transgender in workplace essay

Transgender

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

Posted June 5, 2021 | Reviewed by Vanessa Lancaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Coalition for the Equality Act

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

The Changing Landscape of Global LGBTQ+ Rights

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

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

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

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Transgender in the Workplace: What Firms and Employees Need to Know

June 12, 2015 • 14 min read.

Transgender men and women are stepping into the limelight, and their heightened presence is ushering in a national moment of examination that is changing the modern workplace.

It’s one of those workplace episodes you never anticipated. After working alongside your pod-mate for a year or two, he comes in one morning with news of a transition and a request. Henceforth, please use a different personal pronoun when referring to him: her. Among minorities, transgender employees have been somewhat of an invisible and misunderstood presence in the U.S. — so invisible that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) only began tracking workplace complaints by transgender employees in January 2013. For most people, the concept remains a hazy one.

But like gays and lesbians before them, transgender men and women are stepping into the limelight, and their heightened presence is ushering in a national moment of examination. Caitlyn Jenner’s process of coming out as transgender  — in carefully packaged public steps — may be laced with the kind of celebrity pixie dust available to few others. Still, experts say it is bringing mass-education value that nothing else could.

“It will change our workplace, and I really do think Jenner will have made it far more acceptable,” says Wharton operations and information management professor Maurice Schweitzer. At the moment, however, “people are far more accepting of gay and lesbian people, and somehow transgender is still keeping people off balance,” he notes.

Along with Adam Galinsky, Schweitzer is author of the upcoming book, Friend and Foe: When to Cooperate, When to Compete and How to Succeed at Both , as well as a piece on a related website that unpacks the significance of Jenner’s handling of the matter. Schweitzer and Galinsky, a professor at Columbia Business School, argue that what Jenner did was to re-appropriate the very concept of transgender — the same way gays and lesbians adapted the pink triangle badge once used to identify them by the Nazi party. By embracing the term and being proud of it, Jenner gained power and control. “Some real subtle things can shift our perceptions, and I think she’s done that,” says Schweitzer.

“This is the way progress gets made, with one person on the cover of Vanity Fair .” –Dana Beyer

“To me, what’s changed is that we’re no longer toxic,” adds Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland. “You couldn’t have had a Jenner moment two or three years ago. I think you can see that the way the tabloids used to handle it was as something salacious, and there has never been an interview done with a transgender person that was as respectful [as the one Jenner did in April with Diane Sawyer on 20/20 ], and it changed everything. This is the way progress gets made, with one person on the cover of Vanity Fair .”

Still, there is a long way to go. “It’s a watershed moment, and it’s great exposure,” says Beyer. “But national exposure is one thing. It has to trickle down. It has to happen locally to really change school systems and local government. That’s going to happen when people come out and demand it.”

Beyond Male and Female

The concept of gender has evolved far beyond being an if-not-this-then-that matter. Rather, gender has come to be understood as a spectrum of more vaguely defined identities. Facebook acknowledged as much last year when it diversified its gender profile options to more than 50 choices. Beyond “male” and “female,” the categories now include “Transfemale,” “Bigender,” “Pangender” and “Ciswoman.” Allowing users to choose began after Facebook suspended accounts because it said users were required to use names as they appeared on legal identification, and trans rights activists protested.

The American Psychological Association says transgender is an umbrella term that encompasses many different people whose gender identity is different from their assigned one — whether or not they are on their way to gender reassignment surgery. These include genderqueer, which is somewhere on the continuum between male and female, as well as names that indicate blending, alternating or rejecting identities — like androgynous, multi-gendered, gender nonconforming and third gender.

“It is unsettling because we are used to categorizing people, and in the gender category, we’ve been hardwired to categorize people since infancy. We announce a birth with very few details — the length, the weight and gender,” notes Schweitzer. “From preschool or kindergarten, people are segregated by gender. When you show up and no longer fit into one of these categories, you are throwing off a fundamental characterization scheme, and like it or not, we like categorizing things. It helps us make sense of the world, tells us who our allies are. Of course, we oversimplify things, and gender is one category that has been oversimplified.”

Hostility and Homophily

The reason for oversimplifying may be as guileless as lack of exposure. As a group, people who identify as transgender make up a tiny portion of the U.S. population — about 700,000, or 0.3%, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute. So why are employers increasingly concerned about putting policies in place to deal with accommodation of transgender workers? Liability is certainly one reason.

“I have 20 active cases and there are a lot of other lawyers around the country that have lots of cases,” says Jillian T. Weiss, principal of Jillian T. Weiss & Associates and professor of law and society at Ramapo College of New Jersey. “You want to minimize the risk because litigation is so ridiculously expensive today. It’s much better to address the situation before it becomes a legal issue.”

Among the scenarios she sees: Employers who fire or demote transgender employees; who ask them not to dress a certain way; who ask them not to speak about their gender or plans for gender transition; who don’t heed requests to use a different gender-specific restroom, and who make threats and engage in harassment.

Transgender workers operate with a heightened level of risk. Their unemployment rate is twice the national average for the general population, according to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, with 50% reporting having been harassed at work. A quarter of respondents said they had been fired from a job for being transgender, and a quarter reported having been denied a promotion. Nearly 80% said they had experienced mistreatment or discrimination.

One reason for friction stems from the natural forces of homophily, or “how people tend to hang out with people like themselves — who ends up going to lunch together; who ends up carpooling together,” Schweitzer explains. “However diverse your workplace is, people end up segregating themselves.”

And so, it’s up to managers to figure out how to facilitate dynamics, he says. “You can’t just introduce them and assume that everything is going to function harmoniously and perfectly. We have to work at building that bond and demonstrating a commitment to those values.”

“You want to minimize the risk because litigation is so ridiculously expensive today.” –Jillian T. Weiss

Gender discrimination laws at the state level vary, but federal protection has been clarified in recent years — built primarily around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. “Some very important rulings by the EEOC make the case very clear and strong. In terms of what constitutes bias — when can you restrict bathroom use, using the wrong pronoun — the EEOC has made it clear that this is discrimination,” says Weiss. In April, the EEOC issued a landmark ruling in Lusardi v. McHugh, finding that the U.S. Army, in denying access to restrooms and refusing to use pronouns consistent with a person’s gender, committed unlawful discrimination.

Most cases arise from an employee who traverses a gender transition in the job, not from someone who starts a job with a transgender journey as something in the past, adds Weiss. With today’s changing comfort levels and more young people making the transition earlier, “I think that you’ll see a rise in cases over the next decade, and then a drop. When you do this at 18, no one knows,” she notes.

But even if no one knows, should a transgender employee share his or her history with co-workers? Many will want to, since it’s an important part of their personal history and, therefore, identity. Some aspects of identity are self-evident; an African American worker, for instance, does not have a choice in sharing that identity — but he or she also does not bear the burden of having to make a choice about whether to disclose. A transgender person can often choose whether, when and to whom to disclose that part of his or her identity.

It might be smart to start small, says Wharton management professor Nancy Rothbard. “Seek out someone you have a good relationship with, and if the relationship is strong and the person seems generally open, start there. It’s almost like coalition building,” she notes. “If you think about this in general organizational terms, you build a strong coalition of folks who support you in this endeavor and are willing to really be creative and help support you and smooth the way. Build support before you shock everyone.”

Rothbard sees transgender in the workplace as part of the concept of bringing your authentic self to work. “There are a lot of groups who don’t feel like they can bring their authentic self to work in their full glory of how they would express themselves in other settings,” she says. In this way, it is not unlike the friction some African American women feel in trying to square their professional identities with certain ways of styling their hair. Indeed, in McManus v. MCI Communications Corp., an employee claimed to have been fired for wearing her hair in braids and dreadlocks and dressing at work in African clothing.

“Minority women often feel they must compensate for both their gender and race in attempting to present a professional image that will render them credible to their co-workers,” write Ashleigh Shelby Rosette and Tracy L. Dumas in “ The Hair Dilemma: Conform to Mainstream Expectations or Emphasize Racial Identity ,” published in the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy in 2007. Rothbard says the dilemmas of these women and the challenges of being transgender in the workplace are analogous because “both are charged, but in a different way.”

Beyer of Gender Rights Maryland transitioned from male to female in the late 1980s, and says that the difference between public acceptance then and now is like night and day. “People often times try to hide it, and then you get outed, and then you’re on the defensive,” she says. “That’s not a good thing; you don’t want to do that. Generally there is no problem unless there is one person [who objects], and usually it is just one person. It’s not like everyone is saying, ‘Oh my God, we don’t want this.'”

A Gender Transition Plan

One of the reasons it might be easier for transgender employees today is that many companies have worked hard to smooth the path. The Human Rights Campaign’s annual Corporate Equality Index this year reached a highwater mark in terms of comprehensive transgender initiatives at a wide swath of American businesses. Two-thirds of the Fortune 500 and 89% of the nearly 800 businesses examined in the study now offer gender identity non-discrimination protection; a third of the Fortune 500 and more than half of all businesses in the study offer transgender-inclusive health care coverage, up from none in 2002. Eight in 10 businesses rated by the HRC study offer education and training programs specifically addressing gender identity in the workplace. Today, hundreds of major businesses have gender transition guidelines in place.

“Seek out someone you have a good relationship with, and if the relationship is strong and the person seems generally open, start there. It’s almost like coalition building.” –Nancy Rothbard

In fact, any business that does not have such guidelines is at risk, says Denise A. Norris, a senior analyst in service delivery and operations at Accenture. Among the things at stake, says Norris: attraction of top talent, employee retention and employee performance. “People who are able to be authentic and not worry about what their co-workers think about them take that energy and apply it to performance,” notes Norris, who is also Accenture’s global lead for transgender workplace inclusion and diversity and has worked with Moody’s and Bloomberg on these issues. “It’s not just that you can send out a memo and everyone gets it. It’s a journey.”

Some policies aimed at accommodating transgender employees are obvious — such as having a non-discrimination statement. But then there are matters like dress codes. “If you say men can only wear tailored shirts, but women can wear a blouse, that is actually a discriminatory practice,” notes Norris. “The moment an employee declares [that he or she has begun to transition] gender, they have the right to use gender-specific facilities. We don’t ask any other employee to identify gender, so if we target this class, whose gender expression is not confined to traditional roles, then we are creating a discriminatory situation.”

Norris — whose own transition started in 1989 and lasted three years — says that there is no reason a company should not immediately honor an employee’s name change, regardless of what his or her legal documents still list under name. “You set a policy that allows people to use nicknames,” she says. “Until someone changes their name legally, we can’t change what it says on your paycheck, but being able to use a preferred nickname is already common policy in most workplaces.”

Health care is another area of potential controversy. Should company health care pay for gender reassignment surgery and other costs? When insurance will pay for, say, hip replacement surgery and not the $25,000-$40,000 required for gender reassignment surgery, “it is discrimination,” says Norris. Costs vary, depending on the extent of the surgical procedures being done. When a male transitions to female, many also require facial surgery to make bone structure look more feminine.

Weiss says many problems can be avoided by having at the ready a “gender transition plan” to use the moment an employee informs an employer that he or she has initiated the process. It should cover matters such as the anticipated timeline for the transition, expectations for dress code, company resources available for support during the transition, an agreement about which restrooms will be used, and a protocol for how complaints from other employees would be addressed.

The messages coming from the top are critical, says Norris. “If there is clear support from the leadership, if management says this is part of our core values to respect the individual, then that employee is going to have fewer problems.” And that means reducing as much as possible bias around gender in general. “You need to talk about processes for evaluation that reward people based upon their accomplishment to make sure you are doing things in a fair, objective way,” says Schweitzer, who says that some lessons can be borrowed from the era in which women first sought and gained greater accommodation in the workplace.

That process is decades old, of course, and women struggle still for equal treatment — an irony not lost on people like transgender female Beyer in recalling the story by Stanford University neurobiologist Ben Barres, who, after he began living as a man, overheard another scientist say: “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today…. His work is much better than his sister’s work.”

Says Beyer: “Everyone I know who has made the transition tells stories of being treated differently from one day to the next. I call it the reinforced glass ceiling.”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

How Large Language Models Could Impact Jobs

How Will LLMs Impact Jobs?

Reverse Ageism Is Real and Overlooked

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

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

Findings from pew research center focus groups, table of contents, identity and the gender journey, navigating gender day-to-day, seeking medical care for gender transitions , connections with the broader lgbtq+ community, policy and social change.

• Focus groups
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Panel recruitment
• Sample design
• Questionnaire development and testing
• Data collection protocol
• Data quality checks
• Acknowledgments

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional materials

• Methodology

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

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Why Gender Equity in the Workplace is Good for Business

Research indicates a correlation between gender equity and organizational success, yet it also points to obstacles for women in leadership.

Mary Sharp Emerson

A growing body of research indicates a strong correlation between gender equity and organizational success. Yet, it also points to persistent obstacles hindering the development and advancement of women in leadership.

At first glance, a number of indicators support the idea that gender equity in the workplace is within sight. More women than men are graduating with bachelor’s degrees. Women are no longer leaving the workforce to raise families in larger numbers than men. And women are playing an increasingly visible role in executive leadership. 

In the C-suite, for example, the number of women leaders has increased from 17 percent to 21 percent in the last five years, according to McKinsey & Company’s Women in the Workplace 2019 study . The research also shows senior-level women are being promoted at a higher rate than men, on average.

Still, a large gap between the number of men and women in leadership roles continues to persist. 

Moreover, it is increasingly clear that the gap starts early, often at the level of emerging leadership (entry- and mid-level management). Women are 18 percent less likely to be promoted than their male coworkers. This gap only widens further up the management chain: Men hold 62 percent of management positions, compared to 38 percent for women.

In other words, obstacles to early promotion into management create a long-term talent gap, hindering women’s ability to “climb the corporate ladder” into senior leadership roles.  

Successfully addressing this talent gap at the corporate level requires more than simply paying lip service to “diversity training.” Instead, it requires a thoughtful and strategic approach — across all levels of management, from the executive down to the middle manager — focused on ensuring an equal playing field, particularly at the lowest rungs of the management ladder.

Why Gender Equity Matters

In 2020, gender equity is more than simply a buzzword. A growing body of research now demonstrates fairly conclusively that a true commitment to diversity generally — and gender equity more specifically — can have concrete financial benefits. 

Ten years of research by McKinsey and LeanIn.org offers key statistics demonstrating a clear correlation between organizational diversity and financial performance. For instance:

• Companies with the greatest proportion of women on executive committees earned a 47 percent higher rate of return on equity than companies with no women executives.  
• Companies in the top 25 percent for gender diversity are 27 percent more likely to outperform their national industry average in terms of profitability.
• Companies in the bottom 25 percent for gender diversity were significantly less likely to see higher profits than their national industry average.

As McKinsey acknowledges, correlation is not the same as causation. Yet the consistency of the data over the past decade strongly indicates that the link between diversity at the leadership level and financial performance is not coincidental.

The link lies in organizational health. Organizations that actively create and promote strong internal processes dedicated to incorporating a variety of perspectives, experiences, and leadership styles consistently outperform competitors with homogenous leadership teams. 

This is true across many different dependent variables, from problem solving to analytic thinking to communication. And when taken together, success across these different variables adds up to strong financial performance.

Search all Leadership and Management programs.

Obstacles to Gender Equity Remain

Unfortunately, emerging women leaders continue to face obstacles hindering gender equity and their upward mobility. And, perhaps surprisingly, these obstacles exist primarily at the first and second rungs of the corporate ladder.  

The long-term result is a profound gap in the talent pipeline, according to McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace 2018 study : 

Starting at the manager level, there are significantly fewer women to promote from within and significantly fewer women at the right experience level to hire in from the outside. So even though hiring and promotion rates improve at more senior levels, women can never catch up—we’re suffering from a “hollow middle.” This should serve as a wake-up call: until companies close the early gaps in hiring and promotion, women will remain underrepresented.

Thus, a key step in closing this talent gap at the level of the emerging leader is identifying — and eliminating — the barriers to entry facing women eager to move into leadership roles. These obstacles include: 

• Unconscious bias and discrimination (intentional or unintentional)
• Fewer opportunities to showcase leadership skills
• Lack of support and advocacy by immediate supervisor(s)
• Less opportunity to network up the management chain
• Failure to recognize the benefits of diverse leadership and communication strategies
• Lack of advice on career advancement
• Ongoing assumptions about willingness to remain in the workforce long-term
• Failure to make diversity and gender parity a true priority at all levels of management

The “hollow middle,” or talent gap at the bottom rung of the corporate ladder, will persist until leaders and managers take active steps to eliminate these and other obstacles women face as they attempt to move into management. 

Most critically, change must be driven down from senior leadership to the level where it matters the most: with a commitment to gender equity among middle-level managers who are most likely to influence women’s career advancement.

Find related Leadership and Management programs.

Browse all Professional & Executive Development programs.

About the Author

Digital Content Producer

Emerson is a Digital Content Producer at Harvard DCE. She is a graduate of Brandeis University and Yale University and started her career as an international affairs analyst. She is an avid triathlete and has completed three Ironman triathlons, as well as the Boston Marathon.

Planning for Tomorrow’s Disruption

How to leverage critical leadership lessons from today’s crisis to anticipate and prepare for the next disruption.

Harvard Division of Continuing Education

The Division of Continuing Education (DCE) at Harvard University is dedicated to bringing rigorous academics and innovative teaching capabilities to those seeking to improve their lives through education. We make Harvard education accessible to lifelong learners from high school to retirement.

Creating an inclusive environment for transgender employees

The representation of transgender people has improved dramatically over the years, but that visibility hasn’t translated into an improved transgender workplace experience.

During a McKinsey Live webinar, associate partner David Baboolall (they/them) and senior partner Jill Zucker  (she/her) discussed their recent McKinsey research that found more than half of transgender employees in the United States say they are not comfortable being out at work. They feel far less supported than cisgender employees, they find it more difficult to understand workplace culture and benefits, and they feel less supported by their managers.

The diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts from organizations tend to overlook the transgender experience, focusing only on sexual orientation and neglecting to include gender identity and expression. The following are among the many steps that employers of all sizes can take to expand their efforts and create an inclusive environment for transgender employees:

• Establish a common vocabulary in the workplace . Organizations can provide their employees glossaries and hold sessions to help educate and inform conversations.
• Be intentional in recruiting . Sponsor seminars and participate in recruiting events and job fairs while talking openly about the workplace experience for transgender employees.
• Offer trans-affirming benefits . Human-resources teams can show up as allies by making sure company benefits for employees are both trans friendly and trans specific.
• Offer trans-inclusive programs and policies . Include voices of trans people in diversity and cultural-competency training, and avoid gender-specific language in company policies.
• Signal an inclusive culture . Offer employees the option to use their preferred name, include nonbinary gender identities in forms, encourage employees to provide pronouns, and celebrate transgender pride.

For more on this topic, read the McKinsey Quarterly article “ Being transgender at work .”

Have you attended a McKinsey Live? Share your feedback.

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

Research: How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces

• Amber L. Stephenson,
• Leanne M. Dzubinski

A look inside the ongoing barriers women face in law, health care, faith-based nonprofits, and higher education.

New research examines gender bias within four industries with more female than male workers — law, higher education, faith-based nonprofits, and health care. Having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an organization is not, by itself, changing women’s experiences of bias. Bias is built into the system and continues to operate even when more women than men are present. Leaders can use these findings to create gender-equitable practices and environments which reduce bias. First, replace competition with cooperation. Second, measure success by goals, not by time spent in the office or online. Third, implement equitable reward structures, and provide remote and flexible work with autonomy. Finally, increase transparency in decision making.

It’s been thought that once industries achieve gender balance, bias will decrease and gender gaps will close. Sometimes called the “ add women and stir ” approach, people tend to think that having more women present is all that’s needed to promote change. But simply adding women into a workplace does not change the organizational structures and systems that benefit men more than women . Our new research (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Personnel Review ) shows gender bias is still prevalent in gender-balanced and female-dominated industries.

• Amy Diehl , PhD is chief information officer at Wilson College and a gender equity researcher and speaker. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield). Find her on LinkedIn at Amy-Diehl , X/Twitter @amydiehl , and visit her website at amy-diehl.com .
• AS Amber L. Stephenson , PhD is an associate professor of management and director of healthcare management programs in the David D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson University. Her research focuses on the healthcare workforce, how professional identity influences attitudes and behaviors, and how women leaders experience gender bias.
• LD Leanne M. Dzubinski , PhD is professor of leadership and director of the Beeson International Center at Asbury Seminary, and a prominent researcher on women in leadership. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield).

Partner Center

• Book a Speaker

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

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Employing Transgender Workers

Editor's Note: On October 1, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas concluded that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) misapplied the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. in its June 2021 technical assistance document on LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination protections. The EEOC's guidance expanded the legal definition of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity in employment situations. It stated that workers have the right to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity and the right to be free of harassment, including intentional and repeated use of the wrong pronouns. The EEOC is likely to appeal this ruling and may continue to pursue other litigation regarding the interpretation of Bostock as it relates to employer policies and practices.  See  Federal Judge Strikes Down EEOC's LGBTQ Guidance .

This article focuses on workplace issues related to the employment of transgender individuals in an organization. Among the issues are those that may surface when an employee makes the transition from living as one sex to living as the other.

Overview Background The Legal Framework Organization Policies Workplace Issues Additional Resources Endnotes

The term "transgender" is commonly used to refer to individuals whose gender identity and/or expression is different from their sex assigned at birth or with standard societal expectations of the male and female gender roles. Transgender people may be straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or asexual, just as nontransgender people can be. 1

Transgender individuals often suffer discrimination in various aspects of their lives, including employment. This discussion sets forth reasons that employers should be knowledgeable and accommodating toward transgender workers and should tolerate no workplace discrimination against them. The article explains HR's role in helping an organization prepare for and meet its responsibilities in this area.

"Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth," according to the APA. "Gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of being male, female, or something else; gender expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics." 2

One of the transgender identities is that of transsexual—a person whose gender identity is different from the individual's assigned sex. "Often, transsexual people alter or wish to alter their bodies through hormones, surgery, and other means to make their bodies as congruent as possible with their gender identities," the APA explains. "This process of transition through medical intervention is often referred to as sex or gender reassignment, but more recently is also referred to as gender affirmation." 3

It is important to note that while the APA website references transsexual people, they also state that, "the term "transsexual" is largely outdated, but some people identify with it; this term should be used only for an individual who specifically claims it."

Statistics on the numbers of transgender individuals are scarce. What is better documented is that many—perhaps most—transgender men and women are targets of discrimination and sometimes violence and hate crimes. Discrimination may be overt, such as denial of access to a workplace restroom, or it may be subtle, such as disapproving glances or privacy-invading questions from co-workers.

In some instances, a transgender person will make the change to the other gender while employed. The means of making such a transition may or may not include medical or surgical procedures, but it will result in the person living as a member of the other sex. In such circumstances, the employer should help the person with workplace concerns during and after the transition and should help the rest of the workforce deal with the transition.

The Legal Framework

Title vii of the civil rights act.

Title VII protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, national origin, sex, and religion; it applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Among the types of employers required to comply with Title VII are private-sector organizations (including employment agencies and labor organizations) as well as state and local governments and the federal government.

Although official rulings on complaints of discrimination against transgender employees have varied over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 15, 2020 that sexual orientation and gender identity or expression are included in the definition of "sex", therefore, employers may not discriminate against transgender individuals in employment. See  What You Should Know: The EEOC and Protections for LGBT Workers .

In addition to the federal interpretations of what constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII, legal protections are emerging for transgender employees at the state and local levels.

State and local anti-discrimination laws

Numerous states and localities across the United States have enacted laws that expressly prohibit employment discrimination based on gender identity and expression. Employees working in those states , regardless of where the employer is headquartered, are protected by those laws.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act or ACA)

Section 1557 is the nondiscrimination provision of the ACA which prohibits sex discrimination in health insurance. The law was designed to reform the U.S. health care system by expanding the availability of health insurance, regulating coverage and restructuring health care delivery, including how it is paid for. In July 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stipulated that the law's prohibition against sex discrimination applies to transgender people.

On May 13, 2016, the HHS Office for Civil Rights issued the final rule implementing Section 1557.

However, on December 31, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion in Franciscan Alliance, Inc. et al v. Burwell , enjoining the Section 1557 regulation's prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy on a nationwide basis. Then on June 12, 2020, the HHS released final rules eliminating anti-discrimination protections based on gender identity in health care and health insurance.

Whether or not Title VII's protections for LGBTQ+ individuals will affect the most recent HHS ruling remains to be seen. The ACA's protections were based on Title IX definitions of sex, not Title VII, but they are related, and more litigation is expected.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 , specifically excludes from its definition of disability "transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders." 4 Nonetheless, some transgender individuals may suffer from depression or other medical conditions that could be covered under the law. Employers should consult with legal counsel before making any negative employment-related decisions related to a medical disability of a transgender worker.

State disability discrimination laws

Although the ADA excludes gender identity disorders from its definitions of disability, state disability discrimination laws may be broader and may not contain such exclusions. Employers should check with their attorneys regarding their states' laws on gender identity issues.

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

Some treatments and procedures for transgender employees may not qualify for employment leave under terms of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but others may. Some that may qualify could include treatment related to gender dysphoria, overnight hospital stays related to sex-reassignment surgeries and continued counseling with a mental health professional. As with all requests for FMLA leave, the employer should follow normal notification procedures and review each medical certification to determine FMLA applicability.

State family and medical leave laws

Some states' medical leave laws may be broader than the federal FMLA. For example, the FMLA does not include domestic partners in its definition of "spouse," but some state medical leave laws do. Employers should know the terms of their states' laws on family and medical leave.  

Global anti-discrimination protections

Several countries have protections in place to prevent various types of human rights discrimination aimed at transgender individuals. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK) the 1999 Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations are applicable to all stages of employment. Both the UK and Spain allow transgender individuals to change their name and gender on official documents without undergoing surgical changes. In the European Union, a 1996 decision in the European Court of Justice provided workplace discrimination protections for workers undergoing gender reassignment.

South Africa and many states and territories in Australia also prohibit discrimination against transgender people.

In 2006 a group of international human rights experts met in Yogyakarta, Indonesia to outline international rules relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, known as the Yogyakarta Principles . In 2017 additional rules were added to form the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.

See  Employers in India Expand Inclusion to Cover LGBTQ Employees .

Organization Policies

In light of the various legal protections and legislative initiatives pertaining to transgender employees, employers should update their policies and practices to make sure gender identity and gender expression are explicitly included. Following are some of the workplace policies that employers should examine:

• Anti-discrimination policy. As a commitment to equality, compliance under Title VII  and where state law requires, ensure sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and similar terms are on the list of protected classes. See  Equal Employment Opportunity Policy: Detailed . 
• Dress code policy. Avoid gender stereotypes, such as men must wear dress trousers and women must wear skirts. Do not apply dress codes to off-duty conduct. Consider adding a provision that workers may dress in accordance with their full-time gender expression. See  When Do Dress Codes That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Cross the Line?
• Benefits policies and offerings. Follow applicable state laws and monitor the federal law for changes to the ACA. Title VII will not allow the conditions of employment to be discriminatory based on sex, which will apply to benefit offerings. Some states will prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity as well and benefits must be designed to meet those requirements. See  3 Checklists for Avoiding LGBTQ Discrimination in Your Benefits Programs .
• Diversity and inclusion initiatives. Make certain that transgender workers are included in the organization's affinity groups, local outreach efforts, internal programming and related training. See  How to Create Inclusive Workplaces for Transgender and Nonbinary Employees .
• Recruitment and selection processes. Review processes for possible disparate impact or treatment of transgender workers. Improve processes by educating recruitment teams, contacting outreach organizations and conducting anti-discrimination analysis as needed. See  Hiring Bias and Workplace Bias .

Training employees to recognize and eliminate discrimination in the workplace is important for every employer and updating the organization's presentations to cover transgender workers is essential to provide equal opportunity to all employees. Such training should be included in both new-hire and annual training offerings. In addition, the employer's updated anti-discrimination training should be offered to all employees so that they understand the organization's expectations when a transgender employee is joining their ranks or when a current employee is in gender transition. Various support groups may be able to provide sample training presentations or speakers to help employers ensure the training is appropriate. See SHRM's sample training presentations for templates that can be used to prepare and educate a workforce on employer nondiscrimination and diversity and inclusion expectations in general.  

Workplace Issues

Some transgender individuals make the transition to full-time expression as another gender while on an employer's payroll. The transition may or may not include surgery, but it will likely require management's help with the person's adjustment in the workplace—and to help with co-workers' concerns throughout the process.

Make preparations

Although the number of people making a gender transition while remaining in their jobs appears to be increasing, few managers receive training to prepare for the moment when an employee informs them of plans to make such a transition. Knowledge of principles and techniques relevant to more familiar discrimination areas can be applied to issues that arise when an employee transitions. For a transition to be considered successful, it must work for the person in transition, for the people the individual works with and for the organization. If the organization follows basic guidelines, this process can go smoothly.

A complete discussion on managing a gender transition in the workplace is outside the scope of this article, but some general principles are offered. Management typically meets with the employee in transition, discusses changes that need to be made, and lets the timing of those changes be guided by the employee. Matters that may come up for consideration during the process include the following:

• The person's name on organization documents.
• Coverage under employer health benefits.
• Communications to co-workers.
• Security clearances.
• Restroom and dressing room use.
• Dress code rules.
• Medical leave eligibility determinations.
• Employee conduct expectations and training.
• Client and customer communications.

Approach each transition individually

No two transitions are exactly alike. Some people, because of medical circumstances, are precluded from taking hormones or having surgery. Some postpone or decide against major surgical procedures because the costs are prohibitive for them and are not covered by their health insurance. Some in transition may choose cosmetic surgery, electrolysis, voice training or other procedures.

The specific steps of transition and their timing vary among individuals, and individuals vary in how public they want their transition to be. Some prefer that very few people know about the transition, and they want to blend in quietly as members of their new gender. Others are committed to educating people about transgender issues, are eager to answer questions and continue to talk openly about being transgender long after transition.

Work situations vary, too. The many circumstances that may have a bearing on how the transition should be handled include the nature of the enterprise and the degree to which it is public or private, the organizational culture, the composition of the workforce, the type of work being done, the physical layout of the workplace, and the amount of interaction the transgender employee has with peers, superiors, subordinates, vendors and clients. Because of such variables, there is no single formula for managing transitions in the workplace; rather, the process must be tailored to meet the needs of each specific situation.

Be knowledgeable about the legal definitions of gender

There is no single means of defining a person's legal gender, and there is no point in time when a transgender person changes from one gender to the other. The laws and rules on gender vary according to jurisdiction. For example, many states permit a transgender person to obtain a new driver's license with relative ease; this can help accommodate the medical requirement that a transgender person in surgical transition must live as a member of the person's new gender for at least a year prior to undergoing genital reconstructive surgery. In other states, changing the sex designation on any form of state-issued identification may be very difficult or even impossible. No uniformity on this issue exists among the states, between state and federal policies, or even among federal agencies.

Another influence on how transgender people are viewed is the context in which legal gender is being considered. Having a driver's license that shows the person's new sex is generally sufficient to enable a transgender person to be treated legally as a member of that gender. Some agencies, however, will not acknowledge a transgender person's new sex until the person presents evidence that the individual has taken an irreversible step to alter the body in the direction of the target sex. Such an irreversible step could be taking hormones over a period of time or having chest or genital reconstructive surgery. For some purposes, only genital surgery meets the requirement for having changed sex, but the exact nature of the genital surgery may be unspecified.

Given the variables in the law, tying recognition of gender in the workplace to legal recognition of the person's sex is problematic. Even more dubious is any attempt to base the person's acknowledged gender on medical or surgical treatment milestones. The most sensible approach for the employer is to consider the person to be a member of the sex in which the person presents. This approach is in accord with the growing legal trend toward recognizing that a transgender person should be treated as a legal member of the gender in which the individual lives life.

Some transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. See  Using Employees' Preferred Gender Pronouns .

Know how to deal with co-workers' attitudes

Many co-workers want to be supportive of transgender workers. Some employees, however, may be offended by the idea of a transgender person. Gender transition may run counter to their religious beliefs or moral standards. To reduce the likelihood of negative reactions to gender transition, the organization can establish a culture of appreciation of differences, provide adequate training and treat all employees fairly.

Diversity in a workplace means employees are able to work with all people; it does not require that employees believe in or accept transgenderism. Employees are entitled to their beliefs, but they should also be required to treat the transgender person—and every other employee—with respect.

Inclusion is about a diverse workforce becoming more productive, innovative and creative. It is about effectively harnessing the full range of available perspectives and experiences to create business advantage. To create a more inclusive environment, some organizations define appropriate workplace behaviors that are consistent with the employer's stated beliefs and values about inclusion and productivity. This process is about changing employees' workplace behaviors to be in accordance with the company's values, not changing an employee's personal beliefs and values. See  Creating a Trans-Inclusive Workplace .

Like all workers, transgender employers will be happier and more productive in a positive, supportive working environment. Just as an older worker employed in a workplace with mostly younger employees or a male employee working with mostly women might feel out of his element and comfort zone—and maybe even a bit ostracized—a transgender person regularly encounters such environments. Therefore, an employer that can foster and provide a positive, inclusive working environment, based on respect and professionalism, will likely enjoy workers who are happy to be there, engaged in their work and in the organization's success, and respectful of others.

Communicate well

Information about the organization's policies and guidelines for managing a gender transition should be widely accessible for employees, supervisors and managers, and HR professionals. The HRC's Workplace Gender Transition Guidelines 5 recommends that information appear in various venues, including these:

• The organization's intranet, particularly the HR resources pages and any pages for LGBTQ+ employee groups.
• The company's online and print code of conduct documents, covering employment nondiscrimination, equal employment opportunity policy, dress code, restroom policy and other topics.
• The search engine used to navigate company sites and pages. Users should be able to find information by searching terms such as transition guidelines, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, transsexual, cross-dress, gender reassignment, sex reassignment, sex change or transgendered. (The terms sex change and transgendered are not preferred terminology, but are intended to capture potential searches).
• Employee assistance program resources.
• HR hotline resources.

See  Template for Gender Transition Guidelines .

When announcing an employee's plan to transition, senior management can send a strong message of support for the transitioning employee and set the tone for what is expected of staff.

Additional Resources

Checklist: LGBTQ+ Anti-Bias and Title VII Compliance

Memo to Employees Announcing the Gender Transition of a Co-worker

How should an employer handle a transgender employee's request for a name change?

How should a company handle issues related to the use of workplace restrooms by transgender employees?

How to Accommodate 'Gender-Nonbinary' Individuals—Neither Men nor Women

The Benefits of Offering Gender Neutral Bathrooms in the Workplace

Infographic: Flip the Script: Transgender in the Workplace—Words

Infographic: Flip the Script: Transgender in the Workplace – Actions

1 American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identify and gender expression. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

4 Title 42, Chapter 126, Sec. 12211. Definitions. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12211 5 Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Workplace gender transition guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/workplace-gender-transition-guidelines

Related Articles

Why AI+HI Is Essential to Compliance

HR must always include human intelligence and oversight of AI in decision-making in hiring and firing, a legal expert said at SHRM24. She added that HR can ensure compliance by meeting the strictest AI standards, which will be in Colorado’s upcoming AI law.

A 4-Day Workweek? AI-Fueled Efficiencies Could Make It Happen

The proliferation of artificial intelligence in the workplace, and the ensuing expected increase in productivity and efficiency, could help usher in the four-day workweek, some experts predict.

How One Company Uses Digital Tools to Boost Employee Well-Being

Learn how Marsh McLennan successfully boosts staff well-being with digital tools, improving productivity and work satisfaction for more than 20,000 employees.

HR Daily Newsletter

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

Success title

Success caption

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection
• PMC10100361

Addressing workplace gender inequality: Using the evidence to avoid common pitfalls

Michelle k. ryan.

1 Global Institute for Women's Leadership, The Australian National University, Canberra Australian Capital Territory, Australia

2 Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Groningen, Groningen The Netherlands

In this Landmark article I outline four common missteps that are made when designing and implementing workplace gender equality initiatives: (1) when we don't go beyond describing the numbers; (2) when we try to ‘fix’ women rather than fix systems; (3) when we are overly optimistic about the progress we have made; and (4) when we fail to recognise the intersectionality of the experiences that women face. I will briefly consider each of these missteps in term, presenting research that suggests alternative ways of approaching gender equality initiatives.

INTRODUCTION

Despite much progress in the past 50 years, workplace gender inequality remains a persistent problem. Worldwide, women only occupy about 37 per cent of leadership roles (World Economic Forum,  2022 ), the pay gap sits at approximately 20 per cent (International Labour Oragnisation, 2022 ), and women remain concentrated in low‐status, low‐paid jobs (UN Women,  2022 ). There are countless initiatives designed to address workplace gender equality—those that try to attract women to certain professions and roles where they are under‐represented, those that try to support women's career trajectories, and the those that try to retain women in the workforce. While the impetus behind these initiatives is generally positive, many of these interventions are not based on evidence, in terms of their design, their implementation or in the evaluation of their efficacy.

Most infamous in this space are those initiatives that build on an understanding that much gender discrimination (but certainly not all) is a result unconscious bias. The research most cited to underpin unconscious bias training is work on implicit prejudice and implicit associations (e.g. Devine,  1989 ; Greenwald et al.,  1998 ; Greenwald & Banaji,  1995 ). While there has been theoretical, methodological and psychometric debate about the utility of implicit tests such as the IAT (e.g. Blanton & Jaccard, 2006 ; Nosek & Sriram, 2007 ; see also Jost,  2019 ) what is of more interest here is the utility of unconscious bias training itself. While unconscious bias training is good at awareness raising, it is less effectual at achieving behaviour change or increased gender equality (e.g. Atewologun et al.,  2018 ; Bezrukova et al.,  2016 ; Kalev et al., 2006 ) and has been shown to have unintended negative consequences such as backfiring or feelings of false progress (e.g. Dover et al.,  2020 ; Leslie,  2019 ).

In my current role, as the Director of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership at The Australian National University, I have three key responsibilities (1) to conduct research to better understand gender inequality, (2) to work with organizations and government to translate the evidence base into effective policy and practice and (3) to advocate for social change and gender equality. It is at the nexus of these three endeavours that I can see where we get it right, and where we, unfortunately, get it wrong.

In this Landmark article I outline four common missteps that are made when designing and implementing workplace gender equality initiatives: (1) when we do not go beyond describing the numbers; (2) when we try to ‘fix’ women rather than fix systems; (3) when we are overly optimistic about the progress we have made; and (4) when we fail to recognize the intersectionality of the experiences that women face. I will briefly consider each of these missteps in term, presenting research that suggests alternative ways of approaching gender equality initiatives. 1

WHEN NUMBERS JUST AREN'T ENOUGH

One of the first steps in many gender equality action plans is to do an audit of the representation of women. How many women are in the organization? How many women are in decision‐making roles? How many women are there in senior management and on the boards of directors? This number crunching extends to describing other inequalities: How big is the gender pay gap? How many women were promoted in the last promotions round? What is the success rate of female job applicants? This approach is common in many internal organizational gender equality plans (Ely & Thomas,  2020 ), and as part of many external accreditation programmes (e.g. Rosser et al.,  2019 ). Understanding representation and understanding key metrics of gender equality are a necessary part of achieving gender equality—but they are not sufficient. Such numbers are a great starting point as they identify problem areas to be rectified. But they do not tell the whole story.

In this section, I will outline a body of research on women in leadership and the glass cliff (Haslam & Ryan,  2008 ; Ryan & Haslam,  2005 , 2007 ) that illustrates why we cannot just stop at descriptive numbers. This work suggests that it is not enough to know whether women are in leadership positions, but when they are in leadership positions. It also illustrates the importance of looking at women's experiences in such positions. And finally, it illustrates the importance of understanding the psychological processes behind the appointment of women to leadership positions.

This body of research builds on the metaphor of the glass ceiling, that describes the under‐representation of women in leadership positions, to examine the conditions under which women are likely to be appointed to leadership positions. Almost 20 years of research has demonstrated the phenomenon whereby women are more likely to be appointed to leadership roles during times of crisis (see Morgenroth et al.,  2020 , & Ryan et al.,  2016 , for meta‐analyses and an overview). With the extension of the glass ceiling metaphor—the glass cliff—we hoped to capture the riskiness and precarity of such leadership positions: to give a sense of occupying a position up on high, yet of teetering on the edge.

The phenomenon of the glass cliff was first uncovered as a reaction to a newspaper article in The Times (Judge, 2003 ). This article presented evidence that companies that had more women on their boards of directors, had poorer share prices, and thus the increasing number of women on UK corporate board was ‘wreaking havoc’ on corporate Britain (p. 21). In response, Ryan and Haslam ( 2005 ) proposed an alternative analysis, whereby rather than women causing poor company performance, it was poor company performance that led to women being appointed to boards of directors. We conducted nuanced analysis of board appointments and monthly changes in company share prices that showed that this alternative explanation was indeed the case—(the small number of) women who were appointed to boards of directs, were appointed after a prolonged period of poor share price performance. Share price afterwards did not differ from their male counterparts.

Since this first discovery of the phenomenon, a global body of research on the glass cliff has emerged, one that uses multiple methodologies (archival analyses, experimental studies, case studies, qualitative work) to demonstrate the nuance and underlying processes associated with the glass cliff phenomenon (Morgenroth et al.,  2020 ; Ryan et al.,  2016 ). The glass cliff is not restricted to corporate settings, and has also been found in (a) the political sphere (e.g. Kulich et al.,  2015 ; Ryan et al.,  2010 )—as illustrated by all three of the UK's female Prime ministers: Thatcher (1980s recession), May (Brexit) and Truss (energy crisis and spiralling inflation); (b) sporting contexts (e.g. Wicker et al.,  2019 ); and (c) in non‐government, third sector organizations (e.g., Bogacz‐Wojtanowska et al.,  2018 ).

The importance of the glass cliff here is that it points to the necessity of looking beyond simply the number of women in leadership positions, to understand the circumstances under which women are likely to be appointment to such positions. If we just take the proportion of women in leadership roles as a measure of gender equality, then glass cliff appointments may be seen as an example of progress towards gender equality. But in reality, the opposite may be the case.

The context in which the glass cliff occurs can lead to such positions representing a new and subtle form of sexism or gender discrimination. Such a poisoned chalice potentially sets women up for additional scrutiny, stress and risk of failure. Indeed, the very risk and precarity experienced by those in glass cliff positions may hinder progress towards gender equality. Women in glass cliff positions are likely to face greater challenges in their leadership roles, such as (a) being blamed for negative conditions that were set in train long before they were appointed (Ryan & Haslam,  2005 ), shorter tenure (Glass & Cook,  2016 ) or (c) stress and burnout (Ryan et al.,  2009 ). These additional difficulties may contribute to the stagnation of women's representation in leadership positions, reinforcing stereotypes that women are not suited to leadership.

The glass cliff is just one example where the complexity of gender equality might be hidden behind the top‐line numbers. Understanding the subtlety and nuance behind the numbers gives us a truer sense of our progress towards gender equality. We can think of these in terms of who, when, why and where questions. For example, who bears the brunt of gender inequality—we know that gender inequality is fundamentally intersectional, being exacerbated by other group memberships (see Section ‘ When we are overly optimistic ’, below). When and where does inequality occur. And the big question for us as psychologists, is the why —what are the processes sitting behind the numbers, what drives inequality, and in turn, what do we need to do to help mitigate it.

Exploring beyond the numbers can also help inform us of the most effective ways to attack those problems. In the case of the glass cliff, looking beyond the number of appointments raises a whole new set of research questions to be asked (and answered). Are women preferentially selected by others for leadership in times crisis (yes, according to Haslam & Ryan,  2008 )? Are women appointed because we think they are good at dealing with crisis (no, according to Kulich et al.,  2015 ; Ryan et al.,  2011 ). Do women select these positions because they like a challenge (also no, according to Rink et al.,  2012 )?

WHEN WE TRY TO FIX WOMEN

The question of whether women self‐select into glass cliff positions leads us nicely into our next misstep—the tendency to focus on women when trying to solve the problem of gender inequality. Many of the approaches to improving gender equality recognize that the issues arise from inequalities embedded in our social and organizational structures and systems. Key here are the traditional gender stereotypes about what women and men are like (Ellemers,  2018 ) and what they should be like (Heilman, 2012 ). In particular, many workplace inequalities arise because the societal view of women's warmth is incompatible with societal views of leadership and success that prioritize notions of agency and competence (e.g. Koenig et al.,  2011 ; Schein,  1973 ). Importantly our social and organizational structures and systems are predicated on these gender norms and stereotypes (Eagly et al.,  2000 ), including recruitment, promotion and reward practices; parental leave and childcare policies; and educational systems.

However, this acknowledgement of systemic basis of gender equality often dissipates when it comes to actually implementing interventions and initiatives. There is a relatively consistent underlying assumption within these initiatives that gender inequalities can be addressed with a focus on individual competencies. From this perspective, we can narrow the gender equality gaps by providing women with additional skills and training. For example, initiatives to encourage girls and women in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) are often focused on boosting their engagement and ambition (Liben & Coyle,  2014 ). Leadership training courses often focus on teaching women ‘girl boss’ leadership skills (Atir,  2022 ) and encouraging them to take greater risks and make bigger sacrifices, overcome impostor symptom, be authentic at work and negotiate the next promotion or pay rise (Hackworth et al.,  2018 ). This approach is epitomized by the ‘lean in’ approach to gender equality (Sandberg, 2013 ), which seeks to encourage women to make the right choices and have the right mindset.

All of these approaches have, as their implicit theory of change, an understanding that women are in some way broken and not up to the task. The solution is, therefore, seen to be to ‘fix’ them—to change their behaviours, address their skills deficit, remedy their mindset. But the evidence is very clear on this point—it is not women that need fixing, but the deeply entrenched systems of gender inequality that structure our organizations and structure society more broadly.

Below I outline some illustrative research that demonstrates that women's engagement and belonging, their feelings of impostor syndrome and their willingness to take risks are not individual‐level problems that renders them needing to be fixed. Rather, these issues are a direct product of organizational and societal systems, and their experiences in these systems and thus require structural solutions.

Engagement and belonging

One area in which this approach is highly visible is trying to attract and retain girls and women in male‐dominated sectors, such as STEM, finance and construction. Many of initiatives designed to increase gender inequality in these spaces focus on trying to increase girls' and women's interest for and engagement with these sectors (McKinnon,  2022 ), such as the heavily criticized campaign—Science: It's a Girl Thing—from the European Commission, which featured women in fashionable PPE making lipstick (Grosu, 2013 ). What is implicit here is that there is some sort of inherent lack of enthusiasm in women, that needs to be addressed, rather than the fact that women and girls are responding to very real cultural and normative barriers that exclude them (Saucerman & Vasquez,  2014 ).

In a series of studies looking at women in surgery—where women make up less than 25% per cent of the profession—Peters et al. ( 2012 ) examined whether the under‐representation of women may be explained, at least in part, by women's perceptions of, and experiences within, the profession. Across two studies we demonstrated that female surgical trainees perceived a lack of fit between themselves and the prototypical masculine surgeon. In turn, this perceived lack of fit was associated with a reduction in identification with the profession and an increased desire to opt out of the profession.

Similarly, work by Meeussen et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate than in male‐dominated careers, such as surgery and the veterinary profession, women (compared to men) report less career engagement because of their more frequent experiences of gender discrimination and lower perceived fit with those higher up the career ladder. In turn, these barriers predicted reduced expectations of success in their field and expected success of their sacrifices, which in turn predicted lower willingness to make sacrifices.

Together, these studies suggest the role that external barriers, such as experiences of discrimination and perceptions of fit, play in women's career decision making in male‐dominated professions. Thus, trying to attract and retain women in these spaces by focusing on women themselves is unlikely to be fruitful. Rather, interventions need to address the root of the problem, discriminatory environments and a lack of role models if they want women to come and women to stay (see Casad et al.,  2018 ).

Imposter syndrome

Another area in which has received a lot of attention when it comes to women in the workplace are initiatives that seek to address impostor syndrome. This concept is used to describe individuals who express doubts about their self‐worth, failing to take credit for their successes or attributing their successes to luck. Such individuals worry that others will see them as impostors or frauds. The very use of the term ‘syndrome’ suggests that this experience is an individual‐level problem—a condition that requires diagnosis and treatment and fixing. And indeed, there will be no surprise to find out that there are many initiatives out there that are designed to help individuals, and in particular women, to overcome ‘their’ impostor syndrome. For example, such interventions seek to increase women's confidence, reduce their perfectionism and change their mindsets (Chandra et al.,  2019 ).

However, as Feenstra et al. ( 2020 ) argue, rather than being seen as a personal problem that plagues individual women, it is critical to acknowledge the role that the social and organizational context plays in eliciting feelings of impostorism (see also Kark et al.,  2022 ). Indeed, a series of studies by Begeny et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrate that impostor feelings can be seen as is a direct response to how one is treated by others. In a longitudinal study, we showed that that experiencing fewer expressions of distinctive treatment, such as being asked for advice, resulted in a significant increase in impostor feelings over time. Moreover, in experimental studies we showed that when individuals experience positive distinctive treatment from work colleagues, this significantly reduces impostor feelings.

In this way, characterizing impostor feelings at an individual level is unlikely to be useful, both in terms of running the risk of pathologizing these feelings and in terms of understanding where they come from. Thinking of impostor feelings as a context‐dependent outcome of workplace experiences has clear implications for how we ‘treat’ impostor syndrome. Rather than putting the onus on employees, particularly women, to overcome their own impostor feelings—being more confident and ‘faking it until you make it’—we need to implement more systemic approaches, creating cultures where colleagues are valued and treated with respect.

Risk taking

One common explanation for the persistence of workplace gender inequalities is that women are less willing to take career‐enhancing risks, such as asking for a pay rise or taking on a new position (Byrnes et al.,  1999 ). Indeed, women's risk aversion is a persistent aspect of gender stereotypes, with many arguing that this is an innate difference aspect of gender (Bem, 1974 ). Such an analysis has a number of issues, including the assumption that risk taking is inherent desirable and necessarily career enhancing, and because it fails to recognize the types of risks that women do take in everyday life (Morgenroth et al.,  2018 ). But nonetheless, a key facet of the lean in approach to fixing women is encouraging women to take more risks, including memetic advice such as ‘if you are offered a seat on a rocket ship, do not ask what seat, just get on’ and ‘fortune does favour the bold, and you never know what you are capable of if you do not try’ (Sandberg, 2013 ).

However, research demonstrates that far from being innate, women's willingness to take risks is dependent of their experiences in the workplace. Research conducted by Morgenroth et al. ( 2022 ) looks at gender differences in risk taking through a lens of the anticipated and experienced consequences of risk taking. Across three studies, there was no evidence for gender differences in initial risk taking or in the anticipation of consequences for the risks with which women and men had no prior experience. However, when we looked at actual experiences of risk taking in the workplace—such as taking on a difficult task, speaking up or quitting your job for a new job—men reported more positive consequences for taking risks than women, and as a result, anticipated having a greater likelihood of taking the same risks in the future.

Studies like this question the assumption that it is women's innate risk aversion that underlies workplace gender inequalities. Rather they demonstrate that any aversions women have are likely to be a consequence of their workplace experiences, and indeed, are likely to be informed by the gendered, negative experiences they have when attempting to take risks. For this reason, gender equality initiatives that focus on encouraging women to take more risks are unlikely to succeed, and it is the gendered costs and benefits for risk that need to be addressed.

Taken together, this exploration of some of the common ways in which initiatives target gender equality issues—engagement, impostor syndrome and risk taking—suggest that framing these as individual‐level problems is unlikely to be fruitful. At best, such an approach may provide those individual women who are targeted by such initiatives, usually women that hold a certain amount of privilege (see Section 4) with a short‐term advantage. At worst, such attempts to fix women reinforce the stereotypes and norms that form the basis of structural gender inequalities and become yet another demand on women's time. Interventions should, instead, target the foundational causes of inequality: organizational systems and culture.

WHEN WE ARE OVERLY OPTIMISTIC

If we compare where we are now on the workplace gender equality front, compared to where we have been historically, it is clear that there have been many positive changes—better gender representation, safer working conditions and more equality in terms of pay. But such changes are not linear, and neither are they inevitable. Indeed, over more recent time periods we have seen stagnation in these advances, in in some cases even backsliding (Word Economic Forus,  2022 ). Indeed, current forecasts suggest it will be at anywhere between 132 (Word Economic Forus,  2022 ) and 300 (UN Women,  2022 ) years before we reach global gender equality.

Part of the tension here lies in the degree to which we recognize and celebrate our gender equality accomplishments, and to what extent are we realistic about how much we still have to achieve. This decision is not just about whether or not one wants to be an optimistic person. An understanding of the degree to which gender inequalities persist, and in particular the denial of gender inequality, forms a key aspect of sexist attitudes, such as those captured by the modern sexism scale (Swim et al., 1995 ). Indeed, there are a number of very real consequences of failing to acknowledge the persistence of gender inequality.

Begeny et al. ( 2020 ) looked at what happens when traditionally male‐occupied professions, such as the veterinary profession, attract more women. While having a greater representation of women is clearly progress, some may take it as an indication that the discrimination is no longer a problem. We demonstrated that despite women being the majority of veterinary students and junior vets, female vets still report experiencing discrimination. In a follow‐up experimental study, we illustrated one way in which this discrimination manifests itself. Vets with managerial responsibilities evaluated a male vet as more competent and suggested paying him 8 per cent more than an equally qualified female vet. Key here, these discriminatory evaluations were evident primarily among those who believed women no longer face discrimination in the profession. Thus, even when positive change occurs, discrimination persists, ironically perpetuated by those who believe it is no longer a problem.

Research also demonstrates that progress towards gender equality may be hampered by those who overestimate the rate of progress. A study by Begeny et al. ( 2022 ) surveyed doctors in the United Kingdom who were asked to estimate the representation of women across a number of roles in the medical profession. Both male and female doctors consistently overestimated the number of women in medicine. However, while those women who over‐estimated female representation still supported gender‐equality initiatives, such as initiatives run by the Royal College of Surgeons and the General Medical Council, those men who were over‐optimistic about progress showed significantly lower levels of support. Thus, men who overestimated progress towards gender equality were at highest risk of undermining it (see also Coffé & Reiser, 2021 ).

Recognizing and celebrating progress towards gender equality is important for a sense of hope and collective efficacy, both necessary for continued motivation for change (e.g. Cohen‐Chen & Van Zomeren,  2018 ; Van Zomeren,  2013 ). However, studies like these suggest that there is potentially a fine line between optimism and a failure to recognize persistent inequalities. If we are to close the gap, and it would be nice if we could do so in less than a century, we need a healthy dose of realism and we need to acknowledge what still remains to be done.

WHEN WE AREN'T INTERSECTIONAL

A final common misstep that is taken when trying to address gender inequalities is to treat women as if they are a monolithic, homogenous group. There is often a ‘one size fits all’ approach to interventions and change (Tzanakou,  2019 ). But the experiences within women—between individuals and between different groups of women—are often more varied than the experiences between women and men. There is a need to understand this variety in women's experiences, and how this is determined by other intersecting identities, especially those that are marginalized or stigmatized (e.g. Crenshaw,  1991 ).

What is most troublesome about the one size fits all approach, is that gender interventions and initiatives are most often based on the experiences of the dominant group—such as those women who are white, middle‐class or straight. This is problematic, both because the experiences of such women are by no means universal, and because women not included in this group—for example culturally and linguistically diverse women, working‐class women, and LGBTQI+ women and gender diverse people, often face the greatest inequalities.

For example, research by Opara et al. ( 2020 ) identified that Black and minoritized women's workplaces experienced were very much influenced by their racial identities, including having stereotypes and expectations imposed upon them. Indeed, research demonstrates that Black women are treated on the basis of negative stereotypes that question their competence and their legitimacy (e.g. Williams & Dempsey,  2014 ) or see them as aggressive and masculine (Hall et al.,  2019 ). In contrast, Asian women may be affected by the model minority myth (Cheng et al.,  2017 ) and be seen as hyper‐competent (Liang & Peters‐Hawkins,  2017 ), but at the same time face stereotypes of low agency (Ghavami & Peplau,  2013 ) and hyper‐femininity (Mukkamala & Suyemoto,  2018 ).

These differential experiences mean that homogenous workplace gender equality initiatives are unlikely to be effective. Indeed, Wong et al. ( 2022 ) argue that diversity interventions tend not to take into account the wide variety of women's experiences. Across three studies we demonstrate that women who are racially marginalized need different things from their diversity interventions than do White women. More specifically we found that while White women focused on the needs of initiatives address issues of women's agency, Black women overtly reported the need for initiatives to take into account intersectional differences, such as racialized gender stereotypes where Black women are seen as pushy or overly assertive. Similarly, Asian women reported the need to address challenges to their authority which stem from racialized stereotypes of Asian women as passive and submissive. Importantly, our textual analysis of gender equality websites showed that organizations were less likely to represent the needs of Black and Asian women—a form of intersectional invisibility (Purdie‐Vaughns & Eibach,  2008 )—such that their gender equality advocacy tended to focus on (White women's) issues of agency, rather than issues of racialized stereotyping reported by Black and Asian women.

These findings suggest that if gender equality initiatives are going to be successful, they must take into account the wide variety of women's experiences and needs. Catering for just one group of women is unhelpful, particularly if that group of women as a whole are likely to experience less disadvantage. Interventions need to overtly address the issues faced by all women, not just those in the majority or those with the most privilege. This points to the importance of understanding the intersectional nature of gender inequality—taking into account that these inequalities are exacerbated and qualified by multiple forms of oppression, such as those based on race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, disability, age and linguistic diversity.

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of gender equality initiatives are founded on good intentions, this in and of itself is not enough to bring about significant and lasting change. As we have seen above, interventions need to be based on a clear evidence base, one that (1) looks beyond the top line numbers to the complexity and nuance of gender inequality; (2) aims to fix the things that actually needs fixing (systems and structures) rather than trying to fix women; (3) celebrates change while at the same time being realistic about the challenges that are to come; and (4) understands the inherently intersectional nature of gender inequality.

The good news is that social psychology is perfectly situated to rise to all of these challenges. First, we are well placed to understand the processes and contexts that sit behind the top line numbers. For example, as we have seen, social psychological theories can help us understanding the gendered stereotypes than underlie our social and organizational policies and practices (e.g. Eagly et al.,  2000 ; Ellemers,  2018 ; Heilman, 2012 ; Koenig et al.,  2011 ). They can also help us understanding how workplace experiences can affect gendered workplace choices (e.g. Begeny et al.,  2022 ; Meeussen et al.,  2022 ; Morgenroth et al.,  2022 ).

Second, within our theories we have the ability to ensure we are asking the appropriate questions and that we are framing our questions at the right level of analysis—at the level of the individual, the group or at a societal level—and an understanding that the individual level is not always the most appropriate. For example, the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner,  1979 ; Turner et al.,  1987 ) provides a clear framework to examine how our group memberships, and the contexts in which we are embedded, may impact upon our attitudes and behaviours, particularly at work (Haslam,  2004 ).

Third, through concepts like modern sexism (Swim et al., 1995 ), social psychology can provide an understanding of the perniciousness of the denial of sexism and the subsequent outcomes, such as continued gender discrimination and a lack of support for gender equality initiatives (see Begeny et al.,  2020 , 2022 ). This is particularly important as such views provide a strong basis to the backlash that is levelled against gender equality initiatives (Flood et al.,  2021 ). Indeed, more recent theories of sexism, such as the belief in sexism shift (Zehnter et al., 2021 ), indicate that there are increasingly prevalent views that men are now the key victims of sexism (Ryan & Zehnter,  2022 ), a view that is likely to exacerbate resistance to change.

Finally, while not yet an integrated part of social psychology, there are some excellent examples of how to make our research more intersectional (Bowleg,  2017 ; Cole,  2009 ; Rosenthal,  2016 ). This intersectionality can be implemented in terms of the types of research questions we ask and the make‐up of our samples (Purdie‐Vaughns & Eibach,  2008 ; Remedios & Snyder,  2015 ) and even the way we do open science (Sabik et al.,  2021 ). Importantly, while much of the intersectional advances have been made at the intersection of gender and race; there is still much to be done in acknowledging other intersectional identities, such as those based on age, class, disability and sexuality.

Taken together, while the evidence shows us that there have clearly been missteps on the way, the evidence also demonstrates that social psychology is in an excellent position to play an important role as we stride forward towards gender equality.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Landmark articles are, by tradition, single authored papers, but of course the work that is discussed in the paper could only have been conducted in collaboration. Thanks to all my terrific colleagues with whom I've had the pleasure to work with, in particular to Thekla Morgenroth, Chris Begeny, Alex Haslam and Kim Peters whose work contributed significantly to the ideas in this paper. This paper was supported in part by a European Research Council consolidator Grant (725128).

Ryan, M. K. (2023). Addressing workplace gender inequality: Using the evidence to avoid common pitfalls . British Journal of Social Psychology , 62 , 1–11. 10.1111/bjso.12606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 This Landmark Article builds on a short opinion piece I wrote for Nature: Ryan ( 2022 )

• Atewologun, D. , Cornish, T. , & Tresh, F. (2018). Unconscious bias training: An assessment of the evidence for effectiveness . Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series.
• Atir, S. (2022). Girlboss? Highlighting versus downplaying gender through language . Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 8 , 623–625. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanton, H. , & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology . American Psychologist , 61 , 27–41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny, C. T. , Grossman, R. C. , & Ryan, M. K. (2022). Overestimating women's representation in medicine and support for gender‐equality initiatives . British Medical Journal (Open) , 12 , e054769. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054769 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Begeny, C. T. , Ryan, M. K. , Moss‐Racusin, C. A. , & Ravetz, G. (2020). In some professions women have become well‐represented, yet gender bias persists – Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening . Science Advances , 6 , eaba7814. 10.1126/sciadv.aba7814 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 42 , 155–162. 10.1037/h0036215 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bezrukova, K. , Spell, C. S. , Perry, J. L. , & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta‐analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation . Psychological Bulletin , 142 , 1227–1274. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogacz‐Wojtanowska, E. , Peter‐Bombik, K. , & Wrona, S. (2018). Women on the Glass cliff: Managing local funds . Journal of Business Diversity , 18 , 58–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowleg, L. (2017). Intersectionality: An underutilized but essential theoretical framework for social psychology. In McLeod J. D., Lawler E. J., & Schwalbe M. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical social psychology (pp. 507–529). Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrnes, J. P. , Miller, D. C. , & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta‐analysis . Psychological Bulletin , 125 ( 3 ), 367–383. 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Casad, B. J. , Oyler, D. L. , Sullivan, E. T. , McClellan, E. M. , Tierney, D. N. , Anderson, D. A. , … Flammang, B. J. (2018). Wise psychological interventions to improve gender and racial equality in STEM . Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 21 , 767–787. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chandra, S. , Huebert, C. A. , Crowley, E. , & Das, A. M. (2019). Impostor syndrome: Could it be holding you or your mentees back? Chest , 156 , 26–32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng, A. W. , Chang, J. , O'Brien, J. , Budgazad, M. S. , & Tsai, J. (2017). Model minority stereotype: Influence on perceived mental health needs of Asian Americans . Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health , 19 , 572–581. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coffé, H. , & Reiser, M. (2021). How perceptions and information about women's descriptive representation affect support for positive action measures . International Political Science Review 0192512121995748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen‐Chen, S. , & Van Zomeren, M. (2018). Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 77 , 50–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology . American Psychologist , 64 , 170–180. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color . Stanford Law Review , 43 , 1241–1299. 10.2307/1229039 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 56 , 5–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dover, T. L. , Kaiser, C. R. , & Major, B. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of diversity initiatives . Social Issues and Policy Review , 14 , 152–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eagly, A. H. , Wood, W. , & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes T. & Trautner H. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes . Annual Review of Psychology , 69 , 275–298. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ely, R. J. , & Thomas, D. A. (2020). Getting serious about diversity . Harvard Business Review , 98 , 114–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feenstra, S. , Begeny, C. T. , Ryan, M. K. , Rink, F. A. , Stoker, J. I. , & Jordan, J. (2020). Contextualizing the impostor “syndrome” . Frontiers in Psychology , 11 , 1–6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575024 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flood, M. , Dragiewicz, M. , & Pease, B. (2021). Resistance and backlash to gender equality . Australian Journal of Social Issues , 56 , 393–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ghavami, N. , & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 37 , 113–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glass, C. , & Cook, A. (2016). Leading at the top: Understanding women's challenges above the Glass ceiling . The Leadership Quarterly , 27 , 51–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald, A. G. , & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self‐esteem, and stereotypes . Psychological Review , 102 , 4–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald, A. G. , McGhee, D. E. , & Schwarz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 , 1464–1480. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grosu, I. (2013). Science: it's a girl thing should start with adequate toys . Open Journal of Education , 2013 ( 1 ), 139–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackworth, J. , Steel, S. , Cooksey, E. , DePalma, M. , & Kahn, J. A. (2018). Faculty members' self‐awareness, leadership confidence, and leadership skills improve after an evidence‐based leadership training program . The Journal of Pediatrics , 199 , 4–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall, E. V. , Hall, A. V. , Galinsky, A. D. , & Phillips, K. W. (2019). MOSAIC: A model of stereotyping through associated and intersectional categories . Academy of Management Review , 44 , 643–672. 10.5465/amr.2017.0109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haslam, S. A. , & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations . Leadership Quarterly , 19 , 530–546. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias . Research in Organizational Behavior , 32 , 113–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• International Labour Oragnisation . (2022). Pay transparency legislation: Implications for employers’ and workers’ organizations . https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_849209.pdf
• Jost, J. T. (2019). The IAT is dead, long live the IAT: Context‐sensitive measures of implicit attitudes are indispensable to social and political psychology . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 28 , 10–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge, E. (2003). Women on board: Help or hindrance? The Times. 11 November. p21 .
• Kalev, A. , Dobbin, F. , & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies . American Sociological Review , 71 , 589–617. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kark, R. , Meister, A. , & Peters, K. (2022). Now you see me, now you don't: A conceptual model of the antecedents and consequences of leader impostorism . Journal of Management , 48 , 1948–1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koenig, A. M. , Eagly, A. H. , Mitchell, A. A. , & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta‐analysis of three research paradigms . Psychological Bulletin , 137 , 616–642. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kulich, C. , Lorenzi‐Cioldi, F. , Iacoviello, V. , Faniko, K. , & Ryan, M. K. (2015). Signaling change during a crisis: Refining conditions for the glass cliff . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 61 , 96–103. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences . Academy of Management Review , 44 , 538–563. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, J. G. , & Peters‐Hawkins, A. L. (2017). “I am more than what I look alike” Asian American women in public school administration . Educational Administration Quarterly , 53 , 40–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liben, L. S. , & Coyle, E. F. (2014). Developmental interventions to address the STEM gender gap: Exploring intended and unintended consequences. In Liben L. S. & Bigler R. S. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior, Vol. 47. The role of gender in educational contexts and outcomes (pp. 77–115). Elsevier Academic Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinnon, M. (2022). The absence of evidence of the effectiveness of Australian gender equity in STEM initiatives . Australian Journal of Social Issues , 57 , 202–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meeussen, L. , Begeny, C. T. , Peters, K. , & Ryan, M. K. (2022). Why are women less willing to make sacrifices for their career? How discrimination and lack of fit with those higher up the ladder reduce the perceived benefits of sacrifices . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 8 , 588–601. 10.1111/jasp.12750 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgenroth, T. , Fine, C. , Ryan, M. K. , & Genat, A. (2018). Sex, drugs, and reckless driving: Are measures biased toward identifying risk‐taking in men? Social Psychological and Personality Science , 9 , 744–753. 10.1177/1948550617722833 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgenroth, T. , Kirby, T. A. , Ryan, M. K. , & Sudkaemper, A. (2020). The who, when, and why of the glass cliff phenomenon: A meta‐analysis of appointments to precarious leadership positions . Psychological Bulletin , 146 , 797–829. 10.1037/bul0000234 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgenroth, T. , Ryan, M. K. , & Fine, C. (2022). Who takes workplace risks and why? Gender differences in the consequences of risk‐ taking . Psychology of Women Quarterly. , 46 , 257–277. 10.1177/03616843221084048 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nosek, B. A. , & Sriram, N. (2007). Faulty assumptions: A comment on Blanton, Jaccard, Gonzales, and Christie (2006) . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 43 , 393–398. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukkamala, S. , & Suyemoto, K. L. (2018). Racialized sexism/sexualized racism: A multimethod study of intersectional experiences of discrimination for Asian American women . Asian American Journal of Psychology , 9 , 32–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Opara, V. , Sealy, R. , & Ryan, M. K. (2020). The workplace experiences of BAME professional women: Understanding experiences at the intersection . Gender, Work and Organization , 27 , 1192–1213. 10.1111/gwao.12456 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, K. , Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , & Fernandes, H. (2012). To belong or not to belong: Evidence that women's occupational disidentification is promoted by lack of fit with masculine occupational prototypes . Journal of Personnel Psychology , 3 , 148–158. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000067 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purdie‐Vaughns, V. , & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate‐group identities . Sex Roles , 59 , 377–391. [ Google Scholar ]
• Remedios, J. D. , & Snyder, S. H. (2015). Where do we go from here? Toward an inclusive and intersectional literature of multiple stigmatization . Sex Roles , 73 , 408–413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rink, F. , Ryan, M. K. , & Stoker, J. I. (2012). Influence in times of crisis: Exploring how social and financial resources affect men's and women's evaluations of glass cliff positions . Psychological Science , 11 , 1306–1313. 10.1177/0956797612453115 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal, L. (2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to promote social justice and equity . American Psychologist , 71 , 474–485. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosser, S. V. , Barnard, S. , Carnes, M. , & Munir, F. (2019). Athena SWAN and ADVANCE: Effectiveness and lessons learned . The Lancet , 393 , 604–608. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. (2022). To advance equality for women, use the evidence . Nature , 604 ( 7906 ), 403. 10.1038/d41586-022-01045-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented in precarious leadership positions . British Journal of Management , 16 , 81–90. 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding women's appointment to precarious leadership positions . Academy of Management Review , 32 , 549–572. 10.5465/amr.2007.24351856 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , Hersby, M. D. , & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female: Glass cliffs and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype . Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 , 470–484. 10.1037/a0022133 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , Morgenroth, T. , Rink, F. , Stoker, J. I. , & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact . Leadership Quarterly , 3 , 446–455. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , Hersby, M. D. , Kulich, C. , & Wilson‐Kovacs, M. D. (2009). The stress of working on the edge: Implications of glass cliffs for both women and organizations. In Barreto M., Ryan M. K., & Schmitt M. T. (Eds.), The Glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 153–169). American Psychological Association. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , Haslam, S. A. , & Kulich, C. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest hard‐to‐win seats . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 34 , 56–64. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01541.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, M. K. , & Zehnter, M. K. (2022). Sexism today: Tools in the patriarchy's toolbox. In Gillar J. (Ed.), Not now not ever, ten years on from the misogyny speech (pp. 99–120). Vintage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabik, N. J. , Matsick, J. L. , McCormick‐Huhn, K. , & Cole, E. R. (2021). Bringing an intersectional lens to “open” science: An analysis of representation in the reproducibility project . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 45 , 475–492. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead . Random House. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saucerman, J. , & Vasquez, K. (2014). Psychological barriers to STEM participation for women over the course of development . Adultspan Journal , 13 , 46–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics . Journal of Applied Psychology , 57 , 95–100. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swim, J. K. , Aikin, K. J. , Hall, W. S. , & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old‐fashioned and modern prejudices . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 , 199–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin W. G. & Worchel S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole. [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A. , Oakes, P. J. , Reicher, S. D. , & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self‐categorization theory . Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzanakou, C. (2019). Unintended consequences of gender‐equality plans . Nature , 570 , 277–278. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UN Women . (2022). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot . https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2022‐09/Progress‐on‐the‐sustainable‐development‐goals‐the‐gender‐snapshot‐2022‐en_0.pdf
• Van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four core social‐psychological motivations to undertake collective action . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 7 , 378–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wicker, P. , Cunningham, G. B. , & Fields, D. (2019). Head coach changes in women's college soccer: An investigation of women coaches through the lenses of gender stereotypes and the glass cliff . Sex Roles , 81 , 797–807. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams, J. , & Dempsey, R. (2014). What works for women at work . New York University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong, C. Y. , Kirby, T. A. , Rink, F. , & Ryan, M. K. (2022). Intersectional invisibility in women's diversity interventions . Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.791572 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Word Economic Forus . (2022). Global gender gap report . https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf
• Zehnter, M. K. , Manzi, F. , Shrout, P. E. , & Heilman, M. E. (2021). Belief in sexism shift: Defining a new form of contemporary sexism and introducing the belief in sexism shift scale (BSS scale) . PloS One , 16 , e0248374. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Cookies in use

days left to the 2024 election! Your ballot is your power, and when we show up, equality wins. Click here to visit our 2024 Voting Center!

Understanding the Transgender Community

Transgender people come from all walks of life, and HRC Foundation has estimated that there are more than 2 million of us across the United States. We are parents, siblings, and kids. We are your coworkers, your neighbors, and your friends. We are 7-year-old children and 70-year-old grandparents. We are a diverse community, representing all racial and ethnic backgrounds, as well as all faith traditions.

The word “transgender” – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth. Although the word “transgender” and our modern definition of it only came into use in the late 20th century, people who would fit under this definition have existed in every culture throughout recorded history.

Alongside the increased visibility of trans celebrities like Laverne Cox, Jazz Jennings or the stars of the hit Netflix series “Pose,” three out of every ten adults in the U.S. personally knows someone who is trans. As trans people become more visible, we aim to increase understanding of our community among our friends, families, and society.

What does it mean to be trans?

The trans community is incredibly diverse. Some trans people identify as trans men or trans women, while others may describe themselves as non-binary, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, agender, bigender or other identities that reflect their personal experience. Some of us take hormones or have surgery as part of our transition, while others may change our pronouns or appearance. Roughly three-quarters of trans youth that responded to an HRC Foundation and University of Connecticut survey identified with terms other than strictly “boy” or “girl.” This suggests that a larger portion of this generation’s youth are identifying somewhere on the broad trans spectrum.

What challenges do trans people face?

While trans people are increasingly visible in both popular culture and in daily life, we still face severe discrimination, stigma and systemic inequality. Some of the specific issues facing the trans community are:

• Lack of legal protection – Trans people face a legal system that often does not protect us from discrimination based on our gender identity. Despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision that makes it clear that trans people are legally protected from discrimination in the workplace, there is still no comprehensive federal non-discrimination law that includes gender identity - which means trans people may still lack recourse if we face discrimination when we’re seeking housing or dining in a restaurant. Moreover, state legislatures across the country are debating – and in some cases passing – legislation specifically designed to prohibit trans people from accessing public bathrooms that correspond with our gender identity, or creating exemptions based on religious beliefs that would allow discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.
• Poverty – Trans people live in poverty at elevated rates, and for trans people of color, these rates are even higher. Around 29% of trans adults live in poverty , as well 39% of Black trans adults, 48% of Latine trans adults and 35% of Alaska Native, Asian, Native Americans and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander trans adults.
• Stigma, Harassment and Discrimination – About half a decade ago, only one-quarter of people in the United States supported trans rights, and support increased to 62% by the year 2019. Despite this progress, the trans community still faces considerable stigma due to more than a century of being characterized as mentally ill, socially deviant and sexually predatory. While these intolerant views have faded in recent years for lesbians and gay men, trans people are often still ridiculed by a society that does not understand us. This stigma plays out in a variety of contexts – from lawmakers who leverage anti-trans stigma to score cheap political points; to family, friends or coworkers who reject trans people upon learning about our trans identities; and to people who harass, bully and commit serious violence against trans people. This includes stigma that prevents them from accessing necessary services for their survival and well-being. Only 30% of women’s shelters are willing to house trans women. While recent legal progress has been made, 27% of trans people have been fired, not hired or denied a promotion due to their trans identity. Too often, harassment has led trans people to avoid exercising their most basic rights to vote. HRC Foundation’s research shows that 49% of trans adults, and 55% of trans adults of color said they were unable to vote in at least one election in their life because of fear of or experiencing discrimination at the polls.
• Violence Against Trans People – Trans people experience violence at rates far greater than the average person. Over a majority ( 54% ) of trans people have experienced some form of intimate partner violence, 47% have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime and nearly one in ten were physically assaulted in between 2014 and 2015. This type of violence can be fatal. At least 27 trans and gender non-conforming people have been violently killed in 2020 thus far, the same number of fatalities observed in 2019.
• Lack of Healthcare Coverage – An HRC Foundation analysis found that 22% of trans people and 32% of trans people of color have no health insurance coverage. More than one-quarter ( 29% ) of trans adults have been refused health care by a doctor or provider because of their gender identity. This sobering data reveals a healthcare system that fails to meet the needs of the trans community.
• Identity Documents – The widespread lack of accurate identity documents among trans people can have an impact on every aspect of their lives, including access to emergency housing or other public services. Without identification, one cannot travel, register for school or access many services that are essential to function in society. Many states do not allow trans people to update their identification documents to match their gender identity. Others require evidence of medical transition – which can be prohibitively expensive and is not something that all trans people want – as well as fees for processing new identity documents, which may make them unaffordable for some members of the trans community.

While advocates continue working to remedy these disparities, change cannot come too soon for trans people. Visibility – especially positive images of trans people in the media and society – continues to make a critical difference for us; but visibility is not enough and can come with real risks to our safety, especially for those of us who are part of other marginalized communities. That is why the Human Rights Campaign is committed to continuing to support and advocate for the trans community, so that the trans Americans who are and will become your friends, neighbors, coworkers and family members have an equal chance to succeed and thrive.

Related Resources

Transgender

HRC’s Brief Guide to Reporting on Transgender Individuals

Transgender, Health & Aging, Workplace

Debunking the Myths: Transgender Health and Well-Being

Bisexual, Allies, Coming Out, Transgender

Glossary of Terms

Love conquers hate., let's win this..

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

Choose a Location

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

Leaving Site

You are leaving hrc.org.

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

Center for American Progress

Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment

Data demonstrate need for federal law.

Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely discuss the high rates of workplace discrimination against gay and transgender people, and why lawmakers should swiftly enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Advancing Racial Equity and Justice, Building an Economy for All, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, LGBTQI+ Rights, Nondiscrimination Protections +2 More

Media Contact

Julia cusick.

Vice President, Communications

[email protected]

Government Affairs

Peter gordon.

Senior Director, Federal Affairs

Jerry Parshall

Senior Director, Safety and Justice Campaign; Director, State and Local Government Affairs

To view more recent data and analysis on LGBTQ people’s experiences with discrimination, see “State of the LGBTQ Community in 2020.”

A national poll sheds light on how discrimination affects LGBTQ individuals across various areas of their lives.

Read the report

For more recent information on discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the workplace, housing, and the public square, click here .

Download this column (pdf)

Download to mobile devices and e-readers from Scribd

Gay and transgender individuals continue to face widespread discrimination in the workplace.* Studies show that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job. These workplace abuses pose a real and immediate threat to the economic security of gay and transgender workers.

Congress should work quickly to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, to ensure that all Americans are judged in the workplace based on their skills, qualifications, and the quality of their work. Right now, too many of our country’s gay and transgender workers are being judged on their sexual orientation and gender identity— factors that have no impact on how well a person performs their job.

The numbers

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy aggregated a number of surveys to determine the extent to which gay and transgender workers experience discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Their findings illustrate that discrimination and harassment are pervasive:

• Fifteen percent to 43 percent of gay and transgender workers have experienced some form of discrimination on the job.
• Eight percent to 17 percent of gay and transgender workers report being passed over for a job or fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Ten percent to 28 percent received a negative performance evaluation or were passed over for a promotion because they were gay or transgender.
• Seven percent to 41 percent of gay and transgender workers were verbally or physically abused or had their workplace vandalized.

Straight coworkers also attest to the presence of discrimination and harassment against LGBT workers. The Williams Institute’s report found that 12 percent to 30 percent of straight workers witnessed discrimination in the workforce based on sexual orientation.

Controlled experiments have found consistent evidence of workplace discrimination as well. When researchers send two sets of matched resumes to major employers, and one indicates the applicant is gay, employers warmly receive “gay” resumes far less often than “straight” resumes. Seven out of eight of these studies confirmed the existence of antigay employment discrimination.

Transgender individuals encounter workplace discrimination and harassment at even higher rates than gays and lesbians. Earlier this year, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released a comprehensive study on transgender discrimination that revealed near universal problems at the workplace:

• Ninety percent of transgender individuals have encountered some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.
• Forty-four percent who were passed over for a job
• Twenty-three percent who were denied a promotion
• And 26 percent who were fired because they were transgender

The stories behind the numbers

Behind these statistics are the heartbreaking stories of everyday Americans losing their jobs based on characteristics that have nothing to do with their job performance.

Vandy Beth Glenn lost her job with the Georgia General Assembly when her boss fired her because she was transgender:

[My boss] told me I would make other people uncomfortable, just by being myself. He told me that my transition was unacceptable. And over and over, he told me it was inappropriate. Then he fired me. I was escorted back to my desk, told to clean it out, then marched out of the building…I was devastated.

Brook Waits was gainfully employed in Dallas, Texas until her manager fired her immediately after she saw a picture on Brook’s cell phone of Brook and her girlfriend kissing on New Year’s Eve:

I didn’t lose my job because I was lazy, incompetent, or unprofessional. Quite the contrary, I worked hard and did my job very well. However that was all discarded when my boss discovered I am a lesbian. In a single afternoon, I went from being a highly praised employee, to out of a job.

And officer Michael Carney was denied reinstatement as a police officer in Springfield, Massachusetts because he told his supervisors that he was gay:

I’m a good cop. But I’ve lost two and a half years of employment fighting to get that job back because I’m gay…I’m proud to be Irish-American. I’m proud to be gay, and I’m proud to be a cop in Springfield, MA.

The economic consequences of discrimination

Gay and transgender individuals suffer from socioeconomic inequalities in large part due to pervasive discrimination in the workplace. Discrimination directly causes job instability and high turnover, resulting in greater unemployment and poverty rates for gay and transgender people, as well as the wage gap between gay and straight workers.

Consider that gay men earn 10 percent to 32 percent less than similarly qualified heterosexual males. Older gay and lesbian adults experience higher poverty rates than their heterosexual counterparts. And transgender individuals are twice as likely to be unemployed and are four times as likely to live in poverty. Nearly 20 percent have been or are currently homeless.

Companies should care about these numbers if they are in the business of boosting profits. Time and again , researchers have demonstrated that discrimination diminishes productivity, job satisfaction, and the mental and physical health of all employees.

Enacting legislation that provides real protection

Gay and transgender individuals’ legal and social standing is improving despite their unfair and unequal treatment in the workplace. An increasing number of states, municipalities, and businesses have adopted nondiscrimination protections that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The public, too, has increasingly voiced support for employment protections and workplace fairness for gay and transgender workers. And more and more gay workers are coming out at the workplace, a sign that workplace climates have become more accepting or at least tolerant overall.

Nevertheless, gay and transgender people continue to lack full workplace protections afforded to women, people of color, veterans, seniors, and the disabled. Under federal law it is still legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Where state or local laws exist, gay and transgender workers file discrimination complaints at comparable rates and in some case higher rates than other protected classes such as gender and race. But Congress has thus far failed to incorporate gay and transgender workers into employment laws that shield these and other groups from workplace discrimination nationwide.

Lawmakers in both chambers of the 112th Congress recently introduced ENDA, which would finally bring full workplace protections to nearly all of our nation’s workforce. If passed, gay and transgender workers would have similar protections that were afforded to other minority groups with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. And while comprehensive in scope, ENDA explicitly exempts religious organizations and small businesses with less than 15 employees, prohibits preferential treatment for gay and transgender workers, and does not require employers to offer domestic partner benefits to employees’ same-sex partners.

ENDA’s premise is simple: All Americans deserve equal treatment in the workplace regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Lawmakers should swiftly enact ENDA to level the playing field for all American workers, gay or straight, transgender or not.

Gay and transgender individuals comprise a significant part of the American labor force. Every day, they go to work to make an honest living to support themselves and their families, and help our economy grow along the way. But far too many go to work with the fear that they will lose their job based on factors that have nothing to do with their job performance and ability.

Discrimination has no place in our society or in our workplaces. Our nation can and should do better for all our workers.

*In this column, the term gay is used as an umbrella term for people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Crosby Burns is a Special Assistant and Jeff Krehely is Director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress.

• Polls Show Huge Public Support for Gay and Transgender Workplace Protections by Jeff Krehely
• Interactive Quiz: Gay and Transgender (In)equality in the Workplace by Crosby Burns

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here . American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Crosby Burns

Policy Analyst

Jeff Krehely

Former Senior Vice President, Domestic Policy

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

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

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

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

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

* E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

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

• Catherine Verniers, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Psychosocial processes involved in justified discrimination

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

Motherhood myths as a justification for gender discrimination

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

Exploring gender and time as possible moderators of the hypothesized mediation

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

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

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

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

The main variables used in this study are the following:

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

Motherhood myths.

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

Opposition to women’s career.

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

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

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

Step 1: Hierarchical regression analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Step 2: Confirmatory factor analyses

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

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

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

Step 3. Mediation analysis

Overview of the analysis strategy..

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

Goodness of fit of the models.

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

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

Test of the relationships between variables.

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

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

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

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

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

Step 4. Moderated mediation analyses

Indirect effect through survey waves..

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

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

Indirect effect as a function of the respondents’ gender.

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and future directions

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

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

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

Practical implications

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

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

Supporting information

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

All differences are significant at p < .001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Transgender

Transgender Discrimination At The Workplace

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

• Cruz, D. B. (2014). Acknowledging the gender in anti-transgender discrimination. Law and Inequality: Journal of Theory and Practice 32(2), 257-286.
• McGinley, A. C. (2010). Erasing boundaries: masculinities, sexual minorities, and employment discrimination. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 43(3), 713-772.
• Taylor, J. K. (2007). Transgender identities and public policy in the united states. Administration & Society, 39(7), 833-856. doi:10.1177/0095399707305548

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Transgender

In the Indian Society, their face is considered as a sign of fortune. They are often seen dressed...

The word “transgender” has faced several variations throughout the years. However, it is solely...

• Gender Performativity

In the Murky discourse that surrounds “Bathroom Bills” the overall humanity of the subjects of...

Transgender issues are a topic at the forefront in today’s society. A divisive matter arising from...

To run faster than anyone ever before, is the dream of every athlete… To hold a medal and to stand...

Transgender means a term denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and...

Competitive equity and fairness within athletic competitions is a complex and controversial topic...

• Black Lives Matter
• Violence Against Women

On the evening of May 25th, 2020, George Perry Floyd Jr., an African American man, was brought...

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Today, one of the most penetrating global issues talks about gender equality. Majority knows that...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!