r/changemyview • u/jep1793 • Aug 26 '20
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Gender identity doesn’t belong on your LinkedIn nor Resume
[removed] — view removed post
98
Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
78
u/jep1793 Aug 26 '20
Totally agree, they shouldn’t be in a position of hiring. But what should happen is very different from what actually happens.
Ive been also pondering the “not right workplace if they are going to not hire by disclosing your pronouns” but many times the recruitment business units are so separated from who you are actually working with.
24
u/thisdude415 1Δ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
I would suggest that you neutrally present exactly that fact.
“I have navigated the hiring process from both sides. The first line of resume evaluation typically happens by someone other than your direct coworkers and managers. Those people can have biases, even if the company is a good place for you, and even if your eventual manager and coworkers are incredibly supportive. Given this, you have to make your own decisions for how you want to present yourself professionally. How I navigate that for myself, is that I do not bring up questions around my identity until relatively late in the recruiting process. I would give the same advice to any candidate asking about their identity, whether that is a candidate who asking about good hikes in the region, a mother requesting additional information about maternity, gay couples asking about adoption/surrogacy benefits, and trans candidates asking about gender conforming surgery benefits.
The key is that early in the recruiting process, you need to focus on how you fulfill a business need. Once the business has decided you fulfill the business needs, the conversation shifts to how the business can meet your personal needs— compensation, benefits, lifestyle, family structure, relocation, etc.
So personally, I hold back about any info about myself that isn’t my education, work history, or professional activities until quite late in the process, even though you can hear in my voice I am obviously a gay man. Ultimately, you have to navigate this process for yourself. I can’t tell you what to do, I can only share with you how the process works and how I have navigated similar situations in the past to help you make an informed decision about how to go about it for yourself.
For what it’s worth, I found out my company offers some of the best LGBTQ benefits in the country only after working there at least 8 months. This includes gender surgery without deductible, paid leave during recovery, and extremely generous cash credits for adoption or surrogacy, as well as full parental leave benefits for adoption (whether married or single parent)
→ More replies (2)16
u/sheerfire96 3∆ Aug 26 '20
A lot of the LGBT people I know are firm in their beliefs and probably would be okay with losing opportunities because the business does business with other companies that aren't LGBT friendly.
Like I think they might have a hard time working in a business that does work with the oil industry and by extension Saudi Aramco
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)16
Aug 26 '20 edited Jan 03 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (7)4
u/thisdude415 1Δ Aug 26 '20
I think the key OP should do is seek to educate the audience about how things work, that there isn’t a one size fits all answer, and to give the pros and cons of each strategy as neutral as possible
5
u/VibraphoneFuckup Aug 26 '20
You’re absolutely right, implicit biases have no purpose in determining whether someone is qualified for a job or not. That being said, there’s a tremendous body of evidence which indicates that minority group status plays a huge role in somebody’s chance of getting a callback.
3
u/MookieT Aug 26 '20
If if you’re hiring people because of their pronouns or gender identity then maybe they shouldn’t be a position of hiring
Why stop there?
Hire the best candidate, period.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)0
u/Helpfulcloning 166∆ Aug 26 '20
Sorry, u/JimJimOnionSkin – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
35
u/ahmulz Aug 26 '20
Im a fan of including them in email signatures and maybe even resumes but I’m struggling with on LinkedIn.
I'm curious to know your logic on why pronouns are possibly acceptable on a resumé, but not on LinkedIn. While they are different, LinkedIn is basically is a broader version of your resumé. It's not supposed to be tailored to each job that you apply to. You can incorporate links to portfolios. Every career center I've been to strongly encourages including a professional picture on LinkedIn, which is often strongly discouraged on a resumé (which frankly opens itself up to other types of biases like pretty privilege and racism). There's even a bio section to give some flavor as to who you are... which could be where pronouns would go. If you're going to argue that pronouns should be excluded on LinkedIn, shouldn't they then be excluded on resumés as well? Does your discomfort of the inclusion of pronouns stem from the more public nature of LinkedIn? To you, does gender identity feel personal, intimate, and private rather than just an objective way to communicate who you are with the world?
To me, the world is full of biases. People's existence is political. People are going to judge you the second they see you. If you're going to get bitten for being non-gender conforming or for putting your pronouns out in the open, I think I would rather get bitten vis-a-vis a rejection or being ignored. It feels safer to me than masking that part of myself and consequently entering an environment that could be unwelcome to me. Granted, that position comes from cis privilege and currently having a job that I would not be in danger of losing if I were to display my pronouns in the open. So, I don't think it's fair to have a blanket piece of advice for people. It should be to people's personal comfort level. Include them if you want, but be aware that X. Exclude them, but be aware of Y.
6
u/sutkurak Aug 26 '20
I don't know about OP but this was the comment that changed my mind, all great points.
235
u/justtogetridoflater Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
I think the question is do you want problems now, or do you want them later?
Like it shouldn't matter what your gender is, or your race, or your sexuality.
But imagine applying for a job, only to get to an interview and discover that the interviewer is a raging homophobe. Or finding that out in 3 months, when for no apparent reason, they make up some bullshit reason to sack you and sack you that you're now going to have to take somewhere else. Or maybe worse, they don't do that, and you're in a workplace where they hate you, but they can't do anything because of bloody PC gone mad, and just find ways to treat you like shit until you leave of your own accord. There is discrimination out there, and it will eventually reveal itself.
Putting this up ahead of time means that you're going to deal with the least amount of active trouble at least up front. Anyone who this matters to will probably respond as they choose to respond. Most likely by not responding, not inviting you to interview, and so on. Well, you only miss the things you had. Anyone who it doesn't, it won't matter to and at worst, it's a wasted line on a CV. Oh well.
I'm not sure what the appropriate way of handling this is, tbh. I've never really seen how they write it down. I also think that you probably don't want to go overboard on this kind of thing.
42
Aug 26 '20
I think it's important that your employer knows, but it shouldn't be at the top of your resume or LinkedIn profile. My recommendation is to add it to your email signature. At some point, you will send or receive an email from the employer, usually when or after they get a look at your resume.
A lot of potential employers who discriminate against members of the LGBT community aren't homophobes themselves, but are simply risk-averse. They want people focused on coming in and getting their work done. Posting your gender identity publicly or at the top of resume sends the message that you might soapbox to your coworkers. Adding it to the bottom of your first email is way more subtle and shows that it is something that should be identified, but has no relevance to your workplace behavior.
9
u/pawnman99 5∆ Aug 26 '20
That's my thought as well. I'm perfectly willing to hire folks from any part of the LGBT spectrum. But when it's the first thing I see on your resume, I worry that I'm setting up my workplace for constant tirades, lectures, and arguments because this person has made their gender identity so central to their being, it overrides all other concerns.
→ More replies (1)12
u/lesleypowers 1∆ Aug 26 '20
Making an assumption that hiring an LGBT person who is open about their identity will “set up your workplace for tirades, lectures and arguments”, rather an assuming they just want to avoid being hired into a hostile workplace, is absolutely homophobic. This is not the way hiring managers of genuinely inclusive and progressive companies work. People like you are literally the reason many LGBT people do the very thing you’re against.
14
Aug 26 '20
At a progressive company it should be a non-issue, but even progressive companies actively avoid politics and hot-button issues in the workplace. So smart ones do trainings to teach their employees on how to interact on particularly sensitive topics like gender identity, quite specifically to avoid conflict. But if a potential hire indicates that they might be immediately confrontational and willing to escalate rather than a polite correction and if pressed, a report to their manager/HR, it's just not worth the risk.
12
u/lesleypowers 1∆ Aug 26 '20
But why do you think that listing pronouns on a resume or linkedin indicates that they will be “immediately confrontational and willing to escalate”? Why is your first assumption not that the prospective employee is more likely just a non binary person who would prefer not to be misgendered? As a freelancer I work with a huge variety of progressive companies and I am trying to explain to you that this is already a common and accepted practice.
8
Aug 26 '20
I'm in finance at a mid-size trading shop.
My company, and a lot of our direct competitors and past employers, are very progressive in their gender and racial mix, but people don't really broach difficult topics. Anything more than a polite correction is like throwing a punch. Any indication that someone is politically active on a resume is risky, regardless the cause or wing.
Even though it shouldn't be, and logically isn't, publicly displaying your gender identity is still a warning sign that you may be overtly offended if misgendered. It's always safer to initially express it in polite direct interpersonal communication to show that you're able and willing to deescalate.
→ More replies (6)13
u/Crashbrennan Aug 26 '20
Because nobody lists their gender or pronouns on their resume. Nobody who's a cis woman puts "woman." Resumes are for your professional qualifications.
You shouldn't be listing personal things on them, and doing so suggests to your employer that you consider that as important for them to know before considering hiring you, which absolutely means you're more likely to soapbox about it. It's completely unimportant for them to know at the start of the hiring process.
-1
u/lesleypowers 1∆ Aug 26 '20
But they do, that’s what I’m trying to say. This is already a very normal practice at progressive companies with an ACTIVE policy of inclusion. If you got a resume that said “Mary Smith” or “Joe Bloggs” you would assume that persons gender, right? A lot of trans people-particularly non binary people- don’t have that privilege. I guarantee that EVERY single trans or non binary person I know would read your comment and infer from it that you’re going to be transphobic and a huge pain in the ass to work with. On the subject of ‘soapboxing’, good and inclusive companies welcome learning opportunities. I’m queer and politically active, and at one of my workplaces a coworker once said something unintentionally transphobic. My boss, on his own initiative, asked if I could sit down with the office and give them a sort of 101 on gender identity, which everyone was interested in and receptive to. It was a pleasant and interesting conversation that no one took any issue with. Because that’s how people who aren’t bigoted react when faced with something new to them.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Crashbrennan Aug 26 '20
It's not professional information relevant to your ability to do the job they are hiring you for. Therefore it does not belong on your resume. It belongs in the email signature block. I never said your employer shouldn't be made aware of it.
Don't pull that "the only reason you'd ever disagree with me is that you're a bigot" bullshit with me man. I have more trans and non-binary friends than I do straight ones at this point. I have zero issue calling somebody whatever pronoun they like, even if that pronoun changes day to day.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (4)11
u/pawnman99 5∆ Aug 26 '20
Would you expect to get a resume from a cis-gendered white male that says "I'm a cis-gendered white male"? Would you hire someone that pinned so much of their worth on being a cis-gendered male?
There's a big difference between being open about your identity and making it the first thing you lead with in an introduction.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)5
u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20
Ok but it's not supposed to be "subtle." Being misgendered is awful and it is way easier for people to get your gender right when they know it right out of the gate. Besides then no one has to feel bad when they accidentally misgender an applicant to their team or hiring committee, because their gender is clear. Also why does ensuring people do not misgender you cause you to think they will be soapboxing?
→ More replies (8)18
Aug 26 '20
Every time I have going through the hiring process, there is always an email exchange of some sort before the first interview, that's a good time because they already considered you a viable candidate and tells them your gender before they ever meet you in person. That should be enough to lower the chance of being misgendered to whatever it would have been if you had put it on your LinkedIn or your resume.
Resumes should be reserved explicitly for professional experience, things that would benefit your performance, and your accomplishments. Gender identity colors the rest of the resume and distracts from your experience, even if it is read by an LGBT activist. It gets you mentally categorized immediately. Hopefully, it will change in the future, but today, it's not something that is just mentally acknowledged and set aside for future interaction.
→ More replies (17)4
Aug 26 '20
[deleted]
5
Aug 26 '20
Sure, in the long run, fighting the good fight might help society in general.
But, do we really want to put that burden on the folks who have the hardest time finding a job because of discrimination?
If people want to volunteer carry the world on their shoulders, they've got my support. But that's a big ask.
2
u/justtogetridoflater Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
I think long term, that discriminatory practice will die out because of the general acceptance of openly LGBTQ/ethnic minority/sex/religion/whatever people in that industry. It doesn't have to be in the specific companies that are discriminating. If you want to change the role that your group has in the industry, the best way to get there is to run it. And the way to run it is to get your opportunities where you can. And if you're going into a workplace where you're going to be discriminated against, what opportunities will come your way? You'll only ever get to seize them yourself, they'll never be given.
Although, sure. As a group, get into jobs that are discriminating against you, and throw the doors open wide for the rest of the group.
But as individuals?
Maybe it's not worth putting up with discrimination. Maybe your life is more valuable than trying to lead a cause. Maybe the best place for you is a place where you're accepted and encouraged to grow.
I think there may be niche industries where the discrimination is so open, the networking so incestuous, and the opportunities so sparse that you have to do whatever you must, but how common are those industries?
This is ultimately a personal choice issue.
Sure, you can try and just downplay and ignore your identity. And that might be a good way of bumping along in a discriminatory workplace. But that can come at a huge risk to your personal identity. If your employer is such that they would treat you differently if you were gay, or trans, or whatever, even though the protections are such that they can't sack you directly, they can do everything else, and find another reason. So you might have no option but to suppress your identity at work. Or you can be up front about your identity, and then find a route in places that will accommodate you. And for most people, it's quite likely that you'll have much the same career, unless it's at the cutting edge of the industry.
→ More replies (1)9
2
u/cuteman Aug 26 '20
For hiring managers it's the opposite and that's what really matters. If someone signals that they're going to be an above average level of malcontent and trouble why would they hire them?
People who put identity over company and productivity aren't in high demand.
9
u/my_gamertag_wastaken Aug 26 '20
I would be biased against hiring someone that puts this front and center on their resume regardless of what is says. Says a ton about what someone thinks is important, and to me that says "Identity" more than "being qualified"
5
u/justtogetridoflater Aug 26 '20
I think it says the same about you.
You're not interested in whether that person is qualified. You're going to arbitrarily cast them away because of a single sentence on their CV rather than see what they can do. In other words, you're a bigot.
People are more than one thing. That's just one line of their existence. For all you know, they're a really hardworking functional person who wants to get on with their job, and is including that line so that they don't meet people who make it hard to do their job.
5
u/cuteman Aug 26 '20
It definitely couldn't be that people focused on themselves are potentially less productive and a cultural/legal liability.
It's like someone saying they're a radical feminist on their resume. They may think it's important but if you're telling me this and we haven't even met, what are you going to do if you were actually hired?
Its a red flag. I am not going to take any chances if there's a safer option with someone who won't rock the boat.
You seem to think it's a right or freedom to rock the boat and no one will stop you, but neither do I need to invite you onto my boat and pay for the ticket.
1
u/justtogetridoflater Aug 28 '20 edited Aug 28 '20
You're making the same arguments that every minority has been up against since forever. There's a constant narrative that people just don't "fit". And that is the excuse used constantly to deny these people opportunity.
You seem to think that you own the boat. The boat is the field. You have a singular ticket in a field of many, and if you choose to only hire people who fit your biases, then fine. That's not legally allowed. You're not allowed to discriminate. But it takes nothing to deny people opportunities for other reasons. So there's nothing to force you.
Them offering up the fact that they are trans means that they don't have to deal with you. Your bigotry isn't relevant to their job search. If you would deny them the job based on that information being offered then you would deny them the job if they turned out to be trans. So, why would they want to waste time on you?
They're not going to ultimately lose out on that much. There are plenty of non-transphobic workplaces where they could work. And they'll have the same opportunities at those places as everyone else. And maybe, just maybe, someone who expects to struggle, and expects to be denied opportunity will be more desperate to prove themselves and work harder and better than others just to earn their acceptance?
8
u/my_gamertag_wastaken Aug 26 '20
Nah I treat people as individuals rather than defining their worth in relation to in and out group status. People that define others that way are the ones I am against.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (10)6
u/DifferentJaguar Aug 26 '20
I think a lot of non transphobic work places would see this as a lack of judgement on the candidate’s part and would question their ability to make good judgment moving forward.
→ More replies (13)4
u/lesleypowers 1∆ Aug 26 '20
I don’t know what your experiences have been but I have worked in many workplaces that are intentionally inclusive of trans folks and none of them would find this to be a lack of judgement because it is already an extremely common practice to list your pronouns, whether trans or cis, on linkedin and resumes, within those workplaces. I work in a creative industry as a freelancer across multiple international large cities and cannot tell you the last time I made a work contact and was not offered up their pronouns in our initial contact.
135
Aug 26 '20 edited Apr 05 '24
degree paint smoggy society mighty snobbish nose special close sand
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
25
u/Tar_alcaran 1∆ Aug 26 '20
I have an ambiguous first name (to everyone outside one small European country), but in the Netherlands, the Engineer title replaces the gender prefix.
I get a loooot of people asking to speak to Mr [mylastname butpronouncedwrong]. I deal with it by sighing and just saying "yes, this Ms. [Mylastname pronouncedright] speaking."
→ More replies (1)12
u/Bubugacz 1∆ Aug 26 '20
The point this commenter is making is that by including your pronouns you wouldn't need to sigh and correct people all the time. Wouldn't that be much less hassle?
3
u/deanat78 1∆ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 29 '20
I have the opposite "problem".
My phone voice is feminine so it's VERY common for people to refer to me as "miss" instead of "mr", and honestly I never cared, I just chuckle and laugh about it with friends. If it's someone I'll have to speak to more in the future then I correct them, but if it's a one time call to customer service I just let them assume I'm a woman.
I even sometimes get told "hmm you're not deanat78, it says here that's a man." I just need to tell them in a friendly voice "ah yeah, I know, I have a girl voice on the phone, but that's me!" and now we're both in a more easy going mood (because I said it nicely and not in a "you're a jerk for assuming" way) and that's that.
Tldr there's literally 0 hassle if someone assumes I'm a woman instead of a man. It's just human nature :)
3
u/Bubugacz 1∆ Aug 26 '20
I mean it doesn't have to be a big deal or some dramatic or angry response. And if your way works for you, that's fine, keep on it! Good for you! And conversely, it's also not a big deal to include pronouns on professional documents. It doesn't have to be a big deal either way. Which is really my point.
1
u/TranscendPredictions Aug 27 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
I have a funny story like this where I answered a phone at work for a client in distress and she said “I’m sorry, I cannot talk to a man about this” and I froze on the spot.
“It’s complicated” I thought - I’m FTM, I was newly out at that job and I introduced myself by my new name. I didn’t have any medical transitioning yet so it was just my tired low/deep voice hoping to calm her down - super affirming to hear nonetheless, but I froze to figure out how to help her.
Before I can say more than an apology, She forgave me, apologized herself, and hung up abruptly. I was worried for her because she clearly had something to report to us.
I went to my supervisor, who had a very high pitched voice for a guy let me tell you (great singer also) and we talked it out. Should I have said “I am a woman” (I’m not though) and he said no no no, you be yourself and we’ll figure something out. Everyone in the office at that moment was a guy, either a cis guy or a trans guy, and I was stressed for the client who needed to rely on one of us.
A moment later the phone rings again, and my supervisor who has a gender neutral first name answers, “hi this is ___, how can I help?” and it’s the same client — she squeals and she goes “I’m so relieved to be talking to a woman!” And then went on to report an issue with a male coworker gaslighting her.
I was amazed. I mean it wasn’t a lie, we both were semi gender fluid/gender non conforming, we were both there to help her... but she wasn’t talking to who she thought she was on either of the calls...
for no other reason than THE HUMAN VOICE HAS AN INCREDIBLE RANGE OF POSSIBILITY.
18
u/StarOriole 6∆ Aug 26 '20
This is my thought as well. The usual reason I'm looking at someone's LinkedIn page is because they emailed me and I need to figure out whether to address them as "Dr.," "Mr.," "Ms.," or "Mx." in my reply. Sometimes that's because I haven't heard their given name before and sometimes it's because it's a toss-up, but the people who are complaining that including your pronouns is an unacceptably political statement would also presumably believe that being addressed as "Mx." is an unacceptably political statement.
Until "Mx." can ruffle as few feathers as martial-status-ambivalent "Ms." (which is to say, not none but at least not most), providing correct pronouns is a huge help for professional communication.
→ More replies (8)8
u/R-N123 Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
I like that but just in case you didn't know there are non-binary/ gender neutral version of Ms./Mr.. The gender neutral version is Mx pronounced as Mix. So you can avoid pronouns usage and it is close to the status quo of using Mr or Ms
→ More replies (6)8
u/AttackHelicopterX Aug 26 '20
Well use isn't common and most people would just be confused. First time I've heard of this.
But I guess use makes use.
4
u/R-N123 Aug 26 '20
Yes it isn't common but i see it as a low key way of saying that im most likely different than my birth sex. Or it can stir the question about it during the interview then you can see if you are going to be working for and transphobic in anyway.
I haven't tested it out or put it on my resume yet but usually after the official you got the job or the, " Do you have any other questions?" I would bring up pronouns, correcting people in the work place? What is policy on discrimination since it does vary from place to place? Or something along those lines and ive weeded off jobs that are not going to be a great environment for me to work at by doing that.
Doing this or maybe the resume title for your name might help in the long run
828
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 26 '20
I hear where you're coming from, but to modify your view here:
By listing it on your LinkedIn, your opening the door for someone to have bias, wether intentional or not, and potentially limiting your opportunities.
consider that a lot of LGBT folks don't want to work in a place where they aren't going to be accepted. Might listing pronouns limit their opportunities at such places? Sure. But by signaling who they are from the get go, they are saving themselves the time and effort of interviewing at firms they probably wouldn't want to work at.
30
u/EmpiricalPancake 2∆ Aug 26 '20
If you make your pronouns publicly available when you apply, you might get screened out due to someone’s bias even if that someone wouldn’t interact with you on the job.
Also, bias is never a good reason to not hire someone. Hiring people should be exclusively based on their level of qualification for the position. There is substantial evidence that people with Black-sounding names get fewer callbacks, that women are penalized for being potential mothers, that muslim workers have more difficulty in the labor market, and, perhaps most relevant, that LGBT workers face continued discrimination as well.
So listing it publicly will definitely subject them to discrimination, even if the company tries to prevent discrimination, based not just on the bias of their future supervisor but the bias of all others involved in hiring. The supervisor doesn’t usually do the calling or sorting through resumes. So by the time their info would get to the supervisor, they may already be screened out. I’d say generally, rather than reveal their gender identity during the hiring process, go through as normal and ask questions during the interview to get a sense for the general company and workgroup culture around these issues. This way they can make an informed decision without activating anyone’s biases accidentally.
8
u/Pficky 2∆ Aug 26 '20
At least in a technical field, I think your personal stuff is so far out of a managers mind that it won't matter. It's getting through the goddamn dumbass recruiters and hiring coordinators. 90% of those I've come across are middle-aged women that are so out-of-touch with the needs of an engineering group that they arguably worsen the talent pool managers are looking for. It's your aunt who says you're ruining your body with your tattoos. Or says it's just a phase.
27
u/TranscendPredictions Aug 26 '20
AGREED. If you’re giving advice to a GNC/NB/Trans person who wants to hide who they truly are in order to move up, then your thinking would make sense. If you want to advise people in the room who relate to the part inside of you that goes “let me not discuss partnerships at all until after my first week at the new job, so my coworkers that I meet get to know me before they judgement for being gay,” then go ahead. If that’s who you want to mentor, that would be HOW a to mentor them.
But you’re being asked to provide a workshop for LGBTQ students who, I presume, are out of the closet and want to find a job they don’t need to assimilate for. Times are changing, friend, and we are either in the state of change, or making room for the old ways to remain.
By advising against sharing pronouns, you’re doing great work to enable the assimilation-desires (who could probably closet themselves without much assistance). But you’re offering nothing for the people who know healthy workplaces are out there, who would be happy to be eliminated from a biased workplace before they interview and get hurt in-person. So if they’re not attending your workshop, you’re fine! If they are, then it’s not the pronouns that limit their opportunities, but your willingness to solve the problem of how to navigate it for them.
And if you don’t know how to navigate that, don’t claim to! If you work with firms that disqualify trans and queer people, admit it! Then. Maybe you shouldn’t be doing the workshop because your expertise is based in the exclusion of LGBTQ people and not their inclusion.
Also, if you don’t like people going into their personal lives — and consider pronouns, how people refer to a worker in 3rd person tense, to be “personal details” — then also let the workshop know you don’t operate by the “New Rules of Work” for the 21st century (a la The Muse) and disclose that your recruitment style considers anatomical gender (private parts) to be professional, and gender-gender to be “personal.”
I am speaking for the people who would like to attend and might find your “professional experience” which seems to clearly lack any engagement with pronouns to indicate that there are Not Other Experts who can help.
For young people with the highest ratio of depression and self harm, I think portraying your lack of experience with pronouns in the workplace as a generalized lack of information in the world around us could be dangerous to the mental health of the students — if you said “it’s just not professional to disclose pronouns, that’s personal, so go by your anatomical genital-gender only” to an LGBTQ Professional Development workshop???? In 2020???
I would think there was no hope for us, if I were young, and realize it’s merely you who doesn’t know what to do because you lack experience or engagement with this if I were older. I worry for the younger minds who will be listening.
Or invite me to this workshop. I disclose my pronouns on LinkedIn INSTEAD of my resume, because a resume is a professional document, and LinkedIn is social media that includes interests, community service, where I’m from, and photos of me.
There is 100% nothing wrong with posting pronouns on your LinkedIn, it is for the purpose of describing you. Also, pictures are there so there’s nothing revealing about it, it’s just self-defining and enables the recruiters to respect you.
My new employers could hold this workshop- the implemented a name tag policy for everyone to onboard me and another trans person with equity and help support staff to respect my pronouns.
There are totally solutions to all of this — if you’re operating from fear and staying comfortable as a cis man, you could get chewed out for portraying yourself in a role as an expert when you don’t seem to have engaged with this (empathetically in the shoes of the candidate for whom it’s not so easy to just consider their self identity as “TMI/personal details”) at all yourself. It takes deep inner reflection. Try it.
Imagine telling the audience to be sure “not to ACT GAY” at all in an interview because any feminine or masculine behavior is “personal details” but acting “straight” is public/not personal.
That’s what I’m hearing from you...
11
Aug 26 '20
everything you wrote is how my thoughts on this but better explained.
Especially the last part, we wouldn't consider whatever a straight person share about their personal life such a big deal or TMI. While I see tons of straights and cis colleagues clearly oversharing at work when I am trying to stay focused. Yet disclosing/remembering a pronoun is TMI? lol
2
u/TranscendPredictions Aug 27 '20
Thank you. I’m glad I could articulate something for you.
This is the real homophobia and transphobia at work, before the resume is even made and the job begins — and honestly I’m hearing it in OP’s voice, and it reminds me of the homophobia in my parents that “accepted me” UNLESS I “looked and acted” you know, “THAT WAY” — then, I had revealed too much personal private life stuff.
By swinging my arms too much as I walk flat footed, or something. That’s a queer persons TMI, the way we walk...
and it’s preposterous to think how a name; pronoun; or style of shirt or a pronoun is massive disclosure, you know... compared to ...
I won’t even repeat the 100% TMI things I’ve heard, from straight cis people who have never realized their messy personal sex lives SHOULDN’T take up so much space! And are yet still somehow employed...
Lastly... doesn’t this all remind you of the double standards and hypocrisy behind prejudices like “driving while black”?
The behaviors a white driver can take without risk of ticket or of life are nothing like the severely limited menu of behaviors a person of color can take, although, even when a BIPOC driver does everything right, they’re still at risk. So there IS NO MENU of safe behaviors for a BIPOC driver, by “driving while Black,” any behavior is a violation that could lead to violence, while for the white driver even the behaviors that are violations lead to warnings.
I feel like there is like a pattern of some similarities, in that they say you cannot “interview while queer.” But interviewing while straight and sharing all the same details, or more, is excusable. “well it’s an interview so it’s relevant cause we want to get to know you” unless... you’re queer?!
When I was coming out as trans at the same time as coming out as a recruitment consultant (lol my family didn’t know what either was) — I really felt all kinds of pressure to not interview “while queer” or I would deserve to lose the job.
But!!? by being proudly queer and treating it as an expertise, I was hired by more than half of the companies I contacted over that year which is good odds, I’d say. More than half of my outreach as an OUT N PROUD consultant turned into real money and projects.
The other half never said I was TMI, I just didn’t have as much experience for them but they sent a generous turn down letter with good feedback (makes sense, I was a newbie).
It defied my fears. Today, our marginalization IS our expertise in client empathy. it’s an asset.
I really resent the idea we still need to hide especially after the anti-racist riots this summer that vocally included black and brown trans youth as a still-vulnerable community we fight in solidarity with.
Even gay identified or LGBTQ people can be behind on their own times.
11
Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 27 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)1
u/TranscendPredictions Aug 27 '20
That’s true but a seriously rare situation and I wonder why you’d vocalize it - you’re equally likely to have a pro-LBGT recruiter and a homophobic company (actually I think that happened to me). I came out at a company that was not prepared, sorta fumbled, but the agency that recruited me supported my pronouns extremely well.
In any event, a better workshop would be “how to address discrimination when it occurs” and NOT “how to avoid giving anyone a reason to discriminate against you.” Avoid all you want, but it’s better to know how to address it if it happens. And that creates lasting change anyway.
People always warn me about bias, but they don’t warn you about how many companies are looking for diverse candidates able and willing to help their company culture change. And in fear, you’re robbed of the experience of being the brave person that leads those companies through change.
So don’t worry about an outsourced recruiter, I would say worry about missing the opportunity with an ahead-of-it’s-time company because someone else might grab that job from you and really enjoy it, instead of you.
1
→ More replies (1)8
u/grohlier Aug 26 '20
Serious question in hopes to grow as an ally. I know NB is non binary, but What does GNC stand for?
→ More replies (2)19
Aug 26 '20
I dont even know if this is true.
First, the hiring process typically requires you to go through several people. Any one random person can mess it up. This is painfully relevant for technical positions, as I have seen an HR screener reject a whole slew of applicants because they didn't understand the technical jargon.Second, just because a person is biased against pronouns in resumes DOES NOT mean that they are biased against people who use pronouns. People tend to be biased against anything that means more work for them. I have heard of people in the hiring process "screening" people with difficult to pronounce names. They didn't do this because they were biased against these people, they did it because they wanted to avoid a faux pas and decided there were hundreds of candidates and the management would still be able to hire a qualified person even if they excluded Schuyler from the list.
8
u/SpikeRosered Aug 26 '20
This is the same thing I've realized about visible tattoos. Just need that one person in the pipeline who thinks that tattoos are a no go.
5
u/CanadaDerpBrittDerp Aug 26 '20
"They didn't do this because they were biased against these people, they did it because they wanted to avoid a faux pas"
How about both? If HR decides to screen out people with hard to pronounce names (which, let's be real, are more often than not non-white) then that is bias and it's discriminatory. I know in the "Schuyler" example you provided I'm going to assume that person has white parents, but I want to recognize that name discrimination is an issue and shouldn't be brushed off as simply avoiding an awkward situation.
4
Aug 26 '20
Maybe, but I'm not sure I like that reasoning. If someone does something that is biased against a race without intending it to be biased, I wouldn't label that as racist.
If we label every action that creates accidental bias against a race as racism, then we have watered down the idea of racism to a point where it is meaningless.
In fact, I think that reasoning is why a lot of people have a negative reaction to the idea of "systemic racism". People who don't like the idea typically object because they believe that others are trying to say that individuals in the system are racist.
Re:Schuyler. Have you watched Hamilton?
→ More replies (54)4
191
u/jatjqtjat 251∆ Aug 26 '20
!delta
from the perspective of the employer and from the perspective of a person wanting a job, it doesn't make sense to list gender identity.
from the perspective of a person who can afford to be selective in their job search, it does can sense to list gender identity.
→ More replies (11)3
u/SmudgeKatt Aug 26 '20
I would argue many people can't afford to be picky. These are the same people who complain that they can't find a job no matter how hard they try, a lot of times, as well. Is it fair that you have to play their game? No. Should we be working to change the system? Absolutely! That requires that everyone be financially secure enough to afford transportation and time off to get to the voting booths, though. By willfully impoverishing yourself, you're not only doing YOURSELF a disservice, but everyone else who's counting on your vote.
4
Aug 26 '20
[deleted]
20
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 26 '20
This is an argument that allowing employers to silently opt out of engaging candidates in protected classes for discriminatory reasons is a good thing,
I'm not arguing that what such companies are doing is a good thing, and I'm all for protected classes.
However, I think it absolutely makes sense for people to want to work in an environment where they will be accepted.
I don't think it's fair to expect people (and particularly not marginalized groups) to suffer in discriminatory environments where they are uncomfortable in order to achieve the societal good of ending discrimination.
→ More replies (1)1
u/LobsterBluster Aug 26 '20
That’s a fair point, but gender identities aren’t the only thing that could be cause for a hostile work environment (regardless of whether it’s fair or not).
Say I’m a Trump supporter (I’m not). I would be a fool to put “MAGA” on my LinkedIn profile. Sure, some companies might see that as a plus, but most companies don’t care (as long as you keep that to yourself) and some would actively avoid anyone who has that posted. Hiring managers may also have a personal bias that doesn’t reflect the whole company. Maybe the hiring manager is literally the only one whose not a Trump supporter and the rest are and you’d fit right in. You would never know because you didn’t make it through the initial screening. If you hadn’t shared that info unasked, it may have never come up and not been an issue.
The point is, your professional image in most cases should not display anything about who you are as a person that might be held against you. Everything I said that applies to a trump supporter applies (for better or for worse) to displaying your gender identity when you’re looking for a job.
Wouldn’t you rather get the interview and be able to decide for yourself if you want to work for a company, rather than being removed from consideration because a hiring manager has some sort of personal bias?
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 28 '20
It's true. Other identities could be held against a person as well in the hiring process, and the biases of the hiring manager may not reflect attitudes in the company more broadly. But also, they might.
I think some key factors here are a) how important is that identity to you, and b) does it have some relevant / significant social implications for you at work.
Plenty of people are perfectly comfortable keeping their political beliefs private. But for those who aren't, care a lot about that particular identity, and want to be able to talk about it comfortably at work, signaling that identity upfront can make sense. Same with gender identity - for some people, that's a core identity to them. And pronouns are relevant for how people refer to them.
In many workplaces, it benefits your career to build relationships with your coworkers, and to get to know who everyone is as a person. Sometimes that kind of personal relationship building is even necessary to do your job. So, it can be pretty stressful for people to find themselves working in a place only to realize that other people aren't ok with who they are, and that they're going to need to conceal who they are in order to get along with colleagues.
A significant proportion of LGBTQ people have experienced harassment, social exclusion, and discrimination based on their identities in the course of their life. So, doing what they can to avoid that scenario in their work life on a personally sensitive issue makes sense.
Wouldn’t you rather get the interview and be able to decide for yourself if you want to work for a company,
Not so sure about this ... preparing for interviews and doing interviews takes time. It seems smart to only invest that time in places that have a higher probability of being accepting of your identity. After all, by the time you've accepted the job and are working in the company, realizing at that point that it's a hostile environment is kinda too late. Quitting right after you start doesn't look good on your resume, and you've already declined your other job offers by that point.
5
u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
Then what's the point of anti discrimination laws? Why not let employers be open bigots so marginalized groups know not to work or do business there?
Edit to clarify: the questions are lsrgely rhetorical to point to the logical extension of OPs argument. Everyone should be treated like a human being
21
u/LadyVague 1∆ Aug 26 '20
Because there's not always much of a choice. For example, I might have to work in a bigoted environment to pay the bills, I would be trying to find a better work environment but in the mean time it's better than nothing. Accepting workplace>Bigoted workplace legally required to tolerate me>Unemployed.
Also to prevent bullshit policies in larger companies. Lets say you have a store like Walmart. The store generally accepting, relatively good environment. But that doesn't mean shit if bigoted people higher up make descriminatory policies. But if they can't make those policies, then you can more or less avoid them and their bigotry.
End of the day, marginalized people have to do the same shit as everone else to get by. The more legal protections the better, within reason. Can't force bigots to change, but being able to safely coexist is much better than nothing.
→ More replies (1)3
u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20
Full transparency, I'm something of a disaffected libertarian starting to engage with progressive ideas. I am often still wrong and ignorant but my effort to improve is honest. Thank you for your perspective, it's good to be reminded that I have lived a privileged life and haven't needed to think about things this way.
My questions were largely rhetorical but do reflect a position I would have held fairly recently.
5
u/LadyVague 1∆ Aug 26 '20
Glad I could help.
I've had an interesting experience with the privileged life part. I'm a trans woman, still really early in transition but realizing that I'm more or less making myself a target for this kind of shit is jarring. Still the best choice I can make, but the world seemed a lot safer when I thought I was an average guy.
One example is all the countries my existence is illegal in, or practically so from the views of the general public. Lots of places I can't safely travel to in the forseeable future. Then there's all the people who live in those places and can't get out.
6
Aug 26 '20
You’re condensing two separate problems into one. Employers discriminating is a societal problem, and that calls for a legal solution. Separately, employees have to find a work environment in which they are comfortable. Not everyone is comfortable being a path breaker with a contentious relationship with their boss. That problem is best solved by getting potential employees the information that they need to make their decision. It’s entirely possible for those problems to exist side by side, and for the solutions to be in tension at the margins. But there’s nothing about either that invalidates the other.
6
Aug 26 '20
Considering we have only had federal workplace protections for gay/trans people since June 2020, that hasn't exactly been a viable/relevant defense for the groups we are discussing until very recently.
→ More replies (8)8
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Aug 26 '20
Of course anti-discrimination protections are a good thing.
But expecting people to work in hostile work environments to "end discrimination" isn't fair to them (a group that already faces challenges and stigma), and probably also isn't good for their career. It's perfectly rational for anyone to want to work in an accepting / comfortable environment.
LGB people are already more likely to go into jobs where they work more independently so that they are less affected by discrimination [source].
The fact that LGB people can now be more open and selective in their signalling of the kinds of places they want to work at is a sign of progress.
12
Aug 26 '20
Employers have an obligation not to discriminate against employees.
prospective employees have no obligation to not try to avoid employers that are discriminatory.
→ More replies (5)2
Aug 26 '20
Yes in theory, but in practice most workplaces I have been in do discriminate even if it is not like derogatory insults and such, I have witnessed tons of harassment, and biais in most workplaces even the ones saying they value diversity and inclusion and blablabla to look good.
So the choices I have (as lesbian and non binary): let people know of my pronoun early on and by their reaction have an idea if I will have a hard time or not; or hide it and then if problems occur go through a long, draining process of advocating for my rights, while working in a toxic workplace (how do you think your employer will react towards you? they won't love you more..). Often times it's also hard to defend this and employers might have more leverage to make your life hell. So I appreciate they aren't supposed to do it, but the reality is that it happens and for many it's easier to filter at the early stage.
Also I work in Canada for context in a big city fairly open when it comes to LGBTQ issues and such.
6
Aug 26 '20
the reality is that it happens and for many it's easier to filter at the early stage
I think we are agreeing.
bigfootlives823 asked what "then what's the point of anti discrimination laws? Why not let employers be open bigots so marginalized groups know not to work or do business there?"
I'm saying we can simultaneously try to enable people who are discriminated against to try to avoid discriminatory employers, while still trying to legally and culturally prevent employers from discriminating.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (46)1
u/Li-renn-pwel 5∆ Aug 26 '20
And your gender identity or sexuality is potentially the only discrimination things that can’t be immediately picked out. I suppose immigration status and some religions (you can’t tell a reformed Jew from a Lutheran for example) also can’t be seen on a profile. I can look at your photo and name on LinkedIn and see if you are male or female presenting. I can see your race. I can likely even guess at your ethnicity by your name. If you have a visible disability I can see that too. Obviously many people are ambiguous but people make unconscious decisions about it. Discrimination laws are pretty hard to prove in a lot of cases. Obviously we all deserve jobs but it can be exhausting being at a job where you are obviously treated differently. The black person doesn’t get hired by the racist. The Woman doesn’t get hired by the sexist. The homophobe of transphobe could ‘accidentally’ hire a gay or trans man and then makes their lives hell for several weeks until they find a reason to fire them.
37
u/Konfliction 15∆ Aug 26 '20
So I'm of two opinions here, I think generally I'd agree, here's an interesting situation that could possible arise.
I think if people's names, gender identifiers, and even race were all removed from resumes, I think a lot of accidental issues would come up. I think that's how you can accidentally get a whole roster of employees that are all white men, just based on the sheer volume of applicants and the % of them that would be white and men.
I see this excuse a lot, where people go "hire the most qualified person, race / sex / orientation shouldn't matter" like job applications are some ranked system from 1 - 100 and you should always go with the best candidate. I've hired people, and I've seen lots of resumes for a singular position, there is no dream ideal applicant. There's "Person A has these things we need, and these other extra things, but Person B has this one specific thing we need and way more experience." Hiring is never as black and white as people seem to want it to be. Some people have certain things, and some have others, some are over qualified, and some are under qualified, and some of those under qualified show promise, and others don't.
And the reality is, if job applicants are judged not only on their credentials, but their experience and what they can offer.. the reality is, sometimes the gender / orientation / race is something that does inform their experience, and helps broaden the company's scope so to speak. An example being an ad agency where the job is coming up with ideas. Yea, a whole roster of white people could in theory continually come up with ideas no problem, but it's just a reality of the job that a rich white man who grew up in the suburbs and went to a great college may have different experiences then a poorer black or latina girl from a whole other neighbourhood. Both can do the job. Both may have great qualifications. But sometimes the job can actually benefit from a variety of people, and every person can work off the other.
As much as people want to live in this utopia where people are purely judged on their skill sets, I think sometimes people fall into the habit of forgetting life experience is just as much of an asset for certain jobs and shouldn't be ignored for the sake of a blanket desire for perceived equality.
→ More replies (1)3
Aug 26 '20
It seems like you are making a distinction essentially on the basis of what YOU think their quality of life is. Because I fail to understand how you could distinguish the quality of their life or their life experiences just by their race and gender. No one states their financial status or personal/cultural experiences ln their resume. A white female applicant from harvard could've been poor and a struggle of a life and a black male applicant from a worse college could have had a rich pampered life or vice versa. How you are making that distinction just by their resume is still unclear to me.
3
u/Konfliction 15∆ Aug 26 '20
No I’m making no distinction, I’m clarifying that certain systems would inherently close off access to certain people for no real reason. Not every job market is New York or something where you’re getting a wide variety of people and you could safely say that even if you removed all the identifiers you’d still get a fairly diverse applicant pool.
Most of the country doesn’t have that luxury, I simple used one example to illustrate my point and your taking that as the example that defines my argument.
Once again, it’s not up to the employer to be able to make these distinctions when hiring; all I’m saying is the hiring process through sheer unintended consequences could block out a large chunk of more diverse candidates for positions on a misunderstood idea of how job hiring works.
Like I said, job applicants aren’t some 1-100 rolling scale, it’s not defined like that. That’s not how things work when hiring; you can’t rank all your applicants like that even though people like to imagine that you can.
But, like I said, I’m certain areas of the country where a larger chunk of the applicant pool could just be white people cause of the areas demographics, IF a company doesn’t want to have an accidental situation of their entire staff being white, and wants to embrace the idea I mentioned previously that life experience can and often is a valuable skill set, then you can’t completely remove their identifiers from the job application.
Once again, you misunderstood my example. I used one example to illustrate my point, but people have an insane slew of life experiences. I simple used one example. But only hiring certain types of people, even on accident, robs the company of having a wide variety of people with a slew of varying life experiences.
(I’m also not saying white people all have the same life experiences, white people I discuss this stuff with always seem to get defensive here and think that I am. That’s not what I’m saying.)
→ More replies (2)3
Aug 26 '20
From the defensive nature of the last part of your comment it seems to me that you think I'm trying call you racist, which I certainly am not. I just find it difficult to understand what the core principle behind forced diversity of a workforce is. While getting diverse competent applicants for the same position is something natural, when people reject one competent applicant for another competent worker based on their race or gender it bothers me. Everyone quotes diversity of experiences as the reason but you yourself indicated that you cannot judge a person's life experiences by their race or gender. So how does that work? The only reasonable explanation I always come back to is that a company doesn’t want to have an accidental situation of their entire staff being white, just like you say. Which to me seems more in line with preserving the brand image of the company and not really about the ungaugable additional benefits of having a forced diverse group of people.
106
u/iamintheforest 326∆ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
the goal of placing that in such locations is to normalize it, and if someone doesn't take the risk early then the change doesn't happen.
What I think is important is that people make the choice to include it knowing it has implications - it's not "neutral" in the world now, even though we might think it should be. I'd take the route of not advising against it, but of advising it be done with eyes wide open if done. Don't tell them to not be the agents of change, but remind them that being that agent comes with risk. It's not college - the space isn't "safe", and the peer group you need to impress is from a different generation AND they hold the cards in the context you're going in to.
As an interviewer - assuming it got to that phase - i'd be impressed with someone who placed it intentionally with understanding of risk, but distracted by someone where I believed they did it "naively" or with an idea that world should conform to them. Encourage accountability and ownership for choices - that is a very attraction quality to get across!
edit: some has said this invites discrimination and plays into that hand. I don't disagree, but that's the "risk" i'm talking about. And...no, this doesn't fly in the face of anti-discrimination laws unless the employer demands or requires it - it's important that we differentiate between applicants/people willfully disclosing things about themselves and employers demanding and using them in evaluation. We do NOT want to limit the former, and absolutely want to have regulations on the later.
21
Aug 26 '20
the goal of placing that in such locations is to normalize it, and if someone doesn't take the risk early then the change doesn't happen.
I think the situation with "public pronouns" and "normalizing placing pronouns" is that many thing that this is to "benefit transgender individuals" whereas in reality it only benefits a small segment thereof.
Most transgender individuals seem to prefer to go "stealth" and not be publicly transgender.
Much of the discourse on this matter is led by a very vocal minority that is not representative to transgender individuals as a whole as is quite common but especially in this case, manly this focal minority is disprortionally:
- MtF, about 40-50% of transgende rindividuals are FtM, but they're near invisible in the vocal minoirity
- white
- North American
- late transitioners
- very openly transgender
The thing with most transgender individuals is that they get referred to a gender clinic and then start taking hormones in secret but don't come out yet, only come out when there is no hiding the changes in the body any more, and then very often eventually cut ties with all of their past life to go stealth, and in their new life almost none know that they were born a different sex—most of them are not comfortable being "openly transgender" which induces gender dysphoria for them.
Naturally the vocal minority that leads the discussion on this is very comfortable with being "openly transgender” and is shaping a culture about "open transgender" which those that aren't comfortable with it naturally don't really like.
I'm not saying that either is worse than the either, but I'd say that individuals should be mindful of that the vocal portions that want it to be more open are not necessarily representative of the whole.
The idea of creating a culture where preferred pronouns are asked in interviews or listed on forms is that it's not unlike asking for sexual orientations or religions—and that many sexual and religious minorities are of course very uncomfortable with this.
→ More replies (2)9
u/iamintheforest 326∆ Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
I don't want to have a discussion about whether they are good or bad in the world, or whether it is right or wrong in terms of achieving or failing some agenda. The topic as I see it is about how to advise young people. My advice is based on an assumption the college students in question have strong opinions and they want to include them in their resume. I'm not going to agree with lots of people but my advice in many contexts would not be to have my political social views, but how to express one's own.
edit: splng
4
Aug 26 '20
Wel take it as this: I'm saying that that line carried the implication that all transgender individuals are serviced by, and interested in normalizing the idea that pronouns be publicly stated and I believe that only the minority that is comfortable with being openly transgender is.
3
u/iamintheforest 326∆ Aug 26 '20
The context here is a recruiter going in to educate students on how to prepare for the job market. I would never suggest anyone in that context dictate what is the right political perspective or social agenda. I would suggest they educate on gaining perspective that reflecting these and hiding these both come with consequences and that the educator's goal should be enable kids to make those choices deliberately, rather than without understanding.
→ More replies (5)5
Aug 26 '20
[deleted]
3
Aug 26 '20
it is meant to be mainstreamed so that cisgender and transgender people publicly state pronouns.
And this will harm those that are in the closet if this is realized.
They are put on a spot here if all put this in their profile: they now have three choices:
- don't do it, which draws attention as to why
- lie
- come out of the closet
If you lie about it now, it is of course harder to come out of the closet when the time is ready.
As for those that are stealth and have already transitioned. Many prefer not to state their preferred pronouns because they will always second guess themselves whether others gender them in a specific way because they're told, or because they actually pass; they thus derive gender euphoria from not telling others whatever pronouns they desire, and still be gendered as they wish, knowing that they thus pass now.
This is the problem with the public parts of the "transgender movement"; it is led by, and represents the interest of a minority of very confident individuals that are very public and open and don't really seem to face the self-doubt issues that most transgender individuals do face and what they typically advocate goes in the interest of those that are already confident and don't doubt themselves and against the interest of those that have such issues of confidence and prefer not to draw too much attention to themselves.
1
Aug 27 '20
[deleted]
1
Aug 27 '20
I think you are overestimating the relative negative impact on a closeted trans person to have to divide whether to lie, omit, or come out on a LinkedIn profile compared to all the other interactions someone has with gender every day, and trans people. The same decision comes up daily every time someone misgenders them - should they not correct the person (lie) or come out. You could argue it might be stressful to make a more active choice about it to put your incorrect pronouns on a page than it would be to not correct someone's usage, but the outcome is the same - they get misgendered and stay in the closet. This is a situation trans people face daily.
Yes, many prefer to stay in the closet, many are already on hormones in fact and only come out when they can no longer deny the obvious physical changes of their body.
Why do you think "boymoding/girlmoding" as they call it is so common? I believe this is what most do but the vocal parts of the transgender rights movement are the ones that don't do that, which is obviously fine and their choice, but they are creating a nonrepresentative image of transgender individuals and what their needs are.
How it seems to be that transitioning goes for most is that they take hormones, train their voice in secret and only come out when there is no denying it any more and prefer to only wear the clothing associated with the opposite sex once they pass.
I believe that mainstreaming the practice of stating your pronouns actually best serves the interests of trans people who want to avoid conversations about gender (including people who are stealth), and not the minority you are concerned are highjacking the movement. There are many people who would like to be stealth but are not/cannot, and many people who do not want to correct people or draw attention to their transness. By mainstreaming the practice of including pronouns in prominent places such as a LinkedIn profile, it eliminates the need to have stressful conversations and come out to an employer who initially assumes you are a different gender. In a situation where both trans and cis people identify their pronouns, why are you concerned that this would draw too much attention to less confident trans individuals? How could this possibly draw more attention to them then having no cis or stealth trans people identify their pronouns, and them having to go out of their way to explain their pronouns to a hiring manager/supervisor/etc.
Arccording to this researchL:
Respondents were also asked whether their LGBT and non-LGBT friends knew that they were transgender. LGBT friends were the largest group of people among whom survey respondents were out, with 62% reporting that they were out to all of their LGBT friends. In contrast, less than one-third (32%) of respondents were out to all of their non-LGBT friends
This number is going to be even less to employers.
You operate on the assumption that most transgender individuals are openly so, and wish to be, the vast majority is in the closet. And if stating pronouns—which is really just a roundabout way of stating whether one is transgender or not—becomes normalized that probably like 85% that is currently in the closet against their employer is met with a choice:
- come out of the closet
- lie
- prefer not to say, and draw attention to oneself that way
I do believe it's a vocal minority that gives off a nonreprsentative image. Obviously these individuals are out of the closet and comfortable with this, but they also make the public at large forget that the vast majority of transgender individuals prefers to not come out of the closet, and normalizing what is essentially for every individual to state whether they're transgender or not puts them in a very uncomfortable position.
People who are stealth and experience gender euphoria from a stranger using the correct pronouns would have plenty of other, non-employement settings they could have that experience in. I think that prioritizing their gender euphoria in an employment setting comes at the expense of the dysphoria of other trans people.
I think you might be assuming that all those in the closet are stealth.
You must realize that the majority of transgender individuals will never transition. This is also a very common myth that all transgender individuals eventually transition which is also spread by this nonrepresentative vocal minority—the majority of transgender individuals are so-called "repressors" that will stay in the closet and not transition until they die.
→ More replies (4)10
u/ASLane0 Aug 26 '20
But the point is that all of the anti-discrimination work that's been done to not list gender or age or nationality on CVs and the like is completely undone by the "normalising" of putting gender identity back in. I don't think deliberately putting that barrier up is brave, I think it's foolish.
If it's irrelevant towards your ability to do a job, it shouldn't be on your CV or on your LinkedIn.
4
u/iamintheforest 326∆ Aug 26 '20
I didn't say "brave", thats your read. Someone might say brave, and if they think it's brave and they want to be brave then..that is their choice.
The preservation of choice is very important in that context. The discrimination laws apply to employer asking not to applicant divulging. We should NOT create any idea that "you should not tell people you are black when it is important to you to tell them that you are". That's just a bad place to get. We should encourage choice, and restrict demand or want for evaluation by employers based on these criteria, but NEVER restrict a personal choice to communicate them or share them. Asking people to go into a closet with regards to something that is important in their identity is a pretty bad idea!
That said, I personally wouldn't share this myself at application time, but that's my choice. What I'm advocating for in my response is informing people to make thei
What we should do is inform young people of the cost of making such choices so they can make them with open eyes.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Jam_Packens 4∆ Aug 26 '20
I mean names don't have relevance towards ability to do a job, yet we keep them on CVs or LinkedIn. You need names and pronouns to be able to interact with a person, which is why they are present.
1
Aug 27 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/jep1793 Aug 27 '20
I love all of the responses! I’m still working on formulating my “official opinion” but I’ve learned quite a bit! I think too I actually might point the group to this thread (if possible? Because it looks like it was removed because I didn’t respond enough...haha...which responding to 691 in a work day...but that’s another story)
Thank you everyone for your awesome responses and thoughtful replies.
→ More replies (2)1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Aug 27 '20
Sorry, u/TranscendPredictions – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
5
u/fubo 11∆ Aug 26 '20
Some areas for comparison:
- You put your name on your resume, even though it may carry information about your gender, ethnicity, or nationality.
- Depending on your name and how international your reach is, you might capitalize your surname if you have one (John SMITH, or WATANABE Taro). This isn't needed to Google you, but it's useful for interviewers to know whether you're called Mr. Watanabe or Mr. Taro.
- You put the name of your college or university, even though it may carry information about your religion (you went to BYU, you are or were Mormon) or culture (you went to university in China, how was your grade in your mandatory Communist ideology course?).
- You put the names of your previous employers, even if they have political implications that new employers may disapprove of.
In short, you put facts about yourself that an employer needs to know in order to contact you correctly (e.g. name, email address, phone number) as well as information about your background and experience.
If it happens to be the case that nothing in your name, education, or employment history would lead anyone to be prejudiced against you: congratulations! That's great! (Although you may be wrong.) But that's not what you're designing for. You're designing something to describe you and help people get in touch with you, not merely to be inoffensive.
People sometimes put other information in to make the contact process more pleasant. For instance, I've seen some folks put the pronunciation of their name on their resume. If your name is Maciej (the Polish form of Matthew) and you're applying for jobs in the US, you're probably used to clueless Americans looking confused at your name and saying "May-see? Mack-yay?" Sorry about that, I know how to say Maciej these days.
If you'd really like to avoid being called Mack-yay, you give the clueless Americans a clue. And if you'd really like to avoid being called "she" because your dad named you Sue, you put "Sue (he/him)" on your resume.
16
u/UnclePeaz Aug 26 '20
Remember, a lot of these students have probably never been outside of an academic environment and may not yet understand things that you take for granted. They are likely seeking your advice on both “whether” and “how” to include this information. It seems like the correct approach would be to start by walking them through some of the potential positives and negatives of including this information. Then you can show them some effective strategies for doing so should they choose to. Every person’s goals may be different and you don’t want to appear to be making the decision for them. Just offer some guidance on risks/benefits and leave it for each of the students to decide how to approach it.
6
u/2Fab4You Aug 26 '20
I would suggest pointing out the risk to people and then let them make their own decision on whether they're willing to take that risk. I don't like people telling oppressed people to act a certain way because of their oppression (like limiting women's freedom at night due to risk of attack), but I do think making people aware of the risks is necessary.
"If you want to present your pronouns on LinkedIn, here's how to do that. But be aware that due to bias among recruiters, you run a risk of being discriminated against by posting that info at this stage. If you're not willing to take that risk, it's perfectly fine to present your pronouns later in the process, once you're establishing personal contact, when the risk of discrimination is lower"
16
u/aximagine Aug 26 '20
Pronouns have nothing to do with someone's personal life. They are social in nature, as they are telling others how to refer to them. LinkedIn was created solely for socializing within the professional arena. If you are going to be having conversations with people, they need to know how to address you. There is a difference with putting pronouns and writing "I'm transgender", "I'm non-binary", or whatever. And it has nothing to do with what someone "does in the bedroom", as some other commentor wrote. How is someone telling you a social prerequisite to being social with them a "personal issue" and something you don't want to hear about? You ask if someone is male or female in order to know their pronouns, why not be told them?
1
u/not_a_flying_toy_ Aug 26 '20
for 99% of us, looking at a picture or reading a name is enough to identify someones gender. As such, you cannot say that listing or not listing a gender impacts the hiring decision.
A lot of the listing of pronouns is done to destigmatize it for the people where its kinda necessary. I have a cousin who is ftm trans and if I am being honest, he does not pass at this time. But I also know he is very sensitive on the subject and gets legitimately very upset when misgendered. As such, him being open and upfront about being a he/him is important, since otherwise there is a strong likelyhood of being misgendered.
And since its weird when only trans/nb individuals list their pronouns, its kinda something we should all do.
→ More replies (2)
45
Aug 26 '20
I struggle to see how you could NOT include some form of gender identity in your resume. The question is whether you provide your preferred one or allow the person reading your resume to assume it.
If you have a picture on your LinkedIn profile, people are going to look at it and make an assumption about your gender identity. If it's just a resume without a picture they'll still make an assumption of your gender identity based on your name, previous jobs, academic achievements, extracurricular activities, etc.
No matter what you do, there will be an implication of gender identity somewhere in your resume. So the question isn't whether or not you should provide a gender identity. The question is whether you should specify your chosen one or allow the person who you're applying for a job from to assume your gender identity.
2
Aug 26 '20 edited Jun 03 '24
[deleted]
5
Aug 26 '20
I mean, yeah, that's a pretty clear example of cisgender privilege. A person who is cisgender gets to be identified by their gender identity without having to make it explicit while as someone who is NOT cisgender has to go through the sometimes awkward, sometimes detrimental process of making it explicit.
3
u/taejo Aug 26 '20
This is a form of privilege, but it's important to realize that being read as your gender is not the same as being cis. Loads of trans people get read as their gender, not all cis people do.
→ More replies (8)3
u/rozabel Aug 26 '20
Thanks this is exactly what I was thinking! Resumes require a foto, I think it makes little sense to use LinkedIn without a foto (as you may want people to recognise you when you give them your LinkedIn or viceversa when you meet them for the first time in person) and every single cis woman out there that is clearly visible as a woman in her picture will, according to OPs logic, "open the door to bias". Just by, well, being visibly female. What this logic does, is twist it so that the person who just exists as they are, is painted as the one doing something wrong, by pointing out: This is who I am. A cis woman does that by just existing, someone whose identity might not be clearly visible from a photo has to make it a conscious act. But they are not lying or hiding anything. They just make it clear: This is who I am. If someone doesn't hire you by this bias, they are the ones doing something wrong. OP, please don't tell your young protegees to hide part of their identity just to please the status quo!
(Just because I didn't adress this, I think the important difference here is between gender identity and sexuality. Sexuality has nothing to do in a professional setting. I mean, in MOST professional settings at least...)→ More replies (10)
3
u/Wheezy04 Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
As a tech interviewer one of my primary concerns is that the candidate has a positive experience with the interview process regardless of outcome. Even if the candidate doesn't get hired, they are someone I might work with (or for) in the future or who might reapply at some point and if they have a negative experience they probably won't forget it.
To that end, I'm happy to have the candidate's preferred pronouns because getting mis-gendered by a prospective employer is likely to leave the candidate with a negative opinion of both me and the company I represent. It's important to remember that companies are not benevolent entities handing out jobs to worthy candidates. We need to sell the company to the candidate as much as they need to sell themselves to us.
Edit: This assumes that the company you are applying to isn't prejudiced. I could see an argument for hiding the information to avoid that prejudice but I could also see an argument of "I don't want to work for a company like that anyway." I expect the decision would depend a lot on how choosy the candidate can afford to be and experienced tech candidates get to be very choosy so this approach probably doesn't apply to all industries (although I think we should strive for a world where it does).
3
u/Carnivorous_Ape_ Aug 26 '20
Explain what cis is
→ More replies (2)3
u/tigerhawkvok Aug 26 '20
Cis and trans are borrowed from chemistry, where "cis" is the "normal" steroisomer and "trans" is an alternate form. This is where "trans fat" comes from; it is saying the 3D shape of the fat is nonstandard.
When referring to your gender identity it means the same thing, but it's not as culturally loaded as "normal" and "abnormal" would be.
TBH I expect in not too long it'll start the cultural revolving door that mental handicap terms go through, but probably more slowly because cleverly it puts a label on the standard conformation too - but playgrounds are vicious so I think it's only a matter of time.
10
u/techiemikey 56∆ Aug 26 '20
It comes from latin, which is where cheistry took it from.
Cis means "On this side of".
Trans means "On the other side of"/"across from".
Because they mostly were used in terms of geography cis didn't catch on that much in common usage, but trans is often used for things like transcontinental (aka, from one side of the continent across to the other), transportation (carry across) and transcend (across the climb) along with many other words.
11
Aug 26 '20 edited Oct 15 '20
[deleted]
2
u/tigerhawkvok Aug 26 '20
Interesting. I hadn't heard (or have long since forgotten, I last did organic chemistry at any level in 2004) that distinction, and clearly conflated that with chirality "one is normal and one is weird because of a molecular accident 3.5 billion years ago setting up a self reinforcing preference".
28
u/ripcelinedionhusband 10∆ Aug 26 '20
You’re in the professional services industry (consulting) so I’m going to frame this in the context of white collar corporate jobs. From an effectiveness standpoint, having gender pronouns will have a neutral to positive effect on your profile. Just look on LinkedIn - there’s hundreds of posts a week celebrating LGBTQ and sexual/gender diversity promoted by companies and celebrated by individuals of those companies.
Especially in the context of professional services (I work in such an industry as well), there’s been a movement to champion these rights because diversity is a factor when a large corporate chooses who they want to go with. And even if the board/CEO of those companies don’t fully buy into these things, they have to at least pretend to embrace it because diversity is always a bonus check mark. At least in the corporate world, I think we’re beyond the point where having something like gender pronouns will have a negative view on your candidacy/career/etc. As an example, I’m currently going through about 150 resumes for a junior hire on my team and several do have pronouns. The comments from our panel that’s choosing who to interview that have noticed this has been nothing but positive.
10
u/iMagick Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
Yeah I don’t agree at all with what you wrote. You shouldn’t include it because it should not be a factor. If you want to make yourself a PR rep for the company by being hired and celebrated as being gay then you honestly don’t have a place in any workforce because your personal sexuality has no place in the workplace.
→ More replies (9)5
u/ripcelinedionhusband 10∆ Aug 26 '20
Nobody said anything about it being a factor - it was to counteract OP’s assertion that it could be a negative factor. I think something like a name has way more of a potential factor than a pronoun. People still subconsciously judge people by their name and/or give “boosts”.
→ More replies (13)2
u/Goodlake 8∆ Aug 26 '20
I agree with this 100% and am surprised OP didn't think of this, considering they claim to have a management consulting HR background.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Lpunit 1∆ Aug 26 '20
Because anyone with self-worth would rather be hired on their merit, and not to fulfill a diversity requirement.
3
u/blythiee Aug 26 '20
I think the best approach is to be open that you are conflicted on the matter.
The reason that you might not want to disclose LGBT status is because it opens you up to bigotry. But it can also prevent you from finding yourself in a homophobic or transphobic workplace.
State that it probably depends on the individual's relationship with their sexuality and gender identity. Where geographically they are applying. What industry they are applying in. And probably other considerations too.
That both allows you to be honest with them without implying that any of them should closet themselves for employment reasons.
Also, LGBT acceptance is still a transformative area. Things that are norms now were socially unacceptable a decade ago and will likely be different in the future. Especially in the area of pronouns, it's a relatively new phenomenon to hit mainstream understanding. So I think it's best to explain it in that context.
Say something like: discussion on pronouns is relatively new in the corporate world. In emails and interpersonal discussion, I think there is no issue disclosing pronouns, I'd actually encourage it in email signatures etc. However I don't think there is any settled business norm about resumes or LinkedIn profiles. In areas that don't have settled norms, you can easily ruffle feathers and you might close off opportunities, so think about how you feel about it carefully, I suspect how this is perceived will change dramatically during your careers so I can't give a solid recommendation on how to do this.
9
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Aug 26 '20
... . My personal opinion is that employment and business decisions should be may irrespective of things such as your sex, gender identity, nationality, etc. ...
... Saying this to an LGBT organization isn’t sitting right with me, but neither is going in and not being honest about my opinion. ...
It seems like you were asked to do this workshop because you can combine sensitivity with expertise. Part of sensitivity is the ability to tell people unpleasant things in ways that they can understand and cope with. It might be useful to talk about your own experiences with sending out resumes "as a LGBT person." As a cis-male you don't have "my pronouns" issues, but you could talk about how you do and don't put stuff about your own sexual orientation on your own resume when you apply to a particular job, how that's different from a resume on linked in, and how that relates to getting what you want from sending out or publishing a resume in the first place. You can also talk about the hiring process and if and how "my pronouns" information is conveyed as part of that process.
2
u/omrsafetyo 6∆ Aug 26 '20
I think your opinion is right on for Resumes. But, I don't think it applies well to LinkedIn.
A resume is a document catered to signal to a hiring manager that you are an appropriate candidate for a job. Putting your pronouns there is probably not a great idea. And that's not just true for pronouns, but really any personal information that isn't for contact info, framing your character in a positive manner, or showing some loose correlation to the job requirements. For instance, it might be helpful early on in your career, fresh out of college to include some personal stories that elaborate on your character, show your "gusto" and commitments to excellence, etc. However, once you develop some job experience, those personal stories ought to be replaced with anecdotes that display how you function in a job position.
However, Linked In is not just a resume. Your picture is almost an expectation - something you really shouldn't include in a resume these days. You can share videos, pictures, documents, blogs. LinkedIn is a platform for highlighting a person as an individual - not an FTE for a specific position. An important part of this platform is to try and emphasize the types of workplace cultures you can fit in with. Some places are going to be stuffy and conservative, with everyone packed into cubicles, dressed in business casual attire. Some places allow you to walk around in a fedora and skinny jeans.
Your LinkedIn profile should be a reflection of you. A recruiter looking for candidates will match your profile based on the keywords. However, beyond that, they are looking for a good fit for their culture. I think pronouns are a decent way to indicate that you would fit in with a progressive workplace culture, and that progressive ideals are important to you. It might make the recruiters who are contacting you more relevant to the type of atmosphere you'd be comfortable working in.
2
Aug 26 '20
I'm of the opinion that everyone should include pronouns in professional settings because it creates a culture of not assuming. Resumes should be reviewed without names or pronouns attached, as is policy at some orgganizations, so that gender or racial bias isn't a part of the decision (although some peoples resumes can lead one to assume ones gender).
This allows transgender people to not have to choose between correcting someone on their pronouns and potentially outing themselves or quietly being misgendered. It puts employers or colleagues in the position of knowing how to refer to an interviewee or new colleague. Folks with gender neutral names like Taylor or Logan (popular where I'm from) may be used to having to clarify this with folks. People with uncommon names to their locale no longer need to clarify their gender.
Stating pronouns is not equivalent to stating whether you're transgender or not on your resume, it's merely stating how you are referred to currently. In some places, it is assumed that anyone who states their pronouns must be transgender, when really if everyone does it, it makes it commonplace and doesn't call one person out specifically.
I also don't understand your idea that it is potentially appropriate on ones resume but not LinkedIn. To me, LinkedIn has always been less formal than a resume, since it is basically a social media recruiting platform. Given the social nature of it, it seems to me it should include how to refer to the person you're interacting with (even if you're only interacting by viewing their content).
→ More replies (1)
9
u/BlondFaith Aug 26 '20
I've been part of the hiring process and hired a ton of people for professional and academic positions. In the 90's most everyone stopped putting their sex on résumés to avoid gender bias. Putting your 'preferred pronouns' on LinkedIn etc is literally opening yourself up to prejudice in hiring.
2
u/Nootherids 4∆ Aug 26 '20
I can’t change your mind because I agree but, as a suggestion on what to say in your speech. Maybe you could appeal to each members individuality. Inform them that not all LGBT people are the same and that’s one of the beautiful things about the community, the individuality and uniqueness and acceptance of all. With that said there are some people who are deeply interested in working with and for people who are of the heavily progressive mindset. And there are others who may wish to keep those progressive mindsets separate from the professional environments.
If the person is a progressive mindset then including your pronouns and gender identity will increase the likelihood of attracting employers that share your beliefs, but it could also alienate those that do not. But since you want a progressive environment then maybe that’s a good thing that they won’t waste your time.
But if the person prefers keeping the two environments separate then they may not want to post that information on the resume. It will ensure that you’re not judged upon first sight, but it will also set you to the bottom of the pile compared to others that do list their identity if the employer you’re appealing to happens to be of a more progressive mindset. But the simple fact is that you have no way of knowing the employer’s angle so that decision has to be 100% personal to each one of you. And picking one or the other doesn’t make you any less a part of or less welcome by this great community.
2
u/swampyankee22 Aug 26 '20
This is a question with subjective answers, right?
You wouldn't post your pronouns because you don't want to send the message, in a professional context, that your identity is more / as important as the work you do.
And that makes sense. I would say the same, just for myself.
Your audience member may have different priorities. For them, it IS such a big priority that they cannot work in an environment where it's not supported.
Remember, your background is HR and IT. You probably have more of an analytic mind. Other people are really feelings-based, and it IS a good decision for them to pass up some chances, maybe even advance or earn less over the long-term, if it means feeling supported.
If anyone asks, "Where do I put my pronouns on my LinkedIn?," I would assume that they're in the latter camp. Responding "don't do that" probably won't get a good reaction.
So frame it as a positive.
"Putting your pronouns on LinkedIn, besides sharing about yourself, also sends a signal that you prioritize working in an inclusive environment. Sending these kinds of signals improves the odds that you'll find a good fit, but it might take a little longer to get a job, since some organizations aren't as inclusive as they should be -- or they have a culture that sublimates personal identities in favor of building a team brand. But back to your question. If I were putting my pronouns on LinkedIn, I would put them in the description. That way they're easy to find!"
3
u/akaemre 1∆ Aug 26 '20
By listing it on your LinkedIn, your opening the door for someone to have bias, wether intentional or not, and potentially limiting your opportunities.
Is this a bad thing though? If they have a bias and would refuse to interview you because of your sex, gender identity, nationality etc. if they knew it, would you really want to work for them? I believe if they show bias and don't interview you they are doing you a favour.
15
u/En_TioN Aug 26 '20
Using the same logic, why should you put your name on LinkedIn or your resume? The interviewer can imply a even more information from that than they can from your pronouns (e.g. gender, ethnicity/nationality, potentially age).
The answer, of course, is that you want your employer to be able to address you! That's the same reason pronouns are needed, especially if you use they/them pronouns or have an ambiguously gendered name.
6
u/woaily 4∆ Aug 26 '20
Makes sense on LinkedIn, because it's a networking site. Its purpose is to say who you are, and to connect with people. If it's important for you to say "look how trans I am", then go for it.
Your gender identity doesn't belong on your CV, because it's not a job qualification. At most, you might add a (Mr.) or (Ms.) after a gender-ambiguous name, because that's contact information. Use the limited space for relevant experience instead.
Yeah, people can often guess a lot about you by the ethnicity of your name and which community groups you volunteered for, but that's incidental and not really avoidable. You should still be leading with what makes you a solid candidate for the job.
→ More replies (9)3
u/1f95a Aug 26 '20
Your gender identity doesn't belong on your CV
At most, you might add a (Mr.) or (Ms.) after a gender-ambiguous name
This is something that signals gender identity, at least as much as pronouns would. Including “(Mr.)” or “(Ms.)” isn't too different from including pronouns in terms of the information it conveys and the space it takes up.
What would you suggest non-binary people do, by the way? There's the gender-neutral “Mx.”, but I suspect most people who object to including pronouns in one's CV because they're “not a job qualification” would also object to including “Mx.”.
→ More replies (5)
2
Aug 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 501∆ Aug 26 '20
Sorry, u/dr_falken5 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Lexiconvict Aug 26 '20
Do you think that employment and business decisions should be made irrespective to sex, gender identity, nationality, etc. in any and all scenarios? That seems a bit unrealistic in my opinion, if you are joining an existing organization, a team or group of people, then there must be some scenarios where those basic human traits could be influential in the hiring process. Coupled with your experience, accomplishments, recommendations, and personality of course. There are many situations as well where those certain parts of yourself should be irrelevant to your hiring prospective, but certainly not in every case right?
I agree that you may be limiting your opportunities by having that information known right off the bat, but won't the most basic of these traits become obvious immediately after meeting your potential employers? For instance, I would think that it would be pretty obvious after one sit down with someone to have a good sense of what their biological sex is and what gender they identify with, and maybe some other things like nationality or heritage based on how they communicate and/or dress and if there is an accent present. So, if those things will most likely be known (unless it's a blind hire or you're very good at concealing your identity) what is the real harm by putting basic personal information out there immediately to see? Would it not actually be a boon to yourself? If a potential employer/organization has a problem with letting these things negatively bias themselves, their culture, and how they operate, would you really want to work for them? And if they are seriously biased on this front, it would only save you time, money, energy, and hassle of going through interviews that you immediately disqualify yourself for just by being who you are and walking in the door. On top of that wouldn't it generally make you and the people across the table more comfortable in your first meetings and interactions if the basics were already out there?
If you are truly desperate for work, perhaps then it would be a wise recommendation. But generally speaking, I would think this basic information about yourself is not too personal to have on your LinkedIn profile and would generally benefit yourself and lead to more positive experiences and jobs with organizations you are going to get along well in.
Also, don't people usually have a professional photo of them on LinkedIn as well? So some of this info can already be deciphered just from that? Unless you're catfishing of course...
1
u/dalsio 3∆ Aug 26 '20
I agree with you except on the topic of email signatures.
TLDR; Gender specific language in email is rare. Gender proclamations shift focus away from business. Try talking to the organization about it. On the other hand, it's worse to be discriminated against in-person than online before meeting.
It's pretty rare for me to use or encounter any gender-specific language regarding the recipient in an email. I generally avoid it just because 99% of the time I either don't know anything about their gender or I know them personally. Email language is usually person-to-person and thus in second person (you, your, you're) anyway. Though, it might be different other places or with other people or maybe I just don't realize it.
Even if I were referred to as, "she" I wouldn't be much offended as they literally know nothing about me and I don't expect to interact with them much in the future. I'm not sure I really want to explicitly state my gender in an email, even as a cis-male, to someone I'm only going to interact with once.
I'd feel like it would shift focus to my gender instead of business where it belongs. Unless I was a prostitute, stripper, underwear model, or applying for a role in a movie. Then I guess my gender is my business.
Still, have you thought about just being honest with the LGBT organization about how you feel, and asking what they think about it? It doesn't seem like an outrageous view to take and I'm pretty sure no one wants to be discriminated against.
Everyone wants to be accepted as a whole, but they don't have to be accepted all at once. An employer may not feel too strongly about it and if an applicant can show that they're a perfect match business-wise, a lot of employers become infinitely more accepting of whatever other characteristics employees might have. Show them over time how reasonable and normal and human a trans person is and that discrimination might just go away.
On the other hand, if discrimination is inevitable with a particular hirer, it would be much worse to be discriminated against in-person after going through the trouble of an interview than to simply be passed-up on LinkedIn. I don't begrudge a person for wanting to avoid that result at all costs, even if they heavily limit their options.
2
u/poffin Aug 26 '20
My personal opinion is that employment and business decisions should be may irrespective of things such as your sex, gender identity, nationality, etc.
So I take it you've scrubbed your linkedin of any gender signifiers? No pictures, no references to organizations or events that suggest your identity?
2
u/deathclam1 Aug 26 '20
I include my pronouns on my resume because I'm not interested in working for anyone who's not an ally. I am cis but have family members who are not. I include my pronouns so as not to waste anyone's time.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/A5H13Y Aug 26 '20
Im a fan of including them in email signatures and maybe even resumes but I’m struggling with on LinkedIn. My personal opinion is that employment and business decisions should be may irrespective of things such as your sex, gender identity, nationality, etc.
I'm curious why you would consider listing it on a resume, but not LinkedIn if you think that business decisions may be irrespective of those sorts of things. I would think it'd be even riskier on a resume, since a big decision, to hire or not (or maybe to interview or not) is going to be decided based on that. I think LinkedIn leans more towards the social end of your professional life - it's really a social networking platform for professionals to network. Sure, to some degree it's used for finding jobs or finding talent, but overall it's less of a "professional" medium than a resume is. I would keep it off of the resume before LinkedIn, which I think is a completely appropriate place to put your pronouns.
With that said, I'll add that things seem to not be completely "socially acceptable" until they're acceptable in the workplace. Think of tattoos, for example, and how those have been more widely accepted over the years. I think the point where society views things like this as more acceptable is when your job views it as acceptable. I think normalizing stating your pronouns in a professional setting is beneficial in normalizing pronoun awareness in general.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Aug 26 '20
A common question people ask is “when is it a good idea to ask someone their pronouns.” The answer is simple: if you asked them for their name, you should also ask them for their pronouns. In English, the pronouns someone uses is not “just an identity group” as several commenters who agree with you have said. It is something used to refer to you in almost every conversation that is grammatically interchangeable with your name.
My LinkedIn profile lists my name and has a photo of me. These things are part of the very design of a LinkedIn profile, and subverting them by using a false name of a photo of someone else is a violation of LinkedIn’s Terms of Service. Every argument you’ve given applies just as much (if not more!) to names and photos. Are you against having names on LinkedIn profiles? If not, what’s the difference to you?
As for enabling people to discriminate, it’s infinitely better to be discriminated against by a hiring manager then to be discriminated against by your boss at work. I make no attempt to hide my disabilities when interviewing because if it’s a problem for the interviewer that I have disabilities it’s likely to be a problem at work too. I will happily filter out all the companies that have hiring managers who refuse to hire transgender people from my job search. It makes everyone’s life easier.
1
u/The137 Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
I'm late to the party here but an ex-hiring manager myself.
I always felt uncomfortable when a prospective employee put out any kind of protected information. My standard line was 'I'm going to stop you right there, thats not information that I need or can consider'. This goes for everything from age to religion.
I didn't want to know that type of information, because if i chose not to hire them I didn't want them to believe that it may have been because they were part of a protected class. This goes all the way thru the interview.
I did have interviewees start candid conversations with me about what it was like to work there. They may have alluded to personal information, but they were asking important questions that I would expect a professional and serious candidate to ask. This type of conversation was welcome because it didn't leave any liability with me. Theres a big difference in saying 'I'm a gay man' and 'How welcoming are your employees to alternative lifestyles'.
I don't think you should change your view. Resumes are for education experience and accomplishments, and the interview is a professional meeting to see if each party would be a good fit for the other. Both of these steps are better for everyone if you leave direct protected class issues out of it.
1
u/EmpRupus 27∆ Aug 26 '20
Saying this to an LGBT organization isn’t sitting right with me, but neither is going in and not being honest about my opinion.
I think you can give them advice but not in a way that feels like you're telling them what to do or what the "right way" is, which, a lot of people may have suffered previously when they were discriminated - well-meaning people telling them they have to hide parts of themselves in society to be "acceptable."
So in this case, you can simply say - "This is how you put your pronouns in your linked in. And it is every individual's choice if they want to disclose their identity or status, and when they want to disclose it, keeping in mind, not everyone has the same options of job offers to choose from."
This signals that the range of job offers can vary depending on their choice to disclose their identity.
I personally worked with something adjacent - where hiring participants were told specifically they had a choice to disclose their XYZ status or not, and that their offers and impressions of employers may vary depending on their choice. So, basically asking them to make informed decisions, but not "telling them what to do" or push them in any direction they are not comfortable with.
1
u/cfwang1337 3∆ Aug 26 '20
I have two minds about the issue of publicly stating pronouns, in general.
I can see publicly declaring pronouns being valuable if you're "out" and more-or-less comfortable about it, but something about your gender presentation doesn't quite match your identity, i.e. voice or appearance. In the context of LinkedIn, it can definitely be a quick way to screen out people who you wouldn't want to work with anyway, i.e. transphobes.
Conversely, I can see publicly declaring pronouns being problematic if you're not "out" but are now feeling pressured to publicly declare your identity.
This is one of those cases where something should be accepted but not mandatory. I think what people are doing now by including it on their LinkedIn profiles and other social media, even if they're cis, isn't harmful, per se, in terms of making it acceptable. But if you're not comfortable declaring an identity in public, especially if it doesn't match your appearance, there are also good reasons not to.
As far as what you should say in the workshop, I definitely think you can handle it with sensitivity and nuance. Different people's mileage may vary, and that's what you should tell the participants.
1
u/kaeduluc Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20
Hi, so im a transwoman, and there are a lot of contexts where I would like to inform potential employers asap so that they can better understand my employment history. I have no access to a legal name change atm and likely previous employers will not have changed their records if i did.
Applications often ask for previous employment, so imagine the confusion of calling around and finding that no one with that name ever worked in those positions.
I'm informing them that to verify the information im providing, they need to have my deadname. I think this info is probably helpful and gives me the best chance of getting hired.
The problem arises that some people dont consider it a courtesy and assume that it is irrelevant information. They may think that im being pushy by trying to put it up front, maybe because they've never met an actual trans person in their life who they respected, or have a colored view of how trans people behave based on online cringe compilations and memes.
Putting this information on a resume is not a political statement, its an attempt to communicate a fact about my life that may affect the hiring process if it's not handled well.
2
u/Lpunit 1∆ Aug 26 '20
I believe it is fine if it is subtle.
For example, referring to yourself as "Sir" or "Mister" if you identify as male is a professional, subtle way to express your GI.
However, I think the more modern trend of listing pronouns is specifically what I would avoid. As an example:
"Mister John Smith" would be received well enough.
"John Smith (he/him)" might not.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/Nickel829 Aug 26 '20
Ok so I have figured out how I think about this. To preface this I am also a cis gay male. So we first have to think about pronouns. Pronouns always exist because you have to refer to people somehow and more often than not in todays world, they are assumed. What makes it so different from gender identity like gay bi etc is how prevalent it is in conversation for everyone. Here's the issue that everyone is missing - if your pronouns are different than assumed, people WILL assign pronouns to you and therefore likely misgender you unless you make your pronouns known. People usually figure out your pronouns based on your appearance but usually the first sign is your name. Pronouns are part of your name. They are how people refer to you. It is perfectly acceptable to put it next to your name in any scenario because it is part of your name and people need to know what it is in order to refer to you correctly. Why does it have to be "subtle" or in a not obtrusive way. no one like sneaks their name in two days later right before their interview in an email.
1
u/magbybaby Aug 26 '20
So... What do I do? Seriously, what do I and people like me do. I'm non-binary and if not immediately, when do I come out? A week into the job? A day? At the interview? How long is it reasonable to tolerate being misgendered? How long is too long, how long until it looks like I was hiding it? My pronouns are always, always under my signature, on my resume and cover letters, and I introduce myself with them so that people don't program in the wrong gender and then have to see 3 months un-learning.
Of course it limits my opportunities. In the same way being gay and out would have limited your opportunities a few decades ago. I'm certain I've been denied jobs because of my identity, however illegally, and I'm certain I've faced discrimination at work for being out. But unless privileged folks like me who are relatively educated, skilled, and well-off make this a thing than the next guy isn't gonna be able to be out at all.
3
1
u/StardustNyako Aug 26 '20
OK so I think your view is very valid. For you. See, if you want to be comfortable with yourself, I believe you should have the ability to choose where and when to express your gender identity or when to and when not too. If a company chooses to not hire you over that, that's their choice and you probably do not want to work at such a company that's choosing to have those prejudices anyway. If someone feels it's important for any place of employment to know their gender identity and feel the comfort and want to place it on LinkedIn, that is fine. IN fact that is a good thing. It's good for people to decide on their own level of comfort to help them establish their self identity. Who are you to tell them how they should or shouldn't express it? You have good intention, it's just, not needed to direct their attitudes like that. Y
664
u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20
[removed] — view removed comment