Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine gender differences in promotion probabilities of the academic staff of a large university in The Netherlands, taking into account the sex segregated context of the faculty.

The study uses records of the university's personnel information system from 1990 to 2006, covering the data of 1,792 employees in the academic ranks who have entered since 1990. Cox regression models are used to test three hypotheses.

The findings show that women have lower promotion probabilities than men. The gender differences are primarily explained by differences in years of service and external mobility, and not by the sex segregated context of the faculty. A higher share of women decreases the odds of being promoted for both men and women. Gender differences in working hours do not explain the gender differences in promotion probabilities.

The paper adds to the existing literature because event history analyses have hardly been applied to personnel records for investigating the impact of the sex segregated context on promotion probabilities.

Incarcerated transgender women often require healthcare to meet their physical-, mental-, and gender transition-related health needs; however, their healthcare experiences in prisons and jails and interactions with correctional healthcare providers are understudied. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

In 2015, 20 transgender women who had been incarcerated in the USA within the past five years participated in semi-structured interviews about their healthcare experiences while incarcerated.

Participants described an institutional culture in which their feminine identity was not recognized and the ways in which institutional policies acted as a form of structural stigma that created and reinforced the gender binary and restricted access to healthcare. While some participants attributed healthcare barriers to providers’ transgender bias, others attributed barriers to providers’ limited knowledge or inexperience caring for transgender patients. Whether due to institutional (e.g. sex-segregated prisons, biased culture) or interpersonal factors (e.g. biased or inexperienced providers), insufficient access to physical-, mental-, and gender transition-related healthcare negatively impacted participants’ health while incarcerated.

Findings highlight the need for interventions that target multi-level barriers to care in order to improve incarcerated transgender women’s access to quality, gender-affirmative healthcare.

This study provides first-hand accounts of how multi-level forces serve to reinforce the gender binary and negatively impact the health of incarcerated transgender women. Findings also describe incarcerated transgender women’s acts of resistance against institutional and interpersonal efforts to maintain the gender binary and present participant-derived recommendations to improve access to gender affirmative healthcare for incarcerated transgender women.

Transgender people have received substantial attention in recent years, with gender identity being a focal point of online debate. Transgender identities are central to discussions relating to sex-segregated spaces and activities, such as public toilets, prisons, and sports participation. The introduction of “gender-neutral” spaces has received criticism because some argue that there is an increased risk of sexual violence against women and children. However, little is known about the implications that these constructions have for whom is able to claim a “victim status.” In this chapter, I provide a critical analysis of the techniques used by individuals to align themselves with a “victim status.” These claims are presented and contextualized within varying notions of victimization, from being victims of political correctness to victims of a more aggressive minority community. This feeds into an inherently transphobic discourse that is difficult to challenge without facing accusations of perpetuating an individual's “victimhood.” Transphobic rhetoric is most commonly expressed through constructing transgender people as “unnatural,” “sinful,” or as experiencing a “mental health issue.” This chapter argues that the denial of transphobia and simultaneous claims of victimization made by the dominant, cisgender majority are intrinsically linked.

Purpose: To consider the extent to which the legal recognition of non-binary gender has the potential to disrupt the gender binary.

Methodology/Approach: This chapter will employ case study as method, focusing on recent changes to Australian law and policy, which introduce a third gender category. I rely on the work of queer theorists on normativity and recognition as a theoretical framework and on the work of social scientists on transgender people as evidence.

Findings: This chapter finds that while there is much to be celebrated about increasing alternatives to the dominant categories of male and female, the legal recognition of non-binary gender may in fact serve to conceptually purge the dominant gender categories of non-conforming elements while simultaneously masking the ways in which institutions of regulatory power continue to demand conformity with normative standards of gender.

Research Limitations: Since few non-binary individuals in Australia have adopted the X marker the implications laid out in this paper are speculative. The experiences of non-binary individuals present an important avenue for further research.

Practical Implications: I recommend, as an alternative to further gender classifications, that we should seek to minimize the degree to which membership of a particular gender category is used to distribute rights and privileges.

Originality/Value of Paper: This chapter advances the literature on non-binary gender, contributes to existing queer and feminist analyses of the gender binary and extends work on normativity to legal recognition of alternative genders.

Purpose: In this chapter, I critically examine how federal regulation and guidance impact gender policing and transgender inclusion within educational institutions.

Approach: I utilize feminist critical discourse analysis to examine the “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students” and its underlying assumptions related to transgender inclusion and gender policing in institutions of education.

Findings: While the federal regulations and guidance currently in place protect some transgender individuals, they also re-stigmatize some transgender individuals by policing the acceptable ways of being transgender and reinforcing the gender binary.

Social Implications: I suggest other areas within the educational institution to address in order to achieve transgender inclusion.

Value of Paper: This chapter critically examines the logistics and effects of federal regulation on gender and transgender inclusion.

Proportions of women in executive, managerial, and administrative positions in the USA are increasing rapidly. The presence of women in these positions has helped them in their climb up the corporate ladder and allowed them to begin to break through the “glass ceiling”. However, entrance into these upper‐management positions has not come without costs to women. Isolation and loneliness, owing to token status, sex‐segregated work, and sexual harassment, commonly occur among women. Factors that cause these experiences and measures that may mitigate loneliness, such as networking and mentoring, are discussed.

We report three findings in a comprehensive study of hourly wage differences between women and men working in same occupation and establishment in Sweden in 1970–1990. (1) Within same occupation and establishment in 1990, women on average earn 1.4% less than men among blue-collar workers, 5.0% less among white-collar employees. This occupation-establishment level wage gap declined strongly from 1970 to 1978. (2) For white-collar employees, occupational segregation accounts for much of the wage gap, establishment segregation for little. For blue-collar workers both types of segregation are important. (3) The within-occupation gaps are small, below 4% and 7% for blue- and white-collar workers.

Few issues in business ethics are as polarizing as the practice of risk classification and underwriting in the insurance industry. Theorists who approach the issue from a background in economics often start from the assumption that policy-holders should be charged a rate that reflects the expected loss that they bring to the insurance scheme. Yet theorists who approach the question from a background in philosophy or civil rights law often begin with a presumption against so-called “actuarially fair” premiums and in favor of “community rating,” in which everyone is charged the same price. This paper begins by examining and rejecting the three primary arguments that have been given to show that actuarially fair premiums are unjust. It then considers the two primary arguments that have been offered by those who wish to defend the practice of risk classification. These arguments overshoot their target, by requiring a “freedom to underwrite” that is much greater than the level of freedom enjoyed in most other commercial transactions. The paper concludes by presenting a defense of a more limited right to underwrite, one that grants the legitimacy of the central principle of risk classification, but permits specific deviations from that ideal when other important social goods are at stake.

In recent years, school districts have faced numerous questions surrounding accommodations of transgender students. Strong objections to accommodations have been voiced in public argument and litigation, primarily in the areas of athletics, bathrooms, and dress codes. As younger transgender students express their gender identity at school, however, the existing objections are weakened by considering the context of elementary rather than high school students. Greater numbers of young transgender students will likely encourage accommodation of trans students of all ages, as well as challenge the gender binary unconsciously taught in school.

This study investigated a series of hypotheses stemming from Ibarra's (1993) proposed conceptual framework for understanding differences between women's and men's interpersonal networks. Using a sample of 112 managers, we examined differences between women's and men's network structural characteristics, and the relationships between these characteristics and support benefits obtained. Consistent with Ibarra, we found that certain network characteristics varied considerably between women and men managers. Women and men tended to belong to different networks in their organizations. Although both groups obtained similar amounts of support from their networks, women managers received their support from substantially different networks, characterized by lower levels of status and power in their organizations. Results are interpreted with respect to Ibarra's theoretical propositions concerning differences between women's and men's networks in organizations.