Coming out in a job interview?

Leonard Hofstadter

Just wondering, what are your attitudes to this?

When I took my current job I was still in the closet, so the issue didn't arise. I am out to some of my current work colleagues, but not all.

However, I could be interviewed for a job soon.

I'm currently procrastinating about whether I should out myself in an interview.

On the one hand, I'd like to know that I would be working in an inclusive workplace that treats everyone equally. On the other, there's always that nagging feeling that by outing yourself, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage, even though it clearly shouldn't. I'm also not the kind of person who tells everyone my life story unless I know them at least fairly well, and I don't feel a need to broadcast to everyone that I'm G in LGBT - especially to complete strangers.

Should I out myself in an interview? If so, how? What do you guys do?

Why would you out yourself in a job interview. The interview is totally about your suitability to work in that job and company and for you to get a feel about the job and company.
Your sexuality has no bearing on this at all.

Annasopra

I don't see why you would out yourself in an interview unless your sexual orientation is relevant to the job!

I've always had lgbt stuff on my cv personally because I did a lot of voluntary work with lgbt organisations that was really relevant to the types of jobs I was applying for. I guess thats a form of subtle outing. But honestly during interview? I'm not sure what you want to achieve?

Why do you want to do it? Does it give you a better chance at the job?

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

Just wondering, what are your attitudes to this?

When I took my current job I was still in the closet, so the issue didn't arise. I am out to some of my current work colleagues, but not all.

However, I could be interviewed for a job soon.

I'm currently procrastinating about whether I should out myself in an interview.

On the one hand, I'd like to know that I would be working in an inclusive workplace that treats everyone equally. On the other, there's always that nagging feeling that by outing yourself, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage, even though it clearly shouldn't. I'm also not the kind of person who tells everyone my life story unless I know them at least fairly well, and I don't feel a need to broadcast to everyone that I'm G in LGBT - especially to complete strangers.

Should I out myself in an interview? If so, how? What do you guys do?

F*ck all to do with them.

Zaph

When I'm interviewing people what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (or living rooms, kitchens, wherever ) is of no concern to me, all I want to know is that if I hire that person will they be able to do the job. To be honest, I'd find it a bit odd if someone came out to me in the middle of an interview. You mention that you'd like to know that you'd be working in an inclusive environment if you moved to that company, but you mightn't even find that out depending on how the interviewer responded.

Rightwing

Certainly not.

You'd probably end up not getting the job.

laguacamaya

I would say yes if you're giving your dream job as a Porn Star a shot. No, if you're hoping to fill the vacancy of Donald Trump's recently departed Press Secretary.

Balmed Out

I'd imagine it would be a bit weird if someone felt the need to tell me about their sexuality when I was interviewing them. Have had plenty of gay employees through the years but none came out during an interview and most never overtly said they were either.
When your interviewing someone a lot of the time you know beforehand they possess the relevant qualifications or experience and while you are testing their knowledge etc a lot of an interview is simply would I and the rest of the team get on with this person. Acting in a strange manner might not be best though I suppose it depends how you go about it.

Hunchback

On the flip side of the coin -

Let's say you are going for a position in Dublin. Your family home is in Dublin too, but your partner is from Cork and yourself and your partner own a house in Cork. You tell the interviewee that, of course, you will be living in Dublin when you are working for them - possibly back in with the family for a while. The interviewer nods and says 'that's great, you are very lucky to have such an understanding family'.

He then asks you 'do you have any ties back in Cork', which usually would be a gentle opportunity for an interviewee to mention any wives/husbands/children, without being directly asked. The gay interviewee who does not wish to 'out' themselves during the course of the interview then has to be tactical or evasive. You could say 'yes, I still have friends down there', but by now you have already put yourself in a position where you are being insincere. And maybe you are a generally sincere person and the erasure of your partner of 15 years does not sit well with you.

But overall you are a pragmatic person above all else, and so with suitability for the job your primary concern foremost in your mind, you give an evasive answer to the question 'do you still have any ties back in Cork', with the assumption that the interviewer is a nice guy and you will prolly get to cover those bases at some point in your working relationship when the job is in the bag.

So yes, you prolly shouldn't be asked about your marital status in the course of an interview, but on occasion interviews can become quite conversational and in instances like this, a gay interviewee may find themselves having to be less sincere than their straight counterpart.

So, that is why it is an issue that crosses some peoples minds. Of course sexuality might not have any bearing on your suitability for the job. It's just means that you might have to watch your P's and Q's if the interview enters conversational territory.

Dave0301

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

On the flip side of the coin -

Let's say you are going for a position in Dublin. Your family home is in Dublin too, but your partner is from Cork and yourself and your partner own a house in Cork. You tell the interviewee that, of course, you will be living in Dublin when you are working for them - possibly back in with the family for a while. The interviewer nods and says 'that's great, you are very lucky to have such an understanding family'.

He then asks you 'do you have any ties back in Cork', which usually would be a gentle opportunity for an interviewee to mention any wives/husbands/children, without being directly asked. The gay interviewee who does not wish to 'out' themselves during the course of the interview then has to be tactical or evasive. You could say 'yes, I still have friends down there', but by now you have already put yourself in a position where you are being insincere. And maybe you are a generally sincere person and the erasure of your partner of 15 years does not sit well with you.

But overall you are a pragmatic person above all else, and so with suitability for the job your primary concern foremost in your mind, you give an evasive answer to the question 'do you still have any ties back in Cork', with the assumption that the interviewer is a nice guy and you will prolly get to cover those bases at some point in your working relationship when the job is in the bag.

So yes, you prolly shouldn't be asked about your marital status in the course of an interview, but on occasion interviews can become quite conversational and in instances like this, a gay interviewee may find themselves having to be less sincere than their straight counterpart.

So, that is why it is an issue that crosses some peoples minds. Of course sexuality might not have any bearing on your suitability for the job. It's just means that you might have to watch your P's and Q's if the interview enters conversational territory.

Why not just say that you've a partner still living in Cork and that they are supportive of you pursuing this job and plans are afoot for them to also move to Dublin.

Or if it is a not so serious relationship, that you are seeing somewhere, but that this job is something you are serious about and is too good an opportunity to turn down.

I have been asked that question, and as a straight person they are answers I have given on different occasions.

No big outing or juicy details needed.

One eyed Jack

It wouldn't be the first thing I'd expect out of someone's mouth when I ask them to tell me about themselves. I'd hope they have something more interesting to say for themselves other than informing me of their sexuality tbh.

If your intention is to find out whether you would be working in an inclusive environment, then assume that you would be, rather than making a point of your sexuality yourself and having an interviewer wonder why you felt the need to do that. It's certainly not standard practice and I wouldn't assume employers would be all that interested tbh.

Hunchback

When you are sensitive to the issues (not implying here that you are not, Dave), use of the word 'partner' can seem like a studied deployment of non-gender specific terminology. In other words, when you are sensitive to the issues, this could feel like you are tacitly outing yourself.

Like when celebrities use 'they' instead of 'he' or 'she', people quickly assume they are gay.

I suppose the use of the word 'partner', if it is applicable to the interviewee, might be a good way of straddling the issues of sincerity and appropriateness. I don't disagree on that, but it can feel lever so slightly like a tightrope at times.

Hunchback

To be honest, it is not an insurmountable hurdle and I do agree with all posters who say 'don't bring it up'.

It is not something that you would usually mention in an interview, but this can be a pain sometimes when it would have been nice to be straight up, no pun.

Tasden

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wouldn't be the first thing I'd expect out of someone's mouth when I ask them to tell me about themselves. I'd hope they have something more interesting to say for themselves other than informing me of their sexuality tbh.

If your intention is to find out whether you would be working in an inclusive environment, then assume that you would be, rather than making a point of your sexuality yourself and having an interviewer wonder why you felt the need to do that. It's certainly not standard practice and I wouldn't assume employers would be all that interested tbh.

This.
I feel like some employers may see it as you almost challenging them with it. Almost "playing the card" in a way. As awful as that sounds.
But an interview should be your place to let your experience and your manner speak for itself, not to tell them about your personal life, whether you're married or single, gay or bi. It's a bit irrelevant unless they ask, which they shouldn't.
I would certainly be open once in the position. Not introducing yourself with "hi I'm dave I'm gay", but when small talk arises mention "my partner paul" or what have you.
I work closey with a man in work who i didn't know was gay for a good while, it just never came up in conversations. I didn't feel duped or lied to when i found out. I'm sure he didn't feel he was lying or hiding it from me. (Although our previous conversations about eurovision etc all made sense then ) it just never arose, same way I didn't know that one of the women in the office had kids or whatever until it arose.

kupus

if someone came out to me in an interview Id tell them to sling their hook. It looks like theyre more concerned with their own sexuality than the job in front of them.

Hunchback

kupus wrote: »

if someone came out to me in an interview Id tell them to sling their hook. It looks like theyre more concerned with their own sexuality than the job in front of them.

And a guy in an interview mentions his wife, would he also have to sling his hook?

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

And a guy in an interview mentions his wife, would he also have to sling his hook?

That's unrelated to the point kupus made. If someone made a point of the fact they were straight, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc, I'd think it was equally odd, and still irrelevant and uninteresting.

Tasden

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

And a guy in an interview mentions his wife, would he also have to sling his hook?

More than like yes, if the guy made a big deal about "being married" as opposed to just casually mentioning his wife.

I'm guessing people, if they are on same page as myself, are just just saying not to "ccome out" to the employer. That is not the same as saying hide your partner from them or avoid the issue if it arises.

They are two very different things.

OEJ: snap!

kupus

if a guy mentioned his gay partner in the context of a conversation during an interview..... I couldnt give a fiddlers
if a guy comes out and says hes gay in the middle of an interview.... id be wondering wtf is he even telling me that. It sounds like he is more concerned that he has to tell me hes gay than his concern for a job.

HOw simple is that to understand?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JupiterKid

Unless the position you were seeking had a specific LGBT angle, then I don't see why you would want to disclose your sexuality? Then again, a straight applicant for a job involving LGBT work shouldn't be at a disadvantage.

If, in passing, you were asked about your personal interests and the matter of your relationship/family status came up, I don't see why you would feel reticent to mention your same sex partner. But I would surmise that the vast majority of interviewing employers wouldn't ask you on such a matter.

It's all about the job and your suitability for it.

The One Doctor

I've never told potential employers my sexuality. What the hell do I have to gain by telling them that I'm straight? I might as well tell them that I like Bearnaise sauce for all the difference it'd make.

Leonard Hofstadter

Thanks all for your replies.

Certainly, they're quite different to what I was expecting - but they do confirm that my gut instinct was right, which is to say nothing.

The reason why I created this thread in the first place is because I have a few LGBT friends and work colleagues, and a few of them told me they made a point of coming out in an interview. As one colleague put it, she wanted to be able to bring her whole self to work, not leave part of it behind and she wanted to know that she would be working for a company that supports equality and diversity.

As being out is still relatively new to me, I wasn't sure if it was 'normal' for LGBT people to out themselves in an interview. My gut instinct was under no circumstances should it be brought up - as many of ye said - why would it, or should it, matter - interviews are about competence and seeing if someone is a 'good fit' for an organisation.

As I said in my OP, it's certainly not something I'd be comfortable doing - even if I was, I still share the view that it's putting one at a disadvantage - even though someone may not be homophobic it may give the interviewers the impression that one cares about themselves more than they care about the job in question. It would raise eyebrows for me if I was interviewing someone - obviously I would be delighted to have another LGBT colleague and I would of course be very supportive if that person was hired, but I think interviews should be about one's suitability for the position and nothing else.

I think what I would do is ask what the policies and commitments to equality and diversity are, since it's something I care about very much (and I don't just mean LGBT issues). The only way I would see it as acceptable to bring it up is if I was applying to someone like EY, which are one of the top LGBT employers - if one was asked why do they want the job then I would see nothing wrong with giving their commitment to E&D and LGBT issues as a reason - it shows that one has done their homework on the company for starters.

Otherwise, I'm relieved that it's a no-no for most of ye as well .

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's unrelated to the point kupus made. If someone made a point of the fact they were straight, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, etc, I'd think it was equally odd, and still irrelevant and uninteresting.

It's not irrelevant to the point Kupus made. If a straight person casually mentions in the course of an interview (that is veering towards conversational territory) something about their wife/husband, grand, it is just the interviewee fleshing out a story, their background, whatever. If a gay person mentions their partner (maybe the interviewee's name is Tom and he references his partner Stephen), that is unfortunately seen by some as a declaration of sexuality, rather than just mentioning that you have a partner for whatever reason.

That is why I asked if the poster felt a straight person would have to sling their hook for mentioning their heterosexual spouse (of course not). Because if a gay person does the same by mentioning a same sex partner it could possibly be tantamount to mentioning sexuality in an interview in the minds of an interviewer.

As I said before, I would certainly not advise it for the OP. Presumably in time it will come up conversationally in work and naturally without any fuss being made.

Hunchback

kupus wrote: »

if a guy mentioned his gay partner in the context of a conversation during an interview..... I couldnt give a fiddlers
if a guy comes out and says hes gay in the middle of an interview.... id be wondering wtf is he even telling me that. It sounds like he is more concerned that he has to tell me hes gay than his concern for a job.

HOw simple is that to understand?

It's very simple to understand and I agree that saying you are gay in an interview simply for the purposes of saying you are gay is inappropriate

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

It's not irrelevant to the point Kupus made. If a straight person casually mentions in the course of an interview (that is veering towards conversational territory) something about their wife/husband, grand, it is just the interviewee fleshing out a story, their background, whatever. If a gay person mentions their partner (maybe the interviewee's name is Tom and he references his partner Stephen), that is unfortunately seen by some as a declaration of sexuality, rather than just mentioning that you have a partner for whatever reason.

That is why I asked if the poster felt a straight person would have to sling their hook for mentioning their heterosexual spouse (of course not). Because if a gay person does the same then the poster declared he would tell the interviewee to sling their hook. Because, as I said, mentioning a same sex partner is tantamount to mentioning sexuality in an interview.

As I said before, I would certainly not advise it for the OP. Presumably in time it will come up conversationally in work and naturally without any fuss being made.

No, all you actually did was asked a question based upon a completely different scenario.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

The question I asked was to illustrate a point that I'll clarify.

Kupus stated that if someone came out to him/her in the course of an interview they would be told to sling their hook. My point was that mentioning a same sex partner in the course of a conversation is in effect to 'come out' in an interview. In which case Kupus would tell the interviewee to sling their hook. I then asked Kupus if a heterosexual interviewee would be given their walking papers under his/her regime for mentioning their opposite sex spouse. The point is that for a gay person to mention a partner is to sexualise a conversation in some peoples minds.

You're illustrating a point that kupus didn't make though. Someone making a point of their sexuality in an interview is absolutely not the same as someone mentioning their partner during the icebreaker or closing questions or anything in between. You asking about the mention of a spouse is not at all related to someone mentioning their sexual orientation, which is what the original question was concerned with.

Your point, is that for a gay person to mention a partner is to sexualise a conversation in your mind. It wouldn't sexualise a conversation in my mind, no more than anyone mentioning their spouse would sexualise a conversation. You're just not that special, and people aren't that immature. Please don't try and read other peoples minds, all you're doing is projecting your own insecurities onto them, and you have no idea what they're thinking.

I am guessing that the OP is not in the position of having a long term partner, based on the fact that they have not directly addressed this issue since it was brought up in the course of a thread. But it merits mentioning anyway, because for example, I have found myself in a position in an interview before where I have to unexpectedly self-censor. And I have done it very discretely and effectively. Although ideally this would not happen I can tell you it does, even if the interviewer unintentionally steers the conversation in this direction..

Who hasn't? Honestly! I have to self-censor myself all the time, we all do, it's part and parcel of the working environment. Some places are more relaxed than others, and some places have expectations of their employees. You're blaming the interviewer if they "unintentionally" steer the conversation in a direction which supports your perceptions of bias?

Sounds a bit convenient tbh.

Nervous Wreck

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

The question I asked was to illustrate a point that I'll clarify.

Kupus stated that if someone came out to him/her in the course of an interview they would be told to sling their hook. My point was that mentioning a same sex partner in the course of a conversation is in effect to 'come out' in an interview. In which case Kupus would tell the interviewee to sling their hook. I then asked Kupus if a heterosexual interviewee would be given their walking papers under his/her regime for mentioning their opposite sex spouse. The point is that for a gay person to mention a partner is to sexualise a conversation in some peoples minds.

I found it quite obvious from Kupus's post that he/she meant if someone basically came into an interview and said "Hi I'm Eric; I'm gay," that person would not be looked on fondly, as they would seem more concerned with talking about their personal/sex life than about their experience and suitability to the job. Just the same as, if the same person said "Hi I'm Eric; I'm straight," they would seem to be weirdly stuck on talking about their personal/sex life and would not be seen favourably. However, from there, in a conversational part of the interview, Eric saying "my partner Michelle" or "my partner Dave" would have no real difference in impact on the conversation. I don't know how you interpreted anything different; I though Kupus's point was fairly clear.

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're illustrating a point that kupus didn't make though. Someone making a point of their sexuality in an interview is absolutely not the same as someone mentioning their partner during the icebreaker or closing questions or anything in between. You asking about the mention of a spouse is not at all related to someone mentioning their sexual orientation, which is what the original question was concerned with.

Your point, is that for a gay person to mention a partner is to sexualise a conversation in your mind. It wouldn't sexualise a conversation in my mind, no more than anyone mentioning their spouse would sexualise a conversation. You're just not that special, and people aren't that immature. Please don't try and read other peoples minds, all you're doing is projecting your own insecurities onto them, and you have no idea what they're thinking.

Whether or not mentioning a same sex partner equates with a declaration of sexuality depends on the interviewer, who as you correctly state has their own mind. I am not trying to suggest read the interviewers mind. Rather I am advocating for a pragmatic position of avoiding the mention of a same sex partner in an interview setting on the basis that you cannot say with certainty how this will be perceived. It's pragmatism, not insecurity. (Nice tone, by the way). I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything. Where did this come from? I recognise that other people have positions that are different from mine and if it is in my interests I react accordingly.

Fleawuss

Acquaint yourself with employment equality legislation. Doing what you suggest could be seen as a subtle threat to the employer. Is that what you intend?

triple nipple

captainspeed wrote:

I'm currently procrastinating about whether I should out myself in an interview.

Not an appropriate place to discuss sexuality.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Whether or not mentioning a same sex partner equates with a declaration of sexuality depends on the interviewer, who as you correctly state has their own mind. I am not trying to suggest read the interviewers mind. Rather I am advocating for a pragmatic position of avoiding the mention of a same sex partner in an interview setting on the basis that you cannot say with certainty how this will be perceived. It's pragmatism, not insecurity. (Nice tone, by the way). I'm not "blaming" anyone for anything. Where did this come from? I recognise that other people have positions that are different from mine and if it is in my interests I react accordingly.

You're basically trying to create an issue where there isn't one.

Hunchback

No, I'm suggesting avoiding one where it's not impossible that there might be one.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

No, I'm suggesting avoiding one where it's not impossible that there might be one.

This kind of thing is exactly what I mean. You assume there could be an issue solely on the basis of a person being gay. No, there's only an issue if the person chooses to make a point of it by introducing themselves as gay. Anything else would be your own speculation.

There's usually a format in interviews and interviewers are people themselves. You don't go into an interview with the intent of informing a potential employer of your sexuality to see how "inclusive" they are. They can't introduce questions about your sexuality or your marital status, and anyone I've ever known doing interviews are made aware of these basics, so they're unlikely to be introducing them, unwittingly or otherwise.

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This kind of thing is exactly what I mean. You assume there could be an issue solely on the basis of a person being gay.

Of course there 'could' be an issue. Are you honestly suggesting that there are not employers out there, however modest in number, that don't harbour prejudices? That is a ridiculous position, if that is what you are honestly saying.

Hunchback

As we agreed earlier, you don't know the mind of the interviewer. And so therefore I wouldn't personally even recommend the mentioning of a partner, even innocuously, because you don't know how that will be received.

I don't recommend using the interview as a place to introduce yourself as being gay to test the relative inclusiveness of the workplace.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Of course there 'could' be an issue. Are you honestly suggesting that there are not employers out there, however modest in number, that don't harbour prejudices? That is a ridiculous position, if that is what you are honestly saying.

No, you're making the suggestion that there are employers out there, however modest in number, who harbour prejudices against people on the basis of their sexuality. You can't and haven't offered any evidence to back up this claim other than your own assumptions, which are based upon your own prejudices, which are based upon your own insecurities.


There's no "tone" there btw other than factual, I have no prejudices against you either.

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, you're making the suggestion that there are employers out there, however modest in number, who harbour prejudices against people on the basis of their sexuality. You can't and haven't offered any evidence to back up this claim other than your own assumptions, which are based upon your own prejudices, which are based upon your own insecurities.


There's no "tone" there btw other than factual, I have no prejudices against you either.

Teachers in Ireland?

Google it yourself

Ten of Swords

captainspeed good luck with your interview if it does go ahead

I did not let my employer know my sexuality when I was interviewed as it was not relevant in any way to my capacity to do the job, my colleagues learned of my sexuality over time because we became friends and we socialize outside of work, as a result my managers know too but there was no big reveal, it was gradual and organic.

Let me give you my perspective as an interviewer. My workplace runs a graduate program and depending on your level and role you can put your name forward to be a workplace mentor. I am eligible for this so I put my name forward at the end of last year. Earlier this year I was required to interview 39 people - that was an ordeal let me tell you, I nearly died when I got the list! Some of these were panel interviews but most were one to one interviews (overseen by HR). Nobody mentioned sexuality, formally or informally. I did not see anything referencing sexuality in the cover letters or CVs either. Literally nothing at all gave me any insight into a candidates sexuality.

In my opinion sexuality isn't relevant unless your prospective employer would be protected under section 37.1

However, this survey conducted last year showed that many Irish employees feel they have to hide their sexuality in the workplace for fear of being treated differently so your concerns are very real and shared by many others.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Teachers in Ireland?

Google it yourself

I won't google it myself, I'll ask you directly what you're referring to. You're doing it again - throw something out there that looks to me like your own prejudice, and instead of providing any evidence for your claim which relates to employers prejudice on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, you expect that I should fumble around on google with no idea what your point is relating to teachers, employers and their sexuality.

Having been on interviewing panels for teaching positions, I haven't yet had anyone introduce themselves as gay to check inclusivity credentials, and I haven't asked anyone about their sexuality, sex lives or relationship history either.

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't google it myself, I'll ask you directly what you're referring to. You're doing it again - throw something out there that looks to me like your own prejudice, and instead of providing any evidence for your claim which relates to employers prejudice on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, you expect that I should fumble around on google with no idea what your point is relating to teachers, employers and their sexuality.

Having been on interviewing panels for teaching positions, I haven't yet had anyone introduce themselves as gay to check inclusivity credentials, and I haven't asked anyone about their sexuality, sex lives or relationship history either.

Here is a recent case successfully brought by a teacher against a Principal on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. https://eile.ie/2016/01/10/resource-teacher-with-gay-son-wins-discrimination-case/ I think this demonstrates that to some extent there are people out there in the workplace that have and do discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, even after the amendments to section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, which as we know, allowed institutions to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

And I did also say a couple of times that I wouldn't recommend "anyone introduce themselves as gay to check inclusivity credentials".

Ash885

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't google it myself, I'll ask you directly what you're referring to. You're doing it again - throw something out there that looks to me like your own prejudice, and instead of providing any evidence for your claim which relates to employers prejudice on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, you expect that I should fumble around on google with no idea what your point is relating to teachers, employers and their sexuality.

Having been on interviewing panels for teaching positions, I haven't yet had anyone introduce themselves as gay to check inclusivity credentials, and I haven't asked anyone about their sexuality, sex lives or relationship history either.

And as a teacher I can confirm it is still an issue. Teachers with 40 years experience still in the closet, bringing their "best friends" to functions. And when the BOM, usually the local priest, asks them about 'the gays', do you think they feel enabled to say, "Oh...you mean me?" In many schools, the answer is no.

http://www.thejournal.ie/equality-tribunal-ruling-1889466-Jan2015/ <- case in point, a legal case last year where a candidate was asked outright to comment on "the homos". So there is employer prejudice out there. Whether it's relevant to bring up in an interview is more the question here.

---

As an aside OP, I went for a job interview and me being gay came up. We were talking about previous work and I mentioned post-marriage ref. articles I was involved in. They were very interested in it, asked further questions and commended me on it. Furthermore, got the job! So if it's applicable, it can be useful. Like any aspect of your personality. But again, only if it's applicable to the job at hand.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Here is a recent case successfully brought by a teacher against a Principal on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. https://eile.ie/2016/01/10/resource-teacher-with-gay-son-wins-discrimination-case/ I think this demonstrates that to some extent there are people out there in the workplace that have and do discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, even after the amendments to section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, which as we know, allowed institutions to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

And I did also say a couple of times that I wouldn't recommend "anyone introduce themselves as gay to check inclusivity credentials".

Ash885 wrote: »

And as a teacher I can confirm it is still an issue. Teachers with 40 years experience still in the closet, bringing their "best friends" to functions. And when the BOM, usually the local priest, asks them about 'the gays', do you think they feel enabled to say, "Oh...you mean me?" In many schools, the answer is no.

http://www.thejournal.ie/equality-tribunal-ruling-1889466-Jan2015/ <- case in point, a legal case last year where a candidate was asked outright to comment on "the homos". So there is employer prejudice out there. Whether it's relevant to bring up in an interview is more the question here.

In both those cases though, they won their cases, didn't they?

Whatever a person feels or doesn't feel they are enabled to answer is really their own responsibility, but the assumption that employers are some sort of an alien species who haven't their own sexuality and so on, is what i don't understand here. Just as CK is assuming that employers will be prejudiced, then complaining about employers being prejudiced, which is actually showing their own prejudices!!

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In both those cases though, they won their cases, didn't they?

Whatever a person feels or doesn't feel they are enabled to answer is really their own responsibility, but the assumption that employers are some sort of an alien species who haven't their own sexuality and so on, is what i don't understand here. Just as CK is assuming that employers will be prejudiced, then complaining about employers being prejudiced, which is actually showing their own prejudices!!

Nobody ever even went remotely close to suggesting that employers are an alien species. Please don't misrepresent what people have posted. Nobody ever even approached suggesting that employers don't have their own sexuality. That is completely ridiculous.

I have made it abundantly clear at this stage that I don't assume that employers 'will' be prejudiced. I stated that is not impossible to think that it might be the case in a given situation, so better to adopt a pragmatic stance and not make an issue out of sexuality at interview stage.

Hunchback

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In both those cases though, they won their cases, didn't they?

Which would suggest to the rational observer that said prejudice does as a matter of fact exist.

One eyed Jack

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Nobody ever even went remotely close to suggesting that employers are an alien species. Please don't misrepresent what people have posted. Nobody ever even approached suggesting that employers don't have their own sexuality. That is completely ridiculous.

You've got to be having a laugh? You initially misrepresented what another poster said in the first place to try and imply that a heterosexual person making a point of their sexuality would be treated any differently to a person who is LGB making a point of their sexuality.

I have made it abundantly clear at this stage that I don't assume that employers 'will' be prejudiced. I stated that is not impossible to think that it might be the case in a given situation, so better to adopt a pragmatic stance and not make an issue out of sexuality at interview stage.

How in heaven's name is that not saying the same thing? Yours isn't a pragmatic stance, it's literally just common sense that applies to anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or sexuality. The whole straight / gay / lesbian / bisexual / pansexual / asexual stuff just doesn't come into it. It's not even about "hiding a part of yourself", it's because these qualities are largely irrelevant to meeting the criteria for a role within a company or organisation.

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

Which would suggest to the rational observer that said prejudice does as a matter of fact exist.

I wouldn't consider you a rational observer then on the basis of using two examples, or even a handful of anecdotes, to try and imply that there is an inherent prejudice among employers against interviewees on the basis of their sexuality.

Hunchback

I wouldn't consider you a rational observer then on the basis of using two examples, or even a handful of anecdotes, to try and imply that there is an inherent prejudice among employers against interviewees on the basis of their sexuality.[/QUOTE]

But I never implied it was an epidemic or that employers inherently prone to prejudice? My point was that, it can happen, on occasion, so best to avoid the risk even if there is only a modest amount of employers that would let an issue like this affect their judgment of suitability

Hunchback

I wouldn't consider you a rational observer then on the basis of using two examples, or even a handful of anecdotes, to try and imply that there is an inherent prejudice among employers against interviewees on the basis of their sexuality.[/QUOTE]

The purpose of that statement was not to show that prejudice is inherent or prevalent amongst employers, more that it exists, however infrequently or otherwise. Surely you must concede that the possibility exists? The courts found that it does exist. You stated that I made these assertions based on my own insecurities until I could provide contrary evidence. Well, now you have that evidence.

Hunchback

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I found it quite obvious from Kupus's post that he/she meant if someone basically came into an interview and said "Hi I'm Eric; I'm gay," that person would not be looked on fondly, as they would seem more concerned with talking about their personal/sex life than about their experience and suitability to the job. Just the same as, if the same person said "Hi I'm Eric; I'm straight," they would seem to be weirdly stuck on talking about their personal/sex life and would not be seen favourably. However, from there, in a conversational part of the interview, Eric saying "my partner Michelle" or "my partner Dave" would have no real difference in impact on the conversation. I don't know how you interpreted anything different; I though Kupus's point was fairly clear.

My point was that you really don't know the person who is interviewing you. That person could, for all you know, equate the casual mention of a same sex partners name with an intention on the part of the interviewee to make a point out of being gay. This may not be the intention of the interviewee and most people wouldn't interpret it this way, but you just don't know. It could conceivably be construed this way by the odd interviewer.

So when Kupus says they'd tell someone to sling their hook for coming out as gay in an interview and then (correctly IMO) distinguishes between this and mentioning casually a partner's name, I am saying that not everybody is like this. As we have seen from case law, some interviewing panels are (on the very odd occassion) prone to prejudicial beliefs. And that goes to my question about whether or not they (Kupus) would tell a a straight person referencing their spouse to sling their hook - of course they wouldn't. No decent person would, but my point is that there is never any danger of a straight person referencing their partner as being an overt 'coming out' statement about their heterosexuality. Some interviewers might see the gay persons reference to their partner as a coming out statement.

kupus

Ck you're the one, the only one as I can see that didn't figure out what I wrote. To me that's your problem. And yours alone.

Op best of luck in the interview and just be yourself. That's what an interviewer wants to see cos the good ones can read thru the bs anyway and spot a spoofer a mile off.