Category Gender and Sexuality

LGBTQ2+ MINORITY STRESS IN THE WORKPLACE: HOW DISCRIMINATION HURTS HEALTH: Charity Village

As we continue with Pride Month, today’s focus is on LGBTQ2+ inclusion (or the lack of it) at work, specifically within non-profits and faith-based organizations. While others have much greater first hand experience and expertise on this issue, I have seen discrimination and other issues organizations that I have been connected with, and will be using the research that others have done to highlight areas in which critical changes are needed.

In my experience, some of what I have observed in organizations includes things like having a formal policy that states that the org “supports” or “believes in” only certain types of relationships (ie only straight relationships). This type of policy not only eliminates those who are actively in other relationships, it also removes their allies, who are forced to choose between a job vs supporting their LGBTQ2+ friends/family with integrity.

Similarly, and by extension, I am aware of limits on placing people in LGBTQ2+ relationships in overseas positions in the NGO world – as a blanket ban. I have heard it justified based on the idea that it may be either unsafe for the couple in certain geographical contexts, and/or opposed by local partners, or donors/constituents, who might be offended by the idea of working with/supporting an LGBTQ2+ staff person. I would like to challenge all of these.

1. Any international NGO with integrity knows that some positions or locations may be more or less safe than others, for a variety of reasons, and has a long list of safety policies in place to ensure the safety of workers. Others may have heard of something that I am not aware of, but I do not know of any cases in which a blanket ban is imposed on something, simply because it may not be safe in a particular geographical location. For example, if it may not be safe to travel as a single woman in a certain work placement, that would be noted in the position – but single women would not be banned from applying for positions anywhere else in the world. Likewise, travelling on certain passports may be unsafe in particular political contexts, but those passport holders are still welcome and encouraged to work somewhere that is safe for them.
2. With any NGO, as we work with our partners, we, naturally, aim to build up a positive relationship. At the same time, there are limits to what requests we will accommodate. For example, a peacebuilding org (eg a Menno org), will never, as far as I am aware, accept a request to support the military. It’s not who we are, and it’s not how we operate. Likewise, a request from a partner to only hire white staff, or only men, not women, for that office (as opposed to a visible minority or women) would not be accommodated, because any orgs that I am aware of do not tolerate open discrimination in their hiring policies, even if a partner requests it. As noted above, if it’s unsafe for a worker to be placed, safety policies are in place for that. However, when the work is safe for staff to do, and the reason for not placing someone is simply that partners want to discriminate, or do not support inclusion, NGOs do not accommodate the request – unless it’s related to related to LGBTQ2+ status, in which case it seems that, at least in some orgs, it’s still happening extensively.
3. The other reason that I have heard is that constituency/donors might be upset by inclusion, and therefore, the policies are in place in order to “not rock the boat.” As with #2, above, if active discrimination against others is the price to pay for a donation, is it really worth it? Are we seriously having hard conversations about this in our orgs, or simply accepting it as “the way we’ve always done it”?

So, we know that when orgs maintain discriminatory policies on LGBTQ2+ status, there are inconsistencies, and that they would not act in an equivalent manner on other matters of equality or discrimination. And, based on this report from Charity Village (along with common sense) we know that the harms caused are significant.

So, why are we, as NGOs and faith-based groups, holding on to discriminatory policies, that go against our overall values, are harmful to countless people, go against basic anti-discrimination laws, and simply have no place in a modern, inclusive organization?

Discrimination is never OK. I have heard, in some orgs (eg a generation or so ago), that change was coming very soon, and a bit of time was needed to ensure a smooth process. However, problems are still clearly prevalent, and so change has not happened, and the “grace period” that might have been requested decades ago is long finished.

So, what are we, as people connected to NGOs and faith-based groups doing with this info? How are we taking active steps to ensure full inclusion, instead of turning a blind eye and hoping nobody notices?

……………………………

Looking for sustainable, plant-based or zero-waste info or items? Check out the MennoAdventures website and online store!

CBC

Although this is only a small step in the right direction, it is worth celebrating. At the same time, there is still a shocking level of resistance – within the Ontario Catholic system and in other places, to a move as modest as flying a flag to demonstrate inclusion. For the record, the “faith-based” resistance to full acceptance of our LGBTQ+ members is not new, and it’s not something I am going to use space articulating here (but it is cited in the article, above). I’m sure that we’ve all heard it before, and the focus here is on how to move forward, more positively, not on giving space to outdated and discriminatory ideas.

So, in order to help transform the conversation from negative, to positive, I (along with countless others that are working for more inclusive faith groups), would like to suggest the following as a reframing of how we view our faith and actions, for ourselves, and others:

Instead of the too-often used, traditional, inaccurate and discriminatory stance:

“My faith tells me, based on centuries old (mis)understandings of gender and sexuality, that you – and your basic core identifiers, or what you do with your body – are wrong, and I am right. For me to live true to my faith, I need you to change who you are, in order for me to tolerate you.”

Let’s switch to:

• “My faith tells me to love my neighbour, so I am called to accept and embrace the diversity (including gender, sexuality and many other things) that we all bring, without judgement or prejudice.”
• “My faith tells me to be a good neighbour, so I am called to serve others, instead of demanding that others change their core identity to appease me.”
• “My faith tells me that if I own two coats, and my neighbour has none, I should share – so therefore, I am called to give up my big house and move somewhere smaller, live simply, share my wealth, support a universal basic income and work to end wealth inequality in the world.”
• “My faith tells me to care for creation, so I am called to stop eating animal products, use zero waste instead of single use products, switch away from my gas vehicle as soon as possible, and vote for governments that take the climate crisis seriously.”
• My faith tells me to not kill others, so I am called to actively support peacebuilding instead of militaries, not own a gun, ensure that I am not glorifying war or weapons in any way, and actively vote in governments that show love to our global neighbours instead of engaging in war.”
• “My faith tells me to live at peace with others, so I am called to learn the history of racism and discrimination in the world, locally and globally, and actively work to deconstruct any misperceptions I may have about systemic racism in our world. Likewise, I am called to actively welcome refugees and other newcomers with open arms.”
• and so on…

Or, in the super-simplified form…

“My/our faith calls me/us to be better global citizen(s), and to serve others, without discrimination. One of the worst things we can do is latch on to the misguided idea that all we need to do is force someone else to change who they are (“be straight instead of LQBTQ+”, “don’t get an abortion”, “don’t be a refugee”…) and then that will be our ticket into heaven. Over and over, in countless faith traditions, we are called to change our own actions (giving up our own wealth, serving the poor and refugees, giving up our own power and status) instead of forcing change on others, especially on aspects of core identity, that break modern anti-discrimination laws in many countries. God calls us to give up our own privilege and wealth, (which is very hard to do), instead of demanding that others change who they are to appease us.”

So, with that, let’s get Pride Month going!😀

More info:

Taking a stand for her father and her family, she’s raising the Pride flag at her former Catholic school – CBC

…………………………………..

Looking for zero-waste, plant-based or sustainable items? Check out the MennoAdventures online store! There are always lots of great deals to be found, with our many amazing partners! Happy browsing!

Guardian

This is a lovely story, from the LEGO headquarters in Denmark. While one act like this does not make up for bad policies, or replace the need for good policies, symbolically, it is a great step in the right direction, towards greater inclusion, recognition of diversity, and acknowledgment of gender and sexuality as more than how it’s been represented in the past.

In the “spraying room” at Lego HQ, tiny figurines are layered with bright, glossy paint before being placed on a rainbow-esque arch. The result, a waterfall of colour with 11 brand new minifigures striding purposefully towards an imagined brighter future, is the Danish toymaker’s inaugural LGBTQIA+ set, titled Everyone Is Awesome.

The colours of the stripes were chosen to reflect the original rainbow flag, along with pale blue, white and pink representing the trans community, and black and brown to acknowledge the diversity of skin tones and backgrounds within the LGBTQIA+ community.

Guardian

In addition, as noted in the article, the company has started selling their marriage sets separately (as opposed to a man and a woman, together in one box), so that couples can choose any two individual pieces that best represent their relationship.

This is one more step, in the right direction, for inclusion, welcoming for all, and a greater respect for the full range diversity within humanity. Let’s hope that these symbolic steps lead to both more similar changes, as well as real-world, actual policy changes – including full rights for everyone, and an end to all discrimination, whether based on gender and sexuality, or anything else.

…………………………………………………………..

Looking for zero-waste, plant-based or sustainable items? Check out the MennoAdventures online store! There are always lots of great deals to be found, with our many amazing partners! Happy browsing!

The list of things that have led women to be labelled “difficult” is far too long to list here… Instead of telling women to “be less difficult” or asking women to simply accept negative labels as the price to pay for being smart, assertive or speaking out against systemic problems, it’s time to rephrase how we identify smart, assertive women. So many of the traits that men get praised for are seen as deficits in women, in too many places, throughout history and around the world – while so often people (especially men) are praised for being aggressive and bullying (behaviours that nobody should be doing). Let’s put an end to that! And, in the interim, as women, all we can do is embrace the label as a sign that we are probably doing something right. To be clear, this doesn’t mean that all behaviour (regardless of gender) is good when others say it’s difficult – just that women tend to be over-labelled as difficult for anything that is not completely passive…😀

Women, what is your craziest/best/most frustrating story of being called “difficult” for being, smart, assertive, good at your job, working to change systems or anything else? Share your stories below, in the comments. 😀

It is shocking (and quite disturbing) to me, that some faith groups still believe that they are called to a mandate of exclusion, instead of inclusion, on any of a wide number of otherwise protected identifiers, including gender and sexuality. Over and over, to the best of my knowledge, faith group and their major texts call for love of neighbour, welcome of the stranger, living simply and service to others. Nothing in that suggests, or allows, discrimination based on who we are at our core, or an acceptance of destruction of creation. And yet, some faith groups still fight for the right to discriminate, and avoid talking serious action on the climate crisis – and it must end.

Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

NYT

At a time when we are facing multiple global crises (including a pandemic and a climate crisis), faith groups should be leaders, setting an example of how to care for all of creation – including all people, animals, and the environment. Instead, some groups still put their energy into excluding others, and denying women the right to a full range of reproductive health services, as though that is the way to a better world for everyone.

A justification that I sometimes hear from others is that something can be found somewhere in one’s ancient texts to justify discrimination. In response, I would suggest that many people only take texts literally on things that are life-limiting for others, without requiring us to change ourselves. I’m suggesting a different approach (along with countless others).

Want to take the Bible or other ancient texts literally? How about focusing on the countless times that we are told not to accumulate wealth? Living simply requires a lot more from us than telling someone else how we think they should live their lives.

Think swapping out “My faith says that you should be straight” and replacing it with “My faith says that I should be less wealthy, live in a smaller home, eat more lentils, help others more, create less garbage and drive less often.”

Likewise, the admonition to not kill or steal features in many faith texts: how about putting our energy into banning militaries and the theft of natural resources (and extreme wealth discrepancies, locally and globally) that is contributing to climate change? The list could go on and on…

For faith groups to be relevant into the future, we need to, collectively, move beyond this idea that we can live our own lives as we wish, while excluding others, and destroying the planet. We can, and must do better, together. We can do it. 🙂

……………………….

There are lots of amazing, sustainable and zero waste items in the online store! Check out the website for details!