Large language models (LLMs) exhibit biases against LGBTQ+ populations. While safety training may reduce explicit bias, implicit stereotype-driven associations often persist. In this work, we examine implicit bias toward transgender people in two main scenarios. First, we adapt word association tests to measure whether LLMs disproportionately pair negative concepts with "transgender" and positive concepts with "cisgender". Second, given the systemic challenges transgender people face in healthcare, we design a healthcare appointment allocation task where models act as scheduling agents choosing between cisgender and transgender candidates across stereotype-prone specialties. We evaluate seven LLMs in English and Spanish. Our results show consistent bias in categories such as appearance, risk, and veracity, indicating stronger negative associations with transgender individuals. In the allocation task, transgender candidates are favored for STI and mental health services, while cisgender candidates are preferred in gynecology and breast care. Notably, this bias is reduced when patient symptoms accompany demographic information. These findings underscore the need for research that address subtle stereotype-driven biases in LLMs to ensure equitable treatment of transgender people in healthcare applications.

Numerous datasets have been proposed to evaluate social bias in Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems. However, assessing bias within specific application domains remains challenging, as existing approaches often face limitations in scalability and fidelity across domains. In this work, we introduce a domain-adaptive framework that utilizes prompting with Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically transform template-based bias datasets into domain-specific variants. We apply our method to two widely used benchmarks—Equity Evaluation Corpus (EEC) and Identity Phrase Templates Test Set (IPTTS)—adapting them to the Twitter and Wikipedia Talk data. Our results show that the adapted datasets yield bias estimates more closely aligned with real-world data. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-based prompting to enhance the realism and contextual relevance of bias evaluation in NLP systems.

Annotated corpora are essential to reliable natural language processing. While they are expensive to create, they are essential for building and evaluating systems. This study introduces a new corpus of 2,869 medical and admission reports collected by an occupational insurance and health provider. The corpus has been carefully annotated for personally identifiable information (PII) and is shared, masking this information. Two annotators adhered to annotation guidelines during the annotation process, and a referee later resolved annotation conflicts in a consolidation process to build a gold standard subcorpus. The inter-annotator agreement values, measured in F1, range between 0.86 and 0.93 depending on the selected subcorpus. The value of the corpus is demonstrated by evaluating its use for NER of PII and a classification task. The evaluations find that fine-tuned models and GPT-3.5 reach F1 of 0.911 and 0.720 in NER of PII, respectively. In the case of the insurance coverage classification task, using the original or de-identified corpus results in similar performance. The annotated data are released in de-identified form.