The new report linking transgender ideology with left-wing support for political violence lands where many conservatives expected: it highlights a correlation that raises real questions about ideology, tactics, and media coverage.
The study is the kind of research that makes people say, “No kidding.” It connects acceptance of gender ideology with higher scores on left-wing authoritarian measures and a greater willingness to justify political violence. From a Republican perspective, the finding should be a wake-up call about how certain radical ideas can shift attitudes toward force.
Taxpayer-funded or publicly circulated studies like this deserve scrutiny, but not dismissal. If multiple research teams, including those across the political spectrum, find the same pattern, it is worth taking seriously. We should be blunt: when beliefs begin to normalize violence in any political movement, citizens and policymakers must pay attention.
The new report involves researchers tied to Rutgers, the Manhattan Institute, and the Network Contagion Research Institute, and it examines how normalization of gender ideology correlates with support for violent tactics. Its methodology asked respondents about specific hypothetical targets and scenarios to gauge willingness to justify harm. That empirical approach gave the study a blunt, if uncomfortable, set of results.
Trump administration-funded researchers and independent collaborators found a startling correlation between proponents of a transgender ideology and left-wing violence, according to a new report obtained by The Post and set to be released Wednesday.
The new study from researchers at Rutgers University, the right-leaning Manhattan Institute and Network Contagion Research Institute found that those normalizing transgender beliefs were more likely to be supportive of political violence.
Respondents were quizzed about six potential targets of political violence for the study: “killing Charlie Kirk, killing Donald Trump, killing Brian Thompson, arson of ICE buildings, damaging wealthy people’s property, and violence against police.”
“These findings suggest that gender ideology is associated with LWA [left-wing authoritarianism] and willingness to justify political violence,” stated the study, which titled “Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?”
[…]
Kirk’s case was not the only high-profile act of political violence linked to views on gender ideology. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced an assassination attempt from a suspect who later identified as a transgender woman.
School shootings in Minnesota and Tennessee were also carried out by trans-identifying individuals.
“One of our study’s most interesting and perhaps shocking findings was that accepting gender ideology appeared to augment authoritarian attitudes on support for political violence,” Colin Wright, one of the researchers, told The Post.
Look at the list the researchers used: hypothetical targets that include public figures and institutions. Those questions are meant to probe moral lines. The disturbing part is when a segment of the population starts to move those lines, making extreme rhetoric feel acceptable or even justified.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/2092713204837167511
This study is notable because it crosses ideological lines in its authorship; when scholars from different vantage points converge on a finding, it reduces the easy dismissal as partisan spin. Conservatives should treat that convergence as confirmation to push back forcefully on anything that normalizes coercion or intimidation. Political persuasion that slides into encouragement of violence is a problem for everyone, regardless of party.
The broader cultural reaction matters, too. Mainstream outlets often ignore or downplay stories that would make progressive constituencies look extreme. That selective coverage leaves voters with an incomplete picture and allows dangerous behavior to metastasize unchallenged. Honest reporting would not only cover the study but also interrogate what’s driving the attitudes the researchers identified.
There are real policy implications here for law enforcement, schools, and public institutions trying to balance rights and safety. Republicans can and should argue that protecting free expression and civil order is compatible with scrutinizing ideologies that correlate with support for violence. Encouraging robust debate while enforcing laws against threats and attacks is the right, commonsense posture.
At the same time, conservatives must avoid the trap of portraying every supporter of transgender rights as violent. Correlation is not destiny, and the study measures attitudes across populations, not certainties about individuals. The practical takeaway is to be vigilant about rhetoric and to hold accountable anyone who moves from advocacy to threats or physical harm.
In the end, the research reinforces what many on the right have long suspected: certain strains of contemporary left-wing ideology, when untethered from institutional norms and civil discourse, can be accompanied by increased tolerance for coercive tactics. That is a civic problem, and it deserves public debate rather than selective silence.
Well…well…well is all I have to say here.
