Most LGBTQ+ adults feel Americans don't accept transgender people, Pew poll finds
LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. see lower social acceptance for transgender people than those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, a new Pew Research Center poll found.
Pew found that about 6 in 10 LGBTQ+ adults said there is 'a great deal' or 'a fair amount' of social acceptance in the U.S. for gay and lesbian people. Only about 1 in 10 said the same for nonbinary and transgender people — and about half said there was 'not much' or no acceptance at all for transgender people.
Giovonni Santiago, a 39-year-old transgender man and Air Force veteran who lives in Northeast Ohio and was not a participant in the survey, said he feels that acceptance for transgender people has declined in the last few years – roughly in step with the rise of state laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, regulating which school and public bathrooms transgender people can use and which sports they can play.
He said he's seen acceptance get worse nationally, following the lead of some places that were early adopters of restrictions.
"They were like the anomaly for ignorance and in hatred, especially towards trans people,' Santiago said. 'But now we see that it's just kind of sweeping the nation, unfortunately.'
Still, Santiago said he doesn't fear for his own personal safety — a contrast with most transgender people, who said they have feared for their safety at some point.
'I guess I don't feel it as much because I live a life that most people don't know that I'm trans unless I specifically tell them,' said Santiago, who runs a nonprofit dedicated to supporting transgender youth.
The survey of 3,959 LGBTQ+ adults was conducted in January, after President Donald Trump was elected but just before he returned to office and set into motion a series of policies that question the existence of transgender people.
On his first day, Trump signed an executive order calling on the government to recognize people as male or female based on the 'biological truth' of their future cells at conception, rather than accept scientific evidence that gender is a spectrum. Since then, he's begun ousting transgender service members from the military, and tried to bar transgender women and girls from sports competitions for females and block federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender people under 19, among other orders.
A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research conducted in May found that about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling transgender issues, with a range of views on specific actions.
According to the Pew poll, about two-thirds of LGBTQ+ adults said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationally 10 years ago boosted acceptance of same-sex couples 'a lot more' or 'somewhat more.' The Supreme Court is expected to rule in coming weeks on a major case regarding transgender people — deciding whether Tennessee can enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Transgender people are less likely than gay or lesbian adults to say they're accepted by all their family members. The majority of LGBTQ+ said their siblings and friends accepted them, though the rates were slightly higher among gay or lesbian people. About half of gay and lesbian people said their parents did, compared with about one-third of transgender people. Only about 1 in 10 transgender people reported feeling accepted by their extended family, compared with about 3 in 10 gay or lesbian people.
Transgender people are more likely than gay, lesbian or bisexual people to say they feel 'extremely' or "very" connected to a broader LGBTQ+ community and to say that all or most of their friends are also LGBTQ+.
Some elements of the experience are similar. About one-third of transgender and lesbian or gay adults said they first felt they might be LGBTQ+ by the time they were 10 and most did by age 13. About half waited until they were at least 18 to first tell someone.
Aubrey Campos, 41, runs a taco truck near a hub of LGBTQ+ bars in Fort Worth, Texas, and also serves as a community organizer. She says her parents were supportive when she came out as transgender at about age 12. But the younger trans people she works with often have very different experiences — including some who were kicked out of their homes.
'Now the times are a little bit dark," she said. "This is a time that we to come together and make it brighter and make it known that we aren't going to just disappear.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Los Angeles Olympics bosses speak out on Trump's latest travel ban impact
Los Angeles 2028 Olympics organisers have expressed confidence that Donald Trump 's latest travel ban will not prevent participants from entering the US. Planning and preparation for the event have made "significant progress" as LA28 chairman and president Casey Wasserman thanked the federal government for recognising that the Olympics require special consideration. During a news conference at the Los Angeles Convention Center, Wasserman said: "It was very clear in the directive that the Olympics require special consideration and I actually want to thank the federal government for recognising that. 'It's very clear that the federal government understands that that's an environment that they will be accommodating and provide for. 'We have great confidence that that will only continue. It has been the case to date and it will certainly be the case going forward through the games." International Olympic Committee member Nicole Hoevertsz anticipates the US government will cooperate, as it did in hosting previous Olympics. "That is something that we will be definitely looking at and making sure that it is guaranteed as well," she said. "We are very confident that this is going to be accomplished. I'm sure this is going to be executed well." Sixteen IOC members recently concluded a three-day visit, inspecting multiple venue locations, including Dodger Stadium. The IOC's Coordination Commission was last in the city in November. 'We've seen significant progress,' Hoevertsz said. 'We leave the city very confident with the road ahead.' Noting the games are 1,135 days from opening on July 14, 2028, Wasserman said, "We are in delivery mode now.' Saturday marks the six-month anniversary of the start of the deadly wildfires that devastated Pacific Palisades on the city's west side and the community of Altadena, northeast of downtown. 'In California, there are some obvious things you should be prepared for — earthquakes, wildfires,' Wasserman said. 'You certainly hope that they never happen, but shame on us if we're not prepared for any and every kind of eventuality because that is our job.' Reynold Hoover, who runs the day-to-day work of LA28 as its CEO, said contingency planning is ongoing. 'The wildfires gave us an opportunity within the organisation to think a little bit differently about how we're structured and how we impact the community and how we think about sustainability,' he said. From a financial standpoint, Wasserman said he's 'incredibly confident' the games will turn a profit. 'Frankly, losing money is not really an option for us. We understand that while there is a backstop from the city, that is not something we ever intend to get close to,' he said. 'We have built our entire delivery to be tracked against the revenue we create, which is why we are being so aggressive, and have been for a long time, on generating as much revenue as possible.' Wasserman said LA28 is 'well over" 60 per cent in contracted revenue. 'We have more revenue today contracted than Paris did total revenue," he said, 'and we haven't sold a ticket yet."
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump's trade tariffs 'to hit NI growth and jobs'
A US tariff of 10% on UK goods could cost the Northern Ireland economy £85m and 800 jobs over the next 15 years, a Department for the Economy study has does not mean the economy will shrink in absolute terms, rather it will be smaller than it would have been if the tariffs had not been study only considers the direct effects on Northern Ireland exports rather than any secondary impact would rise to a £110m loss of potential economic output if US President Donald Trump was to impose a 20% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals is the part of the Northern Ireland economy which is most exposed to Trump tariffs as almost half of the sector's export sales go to the study suggests a 20% tariff would mean pharmaceutical sector output would be around 5% lower compared to a no tariff are effectively a tax on imported goods and are a major part of Trump's economic policy. Since re-entering office in January, he has raised tariffs on specific items such as steel, aluminium, and cars and imposed a blanket 10% levy on most goods from trading partners around the had briefly targeted some countries' exports with even higher tariff rates, only to suspend those measures for 90 days to allow for talks.A US trade court has ruled that an emergency law invoked by Trump did not give him the unilateral authority to impose the blanket 10% those tariffs are still being collected while the Trump administration appeals the administration is also conducting a national security investigation into pharmaceutical imports, a process which would provide a more solid legal basis to impose tariffs on that sector. 'A significant headwind' The study concludes that tariffs will "adversely affect local businesses and represent a significant headwind for businesses when trying to grow exports over the longer term"."It is also likely that many of the businesses impacted will be in specific geographic areas e.g. Mid Ulster and Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon council areas," it says."This is due to the importance of the manufacturing and pharmaceutical industries to these areas, which will have implications for the regional balance agenda being taken forward by the department."
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump and Musk's marriage of convenience ended the only way possible for the pair
'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Donald Trump observed in the Oval Office on Thursday. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' The US president was referring to the war between Russia and Ukraine but could just as easily have been talking about himself. On Thursday, to the surprise of no one, Trump's bromance with billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk exploded in a very public feud. While the president urged his supporters to 'fight, fight, fight' last summer after he survived an assassination attempt, now that mantra is evocative of children on a school playground urging Trump and Musk to go at each other. For political nerds this is like Alien v Predator, Batman v Superman and King Kong v Godzilla rolled into one. It was always going to end this way for two megalomaniacs devoted to fame, money and the far right, neither of whom is unaccustomed to a messy divorce. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives' judiciary committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill: 'I suppose it was in the stars. Everybody was predicting it when it first began. You've got two gentlemen with gargantuan egos and both appearing to suffer from malignant narcissistic personality disorder.' Trump-Musk had begun as the ultimate political marriage of convenience. Their interests converged last year when Musk saw in Trump a hammer against wokeness who could also benefit his businesses and help him reach Mars. The Tesla and SpaceX supremo leaped on stage with Trump, flooded the zone with Maga propaganda on his X social media platform and threw a record $277m behind his election campaign. The reward came with a seat among the oligarchs at Trump's inauguration, a seemingly permanent residency at Mar-a-Lago and a chainsaw in the form of the so-called 'department of government efficiency', or Doge. 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man,' proclaimed Musk, who lorded it over cabinet meetings and in the Oval Office. Trump returned the compliment by turning the White House south lawn into a showroom for Teslas. The pair were as inseparable – and destructive – as Laurel and Hardy pushing a piano up a flight of stairs. Then came last Friday's amicable but peculiar parting, where Musk sported a black eye, brushed off reports of rampant drug taking, praised Trump's tacky gold decor in the Oval Office and was presented with a commemorative gold key. Comedian Jon Stewart quipped: 'Doge has finally rooted out one of America's least efficient government workers and marked him for dismissal.' On Tuesday, Musk waited until the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was at the podium before unleashing an X barrage. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' he wrote, describing a Trump-based tax and spending bill in Congress as 'a disgusting abomination'. He followed up with three days of nonstop posts eviscerating the bill and urging Republicans to reject it. It was the point of no return. The transactional Trump-Musk relationship was on its way to turning septic, sour and rancourous. There are multiple theories as to why. The trouble began in March when it emerged that Musk arranged private Pentagon briefings on China policy without White House knowledge, a significant conflict of interest due to Musk's business ties in China. Trump was especially annoyed to learn about the briefings through the media, and about the perceived notion that Musk was using his position for personal advantage. Second, when Trump travelled to the Middle East, Musk was reportedly piqued that his arch rival, Sam Altman of OpenAI, won a deal to build one of the world's biggest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Musk worked behind the scenes to try to derail the deal if it did not include his own AI startup, according to the Wall Street Journal. Third, Musk was working at the White House as a 'special government employee', which is limited by law to 130 days; when Musk sought an extension, officials said no, perhaps because he had put so many backs up. Fourth, last Saturday Trump suddenly announced that he was cancelling the nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to be the administrator of Nasa. And fifth, there was the 'big, beautiful bill', currently navigating Republicans in the Senate. Musk said in social media posts that it would increase the already massive budget deficit to $2.5tn, undermining his work at Doge. Notably, it would also the electric vehicle tax credit that helps carmakers including Tesla. On Thursday, after days of uncharacteristic self-restraint, Trump struck back. He told reporters he was 'surprised' and 'very disappointed' by Musk's critiques of the bill, adding wistfully: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more.' Musk returned fire on social media, writing: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude.' He also agreed with a social media post that called for Trump to be impeached and removed from office. The president replied on his own platform, Truth Social, that he effectively fired Musk. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' The mad men went nuclear. Trump threatened to cancel Musk's billions of dollars in government contracts, describing it as the easiest way to save money. Musk responded by linking Trump to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' The economic burden of Musk's government contracts and the Epstein files allegations were both true before the breakup, but neither man spoke up. Now they seem to have taken a truth serum and discovered a conscience. Raskin observed: 'They basically converged around a common platform of plunder and pillage of the American people and now both of them are telling the truth about the other. It's a happy moment for America that we can finally get to the bottom of things like the Jeffrey Epstein files and all of the billions of dollars of government contracts that Elon Musk has.' Mutually assured destruction? Musk could try to use X to mobilise opinion against Trump and his 'big, beautiful bill'. He could also try to exploit the government's dependence on him. His threat, which he later retracted, to cut off Nasa's use of SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft would be a huge blow to the space programme. The Pentagon and intelligence agencies have also become reliant on SpaceX. Trump could follow through on his threat to cancel Musk's lucrative government contracts. He could reopen investigations into Musk's companies that were paused when Trump took office. The Trump ally Steve Bannon, whose extremist ideas have a habit of entering the Maga mainstream, called for the South African-born Musk to be deported and SpaceX to be nationalised. Even as Tesla shares lost $150bn in market value, Musk seems to be betting that he has gathered enough dirt on Trump to survive the information war. Trump, now making plenty of his own money from deals in the Gulf and elsewhere, seems to have decided that Musk has outlived his political usefulness. There is no threat to his command of the Republican party, where Musk is seen as something of an interloper. But what of the Democrats? For now they only have to get out of the way and gleefully watch the spectacle unfold. Some suggest an 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' approach to Musk, whose money could swing elections in their favor. Others say a man who gave a Nazi-style salute on inauguration day, and whose Doge cuts have already caused deaths in the world's poorest countries, is beyond redemption. From this perspective, a nihilstic war between the world's most powerful man and the world's wealthiest man brings to mind former secretary of state Henry Kissinger's remark about the Iran-Iraq war: 'It's a pity they can't both lose.'
