@mcnees
One time I was sharing a flat with a fellow trans leftists. I and a flatmate were both part of the defence sector. I was a contractor, she was MoD. While reading the news I asked "Why do you work for them?"
She responded: "I'm a tranny, nobody else would hire me."
At the time I felt a pull in two different directions. At first, I agreed. To become a defence contractor was the only position I could find as an electronics engineer that didn't flat-out refuse to consider me. However, the third flatmate had managed to leave the tech sector to work part-time at a homelessness charity. I met trans bouncers, accountants, delivery drivers, fundraisers, electricians, union reps, social workers, massage therapists, bartenders! It's specifically the engineering sector which has this cycle.
A common thing with queer "skilled" labour is to turn to state capital for employment. The state cannot be decoupled from the active site of struggle that is the recognition of rights of oppressed people, so long as they are "productive." For skilled labour like engineering, individual workers have more "recognised" bargaining power. To get the expertise required for "skilled" labour also tends to imply privilege in other areas. The casualisation of engineering is changing this.
The nonunionised private sector interfaces this active struggle after the fact through legislation, law, and organic cultural shifts. They also have the lack of accountability to selectively flout our rights. The state has none of these 'privileges.' So long as the bourgeoisie maintains its illusion of democracy, it has to claim to represent us for the sake of coopting revolutionary struggle. This has a ripple effect on the military-industrial complex. Lockheed and Rolls Royce can hypocritically claim progressiveness while the multitudinous contractors they employ tend to betray this. They also get to do a bit of pinkwashing!