2016 Book SexualOrientationAndTransgende

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

Transgender Issues in
Organizations
Global Perspectives on LGBT Workforce
Diversity
Editor
Thomas K€ollen
Institute for Gender and Diversity in Organizations
Department of Management
Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU)
Vienna, Austria
ISBN 978-3-319-29621-0 ISBN 978-3-319-29623-4 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938220
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

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

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

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

Contents
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management

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

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

Subjective Experience, Experimental Evidence, and Interventions . . . . 367
Melanie C. Steffens, Claudia Niedlich, and Franziska Ehrke
On the Violence of Heteronormativity within Business Schools . . . . . . . 389
Nick Rumens
The Role of Apparent Sexual Orientation in Explaining the
Heterogeneity of Wage Penalties Among Gay Employees . . . . . . . . . . . 405
Thierry Laurent and Ferhat Mihoubi
The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Gender on Perceptions of
Successful Leadership Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429
Nicholas P. Salter and Benjamin Liberman
Tolerance in the Polish Workplace Towards Gay Men and Lesbians . . . 451
Ewa A. Golebiowska
Understanding the Identity Work of LGB Workers Using the Practice
Theory Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Emir Ozeren and Alper Aslan
When Supervisors and Managers Tolerate Heterosexism: Challenges,
Opportunities, and Implications for Workplace Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Trevor G. Gates
Sexual Orientation Diversity Management in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
Jo~ao G
ois, Francisco Duarte, Jo~ao Pinheiro, and Kamila Teixeira
Incorporating Inclusivity: How Organizations Can Improve the
Workplace Experiences of Trans* People Across the Trans* Spectrum:
A US Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
Annelise Mennicke and Andrew Cutler-Seeber
LGBT Company Network Groups in the UK: Tackling Opportunities
and Complexities in the Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
Fiona Colgan
Transgressing Gender Binarism in the Workplace? Including
Transgender and Intersexuality Perspectives in Organizational
Restroom Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Monika Huesmann
Implementing LGBT-Diversity Management in a Global Company:
The Case of SAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
Jorge Martins, Niarchos Pombo, Mariana Tomiyoshi, Marcelo Trein,
Moya Watson, Miguel Castro, Claudia Schmidt, Adriana Kersting,
Paula Miyuki, Debora de Souza, Mariana Zatti, Denise Blume, Leonardo Nunes,
Jeffrey Mastrangelo, and Hartmut Bohn
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within
the Diversity Management Discourse
Thomas K€
ollen
1 Introduction1
By using the term LGBTI many organizations purport to explicitly consider inter-
sexuality and trans-identities as part of their diversity management activities.
LGBTI, then, is often defined as the name of the target group for organizational
initiatives that focus on the dimensions of “sexual orientation/identity” and “gender
identity”: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons. However, a
closer examination of the concrete actions that are implemented on this issue by
most organizations reveals that the target group in most cases is reduced to lesbian,
gay, and (partially) bisexual employees. Only very rarely do organizations imple-
ment actions that explicitly address transgender employees, and intersexuality
remains totally excluded from consideration when it comes to concrete organiza-
tional practices and initiatives. This shows that the usage of the term LGBTI in the
context of organizational diversity management practices is predominantly moti-
vated by being somehow “politically correct” and trying, at least on the level of
semantics and language, to be all-inclusive. Because of this, how far the single
elements of this term share any commonalities, and how this would potentially
legitimize grouping them together (or not), has rarely, if ever been called into
question.
In this context, this chapter provides a closer examination of those categories
included in the term LGBTI that are infrequently, if at all, considered in the
1
A shorter German version of this chapter, entitled “Intersexualität und Transidentität im Diver-
sity Management”, appears in: Genkova, P, Ringeisen T. (Eds.). 2016. Handbuch Diversity
Kompetenz: Gegenstandsbereiche. Heidelberg: Springer.
T. K€ollen (*)
Institute for Gender and Diversity in Organizations, Department of Management, Vienna
University of Economics and Business (WU), Vienna, Austria
e-mail: thomas.koellen@wu.ac.at
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

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

ism. The different theoretical approaches to both phenomena will be outlined, along
with a discussion of what both phenomena have in common with each other, and
where they fundamentally differ from each other. As a result it will be shown that
intersexuality and transgenderism are gender/biological sex categories that are,
indeed, by definition related to different sexual orientations, as they are defined
by the gender/sex of the desired and the desiring subjects. However, there are
substantial ways in which both phenomena do not have anything in common with
different sexual orientations, and actually, within the discourse of diversity and
diversity management, they should be integrated into a more holistic concept of the
category of gender. This, then, creates an opportunity to redefine and to rethink the
present approach to “gender” as one dimension of diversity, and to question
whether it is justifiable at all to separately treat gender and sexual orientation as
two distinct categories. It will be argued, rather, that gender/biological sex, gender
identity, and sexual orientation should be seen as one related dimension or category.
This carries with it several implications for developing and modifying adequate
diversity management approaches and initiatives that include transgenderism and
intersexuality.
2 Sexuality, Sex, and Gender
Distinguishing between sex and gender has become a widespread standard in social
sciences. It differentiates sex, as the biological bodily aspect, from gender, the
socially constructed, cultural aspect (Oakley 1972; Gatens 1983) of being a man or
a woman, or of being masculine and feminine respectively. In English, these two
terms cover perforce the whole spectrum of possibility in naming the sex and/or
gender of an individual; in everyday speech, as well as in many scientific disci-
plines, “sex” and “gender” are often used interchangeably when referring to the
categories of being a man or a woman, e.g. when labeling this category in a
passport, or on a form listing personal information. Some other languages, espe-
cially Romance languages, have borrowed the concept of gender by using an
equivalent for the Latin word “genus” in their language (such as “genere” in Italian
or “genre” in French), or by adding the word “social” in the given language, to the
word for “sex”. However, in many languages, the English term “gender” is today
frequently used in its “original” English form, instead of being translated (e.g. in
German, Hungarian, and Polish). The word is frequently used very inconsistently,
especially in language areas that have introduced the English word “gender” as a
technical term. In many cases this contributes significantly to confusion over
precisely what, in concrete terms, is being talked about; moreover in English-
speaking areas themselves, the inconsistent use of “sex” and “gender” sometimes
causes confusion.
Up until the 1970s, women’s studies, and sex- or gender-studies were mainly
shaped by trying to explain social aspects of the sexes biologically. This subsequent
Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management Discourse 3
conceptual distinction between gender and sex, however, provided an opportunity

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

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

appear to make sense in this context, as all parts of the initialism seem to represent
different sexualities or sexual orientations.
In the next two sections the phenomena of trans-identities and intersexuality will
be looked at more closely, and from different perspectives. From this will be
derived those aspects that are relevant for workplace settings, and that serve as
starting points for diversity management initiatives that aim to create a supportive
work environment, and an appreciative and inclusive climate for transgender and
intersex employees.
3 Intersexuality
Until the 1950s the term “intersex” was not in widespread use in the English-
speaking world, and intersex-persons were frequently designated “hermaphrodite”,
a term which continued to be used as synonymous with “intersex” even after that
word had gained more currency. In present-day English, the term “hermaphrodite”
is now used exclusively for plants and animals in the fields of botany and zoology,
but in other languages, such as in Danish or German, it is partially still in usage as a
synonym for “intersex”. The term derives from Hermaphroditos, the son of Aph-
rodite and Hermes in Greek mythology, who fused with the nymph Salamakis, and
from then on possessed traits of both male and female sexes (Zajko 2009). Another
term that is related to intersexuality is “androgyny”. Androgyny is composed of the
ancient Greek word for man (“andros”) and woman (“gyne”) and is used for
persons that express both male and female characteristics. However, there is no
clear definition about the commonalities and differences of the concepts of intersex
and androgyny, and different intersex people use androgyny in their self-images
and self-concepts in different ways and intensities; many, too, do not use the
concept at all (Rosselli 2015).
In his book Symposium, for example, Plato has Aristophanes tell the story of the
three original types of people, who were spherical, each individual having two
bodies that were attached back-to-back. There were those that had two male bodies
fused together, those that had two female bodies fused together and, finally, those
that had one male, and one female body fused together. These last beings were
androgynous. Because of some infraction against divine will, so the story goes, the
gods split each of these dual-beings into two halves, and, from then on, each half
formed a sexual desire that compelled it to search for its former second half. Not
only did Plato, as an extrapolation of this story, expressly indicate that homosex-
uality was “normal”, he used, for the first time, the term “third sex” for the
androgynous individuals, an expression that also nowadays is frequently used in
the context of intersexuality (Groneberg 2008; Herdt 2003).
In 1917, the German geneticist Richard Goldschmidt came up with the term
“intersexuality” for the first time in one of his publications in English language
(Goldschmidt 1917). In the same period he also used the term “Intersexualit€ at” in
6 T. K€
ollen
his publications in the German language (Goldschmidt 1931). His publications are
seen as the reason that this expression became widely accepted, both in the English-
and German-speaking worlds, especially in medical discourse (Stern 2010;
Morland 2014). Goldschmidt combined the Latin word “inter” (“in between”)
and “sexus” (“sex”), which, as already explained, is less ambiguous in the English
language than it is in other languages, such as German. In public discourse, and also
on the level of individuals’ self-declarations, “hermaphrodite” and other equivalent
expressions are still sometimes used, especially in other languages than English
(Zehnder 2010). In order to take account of the vast number of different individual
self-concepts and related sex- and gender-identities, “inter*” has become a more
inclusive, and more frequently used term (Remus 2015). However, by using the
prefix “inter”, the binary model of only having two sexes is still not called into
question. In international medical discourse, the term “intersexuality” is increas-
ingly being replaced by the pathologizing term “disorders of sex development”
(DSD) (de Silva 2008), or in a less pathologizing way, the word “disorder” is
replaced by “differences” or “divergences” (Kl€oppel 2010, p. 21; Diamond and Beh
2008; Reis 2007).
3.1 Social Constructivist Perspective
The scientific discourse on intersexuality is primarily shaped by medical perspec-

tives (Kl€ oppel 2010). However, there are perspectives in the sphere of social
sciences that consider biological sex to be mutable, rather than stable, and less
binary than it is frequently taken to be. Sex can be seen as a product of a Euro-
American discourse (Yanagisako and Collier 1987), within which sexual charac-
teristics are interpreted as visible signs that index humans as being either male or
female as the only possible sexes (Errington 1990). Closely related to this binary
division of sexes is the cultural interpretation of bodies and their sexual character-
istics on the basis of their functional meaning for the reproductive process (Moore
1994). Although her work has been largely overlooked for some considerable time
(Gildemeister 2005; Gildemeister and Wetterer 1992), as early as 1984 Hagemann-
White (1984) considered “being-a-man” or “being-a-woman” not as a biological
matters of fact, but rather as “symbols in a social system of meaning” (Hagemann-
White 1984, p. 79) that through individuals’ interactions are permanently created
anew. At the beginning of the 1990s, the works of Judith Butler contributed to a
re-evaluation of the strict distinction between sex and gender, since the biological
sexed body can also be seen as a discursively constructed cultural product (Butler
1990, 1993). The emergence of this perspective—often labelled as a postmodern
(or queer) approach—was paralleled by a process of reducing and constraining
bodies and sexes as phenomena that are solely constituted linguistically, as dis-
courses can only proceed via language as vehicle.
Feminism had initially converted the established ideology that “biology is
destiny” into “biological differences are shaped culturally”; postmodernism further
changed this ideology to (Behrend 1994, p. 176) “culture is destiny; everything is

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

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

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

sex-characteristics that do not have to point in the same sexual direction. They
may also have differing manifestations of each of these sex-characteristics. There
are different medical approaches to categorize these controversially-labeled “dis-
orders of sex development” (DSD). According to the Chicago Consensus Statement
DSD “is proposed, as defined by congenital conditions in which development of
chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex is atypical” (Hughes et al. 2006b: 149).
There is a proposed distinction to be made between 1) sex chromosome DSD, 2) 46,
XY DSD, and 3) 46,XX DSD (Hughes et al. 2006b). Table 1 gives an overview
about how DSDs can be classified.
The first group also includes persons with 45,X0 or 47,XXX karyotypes, who
often do not show any bodily differences. There are also individuals with different
chromosomes at different somatic cells, who then possess some kind of chromo-
somal mosaic. The second group comprises persons whose gonads are not fully
developed or who have male and female (sometimes not fully developed) gonads
and/or genitals (Reis 2007; Meyer-Bahlburg 1994). Until very recently it was the
established medical practice for a newborn child with a DSD diagnosis to be
“disambiguated” into one sexed direction, via an operation and, often, subsequent
hormone therapy (Richter-Appelt 2004). In order to be socially and culturally
viable, it was assumed that humans had to be either men or women. The doctor’s
job was to maintain an illusion of unambiguousness as far as was possible through
medicinal, operative, and psychological treatment. With the emergence of the
voices of intersex-associations decrying this coercive treatment, medical practice
has, now, largely changed, though the former practices of “medical disambigua-
tion” have not fully disappeared. The insight that it is quite possible to live a life as
an intersex person, has gained in both prominence and importance over the past few
years, and thus, more and more diagnoses of DSD do not coercively lead to a sexed
“disambiguation”; the one major exception is where “medical disambiguation” is
necessary to save a newborn’s life, but this is only very rarely the case. In not
performing this sexed “disambiguation” on newborn babies, the individual is given
the opportunity to decide by him- or her- or *-self what way of life he/she/* wants to
live in terms of his/her/* sex-identity (Voß 2012).
As outlined in Table 1 there are many types of intersexuality with different
medical designations. Without going more into detail here, it can be seen that there
is a broad variety of sexed possibilities of being that question the dichotomous
model of only two sexes as the only valid organizational system of ordering. The
question then arises as to how organizations or companies can deal with this.
3.3 Intersexuality and Diversity Management
The social constructivist perspective on sex would help to destigmatize intersex

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

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

attempts are often made to emphasize different trans-facets. However, in everyday
language, as well as on the level of trans-persons’ self-designation, these terms are
sometimes used synonymously, and conversely sometimes assigned individually
different meanings. In order to respect the plurality of trans-identities, and to avoid
narrowing down the ways of interpreting and describing trans-identities available to
individuals linguistically, a frequently used term employed to cover the whole
spectrum of trans-identities without having to name them is “trans*”. All of these
terms have in common that they describe individuals who (in different ways)
perceive their gender identity as being different from the way that their biological
sex would, conventionally speaking, be socially determined. The usage of the term
“transsexuality” would seem to originate with Magnus Hirschfeld (Pfäfflin 2008).
He coined the term “transsexualism” in 1923 in his German article “The Intersexual
Constitution” [“Die intersexuelle Konstitution”] (Hirschfeld 1923). In this article,
he developed the concept of “psychic transsexualism” [“seelischer Transsex-
ualismus”] (Cauldwell 2006) as a desire that exceeds transvestism in not only
adapting one’s “vestiture” to that of the other sex, but also adapting one’s body.
Hirschfeld had already proposed the concept of the “transvestite” as a distinct
category in 1910 (Hirschfeld 1910), to make the concept of transvestism distinct
from that of homosexuality. His motivation for this was largely so as not to
endanger his primary political goal of abolishing Paragraph 175 of the Imperial
Penal Code in force in the German Empire at the time, which criminalized homo-
sexual practices between men as “unnatural fornication”; a goal which he perceived
as being jeopardized by the increased visibility of, and domestic “scandals”
(Eulenburg-Affair) surrounding gay men in the entourage and cabinet of the then-
Kaiser, Wilhelm II (Herrn 2005; Domeier 2014; Hekma 2015; Beachy 2010;
Oosterhuis 1992). Amongst the trans-terms, “transsexuality” is the term most
related to the physical body, and is often associated with actions that aim to adjust
the individual’s biological body to the individual’s gender identity surgically and/or
hormonally (Benjamin 1967; Reiche 1984).
Trans-identities do not, by and large, challenge the binary model of only two
sexes, neither on the level of social genders, nor on the level of biological sexes.
Transsexual persons are mostly biological men or women with a gender identity in
the other sex respectively, who wish to adjust their body into this direction, often
ideally in such a way that they are perceived publicly and societally as having a
sexed body that totally corresponds with their gender identity.
The term “transgender” is often used or adopted if one’s individual self-concept
does not exactly fit into a binary gender model. This term is often noted as being
coined by Virginia Prince in 1969. Prince uses “transgender” to designate persons,
who express their gender identity “solely” through their dress and their appearance,
without having the wish to adjust their biological bodies according to their gender
identity that does not conform their biological sex (Papoulias 2006). She herself,
however, refused to be seen as the initiator of this concept, as her primary intention
was to draw a line of distinction between gay men and male transvestites (Ekins and
King 2006). As a relatively new term “trans-identity” covers a much broader
spectrum of possible self-concepts. One’s trans-identity then may contain a bodily
adjustment, but, equally, it may not; it may also be a potentially “new” or very
individual and unique self-concept or gender identity that results from a perceived
incongruence between one’s biological sex and the rejection of the related, socially-
expected gender identity. Trans-identities can also oppose the societal pressure of
having to assign oneself to a clearly-delineated, distinct sex or gender at all; one
might, instead, perceive oneself as being “somewhere in between” (e.g. as
genderqueer, intergendered, multigendered, or gender fluid), or one might
12 T. K€
ollen
deliberately opt to elude gender or sex classification at all (Kuper et al. 2012; Dargie
et al. 2014).
4.1 Medical Perspective
In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association recognized transsexuality as a

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

gender dysphoria, or gender identity disorder, the public health care systems of
many countries, as well as many health insurances, will cover the costs for
necessary medical treatment, such as sex reassignment surgeries, or hormonal
treatments. In most countries operations pertaining to gender reassignments are
legally regulated. In Germany, a person is obliged to prove that it is very unlikely
that he or she will ever change his or her gender identity through psychological
assessment, before he or she can officially request a change of civil status (Franzen
and Sauer 2010). Since 2011 proof of one’s infertility is no longer a precondition for
requesting this change in Germany; however, in many other countries this still
remains a necessary precondition (Rauchfleisch 2014).
4.2 Societal Perspective
As already outlined above, instead of challenging the binary model of only two
sexes, trans-identities often rather oppose the coercive assignment of a certain
gender identity to the respective biological sex. Whether one adheres to the binary
model on the level of one’s gender identity is something that differs from person to
person, and is expressed in individually diverse self-concepts and identities. Many
trans persons clearly assign themselves to one gender, whilst others see themselves
more as being somewhere in between or outside these gender categories. These
“new” constellations or alignments of sex and gender identity categories within one
individual are still not fully accepted within many socities, and this non-acceptance
is frequently an enormous obstacle for trans-persons’ desire to live a “normal” life
within their gender identity. As soon as an individual is perceived as being trans,
they often have to face incomprehension, animosities, and vilifications in their

everyday live. The direct perceptibility of their trans-status often differs strongly
between trans-women and trans-men. While trans-men (female-to-male trans per-
sons) can initiate some of the changes of male puberty to a certain degree by taking
male hormones, trans-women (male-to-female trans persons) are largely unable to
undo the effects of the male puberty that they have already undergone. Thus, the
bodily frame, the height and the pitch of the voice of trans-women frequently make
them identifiable as such, whereas trans-men are often more able to pass as
cisgender men. “Going stealth” is much more a possibility for trans-men than it is
for trans-women, and it “enables” them to live a life within their gender identity,
without being permanently identified as a trans-person. Therefore, on average,
trans-women experience much more non-acceptance in their everyday life than
trans-men. Closely linked to this is the fact that the public image, and the public
perception, of transgender-issues has been, and continues to be, much more shaped
by trans-women then by trans-men.
Something of a disjunction exists in the seeming compatibility of, on the one
hand, the political trans*-claim for a higher degree of societal acceptance for
individuals living their lives in their gender identity, and, on the other hand, certain
feminist claims. Interpreted restrictively, transsexuality (and also transgender and
trans-identity) is a clear gender identity that differs from a clear biological sex
within a binary model of two sexes and two genders. This seems to confirm the
feminist standpoint and line of argumentation based on a model that allows the
separation of the phenomena of biological sexes from the phenomena of social
genders. Transsexuals or transgender-persons seem to be ideal examples to support
the claim that biological women are not (and do not have to be) per se feminine
(or female), and consequently they do not have, per se, to be restricted by the corset
of “appropriate” gender stereotypes that produces and legitimizes their societal
secondariness (Elliot 2009, 2012; Snyder 2008). The big difference between the
trans-claim for recognition (and appreciation) and feminist striving for equality is
that trans-identities address (sometimes stereotypic) self-ascriptions, whilst the
demand for gender-equality addresses stereotypic ascriptions that are ascribed by
others (or, indeed, by society as a whole). To put this in its most exaggerated and
least nuanced form, this means that, for example, trans-women may (possibly) wish
to adopt an idea of femininity, and a possibly ultra-feminine lifestyle that, from a
feminist perspective, is often perceived as highly problematic. Taking into account
the fact that transgender persons may not necessarily wish, need, or be able to adjust
their bodies to their gender identity (neither as far as possible, nor gradually) in
order to live within their gender identity, this causes the notion of “solidarity” with
feminist claims to falter, since here the very categories of sex and gender them-
selves are called into question. This might be welcomed from a queer-theoretical,
postmodern perspective (Halberstam 2005; Bendl et al. 2008). However, politi-
cally, this involves the danger of blurring the important starting point for all
political claims for equality and redistribution, namely the dichotomy of being-a-
man or being-a-woman.
14 T. K€
ollen
4.3 Trans-Identities and Diversity Management
Until very recently, trans* has been a marginalized issue in diversity management
(Ozturk and Tatli 2016). If it has been mentioned at all, it has largely only been as
one element of the initialism LGBT (or LGBTI). Within employee resource groups
that use this initialism, then, trans-persons are officially included verbally, but,
when it comes to concrete network activities, they are largely unacknowledged.
Equalization guidelines or corporate codes of conduct do not, by and large, include
one of the trans-terms in their written versions; furthermore, to the terms “sex” or
“gender” (or their equivalents in other languages) is only rarely added the word
“identity”. The self-evidently and seemingly consensually perpetuated
non-integration and non-consideration of transsexuality and trans-identity as one
facet of the diversity dimension of “gender” would seem to reveal that the societal
normalization of appropriate gender identities is widespread, even within the field
of diversity management.
The shunting of the “T” (as well as the “I”) here into a miscellaneous category
that nebulously groups it together with diverse sexual orientations highlights that
little weight is given to trans-identities. Furthermore, it indicates the way that
diversity initiatives monopolize the dimension of gender (or sex) for cisgender
men and women, i.e. for biological men or women, whose gender identity corre-
sponds to their biological sex, and how those initiatives can actually work to
exclude, rather than include, some dimensions. That said, there are indeed several
organizations that do explicitly recognize trans* by having implemented very clear
guidelines on how to handle transitionings within the organization. These guide-
lines have, of necessity, to cover formal and bureaucratic aspects, and they also
have to clarify how a change of a civil status is handled within the organization, in
order to minimize the danger of the trans employee having to running the gauntlet
of potential everyday embarrassments and incomprehension. Furthermore these
guidelines must state how the organization handles potential emerging uncertainty
within the workforce in the case that someone decides to initiate transitioning, and
how the trans person is supported during this phase. It should be noted that besides
helping the trans-person, organizations that implement such guidelines do them-
selves benefit from them. Were an employee to decide to start his or her transition
during employment in a specific organization, one without specific guidelines in
place, the employer or manager, or superior of that individual may find themselves
uncertain of how to handle such a situation, which they may have previously never
encountered. Out of ignorance, misapprehension, fear, or, indeed, in trying to
overcompensate from a fear of doing or saying something wrong, the employer
or manager may inadvertently behave in a hurtful, unsupportive or disrespectful
way, and, as a consequence, the transitioning individual might leave the organiza-
tion. Guidelines can establish clarity, can provide space and opportunities to
address insecurities, and to search for solution possibilities together. In the long
term, therefore, they can help the individual, the employer, the co-workers and the
company itself form a more reciprocally supportive and nurturing framework,
which can only strengthen and benefit the organization as a whole, and all of the
individuals within it.
In summation, an outline will follow of a potential diversity management
approach, which considers trans-identities and intersexuality to be an integral and
equal component for the goal of creating an integrative and inclusive work envi-
ronment and organizational climate. The key to this reconceptualization lies in a
more integrative approach to the dimensions of gender/sex, gender identity, and
sexual orientation, which no longer treats these dimensions as if they are phenom-
ena that are separable from each other.
5 Conceptualizing an Integrative Diversity Management

Approach on Gender/Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual
Orientation
As already mentioned above, if trans-identity and intersexuality are mentioned in

the context of diversity management at all, they are usually grouped together with
“sexual orientation” into one very heterogeneous residual dimension of diversity.
This grouping together in, for example, the initialism LGBT(I) follows the ques-
tionable but common practice of defining the individuals that are represented by
these letters as one “community”, although their social recognition goals are quite
heterogeneous. On the level of language this aggregation gains legitimacy, as
(in the case of the “T” being interpreted as transsexuality) all of these letters
seem to represent different “sexualities”, namely homo-, bi-, trans-, and inter-
sexuality. As has already been outlined, this “commonality” is based solely on
the specious (and for many languages outright fallacious) use of the term “sexual-
ity” within the terms “intersexuality” and “transsexuality”, where “sexuality”
derives from the Latin term “sexus” which designates the biological sex. Within
the terms “homosexuality” and “bisexuality”, on the other hand, “sexuality” stands
instead for a sexual desire or sexual interest. Whilst in English this ambiguous
usage of the term sexuality is merely confusing, in other languages, such as in
German or Polish, it is outright incorrect. Trans- and inter-sexuality represent sex-
or gender categories. However, the diversity dimension of gender/sex is related to
the dimension of “sexual orientation”, insofar as the manifestations of the different
sexual orientations are defined by the desiring and the desired gender/sex, for
example as a same sex/same gender or as opposite sex/opposite gender sexual
desire.
When considering the integration of intersexuality and trans-identity into diver-
sity management programs, one should possibly pre-empt this consideration by
asking oneself why one should follow, or should want to follow, a diversity
management strategy at all. One fundamental idea of diversity management is
that management practice should break away from stereotypic images of the
different manifestations of the different dimensions of diversity. Management
16 T. K€
ollen
practice should rather work towards an ideality where these manifestations are no
longer criteria for organizational allocations of resources and opportunities. For
employees’ career development, and the intra-organizational allocation of tasks and
responsibilities, it should ideally not matter at all whether an employee is intersex-
ual or a trans-man. The only considerations that should be valid are the individual’s
capabilities and the individual’s potential contribution in accomplishing the orga-
nizational goals, and these should be based on parameters such as experience or
talent, rather than founded in stereotypic dimension-related pre-assumptions about
his or her capabilities and contributions. In order to come close to this ideality in
terms of intersexuality and trans-identity, the dimension of “gender/sex” has to be
understood in a much broader und much more integrative way. The dimension
should lose its characteristic of only being understood in a binary way, as being
represented solely by cisgender men and women, i.e. by men and women who have
a gender identity that corresponds to their unambiguous biological sex. The goal of
this integrative approach has to be that the concrete manifestations of one’s sex or
gender become less important, as with it an individual’s self-pigeonholing into a
fixed template of legitimate manifestations would become less important. If an
organization could succeed in creating such a climate of inclusion, or at least if an
organization come close to this ideal, intersex and trans employees would not be
forced anymore to permanently legitimate, defend, or categorize themselves, and
they would no longer have to develop and to apply any debilitating coping strate-
gies. It is true that such a goal of diversity management might smack of an
unrealizable utopian construct, but this is precisely because of the declining, but
still prevalent, societal pressure to unambiguously self-categorize oneself within a
binary model of only two sexes, and to live a gender identity that mostly corre-
sponds to one’s biological sex. Nevertheless, this seems to be the right overall
objective, as it helps to avoid mistakes on the level of concrete actions and
initiatives that might prejudice the related objective of achieving a higher degree
of inclusion for intersex and trans* employees. A working climate that has rid itself
of the pressure to categorize oneself as belonging to a certain sex and gender, and
therefore of attaching to oneself a certain sex- or gender-value, would automatically
make the diversity-dimension of sexual orientation pointless and irrelevant, as it
would need an unambiguous gender/sex assignment by definition (see
e.g. Lewandowski and Koppetsch 2015).
In terms of designing organizational diversity management initiatives this
necessitates the consideration of the dimensions of sex/gender, gender identity,
and sexual orientation as being one common and conjoint field of action, or one
conjoint dimension of diversity. Care must be taken, when addressing the three
layers of this dimension, to address the whole spectrum of potential manifestations
in a value-neutral and unweighted way. Special care should be taken in allowing
space for individually differing identities, self-concepts, and self-designations. A
rough scheme of different manifestations is as follows (Table 2):
Analogous to the concept of trans*, cissexuality or cisgender stands for the
congruence of one’s biological sex and gender identity (Taylor 2010; Sigusch
1991). One’s sexual orientation then can be defined by one’s biological sex or by
Table 2 Manifestations of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation

Dimension of diversity Manifestations
Sex Woman—intersex/inter*—man
Gender identity Transgender/transsexual/trans*—cisgender/cis*
Sexual orientation Homosexual—bisexual/*sexual—heterosexual
one’s gender identity. Whether, for example, a trans-women who is sexually more
interested in women defines herself as being lesbian, or whether she defines her
sexual orientation in another way is individually different.
Having the diversity goal of unshackling individuals’ developmental possibili-
ties and scopes within the organization from their sex, gender identity, and sexual
orientation, must go hand in hand with an approach which keeps in mind and
integrates all of its manifestations, in the case where one of these levels is
addressed. Employee networks that are established around the dimension of sexual
orientation, for example, should also invite, and be open to, heterosexual
employees (K€ ollen 2016). The term LGBT(I) should be avoided, as it might have
a negative impact on two accounts: for one thing, it mixes up different dimensions
and with it different claims; for another thing, it includes only selected manifesta-
tions of these dimensions, which might effectively stabilize the polarization and
hierarchization amongst the manifestations. It is entirely conceivable that initiatives
could be developed that conjointly address the three dimensions, but these initia-
tives must then address the whole spectrum of manifestations of all these dimen-
sions. In this context one must be critical of initiatives that aim at the advancement
or promotion of exclusively women (or exclusively men) as well as of one-sided
mentoring programs, or quota systems. Furthermore, one should approach the
question of applying a gender-neutral language with care. One should at least be
aware that, if linguistically men and women are included in address, this is anything
but gender neutral, as it of course reproduces and stabilizes the binary model of only
two sexes and genders; this is an issue that is especially relevant in, for example
Romance, Slavic, and Germanic languages.
The integration of intersexuality and trans-identity into diversity management
programs opens up a new perspective on approaches to diversity management, and
to the dimensions of diversity management in general. This reframing can be used
to refresh or enlarge one’s interpretation of the term of “inclusion”. In terms of
trans* and intersexuality, inclusion has to mean giving intersex and trans employees
the scope and opportunity to develop individually. Organizations should aim at
creating an organizational diversity climate (K€ollen 2015) that considers every sex
and every gender identity to be equal, a climate which removes and forestalls any
pressure to demonstrate legitimacy, and any pressure on intersex and transgender
employees to justify themselves within the workplace.
18 T. K€
ollen
References
Beachy, R. (2010). The German invention of homosexuality. The Journal of Modern History, 82
(4), 801–838.
Behrend, H. (1994). Mothers do not make Babies: Zur Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung in der
Ethnologie. Zeitschrift f€
ur Ethnologie, 119(2), 175–183.
Bendl, R., Fleischmann, A., & Walenta, C. (2008). Diversity management discourse meets queer
theory. Gender in Management: An international Journal, 23(6), 382–394.
Benjamin, H. (1966). The transsexual phenomenon. New York: The Julian Press.
Benjamin, H. (1967). Transvestism and transsexualism. JAMA – The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 199(2), 136–136.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. New York: Routledge.
€
Calvi, E. M. (2012). Eine Uberschreitung der Geschlechtergrenzen?: Intersexualit€ at in
der“westlichen Gesellschaft”. Baden-Baden: Deutscher Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Cauldwell, D. O. (2006). Psychopathia transexualis. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The
transgender studies reader (pp. 40–44). London: Routledge.
Dargie, E., Blair, K. L., Pukall, C. F., & Coyle, S. M. (2014). Somewhere under the rainbow:
Exploring the identities and experiences of trans persons. The Canadian Journal of Human
Sexuality, 23(2), 60–74.
de Silva, A. (2008). Geschlechter-und sexualpolitische Annahmen in zeitgen€ ossischen
medizinischen Empfehlungen zur Behandlung von Intersexualität. In E. Tuider (Ed.), Quer
Verbindungen (pp. 51–67). Münster: LIT Verlag.
Diamond, M., & Beh, H. G. (2008). Changes in the management of children with intersex
conditions. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 4(1), 4–5.
Domeier, N. (2014). The homosexual scare and the masculinization of German politics before
World War I. Central European History, 47(4), 737–759.
Drescher, J., Cohen-Kettenis, P., & Winter, S. (2012). Minding the body: Situating gender identity
diagnoses in the ICD-11. International Review of Psychiatry, 24(6), 568–577.
Ekins, R., & King, D. (2006). Virginia Prince: Pioneer of transgendering. Binghamton: Haworth
Press.
Elliot, P. (2009). Engaging trans debates on gender variance: A feminist analysis. Sexualities, 12
(1), 5–32.
Elliot, P. (2012). Debates in transgender, queer, and feminist theory: Contested sites. Farnham:
Ashgate Publishing.
Engel, A. (2002). Wider die Eindeutigkeit: Sexualit€at und Geschlecht im Fokus queerer Politik der
Repr€ asentation. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Errington, S. (1990). Recasting sex, gender, and power: a theoretical and regional overview. In
J. M. Atkinson & S. Errington (Eds.), Power and difference: Gender in island Southeast Asia
(pp. 1–58). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Franzen, J., & Sauer, A. (2010). Benachteiligung von Trans* Personen, insbesondere im
Arbeitsleben. Berlin: Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes.
Gatens, M. (1983). A critique of the sex/gender distinction. In J. Allen & P. Patton (Eds.), Beyond
Marxism? Interventions after Marx (pp. 143–160). Leichhardt: Intervention Publication.
Gildemeister, R. (2005). Carol Hagemann-White: Sozialisation: Weiblich — Männlich? In
M. L€ ow & B. Mathes (Eds.), Schl€ usselwerke der Geschlechterforschung (pp. 194–213).
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Gildemeister, R., & Wetterer, A. (1992). Wie Geschlechter gemacht werden: Die soziale
Konstruktion der Zweigeschlechtlichkeit und ihre Reifizierung in der Frauenforschung. In
G.-A. Knapp & A. Wetterer (Eds.), TraditionenBr€ uche. Entwicklungen feministischer Theorie
(pp. 201–254). Freiburg: Kore Verlag.
Goldschmidt, R. (1917). Intersexuality and the endocrine aspect of sex. Endocrinology, 1(4),
433–456.
Goldschmidt, R. (1931). Intersexualität und menschliches Zwittertum. DMW – Deutsche
Medizinische Wochenschrift, 57(30), 1288–1292.
Groneberg, M. (2008). Mythen und Wissen zu Geschlecht und Intersexualität: Eine Analyse
relevanter Begriffe, Vorstellungen und Diskurse. In M. Groneberg & K. Zehnder (Eds.),
“Intersex”: Geschlechtsanpassung zum Wohl des Kindes? Erfahrungen und Analysen
(pp. 83–144). Freiburg: Academic Press Fribourg/Paulusverlag Freiburg Schweiz.
Hagemann-White, C. (1984). Sozialisation: Weiblich – M€ annlich? Alltag und Biografie von
M€adchen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Halberstam, J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives.
New York: NYU Press.
Hanappi-Egger, E. (2015). Gender scripts as access codes to management positions. In A. M.
Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in management: Getting in,
getting on, getting out (pp. 61–73). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hekma, G. (2015). Sodomy, effeminacy, identity: Mobilizations for same-sexual loves and
practices before the Second World War. In D. Paternotte & M. Tremblay (Eds.), The Ashgate
research companion to lesbian and gay activism (pp. 15–29). Farnham: Ashgate.
Herdt, G. H. (Ed.). (2003). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and
history (3rd ed.). New York: Zone Books.
Herrn, R. (2005). Schnittmuster des Geschlechts: Transvestitismus und Transsexualit€ at in der
fr€
uhen Sexualwissenschaft. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Hirschfeld, M. (1910). Die Transvestiten – Eine Untersuchung u€ber den erotischen
Verkleidungstrieb: mit umfangreichem casuistischen und historischen Material. Berlin: Alfred
Pulvermacher & Company.
Hirschfeld, M. (1923). Die intersexuelle Konstitution. Jahrbuch f€ ur sexuelle Zwischenstufen unter
besonderer Ber€ ucksichtigung der Homosexualit€ at, 23, 3–27.
Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., & Lee, P. A. (2006a). Consensus statement on management
of intersex disorders. Archives of Disease in Childhood, Topic, 11, 1–10.
Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., & Lee, P. A. (2006b). Consensus statement on management
of intersex disorders. Journal of pediatric urology, 2(3), 148–162.
oppel, U. (2010). XX0XY ungel€
Kl€ ost. Hermaphroditismus, Sex und Gender in der deutschen
Medizin. Eine historische Studie zur Intersexualit€at. Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld.
K€
ollen, T. (2015). Organisationales Diversity-Klima. In E. Hanappi-Egger & R. Bendl (Eds.),
Diversit€at, Diversifizierung und (Ent)Solidarisierung - Eine Standortbestimmung der
Diversit€atsforschung im deutschen Sprachraum (pp. 223–236). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Köllen, T. (2016). Lessening the difference is more—the relationship between diversity manage-
ment and the perceived organizational climate for gay men and lesbians. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1088883.
Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual
orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. The Journal of Sex
Research, 49(2-3), 244–254.
Landweer, H., & Rumpf, M. (1993). Kritik der Kategorie “Geschlecht”. Deutsche Studien Verlag:
Weinheim.
Lewandowski, S., & Koppetsch, C. (Eds.). (2015). Sexuelle Vielfalt und die UnOrdnung der
Geschlechter: Beitr€ age zur Soziologie der Sexualit€at. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. (1994). Intersexuality and the diagnosis of gender identity disorder.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23(1), 21–40.
Moore, H. L. (1994). A passion for difference: Essays in anthropology and gender. Bloomington,
IL: Indiana University Press.
Morland, I. (2014). Intersex. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2), 111–115.
Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.
20 T. K€
ollen
Olyslager, F., & Conway, L. (2007). On the calculation of the prevalence of transsexualism. In
World Professional Association for Transgender Health 20th International Symposium, Chi-
cago, 2007.
Oosterhuis, H. (1992). Homosexual emancipation in Germany Before 1933: Two traditions.
Journal of Homosexuality, 22(1-2), 1–28.
Ozturk, M. B., & Tatli, A. (2016). Gender identity inclusion in the workplace: broadening diversity
management research and practice through the case of transgender employees in the UK. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(8).
Papoulias, C. (2006). Transgender. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2-3), 231–233.
Pfäfflin, F. (2008). Transsexuelles Begehren. In A. Springer, K. Münch, & D. Munz (Eds.),
Sexualit€aten (pp. 311–330). Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Rauchfleisch, U. (2014). Transsexualit€ at–Transidentit€
at: Begutachtung, Begleitung, Therapie.
G€ ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Reiche, R. (1984). Sexuality, identity, transsexuality. Beitrage zur Sexualforschung, 59, 51–64.
Reis, E. (2007). Divergence or disorder? The politics of naming intersex. Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, 50(4), 535–543.
Remus, J. (2015). Inter*Realitäten. In F. Schmidt, A.-C. Schondelmayer, & U. B. Schröder (Eds.),
Selbstbestimmung und Anerkennung sexueller und geschlechtlicher Vielfalt (pp. 63–74).
Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Richter-Appelt, H. (2004). Intersexualität und Medizin. Zeitschrift f€ ur Sexualforschung, 17(3),
239–257.
Rosselli, D. (2015). Sexual ambiguity: Development of judgement and evaluation criteria over the
centuries. In C. Trombetta, G. Liguori, & M. Bertolotto (Eds.), Management of Gender
Dysphoria (pp. 13–17). Milan: Springer.
Sax, L. (2002). How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto‐Sterling. Journal of Sex
Research, 39(3), 174–178.
Sigusch, V. (1991). Die Transsexuellen und unser nosomorpher Blick: Zur Enttotalisierung des
Transsexualismus. Zeitschrift f€ ur Sexualforschung, 4(3), 225–256.
Snyder, R. C. (2008). What is third‐wave feminism? A new directions essay. Signs, 34(1),
175–196.
Stern, C. (2010). Intersexualit€ at: Geschichte, Medizin und psychosoziale Aspekte. Marburg:
Tectum Verlag.
Taylor, E. (2010). Cisgender privilege: On the privileges of performing normative gender. In
K. Bornstein & S. B. Bergman (Eds.), Gender outlaws: The next generation (pp. 268–272).
Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.
Voß, H.-J. (2012). Intersexualit€at-Intersex: eine Intervention. Münster: Unrast Verlag.
Wetterer, A. (2004). Konstruktion von Geschlecht: Reproduktionsweisen der Zweigeschlech-
tlichkeit. In R. Becker & B. Kortendiek (Eds.), Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung
(pp. 122–131). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
WHO (2015). ICD-10 Version: 2015. F64.0 Transsexualism. http://apps.who.int/classifications/
icd10/browse/2015/en#/F64.0.
Yanagisako, S. J., & Collier, J. F. (1987). Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship. In J. F.
Collier & S. J. Yanagisako (Eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis
(pp. 14–50). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Zajko, V. (2009). ‘Listening With’ Ovid: Intersexuality, Queer Theory, and the Myth of Her-
maphroditus and Salmacis. Helios, 36(2), 175–202.
Zehnder, K. (2010). Zwitter beim Namen nennen - Intersexualit€ at zwischen Pathologie,
Selbstbestimmung und leiblicher Erfahrung. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Zucker, K. J. (2015). The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria. In C. Trombetta,
G. Liguori, & M. Bertolotto (Eds.), Management of gender dysphoria (pp. 33–37). Milan:
Springer.
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding
Transgender Workplace Experiences
Katina Sawyer, Christian Thoroughgood, and Jennica Webster
1 Chapter Outline and Rationale
While the literature on LGBT individuals’ workplace experiences is growing, there

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

Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Villanova University,
Villanova, PA, USA
e-mail: katina.sawyer@gmail.com
C. Thoroughgood, Ph.D.
D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Management and Organizational Development,
Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
e-mail: cthoroughgood@neu.edu
J. Webster, Ph.D.
College of Business Administration, Management, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI,
USA
e-mail: jennica.webster@marquette.edu

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_2
22 K. Sawyer et al.
“Doing gender” (West and Zimmerman 1987)—the act of dressing, interacting,

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

populations, we will examine the prevalence of transgender identity in the popula-
tion overall. Estimates suggest there are at least 700,000 transgender individuals in
America (Gates 2011). However, it is difficult to estimate the actual number of
transgender individuals within the population because the U.S. Census does not
Queering the Gender Binary: Understanding Transgender Workplace Experiences 23
collect this information. Further, there are many transgender individuals who, once
they transition from one gender to another, no longer wish to categorize themselves
as transgender but rather choose to identify as their current gender. Thus, it is likely
that these estimates are lower than the actual percentage of the population qualify-
ing as transgender. Global estimates, which are also likely to be underestimated,
demonstrate that transgender individuals make up anywhere from 0.1 to 1.1 % of
the world’s population (UNAIDS 2014). Again, it is difficult to estimate statistics
on specific country-level data, given the lack of official collection of this data.
However, the European Union produced a report in 2013 (European Union
2013) on LGBT populations in the EU, which showed that about 7 % of their
survey respondents identified as transgender. Yet, this does not offer an estimate of
how many individuals within the general population (non-LGBT) identify as
transgender. As such, we will not attempt to provide specific statistics for individual
countries, but rather suggest this is an area within which future research might be
conducted. In many countries where transgender identity is particularly tenuous, it
may be impossible to collect this information without transgender individuals
fearing repercussions. Yet, even using the lowest estimate (0.1 % of the world’s
population), there are likely 7,000,000 individuals worldwide who stand to benefit
from more inclusive transgender laws (not including their friends, family, and those
who advocate with the community). Given the opportunity for transgender law to
better address the concerns of the transgender community, we now discuss trans-
gender discrimination and the law at a societal level, both in the U.S. and
internationally.
3 Transgender Discrimination and the Law: Global

Perspective
International law surrounding transgender populations is constantly evolving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

broadly, have historically faced stigmatization (Badgett et al. 2007; Irwin 2002).
Thus, achieving authenticity at work is challenging for these individuals given the
inherent fear of discrimination (Budge et al. 2010; Connell 2010; Schilt and
Connell 2007) and associated stress of deciding to openly express their identities
or not (Button 2004; Clair et al. 2005). Transgender individuals may wish to display
their authentic gender identities and/or to disclose their transgender status, yet feel
unable to within an intolerant workplace. However, research suggests authentic
identity expression leads to positive outcomes, including greater psychological
wellbeing and life satisfaction (Goldman and Kernis 2002; Ryan et al. 2005;
Sheldon et al. 1997) given that individuals are able to achieve an authentic sense
of self at work (Griffin 1992). For this reason, transgender individuals are likely to
benefit from being gender authentic at work but may feel unable to do so given the
threat of prejudice. This “push and pull” between happiness and being shielded
from discrimination has also been documented in lesbian and gay populations (Ellis
and Riggle 1996).
Because transgender employees may face high levels of discrimination, they
may feel unsafe and unwelcomed at work. The Level Playing Field Institute reports
that more than two million transgender professionals turn over each year due to
unfairness, costing U.S. employers roughly $64 billion annually (Human Rights
Campaign 2008). Within the U.S., the National Transgender Discrimination Survey
(Grant et al. 2008), found that roughly 90 % of transgender employees have
experienced harassment, mistreatment or discrimination. The report also found
that 47 % reported being either fired, not hired, or denied a promotion due to
their transgender status and over a quarter reported having lost a job due to their
transgender status. These findings were compounded for African American trans-
gender participants. Finally, the report showed that while a majority of individuals
reported hiding their transgender status at work, a vast majority of those who did
transition in the workplace reported feeling more comfortable at work and
experiencing higher levels of job performance as a result.
However, once transgender individuals make the transition from male to female
or from female to male, the battle against gender norms does not end. Schilt (2006)
found that female to male transgender individuals received higher performance
appraisal ratings post-transition, while Schilt and Wiswall (2008) found that male to
female transgender employees suffered a decrease in pay after transition. Further,
Schilt and Connell (2007) found that same-gender employees often took transgen-
der employees “under their wing” after transition. However, this same-gender
grooming was not always favorable for transgender employees. For example,
female to male transgender employees reported being exposed to sexist language
from male coworkers, causing greater discomfort for these previously female-
identified employees (Schilt and Connell 2007).
While the above cited research is a starting point for assisting organizations in
creating safer spaces for transgender employees, research on transgender
populations in the workplace is still in its nascent stages. Further, studies examining
transgender discrimination outside of the U.S. are even more scant. For this reason,
it may be difficult for organizations to determine best practices for fostering
inclusive workplaces for transgender individuals. In the following section, we
outline a number of interventions that organizations are currently utilizing to
cultivate safe spaces, as well as suggestions for best practices for facilitating
transgender workplace fairness.
7 Recommendations for Creating Trans-Inclusive

Workplaces
Organizations wishing to create inclusive work environments for transgender

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

compared to 5 years ago. The CEI tracks whether companies have LGBT friendly
policies, benefits, training, public commitment to LGBT issues, a lack of missteps
with regard to LGBT discrimination, and holding people accountable to LGBT
inclusivity via metrics and surveys.
As a result of instituting the CEI, many companies, especially those on the
Fortune 500 list, have strived to become more LGBT inclusive, as it serves as a
marker of being progressive and sensitive to the diverse needs of their workforces.
However, not all companies have utilized the CEI, organizations that do not apply
for ranking are not evaluated, and instituting the CEI recommendations does not
guarantee that an organization’s culture will fully support LGBT employees. Thus,
we are unaware of many firms’ standing in terms of true LGBT equality. For this
reason, it is useful to outline some best practices for organizations interested in
creating positive workplace climates for transgender employees. Many of these
suggestions (though not all) are also highlighted in the Transgender Law Center
(2013) Model Transgender Employment Policy, which provides a detailed account
of the specific procedures to follow with regard to transitioning employees in the
workplace. It should also be noted that these recommendations may be more easily
followed within national contexts which are already more accepting of transgender
individuals overall. Thus, employers should take time to consider how these
suggestions might be best implemented within their particular cultural context,
with a constant focus on prioritizing the safety and well-being of transgender
employees overall.
First, it is important that organizations recognize the gravity of having proper
name change policies for transgender employees. While this appears to be a
straightforward issue, it is possible that firms might keep track of employee data
in many places, making it difficult to ensure that there will be no confusion about
proper naming as individuals move throughout the organization. For example,
while it may not be offensive for an employee who gets married and changes her
last name to be referred to at work by her maiden name from time to time, this kind
of naming slippage is likely to be much more upsetting for individuals who are
transitioning to a different gender. Further, even if an individual does not enact an
official name change, coworkers should honor an employee’s request to be called
by a different name. Finally, education for employees on proper pronoun usage is
also important. Transgender employees may wish to be referred to using traditional
or alternative pronouns (such as “ze”). Determining one’s preferred name and
pronouns is a vital way to show commitment to ensuring comfort through the
transition process.
Second, gender neutral restrooms and/or other degendered spaces (e.g., locker
rooms) also encourage comfortable work environments for transgender employees.
Determining which restroom to use when going through a transition or when one is
gender non-conforming can be highly stressful. Providing gender neutral spaces at
work can help alleviate some of this stress. Privacy is also important within these
spaces, given transitioning and gender non-conforming employees may not have
undergone surgery and might feel uncomfortable, whether it be in restrooms or
locker rooms (Human Rights Campaign 2015c). Gendered spaces within organiza-
tions may go unnoticed by many who are traditionally gender identified. Yet, these
spaces can be highly contentious for those attempting to navigate the many nuances
of transitioning genders at work.
Third, gender neutral dress codes can also help transgender employees feel
comfortable and formally supported by their organizations. By providing
employees with a dress code that outlines professional articles of clothing, without
assigning particular styles of dress to different genders, workplaces make it clear
that clothing and gender are not conflated. This may also help organizations from a
legal standpoint given there is some precedent for the illegality of gender-based
clothing requirements (Fiske et al. 1991). Providing employees with clear, unam-
biguous messages that wearing gendered clothing is not required will allow gender
non-conforming employees to confidently wear the styles of clothing they wish to.
Fourth, transgender education, as well as gender education more broadly, may
also help employees to better understand the importance of transgender inclusivity,
as well as the socially constructed nature of gender overall. Including information
about transgender employees may also promote the effectiveness of diversity
trainings, given consideration of the challenges that transgender individuals’ face
may cause employees to question their basic assumptions regarding gender and
other social categories. Moreover, this level of education and awareness may affect
other organizational policies, such as requiring employees to check “male” or
“female” in job applications without providing other options. In fact, it has been
demonstrated that reactions of coworkers to transgender employees is a mediating
mechanism between disclosure and a variety of important workplace outcomes
(Law et al. 2011). Thus, including this content within training and education pro-
grams may create greater support for transgender employees after disclosure,
leading to more positive experiences for those who have disclosed.
Fifth, as demonstrated in LGB samples (e.g., Ragins et al. 2007), proximal
organizational policy is a strong predictor of outcomes for stigmatized employees.
As such, zero tolerance policies for harassment and open channels for reporting
within organizations are likely critical for transgender employees as well. Law
et al. (2011) found that organizational support was related to both the likelihood of
disclosure and to important workplace outcomes, including satisfaction and com-
mitment within a sample of transgender employees. Thus, it is wise for companies
to make it clear that discrimination based on gender identity will not be tolerated
and to provide genuine support for employees who may have experienced prior
discrimination. Further, because employees may face new forms of prejudice when
living as a different gender, it is also important to inform transitioning employees of
these potential challenges and to support them in coping with such challenges. For
instance, Schilt (2006) found that while female to male transgender employees
reported experiencing less sexual harassment following their transition, Schilt and
Wiswall (2008) found that male to female transgender employees reported
experiencing sexual harassment for the first time after transition.
30 K. Sawyer et al.
Sixth, work-family conflicts (WFC) may also take on different forms within
transgender versus traditionally gendered populations. While we are not aware of
any studies of WFC within transgender populations, as we noted earlier, transgen-
der employees may have less social support from family and friends. The presence
of social support is important in lowering family-to-work conflict (FWC; Adams
et al. 1996). For this reason, it may be the case that transgender employees
experience higher levels of FWC (or life-to-work) conflict. Additionally, changing
relationships (e.g., when individuals change their gender identity and must
reconfigure their sexual partnerships to reflect opposite-sex or same-sex partner-
ships) may create stress for transgender employees. Finally, health concerns related
to transitioning may also create life-to-work stress for transgender employees.
While coworkers may be naturally sympathetic toward other coworkers who are
facing major health-related issues (e.g., cancer), transgender employees may not
enjoy this same level of support with regard to their unique health issues, particu-
larly those related to the transition process. In sum, it is vital that employers
recognize the added life stressors that transgender employees may be facing and
be empathetic to these unique concerns.
Finally, it is important to think about intersectionality within the transgender
community. Intersectionality is the idea that identities are layered and interlocking,
such that being a Black lesbian female represents a qualitatively different experi-
ence than being either Black, lesbian, or female only (Crenshaw 1989). As noted
earlier, African-American transgender employees fare much worse on important
outcomes than their peers (Grant et al. 2008). Thus, paying attention to additional,
intersecting identity categories when examining outcomes for transgender
employees may be important. Creating surveys to assess the climate toward diverse
groups of employees, which include items specifically about transgender
employees, should be examined at the sub-group level as well if possible (e.g.,
Black transgender employees versus White transgender employees).
In order to support the interventions outlined above (as well as any other
interventions for increasing transgender inclusivity at work), additional research
must be conducted in order to demonstrate their necessity and merit. In the
following sections, we outline directions for future research on transgender
populations, as well as methodological recommendations for studying transitioning
transgender employees.
8 Future Directions for Transgender Research

in the Workplace
Despite the encouraging signs that show there is a burgeoning interest among
scholars in studying the unique work experiences of transgender people, large
gaps in our understanding still remain. The following sections discuss these gaps
and highlight opportunities for future research.
8.1 Methodological Considerations
Researchers interested in studying the work experiences of transgender people face

a number of design and measurement challenges. Perhaps the most pressing
challenge is the implementation of research designs that explicitly consider the
issue of time. For instance, in studying the inherent changes in identity associated
with gender transition procedures, it is important to recognize that these processes
are dynamic in nature and unfold over a series of phases—each marked by varied
focal issues and obstacles. Although research has yet to offer theoretical models
regarding the unique identity-related changes and trajectories that transgender
individuals experience at work over the course of the gender realignment process,
Devor’s (2004) influential work provides some insight. Devor put forth a frame-
work that describes a long-term, multiple stage approach conceptualizing transsex-
ual identity development. Inherent in this process is the notion of a developmental
sequence that occurs over time. For example, this multi-stage process is theorized to
begin with interpersonal discomfort and exploration of new identities (e.g., trans-
sexualism), leading to progression through the transition to a new gender, and
culminating in learning to live with a new gender identity. Clearly this process,
or even one phase of it, might occur over the course of years and even decades. In
order to study this type of long-term temporal process and the changes that may
occur both within and between individuals, scholars would need to employ a time
series or panel study design. These types of longitudinal designs require the
collection of repeated measurements on the same individuals over time (see
Newson et al. 2012 for an accessible treatment of longitudinal design and analysis).
Aside from this developmental approach to examining long-term temporal
processes that transgender people experience, researchers may be interested in the
day-to-day lived experiences of these individuals at work. This approach also
requires the consideration of time and a different type of research design. For
example, some researchers have argued for the application of the Minority Stress
Model to transgender samples in order to examine the more immediate impact of
daily stress on health and wellbeing (Hendricks and Testa 2012). This model
proposes that people with stigmatized identities experience greater interpersonal
mistreatment, such as experienced discrimination and violence due to their minority
status. To capture the short-term impact of this daily stress on proximal outcomes
for transgender people, researchers would need to employ an experience sampling
methodology or daily diary design. These types of intensive longitudinal designs
require the collection of momentary assessments on mood, emotion, affect, expe-
riences, and/or situational context one or more times per day over the course of one
to several weeks (see Bolger and Laurenceau 2013 for an accessible overview of
these intensive longitudinal designs).
In addition to design-related concerns, there are issues of measurement to
consider when conducting research with transgender samples. Chief among these
issues is the lack of validated measures that tap their unique experiences. Although
there have been promising advances in this arena (e.g., Brewster et al. 2012;
32 K. Sawyer et al.
Bauerband and Galupo 2014), greater empirical attention needs to be given to the
development of measures of key constructs unique to the transgender experience.
Researchers interested in pursuing this endeavor should consider beginning with
prior qualitative studies. The rich, qualitative insights generated from this work can
serve as a useful theoretical basis for understanding work-related experiences that
are highly relevant to transgender employees. For example, Nadal et al. (2012)
employed a qualitative research design to develop a theoretical taxonomy of subtle
forms of discrimination, or microaggressions, directed towards transgender people.
This study provides a foundation on which to base the development and validation
of a high-quality measure of this construct.
The dearth of measures devoted to transgender populations has led researchers to
rely on measures adapted from the LGB literature. Underlying this approach is the
assumption, as noted earlier, that the experiences of transgender people and sexual
minorities (i.e., LGB individuals) are one and the same, and thus these groups can
be represented as a single homogeneous group. In addition, this approach assumes
that the items comprising these measures are equally relevant and similarly expe-
rienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, and that the psycho-
metric properties of these measures are equivalent in a transgender population
(Moradi et al. 2009). While research has shown that lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender individuals share many similar characteristics and experiences
(Fassinger and Arseneau 2007), there are few studies that have tested these
assumptions or provided evidence for the applicability and psychometric properties
of the adapted measures for transgender people. One noteworthy exception is a
recent study by Brewster and colleagues (2012), which modified three commonly
used measures of constructs in the LGB literature to improve their applicability to
transgender people [i.e., Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire
(Waldo 1999), the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Climate Inventory
(Liddle et al. 2004), and the Workplace Sexual Identity Management Measure
(Anderson et al. 2001)]. In this study, the authors present evidence for the reliabil-
ity, factor structure and criterion validity of the adapted measures. Future research
should continue to move away from relying on adapted LGB-related measures
without a more rigorous examination of the psychometric properties and applica-
bility of these measures to transgender populations.
8.2 Shifting of Social Roles and Power Dynamics
Gender identity is not only fundamental to one’s internal identity but also one’s
social identity. The gender identity one enacts carries with it a set of normative role
prescriptions derived from deeply rooted social and cultural practices and beliefs,
which guide the ways in which we think about ourselves and interact with other
people (Shotter 1993). These social roles are organized and structured along the
idea that gender is a binary status comprised of only two genders, male and female.
Moreover, it is assumed that these gender roles are static; one is either male or
female and one does not change roles. The male and female gender roles carry with
them unique privileges and liabilities. At work, this is reflected in gendered
disparities in opportunities for advancement in pay and promotions that advantage
men and disadvantage women (Catalyst 2013; Elliott and Smith 2004; Haveman
and Beresford 2011).
Transgendered people do not necessarily conform to the gender binary, and their
gender role may not be static. Thus, as they change from one gender to another they
experience a change in their social role as well. That is, they may move into a
different social group that has different privileges and liabilities. This notion of
moving between social roles brings with it a number of intriguing questions. For
example, how do transgendered people reconcile the attitudes formed by experi-
ences shared among members of one role with attitudes and behaviors shared
among members of their new role? It may be that previously held attitudes and
beliefs are misaligned with the attitudes and beliefs expected of the new role. Such
misalignment may, in turn, create considerable cognitive dissonance. For example,
in a recent qualitative study, several participants who were born female and
identified as male reported the struggle of reconciling their attitudes about male
advantage with their new male identity (Levitt and Ippolito 2014). Levitt and
Ippolito note that, “participants who were self-identified feminists, explained
how, on the one hand, being male-identified fit their own sense of their gender
but, on the other hand, they were disturbed by their entry into the position of power
they had struggled against as women” (p. 53).
To help alleviate this cognitive dissonance, it seems the person has at least three
options. First, they might work to discard their previous attitudes to better align
with those expected in their new role. This essentially involves accommodating the
new identity by conforming to role expectations and adopting the attitudes and
beliefs of the new social group. Second, they may maintain their attitudes but
choose to conceal them and act covertly to express them. This would involve subtly
seeking out ways to influence or even subvert the system. Third, they may openly
reveal their disparate attitudes and directly challenge the system. Research should
examine this process of reconciling the attitudes and beliefs shared by those in
one’s previous social identity and the attitudes and beliefs shared by those in one’s
new social identity, as well as identify the conditions under which individuals are
more or less likely to engage in these different strategies.
8.3 The Impact of Role Change on Coworkers
As important as it is to understand the shift in social roles experienced by those who

are transgender, it is also important to understand how the change of social roles
impacts members of the social group that is ‘receiving’ the new member. If, owing
to policies and practices, we can assume that transgendered people do not imme-
diately face aggression or discrimination in terms of job loss, or by being bullied
and harassed, there are a range of other reactions members of the receiving social
34 K. Sawyer et al.
group may have. They may reject the transitioned person’s new identity and only
allow them nominal membership in the group. Group members may ostracize the
individual by excluding them from all but formal interactions in the group
(Williams 2007). They may also engage in incivility, a form of low intensity
interpersonal mistreatment marked by rude and discourteous acts with ambiguous
intent to do harm (Cortina et al. 2001). The ambiguity surrounding incivility is
problematic given the instigators can hide their aggressive motives, thereby
avoiding sanctions (Cortina 2008).
On the other hand, members of the receiving group may accept the transitioned
person’s new identity and allow them full membership in the group. This would
involve accommodating the individual and assimilating them into the group. The
results of a qualitative study by Schilt and Westbrook (2009) provides several
examples of how this accommodation and assimilation process occurs through
the use of gender rituals to reinforce gendered norms for behavior. For example,
when describing those who underwent female to male transitions, these authors
noted several instances in which coworkers attempted to make the person feel like
‘one of the guys’. These included heterosexual men encouraging the transitioned
person to express sexual desire for women and engaging in physical gestures (e.g., a
slap on the back) that are consistent with masculine gender role norms. Schilt and
Westbrook also report women asking female to male transgendered individuals to
lift and carry objects and engage in similar gender role-consistent behaviors. Future
research examining the conditions under which rejection or assimilation occurs is
important. Beyond focusing solely on the role of individual differences among
transgender employees and their coworkers, or the role of organizational-level
characteristics it is important to examine how characteristics of the work group
influence rejection or assimilation processes.
8.4 Explanatory Mechanisms
As noted earlier, transgender individuals often face a number of unique identity-

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

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

be particularly sensitive to perceived mistreatment.
Despite their likely susceptibility to state paranoia at work, especially during the
early stages of the gender transition process, transgender individuals may enjoy a
number of positive outcomes, including greater psychological health and life
satisfaction, as a result of openly expressing their true selves at work (Goldman
and Kernis 2002; Ryan et al. 2005; Sheldon et al. 1997). However, little is known
regarding the mechanisms that explain why open expressions of identity may
benefit those with stigmatized identities, especially transgender individuals. We
turn to the authenticity literature for potential clues. Authenticity refers to the
“unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self in one’s daily enterprise” (Kernis
2003, p. 13). Authenticity is related to physical and psychological health, including
lower levels of anxiety, depression, distress, and negative affect and greater life
satisfaction (Goldman and Kernis 2002; Ryan et al. 2005; Sheldon et al. 1997). The
concept of authenticity encompasses four interrelated facets: awareness, unbiased
processing, action, and relational authenticity (Kernis 2003). While awareness and
unbiased processing refer to being conscious of and honest about self-relevant
cognitions, respectively, action refers to enacting behaviors consistent with one’s
internal self-concept rather than engaging in behaviors as result of external pres-
sures or expectations. Relational authenticity refers to achieving a sense of self
around others that is consistent with one’s self-concept (Kernis 2003). In terms of
gender identity, we focus on the latter two facets given the former two are related to
identity formation and coherence, which are internal, rather than behaviors and
relationships that manifest in the workplace.
In terms of transgender employees, action authenticity involves situations in
which individuals engage in gender-relevant behaviors that align with their inner
representations of their gender (e.g., West and Zimmerman 1987). Given the strong
societal norms associated with being male or female and the routine feeling
experienced by many transgender people of having physical characteristics that
do not align with their inner gender identity, action (in)authenticity likely reflects a
pervasive concern for such individuals. When one’s inner gender identity and
outward expressions of gender are misaligned at work, such situations may produce
an ongoing state of felt dissonance (Festinger 1962) between one’s internal con-
ceptualization and outward behavioral expressions of gender. Relational authen-
ticity, applied within the context of gender identity, can be characterized by
situations in which one’s inner conceptualizations of their gender identity are
shared and affirmed by others (in this case, coworkers, supervisors, customers,
and other key stakeholders affiliated with the organization). This idea is consistent
with self-verification theory (Swann 1983, 1987), which suggests people have a
fundamental need for others to perceive them in a manner consistent with how they
perceive themselves. However, when others fail to recognize or affirm a transgen-
der employee’s gender identity, relational inauthenticity is experienced.
When transgender individuals attempt to align their inner gender identities with
their external appearance at work, whether through gender realignment procedures
(e.g., hormone therapy, surgery) or more cosmetic changes (e.g., wearing gender
consistent clothing), they should experience greater freedom from the internal
conflicts between their inner gender identities and their outward expressions of
gender, leading to greater action authenticity. These outward, physical changes may
further promote action authenticity given individuals may feel less restricted in
enacting gender-relevant behaviors at work that align with their inner gender
identities. Action authenticity, whether through gender realignment or other
authentic expressions of gender, may further serve to align self- and others’
perceptions of one’s gender, fostering greater relational authenticity. That is,
when individuals are able to achieve greater congruence between their inner
representations and outward expressions of gender and coworkers are supportive
of their true self, this is likely to produce greater “fit” assessments between self- and
others’ perceptions of one’s gender identity. Higher levels of action and relational
authenticity, in turn, may promote a number of positive employee outcomes. For
example, in a recent study of 173 full-time transgender employees, Martinez
et al. (2014) found that individuals who had fully transitioned had higher job
satisfaction and person–organization (P–O) fit perceptions and experienced less
perceived discrimination than individuals who had not begun the transition process.
This study’s results align with findings from Law et al. (2011), who found that
disclosing one’s transgender status was related to higher job satisfaction, as well as
recent qualitative analyses that point to the benefits of being gender authentic at
work, including reduced fears of discrimination and more positive interactions with
coworkers (e.g., Budge et al. 2010; Davis 2009; Schilt and Wiswall 2008).
9 Conclusion
The purpose of the present chapter was to begin to illuminate the unique issues,
concerns, and experiences of transgender individuals, both in and outside of the
workplace, in order to spur future research on this largely forgotten stigmatized
identity group in organizations. To date, the organizational psychology and man-
agement literatures have almost completely overlooked the many theoretically
intriguing and practically important questions surrounding transgender people in
the workplace. This seems to be at least partly due to a prevailing assumption that
transgender individuals face similar, or even identical, social stigmas and chal-
lenges as those of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals (i.e., sexual minorities).
Indeed, the general labelling of individuals as “LGBT” has most likely contributed
to this erroneous assumption. However, as our discussion highlights, gender iden-
tity and sexual identity are not one and the same and have different social impli-
cations for members of these different identity groups at work and in social
situations more generally. The lack of research on transgender individuals’ work-
place experiences is further compounded by the inherent difficulties associated with
accessing this unique population and the challenges of recruiting identified indi-
viduals, who are often highly concerned about anonymity, given job alternatives are
frequently scarce (due to the strong societal stigmas operating against them).
38 K. Sawyer et al.
Finally, we would also like to note a general trend we have observed toward studies
that frame issues of stigmatization and identity in broad, non-sample specific terms.
More precisely, there seems to be an unfortunate focus in many top-tier manage-
ment journals on using unique samples (for example, LGB employees) to study
broad topics like stigmatization, identity management, and authenticity. While such
work may provide some theoretical insights, namely within the context of qualita-
tive, grounded theory examinations, they presuppose the experiences of study
participants generalize across different stigmatized identity groups and further
reinforce misplaced assumptions that overlook important distinctions between
these groups. It is our view that more comprehensive theories and overarching
claims should only be made after carefully considering and examining the poten-
tially unique experiences of different stigmatized identity groups at work. It is our
hope that the present chapter brings into focus and provides an impetus for
researchers to consider the unique work-related experiences of transgender indi-
viduals, so that employers may begin to provide empirical support for and discover
new types of organizational solutions which promote transgender inclusivity
at work.
References
Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationships of job and family involvement,
family social support, and work–family conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2013). Know your rights—Transgender people and the law.
Accessed March 21, 2015, from https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/know-your-rights-transgen
der-people-and-law
Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., Chung, Y. B., & DiStefano, T. M. (2001). Developing an
assessment of sexual identity management for lesbian and gay workers. Journal of Career
Assessment, 9, 243–260.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 80, 286–303.
Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of
sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Insti-
tute, University of California.
Bauerband, L. A., & Galupo, M. P. (2014). The gender identity reflection and rumination scale:
Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92,
219–231.
Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Introduction to human stress and cognition in organizations.
Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations, 3, 19.
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary
and experience sampling research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2012). Transgender individuals’ work-
place experiences: The applicability of sexual minority measures and models. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 59, 60–70.
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work experiences of transgender
individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 57, 377–393.
Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A
quantitative investigation. Group and Organization Management, 29, 470–494.
Catalyst. (2013). Catalyst quick take: Women’s earnings and income. New York, NY: Catalyst.
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state
paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39, 44–66.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing
invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30, 78–95.
Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons: The
influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 53–69.
Cochran, B. N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A., & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges faced by
homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless
adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92,
773–777.
Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences
of transpeople. Gender and Society, 24, 31–55.
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.
Coyne, J. C., & Gotlib, I. H. (1983). The role of cognition in depression: A critical appraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 94, 472–505.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago
Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.
Davis, E. C. (2009). Situating “fluidity”(trans) gender identification and the regulation of gender
diversity. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 15, 97–130.
Devor, A. H. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen stage model of transsexual identity
formation. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 8, 41–67.
Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological
Review, 69, 365–386.
Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. (1996). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness about
one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 75–85.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2013). European Union for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender survey, results at a glance. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://
fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu-lgbt-survey-results-at-a-glance_en.pdf
Factor, R. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (2008). A study of transgender adults and their non-transgender
siblings on demographic characteristics, social support, and experiences of violence. Journal of
LGBT Health Research, 3, 11–30.
Fagan, J. F., & Shepherd, P. A. (1982). Theoretical issues in the early development of visual
perception. In M. Lewis & L. Taft (Eds.), Developmental disabilities: Theory, assessment and
intervention. New York, NY: S. P. Medical and Scientific Books.
Fagan, J. E., & Singer, L. T. (1979). The role of single feature differences in infant recognition of
faces. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 39–45.
Fassinger, R. E., & Arseneau, J. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”:
Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
In K. J. Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 19–49).
Washington, DC: APA.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science
research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American
Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060.
40 K. Sawyer et al.
Frable, D. E., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social
interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140–149.
Freeman, D., Pugh, K., Antley, A., Slater, M., Bebbington, P., Gittins, M., & Garety, P. (2008).
Virtual reality study of paranoid thinking in the general population. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 192, 258–263.
Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? The Williams
Institute, UCLA Law School. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association,
5, 18–20.
Grant, J. A., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Kiesling, M. (2008). Injustice at
every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Retrieved from http://
transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Exec_Summary.pdf
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. Journal
of Homosexuality, 22, 167–196.
Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2007). Transgender youth and life-threatening behaviors.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 37, 527–537.
Haveman, H. A., & Beresford, L. S. (2011). If you’re so smart, why aren’t you the boss?
Explaining the persistent vertical gender gap in management. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 639, 114–130.
Heller, M. (2006). More employers broadening nondiscrimination policies to include transgender
workers. Workforce Management, 85, 62–63.
Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with trans-
gender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the minority stress model. Pro-
fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43, 460–467.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). Self-categorization and subjective uncertainty resolution: Cognitive and
motivational facets of social identity and group membership. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, &
L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal
behavior (pp. 323–349). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Human Rights Campaign (2008). Transgender inclusion in the workplace (2nd ed.). Retrieved
February 19, 2016 from http://www.fs.fed.us/cr/HRC_Foundation_-_Transgender_Inclusion_
in_the_Workplace_2nd_Edition_-_2008.pdf
Human Rights Campaign. (2014). Corporate equality index 2015. Accessed March 21, 2015, from ht
tp://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/CEI-2015rev.pdf#__utma
¼ 149406063.824689562.1426638163.1426645485.1426908860.4&__utmb ¼ 149406063.2.10.
1426908860&__utmc ¼ 149406063&__utmx ¼ &__utmz ¼ 149406063.1426908860.4.4.utmcsr
¼ google|utmccn ¼ (organic)|utmcmd ¼ organic| utmctr ¼ (not%20provided)&__utmv ¼ &__
utmk ¼ 233756318
Human Rights Campaign. (2015a). Transgender people and marriage: The importance of legal
planning. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/transgender-
people-and-marriage-the-importance-of-legal-planning
Human Rights Campaign. (2015b). International law protecting transgender workers. Accessed
March 21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/international-laws-protecting-trans
gender-workers
Human Rights Campaign. (2015c). Restroom access for transgender employees. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/restroom-access-for-transgender-
employees
Irwin, J. (2002). Discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and transgender people working in
education. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14, 65–77.
Jacklin, C. N., DiPietro, J. A., & Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Sex-typing behavior and sex-typing
pressure in parent–child interaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 413–425.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses
to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry,
14, 1–26.
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and acting in the shadow of
doubt. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 251–275.
Kramer, R. M. (2001). Organizational paranoia: Origins and dynamics. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 23, 1–42.
Law, C. L., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., & Akers, E. (2011). Trans-parency in the
workplace: How the experiences of transsexual employees can be improved. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 79, 710–723.
Levitt, H. M., & Ippolito, M. R. (2014). Being transgender navigating minority stressors and
developing authentic self-presentation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 46–64.
Liddle, B. J., Luzzo, D. A., Hauenstein, A. L., & Schuck, K. (2004). Construction and validation of
the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered climate inventory. Journal of Career Assessment,
12, 33–50.
Lombardi, E. L., Wilchins, R. A., Priesing, D., & Malouf, D. (2001). Gender violence: Transgen-
der experiences with violence and discrimination. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 89–101.
Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive
consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 49, 918.
Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765.
Marr, J. C., Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Do I want to know? How the motivation
to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought,
suspicion behavior, and social rejection. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 117, 285–297.
Martinez, L., Sawyer, K., Thoroughgood, C. N., & Ohle, L. (2014, May). Transitioning at work:
The impact of gender realignment on workplace attitudes. Symposium presented at the 29th
Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Honolulu, HI.
Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E. (2009). Counseling psychology
research on sexual (orientation) minority issues: Conceptual and methodological challenges
and opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 5–22.
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and systemic microaggressions
toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counsel-
ing, 6, 55–82.
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2012). Ending anti-transgender violence. Accessed
March 21, 2015, from http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NCTE_Blue
print_for_Equality2012_Ending_Violence.pdf
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2015). Housing and homelessness. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NCTE_Blueprint_
2015_HousingHomelessness.pdf
Newson, J. T., Jones, R. N., & Hofer, S. M. (2012). Longitudinal data analysis: A practical guide
for researchers in aging, health, and social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as
predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,
141–155.
Open Society Foundations. (2013). Transforming health: International rights based advocacy for
trans-health. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/
default/files/transforming-health-20130213.pdf
Park, M., & Dhitavat, K. (2015). Thailand’s new constitution could soon recognize third gender.
CNN. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/world/third-gender-
thailand/
42 K. Sawyer et al.
Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Quintana, N. S., Rosenthal, J., & Krehely, J. (2010). On the streets: The federal response to gay
and transgender homeless youth. American Progress. Accessed March 21, 2015, from https://
cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/06/pdf/lgbtyouthhomelessness.pdf
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing
invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33, 194–215.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118.
Ryan, R. M., LaGuardia, J. G., & Rawsthorne, L. J. (2005). Self-complexity and the authenticity of
self-aspects: Effects on well-being and resilience to stressful events. North American Journal
of Psychology, 7, 431–448.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys? How transmen make gender visible at work. Gender and
Society, 20, 465–490.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make gender trouble? Gender,
Work and Organization, 14, 596–618.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity “gender normals” trans-
gender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender and Society, 23, 440–464.
Schilt, K. R., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and
workplace experiences. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 8, 1–26.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-
role variation in the big five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity
and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393.
Shotter, J. (1993). Becoming someone: Identity and belonging. In N. Coupland & J. F. Nussbaum
(Eds.), Discourse and lifespan identity (pp. 5–27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 170–179.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In
J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 1038–1051.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K., Webster, J., & Martinez, L. (2015). State paranoia at work:
Empirically examining transgender employees’ work experiences. In Poster to be presented at
the 30th Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists.
Philadelphia, PA.
Transgender Law Center. (2004). Transgender health and the law: Identifying and fighting health
care discrimination. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://translaw.wpengine.com/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/07/99737410-Health-Law-Fact.pdf
Transgender Law Center. (2012). Frequently asked questions: What the EEOC’s decision in the
Macy v. Holder case means for you? Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://translaw.wpengine.
com/issues/employment/eeocfa
Transgender Law Center. (2013) Model transgender employment policies. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/model-work
place-employment-policy-Updated.pdf
UNAIDS. (2014). Transgender people. Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.unaids.org/
sites/default/files/media_asset/08_Transgenderpeople.pdf
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Psychology, 58, 425–452.
Wojcik, M. E. (2014). Male. Female. Other. India requires legal recognition of a third gender.
International Law News, 43, 4.
Yogyakarta Principles. (2015). Accessed March 21, 2015, from http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.
org/principles_en.pdf
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges
of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male
Transgender in the Indian Organizational
Space
Animesh Bahadur and Kunal Kamal Kumar
1 Introduction
In the Indian social space, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
community encounters varying levels of recognition and acceptance. Though
traditional narrative may provide spaces for the conventional ‘third gender’ like
the Hijra/Aravani1 community or other queer identities like the Jogappas2, but
these spaces lie on the margins. The binaries that emerged with India’s colonial
encounter with Britain often stigmatize any modern queer identities (Penrose
2001). It is hence not unusual to see the contemporary queer identified person as
‘diseased’ and ‘unnatural’ in the mainstream discourse, often making them vulner-
able to identity based discrimination and sexual violence (Shaw et al. 2012).
One of the major struggles for any member of the queer group is to assert a
positive identity in the societal context. In this context, coming-out at the workplace
is seen to be a major milestone as it targets workplace integration through identity
affirmation (Ward and Winstanley 2005; Woods and Lucas 1993). Like in the rest
of the world, coming-out makes employees from the group more satisfied at the
workplace in the Indian context as well (MINGLE 2012). The challenge of coming-
out however has its unique complexities for the transgendered person who often
challenges the binary view of gender that tends to polarize ‘men’ and ‘masculinity’
and ‘women’ and ‘femininity’. The transgender person challenges this polarity by
often framing the identity as liminal though moving towards one side of the binary
1
Umbrella term for several traditional identities including biological men identifying as women,
MSMs, eunuchs, hermaphrodites; often knit as a community with its own social system.
2
‘Feminine Boys’ dedicated to the Goddess Yellamma who often lead a same-sex relationship
(Bradford 1983).
A. Bahadur (*) • K.K. Kumar
T A Pai Management Institute (TAPMI), Manipal, India
e-mail: animeshbahadur@gmail.com; kumarkunalkamal@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_3
44 A. Bahadur and K.K. Kumar
(Wilson 2002; Diamond et al. 2011). As some scholars (Connell 2010; Schilt and
Connell 2007; Schilt 2006) argue, the transgender subject is often conveyed
expectations of acting like the destination gender and is often guided for gender
conformity. The transgendered person’s own efforts at transgression are hence
often conditioned by the societal and organisational view on ‘being’ a man or a
woman; in the organizational context, the sanction to prevention of transgression
could also be supported by various rules and policies including the organization’s
commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion. In the Indian context, the issue
complicates further since there is a tendency to identify the ‘third gender’ with the
aforementioned Hijra or Aravani community (Reddy 2005), the members of which
are by and large identified with feminine behaviour even if they are biological
males. This often implies lack of social cognition and legitimation for transition and
sex reassignment. The situation is even more difficult for female-to-male transgen-
der person (Edelman 2009), as no prominent traditional male-to-female transgender
groups exist in the mainstream; coming-out among the female-to-male transgender
persons is hence often associated with major problems of identity formation and
negotiation in order to be accepted (Zimman 2009).
This chapter discusses the case of Arjun (name changed), a transman (male-to-
female transgender person) who had an open transition (Schilt and Connell 2007)
i.e., transition from the gender at birth to destination gender without changing his
job or workplace. Working in a consulting firm in Mumbai, Arjun chose to come
out at his workplace and shared the news of his transition with all his office
colleagues. While coming-out reduces self-stigma (Morris et al. 2001), it creates
barriers, both in personal as well as professional life (Kalra 2012; Sebastian Maroky
et al. 2014). Even though Arjun’s gender-shift got acceptance from his office
colleagues, it posed its own challenges. The chapter looks at the coming-out and
transition of Arjun in the Indian context. We endeavour to look at to what extent the
transsexual experience gets impacted by traditional queer identities and how the
transgender subject negotiates gender identity with pressures to conform either to
gender at birth or destination gender. We further probe the way a transgender
person deals with tensions between the tradition and the modern perspective in
transgenderism.
2 Gender-Identity in India: A Socio-Linguistic Enquiry
The Indian mythological scene is filled with stories of third gender, suggesting the
prevalence as well as acceptance of the queer community (Doniger 1980). The
word ‘Tritiya Prakriti’ (the third form/neuter) is an indispensable part of the ancient
Indian text, with frequent reference to it in the Sanskrit treatises (Wilhelm 2003).
As per a popular folk narrative, when Rama3 went to forest in approval of his
3
Rama is worshipped as an incarnation of Vishnu, one of the most prominent gods of the Hindu
pantheon.
I Am the Man for the Job: The Challenges of Coming Out as a Female-to-Male. . . 45
father’s judgement of 14 years’ exile, a large number of people followed him. Rama
ordered that all the males and females return immediately, effectively giving no
specific order to the third gender who opted to remain in the forest. Impressed with
their devotion, Rama granted several boons and honour to the queer community
(Vyas and Shingala 1987). The Indian religious tradition is full of such incidents
that bestow religious sanction on the identity of the queer community.
While ancient treatises of India give a prominent space to the queer community,
their identity has also been affirmed in the languages of the era. Sanskrit language,
the parent language of most of the dominant languages of the Indian subcontinent,
is a highly infected language that gives a prominent space to gender-neutral words
(gender assignment in Sanskrit is done through three categories, viz. Masculine,
Feminine, Neuter). In fact, third sex is itself divided into many different categories
wherein the variance is in terms of physical and psychological characteristics. Such
elaborate categories suggest the larger social acceptance and understanding of the
‘other’ gender in ancient India.
In the medieval times, while the respect of the queer community declined, they
retained a prominent space in the royal courts of the Islamic rulers. The queer
people were seen as powerful people who had close association with the Indian
royalty (Reddy 2005). This phenomenon could also be seen in the linguistic space:
Urdu language, a language associated with Muslim community of modern day India
and Pakistan, retained the gender inflection property of Sanskrit language. It may be
noted that the word Hijra has its roots in the Arabic word ‘hjr’ that means ‘leaving
one’s tribe’. The Hijras, as a community separated from the mainstream, is thus
acknowledged from the medieval times itself. This recognition of the Hijras along
with their separation from the mainstream represents the hallmark of the attitude of
the society towards the genderqueer. While there is recognition for the unique status
the representative of the third gender representatives, there is also their separation
from the mainstream that is visible.
The advancement of the European colonialists in the Indian subcontinent led to
the decline of the queer community. The decline was most prominent at the end of
the nineteenth Century which saw the dominance of the British government across
major parts of the Indian subcontinent (Chatterjee 1999). Marked by Victorian
conservatism, the colonial rulers promoted a binary understanding of gender and
consequently suppressed the people belonging to the third gender (Kugle 2002). It
may also be noted that most Romance languages have binary gender inflections,
reflecting the sentiments of the social setup wherein gender is seen in binary terms;
the same is the case with medieval and modern English. Gradually, the colonial rule
with its Victorian English perspective led to a largely binary perspective on gender:
the linguistic bifurcation ultimately led to the loss of queer identity (Chatterjee
2002).
When the British emerged as the single largest colonial power in the Indian
subcontinent, they further crushed the identity of the queer community though
passage of law. The British saw the queer community as a mentally deranged
community and ‘punished’ them inhumanly: such treatment was given legal sanc-
tion through the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871. Under this law, people belonging to the
queer community could be arrested without warrant and sentenced to imprisonment

up to 2 years. The community enjoyed very little civil rights: they could neither
adopt nor act as guardians to minors; they had no power to write a will. There was
systematic persecution of the queer community—a complete deviance from the
Indian cultural tradition. Though this law was modified within 2 years of the British
leaving India, its remnants had already impacted the Indian cultural scene as the
legacies of binary gender continued (Agrawal 1997).
The independence of India in 1947 could not change the situation of the third
gender representatives and they still lacked the respect they once had (Sharma
2014). While this made life difficult for those who were biologically neither male
nor female, those who found themselves to be psychologically at odds with their
biological sex were also fearful of coming-out because of the deep stigma attached
to non-conformance to binary genders. This further led to suppression of their right
to expression and their right to be one with their self-determined, self-identified,
and self-chosen gender. In a way, their right to choice was curtailed and their right
to lead a dignified life was attacked. Nonetheless, despite the odds that they faced,
the queer community was able to maintain an identity of their own by forming a
close knit ‘community’ like the Hijras or Aravanis.
3 Transgenderism: Structural Boundaries of Identity
Transgenderism, which may be seen as a discursive act that ‘both challenges and
reifies the binary gender system’ (Gagné and Tewksbury 1998) often depends on
institutional definitions and community acceptance since the ‘structuration’ is
located in daily life. The challenge posed by the transgendered person is often
limited to challenging only select elements of the gender schema in a given context
while largely adhering to the societal definitions of conformity. This conformity in
‘doing gender’ (Connell 2010; Schilt and Connell 2007; Schilt 2006) is first and
foremost to the acceptance of either male or female identity as defined by the
modern institutions. This definition does not just come as an imposition from the
mainstream but also from the transgender groups themselves, some of whom reject
the liminal existence (Wilson 2002) though there is a huge diversity on who the
transgender person may choose to deal with the issue of gender. In the Indian
context, this is also coupled with the unique interaction of traditional
non-conformist gender identities and British colonial perspective on gender.
As discussed above, the classical Indian literature, especially Sanskrit literature,
often asserts the fluidity of gender (Narayanan 2003). From men who became
women (including the warrior Arjuna in the epic Mahabharata) to God assuming
male and female form together in esoteric traditions, there are enough myths to
uphold the idea of gender transition as well as oscillation as defined in the
contemporary gender studies. The problem however arises due to the gap between
the classical liberalism and the prevalent institutional values. Both the traditional
codes (including the Smriti literature that has been a reference for modern civil law)
and the existing norms have clear roles and identity markers for males and females.
Secondly, the very myths that accept the fluidity of gender often metamorphose into
folklore dismissive of the fluidity, much in line with the binary gender view of the
West: for example, the use of the name Shikhandi, a hermaphrodite character from
Mahabharata as typifying someone who is not ‘man enough’ (Custodi 2007). More
importantly, the Indian co-existence process, based on institutional exclusivism has
put the traditional gender non-conformist groups on the margins, with stigmatized
status. These non-conformists include religious communities like Jogappas who we
mentioned in the introduction part and the Sakhis or the female acting mendicants
dedicated to Lord Krishna in Vrindavan.4 The second group is the actors who enact
female roles in exclusively male performing arts like Jatra, Bhandgiri and
Shumang Lila. All the above groups are generally isolated from the mainstream
and often sexually exploited. The third major group is the Hijras or Aravanis, which
includes eunuchs and is expected to dance, beg, or be a sex worker. Like with the
other transgender groups, these identities are also shaped by the mainstream norms
related to these communities with the phobic and the erotic often combined through
religious sanction. The predominance of the above groups in gender
non-conformity has led to a stereotype of anyone who does not fall into the socially
acceptable gender norms as a representative of one of the above identities. Due to
the absence of a strong queer-assertive movement (as of now dominated by Hijras/
Aravanis, gays and lesbians) there is little recognition of the transgender groups like
transsexuals in the society. Overall, it is not unusual for people to equate the
genderqueer with a Hijra/Aravani. Even the famous NLSA Judgement of Supreme
Court mentioned in the next section often uses Hijra and transgender
synonymously.
4 Modern Institutions, Work and Gender Non-conformity
India’s colonial encounter added another dimension to the gender stereotyping. In

the process of subjugating the Indians, the British identified their own traits and
actions as masculine while dismissing the local non-assertive petty bourgeoisie as
well as other subjects as either less than masculine or too aggressive. In her study on
the production of ‘manly Englishman’ and ‘effeminate Bengali’ in the nineteenth
Century colonial Bengal, Sinha (1995) points out how the categorization of British
considered ‘Oxbridge masculinity’ defined by choice of professions, ability to
protect women, involvement in certain kinds of sports, and reaction to military
work, as the defining features of being a man. Such constructs have shaped the
definition of ‘man’ at work and in turn influenced the laws and norms that came into
place. The British laws and norms finally came to define being a man in the Indian
workplace: this included dress codes, rules and protocols. This reinforced and
4
Vrindavan is a city near Delhi, the capital city of India.
further cemented the male–female binary, often exacerbating the stigmatized status
for the non-conformists, as already discussed above with reference to the Criminal
Tribes Act 1871. The legacy lives on with digression in the above rules leading to
disciplinary action against the identified non-conformist. The high level of stigma
came to the fore in the case of D K Panda, a police officer from the state of Uttar
Pradesh, who was holding the highest state-level police rank of Director-General. In
line with the above mentioned Sakhis tradition, the police officer had started using
female make-up and veil identifying himself as ‘Radha’, the beloved of Krishna
(The-Hindu 2005; Tripathi 2005). However, this not only led to negative media
coverage of the officer, but also disciplinary action against him for violating the
dress code (Rediff 2005).
Even though the recent decades have witnessed a revivalist trend emphasizing
the classical stories of gender non-conformity, and the emergence of LGBT move-
ment in India (Vanita and Kidwai 2000; Pattanaik 2014), it is still the gender binary
that dominates the public spheres including the workplace. The colonial laws are
often ushered in action against those who represent gender non-conformity or
display same-sex desire. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1861 still exists in
the same form criminalizing any act of sex ‘against the order of nature’ (Narrain
2009). With respect to Hijras, the police is often reported to use Sections 294 and
268 of the Indian Penal Code 1861 that deals with action in case of obscene acts in
public that “cause annoyance to others” creating public nuisance (Ratnam 2014).
On the positive side, the changes that help the transgendered persons’ struggle for
identity and acceptance include a judgement by the Supreme Court of India in 2014
(popularly known as the NLSA judgement) affirming the rights of the transgender
community and suggesting affirmative action for them. The judgement provides
support to self-identification and affirmative action for the transgendered persons
(Boyce 2015). Another positive trend has been emergence of debate on the question
of queer identified persons in the media, which has led to better awareness on the
issue.
5 Framing the Gender Identity at Workplace
The paradox of classical liberalism and contemporary exclusionism poses its own
challenges for framing of gender identity in a ‘masculine’ modern workplace. The
classical and esoteric traditions espouse androgyny in concepts like
Ardhanariswara (half male–half female God), thus showing acceptance of gender
and sexual ambiguity (Chakraborty and Thakurata 2013). However, the assertion of
the colonially inspired gender binary negates the liminal identities and a person is
expected to accept the social constructs of ‘male’ or the ‘female’ as unchangeable
and inalienable. In this context, the case of Arjun (the subject of current research)
represents a change in the above dichotomous response from the society. While
Arjun experienced apathy and to some extent transphobia in the larger community,
he found relatively more acceptance for his transition at the workplace.
Gender identity, like any other mark of identity is considered as jointly produced
where the institutional context may shape the normative definition which in turn
interacts with the agent’s interpretation of the identity leading to the final structur-
ation of the concept of male or female. Since gender is both contextual and
dynamic, it poses challenges of definition in the context of space and time. This
challenge is often manifest in conflict between the normative view and the inter-
pretation. The gender binaries as perpetuated by the medicalized view of identity
have shaped the male and female identity, corresponding to roles based on biolog-
ical sex. This binary view, has in turn, either moved the other gender identities to
the margins, or has identified them as deviant. In spite of the queer movement and
alternative affirmations, the binary view of gender still typifies the norms and roles
in the habitus of a given industrial or post-industrial society. Since modern work
was shaped by the same paradigm that supported the male–female dichotomy,
modern institutions have been instrumental in reinforcing gender definition through
organizational systems. The transgender person, in spite of challenging the pre-
dominant view, has to negotiate the identity in conformity with the normative view.
Given the lack of understanding about the transgender identities, the modern
workplace may often lack the wherewithal to help the transgender person feel safe
and accepted. The diversity policies, which cater to a range of identities, often fail
to address the specific question of transgender identity. This could be due to the
tendency to club all the queer identities together (Zimman 2009). Secondly, the
multiplicity of non-normative gender identities (ranging from cross-dressers to
those who have undergone sex reassignment surgery) and their fluidity also fails
to give a standard identity model. Such lack of standard model creates confusion at
the level of policy framing. Lastly, the overall discomfort with liminal identities
makes both the structure and the agent identify with one pole of the gender binary
thereby negating gender radicalism (Wilson 2002). This effectively closes the
scope of negotiation for any third gender or related alternative assertions.
The above factors make it imperative to look at the experiences of the transgen-
dered persons as they assert and negotiate their identities in the workplace. It is
especially necessary to look at the identities in the context of South Asia where the
traditional ‘Third Gender’ identities including the Hijras often dominate the trans-
gender discourse thereby creating certain stereotypes (generally negative) about
gender non-conformity.
6 Coming-Out as a Transgendered Person
All the queer identified persons including transgender groups share a few features
of coming-out. First, there is no specified age or clear phase in life when a person
would come out. Secondly, there are generally several phases of coming-out
beginning with one’s own self, follows by some trusted confidantes, and then at
work. Thirdly, coming-out need not always be to everyone given the needs of self-
preservation. Here, however the physical changes in a transsexual person may act as
a compulsion to come out (though there are enough transgendered persons who
have undergone sex reassignment but have not come out). Despite notable similar-
ities in the coming-out process, the acceptance and sharing of the non-conformist
identity for a transgender person is qualitatively different from that of sexual
minorities like gays and lesbians (Ruvio and Belk 2013). While the coming-out is
often a static event in the case of gays and lesbians (barring the case of coming-out
to new colleagues or clients), it happens in many stages in the case of a transgender
person. Moreover, the transgender identity is not just an addition to the larger
identity of the person but tends to shape the basic gender identity (Gagne
et al. 1997). It can sometimes be a total transformation that erases all the previous
markers as in the case of a transsexual who has undergone hormone treatment and
sex-reassignment surgery (Zimman 2009; Wilson 2002).
The coming-out in case of a transgendered person often corresponds to the stages
in the transition and given the pressures to conform, the person often accepts the
socially acceptable gender identities (Beemyn and Rankin 2011). The pressure to
conform emanates from several sources: Gagné and Tewksbury (1998) identify the
need for community acceptance (which includes both the mainstream and the
reference group or the transgender community itself) and self-preservation
(employment, economic reasons, and safety) as primary sources. These pressures
often lead to clear movement towards one gender as preferred by the larger
transgender groups as well as employers. Some transgendered persons however
choose to avoid coming-out or hide their gender dysphoria in order to preserve their
status and well-being (Bell et al. 2011). One major fear that plays at such times is
the fear of losing job given the pressures to conform at work (Jones et al. 2015).
Nonetheless, it is not easy for a transsexual/transgender person undergoing sex
reassignment surgery to hide her/his emerging identity given the physical markers
of the same. In such cases the coming-out and acceptance is negotiated with move
towards a clear identity including erasure of all marks of the previous or socially
assigned gender. The coming-out at work is thus largely linear.
While there are pressures to conform to an identity when one comes out at
workplace, the process of coming-out at work has been found to positively affect
one’s well-being and job satisfaction (Griffith and Hebl 2002). This is because an
employee spends most of the productive years at workplace and it is here that most
of the relationships beyond the family are made. This process helps overcome the
sense of deception or moral lack (Zimman 2009) and thus feel comfortable with the
colleagues. Even in case of non-acceptance, many people find it better to come out
so that they can be comfortable being who they are.
7 Male-to-Female Vis-a-Vis Female-to-Male Transition
Most scholars emphasize the lack of congruence between gender identity, sex and
sexual orientation. The need for transition, if felt strongly, would be first established
through certification of gender identity dysphoria by a psychiatrist. This is generally
followed by intake of hormones followed by surgery. While these elements are
common in both male-to female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals, it
is generally more obvious in the FTM case due to the conspicuous changes in the
face including emergence of beard. This often calls for being cautions of the facial
features if a transman is not keen to come out. In either case, the transition will lead
to marked shifts in doing gender due to hormonal change as well as the emergence
of the biological traits of the other sex. A shift in the use of gender-based rest rooms
may just be one such transition in behaviour. It additionally leads to pressure to
change informal groups (to socialize) that are often formed on gender basis. The
acceptance in the destination gender group becomes an important factor in the
transition (Schilt and Connell 2007). It is here that the person may often encounter
rejection at work if the transition is not complete. However there is enough
literature to show that the acceptance is high for both MTF and FTM transitions
in a workplace when the transition is clearly towards male or female identity (Schilt
and Connell 2007; Schilt 2006).
Given the above context of transgender identity and coming-out, we examine the
narrative of Arjun, a transman (female-to-male transgender), who has undergone
sex reassignment surgery and is now in the process of changing sex in all his
identity documents. The endeavour is to look at the mechanism of gender negoti-
ation and adjustment in the larger milieu of traditional perspective on transgender
identities with special reference to his workplace.
8 Arjun’s Experience
8.1 The Case Context
Coming from a traditional middle-class family from Maharashtra in Western India,

Arjun who lives with his father in Mumbai was born as a biological female at the
end of 1970s. He always acted as a ‘tomboy’ (sic) and dressed in male clothes. From
the age of nine, he was confused by his attraction to girls in his class. This confusion
continued and led him to believe that he is a lesbian since ‘gay’ and lesbian’ were
the only words known to him at that time. He was in the same mind-set when he
went for his undergraduate education. He had a very hard time at college due to his
confusions related to gender identity and related sexual attraction. However, given
his mother’s health condition, he did not focus on his own life and concentrated on
taking care of her. In 2001 (1 year after completing his undergraduate degree),
Arjun got a job as Receptionist-cum-Coordinator in the property/real estate vertical
of XYZ Consultants, his current employer. The vertical was not doing well and
hence Arjun was moved to the company’s HR Consultancy arm in 2002 along with
his current boss and one more colleague; they have been together ever since.
XYZ Consultants, a private company established in 1992 is into recruitment
consultancy largely for the manufacturing sector. The company has clients in UAE,
parts of Europe, and India. The key accounts are largely from multinational
corporations. The total employee strength of the company is fifteen, which is
distributed in five teams. Being a small company, they have a flexible structure
with no standardised designations and predominance of a team system. Arjun’s
team consists of his immediate boss who is the Key Accounts Manager, Arjun as
Consultant, and another Executive Member. They together take care of four key
accounts. The culture of the company is marked by family spirit, with the Founder-
CEO taking care of each of the employees’ needs. It values the contribution of
employees and supports them in their personal contingencies. The CEO did not
hesitate in giving Arjun long leaves whenever he needed it to take care of his
mother. Four employees, including Arjun, his immediate boss, and the third mem-
ber of the team, have been with the company for almost 15 years. Arjun himself has
grown from the post of Receptionist to Consultant over a period of 13 years. Having
worked with the same immediate boss has led to a strong bonding between them,
making him strongly identify with the group. Arjun strongly identifies with his
workplace, considering it his second home. To him it was never been a ten-to-six
job as he always worked in a supportive environment with considerate and com-
mitted team members.
8.2 Realization of Transgender Identity
In 2005, Arjun came across some lesbians on Orkut, some of whom became his
friends. However, he found that he was different from them as they were quite
comfortable being females while he was not. In 2008, he got in touch with a
transman online who made Arjun realize and accept that he is a man trapped in a
woman’s body. Arjun could not start his transition immediately since his mother’s
condition had further deteriorated and she was bed-ridden and totally dependent on
him. His life all this while was largely about work and home.
In 2011, Arjun’s mother expired. It was then that he started contemplating
transition. Since it would be a life-changing event, he gave himself a year and
finally resolved for the rites de passage in 2012. He got the support from another
transman and both started their transition providing mutual support to each other.
The first phase was getting in touch with a psychiatrist to ascertain the gender
identity dysphoria (GID). He got the GID certificate after two sittings and then
contacted an endocrinologist for prescription of hormones.
8.3 Transition and Coming-Out
Arjun shared the news of his starting of hormonal shots with his immediate boss.
During our interview with Arjun, he mentioned that she was the first person to
whom he came out beyond his transman friend. However, Arjun found that she was
sceptical about the whole process since she was not sure how it would ultimately
affect Arjun. After 4 months of hormonal shots, there were manifest changes in
Arjun’s body, including growth of facial hair and increase in weight. This change
boosted his confidence and he started coming-out to those who currently constitute
his support system. This included his maternal aunts who have been supportive. He
also came out to his brother and father in due course but his support system included
his friends and aunts only.
His colleagues at work were noticing the visible changes but no one questioned
him. However, before his top surgery in 2013, he felt the need to share his decision
with his CEO who had always been supportive to him in the past. He came out to his
CEO and shared his condition and his plans to go for surgery. The immediate
reaction of the CEO according to Arjun was, “How can I help you?” The CEO
added that though he did not understand the issue as narrated by Arjun, he would
support him. He added that Arjun should do whatever makes him happy. The CEO
subsequently approved a loan for Arjun’s surgery as well and allowed him to
proceed for 1 month’s leave. The acceptance could be seen as one of the factors
of why Arjun strongly identifies with the organisation and feels integrated at the
workplace; this is much in line with the coming-out related literature (Ward and
Winstanley 2005).
8.4 Coming-Out to All Colleagues
In 2014, Arjun felt that there is need to be out to all his colleagues. He was feeling
‘fed up of the dual life’ and wanted to have this ‘burden (of truth) off his chest’. He
hence wrote a mail addressed to all his colleagues as well as the CEO stating his
transition. In response, the CEO wrote a mail marking all the employees stating that
the company supported him in his transition. Arjun himself felt that this made him
more comfortable though he was not sure of the reaction of some of his colleagues
in other teams. To his surprise, the subordinate in his team, ‘who is not even a
graduate’ and is not considered so ‘broad-minded’, started calling him Arjun, the
new name that he adopted.
8.5 The Identity at Work
The transition process of Arjun was marked by varying degrees of acceptance for
him at work. While the subordinate in his team showed acceptance of his changed
gender identity and accepted his new name, many others did not start calling him by
his new name. This includes Arjun’s immediate boss who though never addressed
him as a female in the past, suddenly become conscious of Arjun’s past and started
to call him by his past name only. Arjun admitted that this had a lot to do with his
own inevitable adherence to his past identity that remained with him due to his
identification as a female in all the legal documents. He felt that he might need to
speak to all his colleagues to explain his perspective on his transition and his need to
be identified as a man including the adoption of a new name.
The CEO on his part had mentioned that he and the others would take their own
time getting used to his new identity and hence he needed be patient. Arjun
observed that though the CEO did not start addressing him as a ‘he’, he tended to
use gender-neutral terms while conversing. This phase can be understood in terms
of transition, which once complete, helps in the acceptance among the members of
the destination gender (Schilt and Connell 2007).
8.6 Female at Work, Male Beyond
Arjun was very clear that he wanted to make a new start and forget the past identity
that incorporated bad memories. He hence adopted a new name and started apply-
ing for change of name in his documents of identity. He got his name and gender
changed in the Election Card, one of the most widely accepted proofs of identity in
India and recently in his personal (income tax) account number, better known as
Permanent Account Number (PAN).
At work, where the formal identities are dependent on his past name even today,
he remains a female. All his official correspondence is with the old name. Addi-
tionally, many of the old clients whose accounts he handles are yet to know of his
transition. However, what annoys him is not the official identity but the refusal of
his colleagues, particularly his immediate boss, to accept his identity. The rein-
forcement of gender binaries by his colleagues is in line with the discussion in the
previous sections where one tends to negate gender radicalism (Wilson 2002) which
is visible here, as Arjun’s transition is not yet complete. This liminality represented
by identity markers from both the genders is a way to subvert the gender schema
(Thanem and Wallenberg 2014) but it is often not appreciated by the mainstream
that is used to the binary view.
8.7 Negotiating Identity
There is no way that all documents (including social security related documents) at
work will reflect Arjun’s new identity. He hence plans to quit the job once he gets
his name changed in all major identity proofs and re-join the office with the new
identity, as suggested by his CEO. He feels that once he re-joins, he will have
reasons to insist that everyone address him as Arjun. He is ready to wait for that. He
has also planned coming-out to his clients after the change in the documents. He is
sanguine that the clients will take it positively since they are more concerned about
the quality of work irrespective of his gender identity. Moreover, in past, he
interacted with one client who was quite impressed with Arjun’s resolve to go for
transition and he hopes the others will also react the same way. He has already
started interacting with the candidates who apply for jobs through his agency as a
male only.
The current inability to influence his colleagues to change their perspective is in
his view partly due to his own lack of effort to understand their view. In his view, it
is both he and his colleagues who are going through the phase of adjustment: years
of working together has concretized the pre-transition identity, making it difficult
for them to change their perspective; this he feels will change once he erases the
elements of his female identity. He also points out the general view of identifying a
transgendered person with Hijras creates many misconceptions about the MTF and
FTM transsexuals and other transgender groups. He feels that it would require a lot
of awareness for the people to look at transgender persons beyond the traditional
identities and accept transmen or transwomen as representing unique gender iden-
tities in a continuum.
8.8 Masculinity in the Informal Work Context
Arjun clearly identifies himself with males but does not want to be considered the
part of ‘butch’ stereotype. He does not feel the need to adhere to the ‘macho’ image
often projected by transmen and identified with acts of smoking, drinking, ‘hating’
cooking, aggression in social interactions, and looking down on women (sic). He is
focused on acceptance as being a man through change in the markers of his past
female identity. He adheres to the same perspective at the workplace and feels
comfortable therein. His narrative hence relates to the reported undoing of gender
where the transgender subjects identify their own ways of expressing the gender
with their own choice of elements from the past and the destination gender (Connell
2010; Hines 2010).
Arjun also does not feel he is sidelined in the ‘masculine’ discussions focused on
topics like sports, as he himself is interested in sports. Nor does he feel the need to
project any image through specific actions given the informal and largely family-
like setting at work. He however feels that the situation would have been different if
the company he worked for was a large one or if the CEO was also not the owner of
the firm. In his own experience, he came across several transmen who had to quit
their job due to lack of acceptance in a formal set-up. It is hence the informal system
and support from the top management that makes his journey easier. Due to the
influence of the CEO, no one questions him or forces him to act in a way. He is
hence largely comfortable being a male at work except when he is addressed by his
past name by his colleagues and when he is expected to be a part of gender-centred
events at work (like best dressed male/female competition), which he avoids. He
finds acceptance more at work than with immediate relatives including his elder
brother. The inclusion of Arjun in informal talks of men though not exactly an
example of ‘interning’ under men as reported by Schilt and Connell (2007), does
reflect of greater acceptance and recognition of Arjun’s male identity.
A liberating fact for Arjun is that he can be a ‘man’ in all respects that matter to
him once he is out of the office. He has become more accepting of the dichotomy of
identity at work as compared to his identity in personal life. He is hence no longer as
disturbed about the way his colleagues address him as he used to be earlier.
9 Discussion
The study of Arjun is one of the first about a transgendered person in the work
context in India (the authors could not find any writing on the topic beyond articles
in newspapers and magazines). However, the story of Arjun largely reinforces the
findings of the past researchers from different parts of the world. Like the examples
cited in the quoted studies (Gagné and Tewksbury 1998; Zimman 2009; Wilson
2002), a clear move towards one side of the gender binary is visible in the case of
Arjun. He frames the identity by the method of erasure (removing all major markers
of the past including his name) to achieve a new embodied, cognitive, as well as
legal identity. He also asserts his male identity through his expectation of being
accepted as a male by his colleagues and the society.
Though Arjun (like others subjects reported in the past studies) negotiates and
accepts a male identity through erasure, he does not agree to the community identity
based on overt ‘macho’ acts. This does not negate the view in the existing literature
about the role of transgender community shaping its members’ identity by
according acceptance to a particular set of behaviours. The transsexuals in India
are a recent phenomenon and are represented majorly by informal groups and
networks. Given that the transmen in India do not have any strong forum of
solidarity (the few exceptions represented by forums like ‘Umang’ in Mumbai
that includes both lesbian/bisexual woman and transmen), the situation offers
several reference or informal groups (other than just the butch category) that one
can identify with. This also offers a scope to ‘undo’ gender in terms of transgressing
the boundaries set by the binary view and incorporating many acts that subvert the
view on masculinity or femininity and the stereotyped associated with them
(Thanem and Wallenberg 2014). This rejection of stereotypes can also be seen as
his challenge to the prevailing norms of gender. His love for cooking and dislike for
looking down upon women question the view of masculinity among transmen.
However, this is within the larger social definition of what defines a man and hence
as discussed above, the issue of transgenderism challenges as well as reifies the
existing gender definitions.
The process of coming-out and acceptance in Arjun’s case has followed the same
path that has been reported in other researches. He had a linear coming-out based on
move towards a specified gender, starting with a close confidante at work and then
moving to the whole group. The relationships at work reduced his fears of negative
impact of coming-out and motivated him to be out, which in his view was inevi-
table, as he did not want to lead a dishonest life. Use of terms like ‘dual life’ and
‘burden off (his) chest’ display his focus on the moral argument (Zimman 2009).
Since Arjun is also a counsellor for many struggling transgendered persons and a
part of queer activism, he wants to build a positive image about the identity in
which coming-out is a major step.
The uniqueness of Arjun’s experience comes from his negotiation of identity
despite hailing from a traditional family and while working in a small company that
does not have specific record of promoting diversity. The way both the employer
and Arjun cooperated to assert his new identity, shows the significance of the role of
the top management in promoting diversity and acceptance. The acceptance from
one of his clients and his plan to come out to all the major clients can be seen in the
context of the emerging understanding about the need for diversity with the
inclusion of queer identified groups. Arjun cites the positive impact of an episode
of the popular talk show ‘Satyamev Jayate’ that focused on queer identities includ-
ing featuring an interview with one MTF transsexual. In his view, the apathy about
the transgender issues can best be countered by such information dissemination.
The uniqueness of the Indian context as already mentioned comes from confus-
ing the transgender identities with Hijra identity. With the juxtaposition of the two,
there is a tendency to associate exclusion with the transgender person as is com-
monly the case in dealing with the Hijras. However, Arjun encountered his
misconception only outside work; colleagues at work did not question his identity
due to the support of the CEO. In addition, there was a clear message that while the
CEO did not understand what Arjun was doing, he wanted him to do whatever could
make him happy. The examples from workplace are hence not of affirmation of an
identity but an acceptance based on the definition given by the agent. They are
partly jointly produced, but given the apathy on the matter, Arjun may represent the
ideal type FTM transsexual for his colleagues, which may include their own
interpretations of his behaviour.
The example of Arjun, while highlighting the challenges faced by a transgen-
dered person in India, does not exemplify as a typical example. Much of the
acceptance and assertion in his case could be due to contextual factors such as
organizational supportiveness, which positively affects the coming-out process
(Law et al. 2011). In many cases, there can be fear of loss of job, lack of acceptance,
and the general censure from the family that may make many transgendered persons
closeted. Similarly the work context even in the ‘inclusive organizations’ could
often be dominated by specific masculine/feminine identities and their enactment,

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

gender roles in the institutional context. This relates not just to gender based
recruitments in certain jobs but also to the way informal structures are shaped in
a given organisation. Often the discussions and leisure activities relate to gender
identity, posing a major challenge for a transgendered person who may not be
accepted by the gender they identify with and they themselves may have given up
identifying with the socially assigned gender. Given such challenges, a strong
mental state is required for shifting one’s gender. Arjun had those qualities, and
he chose to be one with his psychological sex. He no longer felt trapped in ‘his’
body, but was now one with the body. However, the society around him would not
let his old identity go—it was yet not ready to accept that Arjun had changed.
Gradually, acceptance was manifest but it was coupled with the demand for
complete change. The community around Arjun, including some of his colleagues
and fellow transmen wanted him to be bereft of all the female characteristics. This
is the challenge that not one Arjun but all the ‘Arjuns’ face—the onus of bowing to
the gender binary. Arjun’s struggle is ongoing, given that the society is yet to look
beyond the binary gender system. It is time we learn to respect the rights of the
queer groups—to give them their freedom so that their right to lead a dignified life
is restored. It needs institutional support as well as sensitization of the mainstream
in order to achieve the rights of transgender groups.
References
Agrawal, A. (1997). Gendered bodies: The case of the ‘third gender’ in India. Contributions to
Indian Sociology, 31(2), 273–297. doi:10.1177/006996697031002005.
Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and
diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–146. doi:10.1002/hrm.
20401.
Boyce, B. (2015). Sexuality and gender identity under the constitution of India. Journal of Gender,
Race and Justice, 18(1), 1–64.
Bradford, N. J. (1983). Transgenderism and the cult of Yellamma: Heat, sex, and sickness in South
Indian ritual. Journal of Anthropological Research, 39(3), 307–322.
Chakraborty, K., & Thakurata, R. G. (2013). Indian concepts on sexuality. Indian Journal of
Psychiatry, 55(Suppl 2), S250–S255. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.105546.
Chatterjee, I. (1999). Gender, slavery, and law in colonial India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Chatterjee, I. (2002). Alienation, intimacy, and gender: Problems for a history of love in South
Asia. In R. Vanita (Ed.), Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture and
society (pp. 61–76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Connell, C. (2010). Doing, undoing, or redoing gender?: Learning from the workplace experiences
of transpeople. Gender and Society, 24(1), 31–55. doi:10.1177/0891243209356429.
Custodi, A. (2007). ‘Show you are a man!’: Transsexuality and gender bending in the characters of
Arjuna/Brhannada and Amba/Sikhandin(i). In S. Brodbeck & B. Black (Eds.), Gender and
narrative in the Mahābhārata (pp. 208–229). New York, NY: Routledge.
Diamond, L., Pardo, S., & Butterworth, M. (2011). Transgender experience and identity. In S. J.
Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research
(pp. 629–647). New York, NY: Springer.
Doniger, W. (1980). Women, androgynes, and other mythical beasts. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Edelman, E. A. (2009). The power of stealth: (In)visible sites of female-to-male transsexual
resistance. In E. Lewin & W. L. Leap (Eds.), Out in public: Reinventing lesbian/gay anthro-
pology in a globalizing world (pp. 164–179). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gagné, P., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Conformity pressures and gender resistance among transgen-
dered individuals. Social Problems, 45(1), 81–101. doi:10.2307/3097144.
Gagne, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over: Identity
formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender and Society, 11(4), 478–508.
doi:10.1177/089124397011004006.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming
Out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.
6.1191.
Hines, S. (2010). Queerly situated? Exploring negotiations of trans queer subjectivities at work
and within community spaces in the UK. Gender, Place and Culture, 17(5), 597–613. doi:10.
1080/0966369X.2010.503116.
Jones, T., Bolger, A. d. P. d., Dune, T., Lykins, A., & Hawkes, G. (2015). Female-to-male (FtM)
transgender people’s experiences in Australia: A national study (Springer briefs in sociology).
New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Kalra, G. (2012). A psychiatrist’s role in “coming out” process: Context and controversies post-
377. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(1), 69–72. doi:10.4103/0019-5545.94652.
Kugle, S. (2002). Sultan Mahmud’s makeover: Colonial homophobia and the Persian-Urdu literary
tradition. In R. Vanita (Ed.), Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture
and society (pp. 30–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 710–723. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.018.
MINGLE. (2012). ‘Out’-numbering in India: LGBT workplace diversity and inclusion survey
2011-12. Mission for Indian Gay and Lesbian Empowerment (MINGLE).
Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R., & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors and outcomes of
outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(1),
61–71. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.1.61.
Narayanan, V. (2003). Gender in a devotional universe. In G. Flood (Ed.), The Blackwell
companion to Hinduism (pp. 569–587). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Narrain, A. (2009). ‘That despicable specimen of humanity’: Policing of homosexuality in India.
In K. Kannabiran & R. Singh (Eds.), Challenging the rule(s) of law: Colonialism, criminology
and human rights in India (pp. 48–78). New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd.
Pattanaik, D. (2014). Shikhandi and other tales they don’t tell you. New Delhi: Zubaan and
Penguin Books Limited.
Penrose, W. (2001). Hidden in history: Female homoeroticism and women of a “third nature” in
the South Asian past. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 10(1), 3–39. doi:10.1353/sex.2001.
0018.
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence: Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations’. British Journal of Man-
agement, 25(3), 488–502. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12043.
Ratnam, D. (2014). Ground report: Crime and punishment. Accessed October 22, 2015, from http://
www.livemint.com/Leisure/5XCUSYRBJYDccUROFjs4bM/Ground-Report-Crime-and-puni
shment.html
Reddy, G. (2005). With respect to sex: Negotiating hijra identity in South India. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Rediff. (2005). IG ‘Radha’ charged with breaching police code. Accessed October 22, 2015, from
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/17radha.htm
Ruvio, A., & Belk, R. (2013). Conflicting selves and the role of possessions: Exploring trans-
genders’ self-identity conflict. In A. A. Ruvio & R. W. Belk (Eds.), The Routledge companion
to identity and consumption (pp. 141–148). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys?: How transmen make gender visible at work. Gender and
Society, 20(4), 465–490. doi:10.1177/0891243206288077.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do workplace gender transitions make gender trouble? Gender,
Work and Organization, 14(6), 596–618. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00373.x.
Sebastian Maroky, A., Ratheesh, A., Viswanath, B., Math, S. B., Chandrashekar, C. R., &
Seshadri, S. P. (2014). ‘Ego-dystonicity’ in homosexuality: An Indian perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Social Psychiatry. doi:10.1177/0020764014543709.
Sharma, D. C. (2014). Changing landscape for sexual minorities in India. The Lancet, 383(9936),
2199–2200. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61070-9.
Shaw, S. Y., Lorway, R. R., Deering, K. N., Avery, L., Mohan, H. L., Bhattacharjee, P.,
et al. (2012). Factors associated with sexual violence against men who have sex with men
and transgendered individuals in Karnataka, India. PLoS One, 7(3), e31705. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0031705.
Sinha, M. (1995). Colonial masculinity: the ‘manly Englishman’ and the’ effeminate Bengali’ in
the late nineteenth century. Manchester, New York, New York: Manchester University Press,
Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press.
Thanem, T., & Wallenberg, L. (2014). Just doing gender? Transvestism and the power of
underdoing gender in everyday life and work. Organization. doi:10.1177/1350508414547559.
The-Hindu. (2005). Senior cop turns into ‘Doosri Radha’. Accessed October 22, 2015, from http://
www.thehindu.com/2005/11/14/stories/2005111413710300.htm
Tripathi, R. D. (2005). Time up for cross-dressing cop? Accessed October 22, 2015, from http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4440504.stm
Vanita, R., & Kidwai, S. (2000). Same-sex love in India: Readings from literature and history.
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Vyas, M. D., & Shingala, Y. (1987). The life style of the eunuchs. New Delhi: Anmol Publications.
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2005). Coming out at work: Performativity and the recognition and
renegotiation of identity. The Sociological Review, 53(3), 447–475. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.
2005.00561.x.
Wilhelm, A. (2003). Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the third sex: Understanding homosexuality,
transgender identity, and intersex conditions through Hinduism. Tinucum, PA: Xlibris
Corporation.
Wilson, M. (2002). ‘I am the prince of pain, for I am a princess in the brain’: Liminal transgender
identities, narratives and the elimination of ambiguities. Sexualities, 5(4), 425–448. doi:10.
1177/1363460702005004003.
Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. H. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in
America. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Zimman, L. (2009). ‘The other kind of coming out’: Transgender people and the coming out
narrative genre. Gender and Language, 3(1), 53–80. doi:10.1558/genl.v3i1.53.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans*
Careers and Workplace Experiences
Ciarán McFadden and Marian Crowley-Henry
1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of a systematic literature review conducted on the
workplace experiences and careers of trans* people in the Western world. Trans* is
the most inclusive and recent term used to denote the large variety of people who
identity with the transgender spectrum of identities (Collins et al. 2015), including
transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, genderfluid, and asexual (see Collins
et al. 2015, for more detailed explanation of the different terms). Trans* will be
used throughout this chapter to denote all those within the transgender umbrella.
The primary research question guiding this review is: what are the primary issues
that a trans* person faces in the workplace and during their career? This chapter
builds on the results of an earlier systematic literature review on lesbian, gay,
bisexual and trans* (LGBT) workplace experiences and careers (McFadden
2015). From a review of 263 articles, it is apparent that the careers of the trans*
subgroup are under-explored (McFadden 2015). A great dearth of study is present
on the topic of trans* careers and workplace experiences (Carroll et al. 2002;
Pepper and Lorah 2008; Sangganjanavanich 2009; Law et al. 2011). In many
cases, the titles of articles found during the earlier systematic literature review
included the word trans* or a variant, but did not focus in any great detail on the
unique aspects of this subgroup’s careers or workplace experiences, a problem also
noted by Pepper and Lorah (2008). Chung, in 2003, calls for theory development
and empirical research to fill in this large gap in the business, management and
career literatures over the next decade. This chapter, written over a decade later,
highlights how well this call has been answered, and examines where further
research is needed.
C. McFadden (*) • M. Crowley-Henry

School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
e-mail: ciaran.mcfadden@nuim.ie

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_4
64 C. McFadden and M. Crowley-Henry
In total, 30 articles focused (either solely or as a large part of a broader study) in

detail on trans* experiences—20 of these were specific to the subgroup and the
remaining 10 were as part of a broader study, but focused a considerable portion of
the overall discussion on trans* issues which, as noted above, was rare. These
30 articles make up the review in this chapter, which discusses the extant research
according to major stages in the trans* person’s career. In the vast majority of cases,
the studies were conducted in and/or about the USA, with others taking a broadly
Western perspective. Within this chapter, what is known about trans* careers and
workplace experiences is elucidated. Importantly, what is not known is also
explored, and recommendations for future research are given to fill the large gap
in knowledge on trans* careers and work experiences.
This systematic literature review follows closely the methods used by Tranfield
et al. (2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004). The five-step method consists of an initial
study, where general search terms (in this case, transgender, transsexual, trans etc.)
are used to scope the field. From this, more search terms are discovered that are
used in the pilot study, which tests the effectiveness of the search string, and is
repeated if felt necessary. Literature is then included or excluded from the review
according to metrics of quality, and remaining articles are categorized to a theme
using open coding techniques. The themes identified in the literature on trans*
careers were Pre-career, The job search, General-career, and Transitioning in the
workplace. Each of these are considered in more detail in relation to trans*
careers next.
1.1 Research on Trans* Issues
The work-lives of trans* people are still very much unknown. Although academic
research on lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees—with whom the trans*
community are historically, socially and culturally associated—has advanced sub-
stantially in the last decade, very little study has been conducted specifically on
trans* workers in the management literature (McFadden 2015). As mentioned
above, and shown in Table 1, those articles that have been written on trans* issues
in the workplace take a Western standpoint, particularly focusing on the USA.
There may be a number of reasons for this deficit. Trans* people still suffer from
much stigma; more even, than their LGB contemporaries, who are currently gaining
ground in terms of both civil rights and workplace policies throughout Europe. The
disparity between the research on each group may be as a result of the further
progress the gay civil rights movement has made in the last couple of years, in
comparison to the trans* rights movement. The trans* population has been esti-
mated to be 0.3 % of the United States population (Gates 2011) and 0.1 % in the
United Kingdom (Reed et al. 2009). However, as Gates (2011) points out, people
may not wish to give potentially stigmatizing information about themselves. The
stigma that still surrounds being trans* may then result in an underrepresented
population.
A Systematic Literature Review on Trans* Careers and Workplace Experiences 65
Table 1 Details of the articles reviewed

Country/
Author(s) and Year Focus Perspective Methodology
Badgett et al. (2009) Discrimination USA Quantitative
Barclay and Scott (2006) Transitioning UK Qualitative
Berry et al. (2004) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Brewster et al. (2012) Research issues USA Quantitative
Brown et al. (2012) General career USA Qualitative
Budge et al. (2010) Transitioning USA Qualitative
Chung (2003) Research issue Western Conceptual
Collins et al. (2015) HR Western Conceptual
Connell (2010) Gender USA Qualitative
Datti (2009) Career USA Conceptual
counseling
Davis (2009) HR USA Conceptual
Dietert and Dentice (2009) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Dietert and Dentice (2009) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Dispenza et al. (2012) Discrimination USA Qualitative
Hines (2010) General career UK Qualitative
Irwin (2002) Discrimination Australia Quantitative
Kirk and Belovics (2008) General career USA Conceptual
Law et al. (2011) General career USA Quantitative
Mathy (2006) Disclosure USA Qualitative
O’Neil et al. (2008) Career USA Conceptual
counseling
Pepper and Lorah (2008) Career USA Conceptual
counseling
Rudin et al. (2014) Inclusion USA Quantitative
Sangganjanavanich (2009) Transitioning USA Conceptual
Sangganjanavanich and Headley Transitioning USA Conceptual
(2013)
Schilt (2006) Gender USA Qualitative
Schilt and Connell (2007) Transitioning USA Qualitative
Schilt and Wiswall (2008) Transitioning USA Quantitative
Scott et al. (2011) Pre-career USA Conceptual
Sowden et al. (2015) General career USA Qualitative
Taranowksi (2008) General career USA Conceptual
Using these estimates, we can infer that the trans* population makes up a very
small minority of the global workforce. As such, trans* people may not represent a
priority for companies or, consequentially, academic researchers in the business
and management domain. However, research on trans* workplace experiences will
not only benefit the trans* community, but also provide insight into the challenges
and workplace experiences of other workplace minority groupings. Because
research on trans* workplace experiences and careers is extremely limited, it is
even more important to set a research agenda for the future. This chapter outlines
what research has been conducted and gives recommendations for scholars in the
relevant areas for future areas of research, and practitioners who wish to promote
trans* inclusiveness in their workplace.
2 The Systematic Literature Review
The selection of the papers that make up this literature review was performed within
a number of steps that follow Tranfield et al. (2003) and Pittaway et al. (2004):
(1) Initial Study, (2) Pilot Study, (3) Categorization of Literature, (4) Review of
Literature, (5) Synthesis of Review.
2.1 Initial Study
The initial step of the systematic review is concerned with the identification of the
key scholars across the disciplines publishing on the research topic and the creation
of a search string that may be used to effectively and efficiently query the electronic
databases (Pittaway et al. 2004; Tranfield et al. 2003). For the purpose of this
review, the following databases were used: EBSCO Academic Source Complete
(over 13,600 journals over a number of fields), EBSCO Business Source Complete
(more than 2400 peer-reviewed journals in the business and management areas),
Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge (over 23,000 journals in various fields) and
the Google Scholar search engine. The first step of the initial study was a simple
search of the databases using a broad search string, using keywords based on the
author’s prior experience (Pittaway et al. 2004), relating to both the Sample of
interest in this research (the trans* population) and the Context (the workplace, the
career, employment, etc.). These articles were then filtered down by searching only
within the title; only within the subject terms, excluding those not in peer-review
journals, excluding those in an irrelevant field (for example, biology or chemistry)
and those that were not in the English language (c.5 %).
The remaining articles, still numbering in the thousands, were then filtered down
further by selecting for relevance to the research question; this included selecting
only those that exhibited the key words, phrases and areas of relevance to the
research question (what are the primary issues that a trans* person faces in the
workplace and during their career?), and by deselecting those that were irrelevant.
The citation histories of the remaining articles were then analyzed. The key authors
within the field were identified based on the number of citations each had received,
the databases were queried with the names and initials of these key authors and
additional, relevant papers by them were added to the review. The articles that cited
these key authors’ articles were then reviewed, and included or excluded based on
their relevance to the research question.
By reviewing the titles and examining the myriad of keywords, synonyms and
themes of each of the articles that had been chosen so far, a definitive search string
was created with which to query the databases. This larger search string was
constructed in a similar fashion to the initial search string (i.e., Sample and
Context), but now included the various synonyms of the initial search terms
(including transgender, transsexual, career, work, job, employment etc.).1
2.2 Pilot Study
The second step of the systematic review, the pilot study, tests the effectiveness of
the search string created in the initial study (Pittaway et al. 2004), and gathers
potential articles that will make up the basis of the review. Any changes to the
search string that were felt necessary were performed in an iterative process early in
the pilot study, and consisted of additional synonyms being added to the string, and
words that resulted in more false positives than actual positive results were
removed. The three databases were then queried with the established search string,
and articles were included or excluded as per the criteria outlined above.
2.3 Categorization of Literature
The third stage of the systematic review involved including or excluding the articles
that resulted from the previous steps from the review according to their relevance to
the research topic: the workplace experiences and careers of trans* people.
2.4 Synthesis of Review
The review was synthesized by taking note of a number of the characteristics of

each article after reading. These included the area in which the study was based, the
year it was published, the sampling methods used in the research, the methods used
in data collection (interview, survey etc.), and the gaps in the extant literature
1
Complete search string:
Lesbian, lesbians, gay, gays, bisexual, bisexuals, transgender, transgendered, transsexual,
homosexual, homosexuals, homosexuality, bisexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, sexu-
ality, sexual minority, same-sex, same-gender, queer, queering, female-to-male, male-to-female,
LGBT, GLBT, GLB, LGB, heterosexism, heterosexist, identity disclosure, coming out, come out,
homophobia, homophobic, workplace closet, stigma.
Workplace, work, working, employment, employee, employer, employed, job, career, organi-
zation, organizational, workforce, diversity, vocation, vocational, career development.
identified by the author(s) of the article. A number of themes that overarched many
of the articles were identified, and each publication was assigned to one or two of
these themes. In assigning a theme to each article we gain an overview of the major
directions in which the literature has, and continues to, progress, and an impression
of the topics that require further development (Thomas and Harden 2008; Pope
et al. 2007).
3 Results
Steps one and two of the process, the Initial Study and the Pilot Study, resulted in
30 articles. From analysis of these papers, four meta key themes related to the
careers and workplace experiences of the trans* population emerged. They are:
1. Pre-career—Exploring personal, educational and social experiences that trans*
people go through that have an effect on their later careers.
2. The Job Search—Articles relating to the trans* person’s search for employment
or a career. Most articles focused on post-transition.
3. General Career—Articles relating to general issues trans* people face in their
career, with the exceptions of transitioning and searching for employment.
4. Transitioning in the Workplace—These articles deal directly with the trans*
worker’s transition process, the consequences and the social issues
surrounding it.
Some of the papers reviewed discussed only one of themes above (e.g., Schilt
and Connell 2007, discuss transitioning in the workplace), while other articles (e.g.,
Pepper and Lorah 2008) included discussion of a number of themes.
3.1 Characteristics of Literature
Examining the characteristics of a literature may tell us much about the nature of
the extant knowledge on this particular topic or phenomenon. Figure 1 shows the
number of reviewed papers that were published from 2000 onwards in the EBSCO,
Reuters Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar databases; we can observe a
growth in the interest surrounding trans* people and their careers in the past decade.
In many cases we may only speculate as to why this recent surge has come about,
but as Taranowksi (2008) suggests, the increasingly liberal society in the Western
world will encourage more trans* people to publically transition to their desired
gender. As the population increases, there is an increased impetus on scholars
within the business, management, sociology and career theory areas to examine
it, for the sake of both trans* employees and organizations.
As shown in Table 1, research carried out in the United States dominates the vast
majority of the literature pertinent to this review, with 25 out of 30 papers from or
Number of Articles 5
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year of publication
Fig. 1 Number of publications on trans* workplace/career experiences per year, 2000–2015
based in this country. A limitation of the existing limited studies on trans*

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

conducted in the
30 reviewed articles
Conceptual:
10
Qualitative:
14
Quantitative:
6
Fig. 3 Types of method

used in the 30 reviewed
articles
Survey: 6
Conceptual: 9 Case Study: 2
Semi-Structured
Interview: 10
3.2 Pre-career
The pre-career theme deals with career-related issues of trans* people before they
actually enter employment, and mostly involves articles on personal, educational
and social experiences. There is a very large gap of literature on the issues facing
trans* students, compared to research on lesbian, gay and bisexual students (Scott
et al. 2011). This translates into a lack of informed knowledge for those in positions
to help trans* students, such as career or guidance counselors in universities. As
Goodrich (2012) points out, many college counselors are not knowledgeable about
trans* issues. As explored below, there are a number of unique challenges that
trans* people go through during their careers, including discrimination,
transitioning and interpersonal problems surrounding their gender, so it is critical

that information is available for those trans* people who are just about to enter the
workforce.
Schmidt and Nilsson (2006) find that LGB youth face a bottleneck when it comes
to career development, because so much of their psychological resources are taken
up with identity development. This may therefore lead to trouble before and during
their early career, as proper preparation has not been taken. This bottleneck
hypothesis has been widened to include trans* students (Scott et al. 2011), who
face similar identity development issues, and also experience added pressures to do
with their transitioning to another gender presentation. Effrig et al. (2011) find that
trans* college students, whether or not they were seeking treatment, had higher
levels of distress and victimization in comparison to their cisgender (non-trans*)
peers. Worries surrounding discrimination at school, future workplace discrimina-
tion or presenting as a new gender successfully at work compound to cause
additional psychological stress that distracts some trans* students from in-depth
vocational decision making and thinking (Scott et al. 2011). However, as Datti
(2009) suggests, processing internal psychological issues surrounding one’s gender
identity may be crucial for optimal career planning.
The lack of detailed and specific information and support available for trans*
students may be a crucial determinant in their future career success. With many
unique obstacles and challenges to navigate, yet very limited resources upon which
to draw, trans* students find that they alone have to guide themselves through their
career. However, the challenges they face before they enter the workplace mean
they are unable to devote themselves fully to the task. Trans* people and companies
alike would benefit from the provision of expertise in school and university career
guidance resources, in order to encourage more open communications with trans*
employees in the workplace, over the course of their careers.
3.3 The Job Search
Articles in this theme were associated with the issues trans* people face while
looking for employment. Searching and applying for a job presents unique issues
for the trans* person who has transitioned, and who may have career experience
obtained primarily under a different gender presentation and name (Pepper and
Lorah 2008; Sangganjanavanich 2009). Walworth (2003) finds that starting at a
new job can make it easier for those who have transitioned when it comes to
interpersonal relations with colleagues. Even if one desires to start afresh, however,
institutional factors may make it difficult for one to leave their old life behind.
Budge et al. (2010) describe the difficulty trans* people have in gaining employ-
ment in the USA. Not passing as one’s preferred gender in job interviews was cited
as a major reason, with employers realizing that the interviewee was trans* and
discriminating against them. Sometimes this is not openly communicated but was
still suspected by the applicants to be the reason (Brown et al. 2012). In Ireland, a
report by McNeil et al. (2013) found that 14 % of the trans* respondents believed
they had denied a job on the basis of their trans* identity, and 24 % were
unemployed and seeking work.
Even for those who successfully ‘pass’, a variety of problems still exist when
searching for jobs in the trans* person’s life. The move from one gender expression
to another, usually accompanied by a new name, can affect any trans* person’s
career capital. Career capital is the assets that one has that can aid the success of
one’s employment and overall career (Inkson and Arthur 2001), and is divided into
knowing-why (the motivation and sense of purpose one has for one’s career),
knowing-how (the skills and knowledge one has) and knowing-whom (one’s repu-
tation, relationships and network). For example, the skills and experience that one
can bring to a role may be misjudged or not seen by potentially new employers, if
most of this experience occurred before transition (Sangganjanavanich 2009),
affecting the perceived knowing-how capital of that person. To fully show their
experience and skills built up during their career, a person may have to disclose
their trans* status to the potential employer, running the risk of discrimination and
stigma, and ruling out the possibility of a completely fresh start in their new gender
expression. 7 % of respondents in a report by McNeil et al. (2013) said that they had
not provided references from a previous job due to their gender history, in effect,
cancelling out their knowing-whom capital. 8 % of respondents reported not apply-
ing for certain jobs due to fear of being discriminated against or harassed at work,
similar to participants in Brown et al.’s (2012) study. This suggests that the
motivation and identification with one’s work that makes up one’s knowing-why
capital may also be affected if one is trans*. This also highlights that companies
have a definite role to play in signaling to potential job applicants that their
workplaces are inclusive of trans* people.
Being trans* may also have an impact on the types of jobs or industries one
wishes to work in. Brown et al. (2012) found that, in their sample of male-to-female
trans* participants, many of the respondents had initially, before transitioning,
worked in typically masculine and male-dominated fields, in an attempt to fulfill
societal and familial expectations to act like a man. Post-transition, however, these
pressures alleviated, and many participants moved to more traditionally female
careers, which allowed them to express previously hidden aspects of their
personality.
3.4 General Career
Articles in this theme are related to the general issues that trans* people face during
their career that are not directly related to transitioning or looking for employment.
The majority of these articles dealt with that discrimination that trans* people face
in the workplace. Employment discrimination is a prevalent issues for a large
number of trans* people, including, difficulty in getting a job (as explored
above), losing jobs or being denied a promotion, healthcare coverage problems
and interpersonal sexual or verbal harassment. Employment discrimination against

trans* people is an ongoing problem. For instance, in Ireland today, 43 % of
respondents in one study (McNeil et al. 2013) report problems with work due to
their trans* identity. This included being fired or dismissed from their job (9 %) and
leaving a job due to harassment or discrimination (9 %). In many countries, it may
be easier for trans* people to hide their trans status, if they wish, but in Ireland,
where the population is much smaller, this may prove more difficult. One who
wants to appear as cisgender in the workplace may then find themselves being outed
at work, or at least be fearful of that happening, causing anxiety.
Dispenza et al. (2012) outline the multitude of types of harrassment and dis-
crimination that trans* people can face in the work: from interpersonal remarks or
subtle micro-aggressions, for example, a colleague deliberately using incorrect
gender pronouns when addressing the trans* person, to more institutionalised
discrimination, like workplaces not offering enough protection for trans* people
who have been discriminated against. Trans* people can also face covert discrim-
ination like malicious gossip and deliberate isolation from colleagues (Sangganja-
navanich 2009). In addition, interpersonal discrimination can lead to a large amount
of continuous psychological stress for trans* people (Budge et al. 2010; Dietert and
Dentice 2009; Irwin 2002). Awareness of this within organizations would encour-
age counselling services specifically tailored to trans* issues to be developed, as
well as diversity training for the entire staff.
Collins et al. (2015) discuss how trans* people suffer from exclusion in the
workplace due to implicit gender roles and stigmatization, and offer suggestions as
to how HRD practioners can encourage the inclusion of trans* people in the
workplace. These include introducing a zero-tolerance policy for discriminatory
actions and language; having inclusive dress codes that allow fluid gender expres-
sion; modifying workplace policies to be inclusive of all gender identities; and
learning how other companies have improved their workplace with regard to trans*
issues.
3.5 Transitioning in the Workplace
Most of the literature on trans* careers reviewed focuses on the transition stage.
Transitioning is the term used to describe one’s change from one gender expression
to another, and may refer not only to those who have crossed the gender binary,
[i.e., male-to-female (MTF) and female-to-male (FTM) individuals], but also those
who have begun and are in the midst of a gender presentation change (Brown
et al. 2012).
A transition is a very complex and multi-faceted process that includes many
challenges, both psychological and social (Sangganjanavanich and Headley 2013).
Transitioning may be subdivided into three distinct stages: Pretransition, During
Transition, and Posttransition (Budge et al. 2010), but naturally may not always
represent every person’s experience. Pretransition involves coming out as trans* to
HR and colleagues but may not necessarily involve changing one’s gender presen-
tation yet (Budge et al. 2010; Grant et al. 2011).
The next phase of the transition includes changing one’s presentation to match
that of one’s innate gender identity. Changing one’s gender presentation to another
may include wearing clothes associated with that gender; changing the pronouns
with which others identify you, including he, she or the gender-neutral they, zie and
hir; or acting in a manner traditionally associated with that gender. During transi-
tion, typically gendered behaviors, conversation and social groups may change; this
might be difficult for the transitioning person, particularly if social standing and
relationships change also (Schilt and Connell 2007). This phase of transitioning
may also involve the “real life experience” (RLE). The RLE is a period where the
trans* individual lives in their desired gender presentation, and depending on the
jurisdiction, may be a requirement before gender reassignment is performed
(Sangganjanavanich 2009). Transitioning in the workplace can lead to the trans*
person facing a loss of respect, subtle stigmatization, emotional abuse, and physical
threats (Budge et al. 2010).
Post-transition, trans* people report that the changes in their gender presentation
lead to changes in how they are treated both socially and professionally. Interper-
sonal harassment that one faces because of their transition may lead to their leaving
a job (Dietert and Dentice 2009) or being absent from work due to mental health
problems (Davis 2009), which may lead to obvious problems with their career
progression and workplace performance. Some male-to-female (MTF) transsexuals
report that their skills and abilities become devalued after they transition (Schilt and
Connell 2007) also find that, while conversely, female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals
report increases in perceived authority and respect post-transition (Griggs 1998),
suggesting that, similar to cisgender people, gender-based discrimination is at play.
Similarly, Schilt and Connell (2007) find that their MTF respondents report a loss of
earnings of almost one third, while their FTM respondents report a slight increase in
earnings. These findings suggest that it may be useful to study trans* populations
separately, rather than treating them as a homogenous sample—there clearly are
unique challenges that each must face, intertwined with and related to more
traditional issues of gender. Additionally, as mentioned above, research like this
on trans* issues is relevant for employee groupings beyond the trans* population, in
this instance broader gender-related matters.
4 Implications for the Workplace
4.1 Education
A characteristic of the literature that is noted above is the relatively large proportion
of the literature that was dedicated to explaining and clarifying concepts surround-
ing trans* people. This highlights the lack of understanding in many places of what
a trans* person feels, and experiences. Without a basic grasp of this concept,
however inaccessible it may be to cisgender practitioners, it is difficult to imagine
how practices and policies that can help the trans* employee could be introduced,
or even entertained. As Collins et al. (2015) propose, there still exists confusion
over how to treat trans* people, because of traditionally accepted gender roles. A
portion of the stigma surrounding being trans*, and the resultant discrimination,
may then be due to ignorance rather than sheer inherent malice on the part of
colleagues or bosses. To combat this, information must be disseminated to all
members of the company. Collins et al. (2015) highlight how HRD practitioners
can aid the dissemination of information and the support of trans* employees.
Being proactive in this regard, rather than reactive, is important to ensure that
trans* people feel welcome in the workplace. For instance, interviews and/or focus
groups with trans* employees, openly sharing their experiences would benefit
organizational stakeholders in better understanding the specific challenges they
face in the workplace.
4.2 Hiring Trans* Employees
Employers have a large role to play in promoting the hiring of trans* people, who,
as discussed above, may feel alienated from a particular industry or workplace due
to their trans* identity. Employers should be aware that a trans* person’s work
experience may have been undertaken using a different name and gender presen-
tation. An open dialogue is therefore encouraged between HR practitioners and
candidates who have openly identified as trans*. In practical terms, when following
up on work references for a candidate, it is recommended that the prospective
employer to check with the candidate if their referees know them by a different
name, in case they inadvertently “out” them, harming interpersonal relations and
the candidate’s career capital.
Employers can also ensure that their workplace is seen to be inclusive of trans*
people by promoting diversity in their hiring materials, for example, their website
or graduate recruitment information. Applying to be included on a list of diversity
champions (e.g., the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index in the
USA, or Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index in the UK) will provide both a
checklist of criteria to increase one’s inclusivity and a chance to promote it to the
public.
4.3 Bathroom Facilities
In the past, many employers preferred employees undergoing transition to their

desired gender to use single-room bathroom facilities or those available to people
with disabilities, in order to avoid incidents of discrimination or complaints from
other employees (Pepper and Lorah 2008), or customers (e.g., as in Brown

et al. 2012). Trans* rights organizations (Human Rights Campaign 2015; Trans-
gender at Work 2015) are unequivocal in advocating that a trans* person must be
allowed use the bathroom corresponding to their full-time gender presentation,
whether or not they have fully transitioned yet. As Pepper and Lorah (2008) point
out, trans* individuals who are forced to use a bathroom not corresponding to their
gender presentation will suffer considerable damage to self-esteem and confidence.
From a HR perspective, this lowered morale may lead to less productivity (Pepper
and Lorah 2008) and a very toxic work environment for trans* employees. One
alternative may be to offer gender-neutral bathrooms for the use of all employees
(Collins et al. 2015). The HRD function of an organization, (or, if this is not
available, a HR manager) should contain in its initial training program generalized
guidelines for employees on trans* issues in the workplace (Collins et al. 2015),
ensuring that employees are knowledgeable about their issues, and are able to ask
questions, without singling out any trans* people in the workplace as an example.
5 Recommendations for Future Research
5.1 Income Disparities
Many wage differential studies have been performed for the lesbian and gay
community (examples include Allegretto and Arthur 2001; Badgett 1995, 2001;
Blandford 2003; Carpenter 2005; Klawitter and Flatt 1998), but only a small
number (e.g., Schilt and Wiswall 2008) have been performed to assess how the
income of trans* people differs from their cisgender peers. Those that do study this
question, however, include in their sample only direct male-to-female or female-to-
male transsexuals, i.e., those who have directly crossed the binarized gender line;
research on the income of gender-queer, intersex and other non-gender binary
identified workers is still required. As described below, most research is confined
to the United States; for tailor-made recommendations to take place, localized wage
studies must be performed.
5.2 Identity Management
Identity management refers to the strategies and decisions involved in choosing if

and how to disclose one’s trans* status, sometimes known as “coming out”. Whilst
a relatively large amount of research has been conducted on the strategies, ante-
cedents and consequences of a lesbian or gay person’s identity management
strategies in the workplace (e.g., Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Ragins et al. 2007;
King et al. 2008; Madera 2010), less is known about the corresponding process with
trans* workers.
Similar to other members of the LGBT community, it may not just be a case of
being “out” or “not out”; it is likely that there is a wide variety of strategies the
trans* person uses over the course of their life, according to the context, the
workplace or group of people they are addressing. Knowing what antecedents
would lead a trans* person to come out in the workplace may be important in
promoting an inclusive workplace for trans* employees; however, more research is
required to fully understand this phenomenon.
5.3 Research Methods
A number of research methods are not represented in the reviewed article, for
example, longitudinal studies and diary methods. Diary methods may be useful in
this regard as it would allow the respondent complete control over the content of the
data; as trans* experiences have had not been researched much, the more explor-
atory aspect to diary methods may open avenues of investigation that would not
occur to a researcher using semi-structured interviews or survey methods, and
highlight previously unseen phenomena or experiences. Longitudinal studies
would provide more detailed information on ongoing phenomena, such as gender
transition in the workplace.
5.4 Areas of Study for Future Research
As noted above, most of the research conducted on trans* issues has taken place in
the USA. These studies may inform scholars and practitioners interested in this
topic of the major issues affecting trans* employees, however, different cultural,
policy and legislative contexts should also be taken into account. As American
states differ greatly in the presence and scope of LGBT anti-discrimination laws, as
well as cultural, religious and social perceptions of LGBT people and civil rights
legislation, this may prove problematic when attempting to generalize U.S. studies
for other countries, and even other U.S. states. For example, results from studies
based in California will not be similar to results from studies based in India, where
there is a very different social, political and historical landscape, and so any
conclusions or implications drawn may not be of benefit. Many of the studies in
this review were performed using participants from only one or two states, and thus
may not be generalizable to another, more or less liberal state or area. Studies
situated in other parts of the world are recommended to remedy this problem.
Studies from a non-Western perspective were not found in this review (although
articles not in the English language were excluded from the search). Academics,
practitioners and trans* people in non-Western countries therefore do not benefit

from the limited amount of study that has been performed.
6 Conclusion
This chapter presented a systematic review conducted on the academic literature

related to the careers and workplace experiences of the trans* population, and
examined the primary issues that a trans* person faces in the workplace and during
their career. The main themes unpacked in this chapter, pre-career, the job search,
general-career, and transitioning in the workplace, all had a background of ongo-
ing stigmatization for trans* people, who can face challenges at every part of their
career. The literature on trans* issues was found to be USA-centric, with most of
the articles containing researched conducted in this country. While this research can
indeed inform other countries practices, more specific knowledge which included
political, cultural and social findings would help local trans* populations, particu-
larly those in non-Western countries. As previously noted by the first author
(McFadden 2015), many studies contained the acronym ‘LGBT’ in their title, but
did not contain much discussion on the trans* population. While there are many
historical, social and political connections between the subgroups, in some cases,
trans* experiences may be different, and therefore require separate unpacking, or
indeed separate studies.
Tran* research, whilst nominally focused on one tiny population, may be useful
in informing the general diversity debate. For example, to study trans* issues is to
draw attention to issues of gender and the hegemonized gender binary, as discussed
by Schilt and Connell (2007) and Collins et al. (2015), and so could inform debate
about the wider cisgender workplace population.
This is only the second major review of the literature surrounding the careers and
workplace experiences of the trans* population, the first being Chung (2003). It is
the first to look solely at the trans* population, rather than the aggregate LGBT
grouping, and so highlights in more detail the challenges and issues that this
subpopulation face in the workplace and during their careers. It is also the first to
review the literature in a systematic fashion, a method that is growing in popularity
in the business and management fields. This chapter is relevant not only to the
trans* individuals who are facing or perhaps will face some of the issues raised
here, and plan accordingly, but also to HR practitioners and line managers who are
increasingly encountering issues surrounding workplace transitions (of both a
physical and social nature) and the challenges associated with them. Scholars
interested in diversity within the business setting may also take interest in the
policies recommended here.
References
Allegretto, S. A., & Arthur, M. M. (2001). An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male

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

College Counseling, 15, 215–232.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at
every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Griggs, C. (1998). S/he: Changing sex and changing clothes (dress, body, culture). London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Hines, S. (2010). Queerly situated? Exploring negotiations of trans queer subjectivities at work
and within community spaces in the UK. Gender Place and Culture, 17, 597–613.
Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Restroom access for transgender employees. Accessed March
21, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/restroom-access-for-transgender-
employees
Inkson, K., & Arthur, M. B. (2001). How to be a successful career capitalist. Organisational
Dynamics, 30, 48–61.
Irwin, J. (2002). Discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and transgender people working in
education. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14(2), 65–77.
Kirk, J., & Belovics, R. (2008). Understanding and counseling transgender clients. Journal of
Employment Counselling, 45(1), 29–43.
King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times—Exploring dual
perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace. Group and Organization Management, 33,
566–601.
Klawitter, M. M., & Flatt, V. (1998). The effects of state and local antidiscrimination policies for
sexual orientation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 658–686.
Madera, J. M. (2010). The cognitive effects of hiding one’s homosexuality in the workplace.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 86–89.
Mathy, R. M. (2006). Self-disclosure: A dance of the heart and a ballet of the mind. Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy, 10, 109–121.
McFadden, C. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender careers and human resource
development: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14,
125–162.
McNeil, J., Bailey, L., Ellis, S., & Regan, M. (2013). Speaking from the margins: Trans mental
health and wellbeing in Ireland. Dublin: Transgender Equality Network Ireland.
O’Neil, M. E., McWhirter, E. H., & Cerezo, A. (2008). Transgender identities and gender variance
in vocational psychology. recommendations for practice, social advocacy, and research.
Journal of Career Development, 34, 286–308.
Pepper, S. M., & Lorah, P. (2008). Career issues and workplace considerations for the trans-sexual
community: Bridging a gap of knowledge for career counselors and mental health care
providers. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 330–343.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and
innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 5, 137–168.
Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence:
A guide to methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of
perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.
Reed, B., Rhodes, S., Schofield, P., & Wylie, K. (2009). Gender variance in the UK: Prevalence,
incidence, growth, and geographic distribution. London: Gender Identity Research and Edu-
cation Society.
Rudin, J., Ruane, S., Ross, L., Farro, A., & Tejinder, B. (2014). Hostile territory: Employers’
unwillingness to accommodate transgender employees. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 33, 721–734.
Sangganjanavanich, V. F. (2009). Career development practitioners as advocates for transgender
individuals: Understanding gender transition. Journal of Employment Counseling, 46,
128–135.
Sangganjanavanich, V. F., & Headley, J. A. (2013). Facilitating career development concerns of
gender transitioning individuals: Professional standards and competencies. The Career Devel-
opment Quarterly, 61, 354–366.
Schilt, K. (2006). Just one of the guys?: How transmen make gender visible in the workplace.
Gender & Society, 20, 465–490.
Schilt, K., & Connell, C. (2007). Do gender transitions make gender trouble? Gender, Work, and
Organization, 14, 596–618.
Schilt, K., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and
Schmidt, C. K., & Nilsson, J. E. (2006). The effects of simultaneous developmental processes:
Factors relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career
Development Quarterly, 55, 22–37.
Scott, D. A., Belke, S. L., & Barfield, H. G. (2011). Career development with transgender college
students: Implications for career and employment counselors. Journal of Employment Counsel-
ing, 48, 103–113.
Sowden, B., Fleming, J., Savage, T. A., & Woitaszewski, S. A. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender-identified school psychologists: A qualitative study of their professional experi-
ences. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 1–9.
Taranowksi, C. J. (2008). Transsexual employees in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Behav-
ioral Health, 23(4), 467–477.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in
systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Manage-
ment, 14, 207–222.
Transgender at Work. (2015). Restroom access issues. Accessed March 20, 2015, from http://
www.tgender.net/taw/restroom.html
Walworth, J. (2003). Transsexual workers: An employer’s guide. Washington, DC: Center for
Gender Sanity.
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery
and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction
Nick Drydakis
1 Introduction
In studies have examined how job satisfaction is moderated by sex (men, women)
and sexual orientation (Drydakis 2015; Leppel 2014). However, none of the studies
have evaluated how job satisfaction is moderated when employees reassign their
sex (i.e., from male to female—through vaginoplasty-, and from female to male—
through phalloplasty). In general, workplace studies—and in particular quantitative
studies on the relation between transgenderism, sex reassignment surgery and
employment outcomes (occupational access, unemployment, earnings, job satis-
faction, commitment)—are scarce (exceptions include Schilt and Wiswall 2008;
Law et al. 2011). What we do know from qualitative research is that, compared to
cisgender people, transgender people (i.e., people who have reassigned their gender
role without having had sex surgery, people who are in the process of having a sex
reassignment surgery, people who have had a sex reassignment surgery) experience
higher levels of discrimination in housing, health care, education, employment,
legal systems, and even in their families (Grant et al. 2011; Morton 2008; Equalities
Review UK 2007). This study aims to go one step further and to open the discussion
on the relation between job satisfaction, transgenderism and sex reassignment
surgery in the UK, suggesting that it is valuable to examine whether people who
have had a sex reassignment surgery function well in their employment in order to
offer some preliminary evidence that may be of interest to researchers, social
planners and the transgender community.
N. Drydakis (*)
Department of Economics and International Business, Lord Ashcroft International Business
School, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
Institute for the Study of Labor, IZA, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH, Bonn,
Germany
e-mail: nick.drydakis@anglia.ac.uk

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_5
84 N. Drydakis
Were people who have had a sex reassignment surgery to report lower levels of
job satisfaction than before their sex reassignment surgery, this might suggest that
they are victims of mistreatment and discrimination from employers, colleagues
and customers, and/or they might face higher adverse mental health symptoms due
to social/personal/physical/mental and workplace conditions that should be exam-
ined and evaluated in a systematic way for research based policy implications. On
the other hand, if individuals who have had a sex reassignment surgery face more
positive job satisfaction adjustments than before their sex reassignment surgery,
this should be noted, as well, in order for the potential factors that affect this relation
(for instance better mental health status), to be highlighted, and a framework for
reference to be demonstrated.
Examining transgender people’s job satisfaction is of considerable importance,
given that transgender employees are valuable assets for organizations. Studies in
the UK have found that transgender people have higher average educational levels
than the wider UK population and also that transgender people are more likely to
work in professional and managerial occupations compared to the wider UK
population (Whittle et al. 2007; Morton 2008). In turn, the (dis)satisfaction of
highly educated employees might provide a number of insights into the most
important labor market behaviors, such as quitting, turnover and complaint
procedures.
In the UK, the Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999, which amended the Sex
Discrimination Act 1975, make it unlawful to discriminate in employment and
vocational training against an individual who intends to undergo gender
reassignment, who is undergoing gender reassignment, or who has undergone
gender reassignment (National Archives 1999). The Act covers all aspects of
employment, including recruitment and selection processes, employment-related
benefits, and facilities, including training, career development and references
(National Archives 1999). Thus, we can identify one additional important reason
for a job satisfaction study for transgender employees. If people who have under-
gone gender reassignment face lower job satisfaction than before it might be an
indicator of how effective the anti-discrimination law is in protecting transgender
employees.
In this study, UK transgender men and women who have had a sex reassignment
surgery (vaginoplasty or phalloplasty) were periodically interviewed (twice a year)
in the city of London during the 2012–2014 period, in order to enable an examina-
tion of how their sex transition has affected the satisfaction they received from their
workplace. One important strength of this study is that longitudinal data (five
volumes) is utilized, and that job satisfaction dynamics both before and after the
sex reassignment surgery can therefore be observed. Interestingly, valuable infor-
mation regarding individuals’ masculine and feminine traits, life satisfaction, health
and mental health status (among others) was obtained, and additional correlations
between job satisfaction and the aforementioned variables can therefore be offered.
Potential underlying factors and channels that might affect transgender employees’
job satisfaction such as masculinity/femininity, and life satisfaction are examined in
a process, which allows interesting patterns to be captured.
Transgenderism, Sex Reassignment Surgery and Employees’ Job-Satisfaction 85
The current study will add to the extremely sparse body of empirical literature
concerning transgender individuals’ experiences in the workplace during and after
their sex transition. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the next section,
the study’s main hypothesis is presented. In Sect. 3, the data set and variables’
definitions are presented. In Sect. 4, the descriptive statistics and the empirical
estimations are offered. The last section, meanwhile, offers a discussion.
2 Job Satisfaction and Study’s Hypothesis
From the perspectives of research and practice, the most focal employee attitude is
job satisfaction (Saari and Judge 2004). The construct of job satisfaction is gener-
ally defined as a positive emotional state that reflects an affective response to a job
situation (Locke 1976, 1984). Employees with high job satisfaction appear to hold
generally positive attitudes toward their jobs, and those who are dissatisfied appear
to hold generally negative attitudes toward their jobs (Robbins 1993). The existence
of relations suggests that the analysis of the employee’s subjective well-being, and
the understanding of what makes different groups of employees satisfied, such as
interaction with colleagues, respect for one’s individuality, support on special
conditions, benefits and rewards, can provide a number of insights into the most
important labor market behaviors: higher productivity, better performance, lower
absenteeism, lower likelihood of quitting, better work behavior, better health, and
better emotional adjustment (see Drydakis 2015 for detailed references).
In addition, the literature has identified good mental health status, life satisfac-
tion, and certain personality traits, as main predictors of job satisfaction. Indeed, a
meta-analysis of studies published from 1967 to 2008 showed that job satisfaction
is positively related to life satisfaction, happiness, and other subjective well-being
variables (Bowling et al. 2010). Interestingly, and in relation to the scope of this
paper, since current studies suggest that transition from male to female, and female
to male is related to (i) improved life satisfaction, (ii) improved body satisfaction in
relation to gender, (iii) improved quality of life and health related quality of life,
(iv) reduced depression, anxiety, and stress, and decrease in mental health service
use, (v) improvements in the quality of sex lives, (vi) reduced self-harm for the
majority of those who had a history of self-harm, (vii) reduced avoidance of public
and social spaces (McNeil et al. 2012; Colton Meier et al. 2011; Davis and Meier
2014), one might suggest that these factors may have a direct positive effect on the
job satisfaction of transgender employees.
Furthermore, based on Morton’s study (2008) people who have had a sex
reassignment surgery often find that they can bring so much more to their work-
place than they did prior to having this surgery. It is suggested that transitioning
might liberate employees from the worries that are engendered by their own
unhappiness with their own self-perceptions and their self-worth. Transgender
people themselves highlight that they take more pride in their work, and that they
can concentrate on what they are doing rather than merely marking time until they
86 N. Drydakis
are able to leave the workplace and return home (Morton 2008). Moreover,
workplace colleagues find that people who have undergone sex transition are
more helpful, productive, more approachable and gregarious (Morton 2008). Addi-
tionally, after successfully changing gender, an employee is likely to have excellent
communication and negotiation skills, the confidence to make difficult but neces-
sary decisions, good self-organization skills, and an innovative and constructive
approach to problem-solving (Morton 2008). From a labor economics point of
view, one might suggest that, after sex transition, core productivity characteristics
could be positively enhanced, which should have a positive effect on the job
satisfaction experienced by transgender people.
Since studies suggest that sex transition positively affects not only the mental
health, but also life satisfaction, quality of life, and organizational skills of trans-
gender people, it might be suggested that, for transgender employees, their sex
transition, (as examined in this study by the sex reassignment surgery binary
variable), might contribute positively to their job satisfaction function. This paper
suggests, therefore, that sex reassignment surgery might be associated with positive
job satisfaction adjustments (Study’s Hypothesis).
Importantly, however, two features must be highlighted. Firstly, the relation
between job satisfaction and life satisfaction (which is a function of happiness, and
quality of life) is, in general, believed to be reciprocal, meaning that people who are
happy with their life, tend to be satisfied with their jobs, and people who are
satisfied with their jobs tend to be happy (Bowling et al. 2010). Thus, endogeneity
between job and life satisfaction is perceived to be prevalent. Secondly, one may
suggest that the positive adjustments following a sex transition might partially be
the result of workplaces which (i) encourage and foster work environments in
which transgender employees feel comfortable enough to be open, (ii) collaborate
with transgender employees to make the workplace an inclusive environment for
people of all gender identities and sexual orientations, and (iii) provide equal career
development opportunities for transgender people. In the current study, it is
suggested that support provided by firms to transgender people in all facets of
their transition might also impact positively on transgender people’s job and life
satisfaction function. It is suggested that if transsexual employees feel protected
from biased treatments in the workplace, they will also feel valued and respected,
and this will impact positively not only on their job satisfaction, but also on their
personal/social/life well-being. In turn, due to endogeneity, higher personal/social/
life well-being will also affect their job satisfaction and work attitudes (including
organizational skills and job commitment).
For clarity, Fig. 1 represents the predicted relations. If sex reassignment surgery
can affect employees’ mental health, life satisfaction, organizational skills etc. then
these factors may positively affect also job satisfaction. Whilst, employees’ job
satisfaction, mental health, life satisfaction, and even the decision for sex
reassignment surgery, are all expected to be affected by firms’ supportiveness
towards transgender employees.
In order to build a relevant hypothesis and test the data quantitatively (although
the current study does not have indexes regarding firms’ support toward transgender
hypothesis
Sex reassignment surgery Job satisfaction (+)
· Mental health (+)

· Life satisfaction (+)
·satisfaction
Improved body and mental
in relation to gender
identity (+)
·jobSelf-organization
commitment (+)
skills and
Organizational support in relation to transgender employees (+)
Fig 1 Hypothesized relationships of factors influencing transgender employees’ job satisfaction

who have had sex reassignment surgery
people who decide to surgically reassign their gender) it is suggested that a positive
workplace environment might affect the interaction between job satisfaction, self-
organization skills and life satisfaction. In this study, by utilizing job satisfaction
and suggesting that it is a relevant index that can offer prompt information regard-
ing employees’ general workplace happiness, the paper will attempt to offer new
results to make an important contribution to the extremely sparse empirical litera-
ture concerning the employment of transsexual employees.
3 Data Set and Definition of Variables
The data-gathering period lasted between August 2012 and April 2014 (five vol-
umes). In February 2012 the research team approached three transgender associa-
tions based in London (UK) and presented the aims of the project; that is to work
with transgender men and women who were in the process of having a sex
reassignment surgery (vaginoplasty or phalloplasty) in the very near future. The
cooperation of the transgender associations was sought for this. Through mass mail-
outs they forwarded the questionnaires (with clear information/guidelines regarding
the longitudinal study and the target population) to their members. Also, the unions
were asked to let the research team participate in their open days and members’
activities in order to promote the study. Additionally, between February and June
2012 the research team had the chance to participate in five large-scale events
organized by the associations where additional transgender people were
approached. During events and bi-annual gatherings the organizers devoted some
minutes to speaking to the public regarding the project.
88 N. Drydakis
At the end of the first data gathering volume 118 transgender people had
forwarded their questionnaires to the research team. Up to the end of the data-
gathering period 27 of them had either terminated their collaboration, or important
missing data made the use of their questionnaires impossible. Of the 91 remaining
people, 46 of them had reassigned their sex surgically. However, six out of those
who had surgically reassigned their sex were unemployed, or inactive at least in one
volume of the data gathering period and their observations therefore were put aside.
Thus, the valid sample of this study consists of 40 employed transgender partici-
pants who, as of December 2012 had not undergone a sex reassigned surgery, but
who, as of April 2014, had all had a sex reassignment surgery. Regarding the
biological sex of the participants in December 2012, 23 were males and 17 were
females.
In this study, participants’ age, ethnicity (White-British), higher education
degree, years of actual working experience, white-collar employment, annual
gross salary, and hormone replacement therapy were controlled for. Regarding
the most important variables of this study, total job satisfaction was included in
the questionnaire. There are many methods of measuring job satisfaction, the most
common of which is the Likert scale (1932). The format of a typical five-level
Likert item was followed here. Employees were asked to rate total job satisfaction
on a scale from 1, “very dissatisfied,” to 5, “very satisfied.” In addition, the same
scale was used to measure life satisfaction.
Mental health symptoms were measured by the scale defined by the Centre for
Epidemiology Studies (CES-D, 20 items), which measures the existence of adverse
mental health symptoms (e.g., depressed, everything an effort, restless sleep, not
happy, lonely, sad, could not get doing, and did not enjoy life) in the previous week
(Meads et al. 2006). The possible range of scores is zero to 60, with the higher
scores indicating the presence of more depressive symptoms. To measure health
status, the classic self-rated health condition was used, which asks respondents to
rate their health as excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor (Bowling 2004). The
possible range of scores is 1–5, with the higher scores (5) indicating poor health.
Finally, to measure masculinity and femininity the short version of the Bem Sex
Role Inventory (Archer and Lloyd 2002; Bem 1981) was used. The instrument has
ten items traditionally associated with masculinity and ten items associated with
femininity. The stereotypical descriptions of men and women have emerged from
repeated observations of men and women in different social roles. Bem (1981)
supposes that masculinity and femininity are separate continuums allowing indi-
viduals to endorse both characteristics (Archer and Lloyd 2002). Based on Bem’s
(1981) theoretical predictions, traits are called masculine if they are evaluated to be
more suitable for men than women in society (such as, one being assertive,
dominant, and acting as a leader). Feminine traits are those that are evaluated to
be more suitable for women than men (such as, one being gentle, warm, and
affectionate). Individuals indicated on a 7-point scale (ranges from never or almost
never true to always or almost always true) the extent to which each of the
20 personality traits described themselves. Masculinity equals the mean self-rating
for all endorsed masculine items, and femininity equals the mean self-rating for all
endorsed feminine items (Archer and Lloyd 2002). Recent attempts to validate the
contents of the BSRI masculinity and femininity scales have provided evidence for
the persistence of these stereotypes across different countries (Archer and Lloyd
2002; Ozkan and Lajunen 2005; Xiumei et al. 2012).
The next section will present the study’s descriptive statistics, longitudinal
correlation matrix and multivariate specifications.
4 Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
In Table 1, the longitudinal descriptive statistics for the period 2012–2014 are
offered. As is observed in Panel I, for males to females the mean age is 35.8 years,
65.2 % hold a higher education degree, 78.2 % are white collar employees, and the
annual gross salary is £33,843.4. In Panel II, for females to males the measures
show that the mean age is 34.1 years, 47.0 % hold a higher education degree, 64.7 %
are white-collar employees and the annual gross salary is £33,776.1. Also, during
the 2012–2014 period both groups of individuals have not changed jobs, that is,
before and after their sex reassignment surgery they were employed in the same
firm. Furthermore, the great majority of them were undergoing hormone replace-
ment therapy. In addition, an interesting piece of qualitative information suggests
that for males who became females, before sex reassignment surgery 78.3 %
preferred to be known as transgender women (trans women) and 21.7 % preferred
to be known as women. After sex reassignment surgery 100 % preferred to be
known as women. While before and after sex reassignment surgery 85 % generally
preferred male patterns, 10 % generally preferred both male and female patterns,
and 5 % generally preferred female patterns. Furthermore, for females who became
males, before sex reassignment surgery 100 % preferred to be known as transgender
men (trans men). After sex reassignment surgery 90 % preferred to be known as
men, and 10 % preferred to be known as trans men. Also, before and after sex
reassignment surgery 80 % generally preferred female patterns, and 20 % generally
preferred both female and male patterns.
Table 2 shows the reported levels of job satisfaction, and satisfaction with life, as
well as measures for health status, adverse mental health symptoms, femininity and
masculinity. The coefficients α of reliability of these composites are at least 0.86.
For males to females, in Panel I, measures are offered before sex reassignment
surgery, and in Panel II, measures are offered after sex reassignment surgery.
Similarly, for females to males, in Panel III, measures are presented before sex
reassignment surgery, and in Panel IV, measures are presented after sex
reassignment surgery.
As can be seen, for males to females before sex reassignment surgery, the most
frequent response for all measures of job satisfaction is dissatisfied (56.5 %).
90 N. Drydakis
Table 1 Descriptive statistics; employed individuals for the 2012–2014 period (5 waves)
Males to females Females to males
Mean s. d. Mean s. d.
Age (years) 35.87 (7.61) 34.15 (6.87)
Ethnicity (%) 86.95 (0.33) 94.05 (0.50)
Higher education (%) 65.21 (0.47) 47.05 (0.50)
Working experience (years) 12.45 (6.41) 12.81 (6.89)
White-collar employees (%) 78.26 (0.41) 64.70 (0.48)
Annual gross salary (£) 33,843.48 (6966.82) 33,776.14 (6774.21)
Working for the same firm during the 100 100 100 100
2012–2014 period (%)
Hormone replacement therapy (%) 79.13 (0.40) 88.23 (0.32)
Observations 115 85
Notes: Longitudinal descriptive statistics. Standard deviations are in parentheses
However, after sex reassignment surgery, the most frequent response is neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied (69.5 %). The differences are statistically significant
(p ¼ 0.00). It can be observed also that for males to females before sex reassignment
surgery the most frequent response for all measures of life satisfaction is neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied. However after sex reassignment surgery the most frequent
response is satisfied (43.4 %). The differences are statistically significant (p ¼ 0.00).
Moreover, as can be observed for males to females before sex reassignment
surgery a lower percentage of individuals have a very good health status before sex
reassignment surgery than after (47.8 % versus 52.1 %, respectively). However, the
patterns are statistically insignificant (p ¼ 0.45). Furthermore, for males to females
before sex reassignment surgery individuals face a higher level of adverse mental
health symptoms before sex reassignment surgery than after (23.5 versus 19.7,
respectively). The difference is statistically significant (p ¼ 0.00). Also, it can be
seen that males to females before sex reassignment surgery report as being charac-
terized by lower femininity traits than after sex reassignment surgery (4.8 versus
5.1, respectively). The difference is statistically significant (p ¼ 0.00). On the other
hand, for males to females their masculinity traits are higher before than after sex
reassignment surgery (4.1 versus 3.8, respectively). The difference is also statisti-
cally significant (p ¼ 0.00).
For females to males, qualitative comparable patterns are observed regarding
satisfaction with job, satisfaction with life, health status and adverse mental health
symptoms. However, for females to males before sex reassignment surgery, fem-
inine traits are higher than after, and masculine traits before sex reassignment
surgery are lower than before.
For completeness, in Table 3, we present the measurements of the aforemen-
tioned variables, wave by wave, with the first data wave showing measures before
sex reassignment surgery and the last data wave showing measures after sex
reassignment surgery. The general patterns suggest that for males who became
females, and for females who became males, the transition entails positive effects
Table 2 Descriptive statistics; employed individuals; comparisons between first and final data
volume
Panel I Panel II
First Fifth First Fifth
volume volume volume volume
2012a 2014b 2012a 2014b
a. Satisfaction with job (ordinal)
i. Very dissatisfied (%) 4.34 0.00 5.88 0.00
ii. Dissatisfied (%) 56.52 13.04 70.58 11.76
iii. Neither (%) 39.13 69.56 23.52 88.23
iv. Satisfied (%) 0.00 17.39 0.00 0.00
v. Very satisfied (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Difference test x2 ¼ 12.34 (p ¼ 0.00) x2 ¼ 14.51 (p ¼ 0.00)
Observations *** ***
n ¼ 23 n ¼ 17
b. Satisfaction with life (ordinal)
i. Very dissatisfied (%) 4.34 0.00 11.76 0.00
ii. Dissatisfied (%) 21.73 4.34 58.82 5.88
iii. Neither (%) 65.21 52.17 29.41 76.47
iv. Satisfied (%) 8.69 43.47 0.00 17.64
v. Very satisfied (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Difference test x2 ¼ 9.33 (p ¼ 0.02)** x2 ¼ 13.87 (p ¼ 0.00)
Observations n ¼ 23 ***
n ¼ 17
c. Health status (ordinal)
i. Excellent (%) 30.43 39.13 17.64 35.29
ii. Very good (%) 47.82 52.17 82.35 58.82
iii. Good (%) 21.73 8.69 0.00 5.88
iv. Fair (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
v. Poor (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Difference test x2 ¼ 1.57 (p ¼ 0.45) x2 ¼ 2.66 (p ¼ 0.26)
Observations n ¼ 23 n ¼ 17
d. Adverse mental health symptoms (contin- 23.95 19.73 23.11 18.70
uous—mean)
Difference test t ¼ 2.47 (p ¼ 0.01)** t ¼ 2.31 (p ¼ 0.02)**
(continued)
92 N. Drydakis
Table 2 (continued)
Panel I Panel II
First Fifth First Fifth
volume volume volume volume
2012a 2014b 2012a 2014b
e. Femininity (continuous—mean) 4.80 5.17 4.41 3.90
Difference test t ¼ 3.11 (p ¼ 0.00)*** t ¼ 5.410 (p ¼ 0.00)
Observations n ¼ 23 ***
n ¼ 17
f. Masculinity (continuous—mean) 4.11 3.83 4.73 5.18
Difference test t ¼ 2.86 (p ¼ 0.00)*** t ¼ 4.82 (p ¼ 0.00)***
Notes: x2-tests have been used to measure distribution of job/life satisfaction and health status.
t-tests have been used to conduct tests for difference in means
P-values are in parentheses
a
Before sex reassignment surgery
b
After sex reassignment surgery
(***) Significant at the 1 % level
(**) Significant at the 5 % level
on their job and life satisfaction, and mental health status. In addition, after the
transitions, males who became females are characterized by higher femininity than
masculinity. The opposite holds for females who became males.
In Tables 4 and 5 the longitudinal correlation matrix (with p-values) is presented
for males to females, and for females to males, respectively. Regarding the most
important variables in this study, job satisfaction, it can be observed in Table 4 that
for males to females there is a correlation between job and sex reassignment surgery
(p ¼ 0.00), job satisfaction and femininity (p ¼ 0.00), and job satisfaction and life
satisfaction (p ¼ 0.00). On the other hand, there is a negative correlation between
job satisfaction and adverse mental health symptoms (p ¼ 0.00). Of further impor-
tance is the positive correlation between sex reassignment surgery and satisfaction
with life (p ¼ 0.00), and sex reassignment surgery and femininity (p ¼ 0.00). More-
over, of further importance is the negative correlation between sex reassignment
surgery and adverse mental health symptoms (p ¼ 0.00), and the negative correla-
tion between sex reassignment surgery and masculinity (p ¼ 0.00).
In Table 5, the longitudinal matrix for females to males suggests that job
satisfaction is positively correlated with sex reassignment surgery (p ¼ 0.00), life
satisfaction (p ¼ 0.00), and masculinity (p ¼ 0.00). Also, there is a positive corre-
lation between sex reassignment surgery and satisfaction with life (p ¼ 0.00), and
between sex reassignment surgery and masculinity (p ¼ 0.00). Furthermore, there is
a negative correlation between sex reassignment surgery and adverse mental health
symptoms (p ¼ 0.00), and between sex reassignment surgery and femininity
(p ¼ 0.00).
Table 3 Descriptive statistics per data volume; employed individuals

Panel I Panel II Panel III Panel IV Panel V
First Second Third Fourth Fifth
volume volume volume volume volume
2012aa 2012b 2013a 2013b 2014ab
a. Males to females
Satisfaction with job—mean 2.34 2.47 (0.66) 2.69 2.95 3.04
(0.57) (0.70) (0.63) (0.50)
Satisfaction with life—mean 2.78 2.95 (0.63) 3.04 3.21 3.39
(0.67) (0.70) (0.73) (0.58)
Health status—mean 1.91 1.86 (0.69) 1.86 1.82 1.69
(0.73) (0.69) (0.71) (0.63)
Adverse mental health symp- 23.95 23.00 21.39 20.47 19.73
toms—mean (6.81) (6.85) (5.92) (5.12) (4.51)
Femininity—mean 4.80 4.86 (0.43) 5.02 5.08 5.17
(0.37) (0.42) (0.40) (0.43)
Masculinity—mean 4.11 3.97 (0.36) 3.96 3.92 3.83
(0.27) (0.38) (0.37) (0.38)
Sex reassignment surgery—% 0.00 26.08 52.17 82.60 100.00
(0.44) (0.51) (0.38)
Observations 23 23 23 23 23
b. Females to males
Satisfaction with job—mean 2.17 2.29 (0.58) 2.35 2.64 2.88
(0.52) (0.60) (0.60) (0.33)
Satisfaction with life—mean 2.17 2.35 (0.60) 2.52 2.70 3.11
(0.63) (0.62) (0.68) (0.48)
Health status—mean 1.82 1.76 (0.43) 1.76 1.76 1.70
(0.39) (0.43) (0.56) (0.58)
Adverse mental health symp- 23.11 22.17 21.58 20.58 18.70
toms—mean (6.75) (6.06) (5.36) (4.78) (4.04)
Femininity—mean 4.41 4.24 (0.27) 4.13 4.01 3.90
(0.22) (0.27) (0.33) (0.31)
Masculinity—mean 4.73 4.88 (0.29) 4.93 5.01 5.18
(0.25) (0.36) (0.35) (0.28)
Sex reassignment surgery—% 0.00 17.64 35.29 70.58 100.00
(0.39) (0.49) (0.46)
Observations 17 17 17 17 17
Notes: Standard deviations are in parentheses
a
Before sex reassignment surgery
b
After sex reassignment surgery
The general pattern for both groups of employees suggests that job satisfaction is
positively affected by sex reassignment surgery. However, a multivariate analysis is
needed in order to verify whether the assigned pattern continues to exist when
several core heterogeneities are taken into account.
94 N. Drydakis
Table 4 Longitudinal correlation matrix; employed individuals; males to females

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Satisfaction with
job
2. Satisfaction with 0.25
life (0.00)***
3. Health status 0.05 0.06
(0.58) (0.47)
4. Adverse mental 0.33 0.06 0.10
health symptoms (0.00)*** (0.46) (0.28)
5. Femininity 0.47 0.12 0.04 0.20
(0.00)*** (0.17) (0.63) (0.02)**
6. Masculinity 0.15 0.01 0.05 0.33 0.24
(0.19) (0.84) (0.55) (0.22) (0.00)***
7. Sex reassignment 0.53 0.38 0.09 0.32 0.28 0.40
surgery (0.00)*** (0.00) (0.32) (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.00)***
***
Notes: N ¼ 115. Spearman correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both
ordinal variables. Rank-Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations
between ordinal and nominal variables. Phi correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations for both nominal variables. Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations between ordinal and quantitative variables. Point-Biserial correlation coefficient has
been used to estimate correlations between nominal and quantitative variables. Pearson correlation
coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both quantitative variables
4.2 Estimations
In Table 6 random effect estimations are presented. In Model I, it can be observed

that for males to females, sex reassignment surgery positively and statistically
significantly affects job satisfaction, even after controlling for several heterogene-
ities such as age, higher education, annual gross salary, and life satisfaction. Based
on the assigned estimations, the study’s hypothesis is accepted, that sex
reassignment surgery might entail positive job satisfaction adjustments for males
to females. Estimating interaction effects between sex reassignment surgery and
masculinity/femininity, adverse mental health symptoms and satisfaction with life
two statistically interesting and significant patterns can be observed. The estima-
tions suggest that, after sex reassignment surgery femininity, the job satisfaction of
males to females is positively affected. That is, for biological males who actively
(surgically) disconfirm the male gender stereotype by acting and becoming more
like women, this transition positively affect their job satisfaction. It is also
Table 5 Longitudinal correlation matrix; employed individuals; females to males

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Satisfaction with
job
2. Satisfaction with 0.74
life (0.00)***
3. Health status 0.16 0.18
(0.12) (0.08)*
4. Adverse mental 0.39 0.51 0.25
health symptoms (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.01)**
5. Femininity 0.50 0.42 0.03 0.15
(0.00)** (0.00)*** (0.78) (0.15)
6. Masculinity 0.30 0.38 0.20 0.63 0.24
(0.00)** (0.00)*** (0.06)** (0.00)*** (0.02)**
7. Sex reassignment 0.65 0.63 0.06 0.36 0.53 0.48
surgery (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.53) (0.00)*** (0.00)*** (0.00)
***
Notes: N ¼ 85. Spearman correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both
ordinal variables. Rank-Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate correlations
between ordinal and nominal variables. Phi correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations for both nominal variables. Biserial correlation coefficient has been used to estimate
correlations between ordinal and quantitative variables. Point-Biserial correlation coefficient has
been used to estimate correlations between nominal and quantitative variables. Pearson correlation
coefficient has been used to estimate correlations for both quantitative variables
(*) Significant at the 10 % level
confirmed that, after sex reassignment surgery, life satisfaction positively affects
their job satisfaction.
Similarly, in Model II, it can be observed that, for females to males, sex
reassignment surgery positively and statistically affects job satisfaction signifi-
cantly, when core heterogeneities have been considered. For females to males,
the study’s hypothesis regarding the positive relation between sex reassignment
surgery and job satisfaction can also be accepted. Moreover, the interactions
suggest that having sex reassignment surgery, masculinity, and life satisfaction
positively affect job satisfaction for females to males. It seems that biological
women who are becoming more like men in terms of masculine traits face positive
job satisfaction adjustments.
96 N. Drydakis
Table 6 Job satisfaction estimations; employed individuals

Model I Model II
Sex reassignment surgery 0.511 (0.097)*** 0.259 (0.105)**
Masculinity 0.002 (0.242) 0.249 (0.168)
Femininity 0.348 (0.076)*** 0.077 (0.172)
Hormone replacement therapy 0.029 (0.081) 0.168 (0.099)
Adverse mental health symptoms 0.004 (0.011) 0.024 (0.011)
**
Health status 0.124 (0.092) 0.168 (0.114)
Satisfaction with life 0.011 (0.072) 0.134 (0.055)***
Age 0.134 (0.076)* 0.004 (0.015)
Working experience 0.159 (0.081)* 0.055 (0.029)**
Higher education 0.185 (0.053) 0.088 (0.214)
***
Ethnicity 0.585 (0.312) 0.476 (0.254)
White-collar employee 0.901 (0.340)*** 0.236 (0.177)
Annual gross salary 0.357 (0.299) 0.002 (0.000)
***
Sex reassignment surgery x masculinity 0.042 (0.057) 0.055 (0.024)***
Sex reassignment surgery x femininity 0.132 (0.043)*** 0.076 (0.064)
Sex reassignment surgery x adverse mental health 0.015 (0.011) 0.007 (0.006)
symptoms
Sex reassignment surgery x satisfaction with life 0.083 (0.035)*** 0.112 (0.051)***
Wald x2 127.39 149.48
Prob > x2 0.000 0.000
Observations 115 85
Notes: Random effect order probit estimations
Standard errors are in parentheses
(*) Significant at the 10 % level
5 Discussion
This study has examined a largely under-studied population in terms of the relation
between job satisfaction and transitioning through sex reassignment surgery using
longitudinal empirical techniques for the 2012–2014 in London (UK). Using
information from 40 individuals before and after their sex reassignment surgery,
a positive association between job satisfaction and sex reassignment surgery was
estimated. In this study, it was hypothesized that, if sex transition is accompanied
by better mental health, higher life satisfaction, improved body and mental satis-
faction in relation to masculinity, femininity, and more commitment to work due to
better psychology, then these adjustments (due to sex reassignment surgery) might
also positively affect job satisfaction, since the aforementioned factors are per-
ceived to have a direct impact on the satisfaction individuals experience at the
workplace. Indeed, extrapolating from the available data, the multivariate analysis
has shown that though having sex reassignment surgery, (i) life satisfaction,
(ii) femininity for males to females, and (iii) masculinity for females to males,
can positively impact on job satisfaction for transgender employees. It seems that
the interactions between sex reassignment surgery, life satisfaction, and masculin-
ity/femininity can have effects on the attitudes of employees towards their lived
experiences in their jobs. The longitudinal correlation matrix, meanwhile, has also
highlighted potential channels that might affect the relation between sex transition
and job satisfaction. It was estimated that sex reassignment surgery might have had
a negative relation to adverse mental health symptoms; that is, that after sex
reassignment surgery employees might face fewer adverse mental health symptoms
and this feature might have a direct impact on job satisfaction. People who have
previously had to live with the pressure of gender dysphoria might have found this
to have a direct impact on their job and life satisfaction. However, transsexual
persons who have completed a reassignment of sex through surgery might well
emerge happier and better workers.
Although the study did not have indicators regarding the degree of supportive
workplace environments towards people who reassign their gender, it was
suggested that, if transgender employees have supportive coworkers who respond
positively toward them, they might also tend to be more satisfied at work, and more
committed to their organizations, because they genuinely enjoy working there.
Thus, a variety of arguments can be employed in order for the study’s main thrust
to be evaluated, and implications to be offered. However, it is difficult to quantify
how much of the job satisfaction advancement due to sex reassignment surgery can
be attributed to supportive coworkers and firms, improvements in mental health,
and life satisfaction. This study does not permit a clear ordering of which effect
works on the relation under consideration, and in what degree. A combination of
endogenous relations, rather, might have affected the results presented. Thus, social
planners, social workers, health providers and employers should work on factors
that can affect transgender individuals’ quality of life and mental health, and try to
foster a diverse social and workplace environment in which transgender employees
could function well, progress, and fulfill their potential. The social cost of a
minority population excluded from employment is perceived to be significant. On
the other hand, good relations between employers and employees increase the
openness of transgender employees, and improve job attitudes, as well as benefit-
ting the firm as a whole, given that teamwork is a very important aspect of
productivity and success.
98 N. Drydakis
Importantly, the characteristics of the data set should be taken into account
whilst evaluating the study’s patterns. The data set is not random, and thus a
generalization is not feasible; furthermore, the study has limited observations that
restrict any generalization. The outcomes are also specific to one geographical
location, considering that this study focuses on employees working in London.
Urban characteristics and extant anti-discrimination laws might have driven the
patterns. Importantly, the participants are employed. Severe discrimination against
transgender unemployed and inactive individuals is highlighted in the literature.
Also, studies suggest that during and after sex reassignment surgery some
employees either quit, or are fired from their jobs. In this study, the participants
have been working in the same firm before and after their sex surgery. This might be
a sign that these employees might have received support from their jobs and
colleagues, which would have affected the assigned patterns.
This study, also, utilizes information from those transgender men and women
who were undergoing a sex reassignment surgery in the near future. One might
expect different patterns to emerge, either if transgender men and women were in
the preliminary stages of the transition, or if they had undergone the sex
reassignment surgery years before. Furthermore, the study’s participants belong
to transgender social networks. This detail might have also affected the outcomes.
Support from other transgender people might have a positive impact on several
observed variables such as mental health. In addition, sex reassignment surgery,
hormone replacement therapy, and masculinity/femininity are highly correlated. As
well as, job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health are also highly corre-
lated. Multicollinearity issues in the regression stage might be a real problem. Any
attempt to deal with the aforementioned features, and points on the data set’s
characteristics would be an extension of this study. Finally, this study examines
transgender employees’ job satisfaction before and after their sex reassignment
surgery. We cannot infer whether males to females, and females to males are worse
off or better off than non-transgender people in terms of job satisfaction after
having a sex reassignment surgery. Additionally, the effect of sexual orientation
on job satisfaction was not examined in this study. These issues highlight that new
studies could offer new insights.
References
Archer, J., & Lloyd, B. (2002). Sex and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem sex role inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bowling, A. (2004). Measuring health (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bowling, N. A., Eschleman, K. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the
relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 915–934.
Colton Meier, S. L., Fitzgerald, K. M., Pardo, S. T., & Babcock, J. (2011). The effects of hormonal
gender affirmation treatment on mental health in female-to-male transsexuals. Journal of Gay
and Lesbian Mental Health, 15, 281–299.
Davis, S. A., & Meier, C. B. (2014). Effects of testosterone treatment and chest reconstruction
surgery on mental health and sexuality in female-to-male transgender people. International
Journal of Sexual Health, 26, 113–128.
Drydakis, N. (2015). Effect of sexual orientation on job satisfaction: Evidence from Greece.
Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 54, 162–187.
Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Justin, T., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice
at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
The National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Leppel, K. (2014). Does job satisfaction vary with sexual orientation? Industrial Relations: A
Journal of Economy and Society, 53, 169–198.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140,
1–55.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organisational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A. (1984). Job satisfaction. In M. Gruneberg & T. Wall (Eds.), Social psychology and
organizational behaviour (pp. 92–117). London: Willey.
McNeil, J., Bailey, L., Ellis, S., Morton, J., & Regan, M. (2012). Trans mental health study 2012.
Edinburgh: The Scottish Transgender Alliance.
Meads, D. M., McKenna, S. P., & Doward, L. C. (2006). Assessing the cross-cultural compara-
bility of the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Value in Health, 9,
A324–A324.
Morton, J. (2008). Transgender experiences in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Transgender
Alliance.
National Archives. (1999). The sex discrimination (gender reassignment) regulations 1999.
Norwich: National Archives.
Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). Masculinity, femininity, and the BEM sex role inventory in
Turkey. Sex Roles, 52, 103–110.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies, and applications. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43, 395–407.
Schilt, K., & Wiswall, M. (2008). Before and after: Gender transitions, human capital, and
Whittle, S., Turner, L., Al-Alami, M., Rundall, E., & Thom, B. (2007). Engendered penalties:
Transgender and transsexual people’s experiences of inequality and discrimination. London:
The Equalities Review.
Xiumei, Y., Meifang, W., & Qing, Z. (2012). Effects of gender stereotypes on spontaneous trait
inferences and the moderating role of gender schematicity: Evidence from Chinese undergrad-
uates. Social Cognition, 30, 220–231.
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender
Employees in Australia
Tiffany Jones
1 Introduction
1.1 A New Visibility
Female to Male (FtM) transgender people have been less ‘visible’ in Australian
culture and media in the past, even in comparison to other people on the trans-
spectrum. Possible reasons include a difference in the physical visibility of
Australian masculinities compared to femininities generally, and the lack of cabaret
and show-based cultures around these identities seen with some trans femininities.
The past decade has however seen an increasing level of visibility specifically for
FtM people, particularly online. In 2001, the FTM Australia website was formed by
two New South Wales men to provide quality information and support for men who
transitioned FtM in Australia (http://www.ftmaustralia.org/). In addition, there has
been increasing visibility for FtM identities on Australian TV Shows and media
(e.g., X Factor 2011, The Hungry Beast 2011 and others). Increased visibility has
also stemmed from new United Nations anti-discrimination efforts (United Nations
2012); and the reframing of transgender identity diagnoses from psychological
disorder to the less-pathologizing ‘Gender Dysphoria’ in the DSM-5 (Drescher
2013). All Australian states and territories have prohibited discrimination in
employment on the basis of gender identity, and Australia now has federal anti-
discrimination protection in place as of 2013 (Jones et al. 2014). Guidelines to
address disparate state requirements around surgery and sterility were also released
(Australian Government 2013). However despite their increased visibility in media,
social networking and legislation, FtM transgender people remain a particularly
under-researched group. This chapter first explores the lack of sociological research
T. Jones (*)
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
e-mail: tjones35@une.edu.au

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_6
102 T. Jones
on FtM transgender people, and then aims to meet the need for more research
considering their experiences as employees in light of the new Australian employ-
ment protections, through outlining a recent Australian study.
1.2 Lack of Research
Globally, the literature on transgender people has focused more strongly on MtF
transgender people than FtMs, and has typically been consisted of small sample
sizes in medical environments (gender clinics, sexual health centres, and hospitals).
Topics explored have included increased HIV risk and other issues of sexual health
(Clements-Nolle et al. 2001; Edwards et al. 2007; Jones and Mitchell 2014), sex
reassignment surgery (De Cuypere et al. 2005; Lawrence 2005), and mental health
(Haraldsen and Dahl 2000; Hepp et al. 2005; Grossman and D’Augelli 2007).
Research with a social focus was less common. A few studies considered transgen-
der and gender questioning youths’ experiences of family rejection (Grossman
et al. 2005). Most studies focused exclusively on female-to-male (FtM) samples
came from North America (Barrett 1998; Pazos 2000). Barrett (1998) discussed the
disappointment that could occur with the surgeries available—particularly for
genitalia. Pazos (2000) reflected on counselling experiences with several of her
FtM clients, and noted the recurrence of feelings of difference as early as 5 years of
age, magical thinking and daydreaming about becoming a boy, and early attempts
at ‘making the change’ through trying to urinate standing up and engaging in
attempts to look or act like boys. Across these studies where employment was
discussed, for MtF populations, it was discussed mainly in relation to discrimina-
tion or abuse in sex work for example.
There has been limited research on Australian FtM transgender people, mainly
focused on a broader transgender population (Couch et al. 2007; Harris and Jones
2014; Smith et al. 2014), or broader GLBTIQ population (Hillier et al. 2010; Jones
2012). Tranznation (Couch et al. 2007) focused on a sample of 253 Australian and
New Zealand sample of FtM and MtF transgender people, with only 229 Australians
and only a third of the portion for FtM transgender people as there were MtFs
represented. Its findings revealed that the most commonly accessed health service
by transgender people was mental health. Three quarters of the sample had accessed
hormonal treatment and most of the sample had not received any surgeries. Most of
the sample had suffered stigma or discrimination on the basis of gender. Writing
Themselves in 3 (Hillier et al. 2010) included a sample of 91 gender questioning
youth aged 14–21, within a broader group of 3134 same sex attracted and gender
questioning youth. The gender questioning youth were found in further analyses to
be more likely to be out than same-sex attracted youth but let less likely to get
support from the people they disclosed their identities to, and were more likely to
have dropped out of or moved schools as a result of discrimination (Jones and
Hillier 2013). They were also at greater risk of homelessness, physical abuse, self-
harm and suicide. However, they had higher engagement with activism against
Female-to-Male (FtM) Transgender Employees in Australia 103
homophobia and transphobia, particularly in their schools (Jones and Hillier 2013).
From Blues to Rainbows (Smith et al. 2014) further explored the activism trans-
gender and gender diverse young people aged 14–25 engaged in through a survey
(n ¼ 189) and interviews (n ¼ 16). In total 91 % of participants had engaged in
activism, and 62 % had done so to make themselves feel better; activisms ranged
from anonymous acts like sharing or making anti-transphobia webpages through to
acts in which the individual made themselves ‘visible’ as transgender such as giving
speeches at school or organising rallies. There was little information on work
experiences across these studies; which are now particularly important in the
Australian context given the new anti-discrimination protections applying to
employment. The likelihood of differing cultures around visibility, extent of tran-
sition and other factors influence likely differences for FtM transgender people
(compared to MtF or broader transgender populations) make the lack of informa-
tion on their work/employment experience a poignant gap.
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Key Debates
A very brief history of key debates on FtM people in theory will aid understanding
of the position taken in this study. FtM transgender variance before the nineteenth
century was not always read in relation to identity in European theory, but in
relation to female violation of social roles (Foucault 1980). By the end of the
nineteenth C masculinity in female-bodied people was associated in a Freudian
psycho-analytic frame with the psychological disorder of ‘inversion’ (which com-
bined early concepts of lesbianism, role confusion and penis envy) and feminist
preoccupations (Freud 1905). ‘Masculine women’ generally became associated in
psychoanalysis and sexology with aberrant sexual desire emanating from severe
cross-gender identification, and were cast by conservatives as a sign of the ‘ills of
modern life’—a coarsening of females, loss of separation of gender spheres and
family structures, and degeneration of the species (Halberstam 2012). During
World War 1 these anxieties were furthered as women took over ‘male’ factory
jobs and domestic tasks. Weininger argued that the social, political and aesthetic
desires of women for liberation were innate for those great achievers (e.g., Sappho)
whom he deemed virtual men; but only falsely acquired by more feminine women
(Weininger 1906). He pushed for the liberation of the psychically male ‘invert’, but
was against the broader women’s movement. Liberal feminists in the 1960s pushed
back against such thinking because it functioned to limit their rights, and since the
1970s some extremist radical feminists argued to exclude transgender people from
liberation movements and cast them as victims reproducing the patriarchy’s gender
roles (Tuttle 1986). Post-structuralist feminisms from the 1980s influenced by
Patrick Califia, and Queer theory popularised in the 1990s by Judith Butler, do
104 T. Jones
not declare such enmity with FtM transgender people or butch lesbians (Butler
1990; Califia 1981). These frames instead attack essentialist notions of identity
(male, female, or otherwise), positing gender as discursive (culturally constructed),
although they sometimes overlook embodiment and material experience. Trans-
gender studies, stimulated by The Empire Strikes Back (Stone 1991), aims at
affirming self-definition, embodiment and the right to positive representation.
There are also frames based on brain sex which theorise FtM transgender people
as having had brain areas develop as ‘chemically male’ through hormonal exposure
in the womb (Pease and Pease 2003). Such new frames do not simply ‘replace’
older ones, but co-exist in tension with them and each-other, along with residual
psychological frames re-shaping inversion into Gender Identity Disorder/GID and
more recently gender dysphoria.
2.2 Research Frame and Aims
Queer allows a kind of relative authenticity to FtM identities—a ‘male identity’ is

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

and for the FtM transgender community towards social justice goals (rather than
simply to generate knowledge for its own sake). A small reference group of
individuals from the FtM transgender community therefore advised on the study,
from development through to recruitment and final reporting. A mixed methods

approach was used including a combination of an online survey and an online blog
forum. The survey questionnaire was hosted by University of New England (UNE),
using the program Qualtrics. It contained both forced-choice (quantitative) and
open-ended (qualitative) questions; gathering basic descriptive data on the partic-
ipants’ demographics (age, background, employment status), identities (allocated at
birth and gender identity), and work experiences. The survey was anonymous and
took approximately 10–15 min. The blog forum was contrastingly used for deeper
explorations of key themes over time, and for interactive engagement with other
participants. The forum was hosted by UNE, using the program Moodle. The forum
included a main section (for people over 18) and a separate section (for people aged
16–17). The researcher moderated and reviewed the posts on the forum daily. The
key topics explored further on the forum included more detailed examination of
employment opportunities, legal issues and other topics. All participants were able
to choose their own pseudonym to use across the survey and blog forum, and these
pseudonyms are used in reporting individuals’ comments in this chapter.
Ethical approval was obtained for this project from the University of New
England Human Research Ethics Committee. The survey and forum were opened
in April 2013, when active recruitment began. The target group was Australian FtM
transgender people aged 16 and over. All participants gave their own informed
consent to participate—including younger participants who were not required to
seek parental approval in recognition of the discrimination and abuse that research
has shown many transgender youth experience at home. Advertising and a press
release were promoted through a range of media to promote the project: FtM
transgender networks, mainstream and transgender media (print, electronic and
radio), websites, e-lists and word-of-mouth. Gender Centres and FtM groups
around Australia displayed leaflets and posters with information about the project.
The survey and forum were closed at the end of July 2013, after a total of fourth
months. Data were downloaded from the survey site and then transposed into
quantitative (SPSS v10) and qualitative (Leximancer, Excel) computer programs.
Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were undertaken, and thematic
analyses of written responses. All significant differences in the report are calculated
at 0.05.
4 Findings and Discussion
4.1 Basic Demographics
In total, 273 Transgender FtM people participated in the project; the largest number
of FtM people in an Australian study [others who did not fit the criteria of age (16+),
location (reside in Australia) or identification as FtM transgender (in its broadest
sense—including people who were born intersex, people who are genderqueer and
106 T. Jones
so on) were excluded]. Participants mainly came to the study through informal
posts and paid advertising featured on webpages (41 %), FtM and gender centre
networks (31 %) or through a friend (27 %). They ranged in age from 16 to 64—the
majority of were aged in their 20s and 30s, the average age was 30.5. The
participants represented a range of culturally and linguistically diverse back-
grounds: most were of European descent (77 %), Asian descent (5 %), and to a
lesser extent people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent and a range of
other backgrounds (African, mixed and so on). The group mostly lived in stable
situations with their loved ones: a partner (36 %), their family (26 %), or friends
(14 %). Around 14 % were living alone, 8 % in other arrangements (military bases,
with foster children, or between states for example). Only 2 % reported couch-
surfing arrangements or homelessness—possibly an under-representation given
anecdotal reports and past research (Jones and Hillier 2013). Whilst 17 % of the
group identified themselves as having one or more disabilities (mainly related to
mental health: anxiety, bipolar or borderline personality disorder and depression).
Notably; the large majority of FTM Australians notably did not frame their gender
dysphoria as a disability. This reflected the dominant ‘non-deficit’ position of
transgender activists in international debates on the classification of gender dys-
phoria (Drescher 2013).
Whilst efforts were made to recruit respondents from all states of Australia, they
were more concentrated in Victoria and in urban areas than the broader population.
Themes emerging in the qualitative data seemed to support the likelihood that cities
like Sydney and Melbourne were more popular with the group due to their
increased services and gender clinics specifically catering to transgender people,
particularly in relation to transitioning—that were largely unavailable elsewhere.
Over four fifths of the participants (86 %) had no religious affiliation—contrasting
with only one fifth of the general Australian population (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2012b). The strong emphasis on traditional gender roles in the key book
religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.), and a history of transphobic positions
held by many religious organisations (Gahan et al. 2014; Gahan and Jones 2013)
may be contributing factors. Also, whilst almost half (43 %) of the participants were
in monogamous relationships the majority had never married, which may corre-
spond to the requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman in
Australian law. Only one quarter of the group were attracted solely to the opposite
sex (36 % were sexually attracted to both sexes, 15 % were same sex attracted, 14 %
were sexually fluid/changeable and 10 % were uncertain).
4.2 Gender Identity and Transitions
Overall, 97 % of the participants were allocated a female sex at birth, 3 % intersex.

In terms of gender identity, most participants (51 %) identified simply as ‘male’
(see Fig. 1). This largest group tended to have known their identity from a young
age, and had mainly struggled with the development of secondary sex
100%
Percentage of Participants 75%
50%
25%
0%
Gender Identity
Fig. 1 Gender identity of FtM transgender participants
characteristics during puberty. The group generally did not identify as being ‘trans’
but as having a ‘transgender history’—which was seen as now in their past rather
than ‘who they are’. However, there was a second group who embraced a trans-
gender component in their identification: 20 % identified as ‘FtM transgender’, 7 %
as ‘Transsexual male’, and a further 4 % gave other terms, including for example
transman, male with a twist, boi, myself and so on. Such participants explained that
referring to themselves only as only as male would deny a (transgender-related) part
of themselves. Many of this second group were unsure about their identity until
later in life, and had simply felt during their development years that they inexpli-
cably did not feel right rather than always seeing themselves as ‘a male in the wrong
body’. Finally, ‘Genderqueer’ was the preferred way to self-identify for those who
rejected pressures to fit into female–male binary model or stereotypes (15 %)—
either since they did not relate to or agree with the binary, or due to an uncertainty
about gender. Reading post-structuralist feminist or Queer books, study and reflec-
tions on gender binaries were all often part of this latter group’s path of discovery.
Despite such differences, all the participants expressed strong negative feelings
about being referred to by female pronouns, regardless of their diverse gender
identities and backgrounds.
Transitioning can include any or all of personal/internal, social, legal and
physical elements and may constitute direct modifications on the path to realising
or affirming male identity, or simply increased natural expression of a genderqueer
or alternate identity for example. In terms of physical transitions, non-surgical
measures were the most common (see Fig. 2), which made sense in light of their
lower cost, accessibility and relevance to a range of conceptions of identity or
transition/self-affirmation. A strong majority had used binding and hormones
(87 %). In addition, 71 % were using some kind of gear to give the appearance of
a penis. Of the surgical interventions possible, chest surgeries (reconstruction or
reduction) were privileged. Few had had genital surgery, and this reflected inter-
national findings on concerns about its effectiveness (Barrett 1998). Almost half of
108 T. Jones
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fig. 2 Physical modifications FtM transgender study participants have engaged in
the participants spent between $1000 and 10,000 towards their transition
(or affirmation), although prices ranged from nothing to over $100,000. Many
participants (69 %) had received a diagnosis of depression and anxiety within the
previous 12 months, and over two thirds had self-harmed and over one third had
attempted suicide largely on the basis of their discomfort around their transgender
status. However, the great majority (97 %) expressed that simply engaging in some
form of personal modification (whether changing their clothes or engaging in
surgeries) made a positive difference to their life and the way they felt.
4.3 Employment Status
Whilst around a third of the survey participants were engaged in study, the majority
were employed (58 %): full-time (34 %), part-time (22 %), or in an apprenticeship
(2 %). However, a sizeable portion of the participants were unemployed (15 %)—a
difference in comparison to the general Australian population that is perhaps made
more poignant by the fact that this was a highly educated group, with an average
age of 30.5 (an age level associated with greater employment stability in Australian
culture). The rate of unemployment was higher than the 9 % for the Australian
transgender population cited in Tranznation (Couch et al. 2007).
Around a third were engaged in study rather than work: attending university
(21 %), school (5 %), or vocational education (4 %). Most already had a post-
secondary schooling qualification (69 %), a higher portion than in the general
Australian population (57 %, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012a). The partici-
pants were relatively divided between having post-graduate degrees (19 %) and
undergraduate degrees (25 %), TAFE qualifications (25 %), and secondary school
certificates (27 %). This reflected other Australian findings that transgender people
were well-educated (Couch et al. 2007). One explanation is the average age of
participants (30.5); and their need to be competitive in the changing contemporary

work-force. However exploration of the qualitative data suggests that places of
post-school study (universities, TAFEs) are perceived as ‘safer’ spaces to transition
or express one’s gender identity than the workforce. Participants who were
prolonging their years of study intentionally discussed how a potential employer
can look into one’s gender history indirectly when investigating references and so
on, and referred to the mixed levels of protection for transgender people in the past
in Australia.
4.4 Income
Participants had a range of annual incomes. At first glance the income earned by the
group seems relatively low, with the majority (52 %) under $41 K per year.
Moreover, 43 % were earning less than $20 K—a significantly larger portion than
the 22–35 % in other Australian studies which included MtF transgender
populations (Couch et al. 2007). Perhaps this could be partially explained by the
fact that a third of the respondents were engaged in study, 24 % had a reduced
earning capacity due to working part-time or within an apprenticeship, and 15 %
were unemployed. There were also participants earning a range of salaries: 15 %
earned $41 K–$60 K, 11 % earned $61 K–$80 K, and 8 % earned $81 K–$100 K,
3 % earned over $100 K. So whilst a smaller portion of the participants were
earning the higher wages than across Australian populations more broadly, and they
seemed to be earning less than expected for such a well-educated group, the data
showed it was certainly achievable for this population to be gainfully employed.
While other factors (such as study, other priorities or perhaps particular issues in
gaining work) might be impacting the group’s income, the fact that transgender
people have repeatedly been seen to earn less than the general Australian popula-
tion in other studies confirmed that there are likely issues related to transgender
status impacting employment, pay rates and promotions for this group.
4.5 Employment Obstacles
To further understand the distinct nature of the issues that arose for FtM transgender
people around unemployment and lower incomes according to the quantitative
survey data, participants on the forum were asked whether their gender identity
had ever become an obstacle for their career aspirations. This investigation uncov-
ered a range of issues that varied depending on whether the participant was not ‘out’
but being read as their allocated birth sex by colleagues, was in the process of some
kind of transition, or had transitioned and was being read as ‘male’ (and not
transgender).
110 T. Jones
Most participants expressed that they were not ‘out’ (but generally being read as
their allocated birth sex by colleagues), and they had concerns about losing their job
if they were to disclose their gender identity or consider transitioning further.
Junk000 (a younger male who does not yet ‘pass’) is not out at his current job.
He has been applying for jobs outside of it but the employers ‘keep fretting about
‘but which bathroom will you use?’ and how I am ‘a HR nightmare’; ridiculous
things like that’. He fears he will lose his current job or miss out on job opportu-
nities if he comes out, and worse that he won’t even be informed about it; ‘I’m sure
they’re vaguely aware that’s against some law somewhere. They will still do it, they
just won’t tell me’. Fang (FtM transgender, 29 years) had similar fears, and said that
at his job he had only disclosed his transgender status to one person; ‘I am afraid if I
disclose it I will be excluded until I leave, yet I am also concerned that when I am
passing as male it will not go unnoticed’. Yet he hates being called a ‘she’ in the
meantime. He described this Catch-22 as ‘a constant source of anxiety in the
workplace’. Many people in this group felt like there was no escape from the stress
at work. But they were unlikely to invest in ‘coming out’ if they wouldn’t be at the
job for a long period. Maddox (male/FtM/transman, 21 years) was an example of a
participant who chose not to come out at such a job pre-transition, but only to come
out to colleagues after having left such a role and later on in his journey.
For the second largest group of participants (who were in the process of
transitioning in some way), it was not uncommon to avoid work altogether. Within
this group, some said they engaged in study during the period of transition to delay
their need to become employed and declare a more stable identity. But even for
those engaged in study and internships towards their chosen career, there could be
problems; Kafka said that when studying law he still faced difficulties, mainly
around ‘all the questioning’. A few did look for work at times, but cited a sense of
confusion about how to apply for work given their conflicting gender identity,
presentation and/or history; or non-conforming expression. For example, Draconem
(FtM transgender, 24 years) said, ‘I feel like it’s only made it hard for me to figure
out how to apply for work’. Several participants reported confusion over how to
apply for police checks. They were unsure whether they were to tick ‘m’ or ‘f’ on
the form about their history, and whether that would out them to potential
employers in fields where police checks were mandatory (care, education and so
on). Others particularly did not want to have to work ‘as a female’, and had waited
for (and were waiting for) particular transition milestones to pass before engaging
in employment. For example, Harry said;
Besides the depression and anxiety, which kept me unemployed, I didn’t want to have to out
myself at work or have to work as a female. So I waited until I was passing consistently
enough not to have to worry. Luckily this only took three months on (testosterone).
4.6 Going Stealth
A third smaller group of participants who had either already transitioned, been read
as ‘male’ socially or were otherwise living their life in a way congruent with their
gender identity, had not discussed their gender identity at work at all to prevent
career obstacles. Several people spoke of the concept of ‘stealth’: either passing as a
man without aids, transitioning fully and not telling anyone about their gender
history, or presenting as a masculine female/gender fluid person without specific
explanation or coming out processes. They used phrases like ‘need to know basis’,
‘if you don’t need to know there is no way I’m telling’, ‘as stealth as possible’, ‘I just
want to be a normal cis guy’ and so on. For people who were stealth and passed as
male or had transitioned as male, they sometimes explained that they wanted to be
perceived fully as a man: ‘I don’t want to be known as a trans, I want to be known as
a man. Nothing else, just a man’. Several mentioned that coming out meant being
analysed for signs of femininity, which made them uncomfortable: ‘I don’t want
people picking the feminine features out and chucking them in my face’ said one,
‘Some people start trying to find ways they might have been able to tell (e.g., small
hands, no Adams apple)’ said another. Others worried they would not be treated ‘as
every man is treated’. It was clear that relying on transgender people to advocate for
their own right to non-discrimination in the workplace, or to ‘explain themselves’,
is simply an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation for many FtM transgender
employees to take up.
However, commencing work as a male could still present problems. Garfield
(male, 31 years) recounted how he had intended to be socially transitioned before
starting his first job, in order to avoid being seen as female or transgender.
Unfortunately, while he managed to get the right name on his degree, he was still
presenting as female when he started his first job, so he did not come out regarding
his transition process. That led to ‘some interesting moments’ when being
interviewed for his second job as a male, particularly in terms of reference
checking. He explained, ‘I think the boss at the new job just convinced himself he
misheard the pronouns on the phone to my old boss when he was doing the
reference checking’. However, the second job involved a lot of travel in the outback
with other male staff members. This often involved camping in areas where toilet
facilities were often non-existent. ‘I didn’t have a useable ‘stand to pee’ device. I
spent most of that job absolutely terrified of discovery’. This meant that he changed
career directions to avoid his gender history becoming revealed, despite really
enjoying the work.
Particular environments were also more problematic for a transitioned male. For
example, Doc79 (male, 33 years) recounted the pressure to put up with or even
conform to workplace cultures of engaging in transphobic banter and abusive
pranks in all-male warehouse environments, because he was perceived as a male
and not a transgender person. There were times when his supervisor called him a
‘big girl’ and engaged in acts which constituted sexual harassment—that were later
brushed off as something he should be able to ‘handle’. He noticed that joining in
112 T. Jones
jokes and pranks actually benefitted his career, even to the extent of taking and
‘giving back’ relatively transphobic language.
I had one guy joke around with me that I was probably a guy with a fanny who had
testosterone injections to grow a beard. That made me feel a little nervous as I thought he
knew something I didn’t want him to. But when I made a joke about him being a twat
himself everyone laughed, and nothing was said again.
Such transphobic exchanges negatively impacted participants’ confidence over

time. This showed that employers cannot make assumptions about the gender
identity or history of their staff, or about the ways in which transphobic cultures
might be impacting any of their staff members.
4.7 Practicing Advocacy
Although it was difficult, a few individual transmen took it upon themselves to act as
educational or social advocates about trans-identity. Bearcooking (male, 58 years)
had been living full time as a male for quite a number of years, but discussed his
gender history with people he knew were ‘open to difference’ in order to educate
them. He reflected: ‘Being open is a plus, and helps people to understand differences
and similarities, taking the mysticism out of the ‘Hollywood version’’. Jay (male,
30 years) commented that he was ‘more than happy’ to educate people on trans
issues and who he was, but only if they were open and willing to listen. Others felt
that in coming out and discussing other GLBTIQ issues freely, they added to the
many voices that were helping young people in the future to have an easier experi-
ence. There were some who limited their advocacy to GLBTIQ or transgender
contexts only due to reasons of safety and community generativity, helping newer
transgender people or their allies in safe spaces through sharing their experiences.
4.8 Employment Supports
Regardless of the new anti-discrimination workplace protections in Australia on the

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

themselves for a time. The spirit of non-discrimination supports—that transgender
Australians could engage in any type of employment in which their skills-base
fell—appeared to have been challenged, with many feeling restricted to ‘safer’ or
‘more accepting’ options.
In contexts where participants had enjoyed supportive environments, there was
also often a sense that this was a ‘one-off’—a trait of a particular business or group
of people. For example, Darkneko (FtM transgender, 21 years) commented that at
his old job, employers and staff ‘were fine with’ his gender identity and transition.
But he was concerned about getting employment again; ‘I know I will have to be a
male at work too. I couldn’t stop even if I wanted to’. Batman (other/transitioning,
27 years) reflected that the organisation he had worked at for over 2 years had been
‘very supportive’ of his transition, which had been ongoing over the past year. He
asked his supervisor to speak to his colleagues and Head Office for him about the
matter, and reported that ‘within a few days the majority of staff were calling me by
my preferred name as if nothing had happened’. They were very supportive when
he took time off for chest surgery and he was able to return on light duties without
issue. This example showed how clear support from management and supervisors,
combined with clear guidelines for the employee’s colleagues, can enable FtM
Australians to experience the kind of workplace environment that they all have
every right to enjoy. It was overall very clear from the participants’ stories that
leadership on this issue could make a big difference in the employees’ experiences
and the workplace culture around gender identity, for better or worse.
5 Conclusion and Recommendations
Whilst a few transgender FtM people found advocacy in their workspaces fulfilling,
others reported in the qualitative data that they preferred to relinquish their gender
history entirely. This research therefore underlined that FtM transgender people
may not be willing or able to engage in advocacy and that this must not be an
expectation of them in any workplace. It seems likely that this finding may also be
transferrable to MtF populations also; although further research on the willingness
of MtF people to engage in advocacy in their own work places would be valuable to
explore this. International (and in Australia, national and state) anti-discrimination
law now makes discriminatory treatment of transgender people unlawful in many
places, thus employers and all staff across industries need to be made aware of these
requirements. Workplace Equity training should include transphobia and guidelines
for dealing with transgender issues in the workplace regardless of whether or not a
space is ‘perceived’ to have FtM transgender (or any transgender) employees—this
study showed very clearly that a workplace may have transgender staff regardless
of whether this is known by employers. Training should incorporate mention of the
national and state protections around gender identity relevant to the work site’s
location. Unions could consider a particular targeting of male environments for
anti-transphobia campaigns centred on the new national anti-discrimination law
114 T. Jones
protections around gender identity and expression, with such cultures highlighted
for potentially supporting transphobic and homophobic language in the workplace.
There were participants in this study who had experienced direct or indirect
transphobia at work and who had changed professions in order to increase their
feelings of safety or belonging. Yet with non-discrimination as ‘the ideal’ and
indeed the rule of law, FtM transgender people should not feel so restricted to
working in particular fields (creative arts, care) as they reported in this study, or feel
the need to ‘hide out’ in higher education; but must be enabled to pursue the careers
best fitting their skills and interests. This is also the case for MtF transgender
people, and further research on this group would be useful to understand the extent
to which they have perhaps also felt limited in their employment options. Where
FtM people in this study reported additional complications around navigating
expectations of masculinity in the workplace, it is likely that MtF people may
also face additional complications related to issues of sexism that could place
different kinds of limitations on their employment options. Leadership from super-
visors, management and equity officers is ultimately needed in combatting
transphobia in the general culture of an organisation and several participants had
outlined promising practices from leaders—including ongoing consultation with
the staff member about their needs and being flexible in work arrangements as
needed. Leadership is also important during recruitment and promotion. Working
with any individual staff member who does come forward as transgender or
transitioning is necessary to determine their particular preferences, and needs
around medical concerns and use of facilities, or around swiftly and sensitively
promoting the employee’s preferred pronouns and forms of address if asked—
ultimately due to the diversity of preferences in the data, the employee needs to
have the dominant say on how these issues are addressed if at all. Research on FtM
transgender issues by FtM transgender people is rare and further work could greatly
enhance the field by potentially helping it move further away from its history of
pathologizing medical tropes. While some research will be generalizable across
different transgender groups (MtF, FtM, genderqueer etc.) researchers must note
that some elements of research are more specific due to the influences of the valuing
of different types of masculinity, sexism and other factors. Research into trialling of
workplace training models towards reducing transphobia and improving cultures is
an imperative, especially where these embrace the potential of the internet to
enhance accessibility for those working in contexts beyond urban areas where
most supports are concentrated.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012a). 1301.0—Year book Australia: Educational Attainment.

Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/
abs@.nsf/mf/1301.0. Accessed 1 Feb 2013.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012b). 1301.0—Year book Australia: Religious Affiliation.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/
abs@.nsf/mf/1301.0. Accessed 1 Feb 2013.
Australian Government. (2013). Guidelines on the recognition of sex and gender. Barton: Com-
monwealth of Australia.
Barrett, J. (1998). Psychological and social funciton before and after phalloplasty. International
Journal of Transgenderism, 2(1), 1–8.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Califia, P. (1981). What is gay liberation? Heresies, 3(12), 30–34.
Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., Guzman, R., & Katz, M. (2001). HIV prevalence, risk behaviours,
health care use, and mental health status of transgender persons: Implications for public health
intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 915–921.
Couch, M., Pitts, M., Muclcare, H., Croy, S., Mitchell, A., & Patel, S. (2007). Tranznation: A
report on the health and wellbeing of transgendered people in Australia and New Zealand.
Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society.
De Cuypere, G., T’Sjoen, G., Beerten, R., Selvaggi, G., De Sutter, P., & Hoebeke, P. (2005).
Sexual and physical health after sex reassignment surgery. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6),
679–690.
Drescher, J. (2013). Controversies in gender diagnoses. LGBT Health, 1(1), 9–13.
Edwards, J. W., Fisher, D. G., & Reynolds, G. L. (2007). Male-to-female transgender and
transsexual clients of HIV service programs in Los Angeles County, California. American
Journal of Public Health, 97(6), 1030–1033.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality (J. Strachey, Trans., 1961 ed.). London:
Penguin.
Gahan, L., & Jones, T. (2013). From clashes to coexistence. In L. Gahan & T. Jones (Eds.), Heaven
Bent: Australian lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex experiences of faith, religion
and spirituality. Melbourne: Clouds of Magellan.
Gahan, L., Jones, T., & Hillier, L. (2014). An unresolved journey: Religious discourse and same-
sex attracted and gender questioning young people. The Social Scientific Study of Religion, 25
(1), 202–229.
Grossman, A. H., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2007). Transgender youth and life threatening behaviour.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behaviour, 37, 527–537.
Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R., Howell, T. J., & Hubbard, S. (2005). Parents’ reactions to
transgender youths’ gender nonconforming expression and identity. Journal of Gay and
Lesbian Social Services, 18(1), 3–16.
Halberstam, J. (2012). Boys will be. . . Bois? Or, transgender feminism and forgetful fish’. In
D. Richardson, J. McLaughlin, & M. E. Casey (Eds.), Intersections between feminist and queer
theory. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Haraldsen, I. R., & Dahl, A. A. (2000). Symptom profiles of gender dysphoric patients of
transsexual type compared to patients with personality disorders and healthy adults. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102, 276–281.
Harris, A., & Jones, T. (2014). Trans teacher experiences and the failure of visibility. In Queer
teachers, identity and performativity. In A. Harris & E. Gray (Eds.), Queer teachers, identity
and performativity’. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hepp, U., Kraemer, B., Schnyder, U., Miller, N., & Delsignore, A. (2005). Psychiatric comorbidity
in gender identity disorder. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 58, 259–261.
Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., et al. (2010). Writing
themselves in 3: The Third National Study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same-sex
attracted and gender questioning young people. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in
Sex, Health and Society.
Jones, T. (2012). Sexual subjects: GLBTIQ student subjectivities in Australian education policy.
Doctoral thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
116 T. Jones
Jones, T., Gray, E., & Harris, A. (2014). GLBTIQ teachers in Australian education policy:
Protections, suspicions, and restrictions. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 14
(3), 338–353.
Jones, T., & Hillier, L. (2013). Comparing trans-spectrum and same-sex attracted youth: Increased
risks, increased activisms. LGBT Youth, 10(4), 287–307.
Jones, T., & Mitchell, A. (2014). Young people and HIV prevention in Australian schools. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 26(3), 224–233.
Lawrence, A. A. (2005). Sexuality before and after male to female sex reassignment surgery.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(2), 147–166.
Nagoshi, J. L., & Brzury, S. (2010). Transgender theory: Embodying research and practice. Affilia,
25(4), 431–443.
Pazos, S. (2000). Practice with female-to-male transgendered youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, 10(3–4), 65–82.
Pease, B., & Pease, A. (2003). Why men don’t listen and women can’t read maps. London: Orion
Publishing Group.
Smith, E., Jones, T., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Mitchell, A., & Hillier, L. (2014). From blues to
rainbows: The mental health and well-being of gender diverse and transgender young people
in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society.
Stone, S. (1991). The empire strikes back: A posttranssexual manifesto. In J. Epstein & K. Straub
(Eds.), Body guards: The cultural politics of gender ambiguity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tuttle, L. (1986). Encylopedia of feminism. London: Arrow Books.
United Nations. (2012). Born free and equal: Sexual orientation and gender identity in interna-
tional human rights law. New York, NY: United Nations Human Rights Office of the High
Commissioner.
Weininger, O. (1906). Sex and character. London: William Heinemann.
On the Necessity of Including Gender
in Spain’s List of Prohibited Bases
of Discrimination
Salvador Peran
1 Shifting from Sex to Gender as a Term of Reference
Sex is a paradigmatic example of what in law is known as an indeterminate legal

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

University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain
e-mail: speran@uma.es

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_7
118 S. Peran
or reshape their course of action. In fact, Foucault’s negative view must be

completed by proactive views that highlight—in this particular example—the
construction of a “homosexual” identity before it can be psychiatrized, while
aiming at its social legitimation (Eribon 1999).
Indeed, the contemporary legal or judicial definitions of sex have evolved in
accord with the way that understanding sexuality has changed socially. Thus, sex is
understood as a continuum in an individual’s life, rather than as an unchangeable,
unique fact. A number of elements integrate the concept of sex, which includes not
only the physical or physiological constitution of the individual—generally referred
to as organic sex—but also as the sex inherent to an individual’s awareness, which
might or might not match the organic sex and which is called sexual identity. While
genitalia is exclusively biological, organic sex refers to anatomical, physiological
or genetic connotations that differentiate men from women, whereas sexual identity
derives from an individual’s sense of belonging to a certain organic sex, whether it
is their own or that of the opposite sex. Therefore, sex derives from biology, insofar
as it shapes human psyche, as well as from the social environment, broadly
speaking (Goodrich et al. 1989).
In this sense, the genealogy of contemporary legal standards reveals the extent to
which social, feminist and other movements have played a key role in shaping
societies that are pluralistic and respectful towards sexual diversity. The link
between sex and women’s oppression has certainly been a useful tool for both the
feminist movement and feminist legal studies, as it has allowed for a comprehen-
sive analysis of how male dominance sexually develops. However, it is also true
that the legal instruments that fight gender-based discrimination are proving inef-
fective in solving the deep sexual segregation in the labor market, leaving aside
gender identity-related conflicts.
From a legal standpoint, we could say that the regulations against sexual
discrimination are based on the idea that sex precedes gender as a category and is
more real than gender (Franke 1995). In other words, these regulations assumed that
male and female identities are different from male and female characteristics; the
latter depended on natural, biological principles. The gender perspective suggests a
different view though, as it understands that sex is subordinate to gender. Thus, the
set of demands related to inequality and sexual discrimination—or to sexual
identity—are mainly based on gender norms and normative roles.
Gender is therefore a cultural and social classificatory concept. It builds on a set
of mechanisms that shape personality, behavior, attitudes and social roles of what is
culturally and historically considered as masculinity and femininity. But it is not a
purely symbolic issue. Instead, it is the set of practices produced by social relation-
ships. These practices make it possible to talk about a world dominated by male
heterosexual subjectivity, subjected to inequality parameters and supported by
certain ideologies of power that naturalize and reproduce such inequality. Follow-
ing this line of thought, the position of different social groups in the social structure
has been automatically assumed as a given phenomenon, inherent in human nature
and resulting from social classifications of which social beings are mere products.
On the Necessity of Including Gender in Spain’s List of Prohibited. . . 119
In other words, gender is a complexity that can never be permanently completed.

Rather, it is an open set of practices that allows for multiple similarities and
differences without having to obey a definition of a normative goal that is written
in stone (Butler 1990). This provides a favorable scenario for political action.
The main innovation introduced by the gender perspective when analyzing the
phenomenon of discrimination between men and women, as well as other forms of
discrimination based on sexual identity or sexual orientation, is the weakening of
sex—understood as a set of biological differences—as a reference category in the
analysis. Thus, the focus is on the set of social arrangements that assign different
expectations and values to different social groups. This involves a weakening of
historical trends that have traditionally favored the naturalization of social con-
structions around sex and sexuality, as well as a conceptual tool to understand how
gender is produced.
The present paper suggests that gender-based discrimination—understood in a
broad sense—affects objective and subjective situations that are significantly dif-
ferent from situations of sex-based discrimination. These two types of discrimina-
tion must complement each other, so as to provide us with a greater level of
protection against discrimination. In the Spanish context, the following two specific
cases of application are suggested.
2 Prohibition of Discrimination on the Basis of Gender
The starting point here is judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court 26/2011,
which uses family circumstances as a category of discrimination for the first time.
This is an important change, as this reason was not explicitly listed in Article 14 of
the Spanish Constitution (hereinafter SC), although the article allows for an open
interpretation. In the judgment, protection was granted to a father who requested a
change of work shifts in order to look after his two children.
Although the court decided that there was discrimination here and therefore a
violation of Article 14 SC; the problem remains how to shape this clearly discrim-
inatory event within the prohibited bases of discrimination established in Article 14.
2.1 Work-Life Balance from a Gender Perspective
The right to a work-life balance has a particular impact on employment, as it

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

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

working hours for taking care of children under eight—with a corresponding and
proportional reduction of pay; and provisions of Article 34.8 SW on the adoption
and distribution of working hours in favor of achieving work-life balance. The
former has a universal and subjective nature. It represents a genuine recognition for
both parents regardless of their gender, although such recognition is limited to the
particular circumstances of the company. The latter has a universal nature too,
although the right to work-life balance here will depend on the specific implemen-
tation established by collective bargaining or individual contract.
A number of factors have led to a broad interpretation by the SCC, which has
provided guidelines for poorly operationalized and ineffective legal standards on
the right to work-life balance (Montoya 2011). However, with regard to progressive
case law guarantees of these rights, it is worth mentioning that there is a lack of
solid criteria with which to interpret the principles of co-responsibility and work-
life balance based on Article 44.1 LOI.
Regardless of the systematic nature of the article and the objections that might
arise when transferring it to the Statute of Workers—via Additional Provision 11th
LOI, this precept contains a clause that aims to legitimize a comprehensive set of
measures and incorporates important elements. First, regarding the scope of imple-
mentation of the right to work-life balance, it states that the purpose and ultimate
goal is to promote a balanced assumption of family responsibilities. Second,
regarding the subjective nature of the right to work-life balance, it reinforces
equal recognition to all workers regardless of their gender. And third, it establishes
that the aforementioned teleological framework must respect the ultimate aim of
preventing any discrimination based on the exercise of such rights.
Thus, Article 44.1 LOI becomes the regulatory and interpretive reference by
which the SCC governs, therefore contemplating changes in working times in
accord with a work-life balance, especially in cases where the object of debate
lies in the measures established by Articles 34.8 and 37.5 SW. More specifically in
the latter case, Judgments of the Spanish Constitutional Court (hereinafter JSCC)
3/2007 January 15 and 24 + 26/2011 March 14 are worth discussing.
JSCC 3/2007 is important because it incorporates relevant criteria, which will
eventually integrate the content of the principle of equality between women and
men; but above all, it is important because it will require balancing the interests at
stake. This means that, on the one hand, it is worth analyzing the extent to which
this resolution was necessary in terms of constitutional relevance to the institution it
serves. On the other hand, it requires assessing the organizational difficulties that
stem from its implementation in companies. However, limits on the exercise of the
right to organize working hours based on legal guardianship will have to be justified
according to the constitutional dimension of this right—that is to say based on the
mandate for the protection of family and children (via Article 39 SC), or on working
women’s right of non-discrimination on the basis of sex (Article 14 SC).
Nonetheless, that case law was not applied in JSCC 24/2011 March 14, where
the SCC denied protection and distinguished JSCC 3/2007 because the female
employee in question did not ask the company for a reduction of working hours
122 S. Peran
to take care of her daughter under Article 37.5 SW. However, because she was
subject to rotating shifts, she requested to work only morning shifts so that she
could take better care of her newborn baby.
Indeed, they are very similar yet different situations. It is worth stressing that the
Spanish SW distinguishes between the following two cases: first, the possibility of
requesting a reduction of working hours to take care of children with the
corresponding and proportional reduction of pay, recognizing an enforceable
right under Art. 37.5 SW (this was the second option chosen by the employee
whose case was finally decided in JSCC 3/2007); and second, any other case
requesting an adaptation of the length and distribution of the workday in order to
accommodate the worker’s specific needs to achieve work-life balance, which is
enshrined in Article 34.8 SW.
The rationale for denying a violation of the right to non-discrimination on the
basis of sex is simple and clear: unlike Article 37.5 SW, Article 34.8 SW conditions
the intended changes in the workday—without reduction of working hours nor
pay—to the existence of a collective or individual agreement. In other words, the
legislation believed that the exercise of the right to adapt the workday was condi-
tioned on collective bargaining agreements or interested parties’ contracts
(employer and employee), and without such agreements the reduction could not
be exercised.
Returning to the main resolution which motivated this discussion, JSCC 26/2011
is strikingly different from its sister JSCC 24/2001, at least when it comes to facts.
While both judgments contain identical cases, in the former the request was carried
out by a woman who was a single parent, whereas in the latter it was a man, a father
of two, who shared family responsibilities with his working wife. The main
difference lies in the absence, in the former case, of the corresponding contractual
support needed to make the right contained in Article 34.8 SW legally effective.
Putting aside any discrimination in the above facts, it is clear that the judicial
solution in this case raises some questions—to say the least—about the meaning of
work-life balance and standards of gender equality. The first case shows a literal
interpretation of Article 34.8 SW, which subordinates the adaptation and distribu-
tion of the workday to what is established in the collective agreement, or, in the lack
thereof, to the agreement reached between employer and employee, without taking
into account the constitutional dimension the precept must obey. However, in the
second case, the hour reduction given to the employee in his regular workday for
legal guardianship was not interpreted by the SCC in terms of strict legality but
rather by balancing the constitutional dimension of the measure, both from the
perspective of the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex, and the protection
of family and children. Once the particular circumstances of the case were
addressed, the employee was assigned a fixed shift and could choose to work on
certain days of the week. Thus, the SCC took into account the importance of the
right to a reduction in working hours for family reasons when it came to the
effectiveness of the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex (Cabeza and
Fernández 2011).
Although Article 34.8 SW makes it clear that the employee does not exercise an
absolute right to decide his work schedule, but rather is subject to what is
established by the individual or collective agreement (unlike the right enjoyed by
women victims of domestic violence), nevertheless it is questionable that, in the
absence of such right, its exercise is denied. This is particularly undesirable when
the situation itself involves a violation of the right to non-discrimination. An
interpretation according to the constitutional dimension of the rights claimed
should allow, in the absence of an individual—and obviously collective—agree-
ment, for employees to go to court to resolve discrepancies. Consequently, the
judge should weigh the particular circumstances under JSCC 3/2007 (Cordero
Gordillo 2010).
2.2 The Legal Form of Gender-Based Discrimination
JSCC 26/2011 paradigmatically shows the SCC’s power concerning the new
dimension that co-responsibility policies incorporate—or should incorporate—
into the Spanish legal system, especially regarding the integration of such policies
into freedom of business organization. This is a highly sensitive area that demon-
strates the mainstreaming of these principles and their effect, starting with recog-
nition of the linkage between the employees’ right to work-life balance and control
over work schedule, since these rights involve more participation by employees in
identifying and organizing their own workday.
The term ‘paradigmatic’ is used here in a negative sense, as the SCC replicates
the same caution and doubts that the legislation incorporated in the regulations. The
regulations are ambitious with respect to the principles inspired by the EU, but
conservative in their standardization, a fact that has been criticized by EU jurisdic-
tion. In other words, progress has been made yet some grey areas remain. Progress
because there is an implicit recognition of the inevitable interplay between the
sexist division of family roles and differential access to childcare leaves (Mi~narro
2011).
Grey areas remain because case law on this subject is not solid. Instead, it limits
the legal framework and can even jeopardize its legal significance considering that
the rationale does not provide many guarantees. It is true that there has been a
certain reluctance to recognize the right to work-life balance, in particular its
constitutional significance, which is what justifies its preferential protection against
corporate organizational interests. Such reluctance is evident in the strongly con-
ditional legal drafting and the restrictive interpretation by Spanish social
jurisdiction.
There is no doubt that, in order for the constitutional dimension of articles to
protect the particular circumstances, the latter must adhere to the area of discrim-
ination, which in turn must be related to gender. The integration of a gender
equality perspective involves a reformulation of the classic tension between the
formal and material meaning of the mandate on equality and the prohibition of
124 S. Peran
sex-based discrimination. It is worth mentioning that sex, like any other ground
established in Article 14 SC, does not per se constitute an objective reason for legal
standards to provide differential treatment (JSCC 7/1983 December 21). Instead,
subjective elements are needed, that is, de facto differences between women and
men sufficient to justify legal intervention that is not aimed at overprotecting
women, but at balancing the material inequalities between individuals, based on
their gender and in the workplace.
Thus, the egalitarian principle is affected not only when legal standards ignore
women who are pursuing their rights, but also when rights are granted to women in
order to place them in a advantageous position in relation to achieving work-life
balance, thus reinforcing the discriminatory linkage between women and family
burdens. Indeed, the legal principle in these cases is real—or material—equality
between women and men, which is conditioned by gender norms and materialized
in an allocation of household and family responsibilities differentiated by gender.
Furthermore, the complaint is reinforced because, although the aforementioned
judgment advances the integration of a gender perspective, i.e., along the line of
facts, it undermines and weakens its integration by assigning it to personal circum-
stances as a discriminatory factor, to the point that it can even jeopardize future case
law on the subject. This is certainly a weak argument that shows a clear contem-
porary trend, aimed at reducing discrimination on the basis of sex (Cabeza and
Fernández 2011) and gender.
Personal circumstances as a discriminatory factor do not meet the constitutional
definition of bases for discrimination. This is because, although it does not need to
be listed among the prohibited discrimination bases in Article 14 SC, it does need to
respond to the basic premise defining discriminatory reasons: the collective nature
of the social group that is the object of historically rooted differences, placing
individuals who belong to that group in a disadvantaged position, as well as in a
position openly contrary to human dignity under Article 10.1 SC. This is clearly not
the case with regards to fatherhood.
The problem arises from the difficulty of the court to redirect this situation from
a perspective of sex-based discrimination, as the subject of discrimination in this
case is not a woman but a man, thus breaking the connection between belonging to a
socially excluded group and differential treatment. By not being able to assess the
violation of a third party’s right, indirect discrimination on the basis of the sex of the
worker’s spouse is excluded. Indeed, this rationale could have involved controver-
sial and contentious arguments, considering the classic difficulties in proving
discriminatory behavior and the essential factor needed for granting protection
against such behavior. This is because the acts of discrimination usually present
multiple nuances that are often hidden under the guise of legality.
The idea that the refusal to recognize the right to work-life balance of a father-
employee favors the perpetuation of difference between mothers and fathers in
family roles (which involves indirect discrimination against women based on their
gender), distorts the discrimination since here the subject of discrimination is the
man, not because of his sex, but because of the break with socially established
gender norms. The discrimination in this case is the refusal to grant him leave for
taking care of his children, a fact that is completely disconnected from whether or
not this man is married or what sex his partner is.
However, should the case be considered as a gender-based discrimination, the
rationale would have been much stronger. As a consequence, the corporate refusal
to recognize the right to work-life balance demanded by this employee should have
been considered as gender-based discrimination, given that the anti-discrimination
dimension of work-life balance standards is subjectively possessed by male and
female employees.
In this way the Spanish Constitutional Court refuses to carry out a significant
shift in perspective. This change would have been really important, with a major
impact on a society that is demanding the displacement of traditional family roles.
Moreover, an alternative view could have been contemplated: conceiving family
responsibilities as a right rather than as a burden, and placing the legal issue in its
proper terms. In short, the new Spanish constitutional case law should start by
recognizing the constitutional importance of the principle of gender equality and by
considering co-responsibility as an inspiring principle for a new set of policies on
equal opportunities, aimed at achieving real equality and weakening social gender
norms that create discriminatory circumstances in Spanish society.
3 Prohibition of Gender Identity Discrimination
3.1 General Aspects
Before analyzing the development of this legal anti-discrimination tool, it is worth

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

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

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

identity, especially because—as it has been highlighted throughout the text—
Spain lacks a regulatory text that consistently and comprehensively defines sex,
and thus sexual identity. There is no such text in the Spanish legal system or in
international law. Therefore, the instruments used to combat this type of discrim-
ination mainly derive from a variety of case law, which does not always include the
nature of the prosecuted facts.
128 S. Peran
From the perspective of this paper, discrimination based on sexual identity takes
place when a person suffers a differentiated, derogatory and unfair treatment due to
the expression of a feeling of sexual belonging that does not match their socially
assigned sex, and he or she acts accordingly. From the perspective of case law,
some powerful differences can be noted, which can help define the specific area of
protection to be applied.
Here it is worth highlighting judgment of the ECJ on April 30, 1996, P. c. S. and
Cornwall County Council, where the dismissal of a transsexual employee who had
begun her sex change procedure was ruled discriminatory. The case dealt with a set
of definitions of sex and sexual identity as a feeling of belonging that was not
technically elaborated—a fact that has received criticism (Peral 2000)—, yet laid
the foundation for Europe to recognize this form of discrimination.
This judgment is interesting because it draws a parallel between discrimination
based on sexual identity and differentiated, derogatory and unfair treatment suf-
fered by people who, albeit physically belonging to one sex, feel they belong to the
other, and therefore pursue a consistent, unambiguous identity either through
medical treatment or surgery aimed at adapting their physical characteristics to
their psychology.
This is a quagmire, particularly given the differentiation between transsexuality,
transgender, gender non-conformity and gender dysphoria (WPATH 2011). This
can involve a decrease in anti-discriminatory protection, by focusing on cases
where there has been a somatic transition due to a hormonal treatment and/or sex
reassignment surgery. While it is true that this judgment is not new, and was
intended to respond to a particular instance and not to create a general anti-
discrimination framework for sexual identity, it is also true that its subjective
scope is limited, because it identifies the protected social group only as post-
operative transsexuals (In Spanish the term ‘transsexual’ is broadly used without
making a distinction between pre- or post-operative status, whereas this distinction
is relevant in English). In any case, its importance lies in applying anti-
discrimination policies to any action that aims to socially penalize a person—
through a disciplinary dismissal in this case—motivated by his or her sexual
identity.
In another vein, case law has consolidated around a definition of sex that tends to
overcome purely biological conceptions in order to place it in the psychosocial
field, as established by the European Court of Human Rights in judgments of July
11 2002 in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom and I. vs. UK. These
judgments recognize the full legal consequences of sex change, which is certainly
important, although it has not been easy (European Court of Human Rights,
judgments in Van Oosterwijc v. Belgium and Rees v. UK).
In Spain, Act 15/2005 recognizes the transsexual status of a person without
having to undergo all the necessary sex change steps and, in particular, without
having to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Therefore it is enough for a person to
provide a medical or clinical psychologist’s report stating that he or she has been
diagnosed with gender dysphoria and medically treated for at least 2 years, in order
to accommodate their physical characteristics to the corresponding claimed sex.
However, although the legal recognition of sex change is relevant, it is not the
object of the present study, which now turns to SCC judgment 176/2008 December
22. Here the Court had to decide whether changing a transsexual person’s visitation
rights to see his son when he was legally separated and in the process of reassigning
his sex was discriminatory. The Court held that there was no discrimination in the
denial of visitation motivated by the father’s transsexuality, since the right to
visitation is a child’s right, not the parents’, and this situation represented potential
psychological harm to the child in question. The issue is complex, and the conclu-
sion is questionable. In any case, this has been the first statement—and so far the
only one—to analyze discrimination based on sexual identity.
Beyond the casuistry, the SCC missed a great opportunity to legally define
discrimination based on sexual identity as a protected basis under of Article 14 of
the Spanish Constitution.
3.2.2 Normative Instruments for Protection
Since there is little evidence of an explicit recognition of discrimination based on

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

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

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

express a different gender identity from their assigned sex at birth. Therefore, it
aims to protect individuals’ right to freely enjoy their own sexuality.
Consistently, the concept of gender identity refers to the internal and individual
experience of gender as each individual deeply feels it, including a personal sense
of the body, of dress, of speech, and manners. Gender identity is usually accompa-
nied by the desire to live and receive acceptance as a member of that gender, or the
inexorable desire to modify one’s body, by hormonal, surgical or any other
methods, to make it consistent with the felt sex-gender.
Second, there is a trend to depathologize transsexuality, in line with the Yogya-
karta Principles (Yogyakarta Principles 2006) on the application of international
human rights legislation on sexual orientation and gender identity. Principle
no. 18 addresses protection against medical abuses and establishes that, “notwith-
standing any classification to the contrary, a person’s sexual orientation and gender
identity are not, in and of themselves, medical conditions and are not to be treated,
cured or suppressed”.
This trend was reinforced by the European Parliament Resolution of December
12, 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union
(2010–2011). General Recommendation no. 98 complains “that several Member
States still consider transsexuals as mentally ill” and “urges Member States to
introduce procedures for the legal recognition of gender, according to the Argen-
tinean model, and to revise the established conditions for the legal recognition of
gender (including forced sterilisation)”, while it calls on the European Commission
and the World Health Organization “to abolish gender identity disorders from the
list of mental and behavioral disorders, and ensure a reclassification of such
disorders as non-pathological disorders.”
The preceding regulatory texts must be seen as pioneers in Spanish law as they
represent a major step in shaping non-discrimination based on gender identity. Not
only because they establish the material basis for protection against discriminatory
treatment by recognizing self-determination of sexual and gender identity, but also
because they definitely question a normative model of sexuality and give individ-
uals freedom to enjoy and develop their own sexuality as the most intimate
expression of their personality.
References
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cabeza, J., & Fernández, M. (2011). Comentario a las Sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional 24 y
26/2011, de 14 de marzo. Relaciones laborales: Revista crı́tica de teorı́a y practica, 21(2),
811–840.
Cordero Gordillo, V. (2010). La concrecion horaria de la reducci on de jornada por motivos
familiares. Aranzadi Social: Revista Doctrinal, 18(2), 33–42.
Eribon, D. (1999). Réflexions sur la question gay. Paris: Flammarion.
132 S. Peran
Foucault, M. (1978). A verdae e as formas jurı́dicas. Rio de Janeiro: Pontifica Universidade

Catolica de Rio de Janeiro.
Franke, K. M. (1995). The central mistake of sex discrimination law: The disaggregation of sex
from gender. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144(1), 1–99.
Goodrich, T., Rampage, C., Ellman, B., & Halstead, K. (1989). Feminist family therapy: A
casebook. New York, NY: Norton.
Mi~narro, M. (2011). Prohibicion de discriminacion por circunstancias familiares versus division
sexista de roles en la pareja: el afortunado reconocimiento a nivel constitucional del papel del
padre en el cuidado de la prole. Revista de Derecho Social, 56, 149–162.
Montoya, D. (2011). Dimension constitucional de los derechos de conciliaci on de la vida laboral,
personal y familiar (comentario a las SSTCO 24/2011 y 26/2011, de 14 de marzo). Aranzadi
Social, 4, 265–282.
Peral, L. (2000). Concepto de sexo y discriminacion por raz on de sexo en el Derecho Social
Comunitario Europeo: la contradictoria sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades
Europeas en el asunto Grant respecto de su jurisprudencia en el asunto P./S. Derechos y
Libertade Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas, 5(8), 393–428.
WPATH. (2011). Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender
nonconforming people. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Accessed
August 25, 2015, from www.wpath.org
Yogyakarta Principles. (2006). Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to
sexual orientation and gender identity. Accessed June 20, 2015, from http://www.
yogyakartaprinciples.org/
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal,
Medical and Labour Union Activities
Gerald Hunt and Michael Pelz
1 Introduction
In recent years, Canada has been at the forefront of global efforts to advance human
rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) persons. In 2005, Canada became the
first country in the Western hemisphere, and fourth in the world, to legalize
marriage equality nation-wide. Significant anti-discrimination provisions exist in
numerous pieces of legislation that protect LGB-identified persons. There is also a
growing movement to improve inclusion for lesbians, gays and bisexuals in a
variety of public spheres, including in schools through the development of
gay-straight alliances, and athletics through such things as partnerships between
the national LGBT human rights association (Egale) and the Canadian Olympic
Committee (Egale 2011).
Inclusive protections for transgender persons however, have lagged behind those
for the LGB community. Even now, there are no explicit protections for transgender
persons in the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Considerable evidence suggests that this is a group of people in need of
human rights interventions; only recently have the legal, medical, psychological,
and workplace issues that are particular to the transgender community moved closer
to the political and social spotlight (Hines 2013; Egale 2011; Nameste 2011).
Transgender is a term used to describe people who do not conform to a narrow
conception of gender identity or gender expression based on their birth assigned sex
(OHRC 2014). It encompasses people who challenge “norms” about appropriate
G. Hunt (*)
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: ghunt@ryerson.ca
M. Pelz
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: michael.pelz@utoronto.ca

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_8
134 G. Hunt and M. Pelz
dress, cosmetics, and behaviour. Gender identity, in particular, refers to a person’s

sense of their own gender along the male–female spectrum. Gender expression, in
contrast, refers to the way in which a person publicly presents their gender in terms
of such things as hairstyle and voice. As a result, transgender refers to people who
have transitioned from their assigned birth sex (trans woman—male-to-female;
trans man—female to male), often with surgical and hormonal interventions, as
well as those who maintain their biological sex, but express themselves in gender
non-conforming and variant ways (OHRC 2014). Historically, transgender people
have experienced very high levels of overt discrimination ranging from taunts and
name-calling, to rape and murder (Paisley et al. 2006; Bender-Baird 2011; Zabus
and David 2014; Hines 2013; Connell 2010; Budge et al. 2010). In many instances,
this group has been denied equal access to housing and employment opportunities.
In one large sample of Canadian students, trans-identified youth reported the
highest levels of verbal and physical harassment, of any group (Egale 2011). A
2011 survey of 433 trans-identified adults in Ontario, found only 37 % of respon-
dents were employed full-time, and 15 % part-time, and 20 % indicated they were
unemployed. The median income for the group was $15,000. Thirty-two percent
thought their gender had influenced hiring decisions, and 18 % indicated they were
certain they had been turned down for a job because of their gender (Trans Pulse
2011). Consequently, transgender people are thought to be one of the most eco-
nomically marginalized populations in the country.
In this paper we assess the current legal situation for transgender individuals. We
find that most Canadian provinces have anti-discrimination protections in place for
this group, but progress continues to lag at the federal level. Even though broad
legal protections for sexual and gender minorities are well established in Canada,
what this actually means for transgender people is harder to ascertain. On the one
hand, it is clear that denying a transgender person equal access to housing or
employment would contravene the human rights code of most jurisdictions, and if
proved, penalties would ensue. At the same time, it is not clear what steps organi-
zations must take to ensure there is no discrimination once a transgender person is
hired, or when an employee initiates a gender transitioning process.
In Canada, each province is responsible for managing its own healthcare system
within a framework of universal coverage, and gaps exist between what is covered
in one province but not in another. As a result, we also assess the degree to which
the various provincial healthcare systems cover, or do not cover, the medical and
psychological needs of transgender people, especially in relation to the costs
incurred in gender transitioning (assessment availability, transportation costs to
specialized centers, and hormone/surgical interventions). We find there is consid-
erable variation and gaps in the level of coverage across jurisdictions, including
some provinces that offer exceptionally limited coverage, or no coverage at all.
This creates openings for employers to pick up the slack through work-based
supplementary healthcare insurance schemes, and for labour unions to negotiate
such coverage in collective agreement language. Accordingly, we also consider the
actions unions have taken in terms of policy recognition and collective bargaining
on issues related to transgender people. Here, we find several unions have taken
Transgender Rights in Canada: Legal, Medical and Labour Union Activities 135
good initial first steps, but that much more could be done by organized labour to
represent this group.
2 Methodology
To determine the extent of legal coverage for transgendered people we reviewed the
contents of the Federal and Provincial Human Rights Codes on-line, as well as
reviewing relevant newspaper articles on gender identity and expression clauses
within human rights legislation.
Determining the extent of medical coverage across the provinces proved to be
more difficult. As a result, several search methods were used. First, a search was
undertaken of each provincial healthcare website to determine what medical pro-
cedures are covered, and what costs are left to individuals, such as transportation to
an approved facility for assessment and surgical procedures. This was followed-up
by a review of the web site of transgender activist groups where we found summa-
ries of the extent and type of medical services available in each jurisdiction. This
information was supplemented in several cases when information seemed unclear
or contradictory, by telephone or email contact with provincial health officials.
One of the earliest and more assertive supporters of lesbian and gay rights in
Canada was labour unions (Hunt and Eaton 2007). It is therefore reasonable to
imagine that unions have also taken steps to protect and accommodate a broader
range of sexual minorities, including transgender people. To determine the extent to
which labour unions have engaged with transgender issues, we undertook a multi-
pronged investigation. First, we examined the non-discrimination policy of the
seven largest unions in the country which as a group represent about 75 % of
unionized workers, to see if gender identity or gender expression was specifically
mentioned in the constitution. We also sought more details about what, if any,
additional initiatives these unions had taken such as educational programs and
publications or brochures designed to inform members about transgender rights,
as well as to see if these unions were encouraging their locals to include transgender
rights as specific bargaining demands. Next, we undertook a key word search of
“Negotech,” a Federal government on-line data bank of collective agreements in
Canada, searching for the inclusion of gender identity and/or gender expression in
collective agreement language. Our next step was to uncover the inclusion of
transgender health coverage in the collective agreements in a selected group of
unions. We also reviewed a number of collective agreements representing Federal
government workers, many of which are currently in the bargaining stages. In a
number of cases, the information obtained from collective agreements was
supplemented by conversations with union officials to clarify actual coverage in a
supplementary medical plan if this was not clear.
3 Findings
In this section, we outline our findings relative to the legal situation for transgender
persons in Canada. This is followed by a summary of the availability of sex
reassignment surgery under the various provincial healthcare plans. We enlarge
this analysis to include more specific information about what actual coverage
means in terms of access to services and out of pocket expenses since most
provinces do not have the medical facilities available for reassignment surgery.
We then examine how comprehensively selected labour unions have incorporated
transgender issues into policy and collective bargaining strategies.
3.1 Legal Coverage
Table 1 summarizes the recognition of gender identity and gender expression in the
Federal and Provincial Human Rights Codes in Canada. There are currently no
explicit protections for transgender persons in the Canadian Human Rights Act or
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some efforts have been made to
rectify this gap in legal protections. Bill C-279, a private-members bill originating
from the opposition New Democratic Party, would amend the Human Rights Act
and Criminal Code to include gender identity as a protected ground of discrimina-
tion. However, despite passing the House of Commons in March 2013, the bill has
Table 1 Recognition of gender identity and gender expression in federal, provincial, and territo-
rial human rights codes
Jurisdiction Gender identity Gender expression Notes
Canada ✗ ✗
Alberta ✓ ✓
British Columbia ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Manitoba ✓ ✗
New Brunswick ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Newfoundland and Labrador ✓ ✓
Nova Scotia ✓ ✓
Ontario ✓ ✓
Prince Edward Island ✓ ✓
Quebec ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
Saskatchewan ✓ ✗
Northwest Territories ✓ ✗
Nunavut ✗ ✗
Yukon ✗ ✗ Covered under “sex”
faced significant resistance and delays in the Senate. Additionally, a separate

initiative to include gender identity in the Criminal Code through an anti-cyber-
bullying bill also failed. It appears that such initiatives were low priority for the then
governing Conservative Party, with many members of parliament questioning the
merits of the legislation, despite support for the bill from the Canadian Human
Rights Commission (which administers and receives complaints connected to the
Human Rights Act). In March 2015, Conservative Senators passed an amendment
that would limit the applicability of the bill in certain sex-segregated spaces, such as
public washrooms or shelters. Conservative Senators argued the amendment was
necessary to protect women, and other vulnerable groups from potential predators,
such as biological males who could use the law to gain access to women’s
washrooms (King 2015). Transgender advocacy groups, as well as opposition
Senators, argued these amendments would greatly limit the efficacy of the law by
allowing transgender discrimination in a variety of public spaces (McGregeor
2015). The Senate and House of Commons were required to vote on the proposed
amendments before the Bill could become law, however this failed to occur ahead
of the fall 2015 election, ultimately killing the legislation. A more progressive
Liberal government was elelcted in October 2015, and it has indicated more
readiness to advance the trangender file.
Greater success has been achieved at the provincial and territorial levels of
government. As outlined by Table 1, seven out of ten provinces and one out of
three territories now include gender identity within their human rights legislation.
In 2002, the Northwest Territories became the first jurisdiction in Canada to include
gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination within its Human Rights
Code. Since then, Ontario, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and most recently, Alberta, have added
gender identity to their provincial human rights codes. Five provinces also include
gender expression as a protected ground.
For many of these provinces, the stated rationale behind enumerating gender
identity protections was to help clarify and raise awareness about the protections
available to transgender persons. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, a
policy brief accompanying the legislative change explained that it would help raise
awareness of the unique challenges and forms of discrimination facing transgender
persons within the province (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, News
Release 2013). In Manitoba, the government has argued including gender identity
within human rights legislation will provide the Manitoba Human Rights Commis-
sion additional tools to combat transgender discrimination (Canadian Civil Liber-
ties Association 2012). Alberta has gone beyond the inclusion of gender identity
and gender expression within its Human Rights Act. The province now mandates
that gay-straight alliances, which often serve as important safe-spaces for transgen-
der students, must be allowed in any school where they are requested. In the
provinces that lack explicit protections on the basis of gender identity or expression,
provincial human rights commissions have indicated they will accept cases involv-
ing gender identity under the ground of “sex.”
3.2 Medical Coverage
One of our goals was to examine whether the increased number of Canadian
jurisdictions including explicit gender identity protections has led to any meaning-
ful and tangible outcomes for the day-to-day lives of transgender Canadians. As
mentioned earlier, we chose to examine the availability of sex reassignment surgery
in Canada (SRS). For many transgender persons, SRS is a medically necessary
component of living as their preferred gender. In their latest guidelines, the World
Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) explains that for many
transgender persons “. . .relief from gender dysphoria cannot be achieved without
modification of their primary and/or secondary sex characteristics to establish
greater congruence with their gender identity” (WPATH 2012, p. 54). SRS can
also help patients feel more “at ease” in their day-to-day lives, while WPATH finds
that SRS has numerous positive postoperative outcomes, such as improved subjec-
tive well-being and sexual function (ibid., p. 55).
However, despite the medical importance of SRS, the procedures have often
been restricted across Canada. In 2009, Alberta and Manitoba offered no public
coverage of SRS, while Ontario de-listed the procedures between 1988 and 2009.
Nova Scotia also briefly threatened to stop funding SRS in 2013. Many other
provinces determined whether they would provide public coverage of SRS on a
limited case-by-case basis. In 2014, we find that SRS coverage has expanded, as
eight out of ten provinces now have official programs for SRS coverage, up from
only five in 2009. Only New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island do not provide
any SRS coverage. We have excluded the three territories from this analysis, given
the limited data, and that most decisions on SRS appear to be made on a case-by-
case basis (personal correspondence with authors).
Despite the larger number of provinces now having official SRS programs,
Table 2 offers a rather misleading picture, as the provinces vary significantly in
the ease in which clients seeking SRS can actually acquire publicly funded treat-
ment. Indeed, the provincially mandated requirements necessary to gain SRS, and
the costs borne by the patients vary significantly by jurisdiction. In Table 3, we
Table 2 Availability of sex reassignment surgery in Canadian Provinces

Jurisdiction 2009 2014
Alberta ✗ ✓
British Columbia ✔ ✓
Manitoba ✗ ✓
New Brunswick ✗ ✗
Newfoundland and Labrador ✗ ✓
Nova Scotia ✓a ✓
Prince Edward Island ✗ ✗
Ontario ✓ ✓
Saskatchewan ✓ ✓
Quebec ✓ ✓
a
Nova Scotia briefly attempted to de-list SRS in 2013
Table 3 What does coverage mean? Access to services and initial diagnosis
Province Ranking
Quebec 5
British Columbia 4
Alberta 3
Manitoba 3
Nova Scotia 3
Ontario 2
Newfoundland and Labrador 1
Saskatchewan 1
New Brunswick 0
Prince Edward Island 0
Ranking scale
5—Decentralized assessment requirements, most procedures performed within province
4—Partially-centralized assessment requirements, aided by high degree of publicly available
information and shorter wait times
3—Decentralized assessment requirements, mitigated by few physicians specializing in trans-
gender health within province
2—Centralized assessment requirements with long wait times
1—Requires out of province travel for assessment prior to government approval
0—No coverage
begin unpacking the requirements necessary to be approved for SRS procedures.

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

better initial access to services than Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Alberta, despite
maintaining a partially centralized assessment system. In part, this stems from
greater flexibility than Ontario’s centralized system, as some procedures only
require one government-approved assessor to sign off on surgery (BC Ministry of
Health). In addition, patients are not required to attend a specialized clinic, as is the
practice in Ontario. Lastly, unlike the provinces awarded a three, information about
SRS procedures is widely available, and there is an extensive transgender
healthcare program run through Vancouver Coastal Health. Quebec is ranked as
having the least restrictive requirements, as patients are only required to provide a
letter from two physicians within the province, and according to CPATH there are a
good number of physicians working with the transgender community in the prov-
ince (CPATH 2012).
In Table 4, we outline the out of pocket expenses that patients seeking SRS are
expected to cover. As in Table 3, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are
ranked at zero as they do not provide any official coverage for SRS. Newfoundland
and Labrador, as well as Saskatchewan require patients to travel to Toronto for
assessment at CAMH, which leads to significant upfront costs for patients. In
British Columbia, while the initial assessments can occur within province, the BC
Medical Services Plan (MSP) will not cover transport or accommodation for
surgeries performed out of province (many of which take place in Quebec). Alberta
Table 4 What does coverage mean? Out of pocket expenses for patients
Province Ranking
Quebec 5
Nova Scotia 4
Alberta 3
Ontario 3
Manitoba 3
British Columbia 2
Saskatchewan 1
New Brunswick 0
Ranking scale
5—Within province initial assessment, most procedures performed within province
4—Within province initial assessment, province covers airfare and some accommodation costs
for out of province procedures
3—Within province initial assessment, province covers only airfare/transport costs for out of
province procedures
2—Within province initial assessment, patients must pay travel costs for procedures out of
province procedures
1—Patients are required to travel out of province for initial assessment, many procedures occur
out of province
0—No coverage
and Ontario, by contrast, do provide some travel costs for out-of-province surgeries,
while Nova Scotia provides limited accommodation assistance in addition to
airfare. Lastly, by virtue of many procedures occurring within province, Quebec
ranks as the least expensive for patients seeking SRS within the country. These
findings, though limited in scope and using at times subjective rankings, do clearly
highlight that SRS coverage varies significantly across the country.
3.3 Labour Union Engagement
Our third area of investigation was to consider how the labour movement has
responded to transgender issues by way of non-discrimination policies and incor-
poration of transgender issues into their representational strategies. The only other
study we know of that has looked at this issue was undertaken by Eaton (2004). Our
work builds on his findings, and suggests that unions are only now moving towards
implementing more progressive policies towards transgender persons in collective
bargaining. As Hunt and Eaton (2007) explain, the inclusion of non-discrimination
grounds within collective agreements is important “. . .because they provide
workers with a local grievance mechanism, making redress quicker than through
human rights appeals; [and] they also provide an affirming statement to broader
union membership” (Hunt and Eaton 2007, p. 138). As will be shown below, many
collective agreements lag behind recently changed provincial human rights codes,
and while most agreements include sexual orientation as a protected ground, a far
smaller number include gender identity or gender expression. On a more positive
note, in some cases unions have moved to include gender identity in their collective
agreements in absence of provincial or territorial requirements to do so, such as in
British Columbia and the Yukon. While tentative, this suggests that some Union
locals are increasingly aligning their bargaining goals with jurisdictions that do
explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination (as well as implementing union
policies from national headquarters).
Indeed, in recent years several major Canadian unions have started to develop
specific policies at the headquarters level, to combat discrimination on the basis of
gender identity and expression. As outlined by Table 5, nearly all of the larger
Canadian unions now include specific policies and guidelines for improving inclu-
sion for transgender workers. For example, UNIFOR, the largest private sector
union in the country, recently published a set of guidelines for how best to address
and support workers in transition (UNIFOR, Workers in Transition: A Practical
Guide for Union Representatives). The guidelines also call for the inclusion of
gender identity in anti-discrimination clauses, and for medical coverage, and leave,
for patients seeking SRS. The large public sector union, PSAC, also includes the
addition of gender identity in anti-discrimination clauses as a specific bargaining
demand.
Yet, the translation of union policies supportive of transgender rights into
specific language within collective agreements is still a work in progress at the
Table 5 Transgender human rights: union engagement

CLC UNIFOR PSAC CUPE CUPW USW TU
Gender Identity in Human Rights ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Policy
Transgender policy paper or res- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
olution adopted
At least one collective agreement ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
with non-discrimination covering
gender identity
Inclusion of gender identity/ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
expression in anti-discrimination
provisions as bargaining demand
Inclusion of SRS paid leave as ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
bargaining demand
Supplementary health plan cover- ✔ ✔ ✔
age for SRS procedures not cov-
ered by province, and other
transition-related expenses
Transgender awareness and edu- ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
cation initiatives
Abbreviations: CLC Canadian Labour Congress; UNIFOR Union for Canada; replacing Canadian
Auto Workers Union AND Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada; PSAC
Public Service Alliance of Canada; CUPE Canadian Union of Public Employees; CUPW Cana-
dian Union of Postal Workers; USW United Steel Workers; TU International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Table 6 Current collective Search term No. of agreements

agreement containing “gender
Gender identity 133
identity” or “gender
expression” in Canada Gender identity and/or expression 43
Expanded anti-discrimination clauses 26
local level. A keyword search using the term “gender identity” in the Negotech
database, which contains most collective agreements in Canada, revealed a growing
number of collective agreements with references to gender identity. After account-
ing for agreements that had expired, a total of 133 current agreements have
references to gender identity at least once within the agreement. In two current
agreements, gender identity was not listed in anti-discrimination clauses, however
references to this ground were found in specific transgender human rights policies.
Forty-three agreements also contained references to gender expression. By contrast,
a keyword search of “sexual orientation” in the same database returns over 2000
agreements (Table 6).
Table 7 delves into the collective agreements in greater detail by sector. The
largest single group of collective agreements containing gender identity is for
public sector employees, many represented by PSAC. Examples of the types of
collective agreements represented in this category include government employees,
housing authorities, as well as public transit workers. The second largest sample
Table 7 Collective Sector No. of agreements

agreements containing
Government/Public sector 65
“gender identity” by sector
Education/Universities 40
Private sector 26
Other 2
Total 133
Table 8 Gender identity in Jurisdiction No. of agreements

collective agreements by
Ontario 53
jurisdiction
Northwest Territories 18
Nunavut 15
British Columbia 11
Yukon 8
Quebec 5
Alberta 3
New Brunswick 3
Saskatchewan 3
Nova Scotia 2
Manitoba 1
group emerged from the education sector, and involved agreements covering both
academic and non-academic staff at many Canadian universities. Interestingly,
universities appear to have frequently included gender identity in their collective
agreements even when not required to by provincial rules (e.g., in Alberta prior to
2015, Saskatchewan prior to 2014 as well as New Brunswick). Private sector
agreements were the third largest grouping, and included large agreements recently
concluded for workers at GM and Chrysler Canada.
Table 8 provides a breakdown of collective agreements by jurisdiction. Ontario
has the largest number of collective agreements containing gender identity or
gender expression. This is an unsurprising finding given that it has the largest
population in Canada, and was among the first provinces in Canada to include
gender identity in its human rights code. Since the law was passed in 2012, a large
number of agreements have come up for renewal, and now include gender identity
and expression as a protected ground. More interesting, however, is the large
number of agreements in Yukon and Nunavut containing explicit protections on
the grounds of gender identity, despite the term not being included within their
territorial human rights codes. This suggests that unions in these two territories
have increasingly followed standards set by national headquarters and other juris-
dictions that do explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. The large number
of agreements from the Northwest Territory is indicative of the jurisdiction’s early
adoption of explicit gender identity protections in its territorial human rights

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

Gender
identity Paid Additional medical Separate
inclusion SRS coverage beyond union funds/
Collective agreement scale leave provincial coverage support
York University (Cupe 4 Yes No Yes
3903—Teaching
Assistants)
York University (Faculty 4 No No No
Association)
University of Toronto 4 Yes No No
(Cupe 3903—Teaching
Assistants)
University of Toronto 2 No No No
(Faculty Association—
Professors)
Ryerson University 2 No No No
(Teaching Assistants—
CUPE 3904)
Ryerson University (Fac- 2 No No No
ulty Association)
Inclusion scale ranking
4—References gender identity/gender expression, sex, sexual orientation, and other affirmative
clauses (such as transition status)
3—References gender identity/gender expression, sex, sexual orientation
2—References sex and sexual orientation only
1—References sex only
0—No anti-discrimination references
4 Conclusion
Over the last 20 years, Canada has developed one of the best records on gay, lesbian
and bisexual rights in the world (Rayside 2008). It was an early adopter of inclusive
human rights legislation and one of the first countries to enshrine same-sex mar-
riage in law. However, our research indicates that Canada’s record on extending
rights to transgender citizens has been slower and is far from complete. Although
most provinces and territories now have human rights protections for transgender
persons, coverage for medical and psychological services vary widely across the
country, highlighting a lack of national standards. For patients seeking SRS, even if
surgeries are publicly funded, gaining the necessary government approvals often
require onerous travel requirements, significant out of pocket expenses, and long
wait-times. Moreover, in many instances, the final decision about what procedures
to cover and what not is made on a case-by-case basis.
Clearly, there is considerable room for labour unions to improve the lot of
transgender individuals. Our examination uncovers some movement toward the
inclusion of transgender as a separate category in collective bargaining
non-discrimination language, even if not legally required to by federal, provincial

or territorial laws. However, many agreements continue to lag behind provincial or
territorial rules requiring explicit protection on the grounds of gender identity.
Moreover, in only a very small number of cases are there specific provisions for
the types of benefits that are unique to transgender persons such as paid leaves and
topping-up of the costs associated with sex reassignment. Our investigation reveals
little evidence that unions are negotiating additional medical or psychological
assistance beyond what is already available from the state.
This was a first look at the issues faced by transgender persons in Canada. It
paves the way for more in depth assessment. It would, for example, be instructive to
undertake a survey of what non-unionized organizations are doing in this regard,
especially since the passage of non-discrimination legislation is quite recent. A
content analysis of a larger sample of collective agreements, including the medical
plans that have been negotiated, would also have the potential to yield valuable
insights. Lastly, some of the initiatives undertaken by the York University collec-
tive agreement highlight what could be done by unions.
This study was limited to the Canadian situation. It would be of interest to
compare these findings to other settings, especially countries with comparable
records for lesbians and gays. This would allow speculation about whether a good
record on gay and lesbian issues is likely to act as a predictor for a progressive
response to the transgender community as well. Looking at the institutional
response of labour unions to transgender issues is useful since labour positions
itself as fighting for the equality and protections of all workers, and it is important to
test this rhetoric. Comparing organized labour’s response across several national
jurisdictions would add an interesting comparative approach to the work we have
completed in Canada.
This research was conceived as a first level investigation into transgender rights
in Canada. We focused on the legal advances, medical coverage, and labour union
interventions that have been achieved so far. One thing we uncovered is that the
issue is a relatively new one for unions, and in a number of cases has been identified
for action. As a result, progress in the area may be quite dramatic over the next few
years as more and more collective agreements come forward for renewal.
References
Bender-Baird, K. (2011). Transgender employment experiences: Gendered perceptions and the

law. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Budge, S., Tebbe, E., & Howard, K. (2010). The work experiences of transgender individuals:
Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of Counselling
Psychology, 57(4), 377–393.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association/PBSC. (2012). Manitoba to add gender identity and social
disadvantage to Human Rights Code. Accessed April 6, 2015, from http://www.ccla.org/righ
tswatch/2012/05/24/manitoba-bill-to-add-human-rights-protections-for-gender-identity-and-soci
al-disadvantage
of transpeople. Gender and Society, 24(1), 31–55.
Eaton, J. (2004). Transitions at work: Industrial relations responses to the emerging rights of
transgender workers. Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 11, 113–141.
Egale. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia,
biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Accessed December 15, 2014, from http://
egale.ca/all/every-class
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (News Release). (2013). Amendment introduced to
Human Rights Act. Promotes inclusion and well-being of all residents. Accessed November
5, 2014, from http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2013/just/1121n07.htm
Hines, S. (2013). Gender diversity, recognition and citizenship: Towards a politics of difference.
London: Palgrave Macmillian.
Hunt, G., & Eaton, J. (2007). We are family: Labour responds to gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender workers”. In G. Hunt & D. Rayside (Eds.), Equity, diversity and Canadian labour
(pp. 130–155). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
King, R. (2015). Transrights bill amendment would bar trans people from public washrooms.
Toronto Star. Accessed April 16, 2015, from http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/
25/trans-rights-bill-amendment-would-bar-trans-people-from-public-washrooms.html
McGregeor, J. (2015). Transgender rights bill gutted by transphobic Senate. CBC News. Accessed
April 16, 2015, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-gutted-by-
transphobic-senate-amendment-1.2975024
Nameste, V. (2011). Sex change, social change: Reflections on identity, institutions and imperi-
alism (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.
OHRC (Ontario Human Rights Commission). (2014). Gender identity and gender expression
(brochure). Accessed December 12, 2014, from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/gender-identity-
and-gender-expression-brochure
Paisley, C., Juang, R., & Price Minter, S. (Eds.). (2006). Transgender rights. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Rayside, D. (2008). Queer inclusions, continental divisions: Public recognition of sexual diversity
in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Trans Pulse. (2011). Trans Pulse project survey. Accessed December 15, 2014, from http://
transpulseproject.ca/resources/trans-pulse-survey/
World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2012). Standards of care for the health of
transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, 7th version. Accessed November
5, 2014, from http://admin.associationsonline.com/uploaded_files/140/files/Standards%20of%
20Care,%20V7%20Full%20Book.pdf
Zabus, C., & David, C. (Eds.). (2014). Transgender experience: Place, ethnicity and visibility.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Visibility and the Workplace Experiences
of Trans Persons in the United States
Todd Brower
1 Introduction
According to Weeks (1998), sexual citizenship encompasses enfranchisement,

inclusion and belonging. However, in the workplace, lesbian, gay, bisexual and
trans (LGBT) people often are excluded from the world of work—either explicitly
when they are fired or not hired, or implicitly, when they are not promoted or
otherwise marginalized in the workplace. These experiences are complicated
because if LGBT persons remain silent, others assume that they are not gay or
trans (Rich 1983). This assumption permits some sexual minorities to push their
identity underground in order to evade the negative consequences of visibility.
Nevertheless, this closeting or minimizing of identity does not resolve LGBT
mistreatment; forced invisibility constitutes both a cause and a symptom of inequal-
ity (Schacter 1997) as the data presented here will demonstrate.
Although a significant literature exists on the workplace treatment of lesbians
and gay men, the employment experiences of trans persons are less well studied.
Drawing on data from a recent, wide-ranging study of discrimination in the United
States against trans people, Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National
Transgender Discrimination Survey (Grant et al. 2011),1 this chapter asks if and
how minority gender identity and its visibility or invisibility affects trans and
1
The study and report by Grant et al. (2011) contains significant detail regarding employment
discrimination and workplace mistreatment of trans and gender nonconforming persons. This
chapter, however, concentrates on a subset of those data to facilitate a comparative discussion of
the work experiences of trans persons and sexual orientation minorities along the axes of visibility
of sexual orientation and gender identity. Persons interested in more detailed data on trans persons’
workplace treatment are directed to the report itself. The author was not an author of that study and
report, although he has written extensively on LGBT issues.
T. Brower (*)
Western State College of Law, Fullerton, CA, USA
e-mail: tbrower@wsulaw.edu

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_9
150 T. Brower
gender nonconforming persons’ workplace treatment. Moreover, it questions

whether the interactions between trans persons’ identity and work are similar to
or distinct from the experiences of LGB individuals with whom they are often
grouped. Grouping together both sexual orientation and gender identity, while
frequent, assumes that these characteristics share a common dynamic, despite the
former centering on emotional or sexual affiliations or desires and the latter
revolving around identification with gender and gender roles or expression.
2 Language, Naming and Identity
The experience of same-sex orientation is often, but not exclusively, mediated by

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

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

sexual minorities to negate an essential difference between their coworkers and
themselves (CAJC 2001; Halley 1989). They may not share in common workplace
social interaction in order to shield certain parts of their lives (LACBA 1994; Ho
2006). Self-imposed distance may further estrange LGB employees from coworkers
and trigger even more discomfort for everyone (HCBA 1995; LACBA 1994).
Thus, open self-identity is more significant for LGB people than for heterosex-
uals (Eskridge 1997) and has greater consequences. The LACBA (1994) found that,
whatever their sexual orientation, almost one half of attorneys surveyed stated that
152 T. Brower
merely revealing the sex of one’s partner would harm an LGB attorney’s career.
Conversely, heterosexuals need not explicitly voice their sexual orientation at work
(Brower 2015), but may simply rely on contextual clues: an opposite-sex pronoun
when describing joint activities, photos of a spouse or children on their desks, or
allowing people to presume heterosexuality (Biewen and Siegel 1997). Although
these employment data are from an earlier time when gay rights were less secure
and sexual orientation visibility more risky than in the present, other more recent
data demonstrate that attorney jobs and legal employment may not have changed
significantly, and recent studies contain similar negative findings (Brower 2015;
NALP 2013).
These findings have analogues in trans persons’ workplace experiences, but the
fundamentals are different. As demonstrated above regarding photos and other
expressions of family or sexuality, sexual orientation visibility at work—whether
LGB or heterosexual—often is made manifest by showing the person with whom
one is intimately or emotionally involved. This finding is unsurprising given that
the core difference in sexuality inherently revolves around those choices. In con-
trast, for trans and gender nonconforming persons, revealing sexuality or intimacy
exposes nothing about the identity that makes them different from their work
colleagues. Axiomatically, the relevant identity characteristics disclosed were
gender and gender expression.
2.2 Trans or Gender Nonconforming Visibility at Work
Like their LGB peers, trans or gender nonconforming people’s disclosure process
was graduated, both in terms of express communication or other means, and also
temporally or spatially. To explore how visibility affected transgender and gender
nonconforming respondents, multiple trans survey questions established basic
visibility categories, “generally out” and “generally not out.” Fifty-nine percent
of respondents were generally out, while 41 % were generally not out. In answering
if they explicitly tell people their transgender/gender non-conforming status,
respondents said: never 12 %; only to close friends 68 %; only to family 42 %;
only to casual friends 26 %; out to work colleagues 22 %; out to everyone 15 %
(Grant et al. 2011, p. 28). Thus, significant numbers of trans respondents opted to
expressly communicate their identity at work, similar to LGB people.
Trans and gender nonconforming survey participants who reported being
employed demonstrated workplace visibility on two dimensions. First as noted
above, some respondents explicitly told work colleagues they were transgender or
gender nonconforming. Thirty-eight percent reported informing work colleagues of
their transgender or gender nonconforming identity. Disaggregated by identity
group, the data are: MTF 41 %, FTM 48 %, all Trans 44 %, gender nonconformers
33 % (Grant et al. 2011, p. 52). Visibility varied little by race or age.
Second, irrespective of explicit disclosure, 35 % of respondents said that most or
all work colleagues knew of their gender identity or gender nonconformity. Slightly
more (37 %) reported some or a few colleagues knew that information, and a lesser
number (28 %) said no one was aware of those identities. Those who had
transitioned reported higher rates of knowledge: most or all—50 %, some or a
few—34 %, no one—16 % (Grant et al. 2011, p. 52). Thus, like their LGB
counterparts, trans and gender nonconforming persons’ open identity decisions
changed with different people and in different environments.
Finally, in addition to respondents explicitly informing coworkers about their
gender identity/nonconformity, the study found a group of respondents were “visual
nonconformers.” That label was based on respondents’ answers to the survey
question: “People can tell I’m transgender even if I don’t tell them.” The data
showed that others often made these judgments on respondents’ physical charac-
teristics, voice, mannerisms, and gender-coded beliefs about appropriate male/
female roles (Grant et al. 2011, p. 27). Those visual nonconformers were more
likely to suffer discrimination and violence at a rate similar to that experienced by
their open lesbian or gay counterparts.
These data on openness of trans and gender nonconformity raise an intriguing
possibility: that gender identity visibility at work may vary over time according to
where trans persons are in their physical, psychological and social transition
process. As Badgett (1996) noted, racial and other visible minority identity in the
workplace is different from sexual orientation minority identity, which may be and
is often hidden. Thus, disclosure and openness are facets of workplace experiences
for LGB people that others may not face. As subsequently discussed workplace data
illustrate, trans and gender nonconforming workers may hide or time their gender
transition or expression and minimize, resign themselves to, or capitalize on the
visibility that results. Finally, post-transition, some respondents report being
completely accepted in their proper gender at a new workplace, and may not be
seen or identify as trans at all (Grant et al. 2011). Thus, they may move from a
hidden identity (like their LGB colleagues) to one that is visible (like their
coworkers with racial minority identities), and post-transition perhaps travel
through to invisible again.
Interestingly, the literature on bisexual persons and their coming out process
includes issues not usually faced by lesbians or gay men, but with analogues in trans
persons’ experiences. One complication of declaring one’s bisexuality to others is
the further requirement to explain what that identity means and justify its legiti-
macy. Some bisexuals report that people conflate that sexual orientation with
indiscriminate or uncontrolled sexual behavior—as purely conduct and not true
identity. Others insist that the identity is merely a self-delusion or a way station on
the path to admitting homosexuality (Tweedy and Yescavage 2015; Chamberlain
2012). One can see echoes of these extra hurdles in a gender nonconforming
respondent’s description of coming out to health professionals. “I rarely tell doctors
of my gender identity. It just seems so hard to explain what “genderqueer” means in
a short doctor’s appointment. . .” (Grant et al. 2011, p. 81). Other trans people report
dealing with confusion about trans identity or disbelief that the identity is real
(Lowe 2015). Although the underlying reasons may be different from the experi-
ences of bisexuals, trans and gender nonconforming people may also face similar
154 T. Brower
skepticism and additional burdens on identity. These supplemental liabilities of

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

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

are important. We spend a significant portion of our waking hours at work (Bureau
of Labor Statistics 2013). Work forms part of our self-identity and adds to a feeling
of dignity and accomplishment (John Paul II 1981; Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, Article 23). Because of variations in samples and time periods, direct
comparisons between the workplace experiences of LGB persons and trans and
gender nonconforming individuals would be inappropriate. However, concordant
data patterns are noted where possible.
3.1 Adverse Job Actions
As previously mentioned, there are few legal protections in the U.S. from employ-
ment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Moreover, even
where they do exist, the predominant structure of the laws requires that negative job
actions be taken because of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity in
order to be actionable (Brower 2009). Discrimination protections arise from a
plaintiff falling within a protected category: race, color, sex, national origin, age,
etc. Without knowing (or believing they know) a person’s membership in a
protected category, an employer or fellow employee cannot disparately treat
those individuals based on the protected identities (Green 2003). Accordingly,
knowledge of that identity or lack of it is crucial to the jurisprudential foundations
of legal protection. Moreover as a practical matter, whether sexual orientation or
something else was the reason for an adverse job action is often the factual crux of
the case, often determining whether the plaintiff wins or loses (Dawson 2005; Rene
2002).
Where they exist, legal protections for trans workers are based on a parallel
paradigm that discrimination must occur on the basis of the employee’s trans status
(e.g., Macy 2012). The trans survey demonstrated the close relationship between
156 T. Brower
visibility of gender identity/gender nonconformity and negative treatment in the

workplace. Nearly one half of survey respondents reported that their transgender
identity or gender nonconformity was the reason for an adverse job action: a failure
to hire, promote, or job termination. Over a quarter of respondents stated they were
fired due to their gender identity/expression (Grant et al. 2011). For example, one
respondent noted: “I was highly regarded at my new workplace until one of my old
co-workers came in for an interview there and saw me. During his interview he told
them all about me. He didn’t get the job, but I soon lost mine” (Grant et al. 2011,
p. 53). This respondent’s statement reflects the correlation between visibility and
negative treatment. Once his/her identity was disclosed, respondent was dismissed.
Job losses were compounded by subsequent unemployment or underemploy-
ment. Seventy-seven percent of those with job terminations also reported work
histories containing underemployment because of their gender identity/expression.
One respondent noted:
I was fired from a good job because I tried to transition on the job. I then lived on menial
employment for over 3 years before finally landing another good one that was full-time job
and had benefits. At one point, I had an offer of employment withdrawn after the would-be
employer found out I was transgender (Grant et al. 2011, p. 67).
Respondents reporting job loss due to bias were currently unemployed (26 %) at
nearly four times the rate of their general population counterparts (7 %). Twenty-
eight percent of respondents with job loss also reported work in the underground
economy or as sex workers. Like the respondent in the following quote, these data
suggest once trans people are discriminatorily terminated, they are often unable to
find reemployment (Grant et al. 2011, p. 53).
I was a very respected lawyer before all of this, but lost my practice and clients, and have
not been able to attract any new clients or get referrals or even get a job in my field for the
past 8 years. Very frustrating because I don’t feel any less intelligent or less qualified, but
others, both the public and lawyers, perceive me that way (Grant et al. 2011, p. 55).
The data on negative job actions have parallels in LGB employee experiences.
Like trans respondents, LGB court employees also reported being passed over for
promotions, losing jobs once their sexual orientation identity was known, and
facing hiring and job assignment difficulties (Brower 2015). A UK court employee
stated: “[I]n short, 15 years ago I was offered the post of Principal Private Secretary
of the Lord Chancellor; [I] came out; and the offer was withdrawn.” (Brower 2003,
p. 40). In each of these reports, job offers were withdrawn once LGBT identity was
made manifest. Therefore, if other work experiences are parallel, we should expect
to see similar patterns in trans persons’ treatment to what we find with LGB
workers.
3.2 Workplace Harassment and Abuse
Empirical studies of LGB persons frequently reported workplace harassment

(Badgett 1996; Brower 2015; Croteau 1996; Friskopp and Silverstein 1996). Nev-
ertheless, jobsite harassment and mistreatment, including being required to take
bias-avoidant actions that adversely affected their welfare or career trajectories,
were nearly unanimous experiences for transgender and gender nonconforming
people. Ninety percent of respondents reported verbal harassment, breaches of
confidentiality, physical and sexual assault, or they reported engaging in deleterious
behaviors to avoid negative treatment such as concealing their true gender, post-
poning transition, or remaining employed in a position that they would have
preferred to leave (Grant et al. 2011, p. 56).
Like their LGB peers, the most common negative workplace experience was
harassment (Grant et al. 2011, p. 58). However, while the types of harassment were
similar, the specifics differed. As might be expected, much workplace harassment
of trans and gender nonconforming persons revolved around traditional binary
gender divisions and identity. Accordingly unlike most LGB employees’ work
experiences, access to gender appropriate toilets/restrooms were a particular source
of disparate treatment at work for trans and gender nonconforming persons (Grant
et al. 2011, p. 61). One respondent noted:
When one of my colleagues found out I was born female, I was forced to use the bathroom
in another part of the building where I worked, because he said that I made the ‘real’ men
uncomfortable with my presence. Now, I look like a bio-male, and the only reason they
knew about my status is because a supervisor found out, and spread my business to the other
supervisors and friends. I had to walk 5 minutes to another building, which impeded my
break times (Grant et al. 2011, p. 60).
Another stated: “At the job I came out at, most were ok and accepting; but the
HR manager blocked any attempts for me to arrange a bathroom, even after I
pointed to a local law allowing me to use the correct bathroom.” (Grant et al. 2011,
p. 61).
The effect of coworkers’ rigid binary division of gender roles at work played out
slightly differently for sexual orientation minorities and trans employees. Forty-five
percent of trans survey respondents reported work colleagues “repeatedly and on
purpose” referred to them by the wrong pronouns (Grant et al. 2011, p. 61). This
interaction was a form of gender policing to force trans employees back to their
biological gender. That dynamic was repeated in other work experiences. Over
two-fifths of respondents described coworkers asking inappropriate questions about
respondents’ transgender or surgical status. Nearly one half stated that supervisors
or colleagues inappropriately shared confidential information about the respondent.
One noted that his/her former employer outed him/her each time a prospective
employer called (Grant et al. 2011, pp. 61–62).
In contrast, similar gender policing and workplace harassment of lesbians and
gay men were not designed to force them to return and conform to their biological/
birth sex. Lesbian and gay male workers’ gender identities were consistent with
158 T. Brower
their original sex assignment. Nevertheless, colleagues of some LG workers used

incorrect gender markers and pronouns to diminish or ostracize LG persons (Daw-
son 2005; Rene 2002). That gender policing was more a comment on homosexu-
ality than on gender identity (Brower 2009). In that context, it stressed the
perceived cross-gender characteristics/identity of sexual orientation minorities
(Brower 2015). For example, in Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. (2002), coworkers
the referred to plaintiff, a gay man, by female pronouns and called him, “mu~neca”,
Spanish for doll (feminine)—a term which is used to refer to women. In Dawson
v. Bumble & Bumble (2005), Dawn Dawson, a lesbian, was called “Don” by fellow
employees. Despite the incorrect gender markers, there are no indications in either
case that coworkers were confused about the actual gender of their gay or lesbian
colleagues, Rene or Dawson.
For trans persons, who actually have a gender identity different from their
biological birth sex, the goal is to enforce biological sex over gender identity. In
a way, these workplace interactions are a schizophrenic conflation of trans, gender
nonconforming, and LG identities. Commentators have shown that judges,
employers and coworkers often use inaccurate social schemas to attribute cross-
gender identity to sexual orientation and vice versa, leading to mistreatment of
LGBT employees and erroneous legal decisions (Brower 2009). For lesbians and
gay men, whose gender identity is congruent with their biological sex at birth, the
goal is to insist that they in fact have a cross-gender identity opposite from their
birth sex. For trans or gender nonconforming workers who may in fact have a
gender identity at odds with their birth sex, they may be forced into complying with
stereotypical and rigid biologically-determined gender roles inconsistent with their
identity.
Indeed, it is this aspect of anti-LGBT discrimination—that it is based upon
notions that “real men/women” behave in ways that sexual orientation and gender
identity minorities do not—which forms part of the underpinnings of recent
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decisions that sexual
orientation and trans discrimination are both covered by Title VII of the federal
Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 2015 Baldwin decision found that sexual orientation
discrimination was based upon the enforcement of traditional gender norms.
Accordingly, the EEOC concluded that LGB discrimination is a form of sex
discrimination prohibited by Title VII (Baldwin 2015). A similar gender
stereotyping rationale was the foundation for an earlier EEOC decision that dis-
crimination against trans persons was also sex discrimination covered by Title VII
(Macy 2012). Thus, the intersection of sexual orientation, gender, and gender
identity can be seen in negative court decisions conflating these characteristics
(Brower 2009) and in recent legal doctrine protecting LGBT persons in
U.S. administrative agencies and tribunals.
3.3 Attempts to Avoid Discrimination
Faced with negative workplace actions, a significant number of trans people tried to
avoid mistreatment through inaccurate gender presentation or misleading gender
identity behaviors. Most study respondents “hid” (71 %) or “delayed” (57 %) their
gender transition. Moreover, nearly three-quarters of respondents believed they
were obligated daily to conceal their identity for job security. Nearly a third of
respondents stated they needed to present in the wrong gender to stay employed.
Since the survey did not ask if that mis-presentation was an employer requirement
or a self-imposed response to discrimination fears, further research is needed to
clarify that issue (Grant et al. 2011, p. 60).
Other responses to job treatment affected work or career progression. Forty-five
percent remained in jobs they desired to leave and nearly a third did not pursue
raises or promotions. Over two-fifths reported taking new employment to avoid
discrimination. Like their LGB colleagues (Brower 2015), earlier negative work-
place experiences affected future employee behavior. As expected, those trans or
gender nonconforming respondents who had previously lost work because of
workplace mistreatment took the most steps to avoid discrimination (Grant
et al. 2011).
Inaccurate presentation of gender identity corresponds to work experiences of
lesbians and gay men who may falsely present as heterosexual. That similarity
portends pessimistic outcomes for trans people in that setting. In reports of LGB
people in legal employment—and despite explicit workplace protections for sexual
orientation—every jurisdiction studied reported at least one respondent who passed
as heterosexual rather than face mistreatment as LGB (NJSC 2001; Brewer and
Gray 1999b; Brower 2003, 2005; Moran 2006). One employee stated:
I am not open about my lifestyle at my job for fear of retaliation and/or job loss. I have
appeared in many of the different county courthouses as a part of my State job. I have heard
and seen, countless times, gay/lesbian jokes, comments, disparaging looks, mocking
behavior, etc. I have seen many instances of discrimination towards gays and lesbians in
the New Jersey courts. [. . .] How surprised all the judges and lawyers I deal with on a
continuing basis would be if I was allowed to be open and honest about my life (NJSC 2001,
p. 49).
Like trans survey respondents, LGB study participants report hiding or mini-
mizing identity to avoid discrimination. Unsurprisingly, workplace studies also
found LGBT workers were less likely to reveal their sexuality when they suffered
or witnessed discrimination (Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Croteau 1996; Schneider
1986; Badgett 1996). Hiding had only marginal protective effects, however. At a
higher rate than the experiences of their open LGB colleagues but similar to that of
trans persons, these closeted LGB employees’ narratives express frustration and
fear about visible sexual identity and their inability to ameliorate their unequal
treatment or to have legal norms and protections address those issues (Brower
2015). Given the data on sexual orientation minorities, future studies on trans
persons should focus on the consequences of inaccurate self-presentation in the
160 T. Brower
workplace in order to see if trans researchers can replicate or build on the work
of the colleagues on LGB persons. Although gender identity and sexual orientation
are distinct, in this context it appears that the workplace dynamics operate
analogously.
Further complicating the prognosis for trans people who hide or delay their
gender identity, empirical studies demonstrate that even successful passing as
heterosexual may produce negative job-related, economic effects for LGB individ-
uals (Badgett 1995; Escoffier 1975; Mohr 1988). Passing may create greater
absenteeism or employment turnover (Ragins and Cornwell 2001) and the energies
expended to pass as heterosexual diminished productivity or increased stress
(Escoffier 1975; HCBA 1995).
Furthermore, the energy required to pass meant some lesbians and gay men
sidestepped potential social interactions at work where sexual minority identity
may be discovered (Badgett 1996). A gay attorney said:
I knew that I would lose work if any of the [bosses] found out that I was gay. I did not reveal
this fact to anyone except my closest friends at the firm. I was conscious of having to remain
somewhat distant to most people. I did not get close to people because in their natural
course of conversation most people talk about their spouses and families and I had resolved
never to lie by fabricating an opposite-sex spouse. . . I only spoke about work-related
matters, never joined any group of coworkers for a drink, and never went to any firm
events except those that were absolutely obligatory, and then I left as soon as possible
(HCBA 1995, p. 37).
Related to passing is the phenomenon of covering, being nominally open as

LGBT but minimizing the differences between minority and majority sexuality
(Yoshino 2006; Carbado and Gulati 2000; Goffman 1963). Open, but covering,
LGB employees may not respond to negative comments affecting them (Brower
2005) or may not publicly attend workplace social events with a same-sex partner
(LACBA 1994). By underplaying their sexuality, they try to increase the comfort
level of their coworkers by allowing others to ignore identity difference (McNish
2006; Kaplan 2006). This phenomenon also occurs in trans and gender
nonconforming communities (Rouner 2014).
The earlier data on hiding or delaying gender transition demonstrate that, like
passing as heterosexual, downplaying LGBT sexuality is not cost-free (Badgett
2001). Avoiding social interactions that might highlight differences between sexual
minority and heterosexual employees may mean that others perceive those LGBT
coworkers as standoffish or abnormal.
[At social events] gay and lesbian attorneys are most likely to feel and be perceived as
‘different’—usually attending events without a date/spouse, making it more difficult to
enjoy the event and participate fully. As a result, they are often perceived by other attorneys
as antisocial or mysterious . . . not fitting in (LACBA 1994, p. 33).
One employer noted that when LGBT employees concealed their sexual orien-
tation it was nearly impossible for them to partake in workplace culture as peers;
minimizing genuine personal interactions interposed barriers between LGBT
workers and their colleagues. Over time, those workers may be driven from their
jobs, with the consequence that both the employees and the employer lost oppor-
tunities (HCBA 1995).
Estrangement from work colleagues and diminished participation in workplace
life are particularly significant because engaging in social interactions in parity with
heterosexual colleagues is one employment practice that Ragins and Cornwell
(2001) found had the strongest inverse relationship to perceived discrimination.
Although disclosure was higher when the jurisdiction had gay-protective legislation
and gay-supportive policies at work, neither was as significant as inclusive social
interactions.
Similarly, not participating equally in these events may mean that LGBT
employees fail to develop allies or mentors important for advancement (Ragins
and Cornwell 2001; Kantor 1977). In corporations, the lack of mentoring and
placement of women where they lacked contacts and experience led to fewer
promotions and the glass ceiling (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995).
Frank (2004) found a parallel phenomenon with LGBT workers.
One noticeable data point missing from studies on trans persons’ workplace
experiences concerns reporting negative treatment or efforts to ameliorate that
mistreatment. Without appropriate reporting or other attempts to remedy discrim-
ination, it is hard to imagine positive change at an offending jobsite. This pessimism
is particularly acute because data on LGB people at work often demonstrate a lack
of improvement even after attempts to end the discrimination. Some sexual minor-
ity employees did not report anti-gay incidents because they were afraid of being
perceived by coworkers as LGBT (NJSC 2001). This fear was given as the reason
that over 7 % of California court employees (Brewer and Gray 1999a) and more
than 9 % of UK court employees (Brower 2003) who were treated negatively at
work did not report it. Some bisexual employees did not complain about mistreat-
ment for fear of being perceived as rocking the boat or as troublemakers (Tweedy
and Yescavage 2015), an apprehension echoed by lesbians and gay men. “[N]
egative comments/jokes about gay/transsexual people in particular are common at
work and you are a troublemaker if you don’t keep your head down or join in with
the ‘joke’—or you are very ‘p.c’—and as a result not ‘one of the group’” (Brower
2005, pp. 554–555). Other LG employees felt invisible or shunned by colleagues
after reporting mistreatment of gay people (Brewer and Gray 1999a). One
employee noted that after reporting anti-lesbian harassment to management, the
employee “became even more of a pariah. . .[and eventually] resigned under the
pressure and strain of the ordeal” (NJSC 2001, p. 54). Another detailed how he or
she either kept quiet or even participated in anti-gay comments so as to deflect
suspicion that he or she was not heterosexual (NJSC 2001). These data are unfor-
tunate omens for correcting trans persons negative work experiences. Future study
will need to confirm or disconfirm whether trans people have similar fears and
consequences of forced identity disclosure, ostracism, or other negative workplace
actions.
162 T. Brower
3.4 Experiences Post-transition
Along with increased discrimination risks, researchers on LGB persons have found
that disclosure to associates or family may generate a positive effect on lesbians’
and gay men’s identity creation and on intimate and social bonds (Savin-Williams
1989; Meyer 2003; Eliason 1996). Studies on LGB people have correlated visibility
with positive social and economic outcomes and workplace perceptions. Griffith
and Hebl (2002) linked openness with lower job anxiety. Open LG workers were
more satisfied with that degree of visibility than were more closeted employees
(Croteau 1996). Day and Schoenrade (2000) found that open LGBT employees had
greater commitment to their workplaces, higher job satisfaction, and lower conflict
between home and work.
Similarly, this chapter inquires whether openness about transgender status or
gender nonconformity had affirmative or protective effects. One might expect that
respondents who were living full-time with their appropriate gender identity had
improved employment experiences. Unfortunately, the data and conclusions are
mixed. Nearly four-fifths of trans men and women reported feeling more relaxed
and noted improved job performance. One said:
When I started my transition, the place that I was working was very supportive. My boss
had a family member who is transgender. I was treated with respect by everyone. I had
worked there for many years and everyone assumed that I was gay until then and they knew
my partner. I guess they just figured I would still be me. Except for growing facial hair and
going bald, I am the same, only better and more free (Grant et al. 2011, p. 64).
Nevertheless, even those respondents who reported their own improved work
performance continued to experience rates of workplace mistreatment similar to
other, more closeted transgender and gender nonconforming employees. For exam-
ple according to Grant et al. (2011, p. 64), 51 % of those reporting their job
performance increased after transitioning also reported workplace harassment,
while the harassment rate for the total survey sample was 50 %—a statistically
insignificant difference. This disjunction between individuals’ own increased work-
place well-being and reduced stress, and their continued mistreatment by others has
also been reported in employment studies of sexual orientation minorities (Brower
2015; Croteau 1996). Indeed one study noted that disclosure of LGB identity
sometimes just meant that coworkers simply avoided making negative comments,
etc. around that individual. The negative behaviors were simply driven under-
ground without changing either the workplace culture or life for other minority
workers (Brower 2003).
4 Conclusion
Like their LGB colleagues, transgender and gender nonconforming people face
significant harassment and mistreatment at work. Also like their LGB counterparts,
visibility of identity and the process of disclosure carries with it significant risks and
some benefits. Once employed, most respondents who transitioned recounted
increased workplace comfort and improved job performance. However, many
respondents could not obtain that advantage because they deferred their gender
transition or presented in the wrong gender in order to evade mistreatment. This
dilemma of increased openness and attendant mistreatment or bias-avoidant behav-
ior and forced invisibility is also present in other hidden identity situations, like
sexual orientation, religion, and sometimes disability (Bond et al. 2009; Bouton
2013; Ragins 2008). The centrality of identity and the impact of visibility sharpen
the consequences of those choices for trans and gender nonconforming people.
Many of the workplace recommendations of the trans study by Grant
et al. (2011) suggest that what is needed is more and better federal, state, local
and workplace nondiscrimination protections and policies to protect trans and
gender nonconforming people. Naturally, increased legal and employer nondiscri-
mination protections are important. However, if studies on LGB workplace expe-
riences provide guidance, persistent mistreatment of trans persons may survive
formal workplace policies, legal regimes and even supervisorial commitment to
ending discrimination (Brower 2015). Nevertheless, data indicate acceptance at
work of sexual minority identity is a significant factor in workplace equality.
Further, data on the societal change in attitudes towards LGBT people and their
civil rights often correlate with increased openness and the ability of others to know
or have a personal relationship with sexual and gender minorities (Herek and
Capitanio 1996; Skipworth et al. 2010). Accordingly like their sexual orientation
minority peers, transition and correct gender expression in the workplace are not
only central to trans individuals’ own well-being, but may also contribute to
improved workplace environments and productivity for themselves and others,
and potential positive societal and cultural shifts.
References
Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726–738.
Badgett, M. V. L. (1996). Employment and sexual orientation: Disclosure and discrimination in
the workplace. In A. L. Ellis & E. D. B. Riggle (Eds.), Sexual identity on the job: Issues and
services (pp. 29–52). Philadelphia: Hayworth Press.
Badgett, M. V. L. (2001). Money, myths and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baldwin v. Foxx (Secretary, Department of Transportation). (2015, July 15). 2015 WL 4397641
(EEOC).
164 T. Brower
Biewen, J., & Siegel, R. (1997, October 21). Gay teacher files first amendment lawsuit in Utah. All
Things Considered (NPR).
Blumenfeld, W. J., & Raymond, D. (1993). Looking at gay and lesbian life. Boston: Beacon.
Bond, S., Hollywood, E., & Colgan, F. (2009). Integration in the workplace: Emerging employ-
ment practice on age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. Manchester: Equality and
Human Rights Commission.
Bouton, K. (2013, September 21). Quandary of hidden disabilities: Conceal or reveal? New York
Times, Business Day. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/
business/quandary-of-hidden-disabilities-conceal-or-reveal.html?_r¼0
Boylan, J. F. (2014, August 15). Trans community can change minds by changing discourse. Los
Angeles Times. Accessed January 1, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-
adv-boylan-transgender-language-20140817-story.html
Brewer, D. J., & Gray, M. J. (1999a). Report on sexual orientation fairness in California Courts.
Brewer, D. J., & Gray, M. J. (1999b). Survey data, preliminary report Draft 3/31/99. Reported in
4/9/99 materials of the Subcommittee on Sexual Orientation Fairness. p 21.
Brower, T. (1997). “A stranger to its laws:” Homosexuality, schemas, and the lessons and limits of
reasoning by analogy. Santa Clara Law Review, 38, 65–152.
Brower, T. (2003). Report on the survey of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, rainbow network:
Sexual orientation fairness in the courts of England and Wales. UK: The Lord Chancellor’s
Department.
Brower, T. (2005). Report on the 2005 survey of the Department for Constitutional Affairs,
Rainbow Network: Sexual orientation fairness in the courts of England and Wales. UK: The
Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Brower, T. (2009). Social cognition “at work”: Schema theory and lesbian and gay identity in title
VII. Journal of Law and Sexuality, 18, 1–77.
Brower, T. (2011). Twelve angry—And sometimes alienated—Men: The experiences and treat-
ment of lesbians and gay men during jury service. Drake Law Review, 59, 669–706.
Brower, T. (2015). Courts as workplaces for sexual orientation minorities. In F. Colgan &
N. Rumens (Eds.), Sexual orientation at work (pp. 58–72). London: Routledge.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2013). American time use study. Accessed
July 25, 2015, from http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/
California Judicial Council—Access and Fairness Committee. (2001). Sexual orientation fairness
in the California courts. San Francisco: Administrative Office of the Courts.
Carbado, D. W., & Gulati, M. (2000). Working identity. Cornell Law Review, 85, 1259–1308.
Chamberlain, B. (2012). Stonewall workplace guides: Bisexual people in the work-place: Prac-
tical advice for employers. STONEWALL, pp 2–3. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.
stonewall.org.uk/documents/bisexual_people.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/E3KA-ZUTP
Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay and bisexual people: An
integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 195–209.
Cullen, D. (2000, June 7). A heartbreaking decision. Salon.com. Accessed January 1, 2015, from
http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/feature/2000/06/07/relationships/print.html
Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2nd Cir. 2005).
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual
orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay
and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346–363.
Debate over grade school teacher divulging he’s gay. (2000, June 11). S.F. Examiner, A-3
Eliason, M. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual, and gay persons. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 30(3), 31–58.
Escoffier, J. (1975). Stigmas, work environment, and economic discrimination against homosex-
uals. Homosexual Counseling Journal, 2, 8–17.
Eskridge, W., Jr. (1997). A jurisprudence of ‘coming out’: Religion, homosexuality, and collisions
of liberty and equality in American Public Law. Yale Law Journal, 106, 2411–2443.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Report. Washington, DC: Federal Glass Ceiling
Commisssion.
Frank, J. (2004). Gay glass ceilings (Discussion Papers Series 2004–20). London: Royal
Holloway, University of London.
Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1996). Straight jobs, gay lives: Gay and lesbian professionals, the
Harvard Business School, and the American workplace. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster.
Gallup. (2015). Gay and lesbian rights gallup historical trends. Accessed July 25, 2015, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliff, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC:
Green, T. K. (2003). Discrimination in workplace dynamics: Toward a structured account of
disparate treatment theory. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38, 91–157.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: ‘Coming
out’ at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Halley, J. E. (1989). The politics of the closet: Towards equal protection for gay, lesbian, and
bisexual identity. University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 36, 915–976.
Harris, A., & Bartlow, S. (2015). Intersectionality: Race, gender, sexuality and class. In
J. DeLameter & R. F. Plante (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of sexualities. Handbooks of
sociology and social research (pp. 261–271). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Hennepin County Bar Association Lesbian and Gay Issues Subcommittee. (1995). Legal
employers’ barriers to advancement and to economic equality based on sexual orientation.
Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County Bar Association.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, conceal-
able stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.
Ho, J. (2006, August 8). Attracting gay MBAs. BusinessWeek Online. Accessed January 8, 2015,
from http://archive.is/YqjTs
Holvino, E. (2010). Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization
studies. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(3), 248–277.
Hutchinson, D. L. (1997). Out yet unseen: A racial critique of gay and lesbian legal theory and
political discourse. Connecticut Law Review, 29, 561–645.
John Paul II. (1981, September 14). Laborem exercens (on human work). Encyclical Letter.
Accessed January 8, 2015, from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/
documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html
Kantor, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kaplan, E. A. (2006, July 12). The roots of racial pride. Los Angeles Times, Part B, p 13.
Karst, K. L. (1995). Myths of identity: Individual and group portraits of race and sexual orienta-
tion. University of California Los Angeles Law Review, 43, 263–287.
Kuper, L., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012). Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual
orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. The Journal of Sex
Research, 49(2–3), 244–254.
Lambda Legal. (2015). Know your rights. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.lambdalegal.
org/know-your-rights/workplace/laws-that-protect-you
Los Angeles County Bar Association Committee on Sexual Orientation Bias. (1994). Report. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Lowe, K. (2015, April 24). Bruce Jenner to anyone who thinks otherwise: ‘This is not a publicity
stunt’. Deadline Hollywood. Accessed 25 July 25, 2015, from http://deadline.com/2015/04/
bruce-jenner-to-anyone-who-thinks-otherwise-this-is-not-a-publicity-stunt-1201416238/
Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, (2012, April 20). 2012 Westlaw 1435995.
McNish, J. (2006, June 14). Can lawyers be too gay? Globe and Mail (Toronto). Accessed January
8, 2015, from http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060614.wxlawcolumn14/
GIStory/
166 T. Brower
Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674–697.
Mohr, R. (1988). Gays/justice: A study of ethics, society and law. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press.
Moore, D. W. (1993). Public polarized on gay issue. Gallup Poll Monthly, 331, 31–34.
Moran, L. J. (2006). Judicial diversity and the challenge of sexuality: Some preliminary findings.
Sydney Law Review, 28, 565–598.
NALP. (2013, January). LGBT representation up in 2012. NALP Bulletin. Accessed July 25, 2015,
from http://www.nalp.org/lgbt_representation_up_in_2012
New Jersey Supreme Court. (2001). Final report of the task force on sexual orientation issues.
Trenton: New Jersey Supreme Court.
Pew Research Center. (2015, June 8). Support for same-sex marriage at record high, but key
segments remain opposed. Accessed July 25, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/files/
2015/06/6-8-15-Same-sex-marriage-release1.pdf
invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194–215.
Psychology, 86, 1244–1261.
Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do race and
gender matter? Group and Organization Management, 28(1), 45–74.
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118.
Rene v, MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc).
Rich, A. (1983). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In A. Snitow, C. Stansell, &
S. Thompson (Eds.), Powers of desire: The politics of sexuality (pp. 177–205). New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Rouner, J. (2014, August 27). Bathroom battles: Scaremongering abounds about transgender
bathroom usage. Houston Press, Blogs. Accessed January 8, 2015, from http://blogs.
houstonpress.com/news/2014/08/bathroom_battles_scaremongering_abounds_about_transgen
der_public_restroom_choice.php?page¼3
Savin-Williams, R. (1989). Coming out to parents and self-esteem among gay and lesbian youths.
Journal of Homosexuality, 18(1–2), 1–35.
Schacter, J. S. (1997). Romer v. Evans and democracy’s domain. Vanderbilt Law Review, 50,
361–371.
Schneider, B. E. (1986). Coming out at work: Bridging the private/public gap. Work and Occu-
pations, 13(4), 463–487.
Skipworth, S. A., Garner, A., & Dettrey, B. J. (2010). Limitations of the contact hypothesis:
Heterogeneity in the contact effect on attitudes toward gay rights. Politics and Policy, 38,
887–906.
Tweedy, A. E., & Yescavage, K. (2015). Employment discrimination against bisexuals: An
empirical study. William and Mary Journal of Women and Law, 21(3), 699–741.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23.
Weeks, J. (1998). The sexual citizen. Theory, Culture and Society, 15(35), 1–19.
Woods, J. D., & Lucas, J. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in
America. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York, NY: Random
House.
Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic
Countries: An Overview of Workplace
Diversity and Inclusion Issues in Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Malaysia
Abdullah Al Mamun, Mariano L.M. Heyden, and Qaiser Rafique Yasser
1 Introduction
Workplaces are an essential part of helping individuals realize their sense of self
and social belonging (Vries 2012). In a world where dichotomized gender roles are
already askew, transgender individuals face particular challenges that have been
hitherto underemphasized in the diversity literature. A transgender person is some-
one who has a gender identity, physiology, and/or enacts behaviors not traditionally
associated with dichotomously categorized birth sex in a particular social context
(Kenagy 2005). Although some countries have made preliminary legislative pro-
gress in relaxing binary gender categories (e.g., Germany, US, India), in others,
especially those where legislation is often defined along religious lines (e.g., Asian
Islamic countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan), it can still be illegal to be
transgender (Cáceres et al. 2006).
Transgender individuals challenge socially accepted sex classifications (i.e.,
male versus female) and their associated gender-specific roles (Harrison and
Lynch 2005). As a result they are often stigmatized, bullied, and sometimes even
persecuted (Stotzer 2009). Transgender individuals, therefore, often face serious
repercussion by revealing a gender identity that does not conform to expected
gender categories prescribed by a particular context (Looy and Bouma 2005).
Research shows that individuals who are unable to express their gender identity
often face issues such as stress, depression, and health problems that could impair
their performance and satisfaction in the workplace (Neal and Davies 2000). This
poses challenges for organizations, both in extracting the value from a diverse
A.A. Mamun • M.L.M. Heyden (*)

The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
e-mail: mariano.heyden@newcastle.edu.au
Q.R. Yasser
University Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_10
168 A.A. Mamun et al.
workforce, as well as providing a space for nurturing individuals’ psychological

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

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

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

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

Asian Islamic contexts and allied policy opportunities.
5 The Asian Islamic View Towards Transgender

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

2015). “Conservative” interpretations of Islam often claim that transgender indi-
viduals are sinners who do not have the right to practice Islam (Ishak and Haneef
2014). Transgender individuals are, therefore, often deprived of religious “inner-
peace”, which often forms an important dimension of social, family, and legal
identity in Asian Islamic contexts. In practice, this further translates into transgen-
der individuals being denied education, housing, and employment, for example in
Bangladesh. As a result transgender individuals often end up homeless and need to
resort begging and/or crime (Rumbach and Knight 2014).
In the following sections we draw on examples of how policy recommendations
are being implemented in three contexts and we identify opportunities for
improvement.
5.1 Pakistan
According to Country Reports, 2010, Hijra is a name given to “transvestites,

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

in (collective) worship is important and significant for the social wellbeing of
individuals (Tabassum and Jamil 2014). However, transgender individuals are
often denied access to mosques. Even during the two most important religious
celebrations of the year, Eid-ul-Adha and Eid-ul-Fitr, in the country, transgender
individuals confine themselves to their homes instead of joining the celebrations.
A survey conducted on Pakistani Hijras found that, although providing for and
protecting a child is the responsibility of the child’s family in the Pakistani culture,
this provision is barely complied with for transgender children (Tabassum and
Jamil 2014). Instead, families often turn their back on transgender children and
some parents are even relieved when their transgender offspring leave home
(Abdullah et al. 2012). Due to discrimination and lack of acceptance by even
their closest relatives, transgender individuals in Pakistan seek acceptance and
emotional shelter with other individuals facing similar social hardships (Tabassum
and Jamil 2014). Older transgender individuals may teach younger ones who join
them how to dance at various celebrations (such as marriage ceremony, births, and
carnivals) to gain some form of income.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered, in 2009, that Hijras must be allowed to
identify themselves as a distinct gender in order to ensure their rights in the society
(Abdullah et al. 2012; Tabassum and Jamil 2014). However, this order has yet to be
implemented and acknowledged (Abbas et al. 2014). This is because religious law
is more highly regarded than is state law. Pakistan still has no effective initiatives in
place for transgender individuals’ identity, social, and labor rights (Abdullah
et al. 2012; Nanda 1986).
5.2 Bangladesh
Bangladeshi state legislation is also grounded in Islam, with the Muslim population
comprising over 90 % of the total population (Karim 2004). Given the strong
religious culture, there is little room for gender identities other than male–female
classifications, and transgender individuals are not readily embraced in mainstream
society (Khan et al. 2009). Transgender individuals are even denied a legal identity
(Stenqvist 2015). The International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research
Bangladesh (ICDDRB) conducted an ethnographic study on Hijras, aiming to
comprehend the challenges they face. The study concluded that transgender indi-
viduals in Bangladesh are excluded from every aspect of society—including not
having the right to vote (ICDDRB 2008). The findings highlighted limited access to
employment opportunities, struggle to gain daily commodities, and hurdles to
livelihood opportunities in terms of social entertainment, housing, income, land,
and working conditions.
Transgender individuals in Bangladesh also have no access to education, health,
or legal services. Like the circumstances of transgender individuals in Pakistan,
those in Bangladesh often find they are marginalized and can only find acceptance
among other transgender individuals (Khan et al. 2009).
Transgender individuals often face neglect, physical abuse, and there are even
documented cases of transgender individuals being chained and kept confined by
their own family members (Khan et al. 2009). Such physical and mental tortures
eventually force them to flee from home and find shelter in other places. One
individual explained the following situation:
When my father died I did not go to bury him. If I had gone there, the relatives and others
would not take part in the burial.
(Khan et al. 2009, p. 445).
The challenges in the workplace mirror the hardships faced in society. For
instance, transgender individuals are often fired once it is revealed that they are
transgender. One particular challenge identified is that of sexual abuse in the
workplace. For instance, one transgender individual said:
I have worked in a garment factory for about a year. I could not even go to the toilet, as I
was scared that the boys would go there to see me. They always tried to have sex with
me. When there was a night shift, the threat was higher. Once my supervisor forced me to
have sex with him, and I had no choice but to do it. But when it became public, I was
dismissed from my job, as if it was my fault.
(Khan et al. 2009, p. 445)
Due to such adverse experiences in the workplace, transgender individuals earn

a living mainly as prostitutes and/or by dancing at marriage ceremonies, celebra-
tions of newly born babies, and/or extortion in local markets (Khan et al. 2009).
Voice Bangladesh1 conducted a survey on 600 transgender individuals in the
country. The study reported that 54.3 % of transgender individuals in Bangladesh
live with the fear of their gender identity being revealed in the society. The study
also revealed that the majority of participants in the survey admitted that they would
marry the opposite sex (opposite to their socially recognized sex, e.g., if someone is
identified as male in the society, they would marry a female) because of social
opposition, religious value judgments, and family pressure. In addition, the research
also reported that 56.9 % of survey participants would not change their gender
identity even after marriage. To help address some of these issues, some non-profit-
organizations, such as Badhan Hijra Sangha and Shustha Jibon, have recently been
formed, with the aim of assisting transgender people in terms of health issues and
vocational education (ICDDRB 2008).
1
Voice Bangladesh is a Bangladesh-based activist, rights based research and advocacy organiza-
tion working on issues of corporate globalization.
5.3 Malaysia
Activists have estimated that there are around 100,000 transgender individuals in
Malaysia (Ng, 19 July 2011). The number of transgender individuals in the capital
city, Kuala Lumpur, alone is estimated to be 50,000. This estimate translates into
more than one out of every 200 individuals being transgender in Malaysia (Lynn
2005). In Malaysia, the term ‘transgender’ generally refers to those individuals who
act inconsistently with their physiological sex (e.g., if a male acts as female) (Teh
2001). The number of female-to-male transgender individuals is smaller than those
who are male-to-female transgender (Khairuddin et al. 1987). An apparently
increasing number of overt transgender individuals in Malaysia has caught the
attention of authorities (Sabri et al. 2014).
A study performed recently, which involved 77 transgender individuals,
revealed that, in Malaysia, transgender individuals are severely neglected and
discriminated against both at home and in the workplace (Low 2009). Transgender
individuals’ sexual orientation and identity are widely misunderstood, with claims
that such orientations are aberrant and immoral (Owoyemi and Sabri 2013). With
minimal levels of acceptance from family members, the majority of transgender
individuals are frequently asked to prepare for marriage along with being sent for
medical treatment (Teh 2001). Transgender individuals also experience physical
abuse and violence—even from authorities—in most places, from educational
institutions to local restaurants at which they may be working (Sahri et al. 2014).
In addition, conservative religious proponents have claimed that the prevalence of
transgender individuals is nothing but the ideological influence of Western thinking
and lifestyles (Low 2009).
Some, admittedly controversial, studies concerned with Malaysian samples of
transgender individuals emphasize the need to treat transgender issues as a (social-)
psychological disorder. For example, Sabri et al. (2014) claim that there are
environmental and intrinsic factors which influence the transgender issue and
cause transgenderism in society. Intrinsic factors include lack of conquering inbuilt
desire, sexual emotion, infant sexual experience, and individual characteristics.
Environmental factors include associating with the “wrong crowd”, lack of mutual
consideration, and distance from religious practices (Owoyemi and Sabri 2013). All
these factors, it is claimed can be “cured” through counseling, faith, honesty, trust,
advice, enlightenment, and monitoring.
While Malaysian scholars debate whether transgenderism is natural or ideolog-
ical, the government of Malaysia has been reluctant to give transgenderism social
and legal recognition. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Abdul Razak, warns
against the encroachment on freedom and heterogeneity in favor of transgenderism
in Malaysia and hints at the government’s position to fight against the “scourge”
(Malaysiakini 2012). The Prime Minister also strongly opposed transgender iden-
tity and rights inclusion in the ASEAN2 declaration of human rights (Zulfakar
2
Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
2012). He pointed out that Malaysia rejects transgenderism because of moral values
and norms, but, he argues, this does not necessarily mean that the country has a
weak human rights standard.
In contrast to the situation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Malaysia at least pro-
vides some means for transgender individuals to earn an income. However, in the
majority of the cases, transgender individuals are strongly silenced at the organi-
zational level, they have little job security and fewer opportunities to achieve
promotions.
6 Discussion and Future Research Agenda
Our overview shows that Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Malaysia tend to marginalize
the transgender community within their societies, and that they do so for many
reasons, particularly because of religious beliefs. We believe this topic is important
and needs to be addressed, both for the better functioning of organizations, and for
the sense of identity of individuals within those organizations. Debates in the
diversity management literature revolve prominently around “male versus female”
issues in the quest for equity in organizations (Faulkner 2000). Transgender indi-
viduals represent “shades of gray” in gender identity that are still poorly under-
stood. Because the needs of transgender individuals remain largely unaddressed,
such individuals are left with no appropriate channels through which to address
issues impacting upon them, leaving them marginalized, underrepresented, and
misunderstood. The anecdotal evidence on transgender individuals in institutions
seems to contradict the notion that organizations increasingly embrace different
forms of diversity (Lopuch and Davis 2014). This is despite best-practice recom-
mendations that encourage organizations to enable individuals to express their
gender identity freely (Riccò and Guerci 2014) because doing so enriches the
organization’s human capital and, ultimately, work performance (Murrell
et al. 2008). In line with such recommendations, we propose that managers in
Asian Islamic countries should de-emphasize the sex/gender criteria when
recruiting, as well as in day-to-day operations.
The transgender conversation is, though controversial, attracting the attention of
academic scholars, media, politicians, and corporations. Many commentators and
scholars argue the case for comprehensive empirical and theoretically-informed
research in Asian countries. The negative attitudes of the general public and
religious proscription highlight the urgency of this line of research. We suggest
future research should be conducted from three different dimensions: (a) multi-
theory assumptions on the transgender issue; (b) multi-level empirical analysis, in
order to examine the effect of social views towards transgender individuals; and
(c) social and organizational performance of transgender identity in relation to
coming out and not coming out.
6.1 Multi-theory Assumptions
Despite the dearth of research on transgender issues in the context of Asian nations,
most empirical and conceptual writing on Western economies is developed on a
single theory assumption. Many scholars have been drawn on stigma theory to
examine the transgender issue (Inzlicht and Gutsell 2007; Inzlicht et al. 2006).
However, we suggest further research should include social identity theory and
apply multi-theoretical perspectives to examine whether Westernized theory is
consistent and applicable to a similar extent in the Asian Islamic context. Multi-
theory approaches may help identify the theoretical distinctions between Western
and Asian contexts.
6.2 Multi-level Analysis
The majority of empirical studies on transgender issues mostly build upon single
loop statistical analysis (Kelleher 2009), in which scholars only examine the
implications of negative attitudes from certain cisgender populations towards
transgender persons. However, since transgender individuals are part of a society
where organizations play a significant role in changing the environment, we suggest
conducting a multi-level analysis in order to examine the effects of multilevel
variables. For example organizations, educational institutions (both conventional
and religious) and political leaders (especially government policy makers) are
nested in society; each may have different views towards transgender issues.
Therefore, the different views of all these nested variables could be examined by
using a multi-level analysis in relation to transgender issues.
6.3 Social and Organizational Performance
Both theoretical and empirical studies on transgender issues predominantly focus

either on the phenomenon of different trans-identities conceptually, or they analyze
health effects of discrimination. There is a paucity of empirical research with
relation to social and organizational performance of transgender individuals.
Thus, we suggest future research to include to what extent transgender individuals
contribute to society and organizations, and how significant that contribution can be
in conjunction with that of cisgender in both Western and Asian Islamic contexts. A
better understanding can help Asian Islamic countries tap into this
underemphasized element of their potential human capital.
References
Abbas, T., Nawaz, Y., Ali, M., Hussain, N., & Nawaz, R. (2014). Social adjustment of transgender:
A study of District Chiniot, Punjab (Pakistan). Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3
(1), 61–71.
Abdullah, M. A., Basharat, Z., Kamal, B., Sattar, N. Y., Hassan, Z. F., Jan, A. D., & Shafqat,
A. (2012). Is social exclusion pushing the Pakistani Hijras (Transgenders) towards commercial
sex work? A qualitative study. BMC International Health and Human rights, 12(32), 1–9.
Agius, S. (2013). Third gender: A step toward ending intersex discrimination. Spiegel Online
International. Accessed February 12, 2015, from http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/
third-gender-option-in-germany-a-small-step-for-intersex-recognition-a-917650.html
Anzar, U. (2003). Islamic education: A brief history of Madrassas with comments on curricula and
current pedagogical practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.
BBC. (2009, December 23). Pakistani eunuchs to have distinct gender. Accessed February
20, 2015, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8428819.stm
Bonoli, G., & Hinrichs, K. (2012). Statistical discrimination and employers’ recruitment: Practices
for low-skilled workers. European Societies, 14(3), 338–361.
Cáceres, C., Konda, K., Pecheny, M., Chatterjee, A., & Lyerla, R. (2006). Estimating the number
of men who have sex with men in low and middle income countries. Sexually Transmitted
Infections, 82(suppl 3), iii3–iii9.
Case, L. K., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2012). Alternating gender incongruity: A new neuropsychi-
atric syndrome providing insight into the dynamic plasticity of brain-sex. Medical Hypotheses,
78(5), 626–631.
Cserni, R. T., & Talmud, I. (2015). To know that you are not alone: The effect of internet usage on
LGBT youth’s social capital. Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies
in Media and Communications), 9, 161–182.
Elk, R., & Boehmer, U. (2015). The challenges remain: Needed next steps in alleviating the burden
of cancer in the LGBT community. In R. Elk & U. Boehmer (Eds.), Cancer and the LGBT
community (pp. 313–328). Heidelberg: Springer.
Faulkner, W. (2000). The power and the pleasure? A research agenda for “making gender stick” to
engineers. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 87–119.
Fielden, S. L., Davidson, M. J., Gale, A. W., & Davey, C. L. (2000). Women in construction: The
untapped resource. Construction Management and Economics, 18(1), 113–121.
Gagné, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over identity
formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender and Society, 11(4), 478–508.
Gorman, E. H. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation
in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Sociological Review, 70(4),
702–728.
Gurney, J. N. (1985). Not one of the guys: The female researcher in a male-dominated setting.
Qualitative Sociology, 8(1), 42–62.
Hall, C. (2009). Sticks and stones may break my bones but will the law ever protect me: Ensuring
educational access through federal prohibition of peer-on-peer harassment. Children’s Legal
Rights Journal, 29, 42.
Hall, S., Winlow, S., & Ancrum, C. (2013). Criminal identities consumer culture: Crime,
exclusion and the new culture of narcissm. London: Routledge.
Harrison, L. A., & Lynch, A. B. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role
orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 227–236.
Himsel, A. J., & Goldberg, W. A. (2003). Social comparisons and satisfaction with the division of
housework implications for men’s and women’s role strain. Journal of Family Issues, 24(7),
843–866.
Huebner, D. M., Rebchook, G. M., & Kegeles, S. M. (2004). Experiences of harassment,
discrimination, and physical violence among young gay and bisexual men. American Journal
of Public Health, 94(7), 1200–1203.
ICDDRB. (2008). Disentangling inequities in Bangladesh: A social exclusion and health analysis.
Background Paper for Social Exclusion Knowledge Network, 11, 3–6.
Inzlicht, M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2007). Running on empty neural signals for self-control failure.
Psychological Science, 18(11), 933–937.
Inzlicht, M., McKay, L., & Aronson, J. (2006). Stigma as ego depletion: How being the target of
prejudice affects self-control. Psychological Science, 17(3), 262–269.
Ishak, M. S. B. H., & Haneef, S. S. S. (2014). Sex reassignment technology: The dilemma of
transsexuals in Islam and Christianity. Journal of Religion and Health, 53(2), 520–537.
Karim, L. (2004). Democratizing Bangladesh State, NGOs, and Militant Islam. Cultural Dynam-
ics, 16(2–3), 291–318.
Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen-
der, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(4),
373–379.
Kenagy, G. P. (2005). Transgender health: Findings from two needs assessment studies in
Philadelphia. Health and Social Work, 30(1), 19–26.
Khairuddin, Y., Low, W. Y., & Wong, Y. L. (1987). Social and health review of transsexuals.
Unpublished paper presented at the Seminar mak nyah ke arah menentukan identiti dan status
mak nyah dalam masyarakat. Law Faculty, Universiti Malaya
Khaleeli, H. (2014). Hijra: India’s third gender claims its place in law. The Guardian. Accessed
April 20, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/16/india-third-gender-
claims-place-in-law
Khan, S. I., Hussain, M. I., Parveen, S., Bhuiyan, M. I., Gourab, G., et al. (2009). Living on the
extreme margin: Social exclusion of the transgender population (hijra) in Bangladesh. Journal
of Health, Population and Nutrition, 27(4), 441–451.
Lal, V. (1999). Not this, not that: The hijras of India and the cultural politics of sexuality. Social
Text, 61(4), 119–140.
Lerum, K. (2009). India officially recognizes third sex/gender. The Society Pages. Accessed
March 2, 2015, from http://thesocietypages.org/sexuality/2009/11/13/india-officially-recog
nizes-third-sexgender/
Looy, H., & Bouma, H. (2005). The nature of gender: Gender identity in persons who are
intersexed or transgendered. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33(3), 166–178.
Lopuch, V. S., & Davis, D. C. (2014). The role and value of diversity to learning organizations and
innovation. In N. D. Erbe (Ed.), Approaches to managing organizational diversity and inno-
vation (pp. 213–236). Hershey: IGI Global.
Low, W. (2009). Malaysian youth sexuality: Issues and challenges. Journal of the University of
Malaya Medical Centre, 12(1), 3–14.
Lynn, W. E. (2005, February 1). Neither here nor there: The legal dilemma of the transsexual
community in Malaysia. The Malaysian Bar. Accessed May 10, 2015, from http://www.
malaysianbar.org.my/gender_issues/neither_here_nor_there_the_legal_dilemma_of_the_trans
sexual_community_in_malaysia.html
Malaysiakini. (2012). Najib: No place in Malaysia for LGBTs. Accessed April 15, 2015, from
http://wvvw.malaysiakini.com/news/201913
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36(1), 38–56.
Moyeen, A., & West, B. (2014). Promoting CSR to foster sustainable development: Attitudes and
perceptions of managers in a developing country. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Adminis-
tration, 6(2), 97–115.
Murrell, A. J., Forte-Trammell, S., & Bing, D. (2008). Intelligent mentoring: How IBM creates
value through people, knowledge, and relationships. Armonk: IBM Press.
Nanda, S. (1986). The Hijras of India: Cultural and individual dimensions of an institutionalized
third gender role. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(3–4), 35–54.
Neal, C., & Davies, D. (2000). Issues in therapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
clients. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ng, E. (2011, July 19). Malay transsexual loses court bid to change gender. Yahoo News. Accessed
May 25, 2015, from http://news.yahoo.com/malay-transsexual-loses-court-bid-change-gender-
053645639.html
O’Flaherty, M., & Fisher, J. (2008). Sexual orientation, gender identity and international human
rights law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles. Human Rights Law Review, 8(2),
207–248.
O’Halloran, K. (2015). The adoption process in an Islamic context. The Politics of Adoption, 603–
635. Springer Netherlands.
Owoyemi, M. Y., & Sabri, A. Z. S. A. (2013). LGBT; nature or ideology: The view of a former
LGBT Practitioner in Malaysia. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 8(4), 104–111.
Parkes, T., Welch, C., Besla, K., Leavitt, S., Ziegler, M., et al. (2007). Freedom from violence:
Tools for working with trauma, mental health and substance use: Resource tool kit. Vancouver:
Ending Violence Association of British Columbia.
Peletz, M. G. (2002). Islamic modern: Religious courts and cultural politics in Malaysia.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Poteat, T., German, D., & Kerrigan, D. (2013). Managing uncertainty: A grounded theory of
stigma in transgender health care encounters. Social Science and Medicine, 84, 22–29.
Riccò, R., & Guerci, M. (2014). Diversity challenge: An integrated process to bridge the “imple-
mentation gap”. Business Horizons, 57(2), 235–245.
Roland, D., & Kahrl, H. F. (2011). Economic modeling study: Exploring an innovative market
scheme. California: Berkeley Economic Advising and Research.
Rothe, A. (2011). Popular trauma culture: Selling the pain of others in the mass media. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Rumbach, J., & Knight, K. (2014). Sexual and gender minorities in humanitarian emergencies. In
L. W. Roeder (Ed.), Issues of gender and sexual orientation in humanitarian emergencies
(pp. 33–74). Heidelberg: Springer.
Sabri, A. Z. S. A., Owoyemi, M. Y., & Mangsor, F. (2014). Leading by example: Causes and
treatment by an experienced LGBT counsellor. International Journal of Innovation and
Scientific Research, 10(2), 255–261.
Sahri, M., Murad, K., Sirajuddin, M. D. M., Adil, M. A. M., & Daud, N. M. (2014). Analyzing the
Islamic and legal awareness of the Muslim male students in Malaysia of the prohibition on
cross dressing. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 21(10), 1718–1723.
Sayah, R. (2010, June 2). Pakistan jails couple over gay marriage allegation. Cable News Network.
Accessed June 26, 2015, from http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/06/02/pakistan.
gay.marriage/index.html?_s¼PM:WORLD
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity “gender normals”,
transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender and Society, 23(4),
440–464.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to the change to work teams: The
influence of “anticipatory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1),
51–67.
Stenqvist, T. (2015). The social struggle of being HIJRA in Bangladesh-cultural aspiration
between inclusion and illegitimacy. Malmo: Malm€o h€ogskola/Kultur och samhälle.
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(3), 170–179.
Tabassum, S., & Jamil, S. (2014). Plight of marginalized: Educational issues of transgender
community in Pakistan. The Review of Arts and Humanities, 3(1), 107–119.
Teh, Y. K. (2001). Mak nyahs (male transsexuals) in Malaysia: The influence of culture and
religion on their identity. International Journal of Transgenderism, 5(3), 97–103.
Terri Chih-Yin, H. (2008). Enacting privacy and everydayness online: The case study of the
Spiteful Tots community. MPhil Thesis, University of York.
Van den Brink, M., Reufs, P., & Tigchelaar, J. (2015). Out of the box-domestic and private
international law aspects of gender registration. European Journal of Law Reform, 17(2),
283–293.
Vries, K. M. (2012). Intersectional identities and conceptions of the self: The experience of
transgender people. Symbolic Interaction, 35(1), 49–67.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Wurthmann, K. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2008). The stigmatization and
devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 33(1), 231–251.
Zimman, L. (2009). “The other kind of coming out”: Transgender people and the coming out.
Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Zulfakar, M. (2012). ASEAN leaders ink rights declaration. Accessed June 20, 2015, from https://
sg.news.yahoo.com/asean-leaders-ink-rights-declaration-060002372.html
Religious Workplaces: The Joys, Trials
and Tribulations of LGBT Clergy
Eric M. Rodriguez and Chana Etengoff
1 Introduction
The United States of America was largely founded in an effort to create a protected
space for religious and political freedom. While the original language of the
Declaration of Independence (1776) focused on the rights of man and initially
only extended to white men—Congress and the Supreme Court subsequently
extended many of these rights and protections to various minority groups. Yet,
while significant federal progress has been made to protect individuals from
employment discrimination based on race, gender, and dis/ability status—at the
time of this writing the Human Rights Campaign (2015) reported that employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal in 58 % of the country (29 states)
and gender identity related employment discrimination is legal in 64 % (32 states).
As of 2015, the more inclusive protections offered by the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) remain theoretical as congress has yet to pass
this legislation.
However, even with the many protections offered by ENDA, the rights of LGBT
religious employees in America remain unprotected by the proposed bill due to a
broad religious exemption. While the religious exemption was not featured in the
original bill, it was later introduced to address concerns that the proposed bill
violated First Amendment religious freedoms (Dabrowski 2014). However, legal
scholars have argued that the ENDA religious exemption extends beyond ministe-
rial exemptions outlined by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
E.M. Rodriguez, Ph.D. (*)

New York City College of Technology, City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, USA
e-mail: erodriguez@citytech.cuny.edu
C. Etengoff, Ph.D.
Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
e-mail: cetengoff@barnard.edu

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_11
182 E.M. Rodriguez and C. Etengoff
Commission that “allow religious organizations the freedom to discriminate in the

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

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

in America
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was established in 1988 with
a merger between the American Lutheran Church (ALC) and the Lutheran Church
in America (LCA)—forming one of the largest Mainline Protestant denominations
in the United States (Nezu et al. 2006; Holmen 2013). At present, the ELCA counts
almost 4,000,000 members (ELCA 2015; Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life
2008). Prior to the formation of the ELCA, ALC and LCA Lutherans had quite a
progressive history when it came to being supportive of LGBT issues and lay
members (see historical timeline in Table 1). For example, “Lutherans Concerned”
was formed in the 1970’s to provide support for gay and lesbian Lutherans and a
series of organizations were created to assist LGBT individuals who felt called into
Lutheran ministry. This culminated in the creation of Extraordinary Lutheran
Table 1 Key historical LGBT clergy events in both American Reform Judaism and the Evangel-
ical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
Reform Judaism ELCA
Year Key event Year Key event
1873 Rabbit Isaac Mayer Wise founded 1988 ELCA founded with the merger of
the Union for Reform Judaism the American Lutheran Church
(ALC) and the Lutheran Church in
America (LCA), creating the largest
Lutheran denomination in the USA
1977 CCAR passed a resolution that called 1989 ELCA Church Council published
for “legislation which decriminalizes Definitions and Guidelines for Dis-
homosexual acts between consenting cipline which stated that homosex-
adults, and prohibits discrimination ual genital activity constitutes
against them as persons.” conduct incompatible with ministe-
rial office
1977 Union for Reform Judaism passed a 1990 Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Minis-
resolution stating that “homosexual tries (LLGM) created to provide
persons are entitled to equal protec- financial support for LGBT
tion under the law” and affirmed Lutheran pastors. Leads to the extra
their opposition to “discriminating ordinum ordinations of non-celibate
against homosexuals.” gay and lesbian pastors (Jeff John-
son, Ruth Frost and Phyllis Zillhart)
in San Francisco
1988 Rabbi Stacy Offner became the first 1991 First of many resolutions passed by
lesbian Rabbi hired by a mainstream the ELCA’s Churchwide Assembly
Jewish synagogue (Shir Tikva in to welcome gays and lesbians while
Minnesota) vows of celibacy remain a require-
ment for out LGBT clergy
1990 Resolution on Homosexuality and 1993 Extraordinary Candidacy Project
the Rabbinate (ECP) formed to provide credentials
for LGBT Lutherans called to
ministry
2003 First transgender rabbinical student 2001 Church begin an 8 year study pro-
accepted to Hebrew Union College cess of whether or not to endorse
same sex marriage and to allow gays
and lesbians to serve as clergy
2003 Commission on Social Action of 2006 Rev. Megan Rohrer becomes the
Reform Judaism issued a resolution first ordained transgender pastor in
on the inclusion and acceptance of the ELCA
the transgender and bisexual
communities
2006 Rabbi Elliot Kukla became the first 2007 Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries
ordained transgender Rabbi (ELM) created by the merging of
the LLGM and the ECP. Mission is
to provide support for LGBT
Lutheran rostered clergy
2015 Commission on Social Action of 2009 ELCA votes to allow gays and les-
Reform Judaism added resolutions bians in committed relationships to
on the rights of transgender and serve as members of the clergy
gender non-conforming individuals
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Reform Judaism ELCA
Year Key event Year Key event
2015 CCAR appoints first lesbian leader, 2010 ELCA begins conducting “Rites of
Rabbi Denise Eger, stating “It’s Reception” to bring 46 removed gay
important for gay and lesbian Jews to and lesbian pastors back onto the
have positive religious role models” active clergy roster of the church
Currently Meetings scheduled to ratify “Rights 2013 Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin elected
of Transgender and Non-conforming ELCA’s first gay Bishop in the
Individuals.” Southwest California Synod
Note: Information compiled from Holmen (2013) and the Central Conference of American Rabbis’
digital archive (ccarnet.org)
Ministries (ELM) in 2007 whose mission is to provide financial, moral and social
support for LGBT Lutheran rostered clergy.
In 2009, the ELCA reached a landmark decision and the ordination of LGBT
clergy was approved at the annual Churchwide Assembly by the exact margin
necessary for the resolution to pass (Holmen 2013; Luo and Capecchi 2009;
Steinmetz 2009). Getting there was not an easy task, however. An 8 year “study
process”, beginning with the 2001 task force on human sexuality, aided and led to
this decision (Dart 2009). The 2001 task force led to years of debate and a rich
proliferation of ELCA writings arguing either for or against the proposed changes
(e.g., Childs 2003; Djupe et al. 2006; Glesne 2004; Hazel 2000; Olson and Cadge
2002; Rogers 2009). During this study process, charges of hypocrisy arose within
the church—why was it acceptable for laity to be LGBT but not for clergy? This
double-standard lasted for years and caused a lot of friction and problems for the
newly formed denomination, including LGBT clergy being removed from the
church roles and entire congregations being either censored and/or removed from
the church (Holmen 2013). Following the 2009 Churchwide Assembly’s decision in
favor of LGBT ordination, the ELCA atoned for these actions by conducting a
series of “Rites of Reception” in 2010 to bring defrocked LGBT pastors and
expelled congregations back into the fold (Goodstein 2010; Holmen 2013).
2.1 Notes on Transgender Clergy in the ELCA
The ELCA’s landmark 2009 decision to allow gays and lesbians in monogamous
same-sex relationships to be called as pastors into the church did not just have an
enormous impact on gay and lesbian clergy, but on transgender clergy as well. As a
result of this decision, in February 2014 the ELCA installed the Reverend Megan
Roherer (ordained in 2006) as the first out, transgender lead pastor of a congrega-
tion in San Francisco, California (Nahmod 2014). Reverend Roherer’s ordination
and installation represents an important step forward in advancing the employment
rights of transgender clergy and also illustrates the power of the progressive
Christian social justice message—especially when applied by a transgender pastor

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

double-standard within the church, as the ELCA’s Statement on Human Sexuality
also acknowledges dissenting, more politically and religiously conservative, view-
points as being equally valid, thus undermining their support of sexual and gender
minorities.
This church recognizes that, with conviction and integrity: On the basis of conscience-
bound belief, some are convinced that same-gender sexual behavior is sinful, contrary to
biblical teaching and their understanding of natural law. They believe same-gender sexual
behavior carries the grave danger of unrepentant sin. . . On the basis of conscience-bound
belief, some are convinced that homosexuality and even lifelong, monogamous, homosex-
ual relationships reflect a broken world in which some relationships do not pattern them-
selves after the creation God intended (p. 20).
The ELCA thus leaves open a large loophole where workplace discrimination
against transgender (as well as gay and lesbian) clergy is still implicitly permitted at
the local and regional level. Moreover, the prejudice underlying this language is not
in any way diminished by reframing such anti-LGBT bias as “conscious bound
belief.”
2.2 Workplace Issues for the ELCA’s LGBT Clergy
Workplace issues for LGBT clergy in the ELCA have changed radically as a result
of these major policy changes. However, many of the appointment decisions still
depend on the individual congregation, with liberal churches (e.g., West Coast,
Northeast) being more comfortable with LGBT clergy than more conservative
churches (e.g., South). As a result, shades of the ELCA’s original double-standard
regarding laity’s and clergy’s sexual identity still appear in the twenty-first century.
LGBT clergy in the ELCA are, however, able to mediate these conflicts by relying
on two key concepts from Martin Luther to guide them in their ecclesiastical
workplaces: Grace and Vocation (Holmen 2013). Sociocultural scholars refer to
this integration of religious values into contemporary life as a form of cultural tool
use—the process of appropriating and modifying socially constructed and histori-

cally situated physical, symbolic, or abstract means in order to effect change
(Etengoff and Daiute 2013, 2014, 2015).
Martin Luther’s concept of Grace is based on the idea that individuals are not
saved because of what they do or not do (i.e., the concept of works), but because
God loved humans so much that He sacrificed his only son for our sins. Martin
Luther argued that all human beings are saved, because Jesus Christ was born,
crucified, died and resurrected (McCain 2006)—something an out gay ELCA
pastor, known by the first author, referred to as “God’s Love at Christ’s Expense.”
Luther’s concept of Grace (for all) has become an important tool for more progres-
sive members of the ELCA and LGBT Lutheran ministers to create a more
egalitarian and supportive workplace environment regardless of the pastor’s sexual
orientation or gender identity (Holmen 2013).
The concept of Vocation was also important for Martin Luther as he believed
that God could be found in the everyday labors of everyday people. Vocation is a
person’s “calling, the work that individuals are called to do”—simply defined as
how one uses their secular occupation to serve others and (above all) to serve God
(McCain 2006). For many LGBT clergy, what they do is their vocation—they are
called to the ministry to do God’s work, regardless of their sexual orientation or
their gender identity. An LGBT Lutheran Christian vocation can thus create a
powerful and positive counter-narrative to the religious right’s anti-LGBT (and
arguably anti-Christian) message.
3 LGBT Clergy1 in Reform Judaism
Sociocultural scholars approach religion as a practice-based cultural phenome-

non—individually and communally mediated in response to the variations of
everyday environments, social interactions, and sociopolitical contexts such as
LGBT rights (Belzen 1999; Etengoff 2011, Etengoff and Daiute 2013, 2014,
2015). Similar to the development of the ELCA, Reform Movement within Judaism
gives voice to this multifaceted exchange between the individual, their religious
community and sociopolitical contexts (e.g., see historical timeline in Table 1).
While the Movement originally began as a splintered minority, it is now the most
common affiliation at 35 % of all American Jews—a significant percentage con-
sidering that only 50 % of American Jews affiliate with a synagogue at all (Alpert
et al. 2001; Pew Research Center 2013). The Reform Movement is also distinct in
that it was the first Jewish movement to welcome gay and lesbian community
members and clergy (e.g., rabbis and cantors) (Alpert et al. 2001).
1
In most forms of Judaism, including the Reform Movement, “clergy” includes both Rabbi’s
and Cantors. Due to space considerations, only the experiences of Rabbi’s will discussed here—we
leave consideration of LGBT Cantors to future work in this area.
Religious historians largely agree that the American Reform Movement was
born out of the newly emancipated and enlightened Jew’s desire to bridge the
“marginality between his religious culture and secular order” (Steinberg 1965,
p. 129) coupled with the synagogue’s inability to enforce social sanctions (e.g.,
fines, communal censure) in nineteenth century America (Steinberg 1965). The
Pittsburg Platform of 1885 codified this new movement by reinventing Judaism as a
“progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason.”
To this end, only the moral laws (e.g., charity) and those ceremonies that “elevated
and sanctified” (e.g., elements of the Sabbath) were retained and all other biblical
commandments were viewed as “reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age”—all
that was not “adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization” was rejected
as it was foreign to the “mental and spiritual state” of the contemporary Jew (e.g.,
kosher dietary laws, family purity, religious attire, etc.) (Jacob 1985). At its
founding, the premise of Reform Judaism was to align Jewish values with the
larger social norms and systems of nineteenth century America (Steinberg 1965)—
the sociocultural revolution was focused on Judaism rather than upon (secular)
society at large. It was only after the moral devastation of the Holocaust that reform
rabbis and theologians such as Rabbi Emil Fackenheim, began consciously
redirecting the revolutionary focus of the Reform Movement upon global social
justice issues—the Reform Movement’s primary focus was no longer to emulate the
secular world, but rather to heal, mend and repair moral lapses (Rosenthal 2005).
The resurrection of the Talmudic and Kabbalistic principle of Tikkun Olam [com-
pleting God’s creation] was born in twentieth century America and the Reform
movement gathered under the banner of Tikkun Olam to fight for peace, civil rights,
environmental reform and LGBT rights (Rosenthal 2005).
However, given the many voices within the movement, it took some time before
the progressive Tikkun Olam call for action was formally codified as a foundational
principle of the Reform Movement. While the Movement did not reference the term
in their first post-Holocaust platform of religious principles in 1976—Tikkun Olam
became unequivocally revived in 1998 with the “Ten Principles of Reform Juda-
ism” and “social and action and social justice” was reaffirmed as “a central
prophetic focus of traditional Reform belief and practices” (Rosenthal 2005,
p. 237). The statement defines Tikkun Olam as “increasing the spiritual dimensions
of our material existence in ways that can repair our shattered world [via public and
private initiatives] to work for the cause of the poor and oppressed as the Torah
commands us, and for the protection of the earth. . .to help redeem the new century
in modernity, striving to transform it into a realization of Israel’s great messianic
hope for the establishment of truth and justice, for moral and spiritual discipline,
compassion and integrity, and at long last, a world repaired, a world at peace”
(Union of American Hebrew Congregations 1998). The Ten Principles list Tikum
Olam as the third principle, preceded only by the reaffirmation of monotheism and
the need to integrate Jewish values into modern society (Union of American
Hebrew Congregations 1998). The last principle noted reaffirms the “equality of
all people of God. . .regardless of gender, age, belief, physical condition, or sexual
orientation [as they] are all created in the image of the Holy One” (Union of
American Hebrew Congregations 1998). Moreover, the document concludes with

the Central Conference of American (Reform) Rabbis’ (CCAR) promise to help all
children and people of God “fulfill their divine potential to contribute to a world
transformed.” This overarching theme of social justice was later reiterated in an
abbreviated form in 1999 at the CCAR’s Pittsburg Convention (i.e., the Pittsburg
Principles, see Alpert et al. 2001).
3.1 Reform Judaism and LGBT Rights
The gap between the evolution of post-Holocaust social justice thought and a
codified social justice policy was particularly relevant to the Reform Movement’s
stance on LGBT rights. For example, a 1981 CCAR “responsa” regarding the
“Homosexual in Leadership Positions” vacillated between acknowledging the
discrimination faced by homosexuals and the Reform Movements’ emphasis on
civil rights (e.g., 1977 CCAR resolution to decriminalize homosexuality) on the one
side and biblical prohibitions and the traditional role of the leader on the other side.
The responsa ultimately concluded that “overt heterosexual behavior or overt
homosexual behavior which is considered objectionable by the community disqual-
ifies the person involved from leadership positions in the Jewish community. We
reject this type of individual as a role model within that Jewish community. We
cannot recommend such an individual as a role model nor should he/she be placed
in a position of leadership or guidance for children of any age (CCAR 1981).”
While the original question only stated that the individual was a “known homosex-
ual” and “quiet open about their homosexuality”—the implication was clear; a
disclosure of a non-heterosexual identity was viewed as an admission of morally
deviant behavior.
A little less than a decade later, the implied CCAR prohibition against religious
leaders’ sexual orientation disclosure was explicitly revoked in the 1990 Resolution
on Homosexuality and the Rabbinate (full text can be accessed via CCARnet.org’s
digital archive). The Resolution began with the acknowledgment that “. . .the
inability of most gay and lesbian rabbis to live openly as homosexuals is deeply
painful. . .” (CCAR 1990). Moreover, the committee urged “that all rabbis, regard-
less of sexual orientation, be accorded the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation
that they have chosen”. However, the Resolution regretfully admitted that a rabbi’s
sexual orientation disclosure remained “a personal decision that can have grave
professional consequences”, potentially impacting their “ability to serve a given
community effectively” (CCAR 1990). The Resolution was further limited as the
CCAR could not guarantee the tenure of LGBT rabbis. The resolution ultimately
concluded by acknowledging the contradiction between congregants’ generally
positive views regarding LGBT civil rights and “the unique position of the rabbi
as a spiritual leader and Judaic role model [that] make[s] the acceptance of gay or
lesbian rabbis an intensely emotional and potentially divisive issue” (CCAR 1990).
The controversy within and between Reform congregations regarding LGBT clergy
was aired and a call was made for community “education and dialogue” (CCAR
1990).
It was only when the values2 of Tikkun Olam became formally integrated into
Reform identity in 1999 and when LGBT rights (e.g., gay marriage) gained more
legislative traction in the twenty-first Century that the integration of LGBT clergy
within the Reform Movement gained momentum, culminating with the first
appointment of a lesbian president to the CCAR in 2015, Rabbi Denise Egger. In
addition to this appointment representing the newly found employment protections
for LGBT Reform clergy, it also addressed the need for LGBT Reform Jews to have
positive religious role models.
3.2 The Rights of Transgender Reform Rabbis
The rights and protections afforded transgender individuals pursuing religious

leadership positions within the Reform Movement have only recently begun to
evolve. For example, the first transgender rabbinical student was accepted to the
Reform Movement’s flagship institution, Hebrew Union College, in 2003—
followed by the first transgender ordination in 2006. These ordination decisions
lead to the 2015 Commission on Social Action in Reform Judaism, a joint instru-
mentality of the Union for Reform Judaism and the CCAR, on the inclusion and
acceptance of transgender and bisexual individuals (full text can be accessed via
CCARnet.org’s digital archive). The commission focused on the disparity between
sexual and gender minority rights with the statement that “while progress has been
made in bringing greater equality and acceptance of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in
North American society, too often transgender and gender non-conforming indi-
viduals are forced to live as second-class citizens” (Commission on Social Action in
Reform Judaism 2015). The commission then continued by acknowledging that
“the non-discrimination statement of the Rabbinical Placement Commission does
not yet require that congregations and other organizations seeking a rabbi commit
to avoiding discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” After noting the
disparity between religious policies and the Movement’s more liberal political
model, the commission grounded their call for gender minority inclusion in the
biblical principle that all of humanity is created in b’tzelem Elohim (the Divine
image)—”from this bedrock principle stems our commitment to defend any indi-
vidual from the discrimination that arises from ignorance, fear, insensitivity, or
hatred. Knowing that members of the transgender and gender non-conforming
communities are often singled out for discrimination, high rates of violence, and
2
The Reform Movement’s traditional exchange between secular and religious values was embod-
ied by the committee’s review of medical and psychological studies regarding the origin of sexual
identity, legal literature, and documents “prepared by Christian groups grappling with the status of
homosexuals and homosexuality within their own denominations with a specific focus on the
question of ordination” (CCAR 1990).
even murder, we are reminded of the Torah’s injunction, “do not stand idly while
your neighbor bleeds” (Leviticus 19:16).” Moreover, many within the Reform
Movement believe that there is more to be done to protect gender minority rights
within the Movement and follow-up meetings continue to be scheduled. To date,
there have been over 12 resolutions regarding LGBT rights within Reform Judaism
addressing issues of LGBT clergy, transgender conversion, same-sex marriage and
same-sex congregations.
The above review of the Reform Movement’s and Evangelical Lutheran
Church’s policies regarding LGBT clergy offer an exemplar of how larger political
movements and religious values interact—creating social revolutions in each
domain. Sociocultural psychologists refer to this process as cultural mediation—
and scholars such as Vygotsky (1978) root this understanding of human develop-
ment within the Marxist principles of an individual’s power to create social change.
While the media continues to emphasize the religious Fundamentalists’ and Con-
servatives’ unyielding responses to the needs of spiritual and religious LGBT
individuals, sociocultural and positive psychologists have embarked upon the
study of how the seeming contradictions between ancient religious and contempo-
rary humanitarian values can be reconciled and integrated (e.g., Etengoff and
Daiute 2014, 2015; Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000; Rodriguez and Vaughan
2013). Emerging studies of LGBT-friendly faith communities and the process of
religious and sexual identity integration therefore offer a progressive model for
change as they acknowledge the complexity of addressing LGBT clergy’s employ-
ment rights within religious congregations.
4 Theoretical Considerations and Suggestions for Future

Research
Both the ELCA and Reform Judaism permit LGBT clergy in monogamous relation-
ships to serve in ministerial positions. However, as progressive as these two
denominations are, both explicitly state that the decision to hire an out LGBT
clergy-person is left entirely up to an individual congregation. What does this mean
from an employment perspective? What theories best address the unique individual,
organizational and community workplace issues faced by LGBT clergy serving in
progressive congregations? Space considerations do not allow us to consider the
full spectrum of theoretical possibility. Other than Vygotsky’s social change theory
(1978) which we have already mentioned, we limit our discussion here to two
theories that we find particularly applicable to the topic at hand: Coming Out
Growth (Seligman and Csikzentmihalyi 2000) and empowerment (Perkins and
Zimmerman 1995).
4.1 Coming Out Growth
Coming Out Growth (COG) is a term that falls under the auspices of Seligman and
Csikzentmihalyi’s (2000) three-pillar model of positive psychology (character
strengths and virtues, subjective experience and positive institutions). COG is
defined as the self-perceived growth directly attributed to the unique experiences
and identity development of sexual and gender minorities (Rodriguez and Vaughan
2013). Thus turning “coming out” from the difficult, stressful process that is
typically presented in the social scientific literature into an opportunity for personal
advancement, increased self-confidence and improved psychological health. The
coming out process can thus be reframed as an opportunity for LGBT individuals to
become more honest and authentic, both internally and relationally.
COG can also be understood as a form of Stress Related Growth (SRG); the idea
that stressful life events can potentially lead to positive developmental outcomes
such as enhanced self-esteem and improved coping abilities (Vaughan and
Rodriguez 2014). Within the context of the development of a stress-related growth
measure for sexual minorities, Vaughan and Waehler (2010) identified five domains
of growth that contribute to forming a healthy sexual minority identity: (1) mental
health/wellbeing, (2) authenticity/honesty, (3) social/relational gains, (4) identity-
related growth, and (5) advocacy/generativity. Combined together, COG, SRG and
these five general domains of growth provide a powerful foundation with which to
explore the workplace experiences of LGBT clergy as pivotal contexts for individ-
ual and cultural development.
For example, Holmen (2013), in his book titled Queer Clergy, discusses the
significance of the “Ministry of Presence”—the cultural impact (i.e., social/rela-
tional gains, advocacy/generativity) of openly LGBT pastors and lay members (i.e.,
authenticity/honesty). In the early days of Lutherans Concerned, the visibility of
LGBT pastors and lay members (i.e., coming-out), was a powerful avenue for
advocacy that directly led to the ELCA’s 2009 landmark decision to ordain
LGBT pastors. Alpert et al. (2001) make similar arguments regarding the positive
impact of the first gay and lesbian rabbis’ sexual orientation disclosures in the
1970s—at both the individual (i.e., mental health/wellbeing and identity-related
growth) and communal (i.e., social/relational gains, advocacy/generativity) levels.
LGBT clergy’s visibility gave them power, and their new found power enabled
them to reshape their respective movements into a more inclusive religious envi-
ronment for LGBT people of faith—leading to a safer workplace for LGBT clergy.
4.2 Empowerment
The community psychology theory of empowerment is an underutilized theory in

the social scientific study of LGBT people of faith, which is puzzling as this theory
can inform our understanding of LGBT clergy’s experience at both individual and
organizational levels. Empowerment is defined as a psychological mechanism

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

widely between and within denominations—due to both legal loopholes and insti-
tutional policies. Thus elements of discrimination still remain, even in progressive
congregations. Perhaps these experiences of discrimination and invisibility are
most acute for bisexual clergy as bisexuals who marry same-sex partners tend to
get covered under gay and lesbian issues, while bisexuals who marry opposite-sex
partners can potentially “pass” as part of a heterosexual couple. Unfortunately, the
lack of information in this chapter regarding bisexual clergy’s experiences is
reflective of the cultural silencing of the issue across denominations—and further
work is needed to understand the distinct experiences of this community.
America’s diverse sociocultural landscape surrounding issues of religion and
sexuality presents a rich opportunity for researchers to understand LGBT clergy’s
experiences from a variety of perspectives, including workplace and employment
issues. In addition, multiple theoretical perspectives lend themselves to the study of
LGBT clergy workplace experiences in progressive Judeo-Christian denomina-
tions, such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978), Coming Out Growth
(Seligman and Csikzentmihalyi 2000) and Empowerment Theory (Perkins and
Zimmerman 1995). When these theories are applied together, the appointment of
LGBT clergy can be understood as a case study on how individuals can agentively
mediate powerful institutions, thereby impacting their own as well as their
community’s empowerment and development. This framework is accessible to
both qualitative and quantitative researchers—both of which are needed to supple-
ment the extant historical and autobiographical work. It is critical that both
employers (i.e., religious institution) and employees (i.e., LGBT clergy) have
access to research that systematically assesses and describes what is actually
going on in LGBT clergy’s lives in order to understand current and predict future
trends.
References
Alpert, R. T., Elwell, E. S. L., & Idelson, S. (Eds.). (2001). Lesbian rabbis: The first generation.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Barnes, S. L. (2013). To welcome or affirm: Black Clergy views about homosexuality, inclusivity,
and church leadership. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(10), 1409–1433.
Belzen, J. A. (1999). Religion as embodiment: Cultural-psychological concepts and methods in the
study of conversion among “Bevindelijken.”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38
(2), 236–253.
Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) (1981). American Reform Responsa 14: Homo-
sexuals in leadership positions (Vol. XCI, pp. 67–69). Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://
www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=781
Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR). (1990). Resolution on homosexuality and the
Rabbinate. Accessed March 30, 2015, from https://ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/resolutions/1990/
homosexuality-and-the-rabbinate-1990/
Childs, J. M. (Ed.). (2003). Faithful conversation: Christian perspectives on homosexuality.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
Commission on Social Action in Reform Judaism. (2015). The rights of transgender and gender
non-conforming individuals. Accessed March 30, 2015, from https://ccarnet.org/rabbis-speak/
resolutions/all/rights-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-indiv/
Dabrowski, J. (2014). The exception that doesn’t prove the rule: Why congress should narrow
ENDA’s religious exemption to protect the rights of LGBT employees. American University
Law Review, 63(6), 1957–1957.
Dart, J. (2009). Study process aided Goods gay breakthrough. Christian Century, 126(19), 14–15.
Djupe, P. A., Olson, L. R., & Gilbert, C. P. (2006). Whether to adopt statements on homosexuality
in two denominations: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(4),
609–621.
ELCA. (2009). A social statement on human sexuality: Gift and trust. Accessed March 30, 2015,
from http://www.elca.org/en/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality
ELCA. (2015). Evangelical Lutheran Church in America website. Accessed March 30, 2015, from
http://www.elca.org/News-and-Events/ELCA-Facts
Etengoff, C. (2011). An Exploration of religious gender differences amongst Jewish-American
emerging adults of different socio-religious subgroups. Archive for the Psychology of Religion,
33(3), 371–391.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2013). Sunni-Muslim American religious development during emerg-
ing adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(6), 690–714.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2014). Family members’ uses of religion in post—Coming-out
conflicts with their gay relative. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(1), 33–43.
Etengoff, C., & Daiute, C. (2015). Clinicians’ perspectives of religious families’ and gay men’s
negotiation of sexual orientation disclosure and prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(3),
394–426.
Fletcher, B. (1990). Clergy under stress: A study of homosexual and heterosexual clergy in the
Church of England. Woonsocket, RI: Mowbray Publishing.
Glesne, D. N. (2004). Understanding homosexuality: Perspectives for the local church. Minne-
apolis: Kirk House.
Goodstein, L. (2010, July 26). Lutherans offer warm welcome to gay pastors but divisions remain
in Church. New York Times. Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://nyti.ms/18XZAlP
Hazel, D. (2000). Witness: Gay and lesbian clergy reporting from the front. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox.
Holmen, R. W. (2013). Queer Clergy. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press.
Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Resources: Employment non-discrimination act. Accessed
March 30, 2015, from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/employment-non-discrimination-act
Jacob, W. (Ed.). (1985). The changing world of Reform Judaism: The Pittsburgh Platform in
retrospect: Papers presented on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Pittsburgh
Platform, February, 1985 and The proceedings of 1885. New York, NY: Rodef Shalom
Congregation.
Luo, M., & Capecchi, C. (2009, August 22). Lutheran group eases limits on gay clergy. New York
Times. Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/us/22lutherans.
html
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community
settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5),
631–656.
McCain, P. T. (2006). Concordia: The Lutheran confessions: A readers edition of the Book of
Concord. St. Louis, MO: Concordia.
Murray, P. M. (2008). Life in paradox: The story of gay Catholic priest. London: Circle
Publishing.
Nahmod, D. E. (2014, February 27). Lutherans install trans pastor. Bay Area Reporter. Accessed
March 30, 2015, from http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec¼news&article¼69518
Nezu, C. M., Farley, D. E., & Nezu, A. M. (2006). Lutherans. In E. T. Dowd & S. L. Nielson
(Eds.), The psychologies in religion: Working with the religious client (pp. 69–85). New York,
NY: Springer.
Olson, L. R., & Cadge, W. (2002). Talking about homosexuality: The views of Mainline Protestant
clergy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(1), 153–167.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569–579.
Perry, T. D. (1990). Don’t be afraid anymore: The story of Reverend Troy Perry and the
Metropolitan Community Churches. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008). United States religious landscape survey.
Accessed March 30, 2015, from http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-land
scape-study-full.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2013). A portrait of Jewish Americans. Accessed March 26 and 30, 2015
from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/
Robinson, V. G. (2008). In the eye of the storm: Swept to the center by God. New York, NY:
Seabury.
Rodriguez, E. M. (2010). At the intersection of church and gay: A review of the psychological
research on gay and lesbian Christians. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(1), 5–38.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Follins, L. D. (2012). Did God make me this way? Expanding psychological
research on queer religiosity and spirituality to include intersex and transgender individuals.
Psychology and Sexuality, 3(3), 214–225.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious
identity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive church. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 333–347.
Rodriguez, E. M., & Vaughan, M. D. (2013). Stress-related growth in the lives of lesbian and gay
people of faith. In J. Sinnott (Ed.), Positive psychology and adult motivation (pp. 291–307).
New York, NY: Springer.
Rogers, J. (2009). Jesus, the bible and homosexuality: Explode the myths, heal the Church.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Rosenthal, G. S. (2005). Tikkun ha-Olam: The metamorphosis of a concept*. The Journal of
Religion, 85(2), 214–240.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 55(1), 5–34.
Steinberg, S. (1965). Reform Judaism: The origin and evolution of a “church movement”. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5(1), 117–129.
Steinmetz, D. (2009, September 10). Lutherans reverse active gay clergy ban. Quest: Wisconsin’s
Gay News Leader, 16(1), 4.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations. (1998, August). Ten principles for Reform Judaism:
Preamble: Who are we reform Jews? New York, NY: Reform Judaism Magazine. Accessed
March 30, 2015, from http://reformjudaismmag.net/rjmag-90s/1198tp.html
Vaughan, M. D., & Rodriguez, E. M. (2014). LGBT strengths: Incorporating positive psychology
into theory, research, training and practice. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 1(4), 325–334.
Vaughan, M. D., & Waehler, C. W. (2010). Coming out growth: Conceptualizing and assessing
stress-related growth associated with coming out as gay or lesbian. Journal of Adult Develop-
ment, 17(3), 94–109.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society (Trans. M. Cole). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, M. (1994). Stranger at the gate: To be gay and Christian in America. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Whitehead, A. L. (2013). Gendered organizations and inequality regimes: Gender, homosexuality
and inequality within religious congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52
(3), 476–493.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1996). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community
levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), The handbook of community psychol-
ogy. New York, NY: Plenum.
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT
Workers in Thailand
Busakorn Suriyasarn
1 Introduction
Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) has
been recognized in international law, and developments in recent years have led to
increased focus on the prevalence of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transsexual (LGBT) persons around the world. While some countries have
adopted legal provisions prohibiting discrimination against LGBT persons, most
countries have not.
LGBT workers face discrimination in various aspects in the job market through-
out the employment cycle. There is a growing concern within governments and
international trade union federations regarding violations of the rights of LGBT
persons. However, specific information about discrimination against LGBT
workers is not available in many countries, in particular developing countries like
Thailand.
As part of a series of country studies that examines the discrimination faced by
LGBT people at work, the International Labour Organization (ILO) commissioned
a study to map the patterns of discrimination faced by LGBT persons in Thailand’s
world of work. (Other countries in the country study series include Argentina, Costa
Rica, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Montenegro, and South Africa.)
B. Suriyasarn, Ph.D. (*)

Bangkok, Thailand
e-mail: od.busakorn@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_12
198 B. Suriyasarn
2 Research Methodology
2.1 Research Aim and Approach
The research was the first major study in Thailand that focused on discrimination
against LGBT workers and therefore was exploratory in approach. It aimed to
identify key issues and patterns of discrimination in the employment and occupa-
tion of Thai LGBT persons for policy considerations and recommendations. The
qualitative research included two components, legal review and field research, and
was conducted in close collaboration with the Thai LGBT networks and the ILO
tripartite partners.
The legal review involved analysis of existing Thai national laws, regulations
and policies that guarantee LGBT rights to equality and non-discrimination, dis-
criminatory provisions thereof, as well as gaps in legal protection for LGBT rights,
and recent legislative and policy changes to promote gender equality and LGBT
rights.
The field research involved in-depth interviews, focus groups and meetings in
four cities with over 80 individuals from LGBT organizations, academics, and
representatives of the ILO tripartite partners from the government, workers’ and
employers’ organizations, and civil society.
2.2 Field Data Collection
Field data were collected during June 2012 and February 2013. In-depth interviews
and focus group discussions were conducted in four cities, including the capital
Bangkok, the city of Chiang Mai and the industrial town of Lamphun in the North,
and the city of Pattaya in the East.
Twenty-one (21) in-depth interviews were conducted with 29 individuals. Ten
(10) focus groups were conducted with 54 respondents aged 20–54 from various
sub-groups within the Thai LGBT community, with 12 email interviews to supple-
ment data from the focus groups. The research respondent profiles are presented in
Table 1.
In addition, the author participated in two meetings with a number of LGBT
individuals and government representatives and four seminars on LGBT rights.
The personal interviews, focus groups and supplementary email interviews were
provided and arranged with the assistance of the following organizations:
• Lesbian organizations: Anjaree Group, Sapaan.
• Organizations supporting gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM):
Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand (RSAT), Bangkok Rainbow Organization
(BRO), Mplusþ.
Discrimination and Marginalization of LGBT Workers in Thailand 199
Table 1 Research respondent profiles

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

gender sex workers), Thai Transgender Alliance (TGA), Trans Female Associ-
ation of Thailand (TFAT).
• Foundation for SOGI Rights and Justice (FOR-SOGI).
• Teeranat Kanjanauksorn Foundation (TKF, advocating gender justice).
• The Poz Home Center (supporting people living with HIV).
• Service Workers In Group (SWING, supporting sex workers).
• Women’s Health Advocacy Foundation (WHAF).
• People’s Empowerment Foundation.
Efforts were made to obtain balanced perspectives from respondents, who came
from all walks of life and various educational and social backgrounds. While the focus
groups were conducted in four provinces, the respondents came from all regions of
Thailand. They ranged from university students and university-educated urban pro-
fessionals and gender/LGBT rights advocates, to low-income workers and sex workers,
to less educated, unemployed/underemployed persons in rural and urban areas.
2.3 National Validation of Findings
The research findings were validated at a national workshop on 4 June 2014,

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

tionnaire respondents identified themselves as LGBT. The majority of the respon-
dents (78 %) said they were not surprised by the findings. Nearly half (43 %) said
the findings reflected their own experience and 78 % the experience of LGBT
people they knew. As high as 87 % of self-identified LGBT respondents said the
findings reflected their own experience and others in their LGBT communities.
Some self-identified heterosexual respondents commented that they were surprised
by the findings because they were unaware of the problems before, especially the
extent of discrimination against trans women (MTF transgender persons).
The research findings also confirmed findings of the national participatory
review and analysis in Thailand under the “Being LGBT in Asia initiative”
supported by United National Development Programme (UNDP) and United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), in particular that discrimination
against LGBT people in Thailand starts before employment, that transgender
persons face the severest discrimination due to their visibility, and that LGBT
people are pressured to hide their diverse gender identities at work or face lack of
career progress (UNDP-USAID 2014).
2.4 Data Limitations
The data tend to favor younger, urban, educated LGBT populations. Despite efforts
to obtain interviews with older LGBT respondents, most active LGBT organiza-
tions tend to involve the younger LGBT generation and most active LGBT indi-
viduals who agreed to participate in the study were in their twenties and thirties, and
some in their forties. As a result, the information received is somewhat skewed
toward younger LGBT persons in the early and middle stages of their career. This
was rectified to some extent by supplementary email interviews with older
respondents.
As most interviews and focus groups were conducted in large cities, there is a
slight skew toward vocational- and university-educated, urban LGBT population in
white-collar and non-governmental jobs. This is particularly true for the lesbian
group. Supplementary data were added for balance from a master’s thesis on
“tomboy” factory workers in an industrial estate in a rural province of Lamphun
in Northern Thailand.
No concrete good practice examples on promoting employment of LGBT
workers and gender diversity by Thai employers were reported by the research
respondents. While efforts were made to obtain inputs from representatives of
employers’ organizations, perspectives of employers are limited in this study.
3 Findings
The research findings are summarized in two parts: 3.1 protection for LGBT rights
under Thai law; and 3.2 reality of LGBT discrimination in Thailand’s world of
work, which includes key observations and patterns of discrimination experienced
by Thai LGBT workers in employment and occupation.
3.1 Protection of LGBT Rights Under Thai Law

3.1.1 Equality Protection and Anti-discrimination Provisions
Thai law does not criminalize homosexuality. Sodomy was decriminalized in 1956.
However, legal protection of LGBT rights in Thailand has been relatively limited.
In general the Thai legal system strictly and explicitly identifies persons in the law
only by the male and female genders. Laws and regulations that discriminate
against LGBT persons still exist even if there have been some positive legislative
progress in recent years to ensure equal rights between men and women and to
recognize LGBT rights.
Until very recently there was no Thai law that recognized the rights of persons of
diverse sexualities. There is also no specific anti-discrimination law covering
employment and occupation. Thai LGBT communities have actively advocated
for more legal recognition and protection of their rights with some success.
The two previous constitutions of Thailand (1997 and 2007) guaranteed equality
for all persons and between men and women. Section 30 of the Constitution of
Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007), abrogated by the 22 May 2014 coup d’état, prohibited
discrimination on the ground of sex among the twelve prohibited grounds. LGBT
advocates lobbied unsuccessfully due to objections from conservative lawmakers to
include “sexual diversity” as a prohibited ground in the anti-discrimination provi-
sion. However, they negotiated to have protection against discrimination based on
“sexual identity,” “gender” and “sexual diversity” annotated as inclusive in the
ground of sex in the accompanying Intentions of the Constitution which provided
guidelines for application. The Interim Constitution of Thailand imposed by the
military junta since 22 July 2014 contains no gender equality protection or anti-
discrimination provisions. The latest, military-supported draft Constitution of
Thailand expected to be put to a referendum in August 2016 has no mention
of gender diveristy, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Persons of diverse sexualities were recognized for the first time in Thai law in
the November 2012 National Social Welfare Promotion Commission (NSWPC)
Regulation, issued under the 2007 amendment of the Social Welfare Promotion Act
B.E. 2546 (2003). The 2012 NSWPC regulation identifies “persons of diverse
sexualities” as one of the 13 target population groups requiring assistance to access
social services. It gives comprehensive definitions of LGBT identities, including
202 B. Suriyasarn
homosexuals (gay men and lesbian women, including toms); bisexuals; transgender
persons (Thai: khon kham phet, katoeys, sao praphet song, ying kham phet);
intersex persons; and queer persons (Royal Gazette 2012, November 16). LGBT
advocates provided extensive input to the drafting of the Regulation which sets out
key measures to increase opportunity in employment, education and participation in
policymaking, among others.
In recent years gender expressions and identities have become diversely identi-
fied in Thai society. Besides common English terms such as “gay”, “lesbian,”
“bisexual,” “transgender” and “intersex” adopted into usage in the Thai language
with additional nuances, there are many specific Thai terms for various gender
expressions and identities in the Thai context:
• “Gay” is used exclusively with men who are attracted to men. Thai women who
are attracted to women are not referred to as “gay women,” but “tom,” “di,”
“les,” or ying rak ying, literally “women who love women.” Gay men are also
called chai rak chai, “men who love men.” The latter two terms are
relatively new.
• “Lesbian” is used to refer to women who are attracted to women but is generally
not favored by Thai “women who love women” because it is perceived to carry a
negative connotation that lesbians are mentally abnormal. However, many
lesbian women refer to themselves simply as “les.”
• “Bi” is an informal Thai term for “bisexual” used as in English, although few
Thais openly identify themselves as bisexual.
• “Tom,” from English “tomboy,” refers to a woman with a masculine gender
expression/identity who is attracted to women, often but not always, a “di.”
• “Di,” from English “lady,” refers to a woman with a feminine gender expression/
identity who is attracted to women, often but not always, a “tom.”
• “TG,” shortened from “transgender,” is a new term of self-identification among
Thai transgender activists and members of the male-to-female (MTF) trans
community.
• “Katoey” is an old but still widely used Thai term referring to a person who was
born male but has a feminine appearance, expression and behavior more con-
sistent with that of a female person. The term has historical meaning as “her-
maphrodite,” which medically means a person who has both male and female
sexual organs, and historically used to mean either a MTF or female-to-male
(FTM) transsexual person. In current usage, katoey refers exclusively to MTF
trans persons. Some MTF trans women do not favor this term and find it
derogatory, while those who take pride in their unique, in-between gender
identity of katoey embraces it.
• “Sao praphet song,” literally “woman/women of the second category,” refers to
katoeys and trans women. This term is widely acceptable to MTF trans persons.
• “Tut,” from Tootsie, the Dustin Hoffman film, is equivalent for the English term
“fag,” or “faggot.” This adopted term is widely used but highly pejorative for
gay men, katoeys and MTF trans people, although some gay men among the
younger generation may embrace it and use it subversively. However, in general

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

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

rules. Some discriminatory provisions have been addressed, while others remain.
Until 2012 transgender/transsexual males were still officially described as
“mentally ill” as the basis of an exemption from mandatory military conscription.
The wording “permanent mental disorder” was commonly recorded on the reserved
military service exemption document, known as Sor Dor 43, for exempted trans
persons but who are still required to report for compulsory military draft along with
all 21-year-old Thai males. Sor Dor 43 is often required for Thai men in job
applications as proof of military service or exemption thereof, resulting in many
MTF trans persons with such a document being rejected or deterred from applying
for formal jobs.
Thai LGBT networks heavily lobbied the Ministry of Defense to discontinue
certifying the Sor Dor 43 documents with the “mental disorder” wording. The
military agreed in March 2006 but refused to revise previously issued papers. The
real change came in September 2011, following a court order in a case filed by a
27-year-old transgender person against the Ministry of Defense in 2006 for the use
of such wording. The Central Administrative Court issued a landmark ruling
ordering the Ministry of Defense to stop labeling transgender persons as having a
“permanent mental disorder” and correct the wording on the plaintiff’s Sor Dor
43, stating that such a wording was “inaccurate” and “unlawful.” On 11 April 2012
Ministerial Regulation No. 75 B.E. 2555 (2012) was issued under the 1954 Military
Service Act to use the term “gender identity disorder” in military service exemption
for transgender persons. Exempted transgender persons can now request a new Sor
Dor 43 with the new wording. This was progress, but the new wording “gender
identity disorder” continues to stigmatize as a form of psychological abnormality.
Ambiguous language in laws and regulations sometimes lead to discrimination
resulting from arbitrary interpretation and application of the law, limiting the
opportunities of transgender people (and other population groups, in particular
persons with disabilities). One key example is the Civil Service Act B.E. 2551
(2008) which defines a disqualification for civil service applicants on the basis of
“being morally defective to the extent of being socially objectionable” (Sec. 36, B
(4)).
3.1.3 Gaps in Legal Protection
Thailand is known for world-class medical skills in sex reassignment surgeries and
a high visibility of transgender people in society, yet ironically the Thai legal
system fails to recognize transgender identity. Sex reassignment surgeries are
legally permissible for those aged 18 and above, but transgender persons who
have had sex change are not allowed a legal change of their gender. Legally Thai
citizens are either male or female according to their sex registered at birth. At
present only intersex persons with ambiguous or both male and female sexual
organs can apply for a legal title “correction,” after a medical procedure has been
completed to keep either male or female sexual organs.
Thai law also allows only a man and a woman to be legally married. Thailand’s
Civil Code stipulates that only persons with a legal marital status can be considered
a legal heir of the spouse. Without legal recognition of the union, same-sex partners
in Thailand are deprived of many legal spousal entitlements and benefits and the
capacity to conduct legal transactions as legal spouses, for example, the right to
co-manage spousal assets, tax benefits, alimony, social security benefits for spouses
through the employer and the state, life insurance benefits (Preechasilpakul 2013).
3.2 Reality of LGBT Discrimination in Thailand’s World

of Work
3.2.1 Persistent Stigma and Discrimination of LGBT Persons in Thai

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

acceptance of LGBT people in Thai society due to persistent and prevalent preju-
dices, misconceptions and lack of understanding about SOGI rights. Thai LGBT
persons face stigma and many forms of discrimination in education, at work and in
life. Some are rejected by their own families.
Different groups of LGBT respondents experience varying degrees of social
acceptance, but those with visibly different gender expressions, in particular trans-
gender persons—katoeys, sao praphet song, trans women and trans men—as well
as toms and intersex persons face the strongest and most extensive discrimination
and exclusion by mainstream Thai society. While there is more social acceptance
for LGBT people now than in the past, the perception that Thailand is an LGBT
heaven is more an illusion than reality. One extreme example is a sign in front of a
restaurant in Pattaya that says “katoeys are not allowed,” along with dogs and
durians, the local pungent fruit.
The respondents in this research generally characterized Thai society’s accep-
tance of LGBT people as: “It’s OK, as long as they are not my children.” Their
observation from the research is to some extent supported by two national polls
conducted in 2013 and 2015, each with 1250 respondents nationwide (SE 1.4).
The poll results indicate that while Thais are generally open and accepting of LGBT
friends and colleagues and, to a lesser extent, family members, they are much less
willing to support LGBT legal rights. Nonetheless, there are slight increases in
support for the right to a legal gender title change for transgender persons and for
legal same-sex partnership (see Table 2 below).
Another survey conducted with 868 LGBT people from eight provinces in
2012–2013 revealed that 27 % experienced violence in the family, with the highest
percentage (38.4 %) among MTF trans, and most did not report violence to
206 B. Suriyasarn
Table 2 NIDA Poll—acceptance of LGBT at work and in family in Thai society (2013, 2015)
2013 2015
Poll question Answer (%) (%)
LGBT friends and colleagues Can accept 88.49 88.72
Cannot accept 8.79 10.00
No answer/Not 2.72 1.28
sure
LGBT family members Can accept 77.56 79.92
Cannot accept 17.25 16.80
sure
Transgender persons should have the right to a legal gender Agree 43.53 53.20
title change Disagree 42.01 39.44
sure
Legal same-sex partnership Agree 52.96 59.20
Disagree 33.84 35.04
sure
Add alternative gender(s) besides male and female in all Agree – 59.36
official documents Disagree – 35.12
No answer/Not – 5.52
sure
Source: NIDA Poll, “What does Thai society think of the third sex?” http://goo.gl/ix2Qaj.
Accessed 5 August 2015
authorities (Samakkeekarom and Taesombat 2013). MTF trans also reported sexual
harassment and rape or attempted rape during reserved military conscription and
training.
3.2.2 Hetero-normative Pressure and Exclusion of Trans People
Discrimination and exclusion against LGBT people is an extension of the larger

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

Education
The majority of LGBT respondents in the research have experienced discrimination

in many aspects and stages of employment, starting from education and training, to
access to employment, career opportunity and advancement, as well as in access to
pension and other social security benefits.
MTF trans more than other groups reported being pressured at home and by
teachers to choose “soft” subjects and fields of study (such as communication,
humanities and social science) and discouraged from others, often high status, fields
such as teaching, psychology, medicine, and engineering. Transgender university
students, both MTF and FTM, are sometimes barred from examination and training
courses due to strict dress code.
A MTF trans trainee teacher in Northern Thailand was not allowed by her
university to wear a female student uniform during her teacher’s training after
4-year university course work. (Thailand is one of the few countries in the world
where university students are required to wear uniform.) Although the school where
she applied for teacher’s training accepted her as a trainee teacher in a female
uniform, the university objected citing the university’s dress code, arguing that a
trainee teacher must be an appropriate role model for school pupils, and if she
insisted on wearing the female uniform she would not be allowed to graduate and
become a teacher. With the intervention of a local NGO and the National Human
Rights Commission, the matter was resolved. The university gave a special per-
mission to allow her to wear a female uniform during her training (Suriyasarn 2015,
Box 4.2, p. 49).
Some trans respondents reported having been denied scholarship due to their
transgender identity. Some gay male and trans students experienced harassment and
violence, from verbal abuse to bullying and physical assaults from peers as well as
teachers, resulting in school dropout or change of school, even attempted suicide.
A feminine gay male was bullied and physically assaulted by classmates when
he was a technical school student in Bangkok. He studied industry logistics, a male-
dominated field, and received top marks in class. In his first year he was chosen as
the school’s representative in a competition. His classmates were unhappy because
they felt that industry logistics was a ‘manly’ field. One day he was ganged upon by
eight classmates who tried to undress him to take pictures and make a video clip to
post on the school web board, which at the time featured clips of katoey students
forced undressed by fellow students. He fought back and screamed until a teacher
came to rescue him. The classmates told the teacher they were “humiliated” that a
katoey was chosen to represent them. The classmates were punished but the
bullying worsened. Finally he moved to a new school and changed his major to
business (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.7, p. 66).
208 B. Suriyasarn
Many gay research respondents revealed that they hid their sexuality while they
were high school students and not associated themselves with gay or katoey
classmates in fear of being found out and subsequently teased or bullied.
A 2014 study on bullying of LGBT students in Thai schools, which surveyed
2070 students in five provinces in Thailand, of which 11.9 % self-identified as
LGBT, confirmed high prevalence of bullying of LGBT students. The study
revealed that 56 % of students self-identified as LGBT reported having been bullied
in the past month, and 25 % of students who did not identify as LGBT reported
being bullied because they were perceived to be transgender or same-sex attracted.
The bullying ranged from verbal abuse (e.g., face-to-face and online name calling),
physical abuse (e.g., slapping, kicking), social exclusion, and sexual harassment,
which included public sexual humiliation (e.g., placing victims into sexually
humiliating positions, mimicking rape). Toms were the least liked group, with
recent emergence of anti-tom hate groups (Mahihol University, Plan International
Thailand, UNESCO 2014).
3.2.4 Least Access to Job Opportunities for Trans and ‘Toms’
While masculine gay men and feminine lesbian women have comparable access to
jobs as heterosexual men and women, MTF trans, lesbian tomboys and trans men
face the biggest barrier to access to jobs, especially in public institutions and large
private companies. Several trans respondents (referring to MTF trans, self-
identified trans women and trans men in this research) said they were asked
intrusive questions about their sexuality in job interviews, and denied jobs at the
interview stage once their legal gender title was known to be different from their
outward appearance. Trans job applicants are also commonly given psychological
tests not given to other applicants.
A self-identified trans man in his late twenties, a respondent in this research, said
he was unemployed for 2 years after university, despite graduating with honors. He
struggled with having to wear skirts to job interviews and being asked questions
about his sexuality, e.g., “why did you choose this sex, why do you want to become
a man, which toilet will you use?” He said one job interviewer told him, “We are
open-minded here but we still have rules. Can you wear the female uniform to
work?” He was eventually hired by a bank but only worked there for a brief period
before leaving the job due to anti-LGBT slurs from co-workers. He became an
international LGBT activist.
Trans people feel almost completely excluded from employment in the civil
service which enforces strict sex-specific dress codes. For trans people to gain
employment in the civil service, they must observe the dress code at work according
to their birth sex. Not many are willing to do so. A MTF trans social worker related
her experience applying for a job with the government:
I had to cut my hair short and dress as a man to apply for the job because I was afraid I
would not be considered otherwise. After having worked for a period I still kept my hair
short but I started telling my direct superiors [of my real gender identity]. They acknowl-
edged it and I started dressing as normal, as a woman (Suriyasarn 2015, p. 52).
Transgender identity is also a problem for some employers in the private sector.
In a case that went to the Labour Court in Bangkok in 2007, a MTF transgender
person was already hired by the Thailand country office of a multinational company
but the hiring was retracted because of her “cross-dressing” (Suriyasarn 2015, Box
4.3, p. 54). Recent positive changes in new acceptance for transgender workers in
some jobs (such as flight attendant, elected local government official) remain
exceptions rather than a real change on a larger scale.
Interestingly, most MTF trans respondents in this research said the improvement
of wording in the military exemption document has no significant impact on their
employment opportunity because the real obstacle in getting mainstream jobs is the
mismatched physical appearance and legal identity.
3.2.5 Ghettoization of Employment for Trans People
Often denied jobs in the formal sector, most trans people, including those highly
qualified, are left with limited stereotypical job choices where they are more
accepted, in entertainment as cabaret performers or beauty pageants, in the beauty
industry as make-up artists and sale persons in cosmetic department, and in a few
service jobs such as public relations. Many MTF trans resort to sex work. Trans in
poor rural communities also find themselves at the margin of the rural informal
economy as unpaid or poorly paid family workers, irregular hired laborers, home-
based workers at the bottom of the manufacturing supply chains, or even as spiritual
mediums.
At a workshop on human rights with 27 mostly university-educated trans
contestants in the world-famous Miss Tiffany beauty pageant in Pattaya in April
2013, the contestants shared their experience in employment discrimination: “We
were often denied jobs because we were judged as abnormal, different, and less
valuable than women and men, but in truth we have no different capacity and can
also be doctors, prosecutors, judges, etc.” (Suriyasarn 2015, p. 55).
3.2.6 Differential Preference for Tomboy Factory Workers
During the past decade or so toms have become workers in demand by factories in
the manufacturing industry which have traditionally employed a large number of
women. According to a 2011 master’s thesis (Chailangka 2011), toms have become
desirable workers because they are perceived to have combined feminine and
masculine qualities (“nimble” and “detailed oriented” like women and “strong”
like men).
210 B. Suriyasarn
3.2.7 Gay Workers Staying in the Closet for Job Security
Many gay and lesbian workers tend to play heterosexual roles to avoid possible
rejection, gossips and anti-LGBT comments that can amount to a hostile work
environment (unless they work in an LGBT-specific organization). Generally,
homosexual men and women hide their sexuality in the early stages of their career
and only come out later after they feel some security in their job. This largely
depends on the workplace culture and the profession. Non-heterosexual gender
identity is perceived to damage credibility in leadership and in some traditional
high-status jobs, for professions such as lawyers and judges. A lesbian respondent
in this research who was a Muslim and worked as a lawyer said that she hid her
sexuality at work for fear of losing her professional credibility in the male-
dominated field and in particular among her Muslim colleagues. She explained:
In the Muslim culture, being a lesbian would mean excommunication . . . The locals would
say [lesbianism] is a sin and satanic (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.4, p. 59).
3.2.8 Unfair Treatment at Work for Trans and ‘Toms’
Access to toilets is an issue for both MTF and FTM transgender employees. Often
neither male co-workers nor female co-workers like katoeys, sao praphet song or
toms and trans men to use their restrooms. Very few workplaces in Thailand have
special restrooms for trans people.
Trans and toms face more discrimination at work. They are often not fairly
treated in terms of recognition for their work. Although toms are accepted in some
jobs such as factory and construction and some enjoy job promotion, others are
pressured to resign from their job as a result of harassment and unfair treatment,
feeling their work is not fairly valued and compensated (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.5,
p. 61). Incongruous legal identity also poses an obstacle in career advancement to
managerial positions for some trans employees (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.6, p. 62).
3.2.9 Hostile Work Environment, Sexual Harassment and Violence
Many members of all LGBT groups in the research reported having experienced
various forms of gender-based harassment and violence at school and at work, from
verbal harassment in forms of mild teasing, taunting, gossip, slurs and insults, to
groping and more serious forms of physical and sexual violence, including bullying,
physical assaults and rape.
Many MTF trans and feminine gay respondents reported having experienced
being called the pejorative term “tut,” Thai for “faggot.” The word katoey itself is
sometimes also used as an insult, and large, unfeminine, or heavily built trans are
often called “katoey kwaay,” “buffalo trans” (buffalos are seen as large and stupid
in Thai culture). Many LGBT respondents have experienced strong judgmental
comments from people in various situations, often described as “phit phet,” mean-
ing “sexually abnormal” or “sexually perverse.” They have also been told that theirs
was a “wasted life.”
Hostile work environment commonly experienced by LGBT respondents in the
research involves gossip and slurs, insensitive jokes, sexual comments or intrusive
questions about their private lives and sexuality. Some reported having experienced
their co-workers telling jokes about trans and toms being raped or gang raped. Some
lesbian respondents complained about male co-workers watching pornographic
films at work and making suggestive comments about lesbian sex acts.
While MTF trans respondents reported harassment and violence more than other
groups, lesbians are also subject to sexual violence. Some respondents reported rape
and attempted rape of tomboy lesbians by male friends and co-workers, rape and
attempted gang rape of intersex persons because of their ambiguous gender identity,
and rape of trans detainees in male prisons. There have also been media reports of
rape and murder of lesbians that fit the definition of hate crime but are not
recognized as such by the Thai police, as noted by the International Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC 2012).
3.2.10 Opting Out of Mainstream Jobs
Due to repeated rejection, hostile work environments, limited freedom of gender

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

and Services
Many in the Thai LGBT community find themselves in the informal, often lower-
paid jobs which afford them less job security, often with lower pay and fewer
benefits. Even gay men do not have job security like heterosexual men.
A real estate manager was fired after 5 years on the job for being gay. He became
aware that he had been fired when a notice was posted on the company’s public
notice board, stating the reason of his termination that he was “a person with two
genders [gay] who abused his power and tried to gain acceptance from others.” The
manager filed a lawsuit with the labor court for unlawful termination. With inter-
vention from the National Human Rights Commission the case ended in a settle-
ment with the employer offering him an apology and 8-months severance pay
(Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.8, p. 74).
212 B. Suriyasarn
Most LGBT respondents do not feel a strong sense of job or life security, in a
large part due to the lack of the legal right to marry. Hence they cannot access many
benefits and rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, such as joint bank loans. Poor
LGBT people with lower education and social status in the rural areas struggle to
sustain their livelihoods amid strong cultural prejudices and have little access to
regular employment, credit, capital, and social security. There is a phenomenon of
katoeys in rural areas in Northern Thailand reinventing themselves as spiritual
mediums as a strategy to sustain their livelihood, gain respect and build a support
network within their own community (Suriyasarn 2015, Box 4.9, p. 76).
Many LGBT respondents complained about discrimination in access to public
health services, with trans people having the most difficulties due mostly to
prejudices and insensitivity towards trans identity and inflexible hospital rules
(e.g., MTF patients must be treated as male). Gay men and trans persons are also
presumed to have a “risky lifestyle” with a higher risk of contracting HIV and are
often refused insurance or required to pay higher insurance premiums.
3.2.12 Double Stigma and Discrimination for LGBT People Living

with HIV (PLHIV)
There is no law in Thailand prohibiting discrimination in employment on the

grounds of HIV status. PLHIV have been found to be denied employment or not
to be eligible for promotion, more often due to discrimination than poor health.
Although there have been significant improvements in access to antiretroviral
treatment, PLHIV continue to face problems with involuntary HIV screening and
confidentiality being violated by employers and hospitals, despite codes of practice.
According to The Poz, an NGO supporting gay men living with HIV in Bangkok,
HIV-screening in job application remains common in factories, businesses in the
service sector including retail, hospitality (hotels) and sales, as well as in major
businesses and state enterprises. Violation of confidentiality and gossip often result
in the employees leaving the job.
3.2.13 Discrimination and Harassment of Transgender Sex Workers
Transgender sex workers are routinely harassed and extorted by police in red light
districts popular with foreign tourists in Bangkok, Pattaya, Chiang Mai, and Phuket.
Compared to freelance female sex workers, freelance or street-walking transgender
sex workers are much more vulnerable to being arrested and “fined” for solicitation.
Police often cite “bad image” (for Thai tourism and culture) as the reason for
cracking down on transgender sex workers. Transgender sex workers in this
research said they were perceived to make “more money” and hence have more
to pay “fines.”
3.2.14 Increasing But Limited Social Dialogue
So far there has been limited discussion on labor issues among LGBT organizations
but even less among government, workers and employers organizations, although
discrimination in employment is one of the major complaints within the LGBT
communities. No LGBT organizations in this study work actively to promote labor
rights for LGBT people, and LGBT rights are not a priority issue in employers’ and
workers’ organizations. However, LGBT organizations have recently begun to
coordinate with some government agencies on LGBT rights issues, specifically
on legal same-sex partnership and access to social services.
3.2.15 No Dedicated Agency to Tackle Employment Discrimination
The National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRC) has served as the de
facto agency that LGBT organizations turn to in times of need, including when the
grievances concern labor rights. However, the NHRC has limitations in resources
and mechanisms to ensure timely and effective redress. There is as yet no dedicated
agency that specifically addresses discrimination in employment and occupation in
the country.
4 Conclusion and Recommendations
Recent positive legislative changes mean LGBT rights are finally on the road to
recognition in Thai law after more than a decade of advocacy. However, major gaps
still exist in legal protection for LGBT people in Thailand: notably, no legal
recognition of transgender identity or marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Persistent stigma and prejudices, lack of understanding about SOGI rights com-
bined with gaps in legal protection, have led to extensive discrimination in many
areas of life and various aspects of employment and occupation for Thai LGBT
people. While discrimination, exclusion and marginalization are particularly acute
for transgender persons, Thai LGBT people as a population group do not yet enjoy
the full range of fundamental rights and equal opportunity and treatment and as a
result are unable to reach their full potential.
Full rights cannot be exercised and full participation is not possible, unless
society accepts all members as equal before the law and entitled to the same
human and workers’ rights. The gaps in legal protection of SOGI rights require
further policy mobilization to include LGBT in the full protection against discrim-
ination under Thai law, including in the forthcoming constitution and the Labour
Protection Act. Importantly, transgender persons must be allowed a legal gender
title change and same-sex partnership legally recognized.
214 B. Suriyasarn
The lack of anti-discrimination legislation specific to employment and occupa-

tion can be remedied by seeking useful guidance in international instruments, in
particular the ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. 111). Good practice examples from other countries are worth considering,
such as establishing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as an advisory
and monitoring body with effective implementation mechanisms to ensure equal
opportunity and treatment for all workers.
Effective action against discrimination of LGBT in the workplace involves
responsive laws, policies and mechanisms, responsive human resources and prac-
tices, as well as more education and social dialogue towards a better understanding
about LGBT rights and acceptance of LGBT people as full and equal members of
society. More cooperation from all key stakeholders is needed.
The government, LGBT communities, educational institutions at all levels,
media, and civil society, all have a role to play in promoting awareness and
understanding about gender equality and diversity and LGBT rights in school, at
work, in the media and in society at large. Workers’ and employers’ organizations
need to step up measures to prevent and eliminate hostile work environment and
violence to ensure safe workplace for workers of all sexual orientations and gender
identities, while law enforcement and the judiciary also need better understanding
about LGBT and SOGI rights.
Concrete qualitative and quantitative data about LGBT and SOGI rights are
fundamental to program and policy actions to bring about societal change. This
research is part of the first steps to build such a knowledge base in Thailand. Thus
far there is insufficient information about LGBT workers in the informal economy.
Further research is needed about this group of workers, especially in the poor, rural
areas. More information is also needed on good practices and perspectives of
companies and of employers and workers’ organizations on LGBT discrimination,
to promote social dialogue that focuses on discrimination against LGBT people in
employment and ways to prevent and redress it.
References
Chailangka, R. (2011). Lesbian identity construction: Different life styles of female workers in
Northern Region industrial estate Lamphun Province (in Thai). Master thesis, Chiang Mai
University.
IGLHRC. (2012, March 29). 15 targeted killings of lesbians in Thailand since 2006: IGLHRC
report. International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Accessed August 3, 2012,
from http://iglhrc.org/content/15-targeted-killings-lesbians-thailand-2006-iglhrc-report
Mahidol University, Plan International Thailand, UNESCO. (2014). Bullying targeting secondary
school students who are or are perceived to be transgender or same-sex attracted: Types,
prevalence, impact, motivation and preventive measures in 5 provinces of Thailand. Bangkok:
UNESCO. Accessed August 5, 2015, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002275/
227518e.pdf
NIDA Poll. (2013, 2015). What does Thai society think of the third sex? (in Thai). Accessed
August 5, 2015, from http://goo.gl/ix2Qaj
Preechasilpakul, S. (2013, June 19). Persons of diverse sexualities in the legal system (in Thai).
Presentation at Faculty of Law, Thammasat University.
Royal Gazette. (2012, November 16). Regulation of the National Commission on Social Welfare
Promotion on the Specification of Persons or Groups of Persons as Target Groups for the
Receipt of Social Welfare. Ratchakitchanubeska, 129 (Special Issue 173 Ngo). Accessed April
3, 2015, from http://www.m-society.go.th/article_attach/1363/2081.pdf
Royal Gazette. (2015, March 13). Gender Equality Act, B.E. 2558 (in Thai). Ratchakitchanubeska,
132, 18 Ko. Accessed April 3, 2015, from http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/
2558/A/018/17.PDF
Samakkeekarom, R., & Taesombat, J. (2013, June 19) Partnership and making family for LGBT:
Meaning, needs and violence (in Thai). Presentation at Faculty of Law, Thammasat University.
Suriyasarn, B. (2015). Gender identity and sexual orientation in Thailand: Promoting rights,
diversity and equality in the World of Work (PRIDE) Project. Bangkok: ILO. Accessed March
29, 2015, from http://www.ilo.org/asia/whatwedo/publications/WCMS_356950/lang--en/
index.htm
UNDP-USAID. (2014). Being LGBT in Asia: Thailand country report. Bangkok. Accessed March
29, 2015, from http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1861/Being_LGBT_in_
Asia_Thailand_Country_Report.pdf
Yingcharoen, T. (2015, September 7). Gender Act loophole ‘denies equality’. Bangkok Post.
Accessed September 20, 2015, from http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/683196/gen
der-act-loophole-denies-equality
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering
the Experiences of LGBT Employees
in Turkey
Emir Ozeren, Zeki Ucar, and Ethem Duygulu
1 Introduction
Today, employees with diverse backgrounds and unique characteristics who are
often associated with major sources of change, creativity and innovation (Frohman
1997) may potentially provide invaluable contributions to their organizations.
However, they might also be subject to unfair, unequal treatment and discrimina-
tory behavior in the workplace due to their minority status. In the given circum-
stances, these employees feel compelled to remain silent in the face of various
concerns and issues. The notion, conceptualized as “organizational silence” in the
literature, is likely to pose a serious challenge to the development of the pluralistic
organization that appreciates differences among employees and encourages the
expression of multiple ideas and thoughts (Morrison and Milliken 2000).
Minority groups are, indeed, more likely to be vulnerable to being silenced by
the rest of the organizational members who hold the majority and power in
organizations. Among minority groups in organizations, LGBT employees are the
most silenced and the least studied subjects, particularly within the Turkish work
context. In a study focused on voice, silence and diversity, Bell et al. (2011)
described LGBT employees as invisible minorities who provide valuable focal
points that can be used to examine employee voice mechanisms. They examined
E. Ozeren, Ph.D. (*) • E. Duygulu, Ph.D.

Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
e-mail: emirozeren@yahoo.com; ethem.duygulu@deu.edu.tr
Z. Ucar, Ph.D.
Bitlis Eren University, Bitlis, Turkey
e-mail: zeki.ucr@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_13
218 E. Ozeren et al.
the negative consequences of LGBT silence in the workplace and discussed the
ways their voices might be heard. Bowen and Blackmon (2003) also argued that the
fear and threat of isolation are particularly powerful for members of sexual
minorities.
Previous research on organizational silence conducted by Morrison and Milliken
(2000) and Pinder and Harlos (2001) was built on the assumption of the heterosex-
ual work environment without an adequate emphasis on the availability of
non-heterosexual employees. Only Bowen and Blackmon (2003) focused on the
dynamics of silencing sexual minorities at work by using “spiral of silence”, as
proposed by Noelle‐Neumann (1974). Hence, this chapter aims to unveil the major
factors leading to LGBT silencing in the workplace, considering the paucity of
research directly investigating employee silence from the viewpoint of LGBT
individuals based on their unique experiences and own stories.
Given the fact that the literature on LGBT studies is predominantly based on
Anglo-Saxon contexts, there are calls for further research (Priola et al. 2014; Tatli
and Özbilgin 2011; Syed and Ozbilgin 2009) to explore under-represented terri-
tories to compare and contrast the existing findings, mostly generated by the USA
and UK with different contexts, and this chapter sheds some light on silencing at
work from the viewpoint of LGBT individuals, being one of the most under-
researched minority groups in Turkey. Thus, the chapter contributes to both fields
of diversity management and organizational silence by highlighting the voices of
LGBT people in order to be heard in the scholarly arena. It represents one of the few
empirical studies to challenge the silence around LGBT workers’ experiences in
Turkey.
2 Relevant Literature and Previous Research Evidence
The fear and anxiety against differences in the socio-psychological sense and the
discourse of “unlike us” portray “others” as a potential target through biases and
stereotypes. As evidence of this situation, widespread discrimination against LGBT
employees has been well documented in various academic publications (Barclay
and Scott 2006; Day and Schoenrade 2000; Croteau 1996; Ragins and Cornwell
2001; Fassinger 2008). Bowen and Blackmon (2003) addressed the issue of self-
disclosure of sexual minorities at work, and how LGB employees are silenced by
the organizational dynamics within the framework of the theory of spirals of silence
based on Noelle‐Neumann (1974). Spiral of silence is defined as a process experi-
enced by an individual when he/she realizes that there is a lack of public support for
the idea that he/she has been defending (Noelle‐Neumann 1974, p. 44). Those who
are willing to express their own ideas are obliged to self-censor based on the fear of
isolation. Accordingly, employees are more likely to tell a lie or choose to remain
silent given the lack of support from their work colleagues or perceived resistance
Silence Speaks in the Workplace: Uncovering the Experiences of LGBT. . . 219
against raising different voices. In other words, people avoid raising their voices
openly and honestly due to the threat and fear of isolation. This spiral of silence
eventually limits constructive discussions for organizational change and
development.
Bowen and Blackmon (2003) focused on fear and the threat of isolation that
hinder LGB employees from coming out and publicly acknowledging their sexual
orientation. Brinsfield (2009) indicated that employees tend to remain silent in the
workplace due to the fear of retaliation. Ryan and Oestreich (1998) highlighted in
their study that even though employees themselves are self-confident, they hold the
view that speaking up might pose a risk for them (Premeaux and Bedeian 2003).
Moreover, Detert and Edmondson (2006) pointed out that silence caused by fear
influences not only employees at the lower level but also those at the middle and
senior levels. The lack of legal protection in some national contexts, the relative
lack of organizational equality policies and trade union support, the widespread
negative attitudes toward homosexuality and the deeply rooted heterosexist culture
in organizations may result in more silence for LGBT employees than for other
minorities (Bell et al. 2011, p. 139) and exacerbate the climate of silence (Priola
et al. 2014, p. 2). As an example, LGBT people in Turkey are still in jeopardy each
time they want to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity due to overt
hostility towards them, which is a powerful indicator of the first-wave research
agenda where blatant abuse of LGBT workers forms the central issue in question
(Colgan and Rumens 2015; Ozturk 2011). For instance, transwomen in Turkey are
subject to violence and discrimination by the state apparatus as well as by society at
large and they have severe difficulties in securing jobs, other than becoming a sex
worker (Szulc 2011).
In previous literature, the issue of silence points out that employees are silenced
based on the fear of not being able to gain promotion or losing their jobs (Morrison
and Milliken 2003; Milliken et al. 2003; Detert and Edmondson 2008; Dutton
et al. 2002). For example, Woods and Harbeck (1992) conducted in-depth phenom-
enological research of twelve lesbian physical education tutors’ work experiences
in relation to their identities as lesbians and teachers. All respondents in this
research indicated that they would lose their jobs if their sexual orientation was
revealed, and that female physical education teachers are negatively stereotyped as
being lesbian. They frequently engaged in identity management strategies designed
to conceal their lesbianism, such as passing as a heterosexual, self-distancing from
others at school, and self-distancing from issues pertaining to homosexuality.
The disclosure of one’s sexual orientation is a critical decision and a cumber-
some process for sexual minorities in the workplace which eventually brings both
positive and negative consequences (Chrobot-Mason et al. 2001; Ozeren 2014).
Woods and Lucas (1993) argued in their book, The Corporate Closet, that gay
individuals mainly adopt three different strategies to manage their gay identity in
their professional working life, which are, counterfeiting, avoiding and integrating.
In the counterfeiting strategy, an individual creates a fictitious heterosexual identity
for himself/herself; in the avoiding strategy the individual tends to avoid sharing
any personal information consciously; and lastly, in the integrating strategy the
individual discloses his/her sexual identity and manages the consequences of their
decision. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that this type of separation in
managing one’s sexual identity does not seem to be relevant for transgender
employees since concealing gender identity for them is almost impossible (Barclay
and Scott 2006; Chrobot-Mason et al. 2001). They have specific and unique
concerns and issues with respect to their career development during the transition
process, and organizations cannot adequately address how to deal with transgender
employees undergoing a transition in the workplace (Davis 2009).
In their study of discrimination experienced by lesbian employees, Levine and
Leonard (1984) made a crucial distinction between formal and informal discrimi-
nation in the workplace. Formal discrimination refers to firing or not hiring some-
one due to their sexual minority status, being passed over for promotion and raises
and being excluded from benefits, such as partner benefits and family leave.
Besides, lesbian employees felt negative discrimination during the hiring process
and currently employed lesbian employees are forced to resign or leave their jobs.
On the other hand, informal discrimination consists of behaviors such as harass-
ment, loss of credibility and lack of acceptance and respect by co-workers and
supervisors (Bell et al. 2011; Croteau 1996).
It has widely been argued in the literature that the presence of LGBT friendly
workplace policies, perceived organizational support, the possible treatment of
work colleagues towards LGBT employees when they are out at work certainly
influences the disclosure or non-disclosure decision of sexual minorities (Griffith
and Hebl 2002; Bowen and Blackmon 2003; Huffman et al. 2008). Also, Chrobot-
Mason et al. (2001) indicated that a supportive organizational climate has an impact
on the coming out of sexual minorities. Bowen and Blackmon (2003) claim that if
LGB employees feel they are not supported by their colleagues, they will not be
able to openly raise their voices. In other words, if LGB employees do not feel they
are safe regarding support from their heterosexual colleagues or think there is
possible resistance to their voices, they remain either silent or tend to show fake
reactions. The latter tactic brings some psychological costs, for pretending to be
heterosexual generates tremendous anxiety over possible sanctions as well as
severe strain from pretending to be what they are not.
3 Methodology
A qualitative research method was adopted to gain an in-depth understanding of the

silencing of LGBT employees in the workplace. The exploratory design was
employed in particular since the notion of employee silence has not been subject
to investigation before from the perspective of sexual and transgender minorities in
Turkey, therefore, the current study can be considered as a preliminary attempt for
subsequent researches in this field.
In order to gain greater and more exploratory insights into the research topic, the
method of focus group discussions was found to be the most appropriate and useful
way to obtain qualitative data that provide detailed descriptions of experiences/

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

Total work Work experience Sex and
experience in the current org. Position in the current Sexual gender
Pseudonyms Age Education (years) (years) Occupation organization orientation identity
Ali 30 Bachelor (cur- 5 3 Musicology Project expert and LGBT Gay Male/
rently a Master’s activist Cisgender
student)
Kemal 32 High school 4 3 Employee in a Project coordinator Gay Male/
civil society Cisgender
organization
Mustafa 26 Bachelor 3 Unemployed Art assistant None Gay Male/
Cisgender
Manolya 32 Vocational 12 3 Sex worker Human rights and trans – Trans-
school activist woman
Arda 30 Bachelor (cur- 10 0 Assistant director Working freelance in movie Gay Male/
rently a Master’s production sector Cisgender
student)
Sevgi 35 Bachelor 16 12 Radiology tech- In charge of radiology unit Lesbian/ Woman/
nician in a in a hospital Bisexual Cisgender
hospital
Feride 24 High school 3 months 3 months Sex worker Sex worker – Trans-
woman
Deniz 25 Bachelor 1 1 – Customer representative in Queer Queer
a maritime firm
Nazan 23 Bachelor 3 1 – Responsible for administra- Lesbian Woman/
tive affairs in a university Cisgender
dormitory
Can 22 Bachelor 3 1 Salesperson Employee in a book store Gay Male/
Cisgender
E. Ozeren et al.
4 Findings
This section focuses on emerging themes from the research on LGBT people at
work in Turkey from the viewpoint of employee silence. Three major dimensions of
employee silence (defensive, acquiescent, and pro-social) were found as being
relevant and meaningful in explaining how LGBT individuals are silenced at
work. Thematic findings are presented below along with the salient statements of
the participants, based on the focus group interviews.
4.1 Defensive Silence
Participants are inclined to exhibit silence as an intentional, conscious and proac-

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

because she thinks that her lesbian identity poses a significant risk or threat to her
career if she reveals her true identity in the workplace. As can be seen from the
participant statements below, LGBT individuals have a fear of negative labeling
and exposure to social isolation.
I keep myself secret at work; nobody except a few friends knows my lesbian identity. You
know, as you might guess, there there’s a lot of gossip and tittle-tattle in the hospitals. I am
not “out” at work because of my position as I don’t want everyone to talk about my sexual
identity. I know some of my gay friends in the hospital who experience problems at work
due to their sexual orientation. (Sevgi)
There is a lot of gossip about me at work because of my transgender identity. I was
working at a bar of the hotel and became successful in selling drinks to customers. Then the
other employees started gossiping, as in, I am absolutely having sex with other men so that I
receive great tips. In fact, I didn’t have a sexual relationship with anyone during my
working experience in this hotel. Because I knew that, although I didn’t participate in
this kind of behavior, they were talking behind me as if I did. If I really had had sex with
someone in the hotel, I couldn’t imagine what they would say about me? (Manolya)
In some cases LGB participants are silenced since they have a fear of becoming a
target if they expressed their sexual orientation once they are out in the workplace.
I believe that if there were conflict with my boss or colleagues at work, they would use my
sexual orientation against me and make some implicit remarks about my sexuality. Assume
a heterosexual did exactly the same thing with me, for example, he made a mistake, and in
this case, the straight guy wouldn’t be subject to a conversation about his sexuality. So why
am I? How would I overcome such arguments related to my sexual orientation? Therefore,
many LGBT people generally have to remain silent and closeted. (Mustafa)
One of the reasons why participants are silenced is due to their fear of being
unable to be promoted. As can be seen from the following quotation, a gay male
participant expresses his deep concerns and worries related to his promotion
decision. He thinks that although he deserved to get this promotion, he was
precluded due to his sexual orientation.
I remained closeted in my former workplace. However, something was still understood. I
worked there for one and half years. During this time, I didn’t have any girlfriends and this
situation was found very strange by the others. . . There was a vacant position in warehouse
administration. A woman secretary had left the job. They recruited a new person for this
position. Usually when a new position arose, they tried to fill this position from within the
company first. But this time they preferred a new job candidate from outside. For instance, I
had enough relevant experience, and did the internship as well as the secretary, but they
didn’t choose me. I know that the real reason was my sexual orientation. (Can)
The statement below shows how a lesbian physician is worried about being
perceived as a “threat” by her heterosexual colleagues working in the same hospital.
In line with this situation, she is constantly trying to regulate and control her own
behavior in order to avoid any possible “misunderstanding” in the eyes of her
heterosexual counterparts.
When I have a short break while sitting in the hospital yard, if I look at a woman by chance
for a few seconds or more, as everyone does, I have the feeling I am bothering her. I usually
use the same dressing room with all the women physicians together and they don’t know
my lesbian identity, but I think to myself, do I disturb them or do they feel uncomfortable? I
feel under pressure about doing something wrong or giving the wrong impression to my
colleagues. Therefore, I always have a need to control myself. (Sevgi)
Based on several gay participants’ statements, it is argued that gay males

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

about themselves to behave necessarily in line with the societal expectations. Those
individuals who adopt “integrating” or “accepting self” as an identity management
strategy reveal their sexual identity status at work and manage the consequences of
this decision. People with high self-esteem and low self-monitoring tend to accept
their sexual minority status which entails embracing their identity openly in ways
that make it clear to others (Griffin 1992; Woods and Lucas 1993).
I don’t need to conceal my sexual identity. . . I am myself and a gay man as you can see. . . I
really don’t care whether I should look more masculine or behave like a heterosexual man.
People around me should accept my existence as a gay man. (Mustafa)
Several participants exert extra effort to separate their work and life domains as
an avoidance strategy to manage their sexual minority status at work. This involves
actively eluding any references to personal information and maintaining strong
boundaries between personal and business lives (Woods and Lucas 1993). In these
cases, employees tend to create LGB friendly spaces in their private lives whereas
they conform to heteronormativity in the workplace. They engage in silence about
their sexual orientation in order not to face any discriminatory and repressive
treatment they are most likely to experience at work. The evidence of these
fictitious lives, also addressed by a lesbian participant below, is consistent with
Levine and Leonard (1984, p. 702) who argued that most lesbian employees tend to
cope with discrimination by living a dual life; at work they “pass for heterosexual,
complete with imaginary boyfriends and during evenings and weekends with
homosexual friends, they let their hair down.”
I am living a dual life, in the hospital and outside the hospital. I have a social life outside but
I never bring my work colleagues to my social space where I spend some time with my
homosexual friends. (Sevgi)
In another example, a gay salesman adopts avoidance as an identity management

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

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

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

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

and, hence, they can suffer from discrimination.
A friend of mine living in İzmir is a lesbian woman who works in a coffee shop. She was
being harassed by her boss and she was working overtime and doing the most difficult tasks
in her job. Whenever her homosexual friend came, she felt she was being watched by her
boss as he was staring at her. She was really under great pressure and finally she had to
resign from her job. (Mustafa)
In my previous workplace, I heard about a LGBT individual who used to work there
before but it was a terrible experience for him because he was out. They made life
unbearable for him, such as tagging him with nicknames. In fact, he was bullied at work.
(Can)
I also found it hard at a job in a resort hotel. At first I was sexually harassed by
coworkers and almost all hotel employees at all levels (laughing. . .) When I complained
to the general manager, they put me in a very distant place within the hotel, the bar, and it
seemed that it was an isolated location. . . There were only three of us in our new location,
but the other two guys were still watching and staring at me, which I found very irritating.
As the time passed, I got used to my new location, especially, the hotel customers found me
very interesting to talk to since I guess they were coming to the bar not only to have a drink
but also to chat with me. . . I was selling more drinks than expected and the hotel
administration was very happy. If I were a straight person, I am sure that customers
wouldn’t show such an interest. (Manolya)
4.2 Acquiescent Silence
Several participants hold the belief they will not be able to change anything by
raising their ideas, concerns or any information related to their sexual orientation as
they have already accepted their defeat against the status quo in the organization.
They avoid expressing their views because they simply assume that they will not be
able to create any difference in their organizations, even if they speak up. Under
these circumstances, they feel a sense of resignation and adopt mainly a passive
approach in the form of “employee acquiescence”.
I am really exhausted struggling with my boss and colleagues to change their ideas about
my sexual identity. I know very well that whatever I say to them, it does not make any
difference. I totally disengage and do not have any willingness to exert any effort to get
involved in any discussions since I am aware of the fact that it never works. (Ali)
Well I think I am not motivated enough to come out at work. If I come out one day, my
supervisor and some of my colleagues will absolutely judge me. No way out! I am sure.
There are rules of the game you have to obey, whether you like or not. I have to accept. As
far as I can see, there is no LGBT-friendly company in Turkey. Companies don’t care about
us. We are totally ignored not only by companies but also by trade unions. So I cannot rely
on unions. Have you ever seen a LGBT member in a union in this country? If yes, I am sure
very few exist. Frankly speaking, I am not Don Quixote as I cannot fight against these huge
mental barriers. Silence is inevitable. (Deniz)
4.3 Pro-Social Silence
Individuals who adopt pro-social silence behavior withhold many ideas, informa-
tion, or opinions with the goal of benefiting other people or the organization—based
on altruism or cooperative motives (Van Dyne et al. 2003, p. 1368). Consistent with
this view, the lesbian physician plays a partner role for her male colleague to protect
him in a pro-social way in order for him to overcome the challenge of promotion.
One of my friends, who is a medical doctor, came to me one day and asked me to do a favor
for him. He said that he was alone, single and needed a partner, a girlfriend, a fake one
(laughing). . . I was kindly asked to become a fake girlfriend, actually his fiancée for a
temporary period. He was gay but totally closeted. He thinks if his sexual orientation is
understood by the senior professors in the department, the associate professorship for which
he had already applied could be under great risk. I pretended to be his fiancée in the
hospital. We continued this so-called fake relationship for 6 months due to his fear about
the promotion, but then we gave up completely. (Sevgi)
5 Conclusion
This chapter reveals the daily workplace experiences of LGBT workers via focus
group interviews drawn from a sample of ten participants in the city of Izmir,
Turkey. It seeks to understand how LGBT people are silenced and in which ways
they can manage and cope with their sexual and gender identities at work. Defen-
sive silence due to fear and threat of isolation, acquiescent silence due to giving up
hope of change, and pro-social silence due to withholding ideas in favor of other
people or their own organization, were identified as the main emerging themes of
silence based on the participants’ accounts. Discussions took place about the
various reasons behind their decisions to engage in silence at work, which are,
the risk of being exposed to social isolation or exclusion, the fear of dismissal and
career obstacles, as well as the fear of being an object of derision and stigmatized at
work, bullying, prejudicial reactions and direct formal discrimination (e.g., job
termination and not being able to gain promotion). In addition to the direct formal
discrimination, there were also other ways to marginalize LGBT people in the
workplace, for example, unwanted jokes and innuendos. “Silence” is one of these
more subtle forms of discrimination experienced by the LGBT individuals in their
everyday work activities. In line with Ozturk’s (2011) study similarly carried out
within the Turkish context, this chapter also illustrates that most LGB workers have
to remain in the closet and very few of them are able to come out safely at work.
This situation can be better explained by the heteronormativity permeating through
the workplaces that still remain entrenched and largely unchallenged (Öztürk and
Özbilgin 2015). A heteronormative culture of organizations may result in silencing
of sexual minorities at work.
The major findings addressed in the chapter refer to the first wave of research in
Turkey (overt forms of abuse directed at LGBT employees in situations in which
legal and institutional protection is generally lacking) that seems contradictory
considering the recent significant advances in a number of other countries which
have reshaped the legislative landscape in terms of LGBT rights (Colgan and
McKearney 2011, p. 625). In other words, sexual orientation and gender identity
equality at work in Turkey continues to lag far behind the goals of the second
research wave agenda (defined as: where LGBT employees have recognition in the
public sphere and, as such, the research focuses on how effectively these rights are
put into practice) (Ozturk 2011), as pursued by some EU member states, particu-
larly the UK. The participant statements provide critical reflections that point out
the prevalent assumptions of hegemonic masculinity that is culturally embedded

and strongly influences the perceptions of homosexuality in Turkey (Ertan 2008).
Consistent with this view, and with evidence put forward by this study, LGB
individuals are likely to remain in the workforce as long as they conceal their true
sexual orientation at work and even outside the workplace. In the case of transgen-
der individuals, due to their visibility, they have to overcome the additional
challenges derived from the heteronormative work environment, unlike their het-
erosexual or LGB colleagues. Most transgender people in Turkey remain outside
the formal employment sphere and they are compelled to become sex workers to
maintain their survival. The findings highlighted in this chapter potentially offer HR
managers and organizational policymakers a greater awareness of the harmful
effects of silencing LGBT employees on work outcomes, as well as several voice
mechanisms; once they are applied to sexual and gender minorities, it may provide
strategies for the inclusion of LGBT employees.
The main conclusion derived from this in-depth exploratory investigation based
on the narratives of LGBT participants is as follows: the over-whelming cultural
norms based on heteronormativity within Turkish society, the absence of legal
protection, and the relative lack of organizational equality policies and trade union
support contribute to silencing LGBT individuals at work. Thus, the effective way
of tackling the sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination issue in Turkey
urgently calls for holistic change in cultural norms, social institutions, and legal
frameworks, as well as in organizational and trade union policies.
References
Barclay, J. M., & Scott, L. J. (2006). Transsexuals and workplace diversity: A case of “change”
management. Personnel Review, 35(4), 487–502.
Bell, M. P., Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., & Sürgevil, O. (2011). Voice, silence, and
diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–146.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on
organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417.
Brinsfield, C. (2009). Employee silence: Investigation of dimensionality, development of mea-
sures, and examination of related factors. Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. Accessed June
10, 2015, from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:
osu1236294604
Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity management
strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45(5–6), 321–336.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: How people
manage invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1),
78–95.
Colgan, F., & McKearney, A. (2011). Spirals of silence: Guest editorial. Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(8), 624–632.
Colgan, F., & Rumens, N. (2015). Understanding sexual orientation at work. In F. Colgan &
N. Rumens (Eds.), Sexual orientation at work: Contemporary issues and perspectives
(pp. 1–27). London: Routledge.
Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An
integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2),
195–209.
Davis, D. (2009). Transgender issues in the workplace: HRD’s newest challenge/opportunity.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11, 109–120.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual
orientation, antidiscrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay
and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346–363.
Della, B., Wilson, M., & Miller, R. L. (2002). Strategies for managing heterosexism used among
African American gay and bisexual men. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(4), 371–391.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Latent voice episodes: The situation-specific nature of
speaking up at work (Harvard Business School Working Paper 06–24). Boston, MA.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The nature and sources of implicit theories of voice. In
Presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Anaheim, CA.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light:
Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13(4),
355–369.
Ertan, C. (2008). Hegemonic masculinity and homosexuality: Some reflections on Turkey.
ETHOS: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences, 1(4), 1–11.
Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for
psychology. American Psychologist, 63(4), 252–268.
Frohman, A. (1997). Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal initiative.
Organization Dynamics, 25(3), 39–53.
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. In
K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet (pp. 167–196). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Griffith, K., & Hebl, M. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: Coming out at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a diverse work-
force: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay employees? Human
Resource Management, 47(2), 237–253.
Levine, M. P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the workforce. Signs, 9(4),
700–710.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence:
Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies,
40, 1453–1476.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–731.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice
and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353–1358.
Morrison-Beedy, D., Cote-Arsenault, D., & Feinstein, N. F. (2001). Maximizing results with focus
groups: Moderator and analysis issues. Applied Nursing Research, 14(1), 48–53.
Noelle‐Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Commu-
nication, 24(2), 43–51.
Ozeren, E. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace: A systematic review of
literature. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1203–1215.
Ozturk, M. B. (2011). Sexual orientation discrimination: Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay
and bisexual employees in Turkey. Human Relations, 64(8), 1099–1118.
Öztürk, M. B., & Özbilgin, M. (2015). From cradle to grave: The lifecycle of compulsory
heterosexuality in Turkey. In F. Colgan & N. Rumens (Eds.), Sexual orientation at work:
Contemporary issues and perspectives (pp. 152–165). London: Routledge.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as
responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
20, 331–369.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of
selfmonitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies,
40, 1537–1562.
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2014). The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘ınclusive organizations’. British Journal of Man-
agement, 25(3), 488–502.
Psychology, 86(6), 1244–1261.
Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1998). Driving fear out of the workplace: Creating the high-trust,
high-performance organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12,
85–128.
Syed, J., & Ozbilgin, M. (2009). A relational framework for international transfer of diversity
management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12),
2435–2453.
Szulc, L. (2011). Contemporary discourses on non-heterosexual and gender non-conforming
citizens of Turkey. International Review of Turkish Studies, 1(2), 10–31.
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2011). An Emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work:
A Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 326, 1–22.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee
voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.
Woods, S. E., & Harbeck, K. M. (1992). Living in two worlds: The identity management strategies
used by lesbian physical educators. Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3), 141–166.
America. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wright, T. (2013). Uncovering sexuality and gender: An intersectional examination of women’s
experience in UK construction. Construction Management and Economics, 31(8), 832–844.
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor
Market
Judit Takács
1 Introduction
Same-sex activity between consenting adults was decriminalized in Hungary by

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

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_14
234 J. Takács
people from workplace discrimination, there can be serious problems with its
practical implementation. Most LGBT employees are not aware of their rights,
and only very few workplaces have diversity policies or anti-discrimination codes
of conduct, which are not only theoretically but also practically in place.
Since the establishment of the Equal Treatment Authority in 2005 there has been
a low but steady number of complaints submitted by LGBT people (annually about
five cases): most of the cases were submitted by gay men, a few by trans people and
very few by lesbian women. There are many more complaints submitted on other
grounds, mainly on the grounds of disability and Roma ethnic origin (annually
50–80 cases), and motherhood (annually 30–50 cases) (EBH 2015). Most com-
plaints are employment related and typically harassment cases; this is also true of
the LGBT cases. In employment discrimination cases most complainants typically
turn to the Equal Treatment Authority after they have already left the workplace
where they had been victimized, or when they get to the state that they are ready to
leave and look for another job.
Several studies conducted with LGBT respondents point to the problems deriv-
ing from their social invisibility. Previous research findings indicate that those
“lesbians and gay men who have escaped social condemnation have, more often
than not, lived a life hidden from public view, altering behavior, avoiding certain
places and people in an effort to retain an outward ‘air’ of heterosexuality. . . In
contrast, those who have lived openly have often faced social, political, economic
and religious condemnation, sometimes receiving the blame for acts or events that
are unrelated to their sexual orientation” (Rivers and Carragher 2003, p. 375).
Others refer to the life strategy based on the decision to remain hidden in pri-
vacy—as a form of “unbearable comfort” (Švab and Kuhar 2005), which can also
have high personal costs—in order to avoid negative experiences and
discrimination.
Discrimination against LGBT people can remain hidden in many instances
because coming out of invisibility is a very critical process for most LGBT people,
involving risks of being ostracized in a heteronormative social environment. How-
ever, if disadvantages are not made socially recognizable, it is very hard to
articulate interests and defend rights. The hidden nature of discrimination against
LGBT people can also be explained in part by the lack of appropriate responsive-
ness and incentives on the institutional level. Institutions may exist but function
inefficiently and this can also contribute to the fact that certain forms of discrim-
ination remain hidden.
The level of legal and social invisibility of trans people seems to be especially
high. For example, in contrast to the EU level protection that provided gay, lesbian
and bisexual people with the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orien-
tation in the employment directive, trans people are not protected explicitly from
discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression. Although the case
law of the European Court of Justice has recognized that gender identity is covered
under sex discrimination (Case P v. S. and Cornwall County Council 1996) and the
Gender Directive mentions gender reassignment in its recital (Recital 3 of the
Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July
LGBT Employees in the Hungarian Labor Market 235
2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal

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

Identity Based Discrimination
There is comparative European data available on sexual orientation and gender

identity based discrimination in the Special Eurobarometer (2008, 2009, 2012)
large scale general population surveys, conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2012 within
all European Union member states (more precisely: data on gender identity based
discrimination can be found only in the last survey). Additionally, an online survey
with a huge (N ¼ 93.076) self-selected sample of persons aged 18 years or over,
with self-identification of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, was
conducted in 2012 in 27 EU member states and Croatia by Gallup Europe with
the active cooperation of ILGA-Europe (the European Region of the International
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) and its member organiza-
tions. The results of this survey serve to illustrate certain trends as well as their local
variations regarding the discrimination experiences and perceptions of LGBT
people in Europe. For example, awareness of a law that forbids discrimination
against persons because of their sexual orientation when applying for a job char-
acterized only 31 % of the Hungarian respondents, while the average rate was 56 %
among the European respondents (FRA 2014).
Figure 1 provides an overview of the perceived prevalence of sexual orientation
based discrimination within 20 selected European countries, including Hungary,
according to the results of the Eurobarometer surveys conducted in 2009 and 2012.
The figure shows the proportion of the “very widespread” and “fairly widespread”
answers to the question on how widespread or rare sexual orientation based
discrimination is in a given country.
Figure 2 presents 2012 data from the same countries on the perceived scope of
sexual orientation as well as gender identity based discrimination (by showing the
proportion of the “very widespread” and “fairly widespread” answers to the ques-
tions on how widespread or rare sexual orientation and gender identity based
discrimination is in a given country). However, caution is advised when
interpreting these results: we should keep in mind that these are perceptions that
can reflect more the levels of discrimination-awareness (largely depending on the
specific socio-cultural norms and practices of the examined societies) than the
actual scope of discrimination. According to the Hungarian findings there was
hardly any change regarding the perceived prevalence of sexual orientation based
236 J. Takács
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GR
AT
PL
PT
SI
BE
CZ
IT
NL
BG
DK
DE
ES
FR
HU
RO
SK
FI
SE
UK
EU27
2009 2012
Fig. 1 Perceived prevalence of sexual orientation based discrimination (2009, 2012). Source:
Special Eurobarometer 317, 393 (2009, 2012)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GR
ES
NL
IT
HU
AT
BE
DK
DE
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
EU27
BG
CZ
FR
UK
Sexual orientation Gender identity
Fig. 2 Perceived prevalence of sexual orientation and gender identity based discrimination
(2012). Source: Special Eurobarometer 393 (2012)
discrimination during the examined period: in 2009 44 % of Hungarian respondents

thought that it was (very or fairly) widespread, and in 2012 this rate decreased to
42 %. On the other hand, gender identity based discrimination was perceived to be
less widespread (34 %) than sexual orientation based discrimination in 2012.
However, the latter result can equally signal the lower prevalence of gender identity
based discrimination and the lower level of awareness regarding this kind of
discrimination in comparison with sexual orientation based discrimination.
Figure 3 provides an overview of the perceived prevalence of discrimination
according to eight grounds: ethnic origin, age in two dimensions (being older than
55 and younger than 30), disability, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and
religion or belief. In Hungary discrimination of older people was seen as the most
widespread form of discrimination: 75 % of Hungarian respondents expressed this
view, which result was the highest among the examined European countries.
80% 75% 70%

70%
60% 56% 54%
46%
50% 45% 46% 44% 42% 45%
39%
40% 34%
31% 27% 25%
30%
20% 18% HU
10% EU27
0%
Fig. 3 Perceived prevalence of discrimination on different grounds (2012). Source: Special

Eurobarometer 393 (2012)
Discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin was also perceived to be prevalent in

Hungary (70 %), followed by disability (54 %), gender (44 %) and sexual orienta-
tion (42 %) based discrimination. It was the first time in 2012 when discrimination
on the grounds of gender identity and younger age (being under 30) was examined
in the Eurobarometer survey: in Hungary more than a third (34 %) of respondents
thought that gender identity based discrimination was widespread. 27 % of Hun-
garian respondents regarded discrimination based on young age as widespread,
while 25 % had the same view about discrimination on the grounds of religion or
belief. The average values of the European results were lower than the Hungarian
ones regarding discrimination on grounds of older age (45 %), ethnic origin (56 %),
disability (46 %), gender (31 %) and younger age (18 %), while regarding discrim-
ination on grounds of sexual orientation (46 %), gender identity (45 %) and religion
or belief (39 %) the European results were the higher ones. However, it should be
pointed out again that these results can equally reflect different levels of discrim-
ination prevalence as well as awareness about discrimination on the basis of the
examined grounds. In any case, in comparison with the European findings the
Hungarian results reflect lower levels of discrimination prevalence or discrimina-
tion awareness.
Figure 4 summarizes the rates of respondents who reported having lesbian, gay
or bisexual friends or acquaintances in selected European countries in 2008 and
2012 (by showing the proportion of the “Yes” answers to the questions “Do you
have friends or acquaintances who are homosexual?” in 2008 and “Do you have
friends or acquaintances who are lesbian, gay or bisexual?” in 2012), while Fig. 5
summarizes the rates of respondents who reported having transsexual or transgen-
der and lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances in 2012 (by showing the
proportion of the “Yes” answers to the questions “Do you have friends or acquain-
tances who are transsexual or transgender?” and “Do you have friends or acquain-
tances who are lesbian, gay or bisexual?”).
238 J. Takács
90%
80%
70%
60%
41%
50%
34%
40%
30%
8%
20% 6%
10%
0%
HU
RO
GR
SI
BG
PL
DK
UK
SK
CZ
PT
IT
AT
DE
ES
NL
EU27
FI
LT
BE
FR
SE
2008 2012
Fig. 4 Having homosexual/lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances. Source: Special

Eurobarometer 296, 393 (2008, 2012)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
GR
RO
HU
SK
UK
BG
PL
CZ
PT
SI
IT
ES
DK
AT
DE
NL
EU27
LT
FI
FR
BE
SE
TG/TS L/G/B
Fig. 5 Having transsexual/transgender and lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

Source: Special Eurobarometer 393 (2012)
According to the Eurobarometer findings, direct social contact with citizens

from social minority groups can have a positive effect on discrimination awareness:
thus a higher level of sexual orientation based discrimination awareness can be
expected in countries where people have more gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual or
transgender friends and acquaintances. In 2008 only 6 % of Hungarian respondents
reported having homosexual friends or acquaintances, while the EU27 average was
34 %. By 2012 there was a slight increase in both rates: in Hungary 8 % of
respondents reported having lesbian, gay or bisexual friends or acquaintances,
and the European average was 41 %.
On the basis of these results, it can be assumed that in Hungary, similarly to other
post-socialist countries such as Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, there is very low
level of awareness regarding sexual orientation based discrimination in comparison
with other Western and Northern European countries. Regarding transsexual or
transgender friends and acquaintances, the figures are even lower than in the case of
having lesbian, gay or bisexual friends: in 2012 only 3 % of Hungarian respondents
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% HU
10%
EU-27
0%
Fig. 6 Perceived potentially disadvantageous factors for job applicants in Europe and Hungary
(2012). Source: Special Eurobarometer 396 (2012)
reported having transsexual or transgender friends, while the European rate was
7 %.
In the 2012 survey, three aspects of equal opportunities in employment were
examined: factors that can put job applicants at a disadvantage; support for mea-
sures to promote diversity in the workplace; and perceptions about whether enough
is being done to promote diversity. In order to test perceptions of equal opportuni-
ties in access to employment, respondents were asked which factors might put job
applicants at a disadvantage if a company had to choose between two candidates
with otherwise equal skills and qualifications (The question was the following:
“When a company wants to hire someone and has the choice between two candi-
dates with equal skills and qualifications, which of the following criteria may, in
your opinion, put one candidate at a disadvantage?”). These factors included the job
applicant’s age (being over 55 or being under 30), look (manner of dress or
presentation), disability, skin color or ethnic origin, physical appearance (size,
weight, face etc.), way of speaking (accent), expression of a religious belief (such
as wearing a visible religious symbol), gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
name, and address. Figure 6 provides an overview of the Hungarian and the
European results of 2012. It shows that 19 % of the European and 20 % of the
Hungarian respondents thought that the candidate’s sexual orientation would put a
job applicant at a disadvantage, while 19 % of the European and 18 % of the
Hungarian respondents thought the same regarding gender identity.
Figure 7 compares the results of the same question from 2009 to 2012. However,
in 2009 smoking was still included among the potentially disadvantageous factors,
while in 2012 three new factors were added: age over 50 and age under 30 replaced
“age”, and it was the first time that gender identity was included into this question.
Regarding sexual orientation in 2009 16 %, while in 2012 20 % of the Hungarian
respondents thought that being gay or lesbian would put a job applicant at a
disadvantage. Regarding gender identity in 2012 18 % of the Hungarian
240 J. Takács
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% HU 2009
10% HU 2012
0%
Fig. 7 Potentially disadvantageous factors for job applicants—Hungarian data from 2009 to
2012. Source: Special Eurobarometer 317, 396 (2009, 2012)
respondents thought that being transgender or transsexual would put a job applicant
at a disadvantage.
Additionally, both in 2009 and 2012 the surveys included questions on the
perceived effects of the economic crisis on discrimination in the labor market as
well as policies promoting equality and diversity. In 2009 37 % of the European and
40 % of the Hungarian respondents thought that the economic crisis would con-
tribute to an increase of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the labor
market. In 2012, 36 % of the European and 40 % of the Hungarian respondents
thought that the economic crisis was indeed contributing to the increase of this
specific form of discrimination, while 41 % of the European and 39 % of the
Hungarian respondents thought the same regarding gender identity based
discrimination.
In 2012 the majority of the European respondents (54 %) and 61 % of the
Hungarian respondents shared the view that due to the economic crisis, policies
promoting equality and diversity are regarded as less important and receive less
funding. Respondents were also asked to rate the effectiveness of efforts made in
their country to fight all forms of discrimination: in Hungary the majority view
(53 %) was that the measures to fight all forms of discrimination were ineffective,
and only 11 % thought that these measures were very effective, while European
respondents seemed to be more satisfied with the developments in this field (only
31 % of them said that the efforts to fight discrimination were ineffective, and 22 %
reported that they were very effective). Regarding sexual orientation and gender
identity based discrimination only 10 % of Hungarian respondents agreed that
enough is being done to promote diversity in their work place as far as sexual
orientation and gender identity are concerned, while about every fifth respondent
(21 and 22 %) disagreed with this statement. Additionally, 9 % agreed that “there is
no need to promote diversity” concerning sexual orientation and 6 % expressed the

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

Workplace Environment
A useful theoretical paradigm describing the links between the individual and the
environment is the Person-Environment Fit Theory (Edwards et al. 1998) that
proposes that stress arises from a misfit between individuals and their environment.
Thus we can assume that if the sexual orientation and gender identity expression of
LGBT people does not match with the heteronormativity—and, in some cases, the
expressed homophobic and transphobic climate—of many workplaces, it can lead
to experiences of minority stress on the part of LGBT employees (Waldo 1999).
The concept of minority stress is based on the premise that LGBT people in a
heterosexist social environment are subjected to chronic psychosocial stress related
to their stigmatization. Minority stressors include internalized homophobia, the
internalized negative attitudes that LGBT individuals can have about their own
sexuality and gender identity expression; stigma consciousness, related to expec-
tations of rejection and discrimination; and actual experiences of discrimination
and violence that can range from hearing an anti-gay joke to being physically hurt
(Meyer 1995, 2003; Kelleher 2009). LGBT-specific minority stressors were shown
to affect the mental and physical well-being of LGBT people, and predict negative
health outcomes from a young age (Kelleher 2009; Berghe et al. 2010; Ingram and
Smith 2004). Similar to experiences of young LGBT people at school, the sense of
belonging to a workplace, referring to feelings of being accepted, respected,
integrated, and supported within a given environment (Osterman 2000), can be
reduced by manifestations of “occupational heterosexism” (McDermott 2006,
p. 195).
Concerning the negative work-related experiences of LGBT people, it was
shown that “the bulk of the evidence from studies by economists and others fits
the hypothesis that lesbian, gay and bisexual people face employment discrimina-
tion in the labor market in the United States and in some other countries” (Badgett
242 J. Takács
2006, p. 161). Nowadays, when the beneficial effects of paid employment on health,
compared with those of unemployment and economic inactivity, are widely recog-
nized (McDermott 2006), there is increased attention paid to factors that can hinder
the employment prospects of potential employees. Regarding the situation of
LGBT people in the labor market, there is growing empirical evidence indicating
that the perception of being LGBT can be a factor preventing even mere entry into
the labor market: for example, Weichselbaumer (2003) examined discriminative
practices in hiring lesbian women in Austria, and Drydakis (2009) showed that gay
men have poorer market hiring prospects in Greece than their heterosexual
counterparts.
In a Hungarian LGBT discrimination survey, conducted in 2007 (N ¼ 1122)
more than a third (36 %) of respondents reported negative experiences in relation to
the workplace, spanning a wide spectrum of phenomena including not getting
promoted, being dismissed or not even getting the job in the first place (Takács
et al. 2008). Workplaces were often described as having a heteronormative climate,
where everyone is assumed to be heterosexual. International research findings also
indicate that the risks of being out as an LGBT person in the workplace can lead to
increased levels of workplace discrimination and stress, the loss of advancement
opportunities and less positive regard by co-workers (Brenner et al. 2010). On the
other hand, while coming out can lead to more external stressors, such as victim-
ization, it can also decrease internal stressors by contributing to the development of
a more positive self-image (DiPlacido 1998), and may bring increased psycholog-
ical well-being and less discordance between vocational and non-vocational life
spheres (Brenner et al. 2010). Other studies found that “out” employees were
characterized by higher job satisfaction, more commitment to their organization,
less conflict between work and home, and they also perceived top management to
be more supportive of their rights (Day and Schoenrade 1997; Griffith and Hebl
2002). Additionally, it was also emphasized that being out can potentially lead not
only to higher levels of individual performance but also to a higher level of
organizational performance (Powers 1996). For example, higher levels of organi-
zational success can be achieved by increasing specific “organizational citizenship
behaviors” (OCBs), especially “helping behaviors” on behalf of as well as towards
LGBT co-workers, reflecting “voluntary efforts intended to help others or prevent
the occurrence of problems in the workplace” (Brenner et al. 2010, p. 324).
According to the findings of a focus group research-based Hungarian qualitative
study on homophobia and transphobia, conducted in 2010, participants agreed that
it is easy to avoid discrimination if one’s sexual orientation related issues are kept in
secret (Takács and Dombos 2012). However, it was also recognized that this self-
constrained silencing itself constitutes discriminating disadvantage. Some partici-
pants reported on experiences of LGBT people internalizing the majority’s (hetero)
normative perspectives and in this context coming out was interpreted as a form of
self-protection from minority stress and unnecessary loss of energy. This approach
was based on the recognition that while secrecy can contribute to the maintenance
of one’s social integrity by helping to avoid stigmatization, at the same time it can
also have serious negative consequences, including stress deriving from informa-
tion management and leading a double life.
According to the results of the most recent Hungarian LGBT discrimination
survey, conducted in 2010 (N ¼ 2066) more than half (56 %) of LGBT respondents
reported that people almost never or only very rarely assume their LGBT identity,
while only 2 % of them said that they are almost always assumed to be LGBT
(Dombos et al. 2011). Comparable results were shown by another Hungarian survey
where 60 % of LGB respondents (N ¼ 200) reported that most people would never
guess that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual, while it was only 6 % of male
respondents and 11 % of female respondents who said that they are often identified
as lesbian or gay (EBH 2011). These findings can empirically support the assump-
tion about the limited social visibility of LGB people: as most of them are hard to
recognize by their bodily features or appearance at the first sight, most of the time it
is up to them whether they share the information on their sexual orientation and/or
gender identity with others, and dare to risk being excluded from the ordinary
functioning of heteronormative society. It seems to be a common experience of
LGBT people that they can come out in different ways to different degrees in
different social contexts—but in 2010 most (85 % of) LGB respondents agreed with
the statement that one cannot lead a complete life without being open about their
sexual orientation (Dombos et al. 2011).
Regarding economic activity, Hungarian LGBT surveys tend to show relatively
high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. These features can
reflect the sample composition, where people from Budapest and those with higher
levels of education tend to be over-represented. In 2010, for example, 58 % of the
LGBT respondents were employed, 11 % were self-employed or had only odd jobs,
22 % were studying, and 6 % were unemployed (Dombos et al. 2011)—while the
average rate of unemployment among the Hungarian population aged 25–54 was
around 10 % (KSH 2012). At the same time, the labor market situation of trans
people seemed to be much worse than the average within the LGBT sample: their
unemployment rate was for instance double (12 %) in comparison with that of the
others. This tendency was also reflected in the fact that 62 % of trans people
reported on experiencing at least 3 months long unemployment period in their
life, while only 39 % of cisgender respondents had the same experience.
The available Hungarian research findings suggest that most trans people are in a
very vulnerable situation in the Hungarian labor market. According to a represen-
tative of the TransVanilla Transgender Association (interviewed by the author in
December 2012) “if a person’s appearance does not fit into any genders, it will put
the person at such a disadvantage that cannot be compensated for. Trying to get a
job by a recognizable transgender person in the Hungarian labor market is mission
impossible”. Trans people can face serious educational disadvantage due to prob-
lems of fitting into the traditionally gender-conform school environments. Gender
non-conformity or “gender atypicality” has been shown to be associated with
increased risk of victimization, harassment, and even suicide of LGBT youth in
the international literature (Remafedi et al. 1991; D’Augelli 2003). Educational
disadvantage, often manifested in high levels of early drop-out rates, can lead to
244 J. Takács
limited career opportunities. In some cases transsexual people can get into such a
desperate situation, that the only work that is available for them is prostitution, but
this is not typical in Hungary.
Transsexual people—especially during their transition period—can face specific
difficulties as gender re-assignment treatments can take longer periods of time,
when transsexual employees have to stay away from their workplace, and longer
leaves are typically not regarded favorably by employers. In this respect
transwomen (MtF) can face more problems, as a transman activist explained
(in an interview conducted by the author in December 2012): for transmen (FtM)
it takes about half a year of hormone treatment that the outside world would see him
as a “real man”, while for transwomen to reach “convincing” transition results can
be more complicated. Giving a convincing gender performance can be crucial in
certain jobs: participants of a trans focus group interview (conducted in November
2012 by the author) reported on hiring problems they have encountered in relation
to not having the “right voice”, the “right look”, and the “right name”, or the
combination of any of these. Those who started their gender transition in a work-
place complained that co-workers still call them by their old name, or they don’t
want to see them in the changing room or using the toilet that would accord with
their new gender.
In comparison with LGB employees trans people can have specific claims about
what makes a workplace trans-friendly, such as having gender-neutral toilets and
dressing rooms that can be used by everyone, not just “gender-neutrals”. These
demands are not always easy to reconcile with specific claims voiced by women’s
groups about what can make a workplace safe for women, such as providing
separate, safe facilities for them. However, it should be noted that in the present-
day Hungarian labor market context the introduction of gender-neutral toilets and
dressing rooms does not seem to be an urgent priority either. Another very impor-
tant issue for trans people is having effective protection of their right to privacy in
order to avoid any irrelevant disclosure of their gender history or their former name
to the employer and other co-workers. For example, in 2011 the Hungarian Office
of Health Authorization and Administrative Procedures found that forcing a
transwoman to reveal her trans identity through her pharmacy license was a
violation of human dignity (to become a Certified Pharmacist one needs to apply
for an official ‘pharmacy license’, with which one can lead a pharmacy in Hungary).
The case arose because the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State refused to
issue a new license with just the woman’s new name, insisting that her birth name
should be included on the license thereby forcing her to reveal her trans identity
every time she produced it. The Office of Health Authorization and Administrative
Procedures ordered the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of State to issue a
license without reference to the woman’s birth name and gender (ILGA 2011).
Similar to the rest of society, interpreting issues related to sexual orientation and
gender identity as a private matter is widespread also among LGBT people.
However, at a closer look it is not difficult to see that private matters can often
turn up in everyday discussions in the workplace environment, too: LGBT respon-
dents reported that discussions at the workplace frequently cover issues such as
Stayed home from work 10%

Changed workplace 11%
Searched for a different job 11%
Felt distracted from work 19%
Avoided certain people at work 27%
Avoided social events at work 29%
Avoided talking with colleagues 38%
Not mentioned partner at official… 41%
Lied about partner's gender 59%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Fig. 8 Negative experiences at the workplace. Source: Hungarian LGBT discrimination

research—2010 (Dombos et al. 2011)
relationship matters (82 %) or leisure programs such as weekend programs (89 %),
or even sex (63 %). Consequently, it is in fact very hard to avoid talking about
private matters at the workplace. Thus if one wants to hide the details of one’s
personal life, it is not enough to keep silent about certain topics; one is often forced
to invent lies in order to keep the heterosexual cover story intact. For example, 59 %
of the LGBT respondents reported on inventing different-sex partners for them-
selves when talking with co-workers and 41 % avoided mentioning their (same-sex)
partner in official documents at their workplace (Fig. 8).
In 2010 13 % of the LGBT respondents reported on personal experiences of
discrimination at their workplace. The most common forms of discrimination
included rumors going around about their sexual orientation or gender identity
(81 %) and perceptions of the workplace climate as homophobic or transphobic
(72 %). 31 % mentioned that they did not get a job because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity, 32 % were sacked for the same reason, and 41 %
reported on cases of harassment and humiliation. LGBT victims of discrimination
were not very likely to submit a formal complaint: only 15 % of them did
so. However, the submitted complaints were not handled in a very effective way
either: only one fifth of the complaints led to thorough investigation and impeach-
ment of the perpetrator(s). 21 % of the respondents reported that their employer had
some sort of equal treatment policy, such as an equal opportunity strategy or code of
conduct with anti-harassment clauses, but not all of them included sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity as protected categories.
The importance of employment discrimination was reflected by the fact that
more than 80 % of all LGBT respondents thought that working towards ending
discrimination at the workplace should be one of the main goals LGBT NGOs
should prioritize on. Respondents had to evaluate the importance of fifteen issues
including same-sex marriage; making the (existing) registered partnership legisla-
tion closer to that of marriage; making childbearing easier; eliminating workplace
discrimination; eliminating discrimination at school; covering the costs for gender
246 J. Takács
re-assignment treatments (GRT) by public health insurance; clarifying the legal

conditions of gender recognition; combating violent anti-LGBT attacks; struggle
against hate speech; struggle against HIV/AIDS; development of health awareness;
increasing the level of general social acceptance; increasing the level of self-
acceptance; increasing diversity within the LGBT community; organizing LGBT-
friendly leisure programs.
Gender recognition refers to the legal recognition of a person’s gender
reassignment, which entails the following stages: the applicant submits a request
to the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice asking for a change of gender
and name. The request has to be supported by forensic documents stating that the
applicant “suffers from transsexualism” according to criteria set by the WHO’s
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems
under “F64.0”. The request is submitted for a supporting opinion to the Ministry of
Human Resources—dealing with issues of public health—and the ministries
involved have 30 days to deliver a decision. If authorized, the local registrar is
ordered to amend the birth registry within 8 days and accordingly alter the gender
and name of the applicant. With the birth registry amended, the applicant is fully
recognized in his/her new gender. This procedure is consistently applied but not
codified thus there is a fair chance of arbitrariness in its application.
Legislation in force since December 2006 puts gender reassignment treatments
(GRT) in the category of treatments only partially funded by public health insur-
ance: a government decree sets fees at 90 % of the cost of the treatment, thus by the
National Health Insurance Fund covers only 10 % of the costs of gender
reassignment treatments; however, the actual cost paid for treatments can vary
significantly between health care providers and on a per patient basis as well. Since
there are no established funding protocols, it is not clear 90 % of what to pay, prices
are often negotiated on an individual basis.
Table 1 provides an overview of the results according to sexual orientation
categories, and shows that 83 % of lesbian women and gay men, 77 % of bisexuals,
84 % of questioning people and 87 % of heterosexuals (who were included into the
LGBT sample because of their—transsexual or other trans—gender identity)
expressed the view that eliminating workplace discrimination is one of the most
important goals LGBT NGOs should strive for. Table 2 provides an overview of the
results according to gender identity categories: the same views were expressed by
96 % of transsexual people, 89 % of other trans respondents (who identified with
both or neither of the two gender categories), 82 % of the gender non-conformist
respondents (whose attributed and preferred gender identities overlapped, however
they did not identify completely with their assigned gender roles), and 81 % of
cisgender respondents (most of whom were lesbian women and gay men).
Another recent Hungarian survey, focusing on equal treatment awareness of the
general population as well as people with disabilities, Roma and LGBT people,
found that, in regard to employment-related discrimination experiences, there are
differences between female and male respondents within the examined LGBT
population (EBH 2011). Female LGBT respondents reported higher levels of
disadvantage in the fields of recruitment and selection, as well as promotion,
Table 1 Organizational priority issues of LGBT people according to sexual orientation categories
Lesbian/Gay Bisexual Questioning Heterosexual
Priorities—according to sexual (%) (%) (%) (%)
orientation N ¼ 1652 N ¼ 513 N ¼ 152 N ¼ 40
Violent attacks 90 87 84 91
Social acceptance 89 86 85 82
Self-acceptance 88 87 90 78
HIV/AIDS 87 88 84 87
Hate speech 86 82 80 74
Discrimination at school 85 79 85 92
Discrimination at work 83 77 84 87
Health awareness 75 79 78 74
Registered partnership—marriage 68 61 65 48
Having children 68 60 64 61
Internal diversity 65 61 65 68
Leisure programs 61 59 70 56
Same-sex marriage 60 56 59 52
Gender recognition legislation 46 50 48 70
GRT financing 29 34 34 57
Source: Hungarian LGBT discrimination research—2010 (Takács and Dombos 2012)
Table 2 Organizational priority issues of LGBT people according to gender identity categories
Transsexual Other Gender Cisgender
Priorities according to gender (%) trans (%) non-conform (%) (%)
identity categories N ¼ 75 N ¼ 91 N ¼ 143 N ¼ 2188
Discrimination at school 98 91 77 84
Discrimination at work 96 89 82 81
Violent attacks 96 94 83 89
Gender recognition legislation 89 70 48 45
Social acceptance 89 94 80 88
Self-acceptance 89 92 80 88
Hate speech 87 92 74 85
GRT financing 85 53 20 29
HIV/AIDS 83 89 89 87
Health awareness 81 87 77 75
Having children 80 70 66 66
Internal diversity 74 78 57 64
Registered partnership— 72 69 64 66
marriage
Same-sex marriage 66 74 63 60
Leisure programs 66 74 63 60
Source: Hungarian LGBT discrimination research—2010 (Takács and Dombos 2012)
248 J. Takács
Table 3 Realization of equal treatment practices at the workplace

Realization of equal treatment practices at the present (or last) LGBT LGBT LGBT
workplace (%) all women men
Recruitment, selection 34.5 28 42
Training 35.5 33 38.5
Promotion 31.5 26 37.5
Work contract type 37 33 42
Work conditions 36 33 40
Work tasks 34.5 29 41
Waging 42 34 51
Harassment 25 21 29
Dismissal, discharge 32.5 24 42
Source: Hungarian Equal Treatment Awareness Survey—2010 (EBH 2011)
Table 4 Non-realization of equal treatment practices at the workplace

Non-realization of equal treatment practices at the present LGBT LGBT LGBT
(or last) workplace (%) all women men
Recruitment, selection 32 33 31
Training 31 30 32
Promotion 36 36 36
Work contract type 28.5 30 27
Work conditions 29 30 28
Work tasks 31 34 28
Waging 28 29 27
Harassment 37 37.5 36.5
Dismissal, discharge 30.5 33 28
Source: Hungarian Equal Treatment Awareness Survey—2010 (EBH 2011)
work tasks, wage levels, and dismissal and discharge. Tables 3 and 4 provide a
detailed overview of the findings, and show that in the view of LGBT respondents
the most problematic areas of employment-related discrimination are promotion
and harassment. It should also be mentioned that none of the respondents reported
on having diversity trainings and communications addressing sexual orientation
and gender identity, or Employee Resource Group for LGBT employees, or any
(other) openly LGBT employees at their workplace.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that social security services—such as
medical care, pension entitlements and other benefits such as parental leave—are
available to LGBT workers living in same-sex registered partnerships on the same
terms as they are for heterosexual married couples. Act No. XXIX of 2009 on
Registered Partnership and Related Legislation and on the Amendment of Other
Statutes to Facilitate the Proof of Cohabitation (RPA) was adopted by the Hungar-
ian Parliament in May 2009 and came into force on 1 July 2009. The RPA finally
created a family law institution for same-sex couples. The aim of the RPA was to
provide a constitutionally acceptable institution for same-sex couples: the law

establishes a general equivalence between marriage and registered partnership
with a few notable exceptions. The so-called general reference rule in Article
3 (1) stipulates that unless the RPA otherwise provides or explicitly excludes the
application of it, the rules governing marriage shall be applied to registered partner-
ships as well. The RPA specifies three areas where this general reference rule is not
applicable: (1) registered partners cannot jointly adopt a child, registered partners
cannot adopt each other’s child, and the presumption of paternity is not applicable
to registered partners; (2) the rules on bearing each other’s name cannot be applied;
and (3) registered partners cannot take part in assisted reproductive services. At
present there is no Hungarian research data available on the labor-market situation
of same-sex registered couples, partly because of the relatively low number of
same-sex registered partnerships: between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014
altogether 296—206 male and 90 female—same-sex couples entered into regis-
tered partnership (KEKKH 2015). The very low number of female same-sex
registered partnerships can partly be explained by the institutional discrimination
regarding the impossibility of assisted reproduction for women living in a lesbian
partnership (See: Article 167 of the Hungarian Health Care Act—No. CLIV.
of 1997).
4 Coping with Discrimination: Conclusion
In many cases Hungarian LGBT workers chose to keep their sexual orientation
and/or gender identity hidden for fear of negative consequences. Clearly, many
LGBT people fear discrimination and harassment if they come out; and the expe-
riences of many open LGBT workers do suggest the fear is often well founded. The
very limited visibility of Hungarian LGBT employees also means that employers
and other labor market institutions often have the impression that they do not have
any LGBT people working for or around them, and thus they do not have to deal
with these issues. For many Hungarian employers and employment organizations,
LGBT people are always somewhere else: in other workplaces or even in other
countries.
In the present Hungarian context it is especially important to focus on potential
good practices that would lead to an enabling environment for coming out as LGBT
in the world of work. There are very few good practice workplaces in present day
Hungary, where diversity and tolerance for LGBT persons is actively promoted.
Thus it was very timely that in 2010 the Hungarian Business Leaders Forum
published a leaflet on “Lesbian Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Co-workers at the
workplace”, which included the following recommended components of develop-
ing LGBT-friendly workplaces:
250 J. Takács
• Formal commitment of the management to diversity and acceptance of LGBT

employees (which should be reflected not only in formal mission statements or
diversity policies but also in their personal communication);
• Equal Opportunities Plan inclusive of the grounds of sexual orientation and
gender identity;
• Re-examination of internal (HR) files and official documents to eliminate
discriminative practices towards LGBT employees (with special focus on rec-
ognizing same-sex partners);
• Code of Conduct inclusive of anti-discrimination measures on the grounds of
sexual orientation and gender identity;
• Diversity trainings (to make all employees aware of these developments);
• Support for LGBT Employee Resource Groups (where LGBT employees and
their friends can meet, and LGBT-related employment issues can be discussed in
an organized setting).
The recognition that workplaces characterized by a non-homophobic or a
non-transphobic climate can provide advantages for all, and creating LGBT-
friendly workplaces can actually have more benefits than costs was reflected by
the “Nyitottak vagyunk” (We’re open) initiative. In 2013 just a few weeks before
the Budapest Pride March the We’re Open campaign was launched by three
companies (Google, Prezi and espell), encouraging other groups to join them:
“Being open is a good thing. As open companies, we regard it as a fundamental
corporate value that our employees and our partners are judged solely on the basis
of their actions and their work performance, and without regard for their sex, age,
sexual orientation, national or ethnic background, political convictions, physical
abilities, or other characteristics. Our openness—to new ideas, innovative solutions,
to one another and to the world—is one of the keys to our success. We know that
there are lots of you out there who share our values. Nyitottakvagyunk.hu (We’re
open) has been created for those companies, organizations and communities that
would like to join us in a commitment to openness and to inspire others to do the
same” (Nyitottak vagyunk 2013).—The “We’re open” initiative conveyed several
important messages in the world of work in Hungary: not only did it serve as a great
example of solidarity with LGBT people but it also pointed to the advantages of
providing equal opportunities at the workplace from the business case perspective,
which can serve as an inspiration for others, too.
References
Badgett, M. V. L. (2006). Discrimination based on sexual orientation: A review of the literature in

economics and beyond. In W. M. Rogers III (Ed.), Handbook on the economics of discrimi-
nation (pp. 161–186). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Berghe, W. V., Dewaele, A., Cox, N., & Vincke, J. (2010). Minority-specific determinants of
mental well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 40(1), 153–166.
Brenner, B. R., Lyons, H. Z., & Fassinger, R. E. (2010). Can heterosexism harm organizations?
Predicting the perceived organizational citizenship behaviors of gay and lesbian employees.
The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 321–335.
Case P v. S. and Cornwall County Council. (1996). Case C-13/94, Judgment of the Court of
30 April 1996. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://archive.equal-jus.eu/116/
D’Augelli, A. (2003). Lesbian and bisexual female youths aged 14 to 21: Developmental chal-
lenges and victimization experiences. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 9–30.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships
between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel Psychology,
50, 147–163.
DiPlacido, J. (1998). Minority stress among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: A consequence of
heterosexism, homophobia, and stigmatization. In G. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orienta-
tion (pp. 138–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dombos, T., Takács, J., PToth, T., & Mocsonaki, L. (2011). Az LMBT emberek magyarországi
helyzetének r€ovid áttekintése (Short review of the Hungarian situation of LGBT people). In
J. Takács (Ed.), Homof obia Magyarorsz agon (Homophobia in Hungary) (pp. 35–54). Buda-
pest: L’Harmattan Kiado.
Drydakis, N. (2009). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics,
16, 364–372.
EBH [Equal Treatment Authority]. (2011). Az egyenlő b an
asmoddal kapcsolatos jogtudatoss ag
n€ovekedésének mértéke—f okuszban a nők, a rom ak, a fogyatékos és az LMBT emberek.
Kutatasi zar
ojelentés. [The extent of equal treatment awareness—With special focus on
women, Roma, people with disabilities, and LGBT people. Research report]. Budapest: EBH.
Retrieved February 7, 2013 and Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://www.
egyenlobanasmod.hu/tamop/data/MTA_1hullam.pdf
EBH [Equal Treatment Authority]. (2015). Jogesetek (Cases). Accessed October 25, 2015, from
http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/article/index/jogesetek
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person-environment fit theory:
Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FRA [European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights]. (2014). EU LGBT survey. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming
out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
ILGA-Europe. (2011). ILGA-Europe annual review 2011. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://
www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/annual_rewiev_inside.pdf
Ingram, K. M., & Smith, N. G. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian,
gay, and bisexual individuals: The role of unsupportive social interactions. Journal of Counsel-
ling Psychology, 51(1), 57–67.
KEKKH [Central Office for Administrative and Electronic Public Services]. (2015). Statistical
data. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://www.kekkh.gov.hu/hu/statisztikak
Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen-
der, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 22(4),
373–379.
KSH. (2012). Gyorstájékoztato—Report on unemployment of 2012 September 28—Hungarian
Central Statistical Office. Accessed October 25, 2015, from www.ksh.hu
McDermott, E. (2006). Surviving in dangerous places: Lesbian identity performances in the
workplace, social class and psychological health. Feminism Psychology, 16, 193.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36(1), 38–56.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress and mental health in lesbian, gay and bisexual
674–697.
252 J. Takács
Nyitottak vagyunk. (2013). “We’re open” site. Accessed October 25, 2015, from http://
nyitottakvagyunk.hu/en
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of
Educational Research, 70, 323–367.
Powers, B. (1996). The impact of gay, lesbian, and bisexual workplace issues on productivity. In
A. L. Ellis & E. D. B. Riggle (Eds.), Sexual identity on the job: Issues and services. New York,
NY: Haworth Press.
Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A., & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay
and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87, 869–875.
Rivers, I., & Carragher, D. J. (2003). Social-developmental factors affecting lesbian and gay
youth: A review of cross-national research findings. Children and Society, 17, 374–385.
Special Eurobarometer 296. (2008). Discrimination in the EU in 2008. Accessed October 25, 2015,
from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_296_en.pdf
Švab, A., & Kuhar, R. (2005). The unbearable comfort of privacy. The everyday life of gays and
lesbians. Ljubljana: Mirovni Inštitut.
Takács, J. (2007). How to put equality into practice? Budapest: New Mandate.
Takács, J. (2015). Homophobia and genderphobia in the European Union. Stockholm: SIEPS.
Takács, J., & Dombos, T. (2012). Az LMBT-emberek társadalmi integráci oját segı́tő tényezők
Magyarországon (Factors contributing to the social integration of LGBT people in Hungary).
In I. Kovách et al. (Eds.), T
arsadalmi integr
aci
o a jelenkori Magyarorsz agon (Social integra-
tion in present-day Hungary) (pp. 383–397). Budapest: Argumentum Kiad o.
Takács, J., Mocsonaki, L., & PToth, T. (2008). A leszbikus, meleg, biszexuális és transznemű
(LMBT) emberek társadalmi kirekesztettsége Magyarországon. (Social exclusion of LGBT
people in Hungary). Esély, 19(3), 16–54.
Takács, J., & Szalma, I. (2011). Homophobia and same-sex partnership legislation in Europe.
Equality Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(5), 356–378.
Transposition of Recast Directive 2006/54/EC—Update 2011. (2011). Accessed October
25, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/recast_update2011_final_en.
pdf
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10
(6), 629–642.
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender
Persons in Chile: An Exploratory
Quantitative Study on Stigma,
Discrimination, Victimization, Happiness
and Social Well-Being
Jaime Barrientos, Manuel Cárdenas, Fabiola Gomez, and Monica Guzmán
1 Introduction
In 2012, Chile passed an antidiscrimination law to protect and guarantee equal

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

Escuela de Psicologı́a, Universidad Catolica del Norte, Antofagasta, Chile
e-mail: jbarrien@ucn.cl
M. Cárdenas
Universidad de Valparaı́so, Valparaı́so, Chile
F. G
omez
Escuela de Psicologı́a, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_15
254 J. Barrientos et al.
In Chile, compared to gay men and lesbians, MtF transgender individuals are the
least favored and the most exposed to stigmatization, discrimination, and victimi-
zation (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014; Barrientos et al. 2010). MtF transgender
individuals are often socially excluded from neighborhoods, families, and other
social structures (Pinto et al. 2008). Their unfavorable social status could be
explained by the greater stigmatization to which they are subjected, compared to
gay men and lesbians (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014), given their greater social
visibility. MtF transgender individuals are usually characterized by high unem-
ployment rates and scarce access to education and professional training processes
(Barrientos et al. 2010; Clements-Nolle et al. 2006). Thus, these subjects are often
connected to sexual work as their main economic activity (Barrington et al. 2012).
Sexual work has effects on health and results in greater levels of stigmatization, as
the profession itself is stigmatized. Considering the violence to which LGBT
populations are subjected in the Chilean context, and the need to design policies
to resolve the health, education, and work problems of these populations, interest in
learning about the demographic and social characteristics of homosexual and
transgender individuals is increasing. However, few studies in Chile describe and
characterize these populations, and even fewer examine their quality of life
(Barrientos et al. 2014).
Specifically, studies on the quality of life of gay men and lesbians reveal a
positive association between stigma, discrimination, victimization, and mental
health indicators (Barrientos and Cárdenas 2013). Other studies support these
results in MtF transgender individuals (Barzagan and Galvan 2012; Bockting
et al. 2013; Clements-Nolle et al. 2006), providing evidence of the effects that the
perception of a context as threatening can have on people’s health (Meyer 1995,
2003).
Although great advances have been made in understanding the negative effects
of homophobia and transphobia on victims’ physical and mental health (Burgess
et al. 2007; Herek et al. 1999; Warner et al. 2004), few studies have documented
this association in the Latin American LGBT population (Ghorayeb and
Dalgalarrondo 2011), and even fewer in the MtF transgender population. Therefore,
it is relevant to examine the possible impact of violence against the LGBT popu-
lation on its physical and mental health, paying attention to positive indicators.
To address the lack of contextualized studies on sexual minorities in Chile and
the eventual impact that stigma and discrimination could have on different aspects
of their lives (personal, social, and work), this paper examines sociodemographic
characteristics, levels of perceived stigma and discrimination, and levels of well-
being, in a convenience sample of self-identified cisgender gay men and male-to-
female (MtF) transgender individuals.
Gay Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons in Chile: An Exploratory. . . 255
2 Method
2.1 Sample and Procedure
A type of Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS) was used for gay men. A profile of
the target gay men group was defined, and then seeds fulfilling this profile were
selected. Three demographically diverse initial participants were non-randomly
selected as seeds in each city (Arica, Valparaiso, and Santiago), with input from
key informants in each city as the starting point for recruitment. Criteria for seed
selection included: gay men with many network connections in each city, city of
residence, age (three seeds from three different age ranges: 18–29, 30–44, and 45 or
older), and written informed consent. After completing the survey, each seed was
instructed to invite three gay men who met the eligibility criteria to participate in
the study. If the seed was acquainted with a possible participant, the research team
contacted him for the study. This new seed was provided with a brief description of
the project. This process was repeated in four waves until the desired sample size
was achieved (RDSAT 6.0.1 function “Estimate Number of Waves Required” for
equilibrium data, making it possible to approach a sample size that is pseudo-
representative of the hidden population).
In the case of the MtF transgender sample, snowball-type sampling was used.
Participants were contacted in each city. To do so, the key informants were MtF
transgender individuals who belonged to MtF transgender organizations with many
network connections in each city. Eligibility criteria included self-identification as a
MtF transgender, being over 18 years old, city of residence (Arica, Valparaiso, and
Santiago), and written informed consent.
The final sample consists of 437 participants between 18 and 75 years old
(M ¼ 32.22 and SD ¼ 10.22), 325 gay men (74.4 %) and 112 MtF transgender
individuals (25.6 %). Gay men’s ages range from 18 to 64 years old (M ¼ 30.82
and SD ¼ 9.81), while MtF transgender individuals’ ages range from 18 to 75 years
old (M ¼ 36.22 and SD ¼ 10.37). The questionnaires were collected from May to
July 2011 in Arica (21.2 %), Valparaiso (33.8 %), and Santiago (45 %).
2.2 Instrument/Questionnaire
The instrument consists of three sets of questions designed to: (a) collect
sociodemographic data, (b) measure the levels of stigma, discrimination, and
victimization, and (c) measure the levels of happiness and social well-being of
the sample.
2.2.1 Sociodemographic Measures
The sociodemographic measures include “Age” (later re-categorized into 3 age

groups: 18–29, 30–44, and 45 or older), “City of residence” (Santiago, Valparaiso,
or Arica), “Educational level” (seven response categories ranging from incomplete
primary school to a university degree studies), “Socioeconomic status” (measured
with ESOMAR from the World Association of Market Research (Adimark 2014),
which combines educational level and the occupational category of the head of the
household to which the participant belongs in one matrix), “Religiosity” (measured
with the question “Do you consider yourself a religious individual?” and a scale
measuring the importance given to religious ideas and one’s religious community).
In addition, some questions were asked about testing to detect HIV/AIDS, the
diagnosis (positive or negative), and the time the individual had lived with the virus.
2.2.2 Stigma and Discrimination Measures
Victimization events (Barrientos et al. 2010). A 10-item scale examines aggression

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

Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) was used. It was adapted and validated for the
Chilean population by Vera-Villarroel et al. (2011), with good reliability indicators
(Cronbach alpha 0.87). The version used consists of four Likert-type items whose
final score is obtained by adding up the scores obtained and dividing them by the
total number of items (Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999). Response options range
from 1 (“Unhappy”) to 6 (“Very happy”). A moderate internal consistency index
was obtained for this application (Cronbach alpha 0.65).
Social Well-Being The Social Well-Being Scale designed by Keyes (1998) was
used. It was translated by Blanco and Dı́az (2005) and validated in the national
population by Cárdenas and Barrientos (2013), with good reliability indicators
(Cronbach alpha 0.87). The version used consists of 33 items distributed in
5 dimensions: Social Integration, Social Acceptance, Social Contribution, Social
Actualization, and Social Coherence. Likert-type response options range from
1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). High scores indicate good social
adjustment. Suitable psychometric properties are obtained for the total scale
(Cronbach alpha 0.89) and for its dimensions: Social Integration, α ¼ 0.63, Social
Acceptance, α ¼ 0.83, Social Contribution, α ¼ 0.38, Social Actualization,
α ¼ 0.64, and Social Coherence, α ¼ 0.86.
2.3 Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses were conducted by using the software package SPSS 20.0 for
Windows. To provide a description of the sample, means and standard deviations
were calculated for each variable. Next, several t-tests were conducted to compare
the scores of the two samples (gay men and MtF transgender individuals) on
measures of stigma and discrimination, levels of victimization, discrimination,
happiness, and well-being. Analyses included effect size calculations (Cohen’s d)
in G*Power 3.1.6 (Faul et al. 2007, 2009).
3 Results
3.1 Sociodemographic Profile
Differential patterns are observed in the socioeconomic profile of the sample

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

Gay men MtF transgender
(%) (%)
Variables (N ¼ 325) (N ¼ 112)
Socioeconomic status Very high (A) 4.0 0.0
High (BC1) 12.0 0.0
Medium high (C2) 32.9 6.0
Medium (C3) 35.5 8.4
Medium low (D) 13.9 72.3
Low (E) 1.7 13.3
Educational level Degree 3.1 0.0
College 22.2 3.6
Incomplete college/complete 35.5 6.4
technical
Complete secondary/incomplete 30.1 20.0
technical
Incomplete secondary 4.7 33.6
Complete primary 0.3 26.4
Incomplete primary 1.2 10.0
Religiosity Religious 36.1 69.4
Non-religious 63.9 30.6
Political self- Left 48.0 53.2
categorization Center 31.7 30.6
Right 20.3 16.2
HIV/AIDS tested Done 84.7 71.2
Not done 15.3 28.8
HIV/AIDS diagnose Positive 18.5 16.5
Negative 81.5 83.5
MtF Male-to-female
men. In addition, none of the MtF transgender individuals have a high or very high
socioeconomic status, while 16 % of gay men belong to these socioeconomic
groups.
The educational level of the gay men falls into two main categories: “complete
secondary and incomplete technical education” (30.1 %) and “incomplete college
education” (38.5 %). By contrast, MtF transgender individuals are categorized as
“complete primary education” (26.4 %), “incomplete secondary education”
(33.6 %), and “complete secondary and incomplete technical education” (20 %),
which reveals the lower educational level of this group. Regarding the main work
activities reported, 74.7 % of MtF transgender individuals work in sexual com-
merce. In the case of gay men, the type of work is much more varied.
Moreover, 36.1 % of gay men and 69.4 % of MtF transgender individuals
consider themselves to be religious people. Most of the religious subjects from
both groups describe themselves as Catholic (78 % and 83.3 %, respectively). Only
19.5 % of gay men and 13 % of MtF transgender individuals ascribe to Christian
religions other than Catholicism, mainly Evangelical, with 8.1 % and 7.4 %,
respectively.
Regarding their political ideas, most participants opt for the left wing (48 % and
53.2 %, respectively), although an important number of them choose the political
center (31.7 % of gay men and 30.6 % of MtF transgender individuals).
Some questions were posed to learn about HIV/AIDS detection tests, their
diagnosis, and the time spent living with the virus. Most of the sample had taken
the test (84.7 % of gay men and 71.2 % of MtF transgender individuals), while
18.5 % of gay men and 16.5 % of MtF transgender individuals had been diagnosed
with HIV/AIDS. Of those diagnosed with the virus, 62.5 % are gay men and 50 %
are MtF transgender individuals who were informed of their condition more than
3 years ago. Only a small number had found out about their condition recently (four
subjects in each group).
3.2 Subjective Index of Stigma and Discrimination
Table 2 shows both groups’ results on the SISD total score and on each dimension
of the scale. Statistically significant differences are observed between gay men and
MtF transgender individuals (t(435) ¼ 2.48; p < 0.05; d ¼ 0.26) on the SISD
scores. Additionally, differences are observed in 3 dimensions: disadvantages in
the presence of authorities (t(435) ¼ 2.83; p < 0.005; d ¼ 0.31), discrimination at
work (t(435) ¼ 3.78; p < 0.005; d ¼ 0.41), and institutional exclusion
(t(434) ¼ 4.25; p < 0.001; d ¼ 0.46). These results confirm that the gap between
Table 2 Means and standard deviation in SISD dimensions for gay men and MtF transgender
individuals
Gay Men MtF transgender
(N ¼ 325) (N ¼ 112)
Dimension M (SD) M (SD) t gl p d
(SISD) Total score 4.11 (1.05) 4.43 (1.40) 2.17 156 0.03 0.26
Stigma and discrimination 4.79 (1.19) 4.71 (1.62) 0.52 154 0.06
experiences
Disadvantage in presence 4.21 (1.48) 4.67 (1.53) 2.83 435 0.005 0.31
of authorities
Discrimination at work 3.73 (1.41) 4.33 (1.51) 3.78 435 <0.001 0.41
Expression of sexual or 3.87 (1.52) 4.18 (1.56) 1.82 434 0.07
gender identity
Institutional exclusion and 3.58 (1.52) 4.31 (1.65) 4.08 178 <0.001 0.46
rights denial
Religious discrimination 4.46 (1.25) 4.30 (1.65) 0.93 155 0.35
Response options range from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate more stigma and discrimination
MtF Male-to-female
Significance level: p<0.05
the two groups on the total scale and the dimensions mentioned above can be
considered significant (even though the mean scores on the SISD (and the mean
scores on their dimensions) of both groups must be considered high because values
can range from 1 to 5).
3.3 Relation Between SISD, Victimization Measures,

Discrimination and Minority Stress, and Measures
of Happiness and Social Well-Being
Table 3 shows the high percentage of subjects from both groups who report
victimization events due to their gay or MtF transgender condition. Events most
frequently reported include mockery and insults. Both groups report that they are
used to these events, which have occurred in different contexts since school. In the
case of MtF transgender individuals, greater public visibility involves greater
Table 3 Percentages of having experienced victimization and discrimination for gay men and
MtF transgender individuals
Gay men MtF transgender
Victimization events (%) (%)
Mockery 73.2 88.1
Insults 55.8 87.4
Threats 26.7 66.7
Physical aggression attempt 21.6 66.7
Physical aggression 16.6 61.3
Sexual aggression attempt 14.7 46.8
Sexual aggression 11.5 40.5
Blackmail 18.9 40.7
Non-violent robbery 22.4 61.3
Violent assault 13.7 53.2
Discrimination events
Not hired or fired from work 22.3 57.8
Not allowed to enter or stay in a public place 14.2 49.5
Ill-treated by public officials 25.8 59.1
Not accepted or banned from school 9.3 46.8
Not accepted or rejected by a group of friends 19.8 42.3
Disturbed or harassed by neighbors 32.5 52.7
Not accepted or banned from a social group 10.6 34.9
Not accepted or rejected by the family 18.0 48.2
Not accepted or banned from a religious group 16.1 40.0
Verbal or physical aggression or denial of help by the 19.3 70.0
police
MtF Male-to-female
vulnerability to these events, but the number of subjects reporting assaults or

robbery (61.3 %), physical aggression (61.3 %), and sexual aggression (40.55) is
quite surprising, perhaps because most of the subjects in the sample work in sexual
commerce on the street.
Regarding the question about the extent to which these events had caused an
impact on their lives, subjects give them relative importance, which is an interesting
result to analyze (Table 4). For example, for MtF transgender individuals mockery
has a more enduring and profound effect on their lives (M ¼ 4.55) than other events
that could be judged as more violent, e.g., sexual aggression (M ¼ 3.55). In com-
paring the impact reported by the two groups, mockery, insults, threats, sexual
aggression attempts, violent robbery and assault are scored significantly higher by
MtF transgender individuals, thus producing a greater impact on their lives. No
differences are found in the impact of physical aggression attempts, actual physical
aggression, sexual aggression, or blackmail, although the MtF transgender sample
has experienced them to a greater extent.
Table 3 shows the percentages of each event for both groups, as well as the mean
for the life impact reported. Data suggest a differential impact of each discrimina-
tion event, regardless of its magnitude. Thus, the event causing the most impact on
gay men could belong to the private context (rejection by the family), while for MtF
transgender individuals the events given the highest scores are those from the public
context (verbal or physical aggression, being denied help from the police, and being
rejected or banned from school). Table 4 shows that, although the MtF transgender
group reports a higher percentage of these actions, only two differences are
statistically significant: “not being accepted or being banned from school”
(t(97) ¼ 3.45; p ¼ 0.001; d ¼ 0.65) and “verbal or physical aggression”
(t(145) ¼ 3.56; p ¼ 0.001; d ¼ 0.59). These results confirm the greater exposure
and vulnerability of MtF-transgender individuals, due to their greater visibility.
The possible impact of perceived stigma and discrimination on happiness and
social well-being will be analyzed below. In analyzing the means of both groups,
statistically significant differences are found for happiness (t (434) ¼ 2.53; p < 0.05;
d ¼ 0.25), social integration (t (435) ¼ 2.19; p < 0.05; d ¼ 0.22), and social coher-
ence on the scale of social well-being (t (434) ¼ 4.65; p < 0.001; d ¼ 0.53).
Results indicate that the gay men report higher levels of happiness (they are
happier and assess their lives as such) and a significantly greater degree of social
integration (they assess the quality of their relations with society and the commu-
nity more positively). At the same time, they report significantly lower levels of
social coherence; in other words, they assess the quality, organization, and func-
tioning of the social world more negatively and are more concerned about what
happens in the world.
In dividing the groups according to the median on the SISD (gay men ¼ 4.13 and
MtF transgender individuals ¼ 4.89), a comparison can be made between partici-
pants with high and low scores on happiness and the different dimensions of social
well-being. These analyses reveal that, at higher levels of perceived stigma and
discrimination, effects are observed in the assessment of the levels of happiness and
well-being.
Table 4 Impact of victimization and discrimination events on the lives of gay men and MtF
transgender individuals
MtF
Gay men transgender
(N ¼ 325) (N ¼ 112)
M (SD) M (SD) t gl p d
Victimization events
Mockery 3.50 (1.56) 4.55 (1.77) 5.33 337 <0.001 0.63
Insults 3.47 (1.77) 4.25 (1.89) 3.40 283 0.001 0.43
Threats 3.29 (1.79) 4.14 (2.01) 2.95 156 0.004 0.61
Physical aggression attempt 3.48 (1.94) 4.41 (1.93) 2.96 164 0.004 0.48
Physical aggression 3.77 (2.01) 4.27 (1.87) 1.55 142 0.12
Sexual aggression attempt 3.11 (1.98) 3.95 (1.99) 2.40 126 0.02 0.42
Sexual aggression 3.28 (2.09) 3.55 (2.07) 0.77 112 0.44
Blackmail 3.39 (2.05) 3.54 (2.11) 0.41 125 0.68
Non-violent robbery 3.28 (1.87) 4.01 (1.93) 2.37 151 0.02 0.38
Violent assault 3.29 (2.01) 4.05 (1.96) 2.13 123 0.03 0.38
Discrimination events
Not hired or fired from work 3.61 (1.74) 4.00 (1.95) 1.32 157 0.19
Not allowed to enter or stay in a 2.87 (1.77) 3.52 (2.08) 1.83 112 0.07
public place
Ill-treated by public officials 3.51 (1.81) 3.91 (1.92) 1.38 161 0.17
Not accepted or banned from 2.91 (1.55) 4.11 (1.84) 3.52 96 0.001 0.65
school
Not accepted or rejected by a 3.51 (1.73) 3.87 (1.98) 1.10 129 0.27
group of friends
Disturbed or harassed by 3.13 (1.58) 3.53 (1.98) 1.38 108 0.17
neighbors
Not accepted or banned from a 3.21 (1.73) 3.44 (1.98) 0.60 94 0.55
social group
Not accepted or rejected by the 4.01 (1.84) 3.74 (1.92) 0.84 129 0.40
family
Not accepted or banned from a 3.38 (1.77) 3.75 (1.93) 1.09 114 0.28
religious group
Verbal or physical aggression or 3.59 (1.82) 4.63 (1.72) 3.56 145 0.001 0.59
denial of help by the police
Response options range from 1 to 6. Higher scores indicate greater impact on life
MtF Male-to-female
Significance level: p<0.05
Table 5 Means and statistical values on the SISD for high and low groups of gay men and MtF
transgender individuals in happiness and social well-being dimensions
Dimensions SISD Gay men t MtF transgender t
Social integration LOW 4.00 3.54** 3.33 6.03**
HIGH 4.32 4.52
Social acceptance LOW 3.36 4.36** 3.20 4.25**
HIGH 3.84 4.04
Social contribution LOW 3.52 4.40** 3.24 3.85**
HIGH 3.98 4.06
Social actualization LOW 3.15 6.40** 3.13 3.91**
HIGH 3.77 3.95
Social coherence LOW 2.67 3.80** 3.30 2.45*
HIGH 3.19 3.79
Happiness LOW 4.03 2.84** 3.20 6.14**
HIGH 4.35 4.54
MtF Male-to-Female
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Results from the group of gay men reveal significant differences on all measures,
except victimization. A similar pattern is shown by the MtF transgender group,
although no differences are observed in the impact attributed to discrimination
events in this group. Table 5 shows the means for happiness and social well-being in
subjects scoring above or below the SISD mean, and their respective statistical
tests.
These results support the idea that subjects who perceive greater stigma and
discrimination due to their sexual and gender identity also report more serious
effects on their happiness (they report lower levels of happiness) and social well-
being (they assess their contribution to society more negatively). All the compar-
isons are statistically significant, regardless of whether they are for gay men or MtF
transgender individuals.
4 Discussion
This paper represents one of the first attempts to describe and characterize the gay
men and MtF transgender population in Chile, thus allowing the construction of a
baseline to compare with future research, and formulating and proving hypotheses
and creating new lines for future studies. Most previous studies have been designed
exclusively to examine homophobia (Cárdenas and Barrientos 2008; Caro and
Guajardo 1997). To better understand the specific needs of sexual minorities in
areas such as health, education, and work, more data are needed about these
populations, beginning with sociodemographic data and those related to the main
problems they are affected by: stigma and discrimination. Only by learning more
about the characteristics of these populations and the way they experience stigma
and discrimination can policies be designed to solve various problems faced by gay
men and MtF transgender individuals. This issue is relevant because many studies
have shown that the LGBT population is heterogeneous in age, education, or place
of residence, and they differ on variables such as violence, health, and access to
work (IOM 2011; Kertzner et al. 2009; Meyer 2003).
Results also show that perceived stigma, discrimination, and victimization
remain, as reported in previous studies (Barrientos et al. 2010, 2012); MOVILH
2015a), in spite of the fact that studies on the general population reveal that
homophobia may be decreasing (MOVILH 2012, 2013). This divergence increases
the need to consider the point of view of the victims in order to understand
homophobia and its effects (Gomez and Barrientos 2012; Barrientos et al. 2014).
In addition, data indicate that MtF transgender individuals are particularly
subjected to high levels of stigma and discrimination. Thus, transphobia is a serious
problem in Chile. MtF transgender individuals perceive disadvantages in the
presence of authorities, discrimination at work, and institutional exclusion, indi-
cating the need to protect the social rights of this population. Moreover, MtF
transgender individuals are often poorer and less educated than gay men, lesbians
or heterosexual individuals, and MtF transgenders are often involved in sexual
work, as shown in this study, so that the discrimination they suffer is multi-layered
(De Santis 2009). Therefore, it was very important to include MtF transgender
individuals in this study, as empirical data about this population are limited
(Barrientos and Cárdenas 2014). As in other studies in the region (Silva-Santisteban
et al. 2012), sexual work is the main economic activity of this group, reflecting the
lack of opportunities for MtF transgender individuals in Chile. This finding is an
indicator of the so-called secondary victimization: forms of discrimination/victim-
ization such as a lack of job opportunities, resulting from victimization processes
that are legal or widely condoned.
With regard to the perceived stigma and discrimination, three ambits are notice-
able: disadvantages in the presence of authorities, discrimination at work, and
institutional exclusion. This study confirms previous findings reported in studies
on the LGBT Pride Parade in 2011 (Barrientos and Bozon 2014), particularly those
from recent reports on the situation of the country’s LGBT population (MOVILH
2015b). For example, violence by police authorities toward the LGBT population in
Chile still exists. Although this violence has decreased in recent years, there are still
cases of mistreatment by the police and arbitrary detentions. As reported by
Barrientos and Bozon (2014), there are security guards in Chile who control the
entrances to many public places and are responsible for security in many different
contexts (Gobierno Regional Metropolitatno de Santiago 2012). They are often
retired police officers or young people who recently finished their military service.
These men perform a type of hegemonic masculinity (Connell and Messerschmidt
2005) and often act as guardians of this type of masculinity. Therefore, based on
previous studies, because gay men and, especially, MtF transgender people would
be expected to show a more atypical gender appearance or behavior that does not
conform to the gender role expectations for men, they could experience more
victimization than lesbians (Katz-Wise and Hyde 2012).
Regarding discrimination at work, MOVILH (2015a) reports that discrimination

events at work still exist. This type of discrimination at work is due to sexual
orientation and gender identity. Many subjects report that their rights are violated
by the arbitrary and unfair use of the Chilean labor legislation. Chilean law still
allows firing based on the company’s need, thus hiding the actual reasons for it,
such as sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, discrimination perceived
at work by the MtF transgender population could be due to their main type of work,
i.e., sexual commerce. Discrimination at work due to sexual orientation or gender
identity has scarcely been studied in Latin America (ADEIM et al. 2006). Thus,
future studies should examine it more in depth.
Regarding victimization and discrimination events, a study related to the
national context (Barrientos and Bozon 2014) indicates that mockery is a common
way to express violence toward sexual minorities. This finding is very important
and might not be understood outside the Chilean context. In our country, verbal
violence is frequent and practiced toward anyone who is different; it is a frequently
reported form of discrimination perceived by diverse discriminated groups (Merino
et al. 2008). Likewise, anti-gay and anti-transgender language is one of many
mechanisms through which heterosexism is enacted; it communicates hostility
toward gay men and MtF transgender people and contributes to the establishment
of an unwelcoming and unsafe environment for them (Burn 2000).
Results also reveal that gay men particularly report lower levels of happiness,
compared to the Chilean general population (Vera-Villarroel et al. 2011). However,
compared to similar studies in the country, subjects in the present study report
higher levels of social well-being (Gomez and Barrientos 2012). In the case of gay
men, this could be because the sample mostly has a middle and middle-high
socioeconomic status. They would be part of a more protective context in terms
of prejudice (higher educational levels, mainly young people), allowing them
access to higher quality services, such as healthcare, which in a country like
Chile is private and for a fee. Thus, the characteristics of the gay men sample
(middle-high socioeconomic status, high educational level, and mainly young
people) may influence the results and produce a bias that future studies should
address. This is important because studies indicate that the LGBT population faces
several barriers that prevent them from having equal access to health services, a fact
that could have a strong impact on their quality of life (IOM 2011). In the case of
MtF transgender individuals, the results reveal their great vulnerability and the
negative effects of discrimination on their well-being.
This study has several limitations. One of them is the use of self-report measures
(Greenwald and Banaji 1995). Hence, future studies on the adaptation of indirect
(non-reactive) measurements are needed to allow access to people’s internal states
and attitudes without directly asking about them. These measurement procedures
require quicker and less conscious appraisals that make it more difficult to adjust
responses to expectations.
Another limitation could be that the SISD is not specifically for gay men or MtF
transgender individuals. A recent study recommends the use of specific measures
for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people, which, in this study, would
involve examining stigma in gay men and MtF transgender individuals as separate
constructs (Worthen 2013). This differentiation is relevant and may contribute to
increasing our understanding of stigma and discrimination in various populations.
Moreover, as gay men and MtF transgender individuals are considered Men who
have sex with other Men (MSM) in Latin America and in Chile, they are thought to
be similar in terms of some characteristics related to their vulnerability to HIV,
which is often the reason for studying these groups in the country and the region
(Organizacion de las Naciones Unidas para la Educacion, La Ciencia y la Cultura,
Chile, Ministerio de Salud, VIVOPOSITIVO and ASOSIDA 2012). Future studies
should separately address the specific needs of these populations.
Moreover, future studies should balance the presence of MtF transgender indi-
viduals belonging to a middle-high socioeconomic status because this study could
only interview MtF transgender individuals with a low and middle socioeconomic
status.
Finally, sampling difficult-to-access populations is a huge challenge for social
research. This study used a type of sampling that does not allow the random
selection of participants, making it difficult to generalize findings to the whole
Chilean gay men and MtF transgender population. Future studies should include
other sampling methods for difficult-to-access populations, such as respondent-
driven sampling (Mantecon et al. 2008; Cárdenas and Ya~nez 2012) or sampling
based on meeting places and schedules of group members (Salganik and
Heckathorn 2004).
Appendix: Subjective Index of Stigma and Discrimination

(SISD)
Next, indicate you agreement or disagreement with the statements below. Use the
following scale: 1 ¼ “totally in disagreement” and 6 ¼ “totally in agreement”.
1. In our society, many homosexuals are often insulted on the street 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

will always tend to blame him because of his sexual orientation
9. I think I could be fired from a job because of my sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. I think I could be rejected for a job because of my sexual orientation 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. If people knew about my sexual orientation, I could be harassed at 1 2 3 4 5 6
work
12. I have felt harassed at work or at school because of my sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6
orientation
13. If I compete for a job with a heterosexual individual, he/she will 1 2 3 4 5 6
probably get the job despite our similar training and expertise
14. In our society, a homosexual individual does not compete for a job in 1 2 3 4 5 6
similar conditions
15. I avoid talking openly about my homosexuality at work 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. I would never dare to say that I am a homosexual at work 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. In a society like ours, a homosexual will never be able to express his 1 2 3 4 5 6
ideas freely
18. In our society, a homosexual individual may miss a chance to have 1 2 3 4 5 6
social benefits because of his sexual orientation
19. I think I could be banned from an educational institution (high- 1 2 3 4 5 6
school, tertiary education center, college, etc.) because of my sexual
orientation
20. I could be arbitrarily detained by the police because of my sexual 1 2 3 4 5 6
orientation
21. Religious discourse is homophobic 1 2 3 4 5 6
22. I have felt discriminated against in my religious community because 1 2 3 4 5 6
of my sexual orientation
23. Extremely religious people discriminate against homosexuals 1 2 3 4 5 6
References
ADEIM-Simbiosis, Artemisa, Cattrachas, Criola, IGLHRC, & Red Nosotras. (2006). La

invisibilidad aseguraba el puchero, Lesbianas y discriminaci on laboral en Colombia, Bolivia,
Brasil, Honduras y México [Invisibility guaranteed food on the table, Lesbians and job
discrimination in Colombia, Bolivia, Brasil, Honduras and Mexico]. Buenos Aires: Comisi on
Internacional de Derechos Humanos para Gays y Lesbianas (IGLHRC).
ADIMARK. (2014). El nivel socio econ omico ESOMAR. Manual de Aplicaci on. Informe Técnico,
Chile, 2000 [ESOMAR socioeconomic level. Application manual. Technical report]. Accessed
July 22, 2014, from http://www.microweb.cl/idm/documentos/ESOMAR.pdf
Assis, J., Carrara, S., Facchini, R., & Ramos, C. (2006). Polı́tica, directos, violencia e homossex-
ualidade. Pesquisa 9ª parada do orgulho GLBT-S^ ao Paulo 2005. Rio de Janeiro: CEPESC.
Barrientos, J., & Bozon, M. V. (2014). Victimization against gay men and lesbians in Chile in the
context of the XIII sexual diversity pride parade—Santiago 2011: Two types of discrimination
or just one? Revista Interdisciplinaria, 31(2), 323–339.
Barrientos, J., & Cárdenas, M. (2013). Homofobia y Calidad de Vida de Gay y Lesbianas: Una
Mirada Psicosocial [Homophobia and quality of life in gay men and lesbians: A psychosocial
view]. Psykhe, 22(1), 3–14. doi:10.7764/psykhe.22.1.553.
Barrientos, J., & Cárdenas, M. (2014). Construction and validation of a subjective scale of stigma
and discrimination (SISD) for the gay men and transgender women population in Chile (SISD).
Sexuality and Social Policy Research, 11(3), 187–198.
Barrientos, J., Cárdenas, M., Dı́az, J., & Mu~noz, F. (2012). Derechos, polı́ticas, violencia y
diversidad sexual: segunda encuesta marcha por la diversidad sexual—Santiago 2011 [Rights,
policies, violence and sexual diversity: Second survey—Santiago 2011]. Santiago: Universidad
Catolica del Norte/Movimiento por la Diversidad Sexual.
Barrientos, J., Cárdenas, M., & Gomez, F. (2014). Caracterı́sticas Socio-demográficas, homofobia,
VIH y bienestar en una muestra chilena de hombres gay [Socio-demographic characteristics,
subjective well-being, and homophobia experienced by a sample of gay men from three cities
in Chile]. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 30(6), 1259–1269.
Barrientos, J., Silva, J., Catalán, S., Gomez, F., & Longueira, J. (2010). Discrimination and
victimization: Parade for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) pride, in Chile.
Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 760–775.
Barrington, C., Guardado, M. E., Nieto, A., & Bailey, G. P. (2012). Social network characteristics
and HIV vulnerability among transgender persons in San Salvador: Identifying opportunities
for HIV prevention strategies. AIDS and Behavior, 6(1), 214–224.
Barzagan, M., & Galvan, F. (2012). Perceived discrimination and depression among low-income
Latina male-to-female transgender women. BMC Public Health, 12, 663.
Blanco, A., & Dı́az, D. (2005). El bienestar social: su concepto y medici on [Social well-being: Its
conception and measurement]. Psicothema, 17, 582–589.
Bockting, W. O., Miner, M. H., Swinburne, R. E., Hamilton, A., & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma,
mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. American
Journal of Public Health, 103, 943–951.
Brigeiro, M., Castillo, E., & Murad, R. (2009). Encuesta LGBT: Sexualidad y Derechos.
Participantes de la Marcha de la Ciudadanı́a. Brasil: Instituto de Medicina Social, CLAM.
Brito, A., Jiménez de Sandi, A., Sı́vori, H., Lacerda, P., Glockner, N., & De la Garza, L. (2012).
Polı́tica, derechos, violencia y sexualidad Encuesta de la Marcha del Orgullo y la Diversidad
Sexual de la Ciudad de México—2008. Rio de Janeiro: CEPESC.
Burgess, D., Lee, R., Tran, A., & Ryn, M. (2007). Effects of perceived discrimination on mental
health and mental health services utilization among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
persons. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3, 1–14.
Burn, S. M. (2000). Heterosexuals’ use of “fag” and “queer” to deride one another: A contributor
to heterosexism and stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40(2), 1–11.
Cárdenas, M., & Barrientos, J. (2008). Actitudes explı́citas e implı́citas hacia los hombres
homosexuales en una muestra de estudiantes universitarios en Chile [Explicit and implicit
attitudes toward gay men in a university sample in Chile]. Psykhe, 17, 17–25.
Cárdenas, M., & Ya~nez, S. (2012). Nuevas formas de muestreo para minorı́as y poblaciones
ocultas: muestras por encuestado conducido en una poblaci on de inmigrantes sudamericanos
[New forms of sampling for minority and hidden populations: Respondent samples conducted
in a south American immigrant population]. Universitas Psychologica, 11(2), 571–578.
Cárdenas, M., & Barrientos, J. (2013). Social well-being scale: Adaptation and validation in an
university chilean sample. Unpublished manuscript.
Caro, I., & Guajardo, G. (1997). Homofobia cultural en Santiago de Chile. Un estudio cualitativo
[Cultural homophobia in Santiago de Chile. A qualitative study]. Chile: Flacso.
Clements-Nolle, K., Mark, R., & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender persons:
The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization. Journal of Homosexuality, 51
(3), 53–69.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender Society, 19, 829–859.
De Santis, J. P. (2009). HIV infection risk factors among male-to-female transgender persons: A
review of the literature. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 20(5), 362–372.
doi:10.1016/j.jana.2009.06.005.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41,
1149–1160.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 175–191.
Ghorayeb, D. B., & Dalgalarrondo, P. (2011). Homosexuality: Mental health and quality of life in
a Brazilian socio-cultural context. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 57, 496–500.
Gobierno Regional Metropolitano de Santiago. (2012). Estudio de Oferta de Servicios de
Seguridad Privada en la Regi on Metropolitana de Santiago [Study of the offer of private
security services in the metropolitan region of Santiago]. Accessed July 22, 2014, from http://
www.gobiernosantiago.cl/Estudio%20Oferta%20Seguridad%20Privada%20RMS/Informe%
20Final_Estudio%20Seguridad%20Privada%20RMS.pdf
Gomez, F., & Barrientos, J. (2012). Efectos del prejuicio sexual en la salud mental de gays y
lesbianas, en la ciudad de Antofagasta, Chile [The effects of sexual prejudice on the mental
health of gays and lesbians in Antofagasta, Chile]. Sexualidad, Salud y Sociedad, 10, 100–123.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
Herek, G. H., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,
945–951.
Institute of Medicine [IOM]. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people:
Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Katz-Wise, S., & Hyde, J. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 142–167.
Kertzner, R., Meyer, I., Frost, D., & Stirratt, M. (2009). Social and psychological well-being in
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: The effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 500–510.
Keyes, C. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121–140.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. A. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary
reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
Mantec on, A., Juan, M., Calafat, A., Beco~na, E., & Román, E. (2008). Respondent-Driven
Sampling: un nuevo método de muestreo para el estudio de poblaciones visibles y ocultas
[Respondent-driven sampling: A new sampling method for studying visible and hidden
populations]. Adicciones, 20, 161–170.
Merino, M. E., Quilaqueo, D., & Saiz, J. L. (2008). Una tipologı́a del discurso de discriminaci on
percibida en mapuches de Chile [Discursive typology of perceived discrimination against
mapuches in Chile]. Revista Signos, 41(67), 279–297. doi:10.4067/S0718-
09342008000200011.
Meyer, I. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36, 38–56.
Meyer, I. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697.
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2012) X Informe anual de derechos
humanos de la diversidad sexual en Chile [X annual report of human right of sexual diversity
in Chile]. Accessed October 22, 2012, from http://www.movilh.cl/documentacion/informe-
ddhh-2011/Informe-ddhh-Movilh-Chile-2011.pdf
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2013) XI Informe Anual de Derechos
Humanos de la Diversidad Sexual en Chile, Hechos 2012 [XI annual report of human right of
sexual diversity in Chile]. Santiago: Author. Accessed October 10, 2012, from http://www.
movilh.cl/documentacion/XI_Informe_de_DHH_Movilh_Hechos_2012.pdf
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2015a). Primera encuesta nacional.

Diversidad sexual, Derechos Humanos y Ley contra la discriminacion [Homosexual liberation
and integration movement. First national survey. Sexual diversity, human rights and law
against discrimination]. Santiago: Author. Accessed March 10, 2015, from http://www.
movilh.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Encuesta-Nacional-Diversidad-Sexual.pdf
Movimiento de Integracion y Liberacion Homosexual. (2015b). XIII Informe Anual de Derechos
Humanos de la Diversidad Sexual en Chile, Hechos 2012 [XIII annual report of human right of
sexual diversity in Chile]. Santiago: Author. Accessed March 10, 2015, from http://www.
movilh.cl/documentacion/2014/XIII%20Informe%20de%20DDHH%202014-web.pdf
ONUSIDA, Organizacion de las Naciones Unidas para la Educaci on, La Ciencia y la Cultura,
Chile, Ministerio de Salud, VIVOPOSITIVO, & ASOSIDA. (2012) Ińdice compuesto de
estigma y discriminaci on hacia hombres homosexuales, otros HSH y mujeres transgénero en
Chile (ICED): sı́ntesis de estudio [Index of stigma and discrimination towards gay men, MSM
and women transgender in Chile: A synthesis]. Santiago: Autores.
Pinto, R., Melendez, R., & Spector, A. (2008). Male-to-female transgender individuals building
social support and capital from within a gender-focused network. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Social Services, 20(3), 203–220.
Salganik, M., & Heckathorn, D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden population using
respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 34(1), 193–239.
Silva-Santisteban, A., Raymond, H. F., Salazar, X., Villayzan, J., Leon, S., McFarland, W., &
Caceres, C. F. (2012). Understanding the HIV/AIDS epidemic in transgender women of Lima,
Peru: Results from a sero-epidemiologic study using respondent driven sampling. AIDS and
Behavior, 16, 872–881.
Vera-Villarroel, P., Celis, K., & Cordova, N. (2011). Evaluaci on de la felicidad: análisis
psicométrico de la Escala de Felicidad Subjetiva en poblaci on chilena [Evaluation of happi-
ness: Psychometric analysis of the subjective happiness scale in Chilean population]. Terapia
Psicologica, 29, 127–133.
Warner, J., McKeown, E., Griffin, M., Johnson, K., Ramsay, A., Cort, C., & King, M. (2004).
Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 479–485.
Worthen, M. G. F. (2013). An argument for separate analysis of attitudes toward lesbian, gay,
bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68(11–12),
703–723.
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions
in the Workplace: Implications for Policy
M. Paz Galupo and Courtney A. Resnick
1 Introduction
Though strides have been made in the fight for workplace equality for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) identified Americans, LGBT employees are still
discriminated against in workplaces in alarming numbers. In 2011, the Williams
Institute published a report that included data from the 2008 General Social Survey
(GSS), which indicated 42 % of LGB respondents had experienced workplace
discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation in their career (Sears and
Mallory 2011). Even more startling are the experiences of transgender employees.
A 2011 report published by the National Center for Transgender Equality indicates
that 90 % of transgender persons surveyed reported experiencing harassment or
mistreatment on the job (Grant et al. 2011).
1.1 Microaggressions
LGBT research in the workplace has primarily focused on documenting overt forms
of discrimination and harassment. However, more subtle forms of mistreatment,
called microaggressions, also occur. Microaggressions have been described as
everyday verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or
unintentional, that convey hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward
members of oppressed groups (Nadal 2008). In their seminal article on racial
M.P. Galupo (*)

Department of Psychology, Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
e-mail: pgalupo@towson.edu
C.A. Resnick
College of Arts and Sciences, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_16
272 M.P. Galupo and C.A. Resnick
microaggressions, Sue et al. (2007) classified microaggressions into three broad

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

Workplace Policy
Title VII of the Civil Rights acts protects U.S. employees on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, and gender; however, there is no federal legislation that
protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination. In the U.S., approxi-
mately nine million people identify as LGBT (Gates 2011) making this a civil rights
issue that deserves attention. While 20 states and Washington D.C. have adopted
workplace non-discrimination policies on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity and two states have workplace non-discrimination policies based on sexual
Experiences of LGBT Microaggressions in the Workplace: Implications for Policy 273
orientation only (“Statewide Employment Laws and Policies” 2016), the lack of
federal policy sends a message of approval or permissiveness toward LGBT
employment discrimination.
Workplace non-discrimination policies and their effects on LGBT employees
have been studied by a handful of researchers. Badgett et al. (2013) issued a report
that identified and reviewed research related to the impact of LGBT-supportive
employment policies and the benefits of such policies to individual employees and
organizations. Although the number of studies identified was small (36 in total), key
findings included (1) LGBT-supportive policies and support from colleagues is
associated with greater likelihood that an LGBT employee will feel comfortable
disclosing their sexual orientation, which is related to improved psychological
health among LGBT employees; (2) LGBT employees who work in organizations
with non-discrimination policies report higher job satisfaction; and, (3) LGBT
employees who are covered by non-discrimination policies are linked to improved
relationships with co-workers and supervisors.
Even with the presence of non-discrimination policies in the workplace, LGBT
employees are still at-risk to experience discrimination, particularly in the form of
microaggressions, as they may not be covered under conventional non-discrimination
policies. There is some evidence to support this. King et al. (2011) explored the
presence of racial and gender microaggressions in a random sample of workplace
discrimination court cases in federal court. Their findings indicate that all three types
of microaggressions appear in court cases; however, only microassaults increased the
likelihood of a favorable outcome for plaintiffs. Therefore, further examination of
workplace policy and microaggressions is warranted.
2 Methods
2.1 Participant Demographics
Participants were 100 working adults who self-identified as asexual, bisexual, fluid,
gay, lesbian, pansexual and/or queer (see Table 1). Of the 100 participants,
13 (13.0 %) also identified as transgender, transsexual, gender variant, or as having
a transgender history. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 66 (M ¼ 34.01,
SD ¼ 10.82).
Participants resided in 27 different U.S. states and represented all regions of the
continental U.S. Table 1 also includes participant demographics with regard to
racial/ethnic diversity and socio-economic status. There was limited racial/ethnic
diversity within the sample, with 73.0 % identifying as White/Caucasian and
27.0 % of participants identifying as a racial/ethnic minority. Table 2 provides
additional workplace and education demographics.
Table 1 Participant Sexual orientation %

demographics
Gay 32.0
Lesbian 27.0
Queer 21.0
Bisexual 12.0
Asexual 2.0
Pansexual 3.0
Other 2.0
Fluid 1.0
Gender identity
Cisgender 85.0
Trans* or Trans* History 13.0
No answer 2.0
Race/Ethnic identity
White/Caucasian 73.0
Bi/Multiracial 10.0
Asian/Asian American 4.0
Hispanic/Latino 6.0
Black/African American 4.0
American Indian/Alaskan 2.0
Other 1.0
SES
Lower-middle class 24.0
Working class 13.0
Middle class 40.0
Upper-middle class 19.0
Upper class 3.0
No answer 1.0
2.2 Measures
The present study used a mixed method approach to best capture the everyday
workplace experiences of the survey respondents. Using an online survey, partic-
ipants answered questions regarding their experiences of microaggressions in their
workplace. Recruitment announcements, including a link to the online survey, were
posted on social media sites including Facebook and Twitter and online study
repositories including Social Psychology Research Network and Gay Research.
Survey participants responded to a series of open-ended questions regarding
their experience of microaggressions in the workplace. The questions were
designed to target the three categories of microaggressions (microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidations). For each, participants were provided a def-
inition and then asked to provide an example from their own personal experience.
Prompts were specific to each of the categories and were framed to make the current
workplace context salient.
Table 2 Education and Education %

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

Likert-type questions to rate their level of agreement (strongly agree, agree,
slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree, strongly disagree). Participants
responded to the following prompts: “Experiences such as these. . .” (1) are
offensive to me; (2) negatively impact my mood for the rest of the day; (3) nega-
tively impact my sense of wellbeing; (4) cause me to question how my colleagues
view me; (5) negatively impact the relationships I have with coworkers; (6) decrease
my job satisfaction; (7) cause me to be less productive at work; and (8) make me
think about leaving my current job.
2.3 Data Analysis
For the quantitative data, frequencies were calculated based on the percentage of
individuals who indicated at least some level of agreement with each statement
(strongly agree, agree, slightly agree). Participants who did not provide an answer
to the question, or who indicated N/A were not included in the calculation of
percentages.
For the qualitative data, we analyzed all examples of microassaults,

microinsults, and microinvalidations together in our thematic analysis. We used a
recursive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) to explore microaggressions in
the workplace. Our analysis began with both authors independently coding data
looking for themes related workplace microaggressions. The research team met and
discussed the coding categories and agreed upon an initial set of codes. Participant
responses were then sorted into the coding categories and discussed. The team
agreed upon the final coding structure and met several additional times to discuss
and choose final representative quotes. Final quotes were chosen to simultaneously
exemplify each theme and to ensure that illustrative quotes used best represented
the diversity of workplace experience and identities endorsed by the sample.
3 Results
Table 3 presents descriptive findings for items related to how microaggressions

impact LGBT employees. Across all three types of microaggressions, the majority
of participants agreed that microaggressions are offensive to me (89.7–95.3 %),
negatively impact my mood for the rest of the day (82.4–87.3 %), negatively impact
my sense of wellbeing (75.9–82.5 %), cause me to question how my colleagues view
me (75.4–82.0 %), negatively impact the relationships I have with coworkers
(72.4–83.3 %), decrease my job satisfaction (75.4–82.0 %), cause me to be less
productive at work (50.9–59.0 %), and make me think about leaving my current job
(52.8–69.4 %).
Table 3 Impact of microaggressions on employees: percentage of participants who agreed with

statements
Microassaults Microinsults Microinvalidations
Experiences such as these. . . (in %) (in %) (in %)
Are offensive to me 95.3 89.7 92.2
Negatively impact my mood for the rest 87.3 86.0 82.4
of the day
Negatively impact my sense of 82.5 75.9 76.5
wellbeing
Cause me to question how my col- 75.4 83.6 84.0
leagues view me
Negatively impact the relationships I 72.4 83.3 79.6
have with coworkers
Decrease my overall job satisfaction 80.3 75.4 82.0
Cause me to be less productive at work 59.0 50.9 51.0
Make me think about leaving my current 59.3 52.8 69.4
job
Note: Percentages include those who indicated slightly agree, agree, or strongly agree to each of
the statements. Percentages do not include those who indicated ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘No Answer’
on the six point Likert Scale
Participants were asked to provide examples from their current job(s) to illus-
trate how they have experienced microaggressions in their workplace. Thematic
analysis revealed three distinct themes for LGBT workplace microaggressions:
(1) workplace climate; (2) organizational structure; and (3) workplace policy. The
following quotation can be used to briefly introduce the three themes and to
understand how they converged as a context for this participant’s experience.
A colleague made a comment about how a transgender inmate who was asking to transfer to
a different housing unit was being manipulative. I tried to explain that she may simply not
feel safe in a housing unit with young males. My comments were received with stares and
shoulder shrugs. The message I got from that was that staff thought she should simply put
up with the harassment. Again I found the encounter offensive and upsetting. (Government
and Public Sector Occupations, California)
In this case, the participant was in conversation with a colleague who made a
derogatory comment or assumption regarding an individual who identified within
the LGBT community. Typical to microaggressions, hearing this comment was
both offensive and upsetting on a personal level. Past research has established that
microaggressions such as these are related to a decrease in sense of personal safety
and well-being (Nadal et al. 2011a, b). Given that this interpersonal exchange
occurred in the context of the workplace these threats to wellbeing and safety
contribute to the experience of a hostile workplace climate. In addition, by nature
of the organizational structure, this microaggression took on increased importance
as the participant is limited in terms of what they are able to do for the clients they
are collectively charged with serving. The situation is potentially more upsetting
given the lack of workplace policy around transgender issues, in this case, to create
a means for advocating for the individual. In their discussion of microaggressions,
participants’ experiences spoke to each of these themes as creating a unique
experience of LGBT microaggressions in the workplace. This experience was
differentiated from their general (non-workplace) experience of LGBT
microaggressions, and from the workplace experience of cisgender/heterosexual
colleagues.
3.1 “Unwanted and Like a Misfit”: Microaggressions

and Workplace Climate
The most common theme regarding LGBT workplace microaggressions centered

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

from the social environment within the workplace.
One of the nurses who I work with engaged me in a conversation with the impression that
she wants to know more about Africa since I am originally from Africa. I told her that I used
to be a social worker while I was in Africa and I act as case manager for the LGBT
community, immediately the expression on her faced changed and she said ‘you work with
those kind of people?’ and I responded YES and I am gay too. She said to my face, ‘God
forbid.’ I was shocked because I never expected a nurse will act this way towards me and I
was wondering how she got her license with this kind of bad attitude towards the LGBQ
community.” (Community and Social Service Occupations, Illinois)
I work in an agency that is 20 % Orthodox Jewish, which includes the Executive Director.
Within Orthodoxy, there is a fundamental belief that homosexuality is wrong, and against
Torah Living, and LGBTQ people have no place in the community. I feel that I am not able
to be open in my workplace because I would be subject to overt or unspoken judgment that I
am not a “good Jew” and/or that I am perverted. Although it is rarely spoken of, I feel that I
will be shunned in my workplace if I come out. (Community and Social Service Occupa-
tions, Maryland)
My coworker used the homophobic f-slur in describing one of her friends from outside
work. . . I didn’t really know how to react because I try to avoid controversial discussions at
work especially regarding LGBTþ issues so as not to reveal anything about myself. . . It
made me want to cry that she threw it out there so casually and didn’t even think twice
about it. I don’t think it has ever even occurred to her that I or any of our other coworkers
might not be straight. (Sales Occupations, Georgia)
For participants who had not disclosed their LGBT identity in the workplace,
microaggressions were seen as further confirmation that it was not safe to do
so. Worrying about potential consequences of having their identity known in the
workplace made it particularly difficult for participants to process and respond to
microaggressions, “Knowing that everyone in that environment assumes I’m some-
thing that I’m not and I can’t stop it or speak up about it for fear of being fired makes
me very uncomfortable.” For those who chose to disclose their LGBT identity in the
workplace, their disclosure was often met with microaggressions and often caused
participants to question their relationships with coworkers and supervisors.
About a year ago, when I told a coworker I was engaged to a woman, he got very quiet, and
then, about 5 seconds later, said, OH, in this very shocked, rude kind of tone. He tried
recovering quickly, so it wasn’t really within his awareness, but it was profoundly awk-
ward. Again, I know I wasn’t saying anything wrong, but I immediately regretted telling
him I’d gotten engaged. (Community and Social Service Occupations, Illinois).
I use they/them pronouns, and have made some effort to alert my colleagues by including
these pronouns (and a link to a website about gender queerness and gender variant pronoun
usage) in my email signature. I have also alerted some co-workers on brief occasions.
However, many colleagues will invariably use the wrong pronoun for me when they speak
to me, or speak to others about me. It happens so often and so casually, that I often feel bad
about constantly correcting people—as a result, I usually say nothing. Internally, this makes
me feel ashamed for not speaking up (on behalf of my own dignity, and as an example to
others who might also be trans/gendervariant). Externally, I maintain a neutral or passive,
even appeasing, affect. (Education, Training or Library Occupations, Washington)
I am just beginning a position working in two public alternative high schools that share a
building. One of these schools is well-known for attracting queer and trans students,
because of the school culture’s emphasis on gender equity and queer/trans positivity.
When being introduced to my colleague, who works at another school, this white
cis-woman stated that I must be a good fit for the student body because of my “gender
issues”. Given her tone and the “compliment” she seemed to be trying to give me, I felt
externally compelled to pretend as if I didn’t notice she had used such a hurtful and
obviously-demeaning Freudian slip—I didn’t want to cause a scene, attract more attention
to the microinsult, or make her feel bad for saying something offensive. Internally, I felt
hurt, humiliated, and somatically disassociated from the interaction and from my body for
many hours later. (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Washington)
When their identity was known, LGBT employees often spent considerable time
and effort negotiating microaggressions and their impact on workplace interactions.
Sometimes microaggressions made clear that coworkers/supervisors/clients were
intentionally negotiating around their LGBT identities.
I oversee a program that specifically provides services to sexual minorities. To ensure our
work is reflective of the community 90 % of my staff is queer. While walking by other
office suites I have heard staff members referring to our team as the “fag” group. (Com-
munity and Social Service Occupations, Maryland)
I have a coworker who has refused to speak to me since she found out I am queer and
partnered with a woman. She’s very cold and tries to avoid being in the room with me. I’ve
recently brought it to my boss’s attention, and she says she’ll work on talking to this person
about it. It makes me feel deeply uncomfortable and like I did something wrong by
revealing my sexual orientation at work. I realize this isn’t logical, but I do have this
feeling of guilt about it, like I could have prevented it, when in reality it likely would have
come out eventually no matter what. (Community and Social Service Occupations, Illinois)
When students address me as “sir” or “sir-ma’am.” . . . When people pretend to care but
really just wish I’d go away. When students express anti-LGBTQ sentiments under their
breath and refuse to have an intelligent conversation about the issues. All of these things
make me feel angry, unwanted, and like a misfit. (Education, Training or Library Occupa-
tions, Georgia)
There is one man who always has something to say about me and my girlfriend being gross.
. . He talks about me all the time according to other coworkers. I get mad sometimes. I only
confronted him once but I went about it the wrong way by getting in his face and yelling and
making a scene and was reprimanded at work for it. I try now just to ignore his ignorance
but it is very hard. . . and I’ve found that it makes him mad when I hear about it and don’t
react negatively. Inside it tears me apart though. He doesn’t even know me but he’s so
offended by the way I live my life and who I love. (Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations, Indiana)
3.2 “She Was My Supervisor”: Microaggressions

and Organizational Structure
Participants also described LGBT microaggressions in ways that situated them

within the organizational structure of the workplace and reflected the power
dynamic inherent to the employees’ position. These microaggressions were often

experienced within an employee-supervisor or employee–client relationship.
My supervisor made a comment during a staff meeting about how “gay men think they
know everything about home décor.” I was offended but did not respond to it because I
couldn’t think of a good response and she was my supervisor. (Government and Public
Sector Occupations, California)
I serve on our university’s commission for LGBT people, which represents staff, faculty,
and students on our campus. Our university chancellor has met with the group four times in
the past three years, and has never actually said the name of the commission or the words
“gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender” or even “homosexual”. Instead, each time he meets
with us he either says “you people” or, once, he was nice enough to say “your community”.
Complaints about this were directed to the vice-chancellor for diversity, who suggested that
we just be more understanding of the chancellor’s age and background as a wealthy white
heterosexual male. (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Tennessee)
I am a manager in my workplace, so although there have been times that some verbal
actions have occurred, nobody has ever said anything directly to me. Strangely, it’s like
whispers I hear as I walk away from other workers who are in positions below mine. No
response or actions have ever been taken. I try not to feel upset, but it’s a sad thing that
people do things like that in the first place. (Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations, Maryland)
As a lesbian, I am not femme but I am not hard butch. I am a tomboy who dresses as an
“LLBean soccer mom” most of the time. Yet, I encounter the following regularly:
Students addressing me as “sir” when I am quite obviously a “ma’am.”
Students creating a new term and addressing me as “sir-ma’am.” (Education, Training
and Library Occupations, Georgia)
Employee I was giving a write up to picked up a screwdriver and said she was going to cut
my faggot balls off. (Business and Finance Operations Occupations, North Carolina)
As illustrated above, microaggressions often impact workplace relationships.

They may also impact the actual job expectations and evaluation. For example,
participants described the ways certain job expectations were added or removed
based upon the way their LGBT identity is being sexualized and/or tokenized.
I was asked to hire two new employees for our department. One of the managers hired two
female-identifying women without notifying or consulting me. She explained to me that she
simply wanted the process to move faster, since she would have needed to approve my
selections beforehand anyway. I was later informed that this manager told another manager
that she did not want me to interview and hire the new recruits because I would try to hire
“hot chicks to date.” (Office and Administrative Support Occupations, California)
The programs that I oversee are typically left out of any University publications. No one on
my staff is recognized for our contributions to the University and are always left out of
promotional material. (Community and Social Service Occupations, Maryland)
One thing that I have noticed is that at times, if there is any event or situation that is
expected to draw a particularly queer audience, I am expected to be there. In other words, I
become “the resident gay.” I don’t always feel like that should be my role, or that I am
needed in order for others to interact with or create meaningful relationships with our queer
constituents. For example, sometimes if we are trying to cultivate a donor who happens to
be gay, I am invited as the young, gay staff member, in hopes that we will connect in some
extra special way—however I am not invited to meet other donors who might be female, or
straight males. (Arts, Design, Media, Entertainment Occupations, Washington)
3.3 “I Am Not a First Class Citizen”: Microaggressions

and Workplace Policy
The third theme described by LGBT participants centered on workplace

microaggressions that were specifically related to workplace policy. These
microaggressions were enforced or supported by existing formal or informal policy
regarding dress code or bathroom usage, for example, or were related to decisions
made at a leadership level. Sometimes these microaggressions were understood as
being more likely to happen because of the lack of policy.
When I first started working at my job I wore men’s button up shirts and/or polo shirts and
khaki pants. I was told after several weeks working there that I would need to go buy
women’s clothing to wear to work. I should consider it like a uniform. I was told that my
appearance would negatively affect patient’s/client’s perception of the practice. (Office and
Administrative Support Occupations, Maryland)
People have made threatening comments about my safety as a transman in the men’s
bathroom, while I was in the restroom, pretending they did not know I was in the stall.
(Sales Occupations, Washington)
I work for a small privately owned business (a clothing boutique) so we don’t have
corporate rules or regulations. My boss staunchly refuses to hire men because all employees
need to be able to work in the fitting room where people (mostly cis women) change
clothes. Since this policy is in place, it makes me feel like if my boss knew a girl working
there was gay or queer, she would fire them because she may see them working in the fitting
room as being similar to a straight man working back there. Similarly it makes me feel like
she would probably discriminate against trans women even though they’re women because
she would see them as male cross dressers. This is the main reason I have not come out at
work. (Sales Occupations, Georgia)
An optional diversity survey was sent around to the employees, and it had a question about
employees’ sex. First, I was annoyed that they chose sex instead of gender. But it really
aggravated me that the only available options were male and female.
It kind of shocked me to see it; it felt backwards and antiquated. Sure, they didn’t have
to put MtF or FtM, but at least put the option for intersex or other (or leave it open-ended),
right? I felt as though I should have said something to a manager about making the survey
more inclusive, but at the time it was at the end of the day and I was tired, and quite frankly,
I didn’t really care much about the survey—in fact I didn’t even complete one. (Govern-
ment and Public Sector Occupations, Maryland)
In many cases these microaggressions revealed a disconnect between (1) an

existing workplace policy and the ability or willingness to enforce the policy;
(2) the workplace diversity statement and existing policy; and, (3) state laws and
workplace policy.
My HR person discussed transition related surgery in front of my peers violating my
HIPAA rights. (Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations, New York)
Some time ago, a staff member forwarded an email to the department’s distribution list
about an upcoming election. The email solicited support of a proposition that would define
marriage between one man and one woman; thereby, excluding LGBT couples from being
recognized in domestic partnerships, etc. I responded rather quickly and let the individual
that the email was inappropriate and that the company’s email system was not to be used to
voice personal opinions. (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Arizona)
I went through a frustrating process in order to get my legal name replaced in my

organization’s email address system with my real name. My name is not a traditional
one, and when I finally got approval from HR to change the “display name” (not the actual
email address) on my account, I had to work with someone from the IT department to make
the change. Initially, this cis-gendered man refused to help me when I asked him to make
the change for me, even after I cited my conversation with HR. To brush my request off
once and for all, the worker told me that he wouldn’t be allowed to change his name to
Batman (a fictional cartoon character), so I shouldn’t expect him to change my legal name
to my real name. Externally, I felt compelled (in a kneejerk reaction) to smooth the situation
over, to appease him, and to draw less attention to myself by just laughing and disengaging.
But internally, I felt angry and humiliated—this conversation took place in front of a
colleague who shares an office with me (a colleague who also chose not to come to my
defense). (Education, Training and Library Occupations, Washington)
Our university has a campus-wide “civility campaign” with a motto of “Welcoming to all,
hostile to none,” but our university does not provide partner benefits of any kind to same-
gender couples, even if they are married in other states. (Education, Training and Library
Occupations, Tennessee)
I had to fill out a university domestic partnership certification form since my marriage from
another state is not recognized in the state in which I reside. Policy situations such as these
anger and sadden me. It makes it clear I am not a first class citizen. (Office and Adminis-
trative Support Occupations, Utah)
I am also a social work field instructor and part of my benefit is receiving 50 % off my
partner’s tuition at the local University. Since Utah does not recognize our same-sex
marriage, I had to complete a domestic partner certification form and will be taxed on
this benefit, unlike a heterosexual marriage. It is a reminder that my marriage is not
considered as valid as a heterosexual marriage and that I really do not have access to
equal benefits. (Office and Administrative Support Occupations, Utah)
4 Discussion
The present research makes a significant contribution to the literature by providing

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

microaggressions varies based on the employee’s colleagues and the organizational
structure of the workplace. In many of the respondent’s experiences, workplace
policy played a role in allowing the microaggression to occur. When a workplace
non-discrimination policy did exist, microaggressions often occurred in grey areas
where the employee was clearly offended, but there was no policy that covered the
offense. For example, multiple participants discussed feeling left out or excluded
from office events. While these instances are not likely covered under anti-
discrimination policies, they may be directly related to an organization’s mission,
vision, or values. One participant illustrated this when describing their workplace
motto that includes the phrase “hostile to none”; however, the organization does not
provide benefits to partners or recognize same-gender marriages from other states.
Such exclusions may be considered hostile to LGBT employees who work there.
Organizations should review their stated policies in light of the vision, mission, and
values of the organization to ensure there is no disconnect, as inconsistencies may
send confusing messages to employees.
Many times, discrimination policies are written in general terms, such as “We do
not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation. . .” Broad defini-
tions leave discrimination up for interpretation depending on the reader.
Fahrenhorst and Kleiner (2012), suggest that anti-bias workplace policies should
be specific, precise, and comprehensive and that employees should be advised on
how to avoid discriminatory acts. Providing definitions of microaggressions to
employees in addition to concrete examples may assist in recognizing discrimina-
tory behavior that employees do not realize is offensive. Further, Brewster
et al. (2014) suggest that when working with transgender employees, providing
training related to gender transitions to their coworkers can lead to increased
sensitivity and understanding.
In addition to creating policies, organizations need to ensure their employees are
aware these policies exist and have means to enforce the policies. Our participants
provided examples where existing policies were being violated such as disclosing
protected medical information and changing the display name on a work e-mail
address. In the latter example, Human Resources approved the name change, but
the individual met resistance when working with another department. If an
employee is permitted to change their preferred name at work, including their
e-mail address, all relevant offices must be informed on how to facilitate the
change. This ensures a smooth transition where employees are not asked to explain
themselves multiple times or face scrutiny when trying to navigate the process.
Further, we recommend that organizations evaluate language written in the policy
to ensure inclusiveness for the range of identities within the LGBT community. For
instance, sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and gender expression have differ-
ent implications for individuals and thus, each should be addressed in written policy
and practice.
4.2 Limitations
One limitation of the present research is that our participants represent a conve-
nience sample collected online. Online recruitment and sampling is particularly
useful for LGBTQ research where participants may have heightened concern about
privacy and where participants may not otherwise have access for participation
(Riggle et al. 2005). Samples recruited and collected online, however, have been
shown to disproportionately represent educated, middle class, White individuals
(Dillman et al. 2008) and the present sample is no exception. Thus, interpretation of
these data should be noted within the sample demographics. The majority of our
participants (73.0 %) identified as White which could have led to more positive
experiences being reported, as LGBT individuals of color are at a greater risk for
vulnerabilities including discrimination and violence (Ahmed and Jindasurat 2014;
Grant et al. 2011; Xavier et al. 2005).
Even though our participants described microaggressions on the basis of both
sexual orientation and gender identity, it is important to note that our recruitment
announcement was targeted toward “sexual minorities” which may not have reso-
nated with potential transgender participants. Although 13.0 % of our sample
identified as transgender, their experiences may not represent those of transgender
individuals who are heterosexually identified or who do not identify within the
larger LGBT community. As this is the first study on LGBT microaggressions in the
workplace we focused on describing them generally and did not explore patterns of
experiences across sexual orientation or gender identity. However, because of the
literature documenting unique microaggressions based on sexual orientation (Sue
2010) and gender identity (Galupo et al. 2014; Nadal et al. 2012) future research
should focus on differentiating sexual orientation and gender identity workplace
microaggressions. In addition, past research has documented unique workplace
experiences (K€ ollen 2013) and unique experiences of microaggressions for bisexual
individuals (Sarno and Wright 2013). Experiences of transgender microaggressions
have been shown to differ across gender identity (e.g., transfeminine,

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

exploring microaggressions in the workplace. Participants described LGBT
microaggressions as they contributed to a hostile and/or heterosexist workplace
climate, were situated within the organizational structure of the workplace
reflecting the power dynamic inherent to the employees’ position, and were specif-
ically related to workplace policy. In many cases these microaggressions revealed a
disconnect between an existing workplace policy and the ability or willingness to
enforce the policy, the workplace diversity statement and existing policy, and/or
state laws and workplace policy. Focusing on LGBT microaggressions in the
workplace provides unique insight into the challenges of negotiating LGBT identity
within organizations.
References
Ahmed, O., & Jindasurat, C. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected
hate violence in 2013 (pp. 1–135). National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Retrieved
from http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/2013_ncavp_hvreport_final.pdf
Badgett, M. V. L., Durso, L. E., Kastanis, A., & Mallory, C. (2013). The business impact of LGBT-
supportive workplace policies (pp. 1–37). Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School
of Law.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic
content analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(2), 159–169. http://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000030
Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., & Rexer, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 23–38. http://doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_02
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and
meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The
tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
Fahrenhorst, R., & Kleiner, B. H. (2012). How to write effective anti-bias policies. Nonprofit
World, 30(4), 6–7.
Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Davis, K. S. (2014). Transgender microaggressions in the context
of friendship: Patterns of experience across friends’ sexual orientation and gender identity.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 461–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/sgd0000075
Gates, G. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? (pp. 1–8).
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey (pp. 1–228). National
Center for Transgender Equality. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/
downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf
Huffman, A. H., Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a diverse work-
force: What type of support is most meaningful for lesbian and gay employees? Human
Resource Management, 47(2), 237–253. http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20210
King, E. B., Dunleavy, D. G., Dunleavy, E. M., Jaffer, S., Morgan, W. B., Elder, K., et al. (2011).
Discrimination in the 21st century: Are science and the law aligned? Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 17(1), 54–75. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021673
K€ollen, T. (2013). Bisexuality and diversity management—Addressing the B in LGBT as a
relevant “sexual orientation” in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 122–137.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.755728
Nadal, K. (2008). Preventing racial, ethnic, gender, sexual minority, disability, and religious
microaggressions: Recommendations for promoting positive mental health. Prevention in
Counseling Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice and Training, 2(1), 22–27.
Nadal, K. (2011). In E. DeSouza, C. Paludi, & M. Paludi (Eds), Praeger handbook on under-
standing and preventing workplace discrimination. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Nadal, K. L., Issa, M. A., Leon, J., Meterko, V., Wideman, M., & Wong, Y. (2011a). Sexual
orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 234–259. http://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.584204
Nadal, K., Rivera, D. P., & Corpus, M. J. (2010). Sexual orientation and transgender
microaggressions in everyday life: Experiences of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender
individuals. In D. W. Sue (Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics,
and impact (pp. 217–240). New York, NY: Wiley.
Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and systemic microaggressions
toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counsel-
ing, 6(1), 55–82. http://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2012.648583
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Issa, M. A., Meterko, V., Leon, J., & Wideman, M. (2011b). Sexual
orientation microaggressions: Processes and coping mechanisms for lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 5(1), 21–46. http://doi.org/10.1080/
15538605.2011.554606
Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of
sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(7), 1011–1034. http://doi.org/10.1080/
00918369.2013.774878
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues
and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_01
Sarno, E., & Wright, A. J. (2013). Homonegative microaggressions and identity in bisexual men
and women. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 63–81. http://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2013.
756677
Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2011). Documented evidence of employment discrimination and its
effects on LGBT people (pp. 1–20). The Williams Institute. Retrieved from http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sears-Mallory-Discrimination-July-20111.
pdf
Shelton, K., & Delgado-Romero, E. A. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions: The experi-
ence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer clients in psychotherapy. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S), 59–70. http://doi.org/10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.59
Statewide Employment Laws and Policies. (2016). Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.
hrc.org/state_maps
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. New
Jersey: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., & Capodilupo, C. M. (2008). Racial, gender, and sexual orientation microaggressions:
Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. In D. W. Sue & D. Sue (Eds.), Counseling the
culturally diverse (5th ed., pp. 105–130). New York, NY: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L.,
et al. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice.
American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
Xavier, J. M., Bobbin, M., Singer, B., & Budd, E. (2005). A needs assessment of transgendered
people of color living in Washington, DC. International Journal of Transgenderism, 8(2–3),
31–47. http://doi.org/10.1300/J485v08n02_04
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual
and Trans Youth on Career Choice
and in the Workplace
Jukka Lehtonen
1 Introduction
Young people typically work in various kinds of temporary or part-time jobs, often
while studying. Many young people also plan their educational and career choices,
and they may find it difficult to choose the right path. These aspects also hold for
non-heterosexual and trans youth, but some of them feel marginalized because of
their gender identification or sexual orientation. This is also typically a period when
non-heterosexual and trans youth are constructing their views on sexuality and
gender, and negotiating how to express their sexuality and gender in their environ-
ment. These considerations make it important to analyze LGBT issues in the work
environment from the perspective of young people.
Very little research has been done in this area internationally (for example Gedro
2009; Lyons et al. 2010; O’Neil et al. 2008; Schmidt and Nilson 2006; Takacs 2006;
Willis 2011) or in Finland (Lehtonen 2002, 2004a, b, c, 2010, 2014a). In this
chapter I focus on three themes: educational and career choice among
non-heterosexual and trans youth, the expression and hiding of sexual orientation
and gender identity in the workplace, and normative culture and unjust behavior in
the workplace. I look at these themes from the perspective of heteronormativity and
young people’s experiences and agency. The context is Finnish culture and society,
a Nordic welfare state within which equality and non-discrimination are highly
prized. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expres-
sion is prohibited by legislation. The new anti-discrimination law, which came into
force in 2015, demands that all workplaces with more than 30 employees make
equality and anti-discrimination plans to tackle discrimination at work. But there
J. Lehtonen, Ph.D. (*)

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

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_17
290 J. Lehtonen
are still many problems in relation to youth, sexual orientation and gender diversity
in the work environment. This chapter focuses on the key aspects with which young
non-heterosexual and trans persons have to deal when they try to find a place for
themselves in the labor market.
I use “heteronormativity” to refer to a way of thinking or reacting that refuses to
see diversity in sexual orientation and gender, and that considers a certain way of
expressing or experiencing gender and sexuality to be better than another. This
includes normative heterosexuality and gender normativity, according to which
only women and men are considered to exist in the world. Men are supposed to be
masculine in the “right” way and women feminine in the “right” way. According to
heteronormative thinking, gender groups are internally homogeneous, are each
other’s opposites, and are hierarchical, in that men and maleness are considered
more valuable than women and femaleness. The heterosexual maleness of men and
the heterosexual femaleness of women are emphasized and are understood to have
biological origins. The existence of other sexualities or genders is denied, devalued
or othered (see also Rossi 2006; Martinsson and Reimers 2008; Butler 1992).
An undesirable, even silent, place for non-heterosexuality and trans persons thus
forms in a community where a person is normatively expected or hoped to be
heterosexual (normative heterosexuality) and to perform behaviors in line with
gender norms (gender normativity) (see Lehtonen 2003). By “non-heterosexual”, I
mean a qualitative term used to describe a person who has sexual feelings towards
their own gender, or practices with their own gender, or self-definitions that refer to
these feelings or practices (such as lesbian, gay, or bisexual).1 “Trans” refers to a
person who challenges the gendered norms and expectations in ways that conflict
with their gender design at birth. In this chapter, by “transmasculine” is meant a
person who was designated at birth as a girl, and by “transfeminine” is meant a
person who was designated at birth as a boy, both of whom later defined themselves
as trans, or questioned their gender identity in some other way. Non-heterosexual
and trans youth participate in the heteronormative processes in education and in the
work environment but, being active agents as well, strive to challenge and interpret
the expectations directed at them in their own ways (see also Blackburn 2007;
Talburt 2004).
1
Similarly, I define “heterosexual” as a person who has sexual feelings towards a different gender,
or who practices their different gender, or has self-definitions that refer to these feelings or
practices (such as “straight” or “heterosexual”). This means that a person can be either
non-heterosexual, heterosexual, both—or neither—in a case where she/he does not practice any
of these deeds (feelings, practices or self-definitions) in her/his life at present.
Experiences of Non-Heterosexual and Trans Youth on Career Choice and in the. . . 291
2 Methods and Data
Data for the analysis is from a research project and survey titled “The well-being of
rainbow youth”. It was a joint project on the part of Seta, the national GLBTI
human rights organization, and the Finnish Youth Research Network. The project
was funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture.2 I was a member of the group
planning the questionnaire and commenting on the project reports. The project
itself is one of the focus areas in my current research project on Seta’s youth work.3
My focus is on non-heterosexual and trans youth under 30 years old (N ¼ 1861).
The non-heterosexual respondents’ group (N ¼ 1374) was clearly larger than the
trans respondents’ group (N ¼ 487). I divided these groups into four categories,
according to the interpretation of gender at the time of their birth, to make it
possible to analyze the effects of gender on their experiences.4 These diverse groups
comprised people with many kinds of gendered identities and they expressed their
gender in various ways, but they were, typically, brought up according to the
assumptions surrounding gender at the time of their birth.5 The four categories
2
Katarina Alanko wrote the first report and Riikka Taavetti the second (Alanko 2013; Taavetti
2015). The survey was produced in 2013 with 2515 respondents, both young and adult,
non-heterosexual, heterosexual, transgender and others. Alanko and Taavetti focused on 1623
participants between 15 and 25 years old. Alanko’s report was based on statistical analysis.
Taavetti did qualitative analysis on the stories of young people in the survey. Both of them also
wrote on work environment issues.
3
My current research project is a part of the research collaboration projects Engaging
South African and Finnish youth towards new traditions of non-violence, equality and social
wellbeing (2013–2016) and Social and Economic Sustainability of Future Working Life: Policies,
Equalities and Intersectionalities in Finland (2015–2017), which are funded by the Academy of
Finland. My research focus is on non-heterosexual and transgender young people and the youth
work done with them in Seta.
4
I left some respondents out of my data to make it possible to create the four groups of
respondents. Initially, I removed from both groups those responses, which did not mention their
gender at the time of their birth. This also meant that I did not take into account, in my analysis, the
experiences of intersexual respondents. Trans people may have various kinds of sexual orienta-
tions and non-heterosexual people may express their gender in different ways. I wanted to create
four separate groups and I divided them mainly using the question “Are you trans?”. If respondents
answered in the negative, they were grouped separately from the ones who answered either “yes”
or “I don’t know”. The trans groups then included respondents who were either sure that they were
trans, or unsure, if they were trans. Of the other group, I removed heterosexual respondents who
defined themselves as heterosexual but did not report that they would have a sexual interest
towards persons of their own gender. The survey was designed so that it was possible to express the
diversity of both sexuality and gender in various ways. However, this also created problems in
finding a way to group respondents based on gender (in this case the interpretation of gender at the
time of their birth).
5
In the non-heterosexual women’s group, most frequent definitions of their sexual orientation
were bi/bisexual (47 %), lesbian (43 %), and sexual minority (37 %). Non-heterosexual male
respondents found gay (in Finnish homo, 81 %), sexual minority (33 %), and bi/bisexual (24 %)
the most popular definitions. Of these, they could choose from 12 different alternatives (or propose
their own), and many chose more than one. Women were more likely than men to also choose
292 J. Lehtonen
used for analysis were: (1) non-heterosexual men (N ¼ 380), (2) non-heterosexual
women (N ¼ 994), (3) transfeminine youth (N ¼ 83) and (4) transmasculine youth
(N ¼ 404).
My main focus is on the stories of non-heterosexual and trans youth. I recently
published an article that was based on statistical analysis of this data (Lehtonen
2014a). In the current article I will refer to the results and use them as reference points
in a study of the stories. Stories based on three questions linked to career choice and
workplace experience were used. The first was on the influence of attitudes related to
sexual orientation and gender identity in choosing a career, the second on the influence
of these attitudes to relationships in the workplace, and the last was more general—on
experiences in relation to the work environment. There were altogether 235 stories or
answers to questions. There were more stories by non-heterosexual respondents
(N ¼ 171) than trans respondents (N ¼ 64). Relatively more non-heterosexual
women (N ¼ 126) and transmasculine respondents (N ¼ 59) answered these ques-
tions, compared to non-heterosexual men (N ¼ 45) and transfeminine respondents
(N ¼ 5). There were fewer stories about the influence of attitudes on their choice of
career (N ¼ 68) or on their workplace relationships (N ¼ 60) compared to the more
general topic of experiences in the work environment (N ¼ 107).
The information was collected from those willing to take part, and it was not a
statistically representative sample.6 It is, though, the biggest ever survey of young
non-heterosexual and trans youth. For now this survey and its responses make it
possible to create an idea of the current situation of non-heterosexual and trans
youth in relation to their work environment and career planning.
3 Career Choice and Gendered Expectations
Both non-heterosexual and trans youth reported that societal attitudes related to
sexual orientation or gender diversity influenced on their educational and career
choices. Statistical analysis of the survey responses reveled that trans respondents
experienced the effect of attitudes more often than non-heterosexual respondents
(Lehtonen 2014a). Transfeminine respondents related the effect of attitudes to their
queer and pansexual as their definitions, and many responded that they did not want to define their
sexuality. In the trans groups, the most popular ways to define their relation to gender were: those
who were unsure of their gender position (44 %), transsexual or transsexual background (26 %),
transgendered, trans or other-gendered (28 %), genderless (24 %), and queer/genderblender
(30 %). There were only a few respondents defining themselves as transvestites (6 %), and the
majority of them were interpreted as women at the time of their birth.
6
The data was balanced in many ways. There were relatively more responses from Southern
Finland and the capital area of Helsinki than other parts of the country. More highly educated
respondents were more active in responding to the survey. The majority of all respondents were
still studying or at school: 64 % of non-heterosexual men and over 70 % in the other groups of
respondents.
educational choice (40 %) and career choice (36 %) almost as often as

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

towards homosexuals, and I am afraid that I ruin my possibilities to study
and get a job by telling [about my sexuality]. (non-heterosexual woman)8
Also, trans respondents reported that being trans could be a hindrance, or a

motivation to finding a career or workplace that was suitable for trans people.
I work in a very male-dominated field, while I feel that I am in many aspects

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

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

self-esteem is better after accepting myself, and people don’t make me afraid
that much anymore, but working with animals feel good, while they accept
you as you are. (transmasculine respondent)
The narratives tell of gendered practices and the culture of professions or

workplaces, which were seen as either problematic or positive in relation to the
choice of a career. Some women and transmasculine respondents expressed the
wish to work in a field which emphasized their gendered interests and which
matched their gender identity and expression. This could mean avoiding
heterofeminine demands while at work.
I have always searched for jobs in which age, look, religion, or sexual
orientation are not meaningful factors. Often my straight work mates have
reacted with delight when I have stated that I am bisexual. I am often “one of
the guys” which might be related to my experience of being raised up in the
middle of boys and men in my childhood, and I find working with guys more
pleasurable than with women. (non-heterosexual woman)
Non-heterosexual men, on the other hand, reported that they avoided

heteromasculine careers and workplaces, or that they saw the female-dominated
fields as more accepting and friendlier.
I favor female-dominated fields, while I enjoy more in the company of

women and it is easier to be myself with them. With men I am never sure
how they react to my sexual orientation. Most of my colleagues were women
in all my jobs. (non-heterosexual man)
In my earlier research (Lehtonen 2004a, 2010), I found that quite a few

non-heterosexual women found it difficult to find a career for them. This was
related to their difficulty into figuring out who they were when thinking about
their sexuality. These kinds of stories did not appear in this survey, but some trans
respondents reported that their being trans, or the resulting crises when they
realized they might be trans, or the process of transitioning itself, was using up so
much energy that they did not have space to think about their career choice. Some
of them also mentioned that either they were not yet aware of their being trans or
that their concealing was the reason for its not affecting their choice of career.
It has not effected to anything yet, while I have kept it as a secret that I don’t
belong to my biological sex. (transmasculine respondent)
Some respondents reported that they did not have a career or career plan yet.
Some of the respondents were still very young, but I also interpret that their
situation was influenced by their unclear image of themselves. Quite a few respon-
dents had dropped out of their education. This was particularly the case with trans
respondents (Lehtonen 2014b). One third of trans respondents had dropped out of
their education, and so had one fourth of the non-heterosexual respondents. Of the
trans respondents, 26 % reported that social attitudes related to sexual orientation
and gender diversity influenced them to drop out of education, compared to 4 % of
non-heterosexual respondents. A change of career or dropping out of the educa-
tional field was mentioned by the respondents, as well.
I dropped out of my earlier study place, while I experience that I cannot work
as othergendered. (transmasculine respondent)
The stories emphasized the need to be oneself and gain acceptance by others.
Sometimes it could even mean a change of workplace and some forfeit of benefits.
I made a choice to study for becoming a teacher before I was aware of being
bisexual. When I came out of the closet, I have been pondering upon on my
career choice: can I be open in my workplace, how people react to me being
active in the GLBT organization. (non-heterosexual women)
In this new job salary is smaller and work times are lousier, but I am still
happy about changing the place. I thought that I rather clean shitty toilets with
little money, than work for idiots. At least I am accepted as I am and I don’t
have to listen to disparage of sexual minorities. (non-heterosexual woman)
For some the whole labor market was seen as problematic, and this was the case
particularly for some trans respondents.
I don’t try to find a workplace, while I am afraid of discrimination.

(transfeminine respondent)
Binary gender thinking in the labor market was seen as an obstacle, and
discrimination and unjustifiable treatment were feared. Trans respondents were
296 J. Lehtonen
more pessimistic about finding a good job in the future compared to

non-heterosexual respondents. Transfeminine respondents were both most pessi-
mistic (21 %) and least optimistic (54 %). Transmasculine respondents were not as
pessimistic (10 %), and there was more optimism expressed (61 %). Most optimis-
tic were non-heterosexual men (84 %) and women (76 %). Of them <5 % were
pessimistic about finding a good job in the future.
I am afraid of starting work life, and on if I get workplace, and if I would be

accepted as genderless person. (transmasculine respondent)
Some respondents saw their being a non-heterosexual or trans as a resource in

the labor market, and some wanted to make the world a better place for others, or
they expressed a wish to advance equality and respect for human rights.
Thinking of gender was one factor in getting interested in societal and justice
related issues. (transmasculine respondent)
I want to support sexual minority rights at my work through art!
(non-heterosexual man)
Though the majority of respondents reported that attitudes related to sexual

orientation and gender diversity did not have an influence on their educational or
career choice, only a few mentioned this in their responses.
My gender identity or anything related to that have not effected to my career

choice. (transmasculine respondent)
I think many young people would like to see themselves as independent agents,
who are not bound by outside influences (Lehtonen 2010; see also Blackburn 2007;
Talburt 2004). People have a need to see themselves as making individualistic
choices. While it seems, based on the responses and my earlier research (Lehtonen
2004a, b), that non-heterosexual and trans youth challenge gendered expectations
more often in their career choice, it is not possible to argue that gendered norms
would not have influenced their choices. Even if there are many young
non-heterosexual and trans people who challenge gendered expectations when
thinking about their career choices many of them do choose according to gendered
norms and expectations. Finland has one of the most gender-segregated labor
markets in Europe, and that influences the possibilities young people have when
choosing their career. Gender matters.
4 Expressing and Hiding Gender and Sexuality at Work
The majority of both non-heterosexual and trans youth hide their sexual orientation
or gender identity at work. It was typical of them to reveal their sexuality or gender
to only a few, more trust-worthy work mates, and hide it from most of the others.
Non-heterosexual men (27 %), compared to women (20 %), had revealed their
non-heterosexuality to all their colleagues in their workplace. On the other hand,
men were also more likely to hide their sexual orientation (41 %) than women
(36 %) from all their colleagues.
I think that sexuality does not belong to workplace. I never revel anything
about my sexuality at workplace. (non-heterosexual man)
Trans respondents hid their gender identity more often than non-heterosexual
youth hid their sexual orientation. Transfeminine respondents (46 %) hid their
gender identity less often, compared to transmasculine respondents (60 %).
I haven’t told about my gender identity. Let them be surprised. There are
often situations in which a new person thinks that I am a man, but when I need
to present myself with my girl’s name (in the contract there is my official
name which I use), they are surprised. (transmasculine respondent)
Trans and gender issues and work have hardly met each other. I did my
alternative military service in 2006–2007. There I kept my identity as a
secret. Other jobs I haven’t had. (transfeminine respondent)
Many non-heterosexual and trans respondents feared unjust treatment if their

sexual orientation or gender identity were disclosed. They were afraid of being
shunned in the workplace. This was typical of non-heterosexual men especially:
only 29 % mentioned, that they were not afraid of it. This could be explained by the
fact that the majority of them were working in male-dominated workplaces, where
it is not desirable to differ too much from others. Male-dominated workplaces were
also seen in the responses to be more homophobic and heteronormative than
female-dominated workplaces. Exclusion was feared a lot by trans respondents
(25 %), but also by quite a few non-heterosexual men (17 %) and women (15 %)
were very fearful of it.
There are that many anti-gay attitudes in the air that I don’t want to tell.
298 J. Lehtonen
In fact, only a minority of those who had expressed their sexuality or gender in
the workplace, were treated badly. They were more likely to be treated with
acceptance or tolerance.
At my workplace I came out very visibly already in the first workplace party,
when I asked my partner to join me. The workmates expected a girlfriend, but they
met a boyfriend. No one blinked an eye. There are many workmates who are in gay
or lesbian relationships, and the atmosphere has always been open. I am grateful for
that. (non-heterosexual man)
Work mates reacted positively to my gender reassignment process.

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

relationships. I think many would accept it, but there are also many who find
it difficult to accept. The issue will not stay hidden forever, and that’s good.
I ponder upon sometimes if I can write about certain things in the social
media, while I have there some workmates as friends. And I think how to
dress when meeting workmates outside the job. (transmasculine respondent)
For some it was not just workmates or employers they had to worry about.
Clients’ reactions were also feared by respondents. Many young people work in the
service sector or in other jobs where they deal with people.
As a substitute teacher I feel I cannot respond honestly, when kids ask me, if
I have a girlfriend, when they see my engagement ring in my finger.
(continued)
I have not been ready to be open at work, while these jobs have been till now
at the service sector. I try to be neutral, while I think it is part of the job. I have
not tried to pretend the opposite to what I am, which would be wrong. Just a
little bit more neutral. (transmasculine respondent)
Young non-heterosexual and trans people reported that they commonly

questioned whether it would be wise to express their sexuality or gender in part-
time or short time jobs, such as summer jobs or workplace training.
I didn’t want tell them that I am not a hetero, while I had so stupid work
mates. And it was just a short work relationship, so I don’t need to tell them
all about me. (non-heterosexual woman)
Many would find it easier to speak about same-sex relationships at work than
define them as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.
I have been totally open at work the last 2 years (summer jobs). Earlier I
wanted to be, but as a single I felt it was awkward to come out. So I didn’t tell
unless I was directly asked about. Nowadays, when I have been in a serious
relationship for 2 years, coming out feel easy. I don’t think it that much while
now the main point is to tell “what I did last weekend with my partner” more
than telling that “I am not straight”. (non-heterosexual woman)
I have not come out at work. This is to do with the fact that at the moment I
am in a relationship with a man. There are hardly any situations where I could
fluently tell about my orientation. I am annoyed that I am not out at work, but
on the other hand I am working in a part-time job, so I am not annoyed for a
long time. (non-heterosexual woman)
Being in a heterosexual relationship was easier to admit at work than a relation-

ship with a same-sex partner, but that cannot always be considered proof of one’s
heterosexuality. Any relationship with a trans person was reportedly hidden as well.
At work I didn’t want to tell about my relationship with a woman. Now they
know that I am married with a man, but they don’t know that he is a transman.
(non-heterosexual woman)
At work everybody thinks that I live a perfect heterosexual ideal life, as I
live in some ways. But I live in my own apartment and only occasionally visit
my wife and kids. (non-heterosexual man)
300 J. Lehtonen
Respondents reported that sexual orientation or gender identity was not some-
thing to talk about at work. It was not seen as an appropriate subject.
I don’t advertise my sexuality. (non-heterosexual man)

It has not influenced at my workplace, while I find it easier to hide it,
because it does not related to my work in any way. (transfeminine respondent)
On the other hand, in other reports, gender or sexual orientation or same-sex

relationships were seen as important issues, which should be recognized at work as
worthy of discussion.
I got a job right after my education, and when I was a trainer at my work I
didn’t even think of telling. It is not something you would like to tell to
strange people. Now time is passing and I am annoyed that I didn’t tell right
away. I don’t know how to tell. I don’t talk anything about my life. Although
people know that I am engaged. Only my superior knows about it and for her
it is same with whom I share my life. It does not influence on my work, but I
feel myself awkward, when I don’t tell my work mates, who talk about their
life this and that. I wonder why they don’t ask. (non-heterosexual woman)
Disclosure and hiding of one’s gender or sexual orientation at work was the
theme raised most often in the reports of young respondents. It is a key topic,
particularly for young people, who are starting work and often change jobs and
sometimes colleagues. It seems that young people are constructing their
non-normative sexual and gender identities earlier than before (Alanko 2013;
Lehtonen 2004b, c). This also makes it more likely that when they enter the labor
market they already have defined their non-normative identity, and face the
dilemma of whether or not to tell about it in the workplace.
5 Challenges in Heteronormative Workplaces
One fifth of all the respondents had faced bullying, discrimination or other unjust
behavior at work (Lehtonen 2014a). These experiences were typically experienced
more by trans respondents, compared to non-heterosexual youth. Some of the
respondents had stayed at home instead of going to work, sometimes based on
this kind of negative experiences. Also, this was more typically a trans youth
experience.
Trans and homophobic atmosphere in my earlier workplace make it impos-

sible for me to return there (even if I could). I don’t have energy for this
environment. It makes working hard and very stressful. (transmasculine
respondent)
Attitudes related to sexual orientation and gender identity also influenced rela-
tionships in the workplace. Trans respondents experienced this more often than
non-heterosexual respondents. Transfeminine respondents (39 %) and
non-heterosexual men (27 %) experienced this more often than transmasculine
respondents (30 %) and non-heterosexual women (22 %), which might have to do
with the fact that they worked more often in male-dominated workplaces, and men,
or presumed men, had to control their gendered behavior more.
Awful “joking” which was mainly directed to men at my workplace: faggot,

fairy, bum boy. My workplace is fairly male-dominated, a big institution,
where an attack is seen as the best defense. (non-heterosexual woman)
I am aware that my biological sex helps quite a bit. Especially men seem to
understand better the love between girls than the relationships between men.
And a woman “in a men’s job” is quite often just “a cool chick”.
(transmasculine respondent)
Negative joking and opinions, as well as bullying and discrimination, were

reported to influence young non-heterosexual and trans people’s ability to concen-
trate on their work. They were told to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity
as a response.
In a workplace dominated by engineers, one woman commented during the

lunch break something about gay relationships. They all were talking con-
stantly about their home and family issues, but I didn’t while as a new
summer-time worker I wanted to get an idea of the atmosphere first. A
male worker opposite me said sharply that “oh fuck, I wouldn’t want to
hear anything about home evenings of gays, they can do what they want,
but no need to tell at work”. I had difficulties to keep my face, but I wanted to
say that “then I will not tell anything about my life in the future either”.
This also limited possibilities for questioning disrespectful treatment, and homo-
and transphobic comments.
302 J. Lehtonen
In the fear of disclosure I haven’t dared to challenge the discriminatory

language, which is very common at my workplace. (non-heterosexual
woman)
Some respondents reported that negative talk or practices were questioned, but
many seemed to criticize them more in their own minds than openly.
I have kept my mouth shut after school from my experience, but when there
have been discussion on gender minority related issues, I haven’t been afraid
of expressing my opinion. This has made me being belittled and I got strange
looks from others. (transfeminine respondent)
Respondents reported that heteronormative practices and the experience of
not fitting into the workplace culture made people keep their distance from
their workmates.
I have avoided so called homophobes, and those who like bad jokes.
I don’t keep contact to my workmates after work. I am not sure how they
would react when hearing about my sexual orientation. (non-heterosexual
man)
Non-heterosexual and trans youth also reported that employers or fellow

employees were pressuring them to behave according to the gendered norms
(Lehtonen 2014a). This was a more typical experience for transfeminine people,
compared to transmasculine respondents, as well as for non-heterosexual men
compared to non-heterosexual women.
In summer jobs I didn’t dare to talk about it and I have been suffering about
oppressive situations, in which I have been treated as a girl, even in a sexist
way. For example my workmates did not give me tougher jobs, because they
saw me as a girl. Clients have called me girl and told that I should let my hair
grow longer so that I would look like a girl. Also the gender-based work
clothes (which I find totally unnecessary) are oppressive. (transmasculine
respondent)
Trans youth also described various kinds of problematically gendered practices,

which made their situation oppressive or difficult at work.
I haven’t dared to ask at work to be called with my calling name instead of my

official name, even if I have used the calling-name already about 10 years
regularly. I don’t have energy to explain myself to people, and I am afraid that
“the name-mess” would influence attitudes towards me. I haven’t dared to
change my official name to be my calling name, while I should probably explain
that change in job interviews if having a different name in my work certificate.
That might give a negative image of me. (transmasculine respondent)
It was a big mess when I started to use men’s dressing room. There was
needed many phone calls, discussions and doctor’s statement, but finally I
succeeded. I had changed my name and been on hormonal treatment 6 months
at that stage. (transmasculine respondent)
Trans and non-heterosexual youth described in their responses how they had to
negotiate with the heteronormative practices on a daily basis. They also reported that
their own behavior influenced gendered and sexualized culture in the workplace.
I work at the construction site. That is very male-dominated branch and at

workplace everyone knows that I am not a norm hetero. It is easy to see that
also from the way I am dressed. It is normal that my workmates call me
sometimes with my male nickname and they see me often as one of the guys.
But then suddenly I am a woman for them and they keep me the door open
and offer to carry some heavier stuff. When I came out, some of my work
mates are joking less about gays and other minorities. I give credit to them.
(transmasculine respondent)
Even though there are many problems in the workplace, based on these
responses, they also reveal that support from their workmates is available to
many. A minority of the respondents in the survey had faced discrimination and
bullying based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, but the majority still
had to face heteronormative practices at work.
At work I have always been openly gay and I have never faced discrimina-
tion, if you don’t count gay jokes. Those are anyway rather difficult to avoid.
In one workplace my colleagues were excited about my orientation. They
were curious, but it didn’t matter. When we got married all were happy for us
and wanted to know how the marriage planning and the party itself succeed.
When I got pregnant they were excited and were guessing whether the baby is
girl or boy, and they waited the movements of the baby and my growing belly.
304 J. Lehtonen
These reports reveal a constant heteronormative pressure at work. The extent of

heteronormative culture varies from workplace to workplace, from location to
location, and from one workmate to another. Young people can hardly ever trust
that the workplace will have policies and everyday practices, which intentionally
try to prevent all kinds of discrimination and maltreatment based on sexual orien-
tation and gender identity or expression. Often it seems, based on the reports, young
people are active agents, criticizing heteronormative practices openly or in their
minds, but they are typically left to tackle the problems alone.
6 Gendered Expectations and Different Choices
Gender and gendered expectations are meaningful issues for non-heterosexual and
trans youth at work, and when they choose their educational and career paths. In
society and in their intimate surroundings they are treated typically as either girls or
boys based on the presumptions made at their birth. They are trained to become
either girls or boys, and this limits their chances, both educationally and in the labor
market. This is true particularly in Finland, where both vocational education and the
labor market in general are very gender-segregated. Boys and presumed boys
(many transfeminine respondents) are pressured to act in masculine ways and
make choices suitable for men. This affects the possibilities for non-heterosexual
men and transfeminine respondents and limits their range of career choices. They
might distance them from homophobic and heteronormative male-dominated work-
places, or try to fit in with them by hiding their non-normative sexuality and gender.
Also, non-heterosexual women and transmasculine respondents are expected to act
according to gendered expectations, and adopt heterofeminine behavior and make
feminine choices, but there is more space for them to bend the norms. Some of them
resist heterofemininity and challenge gendered expectations by their educational
and career choices, but many work in female-dominated workplaces, which they, as
some non-heterosexual men and transfeminine respondents found, are often more
positive towards sexual and gender minorities.
For quite a few trans respondents, career choice and entering the labor market
were seen as difficult, and sometimes even impossible. They saw their situation as
worse than that of non-heterosexual respondents, who were more positive towards
the possibilities of finding a good job in the future. Trans youth also reported hiding
their gender at work more often, compared to non-heterosexuals hiding their sexual
orientation, and they often reported more experiences of maltreatment and discrim-
ination at work. For trans youth, their experience of not fitting into the workplace
culture because of their hidden or visible gender markers can be really challenging.
They could face bullying and misunderstanding, based on their non-normative
gender expression. Non-heterosexual youths are treated better than trans youths
in this respect, and they have more space to decide whether to reveal their sexual
orientation or not. In my earlier research (Lehtonen 2009), I found that in
non-heterosexual groups gender expression was an influential aspect of their
work situation: feminine men and masculine women reported more discrimination
at work, and they reported that attitudes related to sexual minorities influenced their
career choice more often than those non-heterosexual respondents who were more
gender normative in their expression.
Non-heterosexual and trans youth are a vulnerable group in society in general,
but especially in the labor market. They are that because of their non-normative
gender identity or sexual orientation (or both), but also because of their age. But
obviously also because of other intersecting differences and experiences, such as
the ones related to their location (urban–rural), social class, health, possible dis-
ability, and ethnic, cultural, religious or language background. These different
aspects should be researched and analyzed, and taken into account when changes
in the work environment are planned and put into practice. In Finland, as in some
other countries, legislation has been introduced which prohibits discrimination
based on age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and some other differences.
While this is good, workplaces and institutions, which actively prevent maltreat-
ment of non-heterosexual and trans youth, and create space that is safe and free
from heteronormative expectations, are all too rare.
References
Alanko, K. (2013). Hur mår HBTIQ-unga i Finland? [How well are LGBTQ young people doing
in Finland?]. Helsingfors: Ungdomsforskiningsnätverket och Seta.
Blackburn, M. (2007). The experiencing, negotiation, breaking, and remaking of gender rules and
regulations by queer youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 4(2), 33–54.
Butler, J. (1992). Gender trouble. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gedro, J. (2009). LGBT career development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1),
54–66.
Lehtonen, J. (2002). Non-heterosexual youth at work and in the military service. In J. Lehtonen
(Ed.), Sexual and gender minorities at work (pp. 65–76). Helsinki: Ministry of Labor.
Lehtonen, J. (2003). Seksuaalisuus ja sukupuoli koulussa [Sexuality and gender at school].
Helsinki: University Press.
Lehtonen, J. (2004a). Occupational choices and non-heterosexuality. In J. Lehtonen & K. Mustola
(Eds.), “Straight people don’t tell, do they?” Negotiating the boundaries of sexuality and
gender at work (pp. 154–180). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Lehtonen, J. (2004b). Trans people and their occupational choices. In J. Lehtonen & K. Mustola
(Eds.), “Straight people don’t tell, do they?” Negotiating the boundaries of sexuality and
gender at work (pp. 181–192). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Lehtonen, J. (2004c). Lesbian, gay and bisexual youth in the labour market. In J. Lehtonen &
K. Mustola (Eds.), “Straight people don’t tell, do they?” Negotiating the boundaries of
sexuality and gender at work (pp. 137–153). Helsinki: Ministry of Labour.
Lehtonen, J. (2009). Sukupuolimoninaiset ei-heteroseksuaaliset ty€ ontekijät [Gender diverse
non-heterosexual employees]. Naistutkimus, 22(4), 61–64.
Lehtonen, J. (2010). Gendered post-compulsory educational choices of non-heterosexual youth.
European Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 177–191.
Lehtonen, J. (2014a). Ei-heteroseksuaalisten ja transnuorten kokemukset ty€ oelämästä [Experi-
ences of non-heterosexual and trans youth in work environment]. Ty€ oel€
am€antutkimus, 12(3),
285–291.
306 J. Lehtonen
Lehtonen, J. (2014b). Sukupuolittuneita valintoja? Ei-heteroseksuaaliset ja transnuoret

koulutuksessa [Gendered choices? Non-heterosexual and trans youth in education].
Sukupuolentutkimus, 27(4), 67–71.
Lyons, H., Brenner, B., & Lipman, J. (2010). Patterns of career and identity interference for
lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 503–524.
Martinsson, L., & Reimers, E. (Eds.). (2008). Skola i normer [School in norms]. Malm€ o: Gleerups.
O’Neil, M., McWhirter, E., & Cerezo, A. (2008). Transgender identities and gender variance in
vocational psychology. Journal of Career Development, 34(3), 286–308.
Rossi, L.-M. (2006). Heteronormatiivisuus. Käsitteen elämää ja kummastelua [Heteronormativity:
Queering the concept and its brief history]. Kulttuurintutkimus, 23(3), 19–28.
Schmidt, C., & Nilson, J. (2006). The effects of simultaneous developmental processes: Factors
relating to the career development of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. The Career Develop-
ment Quarterly, 55(1), 22–37.
Taavetti, R. (2015). “Olis siisti€ aa€ritell€
a, jos ei tarttis m€ a. . .” Kuriton ja tavallinen sateenkaar-
inuoruus [“It would be cool, not to have to define yourself”. Undisciplined and ordinary
rainbow youth]. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura ja Seta ry.
Takacs, J. (2006). Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in
Europe. Brussels: ILGA-Europe and IGLYO.
Talburt, S. (2004). Constructions of LGBT youth. Opening up subject positions. Theory Into
Practice, 43(2), 116–121.
Willis, P. (2011). Laboring in silence: Young lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identifying
worker’s negotiations of the workplace closet in Australian organisations. Youth and Society,
43(3), 957–981.
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing
Disclosure of Homosexuality at
the Workplace
Rahul Mitra and Vikram Doctor
1 Introduction
That organizations are not neutral entities, but both raced and gendered has been
well-documented. Scholars have noted that, despite exhortations to “leave your
personal life at home,” the professional, personal, and organizational lives of
workers intersect constantly in a number of ways, such as work-life balance,
socialization initiatives, and human resource development (e.g., Acker 1990;
Ashcraft and Mumby 2004; Buzzanell 2000; Tracy and Scott 2006). In particular,
the heteronormative framework of organizational life privileges heterosexual con-
structions of the “good worker,” and various researchers have sought to queer
organizational practices by recognizing the lived experiences of marginalized
members (Embrick et al. 2007; Hearn et al. 1989; Rumens 2008). Our chapter
extends this work by examining how gay professionals in India “pass” as hetero-
sexual, disrupting both the heteronormative ideal of the workplace, and mainstream
conceptions of passing as entirely passive and counterproductive.
Theorized by Goffman (1963) as a defensive strategy of stigma management,
passing has long been critiqued as a communicative practice that potentially causes
deep psychological unrest and reiterates mainstream heteronormative assumptions
(Eguchi 2009; Mohr 1992). Research on passing in organizations—scant as it is—
has focused on North American and European contexts, tracing how lesbian, gay
and bisexual (LGB) organizational members negotiate homophobia to maintain a
somewhat “normal” working life (Hall 1989; Spradlin 1998; Ward and Winstanley
R. Mitra, Ph.D. (*)

Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
e-mail: rahul.mitra@wayne.edu
V. Doctor
Mumbai, India
e-mail: vikdoc@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_18
308 R. Mitra and V. Doctor
2006). Less is known, however, about cultural norms and institutions in other
geographical contexts, which might influence how LGB individuals engage in
passing, the response by heterosexual coworkers, and the possibilities to actively
resist masculine and heterosexual stereotypes at the workplace (de Neve 2004).
With the advent of more interconnected global spaces, it becomes crucial to explore
these questions, noting how they both diverge and converge from socialization
practices and consequences in more familiar contexts.
Thus, our chapter reports the results of a qualitative study, drawing on interviews
with 14 gay professionals in India, across managerial levels and different industries,
to trace why and how they pass at the workplace. We find that our respondents
experienced passing as an ongoing and tensional practice, always involving partial
disclosure, and often with the implicit knowledge of coworkers, to negotiate
dominant ideals of masculinity and heterosexuality. Using the constant comparison
approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990), described below, we trace the contextual
particularities that instigate passing, the strategies used to pass, and the unfolding
socialization practices with coworkers as a result. We close this chapter by
discussing directions for future research, especially tracing the potential of passing
for building resilience among LGB workers.
2 Heteronormativity and Passing in Organizations
Research on sexual minorities in the workplace has focused on three broad lines—
discrimination against LGB workers, negotiations of individual identity, and insti-
tutionalized organizational processes (e.g., human resource policies) (Ward and
Winstanley 2006). Increasingly, scholars have begun to trace the intersections of
these themes—that is, how interaction and other forms of communication between
LGB and heterosexual workers shape organizational practices over time (e.g.,
Ragins et al. 2007; Rumens 2008; Rumens and Broomfield 2012). For instance,
Ward and Winstanley noted that despite official policies at a firefighting organiza-
tion that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexuality, most members actively
discouraged talk from LGB colleagues implying their sexuality, did not want to
work with them, had deep fears about being aroused/approached by gay colleagues,
and often segregated them during social/informal activities. Nevertheless, positive
affirmations of LGB identity at the workplace also abound, as in Rumens’ (2008)
study on friendships among gay colleagues, extending valuable emotional and
instrumental support to one another; Ward and Winstanley also observed instances
when highly respected team leaders went out of their way to welcome LGB
members to augment a culture of inclusivity. Humphrey (1999) thus argued that a
“dialectical conscience-raising process” (p. 142) was evident, once LGB workers
disclosed their sexuality to colleagues, who came to pay greater heed to sexual
ignorance and injustice over time, in fits and starts, eventually leading to greater
workplace cohesion.
Passing in Corporate India: Problematizing Disclosure of Homosexuality at. . . 309
Such a dialectical process of LGB disclosure recognizes the deeper organiza-

tional structures at stake, rather than blame only societal homophobia. Even as
Humphrey (1999) noted the prevalence of familial metaphors at the workplace,
“which confine lesbian and gay identities, relationships and lifestyles to the realms
of deviance and decadence” (p. 140), others have traced how situated discourses of
brotherhood and hypermasculinity have long bolstered worker solidarity in the face
of increasing encroachment and surveillance by management, and even to counter
social stigmas about particular lines of work. For instance, shop-floor workers
discursively emphasize their masculine identity in contrast to service economy
and white collar workers, to make sense of the decreasing privileges afforded to
manufacturing in the West (Mumby 1998). Tracy and Scott (2006) found that
correctional officers and firefighters often played down the perceived feminine
downsides of their jobs (e.g., caring for marginalized members of society like
drug addicts making a 911 call, or convicts) by emphasizing their hypermasculine
elements (e.g., fetishization of the red fire-truck, self-deprecating humor
constructing correctional officers as “tough”). Law enforcement is also character-
ized by heteronormative and hypermasculine ideals, perhaps as a coping mecha-
nism—you have to be ”tough enough” or “man enough” to be a cop (Miller
et al. 2003; Rumens and Broomfield 2012). Given these deeply situated processes
of meaning-making, disclosure of sexual minority status is particularly risky in
workplace situations, despite evidence that coming out of the closet is psycholog-
ically healthier for LGB individuals (Embrick et al. 2007; Hall 1989; Spradlin
1998). There is a need, then, to rethink conventional models of stigma manage-
ment—and especially, passing—at the workplace.
For Goffman (1963), stigma arises from a disjuncture between actual and
expected social identity, so that the central problematic is one of conformity, or
acceptance of the stigmatized individual by his or her peers/community. The
stigmatized “stranger”—someone categorically different—may be “reduced in
our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one. . . It
constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity”
(pp. 2–3). Drawing from his work, and recent scholarship by critical management
and organizational communication theorists (some of which has been reviewed
above), we argue that passing signifies the intentional management of discreditable/
discrediting information by individuals, enacted through everyday communicative
practices. First, we note that crafting hypermasculinity at the workplace is an
ongoing act of discursive labor, whereby some forms of masculinity are privileged
over others, while others are “covered over”—as in the case of competitive aggres-
sion over cooperative collaboration (Connell 1995). This implies that, rather than
only a minority of stigmatized people feeling the need to pass, “almost all persons
who are in a position to pass will do so on some occasion by intent” (Goffman 1963
p. 74). Thus, entirely disavowing passing in favor of “complete” disclosure of one’s
alternative sexuality may be unrealistic in workplaces characterized by deep dis-
cursive structures of hypermasculinity and heteronormativity.
Second, we argue that passing constitutes an ongoing, co-negotiated, and partial
mode of identity disclosure, instead of a categorical denial of information.
Although several conventional passing strategies denote complete denial (e.g.,

disidentifying with particular symbols, avoiding certain conversation topics or
social gatherings entirely), there is the possibility that “less rigid means of disclo-
sure are used. . . [so that] fleeting offers of evidence may be made—purposeful
slips, as it were” depending on the interactional context (p. 101). For instance,
strategic ambiguity may be used to send mixed messages about gender/sexual
identity (Spradlin 1998), or purposely cultivated images conveying difference
used to distract from more discreditable stigma (e.g., “feminist” instead of “les-
bian”) (Hall 1989)—centering the ongoing meaning-making between LGB and
heterosexual workers rather than a one-way cloak of secrecy.
Third, because of its co-negotiated and partial nature, we take passing to be a
strategic act of communication, capable of resisting and disrupting organizational
heteronormativity from “within,” and often aided by tacit support by coworkers.
Meisenbach (2010), for instance, argues that stigmatized individuals transition
across different strategies (viz., accepting, avoiding, evading, denying, or reducing
stigma) depending both on how they accept or challenge public understandings of
the stigma, and if they perceive that stigma to apply to themselves in a given
context. Highlighting the potentially subversive nature of passing, Toyoki and
Brown (2014) noted that prisoners often appropriated the label for themselves, or
put it into conversation with other coveted social identities, and positioned them-
selves as otherwise “good” persons to downplay the material force of this stigma.
Hall (1989) also observed the value of “token disclosure” or partial passing to resist
hegemony without endangering oneself: “Some respondents made an art of
transforming their feelings in hostile situations, taking pride in how well the act
went. When one woman heard anti-gay comments, she simply asked if the person
being discussed did a good job. ‘That usually shuts them up’, she said.” (p. 132).
It should be noted that the bulk of research on sexual minorities at the workplace
is focused on U.S. and British contexts, so that few empirical studies have examined
non-Western contexts (like India) that have their own cultural discourses shaping
ideals of both gender and the good worker (e.g., Menon 2007). For instance, Chopra
(2007) examines the discursive “invisibility” of male domestic laborers in India,
who must operate within the household with the mistress of the home, and are thus
somewhat feminized to neutralize the male gaze, even as they always remain at the
periphery of interpersonal closeness—they are perennial strangers, then, stigma-
tized by virtue of their gender, which is otherwise a source of privilege outside the
home/workplace. In another example, the construction of masculinity among
workers in the Indian textile industry was traced by de Neve (2004), locating the
exercise and capacity of agency crucially along both class lines and community
connections. While such works are useful to understand how (hyper)masculinity,
capitalism, and culture intersect at the Indian workplace, they do not address the
experiences of sexual minorities. On the other hand, despite a large body of
literature on the LGB identity negotiations in India that indicates a very nuanced
take on gender/sexuality that rejects Western dichotomies of “gay versus straight,”
few of them study workplace contexts and remain rooted in the context of family
relationships or social movement organizing (e.g., Narrain and Bhan 2005). Our
chapter thus fills an important gap in this literature. The research question guiding
our inquiry may thus be stated: how do gay professionals in India pass to negotiate
their heteronormative workplace structures?
3 Method
Qualitative methods were used for this study. A questionnaire was emailed to
members of an online listserv for LGB Indians maintained by the second author
(who also works for a prominent nonprofit on LGB issues in the country). The
questions were structured but open-ended, and respondents were free to answer
them as they saw fit (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). A total of 14 gay men, employed
both by Indian and foreign companies, participated in the study, choosing their own
pseudonyms to preserve their anonymity. Half the respondents were mid-level
professionals, while three were senior management and four were at the junior
level. Up to 57 % categorized their company as large, and of the remaining, three
said their company was small, one said it was medium-sized and the other two did
not answer. Most respondents (64.3 %) worked for an Indian firm, three for global
multinationals, and two did not answer the question. Industries represented
included software/IT, banking, media, manufacturing, engineering, publishing,
marketing, and fashion design.
We utilized Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) constant comparison approach to
analyze the data to reveal underlying concepts and categories, in three stages of
coding. First, during the stage of open coding, “the data [were] broken down into
discrete parts, closely examined, compared for similarities and differences, and
questions [were] asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data” (p. 62). A line-
by-line coding was enacted to identify first-order categories, with their attendant
properties. Second, axial coding connected categories with their constituent
sub-categories, according to paradigmatic properties of causal conditions, contexts,
interactional strategies involved, and consequences generated (pp. 97–109). Last, in
selective coding, categories and their properties were integrated, so that a central
storyline emerged that best described participant’s passing at the workplace, and
encompassed the secondary categories. At each step, detailed code memos were
maintained, depicting the category dimensions.
4 Findings
As per the constant comparison approach, a central storyline emerged around

passing as the core category—taking into account contextual conditions, commu-
nicative strategies adopted, and ensuing socialization with coworkers, described
below. While all participants said they passed at some stage or the other of their
careers, 64.3 % (9 of 14) said they were out to some colleagues, but there were still
several people at the workplace who assumed they were heterosexual, and thus for
whom they passed. Of the remaining five men who claimed they were entirely
closeted at work, one had been out at a previous position.
4.1 Contextual Conditions
The presence (or lack) of a formal policy on nondiscrimination pertaining to

sexuality was important in the decision to disclose homosexuality. Only three
respondents reported such a policy in their firm. Moreover, policy was not sufficient
in itself to enable disclosure; SS, in a senior-level position at a mid-sized IT firm,
noted that despite an “explicit cause about alternative sexuality in the equal
opportunities section, many people hold conservative, right-wing views about
Muslims, Dalits, women, and fighting with them is itself quite a job”. Similarly,
Press-messenger said that although gender sensitivity training was mandatory for
employees, “the floor where I am are about 75 % filled with veiled homophobes.”
While noting that his company had no official policy in place, Mike said, “The
management has said that it will do whatever it has to [do to] comply with the laws
of the land. . . There are comments every so often, and a few derogatory remarks
(when speaking in general) but they tend to be largely respectful for privacy if
speaking of anyone in specific.” A few respondents (like Vik) even felt a formal
nondiscrimination policy was unnecessary, since “We [the firm] are too small to
have this sort of a policy in place (or even need one for that matter).”
In addition to formal policy, perceptions of public opinion were key to respon-
dents’ decisions to pass. Just-me recounted that he had “faced a lot of homophobia”
at his previous job, a large radio station, and “that was the reason I did not come out
then.” In other cases, while colleagues were not seen to be actively homophobic,
neither were they supportive. Hi-pal said, “I have not come across anything
discussed elaborately. There have been just statements like, nowadays there’s
more of gay activity near my house during Sundays, or like, those two are too
close to each other, may be gay. Neither really contemptuous nor supporting.” Both
younger colleagues and companies were perceived as more tolerant; for Salil, “I
suspect many of my younger (age 35 or less) colleagues might not be phobic, but
being a large old Indian company, most policy making positions are with older
people and/or people with a less cosmopolitan upbringing—which leads me to
believe they would be phobic.” Moreover, industries like IT, media/advertising, and
fashion design, were perceived to be more open, as with Vik, who noted, “I would
describe my work environment as gay-friendly. But then again, the marketing/
advertising/PR field is very gay-friendly to begin with.” Conversely, more tradi-
tional sectors, like engineering and banking, were perceived to be less gay-friendly.
Key to respondents’ decision to pass was the anticipated interactions and
communication with coworkers, should their homosexuality be disclosed. This
was true both for those who were comfortable with the idea of coming out (i.e.,
to friends and family), and those who were more securely in the closet. Coming out
at work was not necessary for most respondents, “unless and until it is really
warranted” (Hi-pal), largely because they did not want to cause discomfort by
doing so. Hi-pal continued, “One fear is that I have perfectly straight relationships
with most of my male colleagues and coming out could unnecessarily amount to
reassuring/clarifying etc. I just feel this is a hassle.” Similarly, Seafoam, who
owned his company, said, “There would be snide remarks behind my back and
any staff members close to me would be UNJUSTLY teased [if I came out openly].
Eventually, all staff would distance themselves merely to prove they are not gay.”
Conversely, some respondents feared that colleagues would go to the other extreme
of political correctness: “they may feel obliged to display excessive sensitivity; and
it might get irritating. It would just rather work here and live outside.” (Mike).
Interestingly, Ravi believed that “it wouldn’t be that bad if I come out,” because his
coworkers seemed very open, yet reiterated “I don’t have that courage to open
up”—suggesting an internalized distinction of work and life (Burrell and Hearn
1989). Although most respondents (11 of 14) did not fear repercussions to their
current job if they came out, eight of them believed disclosure would affect long-
term career prospects. Hi-pal said, “I do not think that it could affect my stature in
work, but I feel it would unnecessarily become a permanent issue which I may have
to handle on an ongoing basis.”
4.2 Communicative Strategies of Passing
Respondents utilized five communicative strategies to pass at the workplace, rather

than disclose their homosexuality outright to coworkers. These were: distanciation,
concealment, reframing via non-stigmatic attributes, appropriating lesser stigmas,
and partitioning.
First, respondents distanced themselves from coworkers, avoiding verbal over-
tures of intimacy, not spending too much time with them at work, or not socializing
after-hours, as with Arun, who said, “Mostly, I don’t interact with colleagues if I
don’t have work with them, just the design team.” Vik distanced himself from
conversations related to LGB issues, saying that he “avoid[ed] the issue unless and
until someone is [really] contemptuous.” Some respondents actively cultivated the
persona of a private person, who guards his personal life from outsider coworkers;
SS said, “People can draw their own conclusions, but I make it quite clear that I
value my privacy, and regard many personal questions, especially from strangers or
casual acquaintances, as an invasion of it.”
Second, respondents actively concealed non-heteronormative symbols or signals
at work, by censoring demonstrative behavior or using gender-neutral language.
When asked about his personal life, Lakshman said, “I answer them honestly, but
I’m never really asked about ‘who’ I’m seeing, i.e., I answer gender neutral in
context.” Mike, who was in a relationship at the time, said that in response to such
questions, “I say I am seeing someone or living with someone and that we are not in
a position to marry because of legal complications. When between relationships, I
extended the same kind of gender neutral language.” His allusion to “legal com-
plications” was a good example of partial passing, rather than a complete cover-up
of his sexuality—given that homosexuality remains illegal in India. Respondents
also ensured they did not make overtures to anyone they might find attractive at
work, although sometimes they downplayed their concealment strategies using
over-the-top humor. For instance, Hi-pal laughed it off as avoiding “flaunting
one’s sexuality publicity,” indirectly blaming gay workers for potential homopho-
bia if they let slip their sexual identity.
Third, respondents reframed their discourse on non-stigmatic attributes (e.g.,
focus on work, family) that effectively silenced queries about their homosexuality.
For instance, Vik, who was out to colleagues on a “need to know” basis, averred, “I
work with several single men and women (who’re not gay to the best of my
knowledge) and they rise and fall within the industry according to their ability
(not marital status/sexuality).” Marital status was another non-stigma that some gay
professionals draw on to pass; although none of our respondents were married,
Arun identified others at his workplace “who are closeted, maybe because they are
married.”
Fourth, attributes less stigmatic than being gay were also appropriated by
respondents to pass. For example, Seafoam said, “I am divorced and just say I am
Devdas [a well-known fictional character] and will not marry ever again but die
longing for my wife.” In this case, the lesser stigma was that of failing to hold onto a
marriage and family, which still suggested he was heterosexual. Salil, on the other
hand, used his status as a still-unsteady professional to excuse his lack of spouse and
family; “I have been telling people that I am looking for a job change and shall then
marry. [I] did not tell any that I would not be marrying [at al]—I thought it is too
close to coming out!” Some of these lesser stigma may even serve as code for gay
professionals to suggest their homosexuality, without coming out entirely (e.g.,
being artistically inclined). SS admitted, “It is common knowledge that I am
unmarried, live on my own, lead a bohemian lifestyle, and have many friends
who are artists and theatre-people.” Hi-plan noted how an acquaintance used the
“confirmed bachelor” label to evade uncomfortable questions about being gay,
although most people understood what it meant: “He’s around 40 and unmarried
in a good post, and has slept with at least a few of his senior executives! He was not
at all good looking, but he said that the fact that he was a confirmed bachelor had
facilitated all these advances from his bosses!”
Fifth, respondents partitioned people and spaces within specific groups,
according to different degrees of disclosure (e.g., colleagues in same and other
departments, extra-organizational friends in the industry, clients). These partitions
enabled respondents to strategically choose how to pass, to what extent, and
deliberate the consequences of disclosure. Press-messenger said, “My ultimate
boss knows that I am gay and it’s a dead end for me in this department. I will see
no growth for me in this organization until I move out to a totally different
department. I have seen him walking out of the washroom just because I was inside
there. I do have a small circle of closeted gay friends in my organization, though we
belong to different departments and different locations.” For him, (partial)
disclosure was possible only with workers in a particular space, since attempts at
passing within his own department were superficial at best, with his supervisor
knowing about and censuring him for his homosexuality. Meanwhile, for Vik,
“With colleagues it’s [being gay] not a problem. My clients haven’t yet asked me
any personal questions, neither do I expect them to.”
4.3 Socialization (and Resistance) While Passing
Strategically passing had ongoing consequences for respondents’ socialization with

coworkers both in and out of the workplace, and these interactions were not risk-
free. Flash noted that using lesser stigmas like the “confirmed bachelor” archetype
to pass risked being perceived as lacking in professional commitment: “I’ve caught
married superiors advise unmarried by partnered colleagues not to waste their time
on romance and to focus on work.” At the same time, lack of familial commitments
leads to some passers being assigned last-minute jobs, continuous travel, and other
work that “family-oriented” workers might be spared. Paradoxically, for Mike, “A
couple of my bosses have directly told me that being single will not help me much
in my career, though it was veiled under ‘social support system’ talk,” even as,
because he is “presumed to be a bachelor [it] leads to assumptions of much greater
flexibility, leading to short-notice assignments, weekend work etc. It takes a lot of
effort to resist that.”
Respondents were divided about socializing with other gay men at the work-
place, from within the closet, noting how it could lead to both positive social
support and potential career problems. Discretion was crucial for Flash, since “it
can get pretty dicey if you’re not the getting-along-with-everyone sort.” In his case,
reaching out to others within the partial closet was an ongoing journey to be
comfortable with his own sexuality—although he felt “uncomfy” at first, he grad-
ually came to realize “that it is OK for two gay people to work in the same
workplace without feeling uncomfortable that the other person knows.” Partitioning
of space was crucial for productive friendships with other gay workers, as Aditya
noted: “My senior [gay] colleague and I share a totally professional relationship
while we’re at work. Once we leave, however, we talk about stuff in a really
friendly manner—we’ve managed to keep the two sacrosanct and I don’t think
this will change.” Mike described setting up an online group “specifically for
networking among the gay men in the company,” in the absence of a formal
nondiscrimination policy addressing sexual orientation, and “taking on a general
friend-guide-philosopher role,” being the oldest in the group. He observed the
tensions in that while “most are still too scared to meet for coffee in the campus
and talk,” the online group also sometimes becomes “cruisey” with solicitations for
sex; moreover, he reported getting asked by some of these men to get transferred
into his work unit, in which case emphasizing the spatial partitions became crucial.
Positive examples of socialization were also described by respondents with
heterosexual coworkers, who came to know their homosexuality, although
respondents were not entirely out of the closet—such instances of partial disclosure
often served to bolster their professional credibility. Arun talked about two col-
leagues who “got to know as they share the flat with the gay colleague and all of us
are in the same department”: he said, “They have nothing to say as they know me as
a friend and colleague first. Personal matters don’t come between conversations,
though I also don’t discuss everything about my sexuality with them.” In a similar
vein, Aditya came out to a previous boss “who had already figured out on her own
about me, even before I came out to her. I decided to tell her because we used to
share (and still do!) such a great rapport. . . I was the first gay guy she ever got to
speak with, so I helped her understand the culture a little more, though she was quite
knowledgeable about it already!” In such cases, respondents used the partial closet
to speak back to heteronormative discourses, and the ongoing conversation often
led to more nuanced understandings of sexual orientation for heterosexual col-
leagues (especially around sexual attraction and family acceptance).
Nevertheless, several negative and/or homophobic encounters were also
recounted by respondents, when they sought to venture out of the closet with
some straight coworkers—resulting in jokes, gossip, social exclusion, verbal
and/or physical harassment, and career blight. Press-messenger, who was outed
involuntarily at work, recalls: “They made crude gay jokes (loud enough for me to
hear) whenever I was on the floor with them in front of other colleagues who don’t
know about my sexuality. Every move I made aroused some kind of suspicion for
them. My immediate supervisor who knows that I am gay, sort of suspects every
call that I receive from guys at the workplace.” Mike noted that ongoing tensions
with a colleague made him decide to slide back (somewhat) into the closet: “He was
quite taken aback at it, and at later times when we had sticky situations at work, he
would make oblique references to it—nothing really hateful, just not exactly being
open and accepting. It has since made me a bit more ambiguous and I am back to a
‘don’t tell unless asked’ policy.”
In such negative situations, respondents used the partial closet to speak back to
heteronormativity and/or homophobia in a number of ways. First, some respondents
were forceful in their resistance. Salil said, “I remember a couple of instances where
I protested—the protest brought an immediate apology to the general neighborhood
by the offender—which pleasantly surprised me.” Meanwhile, Mike noted that
when confronted with homophobic comments at work, “I get resentful, sarcastic
and tell them to shove off. I shame them without outing myself explicitly.” Second,
some respondents chose a middle ground between forcefulness and being
non-demonstrative, as with Lakshman who “tend[s] to question people if they
have an issue about homosexuality, or try and understand where they are coming
from.” Similarly, Just-me observed, “I am not demonstrative about my sexuality, I
don’t make a hue and cry over my being gay, and whenever I hear homophobic
comments, I don’t react in an ‘activist’ manner, but gently reason it out with
colleagues when they are alone, and if that doesn’t help, I tell them it is not right
to label or sneer at people who are different from them.”
A third strategy was speaking up against bigotry of all kinds—against women,
Muslims and other marginalized communities/groups, while also attacking
homophobia—establishing oneself as an open-minded person while still retaining

the closet. SS said, “I am well-known for my liberal views in general, and come out
strongly if I hear snide remarks about Muslims, Dalits, women, or ‘western values’,
so it is quite natural that I also come out against homophobic remarks. It does not
feature in the gossip (that I have heard, at least).” Fourth, some respondents sought
to tap institutional means to foster a more LGB-inclusive work culture. For
instance, Mike said, “I keep harping about sexuality in every employee satisfaction
survey, which I am sure doesn’t change a thing, but at least someone reads it? I also
bring it up in any town halls/HR meetings. Of late, I have been thinking of
approaching the HR with a firm proposal for sensitization and education on
sexuality, sexual health.” Finally, some respondents highlighted that silence may
constitute resistance in itself—especially when combined with nonverbal cues
conveying disapproval or disappointment. Vik said that, in the face of homophobic
comments, “Just me being silent has people apologize for what they just said.”
Importantly, silence is never complete either—as Vik indicated that he also wrote a
weblog about being a gay Indian, which several of his coworkers knew. “For most
of my colleagues, I just told them once they asked. I didn’t really feel the need to
because I still feel it’s not an issue for the workplace but since I hang out with
colleagues even after work hours and socialize with them, I felt it was necessary.”
5 Discussion
Our chapter has made several important contributions to understanding sexual

orientation issues in the workplace in India. First, by considering passing to be
an ongoing, co-constructed practice, rather than an individual choice to disclose a
stigma or not, we traced its collective implications—especially in terms of
communication and socialization at the workplace and/or within industries. Second,
we resisted preconceived notions of passing as inherently negative, and
instead adopted a post-structural approach to the “(re)production of organization”
(Burrell and Hearn 1989), attuned to the emergence of social practices (like
passing) that might disrupt dominant ideals of worker identity (i.e., as straight,
male, hypercompetitive, married with children). Passing, we found, always
involves partial disclosure, which allows organizational members to “speak back”
to stereotypical and/or homophobic discourses without making themselves entirely
vulnerable. Specifically, five main communicative strategies were used by our
respondents—distanciation, concealment, reframing via non-stigmatic attributes,
appropriating lesser stigmas, and partitioning. Finally, we noted the influence of
cultural discourses (e.g., confirmed bachelor, Devdas pining for love, potential
Islamophobia in India), noting how working in contemporary twenty-first century
organizations involves a juxtaposition of local and global ideals of
masculinity work.
Almost three decades ago, Hall (1989) observed the paradox of disclosing
stigma, as opposed to passing, in the context of lesbian workers: “Stylized out of
existence, she [the out lesbian] forfeits her private mutinies, cannot mobilize the
resistance necessary to shield her individuality from engulfment by the collective
purpose of the organization. . . [and] becomes the consummate ‘organization (wo)
man’” (p. 138). In other words, the contemporary neocapitalist workplace, which
pays lip service to diversity and multiculturalism, is capable of appropriating
matters of difference and rehabilitating them within the established order of work
and worker experience—while making little allowance for, respecting, and
safeguarding individual negotiations of identity, body, and emotion (Acker 1990;
Buzzanell 2000; Hearn et al. 1989; Miller et al. 2003; Mumby 1998; Rumens and
Broomfield 2012).
Conversely, this chapter has demonstrated how passing allowed gay Indian men
to resist broader discourses of heteronormativity, patriarchy, and professionalism at
the workplace, using different communicative strategies to “speak back” with
alternative meanings and discursive frames. We do not want to overly romanticize
passing, noting the real psychological dangers that might result from persistent
denial of one’s LGB identity (e.g., Spradlin 1998), but note that the instances of
passing described by our respondents were almost always strategic plays that
involved both disclosure and denial, rather than persisting solely in either camp.
Nor is this strategic play without emotional and psychological burdens—as Mike
admitted, for instance, passing and “evasive behavior has already established an
aura of mystery around me, which I sometimes revel in and others frustrates me.”
Future research should thus closely examine the nuances and dialectics of emotion
at stake in queer workers’ use of passing as an everyday communicative practice.
One avenue that we suggest is tracing the intersections between passing and
resilience (see Richardson 2002) for sexual minorities and other marginalized
groups at the workplace. Buzzanell (2010) argued that resilience was a communi-
cative phenomenon hinging on five key practices—crafting normalcy, affirming
identity anchors, using/maintaining communication networks, putting alternative
logics to work, and foregrounding positive emotions while downplaying negative
ones. Although a focus on resilience did not guide our data collection and analysis,
a cursory inspection of the themes generated in this study—both regarding passing
strategies, and strategies used to resist homophobia and heteronormativity from
within the partial closet—suggests that several of these practices were evident. For
instance, respondents passed in order to be “normal” within the workplace, and
reiterated multiple times that sexual orientation had no place in the “normal”
workplace. Different attributes—both stigmatic and positive—were drawn on to
reassert respondents’ status as hard workers (e.g., entry-level worker with not
enough means to support family, but focused on building his career). Respondents
also drew on various social networks—both with other LGB workers and col-
leagues presumed to be straight but supportive/tolerant—to emphasize their com-
mitment to a more diverse and productive workplace. Future research should thus
further probe the possible linkages between strategies of passing and resilience,
broadening our understanding of how LGB workers worldwide are able to negotiate
heteronormative and patriarchal structures.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society,
4, 139–158.
Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of
organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burrell, G., & Hearn, J. (1989). The sexuality of organization. In J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard,
P. Tancred-Sheriff, & G. Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of organization (pp. 1–28). London:
Sage.
Buzzanell, P. M. (Ed.). (2000). Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from
feminist perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buzzanell, P. M. (2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being.
Journal of Communication, 60, 1–14.
Chopra, R. (2007). Invisible men: Masculinity, sexuality and male domestic labour. In N. Menon
(Ed.), Sexualities (pp. 177–196). New Delhi: Women Unlimited.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
de Neve, G. (2004). The workplace and the neighbourhood: Locating masculinities in the South
Indian textile industry. In R. Chopra, C. Osella, & F. Osella (Eds.), South Asian masculinities:
Context of change, sites of continuity (pp. 60–98). New Delhi: Women Unlimited.
Eguchi, S. (2009). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: The rhetorical strategy of “straight-acting”
among gay men. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38, 193–209.
Embrick, D. G., Walther, C. S., & Wickens, C. M. (2007). Working class masculinity: Keeping
gay men and lesbians out of the workplace. Sex Roles, 56, 757–766.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hall, M. (1989). Private experiences in the public domain: Lesbians in organizations. In J. Hearn,
D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff, & G. Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of organization
(pp. 125–138). London: Sage.
Hearn, J., Sheppard, D. L., Tancred-Sheriff, P., & Burrell, G. (Eds.). (1989). The sexuality of
organization. London: Sage.
Humphrey, J. C. (1999). Organizing sexualities, organized inequalities: Lesbians and gay men in
public service occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 6, 134–151.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied
research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 38, 268–292.
Menon, N. (2007). Outing heteronormativity: Nation, citizen, feminist disruptions. In N. Menon
(Ed.), Sexualities (pp. 3–51). New Delhi: Women Unlimited.
Miller, S. L., Forest, K. B., & Jurik, N. C. (2003). Diversity in blue lesbian and gay police officers
in a masculine occupation. Men and Masculinities, 5, 355–385.
Mohr, R. D. (1992). The outing controversy: Privacy and dignity in gay ethics. In R. D. Mohr
(Ed.), Gay ideas: Outing and other controversies (pp. 11–48). Boston: Beacon.
Mumby, D. K. (1998). Organizing men: Power, discourse, and the social construction of mascu-
linity(s) in the workplace. Communication Theory, 8, 164–183.
Narrain, A., & Bhan, G. (Eds.). (2005). Because I have a voice: Queer politics in India. New
Delhi: Yoda.
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58, 307–321.
Rumens, N. (2008). Working at intimacy: Gay men’s workplace friendships. Gender, Work and
Organization, 15, 9–30.
Rumens, N., & Broomfield, J. (2012). Gay men in the police: Identity disclosure and management
issues. Human Resource Management Journal, 22, 283–298.
Spradlin, A. L. (1998). The price of “passing”: A lesbian perspective on authenticity in organiza-
tions. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 598–604.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. London: Sage.
Toyoki, S., & Brown, A. D. (2014). Stigma, identity and power: Managing stigmatized identities
through discourse. Human Relations, 67, 715–737.
Tracy, S. J., & Scott, C. (2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters
and correctional officers: Getting down and dirty with “America’s heroes” and the “scum of
law enforcement”. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 6–38.
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2006). Watching the watch: The UK Fire Service and its impact on
sexual minorities in the workplace. Gender, Work and Organization, 13, 193–219.
Daily Work Out?!: The Relationship Between
Self-Representation, Degree of Openness
About One’s Gay or Lesbian Identity,
and Psychological Stress in the Workplace
Florian Meinhold and Dominic Frohn
1 Sexual Identity in the Workplace
In the context of work and commerce, a prevalent opinion is that sexual identity1 is
a private matter (Frohn 2014a, p. 480; Hofmann 2012; V€olklinger Kreis e.V. 2011).
Generally, the workplace is constructed as an asexual place (Maas 1996; Rosenstiel
et al. 2005), although private aspects of one’s personal life, and even the search for a
partner, are considered to be natural topics of workplace conversation (Frohn 2007;
Hofmann 2012). In addition, heterosexuality is understood as social information,
while homosexuality is mostly reduced to sexuality or sexual practices (Frohn
2007; K€ ollen 2012; Losert 2010; Wrenn 1988). An over-sexualization of gays
and lesbians, and the assumption that asexuality is a criterion for a professional
and productive workplace, results in the perception that a homosexual identity is a
crossing of boundaries, and also that gay employees are less productive, if not a
hindrance for the company (K€ollen 2010). Since one’s sexual identity is an invisible
trait of one’s identity (Clair et al. 2005; Goffman 2001), and because of the
prevalent idea that every person possesses a clear gender identity with sexual
attraction solely to the opposite sex (heteronormativity, cf. Degele 2008; Tuider
and Tietz 2003), dialogues are based on the assumption that any relationship matter
refers to partners of different sexes. In this way, differing modes of behavior and
lifestyles are seen as deficient and require an explanation (K€ollen 2010). Due to
heteronormative expectations and possible stigmatization, gay and lesbian
employees are regularly confronted with situations, which require them to evaluate
the extent to which they can openly express their sexual identity. This is a lifelong
1
The term sexual identity is used in the article instead of sexual orientation, because it goes
beyond the mere direction of desire and indicates a person’s self-understanding.
F. Meinhold, M.Sc. Psych. (*) • D. Frohn, Dipl.-Psych.
IDA │ Institut für Diversity- und Antidiskriminierungsforschung, K€
oln, Germany
e-mail: florian.meinhold@diversity-institut.info; dominic.frohn@diversity-institut.info

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_19
322 F. Meinhold and D. Frohn
issue, which can turn the handling of one’s identity at the workplace into a constant
challenge.
In Germany, only a few quantitative studies—in addition to some qualitatively
orientated works—have dealt exclusively with the job situation of gay and lesbian
employees (Knoll et al. 1997; Frohn 2007; K€ollen 2010, 2015). Building on each
other, the studies by Knoll et al. (1997) and Frohn (2007) illustrate that the majority
of gay and lesbian employees report at least one form of discrimination at their
workplace due to their sexual identity, and that more than half of them keep their
sexual identity a secret from their colleagues (Frohn 2007; Knoll et al. 1997). Frohn
(2007) was the first to systematically observe the handling of one’s sexual identity
in the workplace and highlighted a negative correlation between openness and
psychosomatic conditions, as well as a positive correlation between free resources,
job satisfaction, commitment and organization-based self esteem. Furthermore, he
showed that proactive diversity management that involves sexual identity, and an
open organizational culture, are associated with open-minded interactions (Frohn
2007).
How one handles his or her sexual identity can be distinguished in attitudinal and
behavioral dimensions (Frohn 2007). Attitude can be described as a stable mindset
that spans multiple situations, while behavior refers to the act of dealing with one’s
sexual identity during one’s everyday work. Since sexual identity is a relatively
invisible dimension of identity, there are numerous possible behaviors that gay
employees could exhibit in front of colleagues and superiors. These behaviors are
applied to different extents (Clair et al. 2005; Goffman 1963; Maas 1999; K€ollen
2010), which range from revealing to hiding, depending on contextual factors and
individual differences (Clair et al. 2005). Contextual conditions have been taken
into account in previous research (cf. Chrobot-Mason et al. 2001; Derlega
et al. 1993; Frohn 2007; K€ollen 2010). Individual differences, however, have rarely
been looked at systematically (Clair et al. 2005; Frohn 2013, 2014a, b). Therefore,
in order to develop a deeper understanding of the handling of one’s sexual identity
in the workplace, this study focuses on self-representation as a personality dispo-
sition that leads to a more or less open approach to one’s own sexual identity. This
study investigates the influence of openness on an individual’s level of stress,
depending on perceived discrimination in various situations.
2 Self-Representation and Openness About Sexual Identity
According to Laux and Renner (2002), two forms of self-representation can be

distinguished: an acquisitive style, and a protective style, which represent varieties
of the motivational pairs hope to succeed and dread of failure (Arkin 1981; Laux
and Renner 2002). An individual of the acquisitive type engages in social interac-
tion assuming that he or she will be rewarded if he or she succeeds in presenting
him- or herself well, according to the circumstances. On the contrary, an individual
of the protective type strives to avoid disapproval within social interaction (Arkin
Daily Work Out?!: The Relationship Between Self-Representation, Degree of. . . 323
1981; Frohn 2013; Laux and Renner 2002; Wolfe et al. 1986). If the handling of
sexual identity is thought of as a continuum between two poles of secretive and
open (Clair et al. 2005; Frohn 2007; K€ollen 2010), it seems that the bimodal model
of self-representation contains both of these characteristics of the handling of one’s
sexual identity. As Frohn (2013) has already asserted, an acquisitive style of self-
representation is likely to be associated with a more open handling of one’s sexual
identity, while a protective tendency is likely to be associated with a more secretive
handling.
Hypothesis 1 A person’s dispositional tendency of self-representation correlates
with an open attitude towards sexual identity:
(a) A more protective self-representation results in an attitude that values a less
open approach.
(b) A more acquisitive self-representation results in an attitude that values a more
open approach.
In addition, the type of self-representation should not only have a direct causal
impact on the attitude, but, by influencing the attitude, have an indirect impact on
actions and behavior.
Hypothesis 2 The attitude towards the handling of one’s sexual identity mediates
the relationship between one’s dispositional tendency towards self-representation
and openness regarding sexual identity on the behavioral dimension:
(a) Mediated by the attitude towards the handling of one’s sexual identity, a more
protective self-representation is accompanied by less openness on the behav-
ioral dimension.
(b) Mediated by the attitude towards the handling of one’s sexual identity, a more
acquisitive self-representation is accompanied by more openness on the
behavioral dimension.
3 Openness Regarding Sexual Identity and Stress
Gay and lesbian employees think about their behavior and their communication
regarding their sexual identity to varying degrees, in order to deal with occupational
stress (Frohn 2007; Clair et al. 2005). Because this is an individual’s reaction to
external factors of stress, it can be considered psychological stress according to DIN
EN ISO 10075-1 (Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin 2014; Inter-
national Organization for Standardization 2014). A onetime retrospective record of
the correlation between openness and stress (Frohn 2007) allows for conclusions to
be drawn regarding the differences between various people. It is to be expected that
over the course of various situations in everyday working life, a person’s openness
on the behavioral dimension will vary, depending on both the situation and the
person, and thus several states of stress will be involved.
Fig. 1 Conceptual model of hypotheses
Hypothesis 3 A higher openness in the behavioral dimension regarding one’s

sexual identity results in less stress.
Experienced discrimination is strikingly correlated with contextual conditions
such as the working climate, and can influence openness negatively. However, there
will, nevertheless, also be people who are still open about their sexual identity
despite anticipated discrimination and its possible consequences, because of a
strongly acquisitive style of self-representation. In these cases, it is believed that
the negative correlation between openness and stress is reversed. A high openness,
despite strongly experienced discrimination, is likely to result in more stress, since
the perceived discrimination involves the anticipation of negative effects for
the self.
Hypothesis 4 The experience of discrimination moderates the correlation between
openness regarding one’s sexual identity (behavioral dimension) and stress, so that
a low experience of discrimination creates a negative correlation between openness
regarding one’s sexual identity and stress, while a high experience of discrimination
creates a positive correlation between the two.
Figure 1 illustrates the hypotheses in a conceptual framework model.
4 Method
In order to test the hypotheses, an event-sampling diary method was used to record
situation-bound data per person over several points in time (for an overview of
diary methodology cf. Bolger et al. 2003; Ohly et al. 2010; Reis and Gable 2000), so
that a multi-level design with two levels was used.
4.1 Sample
Given the fact that, so far, little verified data on the population of gay and lesbians
exists, and thus the share among the entire general population can only be esti-
mated, most authors generally question the possibility of representativeness in this
field (cp. Buba and Vaskovics 2001; Sullivan and Losberg 2003; Frohn 2007;
K€ollen 2010). In order to acquire a sample that is as comprehensive as possible
and to reduce bias, various ways of distributing the questionnaire were chosen.
Through the distribution of “Out im Office?!” by Frohn (2007), people who had
previously agreed to participate in follow-up studies were contacted. In addition,
several lesbian and gay organizations, the employee networks of numerous com-
panies, anti-discrimination organizations, and the gay press promoted the study.
The first study’s home page was visited by 1058 people, of which 182 people
went through the entire process over the course of seven points of data acquisition.
Hetero-, bi- and asexual participants, as well as intersexual and transgender people,
were excluded from data analysis, because their job and life situations were
expected to differ from that of gay and lesbian participants (Barclay and Scott
2006; Barker and Langdridge 2008; Frohn 2007, 2013, 2014a; K€ollen 2010, 2012).
In addition, the number of subsamples in these subgroups was so low that it would
not have been possible to make generalizations about that data. The final interpre-
tation takes into account the data of 322 people. The sample consists of 98 lesbians
and 224 gay men. This corresponds with the common gender distribution among
lesbian and gay samples (cp. Knoll et al. 1997; Frohn 2007). The participants’ age
ranged from 18 to 65 years (M ¼ 39.21, SD ¼ 10.11). Interestingly, at a rate of
68.3 % the majority of study participants had attained the entrance qualification for
higher education, which indicates a middle-class bias that is found in most lesbian
and gay samples (cp. Knoll et al. 1997; Deutsche Aids Hilfe 2004; Frohn 2007).
4.2 Collection of Data
The collection of data took place online using the EFS survey software from
mid-June until mid-September 2014. Participants were allowed to freely determine
the starting date. It took about 3 weeks to run through all seven points of data
measurement and the overall duration did not exceed 45 min. The study comprised
of two phases. Using the link that had been sent out via several distributors,
participants were introduced to the first phase, which comprised a onetime collec-
tion of demographic data and e-mail addresses. In addition, participants were asked
to answer questions that compiled information regarding protective and acquisitive
self-representation and their attitude towards the handling of sexual identity. E-mail
addresses were necessary in order to send out links leading to the following
questionnaires. Seven days later, the participants were sent an e-mail containing
the first questionnaire of the second phase, which comprised six points of
measurement. They were given a new link to the next questionnaire 3 days after the
completion of the previous section. At the beginning of each survey, the partici-
pants were asked to think of any situation within the past few days that allowed
someone to infer information regarding their sexual identity. If they recalled
multiple situations, they were asked to choose the one that they considered to be
the most relevant. If they had an experience, they were given various questions
concerning the behavioral dimension, stress, and experienced discrimination, which
had to be answered according to the specific situation they had chosen. If they had
not experienced such a situation, it was possible for them to say so, and they were
then taken to the end of the respective survey via a filter.
4.3 Questionnaires
Previously established and validated instruments were used for collection of per-
sonal types of self-representation and the attitudinal dimension. To gather data on
the behavioral dimension, stress and experienced discrimination, items were pre-
dominantly orientated towards existing scales. Two-pole items were designed for
stress and the level of behavior, enabling the participants to answer via a slider bar.
The scales ranged from 0 to 100. However, participants were only able to see the
slider, not the scale itself.
4.3.1 Types of Self-Representation
In order to capture data on both the acquisitive style and the protective style of self-
representation, German-language adaptations of the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale
and the Concern for Appropriateness Scale were used (Laux and Renner 2002).
These scales consist of 12 statements, each of them involving a four-level format of
answers ranging from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (applies completely). An
example item for the collection of acquisitive self-representation data is “I have
had the experience that I can control my behavior so that I can live up to the
expectations of any situation” and an example for the protective self-representation
is “To avoid disapproval, I exhibit completely different aspects of my personality
towards various people”.
4.3.2 Attitudinal Dimension Regarding the Handling of One’s Sexual

Identity
For the measurement of attitude, a questionnaire was used that had already been
approved by Frohn (2007). It was based on six items that were again accompanied
by a four-level format of answers ranging from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (applies
Fig. 2 Item measuring the behavioral dimension regarding one’s sexual identity with the two
poles of conceal and reveal
fully). An example item is “I handle my sexual identity openly at work”. Higher

measurements signify an attitude that aims at higher openness.
4.3.3 Behavioral Dimension Regarding the Handling of One’s Sexual

Identity
To achieve a consistency between the behavioral scale and the attitudinal one in
accordance with Frohn (2007), statements by respective poles (open—secretive)
were adjusted to Frohn’s scale, but were formulated in a behavioral way. Figure 2
shows the item that measured behavior as it was presented to the study’s
participants.
4.3.4 Stress
Stress was differentiated into emotional, cognitive and temporal dimensions. Since
emotional stress can be understood as a state of anxiety (Wieland-Eckelmann
et al. 1999), and such a state coincides with experiences reported by gays and
lesbians with regards to the handling of their sexual identity, and in the context of
coming-out situations (Rosario et al. 2001; Watzlawik and Heine 2009), emotional
stress was measured with an item on anxiety (“Did you feel anxious as a result of
the situation?”) which could be answered via a slider between the two poles very
slight and very strong. Psychological job analysis methods often operationalize
cognitive stress via the ability to concentrate and to relax (Dunckel 1999). There-
fore, cognitive stress was operationalized by one of these two qualities (concen-
trate, relax), which were based on already established items (Frohn 2007; Mohr
et al. 2005). For the evaluation of the temporal dimension, a new item was designed.
Using a slider, which included the time span of less than 5 min up to more than
30 min, this item captured the amount of time that the study participants spent
contemplating their handling of their sexual identity. Over the course of six
different points of measurement, an average Cronbach’s α of .93 (range between
.90 and .95) was detected for these three dimensions. Figure 3 depicts the items that
captured cognitive and temporal stress.
Fig. 3 Items to capture cognitive and temporal stress
4.3.5 Experience of Discrimination
Since the question of discrimination often involves a self-serving bias, the question
of perceived acceptance was included as well. Perceived discrimination (“I per-
ceived the situation as discriminating”) and acceptance (“I felt accepted in that
situation”) were answered on a four-level scale ranging from 1 (does not apply at
all) to 4 (applies fully). With an inverted acceptance the two items’ average
correlation over six points of measurement was .43 (range of significant correla-
tions between .37 and .51). Higher measurements of both items represent a higher
experience of discrimination in the respective situation.
4.4 Data Analysis
The hypotheses’ evaluation included all gay and lesbian participants who had
reported at least one relevant situation, so that the analysis comprised 277 people
in total. Points of measurement in which none of the participants reported any
relevant situation were excluded from the evaluation. In order to meet the require-
ments of data dependency, Mplus 6.0 (Muthén and Muthén 2012) multi-level
analyses with a maximum-likelihood estimation method were used. The variables
captured by sliders were divided by 10 to achieve a better comparability of all
scales used. In line with the recommendations of Hofman and Gavin (1998) all
multiply collected predictors and moderators for the testing of hypotheses of the
within-person level were centered based on each person’s mean value. In order to
test the moderation hypothesis, the interaction term had to be significant and the
context had to match the predicted presumptions. On the basis of Snijders and
Bosker (1999), pseudo-R2 was made the effect size. Pseudo-R2 indicates the share
of the total variance (level 1 plus level 2 variance) for the dependent variable based
on added predictors (Snijders and Bosker 1999; Bryk and Raudenbusch 2002). R2 is
the measure for the effect size concerning the testing of the first hypothesis.
5 Conclusions
Looking closer at the situations experienced by the 322 participants reveals that, at
a rate of 44.9 %, the answer “I have not experienced such a situation since the last
survey” is the most frequently chosen answer, followed by “situation experienced
in conversations with colleagues” (33.9 %). Table 1 depicts the analyzed variables’
descriptive statistics and correlations of all 277 participants whose data was used
for the hypothesis testing, and also depicts intra-class correlations (the “ICC”; that
is, the proportion of a dependent variable’s variance that can be explained by the
observation unit). In diary studies, the ICC measurement represents the variance
share in a dependent variable, which is affiliated with differences between the
people (Klein and Kozlowski 2000; Nohe et al. 2014). The occurring intra-class
correlations indicate the data’s dependency within a person and thus point to the
necessity to consider the data hierarchy by means of adequate multi-level models.
5.1 Analysis of Between-Person Main Effects:

Self-Representation and the Attitudinal Dimension
It was presumed that the protective and acquisitive types of self-representation

influence the attitude towards one’s handling of sexual identity (Hypothesis 1a/b).
To test this hypothesis, a model with a multiple regression from the attitudinal
dimension to the protective and acquisitive self-representation was used. As
hypothesis 1a assumes, higher measurements of a protective self-representation
are linked to lower measurements of the attitude dimension (b ¼ .737, p < .001).
At the same time, higher measurements of the acquisitive self-representation
involve higher measurements of the attitude dimension (b ¼ .234, p < .01), as
suggested in hypothesis 1b. The effect size R2 was .244. These findings therefore
verify both parts a and b of the first hypothesis.
5.2 Analysis of Cross-Level Mediation: Self-Representation

and the Behavioral Dimension
Hypothesis 2 assumed that the correlation of the protective and acquisitive self-
representation with the behavioral dimension is mediated by the attitudinal dimen-
sion of handling one’s sexual identity. In order to test this hypothesis, a full-
mediation model was compared to a partial-mediation model. Therefore, a media-
tion model that included the direct paths between acquisitive and protective self-
representation and behavior (partial-mediation model), was compared to a model
without those direct paths (full-mediation model). Since no significant difference
became evident between the two models (Δ – 2 log ¼ 1.202; Δdf ¼ 2; n.s.), the
330
Table 1 Descriptive statistics, correlations of variables and intra-class correlations

M SD ICC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Protective self-representation 1.95 .49 – 1
2. Acquisitive self-representation 2.74 .45 – .23*** 1
3. Attitudinal dimension concerning the handling of sexual 3.23 .69 – .47*** .04 1
identity
4. Behavioral dimension concerning the handling of sexual 7.53 2.85 .64 .34*** .01 .65*** 1
identity
5. Stress 1.95 2.28 .64 .45*** .05 .41*** .37*** 1
6. Experienced discrimination 1.43 .61 .29 .25*** .04 .37*** .41*** .49*** 1
7. Age 38.87 10 – .25*** .20*** .10 .07 .21** .05 1
8. Sexual identity 1.69 .46 – .00 .03 .08 .00 .08 .02 .09
Annotations. The correlations for within-person level variables are based on participants’ mean value (N ¼ 277). Cf. results section for a detailed explanation
of intra-class correlations (ICC). Experience (1 ¼ yes; 2 ¼ no) and sexual identity (1 ¼ lesbian; 2 ¼ gay) were gathered categorically
{
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
F. Meinhold and D. Frohn
most economical model without direct paths was used for the testing of the second
hypothesis. In this model, the correlation between protective self-representation
and the behavioral dimension was significantly negative (path a1; b ¼ .677,
p < .001). The relationship between acquisitive self-representation and the attitu-
dinal dimension was not significant (path a2; b ¼ .111; n.s.). The attitudinal dimen-
sion and the behavioral dimension showed a significantly positive correlation (path
b; b ¼ 2.665, p < .001). In order to quantify the indirect effects of protective and
acquisitive self-representation to the behavioral and attitudinal dimensions, a
product-of-coefficients method was applied. The coefficient of path a was multi-
plied by the coefficient of path b (MacKinnon et al. 2002). The analyses resulted in
a significant indirect effect concerning the protective self-representation and the
behavior (path a1 b; b ¼ 1.803, p < .001). Regarding hypothesis 2a, the condi-
tions for a mediation are met (Baron and Kenny 1986; Hayes 2009), so that it can be
considered verified. No significant indirect effect was indicated with regards to an
indirect correlation between acquisitive self-representation and behavior (path
a2 b; b ¼ .297, n.s.). Therefore, hypothesis 2b could not be verified.
5.3 Analysis of Within-Person Main Effects and Moderation

Effects: Behavioral Dimension and Stress
Hypothesis 3 claimed that a higher openness of the behavioral dimension involves

less stress. In order to verify the hypothesis, a model with a regression from stress to
the behavioral dimension was used. As shown in Table 2, model 1 shows a better fit
than the null model concerning the data (Δ 2 log ¼ 18.284; Δdf ¼ 1; p < .001).
Consistent with the hypothesis, a higher openness of the behavioral dimension
involves less stress (b ¼ .157, p < .001) so that hypothesis 3 can be accepted.
Based on this, hypothesis 4 assumed that the negative correlation between the
behavioral dimension and stress is moderated by experienced discrimination. To
test this hypothesis, several nested models with stress as a dependent variable were
compared, as shown in Table 2. The analyses found that the data fit model 2 better
than model 1, because it also includes experienced discrimination separate to the
behavioral dimension as a predictor (Δ – 2 log ¼ 147.748; Δdf ¼ 1; p < .001).
Model 3, which also includes the interaction term between the behavioral dimen-
sion and experienced discrimination, did not show a better fit concerning the data in
comparison to model 2 (Δ – 2 log ¼ 3.698; Δdf ¼ 1; n.s.). The low pseudo-R2
corresponds to these findings, but it indicates a tendency towards additional expla-
nation of variance, which could be achieved by including the interaction term. A
significantly negative interaction term was found (b ¼ .165, p < .01). Stress is
higher depending on the amount of experienced discrimination. Contrary to expec-
tations, the negative correlation between behavioral dimension and stress (higher
openness—less stress) is amplified by a high experience of discrimination (see
Fig. 4). Hypothesis 4 could therefore not be verified.
Table 2 Main effects and moderational effects of the behavioral dimension concerning the
handling of the sexual identity and experienced discrimination on stress (hypotheses 3 and 4)
Model 1 Model 2
Main effect Main effects behavioral Model 3
behavioral dimension, experienced Moderational
dimension discrimination effect
b SE b SE b SE
Level 1 variables
Behavioral dimension .157*** 0.027 .107*** 0.026 .095** 0.029
Experienced discrimination 0.885*** 0.079 0.869*** 0.084
Behavioral .165** 0.061
dimension experienced
discrimination
–2 log-likelihood (df) 3052.1 (4) 2904.352 (5) 2900.654 (6)
Δ – 2 log-likelihood (Δdf) 18.284*** (1) 147.748*** (1) 3.698{ (1)
Level 1 error variance (SE) 2.050 (0.073) 1.893 (0.080) 1.885 (0.081)
Level 2 error variance (SE) 3.795 (0.567) 3.693 (0.546) 3.667 (0.542)
Pseudo-R2 .006 0.050 0.056
Annotations. Model 1 was compared to a null model with the intercept as the only predicator,
y ¼ 1.891; SE ¼ 0.237; –2 log ¼ 3070.384; df ¼ 3. Level 1 error variance ¼ 2.136; SE ¼ 0.068.
Level 2 error variance ¼ 3.746; SE ¼ 0.563. Reported unstandardized coefficients. Pseudo-R2
based on Snijders und Bosker (1999)
{
p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Fig. 4 Interaction of behavioral dimension and experienced discrimination with stress
6 Discussion
This chapter is the first to allow quantitative statements about the interrelation of
self-representation as a personality disposition with an open approach to one’s own
sexual identity. It also analyzes perceived stress on an everyday behavioral level.
As expected, a stronger protective self-representation resulted in less openness on

the attitudinal level, while a stronger acquisitive self-representation involved more
openness. It was also affirmed that a protective self-representation, via the attitu-
dinal dimension, resulted in less open behavior. The presumption that a higher
openness is associated with less psychological stress could be verified for the
behavioral dimension. This negative correlation was further amplified by a more
strongly experienced discrimination.
6.1 Implications
The type of self-representation seems to be a central element in determining a

person’s degree of openness. Since only protective self-representation indirectly
affects the behavioral dimension via the attitudinal dimension, protective self-
representation appears to be a particularly central factor. The fear of social stigma-
tization characterizes one’s attitude towards the handling of one’s sexual identity
and proves to be the driving force behind behavior in various situations. Findings of
a negative correlation between openness and stress complete previous studies by
proving that this correlation also exists on a within-person level. A gay man or
lesbian woman will experience less stress when exhibiting more openness regard-
ing their sexual identity. Furthermore, it became evident that, independent of the
degree of openness, a higher experience of discrimination involves more stress. The
difference in stress between employees who are open about their gay or lesbian
identity, and those who are covert about it, is reinforced by a high experience of
discrimination. Keeping one’s own gay or lesbian identity a secret results in
extreme stress, since a high degree of self-monitoring is considered to be necessary.
This, again, consumes cognitive capacities and brings about a decrease in concen-
tration, and an increase in distraction. This points to previous findings that less open
behavior is related to a loss of efficiency (Powers and Ellis 1995; Ellis and Riggle
1995; Ellis 1996; Barreto et al. 2006). These findings emphasize how important it is
for organizations to promote a supportive workplace culture, in order to encourage
open behavior (Derlega et al. 1993; Chrobot-Mason et al. 2001; Frohn 2007; K€ollen
2012) and to prevent negative consequences (Frohn 2007). It is therefore not only
reasonable and necessary to accept gay employees from an ethical and legal
perspective, but also in the interest of a sustainable and productive business
(Frohn 2007).
6.2 Limitations
The use of an event-sampling diary method allows for conclusions regarding the
behavior and the inner states of gay employees within their job environment. Its
external validity can thus be considered very high. In spite of this, however, some
potential limitations arise. Influences of common method effects on the observed

correlations cannot be ruled out (for an overview of common method effects see
Podsakoff et al. 2003). Participants’ implicit theories on correlations and emotional
states due to past incidents, or other personal properties, can result in measuring
inaccuracies. Generally, correlations could trace back to individual differences in
negative affectivity or neuroticism, and the design does not allow for causal
conclusions. Further experiments are necessary in order to make a causal statement.
In addition, variables were measured through self-reports, as is common in most
diary methodologies, but which can of course involve a self-serving bias (Bolger
et al. 2003; Ohly et al. 2010; Nohe et al. 2014). That being said, a diary method
seemed favorable compared to one-time questionnaires, since it reduces errors in
measurement and retrospective bias (Ohly et al. 2010).
The assessed situations were mostly related to conversations with colleagues and
were depicted as comparable to previously experienced situations, which made
them appear familiar and for this reason probably easier to handle. It should also be
mentioned that the participants were characterized by a high level of openness. For
interpreting the results it is important to take this into consideration, because for the
bulk of the participants, the handling of one’s sexual identity is, in all likelihood, a
familiar situation. These conditions can explain why a high experience of discrim-
ination and a high openness involve less stress. A longer survey period would thus
be preferable, in order to achieve a higher variation of situations. For openly gay
employees, more discrimination could result in more stress in unfamiliar situations.
Generally, it should be noted that a gay man or lesbian who exhibits a strongly
acquisitive self-representation might interpret a situation differently, compared to
an individual who exhibits a strongly protective tendency of self-representation. As
a result, they might subjectively perceive certain situations as less discriminating or
stressful.
6.3 Future Research
Even though this study provides an important insight into individual personality
psychology based dynamics of openness regarding one’s sexual identity in the
workplace, more research is necessary in order to fully understand the phenomenon.
Until now, it has been assumed that the behavior of gay and lesbian employees in
different situations is determined by their attitude. This, however, neglects the fact
that certain occurrences might result in a deviation from one’s usual attitude. This
discrepancy could result in more stress due to an emerging cognitive dissonance (for
an overview of cognitive dissonance see Festinger 1957)—a case which should be
looked at in the future.
This chapter analyzed types of self-representation as a personality disposition for
openness regarding sexual identity in the workplace. For a better understanding of
the causes which bring about such an open approach, other personal traits such as
willingness to take a risk (Clair et al. 2005), or the attribution style (Frohn 2013),
and also various motivational structures (Clair et al. 2005; Frohn 2013), would be of
interest in the future. In this context, the Big Five should be considered as well, in
order to analyze dimensions of personality, and an open attitude and behavior. As
the relationship between stressful situations and experiencing stress is strongly
explained by the trait neuroticism, which is often described as emotional instability,
this can be considered as an important factor with regards to the observed findings
on self-representation, openness with one’s sexual identity and stress (Bolger and
Schilling 1991; for an overview of neuroticism confer Henning 2005).
In the context of the history of LGBT*-movement, lesbians and gay men
increasingly assert their sexual identity and demand to be treated in a more
appropriate and respectful manner (Frohn 2014a, b). Therefore it makes sense to
not only investigate deficits, which focus on stress in everyday work, but also
resources and competencies, which are potentially brought about by specific bio-
graphical experiences or resilience factors (Frohn 2013, 2014a, b).
Bisexual and transgender people were not included in this study for the sake of a
specific focus. A detailed investigation of both bisexual and transgender
employees’ situations—which have been almost completely neglected in the
past—would be recommended for the future. The current state of research needs
to be complemented by this perspective, in order to do justice to the social diversity
in the field of sexual and gender identity. In the long term, an intersectional
perspective of research, which looks at sexual identity, gender identity and also
additional individual dimensions and their correlations, is desirable (Frohn 2014a,
b).
References
Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management

theory and social psychological research (pp. 311–333). New York: Academic Press.
Barclay, J. M., & Scott, L. J. (2006). Transsexuals and workplace diversity—A case of “change”
management. Personnel Review, 35(4), 487–502.
Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2008). Bisexuality: Working with a silenced sexuality. Feminism &
Psychology, 18(3), 389–394.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & Banal, S. (2006). Working under cover: Performance-related self-
confidence among members of contextually devalued groups who try to pass. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 337–352.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.
Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of
neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59(3),
355–386.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbusch, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buba, H. P., & Vaskovics, L. A. (2001). Benachteiligung gleichgeschlechtlich orientierter

Personen und Paare. Cologne: Bundesanzeiger.
Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. (2014). Psychische Belastung und
Beanspruchung im Berufsleben: Erkennen–Gestalten. http://www.baua.de/cae/servlet/
contentblob/673898/publicationFile/ . Accessed 15 Sept 2014.
Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & Declimenti, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity management
strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45, 321–336.
Clair, A. C., Beatty, E. J., & Maclean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing
invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95.
Degele, N. (2008). Gender/queer studies. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Deutsche Aids Hilfe. (2004). Schwule Männer und Aids: Risikomanagement in Zeiten der sozialen
Normalisierung einer Infektionskrankheit. AIDSForum DAH, 48.
Dunckel, H. (1999). Handbuch psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren. Zürich: vdf
Hochschulverlag.
Ellis, A. L. (1996). Sexual identity issues in the workplace: Past and present. In A. L. Ellis & E. D.
Riggle (Eds.), Sexual identity on the job: Issues and services. New York: Haworth Press.
Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. (1995). The relation on job satisfaction and degree of openness about
one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(2), 75–85.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frohn, D. (2007). “Out im Office?!” Sexuelle Identit€ at, (Anti)Diskriminierung und Diversity am
Arbeitsplatz (funded by the ministry of generations, family, women and integration in North
Rhine-Westphalia). Cologne: Schwules Netzwerk (Hrsg.).
Frohn, D. (2013). Subjektive Theorien von lesbischen, schwulen und bisexuellen bzw.
transidenten Beschäftigten zum Umgang mit ihrer sexuellen bzw. Geschlechtsidentität im
Kontext ihrer beruflichen Tätigkeit—eine explorative qualitative Studie. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung, 14(3), Art. 6.
Frohn, D. (2014a). Homosexualität in Arbeit und Wirtschaft. In F. Mildenberger, J. Evans,
R. Lautmann, & J. Past€otter (Eds.), Was ist Homosexualit€ at? (pp. 477–511). Hamburg:
Männerschwarm.
Frohn, D. (2014b). Die Arbeitssituation von LSBT*-Beschäftigten. Reanalyse einer Online-
Befragung unter differenzieller Perspektive. Zeitschrift f€ur Sexualforschung, 27, 328–351.
Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (2001). Stigma. Uber € Techniken der Bew€ altigung besch€adigter Identit€at. Frankfurt
am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millen-
nium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
Henning, J. (2005). Neurotizismus. In H. Weber & T. Rammsayer (Eds.), Handbuch der
Pers€onlichkeitspsychologie und Differentiellen Psychologie (pp. 251–256). G€ ottingen:
Hogrefe.
Hofman, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:
Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.
Hofmann, R. (2012). “Das ist doch reine Privatsache!?” Warum die unterschiedliche sexuelle
Orientierung von Menschen immer eine Rolle in Unternehmen bzw. Organisationen spielt.
AMA info, 232/233, 1–6.
International Organization for Standardization. (2014). ISO 10075: 1991(en). https://www.iso.org/
obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:10075:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 15 Sept 2014.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and
conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
Knoll, C., Edinger, M., & Reisbeck, G. (1997). Grenzg€ ange. Schwule und Lesben in der
Arbeitswelt. München: Profil.
K€ollen, T. (2010). Bemerkenswerte Vielfalt: Homosexualit€ at und Diversity Management.

Betriebswirtschaftliche und sozialpsychologische Aspekte der Diversity-Dimension “sexuelle
Orientierung”. München: Rainer Hampp.
K€
ollen, T. (2012). Privatsache und unerheblich für Unternehmen? Der Stand der Personal-
forschung zur sexuellen Orientierung. Zeitschrift f€ ur Personalforschung, 26(2), 143–166.
K€
ollen, T. (2015). The impact of demographic factors on the way lesbian and gay employees
manage their sexual orientation at work: An intersectional perspective. Management Research
Review, 38(9), 992–1015.
Laux, L., & Renner, K. H. (2002). Self-Monitoring und Authentizität: Die verkannten
Selbstdarsteller. Zeitschrift f€
ur Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23(2), 129–148.
Losert, A. (2010). Die Dimension sexuelle Orientierung im Kontext von (Anti-) Diskriminierung,
Diversity und betrieblicher Gesundheitspolitik. In B. Badura, H. Schr€ oder, J. Klose, &
K. Macco (Eds.), Fehlzeiten-report 2010 (pp. 235–242). Heidelberg: Springer.
Maas, J. (1996). Männliche Homosexualität in Organisationen: Argumente für eine überfällige
Auseinandersetzung mit einem tabuisierten Thema. Zeitschrift f€ ur Personalforschung, 96(2),
107–134.
Maas, J. (1999). Identit€ at und Stigma-Managament von homosexuellen F€ uhrungskr€ aften. Wies-
baden: Deutscher Universitäts.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological
Methods, 7(1), 83–104.
Mohr, G., Rigotti, T., & Müller, A. (2005). Irritation—ein Instrument zur Erfassung psychischer
Beanspruchung im Arbeitskontext. Skalen- und Itemparameter aus 15 Studien. Zeitschrift f€ ur
Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 49(1), 44–48.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén &
Muthén.
Nohe, C., Michel, A., & Sonntag, K. (2014). Family-work conflict and job performance: A diary
study of boundary conditions and mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,
339–357.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research:
An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2),
79–93.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Powers, B., & Ellis, A. L. (1995). A manager’s guide to sexual orientation in the workplace.
New York: Routledge.
Reis, H. T., & Gable, S. L. (2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday
experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and
personality psychology (pp. 190–222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rosario, M., Hunter, J., Maguen, S., Gwadz, M., & Smith, R. (2001). The coming-out process and
its adaptational and health-related associations among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths:
Stipulation and exploration of a model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1),
133–160.
Rosenstiel, L., Walter, M., & Rüttinger, B. (2005). Organisationspsychologie. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced
multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, G., & Losberg, W. (2003). A study of sampling in research in the field of lesbian and gay
studies. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15(1/2), 147–162.
Tuider, E., & Tietz, L. (2003). Queer Theory verständlich—Kritik der Identitätspolitik. In M. C.
Steffens & M. Ise (Eds.), Jahrbuch Lesben—Schwule—Psychologie (pp. 155–168). Lengerich:
Papst.
V€olklinger Kreis e.V. (2011). Diversity Management in Deutschland 2011. Eine empirische Studie
des V€olklinger Kreis e.V.. Berlin: Eigen.
Watzlawik, M., & Heine, N. (2009). Sexuelle Orientierung: Weg vom Denken in Schubladen.
G€ottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wieland-Eckelmann, R., Straßmannshausen, A., Rose, M., & Schwarz, R. (1999). Synthetische
Beanspruchungs- und Arbeitsanalyse (SYNBA-GA). In H. Dunckel (Ed.), Handbuch
psychologischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren (pp. 421–464). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.
Wolfe, R., Lennox, R., & Cutler, B. (1986). Getting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for
a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 256–361.
Wrenn, S. M. (1988). Labor relations: Gay rights and workplace discrimination. Personnel
Journal, 10, 91–101.
The Limits of Inclusion: Stories from
the Margins of the Swedish Police
Jens Rennstam and Katie Sullivan
1 Introduction
This chapter explores gay and lesbian police officers’ stories of marginalization and
the limits of inclusive diversity policies in the Swedish police. Sweden is generally
known as a liberal country with progressive anti-discrimination laws, organiza-
tional training programs and pro-diversity policies that include zero-tolerance for
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although law and policy are important,
equality and inclusion do not only reside on the level of formal documentation.
Sometimes organizational policies are more “window dressing” than representa-
tions of what is really going on (Alvesson 2013), and diversity training programs
often lack local relevance and fail to address ongoing, pressing and sensitive
problems (Prasad et al. 2011).
Based on an interview study of gay and lesbian police officers in Sweden, we
argue that the limits of inclusion can be found in the stories told by these members.
While the formal policy of the Swedish police does not set up any obstacles for
inclusion of gays and lesbians, the stories told by the officers provide insight into
how stories matter. We support these findings theoretically by drawing on narrative
theory and its assumption that stories construct identities (Riessman 2008), thus
suggesting that a heteronormative occupational identity is communicated through
the officers’ stories.
Our empirical material thus shows some limits to diversity expression and
comfort despite policy. Based on stories from the 1980s up to the present, we
provide insight into how the occupational identity of the police has changed. The
stories from the 1980s reveal a culture of explicit exclusion—that is, explicit
communication that being gay is not acceptable—and silencing homosexuality,
J. Rennstam (*) • K. Sullivan

Department of Business Administration, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
e-mail: jens.rennstam@fek.lu.se; katie.sullivan@fek.lu.se

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_20
340 J. Rennstam and K. Sullivan
forcing homosexual officers to lead a “double life” (Burke 1994). Although this is
“history,” the stories still have effects today in their capacity as “cultural artifacts”
(Schein 1984; Hatch 1993) that bring the past into the present. The stories from the
present are different, however, in the sense that instances of open exclusion are rare.
Instead, contemporary stories express more or less subtle marginalization—that is,
acceptance of LGB officers as part of the community yet depriving them of full
participation—through stigmatization and managerial reluctance to deal with
sexuality-related issues.
2 Review of Literature
Overwhelmingly, scholars studying diversity in the police note that police organi-
zations are reflective of a heteronormative masculine culture in which homophobia
is built in (Connell 1987; Myers et al. 2004) and that this culture has an impact on
how men and women navigate their sexuality at work (Colvin 2009; Myers,
et al. 2004). For instance, Burke (1994), who was among the first scholars to
empirically study lesbian, bisexual and gay men’s experience in the police, calls
the culture “macho” and argues that, “Homosexuality strikes at the very heart of the
police status, and the popular homosexual stereotype that the majority of police
readily accede to is the antithesis of the machismo that is so strongly embraced
within the force” (p. 149). Across studies, common theories develop as to why the
occupation of police might overtly demand conformity to a masculine ideal.
Beyond culture, such theories include the historical illegality or presumed “devi-
ance” of homosexuality, which police had once been tasked with regulating (Burke
1994), the police’s link to paramilitary organizations and overwhelming male
majority (Colvin 2009), and the idea that police organizations often represent
conservative elements of society, which are commonly linked to anti-homosexual
attitudes (Rumens and Broomfield 2012).
Material and psychological consequences of discrimination and homophobia are
cause for concern. Not long ago, Miller et al. (2003) argued, “being an openly gay
or lesbian officer meant dismissal from the job” (p. 360). However, since unlike sex
and race, sexual orientation is not always apparent, gay men and lesbians face
decisions about when or if to disclose their sexual identities to colleagues. Colvin
(2009) argues, “each lesbian and gay officer must determine the costs and benefits
of coming out at work” (p. 89). Psychologically, living what Burke (1994) refers to
as a “double-life,” where one is “closeted” at either home or work, can lead to
mental distress and an inability to function at work or to form healthy relationships.
Yet, officers who do come out at work often face subtle discrimination and fears
that not being “straight” will impact formal promotions (Belkin and McNichol
2002).
Several societal and organizational changes have occurred that positively pro-
mote the inclusion of LGB officers in the police force. Rumens and Broomfield
(2012) suggest that like in the U.S., the UK police services have faced political
The Limits of Inclusion: Stories from the Margins of the Swedish Police 341
pressure to decrease organizational sexism, racism and homophobia. Many police

agencies actively seek to increase the diversity of their workforce in order to create
better connections with the community, including gay and lesbian populations
(Belkin and McNichol 2002), which connotes that gay and lesbian officers are
uniquely qualified to act as community-liaisons for at risk populations. Slansky
(2006) theorizes that as the demographics of the police change to be more inclusive,
it has a range of benefits, including challenging endemic homophobia within police
organizational cultures. A key finding of Rumens and Broomfield’s (2012) study is
that today, gay police officers do not expect to be stigmatized and they actively seek
opportunities to disclose their identity and adopt strategies of identity integration,
leading to healthier psychological outcomes for gay police and greater opportuni-
ties for cultural change in the organizational culture of police agencies.
Although scholars point to positive trends toward greater diversity and inclusion,
all are quick to note that problems still exist. Miller et al. (2003) explain that the
recent trend toward inclusion of “outsiders” in the police does not, on its own,
challenge the heteronormative culture and they report that overt discrimination has
been replaced with more subtle recriminations for homosexuality such as the wide-
spread sharing of anti-gay jokes, slang or graffiti by members of the police. Belkin
and McNichol (2002) suggest that participants in their study see these as “reflective
of ignorance rather than personal attacks” (p. 80) Regardless of intent, gay officers
in Colvin’s (2009) study reported feeling social isolation or like outsiders in their
departments.
On the whole, despite progress, scholars agree that there is more work to do to
make sense of and change the culture of subtle exclusion that seems to permeate the
police. It is in light of these shortcomings that we search for insights in the stories of
gay and lesbian members of the police community.
3 Method
The data used for this chapter was collected by the first author (Jens) between
September 2014 and October 2015, when 13 gay or lesbian police officers were
interviewed. The participants were selected through a type of snowball sampling.
For other purposes than sexuality in organizations, Jens interviewed one of the
participants, who made him aware that there are very few openly gay male officers
in the Swedish police. This triggered our interest in the role of sexual orientation in
the police, and Jens decided to search for more participants. He did this by
contacting the Swedish Gay Police Association, and had them send out a request
for interviewees on his behalf. Five people responded, and the other respondents
were selected based on referral from these five.
The interviews lasted between 1 and 2 hours and were framed as discussions
around the respondents’ experiences of becoming and being police officers. In the
analysis of the data, we searched for stories, broadly defined as narratives from the
respondents containing at least two events in a sequence (“first this happened, then
that happened,” as Riessman 2008, p. 84, puts it). Thus, a story is characterized by
the possibility of asking, “And then what happened?” As a result, we could identify
stories with different themes, such as exclusion and stigmatization.
The empirical material below is in the form of stories collected from the
respondents. The stories are sorted based on a rough chronology; we define them
as “old stories” and “new stories.” The old stories are from the 1980s and 1990s,
and the new ones are from the 2000s.
We chose this division because, like other scholars (Miller et al. 2003; Slansky
2006), we noted a general shift from exclusion in the old stories, to marginal
inclusion in the new ones. By exclusion, we mean that the stories bear witness of
concealment, persecution and stigmatization. In short, they indicate that gay offi-
cers were not welcome in the police organization. Marginality, in turn, refers not to
complete exclusion but “a condition of being deprived of full participation” (Prasad
et al. 2007, p. 170, our emphasis). By marginal inclusion, thus, we mean that the
stories bear witness of inclusion, although not full participation, because the
inclusion is kept in the margins by heteronormative practices and occasional
mockery of homosexuality. A key difference between the old stories and new
stories was the reactions gay and lesbian officers have toward discriminatory speech
and actions.
4 From Exclusion to Marginality: Stories from the 1980s

to Present
4.1 The Formal Story
Formally, there is little doubt that the Swedish police endorse equal opportunities
and diversity. In the National Policy and Plan for Diversity and Equal Opportuni-
ties it is stated that
the police should be an attractive workplace with work that suits all employees regardless
of sex, gender identity or -expression, ethnicity, religion or belief, disability, sexual
orientation and age (The Police 2010: 4).
Statements and actions taken by top managers within the police support such
formal texts. For instance, police managers have participated in gay pride-parades
and often emphasize in media that there is “zero tolerance for xenophobia, homo-
phobia and sexism” (Sydsvenskan 2009).
Furthermore, the Swedish police occasionally take the opportunity to improve
the police officers’ knowledge about equal opportunities, diversity and human
rights. For instance, at a national level and based on input from about 20,000
employees, the Swedish police have developed “core values,” including the recog-
nition of everybody’s equal value, which are intended to guide the operative work
(The Police 2015). More specific measures have also been taken, such as a
diversity-training program called “The role of the police in a multi-cultural
society,” which was followed by the first author. This program was funded, in part,
as a result of a survey that indicated a lack in “knowledge among police employees
with regard to LGBT-issues” (Polismyndigheten i Skåne 2012, p. 2).
Thus, at the formal level, the police have no tolerance for exclusion or margin-
alization based on social identity. They state this publically, they spend money to
come to terms with the problems that do exist, and show regret and disappointment
every time there is an occasion of malpractice with a sexist, racist or heterosexist
connotation.
It is not mainly the formal story that interests us, however. Informally, it is less
clear that members of the Swedish police consistently “live” the values communi-
cated in public documents. In order to get beyond the somewhat superficial state-
ments about equal opportunities and occasional training sessions, we turn to the
stories told by gay and lesbian members of the police organization. These stories
communicate a more complex picture, characterized sometimes by exclusion and
stigmatization, but also voice and inclusion.
4.2 Old Stories: Stigmatization and Exclusion
In the 1980s and 1990s, formal policies around sexual orientation were rare.
Discrimination of homosexuals became unlawful in Sweden in 1987. Discrimina-
tion in the workplace was not unlawful until 1999, however, and there was little
incentive for employers to work actively for inclusion, and sexual orientation was
rarely spoken about as a phenomenon within the police.
4.2.1 Exclusion
But the stories from the 1980s and 1990s did not only communicate silence about
gayness. They also communicated exclusion. That is, they explicitly communicated
that being gay was not acceptable. One story, referring to the 1980s, was told by
three different officers on duty at the time. The story depicts a rumor about a gay
officer who, as the story goes, had sex with an officer on the SWAT-team
(“Piketen” in Swedish.), and how the commander of the team went berserk as a
result.
This excerpt below is from Lars, who is also the one accused of having sex with
the officer from the SWAT-team:
The worst thing I’ve experienced was, some time in, I think it was in 1986. I was at, well we
were a bunch at Vickan [a restaurant] And then it was . . . then we were a group of people
who went to my place afterwards. And then one of the guys there, after everyone had left,
one of the guys, he came back. Rang the doorbell. And he said, “Lars, I want to try it out,”
he said. He worked in the SWAT-team. Very handsome guy. And I had never even given it
a thought you know, that . . . oh well . . . so then I guess we had a rendezvous. And . . . when
I told [my friends], that “yes, that’s right, I scored alright.” And they laughed and all that.
But then it came out. And you know it was such harassment. So . . . what’s his name
now, well a guy, he’s still in the police, the commander of the SWAT, he definitely didn’t
like gays, and still doesn’t. But he gathered people in the meeting room, there was about
30 police officers, for, you know, a “hate meeting.” I asked myself whether he was going to
beat me up. [. . .] I was at the police station at the time [but not at the meeting], and it was
really a “hate meeting,” and you know, nobody agreed with him. And you know, it was so
serious that I went to the commander, Nils Larsson, now deceased, and said that this is a
work environment issue, “you’ve gotta fucking do something,” I said, “I will not put up
with this” (Lars).
There are different versions of this story. The most extreme version, told by
Anna, a lesbian officer who used to work in the same team as Lars, includes the
absurd rumor that the gay officer had sex with everybody in the SWAT-team, in a
sauna. Anna told the story after telling about how she did not want to come out in
the 1980s and how she lied about having a boyfriend. When Jens asked, “So you
thought coming out would have negative consequences?” she told about the rumors
surrounding her team, which was given the nickname “the g-team,” as in “gay-
team.”1 Anna continued:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everything was very negative. In this g-team, the SWAT in the g-team,
as I said, it was called the gay-team, one guy would have banged the whole caboodle, in a
sauna. And that’s “fantastic” you know, banging a whole SWAT-team, it’s just men,
he-men, that they would have been banged by a gay guy.
Anna explained that the rumor had circulated both inside and outside of the
department:
We even heard it at the police academy when we were there to take courses. “Yeeeah,
you’re from S€oder, fucking gay-team” [in exaggerated Stockholm dialect]. So . . . and there
were many [rumors]. It was completely crazy really. The commander of the SWAT, he
comes in at a briefing, looking for the guy who would have banged them all. Luckily, he
wasn’t there, because the commander would have killed him, in public. And he’s even
higher up in the hierarchy now. So I don’t give much for bosses you know. Not the ones
from my generation, at least.
Both Lars and Anna’s stories highlight exclusion based both on material and
discursive realities stemming from sexual orientation. Lars’ casual sexual relation-
ship became fuel for anger after it came out and it continued to function as a rumor
that, at the very least, cautioned other gay officers about what might happen, should
they come out.
Other stories of exclusion are more direct, such as Jane’s recollection of a
meeting with her supervisor in Malm€o in the 1990s. Jane had not yet come out
and was just about to finish her training to become a police officer. She recalls being
berated by her supervisor for being a lesbian:
Then, it started like this for me, when I was a cadet, some of my first few months here in
Malm€o, I was called to the one who took care of us, he was our supervisor. And I had to sit
down in his room, and he told me then that he had heard a rumor that I [light laughter] had a
1
The teams were actually called a, b, c, d, e, f, g-etc. Thus, the team was really called “the g-team,”
which, by those interested in circulating the rumor, was conveniently turned into “the gay-team.”
penchant for women. And then I got pretty scared. I felt that this was not good, so I said “no,
that’s not the case.” And then he grilled me for quite a long time, an hour or so, and
explained that there were many people who had claimed it and that they had seen me in
town and what not.
And I asked, “But, is there a problem with this? What could happen? You know, if this
were the case, what could happen then?” Well, it wasn’t good and so on [he said], and I kept
denying it because I was afraid I would lose the job. I knew that they wouldn’t say that its
“because you’re gay,” but they would say because you’re too tall or too thin or too fat or too
ugly or too blonde or whatever. So I denied it then.
And the last thing he said to me before I went out was that “Well, I see that I can’t get
you to admit this. But I want you to know one thing, that if this is the case, then you will get
a hell here.” So with those words, I went out and finished my time as a cadet. And of course,
it did not help me feel more ready to be open with my sexual orientation, but I hid it for
another few years.
Both of these stories explicitly communicate that being gay was not accepted.
Accusations of homosexuality could lead to interrogation, threats from superiors,
and mocking from peers.
4.2.2 Stigmatization
A second category among the old stories contains elements of stigmatization. That
is, the stories communicate that being gay or being associated with homosexuality
is something bad, it leaves a mark of disgrace. In Goffman’s terms, stigma refers to
“an attribute that is deeply discrediting” (1963, p. 3).2
Niklas, a gay officer in his 50s, exemplifies stigmatization. When we talk about
men and women in the police organization, Niklas, says that he thinks men worry
more about what their colleagues will say and they fear being seen as unmanly. He
tells a story from the 1980s where they talked about how they had to put a colleague
“in quarantine” because he had worked with a gay colleague.
I remember in the 80s, there was this guy who was suspected to be gay, he had worked with
a guy from this work team. So they said like this [in the work team]: “We’ll have to put
Robert in quarantine cause he’s worked with the fag.” And when people say things like that,
you just don’t gain any self-confidence. Very very negative. But at this time, they rarely
showed gay people on TV, and when it happened, there was an outcry in the lunchroom.
People went, “Yuck, they’re sooo disgusting” (Niklas).
Stigmatization was, in fact, common also in the contemporary stories, as we

shall see further below.
2
Note that Goffman points out that stigma is a relational phenomenon. An “attribute,” such as
gayness, may be constructed as discrediting in some relationships, but creditable in other. Being
gay may thus be seen as both a resource and a burden.
4.3 New Stories: Stigmatization and Voice
As noted above, in the 2000s, the formalization of “diversity” increased. In Sweden,

laws made “diversity plans” obligatory, through which authorities are legally
obliged to work actively against discrimination (SFS 1999, p. 130; SFS 2008,
p. 567). From approximately 2005 onward, diversity was a central concern, as
evidenced by the development of national plans for diversity and equal opportunity
within the police (The Police 2008, 2010; see also Wieslander 2014).
These formal changes sparked informal change. Interviewees commonly told
stories of acceptance and inclusion. In fact, many interviewees said that they rarely
experienced problems on an everyday level and some shared that the workplace had
been a site for support. For example, one male officer told about how his colleagues
were very supportive and positive when he came out. Also, many interviewees
mentioned a top police manager who stood up for the right of the members of the
Gay Police Association to participate in the Gay Pride in uniform.
The stories below illustrate how in many informal contexts it has become
illegitimate to be openly anti-gay. Explicit exclusion seems to have waned; yet
stigmatization persists. However, key insights from officers’ stories suggest that it
has become legitimate to protect or give voice to LGB rights and -issues and how
the risk associated with speaking out for pro-diversity has diminished.
In the following story Thomas recalls his manager calling him a “fucking fag” in
a sauna. While the story clearly illustrates how being gay may still be constructed as
a stigma, it also shows how it is possible to speak back in a more open fashion than
in the past. Thomas shares this as he talks about police culture, calling it macho.
The following story from 2008 illustrates his point:
And I have gotten in a lot of fights, in fact, that has been damn tough. One of my bosses, he
was not my direct manager but actually head of another department. I know how he was
talking shit about me in the sauna at a beer night. And I have quite a few friends in the
police, so it’s hard to talk shit about me without me knowing about it. So I knew exactly
what he had said, and he said, “that fucking fag, we have to make sure that he gets away
from Stockholm,” and from his district. And I got so damn mad that when I heard it, I went
in to my boss and told about this and I said “I want you to bring him here and we’ll have a
talk about this. The alternative is that I will report him. I have never reported any police
ever but I’m gonna fucking do it if this damn old man won’t apologize.” So my boss, a
woman, actually called him and said “you’ll have to come over here.” And he came, and I
sat there and I said, “I have heard what you have said, and I just want to know if it is true and
what you think about it.” And then he said “Nope, that’s not the case.” “Nah, but ok [I said].
There’s two people who were in that sauna, who heard what you said, and who have talked
to me, and they are ready to support me on this, so then I do not have any alternative. I will
report you, then you’re screwed.” Then he told me that he had been drunk, he didn’t mean it
and sorry and blablabla. He is still one of Stockholm’s top police chiefs.
Similarly, a story from 2014 also reveals tensions. An “LGBT-network” was

started in southern Sweden to support LGBT-persons within the police, which
included informational posters. However, some members of the police both tore
down the posters and mocked them by posting over the ads with an ad for a cycling
lotion called “the butt savior.” After that happened, Emma, one of the members of
the network, responded by sending an email to all employees in the region demand-
ing action from her superiors. The superiors responded by putting a post on the
intranet, explaining that this type of behavior is unacceptable and that the core
values of the police would be discussed at all work meetings in the region.
These stories and others illustrate that anti-gay behaviors are not taken lightly
and that gay and lesbian offers are often swift to respond and reticent to simply let
anti-gay speech and behaviors go. Yet, management does not always respond. The
following story where homosexuals were called “a cancer on society,” illustrates
stigmatization as well as management’s reluctance to deal with the issue of sexual
orientation. In this case, management’s reaction was nonchalance. Jane, the lesbian
officer, recalls overhearing a discussion in the lunchroom in 2011 between a senior
officer and junior cadet, where the former discussed Jane’s sexuality when he
thought she had left the building, ultimately declaring his dislike for homosexuality.
Jane explains:
So they didn’t see me, and I did not see them either, but I could hear their conversation
clearly. And then the senior policeman says to the younger woman, “do you know her?”
“Yes,” she says, “I do.” “Yeah, it’s a brave girl,” he says. And then I grow a little, thinking
that’s nice to hear. Then he says “yes, but I don’t like her way of living.” “What?” says the
cadet, “what do you mean?” And the cadet knew how I lived, we had talked about it. “Nah,”
he said, “you know, homosexuals, they’re like a cancer on society.”
And then I was like, you know, you can hardly believe it’s true. You have to pinch your
arm and ask “did I hear that right?” But I know I heard right, there’s no doubt about it. And
then he went on talking about the core values of the police and everything. And normally I
would have gone in there and said “you know, what’s this? I think we’ll have to talk about
this.” But on this Friday afternoon I was tired and needed to go home and we were off to the
country and I just felt, “I don’t have the energy to take this battle, I just don’t”.
So I sneaked out. I had heels that day so I took them off and sneaked out so they would
think I had left long ago. And then when I enter the yard, then, well moreover, it was Friday
afternoon and I was thinking that there is not a manager in the whole building and taking
that conflict with him, well, I didn’t feel like it. But then in fact, the third highest manager of
the authority, a woman, steps into the yard. She looks at me and says “you look weird, did
something happen?” And then I tell her what happened and I’m thinking, “Oh, how nice she
came, now she’ll deal with this.” But she didn’t. She just said, “Ah, never mind Jane” and
“go home and have a nice vacation.” And then she rode away on her bike.
Here, Jane’s story makes clear that not all formal polices were enforced or taken
seriously by management. Yet, below we see that officers are also more likely to
find other formal outlets to curb discrimination. Jane continues:
So . . . but I couldn’t do that. So I called my boss, and then I went home and I wrote a, well, a
memo, one might say, of what had happened and then I sent it to the police authority. And,
to make a long story short, then they must act. But it took four days before they reported it,
and they forgot to indicate that it was a hate crime. And when it came to the prosecutor the
information was rather weak, which meant, I suppose, that the investigation was closed,
nothing came out of it. I appealed to, what’s it called, The National Police Related Crimes
Unit (Swedish: “Riksenheten f€or polismål”). But my email, they said, did not get through.
So it was never appealed. What the police authority in Skåne decided to do when it came
to this matter was that the police chief would have a conversation with this guy. If that has
taken place, I have no idea. The man then went into retirement. But before he did, he kept
working in the police reception. That was his work place, the reception. Which I think is
pretty scary because that’s where everybody goes who wants to report something. And that
includes gay men or women who have experienced everything from rape to whatever it may
be. And they meet him, who apparently holds this opinion, and that’s very scary I think.
Jane’s story shares similarities with the sauna and poster stories, but the reaction
from management is more reluctant. It was not until Jane wrote a formal report,
which, by law, requires the police to act, and the media reported on the story, that
the police picked up the incident for consideration. There is thus still tacit accep-
tance for anti-gay sentiments from the part of management. In Jane’s story, she was
not explicitly silenced, but it was understood that she shouldn’t worry, or give voice
to, sexuality related issues, advice she swiftly disregarded by writing a report that
got picked up by the media.
5 Discussion: Marginalization Rather than Exclusion
Lesbian and gay men’s experiences of work continue to be relatively under-

researched (Bruni 2006; Gusmano 2008; Rumens and Kerfoot 2009). Our study
has sought to remedy this by exploring the stories gay and lesbian officers tell about
exclusion and inclusion at work. Our chronological outline shows that although
there was occasional support, the stories from the 1980s and 1990s were charac-
terized by explicit exclusion and stigmatization. They portray antigay behavior and
attitudes as legitimate and speaking out as associated with high risk. Contemporary
stories about explicit exclusion seem to be rare, or gone. Instead, exclusion today
tends to be tacit, accomplished in informal settings (such as saunas) and through
reluctance to deal with sexuality related issues and therefore were similarly char-
acterized by stigmatization of homosexuality. Yet, in contemporary stories we also
see an increase in officers’ voices and their ability to put their stories to use to
change discriminatory behaviors.
Compare the story of rumors that a gay officer had sex with the entire division
with the story of changing a poster, for instance. In the former, it was a manager
who “went berserk,” little was done by other managers to calm the situation, and the
gay man, reticent to formally speak up, was accused of (sexual) malpractice. In the
poster-story, management took action, after being pushed by Emma, who clearly
pointed out that mocking people because of their sexual orientation is unacceptable.
Then, on the other hand, there is the contemporary story where a supervisor equated
homosexuality with a cancer, in which the police management did not act until a
formal complaint was registered and the story was picked up in media.
A key distinction between the old and contemporary stories is what stories
accomplish and how voice is engaged. In the older examples, stories take the
form and shape of rumors by functioning as covert disciplinary reminders that
being gay or lesbian is outside the proper scope of the occupation of policing.
However, in the newer stories, even when anti-gay sentiments are present, officers
use stories to engender change. In other terms, the “LGB-voice” is treated quite
differently. In the old stories, it is treated as illegitimate. In the new stories,

LGB-people, first of all, tend to speak out more often and with determination. In
addition, overt ignorance of the LGB-voice is not legitimate today. For instance,
when media found out about the cancer-story and made it public, this became a
problem for the police management. However, stories still reveal managements’
reluctance to deal with issues of sexuality. This covert ignorance may make it more
difficult for LGB-people to construct a legitimate identity within the police. As
Ward and Winstanley (2003) note: “By not being talked about, events are starved of
the oxygen which would breathe life into them and give them meaning. By ignoring
alternative sexualities, by refusing them the currency of social discourse the
organization makes it more difficult for sexual minorities to construct an ‘out’
social identity” (p. 1269).
Overall however, our study indicates a move away from exclusion and overt
stigmatization of LGB people, toward marginalization. LGB people are rarely
explicitly excluded—they tend to be seen as part of the police community, yet
positioned in the margin. They are formally included, and most of the time
informally so, but still every now and then reminded, through activities such as
the ones communicated by the poster-story or the cancer-story, that homosexuality
belongs in the margins of the police identity.
5.1 The Marginalizing Power of Stories
Our data shows that many gay police officers can recount stories that signify or
show that the specter of discrimination infiltrates the present and reveals the limits
of inclusion. Even when the officers do not express personally experiencing mar-
ginalization and despite the fact that these stories are exceptions quantitatively, they
appear to “do” something—they have marginalizing effects that make an imprint in
people’s memories. This dynamic often necessitates navigating the past and the
present conditions. The stories suggest that it is often the past that makes officers
uncomfortable in the present. But it is the present that encourages officers to take a
stand.
Our analysis reveals that stories “last,” they are historical artifacts that carry with
them the “specter of exclusion” that still says something about the legitimate
occupational identity of the police. Stories are connected to sensemaking about
identity (Riessman 2008). They help their carriers to create coherence and ratio-
nality by reminding them of previous experiences that are used to make future
decisions (Czarniawska 1998, p. 15; see also Riessman 2008; Gabriel 2004).
Therefore, we argue, the stories of exclusion and stigmatization contribute to the
marginalization of LGB people in the police organization.
Our stories also contain an explanation of why it takes so much time for change
to happen even in relatively liberal countries like Sweden. Although the Swedish
police are formally inclusionary, the stories bring in the not-so-liberal past and
remind us that sometimes inclusion is merely a façade. Arguably, it is not until the
stories encounter resistance from counter-stories that their marginalizing power

cedes. Counter-stories are slowly accumulating, and we may talk about a certain
degree of “de-stigmatization” of homosexuality.
5.2 Practical Implications
There are several practical and managerial implications to our study. Rumens and
Broomfield (2012) suggest that like in the U.S., the UK police services have faced
political pressure to decrease organizational sexism, racism and homophobia.
Sweden is no exception to this trend. The Swedish police have formal arrangements
in place. However, policy and training programs rarely seem to pick up lived
experiences, but focus more on general information about rights and values.
Often, the sensitive issues that stories bring forth are glossed over in so called
“diversity training” (Prasad et al. 2011).
We argue that more work needs to pay attention to marginality, or the ways in
which gay and lesbian officers experience marginal membership and working on
the margins. Most stories operate informally. They are passed down from person to
person or group to group, changing shape and slowly gathering accord as time
passes. Management may or may not know about the stories that infiltrate a
department. However, this is crucial knowledge for successful cultural change.
Managers must know which stories float around their employees’ consciousness,
and more importantly, they need to have an understanding of what these stories
“do,” such as spread fear, discipline workers or tacitly condone anti-gay sentiments.
Or, alternatively, stories can be a catalyst for productive organizational change and
encourage workers that support can be expected.
In order to collect stories in a safe and effective manner, police organizations
would benefit from hiring an independent organizational ethnographer trained in
observing and obtaining stories to collect and track organizational stories over time.
Practically, this would offer organizations problem identification and information
about how well their diversity programs are received, understood and taken-up by
officers or how and when stories gain or lose power. The key is that managerial
adjustments to diversity protocols can take place at the individual and group level,
simultaneously mitigating and harnessing the power of stories. Ethnographers have
specific knowledge in how stories are constructed by culture, how they “make” and
“unmake” cultures, and how marginalization is built into the culture of organiza-
tions (Prasad et al. 2007). Such a view can be used to spark discussions with
managers about how organizations can think of and work with stories to create a
culture of inclusion.
References
Alvesson, M. (2013). The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education, and work
organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belkin, A., & McNichol, J. (2002). Pink and blue: Outcomes associated with the integration of
open gay and lesbian personnel in the San Diego police department. Police Quarterly, 5(1),
63–95.
Bruni, A. (2006). ‘Have you got a boyfriend or are you single?’: On the importance of being
‘straight’ in organizational research. Gender, Work & Organization, 13(3), 299–316.
Burke, M. (1994). Homosexuality as deviance: The case of the gay police officer. British Journal
of Criminology, 34(2), 192–203.
Colvin, R. (2009). Shared perceptions among lesbian and gay police officers: Barriers and
opportunities in the law enforcement work environment. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 86–101.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. London: Sage.
Gabriel, Y. (2004). The voice of experience and the voice of the expert—Can they speak to each
other? In B. Hurwitz, T. Greenhalg, & V. Skultans (Eds.), Narrative research in health and
illness (pp. 168–186). Oxford: Blackwell.
Prentice-Hall.
Gusmano, B. (2008). Coming out or not? How nonheterosexual people manage their sexual
identity at work. Journal of Workplace Rights., 13(4), 473–496.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18
(4), 657–693.
Miller, S. L., Forest, K. B., & Jurik, N. C. (2003). Diversity in blue: Lesbian and gay police officers
in a masculine occupation. Men and Masculinities, 5(4), 355–385.
Myers, K. A., Forest, K. B., & Miller, S. L. (2004). Officer friendly and the tough cop: Gays and
lesbians navigate homophobia and policing. Journal of Homosexuality, 47(1), 17–37.
Polismyndigheten i Skåne. (2012). Slutrapport av projekt: Polisrollen i det mångkulturella
samhället (Final report: The role of the police in a multi-cultural society). Dnr: 2009-3040077.
Prasad, P., D’Abate, C., & Prasad, A. (2007). Organizational challenges at the periphery: Career
issues for the socially marginalized. In G. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career
studies (pp. 168–187). London: Sage.
Prasad, A., Prasad, P., & Mir, R. (2011). One mirror in another: Managing diversity and the
discourse of fashion. Human Relations, 64(5), 703–724.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage.
issues. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3), 283–298.
Rumens, N., & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (Re)constructing the self as professional.
Human Relations, 62(5), 763–786.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management
Review, 25(2), 3–16.
SFS (Swedish Law). (1999:130). Lag om åtg€ arder mot diskriminering i arbetslivet på grund av
etnisk tillh€ orighet, religion eller annan trosuppfattning. Stockholm: Integrations-och
jämställdhetsdepartementet.
SFS (Swedish Law). (2008:567). Diskrimineringslag. Stockholm: Justitiedepartmentet.
Slansky, D. A. (2006). Not your father’s police department: Making sense of the new demo-
graphics of law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96(3), 1209–1244.
Sydsvenskan. (2009, February 21). Jag är jättebesviken (I’m very disappointed).
The Police. (2008). Diversity and equal opportunities. The national policy and plan of the police
(Mångfald och likabehandling. Polisens nationella policy och plan). Issued by the National
Police Board, Dnr HR-747/3190/07.
The Police. (2010). National Policy and Plan for Diversity and Equal Opportunities (Mångfald-
nationell policy och handlingsplan). Issued by the National Police Board, Dnr HR-7491663-09.
The Police. (2015). Polisens värdegrund (The core values of the Police). https://polisen.se/Om-
polisen/Uppdrag-och-mal/Polisens-vardegrund. Accessed 1 Apr 2015.
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2003). The absent presence: Negative space within discourse and the
construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(10),
1255–1280.
Wieslander, M. (2014). Ordningsmakter inom ordningsmakten. Diskurskamp, dilemma och
motstånd i blivande polisers samtal om mångfald. Doctoral dissertation, Karlstad University
Studies.
The Career Development of Bisexual Sex
Workers
James D. Griffith, August Capiola, and Lucy Gu
1 Overview
This chapter aims to apply a conceptual framework of career development to

bisexual female sex workers. The focus of the analysis is on the intersections of
self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and interests, as well as the influences of the
environment on the development of career-related interests and the translation of
those interests into choices and actions. We look at the factors that influence the
development of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations and the impact of
support systems on the translation of interests to career choices. The chapter
examines female sex work, largely focusing on pornography actresses and escorts
from urban areas in the United States, and some from Europe. Data used in this
chapter are from studies published by the author as well as other researchers.
Unfortunately, studies collecting relevant information pertaining to the career
development among sex workers from other areas (e.g., Africa, Asia, South Amer-
ica) are unknown to the authors or do not yet exist. Studies from those geographic
areas tend to focus on exploitation, HIV rates, and other negative consequences of
sex work.
Sex work does have some universalities associated with it, although there are
cultural differences as well. One of the purposes of this chapter is to provide a step
in understanding the career development of bisexual sex workers that are largely
from Western cultures in an effort to provide a framework that can be later tested or
J.D. Griffith (*)

Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA, USA
e-mail: jdgrif@ship.edu
A. Capiola
Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA
L. Gu
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_21
354 J.D. Griffith et al.
applied to sex workers from other geographic areas, when that data becomes
available. Thus, sex workers not included in this chapter are on the basis of
accessibility. Bisexual women involved in sex work are of a particular interest
because it may be one of the few occupations in which a bisexual orientation
represents the majority of individuals in the profession, as was reported among
American pornography actresses (Griffith et al. 2013b). It may be the case that a
bisexual orientation may provide an advantage in sex work, which is contrast to
what has been reported in studies that examined other professions (e.g., Meyer
2003).
2 Sex Work
Sex work is the exchange of sexual services for compensation as well as the sale of
erotic performances or products. It includes both direct physical contact between
buyers and sellers (e.g., prostitution) and indirect sexual stimulation (e.g., porno-
graphic film). The consumption and reach of these services and products is enor-
mous. For example, it is estimated that more than $13 billion was spent on the sex
sectors in the United States in 2006 (Ropelato 2006). Approximately one in four
Americans watched an X-rated movie in 2008 (Davis and Smith 2008) and approx-
imately 15 % of men in the United States, Australia, and Europe (Davis and Smith
2008; Rissel 2003) have solicited services from a prostitute. And of course, the
internet has provided a platform to access these products and services in a much
more efficient manner compared to time periods in which internet use was not yet
mainstream. There are countries where the selling of sexual services and products is
legal and regulated whereas in other countries it is illegal so there is certainly not a
consistent pattern of acceptance. In summary, sex work is a worldwide industry that
sees billions of dollars in transactions on an annual basis which has a diverse
number of workers and clients. Public opinion of sex work in Western societies is
largely negative (see Weitzer 2011) and is often viewed as immoral or deviant. As
such, workers and clients of the sex trade are typically stigmatized accordingly, but
certainly not enough to reduce or eliminate commerce in the industry. For the most
part, pornography actresses and escorts typically use pseudo names in an effort to
mask their identity and not draw attention. Likewise, individuals who watch
pornography and solicit the services of escorts often do so in secrecy or at least it
is rarely public knowledge. Thus, much of sex work may be conceptualized as
occurring with a shroud of invisibility because it seldom happens in the limelight.
According to Weitzer (2011), there are three paradigms in which to view the sex
trade industry which include oppression, empowerment, and polymorphous. In
general, much prior research on female sex workers has focused on negative
dimensions of their work which has included emotional difficulties in coping
(e.g., Sanders 2005), substance abuse and contracting sexually transmitted diseases
(e.g., Vanwesenbeeck 2001), as well as violence associated with their occupation
(e.g., O’Doherty 2011), and it appears as though these are the types of studies that
The Career Development of Bisexual Sex Workers 355
may gain the most press in popular media. This approach largely follows an
oppression paradigm which focuses only on the negative aspects of the sex trade
and regards it as exploitation rather than an occupation. A second perspective is
termed the empowerment paradigm and emphasizes that the delivery of sexual
services are in fact a type of occupation that may improve a person’s socioeconomic
status and has advantages over other types of occupations. Studies have shown that
many sex workers have willfully chosen to enter the industry and it is not entirely
out of economic need but also because it gives them control over their careers,
autonomy, flexible work schedules, and they enjoy their work (e.g., Griffith
et al. 2012; Zatz 1997). The third perspective is termed polymorphous and does
not look at sex work in a unidimensional manner. Rather, this approach views sex
work as a complex and diverse industry that varies within and across cultures and
has different structural and organizational components.
Thus, factors such as victimization, exploitation, job satisfaction, self-esteem,
and other variables vary depending on the nature of the sex work, where it occurs,
and under what kind of conditions. Certainly, another dimension to consider is who
is providing the sexual services and to whom. More specifically, in terms of their
sexual orientation, sexual services can be exchanged between many combinations
of heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. In an effort to narrow the
scope of the possible combinations, this study focuses on bisexual female pornog-
raphy actresses and escorts. At the time of this writing, the authors were aware of
only two studies (i.e., Capiola et al. 2014; Griffith et al. 2013b) that examined
bisexual sex workers and in both studies, women with a bisexual orientation fared
better either financially or psychologically compared to their heterosexual counter-
parts. The authors were unaware of any studies that examined sex work among
women from a career development perspective.
3 Social Cognitive Career Theory
One of the more recent models of career development is referred to as Social

Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and was proposed by Lent et al. (1994) and has
been applied to various occupations. This model represents a convergence of social
and cognitive perspectives of career interest, choice, and performance. One partic-
ular appeal of this model is that it was intentionally developed to be used in guiding
inquiry on typically underrepresented populations in career theory such as women
and racial/ethnic minorities and it has been applied to lesbians and gay men
(Morrow et al. 1996). In essence, SCCT provides a model that explains how career
interests develop across the lifespan, how those interests are morphed into goals,
and how those goals are transformed into career behaviors.
A brief description of SCCT will be provided in an effort to provide structure to
examine how the career development of bisexual female sex workers fits the model.
This theory was developed largely based upon Bandura’s (1986) triadic reciprocal
model of causality. Bandura’s model postulated that there are three components of
causality which include attributes of the person (e.g., internal factors such as
cognitive and affective states), environment (e.g., external factors such as who
one works with), and overt behavior (e.g., what someone actually does). These three
components are believed to be interactive such that they are all connected and
influence one another. Lent et al. (1994) used those terms to provide a framework to
conceptualize how career interests develop, how interests and other factors influ-
ence career-related choices, and how individuals attain different levels of perfor-
mance in their career pursuits.
SCCT posits that there are three basic interconnected social cognitive person
variables that individuals use to regulate their own behavior which include self-
efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and personal goals (Lent et al. 1994). Self-
efficacy is conceptualized to be an evolving set of self-beliefs related to specific
activities and performance indicators. SCCT suggests that efficacy beliefs may be
acquired and modified through four sources which include: personal performance
accomplishments (e.g., success and failures on a given task), vicarious learning
(e.g., observing co-workers), social persuasion (e.g., being influenced by others),
and physiological states and reactions (e.g., being in an aroused state while com-
pleting a task). It is noted that efficacy beliefs are largely associated with how the
four sources are appraised. The belief that an individual can perform a certain task
associated with a career path is an outcome expectation. In other words, it involves
the beliefs associated with the consequences of performing particular behaviors
(e.g., I may be able to earn more money in pornography if I have sex with both
gender). It is believed that outcome expectations are largely acquired through
vicarious learning and is a combination of extrinsic reinforcement and internal
satisfaction. Personal goals refer to the degree to which an individual engages in the
necessary activities to produce a specific outcome. When an individual set goals,
they are better able to organize and direct their behaviors. These three factors are
interconnected such that SCCT predicts that individuals select goals that are
consistent with their beliefs about their personal capabilities and the probability
of outcomes associated with their actions. Further, succeeding in attaining one’s
goals is related to an increase in self-efficacy and outcome expectations within the
specific work domain.
Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and personal goals represent the key factors
in SCCT. These factors are postulated to be important when looking at three
segmental models which include vocational interest, choice, and performance.
Each of these models assumes the interplay between self-efficacy, outcome expec-
tations, and personal goals in the context of career choice and development.
3.1 Vocational Interests
Individuals are exposed to a variety of activities, both directly and indirectly, that
may be related to a career path. They also receive reinforcement and punishment
from parents, teachers, peers, themselves, and others in pursuing activities (e.g.,
participation in sports or the band) and for achieving varying levels of performances
in those activities. Through repeated practice and feedback of those activities,
individuals form a sense of efficacy for particular tasks and acquire certain expec-
tations about the outcomes of their performance (Lent and Brown 1996). This
model predicts that self-efficacy and outcome expectations on given activities are
associated with the formation of career interests. In other words, one who is
interested in an activity when they view themselves as good at it will anticipate
that performing it will produce valued outcomes (Bandura 1986; Lent et al. 1989).
If you are good at something that you like, you expect that it will be worth
something.
In an examination of comparing bisexual and heterosexual pornography
actresses, it was reported that bisexual actresses first had intercourse at an earlier
age, enjoy their work more, enjoy sex more, and have more partners outside of the
pornography industry, compared to heterosexual actresses (Griffith et al. 2013a). A
limitation of applying that data to the SCCT is that age of first intercourse was a
retrospective account and the other factors were measured in the current day time
frame. However, certain associations may be postulated based on the data. First,
bisexual actresses reported their age of first intercourse to be at 14.8 years old and
they had more partners during the past year and in their lifetime compared to
heterosexual actresses. This pattern is a common finding that bisexual women
report intercourse at an earlier age than heterosexual women and have more
partners as has been found in the general population (Breyer et al. 2010; Kuyper
and Vanwesenbeeck 2011; Laumann et al. 1994; Lindley et al. 2008). It may be the
case that bisexual women in pornography have an interest in sex as demonstrated by
having sex at an earlier age and enjoy the activity as evidenced by their ratings of
enjoyment of sex higher than heterosexual actresses. We do not have the data for
those early sexual interactions but it is possible that positive associations were
developed such that they enjoyed engaging in sex and they may have perceived
their partners as enjoying the activity as well. This assumption does not seem to be
too far reaching.
It is conceivable that reinforcement for sex was provided because if one engages
in sex with a partner, and that partner requests sex again, that request in itself can be
reinforcing. Regardless if the individual was a top “performer” or not may not be as
relevant because the feedback that may have been given is that partners wanted to
have sex which may be related to reinforcing the behavior and increasing self-
efficacy if in a consensual manner. In relation to the model, practice efforts provide
a pattern of attainment which can serve to revise self-efficacy and outcome expec-
tation within an ongoing feedback loop. In other words, the actresses continue to
have sex, receiving positive feedback, increasing their self-efficacy and knowing
that they are pleasing their partners and more people want to have sex with them. It
is obvious that once in the pornography industry, this pattern can certainly accel-
erate because of fans. Specifically, porn actresses have fans that purchase videos,
want autographs, subscribe to their websites, and express their desirability in the
behavior of sex. And of course, the act of sex in very typically associated with
physical and emotional arousal which is also related to stronger self-efficacy

beliefs.
Self-efficacy beliefs typically form prior to one’s identification of sexual orien-
tation (Morrow et al. 1996). This may be particularly the case for bisexual women.
Diamond (2008) reported that it is common for women to develop same sex
attractions and begin identifying as bisexual many years after reaching adulthood
which is referred to as “sexual fluidity”. Unlike most men, many bisexual women
reported that their first experiences of being interested in the same gender occurred
because of situational variables which may have been falling in love with a female
friend or spending time with gay men or lesbian women. As such, it may be the case
that lesbian women may have a childhood where they experience being perceived
as “different” by others and that may restrict opportunities to develop self-efficacy
beliefs related to their sexual orientation. It is possible that unpleasant associations
with being perceived as different may lead to negative outcome expectations related
to behaviors that further draw attention to the child’s differentness. Thus, the range
of interests otherwise available to the child may be restricted, leading to an equally
restricted behavioral repertoire. An environment supporting uniqueness may pro-
vide a broader range of activities for the child to pursue. This same restriction may
not be as pronounced for bisexual women. Assuming a bisexual orientation is
expressed while, say in adolescence, that person would most likely not be perceived
“as different” as for example a lesbian as the same age. The young bisexual girl may
be less “different” compared to a young lesbian and probably have a less restricted
opportunities to develop interests across many domains.
Bandura (1986) theorized that self-efficacy described perceived capabilities
whereas self-esteem referred to an affective evaluation of self-worth and that they
were not necessarily related. However, Morrow et al. (1996) conducted a study on
college students and reported that among women, global self-esteem was related to
career decision-making self-efficacy and skills confidence, which suggests there is
overlap between the constructs. Self-efficacy beliefs in the SCCT model refer to
one’s belief in one’s ability to carry out actions to reach specific goals. There are
believed to be four sources of these beliefs (Bandura 1986) which include personal
performance accomplishments, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physio-
logical mechanisms (i.e., arousal). In other words, people develop career interests
for activities in which they feel efficacious and for activities that they perceive will
provide positive and desirable outcomes (Morrow et al. 1996). Although individ-
uals may develop a variety of vocational interests, at some point they are going to
have to select an occupation and because of a negative societal stigma associated
with sex work, why would a woman enter the industry?
3.2 Occupational Choice
It is probably the case that few women have consistently wanted to be sex workers
from an early age. If supportive environmental conditions exist, SCCT assumes that
career interests tend to orient them toward particular fields where they might
perform preferred activities and might interact with others who are like themselves
in important ways (Lent and Brown 1996). In other words, individuals may seek
occupations where there are like-minded people. Two thirds of women in the study
that examined pornography actresses (Griffith et al. 2013b) identified as bisexual
and the majority of heterosexual women had sex with women as part of their job.
The involvement in an occupation associated with pornography is viewed as
deviant by society and those involved in the industry are part of a very supportive
group not typically open to outsiders (Abbott 2000).
At a societal level, pornography is a multibillion dollar industry although the
actresses involved in the production of those products are the targets of negative
stereotypes. Some writers (e.g., Dworkin 1989; MacKinnon 1993) have made
claims that female pornography actresses are women in desperate conditions who
are coerced into working in that industry. More specifically, the same authors
indicated that female pornography actresses were homeless, addicted to drugs,
poverty stricken, and all were victims of childhood sexual abuse. A series of studies
using survey research (Evans-DeCicco and Cowan 2001; Polk and Cowan 1996)
showed that pornography actresses and prostitutes were viewed more negatively
than movie stars and the average woman. The researchers further reported that
survey respondents believed that sex workers did not like their work, came from
backgrounds riddled with sexual and physical abuse, had low self-esteem, and poor
mental health. In other words, there are stereotypical perceptions of sex workers
which they are labeled as “damaged goods.” A series of recent studies did not
support the “damaged goods” hypothesis, although a negative public perception of
sex workers does exist (Griffith et al. 2013b, c; Romans et al. 2001). Thus, a
negative societal view of sex workers is prevalent and can be viewed as an obstacle
in the context of occupational choice. In a public venue, sex workers may be less
likely to divulge their occupation to strangers in small talk for fear of consequences
that may follow which could include uncomfortable and heated discussions with
those not involved in the sex work industry. Because of the lack of acceptance by
mainstream society, sex workers may attempt to limit interactions with those not in
their industry.
A pair of ethnographic studies (Stoller 1991; Stoller and Levine 1993) interviewed
actors, writers, and actors in the pornography industry and provided support for an
attempt of sex workers to avoid mainstream society. The findings indicated
that individuals working in the pornography industry were hostile or ambivalent
toward accepted social conventions and considered themselves not to be in
the mainstream of society. Pornography actresses tend to spend time both during
work and non-work hours with others in the pornography industry who are like
minded on a topic that is part of their identity; that is, their sexual behaviors and
attitudes. In other words, they appear to receive high levels of social support from
their co-workers and are not subjected to the same social stigmas that openly
bisexual women may have in a non-sexual occupation. Examination of what it is
about the pornography industry that actresses like best, the most common factor
was “people” (Abbott 2000; Griffith et al. 2012). A further analysis of “people”
clearly depicted co-workers. Similarly, Philaretou (2006) reported that exotic

dancers’ motivations for working in that profession included a few aspects such
as the nature of the work, sexual excitement, and social support from co-workers.
In contrast to public perception, the consistency is that sex workers appear to like
their work, are excited about their work, and although may be members of a deviant
group as defined by society, have a strong support system made up of like-minded
individuals from within the sex work industry. SCCT posits that within occupa-
tional choice, choice behavior in career development has certain contextual influ-
ences that should be taken into consideration. The theory offers two different types
based on their proximity to career choices and includes background influences that
are more distal and precede and assist in shaping interests and self-cognitions as
well as proximal influences that are used during the active phases of when career-
related choices are made. SCCT suggests that opportunity structures influence
people’s ability to translate their interests into career goals and their goals into
actions (Lent and Brown 1996). In other words, individuals’ interests are more
likely to morph into goals and they will be more likely to act on their goals if the
environmental conditions are perceived to be beneficial as opposed to dealing with
non-supportive and hostile conditions. It appears that bisexual female sex workers
have a strong interest and enjoyment in sex. Studies that sampled 176 porn actresses
and a matched sample from the United States have shown that on a 10-point scale
asking how much women enjoyed sex (1 ¼ not at all. . ..10 ¼ very much), bisexual
actresses reported a 9.6, heterosexual porn actresses an 8.9, and matched sample of
heterosexual women from the general population an 8.3. The differences were
statistically significant such that bisexual pornography actresses had higher levels
of enjoyment of sex compared to heterosexual pornography actresses and women
from the general population (Griffith et al. 2013a, c).
Enjoyment of sex is not the same as interest in sex, but a reasonable argument
could be made to suggest that those with higher enjoyment may have more interest
in it which SCCT would predict that there may have been distal contextual factors
that contributed to the bisexual female sex workers’ elevated interest in sex. In
terms of more proximal contextual variables, these women are in an environment in
which bisexuality is the norm and it is supported, encouraged, and celebrated. In
fact, it may be the case that there are nonsupportive conditions for heterosexuality
among female pornography actresses. Griffith et al. (2013b) reported that approx-
imately two out of three women sampled in the pornography study indicated that
they were bisexual, although most others reported having sex with other women
even though they reported their orientation as being heterosexual. Same gender
intercourse involving one participant who is heterosexual is often referred to as
“gay for pay” suggesting they will engage in intercourse with a same sex partner in
order to get paid. This appears to be common in the pornography industry and is
another example of providing an environment which encourages bisexuality.
In the general population, studies have reported that bisexual and heterosexual
women differ on a variety of behavioral, psychological, and social measures. In
each study, it was consistently found that heterosexual women report better out-
comes compared to bisexual women. In the general population and compared to
heterosexual women, bisexual women tend to be overweight and have diabetes

(Dilley et al. 2010) and are more likely to use cigarettes (Trocki et al. 2009). They
also experienced more attempted or completed rapes (Buddie and Testa 2005),
reported a higher need for professional sexual health care during the past 12 months
(Kuyper and Vanwesenbeeck 2011), and had a greater likelihood of contracting a
sexually transmitted disease (Lindley et al. 2008; Seidman et al. 1992). Psycholog-
ically, they reported having poorer health-related quality of life (Fredriksen-
Goldsen et al. 2010), have more often attempted suicide (Bolton and Sareen
2011) and have overall poorer mental health (Dilley et al. 2010). Meyer (2003)
suggested that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may have worse mental health
than heterosexuals because of the stressors associated with being a sexual minority
member which includes discrimination, prejudice, and stigma.
Interestingly, a bisexual orientation in the pornography industry represents the
majority and it is actually viewed as a benefit in that industry because one can work
more, earn more money, and is viewed as a positive trait. And, a recent report has
found that within the pornography industry, bisexual actresses actually had higher
levels of spirituality and positive feelings compared to heterosexual actresses
(Griffith et al. 2013a). Another related study (Griffith et al. 2013c) used the same
sample of porn actresses but compared them to a matched sample in the general
population. It was found that porn actresses had higher self-esteem, positive
feelings, social support, and spirituality compared to women from the general
population. This perspective provides a very different view of female sex workers,
particularly those that are bisexual such that they fare as well or better as hetero-
sexual pornography actresses and/or women from the general population.
3.3 Career-Related Performance
There are two components of the SCCT model concerned with career performance
which include the level of attainment in achieving work tasks (e.g., success) and the
degree to which they persist despite obstacles (e.g., persistence or job stability).
Performance is assumed to be to be related to ability, self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, and performance goals (Lent and Brown 1996). Ability is assessed
by achievement or past performance indicators. For bisexual female sex workers,
performance indicators may take a variety of forms depending on the nature of the
work. Why would a woman enter the sex work industry if she did so willingly? The
primary reason is money and that is certainly one measure of achievement.
Research has reported that money is one of the primary reasons for working as an
exotic dancer (Philaretou 2006), prostitute (Raphael and Shapiro 2002), and por-
nography actress (Abbott 2000; Griffith et al. 2012). Each of the different sex
worker occupations also have additional performance indicators.
For exotic dancers, the time of day and day of the week are factors as there are
certain days and times that have more patrons. Status of being a “feature dancer” is
also something that women in this industry aspire to as well as the possibility of
traveling to various venues by going on tour. One’s orientation among exotic

dancers may slightly be related to a performance advantage to bisexual women
because they may cater to the female patrons, although they certainly represent the
minority of individuals in those establishments.
Prostitutes often are referred to by different terms which may also include street
walker, call girl, or escort. In each case, the business transaction is the same where
there is an exchange of money for some form of sexual services. The differences
across the various terms used is often associated with how and where those services
are advertised. The most extensive data is known about escorts so this section will
focus on that group. Most escorts now advertise on the internet where they can
maintain greater control of their occupation and clientele (Koken et al. 2004).
Again, one indicator of success is money. A recent study examined approximately
2900 online advertisements of female escorts (Capiola et al. 2014) and compared
those offering heterosexual services (i.e., services only to men) and those offering
bisexual services (i.e., services to both men and women). It should be noted that
women offering sexual services to both gender may or may not be bisexual, their
sexual behavior and sexual orientation may or may not align. Further analyses of
that data showed that female escorts offering services to both men and women
charged more per hour for incall service ($422) compared to only heterosexual
services ($346). The same pattern emerged with outcall rates with bisexual service
providers charging more ($446) than heterosexual ones ($403). Incall services refer
to when the client meets the escort at a location of her choosing (i.e., the client goes
to her), whereas outcall refers to when the escort goes to the client’s location, thus
higher costs are nearly always associated with outcalls because travel time. For both
types of services, women offering sexual services to both men and women adver-
tised a significantly higher fee.
There are several possible reasons for why individuals may charge a higher rate.
First, they may fulfill a fantasy (Leitenberg and Henning 1995) for potential clients.
Second, there is a stigma (Klesse 2011) as well as evidence (Breyer et al. 2010;
Kuyper and Vanwesenbeeck 2011; Laumann et al. 1994) that bisexual women have
more partners than heterosexual women. Further, Buss and Schmitt (1993) reported
that males prefer promiscuous females for short-term sexual encounters, so these
findings suggest that bisexual women may be viewed as promiscuous and may be
viewed as more “valuable” because of that. A third explanation follows commodity
theory (Brock 1968) which simply states that the value of a commodity will
increase in value when it is perceived to be scarce. In the context of escorts, clients
may view bisexuality as a sexual minority and view an opportunity to be with a
bisexual woman as a more unlikely option compared to a heterosexual woman.
Regardless of the reason(s) for the higher price, women advertising bisexual
services do charge more for the same service. Another performance indicator of
escorts may be how many clients she has, how many hours of services they pay for,
and how often she has repeat customers. One last indicator might also include
ratings. There are several websites that serve as a place to review escorts so these
sex workers have their work-related ratings in an arena where other escorts and
potential clients can view their ratings. Lastly, Bernstein (2007) reported that
female escorts felt sexy, beautiful, and powerful after they received consistent
praise from clients which is certainly a type of positive feedback directly related
to performance that is mostly likely associated with an increase in future behaviors
associated with receiving that positive feedback.
Pornography actresses, like other sex workers, primarily appear to work in the
industry for money which is a primary success indicator. Other indicators may be
nominations or winning of awards, number of fans, number of videos made during a
set period of time, contracts with major producers, and similar. Money and sex were
the two primary reasons why women chose to become a pornography actress,
followed by attention (Griffith et al. 2012). Nominations of awards and adoration
of fans are probably meeting the attention domain. Many pornography actresses
have websites and the number of members or visitors could be used as a perfor-
mance indicator of popularity which is part of their success. It should be pointed out
that these careers are not mutually exclusive. In other words, there are some women
who may be a porn actress, escort, and work as an exotic dancer, whereas others
may only work in one of those occupations.
4 Conclusion
SCCT indicates that there is a feedback loop between performance attainments and
future behavior. In viewing the career development of bisexual female sex workers,
mastery experiences promote development of abilities, self-efficacy, and outcome
expectations. As these workers provide more services, they most likely become
more skilled in their abilities to provide sexual services like most other professions.
They certainly have obstacles in the form of social stigma, laws, victimization, and
similar that they must adjust to in order to continue working in the industry. As their
skills improve, they may receive more positive feedback from clients, co-workers,
fans, and reviews, depending on the particular sector of sex work in which they
participate. The degree to which this framework can be applied to sex workers from
other geographic regions remains to be seen.
The sex work industry is one of the few occupations where bisexual women
possess an economic advantage compared to their heterosexual counterparts. It
appears as though segments of the sex work industry offer an environment where
women can freely express their sexual orientation as a bisexual and use it as a
benefit. It is unfortunate that there are most certainly travesties that occur in the sex
trade and there are sex workers that are victimized and this varies across and even
within different cultures. However, there are also environments in which women
appear to voluntarily and willingly begin and maintain a career in one of the sex
industry sectors and the same factors that apply to more common occupations, seem
to apply to these segments of sex work. It is a common question to ask why anyone
would sell sex for money and the answer is not straightforward or unidimensional.
This is a first step in providing a framework for understanding the structure by
which a bisexual woman might consider, begin, and maintain a career in the sex
industry.
References
Abbott, S. (2000). Motivations for pursuing an acting career in pornography. In R. Weitzer (Ed.),
Sex for sale: Prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry (pp. 17–34). New York:
Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bernstein, E. (2007). Temporarily yours: Intimacy, authenticity, and the commerce of sex.
Bolton, S. L., & Sareen, J. (2011). Sexual orientation and its relation to mental disorders and
suicide attempts: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 56(1), 35–43.
Breyer, B. N., Smith, J. F., Eisenberg, M. L., Ando, K. A., Rowen, T. S., & Shindel, A. W. (2010).
The impact of sexual orientation on sexuality and sexual practices in North American medical
students. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 2391–2400.
Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. G. Greenwald,
T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 243–276).
New York: Academic Press.
Buddie, A. M., & Testa, M. (2005). Rates and predictors of sexual aggression among students and
nonstudents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 713–724.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.
Capiola, A., Griffith, J. D., Balotti, B., Turner, R., & Sharrah, M. (2014). Online escorts: The
influence of advertised sexual orientation. Journal of Bisexuality, 14, 222–235.
Davis, J., & Smith, T. (2008). General social survey: Cumulative codebook. Chicago: National
Opinion Research Center.
Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Dilley, J. A., Simmons, K. W., Boysun, M. J., Pizacani, B. A., & Stark, M. J. (2010). Demon-
strating the importance and feasibility of including sexual orientation in public health surveys:
Health disparities in the pacific northwest. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3),
460–467.
Dworkin, A. (1989). Pornography: Men possessing women. New York: Routledge.
Evans-DeCicco, J. A., & Cowan, G. (2001). Attitudes toward pornography and the characteristics
attributed to pornography actors. Sex Roles, 44(5/6), 351–361.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H. J., Barkan, S. E., Balsam, K. F., & Mincer, S. L. (2010).
Disparities in health-related quality of life: A comparison of lesbians and bisexual women.
American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2255–2261.
Griffith, J. D., Adams, L. T., Hart, C. L., & Mitchell, S. (2012). Why become a pornography
actress? International Journal of Sexual Health, 24(3), 165–180.
Griffith, J. D., Hammond, B., & Mitchell, S. (2013a). Sexual behaviors and attitudes, quality of
life, and drug use: A comparison between bisexual and heterosexual pornography actresses.
Journal of Bisexuality, 13, 4–20.
Griffith, J. D., Hayworth, M., Hart, C. L., Adams, L. T., & Mitchell, S. (2013b). Film pornography
actors: Self-report vs perceptions of college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(4),
637–647.
Griffith, J. D., Mitchell, S., Hart, C. L., Adams, L. T., & Gu, L. L. (2013c). Pornography actresses:
An assessment of the damaged goods hypothesis. Journal of Sex Research, 50(7), 621–632.
Klesse, C. (2011). Shady characters, untrustworthy partners, and promiscuous sluts: Cheating
bisexual intimacies in the face of heteronormativity and biphobia. Journal of Bisexuality, 11,
227–244.
Koken, J. A., Bimbi, D. S., Parsons, J. T., & Halkitis, P. N. (2004). The experience of stigma in the
lives of male Internet escorts. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 16, 13–32.
Kuyper, L., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2011). Examining sexual health differences between lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and heterosexual adults: The role of sociodemographics, sexual behavior
characteristics, and minority stress. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2-3), 263–274.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of
sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leitenberg, H., & Henning, K. (1995). Sexual fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469–496.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An
overview. Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310–321.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,
79–122.
Lent, R. W., Larkin, K. C., & Brown, S. D. (1989). Relation of self-efficacy to inventoried
vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 279–288.
Lindley, L. L., Barnett, C. L., Brandt, H. M., Hardin, J. W., & Burcin, M. (2008). STDs among
sexually active female college students: Does sexual orientation make a difference? Perspec-
tives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 212–217.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1993). Only words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
674–697.
Morrow, S. L., Gore, P. A., & Campbell, B. W. (1996). The application of a sociocognitive
framework to the career development of lesbian women and gay men. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 48, 136–148.
O’Doherty, T. (2011). Victimization in off-street sex industry work. Violence Against Women, 17
(7), 944–963.
Philaretou, A. G. (2006). Female exotic dancers: Intrapersonal and interpersonal perspectives.
Sexual Addictions & Compulsivity, 13, 41–52.
Polk, R. K., & Cowan, G. (1996). Perceptions of female pornography stars. Canadian Journal of
Human Sexuality, 5, 221–229.
Raphael, J., & Shapiro, D. (2002). Sisters speak out: The lives and needs of prostituted women in
Chicago. Chicago: Center for Impact Research.
Rissel, C. (2003). Experiences of commercial sex in a representative sample of adults. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27, 191–197.
Romans, S., Potter, K., Martin, J., & Herbison, P. (2001). The mental and physical health of female
sex workers. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 75–80.
Ropelato, J. (2006). Internet pornography statistics. http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.
com/internet-pornography-statistics.html. Accessed 22 Mar 2015.
Sanders, T. (2005). ‘It’s just acting’: Sex workers’ strategies for capitalizing on sexuality. Gender,
Work and Organization, 12(4), 319–342.
Seidman, S. N., Mosher, W. D., & Aral, S. O. (1992). Women with multiple sex partners: United
States, 1988. American Journal Of Public Health, 82(10), 1388–1394.
Stoller, R. J. (1991). Porn: Myths of the twentieth century. New York: Vail-Ballou Press.
Stoller, R. J., & Levine, I. S. (1993). Coming attractions: The making of an X-rated video.
New York: Vail-Ballou Press.
Trocki, K. F., Drabble, L. A., & Midanik, L. T. (2009). Tobacco, marijuana, and sensation seeking:
Comparisons across gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual groups. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 23, 620–631.
Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2001). Psychosexual correlates of viewing sexually explicit sex on television
among women in The Netherlands. Journal of Sex Research, 38(4), 361–368.
Weitzer, R. (2011). Legalizing prostitution: From illicit vice to lawful business. New York: NYU
Press.
Zatz, N. (1997). Sex work/sex act: Law, labor, and desire in constructions of prostitution. Signs,
22, 277–308.
Discrimination at Work on the Basis
of Sexual Orientation: Subjective Experience,
Experimental Evidence, and Interventions
Melanie C. Steffens, Claudia Niedlich, and Franziska Ehrke
1 Introduction
Do lesbians and gay men experience discrimination at work, and can this be
prevented? The present chapter reviews evidence from three complementary per-
spectives. First, focusing on the perceived organizational working climate, we
review studies in which samples of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender
individuals described their work experiences. Because such reviews are already
available in English (e.g., Croteau 1996), we limit this section to German-language
studies. In the second part of our review, we change to an observer’s perspective:
How are lesbian, gay, and heterosexual employees perceived, and under which
conditions does this result in sexual-orientation based discrimination at work? We
provide the first comprehensive review of the international evidence available.
These two parts of our review focus on the status quo. The final part reviews
evidence on diversity training’s effectiveness in improving attitudes related to
sexual orientation.
2 Perceived Organizational Working Climate:

German-Language Studies
In Germany the General Equal Treatment Law forbids discrimination on the basis
of a person’s gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, and sexual identity (in German:
“Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz”, AGG). Consequently, violations of this
M.C. Steffens (*) • C. Niedlich • F. Ehrke

Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of
Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany
e-mail: steffens@uni-landau.de

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_22
368 M.C. Steffens et al.
law are enforceable. Whereas Germans’ attitudes towards lesbians, gay men, and
bisexual women and men have been described as neutral or slightly positive on
average (Steffens and Wagner 2004), more negative attitudes were found among
subgroups, such as older participants and those living in more rural areas. Conse-
quently, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender employees in Germany
experience discrimination at work and have to deal with the resulting consequences
on their well-being and mental health. To understand these processes, work life and
sexual orientation need to be discussed as interrelated parts of a person’s identity.
Against this theoretical backdrop, we review the perceived working climate of
sexual minority groups in Germany.
2.1 Work Life and Sexual Orientation as Interrelated Parts

of Identity
Work is an important part of identity because it is an environment in which people

interact daily. Interactions can be characterized by mutual support, but at the same
time by conflicts and unequal treatment. At work, people gain a social network that
extends into private relations such as family and neighborhood (Schuler 1995).
Different from private relations, work relations are constituted by the assumption
that sexuality is irrelevant: Work is characterized as an “asexual sphere”
(Rosenstiel et al. 2005). However, the fact that the work place is one of the places
where heterosexual people most often fall in love with their partner contradicts this
assumption (see Frohn 2007; K€ollen 2012).
From the perspective of identity theory, sexual orientation is an integrated part
of identity (King et al. 2008). When compared to other social categories, such as
gender and skin color, sexual orientation is different because it is invisible at first
sight (Badgett 1996; Steffens and Wagner 2009). The process of disclosing one’s
sexual orientation at work is influenced by heteronormativity and heterosexism
(Steffens and Wagner 2009). Herek (1990) defined heterosexism as a system in
which any form of non-heterosexual behaviors, identities, relationships, and com-
munities is refused or stigmatized. Similar to racism or sexism, heterosexism is
integrated as a norm into daily habits and institutions such as religion (Clair
et al. 2005). Heterosexual employees demonstrate their sexual orientation directly
or indirectly in the form of wedding rings, pictures of their partner, and stories about
their weekend, their children, and family celebrations (Knoll et al. 1997). Con-
versely, if lesbians and gay men volunteer comparable information it may be
interpreted as information about one’s sex life and thus as crossing the border of
“social versus sexual” (Knoll et al. 1997; K€ollen 2012).
Someone who hides her or his sexual orientation cannot involve herself/himself
as a whole person into the work place. The minority stress model (Meyer 2003)
postulates that stigmatized social groups, such as lesbians and gay men, because of
their minority status are confronted with additional stress that goes beyond the
stress other people may experience in their work life. This additional stress lowers
Discrimination at Work on the Basis of Sexual Orientation: Subjective. . . 369
productivity, job satisfaction, and well-being, generally resulting in negative health

outcomes. Moderating factors such as social support can buffer these negative
outcomes. Meyer (2003) postulated that heterosexism leads to psychological stress
and health problems. The minority stress model distinguishes between distal and
proximal stressors. Distal stress includes experiences of discrimination and vio-
lence whereas proximal stress includes fear of rejection and concealment. These
distal and proximal stressors faced by lesbians and gay men are the reason why they
suffer more often from psychological disorders than heterosexuals (e.g. Sandfort
et al. 2001). The model proposes that social support is one important buffer against
the negative consequences of minority stress. Few studies have investigated minor-
ity stress at work.
2.2 German-Language Studies on Discrimination at Work

on the Basis of Sexual Orientation
Knoll et al. (1997) conducted one of the first studies that focused on the work
experiences of lesbian and gay employees and used dimensions relevant to the
minority stress model. Very similar questionnaires were used by Frohn (2007) and
Niedlich and Steffens (2016). Data can be compared in order to test whether
discrimination experiences tend to decrease. In addition, K€ollen (2012) analyzed
the consequences of discrimination on job satisfaction. K€ollen (2013) also exam-
ined the work situation of bisexual employees. Steffens and Wagner (2009)
presented a study with a representative sample from Germany in 2001. Buba and
Vaskovics (2001) present similar results, using quantitative and qualitative
methods. Finally, qualitative approaches were used by Zillich (1988) and Maas
(1999) for gay men and Losert (2008) for lesbians. An overview of publications on
self-reported discrimination at work on the basis of sexual orientation is summa-
rized in Table 1.
In the following, we summarize the findings of these studies, using the core
dimensions of the minority stress model. Specifically, we focus on experiences of
distal stress, including concrete experiences of discrimination and violence, and
proximal stress, including fear of rejection and concealment. We continue with
health problems resulting from these stressors. Additionally, findings on social
support and coping strategies are discussed as possible buffers of minority stress.
2.3 Perceived Organizational Working Climate and Work

Experiences
Meyer (2003) considered concrete experiences of discrimination on the basis of

sexual orientation as distal stressors because they are objective and stressful
events. In their questionnaire, Knoll et al. (1997) included more than 20 concrete
Table 1 Overview of German-language studies on self-reported discrimination at work on the basis of sexual orientation
370
Dimensions of minority stress

Distal stress: concrete
Design experiences of Proximal stress: fear of Consequences on
(qualitative discrimination and rejection and mental health and job Social support and
Study vs. quantitative) Sample violence concealment satisfaction coping strategies
Knoll Quantitative 2522 lesbians Most common forms: Concealment and fear of Discrimination Protection by law and
et al. (1997) and gay men Unpleasant jokes & rejection as a present decreases job satisfac- the company can pre-
innuendos, talking problem tion & makes sick vent lone fighter
behind the back mentality
Frohn Quantitative 2712 lesbian Telling lies, imitating, Concealment as a rele- Closeted employees Support through com-
(2007) and gay unpleasant interest in vant problem; report more psychoso- pany and colleagues as
employees one’s private life as the established option that matic symptoms than an important factor
most common reported sexual orientation disclosed ones
forms of discrimination should be irrelevant at
work
Niedlich Quantitative 225 lesbian Unpleasant jokes & Concealment and fear of Discrimination corre- Social support can
and Steffens gay innuendos, talking rejection as a present lates negatively with buffer negative conse-
(2016) employees behind the back as the problem job satisfaction and quences of minority
most common forms of reported symptoms stress
discrimination
Frohn Quantitative 2369 lesbian, Bisexuals report more Bisexuals are less open Bisexuals report more Possibility to commu-
(2014) gay, bisexual discrimination than les- compared to lesbians physical problems; job nicate supports open-
and trans* bians and gay men and gay men satisfaction correlates ness and performance-
employeesa positively with open- related variables
ness for LGB, nega-
tively with
discrimination
M.C. Steffens et al.
K€ollen Quantitative 1308 lesbians General working cli- Positive effect for Lesbian and gay mar- Implementation of
(2016) and gay men mate in the company thematization of homo- keting has positive diversity management
with a work and diversity sexuality in the effects on job satisfac- is highly supportive
place management company tion; highly satisfied
employees are more
open
K€ollen Quantitative 77 bisexual Only internal Supporting working
(2013) employees thematization posi- climate positive for
tively affects the work- openness and decreases
ing climate; external pressure to conceal or
gay marketing cam- deny own bisexuality
paigns affect it
negatively
Buba and Qualitative& 581 lesbians One out of seven conceals their sexual orientation; one important reason is the fear of being blocked in
Vaskovics quantitative and gay men career chances, being confronted with prejudice and several forms of discrimination
(2001) 56 interviews
Zillich Qualitative 65 guided Four constructed types representing a diverse range of gay men’s situation in work life
(1988) interviews
with gay men
Maas Qualitative 28 gay men in Presentation of seven strategies of stigma-management in work life, ranging from pretending to be
(1999) leading heterosexual to explicit thematization of own sexual orientation
positions
Losert Qualitative 10 lesbians Presentation of a variety of reasons why lesbians are “out” or “closeted” in their work place; strategies for
(2008) dealing with heteronormativity at work
Discrimination at Work on the Basis of Sexual Orientation: Subjective. . .
Note:
a
Data collection was in 2006
371
forms of discrimination, ranging from imitating to exclusion and physical violence.

Comparing Knoll and colleagues’ data to a study conducted in 2013 by Niedlich
and Steffens (2016), we found that telling unpleasant jokes (1997: 54 %, 2013:
40 %), talking behind one’s back (1997: 48 %, 2013: 34 %), unpleasant interest in
one’s private life (1997: 36 %, 2013: 22 %), and sexual innuendos (1997: 26 %,
21 %) were the most common forms of discrimination. Frohn (2007) found a
similar pattern. The findings suggest that discrimination at work is decreasing but
is still an existing problem in the lives of lesbian and gay employees.
Concerning the question of which group experiences the most discrimination, in
telephone interviews Steffens and Wagner (2009) found that gay men appeared to
be the most and bisexual women the least insulted, threatened, or attacked groups at
work. Insults in everyday life were the most frequent form of discrimination and
were reported ranging from 8 % (bisexual women) to 55 % (gay men). Gay men
indicated that they suffered from being attacked, threatened, and excluded by
co-workers. Also, a high percentage of bisexual men (8 %) reported that they had
been attacked in their work life. In sum, all studies showed that direct discrimina-
tion is a slowly decreasing but still present problem for lesbian and gay employees.
Meyer (2003) considered fear of rejection and concealment as proximal
stressors, which can be caused by negative experiences. According to the studies
cited above, 72 % in 1997, 60 % in 2007, and 54 % in 2013 considered it necessary
to conceal their sexual orientation at work. Further, the long-term decision of not
talking about one’s sexual orientation with any of the colleagues was a decreasing
but still existing problem (1997: 28 %, 2007: 16 %, 2013: 12 %). Often this is
accompanied by the argument that it is not adequate to discuss sexual orientation at
the work place. This decision could be connected not only to wanting to protect
oneself from possible discrimination but also to the fear that colleagues could
disclose one’s sexual orientation. To out someone else as lesbian or gay includes
power because the control of who knows about this personal information is taken
from this person. Further, employees who perceive the working atmosphere as
supportive are more open and self-confident with their sexual orientation (K€ollen
2012). In the case of bisexual employees, Frohn (2014) found that they communi-
cated their sexual orientation less openly than lesbians and gay men. In sum,
experiences of discrimination and violence as distal stressors, and fear of rejection
and concealment as proximal stressors are current problems in lesbians’ and gay
men’s work life.
Findings by Knoll et al. (1997), Frohn (2007), and Niedlich and Steffens (2016)
demonstrated that the work place is an important aspect in the lives of study
participants (1997: 82 %, 2007: nearly 90 %, 2013: 94 %). The findings of all
three studies suggest that physical and mental problems are direct consequences of
discrimination. All three studies showed a clear difference in self-reported symp-
toms. Employees who are highly discriminated against reported more psycholog-
ical symptoms than employees experiencing little discrimination. The feeling of
being unable to avoid discrimination could be associated with these physical
problems. Further, Knoll et al. (1997) discussed that a constant unpleasant feeling
and missing control over specific situations has consequences on job satisfaction.
All studies concluded that lesbians and gay men experience lower job satisfaction
when faced with discrimination and assume that this goes along with reduced job
performance. For example, 46 % of lesbian and gay employees agree that they
carefully choose in discussions at work whether to use examples with a lesbian or
gay content (Frohn 2007). This can hamper employees to fully engage in the
development of ideas in the work process. People faced with additional stress
because of hiding their sexual orientation showed more somatic symptoms. As all
three studies demonstrated, people who are open about their sexual identity feel
more connected to their company, have higher commitment at work, and feel more
satisfied with their work.
K€ollen (2013) presented different findings for bisexual employees. Making
homo- and bisexuality a topic inside the company (for example on the company’s
intranet or in staff magazines) affects the working climate positively for bisexual
employees. In contrast, the existence of gay marketing campaigns affects this
relationship negatively. Main results of the study showed that the more positive
the working climate is perceived, the more explicitly out bisexual employees are,
and the less they try to conceal their bisexuality at work (K€ollen 2013).
Meyer (2003) assumed that both social support and coping strategies could
buffer minority stress. In sum, socially supported people can act as a “whole
person” in their work life (Frohn 2007). They lose fewer resources to minority
stress than closeted employees. K€ollen (2013) found that a supporting working
climate results in a higher degree of openness and decreased pressure to conceal or
deny one’s own bisexuality at work.
The presented pattern of findings from German-language countries is similar to
what has been reported for the U.S.A.: Heterosexism and discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation are related to increased physical stress and mental health
problems (e.g., Waldo 1999; Smith and Ingram 2004; Chung 2001).
Qualitative research allows describing and explaining one’s own experiences
and decisions. Several qualitative studies yielded different typologies (Losert 2008;
Maas 1999; Zillich 1988). Zillich (1988) aimed to show the range of different
relations gay men have in work-life. He presented four types indicating a variety of
strategies how gay men align their social roles as employees with their sexual
orientation that is an important aspect of their private and work-related identity.
Maas (1999) focused on identity and stigma-management strategies gay men in
leadership positions develop. Some interviewed men pretended to be heterosexual
or avoided talking about their private life in work-related contexts. Other
employees disclosed their sexual orientation and developed strategies to avoid
discrimination: Interviewees emphasized finding supportive colleagues and
stressing positive characteristics. Some interviewees did explicitly apply for a job
in organizations with non-discrimination policies. Similarly, Losert (2008)
described that lesbian employees had a variety of “coming-outs” and also suffered
from a discriminating working climate.
Limitations of the presented studies are that the findings on self-reported dis-
crimination are not based on random samples and thus do not represent all potential
participants for a certain research question (with the exception of Steffens and
Wagner 2009). Furthermore, lesbians and gay men who fear discrimination could
avoid participation; others could participate precisely because of political or
personal motivation (Steffens and Wagner 2009). Also, samples tend to have
intermediate (to high) socio-economic status regarding their education and qualifi-
cation level (Frohn 2007; Knoll et al. 1997). Finally, strong evidence of declining
discrimination at work in German-language countries could only be obtained with
longitudinal studies.
3 Experiments Testing Sexual-Orientation Based

Discrimination at Work: International Evidence
The interpretation of the data presented in the previous section is complicated by

several factors. Importantly, because many lesbians and gay men are not out at
work, it is unknown how many would be discriminated against if all of them were
open about their sexual orientation. Moreover, people often underestimate that they
have personally suffered from discrimination (e.g. Barreto and Ellemers 2015).
Thus, investigating the evidence on “objective” sexual orientation-based discrim-
ination at work requires a different approach. Previous research examined gender-
based discrimination in impression formation, hiring, and promotion by presenting
identical information about a person, but varied the applicants’ or employees’ name
and gender between experimental conditions. For example, an identical resume was
presented with a female first name to half of the participants and with a male first
name to the other half. This research has greatly enhanced understanding of gender-
based discrimination at work (see Steffens and Viladot 2015, for a review). On this
basis, we introduce a theoretical model and use it to review exhaustively experi-
mental research on sexual-orientation based discrimination at work (see Horvath
and Ryan 2003, for a similar model). Several experiments have similarly manipu-
lated the perceived sexual orientation of targets in various contexts. In these
experiments, information on targets was presented in written form (e.g. Steffens
and Jonas 2010; Steffens et al. 2015), or the perceived sexual orientation of
interaction partners was manipulated (e.g. Dasgupta and Rivera 2006).
Our theoretical model is presented in Fig. 1. We assume that for explaining
discrimination based on sexual orientation, several participant features need to be
taken into account. Participants high in prejudice against lesbians and gay men
should generally form more unfavorable impressions and expect lower performance
of them than of heterosexual women and men (see Tilcsik 2011). A central
construct in our theorizing is masculinity/femininity: Participants endorsing popu-
lar stereotypes of lesbians and gay men as higher in masculinity/femininity, respec-
tively, than same-gender heterosexuals (e.g., Geiger et al. 2006; Kite and Whitley
1996) should expect lesbians to be more masculine than heterosexual women and
gay men to be more feminine than heterosexual men. Differences in the impressions
of task competence and social skills should result if participants consider task
competence particularly masculine and social skills to be typically feminine traits.
This should be the case unless unambiguous individuating information is presented
Features of job:
Masculinity of type of job
Masculinity of job description
Specific job features
Individual differences: Information on applicant:

Prejudice against LGB Gender
Stereotypes of LGB Sexual orientation
Perceived Perceived
masculinity/femininity Identity intersections
(lack of) fit hirability
Perceived prejudice Individuating information
Motivation to appear (gender typicality
non-prejudiced including parenthood)
Perceived
task-competence
& social skills
Fig. 1 Heuristic theoretical model specifying factors within individuals, information presented on
targets, and features of jobs for explaining discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation
(“LGB” bias) in job contexts
(e.g. Deaux 1984). For example, if photos of very feminine applicants are
presented, both lesbians and heterosexual women should be assumed to be femi-
nine. If applicants provide unambiguous evidence that they behave in dominant and
assertive ways, sexual orientation and gender should not lead to different expecta-
tions on the basis of stereotypes (e.g. Steffens and Viladot 2015).
Moreover, knowledge about discrimination could influence impression forma-
tion processes. Participants low in prejudice who believe that lesbians and gay men
face much discrimination should, given unambiguous credentials, attribute higher
skills to successful lesbians and gay men (see Foschi 2000). When using explicit
response scales, it also needs to be excluded that a higher motivation to self-present
as non-prejudiced leads to less reported bias against lesbians and gay men
(e.g. Dunton and Fazio 1997). Intersections of sexual orientation with (other)
minority social identities also influence impressions. For example, blacks are
perceived as more masculine than whites (Galinsky et al. 2013), which could
influence perceptions of gay blacks. If more information on applicants is given, in
addition to applicants’ gender and sexual orientation, this information should also
influence impressions (e.g. Locksley et al. 1980). If this is the case, effects may
emerge than cannot be predicted based on the constituent social-group
memberships.
When predicting effects of impressions formed of applicants, job features are
another aspect that needs to be taken into account. The lack-of-fit model (Heilman
1983) postulates that the match between one’s personality or behavior and the
gendered aspects of the job in question is more relevant to employment discrimi-
nation than applicant gender per se. Masculine-typed jobs as well as job descrip-
tions stressing masculine traits should lead to a better perceived fit of masculine
applicants and thus to higher hirability judgments for them. To the degree that a
lesbian applicant is ascribed more masculinity than a heterosexual female applicant,
a bias in favor of lesbians should emerge for masculine-typed jobs. Conversely,
whenever gay men are ascribed less masculinity than heterosexual men, there
should be a bias against gay men for masculine-typed jobs. Converse predictions
apply for feminine-typed jobs. Moreover, based on the perception of blacks as
particularly masculine, black gay men could appear a better fit to a given job than
white gay men (“too feminine”) or black heterosexual men (“too masculine”) (see
Remedios et al. 2011). But this should only be the case if ethnicity is a salient
category. Perceived features of applicants and perceived features of jobs, in com-
bination, should determine hirability judgments. Interestingly, as implied above,
based on this model, we assume that sexual orientation-based prejudice can take
any form: Gay men, lesbians, heterosexual women, and heterosexual man are
potentially (dis)advantaged, depending on the type of job. In the following, we
discuss the experiments that manipulated perceived applicant sexual orientation.
Extensive literature searches in social-science databases (e.g., PsycINFO) yielded a
total of only 18 published experiments (see Table 2).
3.1 Individual Differences
According to our model (Fig. 1), the geographical area in which experiments are
conducted is important because prejudice levels differ (for evidence, see
Hammarstedt et al. 2015). Generally, prejudice levels are lower the bigger the
city in which one lives (e.g. Steffens and Wagner 2004). In Europe, roughly, the
average level of anti-gay prejudice is much higher in the south and east than in the
north and west; moreover, across Europe, prejudice levels have decreased over time
(e.g. Kuyper et al. 2013). In line with those socio-cultural conditions, experiments
have found high levels of discrimination in Greece and Austria, investigating the
probability to be invited for a job interview. In Belgium as well as in recent studies
in Germany, no discrimination of gay men or lesbians was observed, which is in
line with the more gay-friendly climate in those countries. The latter studies used
scales pertaining to perceived competence, social skills, and hirability, thus inves-
tigating hypothetical decisions. Recently, Weichselbaumer (2015) found hiring
discrimination of lesbians in Munich, a southern German city in a rather conserva-
tive area, but none in Berlin, a gay-friendly place in which many anti-
discrimination measures are in place (also see Tilcsik 2011).
Findings from the U.S. are in line with the idea that more sexual orientation-
based prejudice is present in the south (also see Crow et al. 1998) and mid-west
(also see Horvath and Ryan 2003) than in the west and north-east (Tilcsik 2011). In
fact, in Tilcsik’s study, no hiring discrimination was observed in the west and north-
east. In line with the idea of less prejudice in large cities, in none of these four
regions was discrimination observed if only big cities were investigated (Bailey
et al. 2013). In contrast, the oldest study we are aware of observed discrimination in
Toronto (Adam 1981), which we attribute to the generally higher prejudice levels
back then. These ideas are corroborated by studies in which individual levels of
Table 2 Overview of experiments manipulating sexual orientation of job applicants
Geographic Dependent
Study area Manipulation variable(s) Job Sample Outcome
Adam (1981) Toronto, Gay vs. no activism Interview “Articling position” All Ontario law Non-labeled applicants were
Ontario, invitation in law firms firms (N ¼ 163) offered twice as many interviews
Canada as gay/lesbian activists (32:17)
Ahmed Sweden Gay vs. heterosexual Interview invita- Five female- 3990 employers Overall 14 % gay male and 22 %
et al. (2013) activism and refer- tion or job offer dominated, four male lesbian discrimination, due to
ence to male dominated, one neu- gay male discrimination in male-
vs. female partner tral occupation dominated and lesbian discrimi-
nation in female-dominated
occupations
Bailey U.S. Gay vs. other Invitationsc Different jobs for 1536 employers No gender or sexual-orientation
et al. (2013) (4 cities) activism academics discrimination
Crow Southern U. Explicit information Hypothetical hir- Accounting position 548 employees Positive discrimination of white
et al. (1998) S. on gender, sexual ing of 6 targets heterosexual women, discrimi-
orientation, skin color nation of gay men/lesbians, par-
ticularly Blacks
Drydakis (2009) Athens, Gay vs. environ- Interview invita- Different low-skilled 1714 employers 26 % discrimination of gay men,
Greece mental activism tion, wage offer jobs no wage discrimination
Drydakis (2011) Athens, Gay vs. environ- Interview invita- Different low-skilled 1057 employers 28 % interview discrimination of
Greece mental activism tion, wage offer jobs lesbians, 6 % wage
discrimination
Hebl et al. (2002) Texas Base cap “gay” Formal (4) & Retail jobs (mall) 84 employers No formal, but interpersonal
vs. “Texan” inter-personal discrimination of gay men &
Discrimination at Work on the Basis of Sexual Orientation: Subjective. . .
indicators (5)a lesbians

Horvath and U.S. Gay vs. no activism Hirability scale Technical writer 236 (Positive) discrimination of het-
Ryan (2003) (Midwest) undergraduates erosexual (men) women
Nadler and U.S. Reference to male Hirability scale Marketing manager 365 MTurk No gender or sexual-orientation
Kufahl (2014) vs. female partner employees discrimination
Niedlich Germany Reference to male Competence Public-relations 118 (Exp. 1) Competence discrimination of
et al. (2015) vs. female partner scale, spokesperson young volunteers, gender-typical heterosexual
masculinity 158 under- women
377
graduates (Exp. 2)
(continued)
Table 2 (continued)
Geographic Dependent
378
Study area Manipulation variable(s) Job Sample Outcome

Niedlich and Germany Family status married Competence, Engineer, kindergar- 266 under- Competence and social-skills
Steffens (2015) vs. registered part- social skills, ten leader graduates and discrimination of heterosexuals
nership w. m/f hirability scales volunteers
Peplau and U.S. Explicit information Competence, Consultant 184 under- Only heterosexual women are
Fingerhut (2004) on sexual orientation warmth, family graduates discriminated (competence &
& career orienta- career orientation) as mothers
tion scales
Pichler U.S. Leader, gay vs. other Suitability, Sales manager 294 under- Suitability: (Positive) discrimi-
et al. (2010) (Midwest) student group hirability scales vs. nurse graduates & nation of (lesbians) gay men by
professionals men
Van Hoye and Belgium Reference to male Hirability scale Human resource 135 selection No sexual-orientation discrimi-
Lievens (2003) vs. female partner manager professionals nation (for men)
vs. singleb
Tilcsik (2011) U.S. Treasurer, gay vs. - Interview Different jobs for 1769 employers Overall 40 % gay male discrim-
left-wing group invitation academics ination; none in west/north east
Weichselbaumer Austria Gay activism Interview Accountant, 613 employers 12 % lesbian discrimination
(2003) vs. volunteer work invitation secretary
Weichselbaumer Germany Lesbian vs. activism Positive response Office workers (sec- 663 observations Berlin: no signs of sexual
(2015) (Berlin, or invitation to retaries and orientation-based discrimina-
Munich) application accountants) tion; Munich: lesbians discrimi-
interview nated compared to heterosexual
women
Notes:
a
Formal: Job availability, job application offer, call, bathroom use; interpersonal: interaction length& number of words, negativity (perceived & independently
rated), perceived interest
b
The authors argue that singles over 30 years are often suspected to be gay
c
Including: call back, interview, invitation to submit more info
M.C. Steffens et al.
anti-gay prejudice affected findings (Niedlich and Steffens 2015) and political
“conservatives” showed more hiring bias (Crow et al. 1998).
An important qualification of recent failures to find discrimination is that these
could be due to the motivation to appear non-prejudiced, in particular if legislation
forbids discrimination (see Fig. 1). One study found no formal discrimination in
Texas, but indicators of interpersonal discrimination such as short durations of
conversations and a colder perceived atmosphere by applicants (Hebl et al. 2002). It
is thus obvious that findings pertaining to discrimination rates cannot be general-
ized beyond the time and place where the research was carried out. However, we
believe that other experiments testing processes that lead to discrimination, based
on models such as that presented in Fig. 1, could be more generalizable. For
example, if more individual prejudice leads to more discrimination, this relation-
ship could be independent of a particular social context.
3.2 Information on Applicants
Experiments investigating sexual orientation-based discrimination need to decide

how to manipulate sexual orientation, which can, in turn, affect findings (see Tilcsik
2011, for extended discussion). There is no such obvious manipulation as
presenting different gender first names. Two experiments simply informed partic-
ipants of the sexual orientation of the individual (Crow et al. 1998; Peplau and
Fingerhut 2004). There are reasons why people could disclose their sexual orien-
tation in applications. For example, working in an organization where one is not
discriminated could be an important priority for some applicants. A second reason
is voluntary work experience that implies important qualifications and may thus be
mentioned in applications. Thus, sexual orientation would be incidentally disclosed
if someone had been engaged in a lesbian or gay organization. Third, in some
countries (such as Germany), civil status may be informative regarding sexual
orientation, and at the same time, civil status is routinely included in resumes.
As Table 2 shows, the majority of experiments have used a piece of information
on activism in a lesbian/gay organization for communicating sexual orientation in
an applicant’s resume. Including activism in a matching, but non-gay/lesbian
organization, as a control, is certainly preferable to a no-information control
condition. Choosing activism as a manipulation has some obvious drawbacks.
First, one can never be sure to find a control condition in which the chosen activism
is perceived as positively (negatively) as lesbian/gay activism. For instance, Ahmed
et al. (2013) discussed that their control information (engagement for the Swedish
Red Cross) may not be perceived as activism, but as philanthropy and thus more
positively. Second, if discrimination results, it is perfectly ambiguous whether
employers have reservations against lesbian/gay applicants or whether they have
reservations against lesbian/gay activists. In other words, activism could be
regarded as additional individuating information (see model in Fig. 1).
Several other experiments have used reference to a male/female partner to

indicate applicants’ sexual orientation. This manipulation is far from perfect, too,
because drawing attention to a heterosexual relationship during application should
be perceived as much less informative and salient than mentioning a homosexual
relationship. Also, in contrast to activism, it may signal applicants’ “domesticity”
(Weichselbaumer 2015, p. 133), thus again conveying individuating information.
Moreover, in our experience, this piece of information needs to be presented in a
particularly pronounced way for all participants to understand it. For example, in
Germany, “registered partnership” is a civil status reserved for homosexual rela-
tionships, but not all Germans know what a registered partnership implies.
3.3 Job Features
Whereas two studies focused on low-skilled jobs such as shop sales, restaurant
services, and office jobs (Drydakis 2009, 2011), most others used jobs or job
descriptions of academic jobs (see Table 2). In some studies, job information was
held constant; other studies used a wide range of different jobs. Several studies
selected masculine-typed jobs, feminine-typed jobs, or gender-neutral jobs on
purpose, which allows testing whether findings are in line with the model presented
in Fig. 1.
In contrast to the model, the masculinity/femininity of the applicant profile had
no effect on the amount of discrimination against lesbians (Weichselbaumer 2003)
(A study in a different context, adoption, also failed to find effects of applicant
masculinity, see Steffens et al. 2015). However, as our model predicts, masculinity
of the job led to significantly more discrimination against gay men, compared to
jobs where no masculine traits were required (Tilcsik 2011). Ahmed et al. (2013)
reported discrimination against gay men for masculine-typed jobs and discrimina-
tion against lesbians for feminine-typed jobs. Conversely, also in line with the
model, higher perceived masculinity of lesbians as compared to heterosexual
women resulted in higher competence ascriptions (Niedlich et al. 2015) and lesbian
mothers were regarded as more competent and career oriented than heterosexual
mothers (Peplau and Fingerhut 2004).
3.4 Weaknesses of Existing Studies
Some experiments included manipulation checks, where participants were asked at

the end what the sexual orientation of the applicant was (Nadler and Kufahl 2014;
Niedlich et al. 2015). In the field experiments, obviously no manipulation check
could be included, so it is unclear whether all employers noticed applicants’ sexual
orientation.
Surprisingly, many experiments did not rotate candidate templates across sexual
orientations, but tried to arrive at equivalent versions of resumes (e.g., Drydakis
2009; Drydakis 2011; Horvath and Ryan 2003), or different videos of the same
actors were presented in the gay/lesbian versus straight conditions (Nadler and
Kufahl 2014). This is unfortunate because it seriously compromises the experimen-
tal approach. For illustration, think of several photos of the same person made
within 1 min. Most people think they look much better on some photos than on
others: Even though individual and time are (almost) held constant, impressions
may differ considerably.
In the field experiments that sent out fake applications, participants were prob-
ably employers or human resource managers (see Table 2). Other samples consisted
of volunteers or undergraduate students. For obvious reasons, selection profes-
sionals are more adequate samples. However, it needs to be considered that often,
no differences in findings are obtained between those types of samples (Pichler
et al. 2010). Moreover, it depends on the research question which sample is
adequate. If discrimination rates are to be assessed, selection professionals are
clearly mandatory. If general processes are under scrutiny, for example correla-
tions, then any sample could be sufficient with enough variance in both variables.
Overall, bisexual and trans* discrimination has been overlooked in this research
and should be investigated in future studies. Finally, as the contradictory findings
indicate, contextualization of the studies into the social-cultural situation is indis-
pensable: Findings can only be understood in light of the legal and social situation
of sexual minorities at the time and place the study was conducted.
3.5 Conclusion Regarding the Experimental Evidence
Experiments that manipulate the sexual orientation of fictitious applicants in hiring

contexts promise valuable insights on discrimination based on sexual orientation
and on the processes that lead to such discrimination. This research is still in its
infancy, however. Some evidence has been presented that is in line with the model
presented in Fig. 1. Clearly, individual level of prejudice plays a role, and differ-
ences in perceived masculinity/femininity, based on sexual orientation, may lead to
more positive or more negative impressions of lesbian and gay applicants, com-
pared to heterosexuals. The evidence on type of job is a bit mixed. Other factors
specified in Fig. 1 have not been investigated at all. Taken together, much more
research is needed to arrive at a clearer picture of where and under which conditions
applicants are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. Given
the evidence we presented on sexual orientation-based discrimination, the question
arises of what can be done to overcome it.
4 Interventions: How Can Discrimination Based on Sexual

Orientation Be Reduced?
Diversity initiatives became popular to prevent discrimination at the workplace and

provide employees from various backgrounds with an inclusive and beneficial work
environment (Hays-Thomas and Bendick 2013). Diversity training in particular
aims at changing employees’ social attitudes and improving intergroup relations
(see Ehrke et al. 2014). But whereas there are some diversity dimensions, such as
race or gender that are apparent at “first sight” and dominate diversity training,
there are also other more “invisible” dimensions, such as sexual orientation or
sexual identity, that are often overlooked in diversity training (cf. Hays-Thomas
and Bendick 2013; Kaplan 2006). Consequently, there is little research evaluating
the effects of diversity training on heterosexuals’ attitudes towards LGB people.
Therefore, we review international research including empirical findings that pro-
vide strategies potentially beneficial for LGB-diversity training. As we report
studies not included in the latest review (see Bartoş et al. 2014), we provide an
extended and updated picture of current knowledge about promising strategies for
interventions aiming to improve sexually prejudiced attitudes and behaviour.
In practice, various approaches are used in diversity training to improve sexually
prejudiced attitudes. Previous research predominantly focused on education and
contact. University courses educating students about diversity improved attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians (Case and Stewart 2010; Engberg et al. 2007;
Pettijohn and Walzer 2008). Also, an evaluation of LGBTQ-diversity training for
police officers provided evidence that an educational approach was beneficial for
diversity training (Israel et al. 2014). After being educated about LGBTQ-issues in
a 5-h mandatory session, police officers’ knowledge and confidence to deal with
LGBTQ issues was significantly increased. A recent meta-analytic study (Bartoş
et al. 2014) supports educating heterosexuals about sexual diversity to have strong
positive effects on knowledge about LGB issues and moderate positive effects on
emotions, behavior, and behavioral intentions related to LGB people. These authors
also concluded that a combination of education and contact moderately reduced
sexual prejudice and furthermore reduced discomfort and anxiety when interacting
with LGB people.
Even imagined contact seems to reduce sexually prejudiced attitudes. Turner
et al. (2007) demonstrated imagined contact with a gay man to reduce intergroup
anxiety, increase perceived diversity, and improve evaluations of gay men. Birtel
and Crisp (2012) showed that imagining a negative and a positive contact situation
was even more beneficial than imagining only positive contact situations. Partici-
pants who had to think of a negative encounter with a gay man followed by a
positive encounter showed less anxiety and more positive attitudes towards gay
men than participants who imagined two positive encounters.
Contact also has been demonstrated to effectively improve attitudes towards gay
men and lesbians in the long-term (Anderssen 2002; Herek and Capitanio 1996). In
longitudinal studies, more contact with gay men and lesbians and better contact quality
predicted a stronger improvement in attitudes over time and more positive attitudes
after a 1-year (Herek and Capitanio 1996) and a 2-year period (Anderssen 2002).
These findings suggest that it could be beneficial to focus more on changing
behavior during diversity training to subsequently influence attitudes. Madera
et al. (2013) support this idea with findings from LGBT-diversity training that
used a goal-setting strategy to affect LGBT-supportive behaviors: Students who
were asked to set goals of LGBT-supportive behaviors during training showed
increased LGBT-supporting behaviors, but not improved intergroup attitudes after
3 months. However, 8 months after training LGBT-supportive behaviors and
attitudes were improved, suggesting that an approach focusing on behavior can
affect attitudes in the long term. This finding could help understanding why studies
found that setting a norm of tolerance—a strategy similar to the goal-setting
strategy—positively affected behaviors, but not attitudes towards LGB people
(Bartoş et al. 2014; Nadler et al. 2014). Measuring long-term effects could help
testing whether norm setting can also affect attitudes via changing behavior.
One of the major aims of most diversity training is to increase awareness of
prejudice and discrimination (see Ferdman and Brody 1996). Case and Stewart
(2010) showed that a course on diversity raised awareness of heterosexuals’
privileges, reduced sexually prejudiced attitudes, and increased support of same-
sex marriage among students. Increased awareness may motivate participants to
actively suppress prejudice. Several studies showed that avoiding prejudiced state-
ments and controlling attitudes towards gay men and lesbians could improve
sexually prejudiced attitudes and emotions (see Bartoş et al. 2014), again
supporting the idea to alter behavior to achieve attitude change.
Also holding people accountable for their behaviors showed positive effects on
sexual prejudice. Nadler et al. (2014) demonstrated accountability to be an effective
strategy to diminish the negative effects of disclosing sexual orientation in the
hiring process. Study participants rated the anticipated performance of a gay
applicant significantly less favorable than that of a non-gay applicant. But the
hiring bias disappeared when participants were told before that they had to explain
their assessment of the applicants afterwards. Thus, accountability successfully
reduced hiring bias against gay applicants.
Role-plays and perspective taking are popular strategies in diversity training
(Ehrke et al. 2014; Ferdman and Brody 1996; Madera et al. 2011). Hodson
et al. (2009) demonstrated that a role-playing exercise called Alien Nation
increased empathy via perspective taking, and improved attitudes towards gay
men and lesbians via increased empathy. Thus, using role-play and other
perspective-taking activities in diversity training could enable heterosexuals to
not only become aware of the discrimination LGB people face but also to empathize
with them and develop more positive attitudes towards them.
In sum, these findings demonstrate that there are various effective strategies to
improve sexually prejudiced attitudes and behavior. Many of those strategies can
even be combined in interventions. Nevertheless, many questions remain open. First,
would strategies predominantly identified in studies with student samples also work
with employees? A meta-analysis of diversity-training effectiveness suggests that
those strategies could be even more successful with employees than with students
(Kalinoski et al. 2013). Generally, diversity training showed stronger effects for
employees than for students. Thus, more research with more representative samples
is needed. Second, future research should test whether the combination of certain
approaches is most effective. Field interventions usually combine various activities,
such as education, awareness raising, and perspective taking. Kalinoski et al. (2013)
reported field studies to improve affective outcomes more effectively than lab
studies. Examining how different approaches interact could help to create synergetic
effects and improve effectiveness of LGB diversity training.
A final open question is that more research is needed regarding unintended
negative effects on attitudes for some groups of participants and backlash towards
(LGB) diversity training (Falomir-Pichastor and Hegarty 2014; Iverson and Seher
2014; Kaiser et al. 2013; Kaplan 2006). For example, Kaplan (2006) addressed
backlash from people who could perceive participating in LGB diversity training to
be in conflict with their religious beliefs. Thus, the interplay of different diversity
dimensions during diversity training should be considered in future research. Also,
it should be examined how factors such as group status (Kaiser et al. 2013) and
perceived threat (Falomir-Pichastor and Hegarty 2014) moderate and/or mediate
effects of LGB diversity training. This could help to develop strategies that reduce
unintended effects and backlash against LBG-diversity training.
5 Conclusion
The research reviewed in this chapter demonstrates that sexual-orientation based

discrimination at work is declining, but still presents problems in German-language
countries. Experimental research of sexual-orientation based discrimination inter-
nationally shows that people’s prejudice levels as well as stereotypes pertaining to
the strengths and weaknesses of gay men, lesbians, and heterosexual women and
men can lead to different patterns of discrimination—of unequal treatment based on
the social categories that applicants indicate that they belong to. Such discrimina-
tion is unjustified, and measures should be taken to avoid it. The studies that have
tested diversity training’s effectiveness in improving sexually prejudiced attitudes
have yielded promising findings. Nevertheless, much more evaluation research is
needed in order to deduce clear guidelines of how to conceive and conduct such
training most effectively.
References
Adam, B. D. (1981). Stigma and employability: Discrimination by sex and sexual orientation in
the Ontario legal profession. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 18(2),
216–221.
Ahmed, A. M., Andersson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discrimi-
nated against in the hiring process? Southern Economic Journal, 79(3), 565–585.
Anderssen, N. (2002). Does contact with lesbians and gays lead to friendlier attitudes? A two year
longitudinal study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 124–136.
Badgett, M. L. (1996). Employment and sexual orientation: Disclosure and discrimination in the
workplace. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(4), 29–52.
Bailey, J., Wallace, M., & Wright, B. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against
when applying for jobs? A four-city, internet-based field experiment. Journal of Homosexual-
ity, 60(6), 873–894.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Detecting and experiencing prejudice: New answers to old
questions. In J. Olson & M. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
52, pp. 139–219). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Bartoş, S. E., Berger, I., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Interventions to reduce sexual prejudice: A study-
space analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Sex Research, 51(4), 363–382.
Birtel, M. D., & Crisp, R. J. (2012). “Treating” prejudice: An exposure-therapy approach to
reducing negative reactions toward stigmatized groups. Psychological Science, 23(11),
1379–1386.
Buba, H., & Vaskovics, L. A. (Eds.). (2001). Benachteiligung gleichgeschlechtlich orientierter
Personen und Paare. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums der Justiz [Discrimination of
same-sex orientated individuals and couples. Study under auspices of the Ministry of Justice].
Rechtstatsachenforschung. Köln: Bundesanzeiger-Verlag.
Case, K., & Stewart, B. (2010). Heterosexual privilege awareness, prejudice, and support of gay
marriage among diversity course students. College Teaching, 58(1), 3–7.
Chung, Y. B. (2001). Work discrimination and coping strategies: Conceptual frameworks for
counseling lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. The Career Development Quarterly, 50(1),
33–44.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing
invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78–95.
Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An
integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2),
195–209.
Crow, S. M., Fok, L. Y., & Hartman, S. J. (1998). Who is at greatest risk of work-related
discrimination—Women, blacks, or homosexuals? Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 11, 15–26.
Dasgupta, N., & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior: The
moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 268–280.
Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research
on gender. American Psychologist, 39(2), 105–116.
Drydakis, N. (2009). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics,
16(4), 364–372.
Drydakis, N. (2011). Women’s sexual orientation and labor market outcomes in Greece. Feminist
Economics, 17(1), 89–117.
Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control
prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316–326.
Ehrke, F., Berthold, A., & Steffens, M. C. (2014). How diversity training can change attitudes:
Increasing perceived complexity of superordinate groups to improve intergroup relations.
Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 53, 193–206.
Engberg, M. E., Hurtado, S., & Smith, G. C. (2007). Developing attitudes of acceptance toward
lesbian, gay, and bisexual peers: Enlightenment, contact, and the college experience. Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 4(3), 49–77.
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Maintaining distinctions under threat: Heterosex-
ual men endorse the biological theory of sexuality when equality is the norm. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 53(4), 731–751.
Ferdman, B. M., & Brody, S. E. (1996). Models of diversity training. In D. L. R. S. Bhagat (Ed.),
Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 282–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of
Sociology, 26, 21–42.
Frohn, D. (2007). “Out im Office?!” Sexuelle Identit€ at, (Anti-) Diskriminierung und Diversity am
Arbeitsplatz (Sexual identity, (anti-) discrimination and diversity in the workplace). K€ oln:
Schwules Netzwerk NRW eV.
Frohn, D. (2014). Die Arbeitssituation von LSBT*-Beschäftigten: Reanalyse einer Online-
Befragung unter differenzieller Perspektive (Work life situation of LSBT*-employees:
Reanalyzation of an online-survey under different perspectives). Zeitschrift f€ ur
Sexualforschung, 27(4), 328–351.
Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial
marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24(4),
498–506.
Geiger, W., Harwood, J., & Hummert, M. L. (2006). College students’ multiple stereotypes of
lesbians: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 165–182. doi:10.1300/
J082v51n03_08.
Hammarstedt, M., Ahmed, A. M., & Andersson, L. (2015). Sexual prejudice and labor market
outcomes for gays and lesbians: Evidence from Sweden. Feminist Economics, 21, 90–101.
Hays-Thomas, R., & Bendick, M. (2013). Professionalizing diversity and inclusion practice:
Should voluntary standards be the chicken or the egg? Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 6(3), 193–205.
Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal
discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815–825.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of Fit model. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence notes on cultural and psychological
heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(3), 316–333.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, conceal-
able stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424.
Hodson, G., Choma, B. L., & Costello, K. (2009). Experiencing alien-nation: Effects of a
simulation intervention on attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45(4), 974–978.
Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship
between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 48,
115–130.
Israel, T., Harkness, A., Delucio, K., Ledbetter, J. N., & Avellar, T. R. (2014). Evaluation of police
training on LGBTQ issues: Knowledge, interpersonal apprehension, and self-efficacy. Journal
of Police and Criminal Psychology, 29(2), 57–67.
Iverson, S. V., & Seher, C. (2014). Using theatre to change attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and
bisexual students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(1), 40–61.
Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed
fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 104(3), 504–519.
Kalinoski, Z. T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E. J., Leas, K. A., Steinke, J., & Bowling, N. A.
(2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(8), 1076–1104.
Kaplan, D. M. (2006). Can diversity training discriminate? Backlash to lesbian, gay, and bisexual
diversity initiatives. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(1), 61–72.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22
(4), 336–353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002.
King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times: Exploring dual
perspectives of ‘coming out’ in the workplace. Group & Organization Management, 33(5),
566–601.
Knoll, C., Edinger, M., & Reisbeck, G. (1997). Grenzg€ anger-Schwule und Lesben in der
Arbeitswelt (Border-crossers—Gay men and lesbians in work life). München: Edition Gay
Studies im Profil Verlag.
K€ollen, T. (2012). Privatsache und unerheblich für Unternehmen? Der Stand der Personal-
forschung zur “sexuellen Orientierung” (Private affair and irrelevant for companies? State of
personnal research about “sexual orientation”). Zeitschrift f€ ur Personalforschung, 26(2),
143–166.
relevant ‘sexual orientation’ in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 122–137.
Köllen, T. (2016). Lessening the difference is more—the relationship between diversity manage-
Kuyper, L., Iedema, J., & Keuzenkamp, S. (2013). Towards tolerance: Exploring changes and
explaining differences in attitudes towards homosexuality in Europe. The Hague: The Neth-
erlands Institute for Social Research.
Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 821–831. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.
821.
Losert, A. (2008). Coping with workplace heteronormativity among lesbian employees: A German
study. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12(1), 47–58.
Maas, J. (1999). Identit€at und Stigma-Management von homosexuellen F€ uhrungskr€ aften (Identity
and stigma-management of homosexuals leaders). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag
GmbH.
Madera, J. M., King, E. B., & Hebl, M. R. (2013). Enhancing the effects of sexual orientation
diversity training: The effects of setting goals and training mentors on attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(1), 79–91.
Madera, J. M., Neal, J. A., & Dawson, M. (2011). A strategy for diversity training: Focusing on
empathy in the workplace. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 35(4), 469–487.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
674–697.
Nadler, J. T., & Kufahl, K. M. (2014). Marital status, gender, and sexual orientation: Implications
for employment hiring decisions. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1
(3), 270.
Nadler, J. T., Lowery, M. R., Grebinoski, J., & Jones, R. G. (2014). Aversive discrimination in
employment interviews: Reducing effects of sexual orientation bias with accountability.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 270–278.
Niedlich, C., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). On the interplay of (positive) stereotypes and prejudice:
Impressions of lesbian and gay applicants for leadership positions. Sensoria—A Journal of
Mind, Brain, and Culture, 11, 70–80.
Niedlich, C., & Steffens, M. C. (2016). Minorit€ atenstress von Lesben und Schwulen im
Arbeitsleben (Minority stress of lesbians and gay men in work life). Manuscript in preparation.
Niedlich, C., Steffens, M. C., Krause, J., Settke, E., & Ebert, I. D. (2015). Ironic effects of sexual
minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female stereo-
types than heterosexual women? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(8), 1439–1447.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. (2004). The paradox of the lesbian worker. Journal of Social Issues,
60(4), 719–735.
Pettijohn, T. F., & Walzer, A. S. (2008). Reducing racism, sexism, and homophobia in college
students by completing a psychology of prejudice course. College Student Journal, 42(2),
459–468.
Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Bruce, T. (2010). Heterosexism in employment decisions: The role of job
misfit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2527–2555.
Remedios, J. D., Chasteen, A. L., Rule, N. O., & Plaks, J. E. (2011). Impressions at the intersection
of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay þ Black ¼ likable? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1312–1315.
Rosenstiel, L. v., Molt, W., & Rüttinger, B. (2005). Organisationspsychologie (Organisational

psychology). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Sandfort, T. G., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex sexual behavior and
psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence
Study (NEMESIS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85–91.
Schuler, H. (1995). Lehrbuch Organisationspsychologie (Textbook organisational psychology)
(Vol. 2). Bern: Huber.
Smith, N. G., & Ingram, K. M. (2004). Workplace heterosexism and adjustment among lesbian,
ing Psychology, 51(1), 57–67.
Steffens, M. C., & Wagner, C. (2004). Attitudes towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and
bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 137–149. doi:10.1080/
00224490409552222.
Steffens, M. C., & Jonas, K. J. (2010). Attitudes towards adoptive parents, child age, and child
gender: The role of applicants’ sexual orientation. Zeitschrift f€ ur Familienforschung,
Sonderheft, 7, 205–219.
Steffens, M. C., Jonas, K. J., & Scali, T. (2015). Putting prejudice into perspective: Does perceived
suitability for adoption depend on sexual orientation more than on other applicant features?
Sensoria—A Journal of Mind, Brain, and Culture, 11, 41–57.
Steffens, M. C., & Viladot, M. A. (2015). Gender at work: A social-psychological perspective.
New York: Peter Lang.
Steffens, M. C., & Wagner, C. (2009). Diskriminierung von Lesben, Schwulen und Bisexuellen
(Discrimination of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals). In A. Beelmann & K. J. Jonas (Eds.),
Diskriminierung und Toleranz (pp. 241–262). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the
United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586–626.
Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve
intergroup attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 427–441.
Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2003). The effects of sexual orientation on hirability ratings: An
experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 15–30. doi:10.1023/
A:1025078819951.
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2), 218.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10
(6), 629–642.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2015). Testing for discrimination against lesbians of different marital status:
A field experiment. Industrial Relations, 54, 131–161.
Zillich, N. (1988). Homosexuelle M€ anner im Arbeitsleben (Homosexual men in work life)
(Vol. 580). Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag.
On the Violence of Heteronormativity within
Business Schools
Nick Rumens
1 Introduction
This chapter examines the business school as a site of normative violence and
discusses how the violence of heteronormativity shapes the experiences of lesbian,
gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT)1 students and staff. There are other forms of
normative violence at play within these institutions. Cisnormativity, for example,
as Bauer et al. (2009) refer to it, relates to the oppression experienced by trans
people within societies where cisgender people are identified and privileged as
‘normal’—that is, normal in the sense of keeping the body intact rather than
engaging in processes of gender transitioning. Cisnormativity is a useful analytical
tool for highlighting how trans people’s lives can be erased through the privileging
of a non-trans norm. Clearly, different modes of normative violence and their
consequences for LGBT people within business schools require urgent attention.
Regarding heteronormativity, it is of grave concern that organization research
shows how heteronormativity in the workplace is pervasive and problematic for
LGB employees (Colgan and Rumens 2014; Anteby and Anderson 2014; Skidmore
1
I have invoked the LGBT acronym throughout this chapter with care, not least because such
acronyms are prone to smoothing over and essentializing differences within and between
L(esbian), G(ay), B(isexual) and T(ransgender). In some cases I have modified the LGBT acronym
as some academic studies cited in this chapter specifically refer to LGB but not T people. At other
times I use LGB to refer to issues of sexuality that affect these minority groups and the term LGBT
to incorporate trans people where gender is also salient. Trans is a complex and sometimes
unwieldy term that often has to include an array of gender identifications such as transgender,
transsexual, genderqueer, male-to-female, female-to-male, and so on. The term trans, like LGB, is
used in this chapter to signify, but by no means account for in a homogenous and essentializing
manner, the diversity of how individuals may identify and live out LGBT lives.
N. Rumens (*)
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
e-mail: nick.rumens@port.ac.uk

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_23
390 N. Rumens
2004). Heteronormativity operates as a net-like set of power relations that consti-

tutes and privileges heterosexuality as ‘normal’ in numerous social and cultural
contexts, to the extent that heterosexuality is rarely recognized as something that is
culturally and socially constructed. Instead, heterosexuality is often understood as a
‘neutral’ or ‘natural’ category of sexual orientation against which other sexualities
(typically LGB sexualities) are judged as ‘abnormal’ (Ahmed 2006). As such,
heteronormativity has a vital role to play as a power/knowledge regime in
reproducing a heterosexual/homosexual binary that establishes heterosexuality as
‘natural’ and ‘normal’ (Yep 2002). Acknowledging this, the organizational litera-
ture on LGB sexualities, in particular those studies that mobilize poststructuralist
theories, demonstrates how heteronormativity has shaped the ordering of desires,
behavior, human relations and identities in the workplace on a daily basis, with
deleterious effects for LGBT employees (Ozturk 2011; Rumens 2012; Ward and
Winstanley 2003; Williams et al. 2009). This may be evidenced in policies that
favor heterosexual family arrangements, cultural norms that construct LGB sexu-
alities as the Other and personal interactions that stigmatize LGB sexualities in the
workplace (Hearn and Parkin 1987; Humphrey 1999; Priola et al. 2013). Of course
heteronormativity can constrain the lives of heterosexuals too (Yep 2003), and it is
crucial to acknowledge this if we are to recognize that the challenge of dismantling
heteronormativity is too important and formidable for it to be the sole responsibility
of LGB employees.
Yet for all the insights we may derive from the literature on organization
sexualities about the manifestations of heteronormativity in the workplace and its
effects on LGB employees, the heteronormative contours of the very institutional
contexts in which academic research on LGB sexualities is undertaken, and dis-
seminated in the management classroom, remains woefully under-researched
(Ozturk and Rumens 2014). This neglect is striking because heteronormativity is
ubiquitous in all areas of life (Yep 2003), giving credence to the argument that
business schools can be heteronormative institutions, as studies reveal (Fotaki
2011, 2013; Giddings and Pringle 2011; McQuarrie 1998; Ozturk and Rumens
2014). As such, I argue that scholarly attention needs to be (re)directed toward the
very institutions that serve as crucibles for generating organizational research on
sexuality and gender that is published in vibrant edited collections such as this one,
and disseminated in and beyond the management classroom. In so doing, I hope to
inspire research that advances our understanding of how specific normative forms
of violence influence the opportunities for conducting organizational research on
LGBT workplace issues, how it shapes the student learning experience in the
management classroom and how it can be challenged.
Pursuing these themes in this chapter, I examine heteronormativity as a form of
violence that is frequently, sometimes inadvertently, enacted in business schools
and within the management classroom. Heteronormativity has been conceptualized
as a mode and site of violence that can take many inimical forms: psychological,
psychic, social, cultural, normative, physical and material (Yep 2002, 2003; Warner
2000). For the purposes of this chapter, I am interested in the heteronormative
violence that constitutes and regulates bodies according to binaries of sex (male/
On the Violence of Heteronormativity within Business Schools 391
female), gender (masculine/feminine) and sexuality (heterosexual/homosexual).

This normative violence, I argue, is concerned with how norms within discourses
exercise regulatory power in the process whereby subjects seek recognition as
viable subjects within the field of heteronormative power relations (Butler 1990,
2004). In other words, it is the kind of violence that is incited in the constitution of
the subject in terms of identity and subjectivity. I use Judith Butler’s work as an
anchor point in that sense, as Butler argues that, in order to be conceived as a
person, we depend on there being ‘norms of recognition that produce and sustain
our viability as human’ (2004: 33). Violence is done by restrictive norms when they
squelch and inhibit the possibilities for subjects to be constituted as viable—as a
person, as human. For Butler, gender and sexual norms can serve in a regulatory
capacity, reproducing a sense of viability that subjects do not fully choose. As such,
to oppose sexual and gender norms that sustain heteronormativity can engender the
possibility of violence (that can be physical, psychic, normative) as a form of
correction, coercing subjects to conform to dominant norms that govern the condi-
tion of viability. With this in mind, I argue that LGB people within business schools
are often vulnerable to the effects of heteronormative violence that keeps the gender
and sexual order ‘natural’, curtailing the capacity of academics and students to
study and challenge heteronormativity in the workplace. I begin by examining the
business school as a heteronormative institution.
2 Acknowledging Business Schools as Heteronormative

Institutions
In thinking through heteronormativity as a site of normative violence, and the

business school as a site of heteronormativity, it is important to discuss the
institutional landscape of the business school. The volume of literature on business
schools has grown significantly over the last few decades or so, as those who work
within them have paid more attention to interrogating the purpose of these institu-
tions (Parker 2002, 2014; Ferlie et al. 2010; Starkey and Tempest 2005). Arguing
from a critical management studies sub-discipline, a growing number of academics
have pointed out that business schools are less known for nurturing radical ideas
and theories on management, and more renowned for incubating managers who go
on to run large corporations (Ford et al. 2010; Parker 2002; Grey 2004). Accord-
ingly, much energy and resources have been expended in building up and (re)
aligning business schools with the values of corporate capitalism through, for
example, MBA programs, executive management education and conducting
research that is focused on maximizing business performance and efficiency.
Such efforts have attracted a chorus of criticism from those academics who regard
business schools as in thrall to corporate capitalism, thereby eschewing any shred of
credibility as intellectual engine rooms for advancing alternative ways of organiz-
ing and managing (Ford et al. 2010). Indeed Alvesson et al. (2009), lamenting the
392 N. Rumens
paucity of critical approaches toward the study of management within business

schools, aver that the content of curricula in ‘most management departments or
business schools. . .is predominately conservative or “right wing” in orientation’
(2009: 18). This criticism has implications for how we understand the value and
purpose of business schools within society, whether we should accept that such
institutions are conservative finishing schools for managers or, more ambitiously,
whether we dare to imagine business schools as institutions that can inspire
different ways of organizing beyond the constraints and dominance of
managerialism as a paradigm for organizing (Parker 2002).
Related to this latter viewpoint is a compelling but often overlooked argument
that business schools must play a leading role in educating students about issues of
social injustice and organizational inequality related to gender (Kelan 2013; Fotaki
2011; McTiernan and Flynn 2011) and sexuality (Rumens 2016). One reason for
business schools to shoulder this responsibility is that these institutions have been
shown to be dominated by men (both staff and students) numerically and culturally
(Kelan 2013), reproducing key business values that are aligned to men and
masculinities characterized by competitiveness, control, individualism and asser-
tiveness. This line of reasoning is resonant at a time when parts of the world are still
mired in a financial crisis. In this context Knights and Tullberg (2012) investigate
the link between managing masculinity and mismanaging the corporation which
resulted in government bailouts for the banks and a near collapse of Western
economies. Cultivating a sociological form of analysis steeped in the critical
literature on men and masculinities, Knights and Tullberg explore how self-interest,
often represented as an influencing factor in the mismanagement of corporations, is
not just a reflection of the neo-liberal economic consensus, but also of masculine
discourses within the business class elite that make the pursuit of ever spiraling
remuneration almost obligatory. Those business schools informed by a cultural
climate marked by the alignment of business values with particular types of
competitive men and masculinities are a deterrent for women wishing to join
business schools, further deepening gender inequalities that perpetuate the domi-
nance of men and masculinities (Kelan 2013). The naturalization of such values and
the resulting gender inequalities they produce within business schools imbues a
sense of urgency into the assertion that these institutions must address issues of
inequality because there is much at stake for students and staff. Business schools
shape and are shaped by the identity, values, assumptions, and aspirations of those
individuals employed and enrolled within them as staff and students, many of the
latter going on to become influential individuals within powerful economic corpo-
rations. As such, business schools are not mere containers for the individuals they
employ and seek to educate, as they can both occasion and constrain the outlooks,
values and lives of individuals who work and study within them. One issue of
concern then is about the possible modes of engagement among staff and students
with the apparent conservativism that informs the management curriculum of many
business schools (Alvesson et al. 2009). This conservativism, when it is colored by
heteronormativity, influences how business schools are positioned to engage with
LGB academics and students, particularly in regard to how these institutions are
motivated to understand the full import of heteronormativity within their own brick
walls.
2.1 Generating Organizational Research on LGBT Lives

and Issues
In light of the above, I assert that business schools can be violently heteronormative
organizations insomuch as they shape agendas for research and management
curricula that can exclude and marginalize LGBT people and issues. Douglas
Creed is similarly emphatic, arguing that ‘many business schools will not be
amenable places for conducting research on heterosexism in organizations’
(2005: 392). Indeed, Giddings and Pringle (2011) describe their position as two
lesbian academics employed within a New Zealand business school as ‘working in
the mouth of the dragon’, given the hostile climate these institutions can foster
toward research and teaching on gender and sexuality. In regard to academic
research, normative violence is evident in those business schools where LGB
lives and issues struggle to be articulated and supported as serious topics of
research. Potential avenues of research for generating future knowledge on LGB
workplace issues may be foreclosed or signposted as career cul-de-sacs. Emergent
research illustrates this. For example, some of the gay male business school
academics interviewed in Ozturk and Rumens (2014) bemoaned how some of
their peers and managers persuaded them to abandon their research aspirations in
the field of LGB business studies in favor of research interests that were more
‘palatable’ and career savvy (e.g. research aligned with functionalist approaches
toward improving organizational performance). These ‘palatable’ research interests
were seen as being more likely to gain research funding and, in turn, generate
publishable outputs in high quality management journals. One consequence of this
is that opportunities may be foreclosed for academic staff to undertake organiza-
tional research on LGB topics that has potential impact within the public realm for
disrupting and challenging workplace heteronormativity, improving the work lives
of LGB and heterosexual employees. We badly need research that problematizes
and resists organizational strategies to assimilate LGB people into organizational
cultures that are already heteronormative. What is more, there are serious implica-
tions for how we teach business students against a landscape of stifled and adjusted
scholarly ambition to pursue organizational research on LGB sexualities. At a time
when scholars claim that sexuality has never been so managed and controlled
within the workplace (Hearn 2014), standardized representations of organizations
in which sexuality is wrongly deemed to be a contaminant that must be managed
out of the workplace are left unchallenged, leaving the heteronormativity of
organizational life undetected and uncorrected.
At the same time, it would be wrong to ignore the opportunities that have arisen
for some business school scholars to pursue LGB research agendas as a result of the
394 N. Rumens
intensified marketization of higher education, articulated in discourses of the

‘entrepreneurial academic’ and ‘university’, ‘excellence’ and ‘research impact’
(Taylor 2014). The Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the UK is a case in
point, whereby higher education institutions are subject to periodic review of their
research output by a centralized system of quality assessment. With regard to the
contentious issue of assessing academic output, the Association of Business
Schools has produced a ranked journal list, providing business schools with a tool
for assessing the academic performance of employees as well as evaluating the
publication records of prospective academics during the recruitment and selection
process. Despite the drawbacks of creating a catalogue of journals, not the least of
them being the paucity of gender and sexuality journals included in the ABS list,
ranking journals has helped to shift attention away from the subject matter to where
research is published (Clarke et al. 2012). On the one hand, this can divert attention
away from why some topics require academic research but, on the other hand, the
instrumentalism that such lists and journal rankings engender can be mobilized by
scholars as currency in order to progress careers. For some academics, myself
included, the creation and maintenance of the ABS list has produced unexpected
opportunities to research sexual orientation as a credible organizational topic, but
on the condition that research outputs are published in what narrowly counts as ‘top
tier’ journals in business and management.
For instance, in a meeting with a Dean at a former institution to discuss my
research on LGB workplace issues I was, within in a matter of minutes, challenged
as to why I was intent on pursuing a ‘flimsy topic’, but also ‘reassured’ that he [the
Dean] ‘didn’t care’ what I researched as long as I published in ‘4 or 3 star’ ABS
rated journals. Such a stance may well be familiar to those scholars researching
subject areas that are considered too critical, radical and not primarily concerned
with improving organization performance, especially within business schools that
adopt a conservative management curriculum. One way of sustaining an academic
career on research topics considered to be ‘critical’ or ‘radical’ is to publish in the
journals ranked favorably by the ABS, although journals of this caliber, and willing
to accept such papers, are limited in number. A perennial challenge that I am faced
with, and no doubt confronted by other researchers interested in LGBT sexualities
and genders, is which ABS journals might be receptive to research in this area.
Indeed, how LGBT research is written up and offered to top ranked business
journals is no small matter. While published organizational research on LGBT
issues displays signs of theoretical diversity (Colgan and Rumens 2014), I wonder if
the tendency might be that much of the research published in top ranked manage-
ment journals cements a discourse on organization sexuality and gender as purely a
‘business issue’. By that I mean how, for instance, management attaches impor-
tance to LGB issues within a business-friendly formulation of sexual orientation as
an organizational resource that can be harnessed to improve organizational perfor-
mance. Such an approach and the type of research it generates is valuable, but it is
not necessarily the type of research that poses the greatest challenge to
neo-liberalist capitalism’s inherent heteronormativity which, as Griffin (2007)
avers, frequently associates successful human behavior almost exclusively with a

gender identity embodied in dominant forms of heterosexual masculinity.
So in the UK at least, it is, arguably, an unexpected twist that journal rankings
and other disciplinary technologies, that are part and parcel of managerialist
regimes within higher education, which have reproduced and even exacerbated
gender inequalities within business schools (Özbilgin 2009), may offer some hope
for some academics to pursue organizational research on LGBT lives and issues,
albeit with conditions attached. How these conditions are understood and experi-
enced is a matter for further research, not least because they are likely to vary
considerably but also because, fundamentally, they leave unchallenged the
heteronormative values that permeate the foundations of business schools and
management departments. In other words, business schools can (un)intentionally
subject scholars researching LGBT workplace issues to forms of normative vio-
lence that can encourage more docile academic selves and identities. Especially
those that conform to dominant organizational norms that govern what counts as
‘credible’ research, where it is published and how it is transferred to the manage-
ment classroom and within the wider business community.
2.2 LGBT Business School Students and Forms

of Normative Violence
In relation to student experiences of heteronormativity, business schools can be

extremely inhibiting. If business schools are experienced as inhospitable places to
disclose as LGB, then LGB identified students may be less likely to engage in social
and academic activities within these institutions. It is frustrating that published
research on LGB business school students’ experiences of heteronormativity
appears to be non-existent, but research on LGB students in engineering makes
for an interesting comparison (Cech and Waidzunas 2011; Trenshaw et al. 2013).
Although the experiences of engineering students is an imperfect index of the
complexities experienced by business school students negotiating heteronor-
mativity, they provide significant and resonant snapshots of the state of play in
cognate academic disciplines dominated numerically and symbolically by hetero-
sexual men and masculinities.
In the US, Cech and Waidzunas (2011) found pervasive prejudicial cultural
norms and perceptions of competence particular to the engineering profession
which limited LGB students’ opportunities to succeed, relative to their heterosexual
peers. For example, some gay male engineering students were deemed by their
heterosexual counterparts as ‘incompetent’ because they did not match the stereo-
type of the engineer as highly technical, logical and poor at dealing with people.
This judgement is also based on a stereotype of gay students as being good with
people, flamboyant and effeminate, and gives rise to a series of identity dilemmas
for those gay male engineering students who feel they did not match one or both
396 N. Rumens
stereotypes. As a way of coping with the heteronormative college climate they

experienced, some LGB students opted to ‘pass’ as heterosexual, downplay cultural
characteristics associated with LGB identities, and acquired engineering expertise
to make themselves indispensable to others. These additional work burdens often
came at a cost including academic and social isolation, with some students leaving
higher education altogether and the engineering profession. Cech and Waidzunas
(2011) reach a grim conclusion that engineering schools can be hostile places for
many LGB students, with some students feeling anxious about their future career
prospects if they participate in the field of engineering as openly LGB. At the same
time, the students interviewed by Cech and Waidzunas (2011) suggested remedial
action to address some of the most negative issues highlighted in the study, such as
creating the conditions of possibility for increased visibility for LGB students
through mentoring programs, LGB student groups and other openly LGB students
and faculty staff. But for faculty staff and other LGB students to provide a role
model for LGB students requires a faculty climate that is supportive of LGB issues.
In a related study of LGBT engineering and science academics in the US, Bilimoria
and Stewart (2009) found that faculty staff described overt hostility towards them as
LGBT identified individuals, feeling immense pressure to ‘cover’ their sexuality at
work, but also an obligation to support LGBT students and junior colleagues.
It is reasonable to suggest that some LGBT business students may experience
similar issues and problems on campus. Nonetheless, we cannot presume this or
take for granted that business schools are safe or hostile environments for LGBT
students in regard to their exposure to forms of normative violence such as
heteronormativity and, relatedly, cisnormativity. Crucially, in some educational
contexts there may be significant differences in how LGBT business school stu-
dents are accorded recognition and thus subject to the norms that shape specific
modes of normative violence. As Butler (2004: 8) points out: ‘norms and conven-
tions that permit people to breathe, to desire, to love and to live, and those norms
and conventions that restrict or eviscerate the conditions of life itself. Sometimes
norms function both ways at once, and sometimes they function one way for a given
group and another way for another group’. For example, Beemyn (2005) laments
how transgender students in the US frequently face some of the most virulent forms
of violence (e.g. cisnormativity) because they are positioned as subjects who
transgress hierarchical gender and sexual binaries (e.g. masculine/feminine; het-
erosexual/homosexual) by which gender and sexuality are understood in restrictive
dualistic modes of thinking. Areas of campus life where transgender students
experience discrimination because of gender-exclusive policies and practices
include health care, residence halls, lavatories, locker rooms, public inclusion and
training. Such research conveys a troubling account of higher education from a
trans student perspective, especially as higher education is a crucial context for
forming and developing sexual and gender identities (Ellis 2009), and students
within business schools are no exception.
Responses to these problems are varied, contextually contingent and patchy. For
example, in the UK, some universities have set up LGBT support groups and
introduced diversity policies inclusive of LGBT people, among other things, to
achieve accreditation as a ‘Diversity Champion’ in the Workforce Equality Index

(Stonewall 2014). This publication, pitched as a reliable ‘annual guide to Britain’s
most gay-friendly employers’, is produced by Stonewall, a leading LGB rights
charity organization. At present 73 universities appear on the ‘Diversity Cham-
pions’ program as members ‘committed to working with Stonewall to improve their
workplaces for their lesbian, gay and bisexual staff’ (Stonewall 2014). However,
only five appeared as champions in the 2014 index. Notably, detail is not provided
in the Equality Index about how different faculties and departments such as
business schools within each university might vary in their engagement with
LGB students and staff. Furthermore, the Index does not address issues affecting
trans students and staff. As such, much remains empirically open in this matter
because it is unwise to prejudge what ‘gay-friendly’ badges (e.g., a ‘diversity
champion’) signify at ground level insofar as LGBT students and staff members’
daily lives are concerned.
Encouragingly, many LGBT people in their roles as academics and students
organize politically in ways that move from striving for LGBT representation on
campus, to questioning the very normative processes that permit and curtail the
possibilities for living openly LGB lives. For instance, Renn’s (2007) US study of
LGBT student leaders and queer activists demonstrates how some students adopted
a queer activist identity, of which an important part was participating in campus
protests, marches in Washington, DC, and local political action campaigns. For
these students, being ‘queer’ implied an obligation to take political action and risks,
as one student remarked: ‘I asked myself if I was willing to risk my life for activism,
in order to make things easier for LGBT people . . . and I decided yes, that I was . . .
That just really increased my involvement, when I became dedicated to becoming
an activist’ (2007: 324). Similar albeit tempered sentiments are expressed else-
where by business school students who have organized to create safe spaces for
LGBT students to gather and feel supported. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Student Association (LGBTSA), an organization of LGBT students
and their partners at Harvard Business School (HBS), provides formal and informal
support for members and works to build awareness of LGBT issues in the work-
place at HBS and in the local business community. This organization is linked to
another called Allies, a student club with members who are LGBT supporters at
HBS. LGBTSA claim to recognize the challenges around coming out as a LGBT
business student at university and in the wider sphere of work, undertaking work to
create a supportive environment for LGBT students in the classroom, in recruiting,
and on campus. The group has established links with LGBT-friendly companies
and not-for-profit organizations which is commendable and promising, but I won-
der if such connections with HBS and local businesses enable such groups to tackle
the roots of heteronormativity in the corporate landscape. One concern, currently
unexplored, is the limits of business school student groups in that respect, and
whether they inadvertently create a ‘gay-friendly closet’. By this, a term borrowed
from Williams et al. (2009), I mean that the visibility and participation of LGBT
students within HBS and in the business community is contingent on norms of
recognition that specify how LGBT people should identify in terms of behavior,
398 N. Rumens
appearance and attitudes; typically, as gender normal, professional, middle-class,

apolitical and monogamous. Again, this can be understood as a form of normative
violence that carrels LGBT people into identity categories that allow them visibility
to participate openly at work but at a cost personally and professionally (Rumens
and Kerfoot 2009). Such issues are particularly pertinent in the context of the
management classroom.
3 Normative Violence in the Management Classroom
Research shows that the management classroom can be a site of normative violence
for LGB students and academics (Ozturk and Rumens 2014; Giddings and Pringle
2011; McQuarrie 1998). For example, heteronormative values can be so deeply
ingrained within the management curriculum that the representation of LGB sex-
ualities in teaching materials can be marginal or non-existent. I find it disheartening
that numerous management textbooks make few references to LGB people or those
who identify as trans, queer, questioning, and so on. When LGB subjects figure in
management textbooks they are safely contained where we might expect to find
them: within chapters on diversity management and workplace equality. Manage-
ment textbooks have been criticized for constructing employees as disembodied,
genderless and docile subjects whose interests and desires align neatly with those of
their employers (Cameron et al. 2003). But even in the case of desiccated normative
constructions of employees within mainstream management textbooks, the default
setting for gender and sexuality is male and heterosexual (Kelan 2008). Put
differently, we might mistake the textbook employee as a subject attached to a
non-descript identity category when in actual fact, it is frequently gendered as male/
masculine and assumed to be heterosexual. This has implications for those business
school scholars who consciously tilt the management curriculum toward LGBT
students.
McQuarrie (1998), writing from an Australian business school context, adopts a
similar position in her argument that LGBT issues are frequently absent and
unacknowledged in management education. Sexual orientation is often missing in
management course content, even in diversity management teaching where it seems
to secure temporary accommodation. Elsewhere, Giddings and Pringle (2011)
mention how one female lesbian student in a New Zealand business school claimed
she had only heard the term ‘lesbian’ uttered twice throughout her degree course.
Both examples, sobering first-hand accounts of the prevalence of heteronormativity
in the management classroom which codes gay and lesbian sexualities as the
‘Other’, help to explain how and why the discussion of LGBT workplace issues
can be difficult. The normative violence enacted through exclusionary practices
within management curriculum content is dangerous because it normalizes the
absence or partial representation of LGBT sexualities and genders, with the possi-
ble outcome that management students may reject from the outset or merely tolerate
academic arguments about the oppressive aspects of business schools and
management studies. Under such circumstances, LGBT business school students

may reach a number of disturbing conclusions including: (1) LGBT sexualities and
genders are not relevant in the management curriculum; (2) the corporate closet
and/or gender normal appearances and behaviors are the only viable options for
career advancement as a LGBT employee; (3) that employers are uninterested in
LGBT employees and issues when in fact they really are for all manner of reasons,
both positive and negative. Angered and frustrated by an apparent refusal or overly
cautious approach adopted by some business schools to take on LGBT issues within
the management curriculum has led some scholars, including myself, to
problematize normative modes of violence such as heteronormativity and
cisnormativity and introduce LGBT issues into the management classroom.
Scholars who utilize teaching materials that instigate discussions of LGBT
sexualities and genders in the context of management education can find them-
selves caught on the horns of a dilemma: it is an opportunity to educate students on
workplace LGBT issues and perspectives, but it is also an occasion for negative
reprisals if, for instance, pedagogical activities trigger prejudice and backlash,
initiate unplanned or constrain identity disclosures in the classroom. Heterosexual
teachers who venture into this subject area are also at risk of being presumed to be
LGBT, and thus susceptible to negative reactions from some students. Teaching
sexuality and gender can be a tricky business for educators seeking to challenge
how discourses of management are overlaid by discourses of masculinity and
underline the importance of how and why gender matters in organizations (Sinclair
2000, 2005). Coming out as LGBT in the management classroom, as a student or as
a member of staff, can incite heteronormativity violently. It can influence how
LGBT subjects are (not) accorded recognition as people, cast instead as sexual/
gender deviants, just as it can enhance the personal integrity of the subject coming
out in the eyes of others. As research shows, coming out in different types of
educational classroom settings is motivated by different reasons (Connell 2014).
One compelling motive for LGBT educators to disclose is the wish to connect with
LGBT students, especially those who may be closeted, in order to provide a
supportive environment in which to discuss LGBT issues. I adopt a similar stance
but it is not always an easy one to maintain, especially when I was a junior academic
concerned with eliciting good student feedback in order to pass my probationary
period. As a junior academic, teaching LGBT topics felt controversial when on
probation and situated within the confines of management curriculum marked by
conservativism, so generally I adhered to a professional ethic of discretion. Obvi-
ously, it cannot be presumed that LGBT academics are happy to disclose to
students, especially if they feel sexuality and gender has little or no relevance to
the subject matter they teach, which is possibly the case for many LGBT business
academics teaching on mainstream business and management degree programs. To
a great extent, however, we know very little about these identity disclosure
dilemmas among business school faculty staff and students in the management
classroom, although Ozturk and Rumens (2014) provide some insight.
In our study on heteronormativity in business schools (Ozturk and Rumens
2014), we found that some gay male academics were keen to be recognized as
400 N. Rumens
openly gay men within the business school, but the organizational and cultural
norms governing the conditions of visibility and participation within the business
school reproduced a gay/queer binary. Viable, visible gay identities within business
school contexts were those which adhered to heterosexual norms, occasioning
opportunities for gay men to identify as ‘normal’ in terms of heterosexual respect-
ability and conformity, with queer positioned as its Other. Indeed, Edgar, one of our
interviewees, suggested it was ‘dangerous to come out as queer . . . business
students will conjure up all manner of things in their heads about being sexually
promiscuous, a rainbow flag-waving political nutter . . . someone who is out to
cause trouble’. Other interviewees veered away from a queer identity, especially in
the management classroom, in order to maintain a sense of personal integrity as an
openly gay male academic that would also serve as a role model to LGBT students
and other staff. Yet such normative conditioning of the self to appear compliant
with dominant heteronormative constructions about what is ‘gay’ rather than
‘queer’ reproduces a cultural logic of exclusion through the placement of gay and
queer within a hierarchical binary. In this binary, queer is narrowly understood as
only ever being disruptive, over-sexualized, radical and even destructive and, as
such, must be contained or managed out altogether. Indeed, Morrish and O’Mara
(2011: 987) aver that many higher education institutions in the UK and the US
‘prefer the invisibility of queers, lest they bring universities and colleges into
disrepute’. In other words, universities might prefer that the potential disruptiveness
of queers and queerness to destabilize heteronormativity is never realized.
Reflecting on the above, my experience of teaching LGBT issues to business and
management students has often been fraught and uncomfortable. Teaching on
general organization behavior and management modules is often the most chal-
lenging for me as, at times, I have to defend the place of LGBT workplace issues as
part of the module content. I have been interrupted by disgruntled undergraduate
students in lecture theatres asking why LGBT issues are relevant to management,
while some students have articulated a moral and professional panic about LGBT
people in the workplace. For instance, one MBA student employed as a medical
director in a hospital argued that trans people had no place in delivering patient care
as they would frighten patients because of their physical ‘monstrosity’ (his words),
reinforcing conservative norms underpinning cisnormativity about trans employees
as abject and unhuman. On another occasion, guest lecturing for a colleague
running an equality, diversity and inclusion undergraduate option module, I
assumed I had a captive student audience that needed little persuasion about the
salience of sexuality as a legitimate diversity management issue. Yet, upon entering
the classroom, one student came up to me and asked: ‘Are you the lecturer who’s
here to talk about being gay at work?’ Before I could respond, the student looked
disapprovingly at my shoes and said: ‘your shoes are so gay’. As someone who
seldom seems to be able to respond with a smart or witty answer in such situations, I
laughed nervously and wondered if my somber brown shoes were ‘gay’, or perhaps
not ‘gay’ enough? Interrupting what felt like a prolonged and awkward silence,
I replied to the student: ‘well, they’re hardly a pair of ruby red slippers’, which
seemed to have a disarming effect. The lack of compunction with which this
student felt able to label an aspect of my body as ‘too gay’, an expression in

heteronormative parlance that typically functions as an insult (Woodford
et al. 2013), punctuated my naiveté about positioning students on a continuum of
acceptance by which business and management modules they were enrolled on.
On those occasions when teaching LGBT workplace issues has gone well, I have
experienced another sense of discomfort that stems from being positioned by
students as a mouthpiece for the LGBT community. This is one potential drawback
for those LGBT business school academics who act as role models, since the role
can imply or sometimes necessitate an ambassadorial responsibility to build bridges
between LGBT and straight worlds. In these moments, I have been acutely aware of
another pertinent issue; namely, the patchy coverage between LGBT sexualities
and genders in the management classroom, with gay and lesbian sexualities dis-
proportionately receiving greater coverage in my teaching than bi and trans issues.
This state of affairs is reflected more widely in the greater amount of organizational
scholarship published on LG rather than BT issues (Colgan and Rumens 2014).
What this leads me to say is that the one topic area I am most passionate about is
sometimes the subject I enjoy teaching the least in the management classroom. But
this is no excuse to shy away from the challenge of developing a critical pedagogy
that problematizes normative forms of violence such as heteronormativity in the
management curriculum, and refuses a preoccupation with the reproduction of
harmful gender and sexual binaries, and the hetero-norms that sustain them.
4 Conclusion
In this chapter I have discussed how business schools are sites of normative
violence toward LGBT students and academics, with a particular focus on
heteronormativity. LGBT people must depend on legal protection from physical
forms of violence, where it is available, but also rely on institutions to ensure
safeguards against normative forms of violence. But there appear to be few safe-
guards in some business schools to protect LGBT people from heteronormative
violence executed through regulatory norms upon which a subject’s sense of
viability as a person depends. It is my hope that this chapter, a composite account
of academic sources and my reflections as an openly gay male business school
academic, will throw into sharper relief a research agenda centered on how can
business schools foster research and teaching that problematizes and dismantles
heteronormativity. In one sense, this chapter and the others that comprise this edited
collection bear testimony to what is possible toward this end. Still, further analysis
is needed to pin down more precisely the interaction between normative forms of
violence and LGBT sexualities and genders within business schools. To that end,
we must explore what can be done to make these institutions not only safer places
for LGBT students and staff to learn and work, but also how they might nourish
alternative identities and selves that transcend the limits of sexual and gender
normativity.
402 N. Rumens
References
Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., & Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of critical
management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anteby, M., & Anderson, C. (2014). The shifting landscape of LGBT organizational research.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 3–25.
Bauer, G., Hammond, R., Travers, R., Kaay, M., Hohenadel, K., & Boyce, M. (2009). “I don’t
think this is theoretical; this is our lives”: How erasure impacts health care for transgender
people. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 20(5), 348–361.
Beemyn, B. G. (2005). Making campuses more inclusive of transgender students. Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 77–87.
Bilimoria, D., & Stewart, A. J. (2009). “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: The academic climate for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. NWSA Journal, 21(2),
85–103.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. London: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. London: Routledge.
Cameron, K. S., Ireland, R. D., Lussier, R. N., New, J. R., & Robbins, S. P. (2003). Management
textbooks as propaganda. Journal of Management Education, 27(6), 711–729.
Cech, E. A., & Waidzunas, T. J. (2011). Navigating the heteronormativity of engineering: The
experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Engineering Studies, 3(1), 1–24.
Clarke, C., Knights, D., & Jarvis, C. (2012). A labour of love? Academics in business schools.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(1), 5–15.
Colgan, F., & Rumens, N. (2014). Understanding sexual orientation at work. In F. Colgan &
(pp. 1–20). Oxford: Routledge.
Connell, C. (2014). School’s out: Gay and lesbian teachers in the classroom. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Creed, W. E. D. (2005). Seven conversations about the same thing—Homophobia and heterosex-
ism in the workplace. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace diversity (pp. 371–400). London: Sage.
Ellis, S. J. (2009). Diversity and inclusivity at university: A survey of the experiences of lesbian,
gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) students in the UK. Higher Education, 57(6), 723–739.
Ferlie, E., McGivern, G., & De Moraes, A. (2010). Developing a public interest school of
management. British Journal of Management, 21(1), s60–s70.
Ford, J., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2010). Who is it that would make business schools more
critical? Critical reflections on critical management studies. British Journal of Management, 21
(1), s71–s81.
Fotaki, M. (2011). The sublime object of desire (for knowledge): Sexuality at work in business and
management schools in England. British Journal of Management, 22(1), 42–53.
Fotaki, M. (2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the
unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1251–1275.
Giddings, L., & Pringle, J. (2011). Heteronormativity at work: Stories from two lesbian academics.
Women’s Studies Journal, 25(2), 91–100.
Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business schools: The contribution of critical management educa-
tion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 178–186.
Griffin, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and the World Bank: Economic discourse and the (re)production
of gendered identity(ies). Policy Futures in Education, 5(2), 226–238.
Hearn, J. (2014). Sexualities, organizations and organization sexualities: Future scenarios and the
impact of socio-technologies (a transnational perspective from the global ‘north’). Organiza-
tion, 21(3), 400–420.
Hearn, J., & Parkin, W. (1987). Sex at work: The power and paradox of organisation sexuality.
New York: Macmillan, St. Martin’s Press.
Humphrey, J. C. (1999). Organizing sexualities, organized inequalities: Lesbians and gay men in
public service occupations. Gender, Work and Organization, 6(3), 134–151.
Kelan, E. K. (2008). The discursive construction of gender in contemporary management litera-
ture. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 427–445.
Kelan, E. K. (2013). The becoming of business bodies: Gender, appearance, and leadership
development. Management Learning, 44(1), 45–61.
Knights, D., & Tullberg, M. (2012). Managing masculinity/mismanaging the corporation. Orga-
nization, 19(4), 385–404.
McQuarrie, F. A. E. (1998). Expanding the concept of diversity: Discussing sexual orientation in
the management classroom. Journal of Management Education, 22(2), 162–172.
McTiernan, S., & Flynn, P. M. (2011). “Perfect storm” on the horizon for women business school
Deans? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 323–339.
Morrish, L., & O’Mara, K. (2011). Queering the discourse of diversity. Journal of Homosexuality,
58(6–7), 974–991.
Özbilgin, M. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of the world. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 113–121.
Ozturk, M. B. (2011). Sexual orientation discrimination: Exploring the experiences of lesbian, gay
and bisexual employees in Turkey. Human Relations, 64(8), 1099–1118.
Ozturk, M. B., & Rumens, N. (2014). Gay male academics in UK business and management
schools: Negotiating heteronormativities in everyday work life. British Journal of Manage-
ment, 25(3), 503–517.
Parker, M. (2002). Against management. Cambridge: Polity.
Parker, M. (2014). University, Ltd: Changing a business school. Organization, 21(2), 281–292.
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2013). The sound of silence: Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in “inclusive organizations”. British Journal of Man-
agement, 25(3), 488–502.
Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College
Student Development, 48(3), 311–330.
Rumens, N. (2012). Queering cross-sex friendships: An analysis of gay and bisexual men’s
workplace friendships with heterosexual women. Human Relations, 65(8), 955–978.
Rumens, N. (2016). Towards queering the business school: A research agenda for advancing
lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans perspectives and issues. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(3),
36–51.
Rumens, N., & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (re)-constructing the self as professional.
Sinclair, A. (2000). Teaching managers about masculinity: Are you kidding? Management Learn-
ing, 31(1), 83–101.
Sinclair, A. (2005). Body and management pedagogy. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(1),
89–104.
Skidmore, P. (2004). A legal perspective on sexuality and organization: A lesbian and gay case
study. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(3), 229–253.
Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2005). The future of the business school: Knowledge challenges and
opportunities. Human Relations, 58(1), 61–82.
Stonewall. (2014). Workplace equality index 2014. London: Stonewall.
Taylor, Y. (Ed.). (2014). The entrepreneurial university: Engaging publics, intersecting impacts.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Trenshaw, K. F., Hetrick, A., Oswald, R. F., Vostral, S. L., & Loui, M. C. (2013). Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender students in engineering: Climate and perceptions. In Frontiers in
education conference, 2013 IEEE (pp. 1238–1240). IEEE.
404 N. Rumens
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2003). The absent present: Negative space within discourse and the
construction of minority sexual identity in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(10),
1255–1280.
Warner, M. (2000). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, C. L., Giuffre, P. A., & Dellinger, K. (2009). The gay-friendly closet. Sexuality
Research and Social Policy, 6(1), 29–45.
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Kulick, A., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). “That’s so gay”
heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual orientation microaggressions
on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 416–435.
Yep, G. A. (2002). From homophobia and heterosexism to heteronormativity: Toward the devel-
opment of a model of queer interventions in the university classroom. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 6(3–4), 163–176.
Yep, G. A. (2003). The violence of heteronormativity in communication studies: Notes on injury,
healing, and queer world-making. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2–4), 11–59.
The Role of Apparent Sexual Orientation
in Explaining the Heterogeneity of Wage
Penalties Among Gay Employees
Thierry Laurent and Ferhat Mihoubi
1 Introduction
Since the late 1980s, following the seminal paper by Badgett (1995), several
econometric studies in different countries have emphasized the existence in the
labor market of a difference in wages between homosexual employees and their
heterosexual counterparts (for a survey of these studies see, for example, Ahmed
and Hammarstedt (2010) or Laurent and Mihoubi (2012)). Such an unexplained and
inexplicable wage gap constitutes what is commonly called wage discrimination.
The main results highlight the existence of significant wage discrimination
against gay men, usually between 7 and 15 %. However, in most cases, they
fail to find any significant wage discrimination against lesbians. A recent econo-
metric study concerning the French labor market confirms results obtained during
the last two decades in other countries: gay men suffer a –6 % wage penalty (see
Laurent and Mihoubi 2012).
A limitation inherent in this type of study derives from the fact that, unlike
gender or ethnic origin, sexual orientation is not an individual characteristic clearly
observable by the employer. Consequently, to the extent that some homosexual
employees are not identified as such by their employers, the average wage discrim-
ination measured in a sample of all homosexual employees underestimates the
effective wage penalty incurred by workers whose sexual orientation is known to
T. Laurent (*)
EPEE, Center for Economic Policy Studies, Department of Economics, University of Evry-Val
d’Essonne, 4 bd. François Mitterrand, 91025 Evry Cedex, France
e-mail: laurent@univ-evry.fr
F. Mihoubi
ERUDITE, Department of Economics, Paris-Est Créteil University, 61 avenue du Général de
Gaulle, 94010 Créteil Cedex, France
e-mail: ferhat.mihoubi@u-pec.fr

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_24
406 T. Laurent and F. Mihoubi
the employer (cf. Black et al. 2003) i.e. the costs of coming out and disclosure in the
workplace.
All these studies share a common econometric method to assess wage discrim-
ination, which consists of estimating a gendered wage equation including a dummy
variable representing sexual orientation. Such an approach is based on the implicit
assumption that discrimination is based on the actual sexual orientation of workers:
homosexual vs. heterosexual.
This can be rather a strong assumption because the actual sexual orientation of
an employee—except for uncloseted workers—is never completely determinable
by the employer. Generally, informational imperfections in the workplace (asym-
metric information) result in the employer not knowing the actual sexual orienta-
tion of an employee but only the perceived sexual orientation i.e. the probability
“estimated” by the employer—conditional on all the available information—as to
whether or not an employee is homosexual.
Using actual sexual orientation instead of perceived sexual orientation to mea-
sure wage discrimination may lead to measurement errors, difficulties in
interpreting results, some misleading conclusions and an intrinsic inability to
explore the heterogeneity of wage discrimination among gay employees.
The aim of this chapter is to revisit the method of assessing wage discrimination
based on sexual orientation by suggesting a two-step approach: first, a model of
“perceived sexual orientation” will be elaborated; next this model will be used to
derive a new variable for wage equations—instead of using actual sexual orienta-
tion. The application of this method to French data confirms the role played by
perceived sexual orientation, appearing to be a highly significant variable.
This is a first attempt to assess the impact on wage of sexual orientation as it is
perceived by the employer. The suggested approach allows us to provide a more
precise assessment of the degree of wage discrimination against homosexual
employees. Additionally, it makes possible a better understanding of heterogeneity
of the wage penalty and an evaluation of the economic cost of coming out in the
workplace.
The first section presents the main issues and the related literature. The second is
devoted to the construction of the database and to the presentation of the main
statistical characteristics of the sample used. The third section presents the econo-
metric method, the main results and a robustness analysis.
2 Background
2.1 Problem
Assessment of wage discrimination based on sexual orientation raises several issues

such as estimation bias and/or potentially misleading interpretation of results. From
a methodological point of view, the main difficulty is that, unlike gender or ethnic
The Role of Apparent Sexual Orientation in Explaining the Heterogeneity of. . . 407
origin, sexual orientation is not perfectly and directly determinable by the employer
(note that the term “employer” as used here refers both to the recruiter, the
supervisor, the person with whom promotions are negotiated, the person responsi-
ble for an employee’s career etc. It must be seen as a shortcut to bypass the great
difficulty of precisely identifying the “wage setter” within the firm).
This is a point that is surprisingly neglected in the related literature, especially
when one realizes that heterosexism, homophobia, fear of discrimination etc., lead
many homosexual employees to hide their sexual orientation or, at a minimum, to
cautiously manage information disclosure in the workplace. Falcoz (2008) under-
lines that about 30 % of lesbians and gays in France say they do not disclose their
sexual orientation in the workplace, which is considered as the main place where it
is important to hide one’s sexual orientation. As Dejordy (2008) points out, many
individuals with “invisible” stigmatized social identities decide not to reveal them
in organizational settings and Barreto et al. (2006) highlight that such comport-
ments undermine performance-related self-confidence.
Given such a context of asymmetric information, it is clear that the sexual
orientation of employees is not common knowledge in the workplace; it rules out
the assumption that actual sexual orientation is known to the employer.
However, as Badgett (1995) points out, sexual orientation must be—in one way
or another—known to the employer, before one may speak of wage discrimination
against homosexual workers.
The only way to reconcile the possibility of discrimination in the workplace
based on sexual orientation with the fact that actual sexual orientation of employees
is not always observable is to assume that employers form “beliefs”, about the
sexual orientation of their employees. Such beliefs can be influenced by observation
of some individual characteristics of employees.
Although observation of these characteristics of course does not permit an
employer to make a perfect assessment of the sexual orientation of a worker, it
does allow him or her to associate each employee with a “belief” i.e. a subjectively
assessed probability that the employee in question is gay. This belief is simply the
probability of being considered gay by an employer i.e. the perceived sexual
orientation (PSO). In such a framework it is this probability or a proxy for it—and
not the non-observable real sexual orientation—that should be included in a wage
equation aiming to estimate discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Contrary to methods used in previous studies, this new approach leaves room to
study the economic impact of heterogeneity among gay people; indeed, the esti-
mated wage penalties incurred by gay workers considered as gay by their employers
with different (high vs. low) probabilities will be different.
2.2 Perceived Sexual Orientation
The fact that one can get accurate information on actual sexual orientation of other
people through a careful observation of some of their individual characteristics is
not new. However, the implications of this fact for analysis and understanding of
workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation have never been brought
into play.
2.2.1 The Role of Stereotypes
According to Rule and Ambady (2008a, b) when individuals present themselves to

others they communicate their sexual orientation both intentionally, via cues such
as clothing and hairstyle, and unintentionally, via their nonverbal behavior. Some
research on this topic suggests that one could assess male sexual orientation from
minimal cues, such as voice, facial expressions, behavioral display, clothing style
and fit, jewelry, posture, body type, walk or gait, and both the types and frequencies
of gestures (see Carroll and Gilroy 2002; Gaudio 1994; Pierrehumbert et al. 2004;
Rule and Ambady 2008a, b). Many examples of how sexual orientation is
“detected” in the workplace from minimal cues are collected and examined in
Soucek (2014).
One common explanation of how one can accurately judge sexual orientation
starting from minimal cues relies on the role of gender stereotypes used as catego-
rization tools: stereotyping gays and lesbians as gender “inverts” leads perceivers to
use the voice or gendered facial cues to infer sexual orientation. Johnson
et al. (2007) and Rieger et al. (2010) shed a light on the role of gender inversion
in sexual orientation perception from the body and voice. Freeman et al. (2010)
showed that people use gender-inverted facial cues to get information on sexual
orientation and that the use of such cues can lead to accurate judgments.
Other perceptible gender stereotypes include ways of walking, clothing or
gesturing. Of course, the question remains of why gays and lesbians exhibit more
gender-atypical characteristics than their straight counterparts. Freeman
et al. (2010) suggest that it could be explained by the power of “inverted” stereo-
types, such that gay men and lesbians, either consciously or unconsciously, tend to
alter their voice and groom their face in gender-atypical ways in order to fit
stereotypes associated with their group i.e. to look or sound gay. This behavior,
identified and analyzed by Yoshino (2006) as reverse-covering, exacerbates in
return the stereotyping process.
2.2.2 The Role of Observable Variables
As said above, information about the sexual orientation of employees may be

acquired by any employer through observation and analysis of a set of easily
observable individual characteristics. These include for example: marital status,
existence of children, neighborhood of residence, presence or absence of a worker’s
partner at public company events, behavior at work, rumors reported by other
employees, military service, degree of participation of the employee in the social
life of the firm etc.
A neat statistical analysis of available information contained in the set of all

these individual variables, along with stereotypical categorization, contributes to
the formation of “beliefs”, allowing the employer to subjectively assess the likeli-
hood that an employee is gay or straight.
2.3 Methodology
Using original and detailed data collected through a web survey conducted by us in
2011 regarding the characteristics and behavior in the workplace of 3000 French
gay employees, we apply a two-step econometric method to evaluate the individual
wage penalties faced by people inside this set of heterogeneous gay workers.
As a first step, we use probit/logit econometric analysis to compute, for each gay
worker i, his probability PSOi of being considered by his or her employer to be
homosexual. At the end of this first step a variable PSOi ranging between 0 (when
the probability of being considered to be gay by the employer is equal to zero) and
1 (when the probability of being considered to be gay by the employer is equal to 1)
is assigned to each gay worker in our sample.
To assess the impact of the perceived sexual orientation on wages, we then
estimate earnings equations where the logarithm of the monthly wage is explained
both by job characteristics Zi, employee personal characteristics Xi and the specific
perceived sexual orientation variable: ln wi ¼ α.Zi þ β.Xi þ γ.PSOi þ μi.
As mentioned above, this method revises the usual way of estimating wage
discrimination based on sexual orientation, as it makes it possible to identify
different degrees of wage penalty depending on the types of employees to whom
the penalty is applied. Whatever the estimation of γ, the estimated wage penalty of
an “invisible” gay worker (who could be considered a heterosexual worker, at least
from an informational point of view) will be equal to zero (γ.PSOi with PSOi ¼ 0),
while the same penalty for a perfectly identified gay worker will be equal to γ ( γ.
PSOi with PSOi ¼ 1). The wage penalty of all the other “types” of gay employees
will range in the interval ]0, γ[, depending on their perceived sexual orientation.
It is worth noting that this method makes it possible to estimate the individual
cost of coming out in the workplace, defined as the monetary penalty for the
disclosure of sexual orientation i.e., an increase in the variable of perceived sexual
orientation from PSOi < 1 to PSOi ¼ 1. Of course such a cost is different for each
type of gay employee. The lower the initial PSO, the higher the associated cost of
coming out. Finally, the degree of wage discrimination based on sexual orientation,
in a particular labor market, can be defined as the amount γ of discrimination
incurred by a worker whose sexual orientation is perfectly known to the employer.
3 Data
3.1 Database
The difficulty in applying the method suggested in the above section is that one
must have a database that includes sufficient information about employees to allow
modeling of the “perceived sexual orientation” of an individual. This means that for
each individual, we need three sets of variables:
– The control variables Zi corresponding to job characteristics: qualifications, job
tenure, type of job, working hours, firm size, sector of activity etc.
– The control variables Xi corresponding to the personal characteristics of an
employee: age, nationality, degrees, family status, location etc.
– The variables Yi impacting the perceived sexual orientation PSOi of the
employee i.e. the set of observable variables used by the employer, to form his
or her beliefs about sexual orientation: marital status, existence of children,
neighborhood of residence and all variables used as categorization tools for
stereotyping people, etc.
This last set of variables—which is irrelevant when actual sexual orientation is
used in the wage equation as opposed to perceived sexual orientation—is obviously
difficult to acquire.
An online survey conducted in 2011 on the detailed characteristics and behavior
in the workplace of French employees allowed us to collect answers to more than
70 precise questions covering all the variables listed above. This specific survey
entitled Lifestyles in the workplace was distributed as a supplement to the French
Gay and Lesbian Survey (EPGL) run by the French Institute for Public Health
Surveillance (InVS), a governmental institution reporting to the Ministry of Health.
Table 7 of Appendix summarizes the questions included in the survey.
More than 10,000 respondents completed the 2011 EPGL survey, of which 3177
filled out a supplemental survey. Starting from this raw data, we ruled out any
survey that was incomplete (–246), filled out incorrectly or inconsistently (–64).
We then calibrated the sample by ruling out respondents indicating that their
earnings or those of their partner were above 10,000 €/month (–98; to avoid
contamination of our sample by respondents who confused monthly and annual
earnings) and people under 18 or over 65 (–51). As the main goal of this chapter is
to assess the heterogeneity of wage discrimination among gay employees, we
finally ruled out heterosexuals (–267), transsexuals (–30), women (–496),
non-wage earners (–504) and workers indicating a wage equal to zero (–13).
After these filters were applied, the final sample used in the chapter contains
1408 observations.
3.2 Descriptive Statistics
The dataset comprises 1408 male homosexuals. Their main characteristics are
presented in Table 1. To focus on the specific role played by perceived sexual
orientation, descriptive statistics have been split according to the employer’s
(supposed) knowledge of the employee’s sexual orientation. The lower level of
knowledge is defined by the answers “Certainly not”, “Probably not” or “I do not
know” to the question “Do you think that your supervisor and the person in charge
of your career know your sexual orientation?”. We will refer to this level of
knowledge as “Sexual orientation unknown by employer” (Table 1, column 1).
The intermediate level of knowledge corresponds to the answers “Probably, yes” or
“Yes, I am absolutely sure” to the same question. We will refer to this level of
knowledge as “Sexual orientation likely known by employer” (Table 1, column 2).
The highest possible level of knowledge occurs when the respondent has clearly
indicated that he has disclosed his sexual orientation both to a supervisor and to the
person in charge of his career: we will refer to this situation as “Disclosure of sexual
orientation” (Table 1, column 3).
It is worth noting that the average wage decreases with the supposed knowledge
by the employer of the employee’s sexual orientation. This result is consistent with
discrimination against gay employees in the workplace. The wage penalty is equal
to –1.31 % if sexual orientation is “likely known” by the employer rising to –3.4 %
if the employee has disclosed his sexual orientation. However at this stage we have
to be careful as those wage gaps are imputed unconditionally to the other charac-
teristics of the employee (skill, working time, education etc.). We cannot exclude
that knowledge of sexual orientation of employees is correlated to their productive
characteristics.
Another interesting point is that discrimination in the workplace, as it is expe-
rienced by the respondents, is also related to the degree of employer knowledge of
sexual orientation. Only 7 % of employees having an “unknown” sexual orientation
indicated that they faced discrimination in the workplace, as against 14 % for
employees having a sexual orientation that is “likely known” by the employer or
for those who had disclosed their sexual orientation. Similarly, only 7 % of
employees having a sexual orientation unknown by the employer declared that
they incurred a wage penalty, as against 13 % for those who disclosed their sexual
orientation or those whose sexual orientation was “likely known” by the employer.
It clearly seems as if the degree of an employer’s knowledge of the sexual
orientation of an employee has a positive impact on the level of discrimination
experienced by that employee.
As expected, we also observe that when sexual orientation is not known to the
employer, the respondent:
– Declares more often that he hides his sexual orientation : 63 % vs. 20 % (when
sexual orientation is “likely known” by the employer) and 1.6 % (when sexual
orientation is disclosed)
Table 1 Descriptive statistic
412
SO unknown by SO likely known

employer by employer Disclosure of SO All
Std-
VARIABLES Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev Mean Dev
SAMPLE Population size/ratio (%) 622 44.18 % 419 29.76 % 367 26.07 % 1408 100 %
INDIVIDUAL Age 30 21.38 % 0.02 14.79 % 0.02 17.17 % 0.02 18.32 % 0.01
CHARACTERISTICS 3034 18.81 % 0.02 14.56 % 0.02 11.44 % 0.02 15.63 % 0.01
3539 18.81 % 0.02 20.53 % 0.02 21.25 % 0.02 19.96 % 0.01
4044 16.08 % 0.02 21.24 % 0.02 19.62 % 0.02 18.54 % 0.01
4549 13.18 % 0.01 15.04 % 0.02 19.35 % 0.02 15.34 % 0.01
5054 6.75 % 0.01 10.50 % 0.02 4.36 % 0.01 7.24 % 0.01
5559 4.18 % 0.01 1.67 % 0.01 5.72 % 0.01 3.84 % 0.01
60 0.80 % 0.01 1.67 % 0.01 1.90 % 0.01 1.14 % 0.01
Average age (years) 37.84 0.36 39.45 0.42 39.43 0.47 38.73 0.24
Degrees Master’s or PhD 60.93 % 0.02 56.80 % 0.02 52.32 % 0.03 57.46 % 0.01
College 21.38 % 0.02 19.33 % 0.02 20.16 % 0.02 20.45 % 0.01
High school 7.36 % 0.01 15.51 % 0.02 16.62 % 0.02 12.22 % 0.01
No degree 10.29 % 0.01 8.35 % 0.01 10.90 % 0.02 9.87 % 0.01
Family situation Married 1.13 % 0.01 0.24 % 0.01 0.82 % 0.01 0.78 % 0.01
Civil union 13.99 % 0.01 22.19 % 0.02 32.70 % 0.03 21.31 % 0.01
At least one child 7.23 % 0.01 5.73 % 0.01 10.62 % 0.02 7.67 % 0.01
Live with child(ren) 2.73 % 0.01 1.67 % 0.01 2.72 % 0.01 2.41 % 0.01
between 10 and 15
Origin North-African family 1.13 % 0.01 1.19 % 0.01 2.72 % 0.01 1.56 % 0.01
name
Social environment Comes from a privileged 2.41 % 0.01 2.86 % 0.01 4.63 % 0.01 3.13 % 0.01
social group
T. Laurent and F. Mihoubi
Location Town < 200,000 pop. 27.17 % 0.02 23.87 % 0.02 20.44 % 0.02 24.43 % 0.01
Paris metropolitan area 30.23 % 0.02 32.22 % 0.02 34.88 % 0.03 32.03 % 0.01
Health Disease lowering produc- 12.54 % 0.01 14.56 % 0.02 16.62 % 0.02 14.20 % 0.01
tivity at work (excluding
AIDS)
Drugs consumption Occasional cocaine use 6.11 % 0.01 10.50 % 0.02 12.00 % 0.02 8.94 % 0.01
Social life Attending gay bars/clubs 20.42 % 0.02 28.40 % 0.02 27.80 % 0.02 24.72 % 0.01
etc.
Living with a partner 31.35 % 0.02 41.76 % 0.02 56.13 % 0.03 40.91 % 0.01
No friends 3.21 % 0.01 2.15 % 0.01 4.63 % 0.01 2.41 % 0.01
Information pro- Stereotyped behavior 34.24 % 0.02 48.21 % 0.02 50.41 % 0.03 42.61 % 0.01
vided on Sexual SO known by colleagues 44.69 % 0.02 95.94 % 0.01 98.64 % 0.01 74.01 % 0.01
Orientation Sexual orientation hidden 63.18 % 0.02 20.04 % 0.02 1.63 % 0.01 34.30 % 0.01
JOB Wage Monthly wage (€) 2526 49.21 2493 62.10 2441 67.84 2494 33.55
CHARACTERISTICS SO discrimination Yes (vs. No) 7.23 % 0.01 14.31 % 0.02 14.71 % 0.02 11.29 % 0.01
experienced Wage penalty 6.78 % 0.01 12.72 % 0.02 12.94 % 0.02 10.23 % 0.01
Sector Public 41.32 % 0.02 36.75 % 0.02 30.52 % 0.02 37.14 % 0.01
Firm size <100 employees 22.03 % 0.02 27.45 % 0.02 40.05 % 0.03 28.34 % 0.01
Working hours Contractual working 35.45 0.24 35.64 0.35 35.00 0.34 35.39 0.17
Average hours per hours
week Extra working hours 7.04 0.49 7.41 0.62 6.91 0.61 7.12 0.33
Qualification Highly skilled 22.51 % 0.02 21.00 % 0.02 18.26 % 0.02 20.95 % 0.01
Skilled 55.31 % 0.02 53.22 % 0.02 52.32 % 0.03 53.91 % 0.01
Unskilled 21.22 % 0.02 23.15 % 0.02 25.61 % 0.02 22.94 % 0.01
Type of job Tasks (vs. conception/ 39.71 % 0.02 42.72 % 0.02 36.78 % 0.03 39.84 % 0.01
The Role of Apparent Sexual Orientation in Explaining the Heterogeneity of. . .
supervision)
In direct contact with 68.49 % 0.02 78.28 % 0.02 78.47 % 0.02 74.01 % 0.01
customers
Job tenure Number of years 8.87 0.35 10.00 0.43 9.30 0.49 9.32 0.24
Employment Civil servant 31.03 % 0.02 24.34 % 0.02 21.25 % 0.02 26.49 % 0.01
contract
413
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
414
SO unknown by SO likely known

employer by employer Disclosure of SO All
Std-
VARIABLES Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev Mean Std-Dev Mean Dev
SAMPLE Population size/ratio (%) 622 44.18 % 419 29.76 % 367 26.07 % 1408 100 %
Long-term contract (CDI) 59.00 % 0.02 65.63 % 0.02 68.66 % 0.02 63.49 % 0.01
Fixed-term contract 7.88 % 0.01 8.11 % 0.01 8.17 % 0.01 8.03 % 0.01
(CDD)
Temporary contract 0.64 % 0.003 0.72 % 0.004 0.54 % 0.004 0.64 % 0.002
Other (non-permanent) 1.45 % 0.01 1.19 % 0.01 1.36 % 0.01 1.35 % 0.003
contract
– Discloses his sexual orientation to his colleagues less frequently (45 % vs. 96 %
and 99 %).
– Visits gay places less frequently (20 % vs. 28 % and 28 %)
– Displays less often gay stereotyped behavior (34 % vs. 48 % and 50 %)
– Lives alone more often (69 % vs. 58 % and 44 %)
– Has a registered civil union less often (14 % vs. 22 % and 33 %)
– Has a job requiring contact with customers less often (68 % vs. 78 % and 78 %)
– Works more frequently in the public sector (41 % vs. 37 % and 31 %)
Considering all of these characteristics, it is possible to construct a scale, from
very hidden gay workers—those whose sexual orientation is unknown and who
seem to face low levels of wage discrimination—to gay employees that have
disclosed their sexual orientation and seem to face higher levels of discrimination.
4 Results
4.1 Econometric Method
Ideally, to measure the sexual orientation of an employee as perceived by the

employer, the latter should be directly interviewed during the survey. This is not
the case in our survey since only employees filled out the questionnaire. However,
the survey contains numerous questions relating to what the employer knows or
may know.
In the case of disclosure of sexual orientation to a supervisor and to the person in
charge of career, we consider the employer to have perfect knowledge of the
employee’s sexual orientation. In other cases, employee’s answers to questions
concerning the degree of knowledge of his sexual orientation by his employer can
be used to estimate the perceived sexual orientation of the employee by his
employer (PSO). Formally, PSO corresponds to the conditional expectation of the
employee (with the subscript w) given his information set, of the employer’s (with
the subscript e) conditional expectation that the employee is gay given his infor-
mation set i.e. EðEðgayjI e ÞjI w Þ.
Obviously, the set of information used by the employee contains his exact sexual
orientation as well as private information not available to the employer. In this
regard, the employee information set includes the information set of the employer
and we satisfy the law of iterated expectation. In other words: I e I w and
EðEðgayjI e ÞjI w Þ ¼ EðgayjI e Þ ¼ ProbðgayjI e Þ ¼ PSO.
Note that the law of iterated expectation for a specific observation applies only if
the employee perfectly measures the information set used by his employer, other-
wise the employee may make a measurement error. However under the assumption
of a random measurement error, the law of iterated expectation applies on average.
We will consider this latter case later on.
Table 2 Estimating perceived sexual orientation (PSO)
Of course, in our survey we do not observe PSO but only the “reported perceived
sexual orientation” i.e. the employer’s perception of the sexual orientation of the
employee, as it is reported by the employee (RPSO): a two state variable defined as
0 in case of “sexual orientation unknown by employer” and 1 for a “sexual
orientation likely known by employer” (cf. Sect. 3.2). This variable provides a
coarser description of the theoretical perceived sexual orientation
EðEðgayjI e ÞjI w Þ which is a continuous variable on the support [0,1]. To approximate
the PSO we thus estimate a probit/logit model using:
– As dependent variable, the two-state variable RPSO
– As explanatory variables, all the variables that may influence the information set
I e of the employer; i.e., (1) variables to which employers have access (family
status, neighborhood of residence, age etc.) and (2) other variables likely to
provide to the employer, in one way or another, some information about the
sexual orientation of the employee (disclosure of sexual orientation to col-
leagues, frequentation of gay places, stereotyped behavior etc.)
The approximate or predicted PSO (PPSO) is computed for every employee who
has not disclosed his sexual orientation to his employer using a prediction generated
by the logit/probit model. The purpose of this step is not to replicate the RPSO that
can be contaminated by measurement error from the employer’s information set,
but to provide a consistent prediction of the PSO using all potential variables that
might enter the employer’s information set. Obviously, for employees who have
disclosed their sexual orientation to a supervisor and the person in charge of their
career, the PPSO is systematically set to one. Table 2 provides a synthetic description
of the methodology used to estimate PPSO.
4.2 Main Results
To specify the PSO equation for the 1054 employees who have not disclosed their
sexual orientation to their employer, we have considered a large set of variables
related to sexual orientation of employees to which the employer has or could have
access. Retaining only the variables that have a significant impact on the
employer’s perception of sexual orientation, we get the results reported in the
first column of Table 3.
The results are consistent with the expected signs and magnitudes. The dissem-
ination of information about sexual orientation increases the probability an
employee will be perceived as gay: stereotyped behavior increases the PSO by
5.9pp, while colleagues’ knowledge of sexual orientation increases it sharply by
43pp. The same kind of information is provided if the employee lives with a partner
(þ7pp on the PPSO) or if he frequents gay places (þ6pp). At the opposite end of the
spectrum, if the employee hides his homosexuality or if he has at least one child, the
PSO is reduced by –20pp and –9.2pp, respectively. Several factors may magnify the
informational mechanisms just described. Marital status or the absence of child
each have an increasing effect on the PSO with age: each additional year of age
increases PSO by þ0.6pp. (It should be noted that the reference group is an
unmarried individual having no children). The “visibility” of an employee at the
firm is also positively correlated with PSO: to work in contact with customers
increases PSO by þ6pp and to work in a firm with less than 100 employees increases
it by þ5pp. Finally, the absence of friends has a strong positive impact on PSO
(þ15pp).
In a second step, instead of using actual sexual orientation or even RPSO in the
wage equation, we use PPSO (employer’s PSO as predicted by the PSO equation). The
results are reported in the second column of Table 3. The signs of all the significant
coefficients are consistent with the usual findings. Higher educational degree,
privileged social background, greater skills, working hours or more seniority in
the job have a positive effect on wages. At the opposite end of the spectrum, having
a young child, a north-African family name, suffering from a disability that lowers
productivity, having no friends, working in the public sector, in a small firm, having
an operational job function, a non-permanent labor contract, all have a negative
impact on wages.
The main result is that perceived sexual orientation has a significant negative
impact of –6.5 % on earnings. At first glance, this result seems quite similar to the –
6.3 % wage penalty estimated by Laurent and Mihoubi (2012) for French gays.
However we need to be cautious comparing these two results because it was the
actual sexual orientation, not the PPSO, which was used as an explanatory variable in
our prior article. This means that the –6.3 % wage penalty estimated in Laurent and
Mihoubi (2012) was an average penalty estimated on all gay employees, regardless
their PSO. In contrast, the –6.5 % wage penalty estimated here represents the
maximum penalty faced by an “uncloseted” gay employee whose PSO is equal to
one; the average wage penalty is thus much lower here and can be approximated by
–6.5 % the average PPSO (55.2 % on our sample) ¼ –3.6 %.
Table 3 Perceived sexual orientation (probit model) and wage equation

PSO Wage
equation equation
INDIVIDUAL PPSO Predicted perceived –0.065***
CHARACTERISTICS sexual orientation
Age Age 0.023*** 0.032***
(0.6pp)
Age-squared –0.001***
Degrees Master’s, PhD 0.148***
College, A level or High
school diploma, or no
degree
Family situation Has a child(ren) –0.353** 0.080**
(–9.2pp)
Does not have any child
Living with child(ren) –0.100**
between 10 and 15
Has registered a civil 0.060***
union
Not married, nor civil
union
Social environment Comes from a 0.158***
privileged social group
Does not come from a
privileged social group
Origin North-African family –0.138**
name
Not a north-African
family name
Dissemination of Hides his sexual –0.756***
information on sexual orientation (–19.8pp)
orientation Does not hide his sexual
orientation
Stereotyped behavior 0.226**
(5.9pp)
No stereotyped behavior
Lives with a partner 0.283***
(7.4pp)
Does not live with a
partner
Colleagues know his 1.604***
sexual orientation (42.9pp)
Colleagues do not know
his sexual orientation
Frequents gay places 0.222**
(bars/clubs etc.) (5.8pp)
(continued)
Table 3 (continued)
PSO Wage
equation equation
Does not frequent gay
places
Health Disease lowering pro- –0.044*
ductivity at work (excl.
AIDS)
No disease lowering
productivity
Drugs consumption Occasional cocaine use 0.060**
No occasional cocaine
use
Social life Has no friend 0.576* –0.105**
(15pp)
Has friends
Location Town <200,000 pop. 0.048**
Paris metropolitan area 0.156***
Others places
JOB Sector of activity Public –0.089***
CHARACTERISTICS Private
Firm Size <100 employees 0.208** –0.096***
(5.4pp)
100 employees
Working Hours Contractual working 0.010***
hours (hours per week)
Extra working hours 0.003***
(hours per week)
Qualification High skills 0.226***
Intermediate skills
Low skills –0.195***
Type of job Tasks, operational job –0.132***
function
Conception /mission/
supervision
Job involving direct 0.223**
contacts with customers (5.8pp)
Job with no contact with
customers
Job tenure Number of years 0.005***
Employment contract Fixed-term contract –0.119***
Long-term contract
Other (non-permanent) –0.260***
contract
(continued)
Table 3 (continued)
PSO Wage
equation equation
Intercept –2.19*** 6.465***
Sample size 1054 1408
Marginal effects between brackets: in pp (percentage point) except pp/year for age. The reference
group is written in italic
*coefficients statistically significant at 10–5 % level, **coefficients statistically significant at
5–1 % level, ***coefficients statistically significant at <1 % level, no star: coefficient not
significant at 10 % level
It is worth noting that in the literature related to wage discrimination based on

sexual orientation, as the gay variable introduced in the wage equation is common
to all gay employees, we cannot exclude a contamination of the estimation results
by labor supply effects. For example, a higher level of specialization of gay people
in domestic chores could result in lower wages. Similarly, because gay men are
relatively more exposed to HIV than heterosexual men, their labor productivity
could be negatively affected and consequently their wages. The use of the PSO
prevents these two pitfalls. If employers’ propensity to discriminate is identically
distributed among firms, the PSO provides an unambiguous identified measurement
of wage discrimination.
Another virtue of using PSO is to account for the heterogeneity in the degree of
perception of the sexual orientation by the employer. As such, it makes it possible to
describe the heterogeneity of exposure to discrimination in the workplace. The
wage penalty distribution (corresponding to the product of the wage penalty
coefficient and the predicted PSO) is depicted in Table 4. For the 1054 employees
who have not disclosed their homosexuality to their employer, the discrimination
ranges from –4.34 % for the first quartile to –0.37 % for the third quartile. The 1.90
standard deviation is quite impressive and depicts the dispersion of the discrimina-
tion experienced by gay workers. Adding the 354 employees that have disclosed
their sexual orientation to their employer (considering thus the full sample of 1408
employees) produces a leftward shift in the discrimination distribution of one
percentage point and increases the dispersion of the discrimination.
Finally, in order to assess the magnitude of the economic cost associated with the
disclosure decision, we have tested to determine whether the disclosure of sexual
orientation and the PSO have similar impact on wages. The results do not disprove
this hypothesis. As a consequence, the cost of disclosure of sexual orientation is
identical to the cost experienced by an employee who has not disclosed his
orientation to the employer but is nonetheless perceived as “100 % gay” by the
employer (PSO ¼ 1). Of course, the cost of a disclosure depends closely on the PSO of
the worker before he came out: it ranges from a low of 0 %—if the employee is
already perceived as “100 % gay” by the employer—to a high of –6.5 % if he is
perceived by the employer as “100 % heterosexual”. On average the disclosure cost
is thus –6.5 % – (–2.6 %) ¼ –3.9 %, where –2.6 % is the average wage penalty
incurred by an employee who has not come out.
Table 4 Wage penalty distribution

Sample of 1054 employees that have not disclosed their sexual orientation
First quartile Median Third quartile Mean Standard-deviation
–4.34 % –2.90 % –0.37 % –2.60 % 1.90
Full sample of 1408 employees
First quartile Median Third quartile Mean Standard-deviation
–6.50 % –3.99 % –1.16 % –3.60 % 2.34
5 Developments
5.1 Further Investigations on Perceived Sexual Orientation
The properties of the predicted PSO are depicted in Fig. 1—main graph—which
reports on the sorted 1054 differences between the PPSO and the RPSO. This gap can
be viewed as a kind of “prediction error” made by the employee concerning the
perception of his sexual orientation by his employer i.e. the difference between
what the employee thinks that the employer knows about his sexual orientation
(RPSO) and the estimation of what the employer probably knows (PPSO). This
prediction error can be related to the measurement error made by the employee
about the employer’s information set. Some employees overestimate their per-
ceived sexual orientation (bottom-left black area) while some others underestimate
it (top-right black area). The sizes of the two black areas are quite similar,
indicating that the two groups are symmetrically distributed. In addition, extreme
errors are quite scarce. The graph in the top-left corner of Fig. 1, represents the
distribution of employees according to their “prediction errors” (in absolute value):
37 % of employees are characterized by a “prediction error” as to their perceived
sexual orientation that lies under 20 % ; only 3 % of them make gross errors
(prediction errors greater than 80 % i.e. completely at odds with the employer’s
PSO). In other words most of the RPSOs are consistent with the PPSOs.
The PSO can be viewed as a score built by the employer on the employee’s sexual
orientation: a higher score is related to a higher probability that the employee is gay.
The PSO equation tries to reproduce this score. One tool frequently used to measure
the discrimination power of a score is the so-called ROC curve. This curve can be
used to measure the ability of the PSO equation to reproduce the classification made
by employers. The graph in the bottom-right corner of Fig. 1 reports on the ROC
curve applied to the PSO equation. On the x-axis one minus the specificity describes
the proportion of false positive (i.e. the proportion of gay employees predicted as
gay by the PSO equation but that are not perceived as gay by their employer—at least
according to the employees’ beliefs) and on the y-axis the sensitivity measures the
proportion of true positive (the proportion of employee correctly predicted as gay
by the PSO equation). The diagonal line reproduces the asymptotic classification
obtained with random guesses. A curve bellow the diagonal is symptomatic of a
classification that is worse than the random one. The discrimination power
0,8 37%
Distribution of
31% PPSO-RPSO
0,6
18%
12%
0,4 3%
Employees
0,2
underestimating
PPSO -RPSO
their PSO
0
Employees 1.00
overestimating
True positive rate (sensitivity)

-0,2
their PSO 0.75
-0,4
0.50
-0,6 0.25
ROC Curve for Probit

Area under the curve = 0.85
-0,8 0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

False positive rate (1– specificity)
-1
1 101 201 301 401 501 601 701 801 901 1001
Employees
Fig. 1 Analysis of the PSO equation
increases with the size of the integral between the x-axis and the ROC curve (i.e. a
ROC curve closer to the North-East corner). Applied to the PSO equation the ROC
curve is clearly above the diagonal curve and the area under the ROC curve is equal
to 0.85 which is a fairly good result, much better than a random discrimination.
5.2 Robustness
All the results presented in the previous sections are of course contingent to the
measurement of the PSO. To challenge these results, we consider in this subsection
two alternative measures of the PSO.
The first one takes advantage of the graduation in the survey answers, to the
questions: “Do you think that your supervisor knows your sexual orientation?” and
“Do you think that the person in charge of your career knows your sexual orien-
tation?”. For both questions the following answers are proposed: “Certainly, yes”,
“Probably yes”, “I do not know”, “Probably not”, “Certainly not”. We can thus
Table 5 Ordered multinomial model

Question
Ordered Do you think that your supervisor Do you think that the person in charge of your
answers knows your sexual orientation? career knows your sexual orientation?
8 I’m sure yes I’m sure yes
7 I’m sure yes Probably yes
Probably yes I’m sure yes
6 Probably yes Probably yes
5 Probably yes I do not know
I do not know Probably yes
4 I do not know I do not know
3 Probably not I do not know
I do not know Probably not
2 Probably not Probably not
1 I’m sure not Probably not
Probably not I’m sure not
0 I’m sure not I’m sure not
construct an ordered multinomial model considering the following decreasing

ordering (Table 5).
The PPSO built with this model is very close to the one obtained with a probit
model and the wage penalty (see Table 6, column 1) remains quite unchanged: –
6.6 % vs. –6.5 % with the probit model.
The second alternative measurement of PSO attempts to avoid a potential selec-
tion effect related to firm size. In small firms the supervisor and the person in charge
of the career of the employee are usually the same person. As a consequence, the
RPSO is “mechanically” more often equal to one in small firms than in big ones. To
challenge our results, we alternatively used a RPSO defined as equal to one when the
supervisor or the person in charge of the career “knows probably” or “knows with
certainty” the sexual orientation of the employee.
Results obtained with this alternative definition of RPSO appear in column 2 of
Table 6. The number of employees that have disclosed their sexual orientation to
their employer has mechanically increased with this broader definition of disclosure
to the employer. However, the new results are very close to those obtained initially.
The wage penalty incurred by an employee perceived as gay by his employer is just
slightly higher than in the first estimate: –6.9 % vs. –6.5 %.
Table 6 Robustness of the results: alternative measures of PSO
424
Column 2
Column 1 Probit model
Multinomial ordered Alternative definition
model of RPSO
PSO Wage PSO Wage
equation equation equation equation
INDIVIDUAL PPSO Predicted perceived sexual orientation –0.066*** –0.069***
CHARACTERISTICS Age Age 0.038*** 0.032*** 0.02*** 0.033***
Age-squared –0.001*** –0.001***
Degrees Master’s, PhD 0.148*** 0.149***
Family situation Has a child(ren) –0.620*** 0.080** –0.363* 0.080**
Living with child(ren) between 10 and 15 –0.100** –0.102**
Has registered a civil union 0.059*** 0.061***
Social environment Comes from a privileged social 0.158*** 0.157***
background
Origin North-African family name –0.138** –0.138**
Dissemination of information Hides his sexual orientation –1.282*** –0.788***
on SO Stereotyped behavior 0.395*** 0.290***
Lives with a partner 0.291** 0.302***
Colleagues know his sexual orientation 2.118*** 1.583***
Frequents gay places (bars/clubs etc.) 0.307** 0.186
Health Disease lowering productivity at work –0.044* –0.044*
(excl. AIDS)
Drugs consumption Occasional cocaine use 0.060** 0.062**
Social life Has no friends 0.535 –0.106** 0.551 –0.107**
Location Town < 200,000 pop. 0.048** 0.048**
Paris metropolitan area 0.156*** 0.155***
JOB CHARACTERISTICS Sector of activity Public –0.089*** –0.088***
Firm Size < 100 employees 0.431*** –0.095*** 0.186 –0.095***
Working Hours Contractual working hours (hours per 0.010*** 0.010***
week)
Extra working hours (hours per week) 0.003*** 0.003***
Qualification High skills 0.226 0.226***
Low skills –0.195*** –0.195***
Type of job Tasks, operational job function –0.132*** –0.131***
Job involving direct contacts with 0.177*** 0.304***
customers
Job tenure Number of years 0.005*** 0.005***
Employment contract Fixed-term contract –0.119*** –0.120***
Other (non-permanent) contract –0.260*** –0.261***
Sample size 1054 1408 950 1408
*coefficients statistically significant at 10–5 % level, **coefficients statistically significant at 5–1 % level, ***coefficients statistically significant at <1 %
level, no star: coefficient not significant at 10 % level. Intercepts available on request
The Role of Apparent Sexual Orientation in Explaining the Heterogeneity of. . .
425
6 Conclusion
This chapter is a first attempt to revisit the method commonly used to assess wage
discrimination based on sexual orientation, by suggesting the use of perceived
sexual orientation, instead of actual sexual orientation.
We propose a two-step method to estimate the impact on wages of perceived
sexual orientation. The first step consists of using a probit/logit analysis to compute,
for each gay employee, the probability of being considered homosexual by his
employer. We then estimate in a second step a wage equation using this specific
probability as an explanatory variable.
The study yields several results. First, the perceived sexual orientation variable
plays a crucial role in the wage equation, highlighting the fact that wage discrim-
ination is not homogeneous among gay workers: the wage gap between an
employee perceived as gay by his employer and another not perceived as such
stands over –6 %. Secondly, the individual cost of coming out in the workplace can
be estimated, on average, at –3.9 % in terms of annual earnings, corresponding to an
annual loss of about 1200 €, i.e., a 25 % “tax” on annual savings (the average wage
in our sample is equal to 2494 € and the average savings rate in France is 16 %).
Finally, it is interesting to note that using the perceived sexual orientation of
employees instead of their actual—but non-observable—sexual orientation does
not invalidate the results obtained in previous studies concerning the existence of a
wage discrimination against gay employees. Nevertheless it has a twofold advan-
tage. The first one is to provide a theoretical and tractable framework making it
possible to better understand the occurrence of wage discrimination and of its
heterogeneity. The second one is to be able to counter those who persist in saying
that as sexual orientation is non-observable, it is fallacious to include it in a wage
equation—that consequently there is no real evidence of wage discrimination based
on sexual orientation. Such an argument can now be seen as over-simplistic, leading
to an invalid conclusion.
Acknowledgments This research has been conducted as part of the project LABEX MME-DII
(ANR11-LBX-0023-01). The authors thank Thomas K€ ollen for helpful comments and
suggestions.
Appendix
Table 7 “Lifestyles in the workplace”: survey

Field Types of questions
Family, origins & Gender, age, country and place of birth, nationality at birth, par-
citizenship ents’ nationalities, origin of the first and last names, marital status,
gender of the partner, number of children, number and age of
children living with the respondent, religion, parents’ religion,
memberships (political party, association, union etc.)
Sexual orientation Sexual orientation, impact of the SO on the choice of friends/on the
choice of place of residence/on choice of occupation and sector of
activity, frequency of frequentation of LGBT places, opinion of
respondent on the amount of information on his SO transmitted to
other people by his behavior (gesture, clothing style, voice etc.),
voluntary disclosure of SO to the supervisor/to the person in charge
of the career/to the colleagues, opinion of the respondent on the
level of knowledge of his SO by his or her supervisor/the person in
charge of his career/his colleagues, existence of a strategy to hide
his sexual orientation
Earnings Monthly earnings, type of earnings, amount and type of earnings of
the partner
Residence and housing Place of residence, size of town, homeowner vs. homebuyer vs.
tenant, quality of the neighborhood, quality of public transportation
Education & labor market Degrees, driver’s license, situation on the labor market, situation of
the partner in the labor market, socio-professional category (SPC)
of the respondent, SPC of the father/mother/partner, qualification,
skills, characteristics of sector of activity, type of occupation, how
“gay-friendly” the occupation is, firm size, type of labor contract,
job tenure, weekly hours of work in the workplace/out of the
workplace, days of vacation, nightly work etc.
Professional career & Weeks of unemployment in the last 3 years, career promotions
discriminations inside the firm over the past 3 years, job/company changes over the
past 5 years, number of professional trainings within the firm, job
implying contacts with customers or clients, level/frequency and
types of discrimination incurred by the respondent in his company
Health HIV/AIDS status, HIV/AIDS treatments, knowledge of HIV/AIDS
status of the supervisor/the person in charge of the career/the
colleagues, work interruptions for medical purposes, depressive
disorders, depressive treatments, psychotherapy, use of antide-
pressants or anxiolytics, other health problems that can influence
individual labor productivity, use of drugs, type of drugs used
References
Ahmed, A. M., & Hammarstedt, M. (2010). Sexual orientation and earnings: A register data based
approach to identify homosexuals. Journal of Population Economics, 23(3), 835–849.
Badgett, L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 48(4), 726–739.
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & Banal, S. (2006). Working under cover: Performance-related self-
confidence among members of contextually devalued groups who try to pass. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 337–352.
Black, D., Makar, H., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2003). The earnings effects of sexual orientation.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(3), 449–469.
Carroll, L., & Gilroy, P. J. (2002). Role of appearance and nonverbal behaviors in the perception of
sexual orientation among lesbians and gay men. Psychological Reports, 91(1), 115–122.
DeJordy, R. (2008). Just passing through: Stigma, passing, and identity decoupling in the work-
place. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 504–531.
Falcoz, C. (2008). Homophobie dans l’entreprise. Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations
et pour l’égalité (HALDE), Collection Etudes et recherches, La Documentation Française éd.
Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., & Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception
involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(10), 1318–1331.
Gaudio, R. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American
Speech, 69(1), 30–57.
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality:
Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(3), 321–334.
Laurent, T., & Mihoubi, F. (2012). Sexual orientation and wage discrimination in France: The
hidden side of the rainbow. Journal of Labor Research, 33(4), 487–527.
Pierrehumbert, J. B., Bent, T., Munson, B., Bradlow, A. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). The influence
of sexual orientation on vowel production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116
(4-1), 1905–1908.
Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”:
Accuracy and the role of masculinity–femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1),
124–140.
Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2008a). Accuracy and awareness in the perception and categorization
of male sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1019–1028.
Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2008b). Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately
perceived at 50 ms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1100–1105.
Soucek, B. (2014). Perceived homosexuals: Looking gay enough for title VII. American University
Law Review, 63(3), 715–788.
Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our civil rights. New York, NY: Random
House.
The Influence of Sexual Orientation
and Gender on Perceptions of Successful
Leadership Characteristics
Nicholas P. Salter and Benjamin Liberman
1 Introduction
Although over 40 years have passed since the start of the gay civil rights movement
(Carter 2004), stereotyping and discrimination against people based on sexual
orientation continues to exist (Barron and Hebl 2011; Herek 2003, 2007). This is
not solely an issue in their personal lives; lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)
employees are often the target of negative attitudes and discriminatory behavior
from their colleagues at work (Harding and Peel 2007; King and Cortina 2010;
Nadal 2011; Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Rostosky and Riggle 2015). Sexual
orientation can become a salient issue that affects one’s work experience, regardless
of whether or not the individual chooses to disclose it or if the person even
considers it to be an important aspect of his or her personal identity.
One area in particular where sexual orientation can have an impact is on
perceptions of leadership. Followers have predetermined ideas as to who is an
effective leader and who is not (Fischbein and Lord 2004). These schemas are not
always based solely on a leader’s actual ability but on other characteristics includ-
ing demographics (e.g., gender or sexual orientation). Because the leadership
ability of minority group members is often questioned in a way that majority
group members are not (Eagly and Chin 2010) and because there is often a societal
social stigma against LGB people (Herek 2007; Herek et al. 2009), gay and lesbian
leaders face many obstacles (as will be discussed) in achieving equality in the
workplace. For instance, a gay male may have the ability to be a good leader, but if
his followers do not like gay people, he may not be perceived as successful in his
N.P. Salter (*)

Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ, USA
e-mail: nsalter@ramapo.edu
B. Liberman
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_25
430 N.P. Salter and B. Liberman
role, and his followers may be extra critical of his leadership decisions. Therefore,
lesbian and gay males may struggle as leaders, regardless of their experiences or
actual ability.
However, LGB workers may not only be subjected to completely unfavorable
stereotypes of their group membership while at work. For instance, people may
hold perceptions and beliefs about LGB individuals that are positive in nature, such
as being thought of as friendly or empathetic. Additionally, characteristics may be
attributed to lesbians and gay males that are not positive or negative, but simply
neutral. Some of these beliefs may be comparative in nature (i.e., “lesbians and gay
males are better at certain traits than heterosexuals, but worse at others”), but it need
not be the case. In some ways, gay males and lesbians can be perceived as similar to
heterosexuals. In general, there are a wealth of research questions that could be
studied with regards to perceptions of lesbians and gay males at work. However,
less research has studied these non-negative perceptions of lesbian and gay
employees; most research has focused on the negative aspects of lesbians and gay
males in the workplace, instead of the positive or simply neutral aspects. What
expectations do people hold about lesbian and gay male employees? How are these
beliefs different from their heterosexual counterparts?
Studying beliefs about gay males and lesbians (positive, negative, and neutral) is
especially important to consider in the context of leadership because of the inherent
connection leaders have with their followers (Fischbein and Lord 2004). If a
follower has a belief about how LGB leaders should or do behave (either positive
or negative), it may affect the leader-follower relationship. Beliefs about lesbian
and gay male leaders is a topic that has received little empirical research (Fassinger
et al. 2010; Muhr and Sullivan 2013) and no investigations have examined the
stereotype content of gay male and lesbian leaders. Therefore, the goal of this study
is to analyze what stereotypes people hold about gay male and lesbian leaders.
Beliefs about general effectiveness as well as other characteristics are studied, and
these stereotypes are compared to those of heterosexual male and female leaders.
1.1 Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Leadership
LGB individuals face difficulties in the workplace (Harding and Peel 2007; King
and Cortina 2010; Nadal 2011; Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Rostosky and Riggle
2015). Herek and colleagues (Herek 2007; Herek et al. 2009) have extensively
studied stigmatization (or related negative stereotypes and associations) of LGB
people as well as its consequences. They have suggested that stigma can manifest in
two ways: cultural stigma and individual stigma. Cultural stigma refers to how
heterosexism and homophobia is culturally ingrained into our society, often without
people even realizing it. For instance, when getting married, paperwork asking the
name of the “bride” and “groom” can cause discomfort for same-sex couples (who
do not have a “bride” and a “groom”). On the other hand, individual stigma is
directed at and experienced by an individual. Herek and colleagues have suggested
The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Gender on Perceptions of Successful. . . 431
that individual stigma can be exhibited in three ways. First, enacted stigma refers to
an individual targeting an LGB person in an unfavorable or discriminatory manner
because of the person’s sexual orientation. Next, felt stigma refers to the target of
the enacted stigma reacting negatively to being stigmatized against. Finally, inter-
nalized stigma refers to people believing the negative stigma. This belief may be
held by either the stigmatizer (i.e., the person speaking against an LGB person
believes what he or she is saying) or by those stigmatized (i.e., an LGB person
experiences so much stigma that he or she believes it must be true). Overall, stigma
and negative beliefs about LGB people manifests itself in multiple ways in society.
These beliefs and attitudes can lead to various negative outcomes for LGB
people, especially in the workplace. For instance, LGB employees experience
disparate treatment compared to heterosexuals because of the stigma against
them. Studies have found that gay men are paid on average less than equally
qualified heterosexual males (Barron and Hebl 2011). Also, studies have found
job applicants who were perceived to be lesbian (from their resumes) were less
likely to be contacted for an interview than job applicants perceived to be hetero-
sexual (Adam 1981; Weichselbaumer 2003). Furthermore, fictitious gay and les-
bian job applicants have been rated less favorably than heterosexual applicants with
the same qualifications in lab research (Horvath and Ryan 2003), and field research
has shown that gay and lesbian applicants experience higher levels of interpersonal
discrimination than heterosexual applicants (Hebl et al. 2002; Singletary and Hebl
2009). Finally, stigma can also have negative internal consequences for LGB
people. For instance, stigma can lead to overall distress as well as lower job
satisfaction (Carter et al. 2014; Ragins and Cornwell 2001; Ragins et al. 2007;
Smith and Ingram 2004).
Fassinger et al. (2010) suggested that these negative attitudes and behaviors
towards gay males and lesbians in general might lead to people harboring unfavor-
able opinions about gay male and lesbian leaders in specific. Therefore, they may
not be seen as prototypical successful leaders. This could have negative long-term
consequences for gay males and lesbians, including being denied the opportunity to
rise to leadership positions, thereby not having the opportunity to demonstrate
themselves to others that they can be successful leaders. Although there is a
theoretical rationale for this assertion that gay males and lesbians may not be
perceived as successful leaders (as outlined by Fassinger et al.), empirical research
has not yet answered this question.
When discussing perceptions of gay male and lesbian leaders, a discussion of
gender and leadership is relevant. Sexual orientation and gender are inextricably
intertwined, and one cannot consider sexual orientation without also considering
gender (Fassinger et al. 2010; Ragins et al. 2007) because people’s attitudes and
expectations about lesbians and gay males are often based in part on their beliefs
about masculinity and femininity (Herek 1988; Kite and Whitley 1996). With
regards to gender, research indicates that stereotypes about male and female leaders
are very prevalent in organizations (Heilman and Eagly 2008; Powell et al. 2002;
Schein 2001). In general, findings from various investigations indicate that the traits
associated with being male (and not female) have generally been associated with
managerial or leadership positions (Duehr and Bono 2006; Koenig et al. 2011;
Kulik and Bainbridge 2005; Schein 1973, 2001). In other words, when people
“think manager,” they typically “think male.” For instance, people often think of
leaders as agentic and task-oriented, and they also think of men as embodying these
same traits (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001). Extensive research suggests that
the qualities associated with being female (such as being communal and
relationship-oriented) are negatively related to perceptions of leader performance
(Cejka and Eagly 1999, Eagly and Karau 2002; Heilman 2001; Phelan et al. 2008).
How might these gender stereotypes operate among gay male and lesbian
leaders? For example, will gay male leaders be perceived positively on account
of their gender, or will they be perceived negatively due to their sexual orientation
(which, as previously discussed, can result in them being seen in a negative light)?
Will gay males be perceived as better leaders than heterosexual females due to their
gender, or worse due to their sexual orientation? To date, previous research has not
addressed this question; research has not compared the effects of gender versus
sexual orientation on perceptions of leadership success. Therefore, it is unclear how
these groups will be perceived in contrast to each other.
What is clear, though, is that heterosexual male leaders will likely be perceived
as better leaders than the other three groups (i.e., heterosexual females, gay males,
and lesbians). Heterosexual male leaders are perceived positively due to both their
gender (Duehr and Bono 2006; Koenig et al. 2011; Kulik and Bainbridge 2005;
Schein 1973, 2001) and their sexual orientation (Hebl et al. 2002; Singletary and
Hebl 2009). Therefore, we suggest that heterosexual men will be viewed as more
successful leaders that heterosexual women, lesbian women, or gay men. We do not
hypothesize, though, how the other three target groups will be perceived in relation
to each other.
Hypothesis 1 Heterosexual male leaders will be described as more similar to
successful leaders than any of the other three target groups will be (e.g., heterosex-
ual female, gay male, or lesbian leaders).
1.2 Gendered Stereotypes of Gay Males and Lesbians
Thus far, we have discussed previous research relevant to sexual orientation and
leadership perceptions, most of which addresses the question of who will be viewed
as a successful leader. But beyond simple “positive” and “negative” associations,
people also hold other beliefs and expectations about gay male and lesbian leaders.
Although this topic is understudied, addressing it is an important step in developing
a broader understanding of the experiences of LGB people at the workplace.
Research suggests that followers hold implicit leadership theories (ILTs) as to
what characteristics, behaviors, and other attributes describe leaders (Fischbein and
Lord 2004). What characteristics, behaviors, and attributes do people believe to be
relevant to gay male and lesbian leaders? Previous research on this topic with
regards to this population in particular is sparse (as a large emphasis has been only
on whether they are viewed positively or negatively). As previously discussed,
gender and sexual orientation are often seen as intertwined, so research on gendered
beliefs and expectations of gay males and lesbians addresses this question.
Sigmund Freud’s inversion theory, which suggested that gay men take on the
characteristics of heterosexual females and lesbians take on the characteristics of
heterosexual males, was one of the earliest theories to address this topic (Freud
1905/1953). Although now considered simplistic, this theory has had a profound
impact on how society views gay males and lesbians. For instance, empirical
research suggests people still perceive homosexuals to demonstrate opposite-sex
characteristics (Blashill and Powlishta 2009; Kite and Deaux 1987; Madon 1997;
Taylor 1983). There may be a reason for this lingering societal belief; some
research has found actual (not just perceived) similarities between homosexuals
and opposite-sex heterosexuals, such as in empathy (Harris 2004), physical aggres-
sion (Sergeant et al. 2006), interpersonal styles (Nettle 2007), and personality
(Lippa 2005, 2008). This is not to suggest total support for inversion theory because
studies that find non-significant relationships may not be published, and the findings
that have been published describe only a small selection of all human characteris-
tics. However, the existence of at least some similarities may explain why people
often perceive the model to be true.
Inversion theory has numerous implications for organizational and leadership
settings. Employees have beliefs and expectations with regards to gender and
leadership (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001). If people have stereotypes
about how men and women leaders should act according to their gender, and if
people expect homosexuals to be similar to people of the opposite gender, then it is
likely that people will have expectations as to how they believe gay male and
lesbian leaders will be. Specifically, it is likely that people will perceive lesbian
leaders to be similar to heterosexual male leaders, and gay male leaders to be
similar to heterosexual female leaders.
Hypothesis 2 Stereotypes of lesbian and gay male leaders will be more similar to
opposite-gender heterosexual leaders than to heterosexual leaders of the same
gender.
1.3 Beyond Gender: Other Perceptions of Lesbian and Gay

Leaders
In the organizational behavior literature, there is little research to inform what is

believed of lesbian and gay male leaders. What perceptions about gay males and
lesbians do people have (positive or negative) that are unrelated to gender? Some
research has addressed this question by studying sexual orientation and leadership
in a non-work context, though few identify leader-relevant stereotypes. For exam-
ple, Jackson and Sullivan (1989) found that gay men are perceived to be
compassionate, and Geiger et al. (2006) found that people perceive lesbians to be
independent. Although research on gay males and lesbians in general can help to
begin identifying perceptions of gay male and lesbian leaders, most research in this
area has studied characteristics not directly related to leadership, such as stereo-
types about romantic and sexual relationships (e.g., Brown and Groscup 2009).
Some research has explored what actual differences exist between gay male,
lesbian, and heterosexual leaders. Although not directly addressing the question of
what perceptions people hold of lesbians and gay men, actual differences may lead
to perceived beliefs about differences, so a review of this scant research is useful.
For instance, The Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership explored the traits of
college student leaders (Martinez et al. 2006). They found that gay, lesbian, and
bisexual leaders scored lower than their heterosexual counterparts on measures of
consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, and collaboration, but higher on
controversy with civility, citizenship, and change (though it should be noted that
college students might exhibit leadership differently than organizational leaders). In
another study of gay male leaders, Snyder (2006) used both interview and survey
methods to find seven qualities these leaders excel at: inclusion, creativity, adapt-
ability, connectivity, communication, intuition, and collaboration [although it is
important to note that scholars including Fassinger et al. (2010) discussed method-
ological problems with this study].
In perhaps the most comprehensive review of research and theory relevant to this
topic, Fassinger et al. (2010) developed an affirmative paradigm of LGB leadership.
They suggested that there are many factors to consider when studying LGB leaders
(and what makes these leaders’ experiences unique from heterosexual leaders’
experiences). In particular, they highlight three specific dimensions through
which the topic must be studied: the sexual orientation of the leader (such as the
extent to which the leader has disclosed their sexual orientation at work), gender
orientation (such as how masculine or feminine the leader is perceived to be), and
the situation (such as how accepting the followers are). This theoretical model
suggests that each of these factors can have an effect on how these leaders are
perceived. For instance, being out at work may result in negative perceptions of the
leader, but following masculinity/femininity norms may result in positive percep-
tions of the leader.
However, beyond positive and negative associations of gay male and lesbian
leaders, Fassinger et al. (2010) also discussed characteristics that theoretically may
be linked with these leaders. Specifically, the authors suggested that, compared to
heterosexual leaders, the experience of coming out and navigating the world as a
sexual minority may result in these leaders excelling in challenging the status quo,
inspiring a shared vision, showing flexibility, fostering inclusion and diversity, and
demonstrating adaptability. However, they acknowledged that more research must
be conducted to definitively determine what characteristics these leaders excel
at. However, their work (as well as the work of others; Martinez et al. 2006; Snyder
2006) suggests specific characteristics that may be useful to study. For instance,
research suggests that lesbian and gay male leaders may excel in diversity man-
agement, managing complexity, and adaptability.
Taken together, it is difficult to compose a coherent picture of what lesbian and

gay male leaders excel and are considered successful at. Although some research
has begun to address this question, there are little commonalities across what the
findings have shown. Therefore, an exploratory aspect of the present study is to
investigate what qualities lesbian and gay male leaders are perceived to have that
are similar to and different from the “successful leader” prototype.
Research Question On which attributes are gay male and lesbian leaders perceived
as significantly different from or similar to the “successful leader” prototype?
1.4 The Current Study
In this study, we analyze perceptions of successful leaders, as well as perceptions of

heterosexual male and female leaders, gay male leaders, and lesbian leaders. The
specific characteristics we study are informed by previous research. For instance,
based on work on LGB leadership (Fassinger et al. 2010; Martinez et al. 2006;
Snyder 2006), we analyze perceptions of diversity management, managing com-
plexity, and adaptability. Based on research on gender and leadership (Cejka and
Eagly 1999, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001; Eagly and Karau 2002; Heilman
2001; Phelan et al. 2008), we analyze traits associated with gendered leadership:
agency, task-orientation, communality, and relationship-orientation. Finally, we
analyze two other styles current in leadership literature (Avolio et al. 2009): trans-
formational leadership and ethical leadership.
2 Method
2.1 Participants
Participants were 198 employed adults from the United States who took part in an
online study and were recruited from the website Mechanical Turk, where partic-
ipants can complete online experiments and surveys in exchange for small pay-
ments. The study included multiple checks throughout the experiment to make sure
that participants were paying attention to the questionnaire items (e.g., asking
participants to select a specific response option in between the dependent measure
questions) and were not simply filling out the questionnaire randomly and hurriedly
to receive quick money. Before the data were analyzed, the sample was limited to
participants who passed all of the attention and manipulation check items and to
participants whose demographic characteristics were relevant to the proposed
hypotheses. Data from 27 participants were excluded due to them incorrectly
answering one or more attention check items and data from 15 participants that
identified themselves as ‘Gay’, ‘Lesbian’, ‘Bisexual’, ‘Questioning’ or who did not
respond to the sexual orientation demographic item were excluded from analysis
since the study was examining solely heterosexuals’ stereotypes of heterosexual,

gay, and lesbian leaders. Therefore, data from 156 participants were included in the
analyses.
The gender composition of the sample consisted of 67 % male and 33 % female
participants and participants’ mean age was 33.6 years (SD ¼ 9.66). Seventy-nine
percent of the sample was White, 4 % Black, 5 % Hispanic, 10 % Asian, 2 % two or
more ethnicities, and less than 1 % identified themselves as ‘other’. Participants
reported having an average of 13.7 (SD ¼ 8.74) years of work experience. Further,
62 % of participants indicated that they had management experience and their mean
number of years in management was 4.5 years (SD ¼ 4.06). Ninety-seven percent of
the sample was currently employed full-time while 3 % were working part-time.
The sample came from a variety of industries including business consulting,
education, customer service, retail, and healthcare, among others.
2.2 Procedure
Participants responded to a post on Mechanical Turk1 that contained a link that led
to the study website. The study website welcomed participants to the study,
provided details about the nature of the study, and asked for their informed consent.
Participants were informed that the study was part of a research study investigating
perceptions of leaders in the workplace. They were given instructions to review a
series of descriptive terms commonly used to characterize people and to use the list
of terms to indicate what they believe is the general stereotype for the target group
they were viewing, regardless of whether or not they believe the stereotype to be
true. A revised version of the Descriptive Index survey developed by Schein (1973)
was administered to participants online. The participants were randomly assigned
into target group conditions, receiving one of five versions of the Descriptive Index,
rating either successful leaders (n=37), heterosexual male leaders (n=31), hetero-
sexual female leaders (n=25), gay male leaders (n=27), or lesbian leaders (n=36).
The surveys were identical in every way with the exception of the target group they
were evaluating.
Descriptive Index The Descriptive Index is a survey containing adjectives and
descriptors (e.g., competent, rational) that are used to measure gender-role stereo-
types and characteristics of successful managers (see Schein 1973, for a full
description of the survey’s development). The Index has been used in prior research
to examine the differences between male and female managers on perceived
management and leadership characteristics (e.g., Brenner et al. 1989; Heilman
1
Research studies have shown that data obtained from Mechanical Turk results in a more
demographically diverse sample than standard Internet samples and American college student
samples and also produce data that are as reliable and valid as those obtained via traditional
methods (Barger et al. 2011; Buhrmester et al. 2011).
et al. 1989; Schein 1973). Two subject matter experts in the area of gender
stereotypes and leadership reviewed the literature and revised the Descriptive
Index to remove outdated adjectives (e.g., values pleasant surroundings) and to
include traits identified in the literature as being critical to leadership effectiveness
(e.g., managing complexity, adaptability) and reflective of current styles of leader-
ship (e.g., transformational leadership, ethical leadership). The revised Descriptive
Index contains 79 adjectives that pertain to agency, communality, task-oriented
leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, transformational leadership, ethical
leadership, diversity management, managing complexity, and adaptability charac-
teristics (see Appendix for a full listing of the items that make up each attribute).
The survey instructions asked participants to rate each item in terms of how
characteristic it was of the target leader (e.g., gay male leader). Ratings were
made using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (not characteristic) to
5 (characteristic).
Dependent measures Based on previous research (Duehr and Bono 2006; Heilman
et al. 1989), we utilized the 79 traits from the Descriptive Index traits to compose
nine scales to measure gender-role and leadership stereotypes. Five of the nine
scales were previously found to be reliable by Duehr and Bono (2006) (see Duehr
and Bono (2006), for further information on these scales’ construction). The nine
scales (see Appendix) measured both masculine and feminine traits as well as
leadership stereotypes including agency (α ¼ .88), communality (α ¼ .88), task-
oriented leadership (α ¼ .92), relationship-oriented leadership (α ¼ .92), transfor-
mational leadership (α ¼ .93), ethical leadership (α ¼ .93), diversity management
(α ¼ .91), complexity (α ¼ .95) and adaptability (α ¼ .92). Intercorrelations
between the nine scales are reported in Table 1.
Background variables Information regarding participants’ gender, race, age, sex-
ual orientation, employment status, years of work experience, years of management
experience, and industry type was also collected. To ensure anonymity, no other
identifying information was requested.
Table 1 Intercorrelations between dependent measure scales

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Agency –
2. Communality .32* –
3. Task-Oriented Leadership .61* .04 –
4. Relationship-Oriented .02* .76* .39* –
Leadership
5. Transformational Leadership .16* .62* .54* .79* –
6. Ethical Leadership .27* .36* .68* .58* .69* –
7. Diversity Management .13 .40* .41* .57* .64* .68* –
8. Managing Complexity .54* .05* .79* .38* .53* .70* .46* –
9. Adaptability .40* .22* .64* .49* .62* .69* .58* .78* –
*p < .05
3 Results
The results are presented in two sections. Following the procedure from past studies
that have used the Descriptive Index, the first section used intraclass correlation
coefficients to assess the degree of correspondence between ratings of successful
leaders and ratings of heterosexual and gay men and women leaders, as well as
between ratings of lesbian and gay leaders and heterosexual male and female
leaders. In the second section, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on
each of the nine attribute scales to make comparisons between groups on the
dependent measures to determine which attributes were different between the
sexual orientation and gender target groups and the successful leader prototype.
The degree of correspondence between the ratings of successful leaders and the
ratings of heterosexual and gay men and women were examined by calculating
intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Consistent with past research that has
utilized the Descriptive Index survey (Duehr and Bono 2006; Heilman et al. 1989;
Schein 1973, 1975), ICCs were computed to assess the level of resemblance
between the ratings of each sexual orientation by gender target group against the
ratings of the successful leader prototype on each of the 79 attributes. The ICCs
were calculated from randomized-groups analyses of variance where the groups, or
classes, were the 79 descriptors (see Hays 1963, p. 424). The scores within each
class or group were the mean item ratings for each descriptor, provided separately
for each target condition. ICCs were computed between the successful leader
condition and each of the sexual orientation by gender group conditions. The
ICCs report the similarity of respondents’ ratings of successful leaders to each of
the four target group conditions that vary by gender and sexual orientation. The size
of the correlation between any two comparison groups (e.g., successful leaders and
gay male leaders) reflects the degree to which the groups are perceived to have
characteristics similar to each other.
Large and significant ICC coefficients were found between ratings of successful
leaders and heterosexual male leaders (r ¼ .80, p < .01), between successful leaders
and heterosexual female leaders (r ¼ .75, p < .01), and between successful leaders
and lesbian leaders (r ¼ .70, p < .01). A small and non-significant ICC was found
between ratings of successful leaders and gay male leaders (r ¼ .13, ns). Table 2
presents the ICCs between successful leaders and the sexual orientation and gender
target groups.
To determine whether significant differences existed between ICC scores, inde-
pendent samples t-tests were conducted. The results show that the correlation
between successful leaders and heterosexual male leaders was significantly greater
than the correlation between successful leaders and gay male leaders, t(76) ¼ 5.42,
p < .001, as well as significantly greater than the correlation between successful
leaders and lesbian leaders, t(76) ¼ 2.04, p < .05. There were also no significant
differences in the ICC scores between successful leaders and heterosexual male
leaders and successful leaders and heterosexual female leaders, t(76) ¼ 0.87,
ns. Though the results show that the ratings of successful leaders and heterosexual
male leaders were greater than the ratings of successful leaders and gay male and
Table 2 Intraclass Group ICC

correlation coefficients (ICC)
Successful/Heterosexual male leader .80**a
across sexual orientation and
gender target groups and Successful/Heterosexual female leader .75**ab
prototype Successful/Gay male leader .13c
Successful/Lesbian female leader .70**b
Note. ICC scores with different subscripts differ significantly
from each other
**p < .01
lesbian female leaders, these results provide only partial support for Hypothesis 1, as
ratings of heterosexual female leaders corresponded just as highly with ratings of
successful leaders as heterosexual male leaders.
Findings also reveal that the ICC between successful leaders and heterosexual
female leaders was significantly greater than the ICC between successful leaders
and gay male leaders, t(76) ¼ 8.65, p < .001, but the ICC score between successful
leaders and heterosexual female leaders was not significantly different from the
ICC of successful leaders and lesbian leaders, t(76) ¼ 0.76, ns. Additionally, the
ICC between successful leaders and lesbian leaders was significantly greater than
the ICC between successful leaders and gay male leaders, t(76) ¼ 3.83, p < .001. In
summary, these results suggests that the ratings of heterosexual men are more
similar to successful leader ratings than those of lesbian or gay male leaders,
whereas the ratings of heterosexual women are more similar to the ratings of
successful leaders than those of gay male managers. Ratings of gay male leaders
had significantly less correspondence with the successful leader prototype, com-
pared to heterosexual male, heterosexual female, and lesbian leaders.
To test hypothesis 2 which proposed that the stereotypes of gay and lesbian
leaders were more similar to opposite-gender heterosexual leaders than to hetero-
sexual leaders of the same gender, additional ICC scores were calculated between
gay and lesbian leaders and each heterosexual leader group. The ratings of gay male
leaders did not correspond significantly with ratings of heterosexual male leaders
(r ¼ .24, ns) but there was a moderate and significant ICC between gay male
leaders and heterosexual female leaders (r ¼ .48, p < .01). Large and significant
ICC coefficients were found between ratings of lesbian leaders and heterosexual
male leaders (r ¼ .74, p < .01) and between lesbian leaders and heterosexual female
leaders (r ¼ .53, p < .01). Consistent with hypothesis 2, the findings show that the
ratings of gay male leaders corresponded more highly with heterosexual female
leaders and less with heterosexual male leaders. However, the ICC score was large
and significant between lesbian leaders and heterosexual male leaders and was
moderate and significant between lesbian leaders and heterosexual female leaders.
Table 3 presents ICC scores for each gay or lesbian leader/heterosexual leader
comparison.
Again, independent samples t-tests were conducted on the ICCs to determine
whether lesbian and gay male leaders are stereotyped in ways consistent with
traditional gender roles. Findings revealed significant differences, supporting
hypothesis 2. The ICC between gay male leaders and heterosexual male leaders
Table 3 Intraclass Group ICC

correlation coefficients (ICC)
Gay male/Heterosexual male leader .24
between lesbian/gay leaders
and heterosexual male/female Gay male/Heterosexual female leader .48**
leaders Lesbian female/Heterosexual male leader .74**
Lesbian female/Heterosexual female leader .53**
Note. Items in bold are significantly different from each other.
Items in italics are significantly different from each other
It is important to note that while the theoretical limits of an
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) are between 0 and þ1.0,
the real limits of an ICC are large negative values (less than 1.0)
and large positive values (greater than þ1.0). A negative ICC
results from the mean square within targets having a higher value
than the mean square between targets. Negative ICCs have been
found in previous research examining gender stereotypes using
the Descriptive Index (Brenner et al. 1989; Heilman et al. 1989).
An in-depth discussion of the calculation of ICCs is available in
Lahey et al. (1983)
**p < .01
was significantly lower than the ICC between gay male managers and heterosexual
female leaders, t(76) ¼ 9.06, p < .001. Also, the ICC between lesbian leaders and
heterosexual male leaders was significantly greater than the ICC between lesbian
leaders and heterosexual female leaders, t(76) ¼ 2.74, p < .01. Overall, across all
79 traits, stereotypes of gay male and lesbian leaders were more similar to their
opposite-gender heterosexual leader than to their same-gender heterosexual leader.
To examine our research question and further determine on which attributes are
lesbian and gay leaders perceived as significantly different from or similar to the
successful leader prototype and to heterosexual leaders of the same and opposite
gender, a series of one-way ANOVAs were performed on each of the nine scales.
The ANOVA was conducted to determine which scales were rated differently
across the five groups: successful leaders, heterosexual male leaders, heterosexual
female leaders, gay male leaders, and lesbian leaders. Because nine ANOVAs were
being conducted, an alpha level of .0055 (.05/9) was used as the criterion of
significance to control the experimentwise error of p < .05 for all ANOVAs.
Significant effects were found for all nine scale items. Bonferroni comparisons on
all items were then calculated with an alpha level set at p < .0125 to examine which
target groups were similar or significantly different from the prototype. Table 4
shows the mean comparisons between the successful leader prototype and the target
groups; descriptions of the gay male and lesbian leader stereotypes follows here.
3.1 Gay Male Leader Stereotype
The gay male leader was perceived by participants to be significantly different from
the successful leader prototype on five of the nine scales. Gay male leaders received
Table 4 Mean comparisons between successful leader and sexual orientation/gender target groups
Task Relationship Transformational Ethical Diversity Managing
Agency Communality leadership leadership leadership leadership management complexity Adaptability
Successful 4.25 3.07 4.24 3.87 4.14 4.14 4.07 4.44 4.36
Leader
Heterosexual 3.92d 2.51c, d 3.84d 3.08a, c, d 3.18a, c, d 3.53a 3.09a, c, d, e 3.85a 3.63a
Male Leader
Heterosexual 3.65a, d 3.36b 3.89d 3.76b, e 3.86b 4.09 3.97b 3.96d 3.87
Female Leader
Gay Male 2.96a, b, c, e 3.52b, e 3.08a, b, c 3.63b, e 3.77b 3.50a 3.78b 3.26a, c 3.65a
Leader
Lesbian Female 3.87d 2.76d 3.62a 2.94a, d 3.38a 3.59 3.79b 3.60a 3.68a
Leader
Note. All ratings were done on 5-point scales, and the higher the number, the higher the rating (the more agentic, the more adaptable, etc.)
a
Mean rating for the target group was significantly different ( p < .0125) from the mean rating for the successful-leader prototype target group
b
Mean rating for the target group was significantly different (p < .0125) from the mean rating for the Heterosexual male leader target group
c
Mean rating for the target group was significantly different (p < .0125) from the mean rating for the Heterosexual female leader target group
d
Mean rating for the target group was significantly different (p < .0125) from the mean rating for the Gay male leader target group
e
Mean rating for the target group was significantly different (p < .0125) from the mean rating for the Lesbian female leader target group
The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Gender on Perceptions of Successful. . .
441
lower ratings of agency, task-oriented leadership, ethical leadership, managing

complexity, and adaptability than the prototype. Gay male leaders were viewed
similarly to heterosexual female leaders on communality, relationship-oriented
leadership, transformational leadership, ethical leadership, diversity management,
and adaptability. In comparison to heterosexual male leaders and lesbian leaders,
the mean ratings of gay male managers were significantly higher on communality
and relationship-oriented leadership and were significantly lower on agency. On the
attributes of transformational leadership and diversity management, gay male
leaders were rated more favorably than heterosexual male leaders but gay male
managers were rated lower than heterosexual male leaders on task-oriented lead-
ership. In summary, gay male leaders were regarded as being similar to successful
leaders around feminine characteristics such as communality and relationship-
oriented leadership but were perceived less positively on masculine characteristics
such as agency and task-oriented leadership compared with the other target leaders.
3.2 Lesbian Leader Stereotype
Respondents perceived the lesbian leader stereotype as significantly different to the

successful leader prototype on five of the nine attribute scales. Lesbian leaders were
seen as less adaptable, less able to manage complexity, having less relationship-
oriented leadership, having less task-oriented leadership, and having less transfor-
mational leadership than the prototype. The mean ratings of lesbian leaders differed
from gay male managers on three traits. Lesbian managers were rated as being less
communal and lower on relationship-oriented leadership and more agentic than gay
male leaders. Contrary to expectations, lesbian leaders’ mean ratings were equiv-
alent to those of heterosexual female leaders on nearly all of the attribute scales
with the exception of being rated lower on relationship-oriented leadership. Also,
lesbian leaders were rated higher than heterosexual male leaders on diversity
management. In summary, although lesbian leaders were evaluated less favorably
from the successful leader prototype on five of the nine scales, the lesbian leader
stereotype consists of positive perceptions when compared with the other target
groups as they are perceived as similar to heterosexual male leaders on eight of the
nine traits, to heterosexual female managers on eight of the nine traits, and to gay
male leaders on six of the nine traits.
4 Discussion
The goal of the current study was to examine the beliefs and perceptions individuals
hold about lesbian and gay male leaders in comparison with heterosexual male and
female leaders. Specifically, the current study aimed to assess the degree of
correspondence between ratings of successful leaders and heterosexual male and
female, gay male, and lesbian leaders while examining heterosexuals’ stereotypes
of the leadership-related attributes and characteristics of lesbian and gay male
leaders. General support for the study hypotheses yield insights as to how these
leaders are perceived.
The first hypothesis, which posited that heterosexual males would be described
as the most similar to successful leaders than heterosexual female, gay male, or
lesbian leaders, was somewhat supported. Heterosexual male leaders were indeed
seen as more similar to successful leaders than gay male or lesbian leaders (and
were seen as equivalent to heterosexual female leaders). Perhaps most striking in
these analyses, though, was the dramatically low relationship between perceptions
of gay male leaders and successful leaders. Heterosexual male and female leaders
as well as lesbian leaders were all perceived as similar to successful leaders (though
the strength of the relationship differed across the three groups). Gay male leaders
were the only group who were not seen as similar to successful leaders; this ICC
was substantially lower than ICCs for the other three groups.
The findings that gay men were rated much lower than lesbians were similar to
those of Blashill and Powlishta (2009). One explanation suggested for this may be
because lesbians (as a group) are seen as less homogenous; people perceive
multiple “sub-types” of lesbians (e.g., Geiger et al. 2006), and this may not be as
persistent for gay men (though experimental research has found evidence
suggesting people do perceive to some extent sub-groups of gay men as well;
Clausell and Fiske 2005). Another explanation may be because of role incongruity;
people who do not act within their expected gender roles are often punished for it
(Eagly and Karau 2002). Perhaps gay men are punished more so than lesbians for
being perceived as stepping outside of their expected gender role. For instance,
Martin (1995) found that masculine girls were perceived as similar to traditional
boys, but feminine boys were not perceived as similar to traditional girls.
Another goal of the study was to examine if inversion theory applies to gay male
and lesbian leaders. Results supported the hypothesis that gay male leaders are
viewed as similar to heterosexual female leaders (and dissimilar to heterosexual
men). Results found that lesbian leaders were perceived as similar to both hetero-
sexual male and female leaders. However, the relationship between lesbian leaders
and heterosexual male leaders was found to be significantly larger than the rela-
tionship between lesbian leaders and heterosexual female leaders, thus lending
support for inversion theory. These results also lend support for the earlier assertion
that lesbians are perceived differently than gay men.
The final goal of this study was to look at general stereotypes and beliefs about
gay males and lesbians. Interestingly, although many differences were found across
the different targets (i.e., heterosexual male, gay male, etc.), most of the differences
were traits that were already associated with gender differences (i.e., gay men were
seen as less task-oriented than heterosexual men; lesbians were seen as less
relationship-oriented than heterosexual women). There were some differences
found with traits that may be theoretically linked to sexual orientation rather than
gender (such as the finding that gay men were better at diversity management than
heterosexual males), but this was less common. This may suggest that the gendered
stereotypes about lesbians and gay men are more prevalent than stereotypes having
to do solely with their sexual orientation. A more focused exploration of
non-gendered stereotypes about LGB people could help answer this question.
The research question findings also pointed out that gay men and lesbians are not
always perceived similarly. For instance, gay men were seen as more communal
and relationship-oriented than lesbians, and lesbians were seen as more agentic than
gay men. Also, consistent with the findings supporting the first two hypotheses,
inversion theory was more strongly supported for gay men than it was for lesbians;
gay male leaders shared less in common with heterosexual male leaders than
lesbian leaders shared in common with heterosexual female leaders. In general, a
common theme across the current findings is that gay men and lesbians are often
perceived differently. This is important to mention because as noted by Ruggs
et al. (2013), researchers can at times study LGB people as if they were all the same.
Although both groups are sexual minorities, they should not be grouped together
and treated as such by researchers. Therefore, we advocate that future research
should continue to study differences between gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.
Overall, the results suggest that leaders are viewed differently depending on
their gender and sexual orientation. These findings are particularly important
because gender-based stereotypes have been shown to influence a variety of
attitudes, judgments, and behaviors in workplace settings (Heilman 2001; Heilman
and Eagly 2008). However, although it does seem the case that leaders are viewed
differently, it is less clear why they are viewed differently. As previously discussed
by Fassinger et al. (2010), there are many theoretical reasons (such as exposure to
life experiences and overcoming stressful environments including discrimination)
as to why the demographic characteristics of sexual orientation and gender could
impact leadership effectiveness (and therefore why these leaders are viewed dif-
ferently) and explorations of this line of research should be pursued. In addition, the
findings of the current study point to the continued need for more guiding theory
regarding what characteristics LGB leaders actually display (and in what ways they
are similar to and different from their heterosexual counterparts).
In conclusion, the results of the present study highlight the importance of
focusing scholarly attention around further understanding perceptions around
LGB leaders in the workplace. Our findings indicate that people do perceive sexual
minorities as embodying different characteristics, skills, and attributes that they
bring to the leadership role than heterosexuals. Moreover, the results also suggest
that individuals may use stereotypes around sexual orientation and gender as a
heuristic in evaluating leadership behaviors, which has implications for perfor-
mance appraisal and promotion decisions. Although more research is being
conducted than ever before on LGB employees, research on LGB leaders specifi-
cally is still lacking in the organizational behavior literature. However, with society
becoming more accepting of LGB people, LGB leaders will become more common
in organizations. Understanding their unique experiences through psychological
research can help ensure that these leaders are best positioned to thrive in their
roles.
Appendix
Descriptive index scale items
Scale name Items Scale name Items

Agentic Aggressive Relationship- Compassionate
Characteristics Ambitious Oriented Cooperative
Analytical Leadership Fair
Ability Good listener
Assertive Inclusive
Dominant Intuitive
Forceful Shows appreciation
Self-confident Sociable
Tactful
Understanding
Communal Aware of the feelings of others Valuing Treats others of differ-
Characteristics Creative Diversity ent backgrounds fairly
Helpful Values diversity
Kind Respects differences in
Passive others
Submissive Tolerant of people from
Sympathetic different backgrounds
Encourages diverse
opinions to be heard
Sensitive to the needs of
diverse employees
Transformational Attends to the needs of others Task-Oriented Competent
Leadership Considerate Leadership Competitive
Considers others’ ideas Decisive
Sympathetic Independent
Encouraging Industrious
Energetic Intelligent
Enthusiastic Logical
Inspiring Objective
Open-minded Skilled in business
Optimistic matters
Sense of purpose Speedy recovery from
Sincere emotional disturbances
Supportive
Trustworthy
Ethical Contributes to maintaining the Complexity Deals well with com-
Leadership integrity of the organization plexity
Understands the impact of Accomplishes multiple
violating the standards of an tasks in an efficient
organization manner
Creates a culture that fosters Manages several roles
high standards of ethics or tasks simultaneously
Behaves in a fair and ethical Deals effectively with
manner toward others pressure due to com-
Demonstrates a sense of cor- plex situations
porate responsibility Maintains focus under
(continued)
Scale name Items Scale name Items

Models high standards of adverse conditions
honesty and integrity Recovers quickly from
Knows the difference between setbacks
right and wrong Works effectively in
Acts according to high moral ambiguous situations
and ethical standards Performs effectively
Honest even with limited
Immoral means
Adaptability Adaptable
Flexible
Is open to change
Adapts behavior in response to
changing conditions
Adjusts rapidly to new situa-
tions
Willing to try new approaches
to problems
Able to “think outside the
box”
References
Adam, B. D. (1981). Stigma and employability: Discrimination by sex and sexual orientation in
the Ontario legal profession. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 18, 216–221.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and
future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Barger, P. B., Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., & Sinar, E. F. (2011). I-O and the crowd: Frequently
asked questions about using Mechanical Turk for research. The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 49, 11–17.
Barron, L. G., & Hebl, M. (2011). Sexual orientation: A protected and unprotected class. In M. A.
Paludi, C. A. Paludi, & E. R. Desouza (Eds.), Praeger handbook on understanding and
preventing workplace discrimination: Legal management, and social science perspectives
(Vol. 1, pp. 251–273). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue
for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783–793.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role
stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 662–669.
Brown, M. J., & Groscup, J. L. (2009). Homophobia and acceptance of stereotypes about gays and
lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 7(3), 159–167.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
Carter, D. (2004). Stonewall: The riots that sparked the gay revolution. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Carter, L. W., II, Mollen, D., & Smith, N. G. (2014). Locus of control, minority stress, and
psychological distress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 61(1), 169–175.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the
sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413–423.
Clausell, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole?
Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Social Cognition,
23, 161–181.
Duehr, E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?
Personnel Psychology, 59, 815–846.
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American
Psychologist, 65(3), 216–224.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men.
Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist, 65, 201–215.
Fischbein, R., & Lord, R. G. (2004). Implicit leadership theories. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson,
& J. MacGregor Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 700–706). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freud, S. (1953). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In J. Strachev (Ed. & Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 7, pp. 136–148).
London: Hogarth Press (Original work published 1905).
Geiger, W., Harwood, J., & Hummert, M. L. (2006). College students’ multiple stereotypes of
lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 165–182.
Harding, R., & Peel, E. (2007). Heterosexism at work: Diversity training, discrimination law and
the limits of liberal individualism. In V. Clarke & E. Peel (Eds.), Out in psychology: Lesbian,
gay, bisexual, trans and queer perspectives. West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Harris, C. M. (2004). Personality and sexual orientation. College Student Journal, 38(2), 207–211.
Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal
discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 815–825.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s
ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C., Martell, R., & Simon, M. (1989). Has anything changed?: Current
characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942.
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing
workplace discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science
and Practice, 1, 393–398.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay men: Correlates and gender
differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477.
Herek, G. M. (2003). The psychology of sexual prejudice. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.),
Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual experiences (2nd ed.). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of
Social Issues, 63, 905–925.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority
adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56
(1), 32–43.
Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship
between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 48
(3-4), 115–130.
Jackson, L. A., & Sullivan, L. A. (1989). Cognition and affect in evaluations of stereotyped
members. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 659–672.
King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (2010). The social and economic imperative of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgendered supportive organizational policies. Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
ogy: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3(1), 69–78.
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion
theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–96.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
336–353.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137,
616–642.
Kulik, C. T., & Bainbridge, H. T. J. (2005). Psychological perspectives on workplace diversity. In
A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 25–52).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lahey, M., Downey, R. G., & Saal, F. E. (1983). Intraclass correlations: There’s more there than
meets the eye. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 586–595.
Lippa, R. A. (2005). Sexual orientation and personality. Annual Review of Sex Research, 16,
119–153.
Lippa, R. A. (2008). Sex differences and sexual orientation differences in personality: Findings
from the BBC internet survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 173–187.
Madon, S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of study of stereotype content
and strength. Sex Roles, 37(9-10), 663–685.
Martin, C. L. (1995). Stereotypes about children with traditional and nontraditional gender roles.
Sex Roles, 33, 727–751.
Martinez, K. Y., Ostick, D. T., Komives, S. R., & Dugan, J. P. (2006). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual
leadership and self-efficacy: Findings from the multi-institutional study of leadership. Con-
cepts and Connections, 15, 10–12.
Muhr, S. L., & Sullivan, K. R. (2013). “None so queer as folk”: Gendered expectations and
transgressive bodies in leadership. Leadership, 9(3), 416–435.
Nadal, K. L. Y. (2011). Responding to racial, gender, and sexual orientation microaggressions in
the workplace. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger handbook on understanding and preventing
workplace discrimination: Best practices for preventing and dealing with workplace discrim-
ination (Vol. 2, pp. 23–32). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Nettle, D. (2007). Empathizing and systemizing: What are they, and what do they contribute to our
understanding of psychological sex differences? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 237–255.
Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold:
Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 32, 406–413.
Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have
the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.
discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1244–1261.
disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103–1118.
Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2015). Happy together: Thriving as a same-sex couple in your
family, workplace, and community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., Law, C., Cox, C. B., Roehling, M. V., Wiener, R. L., & Baron,
L. (2013). Gone fishing: I-O psychologists’ missed opportunities to understand marginalized
employees’ experiences with discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Per-
spectives on Science and Practice, 6, 39–60.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.
Schein, V. E. (1975). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344.
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.
Sergeant, M. J., Dickins, T. E., Davies, M. N., & Griffiths, M. D. (2006). Aggression, empathy and
sexual orientation in males. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 475–486.
Singletary, S. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2009). Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal
discrimination: The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased productivity, and individu-
ating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 797–805.
Snyder, K. (2006). The G quotient: Why gay executives are excelling as leaders . . . What every
manager needs to know. London: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, A. (1983). Conceptions of masculinity and femininity as a basis for stereotypes of male
and female homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 9, 37–53.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labor Economics, 10,
629–642.
Tolerance in the Polish Workplace Towards
Gay Men and Lesbians
Ewa A. Golebiowska
1 Introduction
In a poignant and deeply personal essay published in June, 2010 in the Polish daily
newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, Marta Konarzewska, a former high school teacher of
Polish, talked about social ostracism she experienced in her then place of work after
she had defended two female students’ right to post their picture in a blog. The blog,
according to school authorities, promoted homosexuality. Konarzewska used the
essay as a vehicle for describing the pervasiveness of sexual prejudice in Polish
schools and the tremendous personal costs she had paid for remaining in the closet
for many years on the job. Ultimately, she could not bear the social exclusion she
suffered and decided to resign from her job—even though she was well-liked by
students and more generally regarded as an effective educator (Konarzewska 2010).
Given that Ms. Konarzewska was not open about her homosexuality before she
quit her job, perhaps one might question—without discounting the personal costs
she bore by remaining in the closet—the extent to which her sexual orientation
molded her supervisors’ and co-workers’ behavior. However, systematic evidence
is also available about workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Nationally representative surveys demonstrate that perceptions of discrimination
lesbians and gay men suffer in the workplace are widespread (Antosz 2012). For
example, in a survey conducted in late 2011, 73 % of all Poles expressed a belief
that lesbians and gay men had to hide their sexual orientation in the workplace
because they might become victims of discrimination (Antosz 2012, p. 80). Almost
half of all respondents also perceived workplace discrimination based on sexual
orientation to be more pervasive in Polish workplaces than any other form of
E.A. Golebiowska (*)

Department of Political Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
e-mail: ewa_golebiowska@wayne.edu

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_26
452 E.A. Golebiowska
discrimination, tied for first place with discrimination based on mental illness
(Antosz 2012).
In keeping with these perceptions, surveys of the Polish LGB community show
that most LGB Poles conceal their sexual orientation in the workplace for fear of
discrimination they might suffer (e.g. Abramowicz 2007; Jozko 2009). Little
systematic evidence concerning the actual incidence of discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation—or gender identity—exists (Jablonska 2011; Smiszek
2011). On the face of it, existing evidence does not suggest a severe problem. For
example, in a recent online survey of Poland’s sexual minorities, only 4.8 % of
respondents who were open about their homosexuality reported experiencing
workplace discrimination (Siedlecka 2012). Yet, such statistics need to be viewed
with a grain of salt because they are based on convenience samples—and may thus
not be representative of the experiences of all Polish LGB individuals—and
because most LGB individuals feel they cannot be open about their homosexuality
in the workplace.
Given that both sexual minorities and participants in nationally representative
surveys believe that widespread discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
occurs in the workplace, an important question to ask is why this discrimination
might occur. One possibility is that there are no adequate legal protections against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Another possibility is that, in spite
of the legal protections in place, hostile attitudes toward sexual minorities prevail in
the Polish workplace and beyond and are more likely to determine their treatment
than anti-discrimination laws. In this chapter, I explore both scenarios in order to
illuminate the reasons behind the perceptions and realities of discrimination based
on sexual orientation in the Polish workplace. To this end, I describe the institu-
tional environment that governs the treatment of sexual orientation in the Polish
workplace. Subsequently, using nationally representative survey data collected in
2010 by the Center for the Study of Public Opinion (CSPO) in Warsaw, I examine
the nature and sources of Polish views on workplace equality based on sexual
orientation. Going beyond existing research, which I review in more detail below, I
focus on Polish willingness to give gay men and lesbians unrestricted access to all
occupations. Because survey questions I use in my empirical analysis inquire about
gay men or lesbians rather than LGB Poles and most of the literature fails to
acknowledge bisexual individuals (K€ollen 2013), I limit my remarks to that termi-
nology when discussing the survey data at my disposal or research which I cite in
support of my theoretical framework.
Tolerance in the Polish Workplace Towards Gay Men and Lesbians 453
2 The Legal Environment of LGB Poles’ Participation

in the Workplace
Much of the law on the status of Polish sexual minorities in the workplace has been
developed in about the last decade and has, generally, strengthened their legal
footing to fight discrimination they may suffer. At the same time, recent anti-
discrimination legislation simultaneously extends civil rights protections to LGB
Poles in some areas and sanctions discriminatory treatment in others (Golebiowska
2014). The relevant protections can be found in the Polish Constitution, the Labor
Code, and other statutory instruments.
The Constitution of the Polish People’s Republic does not explicitly address
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, whether in
employment or in any other domain. However, in Article 32, it implicitly includes
sexual orientation and gender identity because it prohibits discrimination in the
country’s political, social, and economic lives “for any reason.” Like any other such
constitutional pronouncements, this ban only articulates a general norm that cannot
be meaningfully applied in Poland’s public life until after it has been spelled out in
specific legislative instruments (Jablonska 2011).
In contrast, the country’s Labor Code is the source of the most important
legislation regarding the parameters of equal treatment in employment (Jablonska
2011). Equality in employment on the basis of sexual orientation was first codified
in Poland’s Labor Code in 2004, in large part in response to external pressures that
Poland experienced prior to its accession to the European Union (Smiszek and
Szczeplocki 2012). In spite of these pressures, employment is still the only area of
public life in which the country has most explicitly followed European Union’s
directives to uproot discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Zima-
Parjaszewska 2011).
The Labor Code specifically prohibits discrimination in employment on the
basis of “sex, age, disability, race, religion, nationality, political views, union
membership, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation” (emphasis mine) (Zima-
Parjaszewska 2011). It defines and prohibits direct discrimination, indirect discrim-
ination, bullying, and sexual harassment. It also prohibits retaliation for bringing
claims against an employer. This ban on retaliation applies to the putative victims
of discrimination and anyone who may help them to build their case.1 Finally, the
Labor Code places the burden of proof on the defendant. In so doing, it favors the
victims of discrimination by requiring that their employers prove that they had not
discriminated against them (Smiszek and Szczeplocki 2012).
Another important piece of legislation that regulates employer-employee inter-
actions in Poland is the Law on Advertising of Job Opportunities and Institutions of
the Labor Market. This law prohibits employers from seeking potentially
1
In practice, co-workers who may have witnessed discrimination are reluctant to help because
they fear their employer’s response, not knowing their legal rights; may not want to be involved in
a conflict; or do not wish to be associated with an LGBT employee (Zima-Parjaszewska 2011).
discriminatory information in their job ads (e.g., a job candidate’s sex or sexual
orientation). In addition, it prohibits employment agencies from discriminating
against job seekers (Jablonska 2011).
The 2011 comprehensive anti-discrimination statute extends the coverage of
existing, more piecemeal legislation. This law was passed rapidly after it had been
“in the works” for several years. By its own admission, the Polish government
rushed to pass it in order to avoid monetary penalties that would result from
non-compliance with expectations incumbent upon all members of the European
Union (Jablonska 2011, p. 105). “On the face of it, the statute seems to provide for a
comprehensive ban on discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnic background,
nationality, religion, faith, worldview, disability, age, and sexual orientation (Arti-
cle 1),” though it does not cover discrimination in the private sector (e.g., in private-
sector employment or rental housing) (Golebiowska 2014, p. 167).
In spite of its generally more comprehensive coverage, this statute narrows the
list of grounds on which discrimination can be claimed from open-ended to closed-
ended (Smiszek and Szczeplocki 2012). While sexual orientation is covered by the
law, gender identity has not been included on the list. Even in the case of sexual
orientation, this law also defines discrimination very narrowly because its prohibi-
tion of discrimination based on sexual orientation pertains most unequivocally to
employment (Smiszek and Szczeplocki 2012, p. 172). In contrast, it does not ban
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in such areas as “labor market
instruments and services, social security, healthcare, general and higher education,
services (including housing services), goods, [and] the acquisition of rights or
energy” (Smiszek and Szczeplocki 2012, p. 173). To make matters worse, this
law sanctions discriminatory treatment on the basis of sexual orientation (and
several other group memberships) broadly as long as “it is necessary in a demo-
cratic society in the name of public safety and order, protection of health and rights
and freedoms of other people or in order to avert otherwise illegal activities”
(Golebiowska 2014, p. 167).
Unlike the Labor Code, the comprehensive anti-discrimination statute also
makes it more difficult for victims of discrimination to prove their cases in court
because it shifts the burden of proof from the employer to the employee. To clarify,
the employer is now presumed innocent and the employee must now prove that
her/his rights have been violated (Smiszek and Szczeplocki 2012). Finally, an
ombudsman position has been created under the law to implement its provisions
(U.S. Department of State 2013). In short, while this important law strengthens the
legal basis on which Poland’s gay and lesbian individuals can combat discrimi-
nation of which they fall victim, it also allows many exceptions to the principle of
equal treatment and broadly sanctions unequal treatment under some
circumstances.
An important point that needs to be made in this section is that gender identity
has a different status in Polish law than sexual orientation. As of now, there is
nothing in the Polish law that explicitly addresses gender identity, whether in
employment or in any other area (Szczerba 2011). However, it does not automati-
cally follow that transgender individuals have no legal protections on which to rely.
For one, their case is covered by the general provisions of the Polish Constitution to
which I alluded above as well as general references to equal treatment of all
employees that are found in the Polish Labor Code. Most importantly, discrimi-
nation on the basis of gender identity in employment is regarded as an instance of
sex discrimination and is prohibited in the European Union law with which Poland
has to comply (Szczerba 2011).
3 Previous Research on Polish Public Opinion Regarding

Gay and Lesbian Equality
While it plays an important role in the life of Polish sexual minorities, the legal
environment cannot completely capture the climate of tolerance or intolerance that
they face, whether in the workplace or in other domains of public life. It is also
necessary to explore the attitudinal climate that sexual minorities face because laws
are imperfectly predictive of individual attitudes and behaviors, especially when it
comes to their responses to members of disliked and negatively stereotyped groups
(Golebiowska 2014). In support of this contention, available over time data about
reported discrimination in employment suggest that its levels have been relatively
stable even as legal protections for sexual minorities got stronger (Smiszek 2011;
c.f. Perdzynska 2009).
Generally speaking, systematic research on public opinion concerning sexual
minorities’ civil rights and liberties has been extensive (e.g. Herek 2004; Herek and
Capitanio 1999; Herek and McLemore 2013). Yet, we know much less from social
scientific analyses about the sources of Polish support for equality for LGB indi-
viduals because most of the relevant research to date has been primarily descriptive
or focused on subgroup differences in Polish attitudes only—not to mention that it
has not explicitly included bisexuals in its focus (e.g. Feliksiak 2013). Thus, many
existing reports on Polish public opinion on homosexuality and gay and lesbian
rights largely describe Polish attitudes but do not carefully analyze their sources
(e.g. Antosz 2012; Feliksiak 2013; Wenzel 2005). For example, in a recent report,
results from a nationally representative survey of Polish attitudes toward several
different minorities, including non-heterosexuals, were summarized (Antosz 2012).
Most relevant to the subject matter of this chapter, the report contained a detailed
description of Polish views concerning different minorities in the workplace (e.g.,
those defined by their sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity).
When survey respondents were asked about their discomfort with a boss belonging
to different minority groups, the greatest number reported discomfort with a gay
boss (29 %) and only a slightly lower level of discomfort with a lesbian boss
(24 %).2 Respondents were also least comfortable with their child’s math teacher
2
No questions were asked about transgender individuals.
belonging to a sexual minority and least willing to favor government action to

address unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation (Antosz 2012, p. 86).
In a major exception to the largely descriptive nature of writing on Polish
attitudes toward non-heterosexuals, I have recently illuminated the nature, struc-
ture, and sources of Polish views on gay men’s and lesbians’ civil rights and
liberties (Golebiowska 2014). I found that Polish public opinion in this area was
organized in two broad dimensions: (1) a general tolerance dimension, which is
comprised of views on gay men’s and lesbians’ rights to have sex, show their sexual
orientation in public, marry, form civil unions, and adopt children, and gay and
lesbian organizations’ right to stage public rallies and (2) tolerance in the workplace
dimension, which is comprised of attitudes toward working with gay men and
lesbians, having a close co-worker who happens to be a gay man or a lesbian, and
having a gay or lesbian supervisor. In my analysis of the etiology of Polish views, I
found that respondents who were lower in religiosity, higher in political interest,
and more supportive of Poland’s membership in the European Union tended to be
more tolerant of gay men and lesbians on both dimensions of tolerance. Younger
and more leftist respondents exhibited more tolerance in general but did not differ
from older respondents in their support for gay and lesbian equality in the work-
place. Interpersonal contact with gay men and lesbians was also modestly corre-
lated with respondents’ acceptance of sexual minorities in their workplace, such
that those who reported knowing a gay or lesbian individual were also more
supportive of gay and lesbian rights (Golebiowska 2014).
Seemingly inconsistently with the survey findings I discussed above, Poles
embraced equality for sexual minorities in the workplace to a much greater extent
than on any other issue. Yet, there was more to the story. For one thing, the level of
discomfort with a gay or lesbian boss in my study was very similar to that reported
in a study to which I alluded above (Antosz 2012). For another, while an over-
whelming majority of respondents indicated that they would not object to gay or
lesbian co-workers, they were far less generous when asked whether there were any
occupations which gay men or lesbians should not be allowed to have. A small
majority would not allow gay men in all occupations and close to half said they
would not accept lesbians in all occupations. Among those who would not allow
gay men and/or lesbians in all occupations, solid majorities mentioned teaching and
other professions that involve working with children as occupations that should be
off limits to gay men and/or lesbians. Substantial numbers of those respondents also
said that they would not allow gay men and/or lesbians to work in the health care
field and a large minority would not allow gay men to be priests (Golebiowska
2014).
In summary, my previous examination of the nature, structure, and sources of
Polish attitudes toward gay and lesbian rights identified an interesting puzzle in
Polish public opinion on sexual orientation in the workplace. On one hand, Poles
seemed—in principle—more supportive of equality in the workplace than in any
other domain of public life. On the other hand, this seeming embracement of
equality was shallow because it did not unconditionally carry over to support for
gay and lesbian equality in specific occupations. Willingness to discriminate was
especially high in the case of professions that involved a good deal of interpersonal
contact with gay men and lesbians and especially when that contact involved
children.
4 Polish Willingness to Allow Gay Men and Lesbians in All

Occupations
In this chapter, I build on previous research and explore the dynamics of Polish
willingness to allow gay men and lesbians in all occupations more carefully. To this
end, I use data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2010 by the
Center for the Study of Public Opinion (CSPO) in Warsaw, Poland. A total of 1056
respondents participated in the survey. This investigation is even more significant
for Polish gay men and lesbians in the workplace than an analysis of the sources of
principled support for workplace nondiscrimination which I have conducted before.
Ultimately, what matters more for the quality of life of gay men and lesbians is not
just a superficial commitment to treating them equally but also readiness to respect
their rights to work in any jobs for which they are qualified.
The empirical puzzle at the heart of my analysis—or variation in Polish readi-
ness to allow gay men and lesbians in all occupations—is depicted in Fig. 1. The
figure is based on an index of what I will call job-independent tolerance. It was
created by adding up respondents’ answers to the two questions asking whether
Fig. 1 Polish willingness to allow gays and lesbians in all occupations (in %)
there were any jobs gay men and lesbians should not be allowed to have.3 It shows
the percentages of Poles who would allow both gay men and lesbians in all
occupations, those who would not allow both gay men and lesbians in all occu-
pations, and those who would not allow either gay men or lesbians but not both in
all occupations. Please note that these and other statistics I report in the chapter are
based on the entire sample which is composed of both heterosexuals and members
of sexual minorities. I cannot control for sexual orientation or gender identity
because the question was not asked in the survey. The results I report should not
be greatly affected, however, because there is no reason to assume that the Polish
sexual minorities’ share of the population differs from that in other countries.
This figure demonstrates that Poles are polarized on the question of whether gay
men and lesbians should be allowed unrestricted access to all occupations. Overall,
almost half of all respondents (46 %) would not allow either gay men or lesbians to
be employed in some jobs and almost exactly as many (45.5 %) would allow both
access to all jobs. A small percentage (8.5 %) takes a position that is contingent on
the homosexual person’s gender because they would allow either gay men or
lesbians access to all jobs but not both at the same time.
5 Sources of Job-Independent Tolerance in Poland:

Hypotheses
I draw on previous research on Polish attitudes toward gay and lesbian rights in
order to formulate my hypotheses about the likely predictors of job-independent
tolerance. Specifically, my model includes socio-demographic variables, economic
and political perceptions, political variables, and intergroup contact. Education,
age, gender, area of residence, and religiosity are the socio-demographic variables
that should influence Poles’ scores on the job-independent tolerance scale. The
well-educated Poles should be more tolerant because they are higher in political
knowledge (Peffley and Sigelman 1990), more likely to experience intergroup
contact (Stouffer 1955), and are lower in religiosity (Boguszewski 2012a). Younger
Poles, in turn, should be more tolerant because they are less religious (Boguszewski
2012a) and more likely to experience intergroup contact (Boguszewski 2012b). I
also hypothesize that women should be more tolerant because they may hold more
flexible gender role beliefs which have been shown to lead to more favorable
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Kite and Whitley 1998). Less religious
respondents should be more tolerant because they are less likely to be exposed to
the Catholic teachings which condemn homosexuality (Krzeminski 2007). If
respondents’ area of residence proves to be significant in the presence of controls,
those who live in larger towns or cities should be more tolerant because they are
3
Factor analysis and reliability scaling suggest that the two questions can be combined into an
additive index.
more likely to be exposed to diversity (Stouffer 1955) and tend to be less religious
than those who live in the country or small towns (Boguszewski 2012a).
Scapegoating theory suggests that attitudes toward sexual minorities may be tied
to economic perceptions (Bilewicz and Krzemiński 2010). I thus expect that
respondents with more positive perceptions of their own finances and the country’s
economy will be more accepting of gay men and lesbians in all occupational roles.
I test potential impact of three political variables: respondents’ opinions about
Poland’s membership in the European Union (EU), interest in politics, and ideo-
logical self-identification. Homosexuality and rights of sexual minorities were
uniquely coupled with Poland’s accession to the EU. As a result, attitudes toward
sexual minorities’ rights should be linked with attitudes toward the EU such that
respondents who are happy about Poland’s membership in the European Union
should be more accepting of unconditional gay and lesbian equality in employment
(Golebiowska 2014). On the other hand, higher political interest may lead to greater
tolerance because it should result in greater exposure to diversity (Golebiowska
2014). Because Poland’s left-wing elites have been more likely to voice tolerance
of gays and lesbians and right-wing elites have been outspoken about their con-
demnation of homosexuality, respondents self-placing on the ideological left end of
the left-right continuum should be more tolerant than those who self-locate on the
right (Selinger 2008).
Finally, in keeping with much previous research, I expect that interpersonal
contact with gay men and lesbians will be linked with greater acceptance of gay
men and lesbians in all occupations, whether because this contact reduces anxiety
about meeting gay men and lesbians or helps to empathize with sexual minorities’
plight (Pettigrew and Tropp 2008).
6 Sources of Job-Independent Tolerance in Poland: Results
I test these expectations by regressing the job-independent tolerance index on all

the predictors using OLS regression.4 All variables in this analysis have been
re-scaled to 0–1 and coded with an expectation of a positive correlation with the
dependent variable, which is itself coded from “less” tolerance to “more.” Given
this coding, the magnitude of the significant influences on job-independent toler-
ance is directly comparable on the basis of unstandardized regression coefficients.
The relevant results are reported in Table 1.
The story that emerges from Table 1 is quite simple. The two most important
predictors of acceptance of gay men and lesbians in all occupations are age and
ideological self-identification. Opinions on Poland’s membership in the European
4
Ordinal regression is technically more appropriate because the dependent variable is ordinal.
However, because OLS and ordinal regression results are equivalent, I report OLS results be-cause
they are easier to interpret.
Table 1 Sources of job-independent tolerance: Multiple regression results

Predictor b (SE)
Socio-demographic factors
Education .01 (.08)
Age .17 (.08)**
Religiosity .09 (.07)
Gender .04 (.04)
Size of town or city .02 (.05)
Economic and political perceptions
Perceived finances .07 (.08)
Country’s economic conditions .04 (.10)
Political predispositions
Ideological self-identification .22 (.08)**
Interest in politics .10 (.10)
Opinion on EU membership .16 (.09) *
Interpersonal contact with gay men and lesbians .06 (.05)
R2/F (sig F) .05/2.66**
N 614
Notes. Entries are OLS coefficients and standard errors (in parentheses)
*p < .10, **p < .05
Union are also influential, though only marginally (p < .08). As expected, the
direction of these effects is such that respondents who are younger, more likely to
self-place on the left end of the ideological spectrum, and more supportive of
Poland’s membership in the European Union are also more likely to say that gay
men and lesbians should be allowed in all occupations.
The results I have discussed thus far do not clearly demonstrate the substantive
importance of the significant predictors. In order to show more clearly how impor-
tant each of the significant influences is, I thus calculated predicted values on the
dependent variable for respondents who are located at the low and high ends of each
significant predictor. For purposes of this analysis, I define the low values as scores
at the 5th percentile and the high values as scores at the 95th percentile. These two
values capture the changes in respondents’ scores on the job-independent tolerance
scale as one moves across almost the entire range on a particular predictor. These
low and high values for age, ideological self-identification, and opinions on
Poland’s membership in the European Union are depicted in Fig. 2.
The substantive significance of each predictor is visually demonstrated by the
difference in the length of the orange and blue bars in each set of bars, which show
the respective magnitude of the low and high predicted values for each predictor.
These differences show the unique impact of each significant predictor with the
effect of the remaining predictors in the model being held constant. Thus, the
greater the difference in the length of the two bars--i.e., the larger the difference
between the low and high values on a particular predictor--the larger is the
independent effect of a particular variable.
Left-wing
Younger Low
High
Supportive of
EU
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fig. 2 Unique impact of significant predictors on job-independent tolerance (job-independent

tolerance: labels on the Y-axis identify the more tolerant group). Note: Plotted values are the
predicted values of tolerance for respondents at low (5th percentile) and high (95th percentile)
values on the predictor. The values show the effect of one predictor while controlling for the
effects of all other predictors in the model
To underscore how sizable the differences are as a function of age and ideo-
logical self-identification, the two strongest influences on job-independent tolerance,
consider that moving from a low to a high value on age results in about a 15 per-
centage point movement and on ideological self-identification in an 18 percentage
point movement. These are sizable shifts considering a 0–1 scaling of all variables in
the analysis. For example, if we compare respondents with a low value for age—or
those who were born in 1924—with respondents who have a high value for age—or
those who were born in 1980, the predicted score on the job-independent tolerance
scale for the older respondents is .278, while the score for the younger respondents is
.424, about 15 percentage points more tolerant.
7 Summary, Conclusions, and Discussion
I started this chapter by noting the existence of widespread perceptions of discrimi-

nation that Polish sexual minorities face in their places of employment. In seeming
contrast, I noted the low number of LGB individuals who report actually suffering
discrimination because of their sexual orientation. While the latter seemed to
question the validity of perceptions about the incidence of workplace discrimina-
tion, I argued that it alone was misleading to zero in on because most LGB
individuals are too terrified to acknowledge their sexual orientation at work.
Thus, the totality of existing evidence suggests that sexual minorities have good
reason to expect hostility in their place of work.
In an effort to understand the rationale for the fears that sexual minorities
experience in their places of employment, I examined the legal protections that
are currently in place to help them challenge discrimination that they may suffer. In
addition, I focused on acceptance of sexual minorities in the workplace in order to

illuminate the attitudinal climate that they likely face at work. As part of this
investigation, I set out to identify the most important influences on Polish willing-
ness to discriminate against gay men and lesbians in employment.
My discussion of the legal framework which LGB individuals can use in order to
challenge discrimination they suffer shows that there are by now some effective
legal instruments to protect them in the workplace. Unfortunately, most victims of
discrimination do not appear to rely on existing laws, whether because they do not
know them well, do not know how to navigate the court system more generally, or
fear losing their jobs, having to look for a new job, or outing themselves in the
course of judicial proceedings (Zima-Parjaszewska 2011). Because few employees
and job seekers look for judicial relief, few court cases have helped to spell out the
more ambiguous provisions of existing laws (Smiszek 2011).
My examination of the attitudes gay men and lesbians confront in the workplace
suggests that they at present face a chilly environment, with close to half of
respondents in a recent nationally representative survey proclaiming that they
would not allow them in all occupations. This widespread willingness to discrimi-
nate against gay men and lesbians in employment constitutes an empirical puzzle
on which I shed some light by simultaneously testing a number of hypotheses about
the likely sources of willingness to give gay men and lesbians equal access to all
occupations. This analysis established that willingness to discriminate varies with
respondents’ age, ideological self-identification, and less significantly, opinions on
Poland’s membership in the European Union.
One caveat to keep in mind when interpreting the empirical results I reported in
this chapter is that the survey questions which I used did not contain a reference to
bisexuals. This omission raises a question of how different the results would be if
the questions contained a reference to bisexuals or separately asked about their
rights. Existing research on attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the
U.S. suggests that those attitudes are even more negative than those toward lesbians
and gay men though they appear to have a similar etiology as attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men (e.g., Herek 2002). This suggests that the degree of intoler-
ance I report here might be even higher though its underpinnings should not be
substantially different if questions asking specifically about bisexuals’ rights were
available.
The results I report point to possible pathways through which currently negative
attitudes toward workplace equality might undergo change in the future. Based on
this analysis, generational replacement is the best bet for future changes in Polish
support for gay and lesbian equality in the workplace. Because younger Poles are
more supportive of equality today, when their less tolerant parents and grandparents
are replaced with their offspring socialized to be more tolerant, support for gay and
lesbian equality should rise in tandem. This is especially likely because younger
people are also more supportive of Poland’s membership in the European Union
and those who are more supportive of Poland’s membership are in turn more
supportive of gay and lesbian equality in employment (Golebiowska 2015).
Another mechanism through which support for gay and lesbian equality in
employment might increase over time would be a decline in the number of Poles
who self-place on the right end of the Polish political spectrum, in turn raising a
question of what might produce such a decline. Previous analyses suggest that
ideological self-placement is most closely tied with individual religiosity, with
more religious individuals being more likely to identify as right-wing (Golebiowska
2015). On a reasonable assumption that religiosity influences a person’s ideology
rather than the other way around, a reduction in the number of self-identified right-
wingers might occur as a consequence of greater secularization. For now, the
principal religious institution with which most Poles identify, the Catholic Church,
has not been very charitable in its rhetoric on homosexuality and gay and lesbian
rights. The Catholic Church is in fact seen by LGB Poles as the principal institution
that discriminates and promotes discrimination against them (Krzeminski 2009).
While Poles are somewhat less religious today, and this is especially true of
younger, better-educated, and urban individuals, they nonetheless remain deeply
religious on many indicators (Boguszewski 2012a; Marody and Mandes 2012).
Thus, secularization may be under way but, because it is proceeding very slowly,
the prospects for greater acceptance of LGB Poles through increased secularization
are not especially bright at this point.
Finally, in spite of the hopes that previous studies on public opinion on gay and
lesbian rights in Poland have been pinning on the salutary influence of interpersonal
contact with gay men and lesbians (e.g., Krzeminski 2009), I have found it to matter
relatively little in my previous analyses (2014) and not to matter at all in predicting
Polish acceptance of gay and lesbian acceptance in all occupations. Thus, for now at
least, it is hard to be optimistic about increases in tolerance in the workplace as a
result of interpersonal contact with gay men and lesbians, at least as measured with
information about survey respondents’ gay or lesbian friends, in spite of the fact
that the number of heterosexuals who report knowing someone who is gay or
lesbian has been on the rise (Feliksiak 2013).
In closing, I have built on existing research in order to illuminate the realities of
discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Polish workplace. Against the
backdrop of the legal environment concerning the treatment of sexual orientation in
the workplace, I have described attitudes toward workplace equality in all occu-
pations and shed light on the underpinnings of Polish reluctance to acknowledge gay
men’s and lesbians’ rights to be employed in any job for which they are qualified.
Appendix
Wording of all questions used; items that have been reverse-coded in all analyses
are marked with *
Job-independent tolerance: Two questions asking whether there are any occu-
pations (1) gay men and (2) lesbians should not be allowed to have; coded “yes” or
“no”
Education: What is your education? Coded from “less than grade school” (1) to
“PhD or higher” (12)
Age: In what year were you born? Coded from “1924” to “1992”
Religiosity: Do you take part in religious practices such as masses or religious
meetings? Coded from “Yes, several times a week” (1) to “Never” (5)
Gender: Coded by the interviewer as “Male” (1) or “Female” (2)
Size of town or city: Coded by the interviewer from “village” (1) to “city of
500,000 or more residents” (6)
Perceived finances: How would you rate your household’s finances? Coded from
“bad” (1) to “good” (5)
* Country’s economic conditions: How would you rate the state of Polish economy?
Coded from “very good” (1) to “very bad” (5)
* Ideological self-identification: Political views are shown on this scale from left
to right. Where would you place yourself? Coded from “left” (1) to “right” (7)
* Interest in politics: How would you rate your interest in politics? Coded from
“very high” (1) to “none” (5)
* Opinion on EU membership: Do you personally support or oppose Poland’s
membership in the European Union? Coded from “definitely support” (1) to “def-
initely oppose” (4)
* Interpersonal contact with gay men and lesbians: Do you personally know any
gay men or lesbians? Coded “yes” (1) or “no” (2)
References
Abramowicz, M. (2007). Situation of bisexual and homosexual persons in Poland. In

M. Abramowicz (Ed.), Situation of bisexual and homosexual persons in Poland: 2005 and
2006 report (pp. 11–34). Warsaw: Kampania Przeciw Homofobii.
Antosz, P. (2012). Rowne traktowanie standardem dobrego rzadzenia: raport z badan
sondazowych. http://www.rownetraktowanie.gov.pl/sites/default/files/rowne_traktowanie_
standardem_dobrego_rzadzenia_-_raport_z_badan_ilosiowych_ost_0.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan
2015.
Bilewicz, M., & Krzemiński, I. (2010). Anti-Semitism in Poland and Ukraine: The belief in Jewish
control as a mechanism of scapegoating. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(2),
234–243.
Boguszewski, R. (2012a). Religijnośc´ i moralnośc´ w społeczeństwie polskim: Zalez˙nośc´ czy
autonomia. Toruń: Adam Marszałek.
Boguszewski, R. (2012b). Polacy poznaja˛ swiat, czyli o zagranicznych wyjazdach i znajomości
je˛zyk
ow obcych. www.cbos.pl.
Feliksiak, M. (2013). Stosunek do praw gejow i lesbijek oraz zwiazkow partnerskich. www.cbos.
pl. Accessed 4 Feb 2015.
Golebiowska, E. A. (2014). The many faces of tolerance: Attitudes towards diversity in Poland.
New York: Routledge Studies in Political Psychology.
Golebiowska, E. A. (2015). Polish attitudes toward women in politics. Unpublished manuscript.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States.
The Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264–274.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond homophobia: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6–24.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians
and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 36(4), 348–360.
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,
309–333.
Jablonska, Z. (2011). Sytuacja prawna osob LGBT na rynku pracy—Implementacja standardow
unijnych do polskiego systemu prawa z uwzglednieniem przepisow ustawy o wdrozeniu
niektorych przepisow UE w zakresie rownego traktowania. In K. Smiszek (Ed.),
Dyskryminacja ze wzgledu na orientacje seksualna i tozsamosc plciowa w zatrudnieniu
(pp. 90–105). Warsaw: Kampania Przeciw Homofobii.
Jozko, M. (2009). Mniejszosci seksualne w Polsce w swietle badan ankietowych. In I. Krzeminski
(Ed.), Naznaczeni: Mniejszosci seksualne w Polsce raport 2008. Warsaw: Instytut Socjologii
Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes
toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals (pp. 39–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
relevant “sexual orientation” in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 122–137.
Konarzewska, M. (2010). Jestem nauczycielka i jestem lesbijka. http://wyborcza.pl/
1,76842,8034607,Jestem_nauczycielka_i_jestem_lesbijka.html. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
Krzeminski, I. (2007). Tolerancja, stosunek do innych narodowości oraz do mniejszości. In
L. Kolarska-Bobińska, J. Kucharczyk, & J. Zbieranek (Eds.), Demokracja w Polsce 2005-
2007 (pp. 325–342). Warsaw: Instytut Spraw Publicznych.
Krzeminski, I. (2009). Spoleczenstwo i ludzki los: Wprowadzenie do raportu z badania osob
LGBT 2008. In I. Krzeminski (Ed.), Naznaczeni: Mniejszosci seksualne w Polsce raport 2008
(pp. 66–94). Warsaw: Instytut Socjologii Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Marody, M., & Mandes, S. (2012). Przemiany polskiej religijnosci. In A. Kasinska-Kania (Ed.),
Wartosci i zmiany: Przemiany postaw Polakow w jednoczacej sie Europie (pp. 191–206).
Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Peffley, M., & Sigelman, L. (1990). Intolerance of communists during the McCarthy era: A
general model. Western Political Quarterly, 43(1), 93–111.
Perdzynska, K. (2009). Sytuacja osob homoseksualnych w Polsce. Krytyczny przeglad
dotychczasowych badan. In I. Krzeminski (Ed.), Naznaczeni: Mniejszosci seksualne w Polsce
raport 2008 (pp. 13–33). Warsaw: Instytut Socjologii Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-
analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934.
Selinger, M. (2008). Intolerance toward gays and lesbians in Poland. Human Rights Review, 9(1),
15–27.
Siedlecka, E. (2012). Jak czuja sie w Polsce homoseksualisci? Dyskryminowani. http://wyborcza.pl/
1,76842,13089414,Jak_sie_czuja_w_Polsce_homoseksualisci__Dyskryminowani.html. Accessed
13 Mar 2015.
Smiszek, K. (2011). Dyskryminacja ze wzgledu na orientacje seksualna i tozsamosc plciowa
w zatrudnieniu. Warsaw: Kampania Przeciw Homofobii.
Smiszek, K., & Szczeplocki, P. (2012). Still insufficient legal protection. In M. Makuchowska &
M. Pawlega (Eds.), Situation of LGBT persons in Poland. 2010 and 2011 report (pp. 166–184).
Warsaw: Lambda and Campaign Against Homophobia.
Stouffer, S. (1955). Communism, conformity, and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday.
Szczerba, A. (2011). Prawne aspekty ochrony osob transplciowych w zatrudnieniu. In K. Smiszek
(Ed.), Dyskryminacja ze wzgledu na orientacje seksualna i tozsamosc plciowa w zatrudnieniu
(pp. 14–39). Warsaw: Kampania Przeciw Homofobii.
U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. (2013). Country
reports on human rights practices. http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/
index.htm#wrapper. Accessed 25 Mar 2015.
Wenzel, M. (2005). Osobista znajomosc i akceptacja praw gejow i lesbijek w krajach Europy
Srodkowej. www.cbos.pl. Accessed 20 Jan 2015.
Zima-Parjaszewska, M. (2011). Postepowania sadowe o dyskryminacje osob LGBT
w zatrudnieniu—wybrane problemy. In K. Smiszek (Ed.), Dyskryminacja ze wzgledu na
orientacje seksualna i tozsamosc plciowa w zatrudnieniu (pp. 40–71). Warsaw: Kampania
Przeciw Homofobii.
Understanding the Identity Work of LGB
Workers Using the Practice Theory Lens
Emir Ozeren and Alper Aslan
1 Introduction
Scholars remark that identities are constructed within activities and interactions;
within this stream, the term “identity work” is used to emphasize the fluidity of
identities (Alvesson et al. 2008; Pratt 2012) as the most significant metaphor
(Brown 2015). “Identity work” can be conceptualized as the range of activities in
which individuals engage to create, present, and sustain personal identities that are
congruent with and supportive of the self-concept (Snow and Anderson 1987: 1348;
Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003: 1165). Alvesson et al. (2008: 15) note that “the
emphasis or much of the writing on identity work is on becoming, rather than
being”.
Several studies analyse identity work in situations where identities are threat-
ened and marginalised (Brown 2015; Wieland 2010). However, as Alvesson
et al. (2008) state, identity work also pertains to mundane situations and incidents.
Moreover, identity work literature emphasizes the cognitive aspects of identity
work within a “narrative-discursive approach” (Down and Reveley 2009). This
approach restricts the identity work within internal mechanisms and neglects how
identity work is performed within work activities. In a similar vein, numerous
studies on LGB identity management and disclosure at work (Bowring and Brewis
2009; Kaplan 2014; King et al. 2008; Ragins 2008; Rumens and Broomfield 2012;
Schope 2002) elaborate mostly on the discursive aspects without an adequate or
E. Ozeren, Ph.D. (*)

Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
e-mail: emirozeren@yahoo.com
A. Aslan, Ph.D.
Mugla Sıtkı Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey
e-mail: alperaslan79@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_27
468 E. Ozeren and A. Aslan
in-depth understanding of identity work within everyday activities and incidents

(Alvesson et al. 2008).
In this chapter, based on this brief theoretical background, we will discuss how
to expand the identity work of LGB workers within everyday work activities in
organizations, rather than restricting identity work to the disclosure versus
nondisclosure dilemma, and argue how Schatzkian practice theory (Schatzki
2002, 2005, 2010) provides the robust ground for this. Inspired by practice theory,
rather than separating it from everyday activities, we aim to conceptualize the
identity construction of working LGB individuals as an “identity work”. In this
respect, we will explore and discuss how LGB individuals build, maintain and
negotiate their identities within everyday work activities.
2 Sexual Identity Management: A Review and Critical

Reflection
The research on counselling and vocational psychology, as well as organization and

management studies, has consistently pointed out sexual identity management as
one of the key pillars or common themes with regard to work-related behaviour of
sexual minorities (Croteau et al. 2008; McFadden 2015; Ward and Winstanley
2005). The research stream on workplace identity management of LGB individuals
deals primarily with various strategies employed by LGB people to manage their
sexual minority status at work. Within this stream, a number of issues become
prominent including the timing, motive, method, process, antecedents and conse-
quences of self-disclosure about one’s sexual orientation (so-called “coming out”)
in the workplace (Clair et al. 2005; Gedro 2007; Kaplan 2014; Ozeren 2014; Ragins
2004, 2008; Rumens and Broomfield 2012; Schope 2002) and the extent of the
disclosure decision of LGB workers based on their unique experiences (Creed and
Cooper 2008; Ragins 2004), stories (see Ward and Winstanley 2005 for a story-
telling approach) and discourses (see Ward and Winstanley 2005 as an example for
a Foucauldian notion of discourse). Coming out is generally considered to be one of
the most critical decisions that an LGB employee has to take with respect to his/her
identity at work. This often creates such a complex dilemma that LGB employees
should take into account various issues, such as whether/when/where/how/to whom
to come out to at work (Gedro 2007). Coming out should not be considered as a
decision that LGB employees have made once in their lives, on the contrary they
(re)negotiate their identities in different instances throughout their career. For
example, each time an LGB employee changes their job or moves to a new work
setting or works with new people, they face this concern. They might find them-
selves in a difficult position of being “out” versus remaining “closet” when they are
promoted or rotated to a new work setting. Indeed, they have to come out in every
new work situation. As is evident in Parnell et al.’s (2012) study, in several cases
some LGB participants expressed clearly that they had to leave their careers in the
Understanding the Identity Work of LGB Workers Using the Practice Theory Lens 469
ministry, the military, law enforcement and education because of not being able to
be out in these areas. There are several consequences of the coming out decision of
LGB employees related to their career choices. For instance, they may not want to
have a job where they could not be open safely about their orientation and this
situation itself severely limits their choices. Even if LGB individuals successfully
come out at work safely, they may have to struggle with the internalized homo-
phobia permeating through the workplace and feel they need to make an extra effort
to legitimize themselves in the eyes of their peers or managers. In particular cases
where LGB employees are out, they feel a constant pressure to work relatively
harder than their heterosexual counterparts doing a similar job/task.
A great variety of strategies and techniques can be used by LGB people to
manage their identity in the workplace. In the early studies, two leading authors
investigated strategies for workplace sexual identity management. First, Griffin
(1992) proposed four major strategies (passing, covering, implicitly out, explicitly
out) on the basis of qualitative findings derived from lesbian and gay teachers.
Accordingly, passing is an artificial creation of heterosexual image by lesbian/gay
people at work who create consciously a façade of conformity of heteronormative
roles (such as behaving like a heterosexual, making up partners of the opposite sex,
living a heterosexual lifestyle in the workplace). Covering is another strategy of a
person who conceals information related to one’s minority sexual orientation. In
this case, the person in question avoids sharing any references to or indications of
homosexual relationships, affiliations with the LGB community and prefers to be
silent about his/her sexuality in the workplace. The person neither says he/she is
heterosexual nor declares his/her homosexuality. Implicitly out is a strategy adopted
by lesbian and gay people who share personal details about their lives that may
cause others at work to suspect a minority sexual orientation (for example, men-
tioning one’s same-sex partner during the conversation in a more spontaneous way
without explicitly saying that this individual is indeed his/her partner). Finally,
explicitly out is the most transparent form of strategy followed by lesbian or gay
people who undertake to make other people understand their identity openly and
clearly. Those aforementioned strategies fall into a continuum, from safety-making
(passing) and concealment (covering) oriented strategies, to risk-taking (implicitly
out) and revealing oriented (explicitly out) strategies (Croteau et al. 2008). Based
on Griffin’s (1992) four-strategy model supported by prior qualitative research,
Anderson et al. (2001) initially developed a conceptually grounded measure of
sexual identity management (WSIMM-Workplace Sexual Identity Management
Measure) with psychometric properties, on 172 student affairs professionals to
adequately define, measure and assess sexual identity management, particularly
designed for gay and lesbian workers, given the lack of a specific measurement tool
on sexual identity management in the field up to that date.
In their qualitative study, Woods and Lucas (1993) developed a second model to
explain the identity management strategies of gay male workers following Griffin
(1992). In this model, there are three major identity management strategies adopted
by gay participants in the workplace; these are “counterfeiting” where a fake
heterosexual identity is created and maintained so that sexual minorities pretend
to heterosexual; “avoidance” where an individual is not willing to disclose any

personal information, particularly his/her sexual identity such as keeping himself/
herself distant from any areas or daily conversations at work where one’s sexual
orientation might need to be revealed; “integrating” where one reveals his/her
sexual identity status by being “out” at work and eventually has to manage the
consequences of this decision (Woods and Lucas 1993). Several cases show us that
gay employees sometimes tend to behave in more masculine ways and lesbian
employees tend to behave in more feminine ways to comply with compulsory
heterosexism imposed by society. Faced with potential discrimination, some LGB
individuals may not choose to disclose their identity and routinely “pass” as
heterosexual (Bowen and Blackmon 2003: 1403). However, it should be kept in
mind that sexual minorities can choose a variety of gender presentations, where,
when and if possible. They tend to adopt identity strategies they believe might be
‘appropriate’ in workplace settings (Ozeren 2014: 1213). For instance, in a recent
study conducted by Rumens and Broomfield (2012: 295) on LGB identities in the
UK police service, it was shown that gay policemen might decide to pass, as part of
a long term strategy to construct workplace relationships that offer a supportive
environment for coming out and subsequent integration. In the study by Button
(2004), it was also indicated that a number of strategies were used by the LGB
respondents in combination, sometimes simultaneously, such as by disclosing one’s
sexual identity to a limited number of people but maintaining a false heterosexual
identity with all others.
More recently, there have been different theoretical frameworks (Clair
et al. 2005; Lidderdale et al. 2007; Ragins 2004, 2008) to advance our understand-
ing of how minorities’ sexual orientation is managed in the workplace. Among
these authors, both Clair et al. (2005) and Ragins (2004, 2008) developed models
built on stigma theory (Goffman 1963), and sought to reveal personal and contex-
tual antecedents in understanding how sexual minorities foresee the consequences
and weigh the costs and benefits of coming out on their (in)visible social identity at
work. On the other side, in a study conducted by Lidderdale et al. (2007), a social
cognitive perspective was adopted to describe how sexual minorities learn about,
make sense of and select identity management strategies.
Ragins (2004, 2008) argues that there are four major interconnected antecedents
to disclosure decisions which are the anticipated consequences of disclosure, the
socially constructed characteristics of LGB stigma, the internal psychological
factors (self-identity and self-concept), and work environmental factors (to what
extent the work environment is supportive of LGB workers). For the work envi-
ronment as the last antecedent to the disclosure decision, Ragins (2004, 2008) put
forward three forms of support: the availability of other LGB workers who have
been able to disclose their LGB identity safely, the presence of LGB supportive
heterosexual workers (allies), and the existence of LGB affirmative institutional
policies and practices. In a similar vein, Clair et al. (2005) discussed managing
invisible social identities in the workplace and developed a generalized model of
identity management by using disclosure and stigma theories. In this model, the
authors focused specifically on two major strategies that individuals use to manage
their invisible social identities at work (passing vs. revealing). The basic question
investigated for this purpose was how individuals decide to pass or reveal their
invisible social identity in the workplace. Accordingly, there are two broad cate-
gories of antecedents for a person’s choice to pass or reveal at work which are
contextual conditions (organizational diversity climate, industry/professional con-
text and norms, legal protections) and individual differences (propensity towards
risk taking, self-monitoring, developmental stage, personal motives). Finally, the
authors put forward the possible outcomes of the decision to pass or reveal and the
influence of these outcomes on future behaviours. In the same direction, Rumens
and Broomfield (2012) examined the identity disclosure and management issues of
20 gay male police officers, in the UK context, by building their theoretical
framework on Goffman’s (1963) stigma theory. They identified three emerging
themes, based on in-depth interviews, of how gay men in the police disclose and
manage their sexual identities. These are “motives for disclosure”, “contextual
issues in identity disclosure and management in the police” and “integrating gay
identities in the police”. Rumens and Broomfield’s (2012) study demonstrates that
disclosing and managing sexual orientation as an (in)visible stigmatized identity is
influenced by various personal and contextual considerations.
The significant conclusion drawn from the existing literature is that identity
management of LGB employees in the workplace is far more complicated than
simply choosing whether to disclose or not disclose one’s sexual orientation. As
opposed to what Clair et al. (2005) assumed, i.e. a twofold decision to pass or
reveal, sexual identity management falls within a broad range of continuums where
sexual minorities may adopt various forms of strategies or tactics. Indeed, studies
that rely heavily on the disclosure decision of LGB individuals at work have already
reached saturation point as it is the largest area of research in the past 10 years, as
argued by Roberts (2011: 669). Sexual minorities employ a number of diverse
strategies for managing the (in)visible aspect of their identity at different times. It
can be seen that taking only the degree of disclosure into consideration does not
adequately capture the continuous, iterative and complex nature of the identity
management process of sexual minorities at work.
As Kaufman and Johnson (2004) remarked, the “stage models” of LGB identi-
ties that explain how LGB individuals recognize and develop their sexual identities
by coming out, do not account for the situated identity management of LGB
individuals. Accordingly, the stage models of LGB identity work should be
enriched by broader theoretical ideas that can address the situated complexity of
LGB identity work. In this respect, the notion of identity management in LGB
literature that seems to be multifaceted in its nature, including numerous choices
with respect to one’s sexual identity, deserves critical scrutiny and a new look at the
subject with an alternative theoretical lens that can address the fragile and dynamic
aspects of LGB identity work in organizations.
3 Identity Work
Identity is related to the questions of “Who am I?”, and “What do I do?” (Karreman
and Alvesson 2001: 63–54). Identity implies a normative orientation of what is
appropriate and valuable for the subject; it is also about how to interact with others
and the world (Karreman and Alvesson 2001: 64; Weick 1995). “Identity work”, as
Brown (2015: 20–21) notes, is the “most significant metaphor” referring to the
process of identity construction in and around organizations. Rather than referring
to the entity based, fixed and essential notions of identities, identity work stresses
that identities are contextual and situational; hence they are constructed, managed
or worked upon (Alvesson 2000; Brown 2015; Coupland and Brown 2012;
Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003). Beech et al. (2012: 40) define identity work “as
a process through which people seek to establish an identity in their own estimation
and in the eyes of others”.
There is a wide literature dealing with identity work in organizations (see Brown
2015 for a recent review). The literature on identity work stresses mostly the
processual and contextual aspects of identity work, whereas there are also contro-
versies concerning the degree of agency, fragility, coherency, and authenticity of
identities (Brown 2015). Most works address how individuals construct their
identities by organizational and social discourses, and position themselves “by
the ideational notions of who they should be and how they should act” (McInnes
and Corlett 2012: 27). Within this approach, “the individual is seen as the primary
author of and audience for self-narrations” (Wieland 2010: 509). Since these studies
rely heavily on interview data (McInnes and Corlett 2012: 28), they reflect heroic
and idealized accounts of identity work (Iedema et al. 2006). Some scholars point
out the need to analyse the identity work within situated activities and interactions,
rather than relying on abstract discourses (Alvesson 2000; Down and Reveley 2009;
Iedema et al. 2006; LeBaron et al. 2009; Wieland 2010). According to these
scholars, who emphasize the situated and interactional nature of identity work,
identities are not constructed merely in crisis situations where individuals struggle
to construct appropriate identities, but are constructed in “moment to moment and
day to day” (LeBaron et al. 2009: 212). In a similar vein, LeBaron et al. (2009: 200)
note that identity work is an “interactive accomplishment” and that identity work is
not “a causal outcome of conditions or circumstances” (see also Iedema et al. 2006).
Iedema et al. (2006) also criticize analyzing identity work within grand or abstract
discourses; they note that every interaction has its own dynamics and excesses for
identity work that cannot be reduced to pre-existing discourses and stances:
With people’s actions being less mapped “in advance” and more localized in negotiations
with others about what is appropriate to do, say and be, their identity also becomes
increasingly contingent upon the vicissitudes of interaction at work (Iedema et al. 2005:
333).
With regard to situated identity work, most of the existing studies on LGB
identity can highlight very little as they portray identity work mostly as an individ-
ual’s linear strategic struggle (Kaufman and Johnson 2004), in which LGB workers
evaluate the appropriate factors for their disclosure and the possible effects of that
disclosure:
The decision to disclose a stigmatized identity is complex and represents an individual’s
assessment of the positive and negative consequences of disclosure within a given social
context (Clair et al. 2005; Ragins et al. 2007). This decision is balanced by the anticipated
psychological benefits associated with disclosure on the one hand and the fear of stigma-
related repercussions on the other (Ragins 2008: 198).
By restricting identity work to simply disclose or not, these studies reify the
process of identity work to theoretical entities and neglect how LGB workers
construct and experience their identities within situated organizational activities
and interactions. Hence, these studies neglect the spontaneous, interactional, lived
and emerged aspects of LGB identity work. They exclude the identity work of LGB
workers from disclosing their sexual identities and cannot highlight the complexity
and dynamics of everyday organizational life (see Shotter 2005; Shotter and
Tsoukas 2011). To highlight the identity work of LGB workers within the complex,
situational and interactional aspects of everyday organizational life requires ana-
lyzing the situated activities and interactions, as LGB workers can work on their
identities continuously by situated activities; for example by paying attention to
how to talk, how to use the body, and how to dress etc. (Öner 2015; Rumens and
Kerfoot 2009).
Since “work is the primary activity of people within organizations” (Bechky
2011: 1158), work activities provide the background for workers to construct
diverse work identities (Brown and Lewis 2011; Leidner 2006; Wieland 2010;
Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001). As Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001: 180) remark
“[w]hat individuals do at work and who they interact with are two important means
by which employees change their work identities” (see also Alvesson 2000). Work
identities are normative in that they address the questions of “who am I?” and “How
should I act?” (Alvesson 2000: 1105; see also Karreman and Alvesson 2001).
Alvesson (2000: 1105) remarks that workers engage in identity work in organiza-
tions continuously in order “to cope with work tasks and social relations”. The
ability to engage in appropriate work activities is not restricted to high-status works.
Even in routine jobs, workers can make nuanced changes in their work activities
and interactions, enhance work meaning and construct positive work identities
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001). For example, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001)
state how one group of hospital cleaning staff saw themselves as valuable in the
healing of patients by enriching their work activities and interactions both with
patients and nurses.
For LGB workers, in addition to hiding or revealing their stigmatized sexual
identities, work activities can also enable them to construct work identities. As
Khanna and Johnson (2010: 386) remark “[I]dentity work is not just about
concealing or covering a stigmatized identity, but highlighting a non-stigmatized
or preferred identity”. However, the research on LGB identities does not adequately
address how LGB workers construct work identities; one exception is Rumens and
Kerfoot’s (2009) study in which they examined how openly gay men, in a
gay-friendly context of a British public sector organization, construct professional

identities. In their study, they find that openly gay men try to engage in professional
conduct and to present a professional persona by paying attention to what to wear
and to have physically fit bodies. Some interviewees’ note that their sexual and
professional identities can co-exist, others note that it is necessary to put a limit on
their sexual identity in the workplace. Within this context, Rumens and Kerfoot
(2009: 777) state how one of their interviewees tries to construct his identity “as a
busy professional with a burgeoning workload, and harboring no desire or time to
‘flaunt’ his sexuality”. Rumens and Kerfoot’s (2009) study also shows how in some
contexts openly gay men can assert their work identities. On the other hand,
Rumens and Kerfoot (2009) do not give a detailed account of how situated work
activities, and especially interactions within their normative-affective aspects,
serve to construct work identities.
In a later study, Rumens and Broomfield (2014) analyze how gay men in the
performing arts both show and hide their sexual identity within diverse work
contexts. For example, in drama school gay men can develop trusting relations
with other individuals and express their sexual identity; however, they engage in
activities conforming to heteronormativity in their interactions with casting direc-
tors and agents. Rumens and Broomfield’s (2014) study displays how identity work
is a situated accomplishment and how it may change according to diverse contexts
with unique normativities. As organizational activities and interactions have their
own multiple normative and affective aspects (Iedema et al. 2006), they will affect:
• How LGB workers construct their work identities within situated work activities
and interactions
• How work identities co-exist with sexual identities
• How work activities are used to hide or disclose sexual identities
To address these multiple normative and affective aspects of work activities and
interactions, we need to give primacy to situated activities and interactions, rather
than abstract discourses or individual traits (Iedema et al. 2006; Schatzki 2010).
Hence, in the next section, we will discuss how practice theory provides a robust
foundation for analyzing the situated work activities and interactions within their
normative and affective aspects.
4 Practice Theory
In recent years, practice theory has been influential across diverse fields of social
sciences (Nicolini 2012; Schatzki 2010). Practice theory privileges practices in
analysing social phenomena, rather than individuals and abstract structures
(Schatzki 2010). For practice theory, social life is human co-existence that tran-
spires amid the interrelated nexus of practices and material arrangements. Hence,
identities, social institutions and organizations are aspects of nexuses of
interconnected practices and material arrangements (Schatzki 2005, 2010).
Schatzki (2005) notes that practices are “organized activities”—encompassing

both doings and sayings. Organized activities form certain practices, such as
educational practices, cooking practices, working practices, leisure practices, etc.
(Schatzki 2005: 471). For example, a service encounter between a hotel worker and
a tourist may embrace both working practices and leisure practices. Another
example is in the service interaction of a (gay) waiter and a tourist in a hotel; the
waiter takes orders, serves food and beverage etc. and the tourist consumes food,
chats with his friends etc. Moreover, these practices are conducted amid material
arrangements (Schatzki 2002, 2005). Material arrangements, as Schatzki (2005:
472) puts it, refer to set-ups of human beings, artefacts and things. For example in
the aforementioned service encounter, the food, the tables, the size of the restaurant,
the set-up of the tables, the comfort of the chairs, the distance between the
restaurant and the pool, etc., all refer to material arrangements.
As Schatzki (1996: 169) underlines, “practices are inherently social because
participating in one entails entering a complex state of coexistence with other
participants”. Practices are, to a large extent, organized by “teleoaffective” (tele-
ology and affective) structures; teleoaffective structures encompass a range of ends,
projects, activities, affects and emotions that are acceptable or prescribed for
participants in the practice (Schatzki 2005: 471–472; Schatzki 2010: 51). For
example, the teleoaffective structures of a service encounter between the (gay)
waiter and tourist may embrace the aim of satisfying the tourist and enjoying the
meal by the pool. Moreover, the acceptable and prescribed activities for these aims
pertain to teleoaffective structures. In sum, teleoaffective structures refer to the
normative and affective aspects of situated activities and interactions (Schatzki
2010).
Teleoaffective structures are not properties of individuals or collective willed
ends and activities, underlining that “they are recurring and evolving effects of what
actors do together with what determines this” (Schatzki 2002: 81; see also Iedema
et al. 2006). In other words, teleoaffective structures refer to responsive-expressive
aspects of being together (Shotter 2005). Schatzki (2005, 2010) remarks that
individuals do what make sense to them; and teleoaffective structures circumscribe
individuals’ sense-making. Thus, teleoaffective structures refer to what individuals
care for and what matters to them, and embrace how individuals interact within
coherent and conflicting ends, activities and affects (see also Iedema et al. 2006).
Schatzki (2002: 51) further remarks that an individual does not construct her/his
identity merely within her/his activities, but also within activities that are
performed towards her/him. In Schatzki’s (2010) account, activities and interac-
tions are indeterminate events that happen (see also Iedema et al. 2006; LeBaron
et al. 2009; Shotter 2005). Indeterminacy does not refer to undeterminacy, but refer
that which teleoaffective structures determine activities and interactions are only
settled with the activities (Schatzki 2010: 177, 186). In other words, although
teleoaffective structures of interactions circumscribe what the participants can do
and how they do it, teleoaffective structures of service interactions also have their
own “dynamics” that bring uncertainties (Iedema et al. 2006).
The indeterminacy of interactions refers to the point that identity is not a

pre-defined entity but emerges within situated activities and interactions (see also
Iedema et al. 2006; LeBaron et al. 2009). For example, the waiter can put forward
his work identity as being a hard-working waiter, by caring about how to carry
plates correctly, how to talk with tourists, providing extra information about how
the food is prepared, and where the ingredients come from, or smiling sincerely
when he senses the tourist’s activities as being polite. However, even in a service
interaction where everything seems to be running smoothly, the waiter can sense
the activity of a tourist as being a threat to his work or sexual identity; and he may
then try to hide his sexual identity, or indicate his work identity or his sexual
identity as a reaction to a tourist’s rude activities. Since diverse interactions in
organizations have different teleoaffective structures with their own dynamics, any
study that aims to reveal how identities are constructed in unfolding situations
should address indeterminate situated activities and interactions, rather than any
pre-existing views, logics and regularities.
5 Conclusion
In this chapter, inspired by practice theory, sexual identity management of LGB

workers was firstly conceptualized as “identity work” which we explored and then
discussed how LGB individuals build, maintain and negotiate their identity within
everyday work activities, rather than isolating it from everyday activities. Within
this conceptualization, identity work of sexual minorities is far more complicated
than simply choosing whether to disclose or not disclose one’s sexual orientation; it
is lived and experienced within situated activities and interactions that do not
merely embrace the regular ones but are rather indeterminate (Schatzki 2010).
Hence, any identity work should also address the responsive and reactive as well
as emergent activities to capture the spontaneous, interactional and lived aspects
and nature of LGB identity work. Within this perspective the identity work of LGB
workers embraces an open-endedness that cannot be reduced to pre-existing views.
Moreover, analyzing the indeterminate situated activities and interactions can
reveal the everyday struggles, strategies, conflicts and tensions of LGB workers
in organizations.
In this respect, the notion of identity work from the viewpoint of LGB workers
that is inherently multifaceted in relation to various interrelated decisions regarding
one’s sexual minority status, requires a critical understanding and theoretically
grounded approach, as proposed in this chapter, in order to highlight the complexity
and dynamics of everyday organizational life as well as to give a detailed account of
how situated work activities and interactions within the normative-affective aspects
serve to construct LGB work identities.
References
Alvesson, M. (2000). Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge-intensive compa-
nies. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1101–1123.
Alvesson, M., Ashcraft, K. L., & Robyn, T. (2008). Identity matters: Reflections on the construc-
tion of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15(1), 5–28.
Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., Chung, Y. B., & DiStefano, T. M. (2001). Developing an
assessment of sexual identity management for lesbian and gay workers. Journal of Career
Assessment, 9(3), 243–260.
Bechky, B. A. (2011). Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negoti-
ated orders. Organization Science, 22(5), 1157–1167.
Beech, N., Gilmore, C., Cochrane, E., & Greig, G. (2012). Identity work as a response to tensions:
A re-narration in opera rehearsals. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 39–47.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on
organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417.
Bowring, M. A., & Brewis, J. (2009). Truth and consequences: Managing lesbian and gay identity
in the Canadian workplace. Equal Opportunities International, 28(5), 361–377.
Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 17(1), 20–40.
Brown, A. D., & Lewis, M. A. (2011). Identities, discipline and routines. Organization Studies, 32
(7), 871–895.
Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees—A
quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29, 470–494.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: How people
manage invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1),
78–95.
Coupland, C., & Brown, A. D. (2012). Identities in action: Processes and outcomes. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 28(1), 1–4.
Creed, D., & Cooper, E. (2008). Introduction: Offering new insights into GLBT workplace
experiences. Group & Organization Management., 33(5), 491–503.
Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., & VanderWal, B. L. (2008). Models of workplace sexual identity
disclosure and management reviewing and extending concepts. Group & Organization Man-
agement, 33(5), 532–565.
Down, S., & Reveley, J. (2009). Between narration and interaction: Situating first-line supervisor
identity work. Human Relations, 62, 379–401.
Gedro, J. (2007). Conducting research on LGBT issues: Leading the field all over again! Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 18(2), 153–158.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. In
K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet (pp. 167–196). Binghamton, NY:
Harrington Park Press.
Iedema, R., Rhodes, C., & Scheeres, H. (2005). Presencing identity: Organizational change and
immaterial labor. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(4), 327–337.
Iedema, R., Rhodes, C., & Scheeres, H. (2006). Surveillance, resistance, observance: Exploring
the teleo-affective volatility of workplace interaction. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1111–1130.
Kaplan, D. M. (2014). Career anchors and paths: The case of Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual workers.
Human Resource Management Review, 24(2), 119–130.
Karreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2001). Making newsmakers: Conversational identity at work.
Organization Studies, 22(1), 59–89.
Kaufman, J. M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Stigmatized individuals and the process of identity. The
Sociological Quarterly, 45(4), 807–833.
Khanna, N., & Johnson, C. (2010). Passing as black racial: Identity work among biracial Amer-
icans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4), 380–397.
King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times: Exploring dual
perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace. Group & Organization Management, 33(5),
566–601.
LeBaron, C. D., Glenn, P., & Thompson, M. P. (2009). Identity work during boundary moments:
Managing positive identities through talk and embodied interaction. In L. M. Roberts & J. E.
Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations (pp. 191–215). New York:
Routledge.
Leidner, R. (2006). Identity and work. In M. Korczynski, R. Hodson, & P. Edwards (Eds.), Social
theory at work (pp. 424–463). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lidderdale, M. A., Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., Tovar-Murray, D., & Davis, J. M. (2007).
Building LGB vocational psychology: A theoretical model of workplace sexual identity
management. In K. Bieschke, R. Perez, & K. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and
psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients (2nd ed., pp. 245–270). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
McFadden, C. (2015). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender careers and human resource
development: A systematic literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 14(2),
125–162.
McInnes, P., & Corlett, S. (2012). Conversational identity work in everyday interaction. Scandi-
navian Journal of Management, 28(1), 27–38.
Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Öner, A. (2015). Beyaz yakalı eşcinseller: Işyerinde cinsel y€onelim ayrımcılı gı ve m€ ucadele
stratejileri. Istanbul: İletişim.
Ozeren, E. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace: A systematic review of
literature. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1203–1215.
Parnell, M. K., Lease, S. H., & Green, M. L. (2012). Perceived career barriers for gay, lesbian, and
bisexual individuals. Journal of Career Development, 39(3), 248–268.
Pratt, M. G. (2012). Rethinking identity construction processes in organizations: Three questions
to consider. In M. Schultz, S. Maguire, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Constructing Identity
in and around Organizations (pp. 21–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ragins, B. R. (2004). Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career experiences
of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Manage-
ment, 23, 35–120.
invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33, 194–215.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible. Fear and
Roberts, S. (2011). Exploring how gay men manage their social identities in the workplace: The
internal/external dimensions of identity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 30(8), 668–685.
issues. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3), 283–298.
Rumens, N., & Broomfield, J. (2014). Gay men in the performing arts: Performing sexualities
within ‘gay-friendly’ work contexts. Organization, 21(3), 365–382.
Rumens, N., & Kerfoot, D. (2009). Gay men at work: (Re)constructing the self as professional.
Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the
social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Universit
Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2005). The sites of organizations. Organization Studies, 26(3), 465–484.
Schatzki, T. R. (2010). The timespace of human activity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Schope, R. D. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influencing the disclosure of sexual orientation
by gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14(1), 1–22.
Shotter, J. (2005). ‘Inside the moment of managing’: Wittgenstein and the everyday dynamics of
our expressive-responsive activities. Organization Studies, 26(1), 113–135.
Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Theory as therapy: Wittgensteinian reminders for reflective
theorizing in organization and management theory. Research in the Sociology of Organiza-
tions, 32, 311–342.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal construction
and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1336–1371.
Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational frag-
mentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56, 1163–1193.
Ward, J., & Winstanley, D. (2005). Coming out at work: Performativity and the recognition and
renegotiation of identity. The Sociological Review, 53(3), 447–475.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wieland, S. M. B. (2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity. Manage-
ment Communication Quarterly, 24, 503–528.
America. New York: Free Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters
of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.
When Supervisors and Managers Tolerate
Heterosexism: Challenges, Opportunities,
and Implications for Workplace Advocacy
Trevor G. Gates
1 Introduction
Tolerance for heterosexism in the workplace is changing in the United States and
other parts of the world. Civil rights protections for LGB persons have moved into
the mainstream. However, not all LGB persons are protected across important life
domains. The Williams Institute, a public policy think tank on LGB social justice
issues, estimates that between 16 and 43 % of LGB workers experience some form
of sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace in the United States
(Badgett et al. 2007). These discrimination experiences are likely only to further
decline. Various states and corporations offer workplace protections for their LGB
workforce (Human Rights Campaign 2015b; Tremblay et al. 2011).
Engaging in heterosexist behavior in the workplace is less culturally acceptable
than it once was. A growing number of corporations view LGB inclusion as a
natural extension of their workplace diversity efforts. For example, in a statement to
the Human Rights Campaign (2015a), the social networking giant Facebook noted,
“Facebook [supports] all members of the [LGB] community, as well as their many
allies. . .. [and fosters] a culture of inclusion and acceptance both within our
company and around the world” (n.p.). Other organizations have LGB workplace
support groups and human resource policies that encourage the recruitment and
retention of LGB workers. AT&T’s league group, for instance, aims to provide
opportunities for LGB employees and their allies to socialize, network, and grow
professionally within the organization (AT&T 2015). These exemplars suggest that
organizational commitment to LGB diversity suggests that LGB inclusion is
becoming more mainstream, especially for large organizations in North America
and other Western nations.
T.G. Gates (*)

College at Brockport, State University of New York, Brockport, NY, USA
e-mail: tgates@brockport.edu

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_28
482 T.G. Gates
While tolerance for workplace discrimination is on the decline in the West, less
is known about how these policies are affected by day-to-day organizational
climate towards the lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) workers. A growing number
of organizations have non-discrimination policies for LGB workers; yet within
those organizations are a workforce that has grown up with cultural stigmas towards
LGB people. This shared cultural knowledge can lead to heterosexism, defined as
behaviors that privilege heterosexual identities and norms while discrediting the
identities and norms of non-heterosexuals (Smith and Ingram 2004).
Organizations differ in the extent to which they tolerate heterosexist climates. In
particular, the extent to which supervisors tolerate or endorse heterosexism may
affect the workplace environment for LGB workers. The purpose of this descriptive
study is to report on a convenience sample of workers’ experiences of supervisor
and manager tolerance for heterosexism within organizations in upstate New York.
How these environments present opportunities and challenges for human resource
professionals, organizational behavior consultants, social workers, and other work-
place advocates is examined.
2 Background
2.1 Historical and Cultural Context of Heterosexism
Context provides important clues about what makes a tolerance for supervisors’
heterosexism possible within organizations. Thus, a broader historical understand-
ing of how communities have viewed LGB individuals is key to bettering under-
stand why organizations tolerate heterosexism. In many cultures, LGB people have
historically been viewed as bad, sick, immoral, or inferior to heterosexuals (Gates
and Kelly 2013; Link and Phelan 2001). In the West, LGB bias is often laden in
Judeo-Christian beliefs that stigmatize same-sex sexuality as a violation of god’s
law or natural order (Herek 2004; Morrow 2003). Eastern traditions that stigmatize
same-sex desire tend to see LGB identity as primarily a disappointment to the
family or a result of negative influences from the West (Horn and Wong 2014). Of
course, LGB people have existed throughout history in the East and West; yet how
communities responded to their presence varied.
The belief that LGB identities were inferior to heterosexual ones was part of the
primary fabric of many communities until the latter part of the twentieth century.
The American Psychiatric Association officially classified homosexuality as a type
of mental health disorder until the early 1970s (Bayer 1981) which offered, to
varying degrees, evidence to communities that LGB identities were sick, immoral,
and/or a threat to the family. In the work world, LGB workers experienced this
marginalization. For instance, in the United States LGB civilian workers were
considered security threats to the federal government; LGB service members
were not allowed to serve openly in the military until 2011 (Escoffier 1985; Gates
When Supervisors and Managers Tolerate Heterosexism: Challenges. . . 483
and Rodgers 2014; Johnson 2004). LGB workers were not legally protected from
arbitrary or capricious termination from employment in government, military, and
many private sectors. In some jurisdictions, a lack of protections for LGB workers
remains. To date, though there have been promising protections for LGB workers
within many jurisdictions in the United States, comprehensive civil rights pro-
tections for LGB workers are not guaranteed by the federal government (Gates
2010).
Yet, following worldwide anti-oppression movements in various parts of the
world (Hines 2012; Tremblay et al. 2011), LGB communities moved into the
mainstream in the twenty-first century. LGB people went to work without hiding
their sexual identity, had families, and in some cases, raised children. They got
married, bought homes, and lived ordinary lives. With this visibility, greater legal
protections grew. As a testament to LGB and other civil rights movements during
the twentieth century, LGB relationship recognition as well as a number of other
important civil rights protections became available in parts of the Americas,
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (Sarkar and Torre 2015). While LGB civil
rights protections have yet to reach all parts of the world, these positive trends have
had great potential for impacting climates towards heterosexism, particularly in
the West.
2.2 Heterosexism, Supervisor Support, and Organizational

Climate
Organizational context is another important consideration impacting organizational

tolerance for a supervisors’ heterosexist behavior. At the individual organizational
level, heterosexism can have an impact on workplace climate. A growing body of
research has found that the more prevalent supportive organizational policies exist
for LGB workers, the less likely that LGB employees are to have experiences of
discrimination in the workplace and the more likely that LGB employees are
comfortable with being “out” in the workplace (Button 2001; Griffith and Hebl
2002; Ragins 2004). LGB non-discrimination policies in the workplace tangibly
benefit LGB workers because they establish a new norm for the organization.
Heterosexist employees may still continue to hold negative views towards LGB
people but may be less likely to vocalize them because the organizational has made
the behavior unacceptable. When LGB inclusion becomes the social norm of the
workplace, workers may be less likely to be open about these views.
Establishing a new social norm of LGB and lack of tolerance for heterosexism
can ultimately result in added benefits in the workplace. Brenner et al. (2010) found
that LGB individuals who work in supportive climates tend to spend less time at
work worrying about protecting themselves from discrimination and more time in
job-related activities. They tend to have a higher level of commitment to the
organization, think more positively about the organization’s mission, and go
484 T.G. Gates
above and beyond what is normally required of their jobs (Brenner et al. 2010).
They tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and may be more likely to stay
employed with the organization (Tejeda 2006).
Supervisors have an important role in fostering this environment. Organizational
climates that are supportive for all employees can be achieved when supervisors set
a tone of respect for LGB workers within their organizations. This trend has been
generally supported by the research literature. Supervisory support has been asso-
ciated with positive organizational citizenship with both LGB and non-LGB
workers. Supervisors who spend more time mentoring their workers, fostering
workplace positive relationships among workers, and being invested in the career
advancement of employees positively impacts workers (Shanock and Eisenberger
2006; Tepper and Taylor 2003). Like other workers, there is empirical evidence that
LGB workers also benefit from supportive supervisors working within a framework
of LGB-supportive organizational policies (King et al. 2014; K€ollen 2013; Ragins
and Cornwell 2001; Velez and Moradi 2012). However, these relationships depend
highly on a number of workplace contextual factors (King et al. 2014; Ragins and
Cornwell 2001; Shanock and Eisenberger 2006; Tepper and Taylor 2003; Velez and
Moradi 2012). The present study sought to understand the nature of supervisory
tolerance for heterosexism within organizations.
3 Method
The present study sought to describe workers’ experience with supervisory toler-
ance for heterosexism within the upstate New York region. Prior to beginning the
study, I obtained Institutional Review Board approval, an internal review board
responsible for ensuring that researchers protect the rights of human subjects.
To better understand the extent to which supervisors tolerate heterosexism, I
recruited a sample of LGB and non-LGB workers living and working in upstate
New York. Participants were given the working definition of heterosexism and told
that they could participate regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In other words, being LGB-identified was not required in order to participate.
Workers who were employed on a part-time or full-time basis within the region
were eligible to participate.
A wide range of Internet and print-based advertisements were used to recruit
voluntary participants. Internet-based advertisements were placed on popular social
networking sites, including paid advertisements on Facebook and Twitter, as well
as free advertisements placed on Craigslist. Print-based advertisements were placed
in local newspapers in the cities of Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester, in upstate
New York. Advertisements invited participants to complete a web-based survey of
worker experiences of heterosexism. As an incentive to participate, a nominal
incentive drawing for a 25 dollar gift certificate to an Internet retail store was
available to participants who elected to provide their email address upon comple-
tion of the study. However, participants who wanted to be completely anonymous
could decline to provide their email address. At the conclusion of the study, the gift
certificate was awarded via a random drawing by the investigator. The project was
funded through an internal faculty grant at the College at Brockport, State Univer-
sity of New York. The Internet retail store provided no funding for the research
study or gift certificate.
Items pertaining to organizational tolerance for supervisors’ heterosexism were
obtained from Waldo’s (1999) Organizational Tolerance for Heterosexism Inven-
tory (OTHI). The OTHI was selected because the instrument measured organiza-
tional tolerance for heterosexist behavior and high internal reliability (α ¼ 0.97), in
previous studies. For the present study, two vignettes were selected from the OTHI.
In these vignettes, participants were given a hypothetical scenario illustrating
supervisory tolerance for heterosexism and asked to rate how their organizations
would treat that behavior. In the first vignette, participants were asked to rate how
their organizations would respond if a work supervisor called LGB rights “disgust-
ing.” Participants were then asked in the second vignette to rate what would happen
if a supervisor said that LGB people should “keep quiet” about their personal lives.
Participants rated their perception of risk of making a complaint from (1) extremely
risky to (5) no risk. Participants also rated the likelihood of the complaint being
taken seriously by the organization from (1) almost no chance to (5) very good
chance. Finally, participants rated the likelihood of consequences for the supervisor
from (1) nothing to (5) very serious punishment.
For the purpose of the present study, because data for the dependent variables
were not normally distributed, participant responses to the vignettes were dichot-
omized. Risk of making a complaint about the supervisors’ heterosexist behavior
was coded as risky and not risky. Likelihood that the complaint about the supervi-
sors’ heterosexist behavior would be taken seriously was coded as good chance or
not a good chance. Consequences of making a complaint about the supervisors’
heterosexist behavior were coded as formal action or no formal action.
4 Results
A total of 247 workers from upstate New York participated in the present study.
Participants’ ages ranged between 18 and 62 years of age, with an average age of
33 years old (SD ¼ 11.74). A majority of the participants were female (n ¼ 156,
63.2 %) and heterosexual/straight (n ¼ 149, 60.3 %). A majority of the participants
identified themselves as White (n ¼ 210, 85 %) and many of the participants had at
least an undergraduate degree (n ¼ 155, 62.7 %).
Participants were from a wide range of occupational backgrounds. Participants
from education, training, library, social services, healthcare, and food preparation
represented a large part of the total sample (n ¼ 124, 50.2 %). Protective services
(n ¼ 4, 1.6 %) maintenance occupations (n ¼ 2, 0.8 %) and construction (n ¼ 1,
0.4 %) were among the least represented occupational categories within this
convenience sample.
486 T.G. Gates
In the two supervisory vignettes, participants were first asked to rate (1) how
their organizations would respond if a work supervisor called LGB rights “disgust-
ing” and (2) what would happen if a supervisor said that LGB people should “keep
quiet” about their personal lives. In the first vignette, a majority of participants rated
that reporting a supervisor who said that LGB rights are “disgusting” would be risky
(n ¼ 153, 61.9 %). However, most of the participants perceived that there was a
good chance (n ¼ 161, 65.2 %) that the complaint would be taken seriously and that
formal action against the supervisor (n ¼ 134, 54.3 %) would result. A chi-square
test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference within the
present convenience sample between sex, sexual orientation, and race (White or
non-White) for the responses on the first vignette. Statistically significant differ-
ences were found between White and non-White participants on the risk of making
a complaint variable, χ2 (1) ¼ 4.99, p < 0.05. Statistically significant differences
were not found on any of the variables for sex or sexual orientation.
In the second vignette, a majority of participants rated that reporting a supervisor
who says that LGB workers should be quiet about their sexual orientation would be
risky (n ¼ 152, 61.5 %). However, there was a good chance (n ¼ 135, 55.1 %) that
the complaint would be taken seriously. Yet the participants perceived that no
formal action (n ¼ 144, 58.3 %) would result from making a complaint about a
supervisor who said that LGB workers should be quiet about their personal lives.
For the chi-square test evaluating whether there was a significant different between
sex, sexual orientation, and race (White or non-White) for the responses on the
second vignette, statistically significant differences were only found between White
and non-White participants on the risk of making complaint variable, χ2 (1) ¼ 5.22,
p < 0.05.
5 Discussion
The present study sought to describe the extent to which a convenience sample of
workers in upstate New York experience tolerance for supervisors’ heterosexism
within their work organizations. Heterosexism is one among many workplace
climate variables, yet an important climate variable for LGB workers and their
allies. Encouragingly, on the two vignettes used in the present study, workers
tended to report that their organizations do not tolerate heterosexist behavior.
Though making an initial complaint about a supervisor could initially be risky,
there was a good chance that the complaint would be taken seriously and acted
upon within these organizations. However, significant differences existed between
White and non-White workers on the risk variable. Workers in the present study
believed that making a complaint about a supervisor who called LGB rights
disgusting was risky. They also believed that a complaint against a supervisor
who said that LGB workers should be quiet about their personal lives would also
be risky.
This is perhaps not surprising given previous work on discrimination within

various life spheres (Kaiser and Miller 2001; Schmitt and Branscombe 2002). There
are potential losses when one makes a discrimination complaint, especially as a
person of color. Especially when making a complaint about a supervisor and
particularly when justice and equity are in question, workers may have much to
fear when they report the behavior of their supervisors (Adams-Roy and Barling
1998; Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001). Workers may rightly fear that, when a
complaint is made about a supervisor, they may experience retaliation from their
supervisors. Though the organization very likely has policies expressly prohibiting
retaliation after a complaint is made, retaliation may still occur. For example,
workers can be reassigned job duties that, while perhaps within their job descrip-
tion, may be less desirable than other duties. Hours may be reduced without
explanation. Even though these actions may fall within the supervisor’s discretion,
workers who make complaints against their supervisor may be placing themselves
at risk for retaliation. As such, this result may also be unsurprising given that
making a complaint about a supervisor can carry some inherent risk, regardless of
how one identifies or the nature of the complaint.
Another relevant finding in the study can be found in the second vignette. In the
second vignette, participants reported that no formal action would be taken against
a supervisor who says that LGB workers should be quiet about their sexual
orientation. Unfortunately, within these organizations, this behavior tended to be
perceived by participants as less egregious than a supervisor referring to LGB rights
as “disgusting.” Though the design of the study did not allow for asking clarifying
questions about this response, it should be of concern to human resource pro-
fessionals, organizational behavior consultants, social workers, and other work-
place advocates, for it suggests that, in some organizations, heterosexism is
unacceptable only when workers are not open about their LGB identity. This
finding is slightly counter-intuitive and should be carefully considered, for if
organizations are only free from heterosexism when LGB workers are silent, one
can reasonably question whether these workplaces are really safe for LGB workers
at all.
5.1 Limitations
Though the present study provides unique insight about the nature of workers’
experiences with supervisory tolerance for heterosexism in upstate New York,
readers should be cautious about generalizing the results to a broader population.
The major finding of the study was this convenience sample of workers perceived
making a complaint against supervisory tolerance for heterosexism to be risky; yet,
after a complaint was initiated, action would normally result.
Sampling was a significant limitation in the present study, as the sample may not
be representative of a general population or even a general population within the
upstate New York region. This is not unusual given general methodological
488 T.G. Gates
limitations in LGB-related research. In Badgett and colleagues’ (2007) analysis,

sampling in studies involving LGB social justice issues can be significantly limited,
as is likely response bias including over-response from people who have personally
experienced LGB discrimination within the context of their lives. Participants who
experienced heterosexism at their workplace were probably more likely to respond
to the present study than people who have not experienced heterosexism or people
who do not even recognize heterosexism as being important.
Though using items on the OTHI were an expedient way to collect data on
workers’ beliefs about supervisors’ heterosexism in upstate New York, limiting the
survey to these items was also a limitation. The vignettes may have not described
behavior that the participants have experienced or could imagine experiencing
within these organizations. In other words, the vignettes may have been irrelevant
to the participants; though if they were completely irrelevant, it is unlikely that the
participants would have returned the survey. Even still, there may have been more
salient forms of heterosexist behavior that were not captured in the study. For
example, participants may not be able to imagine a supervisor referring to LGB
rights as “disgusting” or saying that LGB people should be quiet about their
personal lives. Participants might have been able to envision what would take
place if a supervisor terminated an LGB co-worker. Yet, because the items were
limited in scope, these experiences may have not been reflected in the data.
Additionally, because there was only a small incentive drawing for those who
participated in the survey, participants may have had personal reasons for wanting
to complete the study. Motivation to complete the study may have been high
because they perceive that the issue of heterosexism is important within their
community. Thus, it is highly likely that the workers who participated in the
study are not representative of their organization as a whole. Since the present
study did not specifically recruit multiple participants within the same organization,
it is unknown whether those who actually participated were reporting the true
nature of tolerance for supervisors’ heterosexism within their organizations. Their
self-reports may have been more aspirational in nature than they were an accurate
reflection of what is actually occurring within their organizations.
5.2 Implications for Workplace Advocacy and Future

Research
While the results of the study should be tempered by the research design limitations,
there are potential implications for workplace advocacy and research that can be
considered. The results suggest that, in many organizations represented by partic-
ipants in the study, organizations have a lower tolerance for heterosexism. Though
the risk of making a complaint is still high for some workers, there is a good
possibility that the complaint will receive appropriate attention and action. This
may be a testament to the growing number of laws in the United States and
New York State that expressly protect LGB workers from discrimination at work
(Human Rights Campaign 2015b). In an ideal future, heterosexism may become a
“fringe” behavior, like racist, sexist, or other forms of discriminatory behavior that
is considered totally unacceptable in all organizations.
The present study also brings to light the importance of continued LGB advo-
cacy in the workplace. Human resource professionals, organizational behavior
consultants, social workers, and other workplace advocates should demand for
LGB civil rights, both within their organizations and within their communities.
At present, there are no explicit federal protections for all LGB workers in the
United States and many other parts of the world. Discriminatory behavior, includ-
ing but not limited to heterosexism, is a human rights issue. Article 23 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948) notes that, “every-
one has the right to work. . . [and has] the right to just and favorable remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and
supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection” (n.p.). LGB
workers are denied their inherent dignity and worth when organizations tolerate
heterosexism by supervisors.
In the United States, human resource professionals, organizational behavior
consultants, social workers, and other workplace advocates must continue to
work towards the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
ENDA, a federal measure that would protect workers based on sexual orientation
identity, gender identity, and gender expression (Gates and Saunders 2016).
Workers may rightly feel less protected from a supervisor’s heterosexism when
the law allows it or does not forbid it. Thus, prohibiting discriminatory behavior by
law is an important step towards creating safe workplaces for LGB people. The risk
of making a complaint about an organization’s tolerance for a supervisor’s hetero-
sexism is likely to be much higher absent genuine legal protections. These legal
protections are only a starting point—albeit an important starting point—to a larger
conversation about how to protect LGB civil rights within the workplace.
Finally, there are also important implications for human resource professionals,
organizational behavior, social work, and other workplace advocacy research.
Additional work on supervisory tolerance for heterosexism should further examine
heterosexism as an important organizational contextual factor. In particular, future
heterosexism research should continue by further examining what difference het-
erosexism makes to the day-to-day lived experiences of LGB workers. Researchers
should also examine whether lower organizational tolerance for a supervisors’
heterosexist behavior is associated with a workforce that is more affectively
committed to its organizations. Furthermore, future empirical research must also,
when possible, carefully control for the intersection of other marginalized identities
with heterosexism, to include race and ethnicity, sex, social class identity, and other
identities that could be affecting organizational climate.
490 T.G. Gates
6 Summary
LGB workplace rights issues, including supervisory heterosexism, is a social justice

issue worth further investigation by human resource professionals, organizational
behavior consultants, social work, and other workplace advocates. Though the
present study found that a sample of upstate New York workers reported a low
tolerance for supervisors’ heterosexism, there were important differences between
the experiences of White and non-White workers. Workplace advocates must make
concerted effort to demand equal rights of LGB workers and to further research
heterosexism as an important organizational phenomena worth further study.
Acknowledgement The author gratefully acknowledges the United University Professions Joint
Labor-Management Committees and the Dr. Nuala McGann Drescher Affirmative Action/Diver-
sity Leave Program for providing release time to analyze these data.
References
Adams-Roy, J., & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harass-
ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(4), 329–336.
AT&T. (2015). Workforce inclusion: Workforce highlights. Retrieved from http://www.att.com/
gen/corporate-citizenship?pid¼17725
Badgett, M. V. L., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence
of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles: Williams Institute.
Bayer, R. (1981). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brenner, B. R., Lyons, H. Z., & Fassinger, R. E. (2010). Can heterosexism harm organizations?
Predicting the perceived organizational citizenship behaviors of gay and lesbian employees.
The Career Development Quarterly, 58(4), 321–335.
Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 17–28.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Escoffier, J. (1985). Sexual revolution and the politics of gay identity. Socialist Review, 15(4),
126–196.
Gates, T. G. (2010). The problem, policy, and political streams of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act of 2009: Implications for social work practice. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Social Services, 22(3), 354–369.
Gates, T. G., & Kelly, B. L. (2013). LGB cultural phenomena and the social work research
enterprise: Toward a strengths-based, culturally anchored methodology. Journal of Homosex-
uality, 60(1), 69–82.
Gates, T. G., & Rodgers, C. G. (2014). Repeal of don’t ask don’t tell as a “policy window”: A case
for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Journal of Discrimination and the
Law, 14(1), 5–18.
Gates, T. G., & Saunders, M. C. (2016). Executive orders for human rights: The case of Obama’s
LGBT nondiscrimination order. Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 16(1), 24–36.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “coming
out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: Journal of NSRC, 1(2), 6–24.
Hines, J. M. (2012). Using an anti-oppressive framework in social work practice with lesbians.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 24(1), 23–39.
Horn, A. J., & Wong, Y. J. (2014). Fathering gay sons: A typology of fathering concerns and
clinical recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 247–257.
Human Rights Campaign. (2015a). Corporate equality index 2015. Retrieved from http://www.
hrc.org/campaigns/corporate-equality-index
Human Rights Campaign. (2015b). Workplace discrimination laws and policy. Retrieved from
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/Workplace-Discrimination-Policies-Laws-and-Legislation
Johnson, D. K. (2004). The lavender scare: The Cold War persecution of gays and lesbians in the
federal government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to
discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263.
King, E. B., Mohr, J. J., Peddie, C. I., Jones, K. P., & Kendra, M. (2014). Predictors of identity
management: An exploratory experience-sampling study of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers.
Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206314539350. Published online before print June
23, 2014.
K€ollen, T. (2013). Bisexuality and diversity management: Addressing the B in LGBT as a relevant
‘sexual orientation’ in the workplace. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1), 122–137.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1),
363–385.
Morrow, D. F. (2003). Cast into the wilderness: The impact of institutionalized religion on
lesbians. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 109–123.
Ragins, B. R. (2004). Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career experiences
of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Manage-
ment, 23, 35–120.
Psychology, 86(6), 1244–1261.
Sarkar, M., & Torre I. (2015, February). Same-sex marriage: Where in the world is it legal?
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/world/gay-marriage-world/
Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived
discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social
Psychology, 12(1), 167–199.
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695.
Tejeda, M. J. (2006). Nondiscrimination policies and sexual identity disclosure: Do they make a
difference in employee outcomes? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(1),
45–59.
Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’
procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 46(1), 97–105.
Tremblay, M., Paternotte, D., & Johnson, C. (Eds.). (2011). The lesbian and gay movement and the
state: Comparative insights into a transformed relationship. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www.
humanrights.com/what-are-humanrights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.html
492 T.G. Gates
Velez, B. L., & Moradi, B. (2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person–organization
fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with LGB individuals. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 59(3), 399–407.
minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2), 218–232.
Sexual Orientation Diversity Management
in Brazil
Jo~ ois, Francisco Duarte, Jo~ao Pinheiro, and Kamila Teixeira

ao G
1 Introduction
Homosexuality began to feature as a subject for academic scrutiny in Brazil in a

number of theses by nineteenth-century public health practitioners, whose intention
was to highlight the degeneration contained in the bodies of what were then termed
pederasts and viragos and to propose measures to eliminate the harmful effects of
their presence on social life (Green 1996). That kind of study died out over the
course of the twentieth century. However, the subject continued to be addressed by
other disciplines on the basis of quite prejudiced paradigms. There was no signif-
icant change in this scenario until the 1970s. Abandoning the endeavor to identify
the causes or allegedly damaging effects of homosexuality, the focus shifted to the
everyday difficulties confronting homosexuals in Brazilian society and the individ-
ual and collective strategies they constructed with a view to overcoming their
oppression (G ois 2003).
In the 1980s research into homosexuality expanded enormously. However, the
urgent needs posed by the HIV/Aids epidemic contributed to the studies being
almost totally restricted to the field of health and sexual practices. At the same time,
as a result of the wide range of problems experienced by gays, lesbians, bisexuals
and transgender people and, given its meagre resources, the LGBT movement was
ois (*)
J. G
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, Brazil
e-mail: jbhg@uol.com.br
F. Duarte
Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil
J. Pinheiro
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Brazil
K. Teixeira
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, Brazil

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_29
494 J. G
ois et al.
forced to choose very specific rallying points. Thus the 1980s and 1990s were
devoted to combating Aids while, in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s, the movement
concentrated its efforts on gaining recognition for the legitimacy of affective
relations between persons of the same sex, criminalizing homophobia and intro-
ducing education strategies to foster a positive understanding of homosexuality
(Gois 2013a).
Given that context, not enough academic (and political)1 attention has been
given to the relations between sexual orientation and the labor market, in two
respects particularly: (1) the conditions in which gays, lesbians, bisexuals and
transgender people are engaged and retained in work situations and; (2) business
strategies directed to surmounting the impacts of prejudice on sexual minorities in
the places where they pursue their professional activities.
As regards the first concern, it must be acknowledged that important studies
(e.g., Garcia and Souza 2010; Irigaray and Freitas 2011; Neto et al. 2014) have been
done in Brazil and that their approach has evolved quantitatively and conceptually
in recent years, although more research is needed, especially into the situation of
transvestites and transsexuals.
On the second issue, the studies can be grouped, by and large, into two currents.
In the first are the supportive studies that examine these strategies without
questioning their limits and assumptions (e.g., Garcia-Marza 2007; Oliveira and
Rodriguez y Rodriguez 2004). The second comprises those that tend to disqualify
those same strategies as unable to eliminate the problems they target (e.g., Diniz
et al. 2013; Saraiva and Irigaray 2009).
The crucial error of this second current is to focus too narrowly on the materi-
ality of the practices and their purported lack of practical effect, while failing to
note fundamental process-related aspects of how forms of social protection are
constructed for the LGBT workforce and how important it is for the existence of a
given problem to be recognized in order for it to enter onto public and private policy
agendas.2
This chapter has two purposes. The first is to respond to the need for more case
studies of practices designed to assure more inclusive management of LGBTs in the
workplace. In doing so, the aim is to understand both the regularities and whatever
dissonances may exist among the different practices mapped by other authors.
The second is to examine the hypothesis that the importance of such practices is
both instrumental and expressive: instrumental in that they produce some kind of
concrete gain for their target segment; and expressive because they are important
beyond the immediate field where the needs are met, and produce effects in the
complex domain of cultural change. Such change—framed as it is within a vast
political and cultural tangle and given that discriminatory practices are strong
1
Nor did the LGBT movement itself give the issue much attention, as will be shown below.
2
A theoretical analysis of social problems’ entry onto agendas can be found in Kingdom (1984)
and Howlett and Ramesh (1995). An empirical analysis of how this entry comes about can be
found in Hajer (1993).
Sexual Orientation Diversity Management in Brazil 495
presence among us—happens quite slowly. In spite of all that, the practices in
question do display degrees of effectiveness and, if applied with care, can be a force
for significant progress by educating and fostering adhesion to democratic values. It
can thus be hypothesized that business-promoted protective measures for the LGBT
segment, despite their limited immediate impact, do contribute towards the gradual
recognition and inclusion on corporate agendas of discourses and practices that
assure healthier and fairer workplace conditions for that segment.
In order to carry out this study, an inventory was first made of the large
corporations that have introduced measures for different initiatives in diversity
management for the LGBT workforce. This survey was conducted on the basis of
data collected by Exame magazine in 2013 ranking the one hundred largest firms
operating in Brazil by annual sales volume.
The result of that survey produced a representation that did little to express the
real proportions of such measures. Of the one hundred companies ranked by Exame,
only 15 declare on their websites or annual reports that they have measures in place
for LGBT. However, the authors’ expertise and data collected in the interviews with
consultants show that the number is larger. Why this numerical disparity? Many
companies do not publicize their actions in this area for fear of being identified as
gay-friendly firms and thus drawing adverse reactions from their consumers and
other stakeholders. As one interviewee said,
It’s still a very polemic issue. So what you see is that there are firms that don’t want to deal
with the LGBT issue at all. There are firms that deal with it openly and publicize their
support. And there’s always that third group, which is those firms that deal with the issue,
but prefer to do so more discreetly.
Measures for the LGBT workforce implemented by the 15 firms in question were
analyzed on the basis of a reading of the sustainability reports, codes of ethics or of
conduct, and plans emphasizing the value of diversity and combating discrimina-
tion.3 That analysis made for a clearer view of the overall panorama of organiza-
tional practices acknowledging the value of LGBT workers, and helped identify the
most recurrent practices in Brazil.
We then selected three of those companies, and evaluated their practices in
depth. The first company, founded in 1975, is connected with the chemicals
industry and located in S~ao Paulo State. The second is a banking sector multina-
tional operating in Brazil in 545 municipalities. The third is a United States
chemicals multinational, which started operating in Brazil in the 1950s and now
has 2300 employees.
In order to understand better the practices developed by the selected companies,
six senior representatives of three companies were interviewed. We also
interviewed two other groups of informants.
The first group is made up of four consultants with vast experience in diversity
management. The reasons it was important and necessary to interview external
3
Secondarily, we also used newspaper and magazine articles, and content available on the
Internet.
496 J. G
ois et al.
consultants relate to two issues. The first has to do with their comprehensive,
analytical approach to the various different corporate practices. The second stems
from the difficulty of gaining direct access to many business managers, because
large companies operating in Brazil often follow very strict protocols in granting
interviews.
The second group comprises members of the so-called LGBT Business Forum,
which will be described in the fourth section of this chapter. Three key participants
in the Forum were interviewed. They represented the consultancy firm TXAI,4
Instituto Ethos5 and Grupo Carrefour S.A.6
The interviews were guided by a semi-structured script, and conducted using a
variety of media (skype, telephone, in person and by e-mail), as determined by the
interviewees’ availability. Interview time totaled approximately 500 min. The
transcriptions filled a total of 192 pages.
The interviews in question were conducted drawing on the oral history method
(Thompson 1978), which is being quite widely used in analysis of public and
private policies (Chan 2005; Keulen and Kroeze 2012). Oral history enables the
researcher to draw on the recollections of people who participate actively in the
events and conjunctures to be studied. It is known to be productive when the
intention—as in this study—is to examine periods of the past that are recent enough
for memory to be used as an information source.
Analysis of the interviews proceeded jointly with analysis of the written sources.
The latter emphasized more formal aspects of the organizational practices. By
accessing the memories of those agents who participated actively in implementa-
tion of these measures, we sought to grasp a body of information not made explicit
in the written sources. The data obtained in the interviews and from the printed
sources was not problem-free, however. Strictly speaking, all types of source,
whether oral, written or visual, embody certain levels of subjectivity and many,
therefore, contain gaps or ambiguities, and are not free from interference by their
authors’ idiosyncrasies (Thompson 1978).
The next section presents the actions—educational activities and social bene-
fits—that predominate among measures directed to the LGBT workforce in the
firms studied.
4
TXAI’s activities include preparing sustainability and social responsibility projects for large
corporations.
5
Instituto Ethos de Empresas e Responsabilidade Social was founded in 1998 by a group of
businessmen in S~ao Paulo. It is a key agent leading discussions of social responsibility in corporate
circles in Brazil.
6
Carrefour is a French retail multinational.
2 Educational Activities
Educational activities are an important component of business measures directed to

the LGBT workforce, although other groups such as women, people with disability
and Blacks are also targeted. Many of them are permanent. More commonly,
however, they tend to be occasional, restricted to dates such as gay pride week
and International Day Against Homophobia. On such dates, discussions and talks
are held on sexual diversity in the business environment and on social benefits for
same-sex couples, films on LGBT subjects are shown, in-house communication
vehicles carry pieces reporting on the companies’ support for their gay, lesbian and
transgender employees and their rejection of homophobic attitudes and actions,
events are held to exchange experiences with other companies and workshops are
organized for internal and external publics.
Overall, these activities are organized and run by committees of employees,
many of them volunteers. This strong volunteer presence should not be taken to
suggest amateurism: their members are capacitated in advance to develop a critical
reading of their actions, particularly as regards carrying corporate messages about
company support for homosexual workers and their own role as information
multipliers.
A significant number of the workers who enter the companies studied here
undergo training addressing LGBT issues, as well as physical disability and gender
topics. Data on such training courses are not easily accessible nor abundant. We do
know, however, that they are structured, have an educational proposal, and are
given on the basis of instructional material.7 They are generally given in the form of
talks and workshops, against the backdrop of the human rights issue. The training is
designed to enable employees to deal with difference more broadly, and not just
with groups in situations of greater vulnerability. On this subject, one manager gave
the following explanation:
We have training that is extremely important here in the company, that is, general training
on diversity, which talks about the importance of including others, regardless of what they
are like. And here we’re not even talking about a minority. We’re talking about how to deal
with someone who is a little fatter, someone who is more childish, with each person’s
specific characteristics. In the end, of course, we are always looking for respect for
everyone’s human rights, no matter what the physical, emotional or behavioral character-
istics that differentiate them from the other employees.
Educational activities have also targeted managers at different levels of com-

mand. This is intended to encourage them to think about the issues that hinder or
prevent openly as well as closeted homosexual workers from accessing the same
opportunities as heterosexual workers and how they themselves may intervene in
that process. In addition, managers are instructed on the correct use of LGBT-
7
Examples of pedagogical projects and training content can be found at Instituto Ethos (2014,
2015), ONU (2014), and http://colecaocaixadediversidade.mundocaixa.com.br/. Accessed
7 September 2015.
498 J. G
ois et al.
related terminology, particularly as regards the different gender identities and

sexual orientations, and on how to react favorably to a process of coming out.
There is a consensus in the literature that, in order to generate best practices in
diversity management, it is important to train people occupying senior positions in
companies, as can be seen from the work of Fullerton (2013) and Thibeaux
et al. (2006).
Adoption of such educational actions by the companies studied here is guided by
certain presuppositions.
The first is that they will have the potential to contribute to asserting certain
gender identities and, by a progressive process of awareness building as to the
legitimacy of homo-affective relations, will make it easier for homosexual workers
to come out.
The second is that they will foster the formation of a supportive environment
able to reduce sensations of imagined or actual discrimination. By doing so, they
will afford such employees a more comfortable work experience.
It is also assumed that prejudices at the workplace can only be suppressed by
cultural changes in corporations and society at large, understood as the endeavor
both to internalize and to spread values that prioritize respect, for instance, for
different models of family and the rights of transsexuals. This is a key question,
because if so-called educational actions are conceived as divorced from the outside
world, they tend to lose much of their power. Historically, Brazilian businessmen
have tended to conduct their activities endogenously. That is a problem that remains
to be surmounted. However, there is cause for optimism: one consultant
interviewed described how Brazilian companies are gradually learning to relate
their activities to the broader social context. ‘Until a few years ago, Brazilian
companies only looked inwards. Today they are looking more to the outside
world. Today it is clearer to senior company staff, to human resources, to market-
ing, that they do not exist in a vacuum. Activities to include minorities now also
begin to consider that the company is a microcosm influenced the whole time by the
outside world.’
Current perceptions very close to common sense tend to emphasize that Brazil-
ian society is open to dialogue on homosexuality. However, studies report the
numerous limitations on this imagined ease in dealing with the subject (Gonçalves
2013; Jardim and Brêtas 2006). In fact, outside the realm of banter and extreme
informality, it is seen as a subject not to be discussed openly or, at most (given its
supposedly pathological and, above all, pathogenic nature), addressed within the
family (Vital and Lopes 2013). Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that suc-
cessful LGBT-related educational experiences have been observed in schools,
community centers, healthcare institutions and businesses (Mello et al. 2012;
Ramos and Carrara 2006). This endorses, if only partly, the positive diagnoses by
the interviewees as to the effects of awareness-building experiences. That positive
assessment, however, does not detract from the authors’ and the companies’
recognition of the need to improve measures in this area, because they are still
incipient and exist on a smaller scale than those directed to other marginalized
groups. One of the consultants interviewed offered a lapidary analysis of compa-

nies’ perceptions of the possibilities and limitations of such measures:
I am convinced that the companies with programs to foster recognition of the worth of
LGBT workers truly believe that they are helping to enable these workers to perform their
functions in a more welcoming environment. They really do believe that these actions can
make a difference in these workers’ lives in the workplace and in other spheres. Now, I have
no doubt that they also know just how far these actions can go. They are companies with
analysts who know that prejudice against gays and lesbians is not going to cease to exist
that soon. They know that these actions need to be continuing and intensified and that, even
so, employees will continue to discriminate their LGBT colleagues implicitly or explicitly.
The point is to know whether these companies are really going to continue investing more
so that this situation of bullying, discrimination, and violence will be radically altered.
3 Equalizing Access to Social Benefits for Heterosexual

and Homosexual Couples
The granting of welfare benefits to homosexual workers has been gaining ground
over the years, as shown by a study of 194 Brazilian and foreign firms operating in
Brazil. In 2010, 41 % of the companies studied provided for employees in stable
same-sex unions to include partners in their health insurance. By 2012, the propor-
tion had jumped to 78 % (Melo 2013). Sporadic decisions by the courts have
contributed to that expansion. All the same, in Brazil there is no national legislation
making it compulsory to assure such benefits. Accordingly, access still hangs on the
decision of each business unit.
The companies studied have sought to treat heterosexual couples and same-sex
couples equally as regards access to benefits such as dental and medical health
coverage, life insurance, education and consumer discounts and expatriation.
Networks in the companies have addressed the lacunas in these equalization
processes. In one company, the committee responsible for diversity policy recently
approved new benefits to be granted to homosexual workers: (1) 5 days’ marriage
leave; (2) leave in the event of adoption; and (3) maternity leave for employees in
stable unions with persons of the same sex.
The companies studied tend to make positive assessments of the results of their
internal processes towards equality in granting benefits. However, it must be
underlined that the course of such initiatives faces various kinds of difficulties.
One of the most important difficulties is that only a very small number of
workers claim the benefits for same-sex couples. In one of the companies studied,
when health insurance was extended to such couples in 2007, only one employee
applied to include a dependent spouse. By 2013, only 14 employees had included
their spouses. Those numbers are very low for a company operating in 545 munic-
ipalities. That datum suggests how difficult homosexual workers find it to declare
their sexual orientation, which in turn also reinforces the diagnosis that the educa-
tional activities designed to build a more favorable workplace climate for the
LGBTs show limitations and need to be improved.
500 J. G
ois et al.
Here, it must be reasserted that it is not intra-organizational factors alone that

determine how effective strategies for managing diversity in sexual orientation will
be. On the contrary, that effectiveness is largely related to complex psychological
phenomena (internalization of the fear of being discovered to be homosexual and
internalized homophobia) and broader societal factors, such as the recurrent pres-
ence of prejudice and discrimination. This diagnosis is corroborated both by the
literature on the subject (Fullerton 2013; Garcia and Souza 2010; Griffith and Hebl
2002; Priola et al. 2013) and by interviewees:
“You know well”, said one manager, “that the problem of discrimination and homophobia
appears in various different spaces. The employee may encounter a welcoming environ-
ment at work, an environment where he feels good, and feels that he is accepted as regards
his sexual orientation. And nonetheless, he is going to have that uncomfortable sensation
whenever a colleague talks about homosexuality, because underneath it all, he lives with a
strong sensation of risk the whole time in society—and that sensation, he carries with him
into the work environment, even a more inclusive work environment.”
Accordingly, educational measures and policies to expand social benefits have to

face the fact that the closet “is not an individual choice and nor does the decision to
come out depend on individual ‘courage’ or ‘capacity’” (Miskolci 2009, p. 172). As
heterosexuality is the prevailing form of socialization and those who go against the
norm can be subjected to various different forms of violence, coming out in a firm
can bring about situations of explicit or veiled discrimination for promotion,
limitations on holding positions that involve contact with the public and even
dismissal.
4 Recognition and Policy Making
Even with limitations, large corporations in Brazil have made progress in their
efforts to assure greater equality between men and women, particularly as regards
pay and occupation of managerial positions (Abramo 2008; Instituto Ethos 2010;
Rosemberg and Leuzinger 2010). The same cannot be said of the differences
between homosexual and heterosexual workers.
The differences between these groups—women and homosexuals—can be
related to two factors. The first has to do with the wider social acceptance of the
idea of women as a marginalized group in Brazil and the feminist movement’s
greater power to bring grievances. Santos and Oliveira (2010) underline that “the
feminist movement influences trade union, left-wing political party agendas and,
progressively, social policy agendas” (Santos and Oliveira 2010, p. 6). This influ-
ence, they write, which dates from the early twentieth century, has gathered
strength increasingly over the past two decades, enabling the feminist movement
to obtain quite significant results; for example, a specific federal agency—the
Special Secretariat for Women’s Policies—has been set up to address gender equity
issues.
Homosexuals, on the contrary, have been in the public sphere for less time as an
organized group, because what today calls itself the LGBT movement marks its
beginnings from 1979 (Green 1996). Also it has less of a voice, and homosexuals’
status as a marginalized group is far less widely accepted. These are some of the
variables that explain why today, in spite of its accomplishments, that movement
still faces enormous “difficulty in bringing its grievances through the legislative
(. . .)’ associated with a ‘very strong conservative reaction (. . .) intended to kindle a
moral panic effect around images of ‘pedophile homosexuals’ who ‘opt’ or want to
rid themselves of a ‘perversion’” (Facchini and França 2009, p. 75–76).
Another factor, as empirical research has shown, is that programs for women
have a longer history, are better structured and can rely on more enduring sources of
funding. Meanwhile, those directed to the LGBT workers have been implemented
more recently, and have smaller technical teams and less funding at their disposal.
Remarking on the differences between the programs for these two groups, one of
the managers interviewed declared that “the gender issue is really quite advanced as
regards position, function, salary, discussion of rights issues. But we need to
advance in regard to other segments as well, including the question of
homoaffectivity”.
That corporate inclusion discourses and practices treat women and homosexuals
differently is consistent with the finding that a clear hierarchy has developed among
marginalized groups in Brazil. Women’s issues were more quickly introduced into
government social protection structures as a result, for instance, of their longer-
standing inclusion in the debate over women’s human rights and of the creation of
protection apparatuses at the international level, which recognized their situation of
vulnerability. For similar reasons, although on a smaller scale, in the past two
decades, the black population has seen the Brazilian State give increasing impor-
tance to its demands and needs. In that trend towards inclusion of marginalized
groups, the LGBT population still occupies a marginal position on the public
agenda. Political will, financial resources and effective actions are all lacking
(G ois 2013a).
Given that the private sector tends to mimic government positions on marginal-
ized groups to some extent, gays, lesbians and transgender people are likely to
receive less attention than women and Blacks in the business environment. It is no
coincidence that for years the Ethos Institute, which leads the field in propagating
corporate social responsibility in Brazil, when talking about diversity referred to
women, Blacks and homosexuals—but suggested concrete inclusion measures for
only the former two groups. It was not until 2014 that Ethos—which had already
released manuals of guidelines for the business sector to take action to give due
value to people with disability, former prison inmates, women and Blacks in the
corporate environment—published a similar manual of guidelines directed to the
LGBT workforce (Instituto Ethos 2014).
Data like these have led experts (e.g., Diniz et al. 2013; Eccel and Flores-Pereira
2008; Neto et al. 2014; Saraiva and Bicalho 2014) to make extremely adverse
assessments of business efforts at assuring the true worth of the LGBT workforce is
acknowledged. To summarize, they tend to conclude that such actions, besides
502 J. G
ois et al.
being ineffective, are a way of increasing workers’ adhesion to the logic of

business, that they constitute a strategy for allaying unavoidable social conflicts,
they neglect concerns such as social justice and more humane labor relations and
are designed exclusively to increase company profits.
It is not intended here to deny the limitations in this field, but rather to assert that
studies of this subject could gain greater density if they were to take account of
three points that hinder diversity management practices in Brazil.
The first is the gradual and unstable nature of public and private policy institu-
tionalization in Brazil. Unlike what happened in many western European countries,
the construction of Brazil’s social protection system was (and continues to be)
fragmented and it meets specific demands of those interest groups that are better
endowed with capital. One of the defects of this dynamic is that it generates an
astounding volume of hierarchical arrangements within a bureaucracy that still
draws a distinction between favors and rights. What is more, given the way
institutions and organizations function, implementation of policies and programs
is often fraught with a high degree of instability and thus at constant risk of
discontinuity (G ois 2013b; Santos 1998).
The second issue relates to the use of analytical models formulated in European
and North American societies with none of the necessary translation to the Brazilian
context (G ois et al. 2013). One sees the concept of policy cycle being used, for
example: very much in vogue, it proposes that policies are made in stages that feed
back into each other in the following order: identification of the problem, formu-
lation of proposals, definition of strategies, allocation of resources, monitoring,
evaluation and redefinition of forms of intervention (Howlett and Ramesh 1995).
Certainly these stages are not alien to public and private policy making processes in
Brazil. However, their occurrence is not linear and they are generally subject to
instability resulting from a series of factors: a tendency to improvise, informality,
small volumes of funding, lack of qualified personnel, and insufficient recognition,
on the part of public and private managers with power of decision, of the relevance
of, and even the need for, the programs and projects they comprise.
The third issue has to do with the failure to distinguish between the situation of
certain marginalized groups in developed countries and in Brazil. Taking Blacks in
the United States as an example, the idea that slavery and the reiterated practices
that subordinate Afro-descendants have resulted in a historical difference between
this racial group and whites now forms an integral part of the national imaginary.
This warranted the development of affirmative action policies in the fields of
education and labor (Anderson 2004). The situation is very different in Brazil,
where racism is still little acknowledged by society as a variable able to create
inequalities. On the contrary, what prevails is the notion of racial democracy,
according to which there is no racism and the differences among racial groups
can be explained as resulting from blacks’ lesser economic progress (Sales 2006).
Thus, any diversity management program for the black workforce that wishes to be
successful needs to have the potential initially to deconstruct the myth of racial
democracy, at the same time as it produces social inclusion. To do so, however, it
has to free itself from foreign analytical frameworks.
Despite the operational and conceptual problems examined thus far, even when
efforts to work on LGBT labor issues are unsuccessful, they do reinforce one
criterion that is important in public and private policy making: that one requirement
for intervention on any social problem is that the problem first be recognized as a
legitimate target for intervention.
That recognition is essential, in turn, for the issue to be culturally de-privatized
and consequently collectivized, a process that takes place as it is perceived that the
issue affects a specific social group, but has consequences for society as a whole.
Here, dispersed experiences come into contact, fostering enormous potential to
generate a common language among agents and actors involved with a given social
problem. Once recognized and collectivized, the problem becomes more likely to
occupy a stable place on the private and public social agenda. The likelihood of
achieving that stability will be much greater with support from agents possessing
large volumes of capital8 (economic, cultural, political etc.). The examination of the
data collected for this study suggests, as will be shown below, that this is a plausible
hypothesis.
Production of denser business policies for the LGBT workforce is occurring
within this framework: the spreading recognition that it is a legitimate object for
intervention. It is taking place in small steps, among a small number of companies
and in movements on a smaller scale, which are nonetheless able to spread the
values and practices of successful experiences in LGBT workforce diversity man-
agement. Envisaging and establishing points of contact among diverse particular
experiences institutes a minimum acceptable standard for action in this area. This
can be seen in the process that led to the creation of the LGBT Business Forum.
5 The LGBT Business Forum
The LGBT Business Forum has been instituted gradually as a result of the almost
silent spread of practices designed to foster inclusion of the LGBTs in the world of
work. One of the consultants interviewed referred to this as follows: “I don’t think I
was paying attention to the fact that the issue had arrived and that the conditions
were right for this recognition to occur in the business environment”.
The Forum was set up in 2013 by two activist consultants who had worked
previously with diversity management in companies and by the Ethos Institute.
Initially it brought together 13 firms, a number that soon increased to 23. The group
grew significantly and, by 2015, comprised around 90 large companies.9
8
The concept of capital in this study is taken from the work of Bourdieu (1999).
9
Printed and digital documents about this Forum are still scarce. A few of them are: ‘Empresas
firmam compromisso inédito no Forum de Empresas e Direitos LGBT.’ https://www.carrefour.
com.br/institucional/imprensa/releases/empresas-firmam-compromisso-inedito-no-forum-de-empre
sas-e-direitos-lgbt-2014. Accessed 3 February 2015 and ‘Catorze empresas assinam carta com os
504 J. G
ois et al.
As the Forum has existed for only a short time, it has not yet been possible to
conduct in-depth analysis of its self-representation. However, at least two compo-
nents that are constitutive of its identity do stand out.
One is that there should be no hierarchization of its internal relations. Instead,
the priority is to encourage experience sharing, so as to expedite the production of
knowledge and the reproduction of good practices.
Another component is the recognition that transvestites’ and transsexuals’ situ-
ation at work is precarious, making this problem one of the Forum’s main target
areas. These groups’ employability can now at least be seen to be improving in
large companies, as they begin to introduce effective recruitment and induction
strategies. Social names are being used, albeit in only a few, and support is being
won from areas in companies traditionally resistant on the subject.10 That seems to
offer encouragement for Forum members to pursue a broader agenda of inclusion of
transgender people in the workplace.
One factor that is essential in order to understand the Forum’s development is the
support it gained from important executives in its member companies, corroborat-
ing studies that show that diversity management strategies are more effective when
supported by the occupants of senior positions (Rangan et al. 2012; Waldman
et al. 2006). In the case studied here, CEO’s were approached directly for their
support. As a point of strategy, only those who had already demonstrated some
sympathy for LGBT issues were invited to join.
When advocating for the LGBT workforce, company CEO’s have benefited
from the force that human rights rhetoric has gained in Brazil in recent years.
Availing themselves of that situation, they are reaffirming their commitments to
sexual minorities, even in dealings with important (religious and party) stake-
holders who are reluctant to be associated with the subject. The rights of lesbians,
gays, bisexuals and transgender people have become a favorite target of religious
and political fundamentalists. Meanwhile, large Brazilian corporations have enor-
mous political and economic capital to wield. It is thus important to note that some
of them have used that potential to confront reactionary discourses in relation to
reproductive and sexual rights. That is a possibility that remains to be better
examined, but the indications are that large corporations are advancing in that
direction. Valentine’s Day publicity campaigns directed jointly to heterosexual
and homosexual couples, like the one run by the O Botic ario beauty products
chain, exemplify that diagnosis. The campaign sparked enormous controversy
and the company became the target for repeated protests. Nonetheless, it also
direitos LGBT’. http://www3.ethos.org.br/cedoc/catorze-empresas-assinam-carta-de-compro

misso-com-os-direitos-lgbt/#.VgMWoN9Viko. Accessed 4 April 2015.
10
One example of this is the proactive measures taken by the Carrefour group to assert the need for
equal treatment of LGBT workers following the alleged situation of prejudice in the engagement
of a transsexual woman. See http://www.pragmatismopolitico.com.br/2013/07/transexual-acusa-
carrefour-de-preconceito.html. Accessed 8 August 2015 and http://exame.abril.com.br/negocios/
noticias/carrefour-faz-manual-sobre-como-tratar-pessoas-lgbt-em-lojas. Accessed 8 August 2015.
gained support from consumers and civil society groups and continued to run the
publicity piece (O Boticário 2015).
One last remark on the importance of some CEO’s joining the Forum: they move
in circles of political and economic power that are beyond the reach of even the
best-qualified and most influential technicians and consultants. If they continue to
embrace the task of spreading, among their peers, the idea that the LGBT workforce
should be valued on the labor market, it is possible that we shall see promising
results in this field in the near future. That diagnosis is consistent with the role that
business elites have played historically in modernization processes in Brazil (Diniz
1978; Leopoldi 2000) and many other countries (Dahl 1971). While, on the one
hand, they can (surprisingly often) be conservative and even reactionary, on the
other, they can play an important vanguard role as innovators (Schumpeter 2011).
To this day, no major social change has taken place in Brazil unless part of the
elites, guided by a wide variety of interests, have contributed to its expansion, as
demonstrated by studies of the abolition of slavery (Carvalho 2011) and the
overthrow of the military regime (Dreifuss 1981). In the Forum, this leading,
innovating role is played by some of the participating company CEOs, as reported
by one of its organizers who was interviewed for this study:
So we called in the CEOs and they came. It was important to have the CEOs, the senior
leadership, participating, because they motivate, inspire and reassure the business environ-
ment where they themselves are placed about LGBT rights issues in the workplace.
Although still in the process of formation, the Forum has gained ground in
obtaining recognition for the rights of the LGBT segment in the world of work.
One of the most important was the Letter of 10 Commitments to LGBT Rights,11
with regard to which we would like to highlight a number of issues.
The first is its very existence. Letters of commitment are not new to the business
world in Brazil. They have shown potential for fostering the construction of,
adhesion to and respect for instituted values and rules, establishing minimum
acceptable standards of conduct, inhibiting illegal practices and stipulating punish-
ment for offenders. Similar documents relating, for example, to the use of child and
slave labor have circulated among us (Rocha and Gois 2011). 12 Often formulated
within civil society, some documents of this kind have been converted into
federal laws.
The second is that only 14 of the 90 companies involved in the Forum today have
signed the Letter. At first sight, that may be regarded negatively. The interviews,
however, point to other possible analyses: their failure to adhere immediately
suggests that many companies are looking to introduce the principles of the letter
11
General information about the letter and the ten principles can be found at: http://www3.ethos.
org.br/cedoc/catorze-empresas-assinam-carta-de-compromisso-com-os-direitos-lgbt/#.VgHIpt9Viko.
Accessed 22 August 2015.
12
The National Pact to Eradicate Slave Labor and the National Commission to Eradicate Slave
Labor, for instance, grew out of the activities of a range of civil society agents. Their history is
available at: http://www.reporterbrasil.org.br/pacto/conteudo/view/4. Accessed 1 September 2015.
506 J. G
ois et al.
into their organizational structures on more solid bases: not all their sectors are
persuaded that this action is important (Marketing tends to be particularly resistant).
For that purpose, they have embarked on a process of internal dialogue with
different portions of the administration which—it is believed—will, when com-
plete, mean that the signing of the Letter will be accompanied by changes in
managers’ behavior. Those changes should reflect modifications to their beliefs
about the (negative) meanings attributed to homosexualities that have crystallized
in our midst.
That expectation, once again, connects with the discussion of the role of cultural
change in diversity management processes. All the interviewees, when asked,
identified that kind of change as being the greatest obstacle to improving practices
designed to promote inclusion for sexual minorities in the world of work. Brazilian
society still displays a variety of beliefs and prejudices about certain segments of its
population (quilombolas, transvestites, people from the Northeast etc.), creating a
cultural ambience little suited to acceptance of non-standard practices and
lifestyles.
That in turn does nothing to favor the recent tendency to implement public and
private policies with strongly inclusive traits—notably those associated with the
idea of affirmative action or reparation—as can be seen so well in the constant
(individual and collective) assaults on university quota policies for Blacks (Camino
et al. 2014). As regards the LGBT segment, that resistance is multifaceted, making
it even more severe (Vital and Lopes 2013). Talking about this issue in the business
environment, one of the interviewees stated:
In the case of LGBT, you have a confusion there, like in society. Companies import this into
their internal standards, into their management model. Then being gay is not just being
different; it’s being immoral and indecent. There is no such thing as a gay family; child
adoption is a no-no. It’s different from the issue of the disabled person, the race issue,
women’s issues. So you have to combat that specifically. The cultural hurdle is higher.
The third issue has to do with the principles upheld by the Letter. It reaffirms the
importance of the actions being taken, particularly the educational activities and the
efforts to strengthen equality in treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals when
benefits are granted.
The volunteer employee committees, set up to introduce practices for LGBTs,
constitute a link between workers and the sectors responsible for diversity man-
agement programs. That is why the Letter stresses the need for support for what it
calls affinity groups.
Another salient point is the importance the Letter gives to forging links between
the company and the surrounding society, reaffirming the belief in the principle that
the lack of broader cultural change dampens the effects of the internal practices
designed to foster appreciation for the value of diversity. That is one of the reasons
the Letter stresses the need to “promote the economic and social development of
LGBT people in the value chain” and to “support actions in favor of LGBT rights in
the community”.
From the outset, diversity management practices have been caught up in a fierce
discussion over their functions and intentions. Early critics associated them with the
competitive advantages they could produce for companies and an ability to displace
minority exclusion processes from broader societal settings where differences are
transformed into inequalities. They were thus considered to fulfil the function of
domesticating conflicts based on race, sex, creed, regional origin etc. The Letter and
the Forum seek to distance themselves from this outlook and frame the discussion
of diversity management in the human rights domain. That should not be regarded
as a simplistic view of the modern capitalist corporation nor a denial that profit is
one of its founding concerns. Rather it should be seen as an effort, on the discursive
plane, to balance the technocratic and humanistic influences underlying diversity
management practices. In other words, the idea is to treat “certain productivity
criteria as relative in order really to include a multiplicity of values, life experiences
and conditions” (Neto et al. 2014, p. 96).
Of the companies that have now signed the Letter (Carrefour, IBM, P&G,
Accenture, BASF, Caixa, HSBC, GE, DuPont, Dow, PwC, Pfizer, Whirlpool and
Monsanto), only one is Brazilian; of the other 13, one is French, one German and
two British. By no coincidence, the remaining nine are incorporated in the United
States. In fact, the development of diversity management programs can be traced
back to the United States. Not only practices were refined there, but also models,
which tend to be reproduced in the firms’ subsidiaries abroad (Gois et al. 2013).
Given the importance that the Forum can come to gain, it must be borne in mind that
its potential for innovation can be deconstructed by the tendency not to translate
practices, which may function in the USA and have little impact in Brazil.
As with any social experiment, the Forum’s destiny is still uncertain. It may wear
out and disappear or, conversely, it may prosper. It may equally gain a new format
and function on a new dynamic. The interviewees see that third alternative as the
most likely. That would mean setting up a new type of governance in which the
consultancy that led the founding of the Forum would take on an advisory role and
the companies themselves would take responsibility for the executive dimension of
its activities. There are gains in such a model, but also possible harm, such as the
loss of the activist dimension and the introduction of logics—particularly the logic
strictly of business—that are alien to its founding spirit.
6 Final Remarks
When the three business experiences in diversity management for the LGBT
workforce studied here are compared with others discussed by various different
authors (Eccel and Flores-Pereira 2008; Saraiva and Irigaray 2009; Diniz
et al. 2013; Lara 2008), strong similarities emerge as regards the actions undertaken
for internal publics, primarily educational practices and measures to assure greater
equality in the granting of social benefits to homosexual and heterosexual couples.
508 J. G
ois et al.
That homogeneity reflects the small number of initiatives for LGBTs and the
absence of any bolder ventures that dare broaden the scope of existing measures.
Although there are no consolidated data on the subject, information scattered
through various different print and digital sources,13 as well as the interviews of
consultants conducted here, indicate that, in Brazil, diversity management pro-
grams for this segment are concentrated practically exclusively in large companies,
particularly those with foreign capital. They are not the largest employers, however;
that role is reserved to the universe of medium and small businesses. Accordingly,
LGBT diversity management is still not a very widespread phenomenon and, in
addition to being recent, is spreading only slowly and its development is bound up
with internal variables (difficulties in coming out, shortage of resources for
implementing measures, lack of adhesion to diversity policies by workers as a
whole and so on) and external variables (generalized homophobia, discriminatory
religious discourses, lack of educational policies on sexual orientation and so on),
which hinder it from expanding and becoming established.
Another factor that contributes to hindering the spread of efforts to include
sexual minorities in the labor market is a lack of pressure from the State and the
trade union and LGBT movements.
Unlike women, Blacks and disabled people, LGBTs are not covered by any
specific State ruling to protect them directly from discrimination and still less to
force companies to introduce affirmative actions for them, or encourage or reward
those that do so.
Nor have trade unions yet introduced special protections for LGBTs onto their
agendas. Bargaining situations (negotiation of collective agreements, for instance)
could be used for this purpose, but fail to address the issue. Certainly there are
exceptions, but these are residual. Added to this, as already mentioned in the
introduction, the LGBT movement’s level of dialogue with the business world is
low. Here it must also be said that, even with the present possibility of bringing new
topics onto the agenda, that movement has still not endeavored to build channels for
dialogue with the business world, nor to make use of existing ones. It does not bring
demands, seek dialogue or try to develop an informed diagnosis of the relationship
between the homosexual workforce and the business world.
It is beyond the scope of this study to examine in any depth the low density of the
trade union and LGBT movements’ relations with business circles. We can, how-
ever hypothesize that, in addition to the specific difficulties surrounding any
discussion of homosexuality in Brazil, this situation is aggravated by a very adverse
collective perception of the business world and of capitalism as a whole. The
business world is seen as predatory, exploitative, devoid of respect for standards
and persons, and so on. In this context, it is forgotten that businessmen are not a
monolithic block and that expressions of solidarity between workers and business-
man has been recorded throughout the history of labor relations in Brazil (Petratti
13
See, for instance, http://exame.abril.com.br/negocios/noticias/dobram-empresas-que-dao-
beneficios-a-parceiros-do-mesmo-sexo/. Accessed 6 August 2015 and Rossi (2015).
1990). Amid this (apparent) lack of interest, companies ultimately perform the
function traditionally expected of social movements. It is they who are instigating
and moving dialogue along with the LGBT and trade union movements in the field
of sexual rights. From being potential targets of grievances, they have now taken a
position where the demand comes from them.
It was in that context that the business diversity management measures for the
LGBT workforce that have been examined in this and several other studies took
shape. Framed within a complex interplay of multiple interests, varied beliefs,
limited resources and so on, none of them can be considered exemplary. Their
limitations are obvious. That however, does not sustain such adverse diagnoses of
them as those set out above.
The measures studied here, as with many others examined in other studies, do
not affect only the internal publics. They extend beyond those walls and influence at
least two other segments. The first are the, generally medium and small, businesses
involved in the same production chain. This is particularly important, because
management practices directed to LGBTs are alien to the universe of companies
of this size. Remember that, in Brazil, they account for around 99 % of formal
employment. The second is the external public reached by funding for activities
connected with the LGBT universe, which include film festivals and gay pride
parades held annually in a number of Brazilian cities.14
Unlike policies formed in large blocks, business measures for LGBTs in Brazil
are taking shape piecemeal. Organizational practices by head offices in other
countries have been translated to a greater or lesser extent, and replicated in Brazil.
In turn, they have inspired and encouraged other organizations to engage with the
issue. In sum, these practices have been enough to form an LGBT Business Forum,
which would have been unthinkable even only a few years ago. What directions the
Forum may take in future is unpredictable, even though the interviewees’ dis-
courses about it are very optimistic. That sentiment is not too distant from the
realities. To arrive at the point of setting up a Forum with the proportions it has
gained was at the same time surprising and expected. It expresses what was said
about the process of producing the field of business actions: it is a continuous
joining up of dots that reveals the importance of recognition.
References
Abramo, L. (2008). O Programa Pro-Equidade de Gênero. Ser Social, 10(23), 39–70.

Anderson, T. (2004). The pursuit of fairness: A history of affirmative action. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14
This funding is strictly ad hoc and concentrated in sponsorship of a small number of cultural and
political activities. In this regard it differs somewhat from more substantial forms of support found
in the business world in countries such as England and Canada.
510 ois et al.
J. G
Camino, L., Tavares, T. L., Torres, A. R. R., Álvaro, J. L., & Garrido, A. (2014). Repert orios
discursivos de estudantes universitários sobre cotas raciais nas universidades públicas
brasileiras. Psicologia e Sociedade, 26, 117–128.
Chan, A. S. (2005). Policy discourses and changing practice: Diversity and the university-college.
The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 50(1), 129–157.
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
de Carvalho, J. M. (2011). A Construç~ ao da Ordem. Rio de Janeiro: Civilizaç~ao Brasileira.
Diniz, E. (1978). Empres ario, Estado e capitalismo no Brasil: 1930/1945. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e
Terra.
Diniz, A. P. R., Neto, A. C., Gandra, G., & Bicalho, R. (2013). Polı́ticas de diversidade nas
organizações: as relações de trabalho comentadas por trabalhadores homossexuais. Economia e
Gest~ ao, 13(31), 93–114.
Dreifuss, R. A. (1981). 1964: A conquista do Estado. Petr opolis: Vozes.
Eccel, C. S., & Flores-Pereira, M. T. (2008, September 6–10). A inserç~ ao da ‘diversidade’
homossexual em uma livraria de shopping center. Paper presented at the 32th annual meeting
of the National Association of Research in Administration, Universidade Federal do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
Facchini, R., & França, I. L. (2009). De cores e matizes: sujeitos, conexões e desafios no
Movimento LGBT brasileiro. Sexualidad, Salud y Sociedad, 3, 54–81.
Fullerton, M. (2013). Diversity and inclusion—LGBT inclusion means business. Strategic HR
Review, 12(3), 121–125.
Garcia, A., & Souza, E. M. (2010). Sexualidade e trabalho: estudo sobre a discriminaç~ao de
homossexuais masculinos no setor bancário. Revista de Administraç~ ao Pública, 44(6),
1353–1377.
Garcia-Marza, D. (2007). E´tica Empresarial: do di alogo a confiança na empresa. S~ao Leopoldo:
Editora Unisinos.
Gois, J. B. H. (2003). Failed encounters: Relations between gay and lesbian studies and gender
studies in Brazil. Estudos Feministas, 11(1), 289–297.
Gois, J. B. H. (2013a). Policy analysis in non-governmental organisations and the implementation
of pro-diversity policies. In J. Vaitsman, J. M. Ribeiro, & L. Lobato (Eds.), Policy analysis in
Brazil (pp. 205–218). Bristol: Policy Press.
Gois, J. B. H. (2013b). Polı́tica Social e Sociedade Brasileira—instabilidades e inconclusões. In
J. B. H. Gois (Ed.), Proteç~ ao social e quest~
ao social (pp. 7–27). Rio de Janeiro: IMOS.
Gois, J. B. H., Hanappi-Egger, E., & K€ollen, T. (2013). National differentiations of diversity
management: A historic institutional framework for a comparison of Europe and South
America. The International Journal of Organizational Diversity, 12(3), 41–52.
Gonçalves, R. C. (2013). Educaç~ao Sexual no contexto familiar e escolar. H olos, 29(5), 251–263.
Green, J. (1996). Beyond carnival. Male homosexuality in twentieth-century Brazil. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: ‘coming
out’ at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191–1199.
Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalition and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid
rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and
planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems.
Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press Canada.
Instituto Ethos. (2010). Perfil Social, Racial e de Gênero das 500 Maiores Empresas do Brasil e
Suas Ações Afirmativas. S~ao Paulo: Instituto Ethos.
Instituto Ethos. (2014). Business commitment to LGBT human rights: Guidance to the business
world in actions aimed at lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and transgender people. S~ao
Paulo: Instituto Ethos.
Instituto Ethos. (2015, August 14). O compromisso das Empresas com os Direitos Humanos
LGBT—Orientações para o mundo empresarial em ações voltadas a Lésbicas, Gays,
Bissexuais, Travestis e Transexuais [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v¼V9zITBf7KmU
Irigaray, H. A. R., & Freitas, M. E. (2011). Sexualidade e organizações: estudo sobre lésbicas no
ambiente de trabalho. Organizações e Sociedade, 18(59), 625–641.
Jardim, D. P., & Brêtas, J. R. da S. (2006). Orientaç~ao sexual na escola. Revista Brasileira de
Enfermagem, 59(2), 157–162.
Keulen, S., & Kroeze, R. (2012). Back to business: A next step in the field of oral history—The
usefulness of oral history for leadership and organizational research. Oral History Review, 39
(1), 15–36.
Kingdom, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lara, A. R. (2008). A gest~ ao da diversidade nas melhores empresas para se trabalhar no Brasil.
Master in Business, Universidade de Brası́lia.
Leopoldi, M. A. P. (2000). Polı́tica e interesses. S~ao Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Mello, L., Brito, W., & Maroja, D. (2012). Polı́ticas públicas para a populaç~ao LGBT no Brasil.
Cadernos Pagu, 39, 403–429.
Melo, L. (2013, July 31). Dobram empresas que d~ao benefı́cios a parceiros do mesmo sexo.
Exame, p. 15.
Miskolci, R. (2009). O Armário ampliado—Notas sobre sociabilidade homoer otica na era da
internet. Gênero, 9(2), 171–190.
Neto, H. L. C., Saraiva, L. A. S., & Bicalho, R. A. (2014). Diversidade sexual nas organizações:
um estudo sobre coming out. Revista Pensamento Contempor^ aneo em Administraç~ao, 8(1),
86–103.
O Boticário. (2015, July 14). Dia dos namorados—O Boticário [Video file]. Retrieved from https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v¼p4b8BMnolDI
Oliveira, U. R., & Rodriguez y Rodriguez, M. V. (2004). Gest~ao da diversidade: além de
responsabilidade social, uma estratégia competitiva. XXIV Encontro Nacional de Engenharia
de Produç~ao.
ONU. (2014). Promoç~ ao dos Direitos Humanos de Pessoas LGBT no mundo do trabalho. S~ao
Paulo: ONU.
Petratti, P. T. (1990). A f
abrica do sonho. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Priola, V., Lasio, D., De Simone, S., & Serri, F. (2013). The sound of silence. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender discrimination in ‘inclusive organizations’. British Journal of Man-
agement, 25, 488–502.
Ramos, S., & Carrara, S. A. (2006). Constituiç~ao da problemática da violência contra
homossexuais: a articulaç~ao entre ativismo e academia na elaboraç~ao de polı́ticas públicas.
Physis, 16(2), 185–205.
Rangan, K., Chase, L. A., & Karim, S. (2012). Why every company needs a CSR strategy and how
to build it (Working Paper). Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
Rocha, G. do Ó., & Gois, J. B. H. (2011). Da Lista suja as ações reparadoras: um estudo sobre o
processo de responsabilizaç~ao de uma siderúrgica pela existência de trabalho escravo em sua
cadeia produtiva. In R. Figueira, A. Prado, H. A. Júnior (Eds.), Trabalho escravo
contempor^ aneo. Rio de Janeiro: MAUAD.
Rosemberg, J., & Leuzinger, B. (2010). Ações dos Empregadores Brasileiros na Promoç~ao da
Igualdade de Gênero e Raça no Trabalho. In OIT (Ed.), Igualdade de gênero e raça no
trabalho: avanços e desafios. Brası́lia: OIT.
Rossi, L. (2015, April 29). Chefe, sou gay. Exame, pp. 32–45.
Sales, R. (2006). Democracia racial: o n~ao-dito racista. Tempo Social, 18(2), 229–258.
Santos, W. G. (1998). Razões da desordem. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco.
Santos, S. M. M., & Oliveira, L. (2010). Igualdade nas relações de gênero no capital. Katalysis, 13
(1), 11–19.
Saraiva, L. A. S., & Bicalho, R. A. (2014). Diversidade sexual nas organizações: um estudo sobre
coming out. Revista Pensamento Contempor^ aneo em Administraç~ ao, 8, 86–103.
512 J. G
ois et al.
Saraiva, L. A. S., & Irigaray, H. A. R. (2009). Polı́ticas de diversidade nas organizações: uma
quest~ao de discurso? Revista de Administraç~ao de Empresas, 49(3), 337–348.
Schumpeter, J. (2011). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Mansfield Center, CT: Martino.
Thibeaux, S., Tillotson, G., Falls, T., & Bell, R. L. (2006). Imposition of diversity—Training
through top down management communication. Journal of Diversity Management, 1(2), 1–12.
Thompson, P. (1978). The voice of the past: Oral history. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vital, C., & Lopes, P. (2013). Religi~ ao e polı́tica: uma an
alise da atuaç~
ao de parlamentares
evangélicos sobre direitos das mulheres e de LGBTs no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Fundaç~ao
Heinrich B€ oll.
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Mansour, J. (2006). Components of CEO transformational
leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8),
1703–1725.
Incorporating Inclusivity: How
Organizations Can Improve the Workplace
Experiences of Trans* People Across
the Trans* Spectrum: A US Perspective
Annelise Mennicke and Andrew Cutler-Seeber
1 Introduction
While exact rates are difficult to ascertain, an estimated 0.5–2 % of the population
identifies at trans*1 (Conway 2002), representing a significant number of individ-
uals living in the United States and even more living abroad. According to data
from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, rates of unemployment
were twice as high for trans* people (14 %) as compared to the general population,
and up to four times as high for trans* people of color (Grant et al. 2011). While
workplaces are purportedly gender-neutral, research suggests that the “universal
worker” is in fact male and masculine (Acker 1990) as well as heterosexual (Martin
and Collinson 2000). As female workers became a larger proportion of the work-
force outside the home, they developed ways to work within the male and mascu-
line defined spaces of paid labor and instigated many changes to the ways
organizations operate, such as the institution of parental leave policies and changes
to the systems of job evaluation (Acker 1990). But where do trans* people, whether
male, female, or non-binary identified, fit within the world of employment? While
considerable progress regarding civil rights in the United States has been made in
the last decade for sexual minorities, trans* people still face certain and extensive
discrimination, especially in the workplace. In this chapter, a white cisgender2
1
Trans* is used as the current most inclusive term for transexual, transgender, and sex and/or
gender non-conforming people.
2
Cisgender is a term used to denote people who identify with the gender assigned to them at birth.
A. Mennicke, Ph.D. (*)
School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
e-mail: amennick@uncc.edu
A. Cutler-Seeber, Ph.D.
University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
e-mail: aseeber@umail.ucsb.edu

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_30
514 A. Mennicke and A. Cutler-Seeber
female and a white trans* person review research and theory related to workplace
experiences for trans* people, with particular attention to the role of social net-
works. Upon review, we offer ways workplaces can alter practices to demonstrate
acceptance of trans* employees along the spectrum of transition.
2 Transgender Employees in Workplaces in the US
2.1 Laws
The legal atmosphere is ever changing, but at the time of this writing 20 states had
laws banning employment discrimination against trans* people (California, Colo-
rado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Mas-
sachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Utah, Vermont, and Washington) (Transgender Law Center 2015). These laws
protect against unjust firing, non-hiring, or overt discrimination in the workplace.
Furthermore, there are protections from the federal government, as the Federal
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled in 2012 that Title VII
prohibited discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people.
This was echoed in 2014 when Attorney General Eric Holder stated that he would
support transgender litigation claims as part of the sex discrimination prohibition in
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ensuring that civil rights protections are
available to those who hold transgender status (Pieklo 2015). Beyond federal and
state laws, there are often local (city/county) ordinances and organizational policies
that offer discrimination protection for trans* employees. For example, many
leaders at the largest companies in the United states have adopted trans*-inclusive
policies, as 61 % of Fortune 500 companies reported in 2014 that they had extended
workplace protections on the basis of gender identity (up from 3 % in 2002) (HRC
2014).
While these laws theoretically prevent overt and systematic discrimination
against trans* employees, there are many formal and informal ways an employee
is forced to reveal their gender identity, which can cause subtle disruptions in
valuable social networks. There are many formal and informal ways people are
required or expected to identify or perform gender identity. The standard American
English language is infused with gender, leading to subtle reminders on a daily
basis of the expectations of cis and binary genders. This includes the use of
gendered names (e.g., Sarah versus Steve), reliance on gender-specific individual
pronouns (he versus she), the gendering of professions (doctors are assumed to be
male and nurses female), the use of male-as-normative/female-as-exception (chair-
man of the board, fireman, etc.), the use of parallel words (bachelor versus spinster),
the infantilization of females (referring to females as girls, “sweetie,” or “honey”
including in places of business) (Hyde and Else-Quest 2012), the informal gender-
ing of inanimate objects (referring to cars as “she”) and conversational topics (e.g.,
Incorporating Inclusivity: How Organizations Can Improve the Workplace. . . 515
shopping versus sports). More overt expectations of cis and binary gender are also
made salient on a daily basis through the binary options for bathrooms (and in some
cases locker rooms) given for employees, through uniforms/dress codes, personnel
policies (including maternity leave), new hire paperwork/personnel files (where
you are asked to indicate your gender identity), and the completion of background
checks/reference checks. These formal and informal norms reinforce a binary
gender structure, and deviation from this standard is implicitly or explicitly dis-
couraged through chastisement or alienation from social networks, explicit dis-
crimination from coworkers or organizations, or adoption of policies or practices
that are unintentionally oppressive.
2.2 Discrimination
Discrimination in the workplace is harrowingly common for trans* and gender

non-conforming people. One study found that 78 % of respondents had experienced
some form of direct discrimination (Grant et al. 2011) and these findings are echoed
across studies (Budge et al. 2010; Brown et al. 2012; Brewster et al. 2014). Types of
discrimination include being harassed, having information about them shared
inappropriately, being referred to by incorrect pronouns intentionally, being asked
inappropriate questions about their medical status, being the victim of physical or
sexual violence, not having access to appropriate bathrooms, being removed from
direct work with clients, and being denied promotion (Grant et al. 2011). Further,
7 % reported being physically assaulted while at work and 6 % reported being
sexually assaulted at work. Trans* people who work in hostile/unwelcoming
environments have poorer employee engagement (HRC 2014). The effects of
employee disengagement are costly for businesses as consequences include staying
home from work, searching for a different job, feeling distracted from work,
avoiding working on a certain project, avoiding working with certain clients or
customers, feeling unhappy or depressed at work, and having to lie about the reason
to take off work in order to care for a partner, child, or other family member (HRC
2014).
In addition to the job-related consequences, trans* employees who experience
discrimination in the workplace also face interruptions in their social networks.
This includes examples such as “avoided social events at work such as lunch, happy
hour, or a holiday party,” “had to lie about my personal life,” “felt exhausted from
spending time and energy hiding one’s gender identity,” and “avoided certain
people at work” (HRC 2014, p. 22). If trans* people feel unable to be themselves,
are avoiding social events at work or outside of work, or lying about their identities
in order to attend, they are not adequately or accurately being included into
workplace social networks, which also means the loss of information flows of
opportunities for advancement that these networks represent and facilitate,
maintaining trans* people on the margins of workplace environments.
3 Social Networks
Both formal and informal in the context of an organization, social networks are a
means of gaining knowledge and status crucial to occupational attainment and
success (Smith-Lovin and McPherson 1993; Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin 1999).
Looking at trans* people’s experiences in the workplace, there are four areas to be
explored in thinking about social networks: assumed stability, effects of discrimi-
nation and harassment on networks, effects of the interaction between sex category
identity and gender identity on inclusion into social networks, and what
“homophily” means for trans* people and how this relates to “weak ties” or
sponsor/mentor approaches to networks for advancement.
The first area of exploration is the assumed stability of social networks. Because
networks are studied as ongoing and relatively stable, how might trans* people’s
networks be affected by both a change in how they are sex categorized and in the
likelihood of significant disruption or complete loss of original networks?
Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin (1999) note one situation in which social networks
are less, but still relatively, stable. In examining people who move to change jobs,
they point out that women are more likely to move for a husband’s change of job
and as an effect, women’s networks decreased in the number of co-worker connec-
tions and decreased in overall diversity as well.
While many trans* people may move in the process of transition to avoid dealing
with transitioning openly on the job, the effects on social networks are likely to be
more severe. Unless previous employers can be trusted not to reveal their trans*
status, these workers are unable to draw on previous social networks and even prior
work experience in securing future employment. Those who transition openly at
work may retain some of their social network connections, though this may require
a sponsor/mentor-like relationship with upper management to achieve. Schilt
(2010) suggests that transmen may experience inclusion into the social networks
of cismen and gain the added size and diversity of networks cismen have achieved
as compared to ciswomen. However, as Schilt (2010) points out, transmen’s
inclusion requires them to navigate previous experiences of being perceived as
female in the context of cismen’s social networks, that decidedly hegemonic
transmen are more readily included, and these networks remain precarious for
transmen whether their trans* status is known or not. Finally, with regards to
stability of networks, both Grant et al. (2011) and Xavier and Simmons (2000)
report significant levels of familial estrangement as a result of being trans* people.
Thus, trans* people are often forced to navigate workplace experiences isolated
from their peers and family, which can lead to decreased mental health and loss of
productivity (Grant et al. 2011).
A second consideration, related to the assumption of stability in understanding
trans* people’s social network experiences are issues of discrimination, harass-
ment, and unemployment. Schilt (2010) notes that while both transwomen and
transmen face discrimination and harassment in the workplace, she suggests there is
a gender pattern advantaging transmen and disadvantaging transwomen. Grant
et al. (2011) came to a contradictory conclusion, finding similar levels of harass-

ment for transwomen and transmen. While titling the study the National Transgen-
der Discrimination Survey may have led to an over-representation of those who had
experienced discrimination and harassment, Grant et al. (2011) garnered an impres-
sive nearly 6500 responses to their survey over the course of 6 months, from
September 2008 to February 2009. They found that while the type of discrimination
and harassment varied for transwomen and transmen, overall, 82 % of transwomen
and 80 % of transmen reported direct mistreatment at work, including harassment
rates at work of 54 % and 50 % respectively. Unsurprisingly, people of color faced
higher rates of workplace discrimination and harassment. The optimistic tone of
Schilt’s (2010) work then might be better accounted for by the Grant et al. (2011)
finding that while experiencing nearly identical rates of harassment and discrimi-
nation as study participants overall, of those who had transitioned and lived full-
time in accordance with their gender identity at work, 78 % reported being more
comfortable and productive at work, despite the negative treatment they faced. In
light of this seeming contradiction, it is important to examine to what extent social
networks are affected by such high levels of discrimination and harassment and
what network strategies trans* people use to manage such difficulties.
The third, more theoretical area in need of exploration is a distinction between
sex category and gender. While it makes some sense to use the simplified categories
woman and man when comparing and contrasting the social networks of cispeople,
this approach is difficult to sustain when examining the experiences of trans*
people. Though all respondents in Schilt’s (2010) study are lumped together as
transmen, even Schilt points out that there are differences of inclusion in cismen’s
social networks on the basis of distance from hegemonic masculinity. Based on the
work of Connell ([1985] 2005) and West and Zimmerman’s (1987) “doing gender”
approach, Martin and Collinson (2000) note that there are a variety of masculinities
and femininities and that these are not restricted to being “done” by male and
female bodies respectively. People’s identities and social relations are a more
complex interplay between sex category identification and gender identification
(Seeber 2013). To the extent possible, given the pool of participants, the effects of
an interaction between sex category and gender, including non-binary identifica-
tions of each, in the creation and use of social networks needs to be explored.
Understanding what networks trans* people see as most suited to them can help in
understanding how best to make them available.
Finally, and related to the disaggregation of sex category and gender, the
question of what homophily means for trans* people requires examination. While
some trans* people may fit within the simplified binary of woman/man, even then
there remains a question of whether their experiences growing up being perceived
as a different sex category creates a different sense of what homophilous relation-
ships would look like. Which interests trans* people have developed over their
lifetime does not necessarily line up with the sex category others perceive them to
be. What commonalities do trans* people draw on in determining who qualifies as
most “like me?” The answer to this question would help in understanding whether
trans* people’s social networks are more similar to those of cismen or ciswomen.
Take the case of the EEOC ruling against the U.S. Army in April 2015. The
EEOC ruled that the U.S. Army discriminated against a transgender civilian
employee by denying the transwoman access to the women’s restroom and refusing
to use the employees preferred female name and feminine gender pronouns (Pieklo
2015). This type of discrimination contributes to disruptions in workplace social
networks for trans* people, particularly if, according to the homophily hypothesis,
this woman was not being allowed to participate in women’s networks on account
of continually referring to her with a male name and masculine pronouns. This
reiterates the need to centralize self-identification, because how best to make social
network inclusion possible depends upon understanding where trans* people see
themselves being included. Examination of social networks offers opportunities for
employers to initiate both subtle and overt changes that can improve the workplace
experiences of trans* employees across the stages of transitioning (pre-transition,
during transition, and post-transition).
4 Opportunities for Inclusion
At each stage of transition, organizations have opportunities to signal inclusion and

acceptance of trans* identity. While the needs of trans* employees generally differ
depending on their stage in the transition process, these stages are neither discrete
nor finite, and recommendations can overlap between stages.
4.1 Pre-transition
Prior to transition, employees may experience discomfort and lost productivity as a

result of not living as their most authentic selves (Grant et al. 2011). Employees
who are considering transitioning will weigh the pros and cons of doing so at their
current place of employment. Some will stay if they believe the environment is
supportive, while others will see potential costs as being too high and may leave a
job for another job or become unemployed if they believe the organization will not
be supportive of their process and that they will be excluded from necessary
workplace social networks. Much like the use of the pink triangle serves a signpost
of safety and inclusion for LGB folk, simple tweaks to organizational policies and
procedures can be made that would serve as signposts to those considering
transitioning that this company is safe and inclusive.
Those considering transitioning will be looking for formal and informal sign-
posts that indicate it will be safe for them to transition at their current place of
employment. Individuals are advised to search for policies and procedures that
indicate a supportive environment when considering whether an organization will
be supportive of trans* identity (HRC n.d.). Opportunities for organizations to
create these signposts include creating a non-discrimination policy that includes
gender identity and gender expression, as well as selecting health insurance plans
that do not have discriminatory exclusions. By doing so, employers can preemp-
tively communicate their promotion of equality to individuals considering
transitioning. Further, organizations can provide regular opportunities for train-
ing/continuing education related to gender identity, gender expression, and
allyship, increasing the likelihood that those who transition will continue to find
themselves valuably included in the social networks of the organization.
4.2 During Transition
During transition, employees may have to deal with significant instability in their
social networks and issues of acceptance and support versus discrimination and
harassment—issues that are likely to differ on the basis of their sex and gender
combinations, particularly if either sex or gender identity are non-binary. For
example, while Schilt (2010) found that transmen were generally included into
the social networks of men upon transition, she points out that inclusion was more
likely and complete to the degree that an individual transman met the standards of
hegemonic masculinity and the expectations of male sex characteristics. Thus,
taller, more athletic transmen were more likely to be drawn into the circles of
men than shorter transmen less interested in athletic pursuits. Likewise, those who
are intentionally ambiguous with regard to sex category, or who combine feminin-
ity and masculinity, are less likely to seamlessly fit into informal networks based on
same-sex organization.
While still sparse, most of the extant guidance on organizational accommoda-
tions for trans* employees focuses on how they can assist during a transition.
Available resources include: sections in Just One of the Guys? Transgender Men
and the Persistence of Gender Inequality (Schilt 2010) and “Transgender Issues in
the Workplace: A Tool for Managers” (HRC 2004). The Human Rights Campaign
also provides a list of publications on transgender inclusion in the workplace,
including Employer’s Guide to Gender Transition (1992), Medical, Legal, and
Workplace Issues for the Transsexual (1995), and Transgender Workplace Diver-
sity (2007). These guidelines stress the importance of providing strong top-down
support to improve the experience of the person’s transition. Opportunities to
express support include explaining the transition to subordinates, specifying the
preferred name and pronouns to be used, ensuring employees are adhering to the
preferred language choices, and providing gender-neutral bathrooms. In addition,
an upper level manager can informally maintain a mentor role in the trans*
employee’s work life such that the employee who likely cannot rely on weak ties
due to minority status will be able to rely on a mentor-like connection for infor-
mation and opportunities provided through social networks in the same fashion
found to work for women and other minorities. To facilitate transitions, organiza-
tions should establish clear guidelines for how to respond to an individual’s
decision to transition. Elements to consider include preparing employees for the
transition, procedures for updating files to the preferred gender identity, a plan for
bathroom usage and dress codes, and the establishment of an Employee Resource
Group, which can assist in limiting disruptions in social networks.
4.3 Creating an Inclusive Environment for Those Post-

transition
If an employee chooses to stay at their job post-transition, there are significant

barriers related to social networks that need to be considered. Trans* people weigh
the risks and benefits of staying at the workplace where they transitioned versus
changing employment location. A person’s trans* identity can be a particularly
salacious bit of information to the trans* person’s coworkers—particularly if being
trans* does not often come up or the person wishes to keep this piece of their
identity private. Uncertainty about the safety of disclosing information about one’s
trans* identity forces trans* people to lie or refuse to partake in informal social
activities, leading to isolation and limiting the ability to build rapport with
co-workers, managers, and would-be mentors.
Anecdotally, people who transition and stay at the same employment may
discover that coworkers feel it their obligation or otherwise necessary to inform
new hires about the trans* identity of a fellow employee. This can lead to awkward
interactions with each new coworker as the trans* employee has to cope with the
coworker’s processing of the information, along with general anxiety about who
does and does not know what. Under these circumstances, a trans* employee may
interact with coworkers, have positive experiences, and remain anxious not know-
ing if the interaction was positive because this coworker knows they are trans* and
is supportive, or does not yet know and may or may not be supportive upon finding
out. This makes networking and cooperation in the workplace precarious and
potentially fear inducing for trans* employees. While this situation of workplace
gossip may suggest advantages to changing location after transition, moving to a
new place of employment speaks to the potential loss of ability to report previous
work experience mentioned below.
After transition employees, whether openly trans* or not, may experience
difficulties bringing previous employment experience with them when changing
place of employment as their records may show sex and/or gender incongruent
information. If an employee is open about their trans* identity, they may simply
alert the potential employer of their previous name and pronouns to aid in obtaining
references and background checks where needed. Alternatively, if the employee
was open in their previous employment, they may simply ask their former employer
to use their current name and pronoun when contacted by potential future
employers for references. This approach may or may not be met with discrimination
by either the former or potential employers, but this is a gamble trans* people must
consider. Alternatively, if the employee is not open about their trans* status and
does not wish to be, they may instead have to weigh the likelihood of having their
trans* identity revealed during the process with the importance of presenting
evidence of their work experience to a future employer. On the one hand, if the
reference gets called and the person’s trans* status uncovered, the unexpected
information about a prospective employee being trans* may have a significant
negative impact on the hiring decision, even though technically illegal. On the
other hand, by not listing relevant employment experiences, the trans* person may
get overlooked for the job, being assumed to have lower qualifications.
Once an individual has fully transitioned, they are faced with a new set of
challenges when changing or gaining new employment. Organizations conduct
background checks with previous employers, which could require a potential
employee to disclose their prior transition to their new or former employer. If the
organization has not set up a climate that proactively indicates that trans* identity is
supported, an individual may choose to “lose” this reference in fear that the
organization would not hire them if they knew of the transition. As such, organi-
zations need to standardize processes and methods that explicitly indicate to an
individual that they will not be discriminated against during the hiring process.
There are many opportunities for signposts that indicate acceptance, which
include the presence of inclusive non-discriminatory hiring practices on all hiring
paperwork, the opportunity for individuals to indicate their preferred name and
pronoun usage during the hiring process, the chance for them to indicate their
former name and pronoun when completing reference checks, and the space for
them to indicate their legal name and gender identity on their identification mate-
rials for background checks. The practice of asking individuals their former name is
commonplace among some organizations that operate under the assumption that
individuals (especially women) may have a former name due to changes in marital
status and the associated name changes that some choose to go through. In this case,
organizations could go a step further to specify that the organization does not
discriminate on the basis of gender identity, and allow space for a person to write
in their formerly used gender pronoun in addition to their former name. Or, the
organization could incorporate the practice of referring to everyone as the gender-
neutral pronoun “they,” which would serve to not out a person to a former
employer, but would not serve to act as a signpost for trans* people when applying
to jobs. Further, regarding potential interruptions in social networks, employers
need to monitor the use of names and pronouns by employees, and provide
opportunities for formal and informal social networks to develop.
5 Conclusion
Trans* employees face significant hardships in their workplace experiences, often

related to disruptions in their social networks. Organizations can adopt formal and
informal policies and procedures that can enhance inclusion and lead to improved
stability. While this chapter pulls on available research to make recommendations
to improve the workplace experiences of trans* employees, there are many notable
gaps in knowledge that both limit the applicability of these recommendations and
provide opportunities for future inquiry. Particularly, more research needs to focus
on the experiences of trans* employees prior to and post-transition, as most has
concentrated on the transition process itself. The changing political and legal
context allows comparisons of employment experiences between organizations,
cities, or states that offer varying degrees of protection (or lack thereof) for trans*
employees. As organizations change their policies and procedures to become more
trans* inclusive, research should focus on the intended and unintended
consequences.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society,
4(2), 139–158.
Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Mennicke, A., & Tebbe, E. (2014). Voices from beyond: A thematic
content analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(2), 159–169.
Brown, C., Dashjian, L. T., Acosta, T. J., Mueller, C. T., Kizer, B. E., & Transgrud, H. B. (2012).
The career experiences of male-to-female transsexuals. The Counseling Psychologist, 40,
868–894.
Budge, S. L., Tebbe, E. N., & Howard, K. A. S. (2010). The work experiences of transgender
Cole, D. (1992). The employer’s guide to gender transition: Information for those dealing with an
employee involved in gender transition. Waltham, MA: The International Foundation for
Gender Education.
Connell, R. W. ([1985] 2005). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Conway, L. (2002). How frequently does transsexualism occur? Retrieved from http://ai.eecs.
umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.
every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey. Washington, DC:
Human Rights Campaign. (2004). Transgender issues in the workplace: A tool for managers.
Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign.
Human Rights Campaign. (2014). The cost of the closet and the rewards of inclusions: Why the
workplace environment for LGBT people matters to employers. http://hrc-assets.s3-website-
us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/Cost_of_the_Closet_May2014.pdf.
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Coming out in the workplace as transgender. http://www.hrc.org/
resources/entry/coming-out-in-the-workplace-as-transgender. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.
Hyde, J. S., & Else-Quest, N. (2012). Half the human experience. Belmont, CA: Cengage
Learning.
Kirk, S., & Rothblatt, M. (1995). Medical, legal and workplace issues for the transsexual.
Blawnox, PA: Together Lifeworks.
Martin, P. Y., & Collinson, D. L. (2000). Gender and sexuality in organizations. In M. M. Ferree,
J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 285–310). Oxford: AltaMira Press.
Pieklo, J. M. (2015). Historic ruling issued on transgender employee rights. RH Reality Check. http://
rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/04/10/historic-ruling-issued-transgender-employee-rights/
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of
Sociology, 25, 191–216.
Schilt, K. (2010). Just one of the guys? Transgender men and the persistence of gender inequality.
Seeber, A. R. (2013). Becoming somebody: Motivations for changing sex characteristics and
transpeople’s understandings of their behaviors in social context. Master’s thesis submitted to
the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Smith-Lovin, L., & McPherson, M. (1993). You are who you know: A network approach to
gender. In P. England (Ed.), Theory on gender, feminism on theory (pp. 223–251). New York:
Aldine.
Transgender Law Center. (2015). Equality Maps. Retrieved from http://transgenderlawcenter.org/
equalitymap. Accessed 28 Oct 2015.
Weiss, J. T. (2007). Transgender workplace diversity. Createspace Independent Pub.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151.
Xavier, J. M., & Simmons, R. (2000). The Washington transgender needs assessment survey.
Accessed at http://www.gender.org/vaults/wtnas.html. Accessed 24 May 2013.
LGBT Company Network Groups in the UK:
Tackling Opportunities and Complexities
in the Workplace
Fiona Colgan
1 Introduction
Over the last 20 years, many large UK-based organizations have established
company employee equality network groups (Bond et al. 2009). It has been argued
that company employee equality networks groups (CNGs) can provide routes to
visibility, empowerment, personal growth and networks for their members as well
as a range of diversity and business-orientated activities for organizations (Singh
et al. 2006; Colgan and McKearney 2012). Squires (2010) suggested that the
changing UK legal equality framework might provide increasing opportunities for
cross equality strand working. This chapter will explore the opportunities and
complexities of cross equality strand working by CNGs within a changing legal,
political and social UK context.
It will do this by exploring lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB)1 employee percep-
tions of CNGs and their initiatives within a UK-based global private sector com-
pany (Comco). The in-depth case study research took place between 2004 and 2009
(Colgan et al. 2006; Bond et al. 2009). It took place following the introduction of
the anti-discrimination Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations and
the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations in December 2003, the
Gender Recognition Act (2004) and the Employment Equality (Age) (Amendment)
Regulations 2006 and in the lead up to the introduction of the Equality Act (2010).
1
The chapter draws on research funded to consider lesbian, gay and bisexual perceptions of the
impact of the Employment Equality (SO) Regulations 2003. However most UK organizations have
chosen to establish equality network groups that aim to be inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered issues. In the UK, these groups are referred to as LGBT company network groups so
this is the terminology used to describe Comco’s network group in this chapter.
F. Colgan (*)
Guildhall Faculty of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, UK
e-mail: f.colgan.academic@gmail.com

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_31
526 F. Colgan
The single Equality Act replaced existing UK legislation targeting specific equality
strands (e.g. Sex Discrimination Act, Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination
Act in addition to the legislation listed above). Instead it identified nine ‘protected
characteristics’ including sex, disability, age, race, religion and belief, pregnancy
and maternity, marriage and civil partnership in addition to sexual orientation and
gender reassignment. The argument was that the move to a single equality legal
framework would simplify the law and encourage a more consistent and
intersectional cross diversity strand approach to employment equality within orga-
nizations (Squires 2010; Colgan 2014). Thus the research took place at a fairly
optimistic time for cross strand equality/diversity work in the UK, prior to the
election of a Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2010.
The chapter will first introduce the case study organization, its equality/diversity
structures and provide an outline of the research. It will then explore LGB employee
perceptions of the CNGs and their participation within them. Finally it will consider
the perceived opportunities and complexities of cross equality strand work across
Comco’s equality networks and its apprentice and graduate networks. It will do this
drawing on Yuval-Davis’s (1998) notion of ‘transversal’ coalition politics whereby
people in different constituencies although rooted in their own identity, beliefs and
membership may be prepared/required to shift to a position of exchange on matters
of common concern within the work context.
2 The Case Study: Comco—A Global Private Sector

Organization
Comco employed over 100,000 people in 55 countries in 2009 (over 80 % in the

UK). It provided goods and services in 170 countries around the world (Sustain-
ability Report 2009). Its Diversity Team is located in Human Resources but focuses
on equality/diversity issues which affect both staff and customer/client groups.
Benchmarking is an important element of its work. For example in recent years it
has sought to ensure that it maintains its top ten placement in four major diversity
benchmarks (e.g. Opportunity Now—Gender, International Business Equality
Index—LGBT, Race for Opportunity, Employers Forum on Disability). It works
with HR business partners who in turn work closely with line managers in the
operational business to deliver the corporate operational corporate responsibility
and diversity agenda.
Diversity is at the heart of our company and makes us more resilient and competitive. Our
workforce reflects the diversity of our customers, so we can imagine, create and deliver the
products and services they require now and in the future. We know that talented people are
not defined by their age, gender, sexuality, work status, ethnicity, beliefs or where they live.
Each of our people bring skills, ability, energy and unique perspective to [Comco], so we
take care to maintain a working environment that supports this diverse workforce (Sus-
tainability Report 2011).
LGBT Company Network Groups in the UK: Tackling Opportunities and. . . 527
The Diversity team also consults and negotiates with its recognised trade unions
on its diversity and equality committee. The organization has had a long commit-
ment to equality/diversity issues including the establishment of senior management
diversity champions and CNGs. The organization has a policy to ‘encourage
employee networks’ but ‘we don’t force them’ (Diversity Manager 2009). The
first network, the Women’s network was set up by a group of women after attending
a women’s development course in 1986 (Singh et al. 2006), followed by the Ethnic
Minority and Disabled CNGs. In line with this proactive staff-led approach, Comco
agreed to establish an internal company LGBT CNG following a formal request
from its LGBT employees in 1981. The Muslim and Christian CNG were more
recently established following formal requests in 2005. CNGs may be focused on a
diversity strand but may also be for other groupings such as apprentices and
graduates who are recognised to work across organizational units so may find a
CNG helpful in overcoming a degree of isolation and in providing a common voice
to the organization on key issues.
Fundamentally what we say to our employees is if you want to form an employee network it
must be a recognised voice for a minority group whatever that is, be democratically
managed via an elected chair and an elected committee, be open to all, and as well as
providing a benefit to that group there must be a business benefit to the organization. . . We
see that in terms of working with those networks to look at say products and services, to
look at policies that we develop where they have a specific feel, understanding or view on
which we may consult them (Diversity Manager 2009).
Each CNG was clear that in gaining formal recognition from the Equality
Diversity Forum it had to establish its remit, management competence and the
benefits to the company it would provide (Christian CNG key informant 2009). In
return, it gained recognition, a budget (which varied annually according to the
internal bidding process), ‘facility time’ for the chair/co-chairs and a set of rules to
abide by. For example, Comco CNGs are required to be open to all employees and
contractors so for example men may join the Women’s CNG and the LGBT CNG is
not restricted to people who identify as LGBT. This means they do not operate as
‘self-organised’ democratic constituencies and ‘safe spaces’ as may be the case in
some trade unions (Colgan and Ledwith 2002) or in other organizational contexts
(Colgan et al. 2006). Rather as open networks they are intended to promote
‘integration’ and provide a company ‘resource’ in assisting employees, contractors
and managers to gain a broader understanding of diversity (Muslim CNG
KI1 2009).
Thus CNGs are usually expected by employers to help create competitive
advantage (Stonewall 2012). Research shows that this can lead to a complex
balancing act between representing their constituenc(ies) whilst also being seen
to contribute business benefits to the organization (Githens and Aragon 2009;
Colgan and McKearney 2012). Additional concerns may arise concerning the
opportunities and complexities provided by cross strand working across equality
CNGs plus apprentice and graduate CNGs. For example CNG chairs met quarterly
with the diversity team to talk about the strategy and direction of the networks in
order to co-ordinate and avoid clashes in activities. They met to discuss and agree
528 F. Colgan
how to progress what might seem at first glance fairly straightforward corporate
diversity initiatives such as Comco ‘Diversity days’ as well as potentially more
controversial initiatives promoted by one or other network group such as a ‘Faith
and Homophobia’ seminar or a ‘Promote the Family’ week for example.
The case study research took place during two study periods. Phase 1 between
2004 and 2006 (Colgan et al. 2006) and phase 2 between 2008 and 2009 (Bond
et al. 2009). In total, 25 interviews were conducted. Seventeen interviews with LGB
employees (self identified as: lesbians (5) gay men (9) bisexual transgender (1),
bisexual woman (1) and bisexual man (1). Three of the respondents self-identified
as disabled and three as black and minority ethnic (BME). The 17 respondents
included 2 LGBT CNG key informants (KI) interviewed in Phase 1 and 2 KI
interviewed in Phase 2. To maximize the diversity of LGB interviewees, we used
multiple access routes such as organizational newsletters, email or intranet sites,
invitations via LGBT CNG and trade union groups.
In addition 2 KI interviews were held with a senior member of the Diversity
Team and a trade union (in both Phase 1 and Phase 2) plus 4 KI from other company
networks (Phase 2). The interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim for
analysis. The interviews were supplemented by access to company and trade
union websites and documents. The data was analysed using grounded analysis
techniques and is presented below under two key emergent themes.
3 LGB Employee Perceptions of and Participation

in Company Network Groups
Raeburn (2004) has argued that the establishment of lesbian and gay company
networks was linked initially to waves of sexual orientation activism in the United
States.2 A similar pattern appears to be true of LGBT company and trade union
networks in the UK (Colgan and McKearney 2012). However, as with other
equality groups, LGBT people are not a ‘unified’ homogeneous social group
(Cockburn 1995; Colgan and Ledwith 2000). It is important to recognize their
experiences are diverse, and their perceptions are interpreted through lenses of
ethnicity, class, age, disability, religion, occupation, geography, culture and so on
(Richardson and Monro 2012). An individual’s identity can be viewed as interac-
tive, being constructed in interaction with others, and being validated or not by
others (Cornell and Hartmann 1998; Taylor et al. 2011). Thus, although, it may be
argued that it is in all LGBT people’s political interests to see LGBT people ‘out’ at
work and becoming actively involved in organizational decision-making processes
in order to ensure LGBT visibility, it may not be realistic to assume that LGBT
2
This early study focused on lesbian and gay activism but over time research has broadened to
recognize bisexual and transgender activism in the formation and development of LGBT policies
and CNG (Githens and Aragon 2009).
people will view the LGBT and other CNG and their activities in the same way.
This section explores the LGB respondent’s perceptions of the LGBT and other
CNGs as possible ‘safe spaces’ within which they felt able to work to share their
concerns, aspirations and establish priorities.
It was interesting to find that the establishment of the LGBT CNG was reported
to be a key indicator of inclusion by most LGB interviewees. All agreed that it
established a visible contact point for both LGBT and non-LGBT employees and
contractors within company structures and at events. In the main, the LGB respon-
dents thought the CNG was doing this well within the UK and global connections
were being improved.
I think probably the pivotal thing they did was the creation of the [LGBT] network group.
Not necessarily because it gives you a social group that you can go and mix with. But it does
mean that you have a feeling that there is a point within [Comco] that you can go to if you
need to and you know that that group is supported by [Comco]. And I think around that they
have actually done quite a lot of things such as they do organise social events so when the
partnership legislation went through they arranged a presentation on the partnership
legislation that you could just go along. . .and they had someone there from HR who was
explaining what [Comco] would be doing to change its HR policies to fit in with this. (Gay
man 1, 2005)
The LGB employees also spoke positively about receiving information about the
LGBT (and other CNGs) when they had applied to Comco and at workplace
induction and training events. For example, communication about its existence
reduced concerns about discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation at work.
That would have been one of my main concerns and that was just done away completely as
soon as I saw there was a network for me. . . I was also very, very excited about the prospect
that if there was a network then there must be someone running that network and I could
actually use the fact that it [sexual orientation] is a very big part of my personality and my
life to enhance my career and actually get involved . . .: I think the very fact that it said there
was a network for LGBT people and, you know, women and what have you, that was very
encouraging. (Lesbian LGBT CNG KI1 2009)
The existence of an LGBT CNG was perceived to provide evidence that Comco
was committed to recognising diversity across the piece. This included the provi-
sion of a whistle blowing option via a help line should staff see people being treated
unfairly and/or for reasons pertaining to a diversity group. There was strong support
for the establishment of CNGs. These were seen as proof that Comco’s policies
were committed to recognising and enhancing people’s capabilities across all
minority groups.
It has its networks for Christians, for LGBT, its women’s network, its ethnic minorities
network and so on. It’s using those networks not only to support the people within those
networks but to find out what those communities want. And the fact that there is a network
there means that whether open or closed an individual can go into that network and say
‘Help’. . .there is somebody there that you could go to and say ‘I need some support’.
Because the networks exist, there is a safety blanket, almost. (Gay man 2, 2005)
Amongst the 17 LGB respondents interviewed the LGBT company network

group was the prioritised source of CNG information and 15 respondents were
530 F. Colgan
active members of it. Three of the six women interviewed were also members of the
Women’s CNG, in order to lend it their support. As Comco’s workforce was 77 %
male it was recognised that some sections of Comco could be a ‘lonely place for a
woman’ (Bisexual woman LGBT Network key informant 2, 2005). However,
although aware that the LGBT CNG was also predominantly male, all of the
women chose to be active in the LGBT network.
I care most about the LGBT stuff . . . there is about 50% women in all of the areas that I am
involved in. So I am feeling that I am not lacking visibility there. . .I don’t need the visibility
and the emphasised support quite as much in those areas. . . whereas sexual orientation is so
much lower on everybody’s agenda and it’s so much less obvious as well that I am a gay
person. . .unless I specifically choose to tell you. (Lesbian LGBT CNG KI1 2009)
As the female LGBT CNG co-chair, she had developed a forum on the LGBT
network website which was ‘devoted to women but not exclusive to women’ and
had organised LGBT events and conference calls targeted at gender issues. This
sought to foster the inclusion of lesbian, bisexual women and trans-women within
the predominantly male LGBT CNG. These initiatives were valued by the women
LGBT CNG respondents.
It’s not just a sexuality thing, it’s also for me it’s also a woman thing. Not just here but
everywhere. My identity as a lesbian is mixed with my identity as a woman and helping
other women (Lesbian 1, 2005).
Two other women and one man although members of the LGBT CNG had
prioritised their activism of the LGBT union network within their trade union. This
decision was informed by their political allegiance to the labour movement and
their analysis of how best to improve the working lives of LGBT employees.
There is crossover. . .we wanted people to know that there were union people working on
these things too. . .but we made a political decision at the advisory committee that [com-
pany] employee networks have limited use in progressing things. (Lesbian union KI 2005)
Amongst the three bisexual respondents, the transgender respondent preferred to

be an active member of the trade union working as a health and safety representa-
tive rather than a member of the union or CNG LGBT group. This was in part for
reasons of political allegiance but also because the union had been supportive in
helping this interviewee negotiate a return to work following a transphobic attack
outside work. As indicated above, the bisexual woman respondent was a member of
the LGBT CNG committee. The third respondent described himself as a ‘Black
bisexual man. . .who just happens to be an engineer’. He said he did not feel able to
disclose his sexual orientation at work for fear of ‘losing the comradeship’ of his
predominantly male colleagues Although a member of the union, he said he was
‘not interested’ in being in being a member of either the LGBT nor the Ethnic
minorities CNG (Bisexual man 1, 2005).
The two other ethnic minority gay men interviewed said they chose to be
primarily active in the LGBT CNG although one had sought to forge ties between
the Ethnic minority, LGBT and Women’s CNGs.
There was a point when I actively engaged with the ethnic minority network because I am a
member of the ethnic minority network and I was engaging with the women’s network and
at one point it was working very well. We were doing joint events. (Gay man 3, 2005)
However, over time he had become less involved in the ethnic minority network
in part because he was the only ‘out’ LGB person and because he not always been
comfortable with the political dynamics associated with it.
I felt very uncomfortable. . .of constantly having, you know, to carry this label ‘I am an
ethnic minority’. So I haven’t been really that involved. . .as much as I tried. . .also the
network is very Asian dominated. . .so not a good representation [of the workforce] (Gay
man 3, 2005)
Three of the LGB interviewees identified as disabled but only one expressed
interest in developing work with the Disability network because ‘we’ve never
specifically recognised LGBT people with a disability’ (Lesbian LGBT CNG KI1
2009). Joint initiatives were in place with the Apprentice and Graduate Networks
concerning recruitment, induction and pastoral support (Apprentice network KI
2009). Some of the LGBT interviewees had begun work in Comco as apprentices
and graduates so were familiar with and very open to working with these network
groups.
The LGB respondents were broadly positive about the establishment of the
Christian and Muslim CNGs in 2005, seeing these as appropriate within an orga-
nization with employees in a number of different countries and contexts.
I am an atheist, or a humanist but what I have learned in life is that I need to take a very
pluralist view. (Gay man 4, 2005)
A few LGBT network members expressed concern about possible clashes in

LGBT and faith equality/diversity agendas. One of these LGB interviewees who
described himself as Christian said that in his view the Christian CNG was geared to
‘happy clappy Christians’ (Gay man 3, 2005). He suggested that its leadership and
membership was aimed at a more fundamentalist Christian perspective than his
own. Thus he did not consider membership within it as a comfortable option for an
LGB Christian such as himself. A Christian CNG informant however explained that
as with other network groups it was open to all.
If somebody wanted to join, the sort of approach we have adopted is anyone can join the
Christian network, even if they’ve got no faith, if they want to join they can join. The only
sort of stipulation is that. . . we say that we are Christian so we have a Christian ethos. So we
don’t say this person or this group of people can’t join or anything like that. . .If you are not
a Christian you can still benefit from coming along. . .we don’t exclude anybody from
joining, that’s probably a better way of putting it. (Christian CNG KI 2009)
As the two Christian and Muslim network groups had only been established in
2005, a Diversity Manager (2005) said that some initial uncertainty concerning
their role was not surprising as Comco worked to shape its policy and practice on
religion and belief.
532 F. Colgan
4 Comco Network Groups: Opportunities

and Complexities of Cross Equality Strand Working
This chapter will now turn to a consideration of the opportunities and complexities
of cross equality strand working from the point of view of members of the LGBT
CNG and other equality network groups. As seen above most of the LGB inter-
viewees seemed to prioritise their allegiance to the LGBT CNG. However, Comco
expects CNGs to progress its equality/diversity and corporate responsibility
agenda. This requires CNG members to become involved in transversal working
(Yuval-Davis 1998), a form of ‘coalition politics’ where individuals in different
CNGs are prepared to shift to a position of exchange on equality/diversity areas
within the work context. This can be easier where members of network groups are
active in other network groups and can therefore expedite working together to
identify areas of common interest. The opportunities and complexities of cross-
strand work are explored via three themes below.
4.1 Working Across Groups: Transversal Working
Representatives from the Comco Diversity Team met with the chairs from the
CNGs monthly. These meetings considered common issues, encouraged groups to
share good practice and develop linkages. A recent topic had been the introduction
of monitoring on grounds of sexual orientation and religion and belief. CNGs
shared views on the process by which equality data was collected plus issues of
confidentiality so allowing the LGBT, Christian and Muslim network groups to
raise concerns but also benefit from the views and experiences of other network
groups.
We have a monthly network Chairs call. For people who can make it face-to-face, you
know, there is a meeting. . . usually we go through what are the activities that are taking
place and where are the stumbling blocks, what is coming down from Group HR or Group
People and Policy that we need to be aware of, what do we need to start looking at
integrating. (Muslim CNG KI1 2009)
The interviews with members of the CNGs indicated that there was a shared
understanding about how the network groups should work to benefit the company.
Well, we have a remit, the network isn’t just about ourselves, it’s about benefiting the
company, that is an important thing. So we see that we want to benefit ourselves as
Christians and I am sure that goes for other groups as well but we don’t want to be selfish.
We believe, we are employed by the company. . . so our network should benefit the
company as well. (Christian CNG KI 2009)
However, levels of support could be variable with one LGBT CNG chair
reporting difficulties in being granted time by his line manager to fulfill his role.
This required continued intervention from the Diversity Team to ensure line
management support.
We had agreed that I could do two hours a week on LGBT network group issues. . .on
conference calls and one day a month on more external or HR central type work and then
[my manager] didn’t honour that. . .I felt let down. . . I was shouted at and told that I didn’t
deserve any special consideration. . . That I really had to decide what I wanted to do, to
continue with this diversity stuff or have a career. (LGBT CNG KI3 2005)
Network groups supported each other when it came to demanding more proac-
tive senior management support, funding and recognition for their work in Comco
(Gay man 3, 2005). A Diversity Manager stated the company position.
We have been working with the networks and their line managers around allowing people
the time within their job but at the end of the day this is something that people sign up to do
on a voluntary basis like working for a charity or whatever. . .yes, it’s really important to us
but people do have their day jobs to do as well. So it’s a case of balancing that. (Diversity
Manager 2005)
The CNGs also worked closely on pastoral care issues. The networks provide
initial points of contact for members who experience discrimination and harassment
at work. Each network had established a pastoral care officer and these worked
quite closely together putting members in touch with the Comco employee assis-
tance programme where more advanced support was required.
We worked all together. . .threw ideas at each other. . . sharing information from their
networks to ours. . . just building across the board a contact list rather than just one pastoral
carer having all the contacts. . . for example the women’s network, I worked quite closely
with. . .because of issues going across both [concerning discrimination against lesbian,
bisexual and trans women]. . .to get the best solution for them, whether it would be with
the women’s network pastoral carer or with myself and it was basically rather than just one
person working on it, it was one, two, three, four people working for that one person.
(LGBT CNG KI4 2009).
4.2 Events/Activities: Opportunities and Complexities
When it came to working together on events and activities, the two faith CNGs said
they often worked together.
We tend to work with the Christian network. And there have been occasions where we’ve
got workshops running and they’ve got workshops running and we will make sure that each
are invited, we get their members involved as well as our members will get involved with
theirs. So we try to do as much cross-working as possible. (Muslim CNG KI2 2009)
In addition, the Muslim CNG also said it worked with the Ethnic minority
network.
We work quite a lot with the ethnic minority network because what we find is that people
who are part of the Muslim network are also part of the ethnic minority network as well.
And we often get invited to their events at the same time, the training that they do as well.
(Muslim CNG KI1 2009)
Interestingly the LGBT CNG said its main links were with the Women’s, Ethnic
minority, Apprentice and Graduate networks. This was in part a result of having
534 F. Colgan
developed interlinking structures including having a woman’s co-ordinator in the

LGBT network who was also a member of the Women’s network. The Apprentice
and Graduate CNG had each established LGBT and other equality co-ordinators
(Apprentice CNG KI 2009). As a result the LGBT CNG had run a joint event with
the Women’s network on ‘Healthy living’ as an event of common interest to their
memberships in well-being and healthy living. Although the LGBT CNG group
said it ‘was open to all networks’, it felt that it had been less successful in joint
working with the Faith CNGS thus far (LGBT CNG KI3 2005).
Aside from in-house corporate network events, the CNGs were expected to run
‘Diversity open days’ around the country. This required the network groups to
prepare stands and displays to illustrate what Diversity meant and showcase a range
of initiatives in Comco. This had created some stress for members of the LGBT
CNG who feared there might be a homophobic response to their stand and displays
from colleagues or members of the public attending the event. This was a fear
exacerbated for some following the establishment of the Faith networks.
I have some concerns to be honest. Perhaps partly being in the [LGBT] network I am not
sure what happens when you put the network in the same room as the Christian or the
Muslim network and members of the public attending the stands. I think the ethnic
minorities network. . .they wouldn’t have a stance on sexuality per se. However, obviously
the Christian network might and the Muslim network might. Certainly more might, I don’t
know. And I suppose this is one of the big problems with equality, where do you draw the
lines between when one person’s equality is interfering with another person’s equality.
(Gay man 1, 2005)
Also when publicising these joint initiatives the LGBT CNG perceived some
reticence on the part of the company and one or two other groups with respect to
sexual orientation equality work.
I think in [Comco] to put it really bluntly we do diversity because it’s the right thing to
do. And as part of diversity you have to have a sexuality group. I don’t know that it’s really
accepted, valued, appreciated. (LGBT CNG KI3 2005)
At a recent inter-network day for example the invitation and publicity talked
about networks in the plural and invited people to come along to talk about matters
of ‘gender, culture and ethnicity’. It was a source of annoyance to the LGBT CNG
that ‘there was no mention of sexuality again’ even though the LGBT network had
‘explicitly said that it’s really important that you say sexuality’ when publicising
these events in the UK (LGBT CNG KI3 2005). Nevertheless there was an
awareness that in a global company there was a need to ‘tread carefully because
of cultural differences’ when rolling out company network initiatives to overseas
contractors (Gay man 1, 2005).
Another complicating factor in joint working arose from the expectation that the
network groups should do ‘a lot of internal and external PR, winning awards’
(Diversity Manager 2009). A few interviewees reported that this could lead to
competition rather than co-operation at times.
I think there is a lot of mistrust amongst networks as well. Because they feel, there is a
competition amongst them and I think it’s very unhealthy, thinking, you know, which
network gets the most money. . .which is seen as the best and which is putting on fantastic
events. (Gay man 3, 2005).
4.3 Faith and Homophobia Conference: Difficulties

in Transversal Working
In 2009, in order to improve links and develop work around sexual orientation and
faith, the LGBT CNG had proposed a conference on sexual orientation and homo-
phobia. The intention was to:
make sure that sexual orientation and religion can co-exist in harmony as opposed to being
at odds with one another. . .building ties between people with faith and people of minority
sexual orientation and recognising people who fit into both categories. (LGBT key infor-
mant 2009)
The LGBT CNG had proposed the conference because it wanted to develop a
more intersectional (Crenshaw 1991; Taylor et al. 2011) approach to its work. In
doing so the network recognised they needed to work in a transversal way with the
other networks to move forward.
We could be more integrated in terms of our networks and people who fit in what I call
microcosms of diversity. For our network. . .I am the women’s coordinator, we have a
specific women’s focus but we don’t have a specific focus on disability or religion or
ethnicity or anything like that and we could. And similarly in the other networks they could
go out of their way to do this. . .e.g. make sure that in the women’s network. . .they got
something there that says . . . if you are a gay woman, we cater for you, we do this. . ..I think
particularly the religion and belief one there can be tension. From both sides. You know,
people of faith sometimes can have very derogatory opinions about sexual orientation but
similarly people of minority sexual orientation can think that everybody of a certain
religion is going to be prejudiced against them. . . So we could do more in both networks
to say there are people who may have that attitude but they are in the minority (LGBT CNG
KI1 2009)
Comco had agreed to sponsor the conference which would involve outside
speakers plus Comco senior managers including the Head of Diversity and the
LGBT Company Champion. The Diversity Manager (2009) said the organization
was happy to sponsor the event but admitted that most of the drive for the
conference ‘comes from the sexual orientation rather than the faith side. The faith
networks. . .you know, don’t want to get involved’. He was concerned that this was
likely to have an effect on the potential audience.
I think you know, people might come with both a faith and sexual orientation. . .but I would
be interested to see how many people come from the faith perspective and how many
people come from the sexual orientation perspective. (Diversity Manager 2009)
The Christian and Muslim CNGS said they were prepared to work together on
matters of shared common concern such as tackling discrimination. However they
did not necessarily see it as their role at the time, to shift beyond that position in
order to participate in an initiative such as the faith and homophobia conference.
536 F. Colgan
The recognition of an individual and discrimination against individuals is important and I

support that wholeheartedly. What you have to be careful of is where you draw the line. . .
so that you are promoting things that are then expecting other people to act in a different
way. How can I word that? For example, as a Christian group we would wholeheartedly
support the Muslim network in not being discriminated against, the LGBT group and so
forth. We have no problem whatsoever with that and we work really well together. But the
difficulty is. . . where one group is more supported than another group and that would mean
they could impose their view above other views and that would then become very difficult
because not all the groups agree. For example. . .the gay and lesbian group may have
different views on marriage and things than the Christian group has. Now if you adopt
the principle that we are all equal and that nobody is better than anyone else and we should
treat each other with respect. . .that’s fine. (Christian CNG KI 2009)
This did not mean they were unwilling to work with the LGBT CNG on other
initiatives. However, as with the Christian CNG, the Muslim CNG said they
perceived a clash in interests and beliefs between their different constituencies.
I believe there is often a clash in terms of reconciling faith with sexual orientation in terms
of the LGBT community. . . What we have to try and do in my view is understand how we
tackle those barriers. In my view whilst it’s not necessarily our place to promote, our
religion teaches us tolerance. And I think that sometimes we tend to forget that. . . recently I
spoke to an ex-Chair of the LGBT network and I said. . . often our two networks haven’t got
along as well as maybe they should have. And I can understand why because a lot of our
people who are part of our network don’t want anything to do with that [sexual orientation
and gender identity]. But it’s about how can I myself learn from what you are doing and you
also in turn learn from what we are doing. (Muslim CNG KI1 2009)
5 Conclusion
The chapter focused on the role and activities of a UK-based LGBT CNG within a
global company. The company encouraged the establishment of CNGs in order to
provide a benefit both to minority groups and a benefit to the organization. Its
diversity work was argued to be integral to its business approach and in common
with other multinational organizations a key element in meeting its corporate
responsibility agenda (Colgan 2011). The research took place between 2005 and
2009 at a time when a changing legal, political and social context offered oppor-
tunities for more cross equality strand working (Squires 2010). The chapter
explored these opportunities focusing on CNGs in Comco.
In line with the growing body of research which recognizes diversity amongst
LGBT people (Richardson and Monro 2012), the chapter first focused on LGB
perceptions of the LGBT and the other equality CNGs as potential support mech-
anisms within the organization. Most LGB interviewees prioritized their member-
ship of the LGBT CNG although reporting membership and activism within other
CNGs and the trade union. This overlapping membership was particularly helpful
in developing linkages and cross equality strand work across CNGs. There was
evidence that members of the CNGS perceived benefits from being involved in
corporate networking. Also that Comco perceived benefits from the voluntarily
contributed range of business-oriented activities (Singh et al. 2006).
The chapter found Yuval Davis’s (1998) conceptualization of ‘transversal’
coalition politics useful in framing its discussion of both the opportunities and
complexities of cross equality strand working across CNGs. It found plenty of
evidence of transversal working. Firstly there was a shared understanding that the
networks should operate within company policy to benefit the company not purely
to represent network members. This meant that there was a commitment not to
discriminate on any grounds and to co-operate to communicate that message and
provide pastoral care to those experiencing discrimination at work. Also to make
sure CNGs had the resources to carry out their work and to proactively tackle line
managers who created barriers to CNG involvement and initiatives.
However, when it came to organizing events and activities some complexities in
transversal working emerged. Differing alliances and coalitions were developing.
Work agendas differed, for example, the LGBT CNG was able to shift to a position
of exchange with the Women’s and Apprentices CNG to reach out to their per-
ceived ‘microcosms of diversity’ whereas the two faith CNGs more easily allied to
develop their work focusing on faith issues. Where joint events such as Diversity
Days ran there were reported to be underlying tensions concerning publicity being
amended to take account of clashing views. LGBT respondents perceived that this
could lead to some ‘soft-pedalling’ when it came to the LGBT CNG and its work.
This was felt to be unacceptable in the UK although it was recognised ‘diversity’
messages might need to be adapted as appropriate to stakeholders in different global
contexts (Jonsen et al. 2013). The complexities in transversal working between the
LGBT and Faith CNGs emerged when it came to the LGBT CNG sponsored Faith
and Homophobia conference. Although willing to work with the LGBT CNG on
matters of joint concern, neither the Christian nor the Muslim CNG felt able to be
directly involved with that event. Too great a clash between membership identity,
beliefs and priorities was perceived to exist. The limits of transversality and cross
equality strand working had been reached. However, there was evidence of cross
strand understanding if not working as neither of the Faith networks opposed the
conference taking place. Instead there was evidence of Comco’s support for its
LGBT CNG as the Faith and Homophobia conference had proceeded successfully.
It was publicized to all Comco employees so providing the opportunity for
employees across all CNG to attend and engage with the cross strand diversity
opportunities and complexities issues the conference raised.
References
Bond, S., Hollywood, E., & Colgan, F. (2009). Integration in the workplace: Emerging employ-
ment practice on age, sexual orientation and religion or belief. Manchester: Equality and
Human Rights Commission.
538 F. Colgan
Cockburn, C. (1995). Women and the European social dialogue: Strategies for gender democracy.
Equal Opportunities Unit, European Commission. V/5465/95-EN.
Colgan, F. (2011). Equality, diversity and corporate responsibility: Sexual orientation and diver-
sity management in the UK private sector. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 30(8), 719–734.
Colgan, F. (2014). Organisational life within a UK good practice employer. In F. Colgan &
(pp. 104–121). New York: Routledge.
Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A., & Wright, T. (2006). Lesbian, gay and bisexual workers:
Equality, diversity and inclusion in the workplace. London: Comparative Organisation and
Equality Research Centre: London Metropolitan University.
Colgan, F., & Ledwith, S. (2000). Diversity, identities and strategies of women trade union
activists. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(4), 242–257.
Colgan, F., & Ledwith, S. (2002). Gender and diversity: Reshaping union democracy. Employee
Relations., 24(2), 167–189.
Colgan, F., & McKearney, A. (2012). Visibility and voice in organisations: Lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgendered employee networks. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 31(4), 359–378.
Comco. (2009). Sustainability report. London: Comco.
Comco. (2011). Sustainability report. London: Comco.
Cornell, S., & Hartmann, D. (1998). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world.
London: Pine Forge Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence
against women of colour. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Githens, R., & Aragon, S. (2009). LGBT employee groups: Goals and organizational structures.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(1), 121–135.
Jonsen, K., Tatli, A., Ozbilgin, M., & Bell, M. (2013). The tragedy of the uncommons: Reframing
workforce diversity. Human Relations, 66(2), 271–294.
Raeburn, N. (2004). Changing corporate America from inside out: Lesbian and gay workplace
rights. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Richardson, D., & Monro, S. (2012). Sexuality, equality and diversity. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Singh, V., Vinnicombe, S., & Kumra, S. (2006). Women in formal corporate networks: An
organisational citizenship perspective. Women in Management Review, 21(6), 458–482.
Squires, J. (2010). Intersecting inequalities: Britain’s equality review. International Feminist
Journal of Politics, 11(4), 496–512.
Stonewall. (2012). Network groups: Setting up networks for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees.
London: Stonewall.
Taylor, Y., Hines, S., & Casey, M. (2011). Theorizing intersectionality and sexuality. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Yuval-Davis, N. (1998). Beyond differences: Women empowerment and coalition. In N. Charles
& H. Hintjens (Eds.), Gender, ethnicity and political ideologies (pp. 168–189). London:
Routledge.
Transgressing Gender Binarism
in the Workplace? Including Transgender
and Intersexuality Perspectives
in Organizational Restroom Policies
Monika Huesmann
1 Introduction
Public restrooms and restrooms in organizations are usually gender segregated.

Individuals try to find the appropriate men’s or women’s restrooms. The Ladies and
Gentlemen signs or pictograms on toilet doors “are instrumental to the dominant
gender order in the West” (Cavanagh 2010, p. 32). For most people, their needs
would have to be quite urgent to use the “wrong” restroom. Transgender/transsex-
ual people or intersex people, however, may not always be able or willing to fit in
with this idea of binary gender segregated restrooms. Transgender/transsexual
people usually don’t identify with the gender assigned to them at birth, and intersex
people are usually born with an ambiguous sexual anatomy, so the definition of
either male or female is incorrect (Bittner 2011, p. 8).
It is important to acknowledge that transgender/transsexual people and intersex
people are not facing the same forms of discrimination (a more detailed and deeper
discussion can be found in K€ollen 2016), especially when searching for or using
restrooms. Intersex people are forced to choose between men’s or women’s
restrooms, although neither might fit their sex/gender identity. Transgender/trans-
sexual people might identify themselves as men or women but might not be
accepted in the restrooms because of their biological sex at birth or their gender
identity. People are not always either men or women; there are many varieties and
identities that do not fit the binary-based man-woman concept.
There is a need to address the discrimination inherent in gender segregated
restrooms. This article presents the history and reality of gender segregated
restrooms as an institution used in organizations. It discusses the design of
M. Huesmann (*)
Department of Business and Economics, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Berlin,
Germany
e-mail: monika.huesmann@hwr-berlin.de

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_32
540 M. Huesmann
restrooms from a diversity management perspective and provides some examples

which illustrate the difficulties in changing such a persistent institution like gender
segregated restrooms.
2 History and Reality of Gender Segregated Restrooms
Gender segregated public restrooms date back to eighteenth century Europe. In

1739, gender segregated public restrooms were set up for a ball in a restaurant in
Paris. In the restrooms for women, chambermaids were at their disposal and in the
restrooms for men there were valets (Cavanagh 2010, p. 28).
Restrooms have always been a civil rights battleground. For example, the
segregation of bathrooms for white and colored people was based on grounds
advanced by white people about race specific diseases that supposedly could be
caught from toilet seats. Women have sometimes been excluded from male jobs
because no restrooms for women were available in the workplaces (Maskos 2011).
Lambda Legal formulated model restroom access policies on the grounds that
“Everyone deserves to be treated with respect and dignity, including while involved
in such basic human activities as using a public restroom” (Lambda Legal n.d.).
The European Union emphasizes “the need to take seriously discrimination with
regard to age, gender, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, religion and
belief” (Committee of the Regions 2007, C 57/40). Most of the time, discrimination
against transgender/transsexual or intersex people is subsumed under the term
sexual orientation (even given the controversial discussions that transgender/trans-
sexual or intersex doesn’t express sexual orientations [K€ollen 2016]). Discrimina-
tion on the grounds of sexual orientation is prohibited in the EU (The Council of the
European Union 2000/78/EC), even though the different countries promote it very
differently. However, the EU LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender)
Survey (2013) shows that around 30 % of transgender respondents felt discrimi-
nated against when looking for a job and/or at work (European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights 2013).
Focusing on diversity in organizations with regard to the dimensions of gender and
sexual identity, the often used abbreviation LGBT doesn’t describe all varieties.
Sexual identity is much more diverse, embracing, for example, omnisexuality,
questioning, or all the other facets of identity (see e.g. University of Queensland
2015). The management of workforce diversity is crucial to positively affect perfor-
mance and climate in organizations, so diversity management is becoming an impor-
tant part of strategic business management. Many definitions are used to define and
interpret diversity management. One simple definition is that diversity management
can be understood as “a management philosophy that seeks to recognize and value
heterogeneity in organizations” (Özbilgin et al. 2015). There is a wide range of
measures to support organizations on their way to recognizing and valuing diversity
Transgressing Gender Binarism in the Workplace? Including Transgender and. . . 541
in the workplace. But recognizing diversity is also a question of how the architecture
and design of restrooms make people feel comfortable and safe at work.
3 Restrooms as Institutions
The structure of formal organizations arises in an institutionalized context, and

practices that have been institutionalized in society are incorporated into organiza-
tions to increase their legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 340). The institution
of gender segregated restrooms (including architecture, interior design, all stan-
dards and rules of restroom usage, norms and habits) might not seem to be as
important, but at the moment there are very few organizations that do not use
gender segregated restrooms.
Restrooms in workplaces are especially gender segregated. In Germany there are
legal requirements that have led to their widespread use. The German Work Safety
Regulations (Arbeitsstättenverordnung 12.8.2004) stipulate that an employer has to
make restrooms available, and restrooms have to be set up for women and men
separately, or that it must be possible to use them separately (§6 Arbeitsstätten-
verordnung 12.8.2004). In some SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) where
only men are employed, only one restroom for men is required. In such cases the
employer may think twice about hiring women because of the need to set up a
second restroom. This may involve the use of space, time and money. The Tech-
nical Rules for Workplaces [German: Technische Regeln für Arbeitsstätten] specify
the implementation of the German work safety regulations. Under these rules,
gender segregated toilets are required as soon as more than nine workers are
employed (technische Regeln für Arbeitsstätten 2013, p. 919) “The New Institu-
tionalism in organizational analysis takes rule systems seriously” (Suchman and
Edelman 1996, p. 904). Organizations are complex social actors “whose behavior is
shaped as much by their cultural environments as by rational calculations”
(Suchman and Edelman 1996, p. 918). They react to legal regulations but not
with simple obedience; organizational compliance can be formal and symbolic
although consequential (Suchman and Edelman 1996, p. 920). The discussion
about all-gender restrooms or unisex restrooms has not found its way into regula-
tions so far.
In the United States the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
sets the sanitation standards. These standards require employers to make toilet
facilities available and accessible without too many restrictions (Taylor
et al. 2011). The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) proposes restroom standards in
case of gender transitions in the workplace. But the HRC also emphasizes that these
standards might contradict each other. It states that employees can use the restroom
that corresponds with their full-time gender presentation, that they might opt for
unisex facilities and that they should not be required to do so permanently (Taylor
et al. 2011, p. 106). Weiss (2007, p. 26) thinks that organizations should create their
own solutions by considering five criteria: number of restrooms within walking
542 M. Huesmann
distance, availability of single use restrooms, lengths of employees’ transitions,

employees’ comfort levels and the comfort levels of co-workers. It is important to
consider that both strategies need an individual that asks for a solution or needs one.
So gender segregated restrooms might not increase legitimacy, but not using
them might harm legitimacy or fuel the fear that legitimacy might be questioned.
According to Deephouse and Suchman (2008), “‘subjects of legitimation’ are those
social entities, structures, actions and ideas whose acceptability is being assessed”
(Deephouse and Suchman 2008, p. 54).
Following the idea that “the more numerous the adopters of a practice, the more
widespread its acceptance and the greater its legitimacy” (Deephouse and Suchman
2008, p. 55), gender segregated restrooms seem to be a source of legitimacy in an
organization.
However, at the moment, the standard restroom policies are being questioned.
Discussions about sex and gender, the idea of changing the rules and policies of
organizations from excluding social groups to being inclusive, and diversity pro-
moting policies have all reached at least some employers.
4 Restrooms from the Perspective of Diversity

Management
There exists a wide range of instruments and measures to promote and support
diversity and to prevent discrimination. In this article the focus is on restrooms as “a
small but fundamental part of everyday life” (WSUP n.d.). In all organizations, all
people use restrooms and as long as they are at least accessible, clean and func-
tional, they receive little attention. But for employees who dislike or do not fit into
gender binarism, the design and accessibility of restrooms can be of great impor-
tance. That is the reason why organizational efforts to support diversity should also
be directed towards unavoidable places like restrooms. Gender segregated
restrooms are some of the last remnants of segregation based on sex (Winkler
2013). Interestingly enough, few people ever question this segregation. Gendered
bathrooms do not seem to cause inequalities. But as Michael Kimmel states in an
interview about inequality based on race: “That shows how privilege works.
Privilege is invisible to those who have it” (Kimmel 2008, p. 7). As long as one
does not question a person’s gender identity, there is a restroom available, even if
women have to accept longer lines.
Approaches to realize a multicultural organization in which diversity is
respected and valued are still discussed. One approach is to address instruments
to prevent discrimination against certain social groups like women’s promotion
programs or support for people with disabilities. These positive actions refer to a
number of measures to counteract the effects of past discrimination of particular
groups (Equality Online 2006). The particular group has to be identified, and
afterwards this group can be addressed.
In this context of positive action, one important issue is that the organization
needs to know the self-definition of employees (and quite often the assumed
standard, which invites no discussion, is cisgender, where individuals experience
their own gender matching the sex they were assigned at birth). Ernst & Young
introduced Workplace Gender Transition Guidelines (Ernst & Young n.d.), in
which rights and responsibilities are described. They recommend in an environment
with gender segregated restrooms that “Once the ‘real life experience’ begins, a
transitioning individual will not be required to use the restrooms of his or her
designated sex at birth” (Ernst & Young n.d.). The “real life experience” is often
used as a legal term and describes a period of time in which transgender individuals
live full-time in their preferred gender role (WPATH 2008). In some countries this
experience has to be documented before hormone replacement therapy or genital
reassignment surgery. It is quite an excessive requirement to force individuals to
inform their employers about their idea of transitioning to make sure that they can
use the proper restrooms. For co-workers who might feel uncomfortable, Ernst &
Young have the rule that “Co-Workers who have personal concerns about sharing
restrooms or locker rooms with a transgendered individual should be invited to have
an honest discussion with an appropriate People Team Member or a representative
of EY [Ernst & Young]” (Ernst & Young n.d.). These guidelines might work for
some employees, but it can cause considerable trouble and difficulties for others,
especially employees who don’t want to be forced to decide between men’s and
women’s restrooms. This example shows that being inclusive and the use of gender
segregated restrooms are, in some regards, contradictive, and regulations, along
with a lot of involuntary disclosures and specifications do not solve the problem.
5 Legitimate Exceptions of Gender Segregation

Concerning Restrooms
So far the institution of gender segregated restrooms can exclude employees from
the relaxed, comfortable and safe access of restrooms. Institutions often seem to
persist for long periods of time, but “persistence and change go hand-in-hand”
(Acemoglu 2009, p. 7). Thornton and Ocasio focus “on three mechanisms of
change: institutional entrepreneurs, structural overlap and event sequencing and a
fourth topic, often an antecedent or consequence of change—competing institu-
tional logics” (Thornton and Ocasio 2008, p. 115). Institutional entrepreneurs need
to have access to resources to change institutions. Transgender/transsexual or
intersexual people need resources to change gender segregated restrooms. That is
not always the case. Sometimes diversity managers or departments might carry out
the mission of being institutional entrepreneurs and support transgender/transsexual
or intersexual employees. Structural overlap occurs when different organizational
structures are forced into association, and event sequencing is defined as the
unfolding of unique events that can transform institutions (Thornton and Ocasio
544 M. Huesmann
2008, p.116). For example, the Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences
organized a university day about the everyday discrimination caused by gender
binarism (Grothues and Meister 2013, p. 6). This event, followed by the decision to
change some dedications of restrooms, marked the change in their restroom
policies.
Thinking about restrooms, the fourth topic of competing logics allows for
interesting conclusions concerning restroom policies. Thornton and Ocasio state
that competing logics are not explanations for change but antecedents or conse-
quences (Thornton and Ocasio 2008, p.118). Gender segregated restrooms are
widespread, but there are three exceptions from gender segregation that are
accepted which often go unmentioned (Huesmann 2015).
The first exception is the design of restrooms in airplanes, trains and buses. The
pictogram is WC (see Fig. 1), 00 or just Restroom. Shortage of space is an often used
argument to introduce one restroom for all people.
The second exception is quite often the disabled restroom (see Fig. 2). Here men
and women are supposed to use the same restroom as long as they are disabled.
Even the pictogram for this is intended to be not clearly gendered. Most often a
person is in a wheelchair (the male shape of this pictogram is understood as
neutral). The introduction of this gender neutral restroom is not a widely discussed
matter. Shortage of space, the idea that there are not as many disabled people who
are using it and the idea that sex/gender doesn’t play an important role in the lives of
disabled people might be the reasons for this exception.
Fig. 1 ICE train of

Deutsche Bahn, 2015.
© Photography: Monika
Huesmann
Fig. 2 Airport Vienna (1),

2014. © Photography:
Monika Huesmann
Fig. 3 Airport Vienna (2),

2014. © Photography:
Monika Huesmann
The third exception is not as obvious as the other ones. The station for diaper
changing is often integrated into women’s restrooms, seldom into disabled
restrooms and very seldom into men’s restrooms. The usage of the diaper changing
station, however, is not based on the gender of the person whose diaper is to be
changed. So the segregation is based on the gender of the person who takes care of
the diaper changing (see Fig. 3).
These three exceptions are widely accepted, so competing logics of restroom
designs can be found in many organizations. As stated before, Thornton and Ocasio
argue that competing logics are not an explanation for change but can be seen as
antecedents or consequences of change (Thornton and Ocasio 2008, p. 117). In the
case of restroom design, these competing logics are persisting in many organiza-
tions without the experience of contradiction. But these competing logics might be
understood as antecedents for change.
6 The Difficult Steps on the Way to Changing Gender

Segregated Restrooms
Institutions are persistent and difficult to change. Holm describes the paradoxical
situation of actors who want to change institutions and their actions and intentions
are conditioned by those institutions (Holm 1995, p. 398). In the following, some
organizational steps to change gender segregated restrooms into designs that are
meant to be more inclusive are presented and the struggle to overcome gender
binarism is discussed.
Organizations can decide to build new restrooms, redesign and rebuild existing
ones fundamentally, or rename or rededicate existing ones. There are different
options to introduce non-segregated restrooms or change from gender segregated
restrooms to less gender segregated or non-segregated solutions. The most impor-
tant difference in the design of restrooms is that they can be single stalled or have
546 M. Huesmann
Fig. 4 Guggenheim
Museum New York, 2015.
© Photography: Monika
Huesmann
partitions, and the partitions can be solid walls or just a visual protection. To find
restrooms and know which ones to use, the most important communication instru-
ments are pictograms. They also tell all employees and external visitors the
restroom’s policies and the gender ideas concerning restroom usage.
Adjusting the policies for single-stalled restrooms is quite easy because people
don’t meet while they are using them. Only the regulations about who is invited or
meant to enter these restrooms need be changed. One example for the idea to design
more inclusive single-stalled restrooms can be found in the University of Califor-
nia. The president of this university responded to concerns raised by gay and
transgender students and staff with the direction to create more gender neutral
restrooms. All existing single-stall restrooms are made available to users of any
gender and single-stalled restrooms will be considered in plans for new and
renovated buildings (CBS Los Angeles 2014).
Another solution for single-stalled restrooms is to change them into unisex
restrooms. This pictogram can be found on the first floor of the Guggenheim
Museum in New York (see Fig. 4). It is interesting to note that the pictogram still
refers to gender binarism, even if people of “both” genders are invited. The
sub-headline UNISEX with the addition Single Occupancy displays that the orga-
nization thinks that this pictogram requires explanation.
Common restrooms can be a more difficult problem. Very often the women’s
restrooms are composed of some stalls and a shared place with wash basins and
mirrors. Men’s restrooms share in the same way a place with wash basins and
mirrors, but they can be composed of some stalls and more or less open urinals. One
option to redesign common restrooms, for instance, is the rededication of gender
segregated restrooms into all-gender restrooms.
The Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences (ASH) in Berlin discussed
this rededication on a university day for gender diversity to avoid discrimination
against transsexual persons in January 2013. The ASH rededicated 4 of 22 restrooms
into all-gender restrooms. The pictogram of the four restrooms reads WC all gender
welcome, and the rededication was posted on Facebook. The reactions on Facebook
were overwhelming. Some people liked it, but many postings are described as “anti-
queer outcry” (Beier 2013: p. 39). A group of students carried out a survey about the
all-gender restrooms 1 year after they were introduced (Lüddemann 2014). One
interesting finding was that of 353 persons, most of them students of the ASH,
202 thought that all-gender restrooms make sense as a standard practice. But only
168 think that the all-gender restrooms in their university are reasonable. The
author didn’t try to explain this contradiction. The students also asked if the
respondents are using the all-gender restrooms. Students who didn’t define them-
selves as male or female (neither/nor) used the all-gender restrooms quite often
(94 %). Students who defined themselves as others (with an open answer field to
write down individual identification) used them 100 %. 81 % of the female students
used the all-gender restrooms, but only 75 % of the male students used them
(Lüddemann 2014, p. 17). It was an unusual decision to rededicate former men’s
and women’s restrooms to all-gender ones. 28 % of the all-gender restroom users
are bothered by the open urinals in the former men’s restrooms, and 6 % claim
missing urinals from the former women’s restrooms. Generally, each stall in the
former women’s restrooms is provided with a trash can and around 13 % claim the
trash cans are missing from the former men’s restrooms (Lüddemann 2014, p. 13).
The pictogram used in the ASH still refers to gender, even if gender binarism is
avoided.
A slightly different solution of rededication is chosen by some city halls of the
Berlin boroughs Mitte and Friedrichshain Kreuzberg. In September 2014, only one
of the women’s restrooms was rededicated as a unisex restroom by changing the
pictogram to show a man and a woman (Loy 2014). With this solution issues with
the urinals were avoided, but now there are fewer women’s restrooms compared to
men’s restrooms. In city halls with restrooms on each floor and only a few users,
this might not cause bigger problems. In places where many people use the
restrooms in restricted time frames, it can cause problems. Women use restrooms
around 5–7 times a day, spending roughly 18 min a day, and men use restrooms 3–4
times a day, using them 15 min a day (Furrer 2004, p. 184). The biggest difference
is that women always go into cubicles, which requires more time compared to using
urinals. In all theaters, festivals, opera houses and clubs, the effect is obvious: in
front of the women’s restrooms there are long lines while men just walk into their
restrooms. But it is not only the different time needs and the cubicles vs. urinals
situation that cause the queues in front of women’s bathrooms. In many buildings
the space that is used for building restrooms is just divided into two same-sized
spaces, one for men and one for women. The space needed for urinals is much less
compared to cubicles, which is the reason why men’s restrooms regularly provide
more facilities compared to women’s restrooms. These two effects, having the same
size but a different number of facilities, and the time-demanding cubicles, lead to
the annoying queuing in front of women’s restrooms. Security experts have been
demanding for a long time that the waiting lines in front of women’s restrooms need
to be reconsidered while planning new sport arenas or opera houses. The closing of
security doors after a break is always dependent on the last women in line, long after
the restrooms for men are emptied. The queuing in front of women’s restrooms is a
well and widely known phenomenon. It is an open question as to why architects and
planners don’t rethink the size and design of restrooms and still dedicate half of the
548 M. Huesmann
restroom space to men’s and half to women’s restrooms. This is another interesting
sign of the resistance from changing something in traditional restroom design.
All together this leads to the conclusion that the rededication of women’s
restrooms might only be at first sight an easy and cheap solution, but because of
the growth of waiting lines in front of women’s restrooms, it might cause resistance.
The rededication of existing restrooms by changing the pictograms is obviously
a very cheap solution. But even though the changing of signage in the city halls is
very cheap without any other adjustments, the argumentation against gender toilets
is still based on costs (Civitas Institut 2013). On the homepage of the Civitas
Institut, a group of Catholic people for Christianization argue that the financing
of these “extravagant needs increases the debts of Berlin and the taxpayers have to
pay for it” (Civitas Institut 2013).
The Bildzeitung, a German tabloid, also contributes to this discussion about the
“crazy dispute about the unisex toilet” (Bildonline 2013). They argue that unisex
toilets exist in trains, airplanes and many clubs and that they don’t cause trouble any
more. But in the same article they inconsistently call the resolution of the city hall
“a bizarre blossom of gender mainstreaming” (Bildonline 2013). This illustrates the
competing logics of the institution of gender segregated restrooms.
The Newark Airport close to New York City still uses gender segregated
restrooms, but close by there are companion care restrooms. Each companion
care restroom is quite spacious and has a wash basin, a mirror and a toilet bowl.
The labels for these companion care restrooms are somewhat confusing: where one
pictogram shows a man and a woman with a wall between them, the other
pictogram shows a man, a woman and a “neutral” person in a wheelchair without
any walls (see Fig. 5). It is not clear how many people are allowed to use them at the
same time but they still refer to the classic man, woman and non-gendered disabled
person.
These examples show interesting differences about the labels organizations use.
It is possible to find all-gender restrooms (e.g. Alice Salomon University of Applied
Sciences Berlin), unisex restrooms (e.g. different city halls of Berlin boroughs),
gender-free restrooms (e.g. the self-governed student house at the College of
Fig. 5 Newark Airport New York, 2015. © Photography: Monika Huesmann

Fig. 6 WC with urinal and WC without urinal, Gay Advice Center Berlin, 2015. © Photography:
Monika Huesmann
Education Freiburg) or gender-neutral restrooms (e.g. University of California). All

of these labels still refer to bipolar gender segregation.
Distinct from these gender referencing labels are labels like the simple Restroom
(e.g. Washington, D.C.) or the denomination the Schwulenberatung Berlin (gay
advice centre Berlin) uses. In their new office building, one can find restrooms on
every landing. They are labeled: WC with urinal and WC without urinal (see Fig. 6).
The advantage of this solution is that restrooms can be used without any reference
to sex/gender and no one needs a gender definition to find a restroom. These labels
don’t refer to gender anymore; the labels describe the function and not the person.
Some organizations or initiators claim positive side effects of all-gender/gender
neutral/functional defined restrooms. In many places one can find diaper changing
tables in restrooms. Very often they are integrated into women’s restrooms and the
pictogram shows a woman changing a diaper. A public and legitimate place for men
to do so is not always provided. With unisex/gender neutral/all-gender/functional
restrooms, the diaper changing table can be included without determining the
gender of the diaper-changing person and/or the gender of the person whose diaper
is changed.
Another effect is that restrooms for disabled persons are most of the time meant
to have gender neutral toilets. This gender neutral design is not only a question of
costs and room planning. Looking at the importance that is given to the gender
segregation with “normal” restrooms and the implicitness of using a gender neutral
design for disabled people, this design denies the importance of sex/gender/sexu-
ality for disabled people compared to not-disabled people. Using a restroom and
pictogram design that emphasizes the function of the restrooms (with space for
wheelchair or without), disabled people are not treated differently.
7 Conclusion
Gender segregated restrooms are a persistent institution. But there are three excep-
tions that are widely accepted and most of the time used without protest or
uneasiness: the restrooms for disabled people, the restrooms in trains and airplanes,
550 M. Huesmann
and the diaper changing locations. These competing logics can be interpreted as
antecedents of change, particularly to give actors in organizations the strong
backing to work on these necessary and important changes. For diversity manage-
ment, it is a necessary step to have restrooms for everyone of all genders, especially
with regard to transsexual rights. There are two perspectives one has to consider: an
individual should not be forced to choose between two identities they might not feel
comfortable with; and there are persons inside the restroom who might feel insecure
or worse. With regard to gender, restrooms can be more relaxed spaces.
The examples of rededicated restrooms show how difficult it is to really dispose
of the gender segregated restrooms. But as shown, there is quite a range of restroom
layouts that suits the needs of all employees. The most convincing advantages to
start with these changes are that organizations don’t have to start rearranging
restrooms because of an employee’s coming out and/or problems because of gender
segregated restrooms occur. Restrooms that are not gender segregated don’t need to
be legalized by others; they can be used by everyone as long as they are designed to
meet the comfort levels of all employees. And even individual employees or
customers don’t need to define themselves.
Looking at restrooms in organizations, restrooms, as mentioned above, have
been a civil rights battleground, and with the introduction of all-gender/gender
neutral/functional restrooms, not all problems are solved. In Maine a state court has
ruled that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathrooms that match
who they are. They cannot be forced to use unisex facilities. In one case a young
student started as a boy and was presented as a girl by the third grade. In the fifth
grade the students in this school started to use communal restrooms and the student
initially used the girls’ restroom. In the fifth grade a male student began to follow
her into the girls’ restroom saying he could use it too. Because of this and similar
incidents, school officials terminated the girl’s use of the girls’ restroom and
required her to use the unisex staff restroom (Wetzstein 2014). The solution of
school officials to force this girl to use gender-neutral facilities rather than the girls’
restroom is “happening out of this very basic belief that trans girls aren’t girls”
(Binaohan 2015).
This example shows that restrooms are an important topic to consider but the
design of restrooms alone doesn’t change prejudices, and the stereotyping and
harassment of people who don’t fit the stereotypes of the privileged. Organizations
should not wait until employees demand access or another design. To avoid
suspenseful situations, organizations can, however, take the first step.
Photos The copyright of all photos is with the author Monika Huesmann.
References
Acemoglu, D. (2009). Persistence and change in institutions. http://economics.mit.edu/files/4263.

Accessed 3 Sept 2015.
Arbeitsstättenverordnung. (2004). Arbeitsstättenverordnung vom 12. August 2004,

Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2179.
Beier, F. (2013). Der Aufschrei der Anti-Gender-Menschen im Toiletten-Shitstorm. Quer, 1,
39–41.
Bildonline. (2013). Der irre Streit um die Unisex-Toiletten. . .dabei gibt es sie schon!, http://www.
bild.de/news/inland/news-inland/streit-um-unisex-toiletten-dabei-gibt-es-sie-schon-29346322.bi
ld.html. Accessed 19 Mar 2015.
Binaohan, B. (2015). Listening to the living and the dead: Ruminations on #justiceforLee-
lahAlcorn. http://b.binaohan.org/blog/listening-to-the-living-and-the-dead-ruminations-on-
number-justiceforleelahalcorn. Accessed 10 Jan 2015.
Bittner, M. (2011). Geschlechterkonstruktionen und die Darstellung von Lesben, Schwulen,
Bisexuellen, Tans* und Inter* (LGBTI) in Schulb€ uchern. Frankfurt am Main: GEW
Gewerkschaft für Erziehung und Wissenschaft.
Cavanagh, S. L. (2010). Queering bathrooms. Gender, sexuality and the hygienic imagination.
Toronto: Toronto Press.
CBS Los Angeles. (2014). University of California to add gender-neutral restrooms. http://losangeles.
cbslocal.com/2014/09/29/u-of-california-to-add-gender-neutral-restrooms/. Accessed 9 Dec
2014.
Civitas Institut. (2013). Berlin hat nun Gender-Toiletten. http://www.civitas-institut.de/index.php?
option¼com_content&view¼article&id¼2005:berlin-hat-nun-gender-toiletten&catid¼1:neuest
es&Itemid¼33. Accessed 9 Feb 2015.
Committee of the Regions. (2007). Resolution of the Committee of the Regions on the legislative
and work programme of the European Commission and the priorities of the Committee of the
Regions for 2007. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:
C:2007:057:0039:0043:EN:PDF. Accessed 21 Aug 2015.
Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In
R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organiza-
tional institutionalism (pp. 49–77). London: Sage.
Equality Online. (2006). Positive action. http://www.equality-online.org.uk/equality_advice/posi
tive_action.html. Accessed 21 Aug 2015.
Ernst & Young. (n.d.). Workplace gender transition guidelines. http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.
amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/ErnstYoung-TransitionGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar
2015.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2013). EU LGBT survey: European Union lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender survey. Results at a glance. http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2013/
eu-lgbt-survey-european-union-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-survey-results. Accessed
19 Mar 2015.
Furrer, D. (2004). Wasserthron und Donnerbalken. Eine kleine Kulturgeschichte des stillen
€
Ortchens. Darmstadt: Primus.
Grothues, D., & Meister, V. (2013). All gender welcome! ALICE Magazin der Alice Salomon
Hochschule Berlin, 13(2), 6.
Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian
fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422.
Huesmann, M. (2015). Transgressing organisational binarism. The case of restrooms in organi-
sations. Paper presented at the EURAM 19.6.2015. http://2015.euramfullpaper.org/program/
search.asp?qs¼Monika%20Huesmann. Accessed 17 Oct 2015.
Kimmel, M. (2008). Mars, venus or planet earth? Women and men in a new millennium.
Transcript by Media Education Foundation. http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/232/tran
script_232.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2015.
K€
ollen, T. (2016). Lessening the difference is more—the relationship between diversity manage-
552 M. Huesmann
Lambda Legal. (n.d.). Know your rights. Model restroom access policies. http://www.lambdalegal.
org/know-your-rights/transgender/model-restroom-policies. Accessed 2 Jan 2015.
Loy, T. (2014). Pinkeln für alle: Berlin-Mitte er€offnet Unisex-Toilette. http://www.tagesspiegel.de/
berlin/genderdebatte-pinkeln-fuer-alle-berlin-mitte-eroeffnet-unisex-toilette/10709278.html.
Accessed 9 Dec 2014.
Lüddemann, T. (2014). Allgender Toilette an der ASH—Gewinn an Vielfalt oder nerviges
Accessoires? http://ash-berlin.genderwc.eu/files/2014/01/paper2_online_grafisch.pdf.
Accessed 28 Dec 2014.
Maskos, R. (2011). Frauen mit Lernschwierigkeiten stärken. Zur Lebenssituation von Frauen in
Werkstätten und Wohnheimen der Behindertenhilfe und zum inklusiven Projekt
Frauenbeauftragte in Einrichtungen. http://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-
online/article/view/105/105. Accessed 6 Jan 2015.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Özbilgin, M. F., Tatli, A., & Jonsen, K. (2015). Global diversity management: An evidence-based
approach. London: Palgrave.
Suchman, M. C., & Edelman, L. B. (1996). Legal rational myths: The new institutionalism and the
law and society tradition. Law & Society Inquiry, 21, 903.
Taylor, S., Burke, L. A., Wheatley, K., & Sompayrac, J. (2011). Effectively facilitating gender
transition in the workplace. Employ Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 101–116.
Technische Regeln für Arbeitsstätten. (2013). Sanitärräume. Das Gemeinsame Ministerialblatt
GMBl, 46.
The Council of the European Union. (2000). Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000
establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼CELEX:32000L0078:en:HTML. Accessed
17 Oct 2015.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism
(pp. 99–129). London: Sage.
University of Queensland. (2015). What does LGBTIQ mean? http://www.uqu.com.au/blog-view/
what-does-lgbtiq-mean-29. Accessed 8 Sept 2015.
Weiss, J. T. (2007). Transgender workplace diversity, policy tools, training issues, and commu-
nication strategies for HR and legal professionals. North Charlton, SC: Booksurge.
Wetzstein, C. (2014). Potty parity: Transgender girl wins fight for bathroom of her choice. http://
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/transgender-girl-wins-fight-bathroom-her-choi
ce/?page¼all. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.
Winkler, A. (2013). Bathrooms are not separate-but-equal. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/bath
rooms-are-not-separate-but-246842. Accessed 2 Jan 2015.
WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health). (2008). WPATH clarification
on medical necessity of treatment, sex reassignment, and insurance coverage for transgender
and transsexual people worldwide. http://www.wpath.org/site_page.cfm?pk_association_
webpage_menu¼1352&pk_association_webpage¼3947. Accessed 17 Oct 2015.
WSUP (Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor). (n.d.). My toilet, global stories from women and
girls. http://www.mytoilet.org/index.html. Accessed 19 Mar 2015.
Implementing LGBT-Diversity Management
in a Global Company: The Case of SAP
Jorge Martins, Niarchos Pombo, Mariana Tomiyoshi, Marcelo Trein,

Moya Watson, Miguel Castro, Claudia Schmidt, Adriana Kersting,
Paula Miyuki, Debora de Souza, Mariana Zatti, Denise Blume,
Leonardo Nunes, Jeffrey Mastrangelo, and Hartmut Bohn
1 Introduction
SAP employs over 76,000 people, working in more than 130 countries around the
world, which makes it a very diverse workplace, due to the various national and
cultural backgrounds of its employees. SAP’s LGBT organization, Pride@SAP,
was founded in Germany in 2001 and was initially named HomoSAPiens. It is
SAP’s longest-standing employee resources group, and one which has jumpstarted
many activities. It has also contributed to making sexual orientation and gender
identity key issues of SAP’s current diversity management approach. This chapter
will first offer a brief overview of the Pride@SAP networks in Germany, the USA,
and Brazil. Then the campaign “It Gets Better” will be described, SAP’s initiatives
in terms of gender identity will be outlined, and a conclusion will end the chapter.
J. Martins (*) • N. Pombo • M. Trein • A. Kersting • D. de Souza • M. Zatti • D. Blume •

L. Nunes
SAP Labs Latin America, S~ao Leopoldo, Brazil
e-mail: jorge.martins@sap.com
M. Tomiyoshi • P. Miyuki
SAP Brazil, S~ao Paulo, Brazil
M. Watson
SAP Labs Palo Alto, Palo Alto, CA, USA
M. Castro
SAP Espa~ na S.A., Madrid, Spain
C. Schmidt
SAP SE, Rot, Germany
J. Mastrangelo
SAP America, Newtown Square, PA, USA
H. Bohn
SAP SE, Walldorf, Germany

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_33
554 J. Martins et al.
2 Pride@SAP
2.1 Pride@SAP Germany
The whole concept of employee networks started in 2001 with the very first LGBT
group at SAP, initially named HomoSAPiens. This group was created by five
employees and started as an informal mailbox, which organized “Rainbow
Lunches” for the participants. However, in the summer of 2001, the group became
“official”, emerging as the first employee network at SAP, and the second LGBT
Network in Germany. Although initially HomoSAPiens operated solely at SAP’s
headquarters in Walldorf in Germany, the news soon spread to other subsidiaries,
such as the ones in Brazil and in the USA.
The HomoSAPiens group in Germany, now called Pride@SAP Germany, intro-
duced “diversity talks” at SAP. During the past decade, the group started diversity
management, with Diversity@SAP, SAP’s office for diversity and inclusion.
Around the same time, the first official internal publication made mention of the
group, highlighting its existence. From then on, the LGBT group received more and
more recognition. In 2008, SAP received the Max-Spohr Award, an accolade which
honors companies in Germany for excellent diversity management practices. The
donor of this award is the V€olklinger Kreis, a German network of gay managers and
entrepreneurs. At that time, only four companies had received the award prior to
SAP: Ford Germany, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bahn, and Volkswagen Financial
Services.
In 2009, SAP became a member of the “Bündnis gegen Homophobie” (the
“Alliance Against Homophobia”) and in 2010 joined the Milk Recruiting Fair
(now restyled as “Sticks and Stones”), for LGBT job candidates, where Angelika
Dammann, the former Chief Human Resources Officer of the SAP AG, addressed
the attendees. In 2013 SAP partnered with Deutsche Bank to host an LGBT think
tank workshop. The objective was to further promote diversity, and increase the
number of new members (especially women) in the LGBT networks. SAP also
collaborated with Berlin City Hall to improve the agenda for transgender
employees in the workplace by means of the project “Trans* in Arbeit” (“Trans*
at Work”) participating in workshops and hosting plenary sessions. In addition,
SAP was one of the founding members of the PROUTATWORK Foundation
(www.proutatwork.de), which aims at fighting homophobia and transphobia
at work.
2.2 Pride@SAP North America
David Ramsay (Program Manager, United States), recalls that the quest for official
workplace rights for LGBT colleagues began in 2001: “One of our colleagues,
Leslie Bulbuk, had been with SAP Labs in Palo Alto for just over 3 years. Her
partner, Marta, was a Brazilian woman working in the tech industry, who found out
Implementing LGBT-Diversity Management in a Global Company: The Case of SAP 555
that her position at a different company was likely to be eliminated”. Leslie wanted
to ensure that Marta could still have health coverage while she was between jobs, so
she took it upon herself to campaign internally for SAP to offer domestic partner
health coverage.
This type of coverage was already available at SAP’s German headquarters and
for other corporate peers local to the Silicon Valley office in which Leslie had
worked, so this became a matter of principle and equality of benefits for employees.
She worked to rally all the LGBT colleagues she could find at the office to see if she
could get the broader support from the group with her request. “We were only really
a handful of people at the time”, recalls David, “but this led to the start of the Palo
Alto chapter of what was then called Global HomoSAPiens” (David).
Leslie also started working closely with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to
get SAP listed on the Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which at that point was in its
infancy as a transformative tool with which corporations could push for LGBT
rights. SAP’s early scores in the CEI left much to be desired, but with advocacy,
education, and perseverance, SAP managed to achieve a 100 % score in 2010.
There was, however, still much work to be done.
Moya Watson (Product Manager, United States) remembers a feeling of disen-
franchisement among LGBT colleagues in the early days: “We were not
represented at Global Diversity Days. Some of the offices were rumored to be
‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ environments . . . and I did not know a single out lesbian in an
office of thousands. I thought ‘what could I possibly do?’” (Moya). The situation for
Moya began to change in 2011.
Throughout 2011 and into 2012, Moya began to lead the building of an LGBT
presence at SAP Palo Alto. Moya thought that one of the primary reasons for an
employee resource group (ERG) to exist would be to foster a sense of belonging and
to combat exclusion. Therefore, one of the first things the group did was to initiate a
rebranding from HomoSAPiens to Pride@SAP Palo Alto. This was a response to
the desire for a more inclusive name. This resonated not only throughout North
America but globally as well, and not only did the group grow to become
Pride@SAP North America, but the global employee resource group itself was
eventually named Pride@SAP.
Individuals, like Leslie, David, and Moya, were the key to the rejuvenation of
Pride@SAP North America, but every individual participating in the group as a
whole has contributed to its development.
2.3 Pride@SAP Brazil
In mid-2013, a group of five SAP employees from the S~ao Leopoldo office decided
to create a local chapter of the global LGBT employee network. The need was felt
in the face of a perceived lack of support for the LGBT community in the local
office. LGBT topics were not mentioned, and being out was taboo amongst the
employees.
After some discussion and development of the structure, Pride@SAP was

launched. Membership increased slowly by word of mouth, but there was little
initial progression, and the momentum of the group had begun to flag somewhat.
This situation changed when Pride@SAP Brazil had a meeting with a more
established employee network, the Business Women’s Network, whose focus was
on career development of female colleagues. This meeting demonstrated that, in
order to receive the support needed, Pride@SAP should involve colleagues in
strategic areas of the business.
Help was then received from the marketing and human resources departments,
and a sponsor from the leadership team, who brought executive oversight. The first
thing that the group did was to engage with the colleagues from the other areas of
SAP and make one of the founding leaders the primary leader. The communication
strategy was to make public the creation of the group via internal communication
channels and to ask people to join. The group was ‘private’, and one could only see
the other members by joining the group oneself.
The first result observed was a noticeable membership increase, from 5 members
to 30, in a period of 3 months. At the beginning, only LGBT people felt comfortable
joining, and the network was perceived as an LGBT-only network. This later
changed through a campaign that called for ‘allies’. Straight colleagues were
asked to record videos and to thereby send a positive message to LGBT coworkers.
Official communications from the company spread the news about the activities of
Pride@SAP Brazil, which helped the group to gain considerable attention within
the company. However, most of the members joined because of word of mouth.
After some time, some straight colleagues began joining the group, which led to
a change in the identity and strategy of the group. Pride@SAP Brazil was now
positioned as a group for “everyone who believes in equality”, regardless of his or
her sexual orientation or gender identity. This made the distribution of the group
shift, with 50 % of members now self-identifying as non-LGBT. In the interests of
transparency, the list of members was subsequently made visible to everyone, in
order to emphasize that there was no need for members to hide or feel in any way
ashamed.
Information about the group and its impact on diversity was included in the
official onboarding process. Workshops on “Diversity and Inclusion” were concep-
tualized and conducted, aiming to increase the general awareness of these issues.
The workshops were open to anyone who wanted to understand more about
diversity. Furthermore, members started to participate in LGBT roundtable discus-
sions, addressing issues of LGBT diversity. The leader of the group, Niarchos
Pombo, started participating in leadership team meetings and wrote emails to
managers, with the support of the HR department, so that LGBT diversity was
also something that came from top to bottom.
In 2014, Pride@SAP Brazil organized the first southern Brazil LGBT Summit,
to discuss LGBT diversity. Currently, Pride@SAP Brazil is working with SAP
offices in other Latin American subsidiaries, such as Argentina and Mexico, to
create and develop their first two employee networks: Pride@SAP and Business
Women’s Network.
3 It Gets Better
2012 was a very important year for Pride@SAP, not only because of the rebrand of
the group, from HomoSAPiens to Pride@SAP, but also because it was the year in
which Pride@SAP joined the “It Gets Better” project (see http://www.itgetsbetter.
org/). Moya Watson started to show some of the videos filmed for the “It Gets
Better” project from SAP’s corporate peers at the LGBT monthly lunches, a series
of informal lunch gatherings with the participation of LGBT colleagues. It was
apparent, by early 2012, that there was a high degree of interest from many SAP
employees in joining the “It Gets Better” Project.
It was then that Moya discovered something that, whilst initially shocking,
would prove ultimately transformative, galvanizing a whole movement within
SAP. A colleague, Steve Fehr, had only weeks before lost his 18 year old son
Jeffrey to suicide. Jeffrey had been a trailblazer, as an out male cheerleader at his
high school, and a role model for many, but years of anti-gay bullying had finally
taken their toll. When Moya approached Steve about making SAP’s “It Gets Better”
film in the wake of this loss, his response was: “I will do whatever I can to prevent
one family suffering the pain and loss we suffer” (Steve, USA).
The result was not only a groundbreaking “It Gets Better” film that made a huge
impact inside SAP and outside the company, but also a much larger and newly
rejuvenated LGBT employee network that welcomed friends and allies.
However, in the same year of the release of “It Gets Better: SAP Employees”,
SAP took a dip in its score in the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) of the Human
Rights Campaign (HRC). The HRC had added health benefits for transitioning
employees to the CEI criteria in 2012, which caused the rating of SAP to drop. To
regain the 100 % score, it was necessary from then on to broaden both focus and
remit, and to actively ameliorate the situation for transgender and transitioning
employees. SAP has pursued this goal, but it took SAP (and many other indexed
companies) some years to regain a perfect score. David Ramsay spearheaded this
achievement, by working hand-in-hand with colleagues in the SAP payroll depart-
ment, who have, since then, become strong allies for Pride@SAP. David empha-
sizes four points for success in working with stakeholders on LGBT equality
internally: “Start early, build relationships, create a business case, and engage
executive sponsors” (David).
4 Gender Identity
4.1 Gender Transition Guidelines
The Gender Transition Guidelines (GTG) were created in Germany. They serve as a
guide for dealing with the issue of transsexualism or transgender identity for
personnel administration (human resources), supervisors, and employees who
may be affected directly or indirectly. More importantly, they provide transgender
employees with a resource, in which they can find information and guidance on the
processes available.
The GTG were published in 2008, and were written by Claudia Schmidt, while
she was undergoing her transition. They were the first guidelines regarding this
subject that SAP had, largely because this was the first situation of the kind that
SAP had faced. “Had the GTG been in place when I started transitioning I could
have spared myself and others lots of hours and nerves,” recalls Claudia. Based on
this initial case, representatives from Pride@SAP, HR, and additional organiza-
tional levels from the company assessed the case and identified which areas and
departments might be affected by a transition. From the standard guideline structure
provided by the HRC in the US, the GTG was written and tailored to the specifics
needs of SAP.
The GTG describes aspects of transitioning with respect to administration and
social life at SAP, and serves as general orientation for SAP and employees with the
subtitle “How do I start the transition process in my work environment?”. Since
each case is unique, the GTG is a basic resource, providing a foundation where
employees can start.
Claudia remembers that “For me it all started back in 2006 when I realized there
was not a snowflake’s chance in hell I could continue with the life I had been
leading up to that time. However, here is where the trouble starts. How will friends
and family react? What about other people? The workplace is one of the areas
where we spend many hours in contact with colleagues and customers and even
sports activities take place here. What was most important to me was to keep an
environment which I felt provided stability and some ‘homeliness’ compared to all
the changes that were about to come” (Claudia, developer, Germany).
Almost all those around transgender people are unaware of the everyday annoy-
ances that they may experience, depending on the degree of passing as a member of
the respective gender. This is why support and guidance are very important. With
the GTG, SAP has a basis from where it can start.
“I had an agreement with my manager to work at home during the transition
process,” says Paula, a consultant from Brazil. During this time, her HR Director
took the initiative to invite Paula’s psychologist to explain more about gender
identity, transgender and the transition process to the whole office. “It was a very
important step, because he explained and gave information to decrease the preju-
dices”, says Paula. However, many obstacles persist. Paula continues: “After the
transition, some people distanced themselves from me. Despite the SAP guidelines,
I still suffer some prejudice at work [. . .]. What we need the most, not only at SAP,
is information” (Paula).
4.2 Gender-Neutral Toilets/Restrooms
“Has anybody ever taken the wrong door to the restrooms? Imagine how you would
feel if you were forced to use the facilities of the other gender on a daily basis,” says
Claudia. Using a restroom that does not conform to your gender can cause a lot of
distress to those during the male/female transition. A person becomes subject to
discrimination and harassment, no matter which binary toilet he or she chooses.
With this in mind, SAP decided to create gender-neutral toilets. Since January
2015, three toilet facilities in Waldorf in Germany were redesigned as gender-
neutral, having the transgender symbol on their doors. The objective of this change
was to provide everyone with an environment in which they could feel safe, while
also embracing the wellbeing of everyone in the workforce.
4.3 HR and Trans Applicants
A few years ago, SAP began defining more explicitly how to make its workforce
more diverse. The activities that focus on bringing more minorities, including
LGBT, to the workforce are coordinated by Diversity@SAP and Pride@SAP,
two offices that deal with these cases worldwide. Their activities have full support
from HR.
“HR participates in the actions created by Pride@SAP, but they are the ones that
create and suggest such activities”, clarifies Adriana, HR Director from Brazil.
Regarding trans applicants, the HR department has no special activities. If the
applicant uses a different social name than the one on his/her documents, corporate
e-mails and IDs are modified to match his/her preference. Paula says that “When I
decided to undergo the transition, they changed my data to reflect my social name
without delay”.
SAP does not try to “hide” trans people from customers and partners. On the
contrary, SAP gives all the support it can in order to avoid prejudice and annoy-
ances that might arise due to a difference in documentation regarding the social
name. “SAP issued a letter to the first customer that I visited after my transition,
explaining about my documentation,” explains Paula.
5 Conclusion
LGBT rights at SAP have come a long way since its inception. In such a small
amount of time, several LGBT groups have been started and are paving the way for
more ongoing progress and development. They have gained ground and recognition
that would have been inconceivable at the outset. Adriana says, “We have dealt
with all of this very quickly. Ten years ago, everything was new, more complicated,
but we have gone through situations that demonstrated that we will deal with it”.
Support continues to improve, especially from a top management standpoint. For
instance, on 18 June 2015, SAP has declared that they would be taking part, for the
first time, in the Annual San Francisco Pride Parade, and one of the many people
representing SAP was Jenny Dearborn (Chief Learning Officer at SAP and
executive sponsor of the Pride@SAP employee network, United States). She is one
of the global leaders that are actively working towards an improved future for
LGBT inside and outside SAP. “Creating a diverse and inclusive culture makes us a
better company, fuels our innovation, enhances our daily work and leads to a more
authentic and fulfilling day-to-day work experience for all of our employees”
(Dearborn 2015).
However, SAP has much more still to achieve. Debora de Souza, a Support
Team Manager from Brazil, says, “The challenge is still the discrimination, because
it is veiled. It is not someone saying ‘I do not want to work with this person because
he is gay’, but there is the discrimination of avoiding this person, of unconsciously
not inviting this person to a project or initiative. If we reach the point where
everyone is seen as a person, and what matters is the delivered result, then we
have met our goal” (Debora, Support Team Manager, Brazil).
Despite all this, as Adriana remarks, “the most important thing is the company
showing that it has an open environment, where the person feels safe and respected.
It’s different when the company has 100 % of its workforce with good access to
information. It eases the inclusion and the acceptance of diversity. We still have a
lot to do, but it’s easier due to our people” (Adriana).
“Run Prouder”, an initiative by Pride@SAP Brazil to demonstrate a welcoming
environment where LGBT and non-LGBT colleagues could work together was so
successful that it is currently being replicated by other locations to increase LGBT
awareness. “Today at SAP we can say ‘We are not only here; we make a differ-
ence’”, states Moya. She goes on to add that “I know my sense of purpose definitely
comes from the opportunity to make the world better for our kids and from a
passion for helping our LGBT colleagues around the world feel safe and work to
their fullest potential. And SAP values and supports me in that purpose” (Moya).
Acknowledgement We would like to thank Alex Scott Fairley (Farnham, UK) for proofreading
this chapter.
Reference
Dearborn, J. (2015). SAP to participate for first time in annual San Francisco pride parade and
celebration. http://news.sap.com/sap-to-participate-for-first-time-in-annual-san-francisco-
pride-parade-and-celebration/ . Accessed 15 Nov 2015.

2016 Book SexualOrientationAndTransgende

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Book SexualOrientationAndTransgende

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016 Book SexualOrientationAndTransgende

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas Köllen Editor

Sexual Orientation and

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

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016938220

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

heteronormativity and cisnormativity in the workplace. Additionally, this book

Vienna, Austria Thomas K€ollen

Intersexuality and Trans-Identities within the Diversity Management

Transgender Individuals in Asian Islamic Countries: An Overview of

Discrimination at Work on the Basis of Sexual Orientation:

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

discourse on diversity and diversity management: Intersexuality and transgender-

2 Sexuality, Sex, and Gender

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

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

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

3.1 Social Constructivist Perspective

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

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

3.2 Biological-Medical Perspective

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

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

Intersexuals can possess different constellations of these three types of

3.3 Intersexuality and Diversity Management

The social constructivist perspective on sex would help to destigmatize intersex

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

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

4.1 Medical Perspective

In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association recognized transsexuality as a

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

4.2 Societal Perspective

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

4.3 Trans-Identities and Diversity Management

5 Conceptualizing an Integrative Diversity Management

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

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

Katina Sawyer, Christian Thoroughgood, and Jennica Webster

1 Chapter Outline and Rationale

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

K. Sawyer, Ph.D. (*)

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 21

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

2 U.S. and Global Estimates of Transgender Populations

Before discussing the effects of workplace discrimination on transgender

3 Transgender Discrimination and the Law: Global

International law surrounding transgender populations is constantly evolving.

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

4 Transgender Discrimination and the Law:

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

5 Transgender Discrimination: Societal-Level

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

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

6 Transgender Discrimination in the Workplace

Transgender employees, similar to transgender populations in society more

7 Recommendations for Creating Trans-Inclusive

Organizations wishing to create inclusive work environments for transgender

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

8 Future Directions for Transgender Research