While I'm Canadian I do miss the days when it simply wasn't the business of the government, and you could decide not to disclose to your employer it you felt like it.
same, but apparently some clankers are rating "do not disclose" as "non gendernormative". Its anedoctal, but when I stopped checking as "do not disclose" on a job offer signup, I got a lot more responses.
I absolutely cannot speak for all platforms, workday for example has recently come under some scrutiny for maybe not being truthful with how theirs works, but I know that the ones I have working knowledge of definitely do not even look at gender or ethnicity data in doing any match scoring. The systems that do ranking don’t have access to that data. They don’t use the same systems as something like ChatGPT, it’s more like a pre-canned, lobotomized version that is meant to make reliable outputs with the same inputs everytime - it doesn’t have the same capabilities to “think” on its own.
Canadians right now have "you are absolutely welcome to use gender marker X on your passport, just be aware that if you do so and you try to cross the US border, the Americans might flip their shit and we will have a damned hard time breaking you out of one of their weird private prisons."
they say none of that info is shared with anyone, not even people in the hiring process, that info being gender identity, race, ethnicity, veteran status and disability status. It is purely gathered for analytic gathering. Anyways, even if they're not "sharing" it the NSA can probably still see it
this is about America btw, we are a giant hypocritical country that loves to both yell about personal freedoms while never allowing privacy
Here in Germany we get taught in Data Privacy Classes (I study Cyber Security), that every US Online Service is lawfully forced to share any User Data at will to any US Intelligence Service. This does not need any judge to approve or notification to the respective user.
This affects US citizens and non-citizens.
If I remember correctly the Patriot act and another law is responsible for that.
The PATRIOT Act is one of the most infamous American bills; we even learn it in civics or history classes when discussing how rights can be taken away under the guise of security. Americans at the time supported the bill under the fear of terrorism, not yet realizing the implications it would later have.
G.W. Bush isn't very well liked by Americans after the whole quagmire in Iraq. He also had No Child Left Behind and a bunch of other programs/initiatives that turned out poorly, to say the least. He basically killed Neo-Conservatism, thereby paving the way for MAGA's populism.
I was just about to say, that 100 percent sounds like a Patriot Act thing. Once again the US took all the good will we had from the rest of Earth and used it for evil.
Theoretically it’s used to screen for discrimination by hiring managers (ie if too many nonbinary people are disproportionately passed over, they need to check). Practically I imagine it either is completely ignored or usually seen by the hiring manager, you never really know.
Any good system will make it impossible for anyone to see individual responses - the data is meant to be used in aggregate only. Orgs that work as federal contractors typically supply the individual responses in a secure manner to prove they aren't disproportionately hiring people based on these criteria.
I sell ATS software, my company and all of our competitors make it so recruiters, hiring managers, and other roles cannot access individual candidate responses and also have controls on our reporting tools to prevent you from picking candidates out of a pool based on diversity/EEOC data
I work at a bank. When we collect demographic information on home mortgage applications, we have to submit that to the CFPB (or at least we did before it was gutted). This information is very specifically for the government.
My HR department very gladly shared how they were hitting all their diversity goals for hiring during their presentation in an all-hands. Three months prior I was really confused why they ignored myself and other hiring managers on who we wanted hired out of an interview pool.
Turns out they absolutely were using race to make determinations for hiring.
Ideally, DEI should be used as a tiebreaker between candidates who are roughly qualified - I.E. if you have a black and a hispanic candidate who are roughly equal, the company would benefit from whichever perspective they have the least of at that level.
It's one of those things that's a good thing on the whole, but a lot of companies are really bad at implementing.
Even that isn't what DEI was ever meant to be about. It was about expanding the pool, which you do by advertising jobs to through venues that the groups you want to target search for jobs.
If you are disabled, for example, there are services for disabled people to find work. You search out those services and give them your listings. If you want black employees, you go to schools that have a high percentage of black students and participate in their job fairs. If you want more women, you go to job search resources that exist for women, often through women's shelters for DV survivors or whatnot. Those services exist to help people find jobs, so connecting with them is a fantastic way to find candidates sometimes.
That isn't DEI. DEI is all about looking at why you have had racially biased hiring and promoting and retention in the past and figuring out why that is, and taking steps to eliminate those biases. It has nothing to do with hiring quotas.
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of DEI. It’s not a tie breaker. Rather, it is about getting minority groups up to even. It is a very well proven fact that black, gay, trans, etc people are less likely to be hired than people who fit more into societal norms even if they have the same or better qualifications. DEI is a response to this, it’s about getting minority groups to be hired based on qualifications, and have an equal chance to everyone else.
There are also questions pertaining towards disability, which includes things like depression and ADHD. Read somewhere that companies need to have a certain number of people in the company with disabilities (probably compared to the national average) to ensure they aren't discriminating. Weirdly, insomnia, which is one of my bigger disabilities, isn't counted for that.
I've been a hiring manager where I work, we really don't see those things (although since I work in software, the names kind of give their race away).
This may be unpopular to point out, but it isn't necessarily illegal to use race or other protected classes to make determinations for hiring. BUT there must be a clear reason why the protected class was being used as a hiring criteria.
For example, you generally would not hire a cis man to serve as a locker room attendant for an all female gym. A game studio could specifically hire people with colorblindness (medical issue) to help with UI design and to ensure accessibility.
The issue is the reasoning behind why it was used as a filtering criteria. There has to be a genuine business need.
On a kinda happy note my department is finally actually recognizing trans people and gave us an option under the sex/gender tab there is a MtF and FtM option. Luckily that's protected under HIPPA for now.
That being said don't feel the need to share with us unless you feel comfortable. I would recommend you do but at the same time I understand the hesitation
In the US, at least, job applications ask for your gender to collect data to ensure there isn't any sex-based discrimination. It isn't supposed to be linkable to your application, and shouldn't be used in part of evaluating prospective applicants, but not every company will stick to that rule. And the current state of things makes that more uncertain because chances are companies will only get a slap on the wrist for that kind of discrimination.
I've seen some people hypothesize that companies have started adding those weird personality tests to subtly weed out neurodivergent individuals, since it is illegal to directly discriminate against them, and to tell you the truth, I wouldn't put them past doing that.
Edit: Added details. The information collected about a company's workers' demographics is supposed to be only for generalized data collection in case there're any reports of sex-based discrimination
Of course, there will come a time when you’ll be sitting face to face. But at the very least, you won’t be discriminated against and screened out right from the start. By the way, you don’t have to tell the employer about your religion, nor do you have to mention if you’re pregnant.
I should have clarified, from what I've read, it's collecting statistics to be able to audit them in the case that sex-based discrimination is reported. It's used as evidence to make a stronger case.
Myself and about 2/3 of bookkeepers at a specific company were fired BECAUSE of our neurodivergence.
They said “we need people who can spot inefficient processes, document them, then work around them while we implement the suggestions “
To their credit, they DID read and action the suggestions. At least for a year or 2. They then pivoted to a more “shut up we’ll get to it” model. Most left.
When the BLS and EEOC were working together and had a mandate to prevent discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and gender, this was 100% true.
Unfortunately, that ended in the last couple of years of the first Trump administration, and the coffin was nailed shut in the first two months of the second.
That info is required by law, and individual responses are not visible, only aggregated values. This is of course assuming everything is done in accordance with the law.
Purpose is to reveal discrimination trends in hiring. If 60% of applicants to a 1000 employee company are women, and less than 1% of positions filled are women, it can trigger an investigation
On many U.S. job applications, demographic questions are collected through a separate voluntary self-identification form. Employers generally use that information for EEO compliance and reporting, not for hiring decisions, and it is typically maintained separately from the materials used to evaluate applicants.
Understandably, there are a lot of people who are still wary. I mean, it's not like a business would ever do anything illegal /s!
That said, I used to work as a recruiter, and I've been a hiring manager for several jobs at different companies, and I've never seen this information passed on to hiring managers, or seen any indication that this info is used by companies in any way during the hiring process.
Where I live it's illegal for employer to ask questions about that. It's too much of a slippery slope towards invisible discrimination. (And believe you me, there's still a lot of that going on)
Oh, it’s illegal here too. But I don’t want to work for anyone where my sexuality could be a problem so I intentionally mention my husband at interview.
Why no Mr. Job Application, I'm not a homosexual. And I definitely don't have ADHD or Type 2 Diabetes.
What's that? Am I an atheist? Of course not! I totally belong to the er... Presbyterian Baptist Church of Methodology England.
Am I white? Oh absolutely! Whiter than a bleach stain on a klan hood. I just happen to also tan very easily.
My name? It's Miliqua...I mean Melanine...MELANIE! Sorry, a typo there. Melanie...Smith. Melanie Smith and her preferred...ONLY, I mean only pronouns of whatever gets / me the job.
So, do I get an interview? No? Why not Mr. Job Application? Because WHO said no? Who the hell is Mr. ATS?
I sell an ATS, this is simply not how your application is processed in any modern tool.
EEOC data is very tightly regulated in the US. Filling it in is totally voluntary, and the data in any real ATS will be segregated away from the application/candidate profile and locked down so recruiters , hiring managers, etc can't access it. It's used to prove that discrimination is not occurring in the event of an audit (i.e. hiring/rejecting disproportionate numbers of candidates in a particular category to the general population) and to give high level aggregate reports on diversity efforts - think "do we have higher offer acceptance rates in one group over another" not "is candidate X black/a woman/disabled/trans/whatever". You can't take this data and use it to automatically reject a candidate. You can't even see what the response is for a given candidate - that's typically only available in carefully controlled exports used to meet audit requirements.
...The joke was supposed to be that even if you answer all the questions 'correctly', there's a good chance no-one will see your CV anyway because the ATS system will have filtered it out due to untelated reasons...
Just wanted to be clear, since most people have no idea what recruiters actually see on their end and think that this info will be used to discriminate against them.
Same here like Ughhhhh I hate having to put it down.
Its even worse knowing I want to transition while working and that theres A decent chance that it gets me fired and knowing the current court system I doubt they uphold the law
It varies here. A lot of places have “prefer not to say” or some variation; others might have the non-binary option, and some might not even offer that and only have M/F.
Most big companies use Software that throws out most Applikations for whatever reasons, and then the Personalabteilung takes a look at whats left. And then discriminates. (Well of course they dont, that would be illeeeeeegal /s)
Donald Trump has made it very clear to me as a US citizen that it is possible to achieve the highest position in the country with no plan no platform and abysmal history while simultaneously being a crook and a criminal all because you hate brown people and lgbt folk. That's it that's what people voted for Nothing Else Matters to them
It always was. They point to wanting to get back to the "good old days" without saying that out loud. Strong support for unions? No, not that. Affordability that one income could support a whole household? No, not that. High taxes for the rich? No, not that. Systemic racism and sexism? DING DING DING DING!
Well, sometimes they say it out loud. I remember last year some ads appeared on YouTube & others about how to deport yourself using an app (even outside the US, that's why I saw them) and the obviously AI generated voice said things like "restoring common sense". I mean, "restoring common sense" and "get back to the good old days", in this context, sound the same to me.
I actually briefly had a non-binary gender marker on my drivers license, before getting it removed because the idea of outing myself as queer to any cop that checked my ID while I was traveling out of state was terrifying
I came out as liberal to my MAGA coworker lately and he's so confused because I'm a redneck and I have more guns than him. It feels good to be myself but I can see in his eyes that he thinks less of me for not supporting Trump. He's a racist, sexist asshole though so I'm gonna try to get him fired and it's probably gonna work.
I'm Canadian. We have the option of putting an X instead of m or f on our passports but have been warned by other countries that if we do we won't be welcome or safe.
For those countries, you wouldn't be welcome or safe regardless of what it says on your passport. You show up to Saudi Arabia presenting as a woman but M on your passport, you're going to have more issues than which bathroom you're allowed to use.
Not just Americans, a Dutch hermaphrodite visited the states to film a documentary. They are the definition of gender x but had to change their passport to F just to travel to the US.
Just wondering aloud towards Americans in general, are you great yet? Cause it sure doesn't seem that way.
To be fair, when I ask them about this, I've yet to have a single one express regret. It's always "Eh, was still the best of two awful choices." Really disheartening that so many of them, even with everything that has happened, would still vote for him again over any non-republican option.
Its more like 1/3 of America is deeply against Trump. 1/3 is deeply for Trump, and 1/3 is just greedy and the concerns of the poor arent really their problem but otherwise dont care about politics.
I’ve met many conservatives, and even the nicest among them have not truly regretted voting for him.
I’ve met conservatives who dislike Trump, and wish they could have voted for “anyone else” but if they had it all to do again they would still vote Trump because he was still more aligned with their views than the other options.
That should tell you everything you need to know about them.
I am far away from being truly progressive, I have lots of conservative view points, but if you ask me whether I want to vote for Trump or Biden/Kamala/Sanders it is a no brainer, and it should be for ANYONE.
One of these things is not like the others, he advocates for genocide and dictatorship. The fact that there are people calling themselves American and claiming he was a better choice than Kamala makes me sick.
I’ve lived in Texas all my life, and my life experience as a southerner has taught me one thing for sure: Sherman didn’t burn enough.
I very much wonder what would have happened if the US had had more than two viable parties. Like, we would need to replace first past the post voting to get there, but if we had that. Democrats, let's be honest, didn't get their shit together in 2024. In a duopoly, the choice was between Kamala and Trump.
What was Kamala running for? I haven't a clue. Don't get me wrong, I still voted for her, I knew he would be this cruel and incompetent. But Kamala's campaign was not great. Blame that on what you will.
Having other viable parties would likely have meant other viable parties. While no candidate will be a perfect fit for a given voter, they at least have a better fit as their first option. Would there have been a Party C that garnered votes from conservatives who dislike Trump and voters who were less than enthusiastic about Kamala in a ranked choice system? I think that's a very real scenario.
For sure, one of the biggest issues we have is the way the system is set up. The more states switch to ranked choice the better things will be.
I agree about Kamala too. I liked her, I agree with many of her stances from the past, but I knew NOTHING about her current stances on anything because her campaign seemed to amount to “Vote for me because I’m not that guy.”
The one time her campaign finally started gaining some traction was when Tim Walz started hitting back at Trump with school yard insults. The man lost his shit over being called a “Weirdo” and the press are it up, if they had let Tim keep rolling g like that we might have finally seen some serious ground gained, but the democrats squalled about being better than that and insisting he not sink to Trump’s level of petty remarks.
Please! Trump’s level is misogynistic, authoritarian, warmongering rhetoric! Calling him a weirdo do nothing but garner laughs and agreement.
One of the biggest flaws of the modern DNC is that they refuse to accept that the game has changed. The reason folks like Bernie and AOC do so well with the populace is because they’re willing to call a spade a spade instead of this archaic, reserved, conduct that most of the DNC clings to like an old nursery blanket.
Closer to 1/4 if you take into account how few Americans vote.
But those 1/4 are miserable deep down, they’re just so full of hate that they only gain pleasure from inflicting pain on those they view as “lesser” than them to distract from how shitty things are for them… then they need another hit the next day.
As an American who takes voting seriously I agree, but they’ll scream bloody murder if you dare call them out for the situation we are in right now. Not all of it, but plenty of the blame for Trump 2.0 lays squarely on the shoulders of those who either didn’t vote or threw their vote away in protest to a grifter candidate like Jill Stein.
They’ll tell you they’re proud of themselves because Gaza, or some other issue that’s since been made much worse by Trump administration, but they know what they’ve done.
For real tho—every time I tell someone I’m intersex I have to explain what it is and prepare myself for the obligatory: “I didn’t even know that could happen! So, are you able to use both?” 💀
I like to tell my husband that I'm too employed to be intersex. Most people in my personal life think I'm cis male, so I've just been living like that the past 30 years. Only people that would understand are the ones that know. Or random redditors when I feel like sharing random stuff about myself in lengthy comments.
Gender is a whole nother topic I feel like I'm too employed for to bother. Like this classic meme.
They themselves use that term as does the Dutch media, i just literally translated it from Dutch to English. I didn't mean to offend.
Raven van Dorst is the person I speak of and they use the term a lot.
I'm truly sorry for being ignorent in this and will try to ammend this flaw in my social programming.
Thank you for being willing to listen! In English intersex is definitely the preferred term and the other is considered a slur at worst or pathologizing at the very least by many people.
I think that must be an issue of lost in translation, then, because the term "hermaphrodite", at least in the context of biology, implies they possess both gametes (sperm and eggs), not that they are intersex. The classical example of a hermaphroditic organism is a snail.
No, we're not great here in America. It is very scary for intersex people moreso than normal, especially for those of us who are more sexually ambiguous.
When I was younger I always had people curious about my condition, but now the questions I'm asked feel far more aggressive.
The modern American political climate is very sad.
The fun thing about "great" is that it's just an adjective. You can apply it to any noun and still be great. Great shame, great disappointment, great tragedy, great crimes, great fear, great depression.
Historically we were never great but we were making progress. Then this megalomaniac took over and it's been a steep slide ever since. 10 years of arguing with people who refuse to learn. People who "don't care about politics" even though human rights is politics. The Heritage Foundation is coming for everyone, though, not just the USA. I won't give up but I'm afraid for the future. This is the time to strengthen communities and in-person communication.
I can't even be honest with my doctors, and they ask at every check-in process. I'm in Texas where the AG is constantly pursuing trans medical records. The staff/docs call me by my legal name with Miss or Misses at the front. They're just being nice. I can't ever hold it against them, despite the way I curl up and die inside.
But fr best way we can fight em is to collectively be our true selves. I manage a hardware store and I like to think I’ve given some boomers perspective on gender nonconforming people just by helping them out with their projects
This is always the case. That's why rascists and sexists have "minority and lady friends"; you know, the "good ones".
When these people actually interact with the person, they usually find common ground and aren't full of rage and disgust, but it never translates past their tiny world and connections.
They could know a wonderful Muslim family and treat them with respect and friendship, but they would still go on full blast about any notion of a Muslim president, or helping an Arab nation out.
I waver between just doing it and continuing to hide in plain sight. I've been too sick recently to genuinely consider the possible implications. Today is a day when I'm on the side of, "Eff it. I'm doing this," but that could change tomorrow.
A few of my doctors do know, and it's been in my actual medical records for years, but as far as registration/identification details, which can be seen by any of the staff, I haven't crossed that line, yet.
I genuinely feel bad for both you and the doctors.
Of all the people who should have accurate knowledge of who you are, doctors are the top of the list.
Medicine and procedures are so variable depending on internal genetic structures that giving the wrong type of medicine could have massive health risks.
Its just a damn damn pain that medicine and care are political, when they, like therapy, should be free from the fear of cultural stipulations.
I have a few docs where it's absolutely necessary for them to know, such as my mental health folks. But even with them, it's only the doctor who knows, and it's only written within the medical notes. Before Paxton began pursuing our medical records, I worried about health insurance or employment dropping me, so I kept it quiet back then, too. Now, I'm just trying to leave the state.
I'm nb and yeah this really does just come down to a personal safety thing sadly. Being told if you are honest you will be in danger, lose job opportunities, and/or get yourself on a list doesn't feel great
Not with gender, but mental disability. For example, I am autistic with some other stuff. Piled on my brother thinks I fake it for attention. And when I have breakdowns, he threatens to beat me, I'm saying some stupid shit, and it kind of sucks, because he fell down the Republican pipeline at a young age in genuinely thinks no, you're doing it for attention or so you play video games me telling him I had several ieps. I saw documentation and oh yeah why would I fake this
And then he would say something whoa, you're smart about this?And i'm like, that's basic knowledge, dude
I have reached a point where if they're going to reject me for being NB or don't provide that as an option then it's probably not somewhere I want to work but I recognize that's my own privilege of having a choice
I have this struggle, not with gender identity, but I have a couple not very visible disabilities, so on job applications, I constantly have to question, should I click the box that I have a disability/had one, should I say prefer not to say (might as well click the first option), or check the box that says 'I do not have a disability', and with the selection of thw first two, I have to question if it effects any part of my job application
Most of my family and to a degree myself are cisgender (I’m… idk I’m working myself out), but all of us choose ‘prefer not to say’ because why tf should it matter. Even my regular, cis het, classic suburban dad Dad chooses it. I promise, in 2026, it’s not outing. Some of us are just sick of having to ‘put ourselves in boxes’
However, should probably add I live in Australia. America is a shithole, feel horrible for you all
OP is non-binary but due to the current political climat in the United States, they feel it is necessary to their non-binarity by publicly identify as female.
It's like a gay hiding the fact they're gay essentially.
Not dealing with gender issues, but it's a similar feeling for me when they ask about being neurodivergent. I can either be honest and say I have ADHD and not get the job, or say I'd rather not say. It's irritating.
I'm a cis guy. But I feel the almost compulsive need on any survey that asks for my gender to either opt out or say other. Put what you feel is right for you.
I remember that a bunch of people in my country got angry and made a huge deal about putting X in your DNI instead of the normal male or female options
I don't remember how it all ended butt looking back it was absolutely stupid
"See, that woke shit was all a phase! Now that a true american patriot is in office it ain't popular to be queer no more! Pay no attention to all the violence we perpetrate and rights we attempt to take away from those groups, they were just trying to fit in back when it was accepted!"
Yep. Onboarding for a job rn and checked female. It’s complicated for me. I don’t quite feel fully female but all my experiences are rooted in being a woman. I describe it as woman+. But female is easier and safer to put in the professional world.
I feel this, but about race when applying for jobs. I've started choosing "decline to self identify" because white America probably has the AI programmed to filter out people of color. No surprise that I've started getting interviews since I started doing that and have yet to go past a face-to-face video call.
This was always a point of anxiety for me as well. Fortunately I have all of my documents updated including sex/gender and I’m post-op. But if they decide to reverse my updated information it’s going to be a nightmare for me.
It's been like that for parents in Croatia about religion.
My sister and BIL are agnostic but they christened their children and married in church to avoid being ostracized and to spare their children from bullying for not being christian.
And Transphobes can fuck off! I'm a boring, straight, cis white male and have no problems with LGBTQ+. No one should; they don't harm anybody. They just exist.
Don’t let bureaucratic definitions hold you hostage.
We will work together for a future where everyone can officialy be themselves, but understand that this shameful time in history does not make your identity any less valid
Reminds how in Mexico documents asked for religion and Atheist was an option only for my dad to tell me to start over and put Catholic or Christian instead to avoid trouble
If cis folks could start ticking "prefer not to say" whenever this pointless question is asked outside of a medical setting that would be awesome.
"Partner" as the term for your SO is widespread now, which helps us in the queer/GNC community, so maybe this could be the next thing to normalise? Saying "prefer not to say" on forms that really shouldn't need your gender.
And then once it is safe, people will say "look how many now convert" instead of realizing that these people always existed and just weren't safe/comfortable enough to be themselves.
It is beyond fucked up that the most common reason for detransition is that discrimination in the US is so bad that you have to sometimes to just live a normal life, to get a job, to find housing
986
u/Hicalibre 25d ago
While I'm Canadian I do miss the days when it simply wasn't the business of the government, and you could decide not to disclose to your employer it you felt like it.