29/07/2015 | Writer: Kaos GL
Looking at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in labor market from a social politics point of view.
Assistant Professor Elif Tuğba Doğan from Ankara University, Political Sciences Faculty, Labour Economics and Industrial Relations Department wrote for the book "Discrimination at Workplace and Fight Against Discrimination" compiled by Kaos GL: Looking at discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in labor market from a social politics point of view.
This work focuses on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity out of many other forms of discrimination in labor market. What emerged is a collection of experiences and potential problems faced by LGBTI people as “workers” based on the studies and researches done in this field in Turkey. It points at involved parties for a solution and debates the status of this problem in a social politics discipline. According to this, it became clear that the issue has been ignored to a great extend in the social politics discipline. In the field of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the LGBT comunity does not pose as a homogeneous group. While, in particular, LGB individuals can “hide” their identities and become invisible to discrimination, trans individuals are more subject to discrimination and hate due to their visibility and are in a more disadvantaged position in employment compared to the rest of the community. This disadvantage sidelines trans people, pushes them out of labor market and forced them into sex work. What is worse than discrimination in employment is the violation of the right to life. This is why, while touching LGB workers in labour force, the continuing debate will be on trans individuals given the negative impacts of widespread discrimination in society on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Looking at the LGBT Reality from a Social Politics Perspective
Like many terminologies out there, not everyone agrees on one single definition of “social politics”. We can define social politics as a science of balance, harmony and peace that prescribes preventive measures and politics with the goal of ensuring social justice and eliminating the causes of class conflicts in a capitalist social order (Talas, 1997: 27). Or we could talk about a set of politics that belongs to the state and targets the population (Koray, 2007).
Talas (1997: 53-54) says the concept of social politics, in its narrow definition, emerges as two-sided: First, they are often “protective, harmonizing and balancing measures taken by the state to protect economically-dependant and weak people against the capital and prevent them from getting exploited”. Talas then offers the second side: “with the goal of ensuring balance in society, the elimination of exploitation by state officials and the protection of the natural rights and freedoms of these people from a violation committed by the state itself and from other people.” In this sense, social politics mainly target the working class and its essential problems (Koray, 2005: 24).
In its larger definition, social politics refer to all forms of measures that aim at social peace, without forgeting employer-employee problems. Talas defines (1997: 53) social politics in its larger sense as “a discipline that looks at society as a whole and approaches a wide range of issues which concerns all classes without segregating classes from each other”. Apart from being a discipline, social poitics in its larger definition refers to practices that aim at social equality and social justice (Koray, 2005: 27). Third generation social politics, on the other hand, address issues such as social exclusion, discrimination, environmental problems, consumer rights and disadvantaged groups (Bozkır Serdar, 2014: 6).
The roots of social politics in Turkey date back to the first half of the 20th century. Apart from being state politics, social politics have been a part of academic appetite as well, ultimately continuing in two major paths. One path was the Istanbul path which was embodied in the works of Gerhard Kessler, who ran from Nazi Germany, and his assistant Orhan Tuna at Istanbul University, the School of Economics. The second path was the Ankara path in the 1950s which started with Cahit Talas at Mülkiye (Makal, 2014). While these two lines differenciate in how they locate themselves on the social politics discipline specturum, they have similarities on why LGBT issue has been ignored for so long. Talas is one of the founders of the concept social politics and, even though various disadvantaged groups (women, disabled, migrants etc.) are often mentioned in his Social Politics (1997), LGBTs do not exist. This overlooking/ignoring is understandable given the circumstances of the time; however, this situation has lasted for a long time in this discipline. Even at times when vulnerable groups and inequality became one of the priorities in the teachings of social politics in addition to class injustices, discriminatory practices and inequalities toward sexual orientation never made it to the table. Discrimination and inequality on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity reached visibility only quite recently in new works (Kaos GL, 2009; Kutlu, 2009; Öztürk 2011; Demirdizen, Çınar and Kesici, 2012; Doğan, 2012; Yıldız, 2012; Öner, 2015). Discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and the labor rights of LGBT people remain one of the weakest fields of the social politics discipline. The limited contibution to the field, however, does not mean the topic is secondary to the discipline. Discrimination against LGBT people in employment is a serious problem for prosperity and welfare (Gates and Mitchell, 2013) and solutions must be found, keeping social peace in mind.
Magnitudes of Discrimination in Employment
Having the necessary qualities for a job position as a candidate ready to work does not qualify someone to be the right candidate. Despite her/his education, qualifications and skills, many people get discriminated against on the basis of their race, color, religion, language, sex, political views, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity. According to Lordoğlu and Aslan (2012:119), as opposed to the right to work being a “relativist” freedom for every person, there are problems experienced in the purchase of labor force due to discriminatory practices in labor market.
While the term “discrimination” does not have one general definion (Tokol, 2012:159), we could say it refers to “without a logical explanation or a reason that would benefit public welfare, the treatment of someone differently and unequally compared to other people in similar situations and conditions.” (Çelenk, 2010: 211). Discriminatory practices can be seen in different cultures and in different forms and pose a threat to social peace and comfort.
Depending on how they arise, discrimination can be classified in two categories: direct and indirect. Direct discrimination is unequal treatment of a person or a group on the basis of characteristics they are born with or obtain later in life. A woman getting fired because of her pregnancy is an act of direct discrimination. Indirect discrimination, on the other hand, is “a form of discrimination that emerges as a result of a legislation or procedure being applied to everyone equally but causing a disproportionate impact on a particular group” (Tokol, 2012: 159. For instance, let’s say there is a job posting for a telephone operator. If the employer is requires a driving licence, even though it is not necessary for the position’s responsibilities, this will block the application of a visually-impaired person. It may look like a fair practive given the fact that it is required from everyone; however, it fails in recognizing different characteristics of individuals and therefore becomes a discrimination. According to Yıldırım (2014: 285), it is not always easy define practices as indirect discrimination because this type of discrimination can depend on the culture and norms of a society.
Discrimination has political, social and economic consequences. States are expected to study this issue and eliminate it by means of legal measures and regulations. A part of the international laws Turkey has signed focuses on eliminating discrimination by banning it. Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; International Labour Organization’s (ILO) “Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention” coded 111 and European Union’s 2000/78 Directive all ban discrimination. In national legislation, Article 10 of the Constitution says “everyone is equal before the law regardles of their language, race, color, sex, political views, philosophical beliefs, religion, sect and similar grounds.” The fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly included in this article receive major criticism from LGBT organizations (Kaos GL, 2011; SPoD, 2012). Like the Constitution, Labour Law coded 4857 too bans discrimination. According to Article 5 of the Labor Law, “discrimination at workplace on the basis of language, race, color, sex, disability, political views, philosophical beliefs,, religion, sect and similar grounds is banned.” According to Gülmez (2010: 241), employers are obliged to treat their employees equally regardless of their “age, citizenship, union membership, disability and sexual orientation” even if they are not indicated in the clause. Given the criticisms from international control mechanisms and Turkey’s Progress Reports, Gülmez says age, disability and sexual orientation have to be included in the body of the Article itself (2010: 241).
Even though discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly stated in the existing legislations, as we have seen above, discrimination on the basis of sex is banned. According to Yıldız (2008: 122), “there is a need to accept that sexual preference/sexual tendency should be thought of being part of the sex category and that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.” Aydın (2007: 5), in her own report on the subject, underlines that there is a need to interpret sex in a broader sense to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Legal measures and legislations are necessary but are not efficient to ban discrimination altogether. Many individuals continue to experience discrimination at the various fronts of life. One of these fields is employment. According to Tokol (2012:161), work life is actually the field where we witness the majority of violations. While problems and discrimination that come with grounds such as disability, sex and age found place in the social politics discipline (Talas, 1997; Oral and Şişman (ed.), 2012; Tokol and Alper (ed.), 2014); discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was not only researched with a long delay but also remained limited compared to other disadvantaged groups. This has, therefore, limited the sensibility, awareness and visibility of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In the 1970s, the problems of LGBTI people gained visibility in the US and Europe with the contribution of other social movements, in particular feminist movement. During this era, academic debates on the issue also gained ground (Croteau 1996; Chung 2001). In Turkey, however, the subject entered literature with a long delay compared to Western academia. With the army taking over the regime and its bans in the 80s, the subject came on the table only in the 90s. Studies and publications that focus on the problems of LGBTI people in labor market increased especially in recent years (Kaos GL, 2009; Kutlu, 2009; Öztürk 2011; Demirdizen et al, 2012; Doğan, 2012; Yıldız, 2012; Öner, 2015). Works in various disciplinary fields and the LGBT movement played a key role in the visibility of discrimination in labor market as well as social rights demands in a broader sense.
As expressed above, this limited work still contributed to the accumulation of knowledge on the discrimination experienced in searching for jobs or while working. Field studies and the personal testimonies of victims in particular reminded the need to look at the issue with great seriousness. While some of these studies looked at what the problem was, some recommended ways to solve the problem. Of course, to be able to solve the problem, it is vital to go on the field instead of a top-to-bottom approach, to collect the personal testimonies of victims carefully and to create a platform for discussions. In the section below, concrete examples of discrimination in work force are given based on the field studies conducted on this subject.
Discriminatory Practices on the basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
In literature that studies discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, we will run into different classifications of discrimination. Levine and Leonard’s (1984) formal/informal discrimination classification is important in its ability to look at the discrimination faced by LGBTs in labor force from different angles and dimensions. Levine and Leonard’s (1984) formal discrimination description refers to discriminatory practices in institutional policies and decisions such as hiring, firing, promotion, income range and relocation of staff (by Öner, 2015: 103). Information discrimination, on the other hand, refers to verbal/nonverbal assault and hateful behavior that do not include institutional policies. This double classification of discrimination as formal and information is related to the content of discrimination. The second classification looks more at how discrimination is lived: potential discrimination and experinced discrimination (Chung, 2001). This classification is important to understand the experiences and reactions of LGBTI people who experience discrimination at work. Chung (2001), in his work where he analized discrimination as a 3-dimensional structure, adds anticipated discrimination and actual discrimination to the above classifications. This last dimension underlines the importance of individuals’ personal views. Here, we are talking about people’s personal/subjective reflections. According to Chung (2001), the question of whether the individual is out or not has an impact on experiencing potential or experienced discrimination. People who do not hide their sexual identities face actual discrimination, whereas those who hide their identities are subject to potential discrimination since they observe discrimination that others go through. Öner’s field study shows that, in Turkey’s labor force, most LGB workers have to hide or choose not to come out which is why the form of discrimination they are subject to is mostly potential discrimination (2015:102-103).
Whether LGB individuals come out or not has a great impact on the forms of discriminatory practices they face. Those who express their sexual orientations and gender identities directly or indirectly experience more actual discrimination compared to those who are not out. Many studies show that discrimination intensifies after the person comes out. This is why, in Turkey’s labor market, not coming out is more of an obligation than a choice (Doğan,2012). Öner’s work shows that conformity to gender roles is as important as the disclosure of sexual identity when it comes to the level and forms of discrimination. Accoding to Öner (2005: 209), what can be more important than a person being gay/lesbian is whether or not the person is conforming to the socially defined gender roles.
Discrimination faced by LGBT people in employment shows great variety from the signing of the contract to the termination of it. A person coming out can become a problem from the very beginning, including discrimination during the hiring process and exluding the person from formal/legal employment fields. Persons can be discriminated against also when they do not come out or “give away”. Searching for information on Google or Facebook can become fertile ground for discriminatory practices (Öner, 2015:109-111). These practices continue also after the person gets the job. Throughout the whole work experience, discriminatory practices follow these individuals. These practices varies from people getting fired to being forced to resign due to their sexual orientation and gender identity (Doğan, 2012). Therefore, we could say LGB workers experience prejudice and discrimination spreaded out to their entire work experiences.
Working conditions can show differences when compared with heterosexual workers. One of the major indicators of this difference is the wage gap between heterosexual workers and LGB workers. A study conducted in the US (Badgett, 1995) shows that LGB workers with the same education and work experience with their heterosexual colleagues get paid less. According to this study, gay and bisexual man with similar experience, education, profession, marital status and location with their heterosexual colleagues get 11 to 27% less salary (Badgett, 1995). Clain and Leppel (2001) found that gay men make less money compared to heterosexual men, wheras lesbians make more money compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
On the other hand, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is directly linked to the field of work. In this sense, violations and discrimination can vary depending on the work sector. Öner (2015: 214) has concluded that there is relatively less discrimination in the field of fashion and non-conservative of social science departments of universities. In the study of Demirdizen et al, a participant expressed that she/he had to hide the identity because the sector was very conservative (2012: 325). One of the other forms of discrimination is not getting promoted if the person is out (Kaos GL, 2009; Öner, 2015:115).
While changing in its forms and volumes depending on the sector, most LGB workers experience widespread discrimination at workplace (Croteau, 1995: 198). There are also practices that are not experienced but worrying. Losing authority in work environment (Öner, 2015: 169) is one of those worries. Another worry is the threat of getting outed by other colleagues when they “find out” about the person (Demirdizen et al, 2012: 323). Humiliation by collagues, assaults and worrying about getting fired are also among the reported problems (Demirdizen et al, 2012). The fact the a person does not experience discrimination is not linked to not being out. The worries we just mentioned refer to the potential discriminatory practices developed by Chung (2001).
There are also studies that show workspaces are not safe for LGB workers (Gates and Mitchell, 2013: 160). In their work about stigmatization at work, Gates and Mitchell (2013:165) concluded that in the last 24 months 168 participants (%78.1) have expressed that they have experienced stigmatization at least once. Stigmatization is humiliation and disreputabilization of a person for the characteritics he/she has but the general society doesn’t. Getting stigmatized at workplace leaves these workers with the only option of working in unsafe environments.
Sexual orientation becomes the reason for getting fired, resigning or being forced to resign and therefore getting excluded from labor force. To maintain the “status” and “image” of the workplace, sexual orientation as the ground for dismissal is not mentioned; the employer justifies the decision by expressing how the person did not meet the criterias of the job requirements (Doğan, 2012). Apart from other colleagues and customer, neighboring companies and smaller-sized workplaces nearby also play a role in the decision of dismissal. Plus, if the person still does not resign after exhaustive methods such as over-load of work, not getting any work and getting ignored, the person is then forced to resign.
In the termination of work contract, individuals can live both experienced and potential discrimination. A person who gets fired because of his/her sexual orientation will be outed even more if she/he seeks justice by legal means. This, as a result, will make it even more difficult to find another job. A worry about these discriminatory practices which did not take place yet passivizates individual in their appetite to seek justice.
Survival in Employment: Coping Strategies
The widespread discrimination against LGBT people at workplace in every society is a major block before living a secure life. Leaving the right to work aside, even the right to life can be jeopardized. This insecure situation leads to LGBT people hiding themselves from the rest of the public. Hiding sexual orientation and gender identity is one of the most important coping mechanisms (Levine and Leonard, 1984; Anderson et al, 2001; Kaos GL, 2009; Öztürk, 2011; Amnesty International, 2011; Doğan, 2012; Demirdizen et al, 2012; Öner, 2015). In their own work, Levine and Leonard (1984:706) conluded that this ratio is 77% for people who choose to hide their identities.
Many studies have shown that hiding sexual orientation helps getting hired and kept employed (Demirdizen et al. (2012); Doğan, 2012; Öner, 2015); however, hiding the identity also has negative impacts and costs on the person (Levine and Leonard, 1884:706; Demirdizen et al. 2012). There are many forms of hiding the identity. For instance, reports have expressed that individuals pretend to be interested in the opposite sex, change the subject, keep quiet and perform heterosexuality verbally, nonverbally and physically (Öner, 2015: 214). Hiding pushes people into plotting a life that is not real. We could say hiding is the consequence of the amount of serious fears and worries people have. Demirdizen et al. (2012:326) outlined the possible consequences if a person chose not to hide: If we are talking about a gay teacher, the number of students he/she is teaching will decrease (shrinkage in customer volume), will be excluded in office environment, will not receive respect from lower ranks and her/his colleagues will think she/he is hitting on them or soliciting them. When we are talking about teachers, we will expect a risk of reaction not only from school authorities but also from parents. (Levine and Leonard, 1984: 705). The reason why coming out might seem scary is also due to the fact that the perpetrators of discrimination will come in variety.
In reports, there are also other coping strategies other than hiding (Öner, 2015). Some of these strategies are over-working and trying to appear much nicer and helpful than others (Demirdizen et al. 2012) One of the striking strategies is trying to appear more religious than others. Öner (2015) suggests that turning face to religion and appearing religious are ways of self-protection and getting accepted in society. This strategy is key especially in conservative social structures. For instance, in Bogota, Colombia, 46% of the people who took the survey said they believe LGBT people are a risk to society and are against the native tradition and the concept of family and god. In this sense, we can say stereotypes that is rooted in religion show similarities in many geographies across the world.
LGBT people get away from their families and social environments and move to other cities with the hope that the problems they face will increase. According to Biçmen and Bekiroğlu (2014), social problems continue also in these new cities. This strategy –migration- will bear similar results in relation to labor force. Changing work environment will not solve all the problems. Another strategy, although not used very often, is seeking justice via legal ways. People often do not find the courage to file a complaint after they have been fired or while they are working (Kaos GL, 2009), which can be explained by the fear of facing even more discrimination.
Sexual orientation and gender identity define and shape people’s choice of profession and work experience (Colgan et al., 2008). In this sense, we could say that the choice of profession is also a coping strategy (Chung, 2001: 38). In the subject of choosing the right profession, Chung (2001) mentions three strategies: Working alone for his/her own work, searching for LGBT-friendly jobs and taking risks. Working alone is considered to be a strategy against discrimination (Levine and Leonard, 1984:707; Chung, 2001: 37; Colgan et al., 2008: 33; Öner, 2015:216). However, working alone also requires a certain amount of capital/saving, which makes it an effective strategy only for a very limited group of people. According to Bergsan’s (2007) findings in the field, working alone does not only have economical limits but also social. Here is how an interviewee explained this with her own words: “People who are irritated by me trying a lipstick at a cosmetics store I regularly go to won’t accept any work I do. No matter how good I am at my job, they won’t accept me” (2007:175).
Chung’s (2001) second strategy on searching for LGBT-friendly jobs means searching for jobs where LGBT people are the owners/managers. Searching for jobs in places where most of workers are LGBT or most of the customers are LGBT falls in this category. More than 400 companies in Fortune 500 in the US offer protection in workplace for LGBT people (Gates and Mitchell, 2013: 168). Considering the mass number of companies out there in the market, the protection offered by a limited number of companies is not enough. Plus, it is not considered to be a solution to decrease the states’ responsibility to ensure the protection of their citizens. However, it could be considered as a supportive initiative to advance the working conditions of individuals. LGBT-friendly companies are actually expected to be more inclusive, egalitarian, “worker-friendly” and even “human-friendly” (Huffman, Watrous‐Rodriguez and King (2008:249). One of the strategies we mentioned above was taking risks. People who do not choose the first two options could use this last coping strategy.
The majority of the coing mechanisms in Öner’s work (2015) are individual acts. Visibility and being part of an organizations happen most of the time simultaneously. This is why it has the risk of pushing people into loneliness. Despite this, there are also people who are directly or indrectly out and open. Given the experienced and actual discrimination faced when people are out, we could perhaps look more into why people choose to be out. According to Öner (2015: 215), some of the reasons why people are out are wanting “to be real, to make social change, to be social support, to gain allies as a form of security, to build closer relationships, to getting rid of the burden of being perceived as heterosexual, to decrease the stress of acting/pretending and to raise awareness among colleagues on sexual diversities.”
As we have seen so far, people choose a wide range of copign mechanisms to resist against discrimination at workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. From the social politics point of view, however, these individual struggles are not enough even though they are important. Collective struggles of workers, especially after the Industrialization era, have been vital for gaining rights. A collective voice that aims at raising awareness and eliminating discrimination will also be a pressure factor on the state to move towards equality. In this regard, workers who are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity need unions (Kaos GL, 2009). However, based on the testimonies in studies (Demirdizen et al. 2012) conducted in Turkey, being a part of an organization is avoided as it might mean the disclosure of the identity. Aydın (2007:5) states that not only many companies but also unions avoid taking a side. Patriarchal structures of unions is one of the explanations to this. Apart from the unions, as long as the LGBT movement succeeds in establishing solidarity networks within itself, this solidarity culture can be a wealth of power for the transformation of the hegemonic approach in the current social politics (Yıldırım, 2011: 41).
Realizing the LGBT Reality
The situtation of individuals who face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity in labor market is part of the social politics problem in two ways: With its narrow meaning with regard to employer-employee relations and with its larger meaning with regard to ensuring and protecting social peace and justice. In this regard, social politics is a tool for the advancement of social peace against discrimination based on sexual identity. However, Yıldırım (2011: 40) points at the risk that social politics can become a tool of discrimination in cases where the ground of sexual orientation and gender identity are not explicitly and strictly protected by the law. His emphasis on this risk might be related to the following devalopments below. According to Koray (2007), the ever-transforming social structure changes the meaning of social politics and causes a loss in its function. Despite all this, what should the social politics discipline and the implementors of these politics do against disctimination at workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity?
- The majority of LGBT people are subject to discrimination at workplace on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Most of the coping strategies with discrimination are hiding and individual measures. Even though these solutions are individual strategies, the problem itself concerns the entire society, not only the individuals. This is why the solutions to the problem should also be in large scale.
- Academia, unions, civil society organizations, central and local governments need to work together for LGBT workers to have working conditions that befit “human dignity”. However, this subject has been neglected for so long by the academia. With academia turning its face to this subject, discrimination in labor force on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity would gain visibility. To solve the problem, it is really important to diagnose the problem. Additionally, the findings of field studies on the subject will be vital for finding a solution.
- The state’s political ideology has an impact on the understanding of social politics and their implementation. This is why, to reach an egalitarian social structure, the public should be more sensitive, aware and willing.
- Creation and implementation of social politics that are sensitive towards existing problems require having the right knowledge. Yıldırım (2014:300) tells that, in 2005 in England, every staff at Portsmouth Municipality received equal opportunities training twice a year on the implementation of the directives against discrimination. In Turkey, people who implement social politics should also undergo similar trainings.
- Media plays a key role in raising awareness and sensibility. When listing discriminatory fields in television journalism, Çelenk (2010:225) mentions disadvantaged groups as a subject of negativities and says these groups are portrayed in a way it will “generate negative impact/impression”. This is why it is vital that media avoids a language that perpetuates discrimination experienced by LGBT people.
- Prejudice in society sidelines LGBT people in life at very early ages. Individuals who experience discrimination at educational institutions since early childhood eventually fall out of labor market as well if they have to drop out of school before finishing. Considering the fact that school prepares youth to work discipline in industrial countries (Applebaum, 1984:5) exclusion at school will lead to exclusion in labour market. This is why it is vital that social politics remember to look at the field of education when searching for solutions. This type of education should aim at raising awareness in public as well as finding a place in labor market for those who experience or face the possibility of experiencing discrimination.
Anderson, M. Z., Croteau, J. M., Chung, Y. B., & DiStefano, T. M. (2001). Developing an Assessment of Sexual Identity Management for Lesbian and Gay Workers. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(3), 243-260.
Applebaum, H., (Ed.). (1984). Work in Market and Industrial Societies. Suny Press.
Aydın, O. (2007), Hayatın Renkleri Projesi / Hukuk ve Ayrımcılık Raporu, Ankara: Kaos
Badgett, M. L. (1995). The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726-739.
Blandford, J.M., (2003). The Nexus of Sexual Orientation and Gender in the Determination of Earnings, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56 (4), 622–642.
Bergsan, S. (2007). Lubunya, Transseksüel Kimlik ve Beden, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Biçmen, Z., and Bekiroğulları, Z. (2014). Social Problems of LGBT People in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 113, 224-233.
Bozkır-Serdar, A. (2014) Sosyal Politika Kavramı, (ed. A. Tokol and Y. Alper), Sosyal Politika, Bursa: Dora Yayıncılık, 1-6.
Chung, Y. B. (2001). Work Discrimination and Coping Strategies: Conceptual Frameworks for Counseling Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients. The Career Development Quarterly, 50(1), 33-44.
Clain, S. H., & Leppel, K. (2001). An Investigation into Sexual Orientation Discrimination as an Explanation for Wage Differences. Applied economics, 33(1), 37-47.
Colgan, F., Creegan, C., McKearney, A., & Wright, T. (2008). Lesbian Workers: Personal Strategies amid Changing Organisational Responses to ‘Sexual Minorities’ in UK Workplaces, Journal of lesbian studies, 12(1), 31-45
Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the Work Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People: an Integrative Review of Methodology and Findings, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 195-209.
Çelenk, S. (2010). Ayrımcılık ve Medya, Televizyon Haberciliğinde Etik, 211-228.
Demirdizen, D., Çınar S., Kesici M.R. (2012). İşyerinde Cinsel Yönelim Ayrımcılığı: LGB Bireylere Yönelik Bir Alan Çalışması, IV. Sosyal Haklar Sempozyumu, 311-330.
Doğan, E.T. (2012). Bir Sosyal Politika Meselesi Olarak LGBT Bireylerin Çalışma Yaşamında Karşılaştığı Ayrımcı Pratikler, Kaos GL Magazine, Issue 127,13-15.
Gates, T. G., & Mitchell, C. G. (2013). Workplace Stigma-related Experiences among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Workers: Implications for Social Policy and Practice, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 28(3), 159-171.
Gülmez, M. (2010). İnsan Haklarında Ayrımcılık Yasaklı Eşitlik İlkesi: Aykırı Düşünceler. Çalışma ve Toplum, 25, 217-266.
Huffman, A. H., Watrous‐Rodriguez, K. M., & King, E. B. (2008). Supporting a Diverse Workforce: What Type of Support is Most Meaningful for Lesbian and Gay Employees?, Human Resource Management, 47(2), 237-253.
Kaos GL (2009). Çalışma Hayatı ve Sendikal Süreçlerde LGB Çalışanlar Kitabı, Ayrıntı Basımevi: Ankara.
Koray, M. (2005) Sosyal Politika, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Publication.
Koray, M. (2007). Sosyal Politikanın Anlamı ve İşlevini Tartışmak, Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, 15, 19-55.
Kutlu, D. (2009). Çalışma Yaşamında Ayrımcılık: Gey Çalışanlar Örneği, Sosyal Dışlanma ve Sosyal Hizmet Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı.
Levine, M. P., & Leonard, it (1984). Discrimination Against Lesbians in The Work Force. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700-710.
Lordoğlu, K., & Aslan, M. (2012). Türkiye İşgücü Piyasalarında Etnik Bir Ayırımcılık Var Mıdır?, Çalışma ve Toplum, 33, 117-146.
Makal, A. (2014). Türkiye’de Akademide Sosyal Politika Geleneğinin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi Üzerine Tarihsel Bir Yeniden Değerlendirme. Çalışma ve Toplum, 41,17-30.
Oral, A.İ. and Şişman, Y. (ed.) (2012). Sosyal Politika, Eskişehir: Anadolu University Publication.
Öner, A. (2015). Beyaz Yakalı Eşcinseller, İşyerinde Cinsel Yönelim Ayrımcılığı ve Mücadele Stratejileri, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Özturk, M. B. (2011). Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Exploring the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Employees in Turkey. Human Relations, 64(8), 1099-1118.
Talas, C. (1997). Toplumsal Politika, Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
Tokol, A. (2012). Sosyal Dışlanma ve Ayrımcılık, Sosyal Politika, (ed. A.İ.Oral and Y. Şişman), Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, 150-172.
Tokol, A. and Alper, Y. (ed.) (2014) Sosyal Politika, Bursa: Dora Yayıncılık.
Uluslararası Af Örgütü (2011) "Ne bir Hastalık ne de Bir Suç" Raporu, Londra: Uluslararası Af Örgütü (Amnesty International) Publication.
Weichselbaumer, Doris (2003) “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Hiring”, Labor Economics, (10).629-642.
Yıldırım, V. (2011). LGBT Hareketi Sosyal Politikayla Neden İlgilenmeli? Neler Talep Edebilir?, Anti-Homofobi Kitabı 3: Uluslararası Homofobi Karşıtı Buluşma, Ankara: Ayrıntı Basımevi. 39-41.
Yıldırım, M. (2014). Ayrımcılık, Sosyal Politika, (ed. A. Tokol and Y. Alper), Bursa: Dora Yayıncılık, 283-303.
Yıldız, G. B. (2008). İşverenin Eşit İşlem Yapma Borcu, Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.
Yıldız, G. B. (2012) Çalışma Hayatında LGBT Bireylere Yönelik Ayrımcılığın Önlenmesi ve İlgili Mevzuat, Kaos GL Magazine, Issue 127, 36-37.
Editor note: The articles of “Discrimination at Workplace and Fight Against Discrimination” has been translated into English by Nevin Öztop.
- http://kaosgl.org/sayfa.php?id=10216 (Accessed on 12.03.2015)
- SPoD (2012). LGBT YurttaşlarınYeni Anayasaya Yönelik Talepleri, SPoD Constitution Working Group, Report:
http://www.spod.org.tr/turkce/eskisite/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SPoD-Anayasa-Raporu.pdf (Accessed on 12.03.2015)
 Assistant Professor, Dr., Ankara University, Political Sciences Faculty, Labour Economics and Industrial Relations Department faculty member.
 A comprehensive study on trans people, see: Bergman, S. (2007) Lubunya, Transseksüel Kimlik ve Beden, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
 To learn more about the differences between these two paths, see: Makal, A. (2014). Türkiye’de Akademide Sosyal Politika Geleneğinin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi Üzerine Tarihsel Bir Yeniden Değerlendirme. Çalışma ve Toplum, 41(2), 17-30.
 There are other forms of discrimination other than direct and indirect discrimination. To read more about systematic discrimination, assault, sexual assault, discrimination with order, multiple/cross-cutting discrimination, backward discrimination, see: Yıldırım (2014) and Tokol (2012).
 Chung (2001: 36) basis this ciassification on the mentioned research. See: Griffith, A. R. (1980). Justification for Black career development. Journal of NonWhite Concerns, 8, 77-83.
 The assumption that all LGB individuals experience discrimination could be another form of othering. (Demirdizen et al, 2012:320).
 In the subject of lesbians making more money than their heterosexual co-workers, there are discussions about lesbians being awarded by their managers for their masculine behaviors (Blanford, 2003). Some believe that these conclusions could be the result of mistakes in research methodologies and the increase in productivitity at work (Weichselbaumer, 2003:640).
 This part was added by me.
 For the term “job tracking”, Öner’s (2015:65) translation is chosen.
 The list of biggest 500 companies announced annually by Fortune Magazine.
 About unions and LGBT movement, see: Kessler-Harris, A. (2003). Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. Oxford University Press.
Tags: human rights, labour