Beyond Gender: Why Workplace Dignity Must Protect Everyone

By- Dr Srabani Basu

Associate Professor, Department of Literature and Languages ,SRM University AP, Amaravati.

Every civilised society is ultimately judged not by the laws it creates, but by the values those laws embody. At their best, laws are not merely instruments of punishment; they are declarations of collective conscience. They tell us what a society chooses to protect, what it refuses to tolerate, and what it believes every human being deserves. The law relating to the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace emerged from precisely such a moral imperative—to ensure that women could participate in professional life without fear, intimidation or coercion. It addressed an undeniable historical reality: women have faced systemic discrimination and harassment in workplaces across the world.

The importance of that legislation cannot and should not be diminished.

Yet every mature legal framework must also possess the courage to evolve when lived realities reveal complexities that were previously overlooked. The conversation today is no longer merely about protecting women; it is about protecting human dignity. And dignity, unlike gender, does not discriminate.

As organisations become increasingly diverse, collaborative and psychologically aware, one uncomfortable truth deserves thoughtful examination: men, too, can become victims of workplace harassment, coercion, manipulation and abuse. Their experiences may not always fit conventional narratives, but their suffering is no less real simply because it is less frequently acknowledged.

Perhaps the time has come to ask a difficult question—not whether women deserve protection, because they unquestionably do—but whether every human being deserves equal protection from harassment.

The answer seems self-evident.

Our understanding of harassment itself has evolved considerably over the past two decades. Earlier, it was often reduced to overt sexual advances or explicit misconduct. Today we recognise that harassment can be psychological, emotional, verbal, digital, relational and reputational. It can involve abuse of authority, coercive communication, persistent unwanted attention, humiliation, intimidation, threats to professional growth or malicious attempts to destroy credibility.

These experiences are not biologically determined.Power is not synonymous with gender.Power exists wherever one individual can exploit another’s vulnerability.

Psychologists have long observed that coercive behaviour emerges not from biological sex but from the interaction between personality, opportunity, organisational culture and power dynamics. Individuals high in manipulativeness, narcissistic traits or a desire for dominance may employ very different strategies depending upon context. Some rely on physical intimidation; others exploit emotional dependency, social influence or reputational threats. The objective remains identical, and that is, to gain control over another person.

Viewed through this lens, harassment becomes less about men versus women and more about the misuse of power against vulnerability.Ironically, this shift brings us closer to the original ethical purpose of workplace protection.

An equally overlooked dimension concerns the psychology of male victimhood. Across cultures, men are often socialised into emotional restraint. From childhood, many learn that strength means silence, vulnerability signifies weakness and asking for help is somehow incompatible with masculinity. Expressions such as “man up” or “boys don’t cry” may appear harmless, yet they create psychological barriers that discourage reporting distress.

Consequently, when men experience inappropriate advances, emotional blackmail, repeated humiliation or manipulative accusations, many choose silence over disclosure.

Not because the experience is insignificant, but the anticipated social response may be worse than the experience itself.

“What will people think?”

“Who will believe me?”

“Will I be ridiculed?”

“Will reporting this make me look weak?”

Such internal dialogues are neither hypothetical nor uncommon among male victims documented in psychological literature. Shame, self-doubt and fear of social disbelief often prevent reporting, creating a hidden population that remains largely invisible in workplace conversations.

Educational institutions provide another context that deserves thoughtful reflection. Teachers frequently interact with young adults navigating identity, relationships and emotional development. Most interactions are entirely appropriate. Yet educators occasionally encounter situations involving emotional dependency, boundary violations, persistent personal attention or allegations arising from misunderstanding, disappointment or interpersonal conflict.

Similarly, students themselves, irrespective of gender, may become vulnerable to emotional manipulation, coercive relationships or reputational harm.

These realities remind us that vulnerability is contextual rather than exclusively gendered.

A psychologically safe institution therefore cannot protect only one category of individuals while assuming that everyone else is immune.

Another dimension deserving careful discussion concerns false or malicious allegations. This subject often polarises public debate because it is frequently misunderstood. Research suggests that intentionally false reports constitute a minority of complaints, and it is important not to exaggerate their prevalence. At the same time, acknowledging that they are uncommon does not mean pretending they never occur.

Justice requires holding two truths simultaneously.Most complainants deserve to be heard with empathy and seriousness.Those accused also deserve fairness, impartial investigation and the opportunity to respond.

These principles are not contradictory; they are complementary. Due process is not the enemy of victim protection. It is one of its foundations because confidence in any grievance mechanism depends upon procedural fairness for everyone involved.

Organisational psychologists increasingly emphasise the importance of psychologically safe workplaces. Psychological safety refers to an environment where individuals feel secure enough to speak honestly without fear of humiliation, retaliation or unfair consequences. Significantly, this principle applies equally to complainants, respondents and witnesses.

A culture driven by fear benefits no one.A culture driven by trust benefits everyone.Forward-looking organisations are therefore beginning to adopt broader dignity-at-work frameworks. Such approaches retain robust safeguards against sexual harassment while simultaneously recognising bullying, stalking, digital harassment, emotional coercion, abuse of authority and retaliatory behaviour regardless of the gender of those involved.

This represents not a dilution of women’s rights but an expansion of human rights.After all, organisations do not flourish because one group feels protected while another feels unheard.They flourish because everyone believes the system is fair.

The future of workplace ethics may therefore lie less in gender-specific assumptions and more in behaviour-specific accountability. Instead of asking, “Who is more likely to offend?” organisations might ask, “What behaviours violate human dignity?” Instead of categorising people primarily by gender, they might examine patterns of power, consent, coercion, boundaries and organisational responsibility.

Such a shift also reflects advances in behavioural science. Human behaviour is shaped by personality, cognition, context, incentives, social learning and organisational culture. Ethical systems become stronger when they respond to observable behaviour rather than stereotypes about who can or cannot become a victim.

Perhaps this is the philosophical evolution our workplaces now require.The objective is not to replace one narrative with another.Nor is it to create a competition of suffering.Pain cannot be measured through identity categories.Humiliation feels humiliating regardless of gender.Fear feels frightening regardless of gender.Manipulation remains manipulation regardless of who employs it.

Every individual enters the workplace carrying invisible stories, private struggles and fundamental hopesto be respected, to contribute meaningfully and to return home with dignity intact. The workplace should never become a theatre where these aspirations are compromised through harassment, intimidation or abuse.

History demanded that we recognise the vulnerabilities women had endured for generations. Society was right to respond. But wisdom requires that our compassion continues to expand rather than remain confined within historical binaries.

The deepest purpose of any protective law is not simply to shield one demographic; it is to affirm the intrinsic worth of every human being. If the workplace of the future is truly to become inclusive, psychologically safe and ethically mature, then our commitment must be directed not merely towards protecting women or protecting men, but towards protecting people.

Ultimately, dignity has no gender.

Justice should not either.