My Response to the Racism Ruckus

Very few people meet all of me. There are times when I simply ghost through a crowd, leaving no one aware of what has passed. In congenial circumstances, I'm fairly open about most facets.

I really hear you about not wanting to deal with the hassle.

>>Talking about sex-related stuff at work isn't generally appropriate--yet it's very easy for someone to talk about their fiancee or wedding or even home life as a married person, and not be disruptive to the work environment, because they are not perceived as talking about sex or sexuality. It's different if you're partnered to an obviously transgender woman, even if said person never comes to the office or office parties. <<

This is a core issue of discrimination and prejudice: where two people talking about the exact same thing (home life) is perceived as "normal" and "acceptable" for some but "an issue" and "unacceptable" for others. The sheer unfairness of that can create as much tension as "inappropriate" discussions. This is sometimes addressed in tolerance training that companies provide to their employees (with varying success).

>>I have, very consciously, used talking about growing purple tomatoes and purple green beans in my garden as an initial gauge--if someone is weirded out by purple veggies, then I stick to talking about the weather, and gardening, and how proud I am of my kid. No poetry, no SF & Fantasy, no religion, no unicorns (mythical or metaphorical) and certainly nothing both weird and real.<<

That is an excellent safe method of testing a person's tolerance of the unusual. Most people are either attracted to novelty and difference, or repelled by them. (This is a remnant survival trait: trying new things is risky, and could be very good or very bad. Sticking with known things is usually safe and effective; but if circumstances change and you can't adapt, you're doomed. Since the world goes through stable and wildly changing times, both tendencies get passed on genetically. They are subsequently influenced by culture and personality.)

>>Heck, even telling a bank teller "I'm not married" can make that person quite uncomfortable, no matter if you smile and speak lightly.<<

Some people freak out if you step a hair's width off their script.

>>But being invisible is sometimes way too close to not being there at all. <<

Yes, and that can rupture dangerously, inward or outward.

>>Being very visible is different--different positives and different negatives. <<

Also true, which is why people need to make their own decision about which way to go. It's a key reason why "outing" people is wrong.

Tolerance training varies in effectiveness based on many factors. If the program is well-designed, it has a better chance of working.

Another key to success is employee desire. Quite a few companies have noticed that "alternative" folks are often highly energetic, original thinkers so those companies are targeting "cultural creatives" who often have quirks like being gay, Pagan, poly, etc. They are actively recruiting such people, and want them to be happy as employees, so the companies extend health care to same-sex partners, etc. When the general opinion at a company is that these are desirable employees, tolerance training is going to have a higher rate of success. Because, gosh, Miss Manners may not have an entry on how to address an office party invitation to a gay couple or polyquad, and do you invite the Buddhist and the Pagan to the Christmas party or is that tacky or should we make it a holiday party...? A good presentation helps break the ice, get the issue out in the open, go over a few key points, and then people can just talk to each other.

If the employees are hostile, it's probably not going to make much of a dent.

I recommend the excellent Teaching Tolerance site. Though mainly aimed at school dynamics, much of the material -- especially for high school students -- will generalize elsewhere.