Globally, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations are more vulnerable to poverty than heterosexual people. Prior studies suggest that differences in human capital, intrahousehold dynamics, and discrimination based on sexual orientation likely contribute to their collective disadvantage. Few studies, however, disentangle the distinct effects of sexual orientation and gender nonconformity in appearance and behavior on economic well-being. Drawing on the first large-scale survey of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, which inquired about gendered appearance and experiences of gender behavior policing, we examine the relationship between gender nonconformity and income position, controlling for individual- and country-level factors. Results from multilevel ordered logistic regression models show that gender-nonconforming appearances and experiences of gender behavior policing are correlated with lower income positions among LGB populations, with the nature of these associations differing between sexual minority women and men. Our findings suggest that while masculinity is generally privileged, societal expectations to express gender normatively through appearance and behavior are key factors shaping the economic well-being of sexual minorities. We term this pattern the gender nonconformity economic penalty—a distinct factor, separate from gender identity and sexual orientation, that helps maintain gendered and sexual oppression.
AhmedAli M.AnderssonLinaHammarstedtMats. 2013. Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring process?Southern Economic Journal79 (3): 565–85.
2.
AntecolHeatherJongAnnekeSteinbergerMichael. 2008. The sexual orientation wage gap: The role of occupational sorting and human capital. ILR Review61 (4): 518–43.
3.
BadgettM. V. Lee. 2001. Lesbian and gay think tanks: Thinking for success. In Sexual identities, queer politics, edited by BlasiusMark. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
4.
BadgettM. V. Lee. 2018. Left out? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual poverty in the U.S. Population Research and Policy Review37 (5): 667–702.
5.
BadgettM. V. LeeCarpenterChristopher S.SansoneDario. 2021. LGBTQ economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives35 (2): 141–70.
BaumleAmanda K.2009. The cost of parenthood: Unraveling the effects of sexual orientation and gender on income. Social Science Quarterly90 (4): 983–1002.
8.
BaumleAmanda K.PostonDudley L.Jr.2011. The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces89 (3): 1005–31.
9.
BegunStephanieKattariShanna K.2016. Conforming for survival: Associations between transgender visual conformity/passing and homelessness experiences. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services28 (1): 54–66.
10.
BlackDanGatesGarySandersSethTaylorLowell. 2000. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography37 (2): 139–54.
11.
BlandfordJohn M.2003. The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. ILR Review56 (4): 622–42.
12.
BlashillAaron J.PowlishtaKimberly K.2009. Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles61:783–93.
13.
BlumsteinPhilipSchwartzPepper. 1983. American Couples: Money, Work, Sex. New York: Morrow.
14.
BuijsLaurensHekmaGertDuyvendakJan Willem. 2011. ‘As long as they keep away from me’: The paradox of antigay violence in a gay-friendly country. Sexualities14 (6): 632–52.
15.
CarpenterChristopher S.2004. New evidence on gay and lesbian household incomes. Contemporary Economic Policy22 (1): 78–94.
16.
CarpenterChristopher S.EppinkSamuel T.GonzalesGilbert. 2020. Transgender status, gender identity, and socioeconomic outcomes in the United States. ILR Review73 (3): 573–99.
17.
CohenTaya R.HallDeborah L.TuttleJennifer. 2009. Attitudes toward stereotypical versus counterstereotypical gay men and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research46 (4): 274–81.
18.
ConnellR. W.1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
ConnellR. W.1992. A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender. American Sociological Review57 (6): 735–51.
Cushing-DanielsBrendanYeungTsz-Ying. 2009. Wage penalties and sexual orientation: An update using the General Social Survey. Contemporary Economic Policy27 (2): 164–75.
22.
DaneshvaryNasser, C.WaddoupsJeffreyWimmerBradley S.2009. Previous marriage and the lesbian wage premium. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society48 (3): 432–53.
23.
DeFilippisJoseph Nicholas. 2016. “What about the rest of us?” An overview of LGBT poverty issues and a call to action. Journal of Progressive Human Services27 (3): 143–74.
24.
DrydakisNick. 2011. Women’s sexual orientation and labor market outcomes in Greece. Feminist Economics17 (1): 89–117.
25.
DrydakisNick. 2015. Sexual orientation discrimination in the United Kingdom’s labour market: A field experiment. Human Relations68 (11): 1769–96.
26.
DrydakisNickSidiropoulouKaterinaBozaniVasilikiSelmanovicSandraPatnaikSwetketu. 2018. Masculine vs feminine personality traits and women’s employment outcomes in Britain. International Journal of Manpower39 (4): 621–30.
27.
ElmslieBruceTebaldiEdinaldo. 2007. Sexual orientation and labor market discrimination. Journal of Labor Research28 (3): 436–53.
FasoliFabioMaassAnnePaladinoMaria PaolaSulpizioSimone. 2017. Gay- and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior46 (5): 1261–77.
30.
FlageAlexandre. 2020. Discrimination against gays and lesbians in hiring decisions: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Manpower41 (6): 671–91.
FrensIsabelle J.2019. The influence of gender-nonconformity and gender on ratings of job applicants. Master Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/34656.
33.
FricKarel. 2017. Access to the labour market for gays and lesbians: Research review. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services29 (4): 319–61.
34.
FricKarel. 2019. How does being out at work relate to discrimination and unemployment of gays and lesbians?Journal for Labour Market Research53:14.
35.
GlickPeterGanglCandiceGibbSamanthaKlumpnerSusanWeinbergEmily. 2007. Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles57 (1–2): 55–59.
36.
HarryJoseph. 1982. Derivative deviance: The cases of extortion, fag-bashing, and shakedown of gay men. Criminology19 (4): 546–64.
37.
HsuJaime. 2025. Penalizing nonconformity: Gender nonconformity at the intersection of gender and sexual identity in the labor market. Social Problems72 (4): 1793–814.
38.
HuntChristopher JohnFasoliFabioCarnaghiAndreaCadinuMara. 2016. Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat. Psychology of Men & Masculinity17 (1): 108–12.
39.
JepsenLisa K.2007. Comparing the earnings of cohabiting lesbians, cohabiting heterosexual women, and married women: Evidence from the 2000 Census. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society46 (4): 699–727.
40.
KarkRonitWaismel-ManorRonitShamirBoas. 2012. Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly23 (3): 620–40.
41.
KellyErin L.AmmonsSamantha K.ChermackKellyMoenPhyllis. 2010. Gendered challenge, gendered response: Confronting the ideal worker norm in a white-collar organization. Gender & Society24 (3): 281–303.
42.
KeuzenkampSaskia. 2011. Acceptance of Homosexuality in the Netherlands 2011: International Comparison, Trends and Current Situation. Translated by JulianRoss. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.
43.
KlawitterMarieka. 2008. The effects of sexual orientation and marital status on how couples hold their money. Review of Economics of the Household6 (4): 423–46.
44.
KlawitterMarieka. 2011. Multilevel analysis of the effects of antidiscrimination policies on earnings by sexual orientation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management30 (2): 334–58.
45.
KlawitterMarieka. 2015. Meta-analysis of the effects of sexual orientation on earnings. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society54 (1): 4–32.
46.
LeppelKaren. 2016. The labor force status of transgender men and women. International Journal of Transgenderism17 (3–4): 155–64.
47.
LorberJudith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
MillerLisa R.DeniseEric Joy. 2015. The social costs of gender nonconformity for transgender adults: Implications for discrimination and health. Sociological Forum30 (3): 809–31.
49.
MizeTrenton D.2016. Sexual orientation in the labor market. American Sociological Review81 (6): 1132–60.
50.
MizeTrenton D.2019. Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Science6 (4): 81–117.
51.
MizeTrenton D.ManagoBianca. 2018. The stereotype content of sexual orientation. Social Currents5 (5): 458–78.
52.
PachankisJohn E.BränströmRichard. 2018. Hidden from happiness: Structural stigma, sexual orientation concealment, and life satisfaction across 28 countries. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology86 (5): 403–15.
53.
PatacchiniEleonoraRagusaGiuseppeZenouYves. 2015. Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in Europe: Homosexuality and physical appearance. Journal of Population Economics28 (4): 1045–73.
54.
RedmanLaura F.2010. Outing the invisible poor: Why economic justice and access to health care is an LGBT issue. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy17 (3): 451–59.
55.
RiversIanCarragherDaniel J.2003. Social-developmental factors affecting lesbian and gay youth: A review of cross-national research findings. Children & Society17 (5): 374–85.
56.
RyanWilliam S.LegateNicoleWeinsteinNetta. 2015. Coming out as lesbian, gay, or bisexual: The lasting impact of initial disclosure experiences. Self and Identity14 (5): 549–69.
57.
SalvatiMarcoIovernoSalvatoreGiacomantonioMauroBaioccoRoberto. 2016. Attitude toward gay men in an Italian sample: Masculinity and sexual orientation make a difference. Sexuality Research and Social Policy13 (2): 109–18.
58.
SalvatiMarcoPistellaJessicaIovernoSalvatoreGiacomantonioMauroBaioccoRoberto. 2018. Attitude of Italian gay men and Italian lesbian women towards gay and lesbian gender-typed scenarios. Sexuality Research and Social Policy15 (3): 312–28.
59.
SchiltKristen. 2010. Just One of the Guys? Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
SchneebaumAlyssaBadgettM. V. Lee. 2019. Poverty in US lesbian and gay couple households. Feminist Economics25 (1): 1–30.
61.
TakácsJuditDombosTamásMészárosGyörgyTóthTamás P.2012. Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t bother: Homophobia and the heteronorm in Hungary. In Confronting homophobia in Europe: Social and legal perspectives, edited by TrappolinLucaGaspariniAlessandroWintemuteRobert. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
62.
TebaldiEdinaldoElmslieBruce. 2006. Sexual orientation and labour supply. Applied Economics38 (5): 549–62.
63.
UhrigS. C. Noah. 2015. Sexual orientation and poverty in the UK: A review and top-line findings from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Journal of Research in Gender Studies5 (1): 23–72.
64.
ValentineG.1993. (Hetero)sexing space: Lesbian perceptions and experiences of everyday spaces. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space11 (4): 395–413.
WeichselbaumerDoris. 2004. Is it sex or personality? The impact of sex stereotypes on discrimination in applicant selection. Eastern Economic Journal30 (2): 159–86.
WestbrookLaurelSapersteinAliya. 2015. New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender & Society29 (4): 534–60.
ZavodnyMadeline. 2008. Is there a “marriage premium” for gay men?Review of Economics of the Household6 (4): 369–89.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
