I’ve been talking with an online friend about having to ‘come out’ as a minority (not necessarily queer, but that can be included under the broad umbrella). Not just in terms of being out about being in a minority group, but when to bring up related issues. In this case, it wass about a vvideo game about witches. You are a witch hunter, hunting witches. A woman asked, reasonably, if all the witches were women. Another woman later pointed out that with the Salem witch trials, it’s a valid question.
More than one guy pooh-poohed it, saying that it was just a game, blah, blah, blah. I hate that mentality. Games are part of society, and the fact that they have casual (and not-so casual) sexism baked into them is not something to be dismissed. In addition, and I say this with, if not affection, positive intent, dudes neeed to STFU and listen. I know cishet white dudes are so used to being the norm. I know they think that whatever they think is standard, fine, and good.
Over at Ask A Manager, there was a question today that was related. It was from a high level manager who had autism. Her company had had issues with people wdo were neurospicy and had to pay out two settlements because of this. They brought in a new HR person, “Jane”, and the letter writer (LW) told Jane about their autism. Only the CEO and their direct reports knew, otherwise. Later, they found out that Jane had talked about their autism with their direct reports. when the LW tried to talk about this with Jane, Jane got defensive and said that the LW had a moral obligation to disclose. Which, no.
Most of the commenters were firmly on the LW’s side and shared their outrage. One commenter, though, said that it was “legitimate for an organisation to ask senior people who are members of minoritised groups (she’s British) if they want to be visible role models for that group….” and went on to say how it was beneficial to the person as well as the company. My immediate internal response was, “Fuck no!”, and I was glad that others agreed with me. There is no personal benefit to being forced to disclosed, even under the gentle wording of ‘if you want’ (which, I would think, “Is this a dictum wrapped in a suggestion?”). She double downed it later that it had to be truly optional, but that’s a pipe dream. She also meant it more in terms of LGBTQ+ (of which she was a member), but admitted it might not be as applicable to people with autism.
I wanted to say that it’s never beneficial to the person doing the revealing, but that’s too definitive. I’me sure there are reasons it can be a relief if the employer is accepting and open. But, that’s rarely the case. And even if they are open abnd accepting on the face of it, oftentimes, they unconsciously judge the person who discloses. Or, and this is common with disability–they ascribe everything the preson does to that disability.