A field experiment conducted in Germany has found that transgender women face notable penalties in the labour market when applying for jobs, particularly when they do not look like a typical cisgender woman. The study shows that disclosing a transgender identity and possessing facial features traditionally associated with men independently reduce employers’ positive responses, and the combination compounds the effect.
Transgender women are individuals who were assigned male at birth but identify as women. They often face elevated barriers in the workforce, including lower employment rates and higher poverty relative to cisgender people. The research occupies a broader field concerned with passing—the extent to which a transgender person is perceived as cisgender.
Previous economic studies documented hiring bias against transgender individuals but tended to focus on identity alone. Researchers often used resumes that disclosed transgender status without showing the applicant’s face, leaving uncertainty about whether employers reacted to identity itself or to assumptions about appearance.
Led by Taryn Eames, a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Toronto, the project aimed to untangle identity and appearance. “People with marginalized identities can face pressure to conceal their identity or conform to dominant-group social expectations, sometimes at considerable personal or financial cost,” she said. “I want to understand whether discrimination reflects someone’s identity, whether they fit those expectations, or how the two interact.”
The researchers conducted a correspondence study in Germany, sending matched fictitious applications to real employers and tracking responses. German postings routinely include a professional headshot and reference letters, enabling a realistic test of appearance signals. The study submitted 10,022 fictitious applications in paired trials across 27 cities and nine occupations.
In the first manipulation, headshots were varied. Eames used artificial intelligence to generate 30 matched pairs of “twin” headshots. The passing version depicted a woman who looked typically cisgender, while the non-passing version kept the same hairstyle, makeup, clothing and background but altered facial structure to feature more male-coded traits. No employer received both versions of the same face.
“This study varies physical facial features while keeping gender presentation fixed, including hairstyle, makeup, clothing, and jewellery,” Eames noted. “These features reflect genetics, pubertal development, and access to gender-affirming care—factors often beyond an individual’s control. They are not styling choices an applicant can simply change when applying for a job.”
Second, the experiment tested whether applicants disclosed a transgender identity. In Germany, a name change can leave older work documents under a previous name, so some fictitious applicants included a modern female name alongside a years-old reference letter under a male name and a note that they now use a female first name, providing a plausible administrative reason for disclosure.
Control applicants all had passing headshots. Some disclosed no name change, while others disclosed a female-to-female change. These two control groups received positive responses at nearly identical rates, suggesting that employers reacted to transgender identity signalled by a male-to-female change rather than to name changes in general.
The results showed penalties for both a transgender identity and a non-passing appearance. Among control applicants, 47.6 percent received a positive response, such as an interview request. Applicants who disclosed a transgender identity but had a passing headshot received positive responses at 4.1 percentage points fewer than controls, a 9 percent reduction. Those with a non-passing headshot but no disclosure saw a 4.6 percentage point drop, a 10 percent reduction.
The penalties were largest when both signals were present. Applicants who both disclosed a name change and had a non-passing appearance had positive responses 15.2 percentage points lower than controls, a 32 percent reduction. This combined penalty exceeded the sum of the two individual penalties by 6.5 percentage points.
“To illustrate, suppose an otherwise comparable, presumably cisgender woman submits 100 applications,” Eames explained. “An applicant with either signal alone would need approximately 110–111 applications to receive the same expected number of positive employer responses. With both signals, she would need about 147 applications.”
“I was surprised by how strongly the two signals compounded each other,” she added. “Employers may already infer that an applicant is transgender from masculinized facial features, so the two signals may partly convey the same identity information.”
The strength of the non-passing appearance also shaped outcomes. Moderately non-passing headshots without disclosure produced a small, statistically insignificant penalty of about 4 percent. Strongly non-passing headshots without disclosure led to a 15 percent drop in callbacks, while pairing a strongly non-passing headshot with identity disclosure produced a 36 percent penalty.
The job posting context mattered as well. Postings with a male contact person showed higher penalties for appearance, whereas postings with a female contact person showed little penalty for non-passing appearance unless paired with identity disclosure. Exploratory analyses suggested larger penalties for roles involving more customer interaction and smaller discrimination in tighter labour markets.
A follow-up survey experiment engaged 1,400 members of the public from Germany and the United States to gauge perceptions behind the hiring patterns. Participants evaluated the same scenarios and rated eight traits, including competence, attractiveness and emotional stability, alongside willingness to offer an interview.
Respondents judged non-passing applicants about 1.4 points less attractive on a seven-point scale, regardless of disclosure. Anticipated coworker and customer comfort was lower in every condition: about 0.3 points lower when an applicant disclosed a name change but passed, about 0.5 points lower when not passing and no disclosure, and up to about 1 point lower when both signals were present.
Transgender applicants across all three groups were viewed as less emotionally stable, with the largest drop when both signals were present. Disclosing a name change led respondents to expect more concerns about workplace comments or behaviour, an expectation more than twice as strong when paired with a non-passing appearance.
Survey participants were less willing to interview applicants with either signal, but unlike the field experiment, the signals did not compound. Eames noted that survey respondents may tone down pronounced rating differences that could appear overtly discriminatory when the study’s purpose is obvious.
The survey also found differences by age and views. Older respondents tended to penalise transgender identity more heavily, while socially conservative respondents penalised the non-passing appearance more heavily.
“The main takeaway is that transgender identity and masculinised facial features each carry a hiring penalty, but the combined penalty is greater than the sum of the two separate penalties,” Eames said. “In other words, employers penalise the same facial features more heavily when an applicant is known to be transgender. More broadly, these findings suggest that deviating from dominant-group expectations can be especially costly when someone is known to belong to a marginalized group.”
As with all research, there are caveats. The working paper is not yet peer reviewed, and the compounding effect proved sensitive to analytic choices. The study measured initial employer responses rather than final job offers and focused on lower- to middle-skill roles.
Headshots were static, whereas passing in real life depends on a broader array of traits, such as voice and height; thus the study may understate the overall penalties faced. The authors note that non-passing appearance biases could partly reflect broader concerns about unattractiveness tied to traditional gender norms, and the survey evaluated brief profiles rather than hiring decisions in real workplaces.
Facial feminisation surgery is one form of gender-affirming care that can influence passing. The author emphasised policy implications: barriers to gender-affirming care, including gaps in insurance coverage, may have consequences in terms of exposure to discrimination.
However, the researcher stressed that solutions should not hinge on individuals changing their appearance. “The goal should be to reduce discrimination while ensuring access to gender-affirming care for those who want it.”
The study, titled The Cost of Being Seen: Identity, Non-Passing Appearance, and Hiring Discrimination Against Transgender Women, was authored by Taryn Eames.
