Man/Woman Enough: How Gender Presentation Shapes Voter Evaluations of Queer Cabinet Ministers

Increasingly, scholars have focused their attention on how voters evaluate queer, trans, and gender non-conforming candidates for political office. Missing, however, is an examination of how voters evaluate queer individuals serving in party leadership and executive positions. Past research has documented the gendered pattern of cabinet appointments. In advanced democracies, women have frequently been appointed to lead ministries that oversee "feminine" or low-prestige policy areas. While this pattern has changed in recent years, the question remains: do queer politicians face similar barriers? In this project, we employ a conjoint survey experiment in the United Kingdom to assess how individuals evaluate queer and gender non-conforming cabinet ministers. In doing so, we examine whether queer cabinet ministers are punished for presenting as gender non-conforming and whether voter evaluations differ depending on the particular ministry they lead. To vary the degree to which these ministers conform to typical gender norms, we manipulate the hypothetical minister's sexual orientation, physical appearance, hobbies, and interests. We then explore how these factors affect perceptions of the minister's legitimacy, including their leadership qualities and support for their appointment.