A study of 1,208 U.S. adults found an association between stronger support for transgender-related beliefs, measures of left-wing authoritarianism and a greater willingness to justify certain forms of political violence. The researchers emphasized that the findings are correlational and do not establish cause and effect.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
A newly released study examining the relationship between transgender-related beliefs, authoritarian attitudes and political violence found that stronger support for what researchers termed “gender ideology” was associated with higher measures of left-wing authoritarianism and a greater willingness to justify certain violent political acts.
The study, conducted by researchers affiliated with Rutgers University, the Network Contagion Research Institute and the Manhattan Institute, surveyed 1,208 U.S. adults.
Titled Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?, the research examined whether endorsement of transgender-related principles correlated with political attitudes involving perceived threats, authoritarianism and acceptance of violence.
The authors were explicit that the study was correlational.
It does not establish that transgender-related beliefs cause authoritarian attitudes or political violence, nor does it establish that people who hold those beliefs will engage in violent behavior.
“These findings suggest that gender ideology is associated with LWA [left-wing authoritarianism] and willingness to justify political violence,” the researchers wrote.
To measure respondents’ views on transgender-related issues, researchers used what they called the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale, or CGAS.
Participants were asked to rate their agreement with statements including:
“Failure to affirm a transgender person’s gender identity increases the risk of serious psychological distress.”
“People should be supported in expressing their transgender identity.”
“Using a chosen name is a necessary form of support.”
“Using preferred pronouns is a necessary form of support.”
“Parents should support their children’s transgender exploration.”
Researchers then compared CGAS results with measures intended to gauge left-wing authoritarianism and political attitudes.
Those measures included respondents’ political identity, perceptions of threats posed by different groups and whether they believed a “trans genocide” is taking place in the United States.
The study also measured respondents’ willingness to justify six specified forms of political violence.
Those scenarios involved killing Charlie Kirk, killing Donald Trump, killing Brian Thompson, setting fire to Immigration and Customs Enforcement buildings, damaging property belonging to wealthy people and violence against police officers.
Researchers reported a correlation between scores on the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale and the measures they categorized as left-wing authoritarianism.
The authors situated those results within a broader body of research examining how perceived victimization, grievance and moral certainty can interact with authoritarian tendencies.
“Finally, broader research on perceived victimhood, moralization, and political violence suggests that identities organized around grievance, perceived victimization, and injustice, when paired with authoritarian or punitive dispositions, can predict support for anti-democratic or violent political action,” the study said.
The researchers continued:
“Taken together, these literatures suggest a common mechanism: ideological content that names an oppressor class, certifies ongoing victimization, and locates remedy in coercive institutional or social action which may supply authoritarian psychology with morally justified targets.”
The study’s authors argued that scholarship on authoritarianism historically has concentrated much more heavily on political movements associated with the right than comparable psychological patterns on the political left.
In their concluding discussion, they called for greater examination of whether authoritarian tendencies can operate through ideological and institutional structures associated with progressive politics.
“Research frameworks for understanding authoritarianism have historically focused overwhelmingly on the political right, while analogous left-wing pathways have received far less attention,” the report states.
“This study suggests that the same psychological machinery operates on the extreme left, and that it may be running through institutional channels — clinical guidelines, professional standards, credentialed expertise — that current threat-detection frameworks are not well designed to recognize.”
The authors also said academic research examining a possible relationship between transgender ideology and violence remains limited.
“Violence connected to gender ideology remains largely undocumented in the academic literature,” they wrote. “This study provides a first systematic empirical look at the psychological infrastructure that makes such violence conceivable.”
The findings do not show that transgender people as a group are violent, and the study did not establish that transgender identity itself predicts violence.
Its focus was instead on the relationship between respondents’ endorsement of particular transgender-related propositions and separate psychological and political measures.
That distinction is important because support for transgender-related policies, personal identification as transgender and willingness to engage in or endorse political violence are separate characteristics.
The study also cannot determine from its design which factor, if any, precedes another.
For example, the reported correlation could reflect underlying political ideology, authoritarian tendencies, threat perceptions, grievance-based thinking or other variables that affect both transgender-related attitudes and views about political violence.
The researchers nevertheless argue that the association merits further examination, particularly where political rhetoric frames disagreement as existential danger or divides society into perceived victim and oppressor categories.
The report’s theoretical framework proposes that beliefs centered on ongoing victimization may become more politically consequential when combined with punitive or authoritarian dispositions.
According to that framework, a person who views a political disagreement as evidence of deliberate oppression could become more willing to see coercive measures as morally justified.
That proposition is broader than transgender politics and draws from existing research on grievance, moralization and political extremism.
The study’s release is likely to contribute to an already contentious debate over transgender policies, political polarization and the way institutions discuss transgender issues.
Critics of contemporary transgender-related approaches have argued that presenting disagreement over sex and gender as an existential threat can heighten resentment and social conflict.
Supporters of those approaches, meanwhile, generally argue that using chosen names and pronouns and supporting transgender individuals can reduce distress and social exclusion.
The new research does not resolve that wider policy dispute.
Rather, it identifies a statistical relationship in the surveyed population between stronger endorsement of the particular transgender-related positions measured by CGAS and higher scores on measures involving left-wing authoritarianism and justification of political violence.
Because the research is correlational, the authors’ findings cannot demonstrate that one set of attitudes produces the other.
The study therefore provides evidence of an association that researchers say warrants additional investigation, rather than proof that transgender beliefs cause political extremism or violent conduct.
Its central finding is narrower: among the 1,208 adults surveyed, stronger endorsement of the transgender-related positions measured by the researchers was associated with stronger left-wing authoritarian attitudes and greater willingness to justify several forms of politically motivated violence.
Original article
Comments