The psychology behind anti-trans legislation: How cognitive biases shape thoughts and policy

A state law signed Feb. 28, 2025, removes gender identity as a protected status from the Iowa Civil Rights Act, leaving transgender people vulnerable to discrimination. The rights of transgender people – those who present gender characteristics that differ from what has historically been expected of someone based on their biological sex traits – are under political attack across the United States. There are now hundreds of anti-trans bills at various points in the legislative process.

But why?

Reasons given usually center on protecting children, protecting cisgender women’s rights in bathrooms and sports competitions, and on removing funding for gender-affirming care. Some efforts appear to stem from fear-driven motives that are not supported by evidence.

Bias against trans people may not always feel like bias. For someone who believes it to be true, saying there can only be biological men who identify as men and biological women who identify as women may feel like a statement of fact. But research shows that gender is a spectrum, separate from biological sex, which is also more complex than the common male-female binary.

We are social psychologists who study and teach about the basic social, cognitive and emotion-based processes people use to make sense of themselves and the world. Research reveals psychological processes that bias people in ways they usually aren’t aware of. These common human tendencies can influence what we think about a particular group, influence how we act toward them, and prompt legislators to pass biased laws.

Root of negative views of transgender people

Social psychology theory and research point to several possible sources of negative views of transgender people.

Part of forming your own identity is defining yourself by the traits that make you unique. To do this, you categorize others as belonging to your group – based on characteristics that matter to you, such as race, age, culture or gender – or not. Psychologists call these categories in-groups and out-groups.

There is a natural human tendency to have inherent negative feelings toward people who aren’t part of your in-group. The bias you might feel against fans of a rival sports team is an example. This tendency may be rooted deep in evolutionary history, when favoring your own safe group over unknown outsiders would have been a survival advantage.

A trans person’s status as transgender may be the most salient thing about them to an observer, overshadowing other characteristics such as their height, race, profession, parental status and so on. As a small minority, transgender people are an out-group from the mainstream – making it likely out-group bias will be directed their way.

Anti-trans feeling may also result from fear that transgender people pose threats to one’s personal or group identity. Gender is part of everyone’s identity. If someone perceives their own gender to be determined by their biological sex, they may perceive other people who violate that “rule” as a threat to their own gender identity. Part of identity formation is not just out-group derogation but in-group favoritism. A cisgender person may engage in “in-group boundary protection” by making sure the parameters of “gender” are well defined and match their own beliefs.

Once you hold negative feelings about someone in an out-group, there are other social psychological processes that may solidify and amplify them in your mind.

The illusion of a causal connection

People tend to form illusory correlations between objects, people, occurrences or behaviors, particularly when those things are infrequently encountered. Two distinctive things happening at the same time makes people believe that one is causing the other.

Some superstitions result from this phenomenon. For example, you might attribute an unusual success such as winning money to wearing a particular shirt, which you now think of as your lucky shirt.

If a person only ever hears about negative events when they see or hear about a transgender person, an immigrant or a member of some other minority group, then an illusory correlation can form between the negative events and the minority group. That connection is the starting point for prejudice: automatic, negative feelings toward a group of people without justification.

Of course, it is possible that individuals from the group in question have committed some offense. But to take one individual’s bad deed and attribute it to an entire group of people isn’t justified. This kind of extrapolation is the natural human tendency of stereotyping, which can bias people’s actions.

‘That’s exactly what I thought’

Human minds are biased to confirm the beliefs they already hold, including stereotypes about trans people. A few interconnected processes are at play in what psychologists call confirmation bias.

First, there’s a natural tendency to seek out information that fits with what you already believe. If you think a shirt is lucky, then you’re more likely to look for positive things that happen when you wear it than you are to look for negative events that would seem to disconfirm its luckiness.

If you think transgender people are dangerous, you are more likely to conduct an internet search for “transgender people who are dangerous” than “transgender people are victims of crime.”

There’s a second, more passive process in play as well. Rather than actively seeking out confirming information, people also simply pay attention to information that confirms what they thought in the first place and ignore contradictory information. This can happen without you even realizing.

People also tend to interpret ambiguous events in line with their beliefs – “I must be having a good day, despite some setbacks, because I’m wearing my lucky shirt.” That confirmation bias could explain someone with anti-trans attitudes thinking “that transgender person holding hands with a child must be a pedophile” instead of “that transgender mother is showing love and care for her kid.”

Finally, people tend to remember things that confirm their beliefs better than things that challenge them.

Confirmation bias can strengthen an illusory correlation, making it even more likely to influence subsequent actions – whether compulsively wearing a lucky shirt to an anxiety-inducing appointment or not hiring someone because of discriminatory thoughts about the group they belong to.

Moving past biases

Awareness of biases is the first step in avoiding them. Setting bias aside allows people to make fair decisions, based on accurate information, and in line with their values.

However, this is not an easy task in the face of another social psychological process called group polarization. This phenomenon occurs when individuals’ beliefs become more extreme as they talk and listen only to people who hold the same beliefs they do. Think of the social media bubbles that result from interacting only with people who share your perspective.

Efforts to stifle or prohibit educators’ and librarians’ ability to teach and discuss gender and sexuality topics, openly and fairly, add another challenge. Education through access to impartial, evidence-based information can be one way to help neutralize inherent bias.

As a final, hopeful point, social psychological research has identified one strategy for overcoming intergroup conflict: forming close contacts with individuals from the “other” group. Having a friend, loved one or trusted and valued colleague who belongs to the out-group can help you recognize their humanity and overcome the biases you hold against that out-group as a whole.

A relevant and recent example of this scenario came when two transgender state representatives convinced their fellow lawmakers to vote against two extreme anti-trans bills in Montana by making the issue personal.

All of these decision-making biases influence everyone, not just the lawmakers currently in power. And they can be quite complex, with particular in-group and out-group memberships being hard to define – for instance, factions within religious groups who disagree on particular political issues.

But understanding and overcoming the biases everyone falls prey to means that optimal decisions can be made for everyone’s well-being and economic vitality. After all, psychology research has repeatedly demonstrated that diversity is good for the bottom line while it simultaneously promotes an equitable and inclusive society. Even from a solely financial perspective, discrimination is bad for all Americans.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.