update: should I mention I’m trans when interviewing?

by Alison Green on July 28, 2022

Remember the letter-writer wondering whether to mention that they were trans when interviewing (#4 at the link)? Here’s the update.

Thanks for publishing my letter, Alison. Indeed, I found the advice and comments interesting and helpful. I’d like to provide an update on how things went.

I interviewed for a job doing much the same thing as I do right now but for a non profit I had worked with in the past and have a lot of respect for. The application and interview process was wonderful. They would need me to essentially build a program like the one I built at my current job, but with fewer resources. I did disclose that I am transgender during the interview when they asked about diversity and working with under represented populations (there is a requirement to work with Native American nations, which I take very seriously and which I know from experience requires a deft touch). I believe this was a benefit to my application package and they offered me the job almost right away.

HOWEVER, I was simultaneously pursuing another more appealing opportunity doing more technical work for a different organization. I seriously agonized over how to handle the situation, and ultimately, I turned down the offer so that they could get someone on board quickly. In my application for job # 2, I did NOT disclose. I was not offered that position.

Either job would have been a 20-30% pay cut. I kicked myself a little bit on the missed opportunity, but figured it was for the best.

A couple of weeks later, my current supervisor gave me a 15% raise and acknowledged the good work I do and expressed her genuine appreciation for my skills, attitude, and work ethic. I’m also being given the opportunity to direct more of our office culture development AND to develop a new program that is deeply meaningful to me. I also joined the corporate lgbtq+ resource group. So overall, I came out in a better position, even if I think the question of whether to come out during the application process remains open (in my mind anyway).

Regarding some comments about my partner’s advice to come out early and often, I do want to say that she is much much more skilled in the arena of professional diversity than I am, despite observations that she must not know much about the topic. I trust her judgement on this issue. Rereading my initial letter, I think I didn’t do her right in how I framed her perspective. Also, as a queer woman herself, it is not the case that she is immune to the real effects of discrimination in the workplace. She deals with this on a continual basis, and is a strident, vocal advocate for diversity and justice at work as well.

Thank you again. I’m always looking forward to reading you and the comments.

You may also like:
{ 72 comments }

{ 72 comments… read them below }

  2. Haruka*

    I was confused by people saying that disclosing you’re trans may or may not help. In the Bay Area, every tech company is bending over backwards, going crazy trying to find ‘diverse’ candidates. My boss set me up to interview somebody who didn’t have the right qualifications and wasn’t even interested in our job, and only after meeting them I realized why – they were ‘diverse’. I have to include at least 2 ‘diverse’ people in my interview pool even though nobody who applied fits this category (most of my applicants were not white by the way, but Asian – which is what I am- or Middle Eastern, but we are all not the right kind of diverse apparently, regardless that many of us come from poor families back home and studied like crazy to be where we are). Anyway, if you disclosed you were trans it would 100% increase your chances of being hired in a tech company around here. So I’m not one bit surprised this helped OP’s application, since they said they were in a liberal city and in a technical area.

    1. ApollosTorso*

      I’ve found thought that a lot of interviewers and companies for diversity – not equity – only are hiring at a low level.

      And often they say they interviewed people, only interviewed bad matches, and check the box for saying they tried. Rather than doing the work of finding candidates in their field who are qualified, have potential, or are over qualified. They exist.

      1. WantonSeedStitch*

        Yeah, if you aren’t getting qualified applicants from diverse backgrounds for a variety of positions, you have to take a look at why that is. What barriers exist to those candidates in the application process? Does the company’s reputation put off those candidates? Are screening techniques screening out those candidates?

        1. Anonym*

          Yes, this. And there’s a magical effect that when you improve equity and inclusion, your current employees can speak credibly and favorably to the reality of working there, thus making your workplace more appealing to a more diverse pool of candidates.

        2. Haruka*

          Um, there are just more people who study at graduate level in our technical area who are Asian or whit. The barrier is not the application process or reputation, it’s that there are not enough PhDs. from this group It’s pretty clear cut. If you look at people graduating from this PhD program, they were 45% white, 22.4% Asian, 3.2% Hispanic, and 2.4% African American. Only the last 2 count as diverse. The many Asian or especially Middle Eastern people I hire didn’t have an easy time before they got here (Muslim bias etc) but they don’t count as diverse. They are almost all men too, so people say my group is not diverse enough! Anyway it seems if you are trans you can check some other diversity box. I myself am just trying to hire for skills. I don’t look at names of people who apply, and I’m not good with faces so I often can’t tell what race somebody is. And no way I’m asking them, that feels so rude. But if they tell me they are diverse (LGBTQ) I can use that to argue my case to hire somebody (we have a pretty tough process). I wanted this really good person, and it helped make my case that she was a woman, even though on paper she was on the verge of qualification. I would have hired man or woman, any skin color, but this woman was the best for the job in my opinion for many reasons, but I’m saying it helped because HR was happy about the added ‘diversity’. If I could say they were trans even better I’m sure. I guess if the hiring manager themselves are really anti-trans kind of person then this wouldn’t help but I don’t think I’ve met anybody like that (at least openly). Many people state their pronouns etc around here. So if you’re looking for a job in tech in a liberal place, and you are trans, I definitely think it would help.

          1. Cool Tina, Train Conductress*

            Wait, when did PhDs suddenly come into the discussion? That’ss really specific. Most jobs aren’t PhD level.

            It sounds like you’re talking about your own very narrow experience in hiring. You can’t possibly have the POV breadth to say that disclosing is always beneficial.

            1. TeaCoziesRUs*

              Because the initial comment writer is writing about THEIR particular experience at THEIR company with hiring practices aimed at diversity as it applies to the jobs THEY fill. Makes sense to me why they’d set up the “diversity” checkboxes in the way they do based on the reality of their candidate pool (i.e. overwhelmingly white or Asian males). Obviously not all hiring scenarios are like this, but I appreciate their input regardless. :)

          2. Irish Teacher*

            The thing is that most people who are anti-trans aren’t so openly. Most don’t even realise they are. It’s a subconscious thing. And even those who know they are probably aren’t going to admit to it. The odds are you know a LOT of people who are pretty anti-trans (and who are homophobic and sexist and racist) but it just hasn’t come up in conversation. A lot of people hide their biases pretty well.

            If you don’t notice people’s races or anything other than their skills, you’re in a minority, and the reality is a lot of other managers are subconsciously hiring straight white men, especially those from middle class backgrounds over people from other backgrounds. It’s not usually a case of people saying “oh, he’s LGBT+; I won’t hire him” or “I don’t hire women”. It’s more “I know he’s got good qualifications but he speaks so poorly” (when speaking “poorly” means he uses a dialect or has an accent other than the upper-middle class white one) or “she just doesn’t seem as COMMITTED as he does” or “I couldn’t understand her accent” (from an immigrant) or “she just didn’t look professional,” (from a POC, when the interviewer is confusing looking professional with looking white).

            I am not saying you are doing any of these things, but many, perhaps most, people are, in most cases without even realising it. And while it’s possible the LW could be applying to a company like yours, it’s equally possible they could be applying to somebody who thinks being trans is a “fad” or somebody who worries it would be too much hassle to employ somebody who belongs to a minority group they don’t fully understand.

            Your situation sounds VERY specific, a job that requires specific skills that most people don’t have and that those who do probably have to have certain privileges (getting a PhD is a privilege in and of itself). Most jobs are not like that. It is likely there might be less biases in that kind of situation because you are limited in hires by who is qualified and you likely don’t have 20 or 50 or 100 or 300 applicants applying for one job. If people are in a pool like that, their chances of being overlooked because they are “no like us” is likely to be higher.

        3. Warrior Princess Xena*

          You’re not wrong, but sometimes the problems are even more systematic than that. I have a family member in a niche finance-adjacent professional field. They are also desperate to broaden the field to anyone beyond ‘straight white men’. The problem is that the field is niche enough and requires enough education that the incoming folks at the high school and college level are already almost entirely middle-class white guys. My personal theory is that it’s a small enough field that the only people who know that it exists are people who have family and friends in the field (very few colleges even have an official major for it – it’s usually covered under applied mathematics) and it ends up being a self-fulfilling cycle.
          It’s hard to have 5% of your applicants be ‘diverse’ if there’s only .5% coming out of college with the skills you need.

          None of this is right and good, but it’s not something that can be solved purely on the company level, not even with the best hiring practices in the world.

          1. bamcheeks*

            Companies can get involved at an earlier stage of the pipeline. There is a thing where employers go, “not our fault, the qualified candidates aren’t coming through” and universities go, “not our fault, the qualified applicants aren’t coming through” and both act as if this is just some kind of natural phenomenon rather than something they could quite easily choose to influence if they wanted to.

            1. Haruka*

              How does a company influence the pipeline? Are you seriously saying that companies should pick up the slack from what is a systematic education inequality? How??? It’s not a ‘natural phenomenon’, the systematic differences in education most certainly started all the way back in kindergarten or even preschool. The average person we hire is around 30 years old (they often do a postdoc after PhD). We have programs to go to highschools and to try and attract diverse talent, but it’s a drop in the bucket.

              But unlike race, LGBTQ diversity is easier to address, it’s genuinely just about removing bias and stereotypes (so on the opposite side, I think companies have no excuses at all if they are not diverse in this way). A lot of my colleagues are openly gay. I have at least one gay friend who moved here specifically because of this. I don’t personally know any trans people, I think it’s genuinely just that there are not so many? But I think a liberal, tech company is probably just about as accepting as it gets.

              1. LabTechNoMore*

                How does a company influence the pipeline?
                Internships/summer programs at the highschool, grad, and postgrad levels? Research opportunities? Post-doc availability? Outreach programs at any level ? (Postsecondary or K-12): Tours/field trips, classroom demonstrations, career days, job shadowing.
                I don’t personally know any trans people, I think it’s genuinely just that there are not so many?
                If you’re in the bay area, and don’t know any trans or non-binary people, that is not because there are fewer of them. Out gays make up roughly 1-2% of the US population (or, more accurately, gays and lesbians, combined, make up just over 3%, which is roughly split along gender identity demographics), while out trans folks are ~1% of the population. (Based on US Census household pulse 2021 data). There’s also a lot of overlap between those groups.

                2. Texan In Exile*

                  “How does a company influence the pipeline?”

                  Not by pulling the support they were providing to the city’s public schools and having the CEO trash the schools and support charter schools in an editorial in the local paper, for sure.

                3. Banana Pancakes*

                  Just an FYI, non-binary people aren’t a separate group from trans people. We’re trans too.

                4. LabTechNoMore*

                  @Banana Pancakes: in the queer organizations I’ve been a part of, “trans and nonbinary” has been the preferred terminology. My understanding is that it’s intended to not erase NB folks, and to take into consideration that not all non-binary people identify as trans. With that said, I appreciate your perspective and will note how the trans community is actually using these terms in practice, with how our lexicon is always evolving to be more considerate and inclusive.

              2. JSPA*

                There are ways to grow talent at every stage, especially given how bad our system can be at recognizing and rewarding people who ask challenging questions, if they’re seen as “intrinsically aggressive” or as “likely to be ignorant.” It won’t help your hiring next week, but if you’ll still be looking for people (in some job) in 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 years? Sure you / your company can help to mint a shiny new crop of PhD candidates in that time.

            2. Ann*

              I talked about that with my company’s management in Summer 2020. We have hardly anyone working for us who’s graduated from the local public schools, and were hoping to work on that. And then the city decided to really salt the earth and destroy its own school system… middle and high schools didn’t even open in most of 2020-21, unless you count virtual “school” which had abysmal absentee rates. The kids are still feeling the impact. 40% are cutting school regularly. Some school districts (generally the two extremes – poorest and wealthiest) have lost 20% of kids and aren’t even sure where some of them went. The kids who did ok are the ones whose parents had money to pull them out and enroll them in private school, or an opportunity to move to an open school district. How much can my company do against systemic racism and classism on that scale? It turns out, the same people that scream from the rooftops that they’re champions of the oppressed are actually the worst perpetrators. As a grad of the same public school system, I can’t unsee it. I guess the way poor school districts were treated 20ish years ago was not an accident. The schools never actually cared about us. They are the real systemic problem, and it goes so deep that it needs an intervention way before you get to college or job hunting.

        4. BethDH*

          Yes.
          Our HR redacts a lot of details about candidates on the first pass and doesn’t disclose any of the demographic information (they don’t redact job experience that might disclose it or mentions in the cover letter), but they look at the list of candidates for the first interview and if it isn’t sufficiently diverse we meet with them to discuss ways to improve recruitment, including possible ways to improve phrasing of the job ad.
          This is annoying at times because it definitely slows hiring down, but it has produced more viable candidates of diverse backgrounds than we had before. By waiting to consider the diversity of our pool until after we’ve done the first pass, HR is evaluating the diversity of candidates who have a good shot of getting the job.

      2. Anonym*

        I still cringe at a hiring process I was part of as a junior employee many years ago. The hiring manager (not my boss) was very earnestly concerned about having a diverse slate of candidates and ended up with exactly *one* candidate that wasn’t white, and that candidate was clearly less qualified on paper than the other finalists. But the research was already clear at that point about the negative effects on outcomes when you have a single, token “diverse” candidate. You need the actual slate to be diverse, as in multiple candidates fitting that bill, to see statistical improvements in diversity of hires. Anyway, the hiring manager absolutely had good intentions, but didn’t really look into what effective hiring is from this angle, and was cringe-inducingly proud of herself for finding a token diverse candidate. The point being: even outside of blatantly cynical box-checking, people can really get it wrong in ways that lead to worse outcomes overall.

      3. CommanderBanana*

        “I’ve found thought that a lot of interviewers and companies for diversity – not equity – only are hiring at a low level.”

        ^^ This. I’ve worked for two organization that touted themselves as cHaMpIoNs of DEI….only to see that once you got to the director/C-level, everyone suddenly looked the same, had the same sort of educational background and probably all golfed together.

        2. BethDH*

          Definitely. An org I’ve worked for does a lot of promotion from within, which is often overall positive. But since they were a lot less diverse 5 years – 10 years – 15 years ago, the upper levels are ridiculously uniform. I think that will indeed correct over time but it is awful now and I wish they’d be more open to hiring and then supporting external candidates at upper levels.

    2. Weaponized Pumpkin*

      I don’t find it confusing. Most people don’t have this lived experience that being trans is an advantage at work.

      1. metadata minion*

        Yes. There’s also the question of whether getting hired as a “diversity candidate” (ugh) is actually a good thing or whether you’ll just get pushed out after a year and cause the company to go “welp, guess nobody wants to work anymore, nothing to do with us being racist transphobic jerks!”.

        1. Warrior Princess Xena*

          Ugh, yes, agreed – the ‘check the box’ hiring practices do nothing to actually solve the problem and a whole lot to compound it.

    3. ThatGirl*

      I know you put diverse in quotes for a reason, but I hate the idea that a person can be “diverse”. A person is just a person. A group/team/workplace is diverse – or not.

      1. Joanna*

        ThatGirl, same here. I’ve pointed out at times that a team made up of all Black women is not more diverse than a group of white dudes, because individual people are not “diverse”.

    4. Orora*

      An applicant pool consisting mostly of one group isn’t diverse, even if those people are minorities. Your company is probably looking to include more underrepresented groups in your candidate pool. In my experience, Asians are not typically underrepresented in tech, although your mileage may vary.

      1. nom de plume*

        Thank you. Really surprised at the responses to the comment here, and the comment itself. The underlying assumption of “you can be unqualified and get hired as long as you’re tokenistically diverse!” plays into so many harmful stereotypes.

        1. LabTechNoMore*

          Yup. The tone of the comment makes it clear to me why the commenter’s company is having such a hard time hiring and retaining people from historically marginalized groups. Othering “diverse candidates” is not helping anybody.

          If it truly were easier to get hired as someone from a marginalized background they we would see overrepresentation on their team, not underrepresentation (relative to population %).

          1. nom de plume*

            Yeah, the comment itself is really problematic and I’m surprised no one has flagged it as such. We don’t need to perpetuate the spurious notion that just existing as “diverse” (not a thing) means you can sail through life – never mind the whole “and they’re not even qualified!” part.

    7. Mid*

      I am surprised, as someone who is trans and in a liberal city though. And I never want to be a “diversity hire.” But that’s not why I don’t disclose. I don’t tell people because it’s none of their business and it’s not always safe to come out, even in a liberal field in a liberal area. Sometimes especially in those “liberal” spaces, it can be unsafe to be out. It can tokenize you, limit your progression, color how people perceive you because they haven’t done the work to unpack their internal biases, etc. And it absolutely does not increase your chances of being hired. It might, in some places, increase your chances of getting an interview so a box can be checked, but not hired.

    8. Ask a Manager* Post author

      Others have addressed other parts of this, but I wanted to add that an individual person cannot be diverse! Groups can be diverse, if they are made up of a varieties of identities/experiences. But a single candidate cannot on their own be diverse, although they might add diversity to your candidate pool.

      The real challenge isn’t just to build diverse pools of candidates (although that’s important) but to ensure that you build a work culture where people from lots of different backgrounds/identities can thrive. A lot of companies work on the first and don’t bother with the second at all and then act surprised when they can’t keep, for example, people of color.

      1. learnedthehardway*

        That’s an important distinction, and I think one that some companies are getting wrong. I have real perspective here, as I work with a client that will only hire “diverse” candidates. All very well, but now they have a homogenous group of people of a particular background, and have bent over backwards to do so, including not hiring always the best qualified people for their roles. We’ll have to see how it plays out over time, but I suspect that it’s going to hurt the company in the end, as they have focused on diversity rather than equity.

    9. Alex (they/them)*

      Even in “liberal” areas a lot of people are very transphobic. A friend of mine got screamed at and called a groomer for the crime of going to a grocery while being trans. and she lives in a liberal city! She also graduated last December and hasn’t been able to get a job.

    10. kay*

      I’d push back on this, having also lived in the Bay Area and fallen into the “but we have Asians, what more do we need!” trap. I hear you on the pipeline problem – it’s very real – but Black and Latinx people also often have a very hard time in Silicon Valley, even before you get into more unique challenges like widespread caste discrimination. I don’t say this to diminish the very real structural racism that Asian Americans face or to deny that we’re people of color, but just to say that we’re not nearly as underrepresented in tech! An Indian man working in tech in the Bay Area has a *very* different experience than a Black woman. And either of those experiences are different than OP’s!

      That being said, it definitely sounds like your bosses are too focused on token diversity instead of actually creating an inclusive and equitable environment or being thoughtful about, say, reaching out to phd programs at minority-serving institutions. I definitely feel your frustration with their current system! But that doesn’t mean that marginalized people actually have a systematic advantage in hiring, even in the Bay Area.

    11. CommanderBanana*

      “regardless that many of us come from poor families back home and studied like crazy to be where we are.”

      Are you assuming that the ‘diverse’ candidates haven’t?

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        Yup, I’m from a “poor” family and I know Ireland is different from the US as I didn’t have to take out loans for college, but…I am incredibly privileged in a whole lot of ways. The reality is, it is going to be a lot harder for a member of the Travelling community or an immigrant to get a job than it is for me. People are not likely to hate or abuse me because of my gender identity. I don’t have to worry about whether it’s safe to mention my partner (being aromantic asexual, I don’t have one).

        Would my life have been easier if my parents had had more money? I’m sure it would, but…it doesn’t mean I don’t have privileges. One doesn’t have to grow up rich to get unfair advantages. I have no doubt that I would be preferred for a job over a better qualified member of the Travelling Community, simply because of prejudice.

        And I doubt there are any areas so liberal that transphobia doesn’t exist. It might not be as overt in a more liberal area, but prejudice is everywhere.

    12. anon for this*

      I think it depends on the industry. Many trans people I know in the Bay Area have trouble keeping jobs in customer service, social services, healthcare, manufacturing, housekeeping, etc and have huge gaps in their resumes. Tech is one of the few exceptions in the Bay, but not everyone works in tech.

    14. The Mandrake Club*

      Studying hard and expecting a reward is just another form of white supremacy. Please reconsider the privileged position from which you are speaking when you make comments like that.

      You are also coming across as a white supremacist when you cavalierly boast about interviewing “diverse” people who stand no chance of getting an offer.

      1. DJ Abbott*

        She wasn’t boasting, she said her company requires interviewing at least two diverse people and she has to do it whether she wants to or not. Also she’s not white, she said she’s Asian.
        I wouldn’t normally comment this late but seeing how you misread her post and brought the accusations, I had to.

        1. Nameless in Customer Service*

          DJ Abbott, Did you know that people who aren’t White can support White supremacy, by striving to attain the privilege White people enjoy, usually by comparing themselves favorably to “more despisable” POC groups such as Latinos and Black people? That’s precisely what Haruka has done here, not least with the implication that Black and Latino people haven’t, “studied like crazy to be where we are.”

          Also, “I would not interview ‘diverse’ candidates unless my company forced me to’ is not exactly a positive statement. But it is a telling one, as is your defense of it.

    15. Cringing 24/7*

      Even living in liberal cities is not always a way to avoid transphobia and transphobic work environments/managers. That’s awesome that your company is working to diversify themselves, but that’s not common everywhere within all liberal cities, and a number of companies are attempting to diversify in very inefficient and backwards ways because being a part of the majority typically can mean not instinctively understanding what support to give minorities within the workplace.

  3. Hills to Die on*

    That’s awesome! I love when things work out even when it seems like they aren’t. Congratulations!

  4. Elle*

    I’m glad this worked out! I’m part of my LGBTQ group at work and though it frustrates me at times, it does make me feel a little more supported and I feel like I’m creating a better space for others. I will say it kind of saddens me how many folks writing in with updates feel the need to defend someone/themselves in response to the comments on the original post. I could be totally off or being too sensitive but it really feels like a large portion of regular commenters are comfortable making assumptions/drawing unkind conclusions about letters/letter writers. I’ve definitely considered writing in for advice myself, but the topic I’d be writing in about is relatively sensitive and I admit I just don’t have the mental wherewithal to see people speculating about me/mine in the comments :-/

    1. gef*

      i totally agree about speculation/assumptions – i’m sad that folks were weird about this LW’s partner on the original letter! like as if someone dating a trans person isn’t acutely aware of how dangerous it can be to disclose. of course she knows that lol. i think there’s a tendency in this comment section to assume things that make the letters more interesting or drama-y, but it’s often to the detriment of the LWs. anyway, i am also trans and am so happy for the LW that his letter had a positive outcome! thank you LW for the update!

    2. DJ Abbott*

      To me it seems like it’s gotten worse in the last few years. I’ve had people do that with my comments several times, and I just called out mandrake club for doing that.

  5. Hlao-roo*

    Thanks for the update, and I’m glad things worked out for you! I think the question of whether or not to come out during the application/interview process will always be open. So much depends on the vibe of the company/interviewers and if there’s a natural spot in the conversation(s) to disclose.

    Best of luck at your current company and with any future job searches!

    1. Julia*

      Yeah, the coming-out question is always more complex than it first appears. A lot of people say “you are the best judge of whether it’s safe for you to come out”, but my own controversial opinion is that that’s not necessarily the case. I think a lot of us, particularly those of us who lived in the closet for much of our lives (which is still most trans people), may overestimate the degree to which people will judge us, due to internalized queerphobia and shame. Sometimes a loving partner, or someone else on the outside, is actually in a better position to judge.

      But sometimes totally not, of course. And particularly in the context of hiring discrimination, not wanting to risk it is a totally reasonable choice.

  6. Woah*

    My husband is trans and also follows the come out early and often advice- mostly because the two times he didn’t, the workplaces were so hostile and horrible that he left fairly quickly, and was job hunting again almost immediately.

    Also…in those hostile work environments, things that could ruin his life were sometimes accused or hinted at. Like bathroom useage was spun into sexual harassment. Or being friendly to a coworkers kids (in the same way everyone else was being friendly), was taken as predation. And we know trans people, people of color, and trans people of color are all people the police like to arrest and even kill. So there’s this whole other aspect to coming out early and often- personal and institutional safety.

    Does anyone remember the Blackish episode where a white toddler was alone in an elevator and the main character, a Black man named Dre, ran away as fast as humanly possible? My husband was like “YES!!!” He got it on a cellular level.

    1. ThisGirlIsGay*

      Yes, my wife and I are the L/B/T of the acronym and we always come out at the interview or before for exactly these reasons. What happens when the company has a holiday party and you’re expected to bring your spouse? Way scarier to disclose a same sex marriage then, when your livelihood depends on it. What happens when you forget a tampon and the only feminine products are in the women’s restroom? What happens when a coworker makes a comment? Will HR have your back? These exact scenarios may not be applicable to this letter writer but in my experience it is unfailingly safer and more comfortable to come out early and often.

  9. fluffy*

    My choices are either “be read as male” or “make it clear I’m trans.” But I’ve found that at least working in tech, that’s a benefit, because either the company sees it as an easy way to score diversity points, or I see it as an easy way to realize it’s not somewhere I want to work because I can’t be my true self.

  10. Sindy*

    It’s good to hear that your boss gave you a raise and that you have a project that you’re excited about OP. The interview etiquette question may still be open but hopefully you won’t have cause to pick it back up for a while. Good luck with everything!

  11. Boof*

    Thanks for the update op and good luck! I’m glad to hear things have felt positive when you do chose to disclose.

  12. Zeus*

    “So overall, I came out in a better position…”
    Heh. Came out.
    All joking aside, LW, I’m so glad the technique you chose worked out this time; and good luck for any future job searching you end up doing!

  14. SimonSays (he/they)*

    I actually just came out as trans at work today, so I saw this at a good time :) I agree that the question of coming out during applications is pretty complicated- for me, it really depends on how desperate my job situation is (I can deal with being misgendered at work if it’s either that or eviction, lol). Really glad everything worked out so well for you!!

  15. King Friday XIII*

    I’m glad it worked out for you in the long run, OP! I’ve had interviews here in liberal Portland where I showed up and suddenly there was a long awkward lobby wait and then they asked one question and the interview was over. I pass more often now, but the fact is I got hired without passing and my workplace has turned out to be pretty accommodating to me and my trans coworkers, at least based on my experience, so I understand where your partner was coming from and I tend to lean that way myself.

  16. Middle Name Danger*

    I disclose early because I don’t want to work anywhere that sees me being trans as an issue. My pronouns (he/they) are in the signature of the email I use to set up interviews. The trash takes itself out.

    I’ve definitely lost opportunities this way, including being ghosted twice by the same interviewer who set up a time then never called or followed up. But I feel better about the opportunities I do get.

Comments are closed.