Nonbinary lawyers' experiences in the legal profession
Table of Contents:
A. The Harm of Implicit and Explicit Bias
B. Pronouns and Misgendering
C. Forced Mitigation Strategies
D. Burdens of Internal HR Policies
E. The Legal Dress Code and Gender
F. Hiding Identity in the Workplace
G. Looking for Work in Biased Spaces
H. Unfounded Fears of Bias by Court and Client
I. Perfection Not Required
Nonbinary people face pervasive stereotypes about gender that typically only account for men and women. Unfortunately, many binary counterparts disbelieve, disregard, or disrespect nonbinary and gender nonconforming people’s identities.7 Openly identifying nonbinary people who express themselves in ways that do not conform to binary gender roles are often negatively stereotyped as attention-seeking, assumed to be politically motivated, or simply dismissed as “going through a phase.”8 As a result, nonbinary people are often constrained in their abilities to advocate for their rights as individuals in everyday settings. Indeed, nonbinary people are “almost twice as likely as their binary transgender counterparts to refrain from asking their employers to refer to them by the correct pronouns . . . .”9 These challenges pose significant burdens on nonbinary lawyers. The same barriers also constrain nonbinary clients from accessing resources or support.10
Nonbinary people continue to encounter various challenges within the legal profession, which has historically excluded LGBTQ+ people. Courtrooms, law schools, firms, and elite workplaces perpetuate a binary gendered culture. This negatively impacts nonbinary lawyers' careers and mental health. Respondents generally felt employers lack accurate information and familiarity with nonbinary people. Overwhelmingly, respondents felt employers' implicit biases posed challenges to nonbinary lawyers getting hired, succeeding and advancing professionally, or continuing working in the legal community.
Respondents felt inclusive workplaces remain relatively rare because the attitudes they ordinarily encounter within the legal community communicate to them change is difficult or unnecessary. Some respondents expressed an impression that the legal profession lags behind other industries and populations, including the legal profession’s own clients. Many people within the respondents’ work environments appeared to underestimate the risks of inaction. Therefore, respondents often believed they could not rely on their workplace's existing resources, such as human resources departments, supervisors, or leadership, when issues arose.
Almost all respondents interviewed were the only out nonbinary person in their workplace; many experienced being the first nonbinary person with whom an employer, judge, or other authority figure knowingly interacted. All respondents expressed significant concern about how to handle interactions with peers, authority figures, and clients. Although respondents’ ‘visibility’ within their careers varied, all felt pressure to be the model nonbinary community representative and to “perform” to meet their cisgender, binary counterparts’ comfort levels. Some felt they were denied opportunities for development and advancement because their supervisors worried third parties, such as judges and clients, would not want to work with them because they are nonbinary.
A. Employers and colleagues should recognize and address the harm stereotypes and implicit biases cause to nonbinary and gender nonconforming legal professionals.
Attorney-Respondents did not feel respected as lawyers and were often perceived by others to be non-lawyers or lawyers with practices limited to representing other LGBTQ+ people.
Respondents recounted numerous instances throughout their legal careers when their binary counterparts told them they did not “look like attorney[s].” Indeed, many recalled supervisors, colleagues, and others in the legal community assuming they were not lawyers. This made respondents feel excluded in their own occupation, in workplaces, or in specific environments, such as courtrooms, prestigious firms, or judicial chambers. Their binary counterparts’ assumptions about how lawyers should look or dress made some respondents feel unwelcome or like they did not belong in the legal profession.
Consequently, all respondents worried about being viewed as unprofessional because of who they are. Some described feeling like others in the legal community preliminarily viewed them as a nonbinary person rather than first being seen as an attorney while they worked. One respondent described feeling tokenized and like other aspects of their personhood and experience were completely ignored. They wish their binary counterparts in the legal profession understood "[t]here are more interesting things about [them] than [their] gender."
Others expressed distress at being mistaken for non-attorney staff while appearing in court. This experience was most common among interviewees whom others within the legal profession perceived as non-masculine. One respondent explained:
A lot of the time people in the court won’t think I’m an attorney because of how I look. They’ll assume I’m a social worker or in a care profession like that. The fact that they exclude me from the legal profession based on how I look is very telling. They assume that folks who they see as young, feminine, or [gender non-conforming] are not attorneys. They assume anyone on the feminine side of things and not in a cis suit is in a care role rather than an attorney role and that I didn’t go to law school.
Another respondent detailed:
These are cultural norms that don’t just hurt queer people. This is the forced performance of old school professionalism that forces class markers and really specific class markers, rampant misogyny, rampant racism.
Therefore, issues that impact women can also affect nonbinary people; policies that ameliorate these issues should be viewed holistically to account for both groups.
Other respondents indicated some within the legal profession mistakenly assumed their practice areas due to gender stereotypes. For example, respondents who identify themselves as visibly gender nonconforming reported other attorneys frequently assumed they only work with queer or transgender clients. Additionally, several respondents noted their binary counterparts questioned their competency to practice in areas unrelated to the LGBTQ+ community.
One respondent indicated some of their binary counterparts assumed they would not be able to successfully work within the legal profession authentically as their nonbinary self. They explained others treated them “like [they were] only allowed to work with other trans folks.” Another expressed sincere frustration regarding other people’s assumptions about their practice area: “I’m sick of everyone thinking I do employment law. Oh, you do the queer stuff.”
This application of gender-based stereotypes demonstrates the harm posed by implicit and explicit biases throughout the legal profession.
B. Respondents recounted nearly constant misgendering and dismissive attitudes about their pronouns.
Overwhelmingly, respondents agreed that using their proper pronouns is the bare minimum others can do to treat them with dignity and respect. Yet many respondents unfortunately indicated other lawyers overtly disrespected and ridiculed them by refusing to use their pronouns.11 Many respondents felt too awkward or embarrassed to correct those who used the wrong pronouns. Respondents described various ways they have attempted to make their pronouns obvious to make it easier for other attorneys to not misgender them.
But several respondents noted no matter how clearly they presented their pronouns on firm websites, in their Zoom name, or even on clothing pins, others continued to constantly misgender them. Almost all said multiple people at work consistently misgendered them and used incorrect pronouns.
Members of the legal profession are accustomed to using precise language in practice. That is why one respondent expressed feeling deeply hurt when others in the legal profession misgendered them:
People in the legal industry are so dedicated to precise language use. So, when someone misgenders you despite having indicated the appropriate language, it feels worse—like it must be intentional or that they don’t care.
One respondent expressed discomfort when a judge mistakenly assumed their proper pronoun was their name and referred to them as “They” throughout a proceeding. Another respondent reflected they felt like others in the legal community treated their identity as a joke: “I feel that folks think it’s a phase or expression like an artist. There’s no understanding of the fact that it’s real. . .So being nonbinary is treated as a joke.” For example, a few respondents described how they felt when acquaintances or colleagues offered "creative" answers to being asked their pronouns. Several reported how other attorneys presumably joked about how they did not have pronouns or were “pre-pronouns,” implicitly characterizing the sharing of personal gender pronouns as a new fad.
Although the underlying intention was likely to be humorous, these jokes signal a lack of understanding nonbinary people’s experiences and can amount to laughing at the expense of nonbinary people. Additionally, joking that one’s pronouns are "professor/professor," “your majesty,” or “your royal highness” may seem harmless, but it runs the serious risk of making nonbinary workers and students feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. It usually backfires and erodes trust.
Others’ use of incorrect pronouns often became the first instance where respondents encountered conflict or hostility in a workplace. To avoid conflict, many nonbinary legal professionals become less insistent on correcting others who misgender them and use the wrong pronouns, contrary to popular perceptions of nonbinary people as gender language police. Yet everyone wants and expects others to use their correct pronouns. In fact, almost everyone cares about which pronouns and honorifics others use for them. Indeed, one can easily imagine the reaction of a cisgender man who might say he does not care which pronouns others use to refer to him until he is called “she” in a meeting.
Unfortunately, binary men and women overwhelmingly respond by characterizing many nonbinary colleagues’ requests to use they/them pronouns, or requests to reveal their own pronouns, as burdensome. This reaction signals to nonbinary people they are unwelcome and that their identities are unworthy of respect. Therefore, using a nonbinary person's pronouns can be seen as a good first step to counteract negative interactions.
C. Respondents felt pressure to mitigate the risks of others' biases against them.
All respondents felt compelled to place others’ comfort before their own and before authentically presenting and expressing themselves during critical moments. These decisions contributed to the respondents’ emotional distress in the workplace. Fear of rejection, dismissal, and other unequal treatment led many to carefully calculate everyday interactions while working in firms, in court, and in public interest spaces. They felt unable to correct others who misgendered them during court proceedings because they feared being seen as problematic.
For example, one respondent explained, “If a judge gets my pronouns wrong, it’s tricky to respond. If you do it at the top of the hearing, you’re stopping the call. But if I wait, there’s no going back. And I can’t interrupt co-counsel who introduces me wrong, because it kills credibility.” Another respondent expressed significant hesitance correcting others when they were misgendered in court because they were concerned it would impact the court’s opinion of their client or their clients’ criminal cases. They were concerned correcting any misgendering would place their clients at greater risk, particularly when their client is already viewed as being a problem. They did not want to be “an extra problem in the criminal justice system.” Therefore, this respondent and others frequently chose to abandon attempts to avoid further misgendering.
Many felt forced to pretend to be a binary man or woman, or to remain silent when issues with colleagues, customers, clients, or supervisors arose, because of others’ implicit or overt remarks. They feared their concerns would be ignored, they would be treated differently than their binary counterparts, or they would be subject to reprisal. For example, one respondent shared, “There were a lot of problems where I “was a woman again” to get things done. What’s more important—changing things in prison or getting someone to recognize our genders?”
Over time, repeated misgendering at work negatively impacted respondents, especially when their binary coworkers demonstrated little effort to be respectful. However, respondents often felt that they had no recourse.
D. Respondents felt the consequences of burdensome Human Resources policies and internal procedures.
Most interviewees mentioned issues with employers' internal administrative procedures. Many felt stuck consulting on poorly written Human Resources (“HR”) policies.
One respondent described a negative experience they had as a summer law clerk while arranging a hotel reservation for an overnight trip. The HR team assumed all law clerks were binary men and women, who would share rooms with other clerks of the same gender. When the respondent revealed they were nonbinary to HR, they felt like the burden to address the issue was theirs. Unfortunately, the respondent’s negative experience with HR over their accommodations for the trip overshadowed their trip experience. Indeed, negative experiences with HR and other administrative staff consistently stood out among many respondents, signaling their workplaces were unprepared and ill-equipped to include them.
Many respondents reported their employers argued trans and nonbinary cultural and competency trainings were not needed because of the small percentage of trans and nonbinary people in the workplace. One respondent explained their employer’s HR department refused to train staff because “there [was]n’t a pressing need” and could not “justify it as a big enough issue.” But failing to adequately train one’s workforce about trans and nonbinary people is often what deters trans and nonbinary employees from staying or from joining.
Inadequate healthcare benefits and deadnaming have also proved HR challenges for a few respondents. For example, one respondent explained they faced enormous difficulty acquiring medically necessary gender affirming care and struggled for two years to have the plan’s categorical exclusion of gender affirming care lifted. This respondent also noted HR reacted negatively to their efforts to provide constructive feedback regarding the firm’s gender affirming workplace policies after they observed the policy only contemplated binary transgender employees and not nonbinary employees, who also require affirming spaces. Another respondent noted their HR department revealed their deadname to their colleagues, their clients, and other persons with whom they worked regularly. Their deadname still appears on their personnel information, including the direct deposit information their employer uses to compensate them for their work.
Many respondents discussed bathroom inaccessibility, which negatively impacts physical and mental health. For many, binary bathrooms are unsafe, uncomfortable, or exclusionary. Binary bathroom policies force nonbinary people to use a bathroom that doesn't match their gender identity; hunt down a rare, and often inconvenient, gender-neutral bathroom (if even available); or not use any restroom. This heightens anxiety and distress around restroom use and can impede nonbinary people’s ability to concentrate at work or participate in certain spaces.
As is common among nonbinary and trans people who lack access to adequate bathrooms, many of the respondents practiced bathroom avoidance, which includes fasting, dehydrating, or finding other ways to not use the bathroom. As reported in the 2015 US Transgender Survey, which surveyed over 27,000 trans and nonbinary people, 32% limited the amount that they ate and drank to avoid using the restroom.12 One respondent discussed the difficulty of going into court every day and being unable to use the bathroom all day, as there was no gender-neutral options and they did not feel comfortable or safe using the other bathrooms. Like many respondents, this individual felt forced to ignore their need to use a restroom and hold it until they returned home or another place where they felt safe. Avoiding the restroom can be medically taxing on the body, causing issues like recurrent urinary tract infections, kidney infections, and constipation, as well as the possibility of more serious complications, including hematuria and chronic kidney disease.13 8% of people surveyed in the 2015 US Transgender Survey reported having a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another kidney-related problem in the past year as a result of avoiding restrooms.14
In addition to bathroom avoidance, some respondents discussed being very intentional about what they wear to avoid any questioning when they go to use restrooms. One respondent recalled their stress surrounding the bar exam and their inevitable need to use a restroom, planning beforehand what they would wear to minimize the risk someone would stop them from entering a restroom.
I remember being in the middle of the bar exam and thinking about which bathroom to use. I was in the middle of a set of multiple-choice questions on the second day and had to go to the bathroom. Someone stopped me on my way into the bathroom because they thought I was going into the wrong one. I was sure that they thought I was cheating and that they were going to disqualify me. It’s already a high-stress situation and then you add a literal bathroom police. . . . [When] they stopped me and asked me, that broke me.
Although having adequate, accessible bathrooms is important everywhere, this is particularly crucial in workplaces and courthouses where legal professionals must work for significant portions of the day. Without gender-expansive bathrooms, many nonbinary people are denied the comfort, dignity, and safety they deserve. Exclusionary bathroom policies negatively impact many nonbinary people’s physical and mental health, and this harm cannot be remedied with binary gendered bathrooms. To create more inclusive and accessible environments, affirmative steps should be taken to provide accessible, all-gendered restrooms. In contrast, adopting affirming policies can have a significant and positive impact. One respondent fondly remembered an interaction with a judge’s assistant who made sure to use their correct name. The assistant proactively asked what name the respondent wanted to use, which made the interviewee feel confident interacting with the judge who was a prospective employer. These anecdotes show the impact even seemingly small interactions may have for nonbinary employees, especially when they apply for employment or are new to a job.
E. Respondents often faced conflict when choosing between wearing gender affirming clothing and what the legal profession has traditionally characterized as professional clothing.
Dressing professionally may look different for different people, and respondents struggled to balance gendered dress codes with their identities. Many worried about workplace attire because clothing typically involves gender expression and presentation. Work clothing was a source of stress, and it sometimes led to material consequences for them. One respondent shared they bring multiple sets of clothes to work-related events because they are unsure how others will respond to their gender expression and presentation. Another respondent, whom some perceive as masculine, was once sent home from court for not wearing a tie, even though they wore a women’s suit. A binary woman would not have been sent home for wearing the same suit without a tie, illustrating problematic assumptions that neutrality is synonymous with masculinity and that femininity is unprofessional. A third respondent expressed being stressed about dressing for the bar exam and worrying they would be prohibited from using the restrooms.
A fourth respondent explained their employer prohibited them from appearing in court with long hair if they were going to wear masculine suiting. This experience left the respondent feeling unsupported. Their employer insisted their long hair would lead to the court to not perceiving them as a man, “[b]ut [they are] not a man.” They are nonbinary.
Indeed, many respondents shared they have felt pressured to choose between presenting and expressing themselves more masculinely or more femininely to accommodate how others perceive their gender. For example, one respondent noted the stress they frequently encounter when others perceive them to be a binary man over email and a binary woman over the telephone. Another respondent recalled their employer failing to correct someone over the phone for misgendering a coworker and how powerless they felt in that moment:
. . . Someone in my office was on [testosterone] and their voice was still on the higher side. [A client] on the phone used she/her pronouns for this person. Everyone looked around, and no one said anything—including folks who were senior [staff]. When on the phone with a client, the more junior person can’t say anything. There’s a gentler way of making those corrections. A more senior person was in the position to do that, but they didn’t.
Several interviewees said this pressure has affected how they choose their career paths. Some interviewees described the physical inability that they and other gender expansive people have to conform to a binary gender presentation. One respondent noted with particularity:
People often assume that nonbinary means gender fluid or vice versa. Nonbinary people are inclined towards going crazy every day or that gender presentation says something about underlying gender. Not true! No matter how folks present themselves it will not relieve people’s gender anxiety.
This respondent also shared they ultimately elected for a non-traditional career path due to interactions they had with others in the legal community:
I chose my career differently based on [client/judge/supervisor assumptions]. Maybe I would have done more trial or litigation if I didn’t have these feelings [of being rejected]. Macho posturing is not my cup of tea. But also sartorial choices.
Indeed, several other respondents noted experiencing negative consequences for not conforming to others’ expectations about their gender presentation and expression. One respondent argued support and administrative staff were likely to suffer even more severe consequences than their attorney counterparts: “Where I worked, no one was more policed on their dress code than the secretaries. There were definitely power dynamics involved.”
F. Some respondents were so worried about not being accepted at work that they did not come out until later in their career.
Some respondents expressed significant fear about coming out in any workplace unless they maintained a senior-level position within their firm, government entity, or organization. One participant felt compelled to conceal their nonbinary identity until they made partner at their firm. They were concerned coming out as nonbinary would foreclose future opportunities for advancement if they had not already been elevated to partner:
I very purposefully, very carefully chose not to come out publicly until I was made partner. A partnership is a deeply political organization, and in a political organization, you want to have allies and mentors and people who have a vested interest in you. People want to invest in people who remind them of themselves. Being nonbinary can challenge that person’s ability to relate to you. When I made the decision to come out, I decided to come out very strategically, post partnership, with an eye on the idea of being representative of a success story. . . .
Although their colleagues ultimately accepted and celebrated them for who they are as a nonbinary attorney, years of feeling unable to show up as their authentic self at work felt isolating and difficult.
Unfortunately, not every coming out story ends happily. Unfortunately, some LGBTQ+ community members who have revealed their LGBTQ+ status before ascending to a senior position within their firm, government entity, or organization experience disparate treatment. They are deprived certain programming and advancement opportunities. Others who came out after they were elevated to a senior position discovered other partners or senior-level employees endeavored to reassign projects to more junior staff to avoid the LGBTQ+ partner’s interaction with clients and stakeholders.
G. Respondents looked for signals that workplaces would welcome them and took pains to avoid non-affirming employers.
Respondents’ personal stories illustrate how nonbinary applicants self-select. A potential employer’s lack of robust diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) policies or unsavory reputation for excluding transgender, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming employees deterred highly qualified applicants from applying for or accepting jobs. Respondents overwhelmingly described themselves and other nonbinary law students and attorneys seeking employment as routinely refusing to consider potential workplaces they do not perceive as welcoming, regardless of compensation or employer prestige.
When potential employees choose to not apply or accept employment, it harms the employer’s bottom line. Respondents mostly consisted of graduates from top law schools with highly sought-after experience on their resumes. They disproportionately entered public interest jobs at rates similar to nonbinary attorneys' nationally15 because they felt they would be given more opportunities for professional growth in public interest jobs than they would in firms.
Several respondents reported avoiding job opportunities after identifying several red flags during the hiring process indicating that they would not fit into an employer’s culture because of their gender identity. For example, one respondent applied for a position with a leading insurance company’s defense team. When they arrived for their interview, the employer’s representative asked them whether they were certain it would be a good fit upon discovering the respondent’s gender. Another respondent arrived for an interview and upon hearing the respondent uses “they” pronouns, the employer told them they “can’t do that” because it is “asking [them] to think too much.”
Several respondents also shared the barriers they experience while seeking mentorship from others within their firm, government entity, or organization. Several described feeling less supported by supervisors, who did not identify with them and failed to invest time and resources in their professional development:
I want them to know that they need to have formal mentorship policies in place. That is a really big issue with legal workplaces generally, because people in positions of leadership—nonprofit or otherwise—choose who they want to mentor. That translates to how much attention you get, how much critical feedback you get, the amount of support you get / how much people want to mentor you. It’s based on how much they see themselves in you. In so many spaces, as soon as you’re out at work, unless there are a bunch of nonbinary attorneys in leadership, no one is going to see themselves in you.
Without mentorship, several respondents were understandably concerned about their opportunities for career advancement.
H. Respondents reported supervisors' unfounded concerns about client or third-party biases have deprived nonbinary people opportunities for programming, growth, and development.
Many respondents described innumerable incidents when they were misgendered by supervisors in front of clients or other persons because their supervisors feared their audiences would react negatively after learning the respondents’ gender. One respondent recalled their direct supervisor failing to correct the employer’s board members after they repeatedly misgendered the respondent. Given that their direct supervisor frequently corrected board members during meetings and calls, the supervisor’s silence made the respondent feel erased and unsupported. Another respondent reported a similar experience involving their direct supervisor and a client who misgendered them.
Sadly, many respondents also identified instances when supervisors denied them opportunities because of supervisors’ concerns that clients or other persons would react negatively. Having experienced this, one respondent theorized:
Sometimes people push their own gender status or presentation anxiety onto clients. For instance, assuming that clients of color or clients from poorer areas won’t understand. Lawyers love to push their own anxiety on to the legal system and also onto clients.
But respondents’ own experiences with clients were overwhelmingly positive. Clients did not care about respondents’ gender. Some clients even became closer to respondents who did not hide their gender. Indeed, respondents reported positive experiences across many practice areas, which included clients from many different cultural backgrounds. Many said their clients often had a better understanding of nonbinary identity than the legal profession in general:
It allows the client to see me in a new light and provides for a shared humanity in the workplace that is not so obvious in day-to-day interactions. There is something about bringing an extra piece of one’s humanity to the workplace that fosters trust, frankly.
Several respondents observed corporate America presented more acceptance of gender diversity than the legal profession. Multiple respondents recounted times that clients showed support by correcting coworkers and judges who misgendered the respondents. One respondent shared their client corrected the court when it misgendered them.
Respondents who shared their gender identity with their clients felt sharing strengthened the attorney-client relationship. Moreover, respondents found being themselves around clients increased mutual trust and made clients want to work with them again in the future.
Generally speaking, the clients with whom I had a relationship have received [my gender identity] exceptionally well. They have been not only accepting, but enthusiastically so.
That said, I have the impression, comprised of 1000 little, micro moments and reading between the lines, that some of my fellow lawyers are less accepting. This is just the nature of prejudice. It’s amazing how this one thing about me has, for some lawyers, shifted everything just a little bit. It’s hard sometimes, of course, to know what are my own concerns and anxieties versus what are actual microaggressions. Other than the people who make overt negative comments, people don’t speak openly about these things. But that’s more been my experience with other litigators than with the clients working in the corporate world.
I have genuinely found my clients to be enthusiastic, receiving my identity and my transition well; it seems corporate America knows how to deal with gender diversity a lot better than the legal profession. When respondents were themselves around clients and did not feel compelled to conceal aspects of themselves, they felt more able to focus on substantive work.
In contrast, some respondents who revealed they are nonbinary felt some supervisors or employers tokenized them. Some had supervisors who exploited their gender identity to smooth over conflicts that arose with transgender clients. One respondent remembered a particularly distressing time when their employer sought to abuse their transgender identity. As a second-year associate and the only trans attorney within the law firm, they were assigned to a pro-bono matter for an anti-trans party which actively sought policies that directly harmed trans people. Their employer expressed that “if we can get the only trans associate to sign on this brief, we can temper the fact that the intervention isn’t trans friendly.” When the young attorney mustered up courage to express their discomfort with the situation, they were ridiculed and were told that “good lawyers represent people with opposing views.” Nonbinary and trans people should not have to forfeit their basic dignity to work in the legal profession, and manipulating a nonbinary attorney’s trans status to couch anti-trans work as neutral is especially grievous. Importantly, there is a difference between tokenizing someone and allowing nonbinary attorneys to connect with clients organically.
I. All respondents felt more at ease with colleagues who made mistakes and accepted corrections than those who attempted to be perfect.
All respondents agreed it is better for colleagues to try, make a mistake, and accept being corrected. One respondent shared how their supervisor’s acknowledgment of their identity, continued efforts to properly recognize their identity, and invitation to correct the occasional mistake ultimately led to developing a better relationship:
A managing partner in an office where I worked had a legal assistant who was nonbinary before me. We had a direct conversation about it, “I understand this is you; if I screw up, I’ll do my best, but let me know.” This opened the door, which was meaningful. Even if he screwed up my pronouns, I had an awareness that he wasn’t trying to erase me. I knew he wasn’t intentionally harmful.
Several respondents explained questions were preferred over silence. Open communication and friendly interactions were more effective for everyone, especially when the interactions involved thoughtful and respectful questions intended to make workspaces more welcoming and inclusive for respondents. One respondent reflected:
Everyone is scared they’ll get in trouble, or someone will get mad. But people on the receiving end don’t want to make waves. Not everything is off the table if you have questions, as long as they are appropriate and not just out of curiosity.
An employer’s openness to correction proved far better than refusing to address mistakes during interactions or avoiding interactions with nonbinary employees or coworkers, which made respondents feel more isolated and excluded:
I can work better with someone who is honest with me about their confusion or questions than someone who acts as if they get it or don’t want to get it.
To create more inclusive environments, one respondent explained discussions regarding queer and nonbinary people needed to be more comprehensive than simply providing workplace staff a list of definitions. They explained creating accepting, welcoming, and inclusive environments in which each respondent could thrive requires committing to continuing discussions:
Employers need to see, talk to, and be around nonbinary people. They need to be open to conversations. It’s not just about terminology. From big law, there aren’t many of us. So, it’s abstract. Big law doesn’t create a lot of space. We’re at a tipping point where big law is becoming interested in trans issues as a self-interest project. But top-down policies are not useful.
Avoiding discussions and interactions with respondents implicitly expressed, “I don’t know what to do with you, so I’ll keep my distance,” only making respondents feel more self-conscious about their identity. This was especially true for Black and other nonbinary persons of color.