TfL Tube Announcement Changes: Why all the fuss over positive Gender Neutral Language and Greetings?

This month Transport for London (TfL) took the "brave" (I call it common sensical) decision to change the outdated greeting on the Tube for passengers. No longer will they hear "Hello Ladies & Gentleman" (which erases the existence of young travellers let alone non-binary ones such as myself); instead they will hear a much more cheerful, modern "Good Morning/Hello Everyone" and then carry on walking out to get on with the much more important business of the day- like going to work to put food on the table and roof over their heads. Stonewall praised the decision and Mark Evers, director of customer strategy for TfL wanted to make sure that announcements were "fully inclusive, reflecting the great diversity of London". Yet the uber rigid gender binary loving brigade of soppy traditionalists were outraged at the suggestion of a gender-neutral greeting becoming commonplace on Britain's streets. If you look at some of the comments sections that are provided under articles in the main newspaper articles announcing the changes, you realise not everyone was pleased. On the Daily Telegraph comments page, John  moans that those who advocate for gender-neutral language would be campaigning for "language control legislation" (shock horror klaxon) and Graham snaps that it is "insulting to the rest of us" (interesting that most comments seem to be from men: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/13/london-tube-scraps-ladies-gentlemen-make-announcements-gender/).

I hate to break it to John and Graham et al but gender-neutral language has been commonplace for a while and not just in "politically correct" spaces. Whenever I give a speech, I always start with a "Hello Everyone, I hope you are all well today" in a cheerful, positive tone of voice. I never think that when I am specifically choosing to do this I am being particularly subversive; nearly all of my university professors and school teachers used this gender-neutral greeting and shock-horror, didn't get stoned for it. It seems that gender-neutral language in general is receiving a bit of a pounding at the moment and I'm rather bemused by it.

Never forget that gender-neutral language has been championed by the feminist movement for decades. Let's not forget that in 1980, Casey Miller and Kate Swift created a manual dedicated to gender neutral writing, entitled The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing:For writers, editors and speaks in an attempt to try and reform the English Language so that sexist language that dehumanizes women became less common over time and eventually defunct. Swift and Miller offer numerous substitutes for common words (e.g. sales person instead of salesman) and suggested that "they" be used instead of a gendered pronoun (or at the very least use he or she and his or hers), something I have adopted in my own academic essays in the past. Now if those on the anti gender-neutral language disapprove of removing the jingle "Ladies and Gentleman" but are still abhorred by the use of "man" or "mankind" to refer to everyone, I'd be just a tiny bit flabbergasted. Same if they approved of using "businessperson instead of businessman and businesswoman but expressed dismay at the "erosion of traditional greetings." Facepalm for all those folks.

When looking at modern pronoun use, especially for people who define themselves as non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer  the debate seems to become ever so slightly more intense. I'm proud that my grandmother's country, Sweden brought in a specific gender-neutral pronoun "hen" (alt-right conservatives hate Swedish progressiveness; I think it's brilliant there are pre-schools in Sweden that have banished any reference to gender, referring children to their first names or as "buddies"; why should they be taught to adhere to outdated gender stereotype roles?). "Hen" first appeared in linguistic circles in the early 1960's and by 1994, Hans Karlgren had added "hen" as a new personal pronoun; arguing that the Swedish language would be vastly improved by the addition of a new pronoun. "Hen" was used in Sweden's first ever gender-neutral children's book, Kivi och Monsterdog (Kivi and Monsterdog) where Kivi is referred to in a gender-neutral way. When I read the book (in the original Swedish) I was happy to find out that it had been written by a male author, Jesper Lundqvist. They'd written a book that worked well, that introduced children (and parents) to gender-neutral language in a clear, concise and age-appropriate way. However, even in Sweden there were conservative critics who bemoaned the extension of the Swedish language (e.g Jan Guillou blaming feminists again). I just think that encouraging children from an early age to take a more gender-neutral and inclusive approach is a good idea and yet they can still celebrate calling themselves a boy or girl if they want to.

There are now a great variety of pronouns that are used by non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people in the English Language; a few are listed below:

Thanks to Greta Bjornson of US College Today for the table! 

Conservatives always seem to be out in force with their ridiculous objections to linguistic changes designed to make the English Language more inclusive: "Oh you don't like what's been in existence so you have to stir the linguistic pot just to be politically correct". For goodness sake, just because I identify as neither male nor female doesn't mean I want to force everyone to adopt a non-binary pronoun or a title. That's my personal choice, my decision and the fact that others are doing the same indicates there is a legitimate demand for separate representation. It's only polite to try and learn the pronoun/title/gender marker that the non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer person you are going to meet (or correspond with) prefers and even if you get it wrong the first time, they can correct you without prejudice and you can learn quickly from that mistake. Besides, even if conservatives don't like it, non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer people are going to push for gender-neutral pronouns to be accepted on legal documentation and Stonewall are currently trying to get gender markers removed from official documentation such as passports anyways.

Language changes over time and adapts to social change. The historical denotation of the adjective "Gay" and how its meaning semantically has shifted should indicate that fact. In the 1970's it was seen as unacceptable for a woman to have "Ms" as her title; conservatives would say that it was pandering to feminists but today "Ms" is very commonly used by those who believe that their marital status does not define who they are as a person.  "Mx" (used by some non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and intersex people) is now at least accepted as a viable title in its own right; MPs who are elected to Parliament have been able to use it since May 2015 and it is recognised by government departments including the Department for Work and Pensions. So if you still object to the use of Mx, you're a bit behind the times and if your only issue is that you don't know how to pronounce it, then you can be taught how to pronounce it by those in-the-know (see Spacious Perspicacious' wonderful Tumblr post on pronunciation here: http://cassolotl.tumblr.com/post/103744029100).

Of course some critics still want to get themselves into a tizz over gender neutral language and use every public opportunity they can to denounce it. A recent debate has been over whether university professors should mandate their students to use "gender sensitive" language in their essays. In April 2017, there was a report in The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/02/use-gender-sensitive-language-lose-marks-hull-university-students-told) that Hull University undergraduates would lose marks if they didn't employ "gender sensitive" language in their essays. Now it must be noted that the guidance only referred to a religious activism course and it's not clear whether it was a policy being used across the university but I wouldn't have a problem with adhering to those guidelines. Cardiff Metropolitan University gave students a "gender neutral checklist" to help them come up with alternatives to commonly used gender-binary language. For example, is it really necessary to use the word "workmanlike" when "efficient" sounds more professional (let alone gender-neutral)? I was told when I was in Year 7 that the word "workmanlike" was bad standard English anyways and would never be used in a business document and I didn't use it in any of my work afterwards. You might say that was "political correctness gone mad" but I don't particularly care! As Professor Judith Baxter, emeritus professor at Aston University points out in the article: "The principle of gender-neutral language has been around for 30 years. Businesses, schools, publishing, academic and educational texts use gender-neutral language now. So there is a total expectation"; i.e. gender-neutral language is here to stay, get over it. I may think that deduction of marks is harsh but you get marks deducted for spelling and grammar mistakes and for incorrect essay length. If you know what is expected of you, you must ensure you do not submit substandard work. Simples.

However, as I have studied English Language at A-Level and at the University of York, I am aware that research has been carried out looking into how men and women use language currently and I wonder how such research would be conducted amongst speakers who define as non-binary, gender-fluid or genderqueer.  For example, research conducted by Jenny Cheshire in Reading in 1983 in an adolescent playground found that standard speech patterns used by teenagers were similar to those of adults and suggested that differences in male and female use exist during childhood. An amusing finding that I've often found to be true in my own experience is that men tend to use "ain't" and women tend to use "isn't" in spoken speech; my Mum often corrected my Dad when he was on the phone to clients because he'd drop in "ain't" unconsciously and she thought it sounded inappropriate. American linguist Robin Lakoff  in 1975 argued that women's speech patterns are created by their subordinate role in society, indicated by their increased use of hedgers and fillers ("sort of", "you know"-I use them pretty often too) and indirect request questions. Now it'll be interesting to see whether speech forms may have shifted since these two pieces of research were conducted and I'd certainly challenge A-Level students interested in gender-neutral speech-forms to question the findings. I loved carrying out my A2 English Language investigation project (I looked at dialect use amongst Lincolnshire farmers) and thoroughly recommend A2 English Language to any student who has an interest in examining social language use.

I don't think there will ever be complete consensus on the acceptability of gender-neutral language. But I feel that if most of us are using it in our everyday lives without judgement, then life for non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer will feel more equal as they will feel more represented within society. All non-binary, gender-fluid and genderqueer (and agender) folks are asking for is respect and tolerance. In a public service respect and tolerance should be given in accordance with the Public Sector Duty under the Equality Act 2010 anyways!

Moving beyond the micro-debate over gender-neutral language, I am glad to see further breaking down of gender stereotypes generally in British society; the fact that the Advertising Standards Authority is going to crack down on ads that peddle outdated stereotypes with new standards brought out in 2018 so that there aren't more adverts like the Aptamil baby milk formula advert that suggested only boys could be engineers and girls could be ballerinas or the Yorkie "it's NOT for girls advert" is welcome. Yet it'll be amazing to see more adverts with openly non-binary, gender-fluid, genderqueer and agender actors and characters in them. I am heartened to see more schools adopting a gender-neutral uniform option (isn't it great there are already 120 schools that have a specific policy in place?) and I was cheering on the boys at Isca Academy in Exeter who decided to take a stand and protest for their right to wear shorts (and skirts) by wearing skirts (because the academy mandated them to wear trousers all year round even in a heatwave). There's an increasing presence of gender-neutral toilets at arts venues and other public sector spaces (I don't mind whether they have the gender-neutral toilet as a fourth option after male, female and disabled or whether there is a gender-neutral toilet alongside a disabled one). The funny thing is, nobody that I know has told me directly that they feel threatened by these changes or gender-neutral language announcements. Not my Mum, Dad, Brother, Uncle or close friends. In fact, when my Dad turned on the BBC News and heard about the Tube announcement change, he said "Well, what's all this fuss about?" My thoughts exactly. Maybe some people, especially self-styled "defenders of tradition" need to take a step back and think whether the changes being proposed are really that controversial. And if they still want to be called "lady" or "gentleman", they have plenty of opportunities, to hear those words, just not so much in public anymore. And if that still really bothers them, more fool them I say! 

Why #ImWithHer (Hillary Clinton) Part 2: Hillary Has Decent Policies (But Some Require A Little Tweaking)

I've already dealt with my feelings regarding Donald Trump in my previous blogpost which was important to do for my sanity and to show my readers just how much I detest Trump's deliberate attempt to re-embed misogyny into the moral fabric of American (and international society). If you haven't seen that blogpost, you can view it here: http://sassysvensknorsk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/why-imwithher-hillary-clinton-part-1-im.html

However I believe that Hillary supporters often spend YUGE amounts of time picking out Don the Con's faults without selling why we back Hillary so emphatically and without much regret. I'm a fan of Hillary's policies ideas so wanted to share and comment on some of the best here. Some critics might think that these policy areas "don't matter", that a presidential candidate can't focus on trying to help HIV/AIDS patients by implementing a National Strategy whilst at the same time defending the US from ISIS attacks or you can't help tackle LGBTQIA bullying in the education system by creating a $500 million plan whilst addressing economic inequalities in coal mining communities in Michigan or Ohio by encouraging retraining of the workforce and modernisation of the mines themselves. You don't have to choose between the two if you have a solid plan to tackle both issues unless you believe that you don't have the intellectual stamina or grit determination to address both of them simultaneously.

Here I outline a few of Hillary's policies to show you just how in-depth, progressive and thoughtful they really are (despite the fact they seem to receive little attention from the mainstream media (MSM) outlets these days). These are the policies that I would care about if I was able to vote in Colorado; yes they are mainly social in nature but I tend to vote for a party based on their social positions. Many Millennials on the left are more likely to vote based on preserving progressive values rather than vote based on fear of the "Other".

Hillary's LGBTQIA Policies:

1. Establish the Equality Act by amending the Civil Rights Act (1964) adding gender identity and sexual orientation as protected characteristics to ensure LGBTQIA people have explicit protection from discrimination "in all facets of American life", including housing, education and jury service.
2. Hillary will honour all of President Obama's LGBTQIA Executive Actions, including nondiscrimination protections for federal employees and regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in federal housing programmes.
3. Support efforts in Congress and in the states to end "conversion therapy" for LGBTQIA children.
4. Pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexuality.
5. Pass the Student Non-Discrimination Act to prevent public schools from discriminating against LGBTQIA pupils. This includes the Better Than Bullying Plan announced by Hillary on the 4th November 2016 which promises to provide $500 million to tackle bullying against children based on "labelling" and will ensure all states abide by their anti-bullying laws.  
6. Provide adequate funding for shelters that help LGBTQIA homeless youth. When 45% of the youth homeless population identifies as LGBT, they need and deserve help and support to turn their lives around.
7. End discriminatory treatment against LGBTQIA couples wanting to adopt by passing the Every Child Deserves A Family Act which will prevent child welfare organisations from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexuality.
8. Allow transgender military personnel to continue serving openly and treated with dignity and respect (there are 15,500 actively serving trans people in the military making the Dept. for Defence the biggest employer of trans people in the US).
9. Amend records of LGBTQIA vets dismissed due to their sexual orientation or gender.
10. Invest in police training to ensure transgender people are treated with respect in a fair and impartial manner.
11. Make it easier to change gender markers on official documentation.
12. Promote LGBTQIA rights around the world and increase support for the Global Equality Fund, that Hillary launched in 2011 by increasing funding by $50 million.
13. Create a National HIV/AIDS Strategy- see below:

Hillary's National HIV/AIDS Strategy:
There are currently 1.2 million people living with HIV in the US and 50,000 people get diagnosed with HIV annually. Hillary understands that HIV is not only contracted by gay men or people of colour but by women and children too. Hillary wants to work towards creating an AIDS-free generation and has created a Strategy in order to make this happen. Trump has not announced such a comprehensive strategy nor has he shown any particular concern for HIV/AIDS patients during his Presidential campaign. Here's what Hillary wants to do in a nutshell:

• Invest in research conducted by organisations such as the NIH (National Institute for Health) to enable them to carry on trying to find a cure for HIV without worrying about funding shortfalls.
• Cap monthly and annual out-of-pocket expenses for HIV/AIDS patients to $250 and ensure Medicare is empowered to bargain for lower drug prices from pharmaceutical companies. Hillary will also end drug subsidies that pharmaceuticals get for direct-to-consumer advertising and use the subsidies to invest in research instead.
• Raise knowledge about PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) medication to increase uptake especially amongst those populations at greatest risk of infection - transgender people and black men who have sex with men. Hillary will ensure that everyone who needs HIV medication will have access to it.
• Extend Medicaid coverage- 70,000 people with HIV were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act but now 47,000 should be eligible to receive new Medicaid. Hillary wants to make sure every state expands Medicaid and she'll fight tooth and nail to make this happen.
• Reform HIV Criminalisation Laws (attempting to repeal/abolish if possible) by working with advocates, HIV and AIDS organisations, Congress and the Senate.
• Hillary will enforce the Disability Act to fight discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS.
• Increase global funding for HIV and AIDS treatment and prevention (showing how compassionate a President Hillary would really be!)

Hillary's Autism Strategy:
Hillary is currently the only candidate to offer a comprehensive strategy to help improve the lives of autistic children and adults in the US, who have often felt undervalued and ignored in government decision making in the past. More than 3.5 million people in the US are believed to have autism and improving support will help to transform their lives. Hillary wants to extend the Expanding the Promise for Individuals with Autism Act that she introduced when a New York Senator and which gained bipartisan support, demonstrating that she can inspire her political opponents to believe in improving equal rights for those living with autism and other disabilities, something Trump has failed to prove during his Presidential campaign.

1. Expand insurance cover for autism services so autistic people don't have to worry about being able to access services - whether through private insurance or government healthcare plans.
2. Work with the Department for Defence to ensure military families have full access to autism services through the TRICARE system.
3. Conduct an early national screening outreach campaign so autistic children can receive the help they need education and social wise to improve work and life chances.
4. Invest in autism research and conduct the first-ever nationwide survey of autistic adults (long overdue!)
5. Launch a new Autism Works Initiative which will guarantee a post-graduate transition plan for every student with autism.
6. Enact the Keeping All Students Safe Act banning all physical and chemical restraints that could endanger a pupil's life and restrict physical restraint to protecting the student from endangering other students with schools required to write to parents to explain why they used the restraint.

Hillary's Environmental Policies:

1. Remain fully committed to honouring the Paris Climate Change Agreement (that's gone into effect on 4th November 2016) by reducing green house gas emissions by up to 30% and put the US on track to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.
2. Install half a billion solar panels in US homes by the end of Hillary's first term (with a desire to allow every home in the US to become Clean-Energy powered).
3. Reduce oil consumption by 1/3.
4. Ban oil drilling in the Arctic.
5. Launch the $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge - partnering with states, cities and rural communities to cut carbon pollution for all, including low-income families to ensure nobody is left behind by the energy revolution.
6. Eliminate lead poisoning within 5 years and clean up more than 450,000 toxic brownfield sites.
7. Create an Environmental and Climate Justice Task Force thereby fostering a sense of "collaborative stewardship" and an emphasis on our "collective responsibility" to help combat Climate Change and protect the Environment.
8. Create an Energy Plan that would pay $9 billion annually to help fund pensions and health of coal workers and cut carbon emissions.
9. Block attempts to resurrect construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (unlike Trump who wants to finish it).

Note on Hillary's Environment Policies:
Green supporters have criticised Hillary for not speaking out against the proposed North Dakota Access Pipeline which will cross Native American (Sioux) lands at Standing Rock after the pipeline plans were redirected from Bismarck (which happens to have a population that is 90% White). Native American protestors see the pipeline as encroaching on their land, making them feel inferior to other Americans. For them it is more than a protest about water or generic "climate change" conversations. It is important to note that the pipeline would cost $3.7 billion if completed and cover 1,170 miles of land (according to American Friends Service Committee: https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/what-we%E2%80%99re-reading-nodapl-occupation-standing-rock).  I can see from other policies from Hillary that she would be sympathetic to blocking construction of the pipeline and President Obama has responded to requests from Senator Bernie Sanders to ask the construction companies to reconsider their plans to take into account environmental impact, but the lack of vocally speaking out in favour of the #NODAPL protestors and condemning recent violence shown to them by local police forces is slightly disappointing. I can only say that Hillary would be more receptive to discussions about DAPL than Trump, who hasn't shown much regard for Native American issues or Environmental issues during his campaign.

Hillary's Economic Policies:

1. Keep tax rates the same for most tax payers but add an additional bracket (the 4% "fair share surcharge") for those earning over $5 million to pay for programmes such as free college education for low and middle-income earners. This College Affordability Plan would spend $35 billion a year to refinance student debt and pay states to guarantee free tuition.
2. Hillary would create a 30% tax rate for those earning $1 million a year.
3. Hillary will raise the short term capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning $400,000 or more a year (only 0.5% of taxpayers).
4. Create a National Infrastructure Plan allocating $27.5 billion annually to improve US roads, bridges, public transportation, rail,  airports, water systems and Internet provision in rural areas.
5. Raise the National Minimum Wage to $15 an hour.
6. Limit the number of deductions taxpayers can claim at 28%.
7. Oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after much consideration over its validity and having discussed its popularity with fellow Dems including Bernie Sanders.
8. Extend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act so that a risk fee is levied on banks with more than $50 billion in assets, high debt to asset ratios or have a reliance on short term funding.
9. End corporate inversion so US companies cannot move their headquarters abroad to avoid paying US taxes. Propose an "exit tax" if they attempt to move abroad and pay American taxes on any deferred foreign earnings. These taxes could raise $80 billion a year!
10. Eliminate the carried interest tax.

Hillary's Foreign Policies and National Security Policies:

1. Increase co-operation with China whilst ensuring the US takes a stronger stance against China's human rights record.
2. Abide by the multinational nuclear deal (most focus on Iran) but reimpose sanctions if necessary.
3. Establish a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, conducting air strikes against ISIS and arming Kurdish and Sunni Arab fighters to defeat ISIS.
4. Prohibit the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding on terrorists as they are unhelpful and inhumane- Trump wants to approve them.
5. Maintain current restrictions on National Security Agency surveillance (as defined under the USA Freedom Act) - Trump wants to reinstate the bulk surveillance program.
6. Increase sanctions against North Korea and ensure allies such as Japan and South Korea feel supported and protected.
7. Increase sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and ensure Baltic States are protected as per NATO agreements.

My view of Hillary's Foreign Policy:

I can understand the argument advanced by some progressives that Hillary isn't the "perfect candidate", especially when it comes to her foreign policies. The No-Fly zone in Syria and the re-commitment to fighting ISIS shows that she is hawkish but after years of fighting wars in the Middle East, Americans and Brits want to go through a period of peace. It is incorrect to assume Trump is any less of a hawk than Hillary though; his rhetoric on Syria, whilst it has been all over the place at times, seems to now indicate a desire to increase the Armed Forces (for example, increasing the number of Army soldiers from 490,000 to 540,000) to "defeat ISIS". If you're a fan of reducing military engagement and fostering peace (with all countries, not just Russia) it's probably not a good idea to vote for Trump. In fact I believe there's a strong chance Trump could provoke tensions if he is elected, especially in the Middle East.

What is great to see from Hillary in terms of her National Security and Foreign Policies is that she wants to close Guantanamo Bay and to prohibit the use of waterboarding techniques to torture terror suspects. As I wrote in my last blogpost on Trump, it is better to treat opponents with compassion rather than take away their humanity, even if they are accused of committing atrocities. The fact that Hillary is willing to challenge China on it's human rights record shows that Hillary cares about how others are treated.

Conclusion:
From having identified and examined a range of Hillary's policies, I can see that she is a woman who has truly thought about how to make America more diversity friendly and more environmentally friendly whilst at the same time not being afraid to make difficult decisions regarding foreign policy. I may not agree with every policy on her platform and I certainly have frowned a bit at her reluctance to engage openly on issues that Bernie Sanders cares about deeply-for example I can see from her platform that Hillary wants to bring pharmaceutical companies to heel to ensure they don't profit from HIV/AIDS patients or Autistic individuals who rely on lifelong medication but she hasn't talked about it in any great depth; Bernie has  made fighting pharmaceutical companies a major part of his own platform and he has gained many supporters as a result. However, one reason why I have come to respect Hillary over the past year is that she has been able to adapt her policy platform to make it more progressive: Bernie always made a point of stating in his rally speeches that the US should have a $15 an hour national minimum wage. Hillary saw how popular support for this policy was with Democrats and Independents and so has now made it central to her Economic Policy and she now mentions this during her rally speeches. I think it's amazing that Bernie had such a positive effect so as to convince Hillary that a Minimum Wage is essential to help improve the lives of ordinary working class and middle class Americans who may be working up to 50-60 hours a week to try and save enough money to buy a house or to attend college. Trump didn't seem to favour this important Bernie policy despite wanting to "appeal" to Bernie supporters but we all know whose side he is really on...his own and that of his wealthy Republican friends.

If you like the policies you have seen on my blogpost and are yet to vote in the US Election and aren't quite sure who to vote for, ask yourself this question: Do you want a President that cares about domestic social issues just as much as economic or foreign policy ones? If you think a President should espouse progressive values and be prepared to act on them and already has plans to be able to do this, then you must choose Hillary this Tuesday 8th November. If you believe in division rather than union or protecting the rights of those at the top without having a care for those who may be disabled or those facing abuse because of their gender identity or sexuality or duping those working class young adults labouring in entry-level jobs in catering or hospitality to earn enough money to be able to go to college to fulfill their dreams, vote Trump. The choice really couldn't be any clearer.

Trans Experience of Recruitment And Selection Processes: What You Need To Know (UK)

"Everyone is different and unless employers take diversity seriously they will fail to recruit, retain and engage the commitment of the talent needed to sustain and improve performance" (Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development)

It's a wishy washy Monday morning in September. The sun's nowhere to be seen, the rain's pounding on the window and you cannot stand its syncopated musicality. Yet you've been offered the chance of a job as a Trainee Finance Assistant, something you've wanted to do since you graduated from your Accounting Technician (AAT) course. You get dressed up to the nines, choose your favourite pair of cat earrings and get on the bus, making sure you time to spare to exchange necessary pleasantries with the Receptionist and impress the boss. When they come out the office and meet you they seem to give you the "Straight up and down glare", usher you in and desperately try not to refer to your state of dress until midway through the interview until they ask the uncomfortable question: "Are you transgender?" You offer an appropriate response affirming that you are indeed trans and then going onto explain how far through the transition stage you are and whether you'd need time off for attending the GP surgery/hospital for treatment. Everything seems to have gone well and so you go home thinking you've nailed the questions and impressed on experience. Then you get the dreaded phone call- "You're not deemed a suitable fit for the organisation". I.e. you, as a person, do not fit what they are looking for, even if you had impressed on paper. You then question where you went wrong, whether you had answered a question incorrectly or not studied the right qualifications for the role. However, when this keeps happening every time you attend an interview for a private or public sector job, you begin to think "Are they not interested in hiring me because I am transgender? Should I dress differently to the interview?" So what can a trans person expect to do to increase their chances of finding employment, particularly within the private sector?

• Trans candidates need to realise it is not their fault that they are facing discrimination from recruitment managers/ owners in private sector businesses. Usually speaking, most of these people will have had very little formal training in HR or recruitment and selection theory so may not be aware of specific discrimination legislation and regulations that govern the recruitment and selection process. Therefore I believe it is incumbent on the candidate to know their rights as guaranteed under current law.

• First and foremost, trans people should be aware that if you are currently going through gender reassignment surgery or express an intention to do so, it could be seen as a form of direct discrimination if an employer turns around to you and says they "wouldn't hire you if you chose to go through gender reassignment surgery"; it is not a good enough reason for choosing not to hire someone. "Gender reassignment" is one of the nine protected characteristics named under the Equality Act (2010) and therefore, if it can be proved an employer explicitly didn't select you based solely on either a perception you are going through gender reassignment surgery (direct discrimination by perception) or because you have stated explicitly you are going through gender reassignment surgery (direct discrimination), an employer can be taken to an Employment Tribunal (EAT). At the EAT the burden of proof will be on the employer to show they haven't discriminated on the grounds of the protected characteristic. If they explicitly made a statement against your trans identity at the interview and it has been recorded, then it will be relatively simple for the judge to award damages in your favour on the basis of discriminatory recruitment and selection practices.

• If you have chosen not to go through gender reassignment surgery, you are still protected by the Equality Act. A person doesn't need to be registered with a GP or going through any medical treatment to be covered by the protected characteristic (apparently but may be hard to prove!) So it is perfectly acceptable to ask an employer to provide evidence of selection material after a rejection letter if necessary to check whether they have made comments regarding your dress/mannerisms against their job description, person specification checklist or interview question recording forms.(They have to keep certain data records relating to recruitment and selection for at least 6 months as advised by ACAS in case of a discrimination challenge). These may provide examples of selection bias and provide suitable evidence of direct/indirect discrimination because it might indicate whether they would have accepted you wishing to undergo gender reassignment surgery whilst employed at their firm.

• If an employer discriminates against you by rejecting you on the basis of your age and you are trans, remember that it is unlawful less it can be objectively justified; an employer would be unlikely to win a Tribunal case if they rejected you for a Finance Assistant role because they feel that you would be unable to keep up with updating client accounts, especially if they employ Finance Assistants who are around the same age or older than you!

• Employers are more than entitled to look at your social media accounts when considering whether you will be a "cultural fit" (suitable) for the company but they are not allowed to use this unlawfully to discriminate against you. If they see on Twitter for example that you are a trans activist and going through gender reassignment surgery, they are not allowed to use this one fact unfairly to write you off before or after an interview. As ACAS says on its website page Social Media and Recruitment: "Employers could face an employment tribunal hearing if they refused to interview or offer a job to someone based on a judgement they made through looking at the candidate's social media profile and then discriminating against them because of a protected characteristic belonging to the candidate which they noticed on the site."

• Some Job Centre advisors tell trans applicants to "dress modestly" when attending an office based formal interview. But what constitutes "modest dress"? I usually say that if you see what your potential female or male peers/friends are wearing to the office then you will be within the realms of acceptability. A trans man will usually be fine in a suit or shirt and tie or v neck jumper and trousers combination but it is more tricky for trans women. Wearing a skirt prior to transition may lead to the recruitment officer questioning whether it may offend coworkers. However wearing a midi length dress in muted with leggings/tights underneath would solve the "see through" genitals problem. Failing that, wearing a silk shirt and trousers with flat shoes would be appropriate. If the employer doesn't accept you in this state of modest dress then I question whether they're willing to take you on in the first place. You should wear what you feel comfortable in but take notice of office trends and you can never go far wrong.

• I always believe being open and honest is important during an interview. It's not essential that you disclose your wish to transition or that you are going through the transition process already but if you are dressed in clothing associated with the opposite gender it may be difficult to ignore. At least you will be letting the employer concerned know "where the land lies". They may wish to address whether you need time off to attend Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) or GP appointments and whether you'd be prepared to cover these using allotted holiday time as much as possible to reduce absentee hours. If you give the impression that you're prepared to do this it shows that you are not expecting to be treated as a special case per se; they may be more sympathetic if they choose to hire you when you do need more time off to recover. Be prepared to answer any "silly questions" the employer may have about your trans status; most of the time they are just intrigued/curious, especially if it is the first time they have met a trans person in the flesh! A common definition to have handy is that of Gender Reassignment Surgery: Gender reassignment is a personal, social, and sometimes medical process by which a person's gender appears to others to have changed. Anyone who proposes to, starts or has completed a process to change his or her gender is protected from discrimination under the Equality Act. A person does not need to be undergoing medical supervision to be protected. So, for example, a woman who decides to live as a man without undergoing any medical procedures would be covered.

• I ask what the company's Equality and Diversity policies are; this is to see whether they understand the need to treat all employees with dignity and respect. If they mention they have employed trans people in the past it generally bodes well for the rest of the interview as they will have already experienced some of the adaptations needed to accommodate a trans person in the office. If not, I ask them whether they have met a trans person or dealt with a trans client or have associations with LGBTQIA based charities. It sounds a bit nosey but it is classed as building rapport with an employer and does get them to open up a little about their feelings towards trans people generally. I can usually tell by voice tone and body language what their generic response is. Remember that you have a say in whether you wish to be employed by the firm. If you feel uncomfortable around the boss/recruitment manager, chances are that type of office environment may not be for you. Just remember not to sass them whilst you are on the premises and not write a damning review until the selection/rejection process is complete.

• Be careful which references you choose to give to an employer, particularly if they are character based. Character references are usually acceptable from teachers, university tutors, a charity organisation you may have worked with or a client you had helped out. So there are plenty to choose from! Equally it would be potentially unwise to give a reference from an former employer who didn't accept your gender identity or had implicitly shown an inkling for intolerance, as they are more likely to give you a bad reference even though this is now discouraged. However for younger trans workers this may be difficult as they may have only had 1/2 employers in the past and potential employers are now keen to have knowledge of any gaps in your employment (it's usually better if you are honest and open about those gaps on your CV or explain them further at interview). If you are given a bad reference (you can check when you are employed with a new employer but can't ask your previous employer for the reference), you can take them to court and ask for damages because your previous employer has given you a misleading reference. The employer then has to prove the reference was justified by providing appropriate documentation (such as warning letters). Workers then have to prove whether they suffered a loss -e.g., a job offer was terminated as a result of the reference being given. If the employer cannot provide sufficient evidence or the evidence shows a bias towards transphobia and the worker can prove they suffered a loss, then damages will be awarded. Remember that people. If you feel you have been discriminated against on the basis of a bad reference, you can contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau for help and support. Some employers may only give a brief reference " job title, salary and when the worker was employed" but this may sway the potential employer into believing you had not performed particularly well whilst employed previously. You have to provide references (usually 2) but remember to think about the references you give!

So there you have it! A few tips to remember when going for a job interview as a trans person. Know your rights, dress appropriately for the job role but don't leave your personality in the washing basket. Don't feel intimidated when you go to the office for that grilling; you are just as important as any other job seeker going for the role. Be as open and honest as you feel you can be regarding your transition. Show how you could be an asset to the company rather than a liability by emphasising your skills and experience. If you feel you have been discriminated against, don't be afraid to reach out to organisations such as ACAS or Citizens' Advice Bureau. You are valued, you matter. You will get that dream job eventually!! :)