LG而非T:在同性恋被接受的背景下反对变性人的权利

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Sociological Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1080/00380253.2023.2167673
Kelsy Burke, Emily Kazyak, Marissa Oliver, Payton Valkr
{"title":"LG而非T:在同性恋被接受的背景下反对变性人的权利","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

本文运用情感和矛盾心理的社会学理论,对支持同性恋者权利而不支持变性人权利的个体进行实证研究。通过对内布拉斯加州居民的代表性调查以及对封闭式和开放式回答的定量和定性分析,我们发现,我们称之为“不一致”的群体在人口统计学上与一致的反对者更相似,他们在数量上超过一致的反对者,并且他们依靠两种逻辑来证明他们的观点是正确的。对于几乎所有反对就业不歧视和跨性别者卫生间保护的人来说,他们都用一种身份逻辑来表达对跨性别身份的怀疑,甚至经常是公开的敌意。对于大多数只反对厕所保护,但支持就业不歧视的人来说,他们使用的是一种设定逻辑,强调社会背景如何决定性别定义的重要性(比如在使用公共厕所时)。我们的分析表明,对LGBT权利的态度并不是二分的,也不是一成不变的,这可以作为理解其他有争议的社会问题的一个模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
LG but Not T: Opposition to Transgender Rights Amidst Gay and Lesbian Acceptance
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
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.
期刊最新文献
Unconventional Work, Conventional Problems: Gig Microtask Work, Inequality, and the Flexibility Mystique Mooring Christian Nationalism: How Religious Institutions, Participation, and Beliefs Inform Christian Nationalism Labor Market Inequality, Debt, and the Consequences of Sub-Baccalaureate Higher Education How Local Perceptions Contribute to Urban Environmental Activism: Evidence from the Chicago Metropolitan Area Sad Puppies and SJWs: Symbolic Revolution and Challenges to Field Orthodoxy in the Struggle for Control of Science Fiction’s Hugo Awards
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1