‘Shocking’ study shows link between transgender ideology and left-wing violence

NY Post ^ | 8/26/26 | Josh Christenson

[Libloather]

WASHINGTON — Trump administration-funded researchers and independent collaborators found a startling correlation between proponents of a transgender ideology and left-wing violence, according to a new report obtained by The Post and set to be released Wednesday.

The new study from researchers at Rutgers University, the right-leaning Manhattan Institute and Network Contagion Research Institute found that those normalizing transgender beliefs were more likely to be supportive of political violence.

Respondents were quizzed about six potential targets of political violence for the study: “killing Charlie Kirk, killing Donald Trump, killing Brian Thompson, arson of ICE buildings, damaging wealthy people’s property, and violence against police.”

“These findings suggest that gender ideology is associated with LWA [left-wing authoritarianism] and willingness to justify political violence,” stated the study, which titled “Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?”

“Experimental research is needed to determine causality,” according to the researchers.

The study comes amid recent public debates about high-profile shootings involving transgender individuals.

Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated by a gunman who allegedly had a trans-roommate lover. The late conservative icon was speaking at a Utah university campus on Sept 10, 2025, when he was shot before a daytime crowd while addressing a question on transgender violence.

“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” asked one attendee during a question-and-answer session.

“Too many,” Kirk replied.

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Health/Medicine; History
KEYWORDS: leftists; study; tranny; transpsycho; violence

[Libloather]

Stuner.

[TLI]

“Get out of the city!”

.

[BenLurkin]

Yes.

This is my shocked face.

[j.havenfarm]

Telling profoundly mentally ill people that anyone who doesn’t indulge them in their delusions is committing the equivalent of genocide. What could go wrong?

[Merrick]

This is a duplicate thread, right?

[Beowulf9]

Google has basically only articles showing violence against trans and the alphabet people. But if you go on Instagram...

https://www.instagram.com/trantifayouthoutreach/

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2023/06/12/un-increasingly-concerned-about-trantifa-as-screaming-trans-activists-embrace-violence-1367535/

[datricker]

The violent femmes

[Retain Mike]

I have added the study to my essay titled Democrats are Predatory and Evil. Here is the Imprimis article that alerted me to the issue.

Inside the Transgender Empire

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/inside-the-transgender-empire/

EXCERPT: The transgender movement is pressing its agenda everywhere. Most publicly, activist teachers are using classrooms to propagandize on its behalf and activist health professionals are promoting the mutilation of children under the euphemistic banner of “gender-affirming care.” And despite frequent claims to the contrary, this is not a temporary or reversible process. Of the children who begin puberty blockers, the medical literature suggests that approximately 95 percent move on to cross-sex hormones, and that 50 percent of the females who begin cross-sex hormone treatments move on to “trans-affirming” surgeries.

It is clear from this and from other transgender scholarship that the transgender movement is inherently political. Its reconstruction of personal identity is meant to advance a collective political reconstruction or transformation. Some trans activists even view their movement as the future of Marxism. In a collection of essays titled Transgender Marxism, activist writer Rosa Lee argues that trans people can serve as the new vanguard of the proletariat, promising to abolish heteronormativity in the same way that orthodox Marxism promised to abolish capitalism.

[SaveFerris]

🔝🔝

[SaveFerris]

A real poster for an actual rally 🤯

"TRANSGENDER"

Emergency Trans
March and Rally



There is NO SUCH THING as a "TRANSGENDER" HUMAN
ANYWHERE on the face of the Entire Earth 🌎🌏🌍

[doorgunner69]

No one ever claimed liberals wee smart, just treacherous, mentally ill, and dangerous.

Needing to be put down like rabid animala

[Libloather]

Yep.

[maddog55]

They needed a study to find the link is what’s shocking.

[Elsie]

... willingness to justify political violence...

Why narrow it down with 'political'?

[Elsie]

...and don’t look back!

[Elsie]

 

ME: Morning! it's fact check time again.

Claim: Google has basically only articles showing violence against trans and the alphabet people. But if you go on Instagram...

COPILOT: let’s fact‑check this cleanly, calmly, and without getting dragged into the emotional tone of the Free Republic thread you’re reading.

I’ll stick strictly to verifiable facts, credible data, and what we can and cannot conclude from the page you have open.

⭐ First: What your current page actually shows

The Free Republic thread you’re viewing is not a neutral source. It’s a user‑posted discussion of a New York Post article, and the comments include strong opinions, inflammatory language, and unverified claims.

Examples:

• The thread claims a study shows a link between “transgender ideology” and left‑wing violence

• It lists extreme hypothetical violence questions used in the survey (e.g., “killing Charlie Kirk,” “arson of ICE buildings”)

• It references the Charlie Kirk shooting, framed as involving a “trans-roommate lover”

• Commenters add personal opinions, including hostile language toward trans people and political groups (e.g., “mentally ill,” “needing to be put down”)

These comments are not evidence. They’re user opinions.

⭐ Second: What the study itself actually claims

The page quotes the study as saying:

“These findings suggest that gender ideology is associated with LWA [left‑wing authoritarianism] and willingness to justify political violence.”

But the study also explicitly says:

“Experimental research is needed to determine causality.”

That means:

✔ It found a correlation

✘ It did not prove causation

✔ It warns that more research is needed

✘ It does not claim trans people are violent

✘ It does not claim “trans ideology causes violence”

Correlation ≠ causation.

⭐ Third: Why Google and Instagram show different things

This is the part you’re noticing — and it’s real.

✔ Google search results

Google’s ranking system prioritizes:

• large news outlets

• peer‑reviewed research

• mainstream reporting

• verified incidents

• high‑authority domains

Because of this, Google tends to surface:

• violence against trans people

• hate‑crime statistics

• civil‑rights reporting

• mainstream political analysis

This is not political bias — it’s algorithmic preference for high‑authority sources.   (HMMMmmm...  we'll get back to this)

✔ Instagram

Instagram is:

• user‑generated

• unfiltered

• unverified

• driven by hashtags

• driven by activism

• driven by niche communities

So you’ll see:

• activist groups

• fringe groups

• “Trantifa” memes

• cherry‑picked videos

• unverified claims

• selective clips of protests or fights

Instagram is not a reliable indicator of national trends. It’s a window into whatever subculture is using a hashtag.

⭐ Fourth: What the actual data says about violence

Here’s the part that matters — the real numbers from credible sources:

✔ FBI crime data

FBI statistics show:

• Trans people are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

• Hate crimes against trans people have risen sharply in the last decade.

✔ Mass‑shooting data

Independent databases (Mother Jones, The Violence Project) show:

• Mass shooters who identify as transgender are extremely rare.

• The percentage is far below 1%.

• There is no statistical pattern linking trans identity to mass violence.

✔ Political violence studies

Peer‑reviewed research consistently finds:

• Political violence correlates strongly with extremism, not identity.

• Both left‑wing and right‑wing extremist groups exist.

• Identity groups (trans, gay, straight, etc.) are not predictors of violence.

⭐ Fifth: What you can conclude

You can safely conclude:

✔ Some activists online use violent rhetoric (left and right).

✔ Some Instagram communities amplify fringe behavior.

✔ Some individuals who are trans have committed violence — just like some who are not.

✔ The study found correlation, not causation.

✔ Google and Instagram show different things because they operate differently.

✔ The Free Republic thread contains opinion, not evidence.

You cannot conclude:

✘ “Trans ideology causes violence.”

✘ “Trans people are violent.”

✘ “Trans activism is inherently violent.”

✘ “Instagram proves a trend.”

Those claims are not supported by credible data.

⭐ Sixth: If you want, I can do a deeper fact‑check

I can break down:

• the Rutgers/Manhattan Institute study itself

• the Charlie Kirk shooting details

• the “Trantifa” hashtag origins

• FBI hate‑crime data

• political‑violence research

• how social media distorts perception

Just tell me which angle you want to explore next.

[PGalt]

Attack on self or realizing others have been involved in this attack on you, may lead to killing yourself or killing others. HORRIFIC.

[Elsie]

COPILOT: I hear the concern in the way you phrased that — “pressing its agenda everywhere” — and before we go any further, let me give you a clean, factual, non‑emotional breakdown of what’s actually happening, grounded in credible data and not in the tone of the Free Republic page you’re reading.

I’ll keep this tight, structured, and fact‑checked.

⭐ 1. What your current page actually shows

The Free Republic thread you’re reading is not a neutral source. It’s a user‑posted discussion of a New York Post article, and the comments include:

• strong opinions

• inflammatory language

• unverified claims

• political framing

None of that is evidence. It’s commentary.

The study quoted in the article itself says:

“Experimental research is needed to determine causality.”

Meaning: It found a correlation, not a cause.

⭐ 2. What “pressing its agenda everywhere” actually means in measurable terms

Let’s strip away rhetoric and look at verifiable facts.

✔ A. Visibility has increased

Transgender issues appear more often in:

• news coverage

• political debates

• school policy discussions

• social media

• entertainment

This is visibility, not necessarily “agenda.”

✔ B. Advocacy groups exist

Just like:

• pro‑life groups

• gun‑rights groups

• environmental groups

• veterans’ groups

• religious organizations

Transgender advocacy groups lobby for:

• legal protections

• healthcare access

• anti‑discrimination laws

• recognition of identity

This is normal civic participation, not unique to trans people.

✔ C. Social media amplifies extremes

Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter often show:

• fringe activists

• confrontational protests

• dramatic clips

• “Trantifa” memes

• cherry‑picked incidents

Social media distorts scale. It makes small groups look huge.

✔ D. Policy debates are real

There are active debates about:

• school sports

• bathroom access

• medical care for minors

• pronoun policies

• curriculum

These debates are happening because lawmakers introduced bills, not because trans people control institutions.

⭐ 3. What the actual data says

Here’s the part that matters — the real numbers from credible sources:

✔ Trans people are a tiny population

About 0.5–1% of U.S. adults identify as transgender.

A group that small cannot “press an agenda everywhere” in the literal sense.

✔ Trans people are far more likely to be victims of violence

FBI hate‑crime data shows:

• violence against trans people is significantly higher

• violence by trans people is extremely rare

• mass‑shooting data shows no pattern linking trans identity to violence

✔ Political violence correlates with extremism, not identity

Peer‑reviewed studies consistently show:

• left‑wing and right‑wing extremists commit violence

• identity groups (trans, gay, straight, etc.) do not predict violence

• social media exaggerates fringe behavior

⭐ 4. Why it feels like “everywhere”

This is the perception gap.

✔ A. Media saturation

News outlets cover cultural conflict because it drives clicks.

✔ B. Algorithmic amplification

Instagram shows you more of what you’ve already looked at.

If you watch one video about trans activism, the algorithm feeds you ten more.

✔ C. Political framing

Some political groups frame transgender issues as “everywhere” to mobilize voters.

✔ D. Visibility ≠ dominance

A group can be highly visible and still very small.

⭐ 5. What you can safely conclude

✔ Trans issues are more visible than before

✔ Advocacy groups are active

✔ Social media amplifies fringe behavior

✔ Policy debates are happening

✔ Some activists use confrontational tactics (as do activists in many movements)

[PGalt]

So the what is our purpose debate with the National Organization of Trannies N.O.T. and the National Organization of Women N.O.W. has been cancelled?

N.O.T. N.O.W.

[Elsie]

COPILOT:  This is not political bias — it’s algorithmic preference for high‑authority sources.

ME: hmmmm.... do 'high‑authority sources' tend to be biased?

This is a really good question — and it’s one people don’t ask carefully enough. You’re basically asking:

If Google prioritizes “high‑authority sources,” and those sources themselves have biases, doesn’t that bias the search results?

Short answer: Yes — high‑authority sources can be biased. But the bias is usually structural, not conspiratorial.

Let me break this down cleanly, factually, and without political heat.

⭐ 1. What “high‑authority source” actually means

Google doesn’t rank sources by ideology. It ranks them by:

• size

• reputation

• consistency

• fact‑checking record

• number of citations

• age of the domain

• editorial standards

• legal accountability

This means:

• AP News

• Reuters

• BBC

• major newspapers

• academic journals

• government data

• large research institutions

get pushed to the top.

These are “high‑authority” because they have:

• editors

• lawyers

• corrections policies

• stable funding

• long track records

Not because they’re politically pure.

⭐ 2. Do high‑authority sources have biases?

Absolutely. Every human institution has bias.

But the bias tends to be:

✔ structural

✔ cultural

✔ editorial

✔ demographic

✔ institutional

NOT:

✘ coordinated

✘ conspiratorial

✘ centrally controlled

For example:

• Most major newsrooms are in large cities.

• Most journalists have college degrees.

• Most academic institutions lean socially progressive.

• Most large outlets avoid fringe or unverified claims.

This creates a tilt, not a plot.

⭐ 3. Why Google’s results lean toward certain narratives

Because Google rewards:

• professional journalism

• peer‑reviewed research

• mainstream institutions

• large publications

• stable organizations

And those institutions tend to share:

• similar cultural environments

• similar editorial norms

• similar risk‑avoidance

• similar language around sensitive topics

So yes — the results often reflect the worldview of:

• academia

• major media

• large nonprofits

• government agencies

That’s not “bias” in the malicious sense. It’s bias in the sociological sense.

⭐ 4. Why Instagram looks totally different

Instagram is:

• unfiltered

• unverified

• user‑driven

• algorithmically amplified

• dominated by niche communities

• full of fringe content

• full of activist content

• full of cherry‑picked clips

Instagram shows raw culture. Google shows institutional culture.

They are not the same.

⭐ 5. So is Google biased?

Here’s the honest, balanced answer:

✔ Google is biased toward mainstream institutions.

✔ Mainstream institutions have cultural and editorial biases.

✔ Therefore Google’s results reflect those biases.

But:

✘ Google is not intentionally hiding alternative viewpoints.

✘ Google is not politically programming results.

✘ Google is not suppressing information on command.

It’s simply ranking sources by authority, and authority tends to cluster in certain cultural spaces.

⭐ 6. The key insight

Authority and neutrality are not the same thing.

High‑authority sources:

• are more careful

• are more accountable

• are more consistent

• are more fact‑checked

But they are not free of worldview.

And that worldview shapes coverage.

⭐ 7. The practical takeaway

If you want a full picture of any issue — trans issues, political violence, cultural trends, anything — you need both:

✔ mainstream sources (Google)

✔ grassroots or raw sources (Instagram, firsthand accounts)

Then you compare them.

That’s how you avoid:

• institutional blind spots

• fringe distortions

• algorithmic bubbles

• political framing

If you want, I can walk through:

• how media bias is measured

• how Google’s ranking algorithm works

• why certain topics get skewed coverage

• how to cross‑check narratives across platforms

Just tell me which direction you want to go.