Transgender rights are a polarizing topic. When examining the rhetoric used by those opposed to transgender rights, it often seems like their arguments contradict each other (e.g., claiming that transgender people are a negligible minority but simultaneously “taking over”). One explanation for this contradiction could be that different arguments are endorsed by different people. However, across 4 studies (N = 2,159), we consistently find a positive relationship between endorsement of contradictory anti-transgenderarguments among the same people, even when they themselves view them as contradictory and when the contradictory nature is made salient. We also examine the strategies opponents of transgender rights employ to resolve these contradictions. Our work contributes to a better understanding of modern anti-transgender beliefs in the United States and has implications for those trying to combat harmful anti-transgender rhetoric.
BroockmanD.KallaJ. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9713
5.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, 4(2), 413–432.
6.
EvansJ. H. (2018). Morals not knowledge: Recasting the contemporary US conflict between religion and science. University of California Press.
7.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson & Co.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
10.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
13.
JoelD.FineC. (2022). Who is a woman: Sex, gender and policy making. Journal of Controversial Ideas, 2(2), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.35995/jci02020006
14.
JostJ. T.van der LindenS.PanagopoulosC.HardinC. D. (2018). Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.003
15.
KozlowskiA. C. (2022). How conservatives lost confidence in science: The role of ideological alignment in political polarization. Social Forces, 100(3), 1415–1443. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soab020
16.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
17.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.CookJ. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
18.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology: The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
19.
McGrathA. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12), Article e12362. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12362
20.
McIntyreL. (2018). Post-truth. MIT Press.
21.
MitchellC. (2022). TERF Wars: Feminism and the fight for transgender futures. Community Development Journal, 57(3), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsab016
22.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K. (2021). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1113–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
23.
NortonA. T.HerekG. 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
PrusaczykE.HodsonG. (2020). The roles of political conservatism and binary gender beliefs in predicting prejudices toward gay men and people who are transgender. Sex Roles, 82(7–8), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01069-1
26.
SchudsonZ. C.van AndersS. M. (2022). Gender/sex diversity beliefs: Scale construction, validation, and links to prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(4), 1011–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220987595
27.
SkewesL.FineC.HaslamN. (2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLOS ONE, 13(7), Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921
28.
SteeleC. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4
29.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.LynchM. (1993). Self-image resilience and dissonance: The role of affirmational resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.885
TompkinsT. L.ShieldsC. N.HillmanK. M.WhiteK. (2015). Reducing stigma toward the transgender community: An evaluation of a humanizing and perspective-taking intervention. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000088
van ProoijenJ.-W.WahringI.MausolfL.MulasN.ShwanS. (2023). Just dead, not alive: Reconsidering belief in contradictory conspiracy theories. Psychological Science, 34(6), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231158570
WoodM. J.DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2012). Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786
Supplementary Material
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.
