Applicants who disclose they’re transgender can face fewer positive employer responses, with the steepest drop linked to a combination of identity and traditionally masculine facial features. The Germany-based experiment offers a striking look at how workplace decisions may be shaped by appearance, assumptions and gender expectations, although the findings remain preliminary because the research hasn’t yet been peer reviewed.

Essential Takeaways

  • Two penalties emerged: Transgender identity and non-passing appearance each reduced positive employer responses.
  • The combination was harsher: Applicants showing both signals faced a 32% reduction compared with control candidates.
  • More than 10,000 applications were tested: The experiment covered real vacancies across 27 German cities and nine occupations.
  • Appearance mattered even without disclosure: Strongly masculine-coded facial features were linked to fewer callbacks.
  • The research is preliminary: It’s a working paper focused on early employer responses, not final job offers.

The biggest penalty came when identity and appearance aligned

The clearest finding is also the most troubling. In a field experiment involving 10,022 fictitious applications, employers responded positively to 47.6% of control applications, while applicants who disclosed a transgender identity or had a non-passing headshot received fewer encouraging responses.

According to PsyPost, the identity-only group saw positive replies fall by 4.1 percentage points. The appearance-only group dropped by 4.6 points. But candidates showing both signals experienced a 15.2-point decline, equivalent to a 32% reduction compared with controls.

In everyday terms, that means an applicant with either signal alone might need roughly 110 applications to achieve the same expected number of positive responses as a comparable cisgender woman. With both signals present, the estimate rose to around 147 applications. It’s a grim calculation, but it makes the scale of the disadvantage easier to picture.

How researchers tested identity and looks separately

The study, authored by University of Toronto doctoral candidate Taryn Eames, used matched applications sent to real German job adverts. German applications commonly include a professional photograph and references, giving researchers a way to vary appearance and identity without changing qualifications.

The headshots were generated as matched pairs. Hair, make-up, clothes, jewellery and background stayed the same, while facial structure changed to create more or less male-coded features. That distinction matters because the experiment wasn’t testing fashion or presentation choices. It was examining how employers reacted to facial characteristics that applicants may have little practical ability to alter.

Identity disclosure was signalled through an old reference letter using a male name, alongside an explanation that the applicant now used a female first name. Control applications either contained no name change or showed a female-to-female name change. The similar results for those two control groups suggested that the response was tied specifically to a transgender signal, rather than name changes generally.

Why passing and workplace assumptions matter

The research sits within a wider conversation about “passing”, a term describing whether someone is perceived as cisgender. Previous work has shown that transgender and non-binary people can be judged differently even when the underlying appearance remains unchanged, while broader evidence points to elevated mistreatment and economic disadvantage.

The follow-up survey, involving 1,400 people in Germany and the United States, offered clues about the attitudes behind the hiring decisions. Respondents rated non-passing applicants as less attractive and expected colleagues and customers to feel less comfortable around them. Applicants who disclosed a transgender identity were also judged as less emotionally stable, with the sharpest difference appearing when disclosure and a non-passing appearance were combined.

That doesn’t prove every employer consciously holds those views. Hiring decisions can be shaped by quick impressions, workplace stereotypes and guesses about how customers or colleagues might react. Still, the pattern suggests that bias can operate through apparently practical concerns, such as “fit” or customer comfort, while reproducing old-fashioned gender expectations.

The effect changed with the job and the labour market

The penalty wasn’t identical everywhere. Job adverts naming a male contact person showed stronger appearance-related disadvantages, while adverts listing a female contact person showed little effect from appearance alone unless the applicant also disclosed a transgender identity.

The researchers also found indications that non-passing applicants faced greater difficulty in roles involving more customer interaction. That’s consistent with the uncomfortable idea that some employers may be trying to anticipate customers’ reactions rather than judging whether someone can do the work.

Meanwhile, discrimination appeared weaker in tight labour markets, when employers were competing more fiercely for available workers. It’s a useful reminder that hiring bias isn’t only about personal attitudes. The economic pressure surrounding a vacancy can influence whether prejudice is acted upon.

What the findings can and can’t tell us

The paper is a working paper hosted on SSRN, so it hasn’t gone through peer review. It also measured initial positive responses, such as interview invitations, rather than job offers, wages or long-term career progression. The jobs tested were mainly lower- and middle-skill roles that didn’t require a university degree.

There are other limitations. A still photograph can’t capture voice, height, movement or body shape, all of which may affect how someone is perceived in person. Some of the appearance penalty may also overlap with wider appearance-based discrimination, although that doesn’t make the result any less relevant for applicants affected by it.

Crucially, the findings shouldn’t be read as advice for transgender women to change themselves. Eames told PsyPost that reducing discrimination, alongside ensuring access to gender-affirming care for those who want it, should be the priority. The responsibility belongs with employers and institutions to make decisions based on skills and suitability, not whether a candidate matches a narrow visual idea of womanhood.

The study’s most useful contribution is its reminder that identity and appearance don’t operate in isolation. When employers know someone belongs to a marginalised group, the same facial features may be judged more harshly. That’s a sobering insight for anyone hoping that workplace equality will be achieved simply by banning explicit questions on application forms.

It's a small set of hiring decisions on paper, but a much bigger question about who gets to be seen as employable.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: