The Silent Majority Problem in Trans Inclusion

New research suggests the public debate may be shaped less by what most women believe than by what they think other women believe.

Jul 20, 2026

When the loudest voices are mistaken for the majority, silence can become self-reinforcing.

By Joanne Lockwood (she/her) FIEDP FRSA FPSA – Written from lived experience, not from the sidelines.

Public debate about trans inclusion is frequently presented as a conflict between two clearly defined groups: trans people seeking recognition and inclusion, and women resisting what they are told is an encroachment upon their rights.

It is a compelling political narrative.

It may also be profoundly misleading.

A 2025 study published in Sex Roles, involving 1,159 cisgender women across five studies in the United Kingdom and Australia, found a persistent gap between what participants personally believed and what they thought other women believed.

On average, the women surveyed were more supportive of including trans women within the category of “women” than they expected their peers to be.

They did not simply believe themselves to be more inclusive than an exclusionary majority.

They often mistakenly believed that such a majority existed.

The researchers describe this as pluralistic ignorance: a situation in which people privately hold a view but incorrectly assume that most members of their group think differently. The effect appeared consistently across all five studies. (Springer Link)

The debate may be shaped not only by what people believe, but by what they think other people believe — and by whose voices are made visible.

That distinction matters.

It matters for policymakers, journalists, employers, service providers and campaigners.

It also matters for every supportive person who has remained quiet because they assumed they were standing alone.

The gap between belief and perceived belief

The research examined whether cis women supported including trans women within the boundaries of the group “women” — and whether they accurately understood the views of other cis women.

Across the studies, participants generally supported at least some degree of inclusion.

In the first Australian study, participants’ average inclusion score was significantly above the midpoint. The most inclusive response was also the single most frequently selected option, chosen by 38% of participants.

Yet those same participants estimated that the average cis woman would be substantially less inclusive than they were themselves.

The pattern was then replicated among women in the UK.

Again, participants’ personal views were more inclusive than the social norm they attributed to other women. They tended to believe they occupied a more supportive — and therefore potentially more marginal — position than their peers. (Springer Link)

This effect persisted throughout the five studies.

That does not establish that every woman supports every aspect of trans inclusion.

It does not provide a definitive answer about toilets, changing facilities, prisons, refuges, healthcare or competitive sport. Those are context-specific questions, and people’s views can change depending on the situation, the evidence presented and how the question is framed.

But the research does challenge a more fundamental assumption:

Exclusionary discourse should not automatically be treated as the settled or dominant view of women as a group.

What appears to be widespread consensus may instead reflect the visibility, organisation and confidence of a particularly vocal section of that group.

When visibility becomes representativeness

Public opinion is not measured by counting headlines, social-media posts or television appearances.

Yet this is often how a supposed consensus is constructed.

A relatively small number of highly active campaigners can generate considerable visibility. Their statements are repeated, challenged and circulated. Their language begins to frame the debate.

Journalists return to the same recognisable commentators.

Politicians encounter organised letter-writing campaigns.

Public bodies receive coordinated complaints.

Employers see the same arguments reproduced across multiple channels and begin to interpret repetition as evidence of scale.

Over time, visibility starts to look like representativeness.

This does not require a conspiracy. It is a predictable feature of the attention economy.

Conflict is more newsworthy than quiet agreement.

Anger generates engagement.

Certainty is easier to broadcast than nuance.

Someone saying:

“I broadly support inclusion, although individual circumstances may need careful and proportionate management”

is less likely to generate headlines than someone declaring that women face an immediate and existential threat.

The researchers suggest that people can confuse the availability of an opinion with its popularity. A frequently encountered position begins to feel representative even when it may not be. (Springer Link)

Repetition creates familiarity. Familiarity begins to resemble prevalence. Prevalence is then mistaken for legitimacy.

This matters because perceived norms can influence behaviour.

When people believe their position is unpopular, they may remain silent. They may soften their language, withdraw from discussion or avoid the subject entirely.

Their silence then appears to confirm the supposed consensus.

Meanwhile, those who believe they represent the majority gain further confidence and visibility.

The minority speaks.

The majority hesitates.

Observers conclude that those speaking must be the majority.

That is the silent-majority problem.

Public opinion is not straightforward

There is an obvious temptation to reduce this research to a reassuring headline:

“Most women support trans inclusion.”

That would go further than the evidence safely allows.

The participants were recruited through the online research platform Prolific. The samples were not designed to be nationally representative, and several were predominantly white and heterosexual.

The paper demonstrates a consistent and statistically significant pattern within those samples. It cannot, by itself, tell us the precise views of every woman in Britain or Australia.

The central measure was also conceptual.

Participants were shown overlapping circles representing “women” and “trans women” and asked how far the categories should overlap.

This is a useful way of exploring group membership and social inclusion. It is not identical to asking about a particular sporting category, domestic-abuse service or changing facility.

That distinction must not be glossed over.

Wider public-opinion research confirms that attitudes are mixed and highly dependent on the question being asked.

In its 2023 global Pride survey, Ipsos found that around two-thirds of Britons believed trans people faced at least a fair amount of discrimination. Support for protecting trans people from discrimination was stronger than support for some particular gender-affirming measures. (Ipsos)

The Ipsos Pride Survey 2024 reported a similar international distinction: broad support for protection from discrimination, but substantially lower support for trans athletes competing according to their gender identity. (Ipsos)

Meanwhile, YouGov’s analysis of British attitudes in 2024–25 found increasingly restrictive attitudes across several questions. Women remained more supportive than men on some measures, but the overall picture was neither uniformly inclusive nor uniformly exclusionary. (YouGov)

Earlier research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 76% of respondents believed prejudice against trans people was always or mostly wrong, while attitudes became more complicated when participants were asked about particular settings. The EHRC published the findings and underlying research here. (Equality and Human Rights Commission)

This finding is also reflected in the work of Not in Our Name Women, a collective of women who reject the portrayal of trans people as a threat and the use of women’s identities to justify discrimination. Their campaign gives visible form to something the research suggests is too easily overlooked: many women support the trans community, but their views receive far less political and media attention than exclusionary voices. NION Women does not prove the existence or size of a supportive majority, but it reinforces the central point that no small group should be allowed to claim it speaks for women as a whole.

These findings are not necessarily contradictory.

Someone can believe that trans people experience discrimination, support their protection at work and in public life, recognise a trans colleague’s identity, and still have concerns about a particular context.

Another person may support inclusion as a principle but feel uncertain because they have absorbed years of conflicting claims about safety, law and risk.

Others may answer differently depending on whether the question is framed around dignity, identity, safeguarding, fairness or threat.

Public attitudes are rarely arranged into two neat camps labelled supportive and opposed.

This complexity is precisely why broad claims about “what women think” should be treated with caution — regardless of who makes them.

No campaign, commentator or institution should be granted automatic authority to speak for women as a single political bloc.

Correcting the perceived norm

The researchers did more than identify the gap between personal belief and perceived belief.

In three of the studies, they tested whether that gap could be reduced.

Participants were shown information about the attitudes recorded in an earlier sample.

In one intervention, participants were told that 68% of the women surveyed held positive inclusion beliefs. In later studies, the researchers presented a stronger figure of 91%.

After seeing this information, participants revised their estimates of what other women believed.

The perceived norm became more inclusive and the pluralistic-ignorance gap narrowed.

In some studies, participants’ own reported inclusion beliefs also became more positive. The full methodology, findings and supporting materials are available through the original paper. (Springer Link)

That is significant.

It suggests that apparent social norms are not fixed. People update their understanding when credible information is presented to them.

A public narrative constructed through repeated amplification can, at least in principle, be challenged by evidence.

But the 91% figure needs careful explanation.

It was created by grouping together every response that indicated at least some support for inclusion. It did not mean that 91% of participants selected complete categorical overlap. It certainly did not mean that 91% supported every policy involving trans women in every circumstance.

Using that figure without qualification would repeat the same error the research warns us about: replacing complex opinion with an oversimplified claim of consensus.

The defensible conclusion is narrower:

A substantial majority in that particular sample expressed at least some degree of inclusion.

That is meaningful.

But it is not a blank cheque, nor proof of universal agreement.

Information alone did not create action

Perhaps the most important finding is what the intervention failed to do.

Correcting the perceived norm changed what participants thought other women believed.

It did not consistently increase their willingness to:

speak publicly;
comment or post online;
attend protests;
sign petitions;
support policy change; or
engage in other forms of collective action.

Participants’ own beliefs were generally a stronger predictor of whether they were prepared to speak than their perception of the wider social norm.

The intervention did increase collective efficacy among some strongly inclusive participants. In other words, women who already supported inclusion became more likely to believe that collective efforts could make a difference.

But this did not reliably translate into immediate action. (Springer Link)

It is not enough to tell people they are not alone. We must also make it safer for them to stop being silent.

This is an important lesson for inclusion practitioners.

Knowing that others broadly agree can provide reassurance. It can weaken the illusion of an exclusionary consensus. It may give people confidence that change is possible.

But it does not remove the cost of speaking.

People still anticipate hostility.

They assess the risk of workplace conflict, reputational damage, online abuse or becoming drawn into an exhausting and polarised argument.

They may support inclusion privately while deciding that publicly defending it is simply not worth the personal cost.

Research into online participation provides some context. A nationally representative survey of 1,992 UK adults found that only 23% of women felt comfortable expressing political opinions online, compared with 40% of men. Women also reported greater fear of harms including misogyny, cyberstalking and cyberflashing. The research was initially published as a preprint and should be understood in that context. (arXiv)

Silence therefore cannot be interpreted as indifference.

Sometimes silence is uncertainty.

Sometimes it is exhaustion.

Sometimes it is self-protection.

And sometimes it is the rational response to an environment in which speaking up is punished more reliably than staying quiet.

The organisational consequences

This dynamic reaches far beyond social media.

Leaders frequently make decisions based on anticipated reaction rather than demonstrated need.

An employer hears that trans inclusion has become “controversial” and quietly removes guidance.

A sports club assumes exclusion will protect it from complaints.

A charity revises its services because trustees believe public opinion has decisively shifted.

A public body gives disproportionate weight to a small number of persistent correspondents because they are the only voices it hears.

The resulting policy may then be described as reflecting what “women want”.

But which women?

The women who wrote repeatedly?

The women who appeared in the press?

The women who threatened legal action?

The women who joined an organised campaign?

The women who felt sufficiently confident, angry or protected to speak?

What about the women who were broadly comfortable with inclusion?

What about those who trusted the organisation to manage individual circumstances properly?

What about those who simply did not consider trans people a threat?

Absence from the complaints inbox is not absence of opinion.

Organisations need to distinguish between:

the number of people expressing a view;
the intensity with which they express it;
the extent to which they are coordinated;
the evidential quality of their claims; and
whether their position is genuinely representative.

A hundred coordinated emails do not automatically represent a hundred independent assessments.

A highly motivated minority can dominate consultation processes because the quieter majority has no equivalent structure, incentive or confidence to participate.

Governance requires more than measuring noise.

The danger of policy by presumed backlash

There is also a feedback loop.

Institutions anticipate hostility and become more restrictive.

Those restrictions then make exclusion appear normal, necessary and officially endorsed.

People observe the institutional change and revise their understanding of the public norm accordingly.

A decision made because leaders fear public opposition can itself manufacture the impression that opposition is widespread and legitimate.

This is how caution can become ideology without anyone admitting to making an ideological choice.

The organisation says it is merely responding to the climate.

The public reads the organisation’s action as evidence of that climate.

Politicians cite the organisational response.

The media reports a wider social shift.

And the supposed consensus becomes self-reinforcing.

A policy introduced because leaders fear a backlash can become the evidence later used to claim that the backlash represented the majority all along.

This does not mean organisations should ignore genuine concerns.

Nor does it mean refusing to consider difficult operational questions.

It means they should not mistake political pressure for evidence.

They should not assume that the safest course is always the most restrictive or exclusionary one.

And they should not outsource their ethical judgment to whoever shouts most loudly.

Risk management is not the same as capitulation.

From silent support to visible culture

The practical lesson from this research is not that inclusion advocates should declare victory.

It is that organisations must make support visible, credible and actionable.

That requires more than slogans and rainbow branding.

Leaders should use properly designed surveys rather than relying on the loudest internal voices.

They should ask specific questions rather than collapsing every issue into a binary contest between “women’s rights” and “trans rights”.

They should publish what they learn, including uncertainty, disagreement and limitations.

They should create environments in which support can be expressed without demanding that individuals expose themselves to unnecessary personal risk.

That may include:

confidential consultation;
facilitated staff discussions;
collective statements;
clear behavioural expectations;
visible senior sponsorship; and
explicit protection for those who challenge harassment or misinformation.

People are more likely to speak when they know that inclusion is not merely permitted but institutionally supported.

Most importantly, organisations must avoid placing the burden of maintaining an inclusive culture on trans employees or a small number of outspoken allies.

A culture is not inclusive because a policy says so.

It is inclusive when people can see that dignity, evidence and fair treatment will still be defended when pressure arrives.

A quieter public is still a public

The phrase “silent majority” carries political baggage.

It is often used by people claiming to speak for those who have never authorised them to do so.

That is another reason to use it carefully here.

This research does not give anyone permission to declare that all women privately support trans inclusion.

It offers something more useful.

It demonstrates that people can seriously underestimate the support around them — and that public visibility is an unreliable proxy for public belief.

Exclusionary voices in this debate are real.

Their concerns, political influence and organisational capacity cannot simply be wished away.

Some people hold deeply restrictive views. Others are uncertain. Some attitudes appear to be hardening in particular policy areas.

It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

But neither should visible exclusionary voices be granted ownership of womanhood, feminism or public opinion.

Cis women are not a single political bloc.

They do not share one understanding of sex, gender, safety, dignity or inclusion.

The central finding of this research is therefore both modest and disruptive:

Many women in these samples were more supportive of trans inclusion than they believed other women to be.

That matters because people respond not only to reality, but to their perception of reality.

When exclusion is amplified, support can feel isolated.

When support feels isolated, it remains quiet.

When it remains quiet, exclusion appears dominant.

And when exclusion appears dominant, institutions begin to accommodate it as though it were inevitable.

Breaking that cycle requires evidence.

But evidence alone is not enough.

It also requires leadership, courage and visible solidarity.

The task is not to manufacture a false consensus.

It is to stop mistaking volume for legitimacy, controversy for representativeness, and silence for opposition.

Hold the rope

Inclusion is often described as a matter of individual courage: the brave ally who speaks out, the leader who takes a stand, the colleague who challenges a harmful comment.

But courage becomes easier when people know they are connected to others.

That is what it means to hold the rope.

The rope is the line of trust that connects us when the ground feels uncertain.

It reminds the person at the edge that they are not alone.

It gives those standing back from the argument something practical to do: hold firm, share the weight and refuse to let the loudest voice decide who belongs.

So do not assume your quiet support is irrelevant.

Make it visible.

Challenge claims that purport to speak for all women.

Ask whether organisational decisions are based on evidence or anticipated backlash.

Support the people who are already speaking and make it safer for others to join them.

Because inclusion will not be sustained by private agreement alone.

We must hold the rope — and make sure the people who need it can see that someone is still holding the other end.

Joanne Lockwood

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?