You are on page 1of 16

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Transsexuals
Transsexuals and workplace and workplace
diversity diversity
A case of “change” management
487
J.M. Barclay and L.J. Scott
Division of Human Resource Management and Development, Glasgow Received October 2004
Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Revised May 2005
Accepted July 2005

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the key issues involved in situations within the
workplace when an employee goes through gender reassignment, in order to consider how such
situations might be managed more effectively.
Design/methodology/approach – It analyses a case study from a national public sector
organisation in the UK where a transsexual person went through male to female gender
reassignment. The case was compiled via participant observation and one to one interviews with the
key players in the process (managers, human resource staff and colleagues as well as the individual).
Findings – Key issues discussed include the effects on trust and relationships at work, harassment,
the role of trade unions, training, and other support. It explores the difficulty of gaining acceptance for
a transsexual, and links this to literature on managing diversity and change management.
Research limitations/implications – The case study is in the public sector in the UK, but
implications are valid for other organisations.
Practical implications – Makes suggestions for managing transsexual issues for management and
for trade unions, whilst being cautious about the extent of acceptance that can be achieved.
Originality/value – Existing literature tends to focus on the transsexual individual’s own
viewpoint, and guidelines from transgender support groups. This study includes the roles and
reactions of all the key people involved within a real organisational case, and offers insights into the
issues involved when managing transsexual cases in the workplace.
Keywords Equal opportunities, Employment, Sexual discrimination, Sex and gender issues
Paper type Case study

Introduction
“Employers are disturbingly ignorant of sex change issues” (McLynn and Garnett,
2001). Although there is legislation to protect transsexual people and a growing
awareness of the need to provide fairness at work for these people, little has been
published about organisations managing transsexual people in employment.
Transsexual people often suffer from depression and “inner turmoil”[1]. Evidence
also suggests that transsexual people are extremely hard working employees, who
throw themselves into their work in order to escape their inner turmoil (Gender Identity
Research and Education Society, 2002). Therefore: Personnel Review
Vol. 35 No. 4, 2006
. . . it is in a company’s best interest to try to retain a talented employee whether or not he or pp. 487-502
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
she is transsexual . . . companies cannot afford to throw away some of their best workers 0048-3486
(Cadrain, 2004). DOI 10.1108/00483480610670625
PR As with other forms of unfair discrimination, being transsexual has nothing to do with
35,4 a person’s ability to perform his or her job and it is important to manage such
situations at work in order to maintain efficiency and good working relationships.
This paper sets out some of the key issues involved in relation to transsexual people
in workplace. It outlines the legal and business rationale for having a policy on
transsexuals. A brief case study from a national public sector organisation is presented
488 where a transsexual person recently went through male to female gender
reassignment. Whilst existing literature tends to focus on the transsexual
individual’s own viewpoint, this study also explores the roles and reactions of the
other key players in the process (the managers, colleagues, human resource (HR) staff
and trade union representatives). The case highlights a number of difficulties
experienced by the different people involved. Trust in the transsexual individual is
often undermined, and the reasons for this are considered. The paper also reviews
transsexual issues in terms of diversity theory and literature on change management.
It is hoped that these perspectives on transsexual issues can provide insights towards
managing these processes more effectively at the workplace.

Defining transsexuality
Transsexualism is defined by the Looking Glass Society (1997)[2] as:
. . . the most pronounced form of gender dysphoria in which a person experiences such a deep
conflict between their physical sex and their mental gender that they have no choice but to
embark upon the process of transition (switching into living full time in the desired role) and
gender reassignment (medical and surgical treatment to alter the body).
A variety of terms are in use to describe this condition, including gender identity
disorder. Put very simply, a transsexual person is an individual whose perception of
their own personality as masculine or feminine is at variance with their assigned
gender at birth: hence, the popular description of the transsexual person feeling
themselves to be “trapped in the wrong body” (Gender Trust, 2006).
The gender reassignment regulations in the UK cover those who:
. . . intend to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone gender reassignment: a process
undertaken under medical supervision for the purpose of reassigning a person’s sex by
changing physiological or other characteristics of sex (IRLB, 2003).
Hence, although the successful completion of some sort of surgical intervention is not
essential, the medical supervision of a transition process is a key aspect. Hence,
someone who is a transsexual but who does not fall within one of these three groups is
unprotected by the legislation.
Whilst this legal definition is important, especially for employers in the UK, this is
not a universally accepted definition. For example, transsexualism is defined by the
World Health Organisation as the consistent (at least two years) desire to live and be
accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make
one’s body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and/or
hormone treatment. Thus, employers need to consider their standpoint on transsexual
issues. If they choose the more restricted legal definition, they should be aware that
transsexual people and support groups may lobby for a broader accommodation to
include transsexual people at an earlier stage of transition or those who decide not to
change their physiology.
Transsexual people may be categorised as either male-to-female (MtF) or Transsexuals
female-to-male (FtM). Those who seek gender reassignment may be referred to as and workplace
transsexual people, “but the terms preferred by the individuals themselves are trans
men and trans women” (Gender Identity Research and Education Society, 2002). This diversity
is an important point for an employer to bear in mind, as incorrect use of basic
terminology can be offensive to the individual.
489
Law
Transsexual people are protected against discrimination under the Sex Discrimination,
(Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999, which updates the Sex Discrimination Act
1975. Under the 1999 Regulations, anyone who is treated less favourably on
employment or vocational training grounds compared with a non-transsexual will
have a claim under the Act:
Employers must not discriminate on gender reassignment grounds at any stage of
employment, including:
.
Recruitment, which covers the arrangements made for filling a vacancy, and in deciding
who should have the job.
.
Employment, which takes in promotion, training, transfer and access to employment
related benefits, including pay, and the provision of a working environment free from
harassment.
. Ending of employment – this covers dismissal and selection for redundancy (EOC, 2006).
Employers are liable for acts of discrimination, including harassment conducted by
employees, whether or not it was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval,
unless the employer took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent it.
As with other types of discrimination, transsexual individuals can take a claim to an
employment tribunal to seek a remedy. This would most likely take the form of
compensation. Whilst transsexual people may wish to be allowed to continue with their
jobs as usual, it is likely that relationships have broken down by this stage with both
sides reluctant to continue with the employment. It is important to note that there is no
ceiling for compensation payments in discrimination cases. Compensation for injury to
feelings is likely to be a feature of such cases, and so this can be very expensive.

Codes – good practice guidelines for employers


Several sets of “codes of good practice” and guidelines have been developed to assist
employers deal with transsexual people in the workplace. These include guidelines
from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), the Gender Trust[3], and Press for
Change (1998)[4]. The Looking Glass Society advises that “sympathetic treatment by
the employer and colleagues will contribute greatly to a successful outcome”. The
guidelines include dealing with issues such as: informing colleagues, raising
awareness via information and training, dress code, records and confidentiality, time
off for treatment, media interest and use of single sex facilities, e.g. toilets.
However, despite legislation and these sets of guidelines, there is concern that these
are not being implemented adequately. For example, there is evidence that many
employers have not amended their organisational policies and procedures on equal
opportunities. Those organisations which have made amendments have often simply
PR altered a broad policy statement to include transsexual people and have made no
35,4 specific provision regarding transsexual issues (Barclay, 2004).
It is important for organisations to consider transsexual people: they do face
particular problems. The author suggests that there is a particular difficulty for others
in accepting the changed sex of a person and the impact this has on work relationships,
and these will be discussed in the paper. However, transsexual people also face two
490 more obvious difficulties as a minority group which have not been considered
previously. These are the fact that “concealment” is not feasible for them, and their
small numbers in the workplace.

“Concealment” strategy not possible


Kirton and Greene (2000) discuss the discrimination by employers commonly
experienced by lesbians and gay men, and point out that in anticipation of
discrimination or unequal treatment, many conceal their sexual orientation. Indeed
such concealment may be a deliberate strategy to avoid discrimination (Snape et al.,
1995). However, such a strategy is not possible for transsexual people, (unless they
move employers and location.) Whilst many transsexual people do hide their true
feelings for many years, as soon as they decide to embark upon the process of
transition and gender reassignment, their situation becomes evident. Indeed the whole
transition process sets them apart as different.

No “collective” force
A further difficulty for transsexual people lies in their small numbers in the workplace,
which is insufficient for creating a collective force to press for change and acceptance.
Other disadvantaged groups, such as women, disabled persons, and ethnic minorities
tend to present in substantial numbers and even other sexual minorities (homosexual
men and lesbians) represent 10 per cent of the workforce (Kaplan and Lucas, 1994). As
for numbers of transsexual people, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation point out
that “there is limited statistical data . . . and what official data exists is contested and
dated”. They quote estimates of one per 30,000 adult males and one per 100,000 adult
females in Europe in 1994[5]. Some data indicates a much higher frequency: between
one in 500 and one in 2,500 MtF transsexuals in the US (HRCF, 2004). Another estimate
suggests that there are 5,000 transsexual people in Britain (Coleman, 2003). Even
accepting the highest estimate, however, transsexual people are so few they are
unlikely to find mutual support in sufficient numbers in workplaces (and this problem
is compounded by initial denial or reserve before “coming out”).
This lack of ties through “common experience that often provides the necessary
support to push for action” can leave people “alone and isolated in their struggle”
Cockburn, 1989 in Kirton G. and Greene A-M. (2000).

Trade union
Despite the limited numbers of transsexual people, it might be expected that the trade
union would have a key role in creating collective support. Kirton and Greene (2000)
suggest that there are three ways that trade unions can exert pressure on employers to
combat discrimination and promote diversity. Firstly there is an equality dimension to
traditional bargaining agendas. (For example, the National Minimum Wage improved
the relative position on equal pay for women and ethnic minorities). Secondly trade
unions might explicitly promote equality and encourage employers to address Transsexuals
discriminatory practice (in developing a harassment policy, for example). The third and workplace
aspect (which might be seen as a minimum expectation even where the first two
aspects are not evident) is representing individuals who have experienced diversity
discrimination at work. Indeed one of the major reasons for joining a union is to
have their backing on disciplinary or grievance matters if required (Waddington and
Whitson, 1997). However, not all trade unions have clear policies on transsexual issues 491
at the workplace, and the TUC only issued guidelines in July 2004, (TUC, 2004) some
five years after legislation was introduced.

Change of identity – effects on trust


For family, friends and colleagues, a person’s change of sexual identity is a shock, but
in addition to this a transsexual person presents a paradox. One the one hand the
MtF[6] trans person wants to be seen and accepted as “different from what they were
before” yet at the same time they want to be accepted and treated the same as other
women.
For the first part of this paradox, in presenting as a member of the opposite sex,
others who know the transsexual person are liable to disbelieve her, and not take her
seriously. If they do accept that she has a new sex then family and colleagues may well
feel that they have been deceived by the transsexual person’s previous gender. If they
have been deceived by something as fundamental as gender, they may wonder what
else they have been deceived about by this person. Hence, the difficulty for the
transsexual person in achieving trust and acceptance in her new gender.
For the second part of the equation – passing as a woman – several arguments
have been used to reject this such as biology, physical differences, and the fact that the
trans woman does not have the same experiences and socialisation as other women.
For example, Bindel (2004) argues that trans women do not have the shared life
experiences of women, and concludes:
. . . men disposing of their genitals does not make them women in the same way as shoving a
bit of vacuum hose down your 501’s does not make you a man.
This statement illustrates the dichotomous views of gender that exist in society, and
why it can be hard to accept a trans woman as a “real” woman. Whilst these arguments
have some force, there is the counter argument that no two women are the same. We
are all different in terms of our physical appearance and socialisation. In these respects,
maleness and femaleness are more like points on a continuum, rather than two discrete
states.
Whatever the arguments about these two issues (difference from before transition
and similarity to other women), these two aspects together still present contradictions,
and this makes gaining acceptance difficult.

Equal opportunity and managing diversity paradigms


It is useful to consider transsexual issues in terms of equality and diversity paradigms.
Liff (1997) outlines the dominant strands in managing diversity debates as those of
dissolving differences and of valuing differences. Dissolving differences stresses
individualism and the fact that everyone is unique rather than stressing social group
differences, such as being female, black or disabled. On the other hand, a valuing
PR differences approach acknowledges socially-based differences and their significance in
35,4 perpetuating inequality for particular groups.
The transsexual person usually wants their “difference” to others of their new sex to
be ignored; they want to be accepted as the same. This would suggest that a dissolving
of differences approach might be appropriate, so that they can be viewed within the
organisation not primarily as a transsexual person, but as simply another individual
492 with particular skills and abilities. This is similar to the traditional equal opportunities
argument which stresses that gender is irrelevant to an assessment of one’s merits in
the workplace. The employer can argue that this is the same person with the same set
of skills and abilities which made them a valued colleague in the first place and hence
that the change in gender will not make any difference to their competence in the job.
However, as Liff (1997) points out although the dissolving difference approach can
be appealing and a good way to “have an uncontentious equal opportunity policy” it
also has no strategy for dealing with the way that traditional practices tend to
disadvantage minority groups. As Early (2004) says, “discrimination is categorical”.
Only by acknowledging this can organisations tackle the difficulties and disadvantage
experienced by particular groups.
In addition, for a transsexual for whom the change is a central life event, a
dissolving differences approach which ignores their transsexual situation is unlikely to
be a satisfying approach. In contrast, a diversity approach which values differences
and accepts the importance of acknowledging different identities in the workplace may
serve them better.
It is clear that a transsexual at work presents a situation which requires particular
organisational policies and support. The difference cannot be easily ignored or
accepted by others in the organisation. In order to provide support, therefore, it is
necessary to identify their transsexual status. In this sense, it is by identifying this
status and valuing them that policies and procedures can be set in place to assist their
transition in the organisation. Of course the risk with this may be that in drawing
attention to their status, it may create a backlash of negative reactions from others,
such as accusations of positive discrimination. Hence, whilst “dissolving differences”
may seem an ideal objective, the “valuing difference” approach offers the practical
support which is relevant, although any negative reactions have to be addressed.

Case study
Transsexual issues are sensitive and difficult to research especially within
organisations. The cases tend to be hard to identify from outside the organisation
and people can be unwilling to discuss the issues. This is especially true if the issues
have not been well handled and if bad feeling continues. The transsexual individual
may well have left the organisation to “start again” and so it can also be difficult to
get all viewpoints on a case. The case presented below, however, is a summary of the
case of “Susan” who went through gender transition. This case was reported by a
combination of participant observation within the organisation and one to one
interviews. Susan was a MtF transsexual who had been working in “Serviceco”: a
public sector organisation employing almost 4,000 people, many of whom deal directly
with the public. The employee began working at Serviceco in 1998, joining as a male
and in 2000 announced the intention to undergo gender reassignment. At this time
she had been attending work as a male, but living outside of work as a female.
The participants were interviewed in 2003 following a transition period, to establish Transsexuals
their views on how the transition had been managed at her workplace. (The and workplace
interviewer was employed within the HR department of the organisation and was
known to all the participants). Most articles on transsexual people tend to focus on the diversity
views of the transsexual individual, and this case takes a more inclusive approach by
also presenting the reactions of others involved: the managers, the HR staff, trade
unions representatives and other co-workers. This case, therefore, illustrates the 493
difficulties encountered within the workplace by not only transsexual people, but also
illustrates some of the difficulties felt by the other people involved.

Susan
From the age of six, Susan says that she knew she was “different”. As an adolescent
she explained to her father how she felt, but was met with a hostile reaction, and from
then on she remained silent about her feelings. She married and had a son. Eventually
after more than 20 years of marriage, the feelings became too strong and she revealed
these to her wife. Whilst the wife was initially supportive, this was not sustained and
an acrimonious divorce followed, and indeed all of the family has been unsupportive.
Her father suffered a stroke and the family blamed Susan for this. Her sister says she
“doesn’t want to speak to her or see her ever again”.

Communications and reactions at the workplace


Although Susan’s manager was not aware of legislation regarding transsexual
employees within the workplace, she was “adamant that the situation would be dealt
with in a fair and professional manner”. The lack of a policy or guidance on gender
reassignment was particularly frustrating, and the manager, together with the HR
officer, resorted to using an internet search to find some guidance. However, the
manager felt “lacking in knowledge” and felt “pressure to tread carefully at all times”
which left her feeling “isolated and exposed”. When the manager informed staff of the
Susan’s condition, staff reactions ranged from anger, upset, to humour and sniggering.
These reactions and the staff’s lack of knowledge were also felt to be “testing” for the
manager.
In terms of support for the employee, contact persons were put in place (i.e. manager
immediate supervisor, HR officer) so that most of the time, there was at least one
person available for Susan to speak to. Regular meetings were also set up between the
manager and Susan’s supervisor so that the supervisor was also receiving support.
Susan met with the manager and HR officer on a fortnightly basis to begin with,
changing to monthly, to discuss any issues that needed to be addressed. Throughout
this process, the manager did not receive any support herself. The HR officer also felt
“vulnerable” due to the lack of formal guidelines, and lack of advice from senior
management.
Most codes suggest that the form and timing of communications about the
transsexual person’s change of gender should be agreed between the individual and the
employer. Susan had agreed with her manager that the manager would communicate
the situation to other staff. Whilst the manager was keen to promote acceptance of
Susan’s new gender, some staff felt that the manager had seemed “pushy” which
antagonized the staff and as a result they were reluctant to look at Susan or speak to
her because they were scared that they might say something inappropriate or use her
PR “previous” name and they might be disciplined. The reaction of some people was
35,4 astonishment, (although supportive), whilst that of others was aggressive. One person
refused to work with her, because of her change. One senior manager said that Susan
was “an embarrassment to the organisation” and that she was “a laughing stock”.
Susan said that these sort of comments “hurt at the time, but you get over it – it makes
you stronger in the end”. Susan also felt that some staff turned their backs on her and
494 conversations stopped when she entered a room. Others would make life awkward by
ignoring her and not looking at her. Her response to this is that “that’s their problem,
not mine”. In terms of coping mechanisms, Susan tries to rely on a sense of humour and
writing lists of priorities, and commented that “every time you get a kick in the teeth,
you gain an inner strength”. At times she was conscious of others gossiping and
giggling about her. When she mentioned these things to her supervisor, however, she
was told she was “being neurotic” and “imagining things” and so she felt that her
concerns were not taken seriously.
Susan tried to talk to her colleagues about the physical changes she was going
through, although they did not really want to know these details. One particular
problem was that colleagues reported that Susan would tend to discuss too much
personal detail regarding her physical changes. A couple of complaints were received
from staff who said that they were:
. . . not “against” transsexual people, but did not wish to hear the intimate details of how this
member of staff was developing breasts, etc. whilst they were eating lunch!
Her manager also felt that sometimes when discussing work-related problems or
performance issues with Susan she was inclined to introduce gender issues as “an
excuse” which the manager felt were “inappropriate as the problems were genuinely
work-related”. From Susan’s point of view, she felt that her supervisor and manager
wanted to “play down” her transsexual status, whilst she herself felt that this
“dominated her whole existence and relationships”.
As Susan works directly with the public, and her story was published in the
newspapers, she received a lot of attention from the public. Her own view was that this
mainly positive and due to genuine interest. Her colleagues, however, found the
attention difficult to cope with, as they were often asked about her, and they did not
know what to say, or want to be drawn into discussions about her.
One particular member of staff was “shielding” Susan from the public reaction in
order to protect her: not telling Susan how people were pointing at her and what people
were saying behind her back. This member of staff was also experiencing other staff
not talking to her because she was friendly with Susan. This placed immense stress
upon the colleague, who eventually moved work location altogether to escape the
situation.

Effects on others
As transsexual people keep their condition well hidden, when they do “come out” it is
usually a massive shock to everyone who knows them, including colleagues.
According to Wilson (1995):
. . . if men and women have not learned the rules of how to behave as men and women, or
resist the rules, then they may not fit in at work.
In Susan’s case, it was clear that colleagues and managers were shocked by the change. Transsexuals
Even those managers and HR staff who were supportive of Susan found themselves and workplace
very stressed and “out of their depth”. They expressed the need for clear organisational
guidelines to handle the situation, as well as some “support” systems, not just for diversity
Susan herself, but for themselves as well as Susan’s colleagues.
As film director Almodovar (2004) says: “a transsexual element in a story . . . is very
powerful because it changes all the other characters and is a challenge to them all” 495
(Hatterstone, 2004). Similarly the HRCF (2004) quote Moonhawk River Stone in that
“everyone transitions when a transsexual person comes out in the workplace”. It is,
therefore, important to acknowledge the impact on others and manage transition
effectively.

Trade union role


Susan was a member of the trade union (the Transport and General Workers Union)
but felt she got no support from them. Both the branch secretary, (who worked in her
own department) and union chairman refused to support or even work with her
because they could not accept her change. The branch secretary even phoned the trade
union head office to ask if Susan could be sacked simply on the basis of being a
transsexual person! As a result of this antagonism Susan applied for and was
successful in obtaining a transfer to another department within the organisation.
Kirton and Greene (2000) state that trade unions “have a central and strategic role to
play in the promotion of equality and diversity issues in employment”. They may have
a significant struggle to do this, judging by the union representatives in this case, who
were particularly unsupportive, indeed hostile, leaving the employee very isolated.
Individual trade union representatives are just as likely as other employees to have
prejudices about these issues. Hence, any policies need to be reinforced with education
and guidance to representatives to enable them to provide support at the workplace.
One trade union which has produced a briefing document on Transgendered People’s
Rights at Work is Unison (2003). They say that breaches of confidentiality, and
harassment against transgender people should be dealt with in the same way as other
discrimination and should incur the same penalties. They urge representatives to
ensure that staff are made aware of the rights of transgender people, and that
harassment and discriminatory behaviour should not be tolerated. They also state that
discrimination will not be tolerated by the union at any level. (Not surprisingly, Susan
herself recently transferred her trade union membership to Unison).

Harassment and discipline


Use of toilets or changing rooms is a frequent source of contention in transsexual cases.
Women may not want to share a toilet with a trans woman (as she is “not a real
woman”) and men may not want to share toilet with a trans woman (as she is no longer
“the same as them”.) Susan was not allowed to use the ladies toilet and changing room
and was unhappy about this. She said “you would not expect to undress yourself in
front of a member of the opposite sex: this is how it feels for trans people”. In Susan’s
case, it had been agreed that when she presented as female at work she would have to
use a separate “disabled” toilet. Whilst she went along with this arrangement, she also
felt that she was being “pushed out of sight”.
PR The issue of toilets also arose regarding an after-hours social event. This was to be
35,4 held in a club outside of work, and a small number of ex-colleagues from Susan’s initial
department complained that there would be no separate (disabled) toilet facilities for
Susan at the function. The branch secretary of the union sent a “nasty” e-mail to Susan
about this, implying that she should not attend. Susan felt that this was very hurtful
and harassing, and spurred her to raise a formal grievance about this, as she felt she
496 had been hurt and offended by staff in her original department, and now this was still
happening although she had transferred, and was even impacting her social life outside
the workplace. The grievance was fully investigated in accordance with organisational
procedures and resulted in two members of staff being formally counselled and
instructed to write an apology to the employee. In spite of the recommendations of the
investigating officer, no disciplinary sanctions were applied, a decision which came
from the director of HR.
So in Susan’s case, her complaint did not result in disciplinary sanctions for those
who harassed her. One inference of this is that management does not consider such
discrimination to be serious. On the other hand, there is an argument that disciplinary
measures could well cause resentment from those being investigated (and others too)
and could provoke a backlash of antagonism against the transsexual person, thus
weakening any sympathy and support for this issue in the longer term. In this case
those being disciplined were trade union representatives, which may also have affected
the outcome. However, avoiding appropriate disciplinary action signals that the
organisation does not take the offence as seriously as it takes other breaches of the
disciplinary code, and it does not reflect a position of “zero tolerance” of harassment as
advocated by Hemphill and Haines (1998).

Discussion
Emotional reactions
Transsexual people typically go through a great deal of emotional turmoil, ranging
from despair, isolation, and frustration to elation once they have accepted their
condition. Many of these feelings will have been suppressed for years, and according to
the Burns (1997), “psychiatrists suggest that the mid-life period, around 40, is a
common stage for those transsexual people who have suppressed their feelings in
earlier life to come out”.
Fear is a major emotion for a transsexual person facing an unsympathetic and
ignorant world. The sadness and regret of taking many years to “come out” are
common emotions felt by transsexual people, which are offset against the elation of
achieving a harmonised body and mind. These emotions, whilst understandable from a
transsexual person’s point of view, can be difficult to manage from an employer’s
perspective. Many transsexual people get frustrated throughout their lives as they are
living in the wrong body. Additionally, when transsexuals are taking hormones, it can
make them sensitive and touchy. Many MtF transsexuals also find it hard to accept
that they will never have the biological makeup of a female, and some who go through
the operation are still unhappy because they do not look “female enough” (West
Lothian Transgender Support Group, 2001). All these issues are important for an
employer to bear in mind when managing transsexual employees as it provides an
explanation for some behaviour. For example, some transexual women dress in an
“over-adventurous” manner in order to “advertise” their femininity.
Management and change creation Transsexuals
Literature on change management is relevant for transsexual issues and can be helpful and workplace
in identifying how best to manage transsexual situations in the workplace. Some key
issues from literature on managing diversity are similar to those in the literature on diversity
change management (Iles, 1995; Thomas and Ely, 1996). These include the key roles of
change “agents” and change “sponsors” defining responsibilities, especially
management responsibilities, the provision of resources (money and people). Also 497
important are overcoming barriers to change and the importance of organisational
culture.
Employers need to manage the change process effectively. However, Lick and
Kaufman (2003) go further than this and suggest that change management is too
reactive. They propose a change creation approach instead. Employers need to be
prepared for when it arises. They say that: “when organisations choose to be proactive
relative to change, they intentionally move from being victims of change to becoming
masters of change”. This would involve, amongst other things, “proactive planning . . .
and buy-in from all stakeholders”. More specifically in relation to transsexuals in the
workplace, Cadrain (2004) suggests setting up a “Transition Team” consisting of an
HR person, a top manager, an employee assistance programme person, a union
representative and the transitioning employee to anticipate, and decide on
communications and other issues.
This idea can be developed with the notion of a transition period as well. This idea
is discussed below.

Interim or transition phase


Literature on more general change management would support the idea of careful
preparation for change. Whether the change process is incremental or “big bang” (as in
business process re-engineering, for example), prior consultation with stakeholders is
critical to engage support. If support is not obtained, management usually has the
power to force through change as a last resort. However, whilst this may be feasible in
organisational change such as structural change, this is likely to be counterproductive
in terms of acceptance for transsexual people. Therefore, consultation and transition
periods are important in giving everyone time to adjust.
It is clearly very difficult for the transsexual person to be accepted by families,
friends and co-workers who witness the transition. Given the difficulty of accepting
this type of change, and the fact that any sudden change is often difficult to handle, it is
perhaps more reasonable to give people time to come to terms with it, and for
employers to consider an “interim” or “transition” phase.
Treatment of the transsexual typically has four stages: psychiatric assessment;
hormonal treatment; the “real life test” consisting of a period of living in their desired
role, usually for about two years; and in suitable cases; gender reassignment surgery.
Just as the transsexual person must go through this lengthy transition process it can
be argued that colleagues also require a period of time to adapt to the new status of the
individual. This is in effect what was suggested in a recent legal decision (Croft v Royal
Mail Group, IRLB, 2003). The case specifically concerned the use of toilet facilities by a
pre-operative transsexual. Sarah Croft claimed discrimination when she was required
to use the disabled toilet because of her intention to undergo gender reassignment. In
this case, whilst the regulations on transsexuals cover persons at all stages of gender
PR reassignment under medical supervision, the judge ruled that “it did not follow that all
35,4 such persons were entitled immediately to be treated as members of the sex to which
they aspire” (IRLB, 2003). Amongst the key points in the decision was that:
. . . there must be a period of time during which the employer is entitled to make separate
arrangements for those undergoing change. What those arrangements are will depend on all
the circumstances, including the self-definition of the employee, the stage reached in
498 treatment and the susceptibilities of the other members of the workforce. While, in relation to
many other facilities, the self-definition of the transsexual person will be very important, it is
less so in the context of toilet facilities that are required to be separated by sex (IRLB, 2003)[7].
It had previously been determined that it was not acceptable for post operative
transsexual people to be in an “intermediate” zone (Whittle, 2002). But in the Croft case
a distinction was made between those undergoing change and post-operative
transsexual people. Thus, the decision in the “Croft” case recognizes that other
members of the workforce could find it difficult to adapt quickly to a colleague’s
change of status, particularly in respect of toilet facilities, and ruled that the employer’s
actions in requiring the transexual woman to use the unisex disabled toilet for a time
was appropriate. This ruling would seem to permit employers to make separate
arrangements for transsexual people in relation to toilets and other facilities for a time
to allow other staff to get used to the transexual person’s new status. This can put the
transsexual person in an intermediate zone or “no one’s land” where they are
considered to be neither one sex nor the other.
However, other groups are critical of the idea of an “intermediate” zone. The trade
union Unison (2003) state that “it is unacceptable to treat a person as belonging to
neither one sex nor the other”. In addition the HRCF (2004) guidelines for workplace
policy suggest granting restroom and locker room access according to “an employee’s
full time gender presentation, regardless of what stage that individual is at in terms of
his/her transition process”. So while the “Croft” case identifies the difficulty for
colleagues in coping with sudden change as a relevant consideration for employers,
and suggests that a pre-operative transsexual person may have fewer “rights” than a
post-operative transsexual person, the idea of setting the transsexual person “apart”
even for a time is contentious.

Training
Training is another frequent theme in diversity and change management literature.
Education and awareness rising to increase tolerance and acceptance are also stressed
in the codes and guidelines on transsexuals in the workplace (HRCF, 2004). Given that
transsexual people present in small numbers, education is particularly important to
reduce ignorance of the issues. In addition as Liff (1997) points out, if training is carried
out by poor trainers, or with insufficient resources, diversity training can actually
increase stereotypes and inter-group friction. Thus, it is important to do this properly
as it seems that some training can actually be worse than none at all. This requires
adequate expertise and resources, and should be concentrated in the transition periods
mentioned above. However, it is also unlikely that organisations will themselves have
the knowledge and expertise to provide training and education in these matters.
Transgender support groups can provide advice and information to staff if asked.
However, since a range of organisations will need guidance, there is a need for
accessible information and training materials. There is a case for the EOC and the
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) to work in collaboration with Transsexuals
transgender support groups to develop such information and guidance and publicise and workplace
this via their networks.
However, Liff (1997) sounds another note of caution regarding training, and diversity
questions how much it can actually achieve. As she points out, it is often easier to
change behaviour rather than deeply held attitudes, so perhaps a more realistic aim
should be to expect fair and reasonable treatment in terms of behaviour and respect. 499
Given that it seems very difficult for others to accept a transsexual person in a
new identity, perhaps acceptance in terms of a whole change of attitude is too much
to ask.

Conclusion
There is no doubt that sex change is a difficult and sensitive issue for all of those
involved: the individual, as well as family, friends, and colleagues. However, as far as
employers are concerned:
. . . there is every reason to believe that a transsexual who has been a good employee before
transition will continue to be a good (and usually better) employee afterwards; in many cases
the company will have made a substantial investment in an employee in the form of training
and job experience, and hence it is desirable to manage the person’s transition in such a way
as to preserve good working relationships all round and to continue to reap the benefits of the
person’s work” (The Looking Glass Society, 1997).
Legal changes may provide the impetus to change as employers who lose
discrimination cases at tribunals can incur significant costs in compensatory
awards, as well as the time and effort involved in tribunals. However, discrimination at
work also carries hidden costs of absenteeism, low morale, reduced productivity and
service, not to mention the conflict and bad feeling caused.
There are also business arguments for protecting transsexual employees. Given
that transsexual employees need to “come out” in order to live full time in the new
gender role, employers necessarily become involved. The HRCF (2004) says that
employers should develop and implement strategies to deal with transsexual people
effectively and sympathetically at the workplace. They put forward several arguments
for this including enhanced corporate reputation; competitive advantage, increased job
satisfaction, and improved employee morale. It could also be argued that a worker who
has undergone a successful gender change may well be a far better worker than before
transition. (Whittle, 1997).
Key to effective management of transsexual issues are clear policy and procedures
(including harassment), effective communications and consultation over realistic time
periods, and training and support for all those involved (especially the transsexual
person, colleagues and managers). It should be borne in mind, however, that whilst
these are all important, even with the best will in the world, the transsexual person
may only obtain tolerance rather than acceptance.
Trade unions also need to be prepared in terms of guidelines to members as well as
to representatives. However, as can be seen in Susan’s case, “equality and diversity
issues can easily slip off the bargaining agenda in a hostile organizational climate and
if union negotiators have no practical interest in them” (Kirton and Greene, 2000).
Trade union representatives may also be slow to speak out about such issues
preferring to support the majority views of their members. This may be due to the
PR largely white male domination of union power structures, and a rather “unitary”
35,4 approach to their bargaining agenda, since “highlighting plurality of interests might
undermine solidarity and thereby union power” (Kirton and Greene, 2000). However,
trade unions need to keep up with change and legislation if they are to represent
members effectively: the challenge to unions is to represent effectively the interests of
diverse social groups, particularly if they want to increase membership.
500 Perhaps the simplest and most compelling rationale is that discrimination against
transgender people in the workplace affects not only the transgender employees but
also the entire team, and “unchecked discrimination in the workplace on the basis of
non-job related characteristics distracts the victim and the perpetrator from the job at
hand” (HRCF, 2004).
Whilst many managers may hope that the situation will not arise in their own
workplaces, it is dangerous to assume that it will not and the impact of just one case
can be very disruptive if poorly handled. It is, therefore, crucial that employers prepare
in advance for the possibility.

Notes
1. This is so great that “50 per cent of transsexual people do not survive beyond their thirtieth
birthday. Most take their own lives; the remainder lose their lives in violence at the hands of
others. This morbidity statistic is known in medical circles as ‘the 50 per cent rule’” (West
Lothian Transgender Support Group, 2001).
2. A non-profit organisation promoting understanding and acceptance of transsexual issues.
3. A registered charity in the UK providing information and support to trans people, their
families employers and other professionals.
4. A UK organisation which campaigns and lobbies for respect and equality for trans people.
5. Most estimates suggest that there are about three times more MtF trannsexual people than
FtM.
6. Whilst this paper refers only to MtF transsexuals, the points also apply to FtM transsexuals.
7. Present author’s italics.

References
Barclay, J. (2004), Changes to Employers’ Equal Opportunities Policies and Procedures: Medium to
Large Organisations in the West of Scotland, Unpublished survey.
Bindel, J. (2004), “Gender benders beware”, Guardian, January.
Burns, C. (1997), “Rich man, poor man, transsexual woman”, available at: www.gendertrust.org.
uk/htm/index1.htm
Cadrain, D. (2004), “Diversity: transgender issues in the workplace”, HR Wire, Vol. 8 No. 6.
Cockburn, 1989 in Kirton G. and Greene A-M. (2000), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p. 113.
Coleman, N. (2003), “Boys will be girls”, Guardian, 20 August, G2, pp. 10-11.
Early, J. (2004) Plenary speech at the Fourth International Conference on Diversity in
Organisations, Communities and Nations, UCLA, Los Angeles, Director, Cultural Heritage
Policy, Smithsonian Institution, Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, USA.
EOC (2006), “Sex discrimination and equal pay acts”, Equal Opportunities Commission, available
at: www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page ¼ 15501
Gender Identity Research and Education Society (2002), Gender Identity and Transsexual Transsexuals
Questions, Gender Identity Research and Education Society, Ashtead.
and workplace
Gender Trust (2006), “Transsexuality in the workplace – a guide for managers”, available at:
www.gendertrust.org.uk/index1.htm
diversity
Hatterstone, S. (2004), “Educating Pedro – interview with Pedro Almodovar”, Guardian,
7 May.
Hemphill, H. and Haines, R. (1998), “Confronting discrimination in your workplace”, HR Focus,
501
July.
HRCF (2004), Transgender Issues in the Workplace: A tool for Managers, Human Rights
Campaign Foundation, Washington, DC, June.
Iles, P. (1995), “Learning to work with difference”, Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 6.
IRLB (2003), “Pre-operative transsexual not discriminated against by refusal to allow her use of
female toilets”, Industrial Relations Law Bulletin, No. 720, Casenotes: Croft v Royal Mail
Group plc..
Kaplan and Lucas (1994), “Diversity management for sexual minorities”, International Journal of
Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, Vol. 3, Conference Paper Quoted in
Nam Cam Trau, R., & Hartel, C.E.J. (2003).
Kirton, G. and Greene, A-M. (2000), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Lick, D.W. and Kaufman, R. (2003), “A new diversity in organizational paradigms”, International
Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, Vol. 3.
Liff, S. (1997), “Two routes to managing diversity”, Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 1.
Looking Glass Society (1997), “Transsexualism: a primer”, available at: www.looking-glass
McLynn, L. and Garnett, W. (2001), “The rights of man, woman and transsexual”, Times
Newspapers Ltd, 30 January.
Press for Change (1998), “Transsexual people in the workplace – a code of practice regarding
discrimination on grounds of transsexualism”, December, available at: www.pfc.org.uk
Snape, D., Thomson, K. and Chetwynd, M. (1995), Discrimination Against Gay Men and Lesbians,
SCPR, London.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity”, Harvard Business Review, September/October.
TUC (2004), “Transgender equality: advice from the TUC on trans rights in the workplace”,
Trades Union Congress, available at: www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-8246-f0.cfm
Unison (2003), Transgendered People’s Rights at Work. A Unison Briefing, Unison, London.
Waddington, J. and Whitson, C. (1997), “Why do people join trade unions in a period of
membership decline?”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 35 No. 4.
West Lothian Transgender Support Group (2001), Interview with support group member.
Wilson, F.M. (1995), Organisational Behaviour and Gender, McGraw-Hill, Berkshire, p. 209.
Whittle, S. (1997), “Employment discrimination and transsexual people”, available at: www.
gires.org.uk/Text_Assets/Employment_Disc_Full_Paper.pdf
Whittle, S. (2002), “Goodwin I v. United Kingdom Government: what does it mean?”, available at:
www.pfc.org.uk/legal/gimeans.htm
PR About the authors
Jean Barclay has substantial practical experience of HR in industry, and has also lectured in
35,4 higher education for over ten years. Her research interests include diversity issues as well as
assessment methods and interviewing techniques used in employee selection. She has published
in various HRM journals and texts, and provides consultancy and training for organisations in
both the private and public sectors, particularly in competency-based interviewing skills. She is a
Corporate Member of the CIPD and a Member of the Higher Education Academy.
502 L. Scott is a HR Advisor in a large public sector organisation in the UK, and has several years
experience in HR management positions.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com


Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

You might also like