LGBT Anonymous Workplace Survey - consider NOT participating

deirdre_dub

There is an LGBT Anonymous Workplace Survey being conducted by some academics in TCD.

I'm going to suggest NOT PARTICIPATING.

Why? Because of a pet peeve of mine - question 11 lists "transgender" alongside sexual orientations. I think this shows that the people who put the survey together don't actually understand what they are talking about, and so they are not the right people to give the information to.

The survey is here, though please consider NOT PARTICIPATING

baby and crumble

but they're asking what your LGBT orientation is. Not sexual orientation. The 'T' in LGBT has to come from somewhere. Whether you like it or not, transgender is bundled with lesbian, gay and bisexual. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here in the LGBT forum.

Also, in q 14 they differentiate sexual and gender identity. Perfectly acceptable if you ask me.

Sir Ophiuchus

The exact wording is "Please indicate what you consider your Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) identity to be." That's perfectly acceptable. They're just asking where you identify yourself as part of the LGBT spectrum, not equating transgender as a sexual orientation.

On a personal note, I've taken classes given by that study's supervisor, and she's very clued-in on survey research in general and sensitive psychological research in particular.

Also, later questions differentiate between sexual orientation and gender identity, and question 24 asks specifically if you identify as male, female, transgender, or other (with a space to fill in).

I'm not saying you don't need to be careful to be aware of heteronormative or cisnormative assumptions in research - I've pointed them out to fellow psychology students and researchers before, and actively avoid them in my own research - but I think that in this case your concerns are unfounded.

Annasopra

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

The exact wording is "Please indicate what you consider your Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) identity to be." That's perfectly acceptable. They're just asking where you identify yourself as part of the LGBT spectrum, not equating transgender as a sexual orientation.

That's a bit silly though because you could identify as Trans AND Lesbian.

I think it could be worded better -

Sir Ophiuchus

Johnnymcg wrote: »

That's a bit silly though because you could identify as Trans AND Lesbian.

I think it could be worded better -

Oh, definitely, though there is an "other" option you can fill in. It's poorly worded, but even in that I don't think it's either offensive or ignorant.

Eebs

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Oh, definitely, though there is an "other" option you can fill in. It's poorly worded, but even in that I don't think it's either offensive or ignorant.

She didn't actually call it offensive, though in fairness it is ignorant (though again she didn't say that). She said it was a pet peeve.

It's one of my pet peeves too* but I tend to just email the authors and highlight it instead of not taking the survey. They won't reallu get the message that way. Any message actually since less people will fill out the survey making it less and less accurate.

Most surveys are TERRIBLY done. Not just LGBT ones.


*Badly written surveys on the whole are actually a pet peeve of mine really.

LegacyUser

Bit unfair, this thread. It's just someone trying to do a survey for their studies, I really think that if there was a questionable wording or implication then the mature thing to do would be to contact the person directly and make them aware of this. People conducting surveys of this kind are always grateful for comment and criticism, as it's something that they can include in the study afterwards. And, as has been said by others, it's just a case of something that could possibly have been worded better.

After all, the fact that this person is doing this survey as part of a Diploma in Psychology suggests to me that at the very least, they are probably not a person out to spread ignorance or misinformation.

deirdre_dub

zoegh wrote: »

but they're asking what your LGBT orientation is. Not sexual orientation.

I'm bisexual transgendered. Which should I marginalise when it comes to answering question 11?

The 'T' in LGBT has to come from somewhere.

Yes - it comes under the question "gender identity". Most people will answer in the male/female binary, but some will answer M2F/F2M.

Whether you like it or not, transgender is bundled with lesbian, gay and bisexual.

I love that transgender is bundled with lesbian, gay and bisexual! I just don't get it when I'm forced to marginalise either my trans side or my bisexual side.

Also, in q 14 they differentiate sexual and gender identity. Perfectly acceptable if you ask me.

I have to admit I didn't get that far.

deirdre_dub

Eebs wrote: »

She didn't actually call it offensive, though in fairness it is ignorant (though again she didn't say that).

In fairness, I kinda did call it ignorant! My point is that I believe it shows enough ignorance that LGBT people should consider not participating.

It's one of my pet peeves too* but I tend to just email the authors and highlight it instead of not taking the survey. They won't reallu get the message that way. Any message actually since less people will fill out the survey making it less and less accurate.

I've already emailed the survey authors. As for my decision to not participate - I don't give out information about my life to just anyone who asks. They have to show me, for instance, that they are professional, understanding, and that they will put the information to good use. This survey fails at least 2 of those 3 tests IMO.

mikemac

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I'm bisexual transgendered. Which should I marginalise when it comes to answering question 11?

Just select "other" and write in your reasons. Follow up with a call/letter to the organizer and they won't repeat it next time.

deirdre_dub

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

The exact wording is "Please indicate what you consider your Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) identity to be." That's perfectly acceptable.

Not to me - as I said above, it forces me to marginalise an important part of my identity.

Also, later questions differentiate between sexual orientation and gender identity, and question 24 asks specifically if you identify as male, female, transgender, or other (with a space to fill in).

... all of which makes question 11 utterly and completely pointless!

I'm not saying you don't need to be careful to be aware of heteronormative or cisnormative assumptions in research - I've pointed them out to fellow psychology students and researchers before, and actively avoid them in my own research - but I think that in this case your concerns are unfounded.

I respectfully disagree. This is, IMO, enough of a cisnormative survey to raise warning flags with me anyway.

deirdre_dub

feelingstressed wrote: »

Just select "other" and write in your reasons. Follow up with a call/letter to the organizer and they won't repeat it next time.

And that is what makes it a cisnormative survey - many (if not most) transgendered people have to put themselves in the "other" box!

mikemac

God bless boards, I learn a new word every day

Today the word is

cisnormative

Again, I'll say write to the organizer with your feedback and it shouldn't happen next time.
This is a better option then ignoring it as per Post 1

deirdre_dub

feelingstressed wrote: »

Just select "other"

In other words - "transgendered people - please use the 'other' box. Unless, of course, you are straight, in which case feel free to use the 'transgendered' box". :mad:

Boston

Just goes to show, you try to do something to support LGBT people and because it's not 100% perfect, you're lambasted. Can you not just appreciate the sentiment? There's complaints about the narrow definitions provided, but even homosexual,Bisexual and Lesbian are pretty piss poor categories, what about the straight guys and gay girls who occasionally like to sleep with men, and vice versa? Answer the survey as best you can if you care or not at all if you don't.

LegacyUser

I find the survey to be perfectly acceptable. Im lesbian, not trans, but I have a few transgender friends. And I have to say from reading this, and other trans members posts on this forum, it presents transgenders as very uptight easily offendible and overly politicially correct people and this is NOT true in my experience. In my experience, I've found them to be very easy going friendly lovely people.

I also dislike the way that anyone (straight, gay or whatever) who comes onto these threads asking about trans people, they get shot down and their head bitten off if they're not 100% PC. I don't tolerate abusiveness or discrimination to any LGBT people, but some people are just clueless and want some information.

Anyway, rant over!

Aard

Kind of ironic on the whole, Deirdre Dub. A while ago you were advertising your friend's survey. I criticised it, and you lost the rag. Now here you are criticising somebody else's survey, and expect everybody to agree with you.


I await either:
a) your lack of response, or
b) your response that misses the point of my post.

Boston

Where is the self righteous indignation over the lack of an asexual option.

Sir Ophiuchus

This is why, when I did my research project, I had "gender" as a blank field, not a checkbox.

Deirdre, I think these people are really trying. I've given them feedback as well - I just don't think undermining the validity of their results when they're genuinely conducting a study that would be of great benefit to queer working people is the best way to protest their wording. And I have critiqued a study for heteronormativity in the past. It is, in fact, a pet peeve of mine too!

I'm not denying your right to be offended at the study's poor wording, and I think you've expressed your point of view very well. Just ... I think it's easy to get angry at people who, the wording of the questions suggests, have put serious thought into being as inclusive as possible. Much easier than getting angry at every other survey or Internet form in the world that asks "Male / Female".

In summary, friendly fire sucks.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

Kind of ironic on the whole, Deirdre Dub. A while ago you were advertising your friend's survey. I criticised it, and you lost the rag. Now here you are criticising somebody else's survey, and expect everybody to agree with you.

The title of this thread says "consider not participating", so I don't understand how you can say that I expect everyone to agree with me. Of course I don't!!!

I await either:
a) your lack of response, or
b) your response that misses the point of my post.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it seems that option (c) is to point out that you apparently don't understand the difference between an argued request to consider something, and an expectation of that something.

deirdre_dub

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Deirdre, I think these people are really trying. I've given them feedback as well - I just don't think undermining the validity of their results when they're genuinely conducting a study that would be of great benefit to queer working people is the best way to protest their wording.

(snip)

In summary, friendly fire sucks.

Point taken.

I'm not questioning their motivation - I'm questioning their competance. I really really don't want to see yet another academic report that portrays transgenderism as some sort of sexual fetish. I'm fearing reading something in the report along the lines of "those whose sexual orientation is transgenderism face a different set of challenges in the workplace".

One of the reasons why it took me so long to come out to myself (I'm 41) is because I swallowed all this stuff about transgenderism being a sexual orientation. It did me enormous harm in my life. I simply cannot participate in something that may perpetuate that misunderstanding of what transgenderism is and isn't. And I most especially cannot participate in it when it has the academic weight of TCD behind it.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Where is the self righteous indignation over the lack of an asexual option.

Right there ^^^ ?

deirdre_dub

nologi wrote: »

I find the survey to be perfectly acceptable.

Good for you!

Im lesbian, not trans, but I have a few transgender friends. And I have to say from reading this, and other trans members posts on this forum, it presents transgenders as very uptight easily offendible and overly politicially correct people and this is NOT true in my experience. In my experience, I've found them to be very easy going friendly lovely people.

Have you not also found us to be a much misunderstood people? When we come across things (like this survey) which perpetuates those misunderstandings, what are we supposed to do - roll over and play nice and take it?!

Does it not stick in your throat when people come on here and spout the usual rubbish about what "all lesbians" are like?

I also dislike the way that anyone (straight, gay or whatever) who comes onto these threads asking about trans people, they get shot down and their head bitten off if they're not 100% PC. I don't tolerate abusiveness or discrimination to any LGBT people, but some people are just clueless and want some information.

You are talking about a different issue here - unless, that is, that you are agreeing with me that these TCD academics are (as you say) "clueless"?

It is, of course, to be expected that Joe Sixpack off the street will be clueless about these issues. However, it is another matter entirely when these misconceptions are coming from a bunch of academics in a survey they put together on lgbt issues.

Anyway, rant over!

And you were giving out to me for ranting?

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Just goes to show, you try to do something to support LGBT people and because it's not 100% perfect, you're lambasted.

The reason why I'm coming on here about this is because this is an academic survey with the weight of TCD behind it that perpetuates a misunderstanding of transgenderism. That is much more serious than your regular run-of-the-mill community initiative.

Can you not just appreciate the sentiment?

Can I not just roll over, play nice, and take whatever these people throw at me? Eh - no. If gay people in the 70s rolled over and accepted the academic consensus of the time that gay is a disease, where would you be now?

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

One of the reasons why it took me so long to come out to myself (I'm 41) is because I swallowed all this stuff about transgenderism being a sexual orientation. It did me enormous harm in my life. I simply cannot participate in something that may perpetuate that misunderstanding of what transgenderism is and isn't. And I most especially cannot participate in it when it has the academic weight of TCD behind it.

Christ. Quoted from the first page of the survery

lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender

No rational person could get "being Transgender is a sexual orientation" from that. You're allowing your personal bias and desire to see insult in the innocent misguide your judgement. It's very clear from that line of text that the authors recognise that a distinction exists between sexual identity and gender identity.

Maybe therir execution was a bit poor later on, but the correct place to make your "requests" are with the author. Coming onto an online forum and attempting to portray the authors of the survey as unthinking, uncaring and backwards is laughable. One would think there were bigger thing to get upset about.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The reason why I'm coming on here about this is because this is an academic survey with the weight of TCD behind it that perpetuates a misunderstanding of transgenderism. That is much more serious than your regular run-of-the-mill community initiative.
Can I not just roll over, play nice, and take whatever these people throw at me? Eh - no. If gay people in the 70s rolled over and accepted the academic consensus of the time that gay is a disease, where would you be now?

Have you the first clue what the survey is about? You're greatly exaggerating it's significance. You're also taking it as a personal attack upon yourself that you, personally, aren't catered for. Maybe for the purposes of whatever work the author is doing it doesn't matter if your both Gay/Bi and Transgendered? Maybe that's statically insignificant? You've every right to like drama, but there's enough in the world without creating more just because you're bored.

deirdre_dub

deirdre_dub wrote: »

If gay people in the 70s rolled over and accepted the academic consensus of the time that gay is a disease, where would you be now?

I'd just like to point out that transgenderism is still considered to be a disease. I believe it is listed in the DSM near paedophilia.

I'm currently in the process of trying to secure the services of a psychiatrist, and beg him to diagnose me with a mental illness, as without that diagnosis I cannot get surgery.

Imagine, if you can, what it would be like for you if you had to beg a psychiatrist to diagnose you with a mental illness before you were allowed to sleep with your partner. Really - try and imagine what that would be like. You have to go to your GP and ask him to refer you to a psychiatrist. You then have to go to the psychiatrist and tell him all about your childhood and all that stuff, and hope, actually HOPE, that he decides that you are mentally ill, as only then will you have the RIGHT to sleep with your loved one. Now that you have imagined what it might be like, take note that this is the reality for transgendered people.

So, no, I'm not going to roll over and play nice when these people tell me that I am what I know I'm not. OK?

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So, no, I'm not going to roll over and play nice when these people tell me that I am what I know I'm not. OK?

What is it you feel they are telling you you are?

Aard

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The title of this thread says "consider not participating", so I don't understand how you can say that I expect everyone to agree with me. Of course I don't!!!

Sorry to disappoint you, but it seems that option (c) is to point out that you apparently don't understand the difference between an argued request to consider something, and an expectation of that something.

So, (b) then?

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Christ. Quoted from the first page of the survery.

Christ - I thought I had said that my beef isn't with the first page of the survey - it is with question 11.

You're allowing your personal bias and desire to see insult in the innocent misguide your judgement.

So now I have a desire to see insult?! Good grief!

I think it's clear that what is actually happening here is that you have a desire to see me as someone with a desire to see insult? At a guess, I'd say that you could be doing that so that you can easily dismiss me?

Maybe there execution was a bit poor later on, but the correct place to make your "requests" are with the author. Coming onto an online forum and attempting to portray the authors of the survey as unthinking, uncaring and backwards is laughable.

I have obviously failed to convince you with my arguments. I accept that. Now go away.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

So, (b) then?

OK - yes - (b) - you have failed to communicate your point to me.

(Sorry - Aard - it takes two to tango - I'm not going to take sole responsibility for not understanding your point).

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

What is it you feel they are telling you you are?

I believe I answered that above when I talked about what I feared the final report could say.

Look - it's a fear - it's not a foregone conclusion. If I'm the only person with that fear, then so be it.

Aard

Boston wrote: »

You're allowing your personal bias and desire to see insult in the innocent misguide your judgement.

This is the most important thing that has been said in the whole debacle.

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Christ - I thought I had said that my beef isn't

The first page demonstrates the failings of your accusations. I guess you ignored the first page as it made it difficult to interpret later questions in the way you so obviously desire. If they are so blind and ignorant, if they are so determined to force you to be something you're not, if they are so cruel and tormenting, than why are they so clearly reasonable in the opening page. Is it not infinitely more likly to be an oversight on the part of the author? The supervisor for this piece of work has published no works on gender identity and as such was unlikely to pick up errors of omission such as the one you've taken issue with.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

Boston wrote:

You're allowing your personal bias and desire to see insult in the innocent misguide your judgement.

This is the most important thing that has been said in the whole debacle.

I agree. It makes assumptions of me (kinda like the survey, when you think about it). It attacks my character. It reduces me to a biased person, a person with a desire to be insulted, a person incapable of accepting the innocent, and a person with poor judgement. It makes it easy to dismiss me. It denigrates me.

Aard, Boston, PLEASE answer the survey, and go away.

Thank you.

deirdre_dub

UPDATE

I've been so busy defending myself against the gross attacks on my character that I haven't been reading my email. I've received a very promising apology from the survey author. The author's response affirms and acknowledges my criticisms of the survey, which gives me hope that my fears may be unfounded. I'm going to respond to the author, and hope to post more here soon.

Boston

An assumption is an opinion based on either no data or incomplete data. You have provided me with lengthy arguments and I've based my opinion on my observations. That is called a judgement.


Now a little thought exercise:

You have made assumptions with regards to the authors intention based on a single piece of data (question 11) which you opening acknowledge is directly challenged by another piece of data (the front page). The survey provides the reader with a conflicting message to the reader, we've all acknowledge that. To draw not only conclusions, but vehement conclusions based on conflicting information smacks of bias. I suggest that the bias in question is one which is aligned towards a victim and a siege mentality.

Occams razor, the simplest solution is often the right solution. Or, put another way, never attribute to malish that which can be attributed to ignorance and/or laziness. You are not even willing to acknowledge the possibility that this survey isn't a personal attack on your self image.

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

UPDATE

I've been so busy defending myself against the gross attacks on my character that I haven't been reading my email. I've received a very promising apology from the survey author. The author's response affirms and acknowledges my criticisms of the survey, which gives me hope that my fears may be unfounded. I'm going to respond to the author, and hope to post more here soon.

Shock horror. Breaking news, everyone not out to attack deirdre_dub. I hope you send her an apology for trying to sabotage her work, I doubt it somehow.

Sir Ophiuchus

Could we all take a few deep breaths here for a moment?

Everyone here is getting pretty angry, which they have the right to do, but it's very easy to misinterpret someone else's position in so doing.

Deirdre, you think the researchers are pathologising transgenderism and/or considering it a sexual orientation based on the wording of one of the questions.

Boston, Aard, you think that's not a correct interpretation. I happen to agree with you.

The trouble is, labelling a minority group (e.g. trans people) as "touchy" or "quick to take offence" or, worst of all, having a "desire to see insult" gets us into very awkward notions of what's called privilege.

Aard, Boston, I'm presuming neither of you are trans. For the record, neither am I. When speaking to a minority group about that minority group, particularly when you're not a member of it yourself, it's very easy to assert the inherent privilege you have in not being a member. As Deirdre pointed out, it's easy to consider the sidelining of gender identity issues as unimportant unless they're directly central to your life. It's easy to accuse people of being quick to take offence when the issue that offends them isn't central to your own life.

Important note: that's not what I'm accusing you of doing. It does, however, seem to be what Deirdre believes you're doing. And you need to be careful with that.

I don't agree with Deirdre, but I have advantages in approaching this study. I study at the TCD School of Psychology, I've taken classes with the study's supervisor, and I have a feel for the attitude to normativity in the School, and in the field. All those are privileges over and above not being trans. Coming to the study "cold", as Deirdre did, I can understand how the question wording and order could have rung alarm bells for her.

So, in summary: I don't agree with Deirdre. I think this is a genuinely well-intentioned study run by competent professional people. I think their wording and question order was awkward, but ultimately that the correct interpretation is that no sidelining or misinterpretation of trans identity or any other identity was either intended or effected. But I also realise Deirdre doesn't feel that way. I think she's wrong. But, and this is important, I acknowledge her right to hold the opinions she does. I don't sideline her, or patronise her, or take away her anger (I'm not speaking for her here either - that's just another assertion of privilege and an usurpation of someone's voice).

Does Deirdre have a personal investment in this? Of course, at least as much as I did when I challenged a similar study on its heteronormativity (and got mocked on this site for so doing, incidentally). Is she more inclined to see cisnormative attitudes than non-trans people? Of course she is, because they're important to her, and, as she said, raise red flags for her.

Is it appropriate to say she has a desire to take offence, or a personal bias?

No.

Edit due to new replies: I'm very glad they've replied, Deirdre. I'd expect no less from them, honestly. I hope they are able to address your concerns.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

An assumption is an opinion based on either no data or incomplete data. You have provided me with lengthy arguments and I've based my opinion on my observations. That is called a judgement.


Now a little thought exercise:

You have made assumptions with regards to the authors

I made a judgement about the survey.

Aard

@Ophiuchus:
I've made 3 posts in this thread, none of which comment on the survey per se. Call it off topic. My posts were to point out the OP's hypocrisy, and her tendancy to victimisation, narcissism, and obfuscation.

I guess that, reading between the lines, I was accusing her of being a poor ambassador to her cause, and that her suggestion of avoiding the survey was puerile, considering that she was just after publicising one that was to her liking.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Shock horror. Breaking news, everyone not out to attack deirdre_dub.

Nope - there only seems to be one or two of you.

I hope you send her an apology for trying to sabotage her work

His work.

I do not believe I put a gun to anyone's head to get them to not answer the survey - all I've done is present arguments about why people should consider not answering it.

Sabotaging his work - I don't think so! I believe I've even ASKED a few people to answer the survey!!!

Sir Ophiuchus

Aard wrote: »

@Ophiuchus:
I've made 3 posts in this thread, none of which comment on the survey per se. Call it off topic. My posts were to point out the OP's hypocrisy, and her tendancy to victimisation, narcissism, and obfuscation.

I guess that, reading between the lines, I was accusing her of being a poor ambassador to her cause, and that her suggestion of avoiding the survey was puerile, considering that she was just after publicising one that was to her liking.

Yes. What I was saying is that you have to be particularly careful in doing things like that to a minority group member who's talking about minority group issues, when you're not a member of that group.

I never commented, either way, on what you said. I just wanted to highlight some tensions in how you said it.

Boston

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

The trouble is, labelling a minority group (e.g. trans people) as "touchy" or "quick to take offence" or, worst of all, having a "desire to see insult" gets us into very awkward notions of what's called privilege.

The Transgendered minority is small, but it isn't a minority of one. I'm pretty certain I directed my judgement at one person.

Why is it wrong to call something bias? A person may have many reasons for their bias nature, but that doesn't make them any less blind or any more right.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I made a judgement about the survey.

Sure you did.

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Yes. What I was saying is that you have to be particularly careful in doing things like that to a minority group member who's talking about minority group issues, when you're not a member of that group.

I never commented, either way, on what you said. I just wanted to highlight some tensions in how you said it.

Nonsense. You don't need to share empathy with all parties in a discussion to be able to spot inconsistencies and irrational lines of thought. As a psychology you of all people should know this to be true.

Aard

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Yes. What I was saying is that you have to be particularly careful in doing things like that to a minority group member who's talking about minority group issues, when you're not a member of that group.

I never commented, either way, on what you said. I just wanted to highlight some tensions in how you said it.

I don't handle people with kid-gloves, especially in a forum where all posters will be a minority of some kind. Furthermore, I'm not sure I even could have sugar-coated what I had to say. I was succinct, at worst terse.


In relation to not being part of a minority group, I believe there are degrees of relation. Commenting like so about a transgendered person isn't the same as commenting about a parapleigic, a black person, an OAP. If there is a "T" in "LGBT", I believe it's sufficiently within my domain that I can comment freely. If not, then maybe the "T" should be dropped so as that we know what kind of comments are fair game.

Annasopra

Right

This thread is going to be locked for going wildly off topic

There was a certain amount of aggression aimed towards deirdre_dub for expressing an opinion. That is completely unacceptable on this forum.

In particular I feel that some posters did not show deirdre_dub respect and chose to attack her instead

I will be warning posters if behaviour like this continues in this forum