Talking about Transgender Youth in Sports

American voters have evolved dramatically in their perspectives toward LGBT people over the last decade. The rapid shift in public opinion on marriage equality may be the most high-profile evidence of progress, but public opinion has also moved in a positive direction around understanding transgender people and the struggles they face.

Despite this evolution, the far-right continues to attempt to exploit LGBT people for political gain. In the wake of these recent attacks, Third Way and Impact Research conducted a multi-round research project, including qualitative research and a poll of 1012 likely midterm voters, to better understand their views around these issues—from providing gender-affirming care to allowing transgender youth to participate in sports teams that match their gender identity. The findings make clear that Americans have come a long way in understanding transgender people, both in recognizing what it means to be transgender and sympathizing with the challenges transgender people face. However, voters are still conflicted around the participation of transgender youth in sports in some contexts, and they believe issues around elite sports (in particular) are new and complex and should be handled on a case-by-case basis—not dictated by blanket rules established by those looking to score political points.

The goal of this research was to understand how to best advise pro-LGBT candidates and policymakers to navigate this debate in a way that ensures any midterm losses are not blamed on support for pro-LGBT policies. Too often, we have seen major setbacks when a social issue is scapegoated for political losses. We must handle issues around participation in sports with care in order to avoid that outcome this cycle, which could lead to a further proliferation of policies that harm transgender youth and stoke fear in elected officials who might otherwise oppose these proposals.

The Landscape for Transgender Youth

At this point, most Americans accept the basics: transgender youth should be able to embrace their authentic gender and have access to gender-affirming care. These sentiments hold strong with both parents and Independents, indicating real progress from a decade ago, when most voters were unfamiliar with transgender people and the hurdles they face in achieving equality in our society.

By 13 points, voters say it would be wrong for parents to force their transgender child to wear clothes that reflect their sex at birth instead of their gender identity. And a solid majority of voters say a doctor should be able to provide gender-affirming care to transgender youth with parental consent, with that number growing to nearly 60% for older teens. It seems that the American public has generally accepted that transgender people, including youth, should be able to live as their authentic selves and have access to the medical treatment they need in order to do so.

Transgender Youth and Sports

But when it comes to transgender youth and sports, the picture gets substantially more complex. This issue is new to most voters, and they aren’t yet sure what they think or even who should be making these decisions. But at first blush, they are more likely to side with those who want to block transgender students from participating in sports that match their gender identity than those who are advocating for inclusion.

When asked who should be responsible for making decisions about transgender youth’s participation in sports, the answers were all over the map. Sports governing bodies like the NCAA got the single highest percentage, but that still represented fewer than 1 in 5 respondents (19%). About a third of voters opted for policymakers at the state or federal level to make the rules, though even those folks were split on which ones should take the lead (36% total: state legislature 15%, Governor 6%, Congress 8%, the Department of Education 7%). Another quarter preferred parents, doctors, or schools to decide on a case-by-case basis (27% total: parents 11%, school districts or administrators 11%, doctors 5%). And 14% simply said they “don’t know.” Clearly, voters are still evolving in their thinking around this issue, and there’s little current consensus—even about who should be making these calls.

The fluidity of public perception around transgender youth participating in sports that align with their gender identity was evident throughout the survey. In fact, responses varied wildly depending on how the questions were asked.

• Initially, most voters said they would support a school athletic association requiring a transgender athlete to play with the team that matches their sex at birth. A majority (though by a smaller margin) also said at the outset that they supported legislation that would prevent transgender student athletes from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity.
• However, when asked to choose between two statements, a majority (51%) also said “The issue of transgender student-athletes is complicated and should not be up to politicians to decide. These decisions should be left to parents and schools who know the situation best.” By contrast, only 37% preferred the following statement: “This is an important issue, and we need politicians to pass laws to protect non-transgender students from having to compete against someone of the opposite sex.”
• Likewise, 53% agreed that “Parents of transgender youth should be able to make the decisions that are best for their children without politicians interfering,” compared to 34% who preferred the following statement: “Because of political correctness, parents have no say when transgender youth join their kids' sports teams, even when the transgender person has a clear, unfair advantage.”
• When asked whether a candidate’s support for laws banning transgender youth from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity would make them more or less likely to vote for that policymaker, the result was a split decision (34% more likely, 35% less likely).

These results suggest that while voters feel empathy toward transgender people, the debate around transgender athletes must be navigated with extreme care at this moment in order to prevent further backlash and harm to transgender youth.

Framing Around Sports

Although this issue is a low priority for voters (3% say laws related to gay and transgender people should be a first or second priority compared to 48% who prioritized inflation and 30% who are focused on jobs and the economy), the ongoing attacks in states across the country will continue to necessitate responses from pro-LGBT candidates. When pushing back on proposals to harm transgender youth, candidates should use values-based messages highlighting freedom and the need to treat transgender youth the same as everyone else, and emphasize the need to trust parents, doctors, and schools to make decisions case-by-case instead of having politicians enact blanket bans.

• The top-testing reason to oppose sports participation bans leaned into shared values: “Our country is founded on the basic principle of freedom, and that goes for everyone. Transgender young people deserve the same basic protections as everyone else—to live their lives with safety, privacy, and dignity.”
• Reminding voters that politicians should focus on other priorities, not making life harder for transgender youth, was compelling as well. Voters chose this as one of the most persuasive reasons to oppose a sports ban: “Our country is facing major challenges. The economy is struggling, and costs are out of control. Politicians should be focused on getting things in this country back on track—not changing the laws to make life harder for transgender youth.”
• Finally, voters were sympathetic to the view that these issues should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that politicians should not be creating blanket rules around this topic. They said the following argument was persuasive as well: “All situations are different, and parents know their kids best. We need to trust parents to make the decisions that are best for their children, along with their child’s school and doctors—and not allow politicians to make those decisions for them.”

By contrast, arguments comparing this issue to racial discrimination fell completely flat, as did efforts to focus on the details of gender-affirming care, hormones, or other medical treatment for transgender youth (more explanation did not move voters in our direction). The best way to navigate the complexity voters feel on this issue is to focus on shared values and remind them that allowing case-by-case decisions is far preferable to politicians meddling and making blanket rules. And we must recognize that even when we deploy our most persuasive messages, voters still voice support for banning participation in sports—we simply have more work to do on this issue moving forward.

Conclusion

It is of the utmost importance that we protect transgender youth and thwart far-right efforts to target and harass them. That is why it is essential that pro-equality candidates recognize the challenging terrain on this issue and respond in ways that meet voters where they are and keep discriminatory, anti-trans candidates far away from public office. Our goal in this election cycle must be to ensure 1) pro-LGBT policymakers feel equipped to navigate these issues when they are confronted with them and 2) they do not blame their pro-LGBT stances for any electoral losses so that we can continue to make progress in the years to come.