Partisan Differences in Hiring and Social Discrimination against Nonbinary Americans

Abstract

Discrimination based on gender identity is unjust and wreaks havoc on individuals’ lives. Nonbinary Americans report experiencing extensive and daily experiences with discriminatory events. Yet experimental evidence on how employers and members of the public evaluate and react to individuals (e.g., job applicants, social acquaintances) with different gender identities remains limited and is mixed. Using experimental data from two conjoint analyses, which we conducted with two national samples—one of active hiring managers (Experiment 1: N = 12,934 applicant choices, N = 924 active hirers) and one of members of the public (Experiment 1: N = 32,908 neighbor choices, N = 2,057 respondents)—we document wide partisan differences in the proclivity to discriminate against people who are nonbinary. Republicans are over 10 percentage points more likely to hire a binary than a nonbinary applicant and are 16 to 20 points more likely to want someone as a neighbor if the person is binary compared to nonbinary.

Millions of people have a nonbinary gender identity, including approximately 1 in 33 young adults in the United States (Brown 2022). These individuals identify as neither exclusively male nor female (McNabb 2018); rather, their gender identity falls “somewhere between or beyond the gender ‘binary’” and may “incorporate elements of both man and woman” (Hegarty, Ansara, and Barker 2018:53). They frequently use nongendered pronouns (e.g., they/them/their), may shift “between male and female, or off the male-female continuum altogether,” and sometimes pursue processes or procedures (e.g., medical or surgical transition) to improve the match between their bodies and their gender identity (McNabb 2018:xv).

Individuals who are nonbinary report experiencing a tremendous amount of stigma and discrimination at home, in public, and at work (Truszczynski, Singh, and Hansen, 2022). In fact, they report daily experiences with discriminatory events, such as verbal harassment, pronoun refusal, social rejection, threats, and physical attacks (Truszczynski, Singh, and Hansen, 2022). Discrimination against people who are nonbinary harms their mental health (Johnson et al. 2023; Truszczynski, Singh, and Hansen, 2022) and may result in in family disruption, housing difficulties, ostracization, underemployment or unemployment, and poverty, negatively affecting their social, psychological, and economic well-being (Hutchinson et al. 2024; Shircliff et al. 2023; Truszczynski, Truszczynski, et al. 2022).

At the same time, experimental evidence on hiring and social discrimination against nonbinary Americans remains limited and is mixed (Fumarco et al. 2024; Kline, Rose, and Walters 2022). One potential explanation for the mixed results is that the propensity to discriminate against nonbinary Americans may depend on the political affiliation of the decision maker (Eames 2024). Large partisan differences exist in attitudes toward gender identity (Gieger and Graf 2019; Parker, Horowitz, and Brown 2022). Most Republicans, for example, believe that gender should match birth sex and do not support laws protecting nonbinary and transgender people from discrimination; by contrast, most Democrats believe gender and birth sex can differ and support anti-discrimination laws (Parker et al. 2022). Similarly, most Republicans are uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to people who are nonbinary, whereas most Democrats are comfortable doing so (Gieger and Graf 2019). Accordingly, in the current study, we use two conjoint experiments (Bansak et al. 2021; Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto 2014) conducted with national samples of active hiring managers and the public to test whether the tendency to discriminate (in both employment and social decisions) against people who are nonbinary is most pronounced among Republicans.

Results

Experiment 1: Hiring Discrimination

In the first conjoint experiment, we asked a national sample of hiring managers recruited by YouGov and screened for continuing hiring activity to choose between paired profiles of 14 randomly generated job applicants (Bushway and Pickett, 2024). We randomized each applicant’s gender identity (nonbinary, male, or female) and other relevant attributes (work experience, recommendation letters, education, age, race/ethnicity, tattoos, and criminal record). We measured the hiring managers’ political party and included those who identified as Democratic, Independent, or Republican in the analysis (N = 12,934 applicant choices, N = 924 active hirers).

The top panel of Figure 1 shows adjusted predictions illustrating how job applicants’ gender identity (nonbinary, male, or female) affects hiring decisions among Democratic, Independent, and Republican hiring managers. To obtain the adjusted predictions, we first estimated regression models in each political group that predicted hiring and that controlled for other job applicant characteristics (e.g., education, work experience ¹ ). We then set the additional covariates to their means to generate the predicted probabilities of selection by gender identity. The findings reveal stark partisan differences in hiring discrimination. Among hirers who are Democrats or Independents, the predicted probability of selection for hiring varies little by applicant gender. The average marginal component effects (AMCEs, not shown) confirm that applicant gender does not exert a statistically significant effect on Democrats’ or Independents’ hiring decisions.

Figure 1.

Predicted probabilities of selection for hiring (Experiment 1) and neighborhood (Experiment 2) by respondents’ political party. Adjusted predictions (with other variables set to their means) and 95 percent confidence intervals are shown. Models were estimated using linear regression with standard errors clustered at the respondent level and controlled for the other randomized attributes of the job applicant (Experiment 1) or neighborhood candidate (Experiment 2). The sample sizes for Experiment 1 were 5,110 choices clustered in 365 Democrats, 4,534 choices clustered in 324 Independents, and 3,290 choices clustered in 235 Republicans. The sample sizes for Experiment 2 were 12,416 choices clustered in 776 Democrats, 11,500 choices clustered in 719 Independents, and 8,992 choices clustered in 562 Republicans.

By contrast, among Republican hirers, the probability of being hired varies considerably depending on applicant gender. With other variables set to their means, the predicted probability of selection is 41 percent for nonbinary applicants but about 52 percent for binary applicants. The AMCEs reveal that these differences are statistically significant—specifically, the probability of being hired is increased by over 10 percentage points when job applicants identify as a man (b = .113, p < .001) or woman (b = .103, p < .001) instead of as nonbinary. Coefficient equality tests confirm that the effects among Republican hirers are significantly larger than those among Democratic and Independent hirers (Z range = 2.25–3.72, p < .05).

Experiment 2: Social Discrimination

In the second conjoint experiment, we asked a national sample of U.S. residents recruited by CloudResearch Connect to choose between paired profiles of 16 potential neighbors (Sola and Pickett 2024). Studying public preferences about neighbors is valuable because gender may be policed through housing (Kattari et al. 2016; Truszczynski et al. 2022) and because unwelcoming neighborhood environments affect nonbinary Americans’ quality of life and may be hot spots for many types of discriminatory events (e.g., harassment, rejection, threats). We randomized each potential neighbor’s gender identity (nonbinary, male, or female) and other relevant attributes (socioeconomic status, family status, race/ethnicity, political party, religious affiliation, and gun ownership). We measured respondents’ political party and included those who identified as Democratic, Independent, or Republican in the analysis (N = 32,908 neighbor choices, N = 2,057 respondents).

The bottom panel in Figure 1 shows adjusted predications illustrating how a potential neighbor’s gender identity (nonbinary, male, or female) affects respondents’ preferences for having them live nearby. To obtain the adjusted predictions, we estimated regression models that controlled for the other manipulated characteristics of the potential neighbor (e.g., socioeconomic status, religious affiliation), and then we set these covariates to their means. The findings in Figure 1 reveal evidence of discrimination against people who are nonbinary among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. In all three political groups, binary neighbors have a higher probability of being selected than nonbinary ones.

There is, however, a pronounced political gradient in the tendency to discriminate socially against people who are nonbinary. A potential neighbor’s gender identity matters the least among Democrats, matters more among Independents, and matters most among Republicans. Among Republicans, the predicted probability of selection as a neighbor is 38 percent for nonbinary neighborhood candidates but between 54 percent and 58 percent for binary ones net of other candidate characteristics. The AMCEs (not shown) confirm that the gender-based differences in selection probabilities among Republicans are highly significant (p < .001). Additionally, the AMCEs differ significantly across political groups (Z range = 3.90–9.22, p < .001), confirming that the effects of gender identity are significantly larger among Republicans compared to both Democrats and Independents.

Discussion

Discrimination is harmful to victims’ mental health, economic well-being, and daily lives. Nonbinary Americans report that such discrimination is a part of everyday life for them—that they face it at work, at home, and when they are out in their communities (Johnson et al. 2023; Truszczynski, Singh, and Hansen, 2022). Unlike for many other individual characteristics, such as race, legal protections against gender-identity discrimination vary tremendously across domains (e.g., housing, public accommodation) and across U.S. states (Truszczynski, Truszczynski, et al. 2022), meaning that “many nonbinary people can be legally discriminated against” (McNabb 2018:11). ²

We find that the proclivity among both hiring managers and members of the public to discriminate against nonbinary Americans varies by partisan affiliation, being most pronounced on the political right. Specifically, it is among Republicans that individuals’ gender identity has the largest effect on how they are evaluated and treated in both the hiring context and more broadly. This suggests that in Republican-owned businesses and in areas with higher concentrations of Republicans, nonbinary people may face unfair disadvantages because of their gender identity. Our findings support calls for additional social and legal efforts to protect nonbinary people from discrimination.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-srd-10.1177_23780231241280014 – Supplemental material for Partisan Differences in Hiring and Social Discrimination against Nonbinary Americans

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-srd-10.1177_23780231241280014 for Partisan Differences in Hiring and Social Discrimination against Nonbinary Americans by Justin T. Pickett, Justin L. Sola and Shawn D. Bushway in Socius