| Policy (share in favor) | Gay and lesbian adults | All US adults |
|---|
| Protect trans people from discrimination | 88% | 56% |
| Trans athletes on teams matching birth sex | 31% | 66% |
| Ban transition care for minors | 26% | 56% |
| Bathrooms matching birth sex | 12% | 49% |
","layout":"text"},{"role":"body","format":"markdown","text":"Pew's [published analysis](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/) gives 49% for the bathroom measure; adding separately rounded topline categories gives 48%. The general-public sports and bathroom questions used a half-sample of 2,565 adults, and 284 respondents' answers were carried over from January.\n\nThe national survey ran February 10–17 and included 5,097 adults, with a full-sample margin of error of 1.6 percentage points. These are separate surveys and samples, not a direct test of group membership. [National questionnaire](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/02/SR_24.02.26_transgender-policies_topline.pdf).\n\nThe broad finding is that support for nondiscrimination protections can coexist with disagreement on sports and youth treatment. Opposition to a particular policy does not by itself mean support for separating advocacy groups. Conversely, support for transgender protections does not mean agreement with every group operating under an LGBTQ label.\n\nLGB Alliance’s own May 2023 survey asked its supporters about the LGBTQ+ umbrella. It reported that 94% of respondents were uncomfortable with that description. The report explicitly warns that its results cannot be generalized to the wider LGB population. That is evidence about the respondents’ views, not a national mandate for separation. [Survey report](https://lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/LGB_Queer-Report.pdf).\n\nThe two kinds of survey should not be compared as if they asked the same question of the same population. Pew asked about laws and policies. LGB Alliance asked its supporters about language and identity. Neither supplies the missing national measure of support for the groups themselves.\n\n## The case for keeping a coalition\n\nStonewall’s response is that different priorities need not require a break. Chief executive Simon Blake argues that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people can disagree about policy while working together against discrimination. His [account of coalition-building](https://www.stonewall.org.uk/news/going-where-angels-fear-to-tread) acknowledges differences rather than requiring unanimity, and presents shared advocacy as a way to protect rights.\n\nThat argument has a practical tradeoff. A broad coalition can combine resources and political support, but it must decide how to handle conflicts among members. Separate groups can focus on narrower concerns, but they must show how their strategy protects the rights of people outside that focus. Neither group model automatically resolves the underlying policy disagreements.\n\nResistance to separation also comes from some religious conservatives who oppose both movements’ premises. In a [June essay](https://thefederalist.com/2026/06/12/no-andrew-sullivan-you-cant-separate-lgb-from-tq-just-because-its-backfiring/), Glenn Stanton argued that changes to the legal understanding of marriage helped produce the sex-and-gender arguments that some gay advocates now reject. That is a different objection from Stonewall’s case for a united equality movement.\n\nGovernment wording supplies another example of institutional change without measuring public agreement. The [Stonewall National Monument homepage](https://www.nps.gov/ston/index.htm), checked November 12, describes lesbian, bisexual and gay history without naming transgender people in its introduction. That observation establishes what the page says. It does not establish which advocacy group caused the wording.\n\nThe remaining evidentiary gap is specific: this review did not identify an independent national survey directly measuring support for LGB-only groups. Court participation, policy announcements and revenue records establish activity and resources. They cannot substitute for that missing measure. Our [methodology](https://567politics.com/methodology) and [editorial standards](https://567politics.com/editorial-standards) distinguish those forms of evidence.\n\n*Photo: National Park Service. No claim to original U.S. Government works. The agency’s [reuse policy](https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/disclaimer.htm) applies to the credited lead photograph.*","textStyle":"body","layout":"text"}]}