Category: LGBTQ+

The LGBTQ+ community has faced discrimination within every field of work. Members of the LGBTQ+ community have been ostracised, ridiculed, and even discredited for their work within their respective fields. The discrimination faced is heightened within the STEM field. Although this field of research is new, we can still analyze the findings that the articles that have been released present. 

Overall, each of the ten articles we researched concluded that members of the LGBTQ+ community who are also in STEM have faced greater discrimination than members of the LGBTQ+ community who are not in STEM. LGBTQ+ STEM professionals have been quoted saying they have felt included, harassed, and ridiculed during their work. (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021). Members of the LGBTQ+ community who are not in STEM have not experienced as much discrimination as members in STEM (Cech and Waidzunas, 2021). Each article focuses on different aspects of the same outcome. One article stated that gay men are 12% more likely to be driven out of the STEM field in comparison to straight men within the same field (Nishat, 2019). Although women within the LGBTQ+ community face hardships and discrimination, they are 2% more likely to join the STEM field (Nishat, 2019). Another study shows that there is significant occupational gender composition, which appears to influence the choices of LGBTQ workers, a majority in gay men and lesbian women (Finnigan, 2020). 

There are some policies that could come into place to fix the divide between LGBTQ+ professionals in STEM and non-LGBTQ+ professionals in STEM. LGBTQ+ professionals in the nursing field have said that there needs to be some sort of education period for “higher-ups” in the medical field (Eliason, 2011). Higher-ups have been remarked as “unfriendly” and not willing to accept the members of the LGBTQ+ community within their field (Eliason, 2011).  An education period for members in every field of work could help benefit members of the LGBTQ+ community, which could lead to the acceptance and lack of discrimination that they are seeking. A policy surrounding the credit for work that has been done could be put into place as well. As stated before, LGBTQ+ members in STEM have been often discredited for their own work/findings solely because of their sexuality. Another policy could be in place to help assure these members of STEM that their work will be recognized regardless of their sexual orientation.

If policies in regards to the equal treatment of LGBTQ+ professionals in STEM do not come into place, then there will be even more of a decline in the amount that want to work within this field. It may seem like a small total as of right now, but if the trajectory that this is on stays the same, then there will be less representation of LGBTQ+ workers in STEM and other working fields. This could turn out to have long-term negative economic effects, seeing that there was starting to be more of a presence of LGBTQ+ in STEM. Without the equality they deserve, they are going to leave the field, which the STEM field will suffer from in the long run.

Research Questions

Citations

Cech and Waidzunas, Systemic Inequalities for LGBTQ Professionals in STEM – Science, www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe0933. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023. 

Eliason, Michele J., et al. “Https://Www.Sciencedirect.Com/Science/Article/Abs/Pii/S8755722311000329?via%3Dihub.” Science Direct , www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S8755722311000329?via%3Dihub. 

Nishat, and Please enter your name here. “New Data Examines Presence of LGBTQ People in Stem.” Open Access Government, 19 Nov. 2020, www.openaccessgovernment.org/lgbtq-people-in-stem/98054/.

By Md Hamim Mahdie and Ama C. Ndukwe

Research Question: How Does Sexual Orientation Impact Employment, Earnings, and Job Satisfaction, and to What Extent Does Intersectionality with Racial Identity Amplify These Effects?

Introduction

The general issue of sexual orientation within the scope of employment, job satisfaction, and earnings is incredibly multifaceted and complicated. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) employees have faced profound workplace discrimination and barriers to equal treatment historically in the United States and other parts of the world. While legislative protections have increased over time, their implementation is inadequate to this day. Significant gaps persist when it comes to equitable hiring practices, wages, job satisfaction, and advancement opportunities across sexual orientations. Moreover, LGBTQ people of color disproportionately bear the brunt of compounded discrimination. This paper discusses how workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity persists, disproportionately impacting employment, earnings, and job satisfaction for LGBTQ individuals, with intersectional biases related to race further amplifying barriers for LGBTQ people of color.

Summary of the issue

The literature around LGBTQ, while limited, portrays astounding evidence of discrimination in multiple areas. LGBTQ+ individuals are at a higher risk of experiencing job dissatisfaction as compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Bayrakdar, 2022). Research done by Bayrakdar, collected from a 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS), found that British men who identified as bisexual experienced much less job satisfaction in comparison to heterosexual men (Bayrakdar, 2022). Analyzing data from the 1990 US Census, Allegretto and Arthur (2001) found bisexual employees had nearly 2 lower job satisfaction “levels” compared to heterosexual men. Further, heterosexual men and women reported higher satisfaction than their LGBTQ colleagues generally. The research suggests a “bisexual penalty” wherein workplace environments and policies fail to curb heteronormativity. Delving deeper into the economic impacts, Baumle and Poston (2011) used multilevel modeling to uncover a 12.5% earnings deduction for partnered gay men compared to married heterosexual males. This effect shrinks but holds even after controlling for productivity indicators, implying a clear discrimination component. Moreover, Whitfield, Daniel L., et al. (2014) examines anti-LGBTQ discrimination, with a focus on differences by race. It looks specifically at housing and employment discrimination and finds that LGBTQ people of color experience higher rates of anti-LGBTQ discrimination compared to white LGBTQ people. In terms of employment, 33.6% of black, 40.3% of Asian, 44.4% of Latino, and 49.2% of multiracial LGBTQ individuals reported workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This compares to 37.7% of white LGBTQ individuals. The type of workplace discrimination includes lower salaries, fewer promotions, etc.

Policy Interventions

There are a plethora of policy interventions to be implemented in hopes of limiting and eventually stopping economic LGBTQ-related discrimination. Firstly, one could enact legal protections such as including LGBTQ+ identity as a protected class in the 1969 Civil Rights Act. This could make way for a plethora of anti-discrimination laws that could ensure the defense of such individuals. Additionally, implementing workforce training could subset the amount of bias perpetrated within the physical workplace. By introducing LGBTQ-related diversity training, employers can ensure a safer space for all individuals. Continually, within universities and companies, providing support and help to those who identify. This could potentially present as an affinity group for trans black women that teaches self-advocacy, amongst other valuable tools. Finally, within all these different interventions, it is vital to keep in mind intersectionality and its importance in ensuring the safety of LGBTQ+ identifying individuals. 

Effects of No Policy Intervention

According to a 2019 report by McKinsey & Company, companies with diverse demographics are 25% more likely to experience above-average profitability (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Besides, the authors of Mallory, Christy, et al.(2017) found that there was a significant cost derived from anti-LGBTQ+ practices, costing a yearly revenue of $47-$238 billion in Texas alone. Therefore, the economic impact on the US and the rest of the world is beyond our imagination. Moreover, without concerted efforts to enact policies protecting the LGBTQ community, toxic workplace environments will persist. This risks further mental distress for LGBTQ-identifying staff and stagnated diversity. Ultimately, unequal treatment will hinder companies and the broader economy by depriving talent based on non-job-related factors. Everyone loses when discrimination pervades the workplace.

Infographic

References

Whitfield, D. L., Y Voice, T., & Kalvan, M. (2014). Queer is the new Black? Not so much: Racial disparities in anti-LGBTQ discrimination. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 26(4). https://doi-org.ezproxy.trincoll.edu/10.1080/10538720.2014.955556

Bayrakdar, S., & King, A. (2022). Job Satisfaction and Sexual Orientation in Britain. Work, Employment and Society, 36(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020980997

Baumle, A. K., & Poston, D. L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89(3), 1005–1031. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41290098

Allegretto, S. A., & Arthur, M. M. (2001). An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male earnings differentials: Unmarried and unequal? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(3), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695994

Mallory, C., & Sears, B. (2015). Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Michigan. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep34925

Badgett, M. V. L., Nezhad, S., Waaldijk, K., & van der Meulen Rodgers, Y. (2019). The relationship between LGBT inclusion and economic development: Macro-level evidence. World Development, 120, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.011

Mallory, C., et al. (2017). Economic Impact of Stigma and Discrimination against LGBT People. In The Impact of Stigma and Discrimination Against LGBT People in Texas (pp. 54–72). The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep35061.7

McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/diversity%20and%20inclusion/diversity%20wins%20how%20inclusion%20matters/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters-vf.pdf