I certainly wouldn't / won't answer official questions of the sort if I can avoid it.
I work at a large tech company and have done interviews in the past - we are instructed not to use gendered pronouns ever when writing our reviews or speaking about a candidate unless they specify a gendered pronoun.
Do you find that adjusting your text/speech negatively impacts your ability to hire the best person? Or is it just annoying to you for personal reasons?
It hasn't stopped us from hiring decent people. I'm torn on pronouns though. It feels very artificial to force a fundamental change in language for all people when so few are "impacted" by it. There is some empathy exhaustion going on for me.
Bias is a real thing and it goes both ways, both for the interview panel and the interviewees.
It is worth removing bias in evaluating a candidate's ability to do the job, excel. It is why some folks don't include their photo on LinkedIn lest they be subject to filtering because of the way they look.
> I was their top candidate and they were only waiting due to the need to demonstrate that enough diverse candidates had been interviewed for the position.
It’s fascinating, that was a nudge/read-between-lines from the hiring manager. “Are you sure you don’t identify as …, and …? Maybe we can correct that form you submitted”. They would never say it officially but that’s what they implied.
It’s like in repressive regimes, everyone has to praise the party even though nobody believes in it.
> What is my sexual orientation? “I prefer not to answer” — checked
> What is my gender? “I prefer not to answer” — checked
The mental model of those who drive these kinds of questions/policies is ALSO that what people say they are, they are and that it would be non-inclusive to take them to task.
So the way I see it is that you either be highly principled (I won't play their game) or alternatively understand then use the system to your advantage by "identifying" in a way that checks the right boxes, since their mental doesn't allow them to disbelieve what you say you identify as.
I'm not advocating either way, but you can choose one path or the other.
I'd prefer there were no questions whatsoever around gender or sexual orientation. What business is that of a business and why would I want a business to hold this type of information? I don't see these questions as ever having caused anything other than more strife and iniquity. I guess at some point the claim was that they are used to create visibility into whether there is an issue or not, but I'm also paranoid about this type of information getting collected just in case there's a new dictator around the corner who needs a convenient enemy.
Yet I dislike the tone of the article despite agreeing with its core tenet. It's the part saying minorities made us do so. The only thing I have ever heard minorities call for was the option to answer "prefer not to answer" or "other" to these questions. The option that was chosen by the author? The questions have been around for a long time and it's not something "the minorities" created. Not to mention that the answers have certainly not been used in favour of the minorities for most of recent history.
10 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] threadMy favorite pronoun joke.
I think you have miscalculated your alignment with the OP on the topic.
I work at a large tech company and have done interviews in the past - we are instructed not to use gendered pronouns ever when writing our reviews or speaking about a candidate unless they specify a gendered pronoun.
It's getting weird.
It is worth removing bias in evaluating a candidate's ability to do the job, excel. It is why some folks don't include their photo on LinkedIn lest they be subject to filtering because of the way they look.
It’s fascinating, that was a nudge/read-between-lines from the hiring manager. “Are you sure you don’t identify as …, and …? Maybe we can correct that form you submitted”. They would never say it officially but that’s what they implied.
It’s like in repressive regimes, everyone has to praise the party even though nobody believes in it.
The mental model of those who drive these kinds of questions/policies is ALSO that what people say they are, they are and that it would be non-inclusive to take them to task.
So the way I see it is that you either be highly principled (I won't play their game) or alternatively understand then use the system to your advantage by "identifying" in a way that checks the right boxes, since their mental doesn't allow them to disbelieve what you say you identify as.
I'm not advocating either way, but you can choose one path or the other.
Yet I dislike the tone of the article despite agreeing with its core tenet. It's the part saying minorities made us do so. The only thing I have ever heard minorities call for was the option to answer "prefer not to answer" or "other" to these questions. The option that was chosen by the author? The questions have been around for a long time and it's not something "the minorities" created. Not to mention that the answers have certainly not been used in favour of the minorities for most of recent history.