A study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suggests a link between stronger endorsement of gender-affirming clinical positions and higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism, which in turn was associated with a greater willingness to justify political violence.
The research, conducted by teams from Rutgers University, the Manhattan Institute, and the Network Contagion Research Institute, surveyed 1,208 U.S. adults on their views regarding gender identity and the justification of political violence.
The survey assessed attitudes related to censorship and coercion for left-wing goals, alongside questions about transgender identities, names, pronouns, and parental support for transgender exploration. Respondents were also asked to rate the justifiability of actions such as killing political figures, setting fire to government buildings, damaging property, and attacking police.
According to the findings, higher scores on a "gender-affirmation" scale were associated with greater approval of all six violent acts, even after accounting for political views. However, authoritarianism scores showed stronger links to the justification of violence.
The study's authors noted that the research measured attitudes and did not establish cause and effect, nor did it assess whether individuals had committed or intended to commit violence. The findings emerge amid ongoing public debate surrounding gender identity and several recent high-profile incidents.
Admiral Brian Christine, assistant secretary for health at HHS, stated that the study "raises important questions about what happens when ideology is given the authority of medicine" and warrants "serious scientific scrutiny."
Researchers developed a five-question Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale (CGAS) using statements adapted from guidance by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. A separate 13-item questionnaire measured authoritarian attitudes.
In one statistical model, gender-affirmation scores accounted for 31.5 percent of the variation in authoritarianism scores, a figure describing differences between questionnaire scores rather than the percentage of respondents endorsing violence. Political identity was the strongest predictor of gender-affirmation scores when political views, authoritarianism, and age were considered. However, authoritarianism remained independently associated with gender-affirmation scores.
The correlations between gender-affirmation scores and approval of violence ranged from 0.23 to 0.35, while correlations for authoritarianism ranged from 0.47 to 0.54, indicating weaker relationships for the gender measure.
The report suggested that "gender ideology may function as an ideological accelerant," potentially framing political opponents as threats and making violence appear legitimate to those already inclined toward force. The authors also raised questions about whether activism might have influenced clinical recommendations from professional bodies, though the survey did not assess medical outcomes or the scientific justification of guidance.
The study recruited participants via the online platform CloudResearch Connect, with 97 responses excluded for various reasons. The final sample was politically uneven, with 55 percent identifying as or leaning Democratic and 27.2 percent identifying as or leaning Republican. Just 1.1 percent identified as transgender or gender nonconforming, indicating the research examined beliefs across a broad sample rather than specifically violent behavior among transgender individuals.