Professional women across LinkedIn are conducting an unprecedented social experiment: temporarily changing their gender to male to test whether the platform's mysterious algorithm favours male voices. The results have sparked a fierce debate about digital equality in the workplace.
The Experiment That Started It All
It began when entrepreneurs Cindy Gallop and Jane Evans, with a combined LinkedIn following exceeding 154,000, asked two male colleagues with significantly smaller audiences to post identical content simultaneously. Despite their substantial reach advantage, the men's posts achieved higher engagement and visibility, prompting Gallop and Evans to question whether LinkedIn's algorithm systematically prioritises male users.
Since this initial test, numerous professional women have reported similar findings. Mental health communications strategist Megan Cornish revealed her post views increased by 399% after changing her gender marker to male for one week. Cornish also used AI to rewrite her profile and posts using more 'agentic' language typically associated with male professionals, though she noted her experiment summary written in her authentic voice received fewer impressions.
Personal Stories Reveal Disturbing Pattern
Branding consultant Felice Ayling, founder of Loud Women, changed her gender on LinkedIn almost accidentally after hearing similar stories from other female professionals. "I'm pretty sure that within 24 hours I'd completely forgotten that I'd done it," she admits. When she later checked her analytics, she discovered her impressions had more than doubled despite maintaining her usual writing style and content topics.
Nicole Ratcliffe, founder of The Workplace Sleep Coach, participated in a 48-hour test where she became 'Nick' with a male profile picture. "I didn't do this out of curiosity," she explains. "I did it because I'm a woman whose work depends on visibility." Ratcliffe reported that her reach increased significantly as Nick, even with lower engagement rates. Most startlingly, one follower revealed he'd only started seeing her posts when she presented as male, despite having notifications enabled for months.
LinkedIn's Response and Broader Implications
LinkedIn has firmly denied these allegations. In a company engineering blog post, employee Sakshi Jain stated that their algorithms "do not use demographic information (such as age, race, or gender) as a signal to determine the visibility of content." The platform considers hundreds of other signals including industry, seniority level, network connections and user activity.
A LinkedIn spokesperson told The Independent: "Our algorithms do not use gender as a ranking signal, and changing gender on your profile does not affect how your content appears in search or feed."
However, with LinkedIn's user base being 57% male and 43% female, experts suggest the algorithm may have learned to prioritise male-coded language and behaviour as the norm. "Algorithms learn from human behaviour," Ayling suggests, "and the kind of content and activity, tone and language it's rewarding is inherently masculine."
The experiment's results aren't universal. Writer Cass Cooper, who is Black, reported decreased engagement after switching her gender, suggesting intersectional factors complicate the algorithm's behaviour beyond simple gender bias.
As women consider whether they must adopt masculine-coded language or presentation to be heard professionally, the fundamental question remains: are our digital professional spaces perpetuating real-world biases, and what responsibility do platforms bear in addressing them?
