This is insane.

First of all, no one's going to bat an eyelash that you have a female cofounder, and if an investor decides not to fund you because you have a female cofounder, then it is not an investor worth taking money from.

Second of all, if you don't list her as a co-founder now and you have interest from investors, what are you going to do, lie about it, or say "oh, shit, I am sorry, we forgot to list one of our cofounders earlier?" Regardless of how you think having a female cofounder makes you look, forgetting to list someone as a cofounder or lying is an immediate disqualifier.

Why lie? You can be part of the team, but at the same time, not a co-owner.

I am sorry, I am thoroughly confused.

"In reality", is she a full-on cofounder or just an employee with some stock? Whatever that reality is, you must communicate that reality to your investors.

A valuable employee, who's brought some fresh ideas as well.

A VC who will marginalize an intelligent and productive co-founder just because that person has the wrong set of chromosomes - such a VC, I'm sorry, there's no polite way to say this - is a fucking moron. (I may be naive, but I find it hard to believe that such a VC exists). You do not want to do business with this kind of investor. You're creating a new, cutting-edge technology. A sexist, luddite dinosaur is not the type of person you want funding and influencing business decisions.

Don't hide the fact that you have a female founder. Her presence will filter out any sexist assholes and will ensure you find a true financial partner, whose interests align with your own.

True. But not everyone has progressive view of life, especially some "old school (in a bad way) people" .

Absolutely, people like this may exist. And you don't want to jump into business with this type of person, no matter how much money they may offer.

You don't want their money.

No, do not misrepresent yourself or your team.

However, if I were you I would reconsider your plan. I think you may need a clinic specializing in paranoia more than you need a start up accelerator.

It seems that if anything having a woman as a cofounder would be a positive thing. I am basing this off all the "women in tech" initiatives from big players in the industry.

Big players and startups are quite different cases..

> she thinks we're better off not listing her as a co-founder.

Why does she think this?

That's her opinion: "It's perceived that in general women are more emotional, so that may throw up red flags to some investors, since they may consider it a higher risk that the team could split up"

So what? It's also "perceived" that women are more scheming, which could be a thorough advantage in business.

Probably that's the main reason for some VCs to especially welcome female startup CEOs, lol. But we're talking not about CEO.