Gender in the Workplace
Two distinct debates have become conflated in the workplace: the traditional debate about the position of women (pay, career progression, and combining work with care) and the more recent debate about gender identity and self-identification. Combining both issues under the heading of “gender” regularly leads to confusion and to policies that do not always serve women’s interests.
The Position of Women
In the Netherlands, women earn less on average than men and are underrepresented in senior positions. The CBS publishes annual figures on this. A significant part of the difference can be explained by sector, part-time work, and unpaid care responsibilities, rather than direct discrimination. A remaining portion remains unexplained. Effective policy requires a level-headed analysis of the actual causes instead of automatically attributing them to “systemic sexism”.
Quotas and Targets
Since 2022, the supervisory boards of publicly listed companies have been subject to a phase-in quota requiring at least one-third women and one-third men, and large companies must set their own targets for senior and executive management. Supporters see this as a necessary correction; critics point to the risk that suitable candidates will be passed over on the basis of sex, and that the discussion about quality and suitability will be avoided. Both positions are legitimate.
Transgender and Non-Binary Employees
Transgender employees report discomfort in the workplace more often; people with an amended sex registration are also less likely to have paid employment (see trans people and poverty). The legal framework is set out under employment law and transition. A good employer protects every employee against discrimination and mistreatment; that is self-evident. At the same time, there is a growing set of demands concerning language use, pronouns, and facilities that go beyond protection against discrimination and affect the freedom of others.
Requiring certain pronouns or including pronoun declarations in email signatures is not a matter of politeness but of compelled speech: colleagues are being asked to express linguistic agreement with a specific view of gender identity. Employers would do well to distinguish between treating employees respectfully (which is required) and compelling them to endorse a specific view of gender (which is not a reasonable employer requirement). The legal position and what an employee can say in response are set out at genderongemak.nl.
Self-Identification and Sex-Based Facilities
Workplaces have facilities that have historically been based on sex: changing rooms, showers, sometimes dormitories during deployments, and in sectors such as healthcare, the option of choosing a female caregiver. When access to these facilities is based entirely on self-identification, this creates tension with women’s privacy and safety interests. Many employers opt for a third, neutral facility—which is a workable compromise in practice. Completely abolishing sex-segregated facilities is not.
Non-Binary Registration
Some employers adapt forms and salutation fields at the request of a small group of non-binary employees. This is a choice organisations can make for themselves. Restructuring HR systems, contracts, and legislation on a permanent basis around a self-declared identity without an objective standard is a far more substantial intervention and warrants consideration that does not automatically favour self-identification.
What Constitutes Reasonable Employer Policy?
Sound policy protects every employee against discrimination, provides a neutral facility where possible, respects the conscientious objections of employees who do not go along with compelled speech, and safeguards the safety and privacy of women in sex-specific spaces. The potential cost of disregarding a conscientious objection became clear in the United States: a hospital in Michigan paid $410,000 to a healthcare provider who was dismissed in 2021 after objecting on conscientious grounds to gender-affirming care. Inclusive policy does not have to be identity-activist policy.