By an odd chance, today brings yet more evidence that young people are becoming more conservative. A PRRI poll asked whether people believed there were only two gender identities (man and woman) and Gen Z respondents showed a huge increase over the past two years:
Every age group showed an increase, which is yet another data point suggesting that Americans in general are getting more conservative. And while Gen Z is still more liberal on this question than other age groups, it showed by far the biggest conservative movement. What's going on?
As for what's going on, looks like more of them are getting it right.
Right about what?
Don't engage the troll.
Hey, now!
The very fact that you're using this question as a measure of liberal and conservative means that the Republicans' theory of the case is correct: fight the culture war (because now that means are you for trans rights).
What about on abortion? Last time I saw numbers there it was bad for conservatives. Or gay marriage? Went down a little, but with little thread of regression.
What about non-social issues?
We all know why there's a backlash on this issue. When you pick J.K. Rowling as your satan instead of, you know, actual haters it speaks volumes. The trans issue is facing a backlash because younger kids don't understand it and probably only have negative feelings from being told they're haters.
They'll get over and acceptance will come just as it should, but the approach is failing. Call me a concern troll if you like, but I honestly think some very bad strategic decisions creating this backlash that is harmful to people were made.
While I don't disagree there could be backkash from it nobody "picked" JK Rowling as anything. She choose to pick a side of public opinion in a very public way. A lot of, if not most people believe she choose the wrong side. Especially because a lot of Harry Potter fans found positive inclusive messages in the series and thought she was queer positive.
And maybe she was once, but the modern prevailing percepion is that she isn't anymore and is actively generating hate and misperceptions about trans people.
This isn't a modern thing, it's happened thoughout the entire history of human civilization. So lets all stop pretending like it's some singular thing related to social media and modern society.
Based upon your comment, I cannot tell if you agree with 'the modern prevailing perception' of JK Rowling. The podcast 'The Witch Trials of JK Rowling' clearly articulates her position, and most people have it wrong. She is queer positive and she is trans positive. She does not agree with every position of the radical trans activists. Because she does not completely agree with them, she has been labeled 'anti-trans'. I had vague ideas of what the issues were before I listened to the podcast, and now I am clear on my positions and in fact agree with every position of JK Rowling except for one. It is an extraordinary podcast and I look forward to future podcasts by Megan Phelps-Roper.
If anybody wants to argue with me here, you are out of luck, because I will not reply. I hope that at least one person listens to the podcast.
Thank you! All of this a thousand times. When you say that if you are not a trans absolutist that you are a conservative, then the conservatives are going to win. Both the conservatives and the trans activist community have liberals backed into a corner on this.
Please don't get me wrong. What DeSatan and his ilk are doing wrt trans rights is disgusting. But shaming people or "cancelling" them or acting like they are bad people simply because they are not 100% sure that it's fair for trans girls to compete in trans sports is wrong for all kinds of reasons.
Agreed. Lefty hardliners have become even more intolerant the wingers. It turns people off.
Plus, I think the question is misleading. There's a ton of nuance around gender expression and it gets conflated with biological sex (of which there are more than two scientifically). Saying there's only two genders ignores the whole point of the current debate - biology is not necessarily destiny and people should dress however they want.
Sports is a different kettle of fish and I'm on the side of restricting competition to biological sex just on the basis of fairness (while acknowledging that genetic distribution of ability will never be fair).
"while acknowledging that genetic distribution of ability will never be fair"
Sometimes this debate makes me think I would have loved it in high school if there were an athletic league for nerdy, unathletic kids so I could have had a chance to compete!
It turns out, actually, that moderates such as myself are also becoming increasingly intolerant of these idiotic but dangerous fascists as time goes on. So, if the left are becoming more intolerant of the right, and moderates are getting sick and tired of the right as well, who, precisely, are these people you say are being turned off.
C'mon, use a little common sense before you post such verities.
>"who, precisely, are these people you say are being turned off."
We get it. You have little to no experience with the proles who watch football and eat at Olive Garden.
Oh, I most definitely get it. FOAD, troll. Yes, I get that you're trying to be abusive. But you're so bad at it.
No one is trolling you.
You're just a rage maniac who can't handle the bantz
Shaming people for being bullies is not a bad thing.
You can opt not to be a bully.
I basically agree with what you're saying: young folks (we were all one! I remember when I was, too, and what it took for my opinions to grow) will react in a certain way, and when they don't understand it and are told that they're haters, they'll react like this, too. There's also the simple fact that misogynistic and bigoted jokes are part and parcel of the youth experience - and it takes conscientious intervention to teach young people how and why something isn't appropriate, and also to forgive them for not understanding. That's how we build understanding.
I also don't think this one is that much of a mystery - remember how young men have become more conservative over the last few years? That's also not really a mystery, and they're probably responsible for a lot of the jump here.
This take doesnt seem to align with the results to other questions in the same survey.
Is it conservative to think that there are only two genders?
Im fairly liberal on social issues and I have zero problems with the LGBTQ community...but if i took a survey, i would say that there are two genders.
This too. Someone could believe that there are two defined genders, and also that there is continuum between those two genders and that there are gender fluid people and that there are gender nonconforming people and that people should be able to identify however feels best to them without being subject to discrimination, harassment, or any other negative externality - and none those are mutually exclusive.
Depends on your definition of gender, duzznit? For that matter, isn't it possible that what's changing is the popular conception of what gender really is?
Well, we've seen a gigantic push to marginalize trans people and delegitimize their existence. We see people constantly ask the question "Can you define a woman?"
We have not been terribly effective in countering this. I think we will get better.
My favorite response is "can you define a man? People are always saying, "be a man". Doesn't that mean someone can be an XY and not a man?"
You are missing the point of the "Can you define a woman?" question. It isn't really "woman" specific and could equally be phrased as "Can you define a man?" The people that ask that question have easy answers that are in the dictionary:
Woman: an adult human female (or adult female person)
Man: an adult human male (or adult male person)
The trans-positive answer (if one is offered) is usually something like: "A woman is someone that identifies as a woman." This is a self-referential definition, which means it doesn't define anything and turns womanhood (or manhood) into a label that has no meaning. Additionally, this would mean that there is no difference between a man, woman, non-binary, etc except for the label the individual wishes to be categorized under. This is very hard to accept.
I think many people are turned off by the "two genders" blow hards on the right, but also find the fuzzy, undefined mess of the "infinite number of genders" crowd to be self-contradictory and even normalizing serious mental disorders (those identifying as inanimate objects comes to mind). My belief is that in this mess a fair number of open minded people are reverting to the standard definitions that have been used for centuries until there is an alternate rationally defined model that can be understood. This isn't an indication of people becoming more conservative, just unwilling to associate with the extreme progressive perspective at this time.
Comparing trans people to those with delusions of being inanimate objects is rather insulting and scientifically inaccurate.
It's the Babylon Bee's one joke -- "I identify as an attack helicopter" -- posited seriously by a supposedly leftist reader of "even the liberal Kevin Drum's" blog.
Let's face it: KD & many of his readers are as glibly traditionalist as 1950s gay icons Jesse Singal & Katy Hercog.
I agree with the concept. "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman". However, there is a political problem with that statement. The word "identifies" has a very specific and technical meaning, which won't be heard by someone who is not already up to speed on these issues.
They are gonna hear "identifies" as giving license to some yahoo saying out loud, "Hey, I'm a woman!" as he barges into the women's locker room on a lark. I'm sorry to touch on the ugly, but it's what we're up against. Best to have it in front of us.
Transition is not remotely a lark or a whim. We have to have language that punches this out.
We already have that language: Transwoman
It is an "I am" encoded with an "identifies as," but has been roundly rejected.
Misunderstandings are easy in these online forums, so forgive me if I’m off base on this one, but your post strikes me as the kind of dialogue that leads an increasing number of people to assert that they’re conservative.
For one thing, the question “Can you define a women?” does not need to be seen as an effort to “marginalize” trans people. Most people will see it as an utterly innocuous question relating to the science of Biology. And if anyone has difficulty answering that question in a straightforward manner, that’s more likely to look bad for them than for the person asking the question.
So, I don’t think there’s much to “counter” in that case. Nor do I think we need to respond by asking “what is a man?” We can just state what a woman is. And, yes, we can use the word “woman.”
There are very few people who would have any issue with anything I’m saying. So if the Left really wants to define itself as an ideology that turns ordinary questions of 8th grade biology into alienating metaphysical assertions, then we shouldn’t be at all surprised by one poll after another showing less and less support for the Left’s positions.
I'm certainly pro-trans. Very definitely. I'm trying to understand what's going on, and identify the other sides tactics and strategies. I would have thought that was clear from what I wrote before.
I don't think we've done a terribly good job at counter-strategy. I think we need to do better. I'm offering possibilities.
It is literally an attempt to harass trans women.
That you can't even grasp 8th grade biology - that sex is not in fact binary, but two clouds of features with a muddled mess between them when you start having millions of samples - seems like it should be your problem.
Same as you saying 'the left' is pushing this, when you're literally here posting in public your support for misogynistic harassment of gender nonconforming people.
Apart from very rare choromosomal abnormalities there are indeed just two sexes for human beings. I do grant that some few people may be born with a physiological sex which does not match the sex they perceive that they are--and I'm fine with such adults transitioning. I will use their chosen names and refer to them by "he" or "she" as they prefer, and not bat an eyelash when they dress as they wish and go use the bathroom they feel they should. But when it comes to gender behaviors maybe we could all just lighten up a bit and stop insisting that there are intrinsically "masculine" and "feminine" behaviors that are de rigeur for anyone with the appropriate chromosomes. Most of us are a mix of those things, with a masculine side and a feminine side even if one predominates. We do not have to upend everything to be more tolerant of human differences.
This is pretty much all the explanation we need for why people are turning away from the Left;
but perhaps it’s inaccurate to say “turning away.”
As this reply from Crissa demonstrates, the Left is actively and energetically chasing people away.
There are a number of important issues related to that development:
How big might the electoral impact be?
And,
If polls show a serious hit to Biden’s reelection prospects, or to control of the house and senate, then how do the DEMs manage to disentangle themselves from these spectacularly self destructive aspects of the Left?
"that sex is not in fact binary, but two clouds of features with a muddled mess between them when you start having millions of samples."
Hard and complete rejection of this from me, and many (most?) biologists. Get back to me when humans start to actually change sex like frogs.
Krist Novoselic's burner: confirmed.
Sure, I know a man is. Man is a forked radish. Man is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Man is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell *bad*.
Spock, are you feeling well?-)
Hmm, though, that question has confounds. I might think that trans people are fine, AND think that there are only two genders. That is, I'm not so cool with QQ (they are exceedingly rare, after all).
There's also, is the lack of gender (they/them, nonbinary, enby) or the profusion of gender (2-spirits, drag, etc) merely a combination of two genders, or do they represent more genders?
Honestly, I don't understand why people are so attached to forced everyone into two boxes, when they know that will result in harassment, abuse, and misogyny.
Well, you've made the transition, it would seem, to thinking differently easily. It wasn't quite that easy for me to make that (ahem) transition.
Now that it's done, it doesn't represent much of a burden, but there was a fairly sizable energy barrier to overcome.
When I was young there were a few instances of meeting/seeing people whose gender I could not immediately identify, and that created discomfort. I"m not sure I could say why, but it did happen. It's still maybe noteworthy, but there's no discomfort.
For me, it was familiarity that eliminated the discomfort.
That wouldn't have happened, had you been reading more science fiction when you were young.
It may not be that younger people are becoming more conservative but that social conservatives are becoming increasingly intransigent and younger people are more sensitive to this new intransigence.
This comment is meant to be neutral on the issues, but a vigorous intervention on the side of clarity and logic.
Everyone involved in these issues needs to realize that the word "gender" has at least two widely different definitions. For some "gender" means "sex". In this context there are only male and female, with no third alternative. (Disorders of sexual development do not produce new sexes.) For others "gender" means a variety of things, usually involving some sort of sexual stereotype. In this usage there could be a huge variety of genders, though most of them depart from a general classification as "masculine" and "feminine". These fuzzy social categories invite confusion.
The solution is to specify "gender (male/female)" versus "cultural gender".
Even better, use "sex" for the former.
Compounding the problem is that some people use "gender" to mean something like "perceived sex" or variants on that idea. So the "gender" in "transgender" may be yet something else. Perhaps one could use "identity gender", or, preferably "identity sex".
Yes, the question "how many genders are there" must be different from the question "how many sexes are there"? If there weren't a difference why even use the term "gender" (which formerly was a grammatical term referring to pronouns and other forms)?
It would seem that the phrasing in term of "gender" only tends to force people who believe that there are only two sexes (a biological fact to a close approximation) to say that there are only two genders, even if they think that people might present as the opposite sex.
It is strange that this issue is not discussed in the report. This is another example of how poll questions can be very ambiguous or misleading if not designed very carefully.
No kidding.
Social gender is different from gender identity which is different from genetic sex, and there are primary and secondary sexual features as well.
There are two 'genders' but also there are many combinations of them as well!
I also think people are increasingly answering this question as genetic sex, of which there are just the two.
Or maybe that's just my hope.
You're not not even wrong.
You know, a gynecologist once described to me a very rare condition where an XY fails to develop T receptors and thus, for instance is born with undescended testes.
She told me what they used to do was surgically remove the testes (they would rot and create an infection otherwise) and tell the patient and parents that they were a girl, but had a birth defect that rendered them incapable of childbearing.
She was a bit sad that there's more informed consent now. She was a bit old-school I think.
Nevertheless, I think there is biological variance here that we don't necessarily talk about or engage with. Such a person as described I think would qualify as a "third sex".
So yeah, life is a lot more complicated than we would like it to be.
Let me this straight KD, the belief that they are only two genders is now a conservative position? It looks to me that’s the dictionary definition and basically the scientific position. I get that biologically, some individuals are born with certain aspects and society may even have an impact, but at the end of the day one is it’s either male or female, and this includes TG, (who may have a preference for both or either or neither).
I'm sure it's a backlash thing. I can feel myself getting pulled in some more conservative directions as the "default discourse" has gotten so intense, particularly on issues where things seem "complicated", such as the well worn trope of trans-females in high level athletic completion (which is fairly distinct from most of the high school trans athlete issue). This has just opened me up to be more willing to consider some fairly anodyne moderation on certain positions which I probably would not have explored much before.
however I'm a 50 year old, so quite definitely NOT gen z, but I have to think there's a lot of this kind of thing going around.
What direction? Why does it matter what less than a percent of teens have the ability to participate with their peers?
Because its unfair and unsafe to the actual girls they are competing against. Are you really not able to understand that?
Girls are in far more danger from Catholic Priests and Baptist Ministers. Also male members of the Duggar family.
Nikki Haley's burner: confirmed.
... But, sorry that PolitiFact gave you a false on "bois in the girls locker room" is why teen (cis)girls are choosing self-destruction more & more.
Is that a reply to me? I have no idea what you’re talking about.
I'm with Crissa. The trans athlete thing affects so few people that it doesn't make sense as the headline of this whole issue.
Out of high school, I know a trans woman who participates in roller derby, which is all-female. Everyone in her league, or maybe her sport is ok with that, though it was a rocky transition.
Meanwhile, state legislatures are trying to delegitimize or outright ban medical care for trans people. Seems a lot more important to me.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Why does it matter that it only affects a few people? And with the increasing number of kids that think they are the opposite sex the numbers are only going to increase.
You know, if you applied that to things like death threats to trans people, and legislative banning of gender-affirming care, I might take you seriously.
Not sure what you're saying. That I think death threats to trans kids are ok?
Yes.
& you do.
I'm sure you really care about all injustice.
" And with the increasing number of kids that think they are the opposite sex the numbers are only going to increase."
Why do you think this is happening?
It seems to be a fad. I have kids in middle school and they’ll see kids that are “trans” one semester then go back to normal a few months later. Then others stay trans. It’s obviously much more accepted and some kids apparently think it’s hip.
One other note. If I'm intense, it's because my daughter is trans, and people I went to school with post things on Facebook like "all trans people should be shot".
How would you respond to death threats to your child?
Those people are despicable. But I hope you can see a difference between them and people that just don't think trans girls should be competing against girls in sports.
And you are the one obsessing about it. Not me.
Wouldn't say I'm obsessing, just commenting on this website like you. When I sign off I probably won't think about it again until I come across another article on the topic.
Do you believe that if it was banned that it would be the end to the backlash against trans rights?
No idea. And not sure why you mean about a backlash. Is there one? I think there’s a lot of people who’s only issue with trans is the sports stuff.
I've been an academic for the last 30 years. My usage of "gender" in my work has always been in the sense of "gender" is the set of sexual stereotypes that culture applies to males or females. I am baffled at the attempted redefinition of "gender" by trans activists to be some sort of internal feeling completely unattached to any external reality.
This is how left-wing radical feminists and conservative evangelicals end up in awkward agreement on surveys like this one despite having very different understandings of gender. Both believe that gender makes zero sense when disconnected from biological sex.
Weirdly wrong.
Trans activists?
No one applying misogyny cares about your sex. They don't check your underwear, your genetic profile, or your birth certificate.
Whether you grow female-looking breasts at all is down to two things: how much does your body react to estrogen/progesterone and how much you have in your body. And these properties are not strictly based upon your sex apparent at birth.
What pronouns you use and what roles you are comfortable others seeing you take are not based on your birth certificate.
Why would you take the sexist position that it does?
You've now tried to redefine sexist as well. Acknowledging the physical , anatomical, and chromosomal differences between the sexes is not sexism. Sexism is belief that biological sex mandates certain behaviors (stereotypes). I am against all gender stereotypes. It's fine if boys like pink and girls like blue. It's fine if boys like dolls and girls like fire trucks as toys. But liking those things does not make them a different gender or sex.
To me, the concept of "transgender" is nonsensical because I see "gender" (stereotyping) as a cultural force that is external to the individual, not to mention one that is inherently oppressive.
You just defined the middle away; congratulations, you win! I wouldn't expect an acacemic to be as sloppy with their rhetoric as you have been.
Define "middle" here.
If I say that there is a planet called Earth that orbits around the Sun due to gravitational forces, and you say that no, the planet sits on the back of elephants that in turn stands on the back of a turtle that carries the planet around the cosmos, where is the "middle" between those two positions?
I'm pretty sure that "gender identity" is the term they use, not gender.
There's plenty of biological basis to hang one's hat on if you look for it. Upthread I described one set of circumstances.
There is the whole second fetal testosterone surge, which affects brain tissue. This could have a bearing, no?
There is the observed empirical fact that of all cataloged psychological conditions, the condition of being trans is the least subject to change. The least by significantly more than things like fetishes or homosexuality.
And note I said "conditions" not "defects" etc.
@GenXer -- Yeah, these terms match what I've always heard until recently. Gender == sex stereotypes, and sex is biological sex. Why people think it is a good idea to modify one's body to avoid being stereotyped by sex is a complete mystery to me. Why people think that modifying your body to look sorta like the other sex actually changes your sex is even more mystifying, because it obviously has no such effect.
And western civilization is allowing children to mutilate their bodies at an age when their understanding of themselves and the world (as well as their brains) is still forming.
Well, is either Kevin, me or for sure the PRRI who probably doesn't even know what this survey question is supposed to mean.
So here goes. Its not that there is a "third gender" - like male, female, and canine or something, its that a person can have gender fluidity in that they are not limited to male or female gender identity on the day, or on the hour, or whatever.
The survey seems to confuse the issue of being gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender fluid. I may be behind the times but I have thought about it enough to know those are four completely different things, with the only constant being conservatives are against all of them.
So you can easily be very liberal and still answer "are there two genders" yes.
OTOH, its also possible, since I don't run in conservative circles, that the question "are there only two genders" is actually a conservative dog whistle, where the "yes" answer assumes a follow up proposition ---
that since there are only two you are either one or the other and cannot be "fluid" or, horror or all horrors, transition from one to the other.
If it is, its a fair bet many in the survey don't see it that way.
Time out. Taking one answer to one question on one cohort in on one poll is one tiny datapoint among many. Stop drawing conclusions about what this means for the growing conservatism of Gen Z. You're cherry-picking. You're losing credibility.
Yes, I realize there were other posts this week. But they're still not claiming what you're implying. And fwiw, the first chart here shows Gen Z is actually more "liberal" than the 24-37 cohort.
But even if there is a slight shift on attitudes about gender, that doesn't imply young people are growing conservative. It means even less in regard to political leanings (D/R). There are a zillion issues (well, dozens, at least) that affect a person's conservative / liberal identity. At any point in time, I would bet people/groups are moving in different directions on different issues. Don't make too big a deal over isolated datapoints. That's how people lose bundles in the stock market. You have to look at the bigger picture.
Do young people favor single-payer healthcare? I would guess the numbers on that are not what they were a few years ago when B. Sanders and E. Warren were on the campaign trail in '16/'20 talking about it every day.
How about abortion? How about guns? Other issues? Probably some movement there too. What does it mean? Who knows.
If we had data that showed the young moving to the right on all issues, that might be meaningful. But that's not what we have right now.
" Taking one answer to one question on one cohort in on one poll is one tiny datapoint among many. Stop drawing conclusions about what this means for the growing conservatism of Gen Z. You're cherry-picking. You're losing credibility."
Yes. I am dismayed that Kevin is beating this to death. Still, 77 comments on this culture war issue, whereas there are often many fewer on much more relevant topics. Speaking of cherry-picking, I've got to be more selective when it comes to which of Kevin's articles I read.
Dude, why are we using the decade low point - 2021 - to measure from?
"Are there just two genders?" has to the be the worst question this side of "Boxers of briefs?" to judge how conservative people are. Maybe ask about the ACA? Social Security? The GOP brinkmanship on the debt ceiling? Biden's student loan plan? US Support for Ukraine? Or if on social issues, ask about abortion.
Most people are generally OK with certain types of claims (race, gay, trans rights) as a matter of fairness (non-discrimination laws) and politeness.
But what has happened over and over again is that the matter doesn't end there. The issue in question is weaponized (you are a bigot if you use the incorrect language, and the correct language changes every year), certain people go out of their way to force contention about the issue even in areas where no normal person cares ("company X hates trans people because they don't have a trans clothing section" or whatever), and then the rewriting starts, of history, science and other academic disciplines, of how language works, of what people supposedly thought and are thinking, of what art "means", etc etc.
And that's where most people lose patience. They were perfectly OK with the fairness agenda, but not with this additional ideological agenda.
Especially since the ideology always skews the same way. For example "Feminism" starts off as being claims about fairness for women (OK) but then veers off into weird territory. And so if you start asking questions about why, say, Maggie Thatcher, or Indira Ghandi, or Nikki Haley aren't feminist icons you get some "mumble mumble not true female-supporters" or whatever. The real test is NOT whether the people in question are women, it's whether they are left wing. The *ideology* is primary, not the supposed claims of fairness...
+1
Good to know you're cool with the Blacks and the gays and the trans ... except THIS TIME (!) the libs have gone too far.
How many years has that gripe about Maggie T. not being a feminist icon been burning you up? You sound like Rush Limbaugh circa 1988.
This is an LOL:
“you are a bigot if you use the incorrect language, and the correct language changes every year”
That would be a pleasant vacay if the correct language were indeed only changing every year, but in fact the problem which you accurately identify is much more frequent and rapid than that.
And we’re ultimately forced to tune it out. This is a point that linguists (and political commentators) like John McWhorter (and Orwell) have made fairly often (though in the context of different debates).
Ideologues create words, or change the meaning of existing words, in order to exert power and effectively intimidate opponents into silence. Thus McWhorter points out that an inevitable outcome of critiquing “anti-racism” in any meaningful way is that we must simply accept that we will be called a racist.
In the trans debate, we’ll be called a TERF or God knows what else. In these very comments on this blog post I am called a misogynist, and that’s supremely ironic coming from a trans movement that routinely violates the rights of women (by inserting biological men into women’s sports, women’s restrooms, etc.)
It’s tempting at first to try and keep up with the furious pace of the constantly evolving lingo, but ultimately we’re forced to largely ignore that process. It’s too rapid, too incomprehensible, and too pointless.
Ideological efforts to manipulate and intimidate us through language are best ignored, otherwise we just end up playing an eternal game of whack a mole.
A large proportion of Americans were against homosexual marriage, including Obama, until they saw the joy marriage brought these couples on TV.
I dunno, Kevin, I'm not sure I'd equate "conservative" with "maybe don't give a healthy 17 year old with body issues a double mastectomy."
Read the Reader's Picks comments on any NYT article about trans issues, and you'll see literally hundreds of liberal commenters who think pure "affirmative care" for trans youth is a mistake. I doubt they're all Trump voting NYT subscribers.
Looking at several other polls, it is perfectly clear that saying that there are only two "genders" does not mean that respondents are opposed to transgenderism. This Pew poll says "Most favor protecting trans people from discrimination, even as growing share say gender is determined by sex at birth"
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/psdt_06-28-22_gender_identity_0_0/
Although the question actually referred to whether a person is a man or a woman, not "gender".
Also majorities favor allowing transgender people in the military but oppose allowing transgender females to compete in female sports divisions. Pluralities generally oppose the anti-trans laws being passed.
This is a complex subject, which is worsened by imprecise terminology and poorly framed poll questions. Actual opinions are still solidifying on different aspects. It's not something that most people thought about a few years ago. You can't judge future voting by answers to just one poll question.
I already made my point on this when I pointed to this PRRI poll.
I just wanted to add two things:
- Genders really aren't binary. Intersex people make up roughly 1.7% of births. In nature, there are several instances of species with inherent asexual reproduction, or otherwise with the ability to switch genders. In the future, what if we find the methodology to fully switch genders or otherwise become an asexual reproductive species? Seems to me, if nature can do in some instances, it may do in others. Not to get all Thomas Aquinas, but we are all of Nature.
- The PRRI poll is proxy for an ostensible slide towards conservatism. Conservatism is the Manichean bifurcation into binary choices (see: religion). And by declaring gender to be binary, that's a conservative mindset. (This does not suggest that I think we're sliding towards conservatism. I made my point on this, previously.)