Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m more surprised by the apparent editing error where the only sex worker evidently quoted is characterized as female throughout the piece except in one instance. I think the intent of the editorial missed-a-spot was greater anonymity provisions by default. I doubt it harmed the particular interviewee in this instance, but that kind of slippery protection of sources certainly won’t encourage more sex workers to talk…
Nearly all sex workers (97% in stats I found) are cisgender or transgender women, so that in itself doesn’t seem to significantly de-anonymize them.
The editing mistake wasn’t deciding whether to identify the interviewee’s gender, but revealing part of their internal privacy process by missing it in edit. It doesn’t matter, for being interviewed, what proportion of sex workers are any gender if the publication reveals flaws in how they protect anonymity of the people they interview. I spotted this with a very cursory read, and distrust the publication on instinct. Again not because I care about the gender of the single sex worker interviewed, but because I don’t think their editorial process was thorough enough to protect one source.