Is that really what DEI schemes do?
Is that really true though?
Is Thomas Willett’s ability to be himself at work really vital? Is it true that he shouldn’t have to hide who he is?
I don’t mean specifically the azza gay man part, I mean the generalization. Is it vital for people to “be themselves” at work?
I’ve always taken the truth of this claim for granted, but today I paused to interrogate it.
I don’t think it is, at least not always, not necessarily, not regardless of what the work is or who the other workers are or what is expected of employees.
Work is not primarily a social opportunity. It’s work. Some kinds of work may go much better if the workers know each other well and get along, but lots or most kinds of work don’t depend on that. Skills matter, effort matters, attention matters…a lot of things matter more than whether or not every employee is her or his beloved self. It may be preferable for people to feel they don’t have to hide things about themselves at work but I doubt it’s always vital.
And sometimes the need goes the other way. Some people don’t want to spill much about themselves at work, especially if they’re pushed to do so.
I don’t want to go too far with this. I’m certainly not saying people should be closeted, or that nonconforming people should conform. I’m just saying don’t overstate it. No homophobia in the workplace: definitely. Being yourself at work: frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.
Ophelia, well put.
I would add that “be yourself” has a multitude of meanings. Mentioning the name of one’s partner, posting a “couples” picture on the cubicle wall, using the sex-appropriate pronouns for that person, all that is different from, say, discussing intimate details of one’s sex life, or dressing in the thong, or getting physical with someone in the workplace, but any of those things could easily be dismissed as “I was just being myself”.
I also fail to see how the items that Maya is complaining about have any bearing on whether someone, gay or not, can “be oneself”. Rainbow emblems on trucks don’t automatically free up speech or dress policies, and don’t excuse people from meeting normal standards of business decorum. They are, as Maya said, “virtue signalling schemes”.
Yes, and of course Willett simply calls her “anti-trans activist Maya” and labels her claim “transphobia.” So much for the right to be oneself eh?
I’ve just had my mind blown by this interview with trans woman Debbie Hayton.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q0DT1aBHheI
I’m so old that when I grew up it was expected we be professional at work, not be ourselves at work.
Papito: exactly that. There have been plenty of times when me “being myself” at my workplace would 100% have gotten me fired, if not jailed… and, frankly, rightfully so. Impulse control isn’t a bad thing. All this coddling of adult narcissists with toddler-level attitudes is nauseating.
Ah, I’ve got context on that tweet now… Dunno if I’d really connect the big Fujitsu scandal with the Stonewall nonsense though. Seems an unreasonable juxtaposition. Unless she’s not referencing that?
If I remember well, “wanting to be myself” was used as argument by moslem women for protesting the dress code for medical staff. Naked wrists are not modest according to Islam dress rules.
Just once I’d like to see one of these people specify their premises and the exact rules of inference by which they get from premises to conclusion. E.g. how does this guy get from anything Maya said about Post Offices’s participation in the now actively homophobic* Stonewall’s Champions and Workplace Equality Index to “homophobia” or the idea that he “as a gay man” will not be allowed to “be himself at work”, be forced to “hide who he is” etc.?
I fully agree that the proper attitude in a workplace setting is to be professional. In the literal sense (i.e. x=x) you couldn’t avoid “being yourself” if you tried, so this is the one thing for which no policies will ever be required. In the sense that these people are talking about (i.e. conflating their private and professional lives) “being yourself” at work is not something to strive for in the first place. You know what really “creates division”? Everybody “being themselves”.
*Equating criticism of Stonewall with homophobia is like equating criticism of the Republican Party with racism because the G.O.P. was on the right side of the slavery issue.
It’s fairly easy to come up with examples where “being yourself” at a workplace (in the sense of letting all the world know all about who you think you are) would be unacceptable. A vegan working at McDonald’s, for example, probably wouldn’t last long if they lectured the customers on the cruelty of eating meat. That doesn’t mean that vegans shouldn’t be allowed to work there, or even that they shouldn’t be able to let their coworkers know that they’re vegans, but context matters.
People subscribe to all sorts of ideologies. It doesn’t have to be a problem, but the type of person who preaches their ideology at work is a big problem, unless that’s part of the job. I wouldn’t want to be asked if I’ve been “saved” by a grocery clerk either, and I sure as hell don’t want to be asked what my pronouns are under any circumstances.
What a Maroon @9
I can think of examples where “being yourself” at work would create a safety hazard. There are reasons we have OSHA, EPA, DOT regulations. Those regulations limit how much one can be one’s “authentic self” at work. For good reasons. And damn good reasons. There’s a saying about OSHA regulations being written in blood.