X Close

Democrats are out of step with shifting views on gender transition

Polling shows net acceptability of changing gender is on the decline among Americans. Credit: Getty

Polling shows net acceptability of changing gender is on the decline among Americans. Credit: Getty

June 11 2026 - 1:37pm

Just about every issue related to gender identity and trans kids has declined in favorability in the United States in the past few years. Support for medical transition, for trans girls competing in girls’ sports, and for dividing spaces by gender identity instead of sex are all declining.

Now, a new Gallup poll suggests not just scientific or legal objections to “changing genders”, but moral objections are rising. Only 38% of those polled considered gender transition morally acceptable, while 57% considered it morally unacceptable. The figures form a broader trend, where net acceptability is on the decline, compared to previous years — this year it was -19%, whereas last year it was -14% and in 2021 just -5%.

Unsurprisingly, what’s considered morally reprehensible differs along party lines; Republicans are more likely to reject gender transition, and Democrats are more likely to favor it. Yet Gallup noted “record-low points in moral acceptability” for the country at large. What’s changed?

For one thing, more Americans understand what falls beneath the umbrella of “trans rights”. While it may be suggested that those who modify their bodies or opt into categories at odds with sex deserve the same basic protections against discrimination as other citizens, the data show that the general population sees the specifics of trans rights. That includes males having legal access to women’s spaces, from locker rooms to prisons, as well as the reality that the evidence for youth gender medicine is of very low quality. It’s impossible to know who will benefit and who will be harmed.

Further to this, the censorious nature of cancel culture prevented many Democrats and liberals from asking questions and dissenting to the institutionalization of gender identity over the past decade, leading to “preference falsification”. Many people expressed support, hiding their real feelings, for fear of recrimination. Now they can speak freely, based on greater knowledge of the issues, with more support from other dissenters.

But perhaps they also see that what was thought of as a movement for liberation and equality has, in fact, wreaked havoc on the country. Transgender issues have proved remarkably divisive for families and communities. It therefore makes sense if the population at large, on a moral level, concludes that institutionalizing gender identity can lead to more harm than good.

Some of that pain has hobbled the Democrats in particular. The party’s politicians still can’t support policies that the majority of Americans want to see passed. This includes dividing sports by sex, not gender identity, or ensuring parents are kept informed of their children’s social transitions at school. There is, however, cause for optimism as some Democrats have defected from their party on recent bills.

Yet just last week, at a Senate hearing called “Protecting Our Children: Exposing the Dangers of Irreversible Gender Transition Procedures on Minors”, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders repeated falsehoods about the science of gender-affirming care. “What the medical and scientific community tells us is that gender affirming care is associated with a lower risk of depression, severe anxiety, and suicidal thoughts,” he said. Yet this ignored the caution by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons against gender surgery for minors, due to the low-quality evidence involved in those very assertions, as well as the unknown benefits and harms.

More than anything, then, this Gallup poll illustrates just how far Democrats still have to go — not just to catch up and garner votes from the majority of Americans, but also to match their moral compasses.


Lisa Selin Davis is the author of Tomboy. She writes at Broadview on Substack.

LisaSelinDavis

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam