Trans Issues Are No Conspiracy

By Jesse Singal

Thursday, 09, 2026

 

There’s been an undeniable backlash against the trans rights movement. In February, the liberal outlet The Argument reported on the results of a survey it had commissioned of 3,000 registered voters. The problem wasn’t just that the mainstream trans advocacy position was underwater on genuinely fraught issues like sports and youth gender medicine, but that even a seemingly settled issue—bathrooms—also now polled poorly for trans people.

 

This is a remarkable turnaround. After all, in 2016 it was Republicans who caught a wave of nationwide backlash after the North Carolina GOP passed a “bathroom bill” preventing trans people from using facilities in line with their gender identities. During polling conducted around that time, notes Lakshya Jain in The Argument, a small majority of Americans said trans people should be allowed to use the bathrooms congruent with their gender identities. While it’s fraught to compare different polls taken at different times using different wording, now a small majority of registered voters favor “a national law that would require transgender people to use public restrooms corresponding with their birth sex.” Factoring in the “not sures,” only a third of voters said they were opposed to this (rather radical) policy proposal.

 

Why has this shift occurred? Some progressives have settled on a very self-satisfying answer: some sort of conspiracy that has polluted the minds of easily bamboozled voters. Take, for example, Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner’s recent appearance on the popular podcast “Death, Sex, and Money.” Host Anna Sale asked Plattner how he would talk about the issue of trans women competing in female sports categories with a Maine voter. Platner responded not by answering Sale’s question, but by pointing to what he called an “anti-trans campaign.”

 

This whole campaign … is funded by an out-of-state billionaire to make sure that we have this discussion and we don’t talk about raising his taxes. That’s why [this conversation] exists. I think there are, like, two trans kids that compete in high school sports in Maine. There are 40,000 Mainers who are going to lose health care because of the lack of the ACA extension. I’m sorry—one of those things seems very important and real to me and one of them seems like an invented culture war scare to keep people divided.

 

Platner’s response was met with widespread praise in online progressive spaces. “Graham Platner EXPOSES billionaire for pushing anti-trans campaign,” went the title of a video posted by progressive commentator Brian Tyler Cohen. A couple weeks later, the leftist writer Dave Roberts made a similar argument as part of a longer series of Bluesky posts about (what he sees as) the complete right-wing takeover of media:

 

I know I’ve said this a trillion times but I have to say it periodically to keep from going insane: The right ran a huge, well-funded, & ultimately successful campaign to completely take over political media & the infosphere more generally. This is by far the most important political development of that last half-century, upstream of virtually any other problem that you can identify, and yet in mainst[r]eam political discourse we *never talk about it*. It’s the biggest, most salient political fact of all, just sitting there, looming, and no one f-cking speaks it aloud. Every day, I talk to earnest liberals who describe to me, in great detail, problems that have resulted from this ... but they won’t name the cause! “Turns out, all the sudden the public is obsessed with trans girls trying to play sports.” Oh? Any thoughts about why? Any at all? No? No thoughts?

 

The basic idea, then, is that there’s nothing substantive to talk about here. These aren’t real issues, but rather issues that voters and consumers of media are tricked into thinking are real issues.

 

There’s another version of this conspiracy theory you’ll often find in lefty spaces. It blames not conservatives, per se, but rather center-left outlets like The Atlantic and the New York Times. The basic idea is that the center-left—or “reactionary centrists,” to use near-meaningless jargon popular in these communities—has, via relentless disingenuous “just asking questions” coverage of trans issues, significantly swayed public opinion toward skepticism of trans rights. It’s not “out-of-state billionaires” who have fooled impressionable voters into confusing a non-issue for a real issue; it’s the editors and reporters at elite media outlets.

 

I should admit to some bias here—I have sometimes been accused of being one of those “reactionary centrists” as a result of my reporting on the youth gender medicine debate. Still, it’s pretty silly to land on this explanation given the existence of a much simpler one: Trans advocacy has, in recent years, adopted radical and unpopular positions that Americans don’t like and aren’t warming up to, and as trans advocacy and trans people have become more salient, so too has the divide between elite orthodoxy on these issues and how most Americans view them.

 

The counterexample is gay marriage. Over time, the more people heard about gay marriage, the more they favored it. The reasons for this sea change in public opinion are hotly debated, and no one knows for sure how much of it is due to activism, media representation, the mere fact of more people coming out to their families, and so on—let alone how these different factors intersect. But the fact of the matter is that marriage equality won as an idea, both in terms of public opinion and the landmark 2015 Obergefell decision.

 

While trans rights activists have their own important SCOTUS decision—the 2020 Bostock decision enshrined important protections vis-a-vis gender identity—after about a decade in the spotlight, they can’t point to any policy priority on which they’ve made meaningful public opinion headway. In most areas, things have gone backward. While Americans remain broadly in favor of basic civil rights protections for trans people—there is not some surge of populist revolt calling for them to be kicked out of their homes or jobs—the specific arguments trans advocates and progressive politicians have chosen to embrace simply don’t appear to have worked at all.

 

That’s largely because they center on a maximalist version of self-ID, or the notion that someone’s sex is what they say it is. Blue states have passed laws extending this logic to areas like locker rooms and prisons, and these are wildly unpopular positions for obvious reasons: Most people don’t think biological males should be able to enter female spaces with no questions asked.

 

These policies have led to some terrible outcomes. In 2021, California began implementing the “Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act” which mandated that any inmate “who is transgender, nonbinary, or intersex, regardless of anatomy,” shall “Be housed at a correctional facility designated for men or women based on the individual’s preference.” One of the justifications for the law was that it would protect transgender women (that is, natal males who later identify as women) from rape in male prisons.

 

The law was challenged, and in a 2022 press release the ACLU of Southern California featured a quote from an inmate named Tremayne Carroll. “If these plaintiffs get what they want, I’ll be sent back to a men’s prison, where I would face relentless sexual harassment and the constant threat of rape,” Carroll said. “That was my reality for years, and I am terrified to go back. I am a woman, and I don’t belong in a men’s prison.”

 

Carroll is a disturbed individual who had spent decades in jail and who was charged with forced oral copulation as a teenager before pleading down to other charges. There does not appear to be any evidence Carroll identified as trans until the 2021 law was passed, at which point they sought and were granted housing in a female unit. In 2024, Carroll was charged with raping two female inmates and transferred back to a male prison. Carroll has claimed that one of his victims climbed on top of him and forced him to have sex with her, threatening him with a false rape accusation if he didn’t.

 

The trial is set to finally begin in August, said Madera County Deputy District Attorney Eric Dutemple in an email, after numerous delays stemming in part from multiple attorneys of Carroll’s having withdrawn from the case. A judge has ordered that during the trial and pretrial hearings, everyone involved, including Carroll’s alleged victims, must refer to Carroll as “she.” Dutemple’s team appealed this order, but two higher courts declined to take up their appeal. A pretrial motion to at least exempt Carroll’s alleged victims is still pending, according to Dutemple.

 

The average American, upon hearing a story like this, is going to have a pretty simple response: Why was a violent male being housed with female inmates? And the courts are really going to force everyone to call the male alleged rapist she? The progressive intelligentsia has done an astonishingly poor job coming up with answers to basic questions like these; the focus has mostly been on freshman-level philosophical and linguistic games, as though calling the alleged rapist assigned male rather than male changes anything about the case.

 

In fact, for about a decade, the ACLU, GLAAD, and many progressive politicians have adopted the “strategy”—if you can call it that—of pretending that anyone who raises these concerns is a bigot, of pretending that there are no legitimate arguments for sex-based segregation that aren’t rooted in bigotry. This no-debate, no-discussion “strategy” appears to have been a profound failure, as even some in the movement are quietly acknowledging—Jeremy Peters has some good details in a New York Times story from 2024.

 

Because the groups most responsible for dictating the trans-rights policy agenda seem to have convinced themselves that only bigots could disagree with any aspect of this agenda, it’s left them completely unprepared to meaningfully address the natural consequences of their preferred policies.

 

It’s not that there is some massive number of alleged prison rapes connected to self-ID policies like California’s, or or that most girls’ high school sports champions are now trans. Still, the argument that these issues only affect a small number of individuals is politically naive at best, because the number of these alleged incidents has risen, as has their political salience. Democrats should know better than anyone that voters don’t think in such terms; there was a giant, nationwide reckoning over the police shooting of unarmed black men—an event which, while horrific, is statistically quite rare! 

 

This argument also falls flat because until 30 seconds ago, the liberal establishment was doing everything possible to raise the salience of this issue. For much of the last decade, trans rights have been treated as an exceptionally vital civil rights struggle, the stuff of White House events and day-one executive orders and endless sympathetic news coverage. It doesn’t make sense, then, to ask why anyone is paying so much attention to trans issues—you were trying to get people to pay attention.

 

Another important factor in explaining the backlash: As the sociologist Rogers Brubaker argues in a must-read article on the recent history of the concept of “gender identity,” many of the recent changes to law and policy and institutional norms occurred in a bit of a behind-the-scenes manner. “Gender identity was embedded in professional practices, organizational routines, and institutionalized procedures not only without public debate, but without much public attention of any kind,” Brubaker writes.

 

This happened in different ways in different places, ranging from Obama-era dictates about the interpretation of Title IX to major scientific organizations’ decisions to replace “sex” with “gender identity” in public health databases. It is too long a story to do justice to here—you really should read Brubaker’s work. But consider what all these behind-the-scenes changes meant in practice for one very politically active group: parents. Many parents who might not have previously thought much about trans issues suddenly found out that their kids were being taught questionable and highly politicized theories about “gender identity” in public schools; that some of those same schools had instituted controversial no-questions-asked policies pertaining to social transition as young as kindergarten; that their districts no longer had sex-segregated sports in the traditional sense; and on and on and on. (Disclosure: Brubaker is turning this paper into a book that’ll be out this summer, and his publisher asked if I would provide a blurb. I gladly agreed.)

 

This fundamentally changes the meaning of trans advocacy. If trans issues concern a small group of put-upon, suffering people, and if the policy proposals involve fair-seeming compromises and tolerance on matters of housing, employment, and bathrooms, that’s one thing. But when the leading figures and institutions in trans advocacy are calling for self-ID in prisons, for the effective abolition of female sports as most people understand it, and for 6-year-olds to be granted deference with regard to gender identities when they can’t even go on a field trip without parental consent … how could that not change Americans’ understanding of what “trans rights” means in the first place? On issue after issue, the progressive establishment has decided to stake out stances on sex and gender that genuinely sound like right-wing caricatures—and to then complain when people respond negatively to this.

 

With a very tiny number of exceptions, gay marriage did not, in fact, impose anything other than hurt feelings and offense on its opponents. But the ACLU and groups of its ilk have directly advocated, and blue states have passed, laws that force businesses and individuals to adhere to the maximalist version of self-ID. In California, if you say you are a woman, you are a woman and need to be granted access to women’s spaces—so brags the ACLU of Southern California. You can’t push for laws that force people to act contrary to deeply-held beliefs about of sex and biology and then act surprised when this generates backlash.

 

It could be that this issue just goes away. It could be that President Donald Trump is so noxious and will drive so many people to the polls in 2026 and 2028 to vote for anti-MAGA candidates that any reference to trans issues will be laughed off as attempted distractions. But whether or not that’s the case, shouldn’t everyone involved actually grapple with what’s happened, rather than embrace self-serving fantasies, especially if you believe that trans people do deserve dignity, happiness, and the sorts of civil rights protections laid out in Bostock? Should we lend any trust or authority to politicians and consultants who make strong, assertive, clear arguments about the moral exigency of an issue in 2020, and who then roll their eyes at you when you ask about those same issues in 2026?