“You Can’t Say That!”: How Speaking About My Experiences as a Woman Researcher Ended My Academic Career

Does “bringing your whole self to work” truly include everyone? One researcher reflects on speech, identity, and the professional consequences of discussing her own experiences in modern academia.

After devoting half of my life to academia, I learned a career-destroying lesson in irony: In a workplace that celebrated diversity, equity, and inclusion, discussing my own experiences as a woman post-doctoral researcher was professionally dangerous.

It started at lunch in a restaurant with my non-binary research supervisor and two graduate students. We were discussing short-term visiting professor positions in our field (chemistry). Often these positions lack a clear path to stability, and so position-hopping can continue indefinitely. I made an observation (backed by data from Stanford University): Men are less likely than women to relocate for their partner’s career. I admit I was hyperbolic: “Men won’t follow women around for their careers,” I vented. At the time, I was struggling to find academic positions that would allow me to remain in contact with my friends, family, or partner. I worried that I would have to choose between human connection and employment.

My supervisor (whose wife is fortunate enough to have a dual-hire arrangement — the kind of institutional accommodation that, for some, solves the problem I was describing) became visibly angry and shouted: “You can’t say that!” Even though I explained that I was referring to a possible statistical or cultural pattern, their response was to liken my observation to the racist misuse of crime statistics.

I was stunned and shaken, too distressed to explain myself in a more nuanced way. My supervisor’s publicly posted policy was to immediately fire anyone who said anything they deem racist, sexist, or “-phobi”c: “The consequences will be swift and severe.” That didn’t stop others in the group from routinely making sweeping generalizations about society and identities without consequence. Yet when I referenced a sex-based pattern I had noticed in my own life, I was loudly and publicly shut down.

My supervisor heavily promoted their nascent research group as a place where people should “bring their whole selves to work.” Discussions of sexuality, gender identity, mental health, and personal struggles were common. I always listened supportively when others shared their experiences, feelings, and identities.

Initially, I brushed off the incident. My young supervisor and I were close: I cat-sat for them, and we went night-time owl-watching together. They shared a lot of personal information with me, so I felt comfortable making myself vulnerable. I was their ally and sang their praises to anyone who would listen. After a conference we attended together, they texted me their hope to remain “lifelong friends.” But over time, further conflicts arose between us whenever I mentioned issues that disproportionately affect women.

A few months later, while discussing my academic career plan with my supervisor, I opined, “Nobody wants to talk about it, but I think there are differences between men’s and women’s experiences in academia.” I mentioned that some women may face cultural and biological realities—such as women’s health problems necessitating a hysterectomy, or menopause—that affect their ability to remain in extended periods of geographical mobility and career uncertainty. I was not criticizing men (and certainly not non-binary people) or arguing that women are a uniquely oppressed group. I was sharing my own anxieties as a woman on the tenure-track academic job market who also hopes to have a family someday. In that same meeting, I also tried to explain to my supervisor how their often belittling or even angry comments about my “terse,” “direct” academic writing style contributed to my feeling deeply discouraged about my professional future.

By the end of the meeting, I thought we had achieved mutual understanding. But a few days later, I received a formal email stating that my speech had made my supervisor feel “unsafe” and “extremely uncomfortable.” The department chair and Faculty Affairs were alerted. My supervisor planned to reduce mentorship and seek official guidance on ominous “next steps.” My request for mediation through the ombuds office was declined. It seemed that I would imminently be fired—“swift and severe consequences.” My supervisor updated their group policy sheet with boldface and underlining to emphasize the dire consequences for anyone perceived as being intolerant at any time.

I spent over a month trying to figure out what I had done wrong. Eventually, my supervisor revealed that my comments had “made [them] feel like [they were] being binned in with a gender that [they] don’t identify with.” Apparently, any discussion of my personal, female experiences could be reframed as an attack on another gender.

Early in my post-doctoral appointment, the university counseling center dropped the “TQIA+” from the “LGBTQIA+ Peer Support Space” calendar event listing, an ultimately temporary omission. My supervisor described the “erasure” as “genocide” on our research group messaging board, and I responded with a prayer emoji to offer my sympathy for their distress at the university’s seeming pre-emptive over-compliance with new government mandates. But it occurred to me that once an issue is cast in terms of “genocide,” colleagues who hold different views can easily be treated as participants in violence who deserve “swift and severe” punishment. In retrospect, I should have foreseen my fate.

A few more tense months passed until I spoke up again. I was troubled by what I perceived as new, retaliatory, gendered work expectations. I knew my supervisor had told the department chair that I was a productive researcher. But my supervisor started to limit my autonomy while still allowing my male colleague the freedom to work from home at his own discretion, on his own schedule. Now, my workdays were spent listening to loud student conversations in the chaotic group office and doing what felt like student babysitting at the expense of my productivity and career.

They summoned me to their office to discuss my written concerns. That day, my attempt at self-advocacy culminated in a threat to withhold future recommendation letters. In academia, that is career-ending. My concerns and observations were dismissed as “unprofessional” and even unspeakably disgusting when they involved women’s health. My supervisor warned me to look harder and more broadly for a new job. Then they told me to get out of their office. Leaving tearfully, I explained how much their friendship meant to me, emphasizing that I respected their gender identity. Nevertheless, HR began an “information-gathering process” later that day.

Months later, I have still received no resolution from the university, which committed $1 million to start up my supervisor’s lab. Faculty Affairs and HR conspired to employ misleading tactics, tried to impose a prohibited gag order, and, before seeing the evidence, told me I was somehow more “unprofessional” than my supervisor. I decided to complain to the Title IX office. After an initial interview, the office failed to follow up as promised or even respond to my emails for two months until my Family Medical Leave Act job protection was scheduled to end. (Having my career threatened for a perceived transgression took a toll on my mental health and triggered an autoimmune flare, necessitating unpaid leave.) The university appeared far more responsive to accusations framed through the gender-identity lens than to concerns I raised as a subordinate woman. This is an issue because it unjustly serves one group over the other rather than providing dignity for both sides and the opportunity to respectfully resolve conflict. As a result of my experiences, I’ve made the decision to leave academia—happily, at this point.

A woman describing sex-based realities affecting her career makes no one “unsafe.” A healthy intellectual community should be able to tolerate imperfect conversations and different viewpoints. I am not rejecting inclusivity or efforts to make all people feel welcome in science. I am asking whether the exhortation to “bring your whole self to work” actually includes everyone. Instead of empowering the performatively self-righteous to demand ideological obedience, we should promote open communication and professional tolerance of different lived experiences—for all people, not just select groups.

---

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.