online opt-in
NNNapolitan News Service (RMG Research)
Napolitan News Service Survey (transgender tracking wave) · Mar 20–21, 2024 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Napolitan News Service (RMG Research) independent
- Sponsor
- Napolitan News Service
- Commissioned by
- Napolitan News Service Gold Circle Members
- Fielded
- Mar 20–21, 2024
- Population
- registered voters
- Sample size
- —
- Sample frame
- online opt-in
- Panel
- RMG Research online panel
- Mode
- online; certain quotas applied and the sample lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage and political party to reflect the national population of Registered Voters
- Margin of error
- not disclosed
- Weighting
- lightly weighted by geography, gender, age, race, education, internet usage, and political party
- Geography
- US national
Sources
Verification note. This fielding is known ONLY from the trend table printed in the March 23-24, 2026 Napolitan topline PDF, which lists the Yes/No percentages for prior waves of this tracking item. The 'Not sure' share, the sample size, the margin of error and the release date for this specific wave were NOT retrieved; sample size and MoE are left null rather than assumed from Napolitan's usual n=1,000 / +/-3.1. Item wording is the wording printed on the same topline page that carries the trend table, which the pollster presents as the wording of the whole series (the sole exception, November 13 2024, is footnoted by the pollster as 'participate in' rather than 'compete in' and is recorded separately).
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
Questions asked (1)
whether trans women competing denies opportunities to cisgender women
Does allowing biological males to compete in women's sports deny opportunities for biological women to compete?
Wording notes: presupposes a zero-sum contest between two groups and asks only whether the loss occurs, not whether it is a reason for policy | 'biological males' / 'biological women' framing used throughout | no reciprocal item asking whether exclusion denies opportunities to trans women
tilts_restrictive — the item embeds the central contested premise of the sports debate - that inclusion costs cisgender women opportunities - inside the question, so agreeing requires no evidence and the counter-position has no place on the scale