Gender and Pronouns in Job Application Forms

A much better question is what would happen if you lied, sorry "lied", on one of these forms ?

After all, if that information plays no part in the recruitment process ...

It would be extremely easy to discriminate, assuming there's any human input into the process at all. As an extreme example there might be an interviewer who rejects anyone with military service on their CV. You need to to collect the data to discover that kind of discrimination.

If they don’t ask for this information at recruitment stage, it would be bloody difficult to discriminate based on it?

Even though it would be legally okay, some employers might wish to ensure they do not discriminate based on certain non-protected characteristics too. For example, past military service, nonbinariness, or immigration status. To ensure they're doing that effectively, they'd need to collect that information for monitoring purposes. And of course assure and ensure they don't use it for other purposes.

I know this was just a throwaway suggestion, but unconscious bias training is known to be either useless or counterproductive. And in this particular hypothetical situation it would be a poor response to those findings even if did do something.

Much more useful would be to review a representative sample of candidates in whatever group to look at whether they dropped out or were rejected, and if so at what stage in the process.

If a larger-than-average number dropped out, maybe ask some of them why - maybe the interview logistics were particularly challenging for people with caring responsibilities, or there was something in the materials shared with them, or some aspect of the interview experience that was particularly off-putting. Examples could include: no food that they can eat, difficulties with workplace access, or excessive interview preparation requirements.

If people from the group are being disproportionately rejected, look to see at what stage or by whom. And if there's a pattern, verify that the stage corresponds to a genuine job-related requirement. And then in the next round of recruitment, perform that assessment stage two different ways to see if an alternative assessment method has different results.

Employers who genuinely take diversity seriously will be monitoring for issues like these and taking this sort of action when something looks anomolous.

But if you are quoting inaccurate figures, it's impossible to know whether discrimination is happening during recruitment. That 0.5% figure has been officially discredited by the ONS itself.

Also, the OP made no reference to gender reassignment, only pronouns, which, as I'm sure you know, are not a protected characteristic. So why ask for them? Those pronouns are of no use in identifying discrimination, which is what monitoring should be used for.

It's time that nonsensical data collection stops, and only data related to protected characteristics skills be asked for.

Or a smiley face from the days when we made them ourselves :-)

Or a question mark?

I just typed a full stop and nothing else, and that satisfied it. (The full stop appeared on my name badge.)

I laughed aloud at this. Pity you didn't put an exclamation mark.

If the form says a pronouns question is compulsory it may be worth checking to see if this is true in practice. Last year I registered for a conference. The online form asked for my preferred pronouns and was marked compulsory. But it didn't take me long to discover that although it was compulsory to fill it in, it wasn't compulsory to fill it in with pronouns: I just typed a full stop and nothing else, and that satisfied it. (The full stop appeared on my name badge.)

You've entirely missed the point - which is that data on identities is unreliable.

I agree OP. I saw a job I was interested in applying for recently, but the application form asked for my pronouns AND social media handles (is this the norm now? It's about a decade since I've been in the job market) A quick browse of my X profile would make it very clear I have gender critical views. I don't think my opinions should be considered controversial - certainly nothing that could be misconstrued as hate speech - but I have little confidence that an organisation who wants to know my pronouns will be tolerant of gender critical views. I do understand the need for equality data collection, but it should be kept simple and factual - i.e. 'Are you male/female/prefer not to say'? and 'Do you have a trans identity?'

I would suggest that the problem is organisation who have gone with the supposedly easier option of using some online platform for the recruiting process.

Yeah, this is the issue with using off-the-peg Silicon Valley systems that have gender ID and a lot of other non-EA compliant bollocks built into the data capture.

I see the "right to exist" klaxon has been sounded.

I have zero interest in debating the number of people in the UK who are trans or their right to exist. I am merely stating that as gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, employers are seeking to monitor whether their hiring procedures are discriminatory or not.

I would suggest that the problem is organisation who have gone with the supposedly easier option of using some online platform for the recruiting process.

In theory the EO form should not have your name on or any other identifying mark (eg application number 200). The form should not be seen by whoever is assessing the actual application form about relevant experience etc..

Additionally the EO form should only have questions about information that the employer will actually want to use. eg as already mentioned if in the area 50% of the population are from minority ethnic groups, but only white people apply it implies if not a problem and issue. Ditto, age, sex etc..

But all of these questions are only valid is they in fact tally with how the census collects data, because it is the data from the census that shows how well the recruitment process has gone.

I doubt very few employers know why they have a EO forms, or ever use it.

About 0.5% of the population are trans so you'd probably expect 1 in 200 applicants to be trans and 1 in 200 employees to be trans. If it's not, you might want to have a rough idea of why that is the case.

Anyone at any point can self-declare as having a trans identity so we don't actually know what proportion applicants is representative of the population. Not to mention that the 0.5% figure is also unreliable even as a snapshot in time - the questions were misleading and likely to have yielded an inflated figure in areas especially where people for whom English is not the first language live.

Fair enough and apologies but some PPs said just put 'Prefer Not To Say' when in fact there are not always options for that. I don't want to give my data (anonymised or not) when filling this out. I have never seen any evidence or research that says collecting personal data works to create equality and equity.

I didn't say anything about being allowed to skip questions? I said the data was not kept together with the application form. And the question was "Is Equal Opportunities data visible TO YOU?" In our organisation, and this should be the case everywhere, it isn't. In fact, when I do a sift, I don't even get a name, just a candidate number and a form with any identifying information redacted. I don't work for the BBC so I can't say for definite what they do. Keeping them together would leave them wide open to a discrimination case.

This is not true of all online application systems, BBC Careers for example does not let you skip or 'prefer not to say' some questions.

Monitoring is useful - if it turns out that, say, 100s of women/disabled people/Asian people with appropriate qualifications apply for jobs with a particular institution, but no-one ever gets appointed, it raises questions, and might indicate a need for training on unconscious bias. For this reason I do fill out 'race', sex and disability section. For gender, I tick 'other' and in the free text box, I say 'gender is a social construct. my sex is female'. Anything else, I tick 'prefer not to say'. It didn't stop me getting my current job :-)

It's not being used to assess your application and is no different to having a title like Mr or Mrs on there. It's not necessarily anything to do with their approach to gender; it might be as simple as not wanting to create an awkward situation if someone having a gender neutral name and it isn't immediately obvious, especially if it's an online interview.

The part of the form about characteristics is detached from the rest of the application before sift.

I'm also job searching and I find it quite fascinating from a data privacy perspective. At my work, we are careful never to capture personal information because its not needed, but somehow all this stuff is being asked on every job application.
It'd be completely unacceptable to ask someone to confirm their sexual orientation in a face-to-face interview but somehow it's okay to ask it in online when you're also capturing name, address, phone number etc.
I had one also ask about pregnancy recently and another about physical concerns 'like IBS'
I always put 'prefer not to say' but I find it bizarre that in an age when almost every other business sphere is racing as far away from PII as they can, HR departments are merrily tacking it to every application.

Quite…

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic so it might feed into data on that. The question was whether it will be used in assessing the application. It won't. The specific pronouns question you mention is probably because they want to know how to address you if you are invited to interview; other data is gathered so they can identify weaknesses in the recruitment process.

Whether you agree with it or not is neither here nor there.