The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2413.htm

Exploring
Exploring workplace experiences workplace
of transgender individuals experiences of
transgender
in the USA
Elizabeth Goryunova
Department of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine, USA Received 24 February 2020
Revised 7 March 2021
28 June 2021
Anna K Schwartz Accepted 28 June 2021
Department of Student Affairs/Orientation and Transitional Programs,
University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine, USA, and
Elizabeth Fisher Turesky
Department of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the workplace experiences and
access to career-enhancing opportunities of transgender employees and to apprise organization leaders of
opportunities to create an all-inclusive workplace environment.
Design/methodology/approach – This phenomenological study used semi-structured interviews with
transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in the US. Study participants (n = 12) varied slightly in
racial and ethnic identities, the highest level of formal education completed and the industry sector they were
employed at the time of interviews.
Findings – The data reveals a lingering presence of dominant narrative (cissexism) in US organizations and
its adverse impact on workplace experience and access to career-enhancing opportunities of transgender and
gender non-conforming individuals. The participants’ narratives reveal recommendations for effective
organizational practices for a transgender-inclusive workplace.
Research limitations/implications – The challenge of recruiting qualified participants from the
marginalized group along with the selection criteria of English proficiency and legally adult age resulted in a
relatively limited sample (n = 12) nevertheless adequate for the study.
Practical implications – Results of this study point at the urgent need to increase visibility and
acceptance of the represented population and expand workplace diversity policies to create inclusive, just and
equitable organizations for all individuals that will translate into job satisfaction and improved productivity.
Social implications – This study contributes to developing a culture of inclusion and prevention of
discrimination in the workplace thus ensuring respect, safety and agency for gender minority employees.
Originality/value – This study contributes to a better understanding of workplace experiences, access to
career-enhancing opportunities of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals and best practices for
a transgender-inclusive workplace.
Keywords Diversity and inclusion, Transgender rights, Transgender employees,
Gender identity and expression
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Gender in Management: An

International Journal
A transgender person is someone whose gender identity does not correspond to the sex © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2413
assigned at birth (Thanem, 2011). By conservative estimates, transgender adults in the DOI 10.1108/GM-02-2020-0055
GM United States comprise 0.6% of its population, or approximately 1.4 million (Flores et al.,
2016; Goodman et al., 2019; Jones, 2021). Despite being a sizable minority, transgender
persons have been subjected to stigma and discrimination leaving them more likely to be
impoverished, unemployed, and suicidal as compared to other population groups (Gates,
2017; James et al., 2016; Steinmetz, 2014; Valfort, 2017). However, in recent years there has
been a dramatic increase in their social recognition and visibility in the US and worldwide.
Voices of transgender actress Laverne Cox, producer Janet Mock, actor Elliot Page, former
Olympian Caitlyn Jenner, model Andreja Pejic added unique dimensions to the popular
culture narrative, media and everyday life, thus paving the way for more transgender
persons to pursue their authentic self (Beauregard et al., 2018; Kleintop, 2019).
Most recent studies indicate that a growing percentage of Americans, particularly in
younger generations, identify themselves as transgender, whether binary or non-binary
(Wilson and Meyer, 2021). Specifically, according to a 2020 Gallup poll, 1.8% of Generation
Z (born 1997–2002) are describing themselves as transgender, compared to 0.2% of Baby
boomers (born 1946–1964) (Jones, 2021). President of the United States Joe Biden spoke to
the transgender community during the 2021 Trans Equality Now Awards to reaffirm his
commitment to “continue fighting for an America that transgender people, like everyone
else, can live in and thrive in and succeed.” (NCTE: National Center for Transgender
Equality, 2021). In March 2021, US Senate confirmed the first openly transgender nominee
Dr. Rachel Levine, as the nation’s 17th Assistant Secretary for Health (Wamsley, 2021). “We
are in a place where more of us are living and pursuing our dreams visibly,”- stated Laverne
Cox in “The Transgender Tipping Point” article published by the American news magazine
TIME (Steinmetz, 2014).
Yet, despite progress, the 2017 Pew Research report revealed that the American public
remains fundamentally divided over gender identity issues and whether it is possible to be a
gender different from that assigned at birth, with 54% of those surveyed responding against
such possibility. Violence against transgender is on the rise (Human Rights Campaign,
2021). A flurry of legislature has been introduced across the nation limiting transgender
youth participation in sports and banning their access to gender-affirming health care, thus
moving the debate of transgender rights to the state level. It appears that the increased
visibility of transgender individuals and growing public support for their rights is yet to
fully overcome the lingering transphobia-caused discrimination in a society that has been
largely built on a binary definition of gender (Steinmetz, 2014). As pointed out by
transgender actor Elliot Page in the article “I’m fully who I am. Actor Elliot Page and the
fight for trans equality” published in the April 2021 issue of TIME, there is a mixture of
excitement, fear, and anxiety for the future of the transgender community and trans rights
that became a “political football in the culture wars” (Steinmetz, 2021).
Gender identity and expression issues are especially challenging in the workplace, where
personal and professional dimensions intersect (Elias et al., 2018). Broadly held cultural
beliefs may affect the perception of “worthiness” of “others” and serve as a bias for the
exclusion that for a transgender employee may mean inability to authentically express
oneself, along with inadequate access to job-related resources or mentorship from
supervisors, and missed career-enhancing opportunities, all of which are essential to
employees’ job performance, satisfaction, and well-being (Cech and Rothwell, 2020; Sawyer
and Thoroughgood, 2017). The stigma and discrimination experienced by transgender
employees have been sustained by the lack of transgender-inclusive protective federal
legislation and by inconsistent public policies and regulations across states (Sabharwal
et al., 2019; Webster et al., 2017). The Equality Act passed on February 25, 2021, by the US
House of Representatives in the 117th Congress intends to eradicate this injustice by
prohibiting discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity in Exploring
employment, housing, credit, education, jury service, federally funded programs (including workplace
health care), and businesses that serve the public. However, at the time of writing this article,
the bill faces an uncertain future in Senate (Congress.gov, 2021).
experiences of
In the meantime, organizations need to recognize that temporal trends of the US transgender
population show growth in its transgender proportion and changes in transgender
demographics, and that the workforce reflects the composition of the general population
(Meerwijk and Sevelius, 2017). Rather than waiting for the legislative protections for
transgender employees or acting retroactively on a case-by-case basis, organizations need
to proactively build a transgender-inclusive environment along with the capacity to
holistically address complex issues related to gender identity and expression in the
workplace (Elias et al., 2018; Jones, 2021; Meerwijk and Sevelius, 2017).
Moreover, to be effective, transgender-inclusive organizational practices and policies
ought to be informed by the lived experience of the transgender employees (Elias et al.,
2018). However, existing research on the workplace experiences of transgender persons is
very limited (Brewster et al., 2014; Brower, 2016; Budge, 2010; Fine, 2017; Glicksman, 2013;
Köllen, 2016; Schmidt et al., 2012; Thanem, 2011; Yavorsky, 2016). Additionally, while as
mentioned earlier, there is an increasing presence of the transgender voice in the
entertainment and media, in the more traditional workplace, it is barely audible (Beauregard
et al., 2018).
This empirical research explores the workplace experiences of transgender and gender
non-conforming employees, to amplify their voices, identify effective solutions for the
most prominent challenges faced by this population, and apprise organization leaders
of opportunities to create a transgender-inclusive workplace. In the following sections,
we highlight studies relevant to gender identities and expression in the workplace
that informed the current research, discuss research methodology and findings, offer
suggestions for future research, and outline practical implications for organizations
committed to the diversity imperative.

Literature review
Existing scholarship on transgender that informed our study can be organized by the
following overarching themes: the plurality of gender identities, transgender workplace
experiences and transgender-inclusive practices.

The plurality of gender identities

In recent years, sex and gender categories have become more fluid, and our understanding
of gender identity continues to evolve (Elias, 2018). Consequently, most of the transgender-
focused publications discuss key terms, variance in gender identity and expression, along
with the estimates for the transgender and gender non-conforming population. While there
is a multitude of documented occurrences of diverse gender identities throughout human
history across cultures (Rosario, 2011), the proportion of those identities in the general
population worldwide is not well-known, for a variety of cultural and procedural reasons.
For example, in the United States gender identity is not a part of official records, so the
attempts to estimate the current size of the transgender or gender non-conforming
individuals, as well as trends over time, are based on population surveys and therefore differ
depending on the number of participants, their age, and location. Thus, Meerwijk and
Sevelius (2017) analysis of 12 surveys conducted between 2007 and 2015 suggests that in the
United States about 1 in every 250 adults (approximately 1 million) are transgender, while
Schiem and Bauer (2015) approximate that as many as 1 in 200 adults may be transgender,
GM transsexual or transitioned. Williams Institute estimate that “0.7% of adults between the
ages of 18 and 24 identify as transgender [. . .] 0.6% of adults age 25 to 64 and 0.5% of adults
age 65 or older identify as transgender” (Herman et al., 2017, p. 3). The most recent Gallup
poll conducted in 2020 with a random sample of 15,349 adults estimates that 0.6% of the US
population aged 18 and older identify as transgender, and 0.2% as other (e.g. queer, same-
gender-loving) (Jones, 2021).
One of the complications for accurate data estimates of the transgender and gender non-
conforming population is the diversity within the community and conflated terminology
(Meerwijk and Sevelius, 2017; Sawyer and Thoroughgood, 2017). Thus, McFadden’s (2015)
review of research dated 1985–2014, points to a noticeable shift from an earlier practice of
grouping transgender individuals with LGB individuals to the contemporary practice of
distinct attention to transgender individuals. While transgender individuals are commonly
perceived as a part of a larger LGBT population, they are fundamentally distinct from the
LGB individuals who are defined by their sexual orientation (Cunningham and Pickett,
2018). Transgender individuals are defined by their gender identity and expression, and
there may or may not be an intersection between the two groups (Beemyn and Rankin,
2011). Here, gender identity is “a person’s own self-conception of gender”, while “gender
expression” involves a person’s “performance and enactment of gender” (Jourian, 2015,
p. 15).
Tate et al. (2013) define transgender people as individuals who “have moved across or
beyond their birth-assigned category to experience their current gender identity” (p. 267).
Davis (2009) describes transgender identities as being inclusive of “all manifestations of
crossing gender barriers [. . .] to otherwise transgress conventional gender norms and all
others who wish to describe themselves in this way” (p. 111). Thinking about identity in a
binary sense, Tate et al. (2013) define the identity that stands in the opposite position to
transgender as “cisgender”. Cisgender individuals “have a current gender identity that is the
same label as their birth-assigned category” (Tate et al., 2013, p. 767). Fundamentally,
gender identity and a gender expression of cisgender individuals align with their assigned-
at-birth sex and cultural/societal expectations, while identities/gender expression of
transgender and gender non-conforming individuals vary from their assigned-at-birth sex
and that causes misalignment with cultural and societal expectations. Cissexism is a
position rooted in the belief that gender is binary and based on one’s sex at birth (Bilodeau,
2009).
Scientific terminology evolves along with our understanding of gender identity (Brower,
2016; Jourian, 2015). Recently, the terms “gender variance” (Rosario, 2011) and “gender
expansive” (Gender Spectrum and Human Rights Campaign, 2014) have emerged in
reference to individuals with non-cisgender identities. Table 1 lists definitions that are
presently commonly accepted by scholars.
Understanding a phenomenon implies an ability to consistently measure and predict it.
New conceptions of sex and gender identity serve as a foundation for the public sector and
business organizations to craft policy and make decisions to protect the rights of
transgender and gender non-conforming employees. As pointed out by Meerwijk and
Sevelius (2017), current secular trends in society create a somewhat favorable environment
for transgender individuals that may lead to a more accurate population estimate in the
future. However, data is only one part of the equation. To truly effect informed anti-
discrimination and inclusion efforts, the data needs to be accompanied by the narratives of
daily experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Then it will
ensure equal standing for this marginalized population at every level of American society.
Term Definition
Exploring
workplace
Cisgender Individuals with a gender identity and expression that align with experiences of
cultural and societal expectations of the sex that they were
assigned at birth, i.e. “man” or “woman” (Tate et al., 2013) transgender
Transgender Individuals with a gender identity that does not align with
aspects of cultural and societal expectations of the sex that they
were assigned at birth. (Tate, et al., 2013; Davis, 2009)
Gender Non-Conforming Individuals with a gender identity and/or expression that may not
align with aspects of cultural and societal expectations of the sex
that they were assigned at birth
Gender Minorities Persons who are not cisgender
Sexual Orientation Minorities Non-heterosexual persons, i.e. lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB)
(Brower, 2016)
Gender Variance Range of gender identities and expression (Rosario, 2011)
Gender Expansive An umbrella term that encompasses an inclusive array of
individual gender identities (Human Rights Campaign, Gender Table 1.
Spectrum, 2014) Common definitions
Cissexism A belief that there are only two genders and that gender is based present in scholarly
on one’s sex at birth exclusively (Bilodeau, 2009) literature

Transgender workplace experiences

Several studies focus on workplace-related adversity experienced by transgender employees
and advocate for effective organizational inclusion policies and practices. Thus, Bailey
(2014) states that “transgender individuals face some of the harshest and most far-reaching
employment discrimination of any group of Americans,” (p. 209). Fassinger et al. (2010)
suggest that in the workplace, gender minorities may experience social conditions impeding
their advancement toward leadership positions. Kleintop (2019) points at the challenges
transgender persons experience when transitioning at work that may include misgendering,
microaggressions, gender policing (ridicule, deadnaming, etc.), anxiety, and passive
resistance. Budge et al. (2010) refer to their unattainable careers, along with perceived,
potential, and actual occupational barriers at work, while Davis (2009) suggests:
“transgender employees often feel that the workplace is not a safe and welcoming place for
them” (p.109). Shultz (2018) focuses on experiences of transgender employees in an academic
environment that reveal instances of interpersonal hostility and microaggression, along
with a lack of policies addressing their specific needs and barriers to advancement. The
author points out that while discomfort may offer a “nudge” for individual growth, the
survival mode (discomfort taken to the extreme) negatively affects growth, thus the all-
inclusive and nourishing workplace is extremely important for employees’ development and
wellbeing (Shultz, 2018).
More revealing data comes from national surveys. Thus, in 2011, the US National Center
for Transgender Equality surveyed 6,450 respondents about the experiences of transgender
and gender non-conforming Americans in several areas, including “Employment
Discrimination and Economic Insecurity”, with staggering results (Grant et al., 2011).
Survey respondents “experienced unemployment at twice the rate of the general population
at the time of the survey, with rates for people of color up to four times the national
unemployment rate” (p. 3); 90% of respondents reported experiencing workplace,
“harassment, mistreatment, or discrimination,” 47% reported experiencing, “adverse job
outcomes,” including “being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being
GM transgender or gender non-conforming,” and 71% reported that they tried to “avoid
discrimination by hiding their gender or gender transition” (Grant et al., 2011, p. 3).
According to the 2015 US Transgender Survey, 27% of those who had held a job in the
past year reported being fired, denied a promotion, or being passed over for a position
because of their gender identity or expression, and 15% reported experiencing verbal
harassment, physical violence, or sexual assault at work. Additionally, 23% reported other
types of mistreatments, such as being forced to use a bathroom that did not align with their
gender identity, required to present as the wrong gender to keep their job, and having a boss
or coworker share private information about their transgender status without permission.
Of those respondents who were employed, over half shared that they had to hide their
identity and nearly half did not ask their employer to use their personal pronouns. 12per
centof respondents experience violence when accessing the restroom, 39% experienced
psychological distress, and 40% had attempted suicide at some point in their life (James
et al., 2016, p. 3). Both the 2011 survey and the 2015 study suggest that transgender people,
and those perceived to be transgender, continue to be a subject of workplace discrimination.
The most recent 2019 US-based survey conducted by a Public Religion Research
Institute, a non-profit, nonpartisan independent research organization, reveals a growing
awareness of the general public about the stigma that transgender people face in their
communities. Thus, 79% of survey respondents acknowledged that stigma exists, and 38%
of those believe there is a lot of it. The survey also showed increasing support for
transgender rights: 62% of respondents reported that they have become more supportive as
compared to their views 5 years before that survey (Jones et al., 2019). Broad support is
demonstrated on a variety of issues, such as transgender serving in the military, child
adoption and health care.
Behind every survey number, there is a very powerful personal narrative that needs to be
“discovered” through empirical research and brought to light and to the attention of the
general public/policymakers to ensure that support expressed by them in a survey
transforms into inclusion efforts.

Transgender-Inclusive practices
Studies on transgender-inclusive practices offer perspectives on the legal processes and
organizational best practices, yet empirical research on this topic is limited (Collins et al.,
2015; Elias et al., 2018; Sawyer and Thoroughgood, 2017). Thus, Collins et al. (2015) suggest
that the continued lack of exploration relating specifically to transgender persons in Human
Resource Development scholarship reinforces their “marginalization and exclusion” (p. 206).
They further suggest that the lack of understanding of the lives and identities of
transgender persons, lack of inclusion in employment and non-discrimination law, social
“misunderstanding and disrespect” of transgender identities, wage inequality and stunted
career growth may magnify this marginalization.
A 2015 US federally funded study by the D.C. Office of Human Rights examined the
potential pervasiveness of bias against transgender individuals in external hiring practices
across industry sectors. In the study, researchers submitted job applications with mock
applicant information that had indicators that signaled that they might be transgender and
candidates with indicators that signaled that they might be cisgender. In some instances, the
mock candidates’ qualifications were engineered to appear a superior fit for the position
applied. Of the companies involved in the study, 48% seemed to give preference and 33%
offered interviews to the less qualified cisgender appearing applicants (District of Columbia
Office of Human Rights, 2015). This landmark study points at a potential bias in hiring
practices, but it does not address the impact of transgender status or perception on Exploring
employees already employed. workplace
Many scholars have offered policy recommendations to improve inclusivity for
transgender and gender non-conforming workers. Thus, Elias et al. (2018) examine
experiences of
transgender policies in several agencies of the federal government and conclude that transgender
organizations need to create and implement detailed, clear, flexible transition policies that
support transgender employees’ transition process and are guided by employees’ needs.
Mennicke and Cutler-Seeber (2016) explored US federal and state laws that prevent
workplace discrimination and increase employees’ inclusion. The authors highlight
opportunities for inclusion of transgender employees at every stage (pre, during, and post) of
the transition process, such as gender identity and expression inclusive non-discrimination
policies, health-care plans, and diversity training for employees. Brewster et al. (2014)
highlight strategies to develop an inclusive workplace culture, such as gender-sensitive
practices to decrease the negativity associated with gender transitions, “gender-neutral,
single-stall” bathroom facilities, and training focused on awareness and sensitivity (p. 167).
At the same time, Murib (2020) argues that the common solution of introducing a unisex
bathroom alongside binary gender dedicated ones only emphasizes “otherness”. Instead,
bathroom access should be approached through an architectural lens rather than a gender
one, by converting gendered into all-access public facilities. Other supportive measures
could include nondiscrimination policies, inclusive application process (e.g. open-ended
gender space on applications), transgender-inclusive health care, education around gender
identity, enforcement of name and/or pronouns changes, development of social networks
and mentorship (Mennicke and Cutler-Seeber, 2016).
Shultz (2018) offers suggestions for academic institutions including a holistic review
(with equal input of transgender stakeholders among all) of institutional policies and their
implementation such as equitable hiring and promotion practices, and nonbinary physical
space. Sawyer and Thoroughgood (2017) suggest that in the absence of explicit transgender-
inclusive legislative protection, workplace issues related to gender identity and expression
could be interpreted through the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as gender discrimination or sex discrimination (Title VII). Best organizational
practices suggested by the authors include proximal policies and company culture
combating discrimination, diversity training that includes information on and the
distinction between gender identities/expression and sexual orientation, gender-neutral
bathrooms, gender-neutral dress codes, and health-care benefits for transitioning employees.
Moreover, the outlined practices should be implemented as a cross-functional organizational
effort, so they are woven into the organizational environment and culture.
Diversity and inclusion efforts focused on transgender and gender non-conforming
persons vary in their effectiveness. Hur (2020) builds upon the inclusion quotient index,
developed by the US Office of Personnel Management, to introduce a multidimensional
construct comprised of the following inclusion practices: fairness, openness, cooperation,
support and empowerment. Research findings suggest that cooperation, support, and
empowerment practices positively affected job satisfaction, while fairness and openness did
not. At the same time fairness, cooperation and empowerment showed a strong positive
correlation with employees’ commitment while openness and support less so. That means
that organizations that aspire to build an inclusive work environment, need to incorporate
those practices (especially empowerment that appears to be the most effective) into the
organizational culture and to ensure those are reflected in the leadership practices (Hur,
2020). At the same time, effective inclusion practices of one organization may not achieve the
GM same results in another. To be effective they must be meaningfully tailored to a specific
organizational structure and culture.
As demonstrated by the reviewed literature, there is growing awareness about
discrimination and marginalization of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals
in American society, and the bulk of information comes from surveys conducted by various
agencies. The inclusion and anti-discrimination efforts are stifled by the inaccurate
estimates of the size of the target population, while the powerful narrative of transgender
and gender non-conforming individuals is largely missing due to the scarcity of empirical
research on the topic. This study continues the exploration and discourse related to
transgender individuals’ experiences of marginalization in the American workplace to
provide a meaningful context to non-discrimination and inclusion efforts.

Methodology
A phenomenological research approach was selected to capture and extract the essence of
the individual experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in the
workplace. Phenomenological research is focused on arriving at the common meaning
(grasping the nature) of a phenomenon through analyzing the lived experiences of that
phenomenon by several individuals (Creswell, 2013). The study was proposed, constructed
and executed in the spirit of transformative worldview theory: holding firmly to an assertion
that if cissexism is present in the workplace, it suggests the presence of oppression, and that
the information revealed in the analysis of collected data will offer a call for action,
providing, “a voice for these participants, raising their consciousness or advancing an
agenda for change to improve their lives” (Creswell, 2013, p. 10). With the overall objective to
explore the workplace experiences of adults who identify as transgender, gender non-
conforming, or on the gender non-conforming spectrum, this study specifically sought to
answer the following research question: What are the workplace experiences of transgender
and gender non-conforming individuals.
Participants were recruited through snowball methodology. An electronic call for
participation was distributed through organizations and electronic communities serving the
target population in the State of Maine, United States. Participants were also recruited
through the University of Southern Maine Center for Sexualities and Gender Diversity Pride
Listserv and Facebook page, and through social media. Study participants were of diverse
gender identities, both binary and non-binary. They represented varied professional
backgrounds: from community ministry to information technology. The industry affiliation
and gender identities for the twelve participants selected and scheduled for interviews are
presented in Table 2.
During individual semi-structured interviews (30 to 90 min long), participants answered
a series of reflective questions about past and present workplace experience, aiming to
clarify (a) how their gender identity/expression has impacted their leadership development
and career enhancement opportunities and (b) their experience with cissexism. Questions
were specifically focused on (A) hiring, (B) advancement and professional development and
(C) participants’ perspectives of their experiences compared to those of cisgender
individuals. The interviews collected narratives related to gender identity, leadership and
career development, along with current career/job information. The identifying information
(e.g. use of a person’s or company’s name, etc.) was scrubbed from the final summary and
papers. Additionally, aliases were used in coding and all descriptions of subsequent
findings.
The analysis involved the process outlined by Leedy and Ormrod (2013),
“1. Identify statements that relate to the topic [. . .]
 Gender Identity
[Participants who responded with “male,” “he,” “they” Sex Assigned at Birth
“female,” “she,” “theirs,” etc. for their pronouns, or any “AFAB”= Assigned
combination, are reflected in the table in the full English Female at Birth
conjugation of subject, object, or possessive pronouns. i.e. “AMAB”= Assigned Primary Industry
Participant Pronouns He/His/Him and She/Her/Hers] Male at Birth At Time of Interview

Alex He/Him/His I describe myself as a man in a way. I describe myself as AFAB Finance/Accounting
not a complete man because I do not have all of the parts a
normal considered man would have. In quotation marks.
But I am a man with my heart, mind, and soul
Andy She/Her/Hers I casually identify as female AFAB Finance/Accounting
Ari They/Them/Theirs Definitely more on the genderqueer variety of things AFAB Retail
Corey He/Him/His I am a transmale AFAB Education
Dylan They/Them/Theirs Non-binary and genderfluid and transmasculine AFAB Broadcasting
experiencing more masculine leanings and experimenting
with more masculine identity stuff. Weird spot right now, I
guess, genderfluid, transmasc
Eden She/Her/Hers I identify as a transgender woman AMAB Education
Franki He/Him/His . . .I identify as male, but not strongly as male. So I go by AFAB Non-Profit
male pronouns, but I’m not what I would consider as the
typical male if that makes sense
Jamie He/Him/His I identify as male. AFAB Non-Profit
Sam He/Him/His . . .I usually check off the M box when given a binary AFAB Mental Health
choice, but I am a transmale. FTM or assigned female at
birth but identifying as a male person
Stevie She/Her/Hers Female AMAB Education
Toby He/Him/His, She/Her/Hers, I identify as genderfluid. AFAB Information Technology
They/Them/Theirs [Participant 11 responded, “I actually use he, she, or they,”
when asked what pronouns that the researcher should use
for the interview. We use the gender-neutral pronouns
“they/them/theirs” when discussing Participant 11 in the
body of this paper]
Val She/Her/Hers I would call myself genderqueer, is the word that I use AFAB Community Ministry
most often. I shift between gender expressions, but I do not
feel like my core gender changes, which is why I don’t use
genderfluid as often as I use genderqueer

gender identity of
Table 2.
workplace

study participants
Diverse and complex
experiences of
transgender
Exploring
GM 2. Group statements into ‘measuring units’ [. . .]

3. Seek divergent perspectives [. . .]

4. Constructing a composite [. . .]” (p. 146).

Dedoose software for data management and coding was used for transcript content analysis
and to identify emergent themes. After a review of the demographic question results, coding
qualitative narrative, and identification of qualitative narrative that supports/explains
trends established in the interviews, the following core themes were identified: 1) the impact
of gender identity/expression on transgender experiences in the workplace 2) the effect of
dominant narrative (cissexism) on transgender experiences in the workplace 3) best
practices for transgender-inclusive workplace.

Findings
Data analysis indicates that participants’ gender identity and expression had an impact on
their workplace experience and that this impact may be indicative of the presence of
cissexism as the dominant narrative in the workplace.

The impact of gender identity/expression on transgender experiences in the workplace

The experiences of study participants are consistent with the results of the 2015 NCTE
Transgender Survey where 19% of all respondents reported adverse outcomes of their
gender identity or expression, including being fired, denied a promotion, or not being hired
for a job they applied for (James et al., 2016). Thus, many respondents felt they experienced
retribution for disclosing their gender identity in their job searches and in seeking
advancement opportunities. Stevie shared that when she searched for jobs:
Sometimes I’d get a first interview and then never hear from them again [. . .] How do you get
beyond the initial interview, and then initial contact is made and then all of a sudden nothing.
That’s happened way too much to me in my opinion to be a coincidence.
Andy disclosed that when she had interviewed for a store management position at a well-
known retailer, she made it through four different interviews: “I was told that I had the gig
as long as my background check came back fine, and then I just never heard anything
back.” She was fairly certain that her background check revealed the fact that she was
transgender, and that fact had ended her candidacy.
Mizock et al. (2018) refer to the challenges in the workplace for transgender employees
when they begin the transition process. When stigma and rigid gender expectations make
interactions with co-workers or customers uncomfortable, many transgender individuals
feel their only choice is to seek new jobs. The experience of participants in our study is
similar. Thus, during Sam’s transition, he appeared “gender-ambiguous,” and wondered if it
may have affected his standing for positions:
I can’t prove this, but I’m pretty sure that I wasn’t hired because of how I looked, that I was very
gender-ambiguous and sometimes people would mis-pronoun me and I would say: ‘Oh, by the
way, I go by he and his,’ and then they would get completely uncomfortable.
In contrast, Ari felt that they had been fortunate in most of their job searches but
acknowledged that it may have been that they never presented as “genderqueer” in an
interview, “I always pick a side to make it as easy as possible for getting the job.” They
recognized that they actively felt the need to hide their gender identity and that it may have
helped secure positions. In comparison, Sam wondered if his openness and gender
expression negatively influenced his ability to get jobs. While in this case, Ari appeared to Exploring
be successful in blending in, Cech and Rothwell (2020) argue that tactics to “pass”, however workplace
successful, expose transgender employees to informal interactional inequalities and
emotional/cognitive costs.
experiences of
Some participants reflected on the ways their gender identity and/or expression may transgender
have affected their opportunities for career advancement, compensation, title, professional
development, and mentorship. Thus, Corey had been employed and promoted several times
at the same workplace for years when he started to transition:
I was not treated as well at all, in direct proportion to my gender presentation [. . .] The boss, male
boss, was very friendly to me in the beginning, was less friendly to me the more masculine I
looked. Same with my manager.
Corey found that once he started to dress in a more masculine way, promotions stopped and
that he was treated differently by supervisors.
Eden also noticed a change in her advancement opportunities depending on how other
people perceived her gender. In the first career discussed, she had initially been perceived as
a man and then came out as a transgender woman. In her workplace at the time of the
interview, she was known as a transgender woman, “When I presented more masculinely
for much of my career, I think I was able to move and advance pretty easily [. . .] But once I
started transitioning and was seen as trans, it negatively impacted upward-mobility, and
even at my job now [. . .] ” Eden felt that it was easier to advance when people believed she
was a man.
Other participants that transitioned noticed a difference between being perceived as one
binary gender or the other. For example, Jamie transitioned from female to male (FTM).
When asked if his gender identity or expression had impacted his ability to advance in any
way, Jamie reflected, “ [. . .] because I present as male, I think I’ve been afforded more
opportunities [. . .]”
Another theme to emerge was the attempted erasure or silencing of an employee’s
identity as transgender or gender non-conforming. Two participants shared that they faced
disciplinary action after disclosing their gender identity or attempting to offer support to
another transgender or gender non-conforming person at work. In both instances,
participants left the organizations.
While employed at one particular social services organization, Sam felt that disclosing
that he was transgender to the clients could lead to negative consequences. He ended up
working with a transgender youth who would ask him about resources and community. One
day, the youth asked him why he knew so much, and Sam came out. After his disclosure, he
felt that whenever he gave updates his supervisor was not supportive of gender-related
discussions. Sam ended up working with another transgender youth. When the youth
requested permission to go to a gender-related event, Sam helped connect him to staff at his
group home to take him to the event. Sam’s supervisor was not pleased that he had not run
this by her, and he was then told that the youth could not go. Consistent with his
supervisor’s directive, Sam told the group home staff that they could not take the youth.
Regardless, the group home supervisor brought the youth to the event. As a result, Sam was
formally reprimanded. Eventually, he chose to leave the organization, “ [. . .] for a lot of
reasons, but almost everyday something would happen that would trigger for me, like ‘Ugh,
my identity is invalidated here.’” He shared later his worry about how the formal reprimand
would impact his job searches.
When employed by a social services organization, Alex was repeatedly disciplined for
disclosing that he was transgender. He had legally changed his name and was read as a
GM cisgender male. In an attempt to build, “connection and feel comfortable,” he came out.
Shortly after, he was pulled into the supervisor’s office and informed that his disclosure was
considered “sexual harassment.” He was placed on probation. As a result, he was not eligible
for promotion for the duration of the probation. He also felt that he was not compensated
equitably for performing the same work as fellow employees. Alex consulted an attorney,
wishing to approach the company to offer an opportunity for some gender-related education.
The opportunity never came. While on probation, Alex was fired.

The effect of dominant narrative (cissexism) on transgender experiences in the workplace

All study participants experienced various degrees of cissexism as a dominant narrative
that negatively affected their working environment. In other words, they have experienced
discrimination. One of the most common challenges (reported by eight out of 12) is access to
workplace bathrooms. In a study mentioned in the Literature Review section, Murib (2020)
points at the harmful effect of attempts to “administer biology” that criminalize and
stigmatize transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in public spaces. It also
carries health risks, both physical and emotional. Similarly, participants in the current study
experienced anxiety when restricted to restrooms in which they were not comfortable.
After coming out, Andy was required to use only approved restrooms. While she had
legally transitioned, she had not had surgery that would have legitimized her as a woman in
the eyes of the company. As a result, she was permitted to use only “family” or unisex
facilities. She had “a mandatory meeting with the Human Resources representative who
walked me around my place of employment, identifying bathrooms I was allowed to use
[. . .] I just hadn’t had surgery yet, and that was a sticking point for them.”
Some participants were forced to advocate for themselves to access the bathroom
earmarked for their gender. Jamie was required to use the women’s restroom, “because they
believed that I should still use the female bathroom even though I had legally changed my
name but hadn’t legally changed my gender.” Forced to make a case to his supervisors “I
cited the law which basically said I had the right to use whichever bathroom I chose and that
was kind of the end of it.” Jamie had to make a case to gain permission to use the restroom
consistent with his gender: the men’s room.
Toby shared that, in their current job, they feel forced to use the women’s restroom. They
would prefer to use a single-stall bathroom or the men’s room but felt, “It would make my
colleagues really uncomfortable if I used the men’s room.” When Toby attempted to offer
feedback about restroom access, they found senior leadership had “no comprehension that it
might be an issue.”
Several participants were also subjected to deeply personal questions about their bodies
and gender identities by co-workers or supervisors who asked about gender-related medical
treatment. They made comments about their bodies, or “outing” them without permission or
warning.
Eden has felt tokenized as a transgender woman in one of her workplaces. She felt bound
to disclose information about transition-related medical procedures to get approved for time-
off, “[. . .] I felt like I had to share some really deep, personal stuff with folks at work that I
probably shouldn’t have to do, to get the health care that I needed.” She went on to describe
a time where she had to sit through a group meeting, as an out transgender woman, while
organizational leaders discussed the value of purchasing a transgender-inclusive health-care
policy for the organization:
The director at the time, at our staff meeting and said, ‘Well, we could go with this new plan, and
it’s trans-inclusive, and it costs more money, or we could go with this other plan that doesn’t cost
as much. What do you think we should do?’ And she asked the staff this question. . . I was in the
 room, and I had to hear people talk about whether they would or would not pay for trans-inclusive Exploring
health care.
workplace
Another manifestation of the dominant narrative was the organizational policing or experiences of
enforcement of strict, binary-gender-based cultural expectations. In these instances, transgender
participants felt pressured to change their appearance or behavior.
In one of Dylan’s previous jobs, they were scolded for wearing the same clothing that
men in their workplace were permitted to wear. They were only selectively out to other non-
cisgender folks at this workplace and were perceived by others to be a woman or a
“tomboy.” One day Dylan wore knee-length, jean cut-off shorts, “Some of my other male
coworkers had been wearing the same style jean shorts for plenty of workdays and never
had anyone say anything to them [. . .]” This workplace did not have a formal dress code,
but the message was clear: management-imposed policies that limit what workers were
permitted to wear based on perceived gender.
Alex also experienced discrimination based on dress code requirements. He had worked
at a hospital that required men and women, in the same position, to wear different uniforms.
Alex identified and presented as a man but was required to wear the women’s uniform.
When he approached a supervisor to request permission to wear the men’s uniform, he was
told that once his name was changed, it could be discussed. Alex’s employer forced him to
wear a uniform inconsistent with his gender until he achieved a benchmark that they
considered valid: a name change.
Participant experiences point at the discriminatory nature of the dominant narrative in
the workplace, which is inconsistent with the contemporary organizational focus on
inclusion and equitable work environment.

Best practices for Transgender-Inclusive workplace

As pointed out in Webster et al. (2017), all employees could benefit from a supportive work
environment, yet authors emphasize the importance of visible representations of inclusive
and welcoming values that do not tolerate discrimination or mistreatment of gender
minorities. Supporting relationships include coworkers and supervisors, as well as tangible
support (resources, instruments). They increase employees’ commitment and job
satisfaction, as well as reduce voluntary turnover (Sabharwal et al., 2019).
Several participants indicated that organizational policy, culture, and physical location
could play a deterring factor when even applying for a position. For example, Andy, Corey,
Franki, and Val each mentioned that when searching for work if the community did not
seem welcoming to gender minorities, they may have chosen not to apply for positions.
While Dylan explained that workplace climate and policy related to gender expression
would always influence their job search:
I am probably going to always be choosing my workplaces based on how accepting of an
environment they feel like [. . .] If a place has very strict regulations on gender stuff, clothing,
presentation or identity, whatever, you know it’s not something I’m going to subject myself to [. . .]
Participants’ experiences demonstrate that supportive leadership is critical for employee
well-being. Alex felt that his current workplace was very inclusive. Alex came out to her
supervisor who helped connect him to company resources and the LGBTQ community. His
supervisor represented the organization’s equitable and supportive culture.
Franki said that after conveying his discomfort with sharing gender-specific restrooms
with coworkers, his supervisor quickly converted existing restrooms into single-user all-
gender facilities. His supervisor’s willingness to find a solution helped create an
GM environment where Franki felt more comfortable. Now all employees at his workplace enjoy
privacy in the restroom.
Andy observed that throughout her employment her gender had negatively impacted her
career development. She offered, “I’ve had leadership opportunities, but they’ve been
limited in scope. And I feel as though there are two situations where my status did not affect,
where it really was sort of based on ability.” Andy commented that only those supervisors
who were also gender and/or sexual minorities seemed interested in supporting her career
development.

Discussion
Participants’ workplace challenges substantiate Grant et al.’s statistics on experiences of
“adverse job outcomes” (2011, p. 3) and validate Collins et al.’s assessment that a lack of
understanding contributes to marginalization (2015). Consequently, some of the participants
in their workplace were fully out to peers and/or supervisors, while others were out only to a
select few. Some remained closeted, while others indicated that they intentionally remained
“stealth,” or passing as cisgender. In some situations, participants had little control over
their level of outness due to workplace restrictions and/or the nonconsensual disclosure or
inquiry by supervisors or coworkers. For some participants, the level of outness shifted
while employed at the same workplace or during hiring.
Study findings: the importance of supportive leadership and supportive company culture
as well as the adverse effects of the dominant narrative (cissexism) in the workplace, align
well with the US D.C. Office of Human Rights study (2015), which indicated frequent
discrimination during in-person interviews and in the workplace, and provide further
evidence that government, the private sector, and community organizations must develop
comprehensive solutions against transgender individuals’ workplace discrimination.
Throughout interviews, study participants offered suggestions on how to help improve
the work environment for transgender and gender non-conforming employees. Those
suggestions are consistent with inclusive practices and policy recommendations in previous
studies (Brewster et al., 2014; Lubitow, et al., 2017; Mennicke and Cutler-Seeber, 2016; Platt
and Milam, 2018; Sabharwal, 2019).
The most consistent piece of advice was to improve education and training. Robinson
et al. (2017) point out the need to better educate leaders and managers on experiences of
transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, and on issues of gender variance, so
they are well prepared to address the unique needs of their diverse employees. Likewise,
participants encouraged organizations to offer opportunities for employees at all levels to
learn more about gender diversity. They also urged leaders to maintain a commitment to
their personal education, specifically to dispel myths about gender minorities and binary
gender. They stressed that it would be important to involve transgender and gender non-
conforming persons in the development of training.
Additional suggestions included:
 access to gender-neutral bathrooms;
 holding staff and management accountable for policy enforcement and violations;
 eliminating gendered language in the workplace (e.g., through the integration of
gender-neutral pronouns); adapting forms, letters, applications, and software to be
inclusive;
 respecting a person’s gender as presented or articulated; and
 offering trans-inclusive health care.
Stories shared by this study participants illustrate the presence of the dominant narrative Exploring
(cissexism) in the workplace and point at the discriminating nature of normalizing cisgender workplace
identity as inherently natural, thus fueling feelings of isolation and invisibility among
transgender/gender non-conforming individuals (Aultman, 2014; Jourian, 2015). Thus, many
experiences of
individuals would regard inquiry or nonconsensual conversation about their genitalia as a transgender
form of harassment, yet gender minority workers are too frequently subjected to direct
questions and comments about their bodies. Requiring that cisgender workers use restroom
facilities allocated to “opposite” binary genders would be an unusual and inappropriate
mandate from an employer and yet experiences of study participants reveal being forced to
use a restroom inconsistent with their gender identity. Cisgender employees would not be
expected to wear a uniform worn by the “opposite” binary gender, likewise, gender minority
employees should be allowed to wear the uniforms that align most closely to their gender
identity. It is therefore important to fully consider the impact of an organization’s decision to
implement restrictions based on the expectations of binary gender. In the workplace,
cissexism expands to organizational health-care policies where premiums and procedure
coverage is based on the notion that legal gender indicates a person’s biological sex, and
consequently body parts, hormones, and identity, while gender-affirming treatments are
often considered elective.
There are many ways to be transgender and/or gender non-conforming. Not all gender
minority people wish to identify as a binary gender, nor do they all plan to have gender-
affirming medical treatment, change legal names or gender markers. Organizations should
ensure their practices accommodate the broadest range of identities and expressions
possible. Rather than emphasizing medical care and “legal” transition as cornerstones in
their policy, organizational leaders who wish to address cissexism should support workers
regardless of their intent to transition medically or socially (Mennicke and Cutler-Seeber,
2016). As suggested by Köllen (2016), a true organizational commitment to inclusion
imperative in the workplace would mean an integrative approach where allocation of
organizational resources and opportunities is based upon individual capabilities,
contribution and experience, rather than on manifestations of diversity dimensions, but that
ultimate goal is still far away.
To sum up, this study explored experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming
individuals in the US workplace. The findings of this study provide a meaningful narrative
indicating lingering discrimination, marginalization and stigma that gender minorities face
in the workplace. This narrative aligns well and supports data presented by scholars
between 2011 and 2021. We hope that the unique stories of study participants will offer
insights into the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming employees as well as the
best practices of creating a supporting and inclusive environment for all employees
regardless of their gender identity/representation.

Limitations and directions for future research

The challenge of recruiting qualified participants from the marginalized group and the
selection criteria for legal adult age and English proficiency impose limitations on this study
sample (n = 12). Yet this sample size is adequate for the methodology used in this study.
Future research may include a more diverse representation of the population and could
focus on creating inclusive organizational cultures and leadership development
opportunities for gender minorities. It would be beneficial to analyze costs related to
recruitment, training, retention, job satisfaction, commitment, and turnover of gender
minority employees, along with related productivity loss, thus illustrating the impact that
culture of cissexism may have on the organizational bottom-line.
GM Conclusion
Diversity And Inclusion Are Integral To The Moral Imperative Of Humanity. Transgender
And Gender Non-Conforming Workers Deserve Respect, Safety, And Agency. They Deserve
The Right To Make A Living And Do Their Jobs Free Of Oppression. It Is Critical To
Continue Unraveling The Workplace And Development Experiences Of Gender Minority
Employees. This Study Offers A Powerful Narrative Of Workplace Experiences Of
Transgender And Gender Non-Conforming Employees. The Narrative Provides Useful
Framing For Eradicating Discrimination And Marginalization Of Gender Minorities And
Context For The Organizational Effort In Diversity And Inclusion.

References
Aultman, B. (2014), “Cisgender”, Tsq: Transgender Studies Quarterly, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-62.
Beauregard, A., Arevshatian, L., Booth, J. and Whittle, S. (2018), “Listen carefully: transgender voices in
the workplace”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5, pp. 857-884.
Beemyn, G. and Rankin, S. (2011), The Lives of Transgender People, Columbia University Press, New
York, NY.
Bilodeau, B. (2009), Genderism: Transgender Students, Binary Systems, and Higher Education, VDM
Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken.
Brewster, M., Valez, B., Mannicke, A. and Tebbe, E. (2014), “Voices from beyond: a thematic content
analysis of transgender employees’ workplace experiences”, Psychology of Sexual Orientation
and Gender Diversity, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 159-169.
Brower, T. (2016), “Visibility and the workplace experiences of trans persons in the United States”, in
Köllen, T. (Ed.), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: Global Perspectives
on LGBT Workforce Diversity, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 149-166.
Budge, S., Tebbe, E. and Howard, K. (2010), “The work experiences of transgender individuals:
negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes”, Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 377-393.
Cech, E. and Rothwell, W. (2020), “LGBT workplace inequality in the federal workforce: Intersectional
processes, organizational contexts, and turnover considerations”, Ilr Review, Vol. 73 No. 1,
pp. 25-60.
Collins, J.C., McFadden, C., Rocco, T.S. and Mathis, M.K. (2015), “The problem of transgender
marginalization and exclusion”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 205-226, doi: 10.1177/1534484315581755.
Congress.gov (2021), “H.R.5 - Equality act”, available at: www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-
bill/5
Creswell, J. (2013), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 3rd Ed.
Sage.
Cunningham, G.B. and Pickett, A.C. (2018), “Trans prejudice in sport: Differences from LGB prejudice,
the influence of gender, and changes over time”, Sex Roles, Vol. 78 Nos 3/4, pp. 220-227, doi:
10.1007/s11199-017-0791-6. Nodoi
Davis, D. (2009), “Transgender issues in the workplace: HRD’s newest challenge/opportunity”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 109-120, doi: 10.1177/
1523422308329189.
District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (2015), “Qualified and transgender”, Washington, DC,
available at: http://ohr.dc.gov/page/QualifiedAndTransgender
Elias, N., Johnson, R., Ovando, D. and Ramirez, J. (2018), “Improving transgender policy for a more
equitable workplace”, Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, pp. 53-81.
Fassinger, R.E., Shullman, S.L. and Stevenson, M.R. (2010), “Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, Exploring
bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm”, American Psychologist, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 201-215.
workplace
Fine, L. (2017), “Gender and sexual minorities’ practice and embodiment of authentic leadership:
experiences of
Challenges and opportunities”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 19 No. 4, transgender
pp. 378-392.
Flores, A.R., Herman, J.L., Gates, G.J. and Brown, T.N. (2016), How Many Adults Identify as
Transgender in the United States, The Williams Institute, Los Angeles, CA.
Gates, G. (2017), “LGBT data collection amid social and demographic shifts of the US LGBT
community”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 107 No. 8, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303927.
Gender Spectrum and Human Rights Campaign (2014), “Supporting and caring for OurGender
expansive youth”, available at: www.genderspectrum.org/staging/wpcontent/uploads/2014/12/
HRC_report.pdf
Glicksman, E. (2013), “Transgender today: throughout history, transgender people have been
misunderstood and seldom studied. That’s beginning to change”, American Psychological
Association Monitor on Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 4, p. 36, available at: www.apa.org/monitor/2013/
04/transgender.aspx
Goodman, M., Adams, N., Corneil, R., Kreukels, B., Motmans, J. and Coleman, E. (2019), “Size and
distribution of transgender and gender nonconforming populations. A narrative review”,
Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 303-321.
Grant, J.M. Mottet, L. Tanis, J.E. Harrison, J. Herman, J. and Keisling, M. (2011), “Injustice at every turn:
a report of the national transgender discrimination survey”, National Center for Transgender
Equality, available at: www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/
NTDS_ExecSummary.pdf
Herman, J. Flores, A. Brown, T. Wilson, B. and Conron, K. (2017), “Age of individuals who identify as
transgender in the United States”, available at: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-
content/uploads/TransAgeReport.pdf
Human Rights Campaign (2021), “Fatal violence against the transgender and gender Non-Conforming
community in 2020”, available at: www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-trans-and-
gender-non-conforming-community-in-2020
Hur, H. (2020), “The role of inclusive work environment practices in promoting LGBT employee job
satisfaction and commitment”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 426-436,
doi: 10.1080/09540962.2019.1681640.
James, S.E., Herman, J.L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L. and Anafi, M. (2016), Executive Summary
of the Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, National Center for Transgender Equality,
Washington, DC.
Jones, J. (2021), “LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest US Estimate”, GALLUP, Available at:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
Jones, R. Jackson, N. Najle, M. Bola, O. and Greenberg, D. (2019), “America’s growing support for
transgender rights”, PRRI, available at: www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/
PRRI_Jun_2019_LGBT-Survey-1.pdf
Jourian, T.J. (2015), “Evolving nature of sexual orientation and gender identity”, New Directions for
Student Services, Vol. 2015 No. 152, pp. 11-23.
Kleintop, L. (2019), “When transgender employees come out: Perceived support and cultural change in
the transition process”, Journal of Business Diversity, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 55-67.
Köllen, T. (2016), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: Global Perspectives on
LGBT Workplace Diversity, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2013), Practical Research: Planning and Design, 10th Edition, Merrill/
Prentice Hall, Boston.
GM Lubitow, A., Carathersa, J., Kellya, M. and Abelsonb, M. (2017), “Transmobilities: Mobility, harassment,
and violence experienced by transgender and gender nonconforming public transit riders in
Portland”, Oregon”, Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 24 No. 10, doi: 10.1080/0966369X.2017.
1382451.
McFadden, C. (2015), “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender careers and human resource
development: a systematic literature review”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 125-162.
Meerwijk, E. and Sevelius, J. (2017), “Transgender population size in the United States: a Meta-
Regression of Population-Based probability samples”, AJPH Transgender Health, Vol. 107 No. 2.
Mennicke, A. and Cutler-Seeber, A. (2016), “Incorporating inclusivity: How organizations can improve
the workplace experiences of trans* people across the trans* spectrum: a US perspective”, in
Köllen, T. (Ed), Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: Global Perspectives
on LGBT Workplace Diversity, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 513-523.
Mizock, L., Riley, J., Yuen, N., Woodrum, T., Sotilleo, E. and Ormerod, A. (2018), “Transphobia in the
workplace: a qualitative study of employment stigma”, Stigma and Health, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 275-282.
Murib, Z. (2020), “Administering biology: How “bathroom bills” criminalize and stigmatize trans and
gender nonconforming people in public space”, Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 153-171, doi: 10.1080/10841806.2019.1659048.
NCTE: National Center for Transgender Equality (2021), “President joe biden speaks to transgender
people at the NCTE trans equality now awards”, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=
AnoGtgX1tAw&t=108s
Platt, L.F. and Milam, S.R.B. (2018), “Public discomfort with gender appearance-inconsistent bathroom
use: the oppressive bind of bathroom laws for transgender individuals”, Gender Issues, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 181-201.
Robinson, M., Van Esch, C. and Bilimoria, D. (2017), “Bringing transgender issues into management
education: a call to action”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 300-313.
Rosario, V. (2011), “Gender variance: an ongoing challenge to medico-psychiatric nosology”, Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, No. 15, pp. 1-7.
Sabharwal, M., Levine, H., D’Agostino, M. and Nguyen, T. (2019), “Inclusive work practices: Turnover
intentions among LGBT employees of the U.S. Federal government”, The American Review of
Public Administration, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 482-494.
Sawyer, K. and Thoroughgood, C. (2017), “Gender non-conformity and the modern workplace: New
frontiers in understanding and promoting gender identity expression at work”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Schiem, A. and Bauer, G. (2015), “Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario,
Canada: Results from a respondent-driven sampling survey”, The Journal of Sex Research,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14, available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4299544/
Schmidt, S.W., Githens, R.P., Rocco, T.S. and Kormanik, M.B. (2012), “Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and
transgendered people and human resource development: an examination of the literature in
adult education and human resource development”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 326-348.
Shultz, J.W. (2018), “Transgender staff and faculty in higher education: toward an affirming campus
workplace climate”, Doctoral Dissertation. New England College, ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing, doi: 10811569, available at: www.proquest.com/openview/2c9b0ad8ec396658bab36
9055a2f8d2c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
Steinmetz, K. (2014), “The transgender tipping point”, available at: http://time.com/135480/transgender-
tipping-point/
Steinmetz, K. (2021), “I’m fully who I am. Actor elliot page and the fight for trans equality”, available at: Exploring
https://time.com/5947032/elliot-page/
workplace
Tate, C.C., Ledbetter, J.N. and Youssef, C.P. (2013), “A two-question method for assessing gender
categories in the social and medical sciences”, Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 50 No. 8. experiences of
Thanem, T. (2011), “Embodying transgender in studies of gender, work and organization”, in Jeanes, E., transgender
Knights, D. and Yancey Martin, P. (Eds), Handbook of Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 191-204.
Valfort, M. (2017), “LGBTI OECD countries: a review. Directorate for employment, labour and social
affairs”, OECD, available at: www.oecd.org/els/soc/LGBTI-in-OECD-Countries-A-Review-
Valfort-2017.pdf
Wamsley, L. (2021), “Rachel levine makes history as 1st openly trans federal official confirmed by
senate”, NPR, available at: www.npr.org/2021/03/24/980788146/senate-confirms-rachel-levine-a-
transgender-woman-as-assistant-health-secretary
Webster, J., Adams, G., Maranto, C., Sawyer, K. and Thoroughgood, C. (2017), “Workplace contextual
supports for LGBT employees: a review, Meta-analysis, and agenda for future research”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 193-210. Vol
Wilson, B.D.M. and Meyer, I.H. (2021), “Nonbinary LGBTQ adults in the United States”, The Williams
Institute, Los Angeles, available at: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/
Nonbinary-LGBTQ-Adults-Jun-2021.pdf
Yavorsky, J. (2016), “Cisgendered organizations: Trans women and inequality in the workplace”,
Sociological Forum, Vol. 31 No. 4, doi: 10.1111/socf.12291.

Further reading
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance (2009),
Report of the Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance, Washington, DC.

Corresponding author
Elizabeth Goryunova can be contacted at: elizabeth.goryunova@maine.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com