Bias Does Not Always Look Like Bias

When people think of workplace bias, they usually picture something obvious. A sexist comment in a meeting. An unequal pay structure. A promotion denied because of gender. These are the kinds of bias that companies train their teams to recognise and eliminate.

But bias has quieter forms too. Forms that look so much like care and consideration that nobody thinks to question them. And one of those forms is hiding in plain sight in how many corporates plan their women’s safety workshops.

It sounds like this: “We would prefer a female instructor. Our women employees will feel more comfortable that way.”

On the surface, this sounds thoughtful. Below the surface, it contains three hidden biases that are worth examining honestly.

Hidden Bias Number One: Women Cannot Learn From Men

The assumption that a female instructor is inherently better suited to teach women carries an unspoken belief: that women cannot learn effectively from a male professional.

Think about how this assumption would be received in any other context. Would you tell your female employees they cannot attend a leadership seminar because the speaker is male? Would you refuse to send them to a conference because the keynote presenter is a man? Would you reject a financial consultant, a legal advisor, or a medical professional based on their gender?

Of course not. Because in every other professional context, we understand that competence is not linked to gender. A male cardiologist treats female patients. A female defence lawyer represents male clients. We do not even think about it.

But somehow, when it comes to self-defense training, gender suddenly becomes the primary qualification. This inconsistency reveals a bias, one that suggests women are uniquely incapable of learning from men in this particular setting. And that suggestion, however well-meaning, undermines the very women it is trying to support.

Hidden Bias Number Two: Women Are Too Fragile for Discomfort

The comfort argument rests on an assumption about women’s emotional capacity. Specifically, it assumes that the presence of a male instructor will be so uncomfortable for women that it will prevent them from learning.

These are the same women who negotiate with difficult clients. Who manage teams under pressure. Who handle aggressive deadlines, hostile work environments, and complex interpersonal dynamics every single day. The idea that they cannot handle a professional male instructor in a safe, structured workshop is, frankly, an underestimation of their strength.

And here is the deeper problem. Self-defense training exists precisely because women face threats from men in the real world. Domestic violence. Street harassment. Workplace intimidation. Assault. These are the realities that the training is supposed to prepare them for. If the training itself is designed to insulate women from any male presence whatsoever, it is practising avoidance in a context that demands confrontation.

“When we assume women cannot handle learning from a male instructor, we are telling them that their capacity for engagement is limited by the gender of the person standing in front of them. That is not protection. That is a cage built with kindness.”

Read Franklin Joseph Corporate Women Empowerment / Self Defense ArticlesCall 9886769281 for Corporate Workshops

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

Hidden Bias Number Three: The Instructor’s Gender Matters More Than the Instructor’s Knowledge

This is perhaps the most damaging bias of all. When gender becomes the first and primary filter for selecting a trainer, everything else becomes secondary. The instructor’s depth of knowledge in crime psychology, their understanding of how criminals operate, their ability to address the freeze response, their experience with real-world threat scenarios, their capacity to teach post-crime recovery, all of this gets pushed down the priority list.

And what goes up? A single demographic characteristic that has nothing to do with teaching ability.

The result is that companies often end up with a female martial arts instructor who teaches women how to punch pads and perform kicks, but who has no specialised training in criminal behaviour, no understanding of the psychological phases of crime, and no framework for addressing the real barriers that prevent women from defending themselves: fear, social conditioning, freeze responses, and learned helplessness.

The women leave the workshop having had an enjoyable time. They have photos for social media. But their actual preparedness for real danger has barely moved.

“Choosing a self-defense instructor by gender is like choosing a surgeon by height. It has nothing to do with the job. And it guarantees nothing about the outcome.”

Read Franklin Joseph Corporate Women Empowerment / Self Defense ArticlesCall 9886769281 for Corporate Workshops

– Specialist Franklin Joseph

What the Law Says About This Bias

This is not just a philosophical concern. It is a legal one.

When a company specifies that only a person of a particular gender may perform a job, and that job has no genuine gender-based requirement, it is engaging in gender-based discrimination. Here is how that intersects with Indian and international law.

• Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution guarantee equality and prohibit sex-based discrimination in opportunity and employment.
• Section 5 of the Equal Remuneration Act prohibits gender discrimination in recruitment for similar work.
• Section 3 of the Code on Wages, 2019 reinforces the prohibition of gender-based discrimination.
• The POSH Act mandates safety training but does not require any specific gender for the trainer. The Act is about dismantling gender bias, not reinforcing it.
• BFOQ standards allow gender requirements only when gender is essential to the job. Self-defense instruction is a knowledge profession. Gender is not essential.
• Most companies’ own DEI policies explicitly prohibit gender-based discrimination in hiring and procurement.
• ILO Convention No. 111 and CEDAW, both ratified by India, prohibit sex-based occupational discrimination and gender stereotyping respectively.
• ESG reporting frameworks assess non-discrimination under the Social component. Gender-based vendor exclusion can affect ESG compliance.

The bias is not just hidden in the thinking. It is embedded in the decision. And the decision has legal dimensions that companies should be mindful of.

How to Remove the Bias and Improve the Outcome

The good news is that removing this bias actually leads to better training outcomes. When you stop filtering by gender and start filtering by expertise, you open the door to instructors who can genuinely transform your employees’ understanding of personal safety.

Here is what an unbiased selection process looks like.

• Ask about the instructor’s background in crime psychology and behavioural threat assessment.
• Ask whether the program addresses all three phases of crime: pre-crime awareness, during-crime response, and post-crime recovery.
• Ask how the program handles psychological barriers like the freeze response, social conditioning, and learned helplessness.
• Ask whether the training is scenario-based and grounded in real crime patterns, or whether it is essentially a martial arts class with a different label.
• Ask for client references and documented outcomes.
• Ask how the instructor creates a safe, respectful, professional learning environment regardless of gender dynamics.

These questions focus on what will actually protect your employees. And they are entirely gender-neutral, which means they are entirely consistent with your values and your policies.

See the Bias. Name the Bias. Move Past the Bias.

Every company has blind spots. That is not a failing. It is a reality. What matters is whether you are willing to look at those blind spots honestly and make adjustments.

The hidden bias in the “female instructor only” requirement is not malicious. It comes from care. But care, when uninformed, can lead to decisions that undermine the very people it is trying to help.

See the bias. Name it. And then make the decision that actually serves your employees best: choose the most qualified instructor available, and let their expertise speak louder than their gender.

“The most dangerous biases are the ones that disguise themselves as compassion. Because nobody questions them. And because nobody questions them, they quietly shape policies, decisions, and outcomes without anyone noticing. Until someone gets hurt.”

– Specialist Franklin Joseph