What I don't like about this is that Toptal agreed to the terms. "Our COO went ahead and said we promise not to show any females in our advertisements" That r

What I don't like about this is that Toptal agreed to the terms. "Our COO went ahead and said we promise not to show any females in our advertisements" That reminds me of the saying: "Sitting on two chairs with one ass." You can't make a write up saying how insulting and how much you disagree with LinkedIn's advertising policies only to later agree to their terms. That's like an activist complaining about the way McDonalds treats their cows before ordering a burger. If your employees are offended, stand up for them by telling LinkedIn they can go f* themselves. I think you'd be able to present a better argument if you can show us the images of the male versions. You claim "our male versions are no different", but I think in such a case you should be absolutely transparent. That way, the whole story is laid out and we can see if the pictures are very similar except for the sex, then yes there is sexism on LinkedIn's part or if the images are obviously different and it's valid for LinkedIn to be suspicious. That way we aren't forced to take your inherently biased word (no offence meant). I think this whole thing could have been avoided if Toptal had images that were obviously related to engineering. Model portfolio type images (female or male) of employees isn't the best image to use when you're not a modelling agency, but a development agency.