So, a small part of my job involves looking after LGB diversity and currently I’m writing a training for people mangers. I was going through some of the case studies with my straight co-trainer this morning and she asked some interesting questions. The case study we were looking at was a legal one, around the legal precedent which essentially outlaws the use of homophobic language in the workplace. “What is homophobic language?” asked my colleague. And she has a point. What is acceptable to one gay person may not be acceptable to another. While some people are perfectly happy to disassociate the use of “That’s so gay” from their identity, others find it offensive. (For those interested, the answer to that is really two-fold: One – ask the person in question. The only way you’ll understand how someone wants to be treated is to ask them. Two – if in doubt think: If there was someone gay in my team and they weren’t out, would my using this kind of language, or permitting the use of this kind of language, send the signal that we are an inclusive and supportive team where people can be themselves or not?)
But that’s not actually what I want to talk about. Instead, consider this: Someone made a remark this afternoon which really triggered me, and made me realise that I find words like “fag” or “dyke” or “That’s so gay” a hell of a lot less offensive than two other words which are often used in discussing sexual orientation: “lifestyle” and “preference”. And the reason why I find those words to be particular triggers is that they change the basis of the debate – subtly, deeply, and insidiously. They frame the debate on LGB issues and rights as an individual choice rather than as an issue of identity, of being, and of inalienable human civil rights.
“Lifestyle” is big in the States. “The homosexual lifestyle” is this grand concept that the right have come up with to imply that… well, when you get down to the bottom of it, to imply that really, if we only tried hard enough, we could be straight; that at some point in our lives we sat down and chose to be “this way”; and that because it’s a personal lifestyle choice we do not deserve the same rights as straight people.
Here’s a few things to consider about this, dear straight person. Firstly, when, exactly, did you sit down and have a long hard think and decided – yes, consciously chose and decided – to be attracted to people of the opposite sex? I’d be interested to hear any and all such experiences and revelations. Secondly, if it really was a choice, do you think anyone would actively choose to be part of an oppressed minority? (Is my use of the word “oppressed” exaggerated? Until 2003 – that’s only 7 years ago, well into the current Labour government – it was for all intents and purposes illegal for a teacher to intervene to stop homophobic bullying in school. This has made homophobic bullying endemic in the British education system to this day, and still very little is being done to address it. Also until 2003, it was perfectly legal for an employer to fire an employee simply for being gay. And until 2007 – that’s three years ago – it was perfectly legal for a business to refuse to provide goods or services to people because they were gay. If it was up to the Conservatives it would still be legal to do that. [Possibly best Google search of the night: “Conservatives gay bed and breakfast”] I’ll stick with “oppressed”.) Would you choose to live a life that exposed you to all that?
Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. It’s not like choosing to live in the city or the countryside, to wear Prada or Gucci, to have 6 kids or none. Being gay is a part of a person’s being, part of their identity, and not something they can change about themselves. How would you feel, dear straight person, if I said to you that I’m sure if you just tried hard enough you could be gay too?
“Preference” is another trigger word for me, for very similar reasons. What “preference” implies to a gay person is that they may prefer to have a partner/sleep/share their life with someone of the same sex as them, but really, in a pinch someone of the opposite sex will do just fine. Let’s turn this around. Dear straight person, I know you prefer to have a partner/sleep/share your life with someone of the opposite sex, but really, in a pinch, someone of the same sex will do just fine, right? Right?
So next time you talk about LGB issues, please, please think about the words you’re using! Do you really want to imply that there’s a choice? In that case go ahead and keep using “lifestyle” and “preference”, but don’t be surprised if you get a lecture from me. If, instead, you want to respect people’s identity and accept them for who they are, please use “sexual orientation” instead.
And here’s another diversity trigger for me: Every time we talk about diversity in the workplace (not just where I work, I occasionally attend industry conferences and it’s the same across the board), this question invariably comes up, and it invariably comes up from a straight, white, middle-class man: “But surely $disadvantaged_group just don’t like working in $our_industry. Why are we trying to make our workforce representative if those kinds of people just don’t want to work here?” You can insert you own industry and disadvantaged group here. The two recent examples I’ve had are “women in IT” and “gay people anywhere outside the arts and airlines”.
This is where this morning’s Thought for the Day comes in. (Some of you may know I’m not a fan of Thought for the Day, but this one was good.) Rabbi Lionel Blue was talking about his experience of being gay in a country/society where for a substantial part of his life it was illegal to be gay, and then again for a long time it was semi-legal but not socially acceptable. The thing that struck me – and not for the first time in a testimonial from someone who’s lived a significant part of their adult life pre-2003 – was the strain that kind of social attitude puts on your personal relationships. When being gay means you can be put in jail, or lose your job, you’re faced with some pretty stark choices. Your employer’s just asked you to move to Birmingham? You can’t tell them about your partner who works in London. Which will it be? Your career or your relationship? You’ve been invited to a work do where partners are welcome and where you’ll get plenty of opportunity to network with senior management. Your partner is fed up with having to stay behind, to be kept a secret. That kind of thing break up relationships too, you know? And then we get the stereotype that gay people can’t settle down and be in a stable relationship, that they’re promiscuous, that they just won’t fit in! Well apart from what’s wrong with someone not fitting in with your ideal chosen lifestyle, can you spot what else is wrong with this picture? That’s right. If all the social and political structures around you are designed to keep you from settling down in a stable relationship, then maybe, just maybe you could be forgiven for succumbing to that pressure.
And here’s how this ties into women in IT, and gay people outside the arts. So, I’m a young, intelligent woman, fresh out of school, trying to decide what to do with my life. All my life I have seen women role models in the caring professions (nursing, teaching, etc.) – women choose to work there, it must be a good place to work if you’re a woman. Women even get into leadership positions in that kind of industry – maybe there’s a way for me to make a career in that industry too! I look at engineering or IT and suddenly in a company of 100 engineers, the only women are the secretaries. The signal that sends to me is “there is no place for you here, my child”. I can’t even see an entry point into the profession, let alone a long-term career. The fundamental structures around me are set up to steering me in one direction and not the other – it has nothing to do with my talent or ambition.
Repeat after me: women do not naturally prefer pink and want to become nurses; gay people do not naturally prefer the arts or being a flight attendant to all other occupations. But those are the areas they have been able to carve out a niche for themselves that accepts them and allows them to have a career without having to push water up hill every hour of every day of their working lives. I have a lot of respect for pioneers of any kind of disadvantaged group in any profession. But we can’t all be expected to be pioneers.
The message employers should take out is this: Top talent comes in all colours, genders, sexual orientations, religions, ages and levels of ability. People from all of these background can, want to, and will contribute to your business, if you only give them the opportunity. Show them you value them. Show them that, if they’re the first woman engineer in your company, they will be looked after, their input will be valued, they will be encouraged, there will be a career for them, and their individual needs will be considered. Give them mentors and coaches and role models. Actively go out and target them when you’re recruiting. That girl leaving school and wondering what to do with her life might be your next CIO, and might kick the arses of all the straight, white, middle-class boys in her class. But she needs to see you make an effort to welcome her. That gay boy might just discover a new chemical that will change the game in your business for the next 20 years. If you assume he just wants to go to art school, and your competitors make an effort to recruit him, guess what – you’re screwed.
This came out way longer than I thought it would, and now I’m going to bed.