Women ‘Bro-Code’ Their LinkedIn Profiles, See Engagement Soar

According to Sifted, over the last few weeks, dozens of women have joined a global experiment by changing their gender from ‘female’ to ‘male’ on their LinkedIn profiles. Chelsea Ranger, Chief Business Officer of Possibia, saw her impressions increase by 914% and her engagement by 1100% in just two weeks after making the switch. Another founder, Kamales Lardi, reported a 421% jump in impressions within days. This comes as female founders in Europe raised just €6.56bn in 2024, a mere 12% of total VC capital. LinkedIn has stated its algorithms do not use gender as a ranking signal, but the consistent anecdotal reports from women are prompting a major debate about visibility and bias on the platform.

Anecdote versus algorithm

Here’s the thing: LinkedIn’s official stance is clear. They say they use “hundreds of signals” from your profile and network, not demographics like gender. And they claim regular checks don’t show gender-related disparities. But when you have a growing pile of personal testimonials showing a thousand-percent swings, you can’t just dismiss it as coincidence. It feels like the classic tech company response: “The system isn’t designed to do that, so it can’t be happening.” But algorithms are black boxes, even to the companies that build them, as Kamales Lardi points out. Bias can creep in through a thousand indirect pathways—what industries are “coded” male, what type of language gets rewarded, whose connections are more influential. The system might not be looking at the “gender” field, but it could be amplifying patterns that overwhelmingly correlate with it.

More than just gender

And the plot thickens. This isn’t a simple on/off switch. As Yvonne Jackson noted, it’s about intersectionality. Some women switch and see a jump. Others don’t. Some men switch to ‘female’ and see a drop. Jackson herself removed her ethnicity and got an “immediate lift.” That’s the messy, complicated reality. It suggests the algorithm might be penalizing or boosting certain intersectional identities in ways nobody fully understands. So it’s not *just* a women’s issue; it’s a systemic issue where unexamined biases in data and design replicate and scale societal inequalities. The bro-coding of profiles with words like “drive” and “transform” is just the surface-level workaround for a much deeper problem.

Real business consequences

This isn’t about vanity metrics. For founders, visibility on LinkedIn is a direct line to funding, talent, and customers. When your content is throttled, your business growth can be throttled too. Look at the funding stats: that paltry 12% of VC capital for female-founded startups in Europe isn’t an accident. It’s the output of a system where women are less visible, less heard, and perceived as less authoritative. Platforms like LinkedIn are the modern networking hall. If you’re invisible there, you’re at a severe disadvantage. The data shows the gap is structural, and what’s happening on social feeds might just be a symptom of it.

So what now?

The call to action here is twofold. First, for platforms: transparency and rigorous, independent auditing. Lardi’s call for a “governance audit” is spot on. Saying “we don’t use that signal” isn’t enough when the outcomes scream otherwise. Second, for everyone else: it’s about active advocacy. As Chelsea Ranger says, it’s on those with visibility to “let the ladder down.” Mentor, amplify, and invest in women and underrepresented founders. And for men? “Stop seeing this as a woman’s problem.” It’s a system problem that affects everyone’s long-term health. Ultimately, this LinkedIn experiment is a stark reminder. If we want technology that serves a diverse society, we need a diverse range of people building it, auditing it, and holding it accountable. Otherwise, we’re just automating the biases we claim to want to leave behind.