Spread the BBR word – share this flyer with your networks!
Use this flyer: QR Code Links to BBR UK Workforce Survey
What is this project about?
We are exploring how employees who self-identify as members of the LGBTQIA+ community – including all minority genders and/or sexualities – disclose aspects of their selves within organisations. As a result of disclosure, you may have experienced negative attitudes and treatment from others (also known as stigma).
You spend a lot of time at work; we want our research to inform best practice to create workplaces that are safe for everyone. Your response will help us to better understand how employees perceive and experience disclosure. We will use this research to develop recommendations to enhance future policy and provide guidance to employers to better support employees.
What about UK employers/managers?
A UK employers survey will be launched soon, so own your business or are responsible for managing any employees, keep an eye out for the launch of our UK employers survey!
Katrina (L) and Helen (R) at WCS23 with a climbing wall in the background
November has been a busy month for the BBR team! Our highlight, however, was our trip to Liverpool and the Women’s Climbing Symposium 2023 (WCS23), held at the Climbing Hanger Liverpool Sandhills.
As academics, we spend a lot of time attending events that are for… academics; this is just part of our job. Recently, a lot has been written on what takes us away from doing research, but also how long it takes for our research to have an impact. The process of collecting data and publishing findings can take up to two years on average, in our experience it can be even longer. At BBR, we are passionate at trying to find ways to communicate our research to those that it matters most to. Those people aren’t academics. That’s why events like WCS23 are a vital part of what we do; it reminds us why our research matters and why we need to talk about it.
At BBR, our mission is simple: provide high-quality evidence on diverse identities to make workplaces safer and accessible for everyone. By everyone, we mean everyone.
WCS23 was a fantastic example of how a truly accessible space can be achieved and the positive impact it can have. This is a huge credit to the organising team behind WCS23. Their work to make the event inclusive – in every sense – reflects a broader goal of climbing in the UK.
The world of indoor climbing (in all its different forms) has rapidly evolved in the past ten years. If you want a case of a sport that is trying to be accessible and achieving it, this is a great example. In 2021, the Association of British Climbing Walls reported that around 1 million people took part in indoor climbing activities. Once seen as the smaller sibling to other forms of climbing, there are over 100,000 people regularly engaging with indoor climbing in the UK alone. But it’s not just about the numbers taking part, it’s the diverse individuals that are choosing to engage with climbing for work and/or leisure.
As one of the fastest growing sports in the UK, a lot of work has happened behind the scenes to ensure that ‘everyone is welcome in climbing’. This is about an industry – because that is what it’s fast becoming – that is not just measuring success by how many, but who participates. The growth in participation introduces many opportunities, but also challenges. Many of these challenges are ones that we see in contemporary workplaces across the UK: discriminatory practices, hateful behaviours, preaching but not practising inclusivity.
What WCS23 evidenced to us, was an appetite to not only make these challenges visible, but also to tackle them head-on through the exchanging of knowledge and technical expertise in a safe space. This is a community that is intent on making change and making it stick, and we were privileged to be a small part of it.
So, you think indoor climbing is just about pulling plastic? Go to the next WCS, you’ll see for yourself that it’s much, much, more than that.
A huge thanks to everyone that organised and made WCS23 happen!
The latest episode of our podcast series “Prefer Not to Say” is out now! In this episode Helen and Katrina discuss their latest report that explores how genders and sexualities are represented across UK policies, or in some cases, aren’t represented at all…
So sit back, grab something vaguely rewarding to eat or drink, and enjoy our new theme tune!
We are delighted to publish our first report from the Breaking Binaries research programme. As part of our investigation into inequalities in entrepreneurship and small business – funded by ISBE – we sought to understand how gender and sexuality were understood across UK and devolved policy (Wales and Scotland) areas.
If you’d like to find out more about our report you can listen to our special podcast episode and download a full copy of our report below.
Prefer not to say: report launch special
Our analysis identified limited – in some cases no – representation of diverse gender(s) and sexualities across UK and devolved nation’s policies. While the terms ‘gender’ and ‘women’ were common across most policy documents, these tended to be used in a way which inferred cisgendered norms. Ironically we found this to be especially evident in policy focused specifically on gender.
We found no mention of genders beyond binary male(men)/female(women) understandings; in our provisional thematic and visual analysis we found these binaries were reinforced textually and aesthetically. We found very limited consideration of gender non-conforming identities and/or bodies. Similarly, sexuality and associated terms were notable in their absence across all policies examined.
Surprisingly (or perhaps not for some), we also found ambiguities in how the LGBT initialism was used across all policy data. There were very few examples of each initial being discussed or treated as separate communities. Except for some Scottish policies, the term transgender did not appear at all, and other elements of the LGBT acronym are used only very occasionally. This suggests that at the level of policy LGBT+ communities are often regarded as homogenous and share similar challenges. We found comparable usage of Black, Asian, Minorities and Ethnics (BAME) terminology, with no intersectional applications identified.
Here’s a summary of our report’s key findings:
A notable absence of diverse genders and sexualities terminology across policies reviewed.
The use of homogenous initialisms (LGBT and variants) with limited discussion of individual communities.
Limited discussion of intersectionality or intersectional application of terms.
International Women’s Day (IWD) prompts a heady mix of empowerment and issue raising headlines, but does it really help to achieve equity at work? We argue that achieving equity will take more than a warm embrace.
IWD brings mixed feelings at Breaking Binaries HQ. We recognise the importance of acknowledging (the lack of) progress in relation to wider women-focused equality and equity agendas. Women (and we refer to women in the broadest and most inclusive sense) continue to face different forms of oppression and discrimination; we also recognise the need for these issues to remain firmly in the public discourse. Yet what happens when the clock strikes midnight and the IWD party ends?
In the lead up to the 8th of March each year, predictably organisations roll out their IWD toolkits and select willing – normally senior – women to do a talk about their career. Emails are primed and sent out to declare support for IWD, often listing a stream of events organised and involving women. All this extra work – which ultimately benefits the organisation – is rarely rewarded at the individual level. We should not ignore the irony of asking women to do extra uncompensated work in the name of equity.
The Invisible Toll of Painting The Office Purple
We’ve spoken previously about our challenges with slogans and lukewarm hashtags and the messages they send particular identities – especially in relation to work. IWD provides a neat way for organisations to outwardly show the world that they are doing good stuff and meeting their diversity strategy objectives. Genderwashing, pinkwashing, market feminism, glass-ceiling feminism are just some terms used to describe the appropriation of equity and equality ‘branded events’ as useful organisational marketing exercises. These tags are commonly used to describe the cynical promotion of particular (often non-conforming) bodies as a representation of progress.
These events – i.e., celebration days – often mean extra work for employees and reinforce unhelpful identity binaries. Sometimes they continually reinforce messages that suggest particular identities need to ‘be more’ or ‘do more’ to be considered accepted or part of an organisational norm. More significantly, this ‘work’ is not exclusive to just one form of identity (i.e., being a woman), but is compounded by other intersecting identities that are subject to systematic marginalisation within organisations. Increasingly research recognises the toll this takes on employees, especially those with intersecting marginalised identities. It is quite the catch-22 situation: to create more fairness at work requires those being treated unfairly to engage in working practices that are…unfair. Quite the conundrum to embrace.
A warm self-embrace in the name of equity turns the lens onto individuals rather than structures and systems that perpetuate inequitable practices. It is vital that organisations are called out for their unequal and inequitable practices – @PayGapApp does just this.
As the clock strikes midnight tonight, a collective sigh of relief will be followed by a cautious glance at what’s next on the diversity calendar. Meanwhile, the gender and ethnicity pay-gaps reviews remain quietly gathering dust under a crumpled purple pamphlet. So for us, it’s not what happens on IWD that really matters, it’s what happens to those who are treated unfairly just for being who they are; currently, every day is inequitable for them and it will take more than one day to change that.
Why we won’t forget the Qatar World Cup (and neither should you).
By Adam Pritchard (@ThreeFiveWho) and edited by Iman Hamdia
A few months on from the tournament ending, we think it’s worth revisiting the event to discuss the key issues it raised about the role sport has in promoting freedom, equity, and equality agendas.
FIFA World Cup (Stock Image)
The conversation around the Qatar World Cup should never have been confined to on the pitch matters, with criticism of the countries’ Human Rights record at the centre of much of the discourse in the build-up to the tournament. The big concern was that as the football began, the light being shone upon the abuses and violations against civil liberties committed by the host nation would fade, and be replaced by coverage of the tournament that was devoid of criticism.
Qatar maintains controversial laws; most notably that same-sex relationships are illegal – public displays of such could result in imprisonment, and Trans people are forced to endure government sponsored conversion therapy. Wearing the “One Love” armband was one way teams could show their support for these targeted communities. Even if it is/was a futile gesture from the outset, it is a gesture nonetheless, and one that at least would have presented a contrast to the largely silent football fraternity.
The whole saga – as it feels it became -showed (on multiple levels) the weak commitment towards supporting marginalised communities that football organisations have. As if that was not evident enough when FIFA decided to award the right to host the World Cup to Qatar, in-spite of their insistence that “football is for everyone”. This World Cup evidenced that there is some way to go before that statement holds true.
In a damaging expression of defence on the eve of the tournament’s opening, Infantino’s spectacular hour-long monologue hit out at a multitude of communities, “Today, I feel gay. Today, I feel disabled. Today, I feel like a migrant worker…”. Starting as they meant to go on in the worst possible way, FIFA then announced the sporting sanctions for wearing the aforementioned ‘One Love’ armbands the day before England’s opening group game v Iran, instead rolling out a set of their own armbands that captains would be able to wear, including a “No Discrimination” armband. This even more starkly spelled out the explicit issue Qatar and FIFA had was not with making a political statement, but displaying anything that could be construed as supporting the LGBTQIA+ community.
One Love Armbands
Follow The Money
After being threatened with unspecified ‘sporting sanctions’ (widely understood to be the booking of the player wearing the armband), the seven European nations who had planned to wear the ‘One Love’ armband backed down. The armband itself is not a design recognisable as one explicitly promoting LGBTQIA+ rights. FIFA’s decision to remove the armband and silence players through sanctions spoke to the true positioning of FIFA; one that choses to disregard LGBTQIA+ rights to appease a nation paying generously to publicise the sport. FIFA perpetuated a toxic and unsafe environment, one that not only ignores the LGBTQIA+ community, but one that seeks to squash any signs of support for it. From this we can only surmise that in FIFA’s view, football is not for everyone.
Many public figures commented on the controversy. Joe Lycett, self-described as an “incredibly right-wing comedian”, highlighted David Beckham’s endorsement of the World Cup despite publicly showing a longstanding support for the LGBTQIA+ community. The hashtag #benderslikebeckham came alongside tweets publicly exposing Beckham’s lack of action.
Even though the World has now turned its attention away from Qatar, we must not forget that it is still a hostile environment for the LGBTQIA+ communities remaining there. Western footballing nations are also in no position to pass judgment. What happened in Qatar is a reflection of footballing cultures more widely (especially in the men’s game), albeit on an arguably lesser scale.
We should not pretend that issues around LGBTQIA+ rights in football are confined to Qatar, as the homophobic chants directed towards Chelsea fans in a recent match against Manchester City show. Several Premier League clubs are financially supported by states where same-sex relationships are suppressed and oppressed. The European Championships hosted several matches in Hungary, despite the fact the country introduced a law banning schools from promoting content deemed to be supportive of homosexuality and gender change.
Football’s murky past and present with nations restricting the freedoms of LGBTQIA+ people is just that – it is murky and it is ongoing. It is far from being the beautiful game that it claims to be. The World Cup presented the most terrifying example to date of the true futility of gestures and platitudes of tolerance from major sporting organisations.
Until FIFA uses its influence to promote (and ensure) equality and equity for all who support and play the game, football will never be for everyone.
This week (13th – 19th November) was transgender awareness week. This is not the only day or week devoted to marginalised identities or bodies. This week brings an opportunity to highlight the issues faced by individuals in the transgender community. The week leads up to Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20th. This memorialises those who have lost their life because of transphobia. In short, these people were killed just for being who they are.
First, it is important to recognise the multifaceted identities and diverse practices that sit under the broad umbrella term of transgender. Fundamentally, these practices involve movements across, between, or beyond binary – and highly problematic – categories of male/female and man/woman.
Now, I do not identify as trans and have no lived experience of the challenges those within the trans community face. These challenges are significant but are not homogenous, and I am not able to cover all of them in this article. If you want to know more about trans issues from those who are actually living them, please do check out some of the resources we’ve suggested as a starting point.
However, if those of you reading this post feel safe doing mundane tasks like using social media, buying milk (or other dairy alternatives) at your local supermarket, going for a drink with your friends; or, maybe you don’t think twice about holding your partner’s hand while out for a leisurely stroll. Well firstly, you are fortunate; and secondly, you probably don’t identify as transgender.
As always, statistics and numbers must be interpreted with caution and never give us the full story. This is not because they aren’t useful, but they are reliant on victims (a) having the ability to voice what has happened to them; and (b) knowing what happened was a crime in the first instance. It also does not provide the full picture in regard to intersectional disadvantage. Racially motivated hate crimes rose by 73% in March 2021 compared to March 2020 according to Victim Support. Disability hate and ableism are some of the least reported forms of hate crimes in the UK. So, for trans people who are already marginalised due to their race, ethnicity and/or disability, the likelihood they will be victims of hate crimes is beyond concerning and little understood.
The reality for many trans people in the UK is that they simply do not feel safe. A 2020 Galop report into transphobia found that of the 227 participants who completed the survey: half of respondents had experienced transphobia on the street; and, more than a quarter of respondents had experienced transphobia in their own homes. More than a quarter experienced transphobia in their school or college, at work and/or in a medical establishment.
Stock Image/Gender Spectrum by Vice
Homes, schools, hospitals, work: these locations should be spaces in which people feel able to be themselves and most importantly have a right to feel safe within.
Still think being aware is enough? Then read on.
MoreVisibility Can Cause More Problems Than It Solves
There continues to be a wide-ranging belief that making parts of your identity visible is a catch-all solution to equality that puts onus on individuals – rather than inequitable structures or systems – to change. We are often told to ‘celebrate difference’, but these celebrations – much like any celebratory event – are temporary. As Paris Lee has repeatedly called for: Trans people don’t need visibility – we need people to stop abusing us. Lee highlights how visibility (more awareness) alone isn’t enough and how it may even cause more problems than it solves.
In us asking individuals to make their trans identities more ‘visible’ (through whatever means), we continue to put the onus on people to reveal parts of their identities they may not wish to make visible. Currently in the UK, encouraging trans people to be visible exposes them to more violence, more hate, and more levels of discrimination.
So, perhaps before sending that all-staff email about transgender awareness – or any awareness day for that matter – the fundamental question to ask is: when people make themselves and their differences visible, do you do enough to make them feel safe? Do you know they are safe when they go to buy their sandwiches, or pick up their kids from school? While their visibility may benefit your organisation, it may not benefit them. Therefore, just being aware simply is not enough.
Don’t just be aware: act. Act against transphobia, act in the name of trans rights. Because trans rights are human rights. Every member of the transgender community has a right to feel safe, no matter where they are and how visible they wish to be.
Useful Resources
Want to try and understand more? Then we recommend looking at Steph’s Place as your starting point.
Want to use stock photos beyond binaries? Vice have created a wealth of images to be used under Creative Commons licence: https://genderspectrum.vice.com/#Work
In a recent talk we gave at the Women in Mountain Training conference (hosted by Plas Y Brenin and organised by the fantastic team at Mountain Training), we were asked to talk about imposter syndrome and resilience.These terms are often thrown around in relation to women’s empowerment and workplace progression. In our talk, we spoke about why we think they do more harm than good.
Listen up gal pals! Feeling like those mountains are getting higher? That promotion a little further? Or maybe that expected pay rise will come around again next year? Fear not ladies, we are here for your struggles! You just need to work smarter, get up earlier, eat cleaner, hydrate more, care less, care more, love yourself, love others, be better, lean in, work out, and always, yes always, get up before you go to bed.
So next time you feel like you’re just not good enough, or like you just don’t belong in that training session, or before you have a hard technical climb ahead of you, just find a mirror. That’s right, you heard! Look at your reflection and repeat after me: “I love myself, I am beautiful, I can do this“. A warm tingly sensation follows and suddenly – whoosh – that down filled puffa you’re wearing becomes an illustrious inequality busting cape. Girl power!
iStock.com/unamed artist
The only thing holding you back? Well it’s YOU silly! Or at least, that’s what you are led to believe. We (and some other excellent researchers) however, think there is something far more pervasive going on. So, let’s do some digging.
First, we look at imposter syndrome, which has become something of a zeitgeist for gender inequality.
Imposter Syndrome: It’s a You Problem
Without any primer, we asked a group of exceptional outdoor/adventure professionals (that just happened to be women) what their greatest worry was about their careers. The results (below) were humbling, but also not surprising.
Results from a quick snapshot survey asking: with regards to your professional career, what is your greatest worry?
However, we think that there is a need to question imposter syndrome and its role in why so many women (just like our Mountain Leaders) distrust their success, or their ability to be successful.
Clance and Imes (1978) first coined the term The Imposter Phenomenon
In the late 70s Clance and Imes interviewed a sample of 150 white, highly educated women working and studying in higher education institutions. The authors were keen to explore the differences in the way men and women (as sex categories) have different expectations when it comes to predicting performance outcomes of tasks. Their findings resulted in decades of work, reinforcing the belief that the imposter phenomenon was a women’s issue. Implying a deficit that training programmes and leadership training could fix.
Somewhere along the line, the imposter phenomenon was pathologised. Becoming a part of a medical discourse that suggests individual action can help ‘cure’ it. When faced with a challenge, or being in a new situation, it is common to feel a sense of anxiety, some discomfort, and to second guess your abilities, regardless of your gender. Imposter syndrome takes these fairly universal feelings, pathologises it (especially for women) and makes you feel like you are the problem.
As white, abled, heterosexual, cisgendered men progress in their careers, they’re able to find role models who are like them. Rarely (if ever) do others question their competence or leadership. It is now well understood that women – and others who do not conform to normalised masculine stereotypes – experience the opposite. Instead, the way women are told they can progress is by being sent to workshops and support programmes that help to ‘build their confidence’ or to ‘overcome imposter syndrome’.
Again, an imposter syndrome diagnosis only reinforces popular narratives that women are the issue and need to be treated. These harmful narratives are only emphasised when we think about intersectionality and other modes of individual difference. This is especially the case when considering the many forms of systemic bias (i.e., racism, homophobia, classism, xenophobia, transphobia) that continue to manifest and impact upon all aspects of our lives.
Imposter syndrome provides a neat excuse to blame structural inequalities on a gendered confidence deficit. In short, if women had more self-confidence then there wouldn’t be an equality problem. This feeds into a wider discourse continually reinforcing that women are not enough – or need to improve – in a whole multitude of ways. Honestly my queens, if only you bought that anti-ageing cream! Then you would have felt better about yourself: you would have got that promotion; summited that mountain; and got paid the same as Kevin! Nothing defeats structural agism like a dollop of vitamin E and green tea extract each night.
The Confidence (Cult)ure
Across popular media, academic literature, self-help and advice columns (to name a few) women are constantly being told to work on their confidence. From careers, to relationships, to parenting, to health, the message that they can improve their fortunes by working on themselves is everywhere. This advice is misplaced and harmful, argue Shani Orgad and Rosalind Gill in their book: Confidence Culture.
They highlight that women themselves propagate this message and identify how through the likes of the popular books, like Lean In by Cheryl Sandburg. In these books, ‘experts’ (often women leaders) establish their lack of confidence (often linked to aesthetics) as a fundamental obstacle to achievement and happiness. Sandburg is no exception, highlighting that the most profound barrier to women in the work-place is a ‘lack of self-belief’. Clearly her eye cream choice, nanny, and self-belief mirror routine did wonders. To Sandberg’s credit, she does acknowledge some structural barriers but argues ‘it’s up to us’ to believe in ourselves!
While we can appreciate that these books come from a good place, there is a growing empirical base that demonstrates that they have a negative impact. Again, not only do they suggest that women suffer ‘internal shortages’ of confidence, but that they must also ‘internalise the revolution’. Not being paid the same as your male colleague? That’s a you problem. Being told you can’t lead an expedition? That’s a you problem.
Fundamentally, images, books, TV shows, support programmes, mentoring initiatives that suggest a lack of confidence is a cause of inequality are complicit in a confidence culture. Our own work, for example, highlights how the use of stock images on websites influences how we come to understand entrepreneurship as a gendered project. What we consume has a huge impact on the way we think about ourselves and others. So, be aware of what you are reading and what messages they are sending.
What can you do to protect yourself against these harmful messages? In our next post, we look at how confidence is – more often than not – wrongly associated with competence. We explore what you can do to better understand your capabilities, and no, it does not involve any vitamin enriched eye-cream or cucumber infused face masks.
So next time someone suggests you’re an imposter (or that you need training to overcome it), just remember, you are not a problem that needs to be fixed. Fix bias, not women.
Breaking Binaries Research 