Gay and Transgender Issues in the Workplace

     “Does anyone know why June is the month during which your company celebrates Gay Awareness?” I asked an audience of corporate executives. Most people looked uncomfortably at the floor, and not one hand went up. After my explanation, they all seemed very pleased to understand the significance of the month, and also the reason why the rainbow flag and the pink triangle are used in promoting gay events.

     Just as it’s very silly to use shorthand in a text message that the recipient doesn’t understand, such as LOL for Laugh Out Loud, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees, and those working in Diversity and Inclusion, and in Human Resources, should never, ever assume that the average person understands the acronym GLBT or anything else about gay or transgender culture. Believe it or not, there are some younger gay people who have never heard of Stonewall and are afraid to admit it. And the transsexual term “MTF” for “male to female” means nothing to most people, gay or straight.

     Forty years ago, the modern Gay Civil Rights Movement erupted in response to a raid by New York police officers on the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village. In the early morning of June 28, patrons of the bar fought back against the police who were attempting to arrest them for congregating as homosexuals. It was at that time that the terms “Gay Power” and “Gay Pride” first entered the popular vocabulary. In response to news of the Stonewall Rebellion, five chapters of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) were created by the end of 1969. They were in New York, Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose. One year later, there were 300 chapters of GLF in the country, along with scores of other new gay-related groups that focused their attention on religion and politics. For instance, Dignity, the gay Roman Catholic group, was formed in 1969.

     The Stonewall Rebellion, that began in the early morning hours of June 28 and lasted for the next two days, is the reason why June is celebrated as Gay Pride or Gay Awareness month not only in the United States but also across the globe. But the birth of the modern Gay Civil Rights Movement did not happen in a vacuum. Revolt against authority and conservative cultural standards had already taken root in American society through the Anti-war Movement, the Black Civil Rights Movement, and the counterculture of the 1960s. Nor was what happened at the bar on Christopher Street in June of 1969 the first sign of organized gay resistance in the United States. Gay men and women had formed the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles in 1952 and the Daughters of Bilitis in San Francisco in 1955. Nearly twenty years prior to drag queens in Greenwich Village screaming “brutality” at the police, gay men in suits and ties, and lesbian women in dresses were silently but quite courageously picketing for equal rights outside the White House.

     Learning this history helps build the confidence of most senior managers who often feel ill-equipped by their limited understanding of gay people and their issues to effectively manage workplace concerns. These same managers are also grateful for explanations of the symbols they see used by the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Employee Resource Group (ERG) but don’t understand. These symbols include the rainbow flag and the pink triangle which are often employed in corporate posters announcing Gay Awareness events and in “Safe Space” magnets that heterosexual colleagues sometimes post in their offices to indicate a “gay-friendly” environment.

      The Gay Rainbow Flag, or “Freedom Flag,” was created by Gilbert Baker in 1978 and is used internationally to represent the great diversity in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities. Each of the six colors – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet – had meaning to Baker but is unknown to most gay people. And Baker didn’t create the rainbow flag. It has been used by many groups to signify diversity and inclusion, or, in the case of the Inca people in Peru, their Andean history. When we climbed the Inca Trail in Peru, Ray and I thought the whole country was “gay friendly” until we learned that the Andean people had a different understanding of the flag than we did. However, the rainbow flag is most commonly associated today worldwide with the gay and transgender community.

     The pink triangle, with the point down, was used by Nazis to identify homosexual men in Germany and in all occupied territories. Lesbians were less visible and of less concern to the Nazis in their effort to purge society of anything that might “pollute” the Master Race. If a lesbian was identified with a symbol, it was the same black triangle that all nonconforming women, such as those alleged to be witches, were forced to wear. A former symbol of death for gay people, the pink triangle is now used to symbolize strength and solidarity, and serves to remind gay men and women of what fate is always possible for a minority group in any culture.

     Finally, for the thirty-five years that I have been publicly out of the closet as a gay man, I have heard or read about a so-called “Gay Agenda.” Almost always the term is employed by social and religious conservatives who want to frighten other Americans into believing that there is a secret conspiracy to undermine heterosexual society. It is so secret, in fact, that no gay person has ever heard its details. But that has changed. A small group of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people recently met in Dallas, Texas, and came up with a “Gay Agenda” with which I completely agree, and to which I can’t imagine most reasonable, fair-minded people not responding with anything other than enthusiastic assent.

     These “Goals,” or “Agenda,” as I have come to call them, provide a good understanding to us all of what it is that most lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people seek in their lives.

       1. DIGNITY AND EQUALITY. Every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender person has inherent dignity and worth, and has the right to live free of discrimination and harassment.
       2. FAMILY.  Every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender person has the right to a family without legal barriers to immigration, civil marriage or raising children.
     3. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.  Every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender person has the right to economic opportunity free from discrimination in employment, public housing, accommodation, public facilities, credit, and federally funded programs and activities.
     4. EDUCATION. Every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender child and youth has the right to an education that is affirming, inclusive and free from bullying.
     5. NATIONAL SECURITY.  Every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender person should have the opportunity to serve our country openly and equally in our military and foreign service.
     6. CRIME.  Every lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender person should enjoy life protected against bias crimes.
     7. HEALTH CARE.  Every person should have access to affordable, high quality, and culturally competent health care without discrimination.

     Speaking of “health care,” for the sake of my own, I’m going to play in the garden and in the water in Provincetown, Massachusetts for the next three months without thinking about writing my two weekly blogs. I recently saw an advertisement for an automobile that said, “Summer has always belonged to children.” That’s true if we’re talking about one’s state of mind and not one’s age. Please enjoy your summer as much as I intend to enjoy mine.

   My friend Noreen jumped right into her kayak upon her arrival in Provincetown, paddled out into the choppy waves of the harbor where the sea birds were congregating, and caught a thirty-five inch striped bass. It was one of twelve (keeping three) such fish that she hauled into her small boat over a day and a half, somehow managing not to tip over into the icy waters of Cape Cod Bay. She’s fearless and she’s generous. She shared filets of the bass, our favorite fish, with Ray and me.

     Noreen is an openly-gay FBI agent who is also fearlessly and generously creating change in attitudes and behaviors toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in her agency. With a small handful of other agency members, and with the strong support of U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, Noreen is navigating waters where most others wouldn’t dare paddle, row, sail, or motor. At a Gay Awareness Month breakfast at the FBI in June, which will feature Barney Frank as the speaker, Noreen Gleason is bringing her family – her spouse of twenty-one years, Jennifer, and their 10-year-old daughter.

     As we all know, changes in company policy and practices regarding gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people can be slow in coming and require enormous hard work and patience in the best of circumstances. But when change in attitudes is sought in a U.S. government agency, where the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) forbids recognition of same-sex relationships, and all military groups require gay and lesbian employees to remain closeted (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”), it is a heroic act to take on the challenge.

     Nevertheless, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and straight people in government agencies are doing it with remarkable success. From my experience, making progress requires fearlessness and generosity on the part of at least three groups of people: Gay and transgender people who step forward and put faces on the issues; strongly supportive heterosexual senior managers who commit the agency to action; and the open-minded heterosexual employees who choose to move forward rather than resist change.

     Noreen is a wonderful example of the first group, as is Kim Nelson at the National Security Agency (NSA), Christopher Bannochie at Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), and countless others from the Departments of Justice, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture with whom I have worked or from whom I have heard over the past few years. Of these, the agencies with the most floating mines in the water are those involving the military or which are paramilitary in nature. For that reason, it’s particularly gratifying to get a strong statement of support from a heterosexual director of an agency concerned with national defense.

     “On a personal note,” wrote Chuck Munns, CEO of SRNS in his recent memo to all employees on the formation of the gay employee resource group, “I have spent my professional life dedicated to protecting this country and the freedoms that it affords its citizens. A particular strength of the American people is the tolerance – indeed, the advocacy – of divergent viewpoints, even when those views may be in conflict with our own. That is one aspect that makes us strong. Even when viewpoints may be in conflict with our own, we should remember that freedom from discrimination – of any kind – is a principle that is important to us all.”

     Similarly powerful statements of endorsement for creating a safe and productive work environment for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees have been made by the directors at most government agencies at which I have spoken, including the National Security Agency. Such strong personal messages from executive leadership make it clear to all employees that the decision to be inclusive and to value the diversity represented by gay and transgender employees is not open to debate.

     What must happen next for all businesses to move forward is for heterosexual employees to proactively support their gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender colleagues. This happens most successfully when the company or government agency provides education on the issues. It is only with education that any of us are able to move out of the ignorance that breeds fear, and the fear that breeds hatred. As some of you may recall, a year ago I was brought into the National Security Agency to provide such training for all senior managers. Because I understand that information on the challenges that we gay and transgender people face in our lives is not only professionally relevant to members of the audience, but also personally relevant, I urge them each to go home and discuss the presentation I made with their families.

     As I have related to audiences globally since that talk at the NSA, I heard the day after my session there from a senior manager who did as I suggested and discussed with his family that evening my presentation on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues. A couple of hours later, his college-age daughter, feeling that she could now do so safely, came out as a lesbian to her father.

     In today’s e-mail, I received an update from the father. He wrote to say that as a result of the training and of his daughter coming out, he has now taken an active role at NSA in promoting gay and transgender issues, and in effectively creating further understanding in the agency. This wonderful man is a great example of the heterosexual government or corporate employee who was required to attend a diversity presentation on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workplace issues and who, as a result, found himself or herself gladly and eagerly navigating the waters of cultural change.

     While my friend Noreen was in her kayak, alone with the striped bass that were drawn to the herring and sand eels that had attracted the attention of the birds, she was approached by boatloads of men fishing without the same success.

     “How are you doing it?” they asked.

     “You have to be quiet,” she advised the group whom she felt were making too much noise moving around the boat, talking to each other, and constantly changing their gear. They were scaring the fish.

     As they moved on in search of fish, leaving Noreen alone with her thoughts about the changes she was seeking to make at the FBI, I hope that she took comfort in knowing that there were others like her, fishing waters in other places, fearlessly facing the challenges, and generously giving it all that they had. Thank you all for sharing the catch of your labors with us.

     When I was a youngster living in Flint, Michigan, I was very good at jump rope. I was also good at hopscotch, and jacks, but that’s another story. When we played jump rope, my girl friends and I would keep rhythm for ourselves by singing through the alphabet. I would sing, “A - my name is Alan and my wife’s name is Alice. We come from Alabama with a carload of apples. B - my name is Brian and my wife’s name is Betty. We come from Buffalo with a carload of bananas. C - my name….” You get the picture.

     Our little group of children didn’t learn much about each other through the words of that song, other than that we could be creative coming up with appropriate words, especially when we reached the Q and the X.

     In many workplaces today, the adults don’t know much more about each other than the contents of the song. “Hi, my name is Alex and my wife’s name is Charlene. We moved here from Des Moines with a carload of children.” According to an important new study, published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Applied Psychology, limiting what we tell about ourselves and what we know about each other at work is not good for the company in its efforts to be optimally productive by valuing diversity. To achieve a competitive edge, a company needs to create an environment in which all employees feel safe, encouraged, and rewarded for sharing relevant information about themselves. For instance, I might say, “Hi, my name is Brian and my husband’s name is Ray. I’m 61 and he’s 58. We moved here from Boston where we met in 1976. I’m certified as a sexuality educator and have made my living by educating others on gay and transgender issues. Ray’s career was in finance, having worked for many years at Lehman Brothers. We were both raised and educated as Catholics, but our spirituality is nurtured by other influences today. I’m glad to be here and I look forward to learning more about each of you.”

     If each person in the group was enabled to do the same, our work team would be far more effective than one in which people knew little of each other’s backgrounds. But that is easier said than done. According to Leslie DeChurch, an organizational psychologist at the University of Central Florida, and her co-author, Jessica Mesmer-Magnus of the University of North Carolina, employees from diverse backgrounds are less likely than employees from similar backgrounds to share information with each other, which makes creating the best decisions in meetings more difficult. As most corporations concur, there is a strong business case to be made for valuing diversity. Creating a safe and productive work environment in which every employee feels safe and valued increases the company’s chances of attracting and retaining the best and brightest employees, and in successfully marketing to all segments of the community. In such corporations, employees with diverse professional and personal backgrounds should stand to gain the most at work by sharing personal information. Instead, according to the study, they typically search for and discuss what they have in common instead of sharing information not known by the rest of the group.

     “The conventional wisdom is that diverse teams have an advantage over homogenous ones, but these findings show diverse teams are even less likely to talk about the differences that are at the root of their advantage,” DeChurch said. “Diversity can only be an asset when unique perspectives are openly shared with the team.” 

     The challenge for corporations seeking to encourage personal sharing by its increasingly diverse workforce is how to create an environment in which doing so is not only safe but seen by everyone as a positive contribution to the business imperative. Starting at the top would be a good first step. If members of the Executive Committee, with guidance from diversity and human resources professionals, spent time speaking to each other of their own unique backgrounds, and carefully and gratefully listened to their peers do the same, the effectiveness of the Executive Committee would be greatly enhanced. The next step would be for all senior managers to follow suit. If senior managers were taught to share with each other the unique perspectives they bring to the workplace, they could then enable their direct reports to confidently do likewise. If steps such as these are not taken, it’s highly unlikely that the diversity of the workforce will ever be truly valued or put to good use.

     Corporations need to focus attention on how to help their employees say more than, “D - my name is Donald and my wife’s name is Daisy. We come from Detroit with a car load of ducks.” Saying just that is a useless and really easy thing to do, unless, of course, you’re singing it as a teenage boy skipping rope in front of a group of other teenage boys. That would be very brave.

     This brings me to the second item of interest. The American Society of Employers (ASE) has released the findings of its 2009 Survey on Diversity and Inclusion. ASE concluded from the survey that the growth in formal diversity initiatives in organizations has stayed flat or even dropped slightly in the last three years. According to President and CEO Mary Schroeder, “This is obviously not a desirable finding, but there is good news in the detail. We asked the survey participants to identify the barriers to implementing formal diversity programs.

     “Of the nine potential barriers from which they could select, respondents identified the top barrier as ‘Changing Business Conditions.’ ‘Lack of resources for diversity/inclusion initiatives’ (i.e., financial barriers) came in at number three. Taken together, they suggest that the survival mode that so many organizations find themselves in today is forcing them to do without formal diversity initiatives.

     “We think even more important is the fact that neither ‘Lack of support from senior management’ nor ‘Resistance from staff’ made it into the top five barriers. This is where the news is good. There is strong support for the principle of diversity and inclusion both up and down organizations –i.e., not only in senior management, and not only among workers.

     “Add to this the top reason that participants gave for implementing and maintaining diversity programs: the belief that valuing diversity and inclusion positively impacts the organization’s bottom line. It all says to us that while the current stress in the economy has stalled things in important ways, the future for workplace diversity remains positive.”

     This brings us to the third item of interest. The area in which the most significant advances have been made in the workplace today, I believe, is the rights for, and sensitivity to, transgender employees. Record numbers of companies are adding “gender identity/expression” to their non-discrimination policies. Some firms are now covering the cost of gender realignment surgery. Increasingly, states and municipalities are prohibiting workplace discrimination against transgender people, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will probably soon be passed by Congress with protections for both gay and transgender employees.

     In the past week, a federal judge ruled that the Library of Congress illegally discriminated against a Special Forces veteran when she was denied a job after announcing her intention to transition from male to female, the press release explained. “Diane Schroer of Alexandria, Virginia was awarded nearly $500,000 in damages. In what is seen as a groundbreaking decision, U.S. District Judge James Robinson ruled that discriminating against someone for changing genders is sex discrimination under federal law.

    “After retiring from the military, Schroer, who had been hand-picked to head up a classified national security operation while serving as a Special Forces officer, applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst. A short time later she was offered the job, which she accepted immediately. Prior to starting work, Schroer took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and thought it would be easier for everyone if she simply started work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn’t a ‘good fit’ for the Library of Congress. The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005. The lawsuit charged that the Library of Congress unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against sex discrimination in the workplace. 

     “The Library of Congress moved to dismiss the case several times, claiming that transgender people are not covered under the 1964 law. In his ruling, Robinson ordered the government to pay Schroer $491,190 in back pay and damages. The suit was fought during the Bush administration. It is considered unlikely the Obama administration will appeal.”

     Despite the impact of the economy, we are figuring out new ways to continue our diversity initiatives through “teachable moments,” employers and employees still see the value of diversity and inclusion, and we’re making great legislative progress. That’s all good news.