Transcript
Speaker: Welcome to another episode of Gender in Focus. ah Today we're talking about one of the tools that we come back to time and time again Transfocus when we're helping organizations rethink their policies and programs. And it's something that we call the who to what reframe. It completely changes how you look at the way things have been set up. And today Kai and I are digging into where this reframe came from and why it's such a useful tool for organizations to set clearer, more achievable goals. Hello Kai, how are you doing? I'm doing fantastic. How about yourself?
Speaker: I'm doing so well. Thank you. The sun is shining. Everything's looking great. I've got to stop talking about the weather. ah So forget I said that about the sun. But it is pretty nice in the summertime when it is glorious. Because it's not always that way. It's been also stormy. At least in these areas.
Speaker: Okay, I want to start Kai, if that's okay with um just explaining what we mean by the who to what reframe and where it came from in sort of the way that you work with organizations.
Speaker: Yeah. So who to what at first glance is like, what are you talking about? So really simply put, oftentimes organizations and even individuals, we can over focus on gender in a way that is not terribly useful. And in some instances, especially with trans and non-binary folks can be harmful. And so we were trying to think back in the early days, what's kind of a more effective way to move through these different situations that we encounter and that we guide um organizations through.
Speaker: And what we see kept seeing time and time again is that it wasn't about gender, it was about something else. And so the who in this situation is gender, you know, man, woman, gender. non-binary, any other gender, um to what it is that we're actually talking about and the specifics, the detail, the pinpointing of like, this is what we mean when we say, and because sometimes what gender can do is just like be a placeholder for a bunch of different things that
Speaker: Yeah, once we start to talk about it's like, oh, you mean that I actually mean this. And so the clarity is helpful to be like, okay, let's pinpoint it exactly. And then is it possible to even shift towards the what instead of focusing on gender or the who?
Speaker: So it sounds like, at the face in the face of it, it sounds a bit complicated, but actually when you strip it down, it's making things a lot easier by the sounds of it. Yeah. Yeah. By clarifying, um because we can mean so many things by gender. Is it the type of clothing that somebody is wearing? Is it the body parts that they have? is it... hormones? Is it, you know, hair lengths? Is it their voice? Like on and on and on If we don't pinpoint, it actually makes it more difficult. And so for me, sometimes gender can be not all the time. Obviously there are instances where it does make sense, ah but it can be a bit of a, like ah a fuzz fuzzy. And so yeah the, what is the clarity
Speaker: I want to um go into like an example because I imagine it's a little abstract for someone listening who hasn't heard this before. They're like, still, I've just said that it makes things easier and they're like, does it? i don't know what you're talking about. So can we use an example? And if it's all right, the example I wanted to use is washrooms because that's like a really big topic when it comes to talking about trans inclusion. And so, yeah, would you be able to talk about the way that it's framed and then How that reframe can actually make things a lot easier.
Speaker: mm Yeah, that's ah such a great example. And it's so concrete as well. So when we think about washroom access to either women's or men's, although most of the focus usually is on women's washrooms or change rooms as well.
Speaker: What people may not realize that they're doing because it's so automatic and a lot of people do it. And so it's kind of common practice is that we look at how somebody appears to us and we determine if they, quote, belong in the women's or the men's. um Usually it's a combination of things like what they're wearing, their hair lengths, but also the shape of their body, right? Do they have curves? Do they have a flat chest? Do they have a curved chest? um
Speaker: And various things that we're kind of just taking in so quickly, you know, the blink of an eye and then determining who goes where and what. And if we see somebody, quote, out of place, right?
Speaker: Then, you know, it could be comments, stares, questions, even calling staff, right? So there's a lot no built into this way of doing things. It's not just a neutral thing that we do.
Speaker: um We take action sometimes based on this assessment of how people look. But the thing is that, and this is the who part of the equation, right? So we're saying who is a man, who is a woman, and whether they fit in the men's or the women's washrooms.
Speaker: The thing is, though, that this is not a very effective approach because we're not properly identifying people just based on looks alone, right? We can't actually know somebody's gender based on looking. We think we do, and maybe...
Speaker: a good percentage of the time we're correct, but we're also not getting it 100% correct. And so it's not fail-proof. um And so that's where the shift to another concept of ah we could still have safety, but what's it based on? And this is where we shifting to the what part of the equation is behavior.
Speaker: That's what it actually tells us what's safe. um If somebody is going into the stall, doing their business, coming out and washing their hands, that's appropriate use of that washroom.
Speaker: and i'm Regardless of how they look, what their gender is, what we think their gender, you know, none of that. It's it's just proper. Versus we all know typically what the unsafe behaviors are.
Speaker: you know staring touching inappropriately lurking photography you know there's a list of things of behaviors that people do that then um call for an appropriate um response of that's not cool if you want to interject in the moment or calling staff And that's regardless of how they look, right?
Speaker: So if somebody feminine who's a woman in the washroom doing inappropriate things, that's not cool, right? Similar with any other gender expression in the women's washroom. So that's that who to what. So who, we usually do it based on, you know, what we expect for a particular gender to look versus what is their behavior.
Speaker: who I was reading about this case quite recently of a teenage girl, a cisgender girl who where went into a restaurant washroom and ah didn't look feminine ah enough to a member of staff. And so the member of staff went in and harassed this poor girl and she ended up and having to show her chest to prove to her.
Speaker: Yeah, I i' put it the blog. So I've linked the court case, which there is a court case now. oh But she had to show her chest to prove in quotes that she is a woman, therefore is allowed to use the washroom. And it's that is directly making things incredibly unsafe for this teenage high school teenager who's just wanting to use the washroom and is now having to face the very thing that people were afraid of by judgment of how she looks. Right.
Speaker: If we were like focusing on her behavior, she went into the bathroom to use the bathroom and then wash her hands and leave. It's her behavior is fine. Yeah. So nothing to do.
Speaker: i'm I'm shocked and dismayed because that's like inappropriate for anybody to have to reveal their body, but particularly for a youth, right? I mean, we say we're defending youth, but here's a prime example of how that's not the case.
Speaker: And that that was actually indicated, i don't know if that's what the staff requested, which would be a whole nother thing, but, or whether the the the youth felt compelled, but, and it's just like scrambling for anything is like, okay, here.
Speaker: oh Yeah, she likes she was blocked from leaving the washroom. she was they They were like, you're a man, and like screaming at her, and then she was like trying to use the washroom, and they wouldn't let her out of the stall she was in, and then she had to she was like, I don't know what to do, and so showed her chest in order to...
Speaker: Wow. Which also isn't proof, but like regardless, it's just such a ridiculous example of how this poor child is now um completely traumatized through yeah so-called protections in place to protect the very people. So yeah, ludicrous.
Speaker: And such a great example of ah how changing from who to what would be incredibly beneficial to everybody. No kidding. And including this situation, which was terribly unfortunate and deeply problematic.
Speaker: who um Would you be able to kind of go into other areas that this shows up? We've obviously talked about washrooms, which is a huge place, but um it shows up everywhere. It shows up in like where this reframe could be really beneficial, especially in organizations.
Speaker: who Yeah, absolutely. I think it's it's useful just to have in the back of one's mind anytime gender shows up in an organization, which once you start looking, it's kind of everywhere. yeah right we're We're gender detectives here at Trans Focus, so we've got a trained eye for this. But once you start to look, it is pretty surprising where it pops up.
Speaker: ah You know, some big ticket items are things like women in leadership, which, again, there is a very compelling reason for that um because largely um women have been underserved and underrepresented in leadership groups. So it's a very understandable reason. The only issue is that it's not very clear often whether trans women are included, um which they should, and then additionally whether non-binary folks are included.
Speaker: And the thing is that if you do a bit of a who to what translation to specify why you're having the women's group, um then you could include other genders in it, like non-binary folks, right? So that's where we get people to think a little bit deeper into the rationale. And sometimes they haven't really thought it through um beyond maybe just a few steps. And then going a little bit deeper to appreciate that it's not just about women. There are other genders as well that struggle with things similar, maybe not exactly the same, but similar issues. And so that can often help to
Speaker: further ah enhance the the group to help people, especially because non-binary folks, as I'm sure you're painfully aware of, do not have their own groups, right? It's not like there's a women's group, a men's group, and a non-binary group.
Speaker: Typically, there isn't. Maybe rare exceptions. So that's where it's really important to have more expansive gender-specific programming where that what has been defined more clearly and that can encompass gender such as non-binary folks.
Speaker: Mm-hmm. There is, i don't know if you've come across this, and it's certainly something that I've seen before. um remember going to a baby group with my sister when she had just had my niece years and years ago now, and that was named like mum and baby group. And then there was a gay couple, ah two, two gay guys who wanted to go with their son. And they were like, I know it's mom and baby, but am I like, are we good to come? And the answer was, yeah, of course, of course, it's open to everybody. And there is this like, the way that and and we see that quite often, especially, for example, like you said, women in leadership are trans women welcome it like, yeah, of course but it's like but it's not of course it's not actually obvious when you haven't got that labeling that to demonstrate this I was wondering if you could go into why that's all it's almost taken for granted how difficult that is for a lot of people who who haven't been thought of before to to know whether they can fit in into places like that
Speaker: and' just the extra labor of having to ask, right? Right. and Because if it's clearly indicated people don't have to ask, they can self-select. Like, oh, cool, these are the criteria.
Speaker: I apply, you know, um rather than being like, well, this is approximate and I have a need for this. How about I try and ask? And then, you know, the the, of course is I appreciate people are trying to be inclusive, but the thing is that with a little bit more forethought that you would have spared people, this effort and a bit of hand wringing too, to be like, should we ask, shouldn't we? And some people don't ask. That's the thing. This couple, you know, had enough either self-advocacy or was like, man, let's try it out.
Speaker: You know, gumption that they did ask, but, um, a good percentage or not. And so that's where, you know, again, this who to what translation, yes, it's focused on, you know, mothers and their young ones. um But they're kind of more general parenting needs where, you know all kinds of genders want to connect with their young ones. And maybe there's a particular technique that's being offered or that you can focus on to say, hey, if you're interested in this parenting technique or, you know, um who knows what exercise with your taught technique, you know, that could be the reframe that then broadens it to a wider group. Um,
Speaker: And then the queer couple doesn't have to wonder, the trans woman doesn't have to wonder, and the NB person doesn't have, or non-binary person doesn't have to wonder, right? And it just strengthens the group because then you've defined a focus point in that instance. And um And, you know, there can be instances in which there needs to be a little bit more focus, maybe a more narrow for focus, right? um But then still you can say things like um pregnant women and, you know, ah people that are interested in X, Y, and Z, right? Like you can still specify it for...
Speaker: um you know, a particular gender or an embodied experience, but then still include others in that or other genders by defining the specifics of the what.
Speaker: I really want to sort of pick that up because you've said it a couple of times now where this isn't an argument against having groups for specific people or specific genders. And so where is that line? Like when does who make sense and when should it give way to a what instead?
Speaker: Right, I always think there's some sort of combination between who and what, because even if it's just focused you know on on women, or let's just be narrow, cis women in particular, you still want to define, i would imagine, for the group formation purposes, the what of why you're together. um Is it that you all have a shared experience or is it that, or, ah you know, you've been excluded from something or you're trying to access something or, you know, you're trying to embody something, you know, still you want to define that because then too often it just kind of, um it goes into like, we all look the same.
Speaker: is pretty much what it boils down to. And that's not enough to form a group, in my opinion. And ah I think there's more, and people are really yearning for depth these days. And I think there's um just taking the a little extra effort to create that depth has a benefit to to people in that group where they're like, oh, these organizers have been really thoughtful, even if the scope is very narrow. um And that actually saves time for trans and non-binary folks to be like, oh, this group isn't for me. And they've clearly defined that. And some people people may take issue with that. And that's their prerogative as well. But for me, I'd be like, oh, thank goodness. um
Speaker: I don't have to bother even trying and then being pushed out in some weird way. Right. So I've i've been spared that that difficulty in that sense. But yeah. I would say there's always a combination of the two, the who to what. We tend to lean on the what more heavily than who. um There are exceptions, of course, but I think we overutilize gender in our society in ways that don't really benefit, certainly not trans and non-binary folks, but I would also say cisgender folks.
Speaker: Mm-hmm. I don't know whether I'm going to put this in the episode because I'm just scrambling my thoughts here, but it's just like there is also an assumption that being a woman, as an example, means that you do have a shared experience that you might actually not have a shared experience at all. Like, I don't know if it's a women's group that I go to and then it turns out everyone's there talking about motherhood.
Speaker: that's not relevant to me at all and so I probably shouldn't then go to that or like I don't know I was looking at a book group recently I want to join a book club and the books that people are reading are absolutely my cup tea but it doesn't actually have anything to do with being a woman at all and so it's like there I don't know there's this assumption that being a woman it was a woman's book group by the way but it didn't need to be at all ah so Yeah, just being just the label of this being a woman's group does not mean or like even within that, if you are a white woman and you are with some South Asian women, your experiences are entirely different.
Speaker: it Your own womanhood is not the same at all. We cannot share those experiences. And so just having a group for women does not immediately mean you have things in common and or this shared experience to talk about. And maybe there are crossovers, but that's true of anything. Yeah.
Speaker: That's true of any gender. Right. It's so true. It's so true. And i think we want to think that'll automatically happen or just be the case, naturally quote unquote naturally. but people are often very surprised by the diversity and and, yeah, just thinking it through a little bit more um can be very helpful um to kind of centering things. And it may change over time too, right? And that's okay too, right?
Speaker: When it comes to organizations wanting to set more achievable goals, how can this who to what reframe benefit them? Yeah. I mean, it's a part of SMART, right? The specific, measurable, achievable, you know, on and on and on. The achievable is part of that. And a to get achievable, you have to go specific. And so if if you're able to say, we're a book club that focuses on this type of genre,
Speaker: Like, or on to say you know, it's way easier to measure if you've achieved that, that those group goals to be like, yeah, we read five of those this, you know, year or whatever. I don't know how fast people read. But yeah.
Speaker: And so like this is really helpful. I mean, that's probably a bit of a silly example, but um I think there's just something easier to measure when it's more achievable. And not to say it's only quantitative. Obviously, there's qualitative pieces as well. um But if you've specified with the group or the intention for something, then hot that you're able to identify things more easily. And you can also see when things are go off the off course and to readjust. And, you know, so it just has so many benefits to to ah helping people achieve it rather than, you know, just women or just men or just non-binary folks, right? Yeah.
Speaker: Do you you have an example that you told me about around the hostel and how organizations can have used this reframe or how you've helped organizations use this reframe? rather yeah um Could you talk about that and explain that? Yeah, I love this example. It was me early days of Trans Focus. So this is many, many years ago. But we were brought in to help with an international organization hustling organization and they do really important work for people to access different parts of the world and and see these you know very common um you know profound places. So, um you know, it's a financial accessibility piece, um you know, and the interesting thing about that organization, from an infrastructure standpoint, they were set up.
Speaker: They had the men's dorms, they had the women's dorms, they had the mixed gender dorms, right? This is a shared accommodation, right? So the bunk beds and um there are some kind of more semi-private options, but they tend to be a little bit more expensive.
Speaker: And basically, you know anywhere from four to 14 people in one room, right? And when we started to investigate a little bit deeper, we found that staff had different strategies around these mixed gendered spaces.
Speaker: So for us, we thought, oh, this is easy. You know, people can just go where they need to go and where they want to go. Right. Case closed. Done. like this should be easy. but oh, no.
Speaker: The staff were implementing, whether indicated by, um you know, managers or not, they were kind of intuiting that they should, quote, balance the genders in the two genders in their minds um in the mixed gender space to create safety.
Speaker: And so this is where people who are non-binary were being rerouted to men's or women's spaces based on how they looked or their name, and they weren't afforded access to the very space that was most suitable for them.
Speaker: And so, and then also men men and women who were being re rebooked to men's and women's spaces, even though that's not what they wanted. Right.
Speaker: And so it was this very bizarre, um in my mind, bizarre, although I appreciate where, you know, staff, their heads were at, they were trying to create safety and this is how they thought they could do it.
Speaker: And so we spent some time with them just like unpacking that, like that in translating things from who man, woman, in their minds, of course, there's more than that, to um what what it is that we're trying to establish and safety, we created a code of conduct, it we you know trained staff on that code of conduct, what they do in each scenario, you know some are more egregious than others, some requires calling the police, right? So just like carefully outlining it so that they could let go of needing to create a gender balance in the mixed gender space.
Speaker: And then they were super excited because actually rerouting or rebooking people was a huge effort on their part. And they had to figure out people's gender, either by assuming or by asking.
Speaker: um They had to, like, do follow-up emails to be like, sorry, we've got to rebook you and then deal with how they might be upset and, you know, like... on and on and on and they're like oh this is so much easier like um we just let people go where they want to go and then monitor behavior end the story and so it was like win-win-win for everybody and now of course non-binary folks along with trans men and women who don't want to go into men's and women's spaces because there can still be gender policing by fellow facility users it's a much better situation
Speaker: That's so interesting that they had everything perfectly set up for what they were like what you wanted to achieve and yet yeah it was still this sort of confusion around safety. That's super super interesting.
Speaker: Yeah, it's a cultural matter. In a lot of cases, I mean, there are infrastructure issues, not in this particular instance, but in others. um But a lot of the issues kind of boil down to our cultural understandings and kind of notions of what we need or what ought to happen or what's always happened around gender with maybe some additional options available that we provide in this way of who to what.
Speaker: We're talking about this as if it's sort of a solves all problems and it solves a lot of problems. But there are some trans and non-binary people where who would feel like this reframe can actually make things really uncomfortable for them. um So I was wondering if you could go into the though like what that concern is Yeah, no, it's true. And I always want to use this ah this approach very judiciously. As with any powerful approach, it can be misused or ah misunderstood and then used in a way that's harmful ah to trans and non-binary folks. So I appreciate...
Speaker: when trans and non-binary folks are hesitant or even a little bit nervous when we introduce this idea, mainly because in some instances, or even many, um people wanna discriminate against trans people because perhaps they have a bias or they're hostile towards trans and non-binary folks, of which sadly there are increasing numbers.
Speaker: And they will use this method as a way to discriminate, to um intentionally carve out such a specific definition of what they're intending in a way that's described in a what way rather than a gender or who way.
Speaker: and But it's like nobody except for trans women does that apply to. You know what I mean? Right. And so it's kind of a sneaky way of discriminating against specifically trans people. And I would say segments of or particular segments of the trans community.
Speaker: um Like I would say some sports um policy fall into that where they're like, you know, 10 different criteria and a criteria and surprise, surprise, it only applies to trans women. And it's like, that's not cool. Right. So I tend to use who to what in an expansive way that tries to open things up. Maybe not.
Speaker: every everyone but more rather than to try to restrict so that's one kind of test to see if it's inclusive or you know somehow could fall into a hidden discrimination based on bias do you have an example of that or that you could I don't know if whether you have a specific example or something you could just come up with but that's really hard I think to understand what you mean without it does that make sense Well, if you have the the sports policy as one example of that 10, it's a okay, that maybe not 10 criteria, but there's like, you know, back in the day, it used to be you have to have had surgery. um You, you know, have to have under 10 nanomoles of testosterone coursing through your veins. You know, there's maybe a few other criteria and it's like, well, you know, who does that, who can really fit into that or who does that kind of pinpoint? um it's definitely, you know, trans women, intersex folks, right? So um in that way, if you have too many criteria, it really um kind of minimizes who can be a part of something.
Speaker: So that's kind of what I'm referring to. So the what is actually there to open things up. And yeah, yeah as as opposed to being specific to open things up in it as a a shared experience, as opposed to being specific to close things down and yes reduce who can go there. Yeah. That makes sense. yeah Yeah. If you think about, you know, um here's an example in the book club, just to make it a bit fun because the sports one is really serious and maybe is bit more specific. But if, for example, in your book club, we we're like, okay, this is the genre we're interested in, um you know, ghost stories.
Speaker: It's romanticcy. You know it's romanticcy. Who are we kidding here? Who are we kidding? Yeah. Okay, how about romantic ghost stories?
Speaker: Just kidding. Oh, perfect. I'm bad. Romanticy. Okay. So, okay. Yeah. Okay. That might be, that that's very, like right now, I would say in particular, that includes a lot of people. um Oh, yeah.
Speaker: you know, for many reasons um and versus ah okay. Everybody has to look feminine. You have to, you know, drink wine and you have you know,
Speaker: ah I don't know, you've had to have at least one kid, you know, like yeah add all the criteria and suddenly it just applies to a very small group of people.
Speaker: um Right. Particularly, you say, cis women, right? um And then probably not even that many cis women too, right? So it's like that's where it gets really kind of off the intended course, so to speak, um versus the we're we're all wanting to read Romanticy, maybe narrowing it a bit because I know that's a very broad category, but you know what I mean? Like that, then people are like, oh, that's my jam. Specifically enemies to lovers. Yeah, everyone. Exactly. Sign me That's all bad
Speaker: You might have to have a wait list in that case. So you have another problem.
Speaker: Sure. Oh, that makes sense. I think but i think that makes it a lot clearer. Yeah. So to to close up then, um if somebody is well particularly organizations were looking at moving from who to what in terms of their policies or like what they have set up in their workplace, what would be the sort of first thing that they should consider?
Speaker: Well, i it's it's nice to have, if you don't already, an idea of what I call where gender pops up in in your organization. and So it might be referenced in policy. It might be you record gender in your information systems, you have washrooms, right? Like on and on and on.
Speaker: And then just pick one of those. doesn't have to be all of them even. Just one of them to take a deeper look as to, okay, why do we organize this by gender? Is there another way of organizing this? And you know, even if we keep it based on gender, at least we're clarified in terms of our rationale. The why is often missing in a lot of things that we do related to gender.
Speaker: Why is it this way? And it's not meant to be kind of interrogating or even down on the method. It's just, we haven't had a chance to to look at it in a deep way.
Speaker: And this is just that opportunity. And then you might be really interested in the what instead of the who, in which case then you could start to make plans towards that. um Which does take um you know communication, in some cases retraining staff, like it's not nothing, but there are ways, very achievable ways of plotting that course. And, you know, of course, we're, Transfocus has done this a few times now. So in case you need, um whether it's at the exploration stage of just brainstorming those ideas, or even hearing from what other orgs have done with us, we've prepared a few examples here, but there are many more. And, um or if you need help with that implementation side of things, Yeah, we're equipped to handle any part of that journey. So I'm very happy to help out.
Speaker: This is um generally people who live on the margins of society have a lot more ideas around what is possible.
Speaker: And so these are things that we can feed into the mix in case they are aligned with the organizational values or of interest, whether for a cultural perspective or maybe even to make money. i mean, like the kind of there's there's no shortage of possibilities here. For sure. Well, thank you so much, Kai.
Speaker: And see you next week. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks so much. It was a great conversation. Bye for now. See you.
