{"title":"LG but Not T: Opposition to Transgender Rights Amidst Gay and Lesbian Acceptance","authors":"Kelsy Burke, Emily Kazyak, Marissa Oliver, Payton Valkr","doi":"10.1080/00380253.2023.2167673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article draws on sociological theories of affect and ambivalence to empirically examine individuals who express support for the rights of gays and lesbians but not transgender people. Using a representative survey of Nebraska residents and quantitative and qualitative analysis of close-ended and open-ended responses, we find that the group we call “inconsistents” are more similar demographically to consistent opponents, they outnumber consistent opponents, and that they rely on two types of logics to justify their views. For nearly all who oppose employment nondiscrimination and bathroom protections for transgender people, they use an identity logic to express skepticism, and often overt hostility, toward transgender identity. For most who oppose only bathroom protections but support employment nondiscrimination, they use a setting logic that emphasizes how social context determines when definitions of gender matter (like when using public restrooms). Our analysis shows that attitudes about LGBT rights are not dichotomous or always uniform and serves as a model to understand other contentious social issues.","PeriodicalId":48007,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Quarterly","volume":"64 1","pages":"471 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2023.2167673","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article draws on sociological theories of affect and ambivalence to empirically examine individuals who express support for the rights of gays and lesbians but not transgender people. Using a representative survey of Nebraska residents and quantitative and qualitative analysis of close-ended and open-ended responses, we find that the group we call “inconsistents” are more similar demographically to consistent opponents, they outnumber consistent opponents, and that they rely on two types of logics to justify their views. For nearly all who oppose employment nondiscrimination and bathroom protections for transgender people, they use an identity logic to express skepticism, and often overt hostility, toward transgender identity. For most who oppose only bathroom protections but support employment nondiscrimination, they use a setting logic that emphasizes how social context determines when definitions of gender matter (like when using public restrooms). Our analysis shows that attitudes about LGBT rights are not dichotomous or always uniform and serves as a model to understand other contentious social issues.
期刊介绍:
The Sociological Quarterly is devoted to publishing cutting-edge research and theory in all areas of sociological inquiry. Our focus is on publishing the best in empirical research and sociological theory. We look for articles that advance the discipline and reach the widest possible audience. Since 1960, the contributors and readers of The Sociological Quarterly have made it one of the leading generalist journals in the field. Each issue is designed for efficient browsing and reading and the articles are helpful for teaching and classroom use.