Is gender neutrality a double-edged sword?

Diversity should be a conscious business choice and not just a politically correct mandate to follow, write Swati Jena & T N Hari

Swati Jena

T N Hari

Someone we know worked at a Canadian firm. Let’s call her Shalini. The firm had a unisex toilet in the main office area and a women’s toilet on the other side of the building. Shalini would avoid using the unisex toilet for as long as she could, and trek to the women’s toilet when she absolutely needed to. One wondered if she was an exception, compelled by her Indian sensibility to feel terrified about the idea of men and women being in the same toilet vicinity.

“My French-Canadian female colleagues also prefer going to the women’s toilet,” she said. Shalini and her colleagues are not the only stakeholders of this issue. There are men and transgenders. Over the last decade or so, there is a widening social recognition of gender being a continuum rather than a binary. Simultaneously, there is an increasing focus on gender inclusion in workplaces. This has put gender neutrality at the centre stage. Some call it the “progressive approach”. Many follow the trend. Others are undecided. As we see it, gender neutrality is a double-edged sword.

Gender neutrality is often confused with gender equality. They are both related to the larger cause of gender inclusion, but not interchangeable. Gender neutrality is akin to gender-agnostic policies, facilities, language and infrastructure.

For example, parental leave policy (as opposed to only maternity leave), gender-neutral language and unisex toilets. Gender-neutral hiring follows the philosophy of “best person for the job.” Gender equality, on the other hand, is used in the context of building a 50 percent representation of women in the workforce. Interestingly, to achieve gender equality, organisations may take non-neutral approaches such as actively hire women professionals for certain roles.

Gender neutrality can enable gender inclusion in many ways. However, we must be cognizant of its interplay with gender equality. When it comes to hiring, hire the best fit for the job, irrespective of gender. Having said that, the imbalance in gender ratios at workplaces is significantly skewed and we need to take thoughtful affirmative action before we can have the luxury of gender neutrality. In areas such as compensation, a gender-neutral approach makes sense. However, it is easier said than done. The perception of a man as a “breadwinner” is known to skew managerial decisions on salary offers, pay raises and even lay-offs. In the area of maternity leaves and back-to-work programmes, organisations tend to focus on gender equality and design policies and programmes that cater predominantly to women’s needs. It will be worthwhile to consider a gender-neutral approach towards parental leave and back-to-work programmes. This can enable a larger shift in stereotypical gender roles by allowing men to take breaks to raise a child or take care of family and be able to return to work without a taboo. Further, as family structures continue to break traditional moulds around the world, we can expect same-sex parents at workplaces. A gender-neutral approach could make organisations future-ready. Having said the above, gender neutrality as a one-size-fits-all approach can be fraught with ramifications.

Let’s go back to Shalini’s unisex toilet problem. Apart from any cultural conditioning, washrooms mean a lot more to women than a place they relieve themselves. Washrooms are a cultural hub of sorts for women. It’s a place they exchange make-up, updates, advice. It’s the place they go weep if the boss screamed at them or things are not well at home. Imposing a unisex toilet on women can mean taking away a private space where they can have a moment of their own. We believe many women will agree with this.

While one can’t speak as eloquently about what goes on in the men’s toilet, they might enjoy their privacy too. A key reason for the shift to unisex toilets is to make it comfortable for transgenders who face ostracism using either male or female bathrooms. There is no question about the fact that it must be addressed with urgency. However, can we have a solution to ensure the inclusion of transgenders without alienating men and women? The other problem is many organisations use gender-neutrality as a cover for cost-cutting of infrastructure or passing off simplistic, non-efficient solutions.

It’s like those organisations that launch an overnight “Go-Green” campaign to announce there isn’t going to be tissue paper in the bathroom anymore. This kind of opportunistic gender-neutrality is not only rife with tokenism but also harmful to the overall cause of gender inclusion.

It’s necessary to understand and address the special needs of people across the gender continuum if we are to enable gender inclusion. Governments and organisations must recognise the duality of gender neutrality and think harder to find better solutions.

(Swati Jena and T N Hari have recently published Diversity Beyond Tokenism: Why Being Politically Correct Doesn’t Help Anyone with SAGE Publications India.)