HarrisX

Do you think that schools should be explaining to young kids under 10 that gender is something that kids can declare, or should they not be teaching young kids that gender is something that they can declare?

Wording notes: 'gender is something that kids can declare' is not language any school curriculum uses; it is an opponent's characterization | no 'don't know' or middle option offered | 'young kids under 10' narrows the referent to the least sympathetic case | the affirming option is stated in the same loaded terms as the restrictive one, so respondents cannot endorse gender-identity instruction described neutrally

loaded_terms — The stimulus phrase 'gender is something that kids can declare' is a polemical paraphrase rather than a description of any actual policy; it implies caprice and self-designation. Because both response options repeat that phrase, a respondent who supports age-appropriate instruction about gender identity but rejects the 'declare' framing has nowhere to go. The preceding sex-education item further primes parental authority, and no 'don't know' is offered.

Do you think that schools today are focused on teaching kids reading, writing, and arithmetic or are they too involved with teaching kids gender and race ideologies?

Wording notes: uses the pejorative 'ideologies' for gender and race instruction | false dichotomy - the two options are not mutually exclusive | bundles gender and race into a single object (double-barreled) | no 'don't know' or 'both' option offered

loaded_terms — Two problems compound. First, 'gender and race ideologies' is a movement term of art carrying built-in disapproval, with no neutral counterpart offered. Second, the alternatives are a false dichotomy: a school can teach reading and also teach about gender, so respondents who believe both are forced into one box. The item also merges gender and race, so the 44% figure cannot be attributed to views about trans issues specifically.

Should it be illegal to call someone by the wrong pronouns or not?

Wording notes: tests a policy that essentially no U.S. jurisdiction has enacted - criminalizing misgendering | 'illegal' implies criminal sanction rather than the civil/administrative remedies that actually exist | no 'don't know' option offered

loaded_terms — The item measures reaction to a straw policy. No U.S. jurisdiction makes misgendering 'illegal' in the criminal sense the word implies; the real-world analogues are anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules that apply in specific settings. Asking it in a battery about school gender policy invites respondents to read actual nondiscrimination protections as speech criminalization. Its placement also sets up DN6 by establishing pronoun use as a matter of compulsion.

Should teachers be required to refer to students by the name and pronouns their parents suggest and prefer, or by the name and pronouns students suggest and prefer?

Wording notes: constructs parents and students as necessarily in conflict | does not mention age, so the same answer covers a 6-year-old and a 17-year-old | no 'don't know' option offered | 'suggest and prefer' softens what is at stake for the student

tilts_restrictive — The item is framed as a zero-sum authority contest and never allows the ordinary case in which parent and student agree, or in which a school follows the student's request with parental knowledge. Because the preceding item established pronouns as a matter of legal compulsion, the parental option reads as the freedom-preserving answer. Omitting the student's age lets the least sympathetic case anchor the response.

Do parents have a right to know if their children want to transition their gender or not?

Wording notes: framed as an abstract parental 'right' with no mention of the child's safety, age, or family circumstances | no 'depends' or 'don't know' option offered | the opposing option is stated as denying parents a right, the least defensible way to phrase it

tilts_restrictive — Posing this as a bare question of parental 'right' with no competing consideration produces a near-ceiling result (90%) that says little about support for mandatory-outing policies. The counter-option is phrased as parents having no right at all, rather than as any of the intermediate positions actually debated - for example that disclosure should depend on the child's safety or should be led by the student. There is no 'depends' category.

Do you think public schools should be required to notify parents if a student requests to change their gender identification, pronouns, or preferred name at school?

Wording notes: no mention of the possibility that notification could expose a student to harm at home | no 'don't know' option offered | asked immediately after the near-unanimous parental 'right to know' item, which anchors agreement

tilts_restrictive — The wording of the policy itself is reasonably plain, and both response options are stated symmetrically. What tilts it is context and omission: it follows an item that just secured 90% agreement on parental right-to-know, and it presents mandatory notification with none of the countervailing considerations (student safety, LGBTQ youth homelessness, school counselor discretion) that appear in the actual policy debate. No middle or 'depends' category is available.

Do you think that minors under the age of 18 should be able to get drugs and surgery that would change their gender on their own, should only be able to do so with parental consent, or should children never be able to receive these drugs/surgeries?

Wording notes: bundles puberty blockers, hormones and surgery into one undifferentiated 'drugs and surgery' | surgery on minors is rare and generally restricted to older adolescents, so including it inflates the restrictive share | 'change their gender' rather than clinical terminology | no mention of medical evaluation, diagnosis, or physician involvement - the only gatekeeper offered is parental consent | no 'don't know' option offered

tilts_restrictive — The response set is the main problem. Collapsing reversible puberty suppression, hormone therapy and surgery into a single 'drugs and surgery' object means the least common and most alarming intervention colors the whole item. The three options also omit the actual standard of care - treatment following clinical assessment by physicians - so respondents choosing 'never' may be rejecting unsupervised access rather than supervised care. The middle option makes parents, not clinicians, the sole gate.

In cases where courts are deciding custody and visitation agreements between parents and guardians, should whether a parent agrees with a child's gender identity be a factor in deciding the custody/ visitation rights?

Wording notes: direction is ambiguous - 'should be a factor' does not say which way it would cut | no 'don't know' option offered

unclear — The item is not slanted so much as uninterpretable in either direction. A respondent who thinks a rejecting parent should lose custody and a respondent who thinks an affirming parent should lose custody both answer 'yes, it should be a factor'. The 52-48 split therefore cannot be read as a measure of pro- or anti-trans sentiment, which is why Democrats (61%) score higher on 'yes' than Republicans (43%) - the reverse of the pattern on every other item in this battery.