Study Examines Link Between Gender Ideology and Political Violence
A new study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services has found an association between support for certain “gender-affirming” clinical positions, left-wing authoritarian attitudes and greater acceptance of hypothetical political violence.
The study, released Wednesday by HHS, surveyed 1,208 U.S. adults and examined what the department described as “radical gender ideology,” along with political attitudes and respondents’ views about whether political violence could be justified under six different scenarios.
According to HHS, stronger endorsement of the gender-related clinical positions measured by researchers was significantly associated with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism. The association remained after researchers controlled for respondents’ political identity and age.
Researchers also reported that both measures were associated with greater willingness to consider political violence justified.
“This study raises important questions about what happens when ideology is given the authority of medicine,” HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brian Christine said in a statement.
“The association between sex-rejecting clinical beliefs, authoritarian attitudes, and the justification of political violence warrant serious scientific scrutiny,” Christine continued. “HHS will continue to pursue rigorous research that examines these relationships and gives the American people the evidence they deserve.”
There are important limitations to what those results establish, however, and HHS acknowledged them in announcing the findings.
The research does not demonstrate that holding the gender-related beliefs examined in the survey causes authoritarian attitudes, nor does it show that authoritarian attitudes cause those beliefs. Researchers also could not rule out the possibility that another factor could contribute to both.
“Experimental research is needed to determine causality,” the study notes.
There is another significant distinction: Researchers did not determine whether participants had actually engaged in political violence or intended to do so.
Instead, respondents were asked how justified they considered six hypothetical or described acts of political violence. Consequently, the findings establish statistical associations involving attitudes toward the justification of violence, rather than violent conduct itself.
The research was conducted by researchers affiliated with Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute and the Network Contagion Research Institute.
The study immediately drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy organization, which accused HHS of funding a “junk report trying to paint trans Americans as a threat.”
HRC President Kelley Robinson also condemned political violence while arguing against drawing conclusions about transgender people as a group from the research.
“And let us all be absolutely clear on this point: political violence is not, and must never become, acceptable in our society,” Robinson said. “But neither should demonizing entire groups of people for political gain. Trans people are not an ideology, they are human beings and our fellow Americans who deserve the same dignity as anyone else.”