I think my disastrous ex-employee is co-opting queer identity

by Alison Green on January 8, 2025

A reader writes:

I work in a country with strong job protection, have a boss who is reluctant to do performance improvement, and I just transitioned out of managing a team. One of my reports was a recent-ish hire I’ll call Pam, who is mid-career but entry-level. Pam volunteers for an optional LBGTQ+ employee resource group. She originally joined the group at my suggestion, as a straight ally. (Pam described herself as straight woman with a husband and said she was worried about being seen as homophobic because she is originally from a non-LBGTQ-friendly country.) Pam is now the group lead for our region, which is unusual for an entry-level employee. I accidentally found out that Pam is describing herself as gay/bi/queer, out only to folks associated with the resource group.

I am skeptical. I think Pam is straight and exploiting the group … and I’m unsure what my responsibility (if any) is here, as an employee and as a human being. I also think I could be wrong, and I know Pam is a landmine. Knowing the landmine part, though, I feel uneasy for folks in the group, none of whom I know particularly well.

Here’s why I think Pam isn’t being truthful. In her short time with our company, she has consistently demonstrated misplaced ambition, attention-seeking, and moral challenges. Pam believes that just spending time around higher-ups will get her promoted, even after being repeatedly told to deliver on her work commitments first. The LBGTQ+ group provides her face time with directors. Pam also craves attention to a disruptive degree: she has DM’d and called busy senior managers 20+ times a day about trivial or non work-related matters and created drama by inventing crises, then casting herself as the heroine. Coming out to coworkers she barely knows and swearing them to secrecy … could be true, but sounds a lot like another “Pam Show” episode. Lastly, Pam has not shown good ethics in the rest of her work. She refuses to do tasks or sabotages them because they are “not important” enough, actively hides her lack of understanding and progress, and disregards instructions. She repeatedly makes careless mistakes, blames others, and breathlessly chases execs like they’re pop stars while disdaining to speak to anyone below senior IC level (i.e., almost everyone who she needs to interact with and learn from). She gets in a spooky rage when spoken to about these problems, brags about how attractive she thinks she is, and tells outright lies that have affected my relationship with my manager.

All in all, Pam is not skilled or productive or pleasant to be around and if it weren’t for the labor law protection, I would have fired her outright. So I feel conflicted about her representing an employee group of any kind, even without suspicion of pretense. Pam is a big reason I asked to return to independent contributor status. I think she’s kind of off her rocker and poses a risk, and was not comfortable managing her when I’m not empowered to mete out consequences. By risk, I don’t mean physically dangerous, but her behavior has been so outside workplace norms that I wouldn’t trust sensitive data or anyone’s reputations and careers around her.

I have no one at work I can discuss this with. Do I continue to keep my concerns to myself?

Leave it alone. You might be right that Pam is straight and pretending not to be in order to gain some form of advantage with people in the LBGTQ group, but it’s also possible that she’s not. It’s not uncommon for someone to describe themselves as straight to one group of people, while being out in another group where they feel safer, or to have their identity genuinely evolve over time. Either way, it’s not something you should get into investigating or opining on. The potential harm if Pam is faking it is vastly outweighed by the messiness and harm of trying to police what sexual orientation people claim (particularly at work).

Also, there are much, much bigger issues with Pam! If you were still her manager, my advice would be to tackle those issues very assertively; refusing to do work and sabotaging projects, repeated mistakes, refusing to follow instructions, creating fake crises, interrupting senior managers, and fits of all rage would all be more than enough to focus on without worrying about how she’s identifying to the LBGTQ group, and are all squarely within her manager’s purview.

None of that is yours to address anymore since you’re not her manager (although I hope you fully filled in whoever is now her boss about those problems — and if Pam continues to cause issues for your work in your new role, you should raise that to her boss). But you can comfortably put her participation in the LBGTQ group or anything she says about her sexual orientation in the “not my business” column too.

You may also like:
{ 249 comments }

{ 249 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. AnonAnonSir!*

    All the issues with Pam might well be true (and should be dealt with if they are regardless of her identity) but as someone who is both bi and on the asexual spectrum you should NOT be policing her orientation. A significant portion of the queer community who aren’t straight up gay or lesbian get far too many people policing us about whether we’re ‘queer enough’ as it is.

    Reply ↓
    1. The Cosmic Avenger*

      This. Pam is the only one who gets to determine her sexual orientation/identity, and besides, whether she’s lying or not, aaaall those other, bigger issues the OP mentioned can and should be dealt with without regard to whether she is telling the truth about this one thing that only she can truly know is true or not.

      Reply ↓
    2. AnonAnonSir!*

      ETA: And that’s not even mentioning the possibility that maybe Pam ID’d as a straight ally when she joined, but spending time in a queer group has led to her discovering new things about her sexuality! Now this might not be the case, but once again, discounting the possibility outright is incredibly harmful.

      In general, while Pam might be a ‘mare in other ways (and this may well be informing your approach), I think there’s a danger here of your treating queer identities as something of an unchanging monolith. This is something that does a *lot* of damage to queer people overall, and I’d very gently suggest to avoid this line of thinking – particularly if you yourself are wanting to be a straight ally.

      Reply ↓
      1. Aerin*

        For me the line was
        I’m straight > but I do like looking at attractive women > I mean no one’s entirely straight, right? > man, I really identify with a lot of these tumblr posts about bisexuality > and it seems like most of my friends here are actually bi > oh > ohhhhhh

        I think there used to be a much stronger idea that bisexual meant strictly 50/50, and the lack of decent representation in media has never really helped. So being around others in the community can definitely help you redefine your own labels.

        Reply ↓
        1. The valeyard*

          This is almost exactly my experience. I’ve been married to someone opposite gender/sex for twenty years and only recently went wait, I guess all those things mean I’m bi. Now I’m struggling to convince myself being bi even matters given that it’s theoretical – I have zero plans of changing my monogamous man/woman marriage.

          Reply ↓
          1. Turquoisecow*

            I’ve known I was bi since college but despite having had sexual adventures with women I hesitate to identify that way because being married to a man for almost ten years (and having a kid) makes me feel like I’m not queer enough, especially since I’m not out to most of the world.

            Not saying that’s Pam’s thing or whatever but we don’t need people policing identities. Pam is an issue for many other reasons.

            Reply ↓
            1. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

              Here to say that being a little bit bi still counts as bi, if you want to say that that little bit is important to you! Insinuating that people “aren’t bi enough to count” is a really common form of bi erasure. In all the bi spaces I’m familiar with, monogamous other-gender-partnered people are 100% welcome.

              I’ll put a link in a following comment for Bi+ Nederland & Robyn Ochs, who have been running some online things recently.

              Reply ↓
          2. metadata minion*

            I saw a button a while back that said “I’m in a monogamous relationship, but I still drool both ways”. And yes! It’s hard to be “visibly” bi unless you’re also poly (and even then, what if both/all your partners happen to be the same gender, or you can’t be out about them?). I’m just as bi regardless of whom I’m in a relationship with, and would be just as bi if I were single. It’s occasionally a funny bonding opportunity with my partner, a straight guy, when we both crush on the same character on a tv show or whatever.

            Reply ↓
            1. SimonTheGreyWarden*

              This. I’m married to a cis het man, but I’m both asexual and agender. I’m female coded, and I have a biological son. There are times I feel like I have to “prove” that I’m ace given the whole marriage-and-child thing, but I was ace when I met him and I’ll be ace for as long as we’re married…and beyond.

              Reply ↓
      2. Irish Teacher.*

        Or that she was wary about coming out and claimed to want to join as a straight ally because she wanted the community but wasn’t yet ready to explain why.

        Reply ↓
      3. kalli*

        Plus coming from a non-2SLGBTQIA+ country, it can take a while to feel safe to put words on things and say them, even if you don’t also have to learn the words!!

        There’s enough else going on that bringing it up also risks LW’s concerns being dismissed and not kindly or in a way that they retain their reputation.

        Reply ↓
      4. Quill*

        Yes, this. I’m aroace and very, very tired of people questioning whether I “belong” in queer spaces. I know bi people who are already monogamous with a partner who makes them “look” straight get the same thing.

        Being available for other members to date should not be a prerequisite for these groups! And yet it seems like many people in them subconsciously feel that it is.

        Reply ↓
      5. Quoth the Raven*

        I’ve always known I’m bisexual and have identified as such since I was 15, but it wasn’t until I got more involved with the community, in particular after I became friends with people who are transgender, that I figured out I’m not really cis either (I identify as bigender now). This didn’t happen until my mid/late 30’s.

        Reply ↓
      1. DataGirl*

        Yeah this. I (cis woman) was married to a cis man for 20 years, and miserable the whole time. After divorce I started questioning my sexuality and am now married to a woman and identify as a lesbian. Many non-queer people (and frankly, some queer ones) really can’t understand this but they are completely ignoring that those of us who were born in the previous millennium that compulsory heterosexuality and intense social/religious abuse meant that many of us didn’t have the option to question our sexuality until late into adulthood.

        For me, I am not out at work for a few reasons, primarily that there are people there who could make my life harder if they knew. I know that Pam originally introduced herself as straight, but I’m sure that’s what everyone at my work (with the exception of a few safe people) assumes about me too. Just trying to say that the situation could be a lot more complicated than you think.

        Reply ↓
    4. FrivYeti*

      On top of the ongoing policing issues, it is entirely possible that a married woman from a homophobic environment who is worried about what the queer community will think of her did not *know* that she was queer initially, and discovered this fact when finally able to spend time with others who were queer. Her expectations of what you “had” to be to be queer may have themselves been out of whack, and having come to that realization, she may still be working on how to broach the subject with her husband, who is presumably from the same environment and may have his own assumptions and baggage about what it means to have a queer spouse.

      Definitely leave that side of things alone and focus on the many actual problems.

      Reply ↓
    5. Chirpy*

      This. Her work issues absolutely need to be addressed, but her orientation and presentation of orientation are not the issue. Many LGBTQ+ people may be in “straight passing” relationships or not fully out, for many reasons, and they don’t need to prove they’re “queer enough” to count.

      Reply ↓
    6. Tio*

      It also doesn’t really matter if she’s lying or not, anyway. If she were lying and otherwise a great employee, you probably wouldn’t have noticed or cared that much if you did. Pam’s behavior both in her regular job and probably eventually in the group will always be the real problem, whether she’s lying or telling the truth! So just believe she’s telling the truth because it doesn’t matter and doesn’t actually cause harm to anyone the way her actual behavior will.

      Reply ↓
    7. Not on board*

      Yeah, honestly, the LBGTQ aspect of this is a red herring. And trying to figure out wether Pam is faking or really queer, bi, etc. isn’t your problem and isn’t appropriate.

      The rest of the issues are the problem. Compile a list of issues with her work and disruptive behaviour with examples and present it to her boss as a heads up. Then let it go unless you actively run into a situation with Pam.

      Reply ↓
    8. Venus*

      As someone LGBTQ+ I’d appreciate knowing that Pam is a big problem and that she would be a bad representative of my group. I’d worry that senior managers might assume someone LGBTQ+ is more likely to call them 20 times a day and create crises, because humans have a bad habit of associating behaviors to a group even if they have only met a few of them.

      Yet in this case it sounds like Pam is a much bigger problem outside of the LGBTQ+ aspect, so I wouldn’t worry about it, and I wouldn’t tell anyone from the LGBTQ+ group as it sounds like Pam is already a known problem (though if it’s not well known then I’d be tempted to mention it quietly to someone I trust in the group). Plus, if she is telling the wider community that she’s a straight ally then that would make me feel better as her bad choices won’t reflect on me as much.

      Reply ↓
      1. wordswords*

        Agreed. I think a heads-up is warranted if internal politics and relationships allow you to give one, OP, but I mean a heads-up specifically on the work-related issues. All of the problems of Pam as a representative are true no matter what her queer identities are or aren’t; speculating on that queer identity, even if you’re right in your suspicions, isn’t going to reflect well on you, and will distract and detract from your legitimate concerns. She could be genuinely going on a sexuality and/or gender journey that you know nothing about, and still be a terrible coworker and terrible group lead and terrible representative!

        Reply ↓
    9. Lady Danbury*

      I have several female friends who are bi and married to men. I know that they were out socially and to their romantic partners, but I have no idea how they present at work. It’s not any of my business or anyone else’s, just as Pam’s identity isn’t the OP’s business. Given how toxic Pam is, other people already know or will find out on their own that they should be wary of her for reasons that have nothing to do with how she identifies.

      Reply ↓
      1. T.N.H*

        This is me. My manager would have no idea that I’m bi because it just doesn’t come up. But if I joined the LGBTQ+ group at work I would definitely tell them since it’s extremely relevant in context.

        Reply ↓
        1. The valeyard*

          Me as well, and we are about to launch a LGBTQ+ ERG. It’s never come up at work because everyone knows I’m in a long term straight relationship… but I happen to be bi.

          Going to be interesting when I not only show up for that but also offer to be the sponsor. Which I want to do since I’m the only one in senior management who identifies as non-straight, unless someone else like me is out there. But I’m ready for that.

          Reply ↓
    10. sulky-anne*

      Agreed, but I am concerned about the other members of the group. Pam doesn’t sound like a trustworthy person in general, and people could be sharing fairly sensitive personal information within the group. I don’t know if there is a great way for the LW to give others a heads up about Pam’s past behavior, but I feel uneasy about her being in charge of an affinity group.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dark Macadamia*

        This was my thought too… and it sounds like LW referred her to the group but isn’t actually involved in it? That’s fine if it’s like “I’m worried people will think I’m homophobic” “oh you should ask the LGBT group for ideas on how to be a good ally!” and she got way more involved on her own, but they phrase it as suggesting she JOIN despite having a lot of concerns about her.

        Also though, it seems unlikely an established group would just get fully taken over by a new member without anyone else’s input, so it’s not like they need to be “saved” from her or anything. Presumably they have seen how she acts and chose to put her in a leadership role.

        Reply ↓
        1. Tio*

          I mean, it’s possible that Pam joined this group before it was really understood that she was just a general problem, but also, if an employee comes to you and asks about joining a group as an ally… You can’t really lie and say “No, there’s no group” or “I don’t think you should join that group” without really getting into the issues of why. If LW was Pam’s manager at the time, maybe she would have had standing to address the behavior and advise that it might not be taken well… but that would be true of any committee Pam joined because it’s not behavior specific to the fact the group is LGBT+. And it sounds like LW either wasn’t allowed to properly manage them or was already addressing the concerns as much as they could at the time without it needing to be specific to the group.

          Reply ↓
      2. AnonAnonSir!*

        I mean, yes, but the point is that whether she’s an untrustworthy person has no relation to whether she’s queer or not. It’s two separate issues (one of which – Pam’s orientation – is very much a non-issue) and by conflating the two, OP risks doing genuine damage.

        Reply ↓
    11. Jules the 3rd*

      Yeah, this, which means the advice for OP is totally right: stay out of the LGBTQx aspect.

      I’m about a 2 on the Kinsey scale (have dated women but slightly prefer men) – is that ‘bi enough’? It wasn’t back in the 80s/90s, before I got a long-term partner, but I did / do spend a lot of time in queer spaces as an ally. The LGBTQx group will figure out whether she’s helpful or not, and give her roles / access based on their perception of her competence, not her sexuality. It will work out.

      Reply ↓
    12. ArtsNerd*

      I knew someone who IDed at straight/cis in a mixed queer/ally group. For pronouns she started saying “any are fine!” in a way that rubbed me the wrong way, as though she didn’t totally clock why respecting pronouns is important for cis people as well as trans/nb people. I kept my mouth shut, though.

      Turns out, they were in the process of re-evaulating their gender identity and what looked to me like a cheerful missing the point was, in fact, testing their own comfort with other pronouns and starting the process of coming out. (Now uses she/they).

      Reply ↓
      2. dackquiri*

        That’s the funny thing about pronouns. Even when I’ve met people who had pronouns I didn’t expect to see for their gender identity… that pronoun’s gotta be affirming something for them. Maybe it’ll help them figure something out, or maybe that’s all they need for now.

        Reply ↓
    13. colorguard*

      This. As somebody who’s demi and heteroromantic, I do consider myself part of the LGBTQ community but if I joined my company’s ERG would appear to be a straight ally unless I specifically went around telling people about my orientation. The work issues are terrible and maybe it’s worth warning somebody in the group about those if LW can have a quiet word with somebody they know in the group, but policing her orientation is a big overstep.

      Reply ↓
    14. Reality.Bites*

      I think that if there’s any reason for the committee to question Pam’s good faith participation, one or more members will find it without any help from OP. And whether or not her participation is in good faith is an entirely separate thing from her sexual orientation anyway.

      I think the same pretty much applies to the rest of Pam’s work as well. OP doesn’t truly possess any information or insight that everyone else at the workplace has. Pam’s not their problem to solve.

      Reply ↓
    16. Dogwoodblossom*

      In college I was very active in our campus queer group and I would say probably 85% of the people who attended that group identified as “straight allies.” Now, 20 years later, they’ve all come out as some flavor of queer or another. It’s so so common for somebody to start dipping their toes into queer community as an ally and then come out later that I think it’s a real problem when people suggest allies not be allowed in queer spaces or that someone is only being an ally performatively. Do performative allies who fake being accepting for kudos exist? Absolutely they do, but they are a tiny minority compared to people who are drawn to queer spaces for reasons they don’t understand and then call themselves allies until they *do* understand the reason that they identify so closely with all these queer folk.

      Reply ↓
      1. AnonAnonSir!*

        Hell, I would also say that good straight allies are wonderful to have in queer groups like this. Aside from needing their support (particularly in today’s climate), straight folk seeing and experiencing other ways of existence beyond the standard heteronormative existence and broadening their understanding can only be a good thing.

        Reply ↓
    17. iglwif*

      THIS THIS THIS. (Bi woman married to a dude here.)

      The LW describes a whole long list of Pam Issues that a manager needs to deal with. Her sexuality and her statements about it are *NOT* on that list.

      Reply ↓
  2. Barefoot Librarian*

    This is the perfect answer. Her issues as an employee are fair game, questioning her sexual orientation or identity are not. If you asked the vast majority of people I’ve worked with over the years what my status was they’d answer cisgender-straight-monogamous. I’m bisexual, demisexual, and polyamorous — I usually just say “queer”. It’s just not anyone’s business, and I don’t want it to define me at work, so I keep that to myself and trusted people whom I associate with outside of work.

    Focus on the concrete issues with her performance if you must make waves, but leave this one alone.

    Reply ↓
    1. a clockwork lemon*

      Exactly this! My husband and I are both bisexual. My husband does not work in an environment where he’s interested in discussing his sexuality beyond the common knowledge that he is married to me (a cis woman), so in his workplace we are both generally understood to be a Straight Ally™.

      My own office is ultra queer-friendly but it just doesn’t come up that much. I would much rather talk about last night’s football game than have a discussion on queer theory or politics with my colleagues and NONE of us is in the habit of talking about the hot dates we’re picking up on apps.

      We’re not ashamed of our sexualities and none of this is a secret, but it’s also a part of our personal lives we don’t care to discuss at work because it’s personal!

      Reply ↓
      1. metadata minion*

        My personal metaphor is that to me, people knowing I’m bi is like them knowing I like pancakes. It’s true, I don’t make a secret of it, I don’t *mind* if a coworker knows…but unless someone is going to make me breakfast, it’s very rarely relevant to the situation.

        Reply ↓
    2. M*

      Also, frankly, it being on the record that Pam’s former manager thinks she may be faking her identity is not evidence you want coming out in a wrongful termination suit. If – as it sounds like – Pam is a problem and needs to be managed out, you want a very clean record of the things that are substantive problems with her work and conduct, not speculative gossip muddying the water.

      Reply ↓
      1. Devious Planner*

        Exactly this. Right now, you have a clear case for why you don’t want to work with her: she’s not good at her job. If you start investigating her sexual orientation, regardless of whether you turn out to be correct (and how would you ever find out?), you’ve introduced discrimination into the discussion and have actually made your own situation much harder.

        Reply ↓
      2. Festively Dressed Earl*

        You hit the pragmatic nail on the head. (Alison and the other commenters have already covered the ethical nails.) Mixing speculation about sexual orientation with concrete concerns about workplace behavior only gives Pam an opening to dismiss the substantive problems. Her sexual orientation has nothing to do with the laundry list of real issues. If someone asks for an honest opinion of Pam because they’re thinking of giving her more responsibility or they’re wanting to corroborate their own concerns or because they want your take on her as a human since they’ve always wondered what it would be like to date a trainwreck, then by all means share your other thoughts.

        Reply ↓
  3. Viki*

    Work behaviour is something you can deal with. Everything else, is not your buisness

    People can be out in different areas of their life, but also, people can realize later in life that they might not be straight.

    Reply ↓
    1. londonedit*

      Definitely. Neither we nor the OP have any business trying to speculate on Pam’s sexuality. It’s possible she ‘described herself as a straight woman with a husband’ initially because she wasn’t sure of the lay of the land when she started at the company. That’s a very common thing for people to do. Did she actually ‘describe herself as a straight woman’, or did the OP infer that from ‘has a husband’? Or has joining the LGBTQ+ group led her to re-examine her own orientation? We don’t know, the OP doesn’t know, and it doesn’t matter. If she causes problems within the group, it’s for the group to deal with.

      Reply ↓
    2. alice*

      exactly. i’m a bi woman married to a cishet man, and i didn’t realize until i was 22 that i’m bi. until then, i would’ve described myself as a straight ally as well. that’s the path a lot of queer people take on their way to discovering their sexuality/gender, and the rest of pam’s behavior has nothing to do with her sexuality.

      Reply ↓
  4. CityMouse*

    Raising “I don’t think she’s LGBT” won’t reflect well on you if you try to contact the organization. She doesn’t work for you anymore and you need to let this go.

    Reply ↓
    1. Double A*

      Also, if the LW is seen as focusing on that issue, it could undermine them when they need to bring up work-related issues. It’s honestly kind of bizarre that this is the thing they are thinking they might need to address first, when they pointedly did not deal with other damaging and actionable things that Pam has done.

      Reply ↓
    2. boof*

      Honestly I think the concern I would have is not that she is /faking/ but that she is /exploiting/ an already vulnerable group. But I’ll agree unless you are a member of said vulnerable group best to focus on all the other obvious disasters here.

      Reply ↓
      1. Niles 'the coyote' Crane*

        Even if you’re a member of that community, the response isn’t to police Pam’s identity, it should be to focus on any harmful behaviours.

        Reply ↓
        1. boof*

          No I do agree the focus shouldn’t be “is or isn’t pam queer” though I’ll be generous and interpret that maybe what is really disquieting the OP is the idea that Pam is abusing a group OP recommended they involve themself with as an ally – not that OP just loves genderpolicing their ex reports

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            I completely believe that OP has good intentions and is concerned about the damage this ex-report will do to this group. It is very possible that Pam is lying about her sexual orientation in pursuit of power/facetime with higher-ups.

            Nevertheless, the OP cannot try to investigate if Pam is lying about her sexual orientation without doing far more damage to the LGBTQ people at their company than Pam could.

            Reply ↓
          2. Silver Robin*

            100% I think OP is concerned that they hold some responsibility for having sent Pam in that direction if Pam creates some kind of disaster there. Having been the person who suggested it, they feel like they have some responsibility to mitigate the harm they think Pam will inevitably (perhaps is currently) causing as a result of that suggestion.

            Those are generally feelings born of being a kind and conscientious person, but they are misplaced here. Nobody reasonable would hold OP responsible for Pam’s chaos regarding that group. OP should focus on what they have standing to do, which is bring up work issues, not go to a group they barely know to warn them about a gut feeling, no matter how worried they are about it.

            Reply ↓
            1. boof*

              Yes I agree, and I think emphasizing that the group is made up of capable adults who can decide for themselves what to make of it especially if pam is as obviously about being manipulative as OP implies will hopefully help – OP you’ve done your part to escape being further responsible for Pam and report her behavior to anyone with actual authority to manage her out / start the (onerous) termination process – you can be done here.

              Reply ↓
  5. A Book about Metals*

    Agree with the advice – stay out of it completely, not your concern. Policing someone’s identity like this will end disastrously

    Reply ↓
    1. JB (not in Houston)*

      Yes, there are certainly people out there who would co-opt a marginalized identity if it got them positive attention and they were safe to do so . . . but those people really aren’t that common given how many downsides come with it.

      Someone who tells some people they’re straight and comes out to others is far, far, far more likely to be someone who is queer but don’t/didn’t feel safe to be out at first or out everywhere. I can see why the OP worries about the harm this person poses to others in the LBGTQ+ employee group, but she’s just not in a position to do anything about her suspicions. She just needs to stay out of it.

      Reply ↓
      1. JB (not in Houston)*

        Should have added–it sounds like Pam can do damage to the others in group even if she is queer (based on the “her behavior has been so outside workplace norms that I wouldn’t trust sensitive data or anyone’s reputations and careers around her” comment), so it doesn’t really matter if Pam is queer or not. So there’s no reason for the OP to even be speculating about it, because it doesn’t change anything one way or the other.

        Reply ↓
        1. Observer*

          it sounds like Pam can do damage to the others in group even if she is queer

          And

          so it doesn’t really matter if Pam is queer or not.

          are exactly right.

          The only ones who might have any standing to ask about her actual orientation would be other members of the group.

          Reply ↓
          1. Elsewise*

            I would argue that they don’t either! If you have someone in a queer resource group who is damaging to others, the question isn’t “are they secretly straight”, it’s “what standards of behavior do we set for our members and how do we remove someone who isn’t adhering to those?” And, as a queer person, that comes up A LOT. Anytime you’re in community with people who share a similarity that isn’t “not an asshole,” you’re going to get some assholes.

            Reply ↓
            2. Packaged Frozen Lemon Zest*

              100 percent agree. That’s the great thing about identity, we get to identify ourselves and it’s not up to others (whether they share my identity or not) to police whether we’re doing it right. I can’t think of an example where someone external to me would be more qualified to determine my own sexual identity than I am.

              Reply ↓
            3. MigraineMonth*

              Oh man, can I join your “not an asshole” community, please? I swear I’m not one! (Most of the time, at least…)

              Reply ↓
            4. physics lab*

              I agree!

              And even in cases where a person might (but maybe not and who can even know) co-opt a marginalized identity to get positive attention that would be so out of pocket we can assume that there is usually other problematic behavior happening, and the question “are they secretly straight” is a red herring.

              Reply ↓
      2. Pierrot*

        Yeah, in the racial justice context, I can think of examples where white people pretended to be people of color and received grants and awards that were specifically intended for people of color or people from the culture that they were co-opting (Dolezal is definitely the most famous example). Race and ethnicity are different from gender and sexuality; while these categories are social constructs that have changed over time and there’s a lot of debate and theory, it is less of a self determined thing than a persons gender identity and sexual orientation. I don’t want to say that it’s objective because that is not quite true, but there were ways to determine that Dolezal was lying beyond just vibes.

        Reply ↓
        2. JB (not in Houston)*

          I was thinking of Dolezal and a few others. It doesn’t happen *that* often because it’s not usually advantageous to be part of a marginalized group–usually it’s the opposite, hence the “marginalized” part. But sadly, the number isn’t zero.

          Reply ↓
          1. Nobby Nobbs*

            Yeah, wasn’t there a guy at Marvel who pretended to be Asian for years just so he could claim to be the expert when anyone tried to point out that his writing was Orientalist garbage? The contexts where pretending to be more marginalized than you benefits you more than it hurts are so so specific and the people who do it usually cause so many other problems that I don’t feel like it’s something we have to be on the lookout for.

            Reply ↓
  6. ThatGirl*

    I’m part of our LGBTQ ERG, and yeah, Alison has good advice here. Her identity is not up to you to police and not really relevant to the issues at hand. People will see her for who she is as an employee regardless of how she identifies.

    Reply ↓
  7. JR*

    I really like that Allison pointed out that Pam’s identity isn’t relevant to the actual problem. After going through the 00s where being queer was associated with being obnoxious, disrespectful and bad – and then the 10s where being queer absolved you of all sorts of bad behavior – I really do appreciate appreciate it’s so normal now that you can be treated normally.

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      Agreed. There is a laundry list of her role fails: not doing tasks, sabotaging work. There is list of work fails: ignoring her peers, pestering C level execs, the spooky rage.
      The “she even joined and took over leadership of the LGBTQ+ organization and claims to be queer after telling me she was straight,” is not even in the top 25 issues.

      Reply ↓
    2. I should really pick a name*

      the 10s where being queer absolved you of all sorts of bad behavior

      Not sure what world you were living in where this was true.

      Reply ↓
      1. Banana Pyjamas*

        Chicagoland was very much this way, even at my very Catholic college; I’m sure that wasn’t isolated.

        Reply ↓
      2. K in Boston*

        Not necessarily agreeing with JR, but this made me think of someone of whom I was very fond, who has since passed, who would tell people in his small office where he was the only gay person, that gay people traditionally get off the month of June (Pride Month). He’d just take off June and no one would question it. I mean, I’m sure people doubted him at their core, but as an individual he was just the kind of guy you’d let get away with it. Sure, take off the whole month of June, why not. I miss him greatly. Thank you for the reminder of my old pal.

        Reply ↓
      3. JR*

        So, what I was referring to was more of a general social attitude – your mileage varried by person, community and action. I was in urban areas in the US for most of the 10s, in college then in an office job. There were some times that people I knew would get away with making others uncomfortable because they were queer, and the other party felt they had to treat these situations differently.

        In media, you can see the wax and wane of the “gay best friend” trope, and an increased celebration of more obnoxious stereotypical gay habits, overt sexuality in inappropriate places, etc.

        To be fair, I think we did need to go through the “out, loud and proud” phase at an obnoxious level, to purge the 00s attitude. But I’m glad we’re mostly through it and onto the stage of “good for you, you still have to behave”.

        Reply ↓
  8. Catgirl*

    Great advice as always! I’ve known people like Pam and it sounds like she is faking, but you can’t prove it and it’s the least of her problems so ignore it. (Also I’d watch for Pam claiming to be disabled &/or neurodivergent, which, same advice would apply.) There’s nothing to be gained by trying to prove she’s lying & it would only potentially harm actual marginalized people. You’re not the queer police and, if I’m reading your letter correctly, not her manager anymore either. And this is coming from someone who is also queer but has only disclosed at work to our DEI committee.

    Reply ↓
    1. MK*

      I think the “you can’t prove it” part is very important too. Let’s say OP brings it up to Pam’s boss or the resource group; then what? There isn’t really a way for anyone to look into this, except confronting Pam, who can and will easily deny lying. where do you go from there?

      Reply ↓
      2. Nobby Nobbs*

        Building on that, if OP sets off a drama bomb by accusing Pam of something unprovable it could make things a lot harder if the LGBTQ group eventually wants to oust her for bad behavior. Someone like that isn’t going to go quietly. Why do the work of painting Pam as the persecuted victim for her?

        Reply ↓
    2. logicbutton*

      Honestly I wouldn’t even bother speculating about Pam; it’s not that there are definitely zero people anywhere lying about their sexual orientation or that Pam is definitely not among them, but enough queer people have traumatic experience involving other people judging them to be “fakers” that it can be a stressor or even a trigger to see someone else being judged as one. Given that there’s nothing to be gained from proving that someone is faking their identity even if that were possible, it’s all risk and no reward.

      Reply ↓
  9. Mouse named Anon*

    Agreed to let it go. Are you sure she doesn’t have a child, sibling or close friend/family that is LGBTQ? My oldest child is trans and I have considered either joining/ a ERG at our location as a parent. . I am in many local parent groups (PFLAG and a Trans Kids Parent) and really love having that connection to people.

    Reply ↓
      1. Hiring Manager (they/them)*

        That’s not really fair. In my experience, ERGs are usually very happy to have allies that are actually *connected* to the group vs just “because”. Not that “Just Because Allies” are bad – just that if you have a loved one with specific day to day experiences, you’re more likely to be willing to speak up, advocate and do “the work”. Obviously this is not true for everyone and will depend on the ERG and the identity group and their charter and needs. But parents of trans kids are actually *very* relevant in a workplace employee resource group. As a trans person, some of the best cis allies I’ve had in the workplace were parents of trans kids.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nightengale*

          yes and this is how we have workplace disability ERGs overrun with parents of children with disabilities talking over actual disabled employees

          I know queer identity and disability aren’t the same
          but I am having a lot of feelings about centering relatives in a group focused on people with marginalized identities

          Reply ↓
      2. physics lab*

        Let’s say, hypothetically, a child’s gender transition was not covered by the health plan (in a US context), that would be a very real, actionable issue for an ERG to tackle that would also help employees.

        Reply ↓
      4. iglwif*

        Disagree, sorry.

        (1) Depending on where you live, an LGBTQ+ ERG at work might be your best available way to connect with that community as part of supporting your LGBTQ+ child/relative/whatever.

        (2) Unfortunately there are things that cishet folks will hear more easily from other cishet folks than from an LGBTQ+ person, so from a pragmatic perspective can be very useful to have some of those folks in your ERG.

        (3) I have known more than one person who came out later in life and whose self-realization was triggered by conversations with someone (child, spouse, other relative, friend) who came out to them first.

        Reply ↓
      5. Mom of enby*

        As the (cishet) mom of a non-binary child and a member of our LGBTQ+ ERG, I think it’s absolutely relevant. Part of how I want my workplace to be is based on the kind of workplace that I want my child to have.

        Reply ↓
      6. epizeugma*

        Some of the ways in which having a trans kid could be relevant and a cis straight parent could benefit from/contribute to an LGBTQ+ ERG:
        – Advocating for better coverage of gender-affirming medical care through the employer’s health insurance
        – Advocating for the employer to offer a relocation benefit for employees with children whose healthcare has been outlawed in their current state of residence (this is a benefit some large companies in the U.S. have quietly started offering in the last year or two)
        – Networking/support from other parents of trans kids at the employer
        – Receiving advice and resources from trans adults in the ERG

        I personally think any ally can and should join an LGBTQ+ ERG even if they don’t have a close family member or loved one who is LGBTQ+. But having an LGBTQ+ family member/loved one can *absolutely* be relevant or even just known in a workplace context. Employees shouldn’t have to hide the existence of their LGBTQ+ family/loved ones at work.

        Reply ↓
  10. jef*

    Yeah, it sounds like there are plenty of issues that need to be resolved that don’t involve evaluating someone’s sexual identify. As someone who was absolutely and adamantly a straight ally until at 40 years old I realized I was bi, leave that part alone. Gender and sexuality are complicated and personal and aren’t up for an outside observer’s adjudication. Whether she is a good choice to lead that group is an entirely separate issue that should be left to that group (or whoever oversees these types of groups).

    Reply ↓
  11. Amber Rose*

    Sometimes spending time in/around the queer community makes you realize some things about yourself. Speaking from personal experience.

    I know that instinctively, it feels like you must protect the community from being used/taken advantage of. But I feel like they can handle themselves (as they are not children) and interfering will cause more harm than it prevents, particularly if Pam is in a period of self discovery.

    Reply ↓
  12. NotTheSameAaron*

    Yes, if her other problems can be dealt with, her inflated importance in that group should become manageable. If not, she will probably move on to other things, willingly or no.

    Reply ↓
  14. Admin Lackey*

    Yeah, speaking as a bi person, no attempt should be made to police how she’s identifying and bi people are perfectly capable of having bad personalities.

    Reply ↓
    1. quokka wearing socks*

      As another bi person: perfect response! Fix the actual problems (or don’t, since OP isn’t her boss anymore), not this.

      Also I want to add something nobody else has covered yet (as of this comment) which is that I’d feel less emotionally safe around someone who was accusing a third party of lying about their queerness. So treating her queerness with suspicion may have unintended splash damage in the office. Another reason to Not.

      Reply ↓
      1. Elsewise*

        Absolutely. If I were a queer employee and I found out my boss or coworker told management they didn’t think that a member of the ERG was really queer, I’d be quietly filing that away as evidence that this person was not trustworthy.

        Reply ↓
      2. Csethiro Ceredin*

        That was my first thought too. Even if Pam is Pamming, it may make others feel scrutinized if her identity is questioned. Especially since she would likely not be quite about that happening.

        Reply ↓
      3. LL*

        Bingo. Also bi and didn’t figure it out right away because of all the messages I got that being bi isn’t really a thing, you’re either doing it for attention or you just a closeted gay person.

        Reply ↓
    2. Yikes*

      YUP. Saw the headline and my biphobia radar went off immediately. This is the sort of thinking that stops people from coming out, to themselves or publicly!

      Reply ↓
  15. Belle Jolie*

    “(Pam described herself as straight woman with a husband and said she was worried about being seen as homophobic because she is originally from a non-LBGTQ-friendly country.)”

    I also described myself as a straight woman with a husband — until I didn’t. I blame the rampant biphobia of the 1990s when I was a teen, so not even as extreme as whatever baggage might have come from originally living in a non-LGBTQ friendly country.

    People come out later in life. People are in denial for a long time. People join queer ERGs and things start to resonate and they identify as queer themselves. This isn’t to say there aren’t issues with Pam. But those issues don’t preclude her from being queer and it’s really not your, or anyone else’s, job to tell her she’s wrong about her own sexuality.

    (And my husband is super supportive and not at all surprised when I came out to him.)

    Reply ↓
    1. FormerNon-Profit*

      Oh hey, samesies! I also feel like it’s a representation win if we can just acknowledge that annoying people can be queer, and queer people can be annoying. The two factors are not related!

      Reply ↓
    2. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      I didn’t even know bisexual was even a thing until I was way into adult age. When I was growing up (80s) you were either straight or gay and goddess help you if you were gay. Trans people weren’t even a thing.

      My husband pretty much took it as a compliment when I came out as pansexual to him. Basically I had all these options and he came out on top! Love that man :)

      Reply ↓
      1. I should really pick a name*

        Trans people weren’t even a thing.

        Perhaps the word “trans” wasn’t, but trans people were absolutely a thing.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nobby Nobbs*

          You weren’t real either straight of gay, either. I think it’s a fair phrasing to discuss the general assumptions of people who weren’t in actively in tune with the community at the time.

          Reply ↓
    3. Dinwar*

      I’ve always described myself as straight–married to a woman, only dated women. But I’ve had a few conversations with folks in the LGBTQ+ sphere that argue I should call myself bi. I’ve been sexually attracted to a few men, to the point where it has influenced my behavior around them, and they argue that puts me on that spectrum to them. For my part I view sexuality as a spectrum, and I’m somewhere close to but not actually on the “straight” end-point. Biology doesn’t have nearly as many rigid categories as people tend to think, and anyone who spends much time studying biology necessarily has to become comfortable with graduated spectra.

      Language is really imprecise, and it doesn’t help that we’re still stuck essentially in the gay/straight dichotomy (with bi seen as a cop-out to many people). And that imprecision means that different groups will put the same person in different categories.

      Reply ↓
      1. Nobby Nobbs*

        The Kinsey scale is a flawed model in some ways, but I personally found it a really useful concept in the process of figuring out that I was bi. The idea that most people weren’t a strict one or six in particular struck a cord. We could afford to talk about ways to visualize and categorize sexuality and gender other than “here’s two options, pick one” a lot more, I think.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dinwar*

          Agreed.

          This is going a bit off topic, but the idea that there’s one primary axis for this discussion is inherently flawed. A healthy conversation about this topic should be MUCH broader, with a lot more dimensions being discussed. We do acknowledge these in a very crude way, but not nearly sufficiently.

          It’s kinda like discussing color by only discussing hue. There’s also chroma and saturation, and looking at all of them opens entire worlds of color that a focus on a single axis would remove from the discussion entirely.

          Reply ↓
    4. SilverFlint*

      I didn’t realize I was queer until I was in my early 30s, and this has been a whole journey. I also didn’t realize I had what my friend group calls Gender Stuff until two years ago. I’m 40 now. Up until I was 32, I identified as straight. up until I was 38, I identified as cis. Being in queer spaces or just around queer people made me realize things. My mom hearing me and my friends talk about queerness and attraction, common experiences of being AFAB and queer but not realizing it, and joking about bisexual sitting, made her realize she’s bisexual. She’s in her 60s.

      This may have happened with Pam. Being around queer people and hearing experiences may have helped her understand herself better and as a result she wants tot ry her new identity in a safe space and isn’t fully out because it’s not safe for her. Or she might be faking to win points or advance her career. Either way that part is none of OP’s business, because we don’t police anyone else’s identity when we don’t like them as a person.

      The real issues are her work and behavior at work, OP. Focus on those and don’t touch the identity stuff. Don’t even mention it to anyone at work, the risk to your own reputation/perception of you is high. I get how the identity stuff feels big, especially if you consider yourself an ally. But that’s none of your business. You have to let that piece go.

      Reply ↓
    5. Maggie Perhaps*

      Same! I spent the majority of my 20s calling myself straight, and more time than I care to admit shutting down an abusive ex who would accuse me of being a lesbian (apparently straight women don’t just gush about the woman gym instructor’s gorgeous arms?). It took me setting my dating profiles to all genders, starting a relationship with my wonderful nonbinary, pan, and demi partner to voice the “hm, I might not be straight” thoughts and a direct question from a friend months later to say I’m bi. It was an interesting transition!

      Most of the people I’ve worked with prior to two years ago wouldn’t know that I’ve changed how I ID. I’d be pretty offended if a prior coworker/manager tried to say I was lying due to that.

      Reply ↓
  16. Cate*

    I know a LOT of people via a Gentleman Jack fan community who realised they weren’t as straight as they thought, and plenty of them married. Policing identities is a solid NOPE.

    That said, she’s got plenty of work-related issues to focus on that could also be grounds for removing her as a lead from the LGBTQ+ group, as someone with performance issues probably shouldn’t be leading an ERG.

    Reply ↓
    1. Yes Anastasia*

      Apologies for the derail, but I love knowing that Ann Lister has been responsible for so many sapphic awakenings nearly 200 years after her death, what a very on brand historical legacy.

      Reply ↓
    2. Drought*

      Jen/Sally is that you? Leave poor Tina alone!

      Joking aside, you are so hung up on this Ex-Employee you want to tank her reputation in her new job. I think some serious self reflection on why is in order. Followed by addressing your instict to hurt someone else’s job prospects when it doesn’t impact you at all.

      Reply ↓
  17. Dido*

    It’s quite baffling that Pam’s general incompetence, blatant refusal to do aspects of her job, and occasional outright sabotage weren’t a problem for the LW until she started identifying as gay.

    Reply ↓
    1. Harriet Jones, Prime Minister*

      Those were all problems for OP before Pam came out, though! OP says they had a boss who was reluctant to do performance improvement, and that Pam is a big reason they asked to move out of people management. It sounds like Pam has been a problem all along, but OP didn’t have the tools or support to deal with her.

      Reply ↓
    3. Rectilinear Propagation*

      It reads to me like she found out how she identifies now after she stopped managing her, which was due to the work problems. I guess it’s not really clear which thing happened first?

      Reply ↓
    4. JustNeeded*

      My take is that OP left management because of all these issues with Pam, then found out about the LGBTQ ERG issue, and grabbed onto it as a potential “gotcha” to finally get leadership to take the Problem of Pam seriously. I could be wrong but I feel like the reason OP is writing to Alison now is a feeling of powerlessness over not having been allowed to hold Pam accountable but thinks there might be a chance now if Pam really is harming the ERG community (which of course we don’t know for sure).

      Reply ↓
    5. Lexi Vipond*

      It’s not really baffling that the behaviour seemed less of a practical problem when it was directed at senior members of the community with a large amount of standing and power to push back than when it’s directed at members of a marginalised group. It’s still not up to the OP to do anything about it – and definitely not to jump in and protect them! – but the concern makes sense.

      Reply ↓
    6. tabloidtainted*

      Actually, it sounds like LW was willing to deal with all of those issues at a personal level (change their own job, keep mum, etc.) until she felt that Pam’s actions might be harming people in an underrepresented group.

      Reply ↓
      1. H.Regalis*

        I took it as that the LW does not like Pam because she was a terrible employee and is angry because LW got so burned out dealing with her that they stopped being a manager while Pam faced zero repercussions for her behavior.

        Now LW still hates Pam but is latching onto this as an alternate route to take her down while still trying to keep the moral high ground.

        Reply ↓
        1. boof*

          Hm, I definitely got the vibe that LW feels like Pam is actively dangerous to that group, that they had encouraged Pam to join as an ally, and were wondering if there was anything else they should do.

          Reply ↓
          1. Hyena*

            She very well may feel that way, but I didn’t see anything in the letter that indicates any kind of danger. LW states “I wouldn’t trust sensitive data or anyone’s reputations and careers around her,” but all of Pam’s listed misbehavior just kind of annoying and self-centered, when it isn’t just not being a good worker – there was no mishandling of sensitive information or attempts to sabotage others.

            Pam may suck as an employee and be really obnoxious to interact with on a personal level, but that doesn’t necessarily make her a *security risk* to the point that she needs to be denied a support group. There is no proof of her lying about her identity, and the risk of getting that wrong causes far more harm – not just to Pam, by cutting her off from peer support, but to others who then may become nervous about being under extreme observation on if they’re “queer enough” outwardly to be in the group.

            Even if Pam *is* lying, that still doesn’t cause actual harm to others. If she is then leveraging this identity to gain an advantage she isn’t entitled to, like scholarships or something, or she’s using privileged information given to her in the group to gossip or hurt people, that’s an issue to address – by the group!

            LW’s feelings of dislike are understandable, but she really shouldn’t do anything at all. This is a hard lesson to learn for a lot of people about a lot of things, but sometimes pursuing what feels “justified” to punish someone you think is doing something wrong (even if they really ARE wrong) can have backlash and do harm way beyond the actual scope of the original issue.

            Reply ↓
          2. Ivkra*

            Exactly this. I will say, if LW was actually close to anyone in the group, IMO given that Pam is the regional lead, a position that you’d want someone pretty stable and sensible in, they’d be well within bounds to quietly and informally express concern about Pam’s competence and concerns they had about her being an unreliable, dramatic, and potentially vindictive person who probably shouldn’t be in a representative or leadership role. But without any real relationship with anybody in the group, I don’t know if that’s possible, or would do any good. It seems more likely to come off as shit-stirring and get them labeled as part of Pam’s perhaps-inevitable Drama Blowup.

            Reply ↓
        2. Observer*

          Now LW still hates Pam but is latching onto this as an alternate route to take her down while still trying to keep the moral high ground.

          I think this hits it on the nail.

          I can sympathize with the feeling. But it’s still not something they should even consider. No good will come from the attempt.

          Reply ↓
    7. Ellis Bell*

      I think LW feels some responsibility for suggesting she join the group as a straight ally. OP is thinking that Pam possibly co-opting an identity rather than supporting others was not exactly the plan, but ironically any form of policing people’s identity would make OP a bad ally. I think they need to solely focus on Pam’s actions, if they are in OP’s remit, and leave Pam’s sexual orientation up to Pam.

      Reply ↓
  18. Magda*

    Look, I work in publishing, where there are clear benefits to being in certain groups and I see authors putting themselves forward *all the time* in identities that are misaligned with my understanding of them. Do you know what I do about this? Absolutely nothing, because it is not my job to police in-group out-group matters. You don’t know enough to do anything here. If yet another person who doesn’t seem to own a label wants to claim that label while there is an obvious advantage to having it, your job is to do nothing about it unless you are the one giving scholarships or whatever to whichever identity group, in which case I’m sure there are standards to follow decided by a group structure of informed individuals (right?) if not, make one.

    Reply ↓
    1. Nobody Knows*

      Also in publishing, and the amount of *disasters* caused by people policing other folks identities, saying they’re claiming labels they “can’t,” and whatnot.. good lord, it happens too much.

      Just leave it alone. Her work is the bigger problem. If she’s falsely claiming an identity, she’ll slip up and it’ll bite her in the butt soon enough.

      Reply ↓
    2. Lime green Pacer*

      You may want to look into Canada’s “Pretendian” scandal, where many people were found to be falsely claiming Indigenous identity, and their universities and other institutions were sometimes affected in the blowback. Singer Buffy St. Marie is the most famous Pretendian, but there were many others before her.

      Reply ↓
      1. Magda*

        Yes, this is certainly a thing, but I still say someone in OP’s position, who is not even in the group to know what is being said (so is getting everything second hand) and who does not have an authority role to play (is not in charge of the group or anything really), is not the one who should lead this charge, whether the issue is native identity or LGTBQ or most other things of this nature. It’s different from the letter where the OP was related to the person claiming to be the minority group and was uniquely positioned to know they were lying. Plus, being part of a minority is at least potentially somewhat provable, whereas someone’s LGTBQ status is something only they know for sure.

        Reply ↓
  19. FormerNon-Profit*

    Queer people can also be terrible people! Also, as a bisexual woman married to a man, who used to loudly identify as a straight ally, these situations do just happen sometimes. Her queer identity is completely separate from her being an annoying person and difficult employee.

    Reply ↓
  20. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    I didn’t get a good grasp of where I was on the LGBTQ group until I was in my 40s (cis woman married to a cis man but I’m not straight) so Alison is right, you can’t really ‘tell’ whether she’s telling the truth or not.

    As to her other behaviour – rest assured that these people do eventually come up against something they can’t BS their way out of. If you were still her manager then yep, I’d fire her (for refusing the do the work alone!) but as you’re not anymore then concentrate on the work.

    If she’s being a roadblock or your work is being impossible because of it then raise it to her manager.

    Also, as a word – several of my friends are VERY high up in their companies and are well used to the attention seeking fawning acolyte behaviour. While they might not say anything they definitely do not regard these people as competant or trustworthy. While sucking up to person A they invariably make the mistake of bad mouthing someone who they regard as ‘lesser’ and then find out that the malinged person B is in fact the exec’s REAL rising star.

    Reply ↓
  21. Lemons*

    Unfortunately, if your management isn’t willing to do anything about Pam’s work problems, you need to shift your focus to surviving her. I had a different flavor of Pam, “Sam”, who spent all his time either sucking up and lying to management, talking about how much better he was than the rest of us (to our faces), and advocating for why he didn’t need to do his work, actually.

    Management was convinced he was an incredible hire, no matter what we said. Consider that despite it being obvious to you, Pam may have convinced management she’s indispensable. They might think she’s great. It’s an “if they wanted to, they would” scenario, and they don’t want to do anything about her. Focus on ignoring her as much as you professionally can, reporting work issues she causes to your manager, and supporting/protecting coworkers she comes after. Don’t spend more thought on her. Also google ‘broken stair’ if you don’t know about the concept. Sounds like she is one.

    Reply ↓
  22. Observer*

    In addition to what everyone else said, you need to keep out of this particular situation for another reasons. You don’t have shred of evidence but just a whole of “I don’t like her and I think she’s a liar.”

    And maybe she is. But let’s face it. If she’s all that toxic and dishonest, *that* is the real problem for the group even if she’s telling the truth. And if she’s all that toxic, I can’t imagine that the people in her group won’t figure that out. But at this point, there really is nothing you can do about that, except tell the truth *if you get asked*. And only the truth – not your speculations, but the things you *know* such as what she said to you.

    I’m not defending the idea of her lying to get what she thinks is an “in”. I’m just saying that you simply have no real idea of what the truth here is, and you have no standing to do anything about it either.

    Reply ↓
    1. K Smith*

      Strong agree!

      As a thought experiment:
      -The OP accuses Pam of ‘faking’ being queer.
      -Pam sticks to her claim of being queer. Perhaps she claims a ‘newly-realized’ queerness.
      -Then what? How could the OP ever ‘prove’ Pam’s straight-ness?

      It would just make the OP look very unprofessional. There’s no possible evidence (and definitely no evidence that would be appropriate in a professional environment!!) the OP could present that would prove Pam is a liar.

      Reply ↓
  24. Not as straight as I used to be*

    I agree with Alison’s response.

    My toes curled right around back through the top of my feet by the time I got to the end of OP’s first paragraph. I’m in the middle of “working through some stuff”, as the kids call it these days. I’m straight-presenting, have a lovely family with a husband and kids, and over the past year have been increasingly realizing, that yeah: NOT STRAIGHT. Am currently experimenting with coming out in small LGBT-friendly groups that are compartmentalized from my daily life, and seeing a therapist to talk about NOW WHAT. So I was reading that first paragraph going, “yikes, this could be about me” (except for the bit about being the group lead, which feels like an overstep for someone who’s still figuring themselves out).

    Reading the later paragraphs, I get OP’s concern and understand why this feels like a train wreck of epic proportions. But I support Alison’s suggestion that the solution to this kind of nonsense is to come down real hard on the stuff that is objectively nonsense, and stay way far away from opining about the veracity of people’s identity stuff, even when it doesn’t pass the BS detector. (Toes just started to curl again.)

    Reply ↓
    1. Spooz*

      I’m sorry for the curiosity, but I’d really love to ask you: if you’re happily married with kids then what is it about realising that you’re not totally straight that you think you need to do anything about? Like, why does it need an action item at all other than an internal “huh, so there’s that”? I really hope you don’t find my phrasing rude, I can’t think quite how to phrase the question.

      I’ve just never come across this before outside people who realise something similar about themselves and make major life changes like divorcing their husband to partner up with a woman. But why come out if you’re not looking for anyone else? I just think it doesn’t matter who you’re attracted to unless you’re looking for someone to be attracted to, iyswim. Is it for support? Or have I misunderstood and you’re actually thinking of nonmonogamy?

      Reply ↓
      1. iglwif*

        I am not the person you asked, but as someone who had a very similar journey, I’m going to answer for me (not them).

        I am mostly out as a bi woman because

        * I am bad at lying and keeping secrets, and once I realized this thing about myself, it did not feel good to hide it.
        * People have all kinds of ideas about what being part of the 2SLGBTQ+ community “looks like” and I violate a lot of those ideas, which often makes people go “huh” and reconsider their ideas.
        * I like the colours.
        * My personal circumstances (my relationship, where I live, my age, my religious community) make it very safe for me to be out and be an advocate; not everyone is so fortunate, so I want to use the privilege I have.
        * It just feels more honest.

        Reply ↓
        1. Rainy*

          Yes to all of this! Especially being able to be an example of “this is what a bisexual person looks like”. I was having those realizations in my teens, and figuring out how to be openly bi at a time when there weren’t a lot of examples or role models, but there was a *lot* of biphobia, and for me and other people my age I think that being out now that a we can be is something we do for both ourselves and for the young people who might otherwise also find themselves in the position we were once in.

          Reply ↓
      2. No name yet*

        I’m not the commenter here, but I’ll chime in my thoughts – there is inherent value in understanding ourselves better, AND in being fully open and honest with others about who we are.

        My wife and I are both bisexual women, and have been in a monogamous relationship for over 25 years. Neither of us have any interest or plans of being with anyone else, of any gender. Most people meeting us as a couple assume we’re lesbians, and depending on the situation and likeliness of biphobia, we don’t always correct them. BUT – it always feels incorrect, it’s not who I am. If it’s someone I care about, I usually want to be my authentic self with them.

        Obviously if and when to come out is always very personal and often situation-specific, hope this helps for one perspective about why someone might want to come out even if they’re not changing relationships or behaving differently than before.

        Reply ↓
      3. Not as straight as I used to be*

        Well, “having a lovely family” is not 100% equal to “happily married”; the family is lovely, some parts of the marriage are good, and others are suffering badly from the middle-aged grind. The plan was absolutely to stick with “huh, so there’s that” until the self-destructive impulses started kicking in and I realized I was starting to imagine torching my marriage to be with a woman. But I don’t think I actually want to do that; the amount of upheaval it would cause isn’t appealing, the part of dating where you have to sift through a lot of incompatible people to find the right person sounds exhausting, and I’ve invested most of my life building this family and I care about it. Truthfully, I would be on board with nonmonogamy except that I seriously doubt my spouse would go for it and it’s not exactly something you can impose unilaterally.

        But in the meantime I have a lot of intense internal energy and it needs to escape somewhere. Everyone else in my RPG group is some flavor of queer (and close friends), so talking to them was an obvious place to start. Some locals started an LGBT meetup in my town and I’ve been to that a few times in hopes that being part of a community will let me integrate this new part of self in a way that I can get by without …acting on it.

        tl;dr fundamentally incompatible desires causing a lot of internal drama. I want to have my cake and eat it too; trying to ride out the storm long enough to figure out what realistically makes sense.

        Reply ↓
      4. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

        Even if you’re not gonna change anything else, it feels great to spend time in spaces where being bi is “the normal thing”.

        Reply ↓
      5. Rainy*

        I have a lot of years of experience being openly bisexual, and assumption that underlies your question is really the reason why a lot of people want to be out and open about their identity. Being in a relationship doesn’t mean you’re not queer. Getting married–to whoever!–doesn’t mean you’re not queer.

        I don’t need to justify my queerness in any way, and certainly not in a way that makes straight folks feel like I deserve to bring my queerness to their attention. If someone is my age and suddenly realizes that they’re bi and wants to be open about that, they don’t have to make life changes to justify that openness. They just have to want to be authentic in their own life.

        You think it doesn’t matter, but if you’re straight, you don’t realize that whether you’re “looking for someone to be attracted to” or not, your straightness is assumed in most areas of your everyday life, and so that part of your self and experience is always being seen and respected because of heteronormativity, in a way that queer folks’ selves and experiences aren’t always been seen and respected. If we want that to happen we have to make space for it, because a larger society, full of people who “don’t think it matters” and veil their criticism as “just curiosity”, isn’t going to unless we make it happen.

        Reply ↓
        1. Rainy*

          I acknowledge but am unable to correct the many typos in both my comments in this thread resulting from both my irritation with the topic and the fact that I redrafted pieces of them both a few times and missed changing the tenses around pieces I edited.

          Reply ↓
  25. Harriet Jones, Prime Minister*

    Whew, Pam sounds like A Lot. I think Alison’s advice is good – Pam is part of the reason you stepped back from people management, so you should stay back and let her be somebody else’s problem from now on. Go ahead and enjoy your new, Pam-free role!

    Reply ↓
    1. All het up about it*

      YES! And I’ll add to this to OP: If part of your wondering if you should say something stems from guilt for introducing Pam to the group in the first place – let it go! You didn’t know and maybe Pam is Queer and you did some good for her for providing her with a safe space.

      Yeah – Pam sounds like an awful person, but the situation will probably resolve itself. (I imagine there is a reason that she’s mid-career, but in an entry-level role.) And if the situation resolves itself in a spectacular landmine explosion – that’s not your fault or responsibility. And it doesn’t matter if Pam is the Rachel Dolezal of the Queer community, or not.

      Reply ↓
  26. bamcheeks*

    I do understand your concerns LW, and I really enjoyed the couple of years I spent as co-chair of an LGBTQ+ network, and yes I did get facetime with the CEO– but “1. join LGBTQ+ group. 2. ???? 3 Profit!” is not actually a thing. I think you can safely allow her to get on with this without worrying that she will unwarrantedly finagle it into a material advantage.

    Reply ↓
  27. AnonymousOctopus*

    Twenty years ago when I was a baby queer, the A in LGBTQIA stood for both asexual AND ally. The reason why was so that people who weren’t out could come to meetings and events “as an ally” without having to out themselves if they weren’t ready or there were safety concerns. And sometimes those allies would later come out after being in community with queer people. That’s a normal/not weird journey to me.

    This employee seems terribly in so many obvious ways that I wouldn’t touch the identity part with a 12 foot pole, simply because there’s no need to.

    Reply ↓
  28. Rectilinear Propagation*

    “…she is originally from a non-LBGTQ-friendly country…

    Maybe that’s why she originally identified as straight. We aren’t told where she’s from or how long she’s been in OP’s country but if she’s used to there being legal consequences to being out, it makes sense that she wouldn’t be comfortable doing so until it felt safe.

    More importantly:
    “…tells outright lies that have affected my relationship with my manager.”

    This makes it 100x more dangerous for you to try to address this in any way. It would have looked bad in any case but it is going to look malicious on your part if you even suggest she’s being dishonest without anything to back it up.

    Reply ↓
  30. Delta Delta*

    The best part of this letter for OP is the fact that Pam is their former employee. As in, this isn’t OP’s circus. Allow Pam’s current manager to sort out her job performance issues and leave it alone.

    Reply ↓
    1. umami*

      Yes, this exactly. OP noped out of dealing with Pam by stepping out of the manager role, so it’s really not fair to now try to have an impact on Pam while no longer having the responsibility.

      Reply ↓
  31. Dinwar*

    The sexuality thing is a red herring. That’s for her to figure out (and most groups supporting underprivileged groups that I’ve encountered have dealt with such parasites before if she is one). There are two real issues here:

    1) The work-related issues, such as refusing to do work and sabotaging work.
    2) What can you do about it?

    Since you’re no longer a manager you can’t do much except document, document, document. Get everything in writing–what she’s supposed to do, whether she does it or not, how she tries to weasel out of it, etc. Or, if you have the capacity, avoid having her on your team entirely. Since your boss is unwilling to act, the latter may be the best option if you can swing it; not dealing with toxic people is usually the only winning move.

    Reply ↓
  32. Emoo*

    People can be both poor workers and queer, and they can also come out at any time in their life, even if they told you that they were straight before.

    Whether or not you think she’s lying about her orientation, there’s absolutely no way for you to prove that in general, much less without coming off as massively phobic yourself, and anyway it’s not your business when, to whom, or whether she chooses to come out to anyone. Focus on what your actual job duties are with regard to her performance, and leave the queerbaiting question behind.

    Reply ↓
  33. xylocopa*

    “I feel uneasy for folks in the group, none of whom I know particularly well.”

    If you did know someone really well–like, genuinely close–there might have been room to mention to them some of your concerns about Pam as a leader/coworker, like the “spooky rages.” But you don’t, and Pam’s identity isn’t your business, so you’re going to have to let the people in the group figure out the Pam situation on their own.

    Reply ↓
    1. Suze*

      I agree. Maybe OP is hang up on this because they recommended Pam to join the group, and worry that she will harm the group with her selfish and incompetent behavior. Maybe there is somebody in the LGBTQ group to whom OP could share these concerns so that they can look out for poor behavior by Pam (regardless of whether she is bi, as a regional lead she might have access to funds and confidential info). But it has to be about by the leadership aspect, not questioning her identity per se.

      Reply ↓
  34. Dawn*

    Bi folks in M-F marriages describe themselves as “straight” to strangers all the time because, as you may have noticed, people jump to accuse them of lying. It’s a ridiculously common thing.

    So judge Pam for things you know are actual issues, which it sounds like there are a plethora of already.

    Reply ↓
    1. NotBatman*

      *waves* Hi, it’s me! And I just found out it’s my sister-in-law, 5 years after she married my brother!

      Because that is the goddamn truth, right there.

      Reply ↓
    3. Chirpy*

      Also – Aces/demisexuals, because even LGBTQ people forget they exist/ accuse them of “wanting attention”.

      Reply ↓
      1. iglwif*

        YES.

        (Which is hilarious in a way given that many ace folks do not in fact want attention, that is exactly what they do NOT want)

        Reply ↓
        1. Dawn*

          I saw a meme once that was a Google search for “agender” and Google responded, “Did you mean, ‘A Gender’?” and the author just “No, that is the exact opposite of what I asked for.”

          Reply ↓
        2. Chirpy*

          I mean, I’m a demisexual who is not out to a lesbian friend because she made a big deal once of pointing out that I was “the only straight person” in the group and therefore “didn’t understand” something.

          Like, yeah, I don’t want attention but also it’s nobody’s business but ALSO…sometimes it’s just easier to let people think you’re just a “broken” straight person because you don’t want to deal with it…

          Reply ↓
  35. Caramel & Cheddar*

    “All in all, Pam is not skilled or productive or pleasant to be around and if it weren’t for the labor law protection, I would have fired her outright.”

    I think the labour laws are a bit of a red herring here — I know of no country that says “You must keep incompetent and disruptive employees no matter what” in their labour laws, so this feels like upper management / HR not understanding what their obligations are and then enforcing that misunderstanding on line managers. It feels like when people say “I couldn’t fire her because of the union” — the union isn’t preventing you from firing someone, the lack of due diligence and backup documentation is usually what’s preventing a unionized staff member from being fired. The good news is those are things that can change much easier than a labour law / union agreement.

    But if her current manager won’t do anything about her behaviour, through coaching / more active management / documenting the behaviour clearly over time so that she can be fired without it blowing up in your company’s face, then there’s not really much you can do about it as a colleague. All you can focus is on your relationship with your own manager and rebuilding the trust that Pam torpedoed.

    Reply ↓
    1. Susan*

      I agree with this. Even in countries with strong labour laws, there’s usually ways to let people go, although the expedient way might be something like eliminating their position and paying severance.

      Reply ↓
  36. NotBatman*

    It sounds as though LW might be in a bit of a Bitch Eating Crackers mindset: Pam is an unpleasant and dishonorable person, one who actively makes LW’s and other coworkers’ lives worse… and Pam is probably actually bisexual/queer.

    FWIW, I’m queer and lie about being straight all the time when I’m at work. Never directly if I can help it, but if I’m asked an invasive question then I’ll give an untrue answer. Also a friend of mine believed she was straight until she started hanging out with an LGBTQ+ group, found terms for a bunch of things she’d sensed but never known, and 18 months later married a woman. A different friend thought they were male, learned about nonbinary genders in their 30s, went “holy crap, that’s me,” and they haven’t identified as male since. So it does happen that hanging out with queer folks helps you figure out that you’re queer yourself.

    Reply ↓
  38. Pam Schrute-Beesley*

    Oh man, this one hits so many boxes for me. We have a preference for hiring LGBTQ+ employees at my office, but just like Alison says here, no practical way to police it, or even hypothetical way because people are free to change their identification or come out to some people and not others. No one disagrees with that!

    But it does mean our LGBTQ+ Network has an unusually high number of cis presenting members married to opposite sex partners, and I am sure the most ambitious and least honest employees are identifying only to increase their career prospects.

    Reply ↓
    2. dackquiri*

      Mm. Hmm.

      I’m very passionate that it’s a massive indignity to gatekeep the LGBT+ community harder to cis-passing people or people in het-passing relationships. Mainly because the community is a community and that’s its own reward. People who are accused of “receiving privilege from both the in group and the out group” are oftentimes being denied community from both, which is a vile insult to injury I never want to be complicit in.

      When it’s a matter of tangible work perks, though. I dunno, maybe I’m not as offended by a little gentle keeping of that gate.

      Reply ↓
    3. CommanderBanana*

      Does it matter, though? I would rather welcome a few “ambitious and least honest” employees rather than risk turning away or alienating someone because they didn’t happen to fit my vision of what an LGBTQ+ employee should look like.

      Reply ↓
      1. dackquiri*

        It really depends what we’re talking about, and what the situation is, but you run a real risk of becoming the kind of company my trans friend worked at, that loved to espouse how queer friendly they were and had a few workers who expressed their queerness in work-friendly ways, but my friend? They canned her the week she started transitioning because they got so used to the cis/het passing sort of queerness that they saw someone wearing a dress without going on hormones first as a dress code violation more than diversity.

        Reply ↓
        1. Potato Potato*

          Yup. I keep telling people who claim LGBT inclusivity that “queer-friendly” doesn’t mean “trans-friendly”, and sometimes “trans-friendly” just means they’ll accept you as long as you fully pass (and non-binary people are just out of luck).

          Reply ↓
        2. CommanderBanana*

          That is awful, and I hope your friend got some sort of redress (preferentially a big settlement check!). That company truly sucks.

          That being said, I don’t think that cis/het passing queer folk are at fault for a company choosing to be horrible to a trans employee.

          Reply ↓
    4. Niles 'the coyote' Crane*

      I mean, queerness definitely has negative impacts on things too. Even in a lovely friendly workplace. It impacts networking, future roles, all sorts of things.

      It doesn’t sit right with me that loads of people would be pretending to be queer for no reason.

      Reply ↓
      1. epizeugma*

        Yeah, even as someone who is 100% out in all areas of my life and has worked almost entirely in LGBTQ+ related fields… Being out has closed far more doors than it opened. I have plenty of lovely ally cis straight coworkers, and I’m very grateful to have had a career path where being vocally out hasn’t been a disadvantage, but if I ever want to leave my LGBTQ+ related field, I’m going to have severely limited professional opportunities. I cannot work at the largest employer at my city because it’s a state institution with anti-trans policies. I can’t become a teacher because of the current moral panic. I can’t take a job that entails any travel to homophobic or transphobic countries. I can’t take a job that offers insurance that won’t cover my gender-affirming healthcare (and since there is no federal requirement for such care to be covered, that includes *many* jobs).

        Do people fake being LGBTQ+ for professional advantage? Maybe, people do all kinds of things. But I’m skeptical that many of those people actually *receive* professional advantage in any sort of generalizable way, because actual LGBTQ+ people sure as hell don’t.

        Reply ↓
    5. Ali + Nino*

      Is this in the US? Is this truly preference or an actual policy? I’m so curious bc I thought this was not legal in the US.

      Reply ↓
  39. dackquiri*

    Let’s just say for a second LW’s fears about Pam are true: I don’t know what unique threat she would pose to the group, other than a general nuisance. I’ve been a member of groups like this, and while I do share stories a little more personal than what I would at the water cooler, it’s all stuff that I stand by as “things I said at work”. People in these groups generally don’t share stuff they “wouldn’t want getting out there”.

    I’ll say Pam’s approach is odd, just because I don’t feel it’s common for people to come out to a workplace LGBT+ group but not the workplace, but mainly because when I came out at work, it was because I was out nearly everywhere else. Work’s generally the last frontier because the combination of employer and coworkers make it hardest to trust. (Case in point: it doesn’t sound like LW is part of this group, Pam is only out to members of this group, and LW still knows!)

    I hope! I really hope there aren’t baby gays that are being suckered into thinking these are actual safe spaces. They’re part of your workplace, don’t trust them with things you wouldn’t trust your workplace writ large with!

    Reply ↓
    1. dackquiri*

      (I wanted to clarify that I call Pam’s “odd” because I assume that she’s just having a sudden realization and is coming out in an unconventional way as a result, but will likely be out to everyone in a matter of weeks. My point is that’s uncommon and these groups generally aren’t places where you can get compromising info on semi-closeted LGBT+ people so I wouldn’t worry about that. If LW is wondering if there’s a valid gay-rights angle to surveil on this further; nah.)

      Reply ↓
    2. Dasein9 (he/him)*

      Good point! Work spaces are not the same thing as safe spaces and all the usual rules of propriety and discretion apply.

      Reply ↓
    3. Potato Potato*

      I feel like Pam’s approach is odd, but only from the perspective of people who have queer community outside of work. I feel like if work is the only place you’ve encountered conversations about gender/sexuality, then it can feel more normal to come out there first, and treat it like a support group rather than part of your workplace.

      Which is … a problem. But all we can really do is continue working with the queer community outside of work, and redirect people when we see them. (Hypothetically. In practice, my work’s LGBT group is run by a bananapants person who tries to bully people into feeling safe, and convinces us to stop complaining rather than trying to push for policy changes. So I’m not involved.)

      Reply ↓
  40. fish*

    I am a grizzled old homo. What you are concerned about absolutely can and does happen, and I want to validate your instinct.

    Unfortunately, there is no good mechanism is our current situation for calling it out without looking like an ass yourself, so I think focusing on Alison’s advice is good.

    Also want to point out the harm she’s doing to the LGBT group, having an unpleasant and unprofessional person represent it.

    Reply ↓
    1. fish*

      It’s also worth thinking about the mission of the LGBT group more generally. Is it a social group? An advocacy group? Both? Historically these groups were formed for employees to organize for their needs (eg pushing for domestic partner benefits).

      Because the employment- and benefit-related needs of cis women in opposite-sex marriages whose children are the biological children of themselves and their husbands, who felt stirrings when watching Gentleman Jack (as suggested upthread), are not the same as those of people in same-sex marriages with adopted children whose legal ties may not make it through the next few years, or trans people who may not get the health care they need.

      We do everyone a disservice when we pretend it is all one thing. By all means, a big tent is nice! But not at the expense of losing the group’s mission and effectiveness.

      Reply ↓
      2. dackquiri*

        It sure seems historically this big tent has been very successful advocating for each other’s rights whether or not they apply to individual members, and the only real threat to that efficacy is looking for excuses to divide that tent.

        Reply ↓
      3. Niles 'the coyote' Crane*

        No one has said it is the same. They’re still welcome to identify as queer and make use of resources and groups for queer people.

        Reply ↓
        1. Zap R.*

          In my country, lesbians significantly out-earn bi women: https://www.livingwagealberta.ca/news/research-finds-that-2slgbtqia-canadians-face-a-wage-gap#:~:text=In%20descriptive%20analyses%2C%20heterosexual%20men,bisexual%20women%20(%2425%2C290).%E2%80%9D

          Bi women in Canada also have significantly worse mental and physical health outcomes than pretty much everyone else: https://xtramagazine.com/health/why-do-bisexual-women-experience-such-high-rates-of-poor-health-162285#:~:text=Despite%20more%20visibility%20and%20positivity,rates%20of%20all%20LGB%20youth.

          Both are workplace issues and as with every other threat to our community’s well-being, they can only be solved through community solidarity.

          Reply ↓
          1. Zap R.*

            (I’m agreeing w/ you here, btw. Just realized this sounded way more confrontational than I intended.)

            TL;DR: “Straight-passing” people or people in “straight-passing” definitely have a certain amount of privilege but they also have their own issues to contend with and the constant minimizing/erasure of those issues within the larger community mean they never get solved.

            Reply ↓
      4. epizeugma*

        I am extremely trans and queer and out and visible and live in a red state in which I am sometimes concerned for my physical safety, and I don’t think cis people in straight marriages are taking anything away from me by being part of workplace LGBTQ+ ERGs.

        More people in the tent is good. We need to stick together instead of splintering apart under pressure. Some of my colleagues who are straight or straight-passing have been the biggest advocates for trans people in my workplace. It takes some of the burden off of trans employees when we don’t have to do all the advocacy ourselves.

        Reply ↓
    2. LoraC*

      Very well said. I’ve also run into those types and all you can do is just grit your teeth and bear with it even if your instincts are just screaming that this person is a liar.

      Pointing out that she might not be the best face for the group is a good idea. Regardless of whether she’s telling the truth or not, you don’t want an an incompetent dram queen repping your group to senior level managers.

      Reply ↓
  41. Dasein9 (he/him)*

    If I understand correctly, LW is concerned for friends’ wellbeing because Pam may be exploiting the affinity group.

    That’s certainly possible, but this is one of those cases where LW needs to trust those friends’ ability to judge Pam by her character. While anyone can be fooled, humans are generally pretty good at telling who’s in their community and who isn’t. (Heck, increasing community inclusivity is a big part of why affinity groups are needed!)

    Reply ↓
    1. fish*

      I think it goes beyond friends. Pam is the face of LGBT employees, and she evidently sucks. Friends may know better, but execs who interface with the group once a year won’t.

      Reply ↓
      1. AnonAnonSir!*

        Yeah, but she’d suck whether or not she was queer. Pam’s general Issues might well be something that needs addressing, Pam’s orientation does NOT (and that’s what OP was writing in about).

        Reply ↓
      2. Observer*

        Sure, but that would be a problem regardless of whether she is telling the truth or lying about her identity.

        Which is why *if* the LW were ever to say anything it should be to point out that Pam is a just a difficult person and not someone who should be the face of any group, whether professional, semi-professional, or otherwise.

        Reply ↓
  42. Msd*

    I wonder how she became the group lead for the region. Did no one else want the job? Hopefully people in the group/region will realize what a train wreck she is and vote her out.

    Reply ↓
  43. monkeys*

    The LGBT group/her identity is a red herring – you have good reason to be suspicious of everything she does, and this is just a reflection of that. BUT you asking to not be her manager anymore was you trying to make her not your business (good, I would also like her to not be my business if I was you!). So this is all: not your business. Not your circus, not your monkeys, be free!

    Reply ↓
  45. Dust Bunny*

    I’ve known lots of bi people who were in heterosexual relationships.

    I’ve known lots of straight people who came out as less-straight later in life.

    I’ve known lots of straight people who didn’t realize they weren’t straight until they were in an environment that allowed them to consider it.

    I’ve known a very few legitimately and openly LGBQT+ people who had a lot of (understandable) emotional baggage and insecurity about various things, possibly including their orientation, and engaged in attention-seeking and self-aggrandizing behavior, as insecure people of any orientation often do.

    But I don’t know of any practical way you can discern what is actually going on with Pam. The actual workplace issues are fair game, though. If she’s faking, I will guess that other members of the group will figure it out soon enough.

    Reply ↓
  46. RagingADHD*

    Anyone competent enough to be a director or senior manager should be smart enough to tell when an unreliable, volatile person is currying favor with them in a disingenuous way.

    And presumably the senior managers and directors have the authority to shut Pam down or start the process to fire her if she’s bothering them enough.

    If neither of those things are true, your company has such deep systemic problems that Pam’s histrionics and poor work habits are just a surface symptom.

    Reply ↓
  47. knitted feet*

    Pam sounds horrendous, but people will realise that eventually either way. I do get where LW is coming from – think Rachel Dolezal and so on – but there’s just no earthly way you can accuse someone of faking being queer, not if you want to retain credibility. And she really might be. We have terrible people too, and people who come out later in life.

    There’s no way to tackle this that turns out well. Any concerns raised need to be about concrete bad behaviour and undeniable problems, not Pam’s sexuality.

    Reply ↓
  48. A Book about Metals*

    This reminds me of another letter from a while ago where an HR person wanted to “verify” that an employee was black because they had checked off a box on a form but didn’t appear black to the HR person. Sorry if I mangled the details but I think the same advice holds – don’t go playing detective with things like this!

    Reply ↓
  49. Jennifer Strange*

    It sounds like you have a lot of reasons to distrust Pam’s work ethic, but that doesn’t translate to a distrust of her identity as a member of the LGBTQAI+ community. Two things can be true at once: Pam could be a narcissist and terrible employee AND she could be gay/bi/queer. Those two things are not at odds with one another.

    Let’s say you’re correct and she’s lying about this as a means to get more face time. What are you going to say to convince folks of that? Even if you are 100% right, trying to “out her” isn’t going to reflect well on her. And while I’m sure you don’t mean to, this type of distrust is similar to the arguments used to keep trans/non-binary folks out of specific restrooms under the pretense that they could pretend to be trans/NB for their own benefit. While that’s not impossible, it ignores the reality of what coming out as LGBTQAI+ really entails emotionally, mentally, and physically, not to mention the actual risks those people can still face when they choose to come out. I think there are very few people who would risk that for such a small gain.

    Reply ↓
  50. Kay*

    OP – I think what you are really upset about here is management. The country labor laws and harm to marginalized groups are just surface issues. I don’t know how much you did to manage Pam, but I get the sense that you felt management wouldn’t support you or allow you to fire her, even if you did/had done everything right – which you are (rightly) resentful about!

    I think it is easier to blame laws! or focus on the outrage of Pam faking an identity than to really sit with how you feel about not getting the support you needed from management, having to change your career path over it, and what you want to/can do about that.

    Reply ↓
  52. Niles 'the coyote' Crane*

    Hoo boy, thank goodness for Alison’s sensible response.

    It makes perfect sense that someone from a country that isn’t LGBTQ+ friendly would not exactly be keen to be out immediately.

    And what would it say to other LGBTQ+ employees if you started second guessing whether they seem queer enough?

    None of the reasons you give are evidence that Pam isn’t queer. But it isn’t your business anyway.

    Reply ↓
  53. JP*

    I think Alison’s advice is spot on, but I get LW’s concern. I think the fact that they recommended the group to Pam makes them feel some extra guilt and responsibility if Pam’s bad behaviors end up having a negative impact for the group.

    Reply ↓
  54. Summer Bummer*

    I kind of love OP! Pam sounds like a nightmare across multiple spectrums, including contributing to OP deciding leadership isn’t for them, and in that enormous laundry list of justifiable problems, the one that’s REALLY eating at OP is that Pam might be faking gay. That sounds like I’m judging you, but OP, my brain works exactly the same way.

    Especially as a queer person, the… I’m going to use the phrase “stolen valor” here… would drive me up a WALL. Is the advice correct? Absolutely. But OP, I love you, and the amount that you’re thinking about this stuff and the depth of consideration you’re showing to other people, means their leadership team is lesser without you on it. (Not that you should go back to managing if you don’t want to! Their loss is your freedom, baybee.)

    Reply ↓
    1. Matrix*

      Ummm? What??

      1) ex-employee that OP couldn’t even fire so…why is this even a letter?
      2) speculating if someone is “faking” their sexuality (especially their bi-ness) is REALLY not okay for so many reasons. It’s historically been a problem especially for bisexual people (particularly women). What an easy way for the LW to get hit with a lawsuit.
      3) so the amount of time and energy that the LW is spending thinking about this is actually pretty weird and inappropriate especially in a managerial context. If I suspected that my boss were wondering if I were “faking” my sexuality, I’d be mortified, angry, and freaked out at how that might affect my day to day at work before I could call a good EEOA lawyer.

      Reply ↓
      1. Manic Sunday*

        I think Summer Bummer probably meant that it’s okay to speculate on whether someone might be lying about their sexual orientation (particularly for the purpose of exploiting a marginalized group for personal gain) *in the privacy of one’s own head.* (And anonymously to an advice columnist.) We all have less than angelic thoughts/feelings sometimes. It’s usually better to acknowledge them to oneself than to pretend they don’t exist. We can’t address thoughts/feelings that we refuse to name. And it was definitely better for OP to come here for good advice rather than wait for their frustration to boil over and cause harm at work.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lucifer*

          I can sympathize with Inside Thoughts being less than ideal but I also think that some Inside Thoughts *really* need to stay Inside Thoughts–don’t even send them to an advice columnist, even under the guise of supposed anonymity.

          Reply ↓
    2. Biff*

      I had a former coworker who definitely pretended to be LGBTQA in order to exploit several financial opportunities (scholarships and awards) that were intended to help create safe spaces within an industry that was otherwise very homogenous. It was very upsetting seeing them get these scholarships that were meant to give people a leg into the industry and instead use them to get into a higher pay band when they were already making ~200k a year in a LCOL area. It felt abusive. It felt like a gross life hack.

      It should be possible to speak up and out about people abusing these pathways, but the truth is, you need to have a lot of skin in the fight to be taken seriously when you bring that sort of accusation to the table. And the scenario needs to be far less ambigious. LW doesn’t have the clout needed to speak up, and it doesn’t sound like the scenario is cut-and-dried. I understand she feels the need to speak, and I understand how important it must feel. But she needs to let it go, because speaking up will only hurt her, and it’s doubtful it will help anyone else. I hate to say it this way, but save that energy for where it will do some good.

      Reply ↓
  55. ahb*

    Definitely leave it alone. I knew a girl in college who actually *did* fake being part of the LGBTQ community (she came clean years later). Many people had doubts about her during college, because she was just like OP describes Pam: untrustworthy, volatile, known to lie egregiously for personal gain, constant title/award-chasing, and prone to sudden outbursts when called out. But, just like OP’s case, all of those problems were entirely separate from her identity. Years later, it was infuriating to find out that she’d exploited the community for personal gain, but honestly, I’m still glad no one ever (openly) questioned her identity. My line of thinking here is the same: questions of any kind would achieve nothing, and instead would send a horrible message to the group that management thinks they can question someone’s identity.

    Reply ↓
  56. Lenora Rose*

    This is a classic case where the letter writer’s focus and the actual problem are in different places; LW is looking at this one straw because it’s something with an obvious pitfall in how o address, and skimming over all the much much much bigger, but more obviously wrong, issues with work product and attitude and behaviour.

    Nobody at a workplace has the standing to question someone else’s orientation and/or gender identity – but there are so many things this person is doing wrong that someone in management has standing to address, skip this one thing and let the managers handle all the other nonsense. At MOST you could mention to the LGBTQ2IA group the reasons she might not be their best representative, NONE of which are her orientation, and many of which are her inappropriate messaging, her habit of snubbing her peers, her poor reaction to critique, her poor productivity, and her attention seeking.

    Reply ↓
  57. Nicole Maria*

    The way this letter writer says “In her short time with our company, she has consistently demonstrated misplaced ambition, attention-seeking, and moral challenges” is kind of confusing to me. It seems like most of those are subjective, right? Either way most of those are not relevant to the workplace, like Allison said.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lenora Rose*

      The specific examples of each later in the letter seem pretty directly linked to the office environment; things like cozying up (and inappropriately contacting) the C-Suite while ignoring her actual peers, and favouring networking over productivity in her job.

      The only one not relevant to her job is her LGBT2QIA identity.

      Reply ↓
    2. CommanderBanana*

      I’m sure people I’ve worked with thought I had “misplaced ambition” because I’m a woman and wanted things like recognition and money for my hard work.

      Reply ↓
  58. A Book about Metals*

    One confusing thing about this letter is that Pam’s behavior seems obvious, but only the LW seems to care. They say Pam is DMing/calling Sr managers 20 times a day over trivial matters… if this is going on without pushback from the senior folks, I’d have to say they don’t care about Pam doing these things.

    I wonder if LW is just at “BEC” stage with Pam at this point. Also, if she’s so toxic, how did she become group leader :)

    Reply ↓
    1. murr*

      Also, if she’s so toxic, how did she become group leader :)

      I mean…toxic people are attracted to leadership position. It’s like asking how can there be toxic manager, which is very funny question to ask on this site.

      Reply ↓
      1. A Book about Metals*

        Yeah but I’d assume that if these people all knew Pam, they would have seen some of the behavior that LW mentions. That’s what I meant by LW being at BEC stage with Pam – others might not simply see the same toxicity

        Reply ↓
      2. CTT*

        Or they may not be able to find someone who has the capacity to take over the group from her. I feel like so many groups like this end up with the wrong person running them because they’re the only ones who offered to do it.

        Reply ↓
    3. Lisa Simpson*

      My experience of years in nonprofits is that toxic people come in, charm everyone, get promoted, and then within a year crash the entire ship into an iceberg while everyone stands around saying “How did this happen?” Sometimes, desperate for someone competent to take the helm and turn the ship around, they hire yet another toxic person who drives it straight back into the iceberg. By then all of the competent people have hopped into the lifeboats and sailed far, far away, so rebuilding is even harder.

      This happened at the first nonprofit I worked at, the second nonprofit I worked at, the third nonprofit I worked at, and a fourth nonprofit I currently volunteer with. I actually tried to count off the number of coworkers/board members who were Pams and couldn’t, because there were so many of them. It’s got to be around a dozen.

      Reply ↓
  59. DE*

    Even if she’s lying accusing her of lying will make others in the group think they are likely to be accused as well even if they’re telling the truth.

    Reply ↓
  60. Mesquito*

    I think the larger problem in the company is, why is there an career advantage to be gained by joining this group? If it provides some sort of actual needed material support, this behavior seems really disruptive to the group meeting targeted goals, so maybe it’s the group’s benefit to employees is really vague and nebulous. If it’s social support type group, does it really work to have people receiving this support alongside upper management. The last person I want to be receiving “resources” centered around my queerness from is my own bosses – but I’m wondering what resources they provide at all

    Reply ↓
  61. Lake (they/them)*

    “Pam is describing herself as gay/bi/queer, out only to folks associated with the resource group”

    gee I wonder why someone would only be out the people in the lgbt resource group. clearly she must be a liar.

    The only people at work I’m out to as nonbinary are those in the lgbt resource group. this is really common, and not any of OP’s business.

    Reply ↓
  62. kalli*

    Nobody was sworn to secrecy. Gender and sexuality are rarely actually relevant at work so they don’t come up in discussion, and it’s good manners not to out someone without their permission, especially where there are raging homophobes coming for their jobs or they risk other kinds of material loss from being outed.

    If anything, Pam was made lead because she will advocate instead of waiting for someone else to, as described.

    There is genuinely nothing to see here LW; you had your shot and either didn’t act, or were too afraid to act, and chose for to not be your problem.

    I promise you that us queers, however so described, are capable of looking out for ourselves.

    Reply ↓
  63. Manic Sunday*

    Sometimes folks send letters to AAM when they have a legitimate grievance against someone, or a sticky situation, that they don’t feel empowered to resolve … so they ask for advice on how to solve a different problem, one that they really *shouldn’t* take action on , or they’re blowing it out of proportion, or they aren’t actually sure this different problem even exists.

    When you have no effective way out of your real problem other than quitting your job, it can be oddly comforting to expend a bunch of mental and emotional energy trying to fix something else. But ultimately this serves no one.

    Even if Pam is lying about her identity, there is no way of “fixing” it that won’t make the situation worse. If the OP is going to spend this much energy on The Problem of Pam, they could redirect it to helping Pam’s manager (assuming that person agrees Pam is awful, which they probably do) exhaust every possible legal avenue for getting rid of Pam. Talk to employment lawyers, do more research, look for any possible recourse until you know you’ve done everything you can about your REAL problem if that’s what it takes to relieve the frustration. Or throw yourself into learning more coping strategies. Or look for another job. But Pam’s sexual orientation has to go into the “MYOB” file in your brain.

    It sucks, and I feel bad for OP. Pam sounds like a workplace nightmare.

    Reply ↓
  64. epizeugma*

    Unfortunately, speaking as a queer person: queer people can be power-hungry, attention-seeking, careless, out of touch with workplace norms, and just plain annoying, just as much as straight cis people can.

    Her orientation is none of your business.

    Beyond that, if you make it known that you think she’s “faking” because she used to describe herself as a straight ally (and still does in some contexts), you will be signaling to every other closeted, questioning, or otherwise not-yet-ready-to-come-out person in your life that you might think they’re “faking” too if they ever come out to you.

    Reply ↓
    1. CommanderBanana*

      ” queer people can be power-hungry, attention-seeking, careless, out of touch with workplace norms, and just plain annoying,”

      Thank you. One of the worst bosses I ever had, a truly morally bankrupt person, was a gay man. His orientation had nothing to do with him being a truly terrible person in many ways.

      Reply ↓
      1. Angstrom*

        “No, I don’t dislike you because you’re gay. I dislike you because you’re an arrogent rude lying jerk.”

        Reply ↓
  65. Kelly*

    I’m queer and have been in plenty of relationships folks assume are straight. Lots of queer folks have different opinions here but I don’t think the way someone identifies is anyone else’s business. As far as I’m concerned, if you say you’re bi, you are. You have described a very unpleasant person but unfortunately bad people can be queer too. There are so many other sucky things about your co-worker other than their sexual orientation, and so many better reasons to think they’re a bad person and sucky co-worker.

    Reply ↓
  66. Raida*

    Pam’s performance should be actually managed, and her put on a PIP, and nobody should ever mention her “secret” queerness during the process.

    It can take months, but you can fire a person.

    So… her manager actually needs to do the work to get rid of her.

    Reply ↓
  67. Sparrow*

    Yeah, I would leave the issue of whether she’s really queer or not out of it. For one thing, as Allison mentioned, it’s possible that she’s just out in some circles but not others. For another, it’s very possible that she did identify as straight when she joined the group, but came out over time—I know so, so, SO many queer people who joined a queer group as a cishet ally and then realized they were also queer thanks to the supportive, queer-affirming environment they were in.

    Pam sounds like a disastrous mess in a lot of ways, but unfortunately, queer people can also be disastrous messes. I have known plenty of queer people who I thought were just genuinely awful people, and the thing is, a lot of them DID utilize their identity in the exact same way Pam is right now.

    So I think there is a good chance Pam is genuinely queer—but regardless, it’s really just not anyone’s business.

    Reply ↓
  68. Sans Serif*

    The other problem here is that if she really is LBGTQ – and OP gets blowback for raising the question – that diverts attention from the other things she’s doing. At that point, she’d claim anyone complaining about her work actions was discriminating against her. There’d be no chance of dealing with her very real issues.

    Reply ↓
  69. Gh0st*

    Ugh, I’ve dealt with someone like Pam before- they were a liar, untrustworthy, caused unnecessary drama, and, among many other shady things, seemed to have coopted a queer identity for personal benefit/clout. I’m queer myself and found it to be very gross.

    It’s frustrating, though, because even if you know the person well and have strong reason to believe they’re faking it, there’s nothing positive you can really do. Like Alison and a lot of commenters have said, it’s not the real actionable issue and questioning someone’s identity isn’t appropriate. Doing so would be dangerous for the LGBT community (especially folks with less visible identities), make you look bad, and could also actually be wrong. Even with my Pam- it’s totally possible that their identity is legit, and they just also happen to be morally bankrupt.

    In my case, I just learned to accept that my Pam was a toxic person for many reasons and cut them out of my life. You have my sympathy LW, and I hope you can find similar peace.

    Reply ↓
  70. learnedthehardway*

    Her sexuality – real or imaginary – is irrelevant and it’s not your business. The members of the LBTQ+ group are adults and are more than capable of figuring out whether she is there simply for attention or not.

    Sure, she might be co-opting an identity, but that’s not really the issue. No good can come of addressing it – a) you’re not a member of the group that she may or may not be exploiting – it would be patronizing at best for you to interfere, b) you really do not know whether or not she is genuinely a member of that community (it’s entirely possible for someone to realize they are LGBTQ+ over time), and c) being perceived as persecuting her or treating her differently on the basis of her claimed sexual orientation is going to be taken by her (and anyone else) as illegal discrimination.

    The issue is her lack of professional demeanor and her attention seeking behaviour that is crossing professional boundaries. THAT is actionable and should be dealt with by her manager. Her manager should be telling her to a) NOT bypass chains of command but rather to address her questions to the appropriate level person in the company, b) not contact senior leadership unless she has specific approval, and c) to get her own work done. Frankly, she should be on a PIP for all this, and should be directly told that her actions are putting her job at risk.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS