegitimate tasks between women and men (see Semmer et al., 2010 , 2015 ; Omansky et al., 2016 ). However, it is unclear if this is because women do not perceive the tasks they undertake to be illegitimate, or if there is no difference de facto . To our knowledge, there is no evidence on illegitimate tasks assigned to LGBTQ individuals. We think that the findings on task-allocation and illegitimate-tasks call for more research in this subject, especially regarding the role of illegitimate tasks and task-allocation processes for the career development of women and the LGBTQ.

Lavender Over the Glass Ceiling

It is important to evaluate if, when, and what kind of leadership positions are available for gender minorities in organizations. This includes spotting cases when a single person or a small group is tokenized and expected to compensate for a lack of diversity of the whole organization (see Benschop and Doorewaard, 1998 ). The glass ceiling in the case of women and lavender ceiling in the case of LGBTQ individuals refer to the burdens faced by these groups to reach leadership positions as a consequence of sexism in organizations ( Hill, 2009 ; Ezzedeen et al., 2015 ). There is also evidence that female executives are appointed to leadership positions when odds of failing are high ( Ryan and Haslam, 2005 ). Regarding the LGBTQ, it is necessary to raise more evidence on the factors that make it possible for them to break through the lavender ceiling ( Gedro, 2010 ).

Limitations of This Study and Future Research

Our model was developed based on the review of available literature. The fact that it is based on secondary sources leaves space for bias and calls for its empirical testing. The mediation path that links the antecedents and consequences of GBDH should be tested in longitudinal studies, and the moderations proposed can be better assessed utilizing experimental designs. In this paper we argued for an integrative conception of gender in the HRM approach to GBDH. Nevertheless, data on the experiences of the LGBTQ in the workplace are mostly based on small samples, especially for the transgender. In addition, although we discussed the constructed nature of categories and pointed to their limitations, we considered women and the LGBTQ as relatively stable concepts. The experience of women and the LGBTQ greatly differs when looking to the heterogeneity between and within these groups. We thematized intersectionality mostly referring to sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and thus acknowledge our difficulty to account for exclusion dynamics involving identities in the intersection of race, gender, ableness, body form, and class. More research that focuses on these groups (e.g., transgender people of color) is needed. Finally, we made conjectures on the role that task-allocation processes may play as disguised GBDH that needs to be tested empirically as well. We think that since overt expressions of GBDH are in the decline in western workplaces, it is necessary to reach for gendered practices that disadvantage women and the LGBTQ in organizations.

Conclusions

There is a potential for synergy when HRM considers the needs of women and people from the LGBTQ community together, especially to propitiate gender equality and counteract gender-based discrimination and harassment. To start, organizational resources can be employed to neutralize the mechanisms through which gender oppression acts against women and members from the LGBTQ community. In this way, actions for gender equality help create safe spaces for both groups. In addition, framing gender and sexuality in inclusive ways helps dismantle heterosexist, cissexist, and monosexist paradigms that contribute to create discriminatory and harassing workplaces. Finally, queer and feminist perspectives should be integrated with the intersectional approach to counteract discrimination against those in the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. Hence, the needs of people of all genders, people of color, disabled people, people with different body shapes, and people with different cultural backgrounds are made visible and addressed. This assists in developing truly inclusive and respectful workplace environments in which workers can feel safe to be themselves and unleash their full potential.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the definition of the subject and the development of the hypotheses and model presented. CG drafted the manuscript and KO provided close support and supervision during the writing process and conducted revisions at all stages of the manuscript development. All authors contributed to the manuscript revision and approved the submitted version.

The authors received no specific funding for this work. CG acknowledges a doctoral scholarship (research grant) from the German Academic Exchange Service (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, DAAD).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes. Gender Soc. 20, 441–464. doi: 10.1177/0891243206289499

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmed, A. M., Andersson, L., and Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring process? South. Econ. J. 79, 565–585. doi: 10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317

Ali, S., and Coate, K. (2012). Impeccable advice: supporting women academics through supervision and mentoring. Gend. Educ. 25, 23–36. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2012.742219

Avery, D. R. (2011). Support for diversity in organizations. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 1, 239–256. doi: 10.1177/2041386611402115

Avina, C., and O'Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual harassment and PTSD: is sexual harassment diagnosable trauma? J. Trauma. Stress 15, 69–75. doi: 10.1023/A:1014387429057

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Badgett, M. V. L., Durso, L., Kastanis, A., and Mallory, C. (2013). The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Policies. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute.

Google Scholar

Bajdo, L. M., and Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of organizational culture and women's advancement in organizations: a cross-cultural examination. Sex Roles 45, 399–414. doi: 10.1023/A:1014365716222

Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., and Behrend, T. S. (2014). Do you see what i see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychol. Women Q. 38, 340–349. doi: 10.1177/0361684313511420

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215

Bendl, R. (2000). Gendering organization studies: a guide for reading gender subtexts in organizational theories. Finish J. Bus. Econ. 373–393.

Bendl, R. (2008). Gender subtexts – reproduction of exclusion in organizational discourse. Br. J. Manage. 19, S50–S64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00571.x

Bendl, R., Fleischmann, A., and Walenta, C. (2008). Diversity management discourse meets queer theory. Gender Manage. 23, 382–394. doi: 10.1108/17542410810897517

Benschop, Y., and Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by equality: the gender subtext of organizations. Organ. Stud. 19, 787–805. doi: 10.1177/017084069801900504

Benschop, Y., and Doorewaard, H. (2012). Gender subtext revisited. Equal. Divers. Inclusion Int. J. 31, 225–235. doi: 10.1108/02610151211209081

Berdahl, J. L. (2007). The sexual harassment of uppity women. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 425–437. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.425

Bowling, N. A., and Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 998–1012. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

Briner, R. B., and Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I–O psychology: not there yet. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 4, 3–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01287.x

Buchanan, N. T., and Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women Ther. 25, 107–124. doi: 10.1300/J015v25n03_08

Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., and Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians, bisexuals. J. Homosex. 49, 23–38. doi: 10.1300/J082v49n02_02

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity . New York, NY; London: Routledge.

Buzzanell, P. M., and Liu, M. (2005). Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices: a poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 33, 1–25. doi: 10.1080/0090988042000318495

Calafell, B. M. (2014). Did it happen because of your race or sex?: university sexual harassment policies and the move against intersectionality. Front. J. Women Stud. 35, 75–95.doi: 10.1353/fro.2014.0034

Cameron, E., and Green, M. (2009). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change, 2nd Edn. London; Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Campbell, B., Schellenberg, E. G., and Senn, C. Y. (1997). Evaluating measures of contemporary sexism. Psychol. Women Q. 21, 89–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00102.x

Caroly, S. (2011). How police officers and nurses regulate combined domestic and paid workloads to manage schedules: a gender analysis. Work 40(Suppl 1):S71–82. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2011-1269

Carrington, K., Mcintosh, A., and Scott, J. (2010). Globalization, frontier masculinities and violence: booze, blokes and brawls. Br. J. Criminol. 50, 393–413. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq003

Carrotte, E. R., Vella, A. M., Bowring, A. L., Douglass, C., Hellard, M. E., and Lim, M. S. C. (2016). “I am yet to encounter any survey that actually reflects my life”: a qualitative study of inclusivity in sexual health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16:86. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0193-4

Chan, D. K.-S., Chow, S. Y., Lam, C. B., and Cheung, S. F. (2008). Examining the job-related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Women Q. 32, 362–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00451.x

Chan, P. W. (2013). Queer eye on a ‘straight’ life: deconstructing masculinities in construction. Construct. Manage. Econ. 31, 816–831. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2013.832028

Chapman, D. D., and Gedro, J. (2009). Queering the HRD curriculum: preparing students for success in the diverse workforce. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 11, 95–108. doi: 10.1177/1523422308329091

Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., and McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: theory, applications, and praxis. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 38, 785–810. doi: 10.1086/669608

Cogin, J. A., and Fish, A. (2009). An empirical investigation of sexual harassment and work engagement: surprising differences between men and women. J. Manage. Organ. 15, 47–61. doi: 10.1017/S183336720000287X

Colvin, R. (2015). Shared workplace experiences of lesbian and gay police officers in the United Kingdom. Policing 38, 333–349. doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-11-2014-0121

Connell, R. (2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 837–849. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00652.x

Cook, A., and Glass, C. (2016). Do women advance equity? The effect of gender leadership composition on LGBT-friendly policies in American firms. Hum. Relat. 69, 1431–1456. doi: 10.1177/0018726715611734

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University Chicago Legal Forum 1989, 139–167.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 43, 1241–1299. doi: 10.2307/1229039

Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles 58, 136–145. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9312-3

Dahlborg-Lyckhage, E., and Pilhammar-Anderson, E. (2009). Predominant discourses in Swedish nursing. Policy Politics Nurs. Pract. 10, 163–171. doi: 10.1177/1527154409338493

Dashper, K. (2018). Challenging the gendered rhetoric of success? The limitations of women-only mentoring for tackling gender inequality in the workplace. Gender Work Organ. 4:139. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12262

Davis, G. K. (2017). Creating a roadmap to a LGBTQ affirmative action scheme: an article on parallel histories, the diversity rationale, and escaping strict scrutiny. Natl. Black Law J. 26, 43–84. Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9925t9sp

de Pater, I. E., van Vianen, A. E. M., and Bechtoldt, M. N. (2009). Gender differences in job challenge: a matter of task allocation. Gender Work Organ. 39:1538. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00477.x

Denissen, A. M., and Saguy, A. C. (2014). Gendered homophobia and the contradictions of workplace discrimination for women in the building trades. Gender Soc. 28, 381–403. doi: 10.1177/0891243213510781

Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors. Empl. Relat. 35, 630–647. doi: 10.1108/ER-01-2013-0004

Donovan, R. A., Galban, D. J., Grace, R. K., Bennett, J. K., and Felicié, S. Z. (2013). Impact of racial macro- and microaggressions in Black women's lives. J. Black Psychol. 39, 185–196. doi: 10.1177/0095798412443259

Döring, N. (2013). Zur operationalisierung von geschlecht im fragebogen : probleme und lösungsansätze aus sicht von mess-, umfrage-, gender- und queer-theorie. Gender 2, 94–113. Available online at: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/39660

Dougherty, D. S., and Goldstein Hode, M. (2016). Binary logics and the discursive interpretation of organizational policy: making meaning of sexual harassment policy. Hum. Relat. 69, 1729–1755. doi: 10.1177/0018726715624956

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., and Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work Stress 23, 24–44. doi: 10.1080/02678370902815673

Eliason, M. J., Dejoseph, J., Dibble, S., Deevey, S., and Chinn, P. (2011). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning nurses' experiences in the workplace. J. Profession. Nurs. 27, 237–244. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.03.003

Else-Quest, N. M., and Hyde, J. S. (2016a). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 155–170. doi: 10.1177/0361684316629797

Else-Quest, N. M., and Hyde, J. S. (2016b). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 319–336. doi: 10.1177/0361684316647953

Ericksen, J. A., and Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2009). Women pursuing careers in trades and construction. J. Career Dev. 36, 68–89. doi: 10.1177/0894845309340797

Estrada, A. X., Olson, K. J., Harbke, C. R., and Berggren, A. W. (2011). Evaluating a brief scale measuring psychological climate for sexual harassment. Military Psychol. 23, 410–432. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2011.589353

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014). Violence Against Women: An EU-Wide Survey; Results at a Glance. Dignity. Luxembourg: Public Office of the European Union. Available online at http://publications.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-/publication/42467476-532b-405e-a6f7-a80c5b48babc

Ezzedeen, S. R., Budworth, M.-H., and Baker, S. D. (2015). The Glass ceiling and executive careers: still an issue for pre-career women. J. Career Dev. 42, 355–369. doi: 10.1177/0894845314566943

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., and Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: a test of an integrated model. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 578–589. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578

Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., and Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: the sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ—DoD). Milit. Psychol. 11, 243–263. doi: 10.1207/s15327876mp1103_3

Flanders, C. E. (2015). Bisexual health: a daily diary analysis of stress and anxiety. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 37, 319–335. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2015.1079202

Franke, K. M. (1997). What's wrong with sexual harassment? Stanford Law Rev. 49, 691–772. doi: 10.2307/1229336

Galupo, M. P., and Resnick, C. A. (2016). “Experiences of LGBT microaggressions in the workplace: implications for policy,” in Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations , eds K. Thomas (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 271–287.

Gardiner, M., and Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and mental health in male-and female-dominated industries. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 72, 301–315. doi: 10.1348/096317999166699

Gartner, R. E., and Sterzing, P. R. (2016). Gender microaggressions as a gateway to sexual harassment and sexual assault. Affilia 31, 491–503. doi: 10.1177/0886109916654732

Gedro, J. (2010). The lavender ceiling atop the global closet: human resource development and lesbian expatriates. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 9, 385–404. doi: 10.1177/1534484310380242

Gedro, J., and Mizzi, R. C. (2014). Feminist theory and queer theory. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 16, 445–456. doi: 10.1177/1523422314543820

Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., and Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: a confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. J. Vocat. Behav. 47, 164–177. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1995.1033

Gibson, S. K. (2006). Mentoring of women faculty: the role of organizational politics and culture. Innovat. Higher Educ. 31, 63–79. doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism. Psychol. Women Q. 21, 119–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. Am. Psychol. 56, 109–118. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

Glick, P., and Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychol. Women Q. 35, 530–535. doi: 10.1177/0361684311414832

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 763–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763

Goldberg, A. E., and Smith, J. Z. (2013). Work conditions and mental health in lesbian and gay dual-earner parents. Fam. Relat. 62, 727–740. doi: 10.1111/fare.12042

CrossRef Full Text

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., and 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.

Gruber, J. E. (2016). The impact of male work environments and organizational policies on women's experiences of sexual harassment. Gender Soc. 12, 301–320. doi: 10.1177/0891243298012003004

Habarth, J. M. (2013). Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Psychol. Sex. 6, 166–188. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.876444

Haile, G. A. (2012). Unhappy working with men? Workplace gender diversity and job-related well-being in britain. IZA discussion paper No. 4077. Labour Econ. 19, 329–350. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2012.02.002

Hanappi-Egger, E. (2013). Gender and diversity from a management perspective: synonyms or complements? J. Organ. Transform. Soc. Change 3, 121–134. doi: 10.1386/jots.3.2.121_1

Hennekam, S. A. M., and Ladge, J. J. (2017). When lesbians become mothers: Identity validation and the role of diversity climate. J. Vocat. Behav. 103, 40–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.08.006

Hill, R. J. (2009). Incorporating queers: blowback, backlash, and other forms of resistance to workplace diversity initiatives that support sexual minorities. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 11, 37–53. doi: 10.1177/1523422308328128

Hirsh, E., and Cha, Y. (2016). Mandating change. Indust. Labor Relat. Rev. 70, 42–72. doi: 10.1177/0019793916668880

Hoel, H., Lewis, D., and Einarsdottir, A. (2017). Debate: bullying and harassment of lesbians, gay men and bisexual employees: findings from a representative british national study. Public Money Manage. 37, 312–314. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2017.1328169

Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Horn, J. E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., and Schreurs, P. J. G. (2004). The Structure of Occupational Well-Being: A Study Among Dutch Teachers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77, 365–375. doi: 10.1348/0963179041752718

ILGA-Europe (2016). Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe. Available online at https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/2016

ILGA-Europe (2017). Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe. Available online at https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/rainbow-europe-2017

International Commission of Jurists (2009). Yogyakarta principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Rights Law 9, 86–113. doi: 10.1163/157181509789025200

International Labour Office (2016). Women at Work: Trends 2016. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., and Van Der Zee, K. I. (2015). Being different at work: how gender dissimilarity relates to social inclusion and absenteeism. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 879–893. doi: 10.1177/1368430215625783

Jensen, R., Thursby, J., and Thursby, M. (2010). University-Industry Spillovers, Government Funding, and Industrial Consulting . Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Khan, M., Ilcisin, M., and Saxton, K. (2017). Multifactorial discrimination as a fundamental cause of mental health inequities. Int. J. Equity Health 16:43. doi: 10.1186/s12939-017-0532-z

Khubchandani, J., and Price, J. H. (2015). Workplace harassment and morbidity among US adults: results from the national health interview survey. J. Community Health 40, 555–563. doi: 10.1007/s10900-014-9971-2

Klein, U. (2016). Gender equality and diversity politics in higher education: conflicts, challenges and requirements for collaboration. Women's Stud. Int. Forum 54, 147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2015.06.017

Kleiner, B. H., and Takeyama, D. (1998). How to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Equal Opportunities Int. 17, 6–12. doi: 10.1108/02610159810785539

Konrad, A. M., Cannings, K., and Goldberg, C. B. (2010). Asymmetrical demography effects on psychological climate for gender diversity: differential effects of leader gender and work unit gender composition among Swedish doctors. Hum. Relat. 63, 1661–1685. doi: 10.1177/0018726710369397

Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., and Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims' overall job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10, 155–169. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.155

LaSala, M. C., Jenkins, D. A., Wheeler, D. P., and Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. (2008). LGBT faculty, research, and researchers: risks and rewards. J. Gay Lesbian Soc. Services 20, 253–267. doi: 10.1080/10538720802235351

Lee, K.-J. (2018). Strategic human resource management for university-industry collaborations in Korea: financial incentives for academic faculty and employment security of industry liaison offices. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage . 30, 461–472. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2017.1337885

Leskinen, E. A., and Cortina, L. M. (2013). Dimensions of disrespect. Psychol. Women Q. 38, 107–123. doi: 10.1177/0361684313496549

Leskinen, E. A., Cortina, L. M., and Kabat, D. B. (2011). Gender harassment: broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law Hum. Behav. 35, 25–39. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5

Liasidou, A. (2013). Intersectional understandings of disability and implications for a social justice reform agenda in education policy and practice. Disability Soc. 28, 299–312. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.710012

Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., and Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. J. Career Assessm. 12, 33–50. doi: 10.1177/1069072703257722

Lloren, A., and Parini, L. (2017). How LGBT-supportive workplace policies shape the experience of lesbian, gay men, and bisexual employees. Sexuality Research Soc. Policy 14, 289–299. doi: 10.1007/s13178-016-0253-x

Lombardi, E. L., Wilchins, R. A., Priesing, D., and Malouf, D. (2002). Gender violence: transgender experiences with violence and discrimination. J. Homosex. 42, 89–101. doi: 10.1300/J082v42n01_05

Manuel, S. K., Howansky, K., Chaney, K. E., and Sanchez, D. T. (2017). No rest for the stigmatized: a model of organizational health and workplace sexism (OHWS). Sex Roles 77, 697–708. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0755-x

Maranto, C. L., and Griffin, A. E. C. (2011). The antecedents of a ‘chilly climate’ for women faculty in higher education. Human Relat. 64, 139–159. doi: 10.1177/0018726710377932

Marinucci, M. (2016). Feminism is Queer: The Intimate Connection Between Queer and Feminist Theory . Second edition. London: Zed Books.

Mayes, B. T., and Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2, 672–678. doi: 10.5465/amr.1977.4406753

McAllister, C. A., Harold, R. D., Ahmedani, B. K., and Cramer, E. P. (2009). Targeted mentoring: evaluation of a program. J. Soc. Work Educ. 45, 89–104. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700107

McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs 30, 1771–1800. doi: 10.1086/426800

McDonald, P., Charlesworth, S., and Graham, T. (2015). Developing a framework of effective prevention and response strategies in workplace sexual harassment. Asia Pacific J. Hum. Resour. 53, 41–58. doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12046

Mehta, C. M., and Keener, E. (2017). Oh the places we'll go! where will Sandra Bem's work lead us next? Sex Roles 76, 637–642. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0735-1

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement 42, 34–36. doi: 10.1002/pfi.4930420508

Monro, S. (2005). Beyond male and female: poststructuralism and the spectrum of gender. Int. J. Transgender. 8, 3–22. doi: 10.1300/J485v08n01_02

Moodley, J., and Graham, L. (2015). The importance of intersectionality in disability and gender studies. Agenda 29, 24–33. doi: 10.1080/10130950.2015.1041802

Moore, J. (2017). A Phenomenological Study of Lesbian, and Gay People in Leadership Roles: How Perspectives and Priorities Shift in the Workplace as Sexual Orientation Evolves Through Social Constructs . The Faculty of the School of Education, University of San Francisco. Available online at: https://repository.usfca.edu/diss/405

Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., and Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 34, 82–104. doi: 10.1177/0021886398341006

Morrison, M. A., Morrison, T. G., Pope, G. A., and Zumbo, B. D. (1999). An investigation of measures of modern and old-fashioned sexism. Soc. Indic. Res. 48, 39–49. doi: 10.1023/A:1006873203349

Mumby, D. K. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Commun. Monogr. 54, 113–127. doi: 10.1080/03637758709390221

Mumby, D. K. (1996). Feminism, postmodernism, and organizational communication studies. Manage. Commun. Quart. 9, 259–295. doi: 10.1177/0893318996009003001

Mumby, D. K. (2001). “Power and politics,” in The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods , eds M. J. Fredric, and L. L. Putnam (Thousand Oaks, CA; London: Sage Publications), 586–624. doi: 10.4135/9781412986243.n15

Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., and Wong, Y. (2014). Emotional, behavioral, and cognitive reactions to microaggressions: transgender perspectives. Psychol. Sex. Orient. Gender Divers. 1, 72–81. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000011

Nadal, K. L., Issa, M.-A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., and Wong, Y. (2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: death by a thousand cuts for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. J. LGBT Youth 8, 234–259. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2011.584204

Newman, P. K. (2018). Training Must be a Part of Every Employer's Action Plan to Stop Sexual Harassment in Their Workplaces . Columbus, OH: Ohio State Bar Association.

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Acad. Manage. J. 56, 1754–1774. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0823

Nourafshan, A. M. (2018). From the closet to the boardroom: regulating LGBT diversity on corporate boards. Albany Law Rev. 81, 439–487.

Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organ. Stud. 13, 563–588. doi: 10.1177/017084069201300403

Omansky, R., Eatough, E. M., and Fila, M. J. (2016). Illegitimate tasks as an impediment to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation: moderated mediation effects of gender and effort-reward imbalance. Front. Psychol. 7:1818. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01818

Owen, J., Tao, K., and Rodolfa, E. (2010). Microaggressions and women in short-term psychotherapy: initial evidence. Couns. Psychol. 38, 923–946. doi: 10.1177/0011000010376093

Parker, M. (2002). Queering management and organization. Gender Work Org. 9, 146–166. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00153

Peterson, L. W., and Albrecht, T. L. (1999). Where gender/power/politics collide. J. Manage. Inquiry 8, 168–181. doi: 10.1177/105649269982011

Pichler, S., Ruggs, E., and Trau, R. (2017). Worker outcomes of LGBT-supportive policies: a cross-level model. Equal. Div. Incl. Int. J. 36, 17–32. doi: 10.1108/EDI-07-2016-0058

Porter, J. J., and Birdi, K. (2018). 22 Reasons why collaborations fail: lessons from water innovation research. Environ. Sci. Policy 89, 100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.07.004

Pryor, J. B., Lavite, C. M., and Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: the person/situation interaction. J. Vocat. Behav. 42, 68–83. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005

Rabelo, V. C., and Cortina, L. M. (2014). Two sides of the same coin: gender harassment and heterosexist harassment in LGBQ work lives. Law Hum. Behav. 38, 378–391. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000087

Rajalo, S., and Vadi, M. (2017). University-industry innovation collaboration: reconceptualization. Technovation 62–63, 42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2017.04.003

Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. Am. Psychol. 46, 497–505. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.5.497

Rospenda, K. M., Fujishiro, K., Shannon, C. A., and Richman, J. A. (2008). Workplace harassment, stress, and drinking behavior over time: gender differences in a national sample. Addict. Behav. 33, 964–967. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.009

Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., and Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: results from a national study. J. Interpers. Violence 24, 819–843. doi: 10.1177/0886260508317182

Ryan, M. K., and Haslam, S. A. (2005). The Glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. Br. J. Manage. 16, 81–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational Culture. Am. Psychol. 45, 109–119. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: the missing concept in organization studies. Adm. Sci. Q. 41:229. doi: 10.2307/2393715

Seelman, K. L., Woodford, M. R., and Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress. J. Ethnic Cultural Diversity Soc. Work 26, 112–125. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2016.1263816

Semmer, N. K., Jacobshagen, N., Meier, L. L., Elfering, A., Beehr, T. A., Kälin, W., et al. (2015). Illegitimate tasks as a source of work stress. Work Stress 29, 32–56. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.1003996

Semmer, N. K., Tschan, F., Meier, L. L., Facchin, S., and Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Illegitimate tasks and counterproductive work behavior. Appl. Psychol. 59, 70–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00416.x

Senyonga, M. (2017). Microaggressions, marginality, and mediation at the intersections: experiences of black fat women in academia. Interactions UCLA J. Edu. Inform. Stud. 13, 1–23. Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9934r39k

Silverschanz, P., Cortina, L. M., Konik, J., and Magley, V. J. (2008). Slurs, snubs, and queer jokes: incidence and impact of heterosexist harassment in academia. Sex Roles 58, 179–191. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9329-7

Sliter, M., Boyd, E., Sinclair, R., Cheung, J., and Mcfadden, A. (2014). Inching toward inclusiveness: diversity climate, interpersonal conflict and well-being in women nurses. Sex Roles 71, 43–54. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0337-5

Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., and Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women's occupational well-being. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 10–40. doi: 10.1177/0361684315599346

Stedham, Y., and Mitchell, M. C. (1998). Sexual harassment in casinos: effects on employee attitudes and behaviors. J. Gambling Stud. 14, 381–400. doi: 10.1023/A:1023025110307

Stockdale, M. S., Visio, M., and Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychol. Public Policy Law 5, 630–664. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.5.3.630

Stoll, L. C., Lilley, T. G., and Pinter, K. (2016). Gender-blind sexism and rape myth acceptance. Violence Against Women 23, 28–45. doi: 10.1177/1077801216636239

Stout, J. G., and Dasgupta, N. (2011). When he doesn't mean you: gender-exclusive language as ostracism. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 757–769. doi: 10.1177/0146167211406434

Street, A. E., Gradus, J. L., Stafford, J., and Kelly, K. (2007). Gender differences in experiences of sexual harassment: data from a male-dominated environment. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 75, 464–474. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.3.464

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. Am. Psychol. 62, 271–286. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

Taris, T. W., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). “Individual well-being and performance at work: a conceptual and theoretical overview,” in Well-Being and Performance at Work: The Role of Context , Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology. ed M. Van Veldhoven (London UA: Psychology Press), 15–34.

Tomic, M. (2011). Gender Mainstreaming in der EU [Elektronische Ressource]: Wirtschaftlicher Mehrwert oder Soziale Gerechtigkeit? Wiesbaden, Berlin [U.A.]: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Springer

van Amsterdam, N. (2013). Big fat inequalities, thin privilege: an intersectional perspective on ‘body size’. Eur. J. Women's Stud. 20, 155–169. doi: 10.1177/1350506812456461

Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the european union. Eur. J. Women's Stud. 13, 211–228. doi: 10.1177/1350506806065753

Vernallis, K. (1999). Bisexual Monogamy: twice the temptation but half the fun? J. Soc. Philos. 30, 347–368. doi: 10.1111/0047-2786.00022

Vijayasiri, G. (2008). Reporting sexual harassment: the importance of organizational culture and trust. Gender Issues 25, 43–61. doi: 10.1007/s12147-008-9049-5

Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mental health. J. Occupation. Psychol. 63, 193–210. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00521.x

Wegner, R., and Wright, A. J. (2016). A psychometric evaluation of the homonegative microaggressions scale. J. Gay Lesbian Ment. Health 20, 299–318. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2016.1177627

Weiss, J. (2011). Reflective Paper: GL Versus BT: the archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within the U.S. Gay and Lesbian Community. J. Bisexual. 11, 498–502. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2011.620848

Williams, C. L. (1992). The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the “Female” Professions. Soc. Probl. 39, 253–267 doi: 10.2307/3096961

Williams, C. L. (2013). The glass escalator, revisited. Gender Soc. 27, 609–629. doi: 10.1177/0891243213490232

Williams, C. L. (2015). Crossing over: interdisciplinary research on men who do women's work. Sex Roles 72, 390–395. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0477-x

Woltersdorff, V. (2003). “(Lore Logorrhöe).queer theory and queer politics,” in Utopie Kreativ , 156, 914–913. Available online at: https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/156_woltersdorff.pdf

Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Silverschanz, P., and Yu, L. (2012). “That's so gay!”: Examining the covariates of hearing this expression among gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students. J. Am. Coll. Health 60, 429–434. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2012.673519

Woodhams, C., Lupton, B., and Cowling, M. (2015). The presence of ethnic minority and disabled men in feminised work: intersectionality, vertical segregation and the glass escalator. Sex Roles 72, 277–293. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0427-z

Wright, A. J., and Wegner, R. (2012). Homonegative microaggressions and their impact on LGB individuals: a measure validity study. J. LGBT Issues Couns. 6, 34–54. doi: 10.1080/15538605.2012.648578

Wright, T. (2013). Uncovering sexuality and gender: an intersectional examination of women's experience in UK construction. Construct. Manage. Econom. 31, 832–844. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2013.794297

Yavorsky, J. E. (2016). Cisgendered organizations: trans women and inequality in the workplace. Sociol Forum 31, 948–969. doi: 10.1111/socf.12291

Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism. Gender Soc. 5, 178–192. doi: 10.1177/089124391005002003

Yoder, J. D., and Aniakudo, P. (1997). “Outsider Within” the firehouse: subordination and difference in the social interactions of african american women firefighters. Gender Soc. 11, 324–341 doi: 10.1177/089124397011003004

Yoder, J. D., and McDonald, T. W. (2016). Measuring sexist discrimination in the workplace. Psychol. Women Q. 22, 487–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00170.x

Keywords: diversity, gender equality, gender management, heteronormativity, heterosexism, human resources, intersectionality, LGBTQ

Citation: García Johnson CP and Otto K (2019) Better Together: A Model for Women and LGBTQ Equality in the Workplace. Front. Psychol. 10:272. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00272

Received: 21 February 2018; Accepted: 28 January 2019; Published: 20 February 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 García Johnson and Otto. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Carolina Pía García Johnson, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Coming Out as Trans at Work

• Michael Cherny,
• Shalene Gupta,
• Sandra J. Sucher

When Michael Cherny came out at Deloitte in 2019, he didn’t expect to become a trailblazer in the corporate world. Since then, in speaking engagements, articles, and on the internet, he’s told his story to more than a million people. While everyone’s experience is different, and there’s no right or wrong way to come out as trans at work, Cherny presents a three-phase framework for thinking through what can happen before, during, and after coming out. This framework draws on his own experience and interviews with other professionals.

A framework, drawn from the experiences of eight transgender professionals.

I’ve known I was different since I was eight years old, but the process of coming out has been a journey of a thousand steps.

• Michael Cherny is the Senior Lead for the Centre for Trust at Deloitte Canada. He is a human rights advocate, an active member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community and an experienced Board Director. He has been recognized as a Catalyst Canada Honours Champion, CPA Ontario Emerging Leader and Notable Life LGBTQ+ Leader of the Year and is a thought leader in the diversity, equity and inclusion space.
• Shalene Gupta is a journalist and writer. She is co-author of   The Power of Trust: How Companies Build It, Lose It, and Regain It  (PublicAffairs, 2021), and the author of The Cycle: Confronting the Pain of Periods and PMDD (Flatiron, 2024).
• Sandra J. Sucher is a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School. She is the coauthor of The Power of Trust: How Companies Build It, Lose It, and Regain It (PublicAffairs 2021).

Partner Center

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Transgender issues in the workplace

For transgender people, making the difficult decision to transition from being publicly a man or woman to the gender one really identifies with can be a traumatic experience.

But while employers can help by showing understanding and support, some companies' response to the issue, though well-meaning, can lead to discrimination and humiliation.

According to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender charity Stonewall Scotland , transgender issues still cause "a lot of anxiety" among employers.

"There's still an area of fear among employers about what they do, how they do it and whether they might get it wrong," said Stonewall Scotland director Colin McFarlane.

He adds that while employers are making "great strides" in terms of lesbian, gay and bisexual equality, they are lagging behind providing for transgender staff, despite being covered by employment legislation under the Equality Act 2010 .

McFarlane explained: "There's a lack of understanding about what the real issues are. Some employers lump trans issues in with sexuality. What we find in the work that we do, is employers still have that lack of understanding."

Conversely, transgender activist Jane Fae says that in some cases, employers' self-conscious attempts to cater for transgender workers results in bosses tip-toeing around trying not to offend anyone, marginalising transgender staff even more.

According to Fae, the biggest issue in many offices is use of the toilet. Employers who ban their transitioning staff from using the female toilet may face legal action. "People try and fix this problem in ways that people often don't realise are offensive," she says. "Such as saying if you're trans you can use the disabled facility.

"It just marks people out as different and if there are any employees who don't like people transitioning, it almost endorses that."

It seems that many employers are simply guilty of over egging the pudding.

"When transitioning, from the public perspective, it's mostly about the clothes," Fae explains.

"Some people may also start to take hormones, which may have some side effects. But it's not a big thing. In some ways both the trans community and employers make too much of a deal about it.

"We don't accept people saying women on their periods who may be feeling hormonal shouldn't be expected to work. It's absolutely ludicrous and I think it's equally ludicrous to apply that same attitude to trans employees."

The greatest hurdle to a smooth transition, however, is an administrative one and a case of not what you are, but who you are.

Changing your forename and gender at work remains troublesome for many, despite its relative ease in the eyes of the law, and it's a sticky situation which Fae has been campaigning to change.

"The problem has arisen over the last decade, because of money laundering and the terror threat, people are scared silly about identity," she explains.

"If you come into work today as Matthew and then come in tomorrow as a girl called Carol, unless you have an identical twin somewhere, you don't need much in the way of proof.

"People might say they can't call you Carol unless you have a piece of paper to prove it, but that's wrong in law and actually, the Inland Revenue will quite happily change your name and gender on the system with the same level of security. So, it's not an issue.

"Therefore, we are and have been putting more and more silly additional requirements into the pot."

Being transgender, an umbrella term used to describe a whole range of people whose gender identity differs in some way from what they were assigned at birth, has no impact on a person's work output and a progressive equality policy can enhance a company's reputation and improve employees' performance and productivity.

Fae says the solution is to offer clarity on all the issues surrounding transitioning and being transgender, as well as providing a safe space for people to discuss their fears and anxieties.

"There are people, who for religious reasons, find it difficult to accept having trans women at work and there has to be a space for them to explore that," she insists.

"But the key thing is the employer needs to make it absolutely clear that there will be no leeway or concessions for people who act in a discriminatory manner as it not only reflects on the company, but will be treated as a criminal offence.

"On the one hand, give people the information and a space to understand and know more so they understand that transitioning is a very traumatic part of someone's life, but at the same time there should be penalties for people who have a go."

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional . To get more content and advice like this direct to your inbox, sign up for our weekly careers update .

• Guardian Careers
• Careers advice

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment

Human Rights

• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

‘Trans-forming’ the Workplace to Be Transgender Inclusive

Transgender and gender-nonconforming people often run into unnecessary barriers that make their jobs harder than they need to be. Here are 10 actions that social sector organizations can take to help.

• order reprints
• related stories

By Nico Calvo Rosenstone Mar. 29, 2019

Imagine spending your workday stressed out about which restroom facility to use and when, either because you fear harassment or because you just don’t feel comfortable in a bathroom that doesn’t match your gender identity or expression. This is the day-to-day reality for many transgender and gender-nonconforming people, who often run into unnecessary barriers that make their jobs harder than they need to be.

According to the Williams Institute , an estimated 1.4 million adults identify as transgender in the United States. Thanks to the dedicated work of LGBTQ trailblazers and advocates, employers across the United States have grown increasingly aware of the importance of creating welcoming organizations for LGBTQ people and their families. At the same time, the social sector has begun to understand it can no longer claim that it’s committed to LGBTQ diversity and inclusion without implementing equitable policies that support and protect the trans population.

When it comes to trans employees or any other marginalized group, true inclusion is not just about creating a more diverse workplace; it’s also about making sure organizations are treating all employees equitably when it comes to opportunities, benefits, and people’s everyday experiences when they go to work. Here are 10 actions organizations can take to create more equitable and welcoming work environments for trans and gender-nonconforming employees.

1. Get Proactive on Pronouns

Introducing yourself using gender pronouns may seem unnecessary to many people, but we can’t always assume someone’s gender pronouns just by appearance. Supporting and standing in solidarity with transgender and gender-nonconforming people means using—and respecting—their correct gender pronouns . Create a culture where everyone feels comfortable introducing themselves with pronouns. Another proactive step many people are taking is to include gender pronouns in their email signatures or wear pins.

Are you enjoying this article? Read more like this, plus SSIR's full archive of content, when you subscribe .

2. Do a Policy Check

Many organizations have non-discrimination, anti-harassment, and other policies that list protected categories of people. Check that your guidelines include the words “gender identity or expression.” We may think no one reads or cares about these policies, but they are an important signal to employees and the outside world about what our organizations value. Beyond simply editing or updating them, it’s important to make sure all current employees understand what they mean through staff education, new employee orientation, and ongoing communications. Updated policies should also be embedded in employee manuals and job postings. The Transgender Law Center has a step-by-step guide on implementing transgender-inclusive employment policies in your organization. 

3. Plan for Transitions Before They Happen

When an employee transitions on the job, organizations can make life easier for everyone by having policies and procedures in place. Work with your organization’s leaders, managers, and human resources (HR) staff to plot out how to ensure successful workplace transitions. This includes developing clear guidelines for supporting an employee going through a transition, communicating to staff and other constituencies about the transition, and making necessary changes to employment records.

4. Educate All S taff

It’s not enough for organizational leaders and HR staff to understand the importance of trans inclusiveness. Educate everyone at the organization on how to make transgender inclusion an everyday priority. A good way to do this is to add a trans-specific lens to anti-harassment, management, and diversity trainings. The Human Rights Campaign has a helpful guide on changing culture through trainings and education on LGBTQ inclusion. The guide also addresses some of the everyday realities of the discrimination that trans people in particular face in the workplace. 

5. Advocate for a Gender-Neutral Bathroom

The core principle put forth by the US federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) couldn’t be clearer : All employees, including transgender and gender-nonconforming employees, should have access to restrooms that correspond to their gender identity. Unnecessary bathroom restrictions can result in people avoiding restrooms entirely at work, which is unhealthy and even dangerous. A recent study found that more than 60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public restrooms for fear of confrontation, saying they have been harassed and assaulted while doing so. No one should have to worry about their safety in a bathroom, even less so at work.

6. Make Health-Care Benefits More Inclusive

Review your organization’s medical coverage and policies related to transition-related care and reproduction. The reality is that LGBTQ people are still subject to workplace policies primarily geared toward heterosexual, cisgender people. Health care benefits and policies should reflect the needs of trans employees throughout their lives, and have broad and inclusive coverage for transition-related surgery and treatments, family planning, and fertility. If a plan covers these essential procedures, make sure there aren’t exclusions that prevent trans people from accessing them due to their gender marker. For example, a transgender man should not be denied a routine pelvic exam because insurance will only cover the procedure for female patients. Additionally, an LGBTQ couple that can’t biologically reproduce shouldn’t be denied access to reproductive benefits because neither of them is infertile.

While large companies like Google and Salesforce have comprehensive plans that cover reproduction for LGBTQ people , those plans come with a high price tag. For smaller organizations, there are supplemental reproduction plans such as Arc Fertility that employers can add to basic health care plans. Employers can also set up a health savings account (HSA) for employees whose health care needs are not covered in the current health care plan. The University of California San Francisco has published helpful articles on health insurance coverage and fertility options for transgender people.

7. Rethink Recruitment and Hiring

Unemployment among the transgender community is  three times higher than the unemployment rate for the US population as a whole, and the rate is even higher among transgender employees of color. To open organizations to a more diverse staff that includes trans and gender-nonconforming people, as well as other marginalized groups, take steps to reduce the implicit bias that prevails in hiring and recruitment practices. Many organizations add unnecessary qualifications to job listings, such as degrees, years of experience, and skills that go beyond the requirements needed for someone to effectively do the job. In addition, employers often keep tapping the same sources and networks for hiring. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network has a helpful toolkit for creating a recruitment process that focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion. It includes a bias checklist, sample interview questions, and recommendations for modifying current organizational recruitment strategies.

8. Invest in Trans Leadership

Of course, being trans-inclusive is not just about hiring trans employees; it’s also about supporting them to become effective leaders. Consider what your organization can do to support trans and gender-nonconforming employees to find focused and tailored support, professional development, fellowships, and training so they can continue to grow in their careers.

9. Support Trans-Led Organizations

Organizations can signal their solidarity with trans employees and trans communities by investing in groups that are working to advance transgender equality. But before you invest, make sure the organizations are led and staffed by transgender people. As with other social issues, the people closest to the problems are closest to the solutions, and trans leaders are likely addressing issues that are of real, day-to-day importance to trans people.

10. Educate Yourself

All too often, organizations look to transgender employees for all the answers about how they can and should be more trans-inclusive. It’s a natural inclination, but it places added responsibilities and stress on these employees. The better solution is for leaders, HR staff, employees, and allies to take the initiative. Learn more about trans communities and the unique challenges they face, and make a commitment to creating a culture of learning across the organization.

The work of creating truly inclusive organizations takes time, along with a wholesale commitment to changing culture. This is not about convening a committee, or implementing one or two changes in hiring or operations. Rather, it’s about taking serious steps to understand the everyday experiences of all people in our organizations and making real changes so that everyone can be their best. When we can make our organizations more trans-inclusive, we make them more relevant, more attractive to current and prospective employees, and ultimately more effective.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Nico Calvo Rosenstone .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

The Experiences, Challenges and Hopes of Transgender and Nonbinary U.S. Adults

Findings from pew research center focus groups, table of contents, introduction.

Transgender and nonbinary people have gained visibility in the U.S. in recent years as celebrities from  Laverne Cox  to  Caitlyn Jenner  to  Elliot Page  have spoken openly about their gender transitions. On March 30, 2022, the White House issued a proclamation  recognizing Transgender Day of Visibility , the first time a U.S. president has done so.  

More recently, singer and actor Janelle Monáe  came out as nonbinary , while the U.S. State Department and Social Security Administration announced that Americans  will be allowed to select “X” rather than “male” or “female” for their sex  marker on their passport and Social Security applications. 

At the same time, several states have enacted or are considering legislation that would  limit the rights of transgender and nonbinary people . These include bills requiring people to use public bathrooms that correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth, prohibiting trans athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity, and restricting the availability of health care to trans youth seeking to medically transition. 

A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 1.6% of U.S. adults are transgender or nonbinary – that is, their gender is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. This includes people who describe themselves as a man, a woman or nonbinary, or who use terms such as gender fluid or agender to describe their gender. While relatively few U.S. adults are transgender, a growing share say they know someone who is (44% today vs.  37% in 2017 ). One-in-five say they know someone who doesn’t identify as a man or woman. 

In order to better understand the experiences of transgender and nonbinary adults at a time when gender identity is at the center of many national debates, Pew Research Center conducted a series of focus groups with trans men, trans women and nonbinary adults on issues ranging from their gender journey, to how they navigate issues of gender in their day-to-day life, to what they see as the most pressing policy issues facing people who are trans or nonbinary. This is part of a larger study that includes a survey of the general public on their attitudes about gender identity and issues related to people who are transgender or nonbinary.

The terms  transgender  and  trans  are used interchangeably throughout this essay to refer to people whose gender is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. This includes, but is not limited to, transgender men (that is, men who were assigned female at birth) and transgender women (women who were assigned male at birth). 

Nonbinary adults  are defined here as those who are neither a man nor a woman or who aren’t strictly one or the other. While some nonbinary focus group participants sometimes use different terms to describe themselves, such as “gender queer,” “gender fluid” or “genderless,” all said the term “nonbinary” describes their gender in the screening questionnaire. Some, but not all, nonbinary participants also consider themselves to be transgender.

References to  gender transitions  relate to the process through which trans and nonbinary people express their gender as different from social expectations associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. This may include social, legal and medical transitions. The social aspect of a gender transition may include going by a new name or using different pronouns, or expressing their gender through their dress, mannerisms, gender roles or other ways. The legal aspect may include legally changing their name or changing their sex or gender designation on legal documents or identification.  Medical care  may include treatments such as hormone therapy, laser hair removal and/or surgery. 

References to  femme  indicate feminine gender expression. This is often in contrast to “masc,” meaning masculine gender expression.

Cisgender  is used to describe people whose gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth and who do not identify as transgender or nonbinary. 

Misgendering  is defined as referring to or addressing a person in ways that do not align with their gender identity, including using incorrect pronouns, titles (such as “sir” or “ma’am”), and other terms (such as “son” or “daughter”) that do not match their gender. 

References to  dysphoria  may include feelings of distress due to the mismatch of one’s gender and sex assigned at birth, as well as a  diagnosis of gender dysphoria , which is sometimes a prerequisite for access to health care and medical transitions.

The acronym  LGBTQ+  refers to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or, in some cases, questioning), and other sexual orientations or gender identities that are not straight or cisgender, such as intersex, asexual or pansexual. 

Pew Research Center conducted this research to better understand the experiences and views of transgender and nonbinary U.S. adults. Because transgender and nonbinary people make up only about 1.6% of the adult U.S. population, this is a difficult population to reach with a probability-based, nationally representative survey. As an alternative, we conducted a series of focus groups with trans and nonbinary adults covering a variety of topics related to the trans and nonbinary experience. This allows us to go more in-depth on some of these topics than a survey would typically allow, and to share these experiences in the participants’ own words.

For this project, we conducted six online focus groups, with a total of 27 participants (four to five participants in each group), from March 8-10, 2022. Participants were recruited by targeted email outreach among a panel of adults who had previously said on a survey that they were transgender or nonbinary, as well as via connections through professional networks and LGBTQ+ organizations, followed by a screening call. Candidates were eligible if they met the technology requirements to participate in an online focus group and if they either said they consider themselves to be transgender or if they said their gender was nonbinary or another identity other than man or woman (regardless of whether or not they also said they were transgender). For more details, see the  Methodology . 

Participants who qualified were placed in groups as follows: one group of nonbinary adults only (with a nonbinary moderator); one group of trans women only (with a trans woman moderator); one group of trans men only (with a trans man moderator); and three groups with a mix of trans and nonbinary adults (with either a nonbinary moderator or a trans man moderator). All of the moderators had extensive experience facilitating groups, including with transgender and nonbinary participants. 

The participants were a mix of ages, races/ethnicities, and were from all corners of the country. For a detailed breakdown of the participants’ demographic characteristics, see the  Methodology .

The findings are not statistically representative and cannot be extrapolated to wider populations.

Some quotes have been lightly edited for clarity or to remove identifying details. In this essay, participants are identified as trans men, trans women, or nonbinary adults based on their answers to the screening questionnaire. These words don’t necessarily encompass all of the ways in which participants described their gender. Participants’ ages are grouped into the following categories:  late teens; early/mid/late 20s, 30s and 40s; and 50s and 60s (those ages 50 to 69 were grouped into bigger “buckets” to better preserve their anonymity).

These focus groups were not designed to be representative of the entire population of trans and nonbinary U.S. adults, but the participants’ stories provide a glimpse into some of the experiences of people who are transgender and/or nonbinary. The groups included a total of 27 transgender and nonbinary adults from around the U.S. and ranging in age from late teens to mid-60s. Most currently live in an urban area, but about half said they grew up in a suburb. The groups included a mix of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian and multiracial American participants. See  Methodology  for more details.

Identity and the gender journey

Most focus group participants said they knew from an early age – many as young as preschool or elementary school – that there was something different about them, even if they didn’t have the words to describe what it was. Some described feeling like they didn’t fit in with other children of their sex but didn’t know exactly why. Others said they felt like they were in the wrong body. 

“I remember preschool, [where] the boys were playing on one side and the girls were playing on the other, and I just had a moment where I realized what side I was supposed to be on and what side people thought I was supposed to be on. … Yeah, I always knew that I was male, since my earliest memories.” – Trans man, late 30s

“As a small child, like around kindergarten [or] first grade … I just was [fascinated] by how some people were small girls, and some people were small boys, and it was on my mind constantly. And I started to feel very uncomfortable, just existing as a young girl.” – Trans man, early 30s

“I was 9 and I was at day camp and I was changing with all the other 9-year-old girls … and I remember looking at everybody’s body around me and at my own body, and even though I was visually seeing the exact shapeless nine-year-old form, I literally thought to myself, ‘oh, maybe I was supposed to be a boy,’ even though I know I wasn’t seeing anything different. … And I remember being so unbothered by the thought, like not a panic, not like, ‘oh man, I’m so different, like everybody here I’m so different and this is terrible,’ I was like, ‘oh, maybe I was supposed to be a boy,’ and for some reason that exact quote really stuck in my memory.” – Nonbinary person, late 30s

“Since I was little, I felt as though I was a man who, when they were passing out bodies, someone made a goof and I got a female body instead of the male body that I should have had. But I was forced by society, especially at that time growing up, to just make my peace with having a female body.” – Nonbinary person, 50s

“I’ve known ever since I was little. I’m not really sure the age, but I just always knew when I put on boy clothes, I just felt so uncomfortable.” – Trans woman, late 30s

“It was probably as early as I can remember that I wasn’t like my brother or my father [and] not exactly like my girl cousins but I was something else, but I didn’t know what it was.” – Nonbinary person, 60s

Many participants were well into adulthood before they found the words to describe their gender. For those focus group participants, the path to self-discovery varied. Some described meeting someone who was transgender and relating to their experience; others described learning about people who are trans or nonbinary in college classes or by doing their own research.  

“I read a Time magazine article … called ‘Homosexuality in America’ … in 1969. … Of course, we didn’t have language like we do now or people were not willing to use it … [but] it was kind of the first word that I had ever heard that resonated with me at all. So, I went to school and I took the magazine, we were doing show-and-tell, and I stood up in front of the class and said, ‘I am a homosexual.’ So that began my journey to figure this stuff out.” – Nonbinary person, 60s

“It wasn’t until maybe I was 20 or so when my friend started his transition where I was like, ‘Wow, that sounds very similar to the emotions and challenges I am going through with my own identity.’ … My whole life from a very young age I was confused, but I didn’t really put a name on it until I was about 20.” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“I knew about drag queens, but I didn’t know what trans was until I got to college and was exposed to new things, and that was when I had a word for myself for the first time.” – Trans man, early 40s

“I thought that by figuring out that I was interested in women, identifying as lesbian, I thought [my anxiety and sadness] would dissipate in time, and that was me cracking the code. But then, when I got older, I left home for the first time. I started to meet other trans people in the world. That’s when I started to become equipped with the vocabulary. The understanding that this is a concept, and this makes sense. And that’s when I started to understand that I wasn’t cisgender.” – Trans man, early 30s

“When I took a human sexuality class in undergrad and I started learning about gender and different sexualities and things like that, I was like, ‘oh my god. I feel seen.’ So, that’s where I learned about it for the first time and started understanding how I identify.” – Nonbinary person, mid-20s

Focus group participants used a wide range of words to describe how they see their gender. For many nonbinary participants, the term “nonbinary” is more of an umbrella term, but when it comes to how they describe themselves, they tend to use words like “gender queer” or “gender fluid.” The word “queer” came up many times across different groups, often to describe anyone who is not straight or cisgender. Some trans men and women preferred just the terms “man” or “woman,” while some identified strongly with the term “transgender.” The graphic below shows just some of the words the participants used to describe their gender.

The way nonbinary people conceptualize their gender varies. Some said they feel like they’re both a man and a woman – and how much they feel like they are one or the other may change depending on the day or the circumstance. Others said they don’t feel like they are either a man or a woman, or that they don’t have a gender at all. Some, but not all, also identified with the term transgender. 

“I had days where I would go out and just play with the boys and be one of the boys, and then there would be times that I would play with the girls and be one of the girls. And then I just never really knew what I was. I just knew that I would go back and forth.” – Nonbinary person, mid-20s

“Growing up with more of a masculine side or a feminine side, I just never was a fan of the labelling in terms of, ‘oh, this is a bit too masculine, you don’t wear jewelry, you don’t wear makeup, oh you’re not feminine enough.’ … I used to alternate just based on who I felt I was. So, on a certain day if I felt like wearing a dress, or a skirt versus on a different day, I felt like wearing what was considered men’s pants. … So, for me it’s always been both.” – Nonbinary person, mid-30s

“I feel like my gender is so amorphous and hard to hold and describe even. It’s been important to find words for it, to find the outlines of it, to see the shape of it, but it’s not something that I think about as who I am, because I’m more than just that.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“What words would I use to describe me? Genderless, if gender wasn’t a thing. … I guess if pronouns didn’t exist and you just called me [by my name]. That’s what my gender is. … And I do use nonbinary also, just because it feels easier, I guess.” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

Some participants said their gender is one of the most important parts of their identity, while others described it as one of many important parts or a small piece of how they see themselves. For some, the focus on gender can get tiring. Those who said gender isn’t a central – or at least not the most central – part of their identity mentioned race, ethnicity, religion and socioeconomic class as important aspects that shape their identity and experiences.

“It is tough because [gender] does affect every factor of your life. If you are doing medical transitioning then you have appointments, you have to pay for the appointments, you have to be working in a job that supports you to pay for those appointments. So, it is definitely integral, and it has a lot of branches. And it deals with how you act, how you relate to friends, you know, I am sure some of us can relate to having to come out multiple times in our lives. That is why sexuality and gender are very integral and I would definitely say I am proud of it. And I think being able to say that I am proud of it, and my gender, I guess is a very important part of my identity.” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“Sometimes I get tired of thinking about my gender because I am actively [undergoing my medical transition]. So, it is a lot of things on my mind right now, constantly, and it sometimes gets very tiring. I just want to not have to think about it some days. So, I would say it’s, it’s probably in my top three [most important parts of my identity] – parent, Black, queer nonbinary.” – Nonbinary person, mid-40s

“I live in a town with a large queer and trans population and I don’t have to think about my gender most of the time other than having to come out as trans. But I’m poor and that colors everything. It’s not a chosen part of my identity but that part of my identity is a lot more influential than my gender.” – Trans man, early 40s

“My gender is very important to my identity because I feel that they go hand in hand. Now my identity is also broken down into other factors [like] character, personality and other stuff that make up the recipe for my identity. But my gender plays a big part of it. … It is important because it’s how I live my life every day. When I wake up in the morning, I do things as a woman.” – Trans woman, mid-40s

“I feel more strongly connected to my other identities outside of my gender, and I feel like parts of it’s just a more universal thing, like there’s a lot more people in my socioeconomic class and we have much more shared experiences.” – Trans man, late 30s

Some participants spoke about how their gender interacted with other aspects of their identity, such as their race, culture and religion. For some, being transgender or nonbinary can be at odds with other parts of their identity or background. 

“Culturally I’m Dominican and Puerto Rican, a little bit of the macho machismo culture, in my family, and even now, if I’m going to be a man, I’ve got to be a certain type of man. So, I cannot just be who I’m meant to be or who I want myself to be, the human being that I am.” – Trans man, mid-30s

“[Judaism] is a very binary religion. There is a lot of things like for men to do and a lot of things for women to do. … So, it is hard for me now as a gender queer person, right, to connect on some levels with [my] religion … I have just now been exposed to a bunch of trans Jewish spaces online which is amazing.” – Nonbinary person, mid-40s

“Just being Indian American, I identify and love aspects of my culture and ethnicity, and I find them amazing and I identify with that, but it’s kind of separated. So, I identify with the culture, then I identify here in terms of gender and being who I am, but I kind of feel the necessity to separate the two, unfortunately.” – Nonbinary person, mid-30s

“I think it’s really me being a Black woman or a Black man that can sometimes be difficult. And also, my ethnic background too. It’s really rough for me with my family back home and things of that nature.” – Nonbinary person, mid-20s

Navigating gender day-to-day

For some, deciding how open to be about their gender identity can be a constant calculation. Some participants reported that they choose whether or not to disclose that they are trans or nonbinary in a given situation based on how safe or comfortable they feel and whether it’s necessary for other people to know. This also varies depending on whether the participant can easily pass as a cisgender man or woman (that is, they can blend in so that others assume them to be cisgender and don’t recognize that they are trans or nonbinary).

“It just depends on whether I feel like I have the energy to bring it up, or if it feels worth it to me like with doctors and stuff like that. I always bring it up with my therapists, my primary [care doctor], I feel like she would get it. I guess it does vary on the situation and my capacity level.” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“I decide based on the person and based on the context, like if I feel comfortable enough to share that piece of myself with them, because I do have the privilege of being able to move through the world and be identified as cis[gender] if I want to. But then it is important to me – if you’re important to me, then you will know who I am and how I identify. Otherwise, if I don’t feel comfortable or safe then I might not.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“The expression of my gender doesn’t vary. Who I let in to know that I was formerly female – or formerly perceived as female – is kind of on a need to know basis.” – Trans man, 60s

“It’s important to me that people not see me as cis[gender], so I have to come out a lot when I’m around new people, and sometimes that’s challenging. … It’s not information that comes out in a normal conversation. You have to force it and that’s difficult sometimes.” – Trans man, early 40s

Work is one realm where many participants said they choose not to share that they are trans or nonbinary. In some cases, this is because they want to be recognized for their work rather than the fact that they are trans or nonbinary; in others, especially for nonbinary participants, they fear it will be perceived as unprofessional.

“It’s gotten a lot better recently, but I feel like when you’re nonbinary and you use they/them pronouns, it’s just seen as really unprofessional and has been for a lot of my life.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“Whether it’s LinkedIn or profiles [that] have been updated, I’ve noticed people’s resumes have their pronouns now. I don’t go that far because I just feel like it’s a professional environment, it’s nobody’s business.” – Nonbinary person, mid-30s

“I don’t necessarily volunteer the information just to make it public; I want to be recognized for my character, my skill set, in my work in other ways.” – Trans man, early 30s

Some focus group participants said they don’t mind answering questions about what it’s like to be trans or nonbinary but were wary of being seen as the token trans or nonbinary person in their workplace or among acquaintances. Whether or not they are comfortable answering these types of questions sometimes depends on who’s asking, why they want to know, and how personal the questions get.

“I’ve talked to [my cousin about being trans] a lot because she has a daughter, and her daughter wants to transition. So, she always will come to me asking questions.” – Trans woman, early 40s

“It is tough being considered the only resource for these topics, right? In my job, I would hate to call myself the token nonbinary, but I was the first nonbinary person that they hired and they were like, ‘Oh, my gosh, let me ask you all the questions as you are obviously the authority on the subject.’ And it is like, ‘No, that is a part of me, but there are so many other great resources.’” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“I don’t want to be the token. I’m not going to be no spokesperson. If you have questions, I’m the first person you can ask. Absolutely. I don’t mind discussing. Ask me some of the hardest questions, because if you ask somebody else you might get you know your clock cleaned. So, ask me now … so you can be educated properly. Otherwise, I don’t believe it’s anybody’s business.” – Trans woman, early 40s

Most nonbinary participants said they use “they/them” as their pronouns, but some prefer alternatives. These alternatives include a combination of gendered and gender-neutral pronouns (like she/they) or simply preferring that others use one’s names rather than pronouns. 

“If I could, I would just say my name is my pronoun, which I do in some spaces, but it just is not like a larger view. It feels like I’d rather have less labor on me in that regard, so I just say they/them.” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“For me personally, I don’t get mad if someone calls me ‘he’ because I see what they’re looking at. They look and they see a guy. So, I don’t get upset. I know a few people who do … and they correct you. Me, I’m a little more fluid. So, that’s how it works for me.” – Nonbinary person, mid-30s

“I use they/she pronouns and I put ‘they’ first because that is what I think is most comfortable and it’s what I want to draw people’s attention to, because I’m 5 feet tall and 100 pounds so it’s not like I scream masculine at first sight, so I like putting ‘they’ first because otherwise people always default to ‘she.’ But I have ‘she’ in there, and I don’t know if I’d have ‘she’ in there if I had not had kids.” – Nonbinary person, late 30s

“Why is it so hard for people to think of me as nonbinary? I choose not to use only they/them pronouns because I do sometimes identify with ‘she.’ But I’m like, ‘Do I need to use they/them pronouns to be respected as nonbinary?’ Sometimes I feel like I should do that. But I don’t want to feel like I should do anything. I just want to be myself and have that be accepted and respected.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“I have a lot of patience for people, but [once someone in public used] they/them pronouns and I thanked them and they were like, ‘Yeah, I just figure I’d do it when I don’t know [someone’s] pronouns.’ And I’m like, ‘I love it, thank you.’” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

Transgender and nonbinary participants find affirmation of their gender identity and support in various places. Many cited their friends, chosen families (and, less commonly, their relatives), therapists or other health care providers, religion, or LGBTQ+ spaces as sources of support.

“I’m just not close with my family [of origin], but I have a huge chosen family that I love and that fully respects my identity.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“Before the pandemic I used to go out to bars a lot; there’s a queer bar in my town and it was a really nice place just being friends with everybody who went and everybody who worked there, it felt really nice you know, and just hearing everybody use the right pronouns for me it just felt really good.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“I don’t necessarily go to a lot of dedicated support groups, but I found that there’s kind of a good amount of support in areas or groups or fandoms for things that have a large LGBT population within them. Like certain shows or video games, where it’s just kind of a joke that all the gay people flock to this.”  – Trans woman, late teens

“Being able to practice my religion in a location with a congregation that is just completely chill about it, or so far has been completely chill about it, has been really amazing.” – Nonbinary person, late 30s

Many participants shared specific moments they said were small in the grand scheme of things but made them feel accepted and affirmed. Examples included going on dates, gestures of acceptance by a friend or social group, or simply participating in everyday activities.

“I went on a date with a really good-looking, handsome guy. And he didn’t know that I was trans. But I told him, and we kept talking and hanging out. … That’s not the first time that I felt affirmed or felt like somebody is treating me as I present myself. But … he made me feel wanted and beautiful.” – Trans woman, late 30s

“I play [on a men’s rec league] hockey [team]. … I joined the league like right when I first transitioned and I showed up and I was … nervous with locker rooms and stuff, and they just accepted me as male right away.” – Trans man, late 30s

“I ended up going into a barbershop. … The barber was very welcoming, and talked to me as if I was just a casual customer and there was something that clicked within that moment where, figuring out my gender identity, I just wanted to exist in the world to do these natural things like other boys and men would do. So, there was just something exciting about that. It wasn’t a super macho masculine moment, … he just made me feel like I blended in.” – Trans man, early 30s

Participants also talked about negative experiences, such as being misgendered, either intentionally or unintentionally. For example, some shared instances where they were treated or addressed as a gender other than the gender that they identify as, such as people referring to them as “he” when they go by “she,” or where they were deadnamed, meaning they were called by the name they had before they transitioned. 

“I get misgendered on the phone a lot and that’s really annoying. And then, even after I correct them, they keep doing it, sometimes on purpose and sometimes I think they’re just reading a script or something.” – Trans man, late 30s

“The times that I have been out, presenting femme, there is this very subconscious misgendering that people do and it can be very frustrating. [Once, at a restaurant,] I was dressed in makeup and nails and shoes and everything and still everyone was like, ‘Sir, what would you like?’ … Those little things – those microaggressions – they can really eat away at people.” – Nonbinary person, mid-40s

“People not calling me by the right name. My family is a big problem, they just won’t call me by my name, you know? Except for my nephew, who is of the Millennial generation, so at least he gets it.” – Nonbinary person, 60s

“I’m constantly misgendered when I go out places. I accept this – because of the way I look, people are going to perceive me as a woman and it doesn’t cause me huge dysphoria or anything, it’s just nice that the company that I keep does use the right pronouns.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

Some participants also shared stories of discrimination, bias, humiliation, and even violence. These experiences ranged from employment discrimination to being outed (that is, someone else disclosing the fact that they are transgender or nonbinary without their permission) without their permission to physical attacks.

“I was on a date with this girl and I had to use the bathroom … and the janitor … wouldn’t let me use the men’s room, and he kept refusing to let me use the men’s room, so essentially, I ended up having to use the same bathroom as my date.” – Trans man, late 30s

“I’ve been denied employment due to my gender identity. I walked into a supermarket looking for jobs. … And they flat out didn’t let me apply. They didn’t even let me apply.” – Trans man, mid-30s

“[In high school,] this group of guys said, ‘[name] is gay.’ I ignored them but they literally threw me and tore my shirt from my back and pushed me to the ground and tried to strip me naked. And I had to fight for myself and use my bag to hit him in the face.” – Trans woman, late 20s

“I took a college course [after] I had my name changed legally and the instructor called me out in front of the class and called me a liar and outed me.” – Trans man, late 30s 

Seeking medical care for gender transitions 

Many, but not all, participants said they have received  medical care , such as surgery or hormone therapy, as part of their gender transition. For those who haven’t undergone a medical transition, the reasons ranged from financial barriers to being nervous about medical procedures in general to simply not feeling that it was the right thing for them.

“For me to really to live my truth and live my identity, I had to have the surgery, which is why I went through it. It doesn’t mean [that others] have to, or that it will make you more or less of a woman because you have it. But for me to be comfortable, … that was a big part of it. And so, that’s why I felt I had to get it.” – Trans woman, early 40s

“I’m older and it’s an operation. … I’m just kind of scared, I guess. I’ve never had an operation. I mean, like any kind of operation. I’ve never been to the hospital or anything like that. So, it [is] just kind of scary. But I mean, I want to. I think about all the time. I guess have got to get the courage up to do it.” – Trans woman, early 40s

“I’ve decided that the dysphoria of a second puberty … would just be too much for me and I’m gender fluid enough where I’m happy, I guess.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“I’m too old to change anything, I mean I am what I am. [laughs]” – Nonbinary person, 60s

Many focus group participants who have sought medical treatment for their gender transition faced barriers, although some had positive experiences. For those who said there were barriers, the cost and the struggle to find sympathetic doctors were often cited as challenges. 

“I was flat out turned down by the primary care physician who had to give the go-ahead to give me a referral to an endocrinologist; I was just shut down. That was it, end of story.” – Nonbinary person, 50s

“I have not had surgery, because I can’t access surgery. So unless I get breast cancer and have a double mastectomy, surgery is just not going to happen … because my health insurance wouldn’t cover something like that. … It would be an out-of-pocket plastic surgery expense and I can’t afford that at this time.” – Nonbinary person, 50s

“Why do I need the permission of a therapist to say, ‘This person’s identity is valid,’ before I can get the health care that I need to be me, that is vital for myself and for my way of life?” – Nonbinary person, mid-40s

“[My doctor] is basically the first person that actually embraced me and made me accept [who I am].” – Trans woman, late 20s

Many people who transitioned in previous decades described how access has gotten much easier in recent years. Some described relying on underground networks to learn which doctors would help them obtain medical care or where to obtain hormones illegally. 

“It was hard financially because I started so long ago, just didn’t have access like that. Sometimes you have to try to go to Mexico or learn about someone in Mexico that was a pharmacist, I can remember that. That was a big thing, going through the border to Mexico, that was wild. So, it was just hard financially because they would charge so much for testosterone. And there was the whole bodybuilding community. If you were transitioning, you went to bodybuilders, and they would charge you five times what they got it [for], so it was kind of tough.” – Trans man, early 40s

“It was a lot harder to get a surgeon when I started transitioning; insurance was out of the question, there wasn’t really a national discussion around trans people and their particular medical needs. So, it was challenging having to pay everything out of pocket at a young age.” – Trans man, early 30s

“I guess it was hard for me to access hormones initially just because you had to jump through so many hoops, get letters, and then you had to find a provider that was willing to write it. And now it’s like people are getting it from their primary care doctor, which is great, but a very different experience than I had.” – Trans man, early 40s

Connections with the broader LGBTQ+ community

The discussions also touched on whether the participants feel a connection with a broader lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) community or with other people who are LGBTQ+. Views varied, with some saying they feel an immediate connection with other people who are LGBTQ+, even with those who aren’t trans or nonbinary, and others saying they don’t necessarily feel this way. 

“It’s kind of a recurring joke where you can meet another LGBT person and it is like there is an immediate understanding, and you are basically talking and giving each other emotional support, like you have been friends for 10-plus years.” – Trans woman, late teens 

“I don’t think it’s automatic friendship between queer people, there’s like a kinship, but I don’t think there’s automatic friendship or anything. I think it’s just normal, like, how normal people make friends, just based on common interests.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s 

“I do think of myself as part of the LGBT [community] … I use the resources that are put in place for these communities, whether that’s different health care programs, support groups, they have the community centers. … So, I do consider myself to be part of this community, and I’m able to hopefully take when needed, as well as give back.” – Trans man, mid-30s

“I feel like that’s such an important part of being a part of the [LGBTQ+] alphabet soup community, that process of constantly learning and listening to each other and … growing and developing language together … I love that aspect of creating who we are together, learning and unlearning together, and I feel like that’s a part of at least the queer community spaces that I want to be in. That’s something that’s core to me.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“I identify as queer. I feel like I’m a part of the LGBT community. That’s more of a part of my identity than being trans. … Before I came out as trans, I identified as a lesbian. That was also a big part of my identity. So, that may be too why I feel like I’m more part of the LGB community.” – Trans man, early 40s

While many trans and nonbinary participants said they felt accepted by others in the LGBTQ+ community, some participants described their gender identity as a barrier to full acceptance. There was a sense among some participants that cisgender people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual don’t always accept people who are transgender or nonbinary.  

“I would really like to be included in the [LGBTQ+] community. But I have seen some people try to separate the T from LGB … I’ve run into a few situations throughout my time navigating the [LGBTQ+] community where I’ve been perceived – and I just want to say that there’s nothing wrong with this – I’ve been perceived as like a more feminine or gay man in a social setting, even though I’m heterosexual. … But the minute that that person found out that I wasn’t a gay man … and that I was actually a transgender person, they became cold and just distancing themselves. And I’ve been in a lot of those types of circumstances where there’s that divide between the rest of the community.” – Trans man, early 30s

“There are some lesbians who see trans men as being traitors to womanhood. Those are not people that I really identify with or want to be close to.” – Trans man, early 40s 

“It’s only in the past maybe dozen or so years, that an identity like gender fluid or gender queer was acceptable even within the LGBTQ+ community. … I tried to go to certain LGBTQ+ events as a trans man and, you know, I was not allowed in because I looked too female. The gay men would not allow me to participate.” – Nonbinary person, 50s 

“Technically based on the letters [in the acronym LGBTQ+] I am part of that community, but I’ve felt discrimination, it’s very heavily exclusive to people who are either gay or lesbian and I think that’s true … for queer or bisexual or asexual, intersex … anybody who’s not like exclusively hardcore gay or lesbian. It’s very exclusive, like excluding to those people. … I feel like the BTQ is a separate group of people…. So, I identify with the second half of the letters as a separate subset.” – Trans man, late 30s

Policy and social change

When asked to name the most important policy or political issues facing transgender and nonbinary people in the United States today, many participants named basic needs such as housing, employment, and health care. Others cited recent legislation or policies related to people who are transgender that have made national news.

“Housing is a huge issue. Health care might be good in New York, it might be good in California, but … it’s not a national equality for trans folks. Health care is not equal across the states. Housing is not equal across the states. So, I think that the issues right now that we’re all facing is health care and housing. That’s the top, the most important things.” – Trans woman, early 40s 

“Definitely education. I think that’s very important … Whether you identify as trans or not as a young child, it’s good to understand and know the different things under the umbrella, the queer umbrella. And it is also just a respect thing. And also, the violence that happens against trans and nonbinary people. I feel like educating them very young, that kind of helps – well, it is going to help because once you understand what’s going on and you see somebody that doesn’t identify the same as you, you’ll have that respect, or you’ll have that understanding and you’re less likely to be very violent towards them.” – Nonbinary person, mid-20s 

“Employment is a big one. And I know that some areas, more metropolitan progressive-leaning areas, are really on top of this, but they’re trans people everywhere that are still being discriminated against. I think it’s a personal thing for me that goes back to my military service, but still, it’s just unfortunate. It’s an unfortunate reality.” – Trans man, early 30s

“I think just the strong intersectionality of trans people with mental health issues, or even physical health issues. … So in that way, accessing good health care or having good mental health.” – Trans man, late 30s

“I honestly think that the situation in Texas is the most pressing political and policy situation because it is a direct attack on the trans community. … And it is so insidious because it doesn’t just target bathrooms. This is saying that if you provide medical care to trans youth it is tantamount to child abuse. And it is so enraging because it is a known proven fact that access to gender affirming medical care saves lives. It saves the lives of trans youth. And trans youth have the highest suicide rate in the country.” – Nonbinary person, mid-40s 

Participants had different takes on what gets in the way of progress on issues facing transgender and nonbinary people. Some pointed to the lack of knowledge surrounding the history of these issues or not knowing someone who is transgender or nonbinary. Others mentioned misconceptions people might have about transgender and nonbinary people that influence their political and policy perspectives. 

“People who don’t know trans people, honestly … that’s the only barrier I can understand because people fear what they don’t know and then react to it a lot of the time.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“Sometimes even if they know someone, they still don’t consider them to be a human being, they are an ‘other,’ they are an ‘it,’ they are a ‘not like me,’ ‘not like my family,’ person and so they are put into a place socially where they can be treated badly.” – Nonbinary person, 50s

“Just the ignorance and misinformation and this quick fake social media fodder, where it encourages people who should not be part of the conversation to spread things that are not true.” – Trans man, late 30s

“Also, the political issues that face nonbinary people, it’s that people think nonbinary is some made-up thing to feel cool. It’s not to feel cool. And if someone does do it to feel cool, maybe they’re just doing that because they don’t feel comfortable within themselves.” – Nonbinary person, mid-30s

“There’s so much fear around it, and misunderstanding, and people thinking that if you’re talking to kids about gender and sexuality, that it’s sexual. And it’s like, we really need to break down that our bodies are not inherently sexual. We need to be able to talk with students and children about their bodies so that they can then feel empowered to understand themselves, advocate for themselves.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

When asked what makes them hopeful for the future for trans and nonbinary people, some participants pointed to the way things in society have already changed and progress that has been made. For example, some mentioned greater representation and visibility of transgender and nonbinary people in entertainment and other industries, while others focused on changing societal views as things that give them hope for the future. 

“I am hopeful about the future because I see so many of us coming out and being visible and representing and showing folks that we are not to stereotype.” – Trans woman, early 40s

“Also, even though celebrity is annoying, it’s still cool when people like Willow [Smith] or Billie Eilish or all these popstars that the kids really love are like, ‘I’m nonbinary, I’m queer,’ like a lot more progressive. … Even just more visibility in TV shows and movies, the more and more that happens the more it’s like, ‘Oh yeah, we are really here, you can’t not see us.’” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“We shouldn’t have to look to the entertainment industry for role models, we shouldn’t have to, we should be able to look to our leaders, our political leaders, but I think, that’s what gives me hope. Soon, it’s going to become a nonissue, maybe in my lifetime.” – Trans man, 60s

“I have gotten a little bit into stand-up comedy in the last few weeks, and it is like the jokes that people made ten years ago are resurfacing online and people are enraged about it. They are saying like, ‘Oh, this is totally inappropriate.’ But that comes with the recognition that things have changed, and language has changed, and people are becoming more intolerant of allowing these things to occur. So that is why I am hopeful, is being able to see that progression and hopeful continued improvement on that front.” – Nonbinary person, late 20s

“I think because of the shift of what’s happening, how everything has become so normal, and people are being more open, and within the umbrella of queerness so many different things are happening, I think as we get more comfortable and we progress as a society, it’s just going to be better. So, people don’t have to hide who they are. So, that gives me hope.” – Nonbinary person, mid-20s

For many, young people are a source of hope. Several participants talked about younger generations being more accepting of those who are transgender or nonbinary and also being more accepted by their families if they themselves are trans or nonbinary. 

“And then the other portion that gives me hope are the kids, because I work now with so many kids who are coming out as trans earlier and their families are embracing them and everything. … So I really am trusting in the young generation.” – Nonbinary person, 60s

“I mean kids don’t judge you the same way as adults do about gender, and they’re so expansive and have so much creativity. … So it’s just the kids, Gen Z, and it just makes me feel really, really hopeful.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“The youth, the youth. They understand almost intrinsically so much more about these things than I feel like my generation did. They give me so much hope for the future.” – Nonbinary person, early 30s

“I think future generations, just seeing this growing amount of support that they have, that it’s just going to keep improving … there’s an increase in visibility but there’s also an increase in support … like resources for parents where they can see that they don’t have to punish their kids. Their kids can grow up feeling like, ‘This is okay to be this way.’ And I feel like that’s not something that can be stopped.” – Trans man, late 30s

Additional materials

• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Lead photo: (Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Thriving as a Trans Woman Took Me Years. Here's What I Learned Along the Way

We must highlight trans wins as often as we do the woes, activist and media personality Ashlee Marie Preston writes.

It took me several years to unpack the fundamental principles of thriving while trans. When I transitioned back in 2004, there were virtually no movies, TV shows, books, or think pieces modeling the possibilities. Quite frankly, there still aren’t. The majority of the trans-centric content we consume is centered on our suffering, and our capacity to escape death is lauded the acme of accomplishment. Lean in so you can catch every single syllable of this: Survival is not the ceiling. Some of us have been out here surviving for so long that at this point, it’s muscle memory. The idea of static survival isn’t liberating—it’s limiting. Thriving, however, is at the very core of trans identity, despite any and all resistance to our desire to lead dignified lives.

Even at this very moment, the onslaught of anti-trans legislation sweeping through the nation is rooted in retaliation over recent victories. The trans community and our supporters brought the ceiling crashing down in the Supreme Court when we won federal protections in the workplace. We’ve obliterated multiple bathroom bills, reversed the trans military ban, witnessed the first trans woman secure a seat in a state Senate, blocked bills to limit access to health care, and additional triumphs are still trickling down the pipeline.

.css-lt453j{font-family:NewParisTextBook,NewParisTextBook-roboto,NewParisTextBook-local,Georgia,Times,Serif;font-size:1.75rem;line-height:1.2;margin:0rem;padding-left:5rem;padding-right:5rem;}@media(max-width: 48rem){.css-lt453j{padding-left:2.5rem;padding-right:2.5rem;}}@media(min-width: 64rem){.css-lt453j{font-size:2.5rem;line-height:1.2;}}.css-lt453j b,.css-lt453j strong{font-family:inherit;font-weight:bold;}.css-lt453j em,.css-lt453j i{font-style:italic;font-family:NewParisTextItalic,NewParisTextItalic-roboto,NewParisTextItalic-local,Georgia,Times,Serif;} As we continue pushing back against violent attempts to impede our progress, it’s important for us to highlight our wins as often as we underscore our woes.

As we continue pushing back against violent attempts to impede our progress, it’s important for us to highlight our wins as often as we underscore our woes. If we center only the tragedy, trauma, and terror of the trans experience, we lose our connection to hope, the general public becomes desensitized to our plight, and the violence we endure becomes increasingly normalized. It’s also quite the contradiction to tell queer and trans youth to embrace their identities and aspire greatness, and that their lives get better, while inundating them with messaging solely suggesting they only get worse.

As someone whose identity overlaps with multiple marginalized groups, my ancestry runs deep, and so does the legacy of thriving against all odds. Throughout the years, I’ve repeatedly heard the saying, “My ancestors walked so that I could run.” Along my own journey toward liberation, I found myself tracing their footsteps; emulating their framework for healing and radical transformation. When it comes to thriving, I feel the decade that best understood the assignment was the 1970s. While the 1960s ushered in progressive new ideas via the civil rights movement, the ’70s birthed awakening, change, and revolution spanning several communities. People of color, women, and queer and trans folx radically latched on to joy and unapologetic flamboyance as an act of resistance. Oppression was always intended to shatter the soul from the inside out. Therefore, they chose jubilance as a tool for loosening the antiquated grip of social stagnation. Life had become a disco, and everyone was invited. Well, almost everyone. While the ’70s were a decade of empowerment for multiple movements, each still lacked cohesion.

Unfortunately, law professor and civil rights activist Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework on intersectionality, which masterfully draws the connection between critical race and feminist theory, wouldn’t enter the chat until 1989. Though there were several movements thriving simultaneously in the ’70s, few of them understood the importance and impact of a cross-cultural coalition and its role in defending human rights on all fronts. Religious indoctrination and generational trauma within the Black community posed indifference toward queer liberation. And while Black women were the foot soldiers of the civil rights era, Black patriarchy treated them as footstools. The queer liberation movement couldn’t push past its racism, sexism, and transphobia, and the only women who second-wave feminism empowered were white and cisgender.

When we thrive, so does each community our identity and experiences intersect with.

Meanwhile, trans activists Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera in all of their bad-assed glory were still in the trenches fighting for them all. Despite each layer of their identities being at war with one another (placing them in the crossfire), the two women continued throwing down the gauntlet for racial justice, queer liberation, women’s empowerment, and immigrant rights. The duo were also fierce prison abolitionists and anti-rape activists, they helped combat police brutality, and they took care of homeless LGBTQ youth disowned by their families. The protagonist of your favorite action flick could NEVER. This is why we say, when Black trans women are liberated, ALL of us will be. When we thrive, so does each community our identity and experiences intersect with.

2021 signifies a golden era of absolute equality in which the fruits of liberation are blooming beyond the vines of victory. We find ourselves experiencing a paradigm shift similar to that of the 1970s, only this time Black trans women aren’t an afterthought—we’re the driving force. The glow of a burgeoning future is on the horizon, and if Black trans women are capable of flourishing, anyone can.

Below are five tenets of thriving that have shaped my personal evolution and helped me reach the apex of contentment.

SHED THE STIGMA IN SEARCH OF SELF

Before placing foot to pavement on our path to self-discovery, we must unsubscribe from bastardizing narratives meant to delegitimize and diminish our humanity and worth. At times, we may convince ourselves that a given narrative is true because of a chapter in our lives we aren’t necessarily proud of. You can’t draw conclusions on an entire book after reading the first sentence of the first chapter. So why should you define your core being by choices you’ve made under complex circumstances? The key concept to remember here is that you are not your worst mistake. Stop allowing others to place a period where the universe has inserted a comma. As a formerly homeless, meth-addicted, survival sex worker, I would have never fathomed that someday my struggles would become symbols of beauty, resilience, and transformation. The lessons we learn today become the lanyard of our legacy. Don’t allow others to stunt your growth with their unauthorized autobiographies and ill-informed takes on your truth. Embrace your role as director of your own destiny and build out the narrative you so desire. Don’t be afraid to unleash your main character energy and take up space in a society that makes you feel abnormal. Your existence isn’t an anomaly, but an ember of ethereality. Stand in your full glory and burn bright.

REVEAL IT AND HEAL IT

We aren’t responsible for the harm we’ve endured at the hands of others, but taking back our power means taking charge of our own healing. For years, I was terrified by the idea of unpacking my trauma. I didn’t have a safe place to lay my head at night, let alone a safe space to process pain without running the risk of re-traumatization. I’d convinced myself that disassociation and stoicism were proof of indomitability. If there were no emotions to process, there was no reason to go peeking into Pandora’s box. Untreated PTSD is a cognitive cataract that clouds our capacity to navigate survival—making us exponentially vulnerable to more harm. There is strength in vulnerability. Yet for most trans women, we conflate vulnerability with weakness, associate weakness with indefensibility, and connect indefensibility with death. There are, in fact, two types of death: bodily and spiritual. When it comes to preserving the soul, the only way we experience the fullness of life is when mental health becomes the nucleus of our well-being.

VOICE YOUR INTENTION

Equally important to redefining success for ourselves is an understanding of what drives us to go after it. In my early transition, success for a trans person was being hired at an LGBTQ+ nonprofit organization. I was ecstatic when I began working for an org serving unhoused queer youth, especially as someone who’d been formerly homeless. It was wonderful going to work as my authentic self, especially after being fired when I transitioned at my previous job. Though I loved working with the youth, my labor was exploited, there wasn’t much room for growth, I was constantly silenced, and I found myself merely one paycheck away from being in the same predicament as the demographic I served. What the community at large deemed success fell far from my definition of what it meant to thrive. The employment opportunities that followed my departure from the nonprofit industry were nothing short of amazing. I landed a job at a prominent public relations firm, did the red-carpet journalist thing, began contributing to several top-tier publications, and even became the first trans editor in chief of a national publication. Unfortunately, none of those big breaks were fulfilling, because I was measuring success by Los Angeles workforce standards—not my own.

Finally, I sat down and gave thought to what I truly wanted. That’s when it hit me: I wasn’t placing intention on what I wanted out of life, only what I wanted in a career. Somewhere along the way, I’d been conditioned to believe thriving was about my socioeconomic post in life and not my purpose. More than anything, I wanted to emancipate myself from capitalism. I never consented to the burden of consumption, nor did I agree to my productivity becoming a metric through which my worth should be measured. It feels silly to seek salvation from the system directly responsible for the suffering of my ancestors—and even my present being. Don’t get me wrong, I’m great at playing the game—I’m even the Monopoly champ of my family. That still doesn’t mean capitalistic ambition will ever quench my insatiable need for authentic relationships and alignment with my life’s purpose. Outside of economic and emotional security, my ultimate intention is to give and receive love. Even at 37 years old, deep down inside I’m still that cherubic-faced kid who wants to eat birthday cake with my friends and share my new toys—which leads into the next tenet.

GIVE A LITTLE, GAIN A LOT

Giving improves your quality of living. My relationship to prosperity evolved the moment I unsubscribed from scarcity-driven logic and offered myself up to the universe as a conduit from which blessings could flow into the lives of others. I’ve worked very hard and made many sacrifices, and I am finally bearing the fruits of my labor. This by far has been one of the most exciting chapters of my journey, because it has afforded me the opportunity to pay it forward by helping elevate my trans siblings. Trans women (especially those who’ve ever engaged in survival sex work) often fall prey to the politics of survival. Back in the “boulevard” days my survival was contingent upon whether a john wanted to sleep with me or the trans woman standing next to me. Even away from the shadows of the street corners and dark alleyways, the pervasive nature of tokenism in media creates the same tension. The idea that there can be only one of us in a space or even that we need to be famous before our lives matter sows seeds of division among us. At the end of the day, all we have is one another, and we must protect each other.

My dream is to build spaces throughout the United States where my trans siblings can exist without the threat of violence; where radical rest replaces resistance. If we trans women spend so much time fighting for our lives that we forget to live them, then we’ve essentially already lost them. We deserve bountiful lives, and the chance to experience unfettered freedom and upward mobility at peak vibration. Cis allyship is cool or whatever, but have you ever invested in another trans woman? It doesn’t necessarily have to be monetary; it could be sisterhood, solidarity, your shoulder—you name it. In 2021, trans women are coming for everything they said we couldn’t have. If we aren’t pouring back into one another, we aren’t serious about our collective liberation—I said what I said. Shift your mindset from scarcity to surplus and watch the universe show up and show out.

FREE YOURSELF FROM THE BURDEN OF CONSUMPTION

Consumption can be defined under various contexts. It could be used to describe pressure to participate in a capitalistic society, control over the content we consume across multiple media platforms, or the ways in which people consume trans lives. Because I’ve already mentioned consumption under capitalism under tenet number three, I’ll skip ahead to the other meanings. I remember when I was first being recognized in the media as a trans activist. I carried pride to be recognized as such, as well as an overwhelming weight of responsibility. In my mind, being a trans activist meant I needed to be the mouthpiece for every trans experience, fight every injustice that came down the pipeline, post about every single murder, and share every viral video of us being brutalized in public spaces. At one point, there were so many murders of Black trans women that my Instagram page looked like an obituary. Though it’s definitely important to speak to these realities, the burden was so heavy it chipped away at my mental health. I’d attached my full identity to trans advocacy and thought that if I didn’t continue churning out posts underscoring the impetus of our demise, I’d be deemed a failure to the cause. The only people in the trans community who ever made me feel that way were some of our non-Black trans siblings who still don’t understand how problematic it is to call on Black trans women to be attack dogs when it’s convenient for them—while remaining silent when we’re murdered.

Believe it or not, majority of the pressure came from cisgender people requesting trans folx to regurgitate our trauma for entertainment purposes—under the “guise of education.” Many of the people we believe to be allies are no more than spectators and blood sport enthusiasts—unknowns to even themselves. Want to know how you can discern who they are? Go to any of your social media accounts and compare their likes on your trauma porn posts to the posts of you immersed in joy. I’ll wait. Sure, people will miss a post here and there, and we all know how violent the algorithm can be. These particular individuals, however, who often follow us for educational purposes, consistently engage our suffering—never our serenity. Everyone who shows up to consume your fear isn’t necessarily committed to your freedom. I stopped publicly processing grief the moment I realized the consumption of trans pain is a macronutrient that strengthens the ligaments of cis supremacy. Even if you’ve found yourself in this toxic cycle, it’s okay to change course. You have the right to release yourself from old agreements that feel low frequency. Become better at budgeting your bandwidth and let go of interactions that don’t serve your higher state of being.

While these tenets are just a few that have aided me in my own personal development, I encourage you to reimagine what thriving could look and feel like for you. “Stayin’ Alive” may have been a top hit in 1978, but as a strategy for thriving in a modern world, it’s only the baseline. Radical gratitude, cross-cultural solidarity, and a strong sense of identity are the grounding elements that will keep us safe, sound, and centered.

Ashlee Marie Preston is an award-winning Media Personality, Cultural Commentator, Social Impact Strategist, Political Analyst, and Civil Rights Activist. She is also the founder of “You Are Essential,” an initiative that funds grassroots organizations serving vulnerable communities.

Mind & Body

Add These Beloved Clean Perfumes to Your Rotation

10 Best Weighted Sleep Masks

These 8 Spa-Level Showerheads Feel Like Luxury

Beautycounter Now Has a Suite of Clean Fragrances

12 Teeth Whitening Kits Experts Swear By

We Consider These Scents the Best Colognes, Ever

Want a Brighter Smile? Try These 11 Toothpastes

The Best Sol de Janeiro Scents Our Editors Love

The 16 Best Deodorant Brands

Why Your Wellness Routine Needs a Sauna Blanket

The 10 Best Cherry Perfumes We're Savoring

BREAKING: Israeli military fires 2 officers, saying probe found serious errors that led to deadly strikes on World Central Kitchen workers

'Laughed out of interviews': Trans workers discuss job discrimination

Aveda Adara, a 41-year-old transgender woman, said the mistreatment she faced due to her gender identity led her to quit her job at a major health care company just outside Houston, Texas.

“I was constantly misgendered by managers, supervisors and employees,” Adara told NBC News. “My own manager would routinely discriminate against me, and nit pick and micromanage me.”

After she left that full-time role, Adara said she became depressed, found herself with no health insurance and was forced to cash out her 401(k) retirement account to have enough money to get by. Eventually, she found two part-time jobs to make ends meet, but these positions do not provide any benefits.

Employment discrimination, however, is nothing new to Adara. “I’ve been laughed out of interviews for so many years,” she said.

“I live in Texas, and there are no laws in Texas that protect people like me,” she added. “I can be fired for being who I am.”

While 20 states and the District of Columbia have laws explicitly banning workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, federal civil rights law is less clear. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits employment discrimination based on … sex,” but whether “sex” discrimination in this context is inclusive of anti-LGBTQ discrimination is at the center of three cases before the Supreme Court.

The high court will hear oral arguments in these cases on Tuesday, and its decision — expected in the spring or summer of 2020 — could have a dramatic impact on LGBTQ workers’ rights. One case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, marks the first time a transgender civil rights case has come before the Supreme Court.

Trans workers across the country, including Aveda Adara, will be watching the case closely. Adara said she plans to leave her home state, which is not among the 20 states that explicitly ban LGBTQ workplace discrimination, if the Supreme Court rules against the transgender employee at the center of the case.

“I think I would feel safer in a state that would protect me,” she explained.

Aimee Stephens’ story

Currently before the Supreme Court are three cases regarding LGBTQ workplace discrimination — two, which have been combined, involve alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation, and one involves gender identity. Aimee Stephens is at the center of the latter.

Stephens was fired from a Detroit funeral home in 2013, shortly after she informed her employer, for whom she had worked for six years, that she was beginning her gender transition and intended to live and work as a woman. According to court documents, her boss told her “this is not going to work out” and terminated her employment. The decision to sue and forego a severance package, which would have required her to keep quiet about the circumstances surrounding her termination, was not an easy one.

“That’s not something that I thought I could do and live with,” Stephens said. “I couldn’t stay silent; I had to say something.”

After a trial judge ruled against her, Stephens won a landmark victory for transgender rights in March 2018 when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination covers transgender workers.

“Discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII,” Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote in the 6th Circuit’s decision. “The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex."

The funeral home appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, and the high court announced earlier this year that it would take up Stephens’ case, along with two others involving sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

‘Every interview was awkward’

The workplace experience of Stephens is “very familiar to many transgender people,” according to Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the National Center for Transgender Equality.

According to the center’s 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey , one in six trans people said they lost a job because of their gender identity or expression, and nearly a third (30 percent) of those who had held a job in the year prior to the survey reported being fired, denied a promotion or subjected to harassment or attack due to their gender identity or expression. Over three quarters of respondents said they had taken steps to avoid such mistreatment at work, like delaying their gender transition or simply quitting their job.

Workplace discrimination has a ripple effect, Branstetter stressed, noting that it “contributes to a crisis of homelessness, poverty and violence faced by too many in our community.” Almost one third of respondents to the 2015 survey reported living in poverty, compared to 14 percent of the general U.S. population. This differential is due, in part, to higher rates of unemployment: At the time of the survey, the unemployment rate was 15 percent among trans Americans, compared to a national average of 5 percent.

NBC OUT Stakes high as Supreme Court takes on LGBTQ employment cases

Many trans workers remain in discriminatory workplaces in order to put food on the table. “Jane” from Jefferson City, Missouri, is one of them. She asked to use a pseudonym because she still works at a company that she says discriminates against her.

Jane said when she came out to her human resources manager, the manager requested that Jane use the one single-stall restroom in the office building.

“The biggest problem is when it is being cleaned, is in use by someone else or is being worked on by maintenance, I won't have a place to go,” Jane said, noting there are 28 other restrooms in the building that she’s not permitted to use.

“I don't want to risk my job, so I agreed to it,” she said. “I have kids, and money is necessary to feed them.”

Charlie Arrowood from Roslyn Heights, New York, said they struggled to find a job after passing the bar exam, because potential employers were uncomfortable with Arrowood’s nonbinary gender identity.

“Every interview was awkward, because I'd show up in a suit and nobody would know what bathroom code to give me or how to address me,” Arrowood explained.

Arrowood said their worst experience happened during an interview for a staff attorney position at a large insurance company.

“I walked in and the person set to interview me, in front of several other people who would be present for the interview, looked at me in my suit, looked at my resume with my birth name, and asked, ‘Are you sure?’” Arrowood recalled. “I then had to sit in an interview with all of those people for several hours."

News LGBTQ Syrian refugees forced to choose between their families and who they are

Lily, 21, works at a food service company in San Antonio, Texas. She asked that her last name not be used, because she’s not out to her entire family.

“Every day I went into work, I was incredibly anxious that I would be working with the manager who had been deadnaming me,” Lily said, referring to the practice of calling a trans person by their given name, not their chosen one. “I called out sick several times because of that.”

“The main shift lead repeatedly asked me what my ‘real name’ was after introducing myself with my chosen name and made it a point to use incorrect pronouns as often as they could,” she added.

Like many other transgender people across the U.S. with whom NBC News spoke, Lily said she is watching the Aimee Stephens case closely. She admitted she's “incredibly nervous” about the outcome and said if the justices rule that trans people are not protected under Title VII, she “will have to continue living my life under fear of repercussions for being myself.”

‘You have to rock the boat a little’

All eyes will be on the nine Supreme Court justices on Tuesday during oral arguments amid speculation about how the high court’s new composition will affect the outcomes of these cases.

“The Supreme Court has immense legal power but also immense cultural power,” Branstetter said, “They have a massive ability to set the tone in our country.”

“Four years ago, they ruled in Obergefell, and that was seen as a landmark case in the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people,” she said. “How the court rules here will reverberate in households and workplaces across the country, not only in the legal sense but in the sense of affirming and believing transgender people for exactly who they are.”

Attorneys on both sides of the Stephens case stressed the enormous impact the Supreme Court’s decision could have for years to come.

John Bursch, a senior attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal organization representing Harris Funeral Homes, argues that to understand sex discrimination to cover transgender individuals defies the meaning of the law the way it is written.

“This case is not about taking rights away from the LGBT community, or anybody else,” Bursch told NBC News. “What this case is about is whether the courts have the right to rewrite the law as it has been understood for more than half a century, and if courts do have that power then everybody should be worried about their rights no matter who they are.”

Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice for the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project, is one of the lawyers representing Stephens. He disagrees with Bursch.

“The law has prohibited sex discrimination for a long time, and that has covered LGBTQ people for a long time, and particularly trans people,” Strangio told NBC News. “So an outcome here where we lose is a major loss of our rights, and a win is a clarification of what has been largely true in the lower courts.”

The Trump administration made its position clear on the scope of Title VII. In August, the Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief in Stephens’ case siding with the funeral home. In doing so, the federal government is pitted against itself, since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a defendant in the case.

NBC OUT Trans workers not protected by civil rights law, Trump admin tells high court

As the case has gone on, Stephens has become a central figure for transgender rights.

“I think she’s really important for our community right now,” Adara said. “She probably feels a big weight on her shoulders, but it’s about time the country addressed this issue.”

Stephens said she feels the weight of the case, but she’s ready to continue the battle she’s been fighting for six years now.

“My whole life I’ve always tried to hold onto the status quo, to not rock the boat,” she said. “But I found out that there comes a time when, if we are going to be true to ourselves, to each other and to society … you have to rock the boat a little, and I think that’s what we are doing with this.”

Hopefully it doesn’t turn over and we all drown,” she added, “but I can swim, and I’ll be glad to help anybody else that can’t.”

Follow NBC Out on Twitter , Facebook & Instagram

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Transgender Day of Visibility 2024 – The Union Effect

Transgender Day of Visibility 2024 shines a light on the resilience, achievements and presence of transgender persons worldwide. This year, we want to celebrate the pivotal role unions play in advocating for and protecting the rights and wellbeing of transgender workers across the country.

Nearly half of transgender workers have experienced discrimination at work, which is significantly higher than their non-LGBTQI+ coworkers. Despite these challenges, unions have proven to be effective in combating workplace  discrimination and making real strides towards workplace equality. Unions, through collective bargaining agreements, negotiate legally binding contracts with employers that can, among other things, contain anti-discrimination provisions and advocate for comprehensive healthcare, including gender-affirming care. This support under a CBA is not only about ensuring equal pay and protection against discrimination, but it creates an inclusive culture where every worker is valued for who they are, beyond their gender identity.

An example of organizations leading in this area is Pride at Work , a nonprofit organization and constituency group of the AFL-CIO that represents the voices of LGBTQI+ union members and their allies. With a commitment to equity, Pride at Work has been instrumental in pushing for more inclusive policies and practices within unions that ensure LGBTQI+ workers are heard and respected.

To gain a deeper understanding of how unions affect transgender individuals in the workplace, I sat down with Jerame Davis, executive director of Pride at Work, and Olivia “Liv” Yelton, a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 191 and founder and co-president of the Advocacy Coalition for Transgender Siblings.

Can you share how your organizations are actively supporting transgender workers and promoting inclusivity in the workplace?

The IBEW's International Office is encouraging diversity and inclusion, and they want to support union members. This is why the union is an active participant in Pride at Work. Pride at Work advocates for LGBTQI+ union members throughout the labor movement. Many transgender workers don't find the same level of support in their individual local union, and many are forced to relocate or to leave the union altogether. Liv started ACTS within the IBEW, to create a safe space for trans and non-binary members to gather, communicate, organize and advocate for one another.

What challenges do transgender workers face in the workplace, and how can unions help address these issues?

Safety is the biggest issue. Being able to know that you can trust your coworkers to look out for you and to ensure that you’re safe from anyone who is on a jobsite or at a meeting. Transgender people are frequently the targets of discrimination, harassment and assault. We need higher standards for how our members treat one another, and better education given to all members, not just apprentices, on LGBTQI+ people and their struggles and needs.

How do your organizations educate its members about transgender issues and rights?

Many unions don’t educate their members on these issues outside of general harassment and discrimination training. That’s why organizations like Pride at Work and ACTS are so important and integral to the labor movement. We help do this education, but we also push unions to do more for their trans and non-binary siblings.

Could you share a success story resulting from union support for transgender workers?

By organizing our transgender siblings in IBEW Local 332 in San Jose, California, we were able to help them contact their health trust and quickly get approved gender-affirming care in their local union’s health plan coverage. Those members can now receive the healthcare they need and deserve. For myself [Liv], being strongly supported by my local union has enabled me to attend several conferences and conventions where I often share my personal story. It has also allowed me to join Pride at Work's National Executive Board and to actively participate in my local union. They are happy to have a young and enthusiastic member, and I say yes to nearly every opportunity that is offered to me.

Join us in commemorating TDOV 2024 by better understanding how unions can provide pathways to safer and more inclusive jobs .

Andrew Hasty is a policy and law advisor with the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards.

• Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS)
• Transgender Day of Visibility

SHARE THIS:   

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths

Contributed equally to this work with: Catherine Verniers, Jorge Vala

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France, Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

• Catherine Verniers, 

• Published: January 9, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657
• Reader Comments

18 Jul 2018: Verniers C, Vala J (2018) Correction: Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PLOS ONE 13(7): e0201150. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201150 View correction

The issue of gender equality in employment has given rise to numerous policies in advanced industrial countries, all aimed at tackling gender discrimination regarding recruitment, salary and promotion. Yet gender inequalities in the workplace persist. The purpose of this research is to document the psychosocial process involved in the persistence of gender discrimination against working women. Drawing on the literature on the justification of discrimination, we hypothesized that the myths according to which women’s work threatens children and family life mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to a mother’s career. We tested this hypothesis using the Family and Changing Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme. The dataset contained data collected in 1994 and 2012 from 51632 respondents from 18 countries. Structural equation modellings confirmed the hypothesised mediation. Overall, the findings shed light on how motherhood myths justify the gender structure in countries promoting gender equality.

Citation: Verniers C, Vala J (2018) Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0190657. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657

Editor: Luís A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES

Received: October 6, 2017; Accepted: December 18, 2017; Published: January 9, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Verniers, Vala. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are available from the GESIS Data Archive (doi: 10.4232/1.2620 and doi: 10.4232/1.12661 ).

Funding: This work was conducted at the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon, Portugal, and supported by a travel grant of the European Association for Social Psychology, http://www.easp.eu/ , and a travel grant of the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche en Psychologie Sociale, http://www.adrips.org/wp/ , attributed to the first author. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The latest release from the World Economic Forum—the Gender Gap Report 2016 [ 1 ]–indicates that in the past 10 years, the global gender gap across education and economic opportunity and politics has closed by 4%, while the economic gap has closed by 3%. Extrapolating this trajectory, the report underlines that it will take the world another 118 years—or until 2133 –to close the economic gap entirely. Gender inequalities are especially blatant in the workplace. For instance, on average women are more likely to work part-time, be employed in low-paid jobs and not take on management positions [ 2 , 3 ].

There is evidence that gender inequalities in the workplace stem, at least in part, from the discrimination directed against women. Indeed, several studies have documented personal discrimination against women by decision makers (for meta-analyses see [ 4 , 5 ], some of them having more specifically examined the role of the decision makers’ level of sexist attitudes on discriminatory practices. For instance, Masser and Abrams [ 6 ] found in an experimental study that the higher the participants scored in hostile sexism, the more they were likely to recommend a male candidate rather than a female one for a managerial position. In spite of consistent evidence that higher sexism is related to greater bias toward working women [ 7 ], little is known regarding the underlying processes linking sexism to discrimination. This question remains an important one, especially because the persistence of gender discrimination contradicts the anti-discrimination rules promoted in modern societies. In fact, the issue of gender equality in employment has given rise to numerous policies and institutional measures in advanced industrial countries, all aimed at tackling gender discrimination with respect to recruitment, promotion and job assignment. In the USA, for instance, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act provided the legal foundation for the implementation of anti-discrimination laws within the workplace. The Treaty on the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, all contain provisions relating to the promotion of equality between women and men in all areas, and the prohibition of discrimination on any ground, including sex. The member states of the European Union must comply with these provisions [ 8 ]. In this respect, some countries have incorporated legislation on equal treatment of women and men into general anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Great Britain), while other countries have opted for a specific gender equality act (e.g., Spain). Comparable policies have been implemented in the Asian-Pacific area, with countries including gender equality into broad anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Australia), and other countries having passed laws especially dedicated to addressing discrimination against women (e.g., Japan, the Philippines). The purpose of this research is to further explore the psychosocial process involved in the stubborn persistence of gender discrimination in the workplace, using a comparative and cross-sectional perspective of national representative samples.

Psychosocial processes involved in justified discrimination

According to several lines of research [ 9 – 13 ], the expression of prejudice in contexts where social and political anti-discrimination values are prevalent implies justifications. Crandall and Eshleman [ 10 ] defined justifications as “any psychological or social process that can serve as an opportunity to express genuine prejudice without suffering external or internal sanction”. According to social dominance theory, justification of practices that sustain social inequality arises through the endorsement of legitimizing myths [ 13 ]. Moreover, research conducted in the field of system justification theory has extensively documented an increased adherence to legitimizing ideologies (including social stereotypes, meritocracy, political conservatism, etc.) in contexts where motivation to justify unequal social arrangements is heightened [ 14 – 17 ]. Relying on this literature Pereira, Vala and Costa-Lopes [ 18 ] provided evidence of the mediational role of myths about social groups on the prejudice-support for discriminatory measures relationship. Specifically, they demonstrated that the myths according to which immigrants take jobs away from the host society members and increase crime rates mediated the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration (see also [ 19 ]). We assume that an equivalent mediational process underlies the justification of gender discrimination in the workplace or, put differently, that the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship is mediated by legitimizing myths. Glick and Fiske [ 20 ] conceptualised sexism as a multidimensional construct that encompasses hostile and benevolent sexism, both of which having three components: paternalism, gender differentiation and heterosexuality. We suspect that the gender differentiation component of sexism in particular may be related to gender discrimination in the workplace, because the maintenance of power asymmetry through traditional gender roles is at the core of this component [ 20 ]. Accordingly, it is assumed that the higher the endorsement of sexist attitudes regarding gender roles in the family, the higher the opposition to women’s work. In support of this assumption, Glick and Fiske [ 21 ] stated that gender roles are part of the more general interdependence between women and men occurring in the context of family relationships and, importantly, that these traditional, complementary gender roles shape sex discrimination. However, given that the expression of hostility towards women became socially disapproved [ 22 , 23 ] and that gender discrimination in the workplace is subjected to sanctions (see for instance [ 24 ]), the release of sexism with regard to women’s role in the family and women’s professional opportunities may require justification [ 10 , 19 ].

Motherhood myths as a justification for gender discrimination

Compared with other intergroup relations, gender relations present some unique features (e.g., heterosexual interdependence; [ 25 , 26 ] and accordingly comprise specific myths and ideologies aimed at maintaining the traditional system of gender relations [ 27 – 29 ]. For instance, the belief that marriage is the most meaningful and fulfilling adult relationship appears as a justifying myth, on which men and women rely when the traditional system of gender relations is challenged by enhanced gender equality measured at the national level [ 30 ]. Drawing on this literature, we propose that beliefs that imbue women with specific abilities for domestic and parental work ensure that the traditional distribution of gender roles is maintained. In particular, we suggest that motherhood myths serve a justification function regarding gender discrimination against women in the workplace. Motherhood myths include the assumptions that women, by their very nature, are endowed with parenting abilities, that at-home mothers are bonded to their children, providing them unrivalled nurturing surroundings [ 31 , 32 ]. Conversely, motherhood myths pathologised alternative mothering models, depicting employed mothers as neglecting their duty of caring, threatening the family relationships and jeopardizing mother-children bondings (see [ 33 ] for a critical review of these myths). Motherhood myths have the potential to create psychological barriers impairing women’s attempt to seek power in the workplace [ 34 ] and men’s involvement in child care [ 35 – 37 ]. We suggest that beyond their pernicious influence at the individual level of parental choices, motherhood myths might operate more broadly as justifications for gender discrimination regarding career opportunity. This question is of particular relevance given that equal treatment in the workplace appears even more elusive for women with children—the maternal wall [ 38 ] (see also [ 39 – 45 ]). At the same time, recognizing the pervasive justifying function of motherhood myths may help understand the psychosocial barriers faced not only by women who are mothers, but by women as a whole since "women are expected to become mothers sooner or later" (Dambrin & Lambert [ 46 ], p. 494; see also [ 47 ]). Relying on previous work documenting the mediational role of legitimizing myths on the prejudice—discrimination relationship [ 18 , 19 ] we suggest that the myths according to which women pursuing a career threaten the well-being of the family mediates the relationship between sexist attitudes regarding gender roles and opposition to women’s work.

Exploring gender and time as possible moderators of the hypothesized mediation

Besides the test of the main mediational hypothesis, the present research sought to explore time and gender as possible moderators of the assumed relationship between sexism, motherhood myths and discrimination. A review of the historical development of gender equality policies confirms that the implementation of laws and regulations aimed at eliminating gender discrimination in the workplace is a lengthy process (e.g., for the European countries see [ 48 ]; for the USA see [ 49 ]). In fact, although the basic principle of anti-discrimination has been enacted by many countries in the second half of the 20 th century, some measures are still adopted nowadays, such as the obligation for employers to publish information by 2018 about their bonuses for men and women as part of their gender pay gap reporting, a provision recently taken by the UK government. As egalitarian principles have gradually progressed in societies, it is likely that the expression of intergroup bias has become steadily subjected to social sanction. Thus, “as with racism, normative and legislative changes have occurred in many industrialized societies that make it less acceptable to express sexist ideas openly” (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, [ 50 ], p. 843; see also [ 51 ]). Accordingly, gender discrimination within organizations became less intense and more ambiguous [ 52 – 54 ]. In line with this reasoning, the use of motherhood myths as a justification for unequal career opportunities may have increased over time. Conversely, it has been suggested that along with the increasing female participation in the labour market over the last decades, a positive attitude regarding the government-initiated women-friendly policies now coexists with an adherence to traditional family values and norms [ 55 ]. There is a possibility that the coexistence of contradictory norms in the same culture may leave some room for the expression of gender bias (i.e., a normative compromise, [ 56 ]), reducing slightly the need to rely on justifications to discriminate against working women. The present research will examine these possibilities by studying the role of motherhood myths on the sexism—discrimination relationship in 1994 and 2012.

Another possible moderator examined in the present study is the respondents' gender. Basically, the reason why people rely on justifications is to express their genuine prejudices without appearing biased. Consistent evidence, however, suggests that the perpetrator’s gender affects people’s perception of sexism towards women: given that sexism is generally conceived as involving a man discriminating against a woman, men are perceived as prototypical of the perpetrator [ 57 , 58 ]. As a consequence, sexist behaviours carried out by males are perceived as more sexist than the same behaviours enacted by females [ 59 , 60 ]. Moreover, the expression of sexism by women may go undetected due to the reluctance of women to recognize that they might be harmed by a member of their own gender group [ 22 ]. Taken together, these findings suggest that a woman is more likely than a man to express sexist bias without being at risk of appearing sexist. In line with this reasoning, one could assume that men need to rely on justifications to discriminate to a greater extent than women do. Alternatively, women expressing sexism against their ingroup members are at risk of being negatively evaluated for violating the prescription of feminine niceness [ 61 , 62 ]. As a consequence, women might be inclined to use justifications to discriminate in order to maintain positive interpersonal evaluations. An additional argument for assuming that women may rely on motherhood myths lies in the system justification motive. According to system justification theory [ 63 , 64 ], people are motivated to defend and justify the status quo, even at the expense of their ingroup. From this perspective, the belief that every group in society possesses some advantages and disadvantages increases the belief that the system is balanced and fair [ 29 , 65 ]. Motherhood myths imbue women with a natural, instinctual and biologically rooted capacity to raise children that men are lacking [ 66 ]. In addition, they convey gender stereotype describing women in positive terms (e.g., considerate, warm, nurturing) allowing a women-are-wonderful perception [ 27 ]. As a consequence, women are likely to rely on motherhood myths to restore the illusion that, despite men structural advantage [ 67 , 68 ], women as a group still possess some prerogatives [ 34 ].

The aim of the present study is to test the main hypothesis (H1) that motherhood myths are a justification that mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s work following the birth of a child. Additionally, two potential moderators of this mediational process are considered. The present research tests the exploratory hypotheses that (H2) the assumed mediational process is moderated by time and (H3) by participants’ gender. We tested these hypotheses using the Family and Changing Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme [ 69 , 70 ]. This international academic project, based on a representative probabilistic national sample, deals with gender related issues, including attitudes towards women’s employment and household management. Hence this database enables a test of the proposed mediational model on a large sample of female and male respondents and data gathered 18 years apart.

We used the 2012 and 1994 waves of the ISSP Family and Changing Gender Roles cross-national survey [ 69 , 70 ]. The ISSP published fully anonymized data so that individual survey participants cannot be identified. The two databases slightly differed regarding the involved countries, some of which did not participate in the two survey waves. In order to maintain consistency across the analyses, we selected 18 countries that participated in both survey waves (i.e., Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the USA). The data file for the 2012 survey wave included 24222 participants (54.4% female participants), mean age = 49.38, SD = 17.54, and the data file for the 1994 survey wave included 27410 participants (54.4% female participants), mean age = 44.26, SD = 17.07.

The main variables used in this study are the following:

One indicator was used to capture sexism: “A man's job is to earn money; a woman's job is to look after the home and family”. This item taps into the gender differentiation component of sexism [ 20 , 25 ]. Participants answered on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Data was recoded so that the higher scores reflected higher sexism.

Motherhood myths.

Two indicators were used that capture the myths about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child and the family: “A preschool child is likely to suffer if his or her mother works” and “All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job”. Participants answered on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. Data was recoded so that the higher scores reflected higher endorsement of motherhood myths.

Opposition to women’s career.

Two indicators were used to capture the opposition to women’s professional career following the birth of a child: “Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all when there is a child under school age?” and “Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time, part-time or not at all after the youngest child starts school?” Participants answered on a scale ranging from 1 = work full time, 2 = work part-time, 3 = stay at home.

In addition, the first step of our analyses involved the following control variables: participant’s gender and age, partnership status, educational level, subjective social status, attendance of religious services and political orientation.

The following section presents the results of a four-step analysis: The first step consists of a preliminary hierarchical regression analysis to establish the respective contributions of demographical variables, sexism and motherhood myths to opposition to women’s work. The second step is dedicated to a test of the construct validity of the proposed measurement model using Confirmatory Factor Analyses. The third step involves a test of the hypothesized mediation. Finally, the last step is a test of the hypothesized moderated mediations.

Step 1: Hierarchical regression analysis

Inspection of the correlation matrix ( Table 1 ) indicates that all the correlations are positive, ranging from moderate to strong. The pair of items measuring motherhood myths presents the strongest correlation ( r (48961) = .633), followed by the pair of items measuring opposition to women’s career ( r (45178) = .542).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t001

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to establish the respective contributions of demographical variables, sexism and motherhood myths to opposition to women’s work. In block 1, participant’s gender (male = -1, female = 1) and partnership (no partner = -1, partner = 1) were entered together with standardized scores of age, years of schooling, subjective social status, attendance of religious services and political orientation. Block 2 included sexism, the myths about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child and for family (all standardized). Predictors in block 1 accounted for 9% of the variance, F (7, 10140) = 157.89, p < .001. The analysis revealed the significant effects of participant’s gender ( B = -.033, SE = .006, p < .001), age ( B = .058, SE = .006, p < .001), years of schooling ( B = -.135, SE = .007, p < .001), subjective social status ( B = -.057, SE = .007, p < .001), religiosity ( B = .076, SE = .006, p < .001) and political orientation ( B = .04, SE = .006, p < .001). Partnership was unrelated to opposition to women’s career ( B = .002, SE = .006, p = .77). Taken together the results indicate that the higher the time of education and the subjective social status, the lower the opposition to women’s work. Conversely, the higher the age, religiosity and political conservatism, the higher the opposition to women’s work. Finally, results indicate that opposition to women’s work is more pronounced amongst men than amongst women. When entered in block 2, sexism and motherhood myths accounted for an additional 18% of the variance, indicating that these variables significantly improved the model’s ability to predict opposition to women’s work, over and above the contributions of gender, partnership, education, social status, religiosity and political orientation (Δ R 2 = .18), Δ F (3, 10137) = 854.04, p < .001. Specifically, the analysis revealed the significant effects of sexism ( B = .151, SE = .006, p < .001), myth about the aversive consequence of mother’s work for her child ( B = .10, SE = .007, p < .001) and myth about the aversive consequence of women’s work for family ( B = .09, SE = .007, p < .001). It should be noted that the effect of participant’s gender virtually disappeared after controlling for sexism and motherhood myths ( Table 2 ). In addition, we performed this hierarchical regression analysis separately for the two waves and consistently found that the variables of our model (sexism and the motherhood myths) explained more variance than the demographical variables.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t002

Step 2: Confirmatory factor analyses

We conducted a CFA to check the construct validity of the proposed measurement model. CFA and subsequent analyses were all performed using R. 3.4.1 and the Lavaan package [ 71 ]. The loading of the single indicator of the sexism variable and the loading of the first indicator of the motherhood myths and opposition variables were constrained to 1.00 [ 72 ], and the three variables were allowed to correlate. Results show a good fit to the data, χ 2 (3, N = 42997) = 400.36, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 540804. In addition, we estimated an alternative model in which all items loaded on a unique latent variable. This alternative model shows a poorer fit to the data, χ 2 (5, N = 42997) = 8080.28, p < .001, CFI = .867, RMSEA = .19 [90% CI = .19, .19], SRMR = .07, AIC = 548480. The comparison of the two models indicates that the proposed measurement model fits the data better than the alternative one, Δ χ 2 (2, 42997) = 7679.9, p < .001. We repeated this comparison in each country and results confirm that the proposed measurement model fits better in all countries (see S1 Table for comparative test of the goodness of fit of the hypothesized measurement model vs. alternative measurement model in each country).

We tested the measurement invariance of the CFA model across the two survey waves. To do this, we conducted a model comparison to test for configural and metric invariances. Results indicate that the configural invariance can be retained, χ 2 (6, N = 42997) = 513.05, p < .001, CFI = .991, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 537580. When constraining the loadings to be equal across waves fit indices remain satisfactory, χ 2 (8, N = 42997) = 679.58, p < .001, CFI = .989, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .02, AIC = 537743. The change in CFI is below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the metric invariance can be retained and that further comparisons of the relationships between constructs across survey waves can be performed [ 73 , 74 ]. Furthermore, we repeated this comparison in each country and results support the configural invariance of the CFA model across survey waves in all countries. In addition, the full metric invariance is obtained in all but three countries—Poland, Slovenia and the USA. In these countries, the CFIs are larger than the cutpoint of .01, indicating a lack of full metric invariance. Nonetheless, we were able to retain a partial metric invariance of the CFA model across the survey waves by setting free one non-invariant loading [ 75 ], (see S2 Table for the test of the invariance of the measurement model across survey waves by country).

We tested the measurement invariance of the CFA model across gender groups using the same procedure as for the test of the measurement invariance across survey waves. The baseline model constraining the factor structure to be equal in the two gender groups shows good fit to the data, χ 2 (6, N = 42943) = 440.95, p < .001, CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01, AIC = 539573, indicating that the configural invariance is achieved for the two groups. Then we fitted a more restricted model in which the factor loadings were constrained to be equal across groups. This model allows testing for the metric invariance (equal loadings) of the model across gender. Once again, the results indicate that this constrained model show good fit to the data, χ 2 (8, N = 42943) = 469.14, p < .001, CFI = 0.992, RMSEA = .05 [90% CI = .04, .05], SRMR = .01, AIC = 539598. Furthermore, the Δ CFI is below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the metric invariance can be retained [ 75 ]. This result confirms that cross gender comparisons of the relationships between constructs can reasonably be performed. Furthermore, we repeated this procedure in each country. Once again, the Δ CFIs are below the cutpoint of .01, indicating that the configural invariance of the CFA model across gender groups is achieved in all countries (see S3 Table for the test of the invariance of the measurement model across gender groups by country).

Step 3. Mediation analysis

Overview of the analysis strategy..

This study main hypothesis is that (H1) the more people hold sexist attitude regarding gender roles, the more they endorse motherhood myths, which in turn enhances the opposition to women’s career after the birth of a child. In order to test this assumption, we ran mediational analyses using structural equation modelling. First, we examined the goodness of fit of the hypothesized mediational model and compared it with the goodness of fit of two alternative models. In the first alternative model, motherhood myths predict sexism that, in turn, predicts opposition. In the second alternative model, opposition to women’s career predicts motherhood myths. After having established that the hypothesized model adequately fit the data, we examined the coefficients for the hypothesized relationships between variables.

Goodness of fit of the models.

Inspection of the fit indices indicates that the hypothesized model fits the data better than the first alternative model in 16 out of the 18 analysed countries ( Table 3 ). Thus, in these countries the data is better accounted for by a model stating motherhood myths as a mediator of the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship, rather than by a model stating sexism as a mediator of the myths-opposition to women’s career relationship. The comparison of the fit indices indicates that the two models fit the data to almost the same extent in the two remaining countries (i.e., Czech Republic, and Philippines). Finally, the second alternative model—where opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths and sexism—shows very poor fit to the data in all countries. This result suggests that endorsement of motherhood myths is not a mere consequence of discrimination.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t003

Test of the relationships between variables.

The goodness of fit of the proposed mediational model having been established in 16 countries out of 18, we next examined the coefficients for the hypothesized relationships in these countries. Table 4 shows the results of the mediation analysis in the 16 retained countries. The total effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is positive and significant in all countries. The direct effect is reduced in all countries when controlling for the indirect effect through motherhood myths. As recommended in the literature, the indirect effects were subjected to follow-up bootstrap analyses using 1000 bootstrapping resamples [ 76 ]. The null hypothesis is rejected and the indirect effect is considered significant if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) do not include zero. All bias corrected 95% CI for the indirect effect excluded zero, indicating that in line with H1, endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career in all countries.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t004

In order to provide an overview of the proposed mediational model, we next present the analyses conducted on the total of the 16 countries retained. The hypothesized mediational model shows acceptable fit to the data, χ 2 (4, N = 38178) = 971.09, p < .001, CFI = .983, RMSEA = .08 [90% CI = .07, .08], SRMR = .04, AIC = 473476. Inspection of the fit indices of the first alternative model where endorsement of motherhood myths predicted sexism that, in turn, predicted opposition confirms that this alternative model shows poorer fit to the data than the proposed model, χ 2 (4, N = 38178) = 7583.1, p < .001, CFI = .870, RMSEA = .22 [90% CI = .21, .22], SRMR = .13, AIC = 480088. The second alternative model, where opposition to women’s career predicted motherhood myths shows poor fit to the data, χ 2 (5, N = 38178) = 14224.61, p < .001, CFI = .756, RMSEA = .27 [90% CI = .26, .27], SRMR = .21, AIC = 486728, and accordingly fits the data less well than the proposed mediational model, Δ χ 2 (1, 38178) = 13254 p < .001. As can be seen in Fig 1 , the standardized regression coefficient for the direct effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is significant ( β = .16, p < .001). In addition, the unstandardized estimate for the indirect effect excludes zero (.13, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.12, .13]) and, therefore, is significant. Taken together, analyses conducted on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, support our main assumption that endorsement of motherhood myths is a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career.

The coefficient in parentheses represents parameter estimate for the total effect of prejudice on opposition to women’s career. *** p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.g001

Step 4. Moderated mediation analyses

Indirect effect through survey waves..

The moderated mediation model was estimated using a multiple group approach. This model exhibits good fit to the data, χ 2 (6, N = 38178) = 438.88, p < .001, CFI = .992, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01. The standardized coefficients for the total effect are .50 in the 2012 survey, and .52 in the 1994 survey. The unstandardized estimates for the indirect effect is .10, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11] in the 2012 survey, and .11, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, .11] in the 1994 survey. The intervals do not include zero, indicating that motherhood myths are a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career in both survey waves. The difference between the indirect effect in 2012 and 1994 is not significant (-.003, SE = 0.004, bias corrected 95% CI [.-.01, .00]). We repeated the moderated mediation analysis in each country. As can be seen in Table 5 , the indirect effect reaches significance in each survey wave in all countries. The indirect effect is not moderated by the survey year, except in Great Britain where the indirect effect, although still significant, decreased between 1994 and 2012, and Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia where the indirect effect slightly increased between 1994 and 2012.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t005

Indirect effect as a function of the respondents’ gender.

The moderated mediation model exhibits good fit to the data, χ 2 (6, N = 38124) = 402.46, p < .001, CFI = .993, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .05, .06], SRMR = .01. The total effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career is positive and significant for both men ( β = .52, p < .001) and women ( β = .50, p < .001). The standardized indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths is .27 in the male subsample, and .29 in the female subsample. The unstandardized estimates for the indirect effect is .11, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.10, 12] in the male sample, and .10, SE = 0.003, bias corrected 95% CI [.09, .10] in the female sample. The intervals do not include zero, indicating that motherhood myths are a significant mediator of the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career among both men and women respondents. The difference between the indirect effect among men and women is not statistically significant (.01, SE = 0.004, bias corrected 95% CI [.00, .01]). We repeated this analysis in each country separately (see Table 6 ). Results confirm that the indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths is not moderated by the respondents’ gender in 15 out of the 16 countries. The only exception is Poland. In this country, the indirect effect is stronger for the female than for the male respondents.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.t006

Using a large representative sample of respondents from various countries the present research documented a psychosocial process of justification of discrimination against working women with children. As a preliminary step, hierarchical regression analysis established that sexism and motherhood myths predict opposition to women’s work, over and above gender, partnership, education, social status, religiosity and political orientation. Furthermore, structural equation modellings on the whole sample, as well as on each country separately, confirmed our main hypothesis that endorsement of motherhood myths mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to women’s career following a birth. In addition, test of the moderated mediation indicated that the indirect effect reaches significance in each survey wave in almost all countries examined without substantial difference. Only in Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia did the indirect effect slightly increase between 1994 and 2012, suggesting that motherhood myths is more a justification for the expression of sexism nowadays than in the late 20 th century. Great Britain shows a reverse pattern with a slight decrease of the indirect effect between the two waves. However, besides these minor variations, it should be noted that motherhood myths remain a significant mediator of the sexism-opposition to women’s career relationship in all countries. The present research also considered participants' gender as a potential moderator of the indirect effect, and results indicated that the process of justification of discrimination against working women does not differ as a function of the respondents' gender. The only exception to this finding is Poland where the indirect effect is indeed stronger among women than among men. An examination of the specific features of female employment in this country sheds some light on this result. Young women in Poland are better educated than young men and are more likely to have permanent employment than men [ 77 ]. At the same time however, working women spend on average two and a half hours per day on unpaid work more than men—which is reflected by the fact that more than 1 in 3 women reduce their paid hours to part-time, while only 1 in 10 men do the same—and are predominant users of parental leave [ 3 ]. It is noteworthy that reduced working hours (and long periods of leave) hinders female career progression through less training, fewer opportunities for advancement, occupational segregation, and lower wages [ 78 , 79 ]. Accordingly, in Poland women earn 9% less than men (one of the lowest gender pay gap in OECD) but the pay gap reaches 22% by presence of children (above the OECD average of 16%; [ 77 ]). The fact that women appear even more inclined than men to rely on motherhood myths to justify gender discrimination is consistent with a system justification perspective [ 63 ]. Drawing on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, system justification theory in its strong form posits that members of disadvantaged groups may be even more likely than members of advantaged groups to support existing social inequalities [ 64 ]. The rational is that members of disadvantaged groups would experience psychological discomfort stemming from the concurrent awareness of their ingroup's inferiority within the system, and of their ingroup's contribution to that system. Justification of the status quo would therefore reduce dissonance [ 80 ]. The finding that women strongly rely on motherhood myths to justify gender discrimination precisely in a country with strong motherhood penalty can be regarded as an expression of this system justification motive.

The present research sheds new light on the effect of macrolevel inequality on the justification of discrimination, and more broadly on the process of legitimation of gender inequalities [ 9 , 81 ]. In a recent study, Yu and Lee [ 82 ] found a negative association between women’s relative status in society and support for gender equality at home. More specifically, the authors found that although respondents in countries with smaller gender gaps express greater support for women’s participation in the labour force, they still exhibit less approval for egalitarian gender roles within the household, in particular regarding the share of domestic chores and childcare. As an explanation, the authors argued that the less traditional the gender division of labour is in a society, the more people need to express their freedom of maintaining these roles and to defend the gender system, leading to the endorsement of gender differentiation in the private sphere. However, the present research allows an alternative explanation for this seemingly paradoxical finding to be suggested. At a macrolevel, higher gender equality conveys strong suppressive factors (which reduce the expression of prejudice) by demonstrating that the society promotes egalitarianism between women and men. In parallel, the gender specialization in the division of the household responsibilities and especially regarding childcare provides a strong justifying factor (which releases prejudice) by emphasising essential differences between gender groups [ 26 ]. Thus, the counterintuitive finding that the more egalitarian a society is, the less people support gender equality at home may indeed reflect an attempt to justify the release of genuine sexism. Conversely, it is likely that a less egalitarian society brings with it some degree of tolerance towards gender discrimination, reducing the need to rely on justifications to express sexism. A closer look at our results regarding Norway and Japan supports this view. Norway and Japan appears as especially contrasted regarding gender equality, in particular with regard to economic participation and opportunity [ 1 ]. According to the World Economic Forum, Norway has the second smallest gender gap in the world. In addition, gender equality promotion is frequently mobilised both in political debates and in mainstream society [ 55 ]. For its part, Japan ranks 101 st on the overall gender gap index, which makes Japan well below average compared to other advanced industrial countries [ 83 ]. Besides this gender gap, consistent research reports a unique trivialisation of anti-gender equality discourses in the media [ 84 ] and of gender-based discriminatory behaviours in the workplace, including sexual harassment [ 85 ]. Comparing the strength of the indirect effect of sexism on opposition to women’s career through motherhood myths in these two countries ( Table 4 ), it is noteworthy that the coefficient is larger in Norway than in Japan. This result gives support to the assumption that macrolevel gender (in)equality affects the psychological process of justification at the individual level. Future studies should clarify how macrolevel inequalities impact societal norms, which in turn influence legitimation processes.

It is also worth noting that the justifying function of motherhood myths is established in all analysed countries despite some notable differences between parental leaves policies and practices. For instance, the United States are the only OECD country to offer no nationwide entitlement to paid leave, neither for mothers nor for fathers [ 86 ]. On the other hand, the Nordic nations, with Norway and Sweden in the lead, are in the vanguard of progressive policy-making regarding shared parental leave entitlement: Sweden was the first country in the world in 1974 to offer fathers the possibility of taking paid parental leave, quickly joined by Norway in 1978 [ 87 ]. More recently in 2007, Germany introduced a new law aiming at encouraging shared parental leave. In practice, the length of the financial support for parental leave can increase from 12 to 14 months provided that fathers use the parental benefit for at least 2 months. Recent research aiming at investigating whether German men who take parental leave are judged negatively in the workplace revealed that, in contrast with women who experience penalty for motherhood [ 40 ], fathers do not face backlash effect when they take a long parental leave [ 88 ]. The authors concluded that "gender role attitudes have changed". Tempering this view, the present study indicates that even in countries promoting incentives for fathers to take parental leave, motherhood myths—and specifically the belief that mother's work threatens the family—are still a justification for gender discrimination in the workplace. With regard to practices, it should be noted that shared parental leave policies, whose purpose is to foster gender equality in the labor market, often fail to meet this objective, with the majority of fathers actually taking the minimum length of leave entitlement, or no parental leave at all, and the majority of mothers still facing the majority of childcare [ 88 ]. Once again, more research is needed to document the process of mutual influences between changing family policies and the maintenance of the gender status quo via justifying beliefs.

Limitations and future directions

Although the hypothesized mediational process is supported by the data, and is in line with previous experimental findings [ 19 ], conclusion regarding causality are necessarily limited due to the correlational nature of the research. We hope that these preliminary findings will open the way to experimental studies allowing for a conclusion on the direction of causality between variables and the further documenting of the behavioural consequences of the endorsement of motherhood myths. For instance, future studies should consider the extent to which motherhood myths interact with organizational norms to constrain the hiring and promotion of women. Castilla and Benard [ 89 ] showed that when an organization explicitly values meritocracy, managers favour a male employee over an equally qualified female employee. One explanation for this seemingly paradoxical results lies in the legitimation function of meritocracy [ 17 ] which is likely to release the expression of sexism. We suggest that when organizations promote egalitarian norms, or put differently, when organizations set suppression factors, then motherhood myths may serve as a justification for unequal gender treatment regarding career outcomes.

Due to constraints related to the availability of data in the ISSP base, only one indicator was used to capture sexism. This can be regarded as a limitation providing that sexism is typically defined as a complex construct [ 20 ]. We argue that measuring the gender differentiation component of sexism through a single item represents a valid approach, as suggested by previous research indicating that single-item measures may be as reliable as aggregate scales [ 90 – 94 ]. However, using a multiple-item measure of sexism in future studies would provide a more comprehensive examination of the relations between the different components of sexism and opposition to gender equality in the workplace.

The present research focused on opposition to mothers' work as an indicator of gender discrimination. However, evidence suggests that motherhood myths may justify discrimination towards women as a whole rather than mothers only. First, as previously mentioned social roles create gender expectations [ 95 ] so that all women are expected to become mothers [ 47 ]. Furthermore, research using implicit association test indicate that people automatically associate women with family role [ 96 ]. As a consequence, it is plausible that employers rely on motherhood myths to discriminate against women in general regarding recruitement, performance evaluation, and rewards, arguing that women will sooner or later be less involved in work and less flexible for advancement than men [ 97 ]. This justification is compatible with the employers' reluctance to hire women and promote them to the highest positions even in the absence of productivity differences [ 98 ].

Practical implications

In this study we were able to document that motherhood myths are a widespread justification for gender discrimination in the workplace, including in countries with anti-discrimination laws and advanced family policies. From this regard, the present findings help understand the paradoxical effects of family-friendly policies on women's economic attainment. Mandel and Semyonov [ 99 ], using data from 20 countries, found evidence that family policies aimed at supporting women's economic independence, and including provision of childcare facilities and paid parental leaves, increase rather than decrease gender earning gaps. This unexpected effect is due to the fact that family policies are disproportionally used by mothers rather than fathers, with the consequence that mothers are concentrated in part-time employment, female-typed occupations, yet underrepresented in top positions. The authors concluded that "there are distinct limits to the scope for reducing gender wage inequality in the labor market as long as women bear the major responsibility for household duties and child care" (p. 965). We would add that there are strong barriers to the scope for attaining gender equality at home as long as motherhood myths are uncritically accepted and used as justification for unequal gender arrangements. Recent works provided evidence of the efficiency of interventions aimed at reducing sexist beliefs [ 100 ] and at recognizing everyday sexism [ 101 ]. In the same vain, interventions aimed at informing people that motherhood myths are socially constructed and maintained [ 33 ], and that they affect women's advancement and fathers' involvement [ 35 ], would represent a first step towards the reduction of discrimination by depriving individuals of a justification for gender inequalities.

The present research builds on and extends past findings by demonstrating that men and women rely on the belief that women’s work threatens the well-being of youth and family to justify discrimination against working women. If, at an individual level, this process allows discrimination to be exhibited without appearing prejudiced [ 10 ], at the group and societal levels, such a process may contribute to the legitimation and reinforcement of the hierarchical power structure [ 63 ]. By documenting a pervasive process by which people invoke motherhood myths to hinder women’s economic participation, the present research emphasizes the need to be vigilant about any attempts to promote a return to traditional gender roles, an issue of central importance given the contemporary rollback of women’s rights in advanced industrial countries [ 102 ].

Supporting information

S1 table. comparative test of the goodness of fit of the hypothesized measurement model vs. alternative measurement model..

All differences are significant at p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s001

S2 Table. Test of the invariance of the measurement model across survey waves by country.

In Poland and Slovenia partial metric invariance of the measurement model was attained by setting free the loading of the item “ Do you think that women should work outside the home full-time , part-time or not at all after the youngest child starts school ?” on the “opposition” latent variable. This partly constrained model show good fit indices in Poland, χ 2 (7, N = 2248) = 36.18, p = .006, CFI = .990, RMSEA = .06 [90% CI = .04, .08], and Slovenia, χ 2 (7, N = 1867) = 12.92, p = .058, ns , CFI = .999, RMSEA = .03 [90% CI = .00, .05]. In the USA, partial metric invariance of the measurement model was attained by setting free the loading of the item “ All in all , family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job ” on the “motherhood myths” latent variable, χ 2 (7, N = 2117) = 11.08, p = .069, ns , CFI = .999, RMSEA = .02 [90% CI = .00, .04].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s002

S3 Table. Test of the invariance of the measurement model across gender groups by count.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s003

S1 Supplementary Information. Additional details concerning the way the research was conducted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657.s004

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Virginie Bonnot, Cícero Pereira, and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

• 1. The Global Gender Gap Report: 2016. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2016.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 3. European Union. Tackling the gender pay gap in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Burri S, van Eijken H. Gender equality law in 33 European countries how are EU rules transposed into national law?. Brussels: European Commission; 2014 [cited 2016 Mar 11]. http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:DSAD14001:EN:HTML
• 11. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Aversive Racism. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol 36. San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004. pp. 1–52.
• 12. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando : Academic Press; 1986.
• 13. Sidanius J, Pratto F. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
• 21. Glick P, Fisk ST. Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In: Crosby F. J., Stockdale M. S., Ropp S. A., editors. Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2007. pp. 155–187.
• 24. Velez et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, 04 Civ.09194; 2010.
• 26. Rudman LA, Glick P. The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY US: Guilford Press; 2008.
• 31. Hays S. The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 1998.
• 48. Timmer A, Senden L. A comparative analysis of gender equality law in Europe 2015: A comparative analysis of the implementation of EU gender equality law in the EU Member States, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and Turkey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2016 [cited 2016 Nov 7]. http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:DS0416376:EN:HTML
• 49. McBride DE, Parry JA. Women’s rights in the USA: policy debates and gender roles. Fifth edition. New York; London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2016.
• 56. Boltanski L, Thévenot L. On justification: economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006.
• 66. Hrdy SB. Mother nature: maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. 1st ed. New York: Ballantine Books; 2000.
• 67. Goodwin SA, Fiske ST. Power and gender: The double-edged sword of ambivalence. In: Unger RK, Unger RK (Ed), editors. Handbook of the psychology of women and gender. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2001. pp. 358–366.
• 69. ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles II—ISSP 1994; 1997 GESIS. Data Archive, Cologne. ZA2620 Data file Version 1.0.0, 10.4232/1.2620.
• 70. ISSP Research Group. International Social Survey Programme: Family and Changing Gender Roles IV—ISSP 2012; 2016. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5900 Data file Version 4.0.0, 10.4232/1.12661.
• 71. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2017.
• 77. OECD. Closing the gender gap: act now. Paris: OECD; 2012.
• 85. Hidaka T. Salaryman masculinity the continuity of and change in the hegemonic masculinity in Japan [Internet]. Leiden; Boston: Brill; 2010 [cited 2016 Jun 13]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004183032.i-224
• 86. OECD. Parental leave: Where are the fathers? Paris: OECD; 2016.

Tackling transphobia in the workplace

A damning new report from Stonewall has highlighted transgender discrimination in the workplace. Interviewing 871 trans and non-binary people, the report found that 51 per cent had hidden their identity at work for fear of discrimination , while one in eight had been physically attacked by a colleague or customer in the past year.

So just exactly what is it like to be transgender in the workplace? What are the persistent problems, how can they be overcome and what constitutes a supportive work environment?

Discretion and employer support are vital

In the first instance, discretion is a vital component of combating transgender discrimination and ensuring trans employees feel comfortable at work. Sarah Linhart, 47, is a Hertfordshire IT consultant who chooses to keep trans identity private at work. To date, Sarah has preferred to take on shorter contracts, in part to protect her privacy, although it hasn’t always been a safeguard. “About five years ago, I had the wrong documentation and the HR lead came running down the corridor to tell everyone, basically outing me,” Sarah says.

For Mal Clarke, 21, a customer-facing hospitality worker from Cambridge who is out at work, employer support makes all the difference when protecting against transgender discrimination. “At one workplace, three male customers started shouting abuse at me in reception. A colleague stepped in and said we’ve got to tell them they’re breaking the law, before a manager removed them from the site. It made such a difference that my colleagues had my back,” Mal says.

On changing jobs, Mal was instrumental in helping to write the new employer’s trans policy . “The management firstly asked lots of questions. Then there was admin to deal with, such as how the business filed documents in old and new names if people had not legally amended all paperwork,” Mal says. “Initially my pay slips came up in my old name and were visible to other staff. We devised a separate filing system so that things with my old name were stored in a private database.”

Onus should not be on transgender employees to create policy

Uniform policy also needed revising. “Hotel staff tend to wear male or female uniform. We changed people’s choice to wear either or both, depending on preference, and started referring to them in terms of sizes rather than gender,” Mal adds.

Mal even helped with updating the recruitment forms, suggesting a gender-neutral title and preferred name option, and an option to state if they were trans.

For Mal, comfort at work is dependent on a supportive manager: “She’s put the policy we devised up in the office to remind everyone of what’s acceptable, from asking what pronouns to use, to how to support someone in front of a troublesome customer. In the past, I’ve had managers not guide the staff and then staff get it wrong, making it much harder.”

While Mal was happy to help devise company policy, the onus should not be on transgender staff to create or implement it, says Gina Battye, an LGBT+ inclusion consultant. “The best organisations act before they even think they have a transgender or non-binary employee,” says Gina. “This means staff-wide training at all levels, updating any existing diversity and inclusion policies, and role modelling around inclusion, getting leaders to demonstrate they are being authentic , which encourages everyone in the organisation to do the same.”

Practical steps organisations can take to tackle transgender discrimination

When Veronica Mead, a project supply manager at Airbus, came out to her employers about transitioning, they did not initially have a policy against transgender discrimination either. “Airbus has always been a very people-friendly organisation, partly, I believe, due to their European outlook,” says Veronica. “They learnt with me during the process and it helped when they took the lead on things, such as HR emailing everyone that someone was transitioning, and offering to announce that in a site-wide communication to the staff. Ultimately I decided to do this myself, but their offer mattered.”

And when it came to taking time off for medical treatment, Airbus did not push Veronica to use her holiday leave, something still commonplace in many organisations. But despite a supportive management and HR team, there were still some IT-based oversights along the way.

“By the time I’d transitioned, we had worked out an organisation-wide communications plan , and HR records and IT systems were largely updated,” says Veronica. “But there was this email distribution list which contained my old name from before I transitioned. More than three years later, I still ended up receiving an email containing my old name. IT needed to have changed the script so that my old address was dead, but we hadn’t thought about this.”

Training is key to eliminating transgender discrimination from the workplace

Other repeat sticking points included colleagues not using the correct name or pronouns and security passes not being regularly updated during the process of someone transitioning, all of which inclusion consultant Gina believes can be ironed out with business-wide training. “Most of the time, people don’t come out unless they’re ready to transition, especially when they’re non-binary; unconscious bias is such a big hurdle. But if you train people from the off, the empathy will develop that can offset this,” says Gina.

I had the wrong documentation and HR came running down the corridor to tell everyone, basically outing me

And it’s still so necessary. For Sarah, remaining quiet about being trans doesn’t exempt her from transgender discrimination. “Someone I once worked with once said, ‘If I was ever sitting next to one [someone transgender], I’d know ‘cos I’d smash their face in’. It sometimes seems like we’re the only people left that it’s OK to mock,” says Sarah. “When the manager doesn’t cut that kind of talk down, it’s simply unacceptable.”

Read this next

Want to read on, subscribe to our daily newsletter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Int AIDS Soc
• v.19(3Suppl 2); 2016

Transgender social inclusion and equality: a pivotal path to development

Vivek divan.

1 United Nations Development Programme Consultant, Delhi, India

Clifton Cortez

2 United Nations Development Programme, HIV, Health, and Development Group, New York, NY, USA

Marina Smelyanskaya

3 United Nations Development Programme Consultant, New York, NY, USA

JoAnne Keatley

4 University of California, San Francisco, Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, San Francisco, CA, USA

Introduction

The rights of trans people are protected by a range of international and regional mechanisms. Yet, punitive national laws, policies and practices targeting transgender people, including complex procedures for changing identification documents, strip transgender people of their rights and limit access to justice. This results in gross violations of human rights on the part of state perpetrators and society at large. Transgender people's experience globally is that of extreme social exclusion that translates into increased vulnerability to HIV, other diseases, including mental health conditions, limited access to education and employment, and loss of opportunities for economic and social advancement. In addition, hatred and aggression towards a group of individuals who do not conform to social norms around gender manifest in frequent episodes of extreme violence towards transgender people. This violence often goes unpunished.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) views its work in the area of HIV through the lens of human rights and advances a range of development solutions such as poverty reduction, improved governance, active citizenship, and access to justice. This work directly relates to advancing the rights of transgender people. This manuscript lays out the various aspects of health, human rights, and development that frame transgender people's issues and outlines best practice solutions from transgender communities and governments around the globe on how to address these complex concerns. The examples provided in the manuscript can help guide UN agencies, governments, and transgender activists in achieving better standards of health, access to justice, and social inclusion for transgender communities everywhere.

Conclusions

The manuscript provides a call to action for countries to urgently address the violations of human rights of transgender people in order to honour international obligations, stem HIV epidemics, promote gender equality, strengthen social and economic development, and put a stop to untrammelled violence.

Those who have traditionally been marginalized by society and who face extreme vulnerability to HIV find that it is their marginalization – social, legal, and economic – which needs to be addressed as the highest priority if a response to HIV is to be meaningful and effective. Trans people's experiences suggest that although HIV is a serious concern for those who acquire it, the suffering it causes is compounded by the routine indignity, inequity, discrimination, and violence that they encounter. Trans people, and particularly trans women, have articulated this often in the context of HIV [ 1 ].

For a reader who is not trans, imagine a world in which the core of your being goes unrecognized – within the family, if and when you step into school, when you seek employment, or when you need social services such as health and housing. You have no way to easily access any of the institutions and services that others take for granted because of this denial of your existence, worsened by the absence of identity documents required to participate in society. Additionally, because of your outward appearance, you may be subject to discrimination, violence, or the fear of it. In such circumstances, how could you possibly partake in social and economic development? How could your dignity and wellbeing – physical, mental, and emotional – be ensured? And how could you access crucial and appropriate information and services for HIV and other health needs?

Trans people experience these realities every day of their lives. Yet, like all other human beings, trans people have fundamental rights – to life, liberty, equality, health, privacy, speech, and expression [ 2 ], but constantly face denial of these fundamental rights because of the rejection of the trans person's right to their gender identity. In these circumstances, there can be no attainment of the goal of universal equitable development as set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [ 3 ], and no effort to stem the tide of the HIV epidemic among trans people can succeed if their identity and human rights are denied.

The human rights gap – stigma, discrimination, violence

The ways in which marginalization impacts a trans person's life are interconnected; stigma and transphobia drive isolation, poverty, violence, lack of social and economic support systems, and compromised health outcomes. Each circumstance relates to and often exacerbates the other [ 4 ].

Trans people who express their gender identity from an early age are often rejected by their families [ 5 ]. If not cast out from their homes, they are shunned within households resulting in lack of opportunities for education and with no attempts to ensure attention to their mental and physical health needs. Those who express their gender identities later in life often face rejection by mainstream society and social service institutions, as they go about undoing gender socialization [ 6 ]. Hostile environments that fail to understand trans people's needs threaten their safety and are ill-equipped to offer sensitive health and social services.

Such discriminatory and exclusionary environments fuel social vulnerability over a lifetime; trans people have few opportunities to pursue education, and greater odds of being unemployed, thereby experiencing inordinately high levels of homelessness [ 6 ] and poverty [ 7 ]. Trans students experience resentment, prejudice, and threatening environments in schools [ 8 ], which leads to significant drop-out rates, with few trans people advancing to higher education [ 9 ].

Workplace-related research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) individuals reveals that trans workers are the most marginalized and are excluded from gainful employment, with discrimination occurring at all phases of the employment process, including recruitment, training opportunities, employee benefits, and access to job advancement [ 10 ]. This environment inculcates pessimism and internalized transphobia in trans people, discouraging them from applying for jobs [ 11 ]. These extreme limitations in employment can push trans people towards jobs that have limited potential for growth and development, such as beauticians, entertainers or sex workers [ 12 ]. Unemployment and low-paying or high risk and unstable jobs feed into the cycle of poverty and homelessness. When homeless trans people seek shelter, they are housed as per their sex at birth and not their experienced gender, and are subject to abuse and humiliation by staff and residents [ 13 ]. In these environments, many trans people choose not to take shelter [ 14 ].

Legal systems often entrench this marginalization, feed inequality, and perpetuate violence against trans people. All people are entitled to their basic human rights, and nations are obligated to provide for these under international law, including guarantees of non-discrimination and the right to health [ 2 ]; however, trans people are rarely assured of such protection under these State obligations.

Instead, trans people often live in criminalized contexts – under legislation that punishes so-called unnatural sex, sodomy, buggery, homosexual propaganda, and cross-dressing [ 12 ] – making them subject to extortion, abuse, and violence. Laws that criminalize sex work lead to violence and blackmail from the police, impacting trans women involved in this occupation [ 15 ]. Being criminalized, trans people are discouraged from complaining to the police, or seeking justice when facing violence and abuse, and perpetrators are rarely punished. When picked up for any of the aforementioned alleged crimes or under vague “public nuisance” or “vagrancy” laws, their abuse can continue at the hands of the police [ 16 ] or inmates in criminal justice systems that fail to appropriately respond to trans identities.

The transphobia that surrounds trans people's lives fuels violence against them. Documentation over the last decade reveals the disproportionate extent to which trans people are murdered, and the extreme forms of torture and inhuman treatment they are subject to [ 16 – 18 ]. When such atrocities are perpetrated against trans people, governments turn a blind eye. Trans sex workers are particularly vulnerable to brutal police conduct including rape, sometimes being sexually exploited by those who are meant to be protectors of the law [ 15 ]. In these circumstances, options to file complaints are limited and, when legally available channels do exist, trans complainants are often ignored [ 19 ].

These experiences of severe stigma, marginalization, and violence by families, communities, and State actors lead to immense health risks for trans people, including heightened risk for HIV, mental health disparities, and substance abuse [ 20 , 21 ]. However, most health systems struggle to function outside the traditional female/male binary framework, thereby excluding trans people [ 22 ]. Health personnel are often untrained to provide appropriate services on HIV prevention, care, and treatment or information on sexual and reproductive health to trans people [ 20 , 23 ]. HIV voluntary counselling and testing facilities and antiretroviral therapy (ART) sites intimidate trans people due to prior negative experiences with medical staff [ 21 , 24 , 25 ]. Additionally, when trans women test HIV positive, they are wrongly reported as men who have sex with men [ 4 ]. Consequently, testing rates in trans communities are low [ 26 ], which serves to disguise the serious burden of HIV among trans people and perpetuates the lack of investment in developing trans-sensitive health systems. The economic hardships that trans people face due to their inability to participate in the workforce further complicate access to HIV, mental health, and gender-affirming health services. In short, hostile social and legal environments contribute to health gaps, and public health systems that are unresponsive to the needs of trans people.

In addition, understanding of trans people's concerns around stigma, discrimination, and violence, related as they are to gender identity, is often limited due to their being combined with lesbian, gay, and bisexual sexual orientation issues. However, trans people's human rights concerns, grounded in their gender identity, are inherently different and necessitate their own set of approaches.

Imperatives for trans social inclusion

In order to overcome the human rights barriers trans people confront, certain measures are imperative and should be self-evident, given the standards that States are obliged to provide under international law to all human beings. Paying attention to these is key to effectively addressing the systemic marginalization that trans people experience. Such action can have immeasurable benefits, including the full participation of trans people in human development processes as well as positive health and HIV outcomes. For trans people, the change must begin with the most fundamental element – acknowledgement of their gender identity.

The right to gender recognition

For trans people, their very recognition as human beings requires a guarantee of a composite of entitlements that others take for granted – core rights that recognize their legal personhood. As the Global Commission on HIV and the Law pointed out, “In many countries from Mexico to Malaysia, by law or by practice, transgender persons are denied acknowledgment as legal persons. A basic part of their identity – gender – is unrecognized” [ 19 ]. This recognition of their gender is core to having their inherent dignity respected and, among other rights, their right to health including protection from HIV. When denied, trans people face severe impediments in accessing appropriate health information and care.

Recognizing a trans person's gender requires respecting the right of that person to identify – irrespective of the sex assigned to them at birth – as male, female, or a gender that does not fit within the male–female binary, a “third” gender as it were, as has been expressed by many traditionally existing trans communities such as hijras in India [ 27 ]. This is an essential requirement for trans people to attain full personhood and citizenship. The guarantee of gender recognition in official government-issued documents – passports and other identification cards that are required to open bank accounts, apply to educational institutions, enter into housing or other contracts or for jobs, to vote, travel, or receive health services or state subsidies – provides access to a slew of activities that are otherwise denied while being taken for granted by cisgender people. 1 Such recognition results in fuller civic participation of and by trans people. It is a concrete step in ensuring their social integration, economic advancement, and a formal acceptance of their legal equality. It can immeasurably support their empowerment and act as an acknowledgement of their dignity and human worth, changing the way they are perceived by their families, by society in general, and by police, government actors, and healthcare personnel whom they encounter in daily life. UN treaty bodies have acknowledged this vital right of trans people to be recognized. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recommended that States “facilitate legal recognition of the preferred gender of transgender persons and establish arrangements to permit relevant identity documents to be reissued reflecting preferred gender and name, without infringements of other human rights” [ 28 ].

Freedom from violence & discrimination

Systemic strategies to reduce the violence against trans people need to occur at multiple levels, including making perpetrators accountable, facilitating legal and policy reform that removes criminality, and general advocacy to sensitize the ill-informed about trans issues and concerns. Strengthening the capacity of trans collectives and organizations to claim their rights can also act as a counter to the impunity of violence. When trans people are provided legal aid and access to judicial processes, accountability can be enforced against perpetrators. Sensitizing the police to make them partners in this work can be crucial. When political will is absent to support such attempts in highly adverse settings, trans organizations and allies can consider using international human rights mechanisms, such as shadow reports made to UN human rights processes like the Universal Periodic Review, to bring focus to issues of anti-trans violence and other human rights violations against trans people.

Providing equal access to housing, education, public facilities and employment opportunities, and developing and implementing anti-discrimination laws and policies that protect trans people in these contexts, including guaranteeing their safety and security, are essential to ensure that trans individuals are treated as equal human beings.

The right to health

For trans people, their right to health can only be assured if services are provided in a non-stigmatizing, non-discriminatory, and informed environment. This requires working to educate the healthcare sector about gender identity and expression, and zero tolerance for conduct that excludes trans people. Derogatory comments, breaches of confidentiality from providers, and denial of services on the basis of gender identity or HIV status are some of the manifestations of prejudice. The right to non-discrimination that is guaranteed to all human beings under international law must be enforced against actions that violate this principle in the healthcare system. Yet, a multi-pronged approach that supports this affirmation of trans equality together with a sensitized workforce that is capable of delivering gender-affirming surgical and HIV health services is necessary.

Building on the commitments made by the UN General Assembly in response to the HIV epidemic [ 29 ], the World Health Organization (WHO) developed good practice recommendations in relation to stigma and discrimination faced by key populations, including trans people [ 30 ]. These recommendations urge countries to introduce rights-based laws and policies and advise that, “Monitoring and oversight are important to ensure that standards are implemented and maintained.” Additionally, mechanisms should be made available “to anonymously report occurrences of stigma and/or discrimination when [trans people] try to obtain health services” [ 30 ].

Fostering stigma-free environments has been successfully demonstrated – where partnerships between trans individuals and community health nurses have improved HIV-related health outcomes [ 31 ], or where clinical sites welcome trans people and conduct thorough and appropriate physical exams, manage hormones with particular attention to ART, and engage trans individuals in HIV education [ 32 ].

Advancing trans human rights and health

For all the challenges faced by trans people in the context of their human rights and health, promising interventions and policy progress have shown that positive change is possible, although this must be implemented at scale to have significant impact. Change has occurred due to the efforts of trans advocates and human rights champions, often in critical alliances with civil society supporters as well as sensitized judiciaries, legislatures, bureaucrats, and health sector functionaries.

Key strides have been made in the context of gender recognition in some parts of the world. In the legislatures, this trend began in 2012 with Argentina passing the Gender Identity and Health Comprehensive Care for Transgender People Act , which provided gender recognition to trans people without psychiatric, medical, or judicial evaluation, and the right to access free and voluntary transitional healthcare [ 33 , 34 ]. In 2015, Malta passed the Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act , which provides a self-determined, speedy, and accessible gender recognition process. The law protects against discrimination in the government and private sectors. It also de-pathologizes gender identity by stating that people “shall not be required to provide proof of a surgical procedure for total or partial genital reassignment, hormonal therapies or any other psychiatric, psychological or medical treatment.” It presumes the capacity of minors to exercise choice in opting for gender reassignment, while recognizing parental participation and the minor's best interests. It stipulates the establishment of a working group on trans healthcare to research international best practices [ 35 ]. Pursuant to its passing the Maltese Ministry of Education working with activists also developed policy guidelines to accommodate trans, gender variant, and intersex children in the educational system [ 36 ]. Other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland and Poland, have also passed gender identity and gender expression laws, albeit of varying substance but intended to recognize the right of trans people to personhood [ 37 , 38 ]. Denmark passed legislation that eliminated the coercive requirement for sterilization or surgery as a prerequisite to change legal gender identity [ 39 ].

Trans activists and allies have also used the judicial process to claim the right to gender recognition. In South Asia, claims to recognition of a gender beyond the male–female binary have been upheld – in 2007, the Supreme Court of Nepal directed the government to recognize a third gender in citizenship documents in order to vest rights that accrue from citizenship to metis [ 40 ]; in Pakistan, the Supreme Court directed the government to provide a third gender option in national identity cards for trans people to be able to vote [ 41 ]; in 2014, the Indian Supreme Court passed a judgement directing the government to officially recognize trans people as a third gender and to formulate special programmes to support their needs [ 42 ]. These developments in law, while hopeful, are too recent to yet discern any resultant trends in improvements in trans peoples’ lives, more broadly.

More localized innovative efforts have also been made by trans organizations to counter violence, stigma, and discrimination. For instance in South Africa, Gender DynamiX, a non-governmental organization worked with the police to change the South African Police Services’ standard operating procedures in 2013. The procedures are intended to ensure the safety, dignity, and respect of trans people who are in conflict with the law, and prescribe several trans-friendly safeguards – the search of trans people as per the sex on their identity documents, irrespective of genital surgery, and detention of trans people in separate facilities with the ability to report abuse, including removal of wigs and other gender-affirming prosthetics. Provision is made for implementation of the procedures through sensitization workshops with the police [ 43 ]. In Australia, the Transgender Anti-Violence Project was started as a collaboration between the Gender Centre in Sydney and the New South Wales Police Force, the City of Sydney and Inner City Legal Centre in 2011. It provides education, referrals, and advocacy in relation to violence based on gender identity, and support for trans people when reporting violence, assistance in organizing legal aid and appearances in court [ 44 ].

Measures have also been taken to tackle discrimination faced by trans people, in recognition of their human rights – in 2015, Japan's Ministry of Education ordered schools to accept trans students according to their preferred gender identity [ 45 ]; in 2014 in Quezon City, the Philippines the municipal council passed the “Gender Fair City” ordinance to ensure non-discrimination of LGBT people in education, the workplace, media depictions, and political life. This law prohibits bullying and requires gender-neutral bathrooms in public spaces and at work [ 46 ]; in Ecuador, Alfil Association worked on making healthcare accessible to trans people, including training and sensitization meetings for health workers and setting up a provincial health clinic for trans people in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, staffed by government physicians who had undergone the training; and Transbantu Zambia set up a small community house providing temporary shelter for trans people, assisting them in difficult times or while undergoing hormone therapy. Similar housing support has been provided by community organizations with limited resources in Jamaica and Indonesia. 2

Towards sustainable development: time for change

Although there are other examples of human rights progress for trans people, much of this change is isolated, non-systemic, and insufficient. Trans people continue to live in extremely hostile contexts. What is required is change and progress at scale. The international community's recent commitment towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) presents an opportunity to catalyze and expand positive interventions [ 3 ].

Preventing human rights violations and social exclusion is key to sustainable and equitable development. This is true for trans people as much as other human beings, just as the achievement of all 17 SDGs is of paramount importance to all people, including trans people. Of these SDGs, the underpinning support for trans people's health and human rights is contained in SDG 3 –“Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages,” SDG 10 – “Reduce inequality within and among countries,” and SDG 16 – “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

The SDGs are guided by the UN Charter and grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They envisage processes that are “people-centered, gender-sensitive, respect human rights and have a particular focus on the poorest, most vulnerable and those furthest behind” and a “just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met” [ 3 ]. They reiterate universal respect for human rights and dignity, justice and non-discrimination, and a world of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential for all irrespective of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability, or other status . The relationship between the SDGs and trans people's concerns has been robustly articulated in the context of inclusive development [ 47 ].

UN Member States have unequivocally agreed to this new common agenda for the immediate future. The SDGs demand an unambiguous, farsighted, and inclusive demonstration of political will. Their language clearly reflects the most urgent needs of trans people, for whom freedom from violence and discrimination, the right to health and legal gender recognition are inextricably linked.

Specifically in regard to trans people, the SDGs are a call to immediate action on several fronts: governments need to engage with trans people to understand their concerns, unequivocally support the right of trans people to legal gender recognition, support the documentation of human rights violations against them, provide efficient and accountable processes whereby violations can be safely reported and action taken, guarantee the prevention of such violations, and ensure that the whole gamut of robust health and HIV services are made available to trans people. Only then can trans people begin to imagine a world that respects their core personhood, and a world in which dignity, equality, and wellbeing become realities in their lives.

Acknowledgements and funding

The authors are grateful for the work of courageous trans activists around the world who have overcome tremendous challenges and continue to battle disparities as they bring about positive change. Many encouraging examples cited in this manuscript would be impossible without their contribution. The authors also thank Jack Byrne, an expert on trans health and human rights, whose work on the UNDP Discussion Paper on Transgender Health and Human Rights (2013) served as an inspiration for this piece, and JoAnne Keatley's effort to provide writing, editorial comment, and oversight. UNDP staff and consultants, who contributed time to this manuscript, were supported by UNDP.

1 Cisgender people identify and present in a way that is congruent with their birth-assigned sex. Cisgender males are birth-assigned males who identify and present themselves as male.

2 These illustrations are based on information gathered in the process of developing a tool to operationalize the Consolidated Guidelines on HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations (WHO, 2014), through interviews with and questionnaires sent to trans activists. See also reference 31.

Competing interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Authors' contributions

The concept for this manuscript was a result of collaborative work between all four authors. VD provided key ideas for content and led the writing for the manuscript. CC provided thought leadership and contributed writing, particularly on the SDGs, while MS provided writing and editorial input, as well as other support. JK advised on content and provided writing and editorial input and guidance. All authors have read and approved the final version.

How transgender people experience the workplace in the Bay Area

C ompanies in the Bay Area have committed to a string of equity and inclusion policies in recent years, but members of underrepresented communities say it's not enough — especially as California prepares for a potential influx of transgender people and youth amid a surge in anti-trans bills in red states.

The big picture: Ahead of citywide celebrations of Transgender Day of Visibility this Sunday, advocates are highlighting the challenges trans and nonbinary workers face as they remain under fire across the U.S. and historically underemployed .

What's happening:  Many LGBTQ people see San Francisco as a safe haven, but then sometimes get to their companies and realize they're not "walking the walk," said Abby Holtfort, co-chair of Indeed's iPride & Gender Identity for the Americas employee resource group.

• A 2021 Indeed survey found that 75% of LGBTQ+ workers believe their employers are more concerned with appearing inclusive than with having a real-world impact — only 25% said they believe DEI is a real priority for their companies.
• Meanwhile, more than one in four trans people report losing a job due to bias, and over 75% say they've experienced some form of workplace discrimination, per the National Center for Transgender Equality.

What they're saying: Though California law protects trans and nonbinary people from harassment at work, it's important for employers to set clear policies so the "burden of proof and explanation" doesn't fall on the employee, Holtfort told Axios.

• "Am I gonna go to HR and ask for accommodations so that I can take extra time off to have gender-affirming surgery that is not covered under my medical benefits?" they listed as one example. "It can feel like a massive hill to climb."
• Holtfort said companies can take some key steps: implementing an open benefits policy that's transparent about health coverage for care like transitions and family planning ; requiring anti-harassment trainings that cover trans experiences; establishing clear HR pathways for reporting and addressing discrimination; and sponsoring counseling for employees whose mental health is negatively impacted by anti-trans legislation.

Companies can also make efforts to partner with and invest in local LGBTQ-serving groups — like the Castro-based Lesbians Who Tech — to "see a blueprint for what they should be doing in the workplace," Holtfort noted, citing the Bay's rich LGBTQ history .

What's next: San Francisco Pride is holding its annual Transgender Day of Visibility celebration this Sunday at the Phoenix Hotel.

• The Exploratorium will also hold several events to uplift trans voices .

The big picture: Though data is difficult to compile, SF LGBT Center told Axios that it's already seen a spike in demand for services, which it attributed in part to an increase in trans people and youth who move to the Bay from GOP-led states.

• Under former executive director Pau Crego, San Francisco's Office of Transgender Initiatives took several steps to enact policies around all-gender restrooms and the collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data.
• Workplace DEI initiatives , however, are increasingly facing cuts regardless of company location.

Get the rundown of the biggest stories of the day with Axios Daily Essentials.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Here’s How Bad Workplace Gender Bias Has Become

Gender bias continues to sprout in the workplace—both in explicit and covert ways.

A new survey of over 1,000 women by The Muse job board revealed that 41 percent of women have felt discriminated against based on their gender during a job interview, and 42 percent said they have encountered gender-biased or inappropriate questions during a job interview.

The report also showed that:

• Over 1 in 3 (38 percent) of women have hesitated to apply for a job due to perceived gender bias.
• 2 out of 3 think women in their industry have a hard time getting promoted.
• 55 percent do not feel there’s enough female representation in the leadership at their organization.
• 79 percent of women said they are more likely to seek out companies that have equal representation of women in managerial/leadership positions when looking for a new job.

While the findings are troubling, 63 percent of respondents did say they felt supported as a woman at work.

“We have made incredible progress over the past few years toward increasing gender equity in the workplace, but as the results of this survey reveal, there’s still so much more progress needed—particularly in the hiring and job interview process,” said Heather Tenuto, CEO of The Muse.

SHRM Online collected additional news on gender bias in the workplace.

New Report Finds 30 Different Biases Impact Women at Work

Gender bias and discrimination have held women back in the workplace for generations, but new research indicates gender-based judgments barely scratch the surface of ways professional women are criticized throughout their careers. Researchers identified 30 characteristics that women say were used against them in the workplace, including age, attractiveness and body size.

Gender Discrimination in Tech Industry Worsening

A 2023 report by tech career marketplace Dice revealed the percentage of tech professionals who said they experienced gender discrimination rose from 21 percent in 2021 to 26 percent in 2022.

To reduce discrimination, HR professionals should consider incorporating procedures to assess hiring processes and salaries, asking for feedback from the workforce via surveys and enlisting a third-party consultant to further identify opportunities for improvement.

( SHRM Online )

The Groups Hit Hardest by the Gender Pay Gap

While progress has been made toward eliminating the gender pay gap, some groups of women fare worse than others, according to an annual report. Overall, women in the U.S. earn 83 cents for every dollar a man earns. But women of color, mothers, women working remotely and women leaders are earning less than that. Here’s how employers can contribute to a more equitable workplace and keep their top female talent.

5 Ways to Reduce Gender Inequality at Work

​Research has shown that societal biases toward women have contributed to gender salary disparities in the U.S. Generation Z women have lower pay expectations than men have when entering the workforce, according to a recent report by career app Handshake. Handshake researchers explained that the difference in pay expectations “highlights the long-standing issue of gender pay disparity: Women's salary expectations are lower from the start, potentially reflecting historical pay gaps.”

Related Content

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Judith Butler Thinks You’re Overreacting

How did gender become a scary word? The theorist who got us talking about the subject has answers.

“There is a set of strange fantasies about what gender is — how destructive it is, and how frightening it is,” said Judith Butler, whose new book takes on the topic. Credit... Elliott Verdier for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jessica Bennett

Jessica Bennett is a contributing editor in Opinion, where she writes about gender, politics and personalities.

• Published March 24, 2024 Updated March 26, 2024

The first thing I did when reading Judith Butler’s new book, “Who’s Afraid of Gender?”, was to look up the word “phantasm,” which appears 41 times in the introduction alone. (It means illusion; the “phantasm of gender,” a threat rooted in fear and fantasy.)

The second thing I did was have a good chuckle about the title, because the answer to the question of who is afraid of gender was … well, I am? Even for someone who’s written on gender and feminism for more than a decade and who once carried the title of this newspaper’s “gender editor,” to talk about gender today can feel so fraught, so politicized, so caught in a war of words that debate, or even conversation, seems impossible.

I am perhaps the intended reader of Butler’s book, in which the notoriously esoteric philosopher turned pop celebrity dismantles how gender has been constructed as a threat throughout the modern world — to national security in Russia; to civilization, according to the Vatican ; to the American traditional family; to protecting children from pedophilia and grooming , according to some conservatives. In a single word, “gender” holds the power to seemingly drive people mad with fear.

Butler’s latest comes more than three decades after their first and most famous book, “Gender Trouble,” brought the idea of “gender as performance” into the mainstream. As it turns out, Butler — who has written 15 books since — never intended to return to the subject, even as a culture war raged. But then the political became personal: Butler was physically attacked in 2017 while speaking in Brazil, and burned in effigy by protesters who shouted, “ Take your ideology to hell .”

This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Did you ever think you’d see a world in which your ideas would be so widespread — and so fraught?

When I wrote “Gender Trouble,” I was a lecturer. I was teaching five classes, trying to work on this book I thought no one would read. Still, I knew I wasn’t just speaking for myself; there were other people who were strong feminists but also lesbian or gay or trying to figure out gender in ways that weren’t always welcome. But today, the people who are afraid of my ideas are the people who don’t read me. In other words, I don’t think it’s my ideas that they’re afraid of. They’ve come up with something else — a kind of fantasy of what I believe or who I am.

And of course it’s not just my views that are being caricatured, but gender more broadly — gender studies, policies that focus on gender, gender discrimination, gender and health care, anything with “gender” in it is a kind of terrifying prospect, at least for some.

So … who is afraid of gender?

It’s funny, I have a friend, a queer theorist. I told him the book’s name and he said, “Everyone! Everyone’s afraid of gender!”

What’s clear to me is that there is a set of strange fantasies about what gender is — how destructive it is, and how frightening it is — that a number of forces have been circulating: Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, Giorgia Meloni, Rishi Sunak, Jair Bolsonaro, Javier Milei, and of course Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump and lots of parents and communities in states like Oklahoma and Texas and Wyoming, who are seeking to pass legislation that bans the teaching of gender or reference to gender in books.

Obviously, those folks are very frightened of gender. They imbue it with power that I actually don’t think it has. But so are feminists who call themselves “gender critical,” or who are trans-exclusionary, or who have taken explicit positions against trans politics.

Can you describe what prompted you to return to this subject?

I was going to Brazil for a conference on the future of democracy. And I was told in advance that there were petitions against me speaking, and that they decided to focus on me because I’m the “papisa,” the female pope, of gender. I’m not quite sure how I got to have that distinction, but apparently I did. I got to the venue early, and I could hear the crowds outside. They’d built a kind of monstrous picture of me with horns, which I took to be overtly antisemitic — with red eyes and kind of a demonic look — with a bikini on. Like, why the bikini?

But in any case, I was burned in effigy. And that freaked me out. And then, when my partner and I were leaving, at the airport, we were attacked: Some woman came at me with a big trolley and she was screaming about pedophilia. I could not understand why.

You thank the young man who threw his body between you and the attacker, taking blows. Was this the first time you’d heard that “ pedophilia ” association?

I had given a talk on Jewish philosophy, and somebody in the back said, “Hands off our children!” I thought, What? I figured out later that the way that the anti-gender ideology movement works is to say: If you break down the taboo against homosexuality, if you allow gay and lesbian marriage, if you allow sex reassignment, then you’ve departed from all the laws of nature that keep the laws of morality intact — which means it’s a Pandora’s box; the whole panoply of perversions will emerge.

As I was preparing to interview you, I received a news alert about the “Don’t Say Gay” settlement in Florida, which says that schools cannot teach about L.G.B.T.Q. topics from kindergarten through the 8th grade, but clarifies that discussing them is allowed . You write that words have become “tacitly figured as recruiters and molesters,” which is behind the effort to remove this type of language from the classroom.

Teaching gender, or critical race theory, or even ethnic studies, is regularly characterized as forms of “indoctrination.” So for instance, that woman who was accusing me of supporting pedophilia, suggests that my work or my teaching would be an effort at “seduction” or “grooming.”

In my experience of teaching, people are arguing with each other all the time. There’s so much conflict. It’s chaotic. There are many things going on — but indoctrination is not one of them.

What about the warping of language on the left?

My version of feminist, queer, trans-affirmative politics is not about policing. I don’t think we should become the police. I’m afraid of the police. But I think a lot of people feel that the world is out of control, and one place where they can exercise some control is language. And it seems like moral discourse comes in then: Call me this. Use this term. We agree to use this language. What I like most about what young people are doing — and it’s not just the young, but everybody’s young now, according to me — is the experimentation. I love the experimentation. Like, let’s come up with new language. Let’s play. Let’s see what language makes us feel better about our lives. But I think we need to have a little more compassion for the adjustment process.

I want to talk for a moment about categories. You have occupied many — butch, queer, woman, nonbinary — yet you’ve also said you’re suspicious of them.

At the time that I wrote “Gender Trouble,” I called for a world in which we might think about genders being proliferated beyond the usual binary of man and woman. What would that look like? What would it be? So when people started talking about being “nonbinary,” I thought, well, I am that. I was trying to occupy that space of being between existing categories.

Do you still believe that gender is “performance?”

After “Gender Trouble” was published, there were some from the trans community who had problems with it. And I saw that my approach, what came to be called a “queer approach”— which was somewhat ironic toward categories — for some people, that’s not OK. They need their categories, they need them to be right, and for them gender is not constructed or performed.

Not everybody wants mobility. And I think I’ve taken that into account now.

But at the same time, for me, performativity is enacting who we are, both our social formation and what we’ve done with that social formation. I mean, my gestures: I didn’t make them up out of thin air — there’s a history of Jewish people who do this. I am inside of something, socially, culturally constructed. At the same time, I find my own way in it. And it’s always been my contention that we’re both formed and we form ourselves, and that’s a living paradox.

How do you define gender today?

Oh, goodness. I have, I suppose, revised my theory of gender — but that’s not the point of this book. I do make the point that “gender identity” is not all of what we mean by gender: It’s one thing that belongs to a cluster of things. Gender is also a framework — a very important framework — in law, in politics, for thinking about how inequality gets instituted in the world.

This is your first book with a nonacademic press. Was that a conscious decision?

Oh, yeah. I wanted to reach people.

It’s funny because many of your ideas do reach people, albeit in internet-era sound bites. I’m thinking about, for instance, of “gender is a drag” T-shirts or “ Judith Butler explained with cats .” It strikes me that a lot of people who claim to have read you have actually just read the Instagram caption of you.

Well, I don’t blame them for not reading that book. It was tough. And some of those sentences are truly unforgivable. Hopefully I didn’t do that in “Who’s Afraid of Gender?”

I feel like I’m more in touch with people who are mobilizing on the ground at the global level than I have been before. And that pleases me.

Jessica Bennett is a contributing editor in the Opinion section of The Times. She teaches journalism at New York University and is the author of “Feminist Fight Club” and “This Is 18.” More about Jessica Bennett

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

Stephen King, who has dominated horror fiction for decades , published his first novel, “Carrie,” in 1974. Margaret Atwood explains the book’s enduring appeal .

The actress Rebel Wilson, known for roles in the “Pitch Perfect” movies, gets vulnerable about her weight loss, sexuality and money  in her new memoir.

“City in Ruins” is the third novel in Don Winslow’s Danny Ryan trilogy and, he says, his last book. He’s retiring in part to invest more time into political activism .

​​Jonathan Haidt, the social psychologist and author of “The Anxious Generation,” is “wildly optimistic” about Gen Z. Here’s why .

Do you want to be a better reader?   Here’s some helpful advice to show you how to get the most out of your literary endeavor .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

Advertisement

Remote work could be creating a reverse gender pay gap—with fully remote male workers twice as likely as women to be passed over for promotion

The workplace shifts since the COVID-19 pandemic have created a host of new norms that wouldn’t have been conceivable in 2019. The latest ripple from those changes could be a reversal of the gender pay gap.

Researchers at the University of Warsaw surveyed 937 U.K. managers to find that fully remote workers were 11% less likely to receive a promotion compared to colleagues who worked exclusively in the office. 

But in a twist on classic trends, it’s men, not women, who are bearing most of the penalty.

A man’s world?

Managers across the U.K. were given a theoretical scenario where they were presented with two candidates, only one of whom could receive a pay rise and promotion. 

The candidates were separated by age, family situation, experience, and, most importantly for the study, where they spent their time working.  

Controlling for other factors, the results tended to show bosses preferring to promote and give raises to the worker who showed up to the office every day.

The top-line results are perhaps unsurprising, particularly given they are based on the thoughts of managers, who have traditionally been less sold on the idea of remote work compared with their subordinates. 

Research from ZipRecruiter found there was a $22,000 difference in salary between the average remote job and the average in-person job. 

However, the figures revealed much starker differences in the effect of remote working between men and women. 

The authors reported that men were 15% less likely to secure a promotion if they worked from home, compared to 7% for women. A male remote worker’s chances of a raise were 10% worse than his in-office colleagues, while a female home worker was 7% less likely to get a bump in pay.

“Our findings indicate that individuals working from home still encounter career penalties, irrespective of the widespread adoption of this mode of work,” Agnieszka Kasperska, an author of the report, told the British Sociological Association. 

“Both male and female remote workers experience career penalties, but they are substantially larger for men.” 

The trends are even worse at companies that have what is perceived to be a strict corporate culture.

In those workplaces, men were 30% less likely to be promoted and 19% less likely to receive a pay rise. Female remote workers, meanwhile, were 15% less likely to receive a promotion, but also 19% likely to see their pay hiked. 

The authors pointed out that in organizations with supportive policies, there was no penalty for remote working.

While ZipRecruiter’s research suggests there is a premium on in-office work , it’s still only affordable for managers to live near the office, according to payroll processor ADP.

Managers pushing against remote work

The results from the University of Warsaw’s survey may tell us something about employers’ old-fashioned perceptions of gender roles in the workplace. 

Women have typically been afforded more flexibility by bosses due to their traditional role as family caregivers. 

This has in the past created a “motherhood penalty” as a consequence of that flexibility, which often sees women fall behind men in the corporate ladder.

The added flexibility since the onset of the pandemic has helped women, particularly mothers, balance their work with family life in a more effective way. 

That progress is under threat as more and more bosses order their staffers back to the office, in some cases up to five days a week . 

Men, meanwhile, still seem reluctant to completely reverse historic gender norms. 

A study from the Center for Global Development found women on average took on 173 hours of additional child care during the height of COVID-19 in 2020, while men took on a third less. 

While that may have shifted as more fathers choose remote work, not many are deciding to become stay-at-home dads.

The 1% share of U.S. men identifying as stay-at-home dads in 2022 is the same rate it has been for 18 straight years, suggesting there hasn’t been any revolution since the pandemic.

Latest in Success

• 0 minutes ago

Nearly a quarter of baby boomer and late Gen X men are ‘unretiring’ or planning to because they can’t afford to kick up their feet in the current climate

Gucci-owner Kering’s Gen Z heir claims his grandfather Francois Pinault’s seat on Christie’s board in major succession move

Donald Trump’s plans to build a pickleball court on his Irish golf resort held up over concerns about its impact on a protected snail

Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney are owed $11.3 million from their Welsh soccer club Wrexham, as the Hollywood duo pay players well above average

McKinsey is so eager to trim staff that it’s offering some employees 9 months’ pay to go and do something else

Most popular.

California’s new $20-an-hour fast food minimum wage is so good that schools are worried they can’t compete for cafeteria workers

Singaporean firm whose ship took down the Baltimore bridge just cited an 1851 maritime law to cap liability at $44 million

MacKenzie Scott’s game-changing philanthropy still mystifies nonprofits: ‘Her gifts are super generous, but unfortunately, they don’t provide long term sustainability’

Elon Musk says he’s increasing salaries for Tesla engineers because Sam Altman’s OpenAI keeps trying to recruit them

Gen Z are increasingly choosing trade schools over college to become welders and carpenters because ‘it’s a straight path to a six-figure job’

The new retirement is no retirement: Baby boomers are keeping jobs well into their sixties and seventies because they ’like going to work’

Transgender Day of Visibility: The day explained, what it means for the trans community

Transgender Day of Visibility , or Trans Visibility Day , is a day to celebrate trans, non-binary and gender-expansive individuals in America and around the world. President Joe Biden issued a White House proclamation in recognition of the day for 2024 in the United States.

"Trans Day of Visibility is all about trans joy," said Tori Cooper, the director of community engagement for the trans justice initiative at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, HRC.

Cooper, who is a Black trans woman, says that even in "the worst political climates," individuals and organizations are working to make sure trans joy continues to spread.

When is Transgender Day of Visibility?

In 2024, the holiday falls on Sunday March 31st, the same day as Easter.

What is Transgender Day of Visibility?

According to GLAAD , people observe "Transgender Day of Visibility to raise awareness about transgender people."

It was created by Rachel Crandel, a transgender advocate and the executive director and co-founder of Transgender Michigan, in 2010 because of the "overwhelming" amount of media stories involving violence against transgender people.

"She hoped to create a day where people could celebrate the lives of transgender people, while still acknowledging that due to discrimination, not every trans person can or wants to be visible," states GLAAD's website.

Transgender Day Of Visibility: I'm a trans man. We don't have a secret agenda – we're just asking you to let us live.

Transgender Day of Visibility: How to be an ally

Cooper says there are a lot of things people who are cisgender, meaning they identity as the gender they were assigned at birth, can do to support the trans and nonbinary community.

"Number one is make sure that you're utilizing the power of the vote to vote for people and politicians who support trans people and the parents of trans kids," says Cooper.

Next, Cooper recommends people talk freely and without judgement to the trans folks in their communities, whether they know them or not.

Finally, she recommends people educate themselves on who trans people are and what they're not.

"The biggest danger is obviously the fact that people who are not trans themselves, who admittedly have no interaction with trans people, have no formal knowledge or even elementary knowledge on trans people, our lives and our healthcare, are creating these policies that are actually dangerous for trans and gender expansive people," said Cooper.

Transgender Day of Visibility: How to financially support the trans community

Mercury Star Dust , a.k.a. the Trans Handy Ma'am, and @AlluringSkull are teaming up with other trans influencers to raise $4 million during Stardust's and Jory's third annual TikTok-a-Thon For Trans Health through an organization called Point of Pride .

In 2023, the influencers raised over $2 million to support trans healthcare.

Cooper says that while it's a great start to give attention to national influencers, organizations and fund raisers, local advocates are usually know what their community needs best.

"They're often people who are in your local communities, who are doing amazing things that aren't getting the national attention," said Cooper. "Those are the people that really need your support because they understand what the political climate is in your area."

She encourages folks to research local trans-serving and trans-run organizations, specifically those who serve BIPOC communities, Black, Indigenous people of color, and use them as role models.

"Many of them are pillars in the community who are doing the hard work each and every day without getting their national exposure," she says.

Julia is a trending reporter for USA TODAY. She has covered various topics, from local businesses and government in her hometown, Miami, to tech and pop culture.   You can follow her on  X, formerly known as Twitter ,  Instagram  and  TikTok : @juliamariegz.