Abstract
Scholars have a limited understanding of what drives opinion on transgender rights. The present study begins to fill this gap by applying attribution theory to data from a national quota-based (U.S. Census approximation) online survey of 1000 U.S. citizens to evaluate how individuals’ beliefs about the biological origin of a person’s transgender status influence support for transgender rights, including employment, housing, healthcare, and bathroom protections. Across all models, we find that believing transgender status is biological is correlated with increased support for transgender rights. Importantly, our results suggest that although political conservatives appear to be less likely to believe in biological attribution, when they do, the belief has a more dramatic impact on support for rights than it does among liberals. Our analysis builds on existing research demonstrating the importance of biological attribution for support of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) rights and extends our understanding of public opinion on transgender rights. Our findings have important implications for policy experts interested in approaches to addressing transgender rights as well as scholars and practitioners interested in better understanding opinion formation regarding transgender rights because they suggest that providing a biological basis for transgender status may be a way to increase support for protections, particularly among more conservative individuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Anderson, R. T. (2018). When Harry became Sally: Responding to the transgender moment. New York: Encounter Books.
Anderson, M, Perrin, A., & Jiang, J. (2018). 11% of Americans don’t use the internet. Who are they? Pew research center. Retrieved on March 24, 2018 from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/05/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/.
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bao, A. M., & Swaab, D. F. (2011). Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.007.
Barnett, B. S., Nesbit, A. E., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2018). The transgender bathroom debate at the intersection of politics, law, ethics, and science. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 46(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.00376118.
Bentz, E. K., Hefler, L. A., Kaufmann, U., Huber, J. C., Kolbus, A., & Tempfer, C. B. (2008). A polymorphism of the CYP17 gene related to sex steroid metabolism is associated with female-to-male but not male-to-female transsexualism. Fertility and Sterility, 90(1), 56–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.056.
Bowers, M. M., & Whitley, C. T. (2018). Assessing voter registration among transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9489-x
Boysen, G. A., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization in response to learning about biological explanations of homosexuality. Sex Roles, 579(10), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9256-7.
Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9713.
Cragun, R. T., & Sumerau, J. E. (2015). The last bastion of sexual and gender prejudice? Sexualities, race, gender, religiosity, and spirituality in the examination of prejudice toward sexual and gender minorities. Journal of Sex Research, 52(7), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.925534.
DeJong, W. (1980). The stigma of obesity: The consequences of naive assumptions concerning the causes of physical deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 75–87.
Elischberger, H. B., Glazier, J. J., Hill, E. D., & Verduzco-Baker, L. (2016). Boys don't cry-or do they? Adult attitudes toward and beliefs about transgender youth. Sex Roles, 75(5–6), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0609-y.
Ender, M. G., Rohall, D. E., & Matthews, M. D. (2016). Cadet and civilian undergraduate attitudes toward transgender people: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 42(2), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x15575278.
Fernández, R., Esteva, I., Gómez-Gil, E., Rumbo, T., Almaraz, M. C., Roda, E., ... Pásaro, E. (2014). The (CA) n polymorphism of ERβ gene is associated with FtM transsexualism. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11(3), 720–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12398.
Flores, A. R. (2015). Attitudes toward transgender rights: Perceived knowledge and secondary interpersonal contact. Politics Groups and Identities, 3(3), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050414.
Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Miller, P. R., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K. (2018). Challenged expectations: Mere exposure effects on attitudes about transgender people and rights. Political Psychology, 39(1), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12402.
Frias-Navarro, D., Monterde-i-Bort, H., Pascual-Soler, M., & Badenes-Ribera, L. (2015). Etiology of homosexuality and attitudes toward same-sex parenting: A randomized study. Journal of Sex Research, 52(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.802757.
Garcia-Falgueras, A., & Swaab, D. F. (2008). A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: Relationship to gender identity. Brain, 131, 3132–3146. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn276.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753.
GSS Data Explorer. (2019). Age. Retrieved on March 21, 2018 from https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/vfilter.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of homosexuality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn015.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2013). Politicizing biology: Social movements, parties, and the case of homosexuality. The Social Science Journal, 50(4), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.06.001.
Haider-Markel, D., Miller, P., Flores, A., Lewis, D. C., Tadlock, B., & Taylor, J. (2017). Bringing "T" to the table: Understanding individual support of transgender candidates for public office. Politics Groups and Identities, 5(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1272472.
Hare, L., Bernard, P., Sánchez, F. J., Baird, P. N., Vilain, E., Kennedy, T., … Harley, V. R. (2009). Androgen receptor repeat length polymorphism associated with male-to-female transsexualism. Biological Psychiatry, 65(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.08.033
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley Press.
Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992330.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.
Joslyn, M. R., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2016). Genetic attributions, immutability, and stereotypical judgments: An analysis of homosexuality. Social Science Quarterly, 97(2), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12263.
Kimberly, C. (2016). Assessing political opinions about transgender legal rights using a multiple-segment factorial vignette approach. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 13(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-015-0216-7.
Kruijver, F. P., Zhou, J. N., Pool, C. W., Hofman, M. A., Gooren, L. J., & Swaab, D. F. (2000). Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 85(5), 2034–2041. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.85.5.6564.
Lev, A. I. (2013). Transgender emergence: Therapeutic guidelines for working with gender-variant people and their families. New York: Routledge.
Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016636433.
MFI News. (2018). Keep MA safe releases second campaign ad: Mom voting no on 3. Retrieved on November 7, 2018 from http://www.mafamily.org/state-legislation/bathroom-bill/keep-ma-safe/keep-ma-safe-releases-second-campaign-ad-mom-voting-no-on-3/10001/.
Miller, P. R., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K. (2017). Transgender politics as body politics: Effects of disgust sensitivity and authoritarianism on transgender rights attitudes. Politics Groups and Identities, 5(1), 4–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2016.1260482.
Moody, O. (2018, March 19). Science pinpoints DNA behind gender identity. The Times. Retrieved on April 14, 2018 from https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/science-pinpoints-dna-behind-gender-identity-3vmrgrdnv.
Moon, D. (2012). Who am I and who are we? Conflicting narratives of collective selfhood in stigmatized groups. American Journal of Sociology, 117(5), 1336–1379. https://doi.org/10.1086/663327.
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2018a). Tell your state senator: Oppose anti-trans bills!. Retrieved on May 12, 2018 from https://transequality.org/action-center.
National Center for Transgender Equality. (2018b). Discrimination administration: Trump’s record of action against transgender people. Retrieved on March 25, 2018 from https://transequality.org/thediscriminationadministration.
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of US adults. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6.
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved on May 17, 2018 from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.
Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á., … Guillamon, A. (2011). White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45(2), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006.
Savransky, R. (2018, February 18). Kansas GOP approves resolution opposing efforts ‘to validate transgender identity’: Report. The Hill. Retrieved on March 26, 2018 from https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/374464-kansas-gop-approves-resolution-opposing-efforts-to-validate-transgender.
Spizzirri, G., Duran, F. L. S., Chaim-Avancini, T. M., Serpa, M. H., Cavallet, M., Pereira, C. M. A., … Abdo, C. H. N. (2018). Grey and white matter volumes either in treatment-naïve or hormone-treated transgender women: A voxel-based morphometry study. Scientific Reports, 8(736), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17563-z.
Stewart, N., Ungemach, C., Harris, A. J. H., Bartels, D. M., Newell, B. R., Paolacci, G., … Chandler, J. (2015). The average laboratory samples a population of 7300 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. Judgment and Decision making, 10(5), 479–491.
Suhay, E., & Garretson, J. (2018). Science, sexuality, and civil rights: Does information on the causes of sexual orientation change attitudes? The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 692–696. https://doi.org/10.1086/694896.
Suhay, E., & Jayaratne, T. E. (2012). Does biology justify ideology? The politics of genetic attribution. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(2), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs049.
Tadlock, B. L., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Lewis, D. C., Miller, P. R., & Taylor, J. K. (2017). Testing contact theory and attitudes on transgender rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(4), 956–972. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx021.
Thomas, J. N., & Whitehead, A. L. (2015). Evangelical elites’ anti-homosexuality narratives as a resistance strategy against attribution effects. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12188.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). American fact finder community facts age and sex 2013–2017 American community survey 5-Year estimates. Retrieved on March 25, 2018 from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). QuickFacts population statistics. Retrieved on February 22, 2019 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218.
Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a19.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press.
Whitehead, A. L. (2014). Politics, religion, attribution theory, and attitudes toward same-sex unions. Social Science Quarterly, 95(3), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12085.
Zhou, J. N., Hofman, M. A., & Swaab, D. F. (1995). A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to. Nature, 378, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/378068a0.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest involving this project.
Research Involving Human Subjects
The authors added questions to a survey that received IRB authorization through Michigan State University. IRB number X15–1315.
Informed Consent
All participants were gave electronic consent through the following consent form, which was approved through the IRB process.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Perceptions of Science and Social Issues in the United States
1. EXPLANATION OF THE RESEARCH and WHAT YOU WILL DO
You are being asked to participate in a research project that is intended to survey you about your thoughts on important social issues in the United States. You will first read a short statement about a current issue and answer some questions about what you read. Then you will then answer some questions about your perception of the issue. You will then answer some basic questions about yourself (age, education, race, etc.). Answering the survey questions should take approximately 20 min.
2. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW
Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may also change your mind at any time and stop answering questions or skip a question if you are uncomfortable it.
3. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY
You will not incur any costs for participation in this research.
4. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues or how to do any part of it please contact either Cameron Thomas Whitley (graduate student) at cwhitley@msu.edu or Professor Thomas Dietz, 6 J Berkey Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 or by phone at 517–353-8763, or by e-mail: tdietz@msu.edu.
5. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
By clicking on the button below; you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this online survey.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bowers, M.M., Whitley, C.T. What Drives Support for Transgender Rights? Assessing the Effects of Biological Attribution on U.S. Public Opinion of Transgender Rights. Sex Roles 83, 399–411 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01118-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01118-9