Contacts: dialogues.diversity@gmail.com, orinam.net@gmail.com

TRANSGENDER-AFFIRMING GUIDELINES FOR INDIAN WORKPLACES

Two community collectives, Orinam in Chennai and Diversity Dialogues in Bangalore, have launched a guide for employers  who seek to make workplaces inclusive and welcoming of transgender employees, and support employees who are choosing to come out as transgender.

Being transgender, intersex, non-binary or genderqueer (henceforth transgender+) is a challenge to finding and retaining education and employment in India. The few individuals who manage to acquire education and access to employment opportunities constantly face a choice between affirming their true (gender) identities and staying in long-term careers.

Many workplaces in India are already likely to have transgender+ individuals working with them. These individuals, who may have been recruited through mainstream recruitment channels and are actively contributing to the business, may not openly identify as transgender and are perhaps living and expressing in the gender assigned at birth, and are forced to conform/pass as cis-gender. Some others may be transgender and living in their preferred gender(s), without disclosing their gender assigned at birth.

Very few employers in India are known to be inclusive of transgender+ individuals and/or allow/support their gender affirmation within the company.

Orinam believes that “Organizations committed to diversity and inclusion need to create a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment for transgender+ employees, both existing employees and new recruits, to be recognized in their gender, and create channels for requesting support if and when required.”

“Affirming the gender of transgender employees, with respect to inclusive policies and benefits, is an essential part of creating an inclusive environment. The resource guide from Orinam and Diversity Dialogues is an attempt to encourage HR professionals or business leaders to implement the guide and build inclusive practices towards the transgender+ community.” said Diversity Dialogues.

“As transgender+ persons we go through unnecessary scrutiny at interviews or otherwise. People sometimes think it is their right to ask deeply personal information about our genitalia, about our sex lives, about our transition surgeries. While all they should be caring about are our names and pronouns, treating us like regular individuals. The guide provides essentials about culture and acceptable behavior required for organizations to be transgender+ affirmative”, says Aditya Batavia, who works at an Indian retail conglomerate, and identifies as a man.

“As a transgender person and IT professional, I have had to refrain from potential job opportunities, faced micro-aggression, and been denied client-facing moments because of my identity/expression. The anxieties and fear of discrimination, difficulties in finding another job, and risk of losing livelihood prevent many of us transgender+ people from revealing our true gender and force us to live dual lives. Post- the NALSA and 377 verdicts it’s the right time for business community to pitch in and address discrimination faced by transgender+ community in their organizations as they now have moral and legal obligations to ensure a safe, inclusive and healthy workplace“, says Kanaga, a transwoman working as Domain consultant for a large Indian IT services provider

“Understanding issues related to transgender identity at work place (just as other issues related to diversity and inclusion) is a layered matter which will have to be revisited and updated from time to time and experience to experience. An open and embracing attitude and kindness is the key. I feel this document clearly shows the sincerity and hard work put into recognizing core issues related to transgender persons’  inclusion at workplaces and is very beautifully put together” says Shyam Balasubramanian, an assigned female at birth transgende, transmasculine person, who works as a DFT engineer in the semiconductor/chip design industry.

Most of the recommendations in this guide are relevant to all institutions: corporates, not-for-profit NGOs, government departments, public sector undertakings, or any other.  The guidance around acknowledging self-identification of transgender persons flows from the directives of the Supreme Court of India’s landmark 2014 ruling on transgender rights in National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India and Ors.

The guide is dedicated to  the memory of Anannya Krishnan, a transgender woman in Chennai who was part of the Orinam collective. Despite a promising career as a pharmacologist in the  drug safety vertical of a Chennai business, Anannya faced numerous struggles to find a place to live, and have her family acknowledge her gender identity. These struggles proved too much to handle, and she took her life on Dec 30, 2017.

Diversity and inclusion is an intent and can be implemented by every organization, irrespective of nature of work, size, scale or anything else. The recommendations in this guide urge organizations to embark on this journey.

The guide may be downloaded here.

Also view: Employers’ Guide to Making Indian Workplaces LGBTIQ+ inclusive and Videos on LGBT+ inclusion at Indian workplaces

Follow Diversity Dialogues on Facebook , YouTube and instagram @dialoguesdiversity

Follow Orinam on Facebook and Twitter @chennaipride, and visit our website www.orinam.net

The symposium aims to bring together organizations representing employers, employees and civil society to address the specific challenges of being lesbian, gay, bi, and transgender in the Indian workplace, and to share their experiences. The event is co-organized by two non-profits, Workplace Pride, Amsterdam, and Solidarity Foundation, Bengaluru.  Community partners include Community Business and Orinam. The  symposium is hosted by the RELX Group.

If you’re a community member, ally, and/or interested in knowing how workplaces can recruit and retain talent from LGBTIQA+ communities, this meeting and networking opportunity is for you. Participation is free, but registration is required. Register at http://india2017.archives-workplacepride.org/registration/

Date: Friday, May 19th 2017
Registration:  Free: click HERE
Time:10 am – 3 pm

Location: Leela Palace Chennai, Adyar Sea Face, M.R.C Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600028, India

The event will be preceded by a reception on Thursday 5 pm – 7  pm at the same venue.

For more information, email solidarityfoundation2013@gmail.com or orinam.net@gmail.com

July 2016: A team of diversity professionals based in Bengaluru has launched a guide [click here] that Indian employers can use to help make their workplaces inclusive with respect to sexuality and gender identity.

The authors draw on their diverse experience as allies, employees, employers, educators and members of marginalised communities to condense a wealth of wisdom and practical tips into 13 pages of succinct text.  They walk the uninitiated through the rationale for LGBTIQ+ inclusion, basic concepts of gender and sexuality, the cultural and legal context, characteristics of inclusive workplaces, policies and best practices, and links for further reading.

A highlight of this guide is an overview of the essential parts of  Supreme Court’s NALSA ruling on transgender rights, specifically around the right of trans people to self-identify as male, female or third-gender, and non-requirement of surgery or any other medical intervention for legally recognizing transgender identity.

Also useful is the clarification that supporting LGBTQIA+ people will not place an organization in contravention of Section 377, the antiquated sodomy law that criminalizes certain behaviors, not identities or orientations. Section 377 has often been cited as a concern by Indian employers, including Indian branches of multi-national corporations, and has been used to justify inaction in the area of LGBTIQA+ inclusion. Such concerns are unfounded, as this guide makes clear.

Besides the authors’ obvious competencies in the field, the guide has benefited from review  and input by community members and development professionals, including those working in the field of counselling and psycho-social health, and those associated with Good As You, one of India’s longest-running support groups for the community. These insights have led to such vital policy recommendations as:

Extend support, counseling or mentoring benefits to ensure that they are equipped to handle LGBTIQ-specific needs. Situations that might affect the mental well-being of queer employees could be: coming to terms with their sexuality and/or gender identity, coming out to family, handling marriage pressure, relationship issues.

The guide may be downloaded here.

Despite the NALSA vs. Union of India judgement, the Union of India and the state governments are in contempt of it. Many state governments have left the duly processed affidavits of many transgender people in the limbo and have insisted on Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) certificates from government hospitals despite the Supreme Court terming such insistence on SRS as both immoral and illegal in its NALSA judgement. Many transgender people across India have not been able to get their gender change affidavits published in the gazettes of their state governments, as governments have a very reductionist approach to understanding gender that is dictated only by the anatomy of the transgender person which is quite in contempt of NALSA. Consequently, many transgender people have not been able to have their duly notarised affidavits published in the gazette despite completing their responsibility in terms of filing affidavits, notarising them, publishing their name and gender change in a national and a regional newspaper. In fact, almost all state governments do not have gender change forms yet. They ONLY give name change forms and we manually write and fit in gender change details within the open spaces on the form. This is the level of institutionalised transphobia entrenched in the state and its agencies.

The socio-legal and politico-economic conditions of transgender people in India are at a very strange juncture. India has recriminalized homosexuality through the Kaushal judgement on the one side and upheld the right to choose one’s gender identity vide NALSA vs. Union of India on the other. Soon after the Kaushal judgement in December 2013, many corporations rolled back many of their HR initiatives and practices for LGBT employees. This roll back was not reversed in April 2014 after the NALSA judgement. There are barely any Indian transgender people even in the so-called LGBT friendly corporations. There are many cases where corporations claim to be “LGBT friendly” without a single Indian transgender employee. At best, they show off a face or two of their American, Australian, Canadian, European transgender employees and claim to be LGBT inclusive in India. As transgender people, we are very glad that our brothers and sisters are out there as many open and out cisgender gay, lesbian and bisexual male and female employees. But, where are the Indian transgender employees even in those US, Canada and Europe based MNCs that claim to be LGBT friendly in India? Do employers carefully not hire transgender candidates to tactfully and strategically avoid coming under the ambit of NALSA? Not being gender dysphoric, cisgender gay, lesbian and bisexual brothers and sisters don’t stand out during their hiring stages but transgender people do. Would we agree with any employer who claims to be women’s friendly or inclusive of differently-abled people despite not having a single lady and/or a differently-abled person as an employee? To my mind, the same standards of advertising ethics should apply to those corporations that claim to be LGBT friendly with no ‘T’ representation in India. Unfortunately, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) is not a very vigilant body in India.

Not all facilities/offices of many Multi-National Companies operating in India have gender neutral rooms for transgender people to use. Many of them harness these legal loopholes to deny us access to rest rooms of our chosen gender, mis-gender us time and again and in some cases. Human Resources folks have gone to the extent of telling some of us that they won’t allow the transgender employee/s access to rest rooms of our chosen gender and won’t address the us by our chosen name and gender till such time we submit a government photo ID card with our chosen name and gender. We cannot get government photo ID cards viz. Aadhar, PAN card, Voter ID card etc. until our notarised affidavits get published in the gazette. This won’t happen pan India unless there is some collectivisation through a contempt petition Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court for the repeated violations of NALSA by the Union of India and by many state governments. I am reminded of what Justice Ruma Pal, a retired senior Supreme Court judge once said at an National Law School lecture some years ago “The emerging face of some corporations in India seems to be more of that mind continuously and relentlessly innovating (pause)…to find legal ways of doing unethical things”. Some corporations are precisely trying to just do that and that has to change.

Indira has been out as a queer person since she was 20. However, she was not out to herself as a transwoman back then, identifying as a gay man for a long time. She began her professional career with the India operations of a Wall Street giant ‘X’. During her six years at X, Indira was open and out as a gay man with her employer. She did not have the need to inform them that she was dyslexic, as the role leveraged her strengths and didn’t put her inadequacies to test.

Indira was recognized with awards for high performance every year of her time at X.

She then moved to company Y. During the next six years, Indira was open and out as a gay man to her employer at Y as well. It was over these years that Indira began questioning her gender and gender identity, and came to terms with her disability. In June 2014, Indira was rehired by company X. Over the next six months Indira would be at the receiving end of the company’s violation of the mandate of the NALSA vs. Union of India judgement (hereafter, NALSA judgement) where the Supreme Court laid down that SRS should not be a prerequisite for gender change as gender transcends the body and cannot be reduced to the presence of an organ or the absence of it. The company also violated its own disability policy that mandates that differently-abled people be offered roles in consonance with their skills and strengths. This essay documents the challenges faced by Indira since her coming out as trans and dyslexic.

The First Week
Late in March 2014, Indira received a call that informed her of a role in her former employer X. The job description (JD) emailed to Indira detailed that the role she was being considered for was a ‘high logic’ role in need of a person with ‘investigative problem solving’ skills and ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking. The JD laid down the need for very strong logical and analytical skills in the candidate and Indira was an excellent fit. She was immediately hired after a battery of aptitude and psychometric tests. Almost immediately, Indira received an offer, and in less than a week she had landed the job. It is widely believed that a corporate does not rehire an ex-employee unless it is very clear and convinced about the value proposition that he/she would bring to the table.

Indira joined X in the first week of June. Her on-boarding was rushed and was completed in just 1.5 hours. She was made to board a flight to Mumbai on an assignment the very same day. Consequently, Indira’s full-fledged three–day long induction was deferred for 6 months. And, no bank account was set up.

Indira did not come out to her employer as a transwoman during hiring, for fear of an adverse hiring bias that may have no bearing whatsoever on her competence or merit. No law or organizational policy mandates that candidates reveal either their gender identity or sexuality at the time of hiring. Candidates may choose to disclose it if they wish to. Also, during the time of hiring, Indira had applied for gender- and name-change documents through an affidavit. Within a week of her joining work at X, she obtained her papers formalising these changes. Immediately, Indira came out to her manager and the functional head as a transgender woman. She submitted the papers and stated that she wanted her new name and gender to be reflected in all her records, emails, business cards and HR and business databases. She also sought access to either a women’s restroom or a gender-neutral restroom. Indira also informed her manager that her induction was pending and hence all other joining formalities were undone too. He listened and assured her that it would be done and that she will be nominated for it in some time. He did not specify a timeline, and instead put her on to the HR person. Indira also came out to the HR as a transgender woman. In a follow-up email to the HR and her functional head, Indira flagged four key concerns:

1. The training on prevention of sexual harassment at X is obsolete as it does not take transgender people and the NALSA 2014 judgement into cognizance. This is a grave concern: inaction makes the organization strategically complicit in the invisibilization of transgenders, in allowing practices deleterious to their wellbeing at the workplace. It is also violative of the NALSA judgement.

2. Her discomfort in accessing the men’s restroom and need to access either the ladies restroom or at least a gender-neutral restroom in line with the NALSA judgment. She felt sexually harassed on being forced to used the men’s restroom.

3. Her complete discomfort with being addressed Inder or the use of male personal pronouns, such as ‘he’ or ‘his’. She stated that mis-gendering when read  with NALSA the judgement clearly constitutes sexual harassment. She also told them that as per both the statute and X’s policies all sexual harassment complaints need to take impact as stated by the complainant into immediate cognizance. She reminded them of the thumb rule of impact vs. intention applied in the Vishakha guidelines of the Supreme Court and the new law Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.

4. Her non-induction till date and consequent incompletion of all induction formalities.
Indira attached her non-SRS gender- and name-change papers with this email. The HR questioned her as to why she didn’t reveal her trans identity at the time of hiring. Indira explained that her coming out was legally unwarranted. He addressed her as Inder despite her telling him that she is not Inder but Indira. Since he was clearly unaware of the NALSA judgement, the HR person was not able to advise Indira. He asked for some time and told her that as she was in a critical stage of a high priority project, she would need to wait to get released to get inducted. This email and this week in June was the first in a seven-month long fight against employment discrimination and organizational opacity.

The First Month
Indira began her assignment—a training and immersion programme with the client in Mumbai—that was meant to go on for 1–1.5 months. Near the last week of June, Indira reminded her managers and the HR, both verbally and on email, of her non-induction and of her trans identity for change of name and gender formalities.

In the meanwhile, another issue had popped up at work. The job-on-the-floor was completely different from what was communicated to her during hiring in the JD. It was, instead, a high precision job, demanding critical business decision-making in one reading, and within a timeline of 15–20 minutes; a dyslexic’s nightmare. Indira informed her manager, the functional head and the HR person of her dyslexia and the wrong fitment into this role. She explained at length that dyslexia is a statutory learning disability covered in X’s own disability policy. She followed this up on email by attaching her dyslexia certificates from two leading private hospitals, viz. Apollo and Medanta, and two leading government hospitals, viz. Institute of Behaviour and Allied Sciences and Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Delhi.

Indira was asked by the HR as to why she did not reveal her condition of dyslexia at the time of hiring. She responded that she was never asked if she was dyslexic either verbally or in writing. She highlighted that the JD sent to her showed no bearing that her dyslexia could possibly have on the role that she was being hired for. She also highlighted that the key information on the role was misrepresented and withheld by the employer who shared a flawed JD and skewed her understanding of the role. There was a clear and total JD vs. job-on-the-floor mismatch; this was not an L&D (Learning and Development) job, but an operational training role. Indira received a standard response on email from the HR person that her concerns were being considered, while he continued to address her as Inder.

Three Months, Two Reminders and One Escalation
In July, Indira requested her functional head and the HR for a resolution to all the above issues she had raised. She received no response to her email other than an out-dated Out of Office reply. Indira received an email from the HR in the end of July that she needs to submit her Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) certificate for gender change. Indira immediately responded that insisting on SRS as a prerequisite for gender change is violative of the NALSA judgement. She did not receive a response. One month later, in September, Indira writes again to all highlighting that insistence on SRS as a prerequisite for gender change is violative of the NALSA judgement. She reminded her manager and the HR of her request for a resolution to all the issues raised. Four months down, Indira was still in Mumbai, hadn’t been inducted yet, bank account formalities were not done and salary unpaid.

By the last week of September, Indira escalated the issue to the General Manager (HR). However, that did not yield any results either. Her HR personnel responded instead, informing Indira that that there were no provisions in X’s India policies to change her name and gender. She wrote back explaining that it was not in line with the NALSA judgement and sends her the gender- and name-change documents again. She also drew attention to his email that it didn’t address the other issues she had raised, viz. statutory protection for dyslexics at work under the company’s policy, JD vs. job-on-the-floor mismatch, non-induction and incompletion of induction formalities.

Reaching the Ombudsperson
The ensuing reply from the HR personnel still addressed Indira as Inder and simply repeated that there were no such policies at X in India. Indira reminded him of X’s global policy, explaining that the global policies on ‘Respecting the individual and Diversity and Inclusion’ have a provision for it. The HR dismissed it as not being applicable in India. It was the end of October and the GM (HR) intervened for the first time, adding a one-liner that Indira should submit her sex re-assignment surgery (SRS) certificate. Indira was still in Mumbai after her first assignment of 1–1.5 months gets extended to 6 months.

In the first week of December, Indira received her confirmation letter. Now, she raised the same issues in the confirmation meeting with her manager and the HR and followed it up with an email. Indira was coaxed and cajoled verbally to stay calm as she is doing very well for herself and shouldn’t insist on a role change. They skirted the issue of her trans identity, name and gender change, access to gender neutral restroom, role change and other issues. Her subsequent escalation of this concern to the GM (HR) did not yield any result. Instead, she received an email from her functional head and the HR person complimenting her work in the project. The mail explained she was a strong resource, greatly needed, and that she could not have a role change. Her manager had also written in reiterating that she should submit an SRS certificate. This email had an undeleted comment in email exchanges between her manager and the HR personnel casting aspersions on her trans identity and questioning the veracity of her dyslexia. It must be remembered that she had submitted, well in time, all gender- and name-change documents as evidence and her dyslexia certificates from leading private and government hospitals.

Following this Indira raised a complaint with the office of the Ombudsperson and the Global Diversity and Inclusion Head. She mentioned in her email that the escalation to the GM (HR) did not yield any results and that she had engaged enough and more with the business and HR leadership and that she had exhausted all options of redress in India. She reported the deliberate mis-gendering, wanton sexual harassment, persistent disability discrimination, employment discrimination and protracted non-payment of wages.

She attached all supporting documents, emails, follow up emails, incomplete responses from her manager and the HR personnel that showed the inherent discrimination, and flagged these as violative of X’s policy and the laws of the land. She explained that her case had a very high risk of litigation if not addressed internally and adequately within X.

Hearings and the Deliverance of Justice
The offices of the Ombudsperson, Global Diversity and Inclusion took cognizance of this complaint and scheduled the first hearing—with Indira and the defendents, her manager and the HR personnel—on 11th December 2014. On the day of the first hearing, Indira presented and defended her case with evidence before the joint committee of the Ombudsperson, Global Diversity and Inclusion. After the 2-hour sitting her manager and the HR personnel seek time to build their defence and show evidence. The case was adjourned for second hearing on 17th December 2014.

On 18th December 2014, the second hearing was summoned. Indira defended her case with all the above evidence, supporting emails, notarised affidavits and certificates. The defendants failed to present any evidence other that their own verbal submissions. They sought more time. The joint committee made oral and written observations and gave time up to 5th January 2015.

On 5th January 2015, the third hearing was summoned. The defendants yet again failed to present any evidence in the form of emails or their responses to Indira’s emails. Making oral submissions, they sought more time to gather evidence. The joint committee made scathing verbal and written remarks on file against the defendants and gave a final timeline not exceeding beyond 13th January 2015 for submission of evidence. The committee mandated that the decision would be announced on the 13th of January regardless of whether the defendants submit evidence or not.

On 13th January, the fourth hearing was summoned. The defendants failed to present any evidence other their own verbal submissions. The committee awarded a verdict. The committee held the defendants complicit in violating X’s policies on the following counts:

1. Disability discrimination under X’s Global Disability Policy. The committee upheld Indira’s right to a role change in line with her skills and the JD that was emailed to her at the time of hiring.

2. Deliberate mis-gendering both verbally and on email as Inder instead of Indira by company X’s India business leadership and India HR despite submission of all relevant and necessary supporting documents by her. The committee declared that such treatment of Indira by X India was violative of X’s HR policies and the NALSA judgement.

3. Sexual harassment of Indira by undermining her integrity on email with disparaging remarks; denial of access to a restroom of her chosen gender and coercing her to only use the men’s restroom; and, wantonly addressing her by the name and pronouns assigned to her at the time of her birth.

4. Insistence of SRS for gender change as violative of the NALSA judgement.

5. Discrimination and severe harassment for denial of pay, non-induction and for not setting up her bank account even after six and a half months of joining.

The committee awarded immediate release of Indira from the current role and instructed a role change within a timeline not exceeding 10 business days to a role in accordance with X’s JD and Indira’s skills, resume and her dyslexic condition. The committee ordered that Indira shall henceforth only be addressed as Indira and that she shall have access to restrooms of her chosen gender and that all records both online and otherwise should reflect Indira’s credentials by her chosen gender and name and that all the above changes need to completed within 10 business days ending on 27 January 2015.

This essay tries to bring to light the undercurrent of bias and stigma that operate invisibly against a certain disenfranchised and marginalised constituencies, in this case a dyslexic transgender person at the workplace. Besides, it reveals how disability, diversity and anti-sexual harassment policies that are meant to offer an equitable workplace and cover of protection are observed more in the breach than in compliance in the case of the differently-abled and the transgenders. Consequently, X tested Indira not on her skills, strengths or inadequacies but on her disability. It also underscores how the same person with the same set of skills and the same level of performance is treated very differently before and after gender change by the same employer.

P.S.: For confidentiality, names of all people—including Indira’s—have been changed, places have been changed and the name of her employer withheld.

The more I thought about it, the more sense it made to me. Inclusivity sometimes just becomes a re-drawing of boundaries, even when it’s not meant to be that – a checklist with the different marginalised groups we “include.” For example, many job openings run the disclaimer: “Women, people belonging to different castes, tribal communities and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.” Some people will then critique this statement for not checking enough of the boxes in our politically correct list of marginalised groups, like those excluded, in society, based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

First of all, I doubt anyone can create a checklist that would encompass every such group. And second, this approach reaffirms narratives of “Who is more marginalised?” and “How many categories on this checklist does one person belong to?” These are counter-productive to what a lot of us try to achieve as human rights activists.

I will readily admit that I’ve been guilty of this way of thinking. And while it didn’t make complete sense to me, I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was wrong with it. This is why the statement about ‘opening up’ was so metamorphic for me. It became a one-sentence principle to guide my efforts towards elimination of boundaries versus their re-drawing.

I’ve been working with Amnesty International India for more than six months now. It’s a space that is definitely one of the more progressive and less bigoted work environments I’ve experienced. Having been a part of the LGBTQI support community for a while now, I was happy to notice during my interview that the restrooms here did not have the traditional Women/Men signs (For the purpose of clarity, I would like to mention that these are single-occupancy restrooms).

A month later, when I started working here, those very Women/Men signs greeted me at the restroom doors. And really, what is up with those signs? The Men/Women stick figures are hardly representative of what actual men and women look like. Not that other signs featuring men with moustaches and hats and women with nose pins and long flowing hair do any better and only reinforce gender stereotypes!

The hiring policies and work culture of Amnesty do not reflect this bias, but those restroom signs still had to go. Taking the point of reinforcing gender stereotypes and conformity further, the existence of separate restrooms provides challenges for some transgender and intersex persons. Here are a few reasons why:

1. There aren’t just two genders of ‘man’ or ‘woman.’ A person may not necessarily identify as male or female, and signage that does not recognise other gender identities can become an act of gender discrimination by limiting access.
2. There aren’t just two sexes of male and female. Intersex people, who possess characteristics that do not correspond to normative standards of male or female, need not identify as male or female, irrespective of the sex assigned at their birth.
3. A transgender person may not want to publicly reveal their identity, or may be going through a physical transition to conform to their true gender identity and/or gender expression. The Men/Women signage places them in a situation of conflict: of either having to use a restroom they do not prefer, or out themselves at a time when they may not be ready. And all this when a person may already be going through physical, hormonal and psychological changes and stress.

Also important to consider is the violence a transgender or intersex person might face in restrooms that have distinct and exclusively Men/Women multiple-occupant restroom stalls. A transwoman or hijra using a women’s restroom could be misperceived as a man using a women’s restroom he doesn’t have the right to or vice-versa. This makes it that much more necessary for both public and private spaces to also have individual gender-neutral restrooms (This does not, of course, take away from the need to have women-only – including transwomen – restroom stalls in certain locations, which may be desirable for various reasons, including safety).

After putting together a proposal to our HR department and a consultation with the senior management, we’ve now removed the Women/Men restroom signs in our office and replaced them with ‘all gender restroom’ signs. This step at the Amnesty workplace, and the call for gender-neutral restrooms in public spaces, complements the April 2014 Supreme Court judgment in the NALSA versus Union of India case that directed the legal recognition of transgender persons’ gender identities.

This judgment instituted the right to self identity, called for non-discrimination of transgenders and improved access to opportunities and public spaces. The Court specifically observed that access to public toilets was a problem for transgender persons, who are often forced to use toilets for men, where they are vulnerable to sexual assault and harassment. International human rights law prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

International human rights treaties that India has agreed to be bound by have been interpreted as prohibiting discrimination on these grounds. UN human rights experts have confirmed that international law prohibits discriminatory treatment in a range of everyday settings like workplaces, schools and hospitals.

‘Being inclusive’ also comes with the implication that it is a thing that you do. You either are inclusive (of certain people) or you are not, similar to the checklist reference, while ‘opening up’ implies more of a process. Nobody has it all figured out. No space is perfectly inclusive. Not even human rights spaces. I doubt anyone knows what such a space would even look like. However, it is important that we start the process – think, listen and act.

This article originally appeared on Social Story, and has been reproduced with consent.

The workplace occupies significant part of our daily lives. Gone are the days when we used to carry only our heads to work. These days, a work situation requires so much creativity and energy that it demands you in complete form. It is essential for one to take one’s head, heart and needless to mention—physical or ethereal— body! Our sexuality and gender, naturally, follow us to our workplaces.

Putting aside the more advanced aspects of human resource policies around LGBT inclusion such as partner policies and spouse health benefits, I’d like to reflect on the many everyday instances where our genders and sexualities are made to feel left out; or by contrast, picked on. Take, for instance, the office water cooler. While gulping down a tumbler-full, one feels the need to make small talk with one’s co-workers. One cannot help but touch upon topics of market, politics and – everybody’s favourite – relationship status. I have been asked about my non-existent girlfriend so many times now, that I feel obligated to have one just so that those few seconds of futile socializing pass by without choking. Nothing very dreadful for LGBTQ so far, and one’s LGBTQness doesn’t need a place in documents and policies of the firm just for this much. We have learnt well, over the years, to dodge these prying questions.

But, then if you become the outcast for not incessantly talking about girls (speaking for self here, my lesbian and bi women friends can modify suitably), and not being interested in ogling at  every “chick” walking by, you are likely to attract some nasty comments. No, being called gay isn’t nasty. Being called gay nastily is. Because then you are being discriminated against, and you know that the ludicrous thing here is not something you said or did, but your being (or even the notion of your being) gay. Now these jokes and jibes at your expense may or may not make you strong, depending on your mettle, but you definitely don’t deserve this at your workplace. You are fighting enough battles within and out already!

To reduce this struggle for workplace equality to a mere consequence of being in the closet, and exhorting all people to come out, is inappropriate. Coming out has always been, and will always be, a matter best left to each individual’s circumstances. We all get there at our own pace, with or without support, with or without effort. To push sexual minorities to a corner through callous remarks and insinuations, and then expect them to bounce back, knocking down their closet doors and emerging in a flurry of rainbows so that the politically correct response “Oh, you’re Gay! We support you!” can then be activated is rather cruel. There is no need for that kind of pressure, at least not at the workplace where there is already pressure to perform.

Organizations are well within their right to chose their modes and values of their functioning. But it is productive for them in the long run, if they are able to keep people together. A company need not be ostentatiously “gay-friendly” with designated staff sporting ‘ally’ badges and websites celebrating their Gay Employee of the Month, or whatever. A ‘be and let be’ policy is good for starters. What I ask for is sensitization of everybody in the workplace. If  individuals choose to come out as a consequence of this policy then all’s fine and well: we could then go for ‘all homo’ picnics and probably drag along our ‘fag hags’. But it’s paramount that the modern company in India acknowledge that we LGBTQ people are here, visible or not, and that the company wants them here no less (and no more) than anybody else who is as qualified and competent.

Apart from the need to have non-discrimination policies at work, LGBTQ support groups external to the firm have a very important role to play in producing environments of understanding. Public discourse generated by events such as panel discussions, movie screenings,  events that you could take or refer your co-workers to as part of sensitizing them, needs to keep happening. On the flip side, there is very little meaning in treating  non-normative sexuality or gender identity as something flashy and different, and regarding LGBTQ colleagues as a rare or exotic species, in the name of inclusiveness. What we need in the workplace is an atmosphere of continuous and intrinsic inclusiveness that is not contingent on people being out. Such an atmosphere is not created merely by companies jumping on the gay-friendly bandwagon because of commands from headquarters or new policy imposed on a local office by the powers that be. Knowledge, sensitivity and genuine intent to address LGBTQ issues are the needs of the hour. Such inclusion without explosion will surely take some time, and businesses must take it up as a part of their larger inclusion and diversity mandate.

In a nation where persecution of inter-caste couples painfully makes it to the front page everyday, recognition of same-sex partners by organizations is still a matter of wishful thinking. Nonetheless, proper orientation (yes, the one with Powerpoint ppt-s too!) of the leaders of organizations is essential to make every individual more informed and sensitive on LGBTQ issues. We understand that a majority do not know, hence do not understand. Facts and data will work in our favour, if the point below does not:

It has been four years since the historic Naz Foundation judgement decriminalized us. We have four long years of evidence to our credit to say, “Look! The country hasn’t gone to the dogs because of us, as you feared! Has your family structure broken down? Don’t you still live your every day as it pleases you? The only difference is: now, WE have the opportunity to do so too!”.

Do you know that several MNC/Global companies look to attract, retain and promote diversity which includes LGBT diversity?

In fact you use the products/services of these companies everyday (Pepsi, Apple, Nike, Microsoft, Google, Toyota, Dell, Citigroup etc.). Many of these Fortune 500 companies have their operations right here in India and you might want to consider working at these great places.

• Human Rights Campaign: Best Places to work in 2012
• Diversity Inc: Top ten places for LGBT employees to work

More resources: Being LGBT at Workplace