unknown
IRImpact Research
Third Way / Impact Research national survey on gender-affirming care, October-November 2023 · Oct 25, 2023 – Nov 2023 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Impact Research partisan_d
- Sponsor
- Third Way
- Commissioned by
- Third Way
- Fielded
- Oct 25, 2023 – Nov 2023
- Population
- likely 2024 voters
- Sample size
- 800
- Sample frame
- unknown
- Mode
- online
- Margin of error
- not disclosed
- Weighting
- not disclosed
- Geography
- US national
- Base notes
- Accompanied by two virtual focus groups with battleground-state swing voters (Oct. 2) and two in-person persuasion conversation groups in Detroit (Oct. 3).
Sources
Verification note. Percentages read directly from Third Way's November 2023 memo. No topline, weighting, or margin of error is published. Release date recorded as the memo's publication date, which coincides with the last day of fielding.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (7)
exposure and desired volume of state legislation
[Third Way describes items asking how much respondents had heard about transgender issues in the past few months, and whether they want more, fewer, or the same number of laws relating to transgender people in their state]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Heard a lot or some about transgender issues in the past few months
86%
Want fewer laws relating to transgender people in their state
37%
Think there are the right number of laws already
24%
Want more laws relating to transgender people in their state
19%
Wording notes: question wording not published | the laws item offers a symmetric more/fewer/same option set, which is unusual and better than most versions of this question
neutral — the more/fewer/right-number construction is symmetric, unlike the Data for Progress version which offers no 'more laws needed' option
Subgroup figures (2)
support for allowing transgender youth to do specific things
[Third Way describes items asking whether respondents support allowing transgender youth to: seek counseling from a therapist; dress in ways that align with their gender identity; use pronouns that align with their gender identity; use restrooms in public places designated for the gender with which they identify; use school restrooms and locker rooms designated for the gender with which they identify]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Support allowing transgender youth to seek counseling from a therapist
81%
Support allowing transgender youth to dress in ways that align with their gender identity
68%
Support allowing transgender youth to use pronouns that align with their gender identity
55%
Support allowing transgender youth to use public restrooms designated for the gender with which they identify
39%
Support allowing transgender youth to use school restrooms and locker rooms designated for the gender with which they identify
34%
Wording notes: question wording not published | 'allow' framing throughout, which tends to raise support relative to a 'ban' framing
tilts_affirming — every item uses the 'allow' construction; Third Way's own memo documents that swapping 'allow' for 'ban' moves results substantially, so the whole battery sits on the higher side of that gap
framing experiment - banning providers vs. allowing parents and doctors to decide
[Third Way describes two framings: (a) banning health care professionals from providing gender-affirming care for trans youth; (b) allowing parents of a trans child and medical professionals to make decisions about it]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Wording notes: 'ban' vs. 'allow parents and doctors' framing of overlapping policy space
unclear — the two framings are not logically equivalent (one restricts clinicians, one empowers parents plus clinicians), so the 33-point swing conflates a wording effect with a substantive difference in the policy described
specific treatments - surgery and hormones/puberty blockers for under-18s
[Third Way describes items on: making gender reassignment surgery illegal for a trans person under the age of 18; allowing parents to approve gender reassignment surgery for their child if a doctor agrees; banning hormone therapy and puberty-delaying medication for transgender people under 18; allowing transgender youth to take doctor-prescribed medication with parental consent]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Wording notes: uses 'gender reassignment surgery', a term most clinicians no longer use | each treatment is asked in both a ban and an allow framing
unclear — the paired ban/allow framings are informative, but the dated clinical terminology and the absence of published wording make the levels hard to compare with other pollsters
concerns about the consequences of a ban
[Third Way describes items asking how much respondents were bothered by consequences of a ban, including preventing parents from getting mental health support for their child, jail time for parents, jail time for health care professionals, and CPS investigations of parents]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Bothered a great deal or some that a ban could prevent parents from getting their child mental health support and counseling
71%
Oppose prohibiting doctors from providing health care to transgender people according to the expert standards of care
65%
Bothered by requiring parents to serve jail time if they help their child access gender-affirming care
64%
Bothered by requiring health care professionals to serve jail time
61%
Bothered by requiring Child Protective Services to investigate parents for child abuse if they help their child access care
56%
Wording notes: one-directional battery of consequences a critic would emphasize
tilts_affirming — the battery lists only the costs of a ban with no items on the risks a ban is meant to address, and it is asked immediately after items where respondents endorsed restrictions - the sequence is designed to produce movement
three-way item separating personal view from support for a government ban
[Third Way describes a three-option item separating personal support for gender-affirming care for under-18s from belief that the government should ban it]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Personally oppose access for under-18s and support a government ban
40%
Personally support access for under-18s and oppose a government ban
32%
Personally oppose access for under-18s but oppose a government ban
23%
Total who say the government should not ban gender-affirming care 55%
Wording notes: deliberately separates personal disapproval from support for legal prohibition | no fourth cell for 'personally support access but support a ban'
tilts_affirming — the three-way construction gives respondents a way to register disapproval while still opposing a ban, which reliably produces a larger anti-ban total than a two-way ban question; the omitted fourth cell also makes the option set asymmetric
vote effect of a candidate who wants to ban youth gender-affirming care
[Third Way describes items on whether a candidate's support for banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth makes respondents more or less likely to support them, and on whether they would only vote for a candidate who opposes or supports criminalization]
Wording reconstructed from: Third Way memo narrative; fielded wording not published
Less likely to support a candidate who wants to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth
43%
More likely to support such a candidate
34%
Would only vote for a candidate who opposes criminalizing gender-affirming care for trans youth
34%
Would not consider it a major issue in their voting decision
27%
Would only vote for a candidate who supports criminalization
26%
Wording notes: question wording not published | 'criminalization' is a strong term used in the second version
unclear — wording not published; 'criminalization' is a more loaded description of the policy than 'ban'