PurposeThis paper explores employment discrimination against gender diverse job applicants and employees in Western Australia (WA).Design/methodology/approachUsing grounded theory, this study draws on semi-structured interviews with respondents (n = 20) who identified as trans women, trans men, nonbinary or agender. Thematic analysis focused on the multiple dimensions of disadvantage experienced by respondents, including subtle, not so subtle and overt types of employment discrimination.FindingsThe authors’ results point to several reasons why gender diverse individuals (GDIs) may fear the labor market, including difficulties in concealing their stigma and acquiescence to discrimination. On the other hand, our results also point to sources of organizational support, including encouragement from direct line managers and colleagues who are also Allies.Practical implicationsThe results of the research have important implications for sociological frameworks surrounding dramaturgy, stigma, aesthetic labor, organizational silence and social identity. Practical implications for employers, employees, human resource (HR) professionals and trade unions are also articulated.Originality/valueWhereas previous studies have prioritized the discriminatory experiences of GDIs in the US and European labor markets, this study reports on gender diverse voices in WA. Furthermore, recent work on this topic has been experimental and largely quantitative, whereas the present study offers a compelling set of profound narratives, thereby addressing calls for qualitative research that foregrounds the complexities and nuances of lived experience for GDIs and renders their voices heard.

In this article I demonstrate the methodological value of working abductively with Joan Acker's theory of gendered organizations, as an approach for feminist empirical research. Although the value of Acker's theory is acknowledged, I note it is most frequently used to legitimize the idea that organizations are gendered, not to test whether they are. Few use her theory fully or as it was originally intended. Fewer still have questioned it. This, I argue, contributes to the stagnation of her ideas and results in blindness toward, or disregard for, data that does not support her theory. To realize the analytical potential of Acker's theory, I call for future studies to work abductively with data unaccounted for in the expectations and predictions set by Acker, while operationalizing her five‐dimensional framework in its entirety. Abduction is about discovering new concepts, ideas, and explanations by working with surprising phenomena or data that cannot be explained by pre‐existing knowledge. To demonstrate the utility of this approach, I draw upon a qualitative case study of one atypical Australian trade union. I outline the creative process of drawing inferences to best explain anomalous observations using other theoretical resources in the gender studies field, which together with Acker, constitute a plausible explanation for questions that arose during analysis. This analysis not only surfaces how masculine power is maintained by having women in leadership positions, who serve as “role models” while quieting “others,” but that women and men cooperated as a “team” to support a feminine public impression of the union that was knowingly contradicted in private, indicating a more “truthful” performance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract