The Cutting Edge of Employment Diversity:

Transgender Human Resources Policies in U.S. Employers

Chapter 1. The Cutting Edge of Employment Diversity. This exploratory study seeks to understand the influences on the rapid proliferation of transgender HR policies, and more generally, the increase in calls for workplace diversity of all types. “Transgender” refers to people whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these. Transgender identity challenges longstanding norms of gender, the fundamental difference between men and women. What accounts for the rapid proliferation of transgender human resources policies, and how does it relate to the generally increasing call for workplace diversity of all types? The paradox of workplace diversity means that gender is (or should be) irrelevant to the workplace, yet diversity claims require attention to the very social identity they declare irrelevant. A number of phenomena are important to analysis: the origins of transgender human resources policies, the shifting politics of transgender identity, changes in understandings of “human resources” management, and the movement from “civil rights” legal norms to “human rights” cultural norms.

Chapter 2. The Intrinsic Ambiguity of Transgender Identity. Transgender HR policies are both similar to and different from other diversity policies. Other diversity policies refer to fixed identities, whereas transgender refers to people whose identity combines or moves between conventional notions of male or female gender. The meaning of “transgender” is itself ambiguous, and it is never clear whether transgender is an objective or subjective phenomenon. This ambiguity permeates the history of transgender and the medical, legal and philosophical understandings of transgender identity. Transgender HR policies are problematic to the extent they presume that the category of “transgender” is real, material, and stable. Paradoxically, advocates must call upon these problematic understandings in order to persuade employers to adopt transgender HR policy.

Chapter 3. Characteristics of Early Adopters. A number of findings about early adopters can be made from the available data: the number of policies is comparatively few but rapidly proliferating, there is wide geographical diversity, there is diversity of size and economic sector, and law is not a significant factor in early adoption. 196 U.S. employers have adopted policies, of which 111 of these are private employers and 85 of these are public employers, such as states, cities, and school districts. Policy adoption began a rapid increase in 2001. California and New York together have 31% of the policies, but when compared to the number of employers in each state, the dominance of those two states disappears. There are employers with transgender HR policies in 11 of the 30 most conservative states. When viewed by region, the Northeast has the most policies (65), followed by the West (50), Midwest (48) and South (33). There are more policies in the most populous states, and few in the least populous states. Disproportionately large numbers of transgender HR policies are found in public administration, manufacturing, finance, and information. Law is an important environmental characteristic for public employers, but is not characteristic of private employers adopting transgender HR policies.

Chapter 4. Methods and Methodologies. The research design was crafted for the purpose of exploring influences on policy adoption, and is a hypothesis-generative project, not a hypothesis-testing one. The study population is U.S. employers that are early adopters of transgender HR policies. Requests for participation were sent to 60 companies on a public list of employers with gender identity non-discrimination policies. Interviews were conducted with 46 respondents who provided information about 33 organizations. The respondents’ primary roles included 13 human resources manages, 12 employees with employee groups or committees involved in adoption, 11 transgender employees, 5 elected or appointed public officials, 2 senior management and 3 lawyers involved in drafting policies. They were asked a series of 17 questions via telephone interview, which was recorded and transcribed. Public information on each employer was obtained for use in analysis. The North American Industrial Classification System was used to group employers into economic sectors. The proximate cause and primary business purpose indicated by each respondent was identified. These data were entered into an SPSS database. Patterns were identified and used in analysis and theorization.

Chapter 5. Employer Beliefs About Policy Adoption. The interviews suggest that the early adopters believe policy adoption is prompted by an ethic of tolerance, that it is “the right thing to do.” At the same time, there is a belief that policy adoption is related to a “business case,” yet it mostly occurs when there are transgender employees in transition and by the advocacy of internal diversity advocates. The policies are intended to benefit employers by conferring a legitimacy that, among private employers, serves recruitment and retention of non-transgender employees, and among public employers, serves to create an environment that attracts an educated labor force, the businesses that require them, and the money that will hopefully follow.

Chapter 6. Employee Experiences. Employers varied widely in their efforts to understand transgender employees and their needs. Many of the respondents stated that their employers were committed to accommodating the needs of transgender employees, but at the same time, indicated that, when confronted with those needs, managers fell back upon heterosexual norms. Though there are important exceptions, employers often reified transgender identity, generally seemed to put little effort into implementation, and created ambiguous policies that enforced a need for stealth among transgender employees. “Transfriendly” cultures shared several characteristics, including that recruitment and retention of transgenders themselves was a specific goal of the policy, that there were a number of “out” transgender personnel known to the employer, that the employer communicated its “gender identity” policy to the public, that transgender personnel are allowed to use the bathroom of their declared gender, and that transgender personnel are allowed their choice of dress.

Chapter 7. A Theory of Early Adoption of Transgender HR Policies. Traditional theories of organizational action focus on efficiency and control, and consistent with this, the data indicate that employers are the primary beneficiaries of transgender HR policies. The efficiency and control argument seems weak, however, because the primary benefit claimed by employers is improved recruitment and retention, and yet the number of known transgender employees is miniscule. Institutional theory asserts that firms adopt policy because of normative pressures to gain “legitimacy,” which refers to the survival value of policies. Employers interact with their legal and business environment by creating rationalizing myths and rituals about how they should respond. In line with this theory, early adopters of transgender HR policies believe the policies will enhance recruitment and retention of non-transgender employees, and that the need for such enhancement is both important and urgent. The power of transgender HR policies lies not in numbers, but in legitimacy and providing a means for employers to escape the diversity paradox. The paradox requires them to increase minority hiring without calling attention to minority differences, pretending they are colorblind. Transgender HR policies stand as a symbol of minority-friendliness. These policies began to proliferate in 2001 because gay and lesbian activists advocated transgender HR policies as culturally legitimate despite the general social disapproval of transgender people. These factors have combined to make employers receptive to transgender HR policies despite the paucity of “out” transgender employees and employers’ general lack of understanding of transgender employees and their needs. While many employers genuinely seek to provide for the needs of minority employees, discriminatory norms interfere with these efforts. The real “cutting edge” of workplace diversity is the question of what is required on an organizational level to combat discriminatory norms so that diversity policies can support the needs of covered employees, as well as the needs of employers.