American states began passing legislation that would ban transgender girls from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity in 2020. During legislative debate, supporters of transgender athlete bans adopted rhetoric that framed their arguments in terms of commonly held values. ‘Value frames’ establish connections between people and spoken values and have a powerful effect on the way that opinions about public policy are formed. We conduct a discourse analysis of video and audio footage from committee testimony and chamber debate from 18 US states to identify the major discursive themes used by the bans’ supporters. Themes include gender simplicity, male advantage, protecting women and preventing change. Our discussion and analysis connects these themes to long-standing value frames used by political elites, namely tradition, fairness and equal opportunity. The conclusion addresses the implications of this discourse for shaping the public’s understanding of sex and gender.
AndersonWDPattersonML (2008) Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments. The Journal of Social Psychology148(2): 223–245.
2.
BächtigerA (2014) Debate and deliberation in legislatures. In:MartinSSaalfeldTStrømKW (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–166.
3.
BäckHDebusMFernandesJM (2021) The politics of legislative debates: An introduction. In:BäckHDebusMFernandesJM (eds) The Politics of Legislative Debates. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–20.
4.
BrewerPR (2003) Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly67(2): 173–201.
5.
BrewerPRGrossK (2005) Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology26(6): 929–948.
6.
ButlerJ (1990) Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
7.
BuzuvisE (2021) Law, policy, and the participation of transgender athletes in the United States. Sport Management Review24(3): 439–451.
8.
CarlisleM (2022) Inside the right-wing movement to ban trans youth from sports. Time. 16May.
9.
CastilloS (2023) The battle for trans rights: Political spectacle theory and its implications for education policy. Sexuality, Gender and Policy6(1): 8–15.
10.
ClelandJCashmoreEDixonK (2022) Why do sports fans support or oppose the inclusion of trans women in women’s sports? An empirical study of fairness and gender identity. Sport in Society25(12): 2381–2396.
11.
CliffordSJeritJRaineyC, et al. (2015) Moral concerns and policy attitudes: Investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. Political Communication32(2): 229–248.
12.
CunninghamGBBuzuvisEMosierC (2018) Inclusive spaces and locker rooms for transgender athletes. Kinesiology Review7(4): 365–374.
13.
CunninghamGBPickettAC (2018) Trans prejudice in sport: Differences from LGB prejudice, the influence of gender, and changes over time. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research78(3-4): 220–227.
14.
FaircloughN (2001) Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 121–138.
15.
Fausto-SterlingA (2000) Sexing the Body. New York: Basic Books.
16.
FeldmanS (1988) Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. African Journal of Political Science32(2): 416–440.
17.
FeldmanS (2003) Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In: SearsDHuddyLJervisR (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.477–508.
18.
FinkJS (2016) Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport. Journal of Sport Management30(1): 1–7.
19.
FloresAR (2015) Attitudes toward transgender rights: Perceived knowledge and secondary interpersonal contact. Politics Groups and Identities3(3): 398–416.
20.
FoucaultM (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
23.
GlickPFiskeST (1996) The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70(3): 491–512.
24.
GordonMPriceMPeraltaK (2016) Understanding HB2: North Carolina’s newest law solidifies state’s role in defining discrimination. The Charlotte Observer, 29March.
25.
GrahamJHaidtJNosekBA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology96(5): 1029–1046.
26.
HoggettPWilkinsonHBeedellP (2013) Fairness and the politics of resentment. Journal of Social Policy42(3): 567–585.
27.
HunterJD (1991) Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: BasicBooks.
28.
JonesCJ (2021) Unfair advantage discourse in USA powerlifting: Toward a transfeminist sports studies. TSQ Transgender Studies Quarterly8(1): 58–74.
29.
JonesKLNoorbaloochiSJostJT, et al. (2018) Liberal and conservative values: What we can learn from congressional tweets. Political Psychology39(2): 423–443.
30.
JonesPEBrewerPR (2020) Elite cues and public polarization on transgender rights. Politics Groups and Identities8(1): 71–85.
31.
Jordan-YoungR (2011) Brain Storm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
32.
JostJTSternCRuleNO, et al. (2017) The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation?Social Cognition35(4): 324–353.
33.
KaneMJ (1995) Resistance/transformation of the oppositional binary: Exposing sport as a continuum. Journal of Sport & Social Issues19(2): 191–218.
34.
KarkazisKJordan-YoungR (2015) Debating a testosterone ‘sex gap’. Science348(6237): 858–860.
35.
KnechtleBDi GangiSRüstCA, et al. (2020) Performance differences between the sexes in the Boston marathon from 1972 to 2017. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research34(2): 566–576.
36.
KolevaSPGrahamJIyerR, et al. (2012) Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality46(2): 184–194.
37.
KruglanskiAW (2015) Donald Trump and ISIS both benefit from a powerful fuel: Our fear. The Guardian. 1December.
38.
KruglanskiAWWebsterDM (1996) Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.”Psychological Review103(2): 263–283.
39.
LechelerSBosLVliegenthartR (2015) The mediating role of emotions: News framing effects on opinions about immigration. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly92(4): 812–838.
40.
LindekildeL (2014) Discourse and frame analysis: in-depth analysis of qualitative data in social movement research. In:Della PortaD (ed.) Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. Oxford: Oxford Academic, pp.195–227.
41.
LindgrenE (2022) (Un)Expected effects of policy rhetoric: Value framing of policy proposals and voters’ reactions to subsequent information. Acta Politica57(4): 836–863.
42.
LorberJ (1993) Believing is seeing: Biology as ideology. Gender & Society7(4): 568–581.
43.
MartinK (2022) Fairness in women’s sports? Explaining support for anti-transgender access legislation. In: Southern political science association annual conference, January, San Antonio, TX, pp.13–15.
44.
MeadG (1934) Mind, Self, and Society, vol. 111. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
MessnerMA (1988) Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal5(3): 197–211.
46.
MichosIFiggouLBakaA (2022) Debating the legal recognition of gender identity in parliamentary discourse: Human rights and queer politics. Discourse & Society33(4): 501–518.
47.
MinkinRBrownA (2021) Rising shares of U.S. adults know someone who is transgender or goes by gender-neutral pronouns. Report, Pew Research Center.
48.
MuribZ (2022) Don’t read the comments: Examining social media discourse on trans athletes. Laws11(4): 53.
49.
NelsonTEGarstJ (2005) Values-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology26(4): 489–516.
50.
PetersJW (2021) Why transgender girls are suddenly the GOP’s culture war focus. The New York Times, 29March.
51.
PickettACValdezD (2022) Mining online discourse related to transgender exclusive policies in interscholastic sport: An exploratory natural language processing study. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Epub ahead of print 5 October 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s13178-022-00768-x
52.
PotterJWetherellM (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
53.
ProkschSOSlapinJB (2012) Institutional foundations of legislative speech. African Journal of Political Science56(3): 520–537.
54.
RogersK (2021) Title IX protections extend to transgender students, Education Dept. says. New York Times, 16June (accessed 22 February 2023).
55.
RokeachM (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press.
56.
SchemerCWirthWMatthesJ (2012) Value resonance and value framing effects on voting intentions in direct-democratic campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist56(3): 334–352.
57.
SchiltKWestbrookL (2015) Bathroom battlegrounds and penis panics. Contexts14(3): 26–31.
58.
Schonhardt-BaileyC (2008) The congressional debate on partial-birth abortion: Constitutional gravitas and moral passion. British Journal of Political Science38(3): 383–410.
59.
SharrowEA (2021) Sports, transgender rights, and the bodily politics of cisgender supremacy. Laws10(3): 63.
60.
ShenFEdwardsHH (2005) Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication55(4): 795–809.
61.
StewartBDMorrisDSM (2021) Moving morality beyond the in-group: Liberals and conservatives show differences on group-framed moral foundations and these differences mediate the relationships to perceived bias and threat. Frontiers in Psychology12: 1–20. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579908
62.
StoneAL (2019) Frame variation in child protectionist claims: Constructions of gay men and transgender women as strangers. Social Forces97(3): 1155–1176.
63.
TadlockB (2014) Issue framing and transgender politics: An examination of interest group websites and media coverage. In:TaylorJKHaider-MarkelDP (eds) Transgender rights and politics: Groups, issue framing, and policy adoption. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp.25–48.
64.
Turnbull-DugarteSJMcMillanF (2022) “Protect the women!” Trans-exclusionary feminist issue framing and support for transgender rights. Policy Studies Journal: 1–38. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12484
65.
van DijkTA (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society4(2): 249–283.
66.
VoldenC (1998) Sophisticated voting in supermajoritarian settings. The Journal of Politics60(1): 149–173.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
