Dear all, I will have my 1st interview at a top consultancy next week but I am very afraid of their reaction, as I am a she male(crossdresser). I am tired of discrimination.What can I do? do you think it is going to be a problem? Only serious answers please..!!

Nick,Stay cool. Do your best. Be professional.If you are good enough and with a pinch of luck (like all of us who have entered this world) you can do it.

Good luck.I would want to add a hint of caution though. Some consultancies can be very 'uniform' ( some might say inbred) and not known for their acceptance of departures from what they perceive to be the 'norm'. Just be sure before you go in that you have researched the company culture and are comfortable that it is an environment you would be comfortable working in.Best of luck.

Management consultancies are about the most conservative organisations there are. They usually have a very sober, conservative culture and discourage individualism. Having said that, they also usually have a bug up their backside about "diversity" so that may well go in your favour.When was the last time you saw a MBBB consultant as follows:a) with a ponytail and in a leather bikers outfitb) in shorts and a torn t-shirtc) with a nose ring and goth makeupd) wearing a hoodie, tracksuit bottoms and bling bling trainerse) in drag?I'd love to turn up at the client site every day wearing shorts and a t-shirt, but I simply know I'd get fired. In my view, this is a sort of discrimination as I'm not free to be the person I want to be when at work.Similarly, you may find that you have to dress a little differently when you're at work Nick. Awful as it sounds, the truth is that most conservative grey-haired corporate america ex-CEO partners would feel a bit awkward with Emily Howard walking around the office. But, their "diversity policy" may obligate them to treat you differently to how they would treat me if I as a straight man chose to wear what I liked.

what a crap anon. sorry but you're talking bout a corporate suit. this post is about accepting she-males!

I think anon makes some good points.Nick, without wishing to sound harsh, crossdressing not a medical or biological condition - it is a preference. Personally I spend a lot of my own time in big jeans, skate shoes and a baseball hat, but like everyone else I adhere to the 'norm' for work.I feel for you, and I respect your bravery, but it might be time to suck it up and put on a suit like everyone else. If you don't and fail to make it through you'll always wonder what if...

I think it is time the corporate world start accepting people the ay they are. Nick, just go for it!!!

tbh it kind of depends on what you mean.If you're pre-op transexual then Equal Ops legislation applies. However subject to the firm then I wouldn't be surprised if there are other reasons.If you're talking about day to day and you're not pre-op then I'm not sure if EO would apply, but same argument.If you're talking about ''in your own time'' then frankly it's nothing much to do with the firm.But as already pointed out, it's a fairly conservative industry, because at the end of the day firms are selling people to the clients. A middle of the road, nothing distinctive, could fit in anywhere persona is more easily sold in a broader range of markets than someone who may only have niche employability. If you're pre-op then there is something in the legislation about facilities, as far as I can remember since a client has had to deal with it. The problem for the firm is, that has to be managed each time you go on an engagement, so it becomes hassle for the client, possibly enough hassle not to bother.

Can I just say that I have never heard the term 'she-male' used seriously in conversation. Now I'm no expert but cross dresser and trans-sexual are the accepted day to day norms for this lifestyle choice.I feel the poster may be chuckling to himself somewhere, probably before returning home to enjoy himself in the panties he stole from his sister.If I'm not right I apologise, but I smell a rat. 'She-male' is neither discriptive or commonly accepted and as such, it's most probably posted by some muppet.Now obviously they'll come back, using the anonimity of the site to protest at my rough handling of the subject, wait for it, here it comes, no seriously, yep, there it is....

Bingobango - I agree. Plus, why would someone say they're a "she-male (crossdresser)" anyways?..... do they not know that there is a difference in a "she-male" (i.e., transexual...which pertains to actual anatomy) and a crossdreser (someone who only dresses like the opposite gender, not dealing with actual sexual organs)?I smell a rat as well. And if not, then this person might not be taken seriously if they keep referring to themselves as a "she-male" anyways. Don't fall for it guys & girls....

Let me take it from the angle that the individual is genuine.I cannot stand this British rubbish that fails to say things as they are. What thrash? All in the name of "I am open-minded". So open-minded, all kinds of trash enter unfiltered.Mr she male, if you choose to be she-male then forget about consultancy. Go and perform in a Cabaret!Why would I want to employ you to go and represent me in front of a corporate client when your perculiarity is going to be a major distraction? Client management in consultancy is one of the key ingredients of success. Why would I want to jeorpadise the earnings of my company and entire staff to accomodate your wierdness?By hiring someone with a deviancy, I might be impacting the overall moral of my staff as it is likely a majority might not be comfortable with the way you look. Lets face it, Transexuals do look extremely odd.

I’d have to disagree and speculate there’s likely a consultancy out there, especially in a city as big as London, where one could practice consulting as a cross dresser. I know a software house that employs a cross dresser as a programmer, and spent a few days working there as an employee of a client firm. They were a quiet cool, accepting, alternative group and the cross dressing guy was very, very bright, good at his job, and a nice person. He spent a lot of time explaining their products and what they had in development to me. I didn’t find his female attire at all distracting beyond about 5 minutes. In fact, it kinda made the time there more interesting for the novelty factor! Lol Sometimes the corporate drone environment gets rather tiresome. Anyway, I’m generally pretty accepting of others and embrace diversity. I think there are a lot of people like me and I think people who are brighter and better educated tend to be a lot less prejudiced. And that’s generally what consultants and upper management are like (bright, educated). I’m openly gay and work in consultancy and I’ve never got the slightest hint that anyone cared, or that it has hurt my career. In fact I’ve encountered a fair number of gay guys who’ve made it to the highest levels in consultancy.If your post is legit, try to find an appropriate consultancy environment where people are open minded. It would have to have a client base that was accepting of openly alternative lifestyles, and probably not too corporate. Sure, a client might be distracted for the first hour or so, but if you’re really good at your job, and if they’re clients worth having, they’d see beyond your clothing. Also, the firm could probably help out by putting you in front of repeat clients that they believe are likely to not judge you solely by your attire.Finally, I can’t stress enough that your feminine attire would have to be appropriate to what a woman, dressing conservatively, would wear in a corporate work environment and that you’d have to be very, very good at what you do. Feather boas and lightweight talent would defiantly not fly, no matter how many feathers you adorned yourself with. ;-)

People, not so long ago a consultancy might well have thought it would be a big risk to hire a black person. Why? Because the middle class white CEOs they were going to might have felt uncomfortable? Because they looked decidedly odd (see a couple of posts above)? Because they didn't fit the mould?Gosh, doesn't that sound ignorant today.I agree with the poster above who said that after the first 5 minutes it's the ability of the person to provide what you are paying for that counts. If a person interacts with you well and comes up with the goods, does it really matter what they look like? Hopefully clients are intelligent enough to realise this.

I was just wondering, the anon post before mahatmacoat, would you mind telling us which is the firm who employed the cross-dresser?It says a lot about the atmosphere and the ethos and I would like to keep an eye on them.Thanks.

Hi anon,I was a bit surprised when I was reading our first paragraph about how accepting you are and how you only got distracted for 5 mins by cross-dressing.I was thinking could this be (possibly) how people are and how accepting they are?Then when I got to the second paragraph, your revelation that you were gay rested my case of why you are probably more accepting of the abnormality. I guess most gays would be very accepting of a lot of abnormalities so that it increases their own argument of acceptance. I can guarantee you that 90% of consultants and the general public would not find a novelty factor in cross-dressing ................except if you did your survey along the Brighton coast line. I dispute your claim that there are a lot of people like you. I agree with you that it is likely not to affect your career in the UK because bright and better educated would not want to be, in most cases, unfair in appraisals expecially since there are a lot of laws that give gay protection. I personally who is not accepting of homosexuality would feel bad if I judged a gay person's performance in a non-objective manner. I would rather be fair even if it is a cross-dresser.You said: "Sure, a client might be distracted for the first hour or so, but if you’re really good at your job, and if they’re clients worth having, they’d see beyond your clothing." Well I am sorry to tell you that, in consultancy, a client worth having is judged by the level of ching-ching they contribute to your revenue and not how much they agree with your ultra-liberal views.And you also said: "Also, the firm could probably help out by putting you in front of repeat clients that they believe are likely to not judge you solely by your attire." Why would I want to constrain my firm's flexibility by hiring an individual that I can only send to certain clients when the reason is not for skills set?

mahatmacoat,I new that it was likely that someone would go along that line i.e. Black. That "Oh, if you don't accept cross-dressers, it is like not accepting black people". That was why when I was putting in my first post, I decided to withhold one fact because I wanted to see if someone would go along that line. Anyway the fact I withheld was that (surprise, surprise), I am black!Let me tell you something loud and clear. And I hope all others on the forum are reading. Black people I know (and believe me, I do know a lot of them), find it highly offensive when our fight against discrimination is packaged and packed to give credibility to deviancy acceptance.Discrimination against black people is different from "discrimination" against gays, transexuals, nudism, nicrophilics, bestiality.You can compare racism, sexism and even ageism because it is discrimination based on "SUPERIORITY PERCEPTION". That is "we have better ability because we are white, men, young etc".Homosexuality, transexuality, nudity, necrophilia etc are "discrimination" based on "MORALITY, NATURALITY or NORMALITY".So as they say, it is like comparing apples and oranges.It is very irritating when you see people like Peter Tatchell trying to get cheap credibility for his cause by tactically glueing his case to racism (just listen to his arguments in all his speeches). And the Tony Blair government doing the same by putting racism and anti-gay cases under "HATE CRIMES". It is really, really irritating.

What next?Paedophiles (and their supporters) would be comparing their right for acceptance with that of Black people?

Hello “The Oracle”,In a previous entry you characterised gays and cross dressers as “abnormal”, several times, but I think you really consider them to be “undesirables”, and that this word can be substituted in your writing with little change in meaning. You are quick to admit that you are “not accepting of homosexuality” and, clearly, you rank cross dressers a notch below gays – presumably, even if they happen to be straight. Of course being gay has helped me develop empathy towards others who have been (and still are) discriminated against. It’s not, as you imply, just a cynical strategy employed to bolster my “argument of acceptance”. I don’t need to bolster my arguement for acceptance. I feel very accepted already, practically mainsteam, thank you very much!And I’m not arguing for the hiring of cross dressers for novelty value. You have entirely misinterpreted my statement. I wrote that as my personal opinion, and to lighten things up a bit, followed by the letters “Lol” (that stands for – Laugh out loud). Duh!I think it’s good you’d feel bad about judging a gay person’s performance in a non-objective manner and that you’d rather be fair (if that’s really true). Bravo! That’s all anybody could every reasonably expect of you. But I disagree that this makes you special, as implied. I think most people feel that fairness is preferable to prejudice.I agree that unfortunately, at this point in time, a firm might not be in a position to send a cross dresser to just any client’s site. That’s why I suggested Nick seek a consultancy environment where people are likely to be a bit more open minded (e.g. ahead of the times). A lot of firms these days are touting their “green” credentials and wanting to show how enlightened they are by hiring a diverse work force. Has it ever occured to you that having a very intelligent and capable worker on board who – oh yeah, happens to be a cross dresser – might actually be good for a firm’s reputation? If I were a racial or religious minority, or an ultra-liberal, as you put it, I’d want a firm like that working for me. And, as I wrote before – many of us “abnormal” “homosexuals” are working as decisionmakers at the highest levels in business. Ching-ching to that, mate.

Hello mahatmacoat,Your arguement that discrimination against blacks is somehow a special kind of discrimination that is somehow different from discrimination against others (e.g. gays), and therefore is presumably worse, more serious, etc... is ridiculous.I have no more control over my sexual preference than you have control over the colour of your skin. (Unless you’re Michael Jackson – granted!) lolI have every bit as much a right to protection under the law as you do. And any grievence I have against the prospect of being discriminated against, based on my sexual preference, is every bit as legit as yours.Furthermore, classifying “homosexuality, transexuality, nudity” in with necrophilia, just makes you sound ignorant - and a bit of a bigot yourself, I would add.

Erm, I think you might be thinking of someone else's post. Nothing that you have said remotely resembles my "arguement" (sic)

Oh, now I see you thought The Oracle was called mahatmacoat because he began his message with my name. Easy mistake I guess.While we're on the subject of The Oracle, let me congratulate him for successfully tearing down an all too common misconception: That black people are life's victims, constantly on the receiving end of prejudice, usually from the dreaded white man. As Oracle has clearly demonstrated, black people are just as capable of being ignorant, bigoted and downright unpleasant to their fellow human beings as people of any other colour. Now, can we white people finally stop feeling so guilty about our past? After all, the black tribes and the arabs were busy enslaving each other way before the white man showed up, and then it took the white man to finally put an end to it.

As a gay man I'd have to say that I've never been convinced by anyone who claims to know why homosexuality develops in certain individuals. Was it genetic, my childhood environment or some decision I made somewhere along the way? I can appreciate that The Oracle (modest name) wants to emphasise the differences that people of deifferent minorities face (and I think Peter Tatchell is obnoxious), but to just lump everything non-heterosexual into a class of deviancies which are then defined as "by preference" is ridiculous. Some foods you like some you don't - those that you do is not some reflection on your moral being (what is morally wrong with two people of the same gender, adult and consenting entering into a relationship?). Homosexuality occurs in nature - so isn't unnatural (although obviously isn't part of the reproductive chain) and some of the greatest humans ever (Plato, Leonardo, Wittgenstien) were gay- so you make yourself look like a bit of a prick when you speak as if you are some authority and judge on these issues. Basically, in todays world you should be accepting and respectful of others. As to the original poster, I work in a large MC which strongly promotes diversity- however if a transvestite worked here I think that by and large people would be happy just as long as they did a good job, and I think that when they were not around there would be quite a lot of sniggering and jokes cracked at their expense. However, in the past 10 years gay people have been given a less unfair place in society and there is good reason to think that this will continue- even the Tories nowadays try to boast gay-rights credentials. Good luck in your employment life- be strong, stay true to yourself and don't take crap from anyone.

Yes, my mistake mahatmacoat. Sorry to have addressed my "arguement" to you. ;-)It didn't occur to me that the same person would write three posts in a row - each a bit further off the rails than the last! lolMark - well put. And I know there are jokes about gays sometimes at work and, as an openly gay guy, I love to join in, and often at my own expense. People appreciate it when you can laugh at yourself and not be too thin skinned. The only gay joke that would ever bother me would be one where the person had a serious and mean spirited desire to really put gays (or me) down. This has never happened to me before though.

Good points, The Oracle.

To those that claim 5 minutes distraction, I wonder if they would only be distracted for 5 minutes it the person was a known peadophile becuase the quality of peados work is of high standards.

What a bunch of freaks!Get on with some work.

Stop reviving threads which are a year old and were pants in the first place! Just let them slide into obscurity.