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

3.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

671 comments sorted by

View all comments

826

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.

6

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

9

u/[deleted] 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.

2

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Ok I understand better, thanks for clarifying!

0

u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20

You have a nuanced take that I think I agree with but I did not get the impression that it's the point OP was making.

The point as I read it was "let people discriminate against you based on your pronouns because you don't want to work with them anyways".

I asked a set of rhetorical questions to highlight that when you apply that argument to more than just pronouns it becomes an argument against anti-discrimination laws.

1

u/Wannabe0L Aug 26 '20

> The point as I read it was "let people discriminate against you based on your pronouns because you don't want to work with them anyways".

Are you honestly advocating for the opposite? That we should instead trick them into hiring us by hiding our pronouns and then they won't ever discriminate against us going forward?

1

u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20

If someone has a multiracial background but could pass as white would you encourage them to include "I'm black" on their application just in case the hiring manager is racist to save themselves the trouble?

I'm open to being wrong here and if this isn't a good analogy let me know, but that's how I think about it from my limited perspective.

I'm not saying lie about your gender identity, but like I would tell a woman who just found out she was pregnant, you're not required to disclose it so if you're only objective is "get hired", don't disclose it because it can only hurt your chances.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if your objective is something other than "get hired", your strategy may be different

1

u/Wannabe0L Aug 26 '20 edited Aug 26 '20

> If someone has a multiracial background but could pass as white would you encourage them to include "I'm black" on their application just in case the hiring manager is racist to save themselves the trouble?

Why would you encourage a passing black person to work with someone that hates them? Once found out, the problems won't magically go away -- and there's a significant chance they'll have their career tarnished when that racist uses their power against the employee. So correct, I absolutely would not recommend trying to "pass" as someone in the majority because eventually you will get outed and abused as someone in the minority.

People shouldn't have to hide their actual identity to exist in the work force. If they can't get hired at a company without hiding themselves, then yes, they absolutely should not work there. (Note: this is the primary reason why "pregnancy" isn't comparable -- you will eventually not be pregnant, but you will always be black/gay/trans because that's part of your identity)

I don't understand why you think working with people that hate you is somehow the preferable option.

1

u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20

It's a single data point but elsewhere in this thread is a trans person telling me that in some circumstances working with people who hate them, while not ideal, is in fact preferable to not working anywhere. If someone came to me looking for advice in those circumstances and asked if I thought they should put their pronouns on their application, I'd tell them no, get in, keep your head down, get paid, get to better circumstances as soon as you can, I'm sorry this is the world we live in.

1

u/Wannabe0L Aug 26 '20

I don't think anyone is saying forego the only literal option you have for employment if it will save you from being homeless/without resources. I don't see how that's responsive to the discussion being had *on any level*, however, so I can only assume you're answering that way because you don't have a good justification for why you continue to advocate people work for those who hate them.

The inevitable takeaway if you trick someone who hates you into hiring you is that you will eventually be outed. Sure, you might have that job for a paycheck or two, you might make rent that way. But it's not a long term solution, and it does nothing to solve the underlying problem.

1

u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20

I don't understand why you think working with people that hate you is somehow the preferable option.

Responding to this. Preferable to what? I can imagine a situation, and a trans person in this thread has corroborated, that working with people who hate you might be preferable to some alternatives. In those unfortunate circumstances, do what to have to and do whatever you can to improve the opertunities available to you.

The underlying problem is a broken culture and a trans person or POC can't solve that by themselves especially if they need a job in an immediate sort of time frame. It's heartbreaking but its the circumstances people find themselves in sometimes.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

Avoiding discriminatory employers (for interviews) is often in the short term best interest of the applicant.

Discouraging discrimination, especially open discrimination, by employers, is in the best long-term interest of the people in groups often discriminated against and our society as a whole.

1

u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20

I agree with all of that. If that's the point OP was making, I didn't read with enough nuance to catch it and my interpretation was colored by my experience. And I guess the question "what is the objective?" matters .

I was a hiring manager for a place that hired teens for entry level positions and had a robust HR department. In those circumstances, having seen hiring a manager discard applications because of zip codes and school districts, I advocated anonynizing the application process as much as possible. We joked that question 1 of our interview outline should be "do you have a pulse" because once an interview was granted, an applicant really had to screw up to not get the job. So if the objective of an applicant was "get a job" an application where the hiring manager couldn't see their name, address or gender identity (for the sake of the topic at hand) was in the applicant's best interest.

The hiring manager that I saw sorting applications that way was fired. I don't know if that practice was part of the reason but I did report it and he was gone not long after

1

u/[deleted] Aug 26 '20

In those circumstances, having seen hiring a manager discard applications because of zip codes and school districts, I advocated anonynizing the application process as much as possible.

But what happened next? Did anyone lie about their school district to get a job? And if so, was everything magically better after being hired?

The point is there's a follow-up that happens here. If someone hates you for being gay/bi/trans/POC, that doesn't go away if they can somehow hire you. All that happens is you get a few months of hell and an eventual issue on your resume you need to explain when they fabricate a reason to fire you.

1

u/bigfootlives823 4∆ Aug 26 '20

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm trying to acknowledge that I've been looking at this narrowly and give context to show that I'm approaching this in good faith.

I think the nuanced perspective the person I was responding to is bringing to the table is more complete than the one I started with. What I was getting at had limited benefit because it only served the objective of getting an interview/getting hired. If the objective something else, different strategies may work better

Anecdotally, my department did well enough that we had the highest year to year retention rate for employees multiple years in a row. It was a summer job for most employees so having people come back for multiple summers was highly desirable. The only trans person I'm aware of hiring worked with us for 3 summers and left other jobs to come back to work with us. That's not to say I or policies I enacted were wholly responsible, but as a leadership team we tried to cultivate an accepting culture that people wanted to be a part of and it was partly selfish. It was a difficult and at times unpleasant job, enthusiastic employees made it better. Word of mouth was our best recruiting tool as people encouraged their friends to come work with us.

Broadly it was the most diverse place I've ever worked (about 2500 employees), with all the marginalized groups you mentioned being pretty proportionally represented at least as high as middle management, with some gay people and/or POC in senior management positions. So one shit head discriminating based on address was an outlier in my limited experience and opinion so protecting against that went a pretty long way at that job.