Texas voter reactions to the police response to protesters at University of Texas in Austin are varied. MIG Reports analysis shows political polarization echoing national politics and different perspectives on the issue.

Support and Critique of Texas Police Response

Some Texans support the police actions and arrests during the campus protests, viewing the demonstrations as a threat to public safety, and an expression of antisemitism. This group, often expresses pro-Trump sentiments, consider the protests to be hate-filled and believe students engaging in such activities should face severe consequences, including expulsion. They also accuse the protesters of propagandizing the situation and manipulating media coverage. Some suggest the protests are being funded by left-wing activists such as George Soros. They believe a robust response, like that seen under the Trump administration, is necessary to hinder such activities and prevent the kind of protests which recently shut down bridges and streets.

On the other hand, some voters criticize the police response, viewing it as an infringement on the protesters' First Amendment rights. They argue colleges have always been a hub for protests and the current response is politically biased. These voters often contrast the police response to anti-Israel protests with the response to predominantly white, far-right groups. They express concern about potential violent outcomes, referencing historical events like the Kent State shootings. They also criticize the political focus on Trump, arguing it distracts from the immediate issues at hand.

The division in Texas voter reactions reflect broader political and ideological tensions in the country. This division is likely to influence voting behavior, party affiliations, and political activism in the state. It also suggests any policy or legal responses to the protests and police actions will be highly contentious and potentially polarizing.

Reactions to Governor Abbot’s Comments

A significant part of the online discourse revolves around Governor Greg Abbott's purported stance towards the protesters. Some suggest he was planning to arrest those expressing support for Hamas, a claim that received mixed reactions. Others expressed outrage, viewing this as an infringement on free speech rights, while others appeared to support the move, arguing there is no place for antisemitism in Texas.

The police's reaction to the protests has also been controversial. There have been reports of state troopers and police officers making more than 20 arrests on campus, and many charged with trespassing. Law enforcement’s heavy-handed response has sparked outrage among some Texas voters who argue that it is an infringement on the students' constitutional rights.

Predictably, this sentiment appears to be contributing to a heightened sense of frustration and injustice among some students and supporters of the pro-Palestine movement. This feeling of being used as political pawns could potentially fuel further protests, escalating tensions between students, university authorities, and law enforcement.

Furthermore, there are concerns strong-handed law enforcement, including the use of batons and arrests, could have long-term repercussions on student trust in police. Not only could this exacerbate tensions on college campuses, but it could also impact wider public perceptions of the police.

MIG Reports analysis clearly shows a potential TikTok ban in the United States is opposed by most voters. This majority views a ban as an infringement on their freedom of speech, a fundamental right in the United States.

Many voters express concern over government overreach and censorship. They argue their voices are being silenced and their ability to express themselves freely is being limited. This sentiment is particularly strong among younger Americans, who are more likely to use TikTok and other social media platforms as a form of expression and communication.

Many view the potential ban as an assault on their First Amendment rights, arguing the government is trying to control or limit platforms it has no right to restrict. They express concern about the suppression of voices, elimination of income streams, and potentially silencing certain opinions. They say without platforms like TikTok, an array of voices may not be heard.

Freedom of Speech Arguments

The concept of freedom of speech appears to be particularly important to younger Americans. They view TikTok as a platform for self-expression and community building. These users often refer to the app as a space that allows uncensored speech and promotes diversity. They fear a ban would be unnecessary and counterproductive.

There is a small contingent, mostly older voters, who support the ban. They frequently cite national security concerns. This group argues the Chinese-owned app is a risk to the United States and its citizens. Some also say big tech companies being regulated by the government is not a free speech issue. However, this sentiment is less prevalent and is mainly found among older Americans.

Arguments also spark debates about freedom of speech versus hate speech. Some say freedom of speech should not be used as a cover to promote hate or discrimination. This sentiment is seen across various age groups and political affiliations.

Gen Z and Other Digital Natives

Among younger demographics, regardless of political affiliation, opinions are largely negative towards the ban. Younger Americans view TikTok as a source of entertainment, self-expression, and even income.

This group often blames both the Trump and Biden administrations for the proposed ban, often using humor and sarcasm in their comments. They also express concern over the government's control over social media platforms.

Other Discussions About TikTok

General sentiment toward the idea of banning TikTok in the United States appears to be divided along political and generational lines. Beyond free speech and government censorship, people are discussing security, social issues, and the modern community.

National Security

Some conservative or older voters insist a ban is necessary due to concerns over national security and data privacy. They argue TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance, share sensitive user data with the Chinese government.

Anti-Woke Sentiment

A significant number of voters express anti-woke sentiments, a term often used to criticize perceived political correctness or progressive social ideologies. These users voice disdain for what they perceive as liberal or “left: bias on social media platforms, including TikTok.

Anti-Racism

More liberal or progressive voters say they use TikTok as a platform to promote anti-racist sentiments and ideas. They argue banning TikTok would suppress these important conversations and movements.

Entertainment and Community

For many younger users, TikTok is primarily a source of entertainment and community. These Americans often express frustration at the potential ban, viewing it as an unnecessary restriction on their leisure activities and social interactions.

Recent accusations of biased reporting against National Public Radio (NPR) have stirred up public resentment and calls for defunding. After veteran journalist Uri Berliner published an article with The Free Press chastising NPR for its unsupportable liberal bias, his subsequent suspension and resignation created controversy online.

My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK

— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024

Many discussions center around the belief that NPR, along with other mainstream media outlets, display a significant left-wing bias. People, including Berliner, argue NPR prioritizes a leftist agenda over objective journalism, contributing to polarization and distrust. This bias is perceived in the choice of stories covered, the framing of news narratives, and the selection of sources or experts for interviews.

Liberals tend to be more supportive, but some still have criticisms. They suggest NPR's bias is not so much a partisan issue but rather a reflection of the organization's commitment to "well-meaning liberal feel-good" coverage. They argue NPR is sometimes "wimpy" in its reporting and works hard not to offend anyone.

Disconcerting Comments from NPR’s CEO

There are heated debates around NPR's leadership, particularly the new CEO Katherine Maher. Critics argue her views undermine the objective pursuit of truth and threaten freedom of speech.

Berliner himself said in his resignation statement that her leadership “confirm the very problems” of leftist bias. Others like author Chris Rufo have exposed past comments from Maher, betraying her as an apparent leftist devotee. These discussions among journalists online have also generated public awareness and backlash.

EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher doesn't just want to "stamp out bad information" on the internet. She wants to replace it with "good information"—i.e., left-wing narratives—and force the public to "sit within that good information" as "a collective."

Big Sister has arrived. pic.twitter.com/7kfq8VYHfj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 18, 2024

Maher’s defenders praise her leadership skills and commitment to transparency, brushing aside accusations of clear partisan loyalty. Many critics cite her past work with Wikipedia, tweets and posts stumping for Joe Biden, and clear cut liberal perspectives on identity politics, censorship, and the First Amendment.

Taxpayer Dollars Supporting Left-Wing Media

NPR's public funding is a contentious issue. Critics argue taxpayer money should not be used to fund a platform that is being exposed as biased and propagandist. They argue for defunding NPR, asserting it should be privately funded like other media outlets.

Criticisms of taxation and government spending amid other pressing issues like a struggling economy and benefits for illegal aliens seems to exacerbate negativity toward public funding for NPR. While Americans struggle to make ends meet, many seem appalled and indignant about tax dollars being spent to support outlets like NPR.

Overarching Distrust of American Media

The issue of bias in NPR's reporting is not isolated but is part of a broader conversation about media bias in the United States. Americans are increasingly polarized in their perceptions of media bias, with many believing most news outlets have a political bias. This has rapidly eroded trust in mainstream media and spurred an increasing reliance on alternative news sources.

Online discussions also suggest Americans believe mainstream media actively supports the current administration and various Democrat political figures. Many of these discussions accuse the media and Democrats of lying and coordinating to push messaging for Democrat politicians.

Many accuse NPR and other outlets of being a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party, saying their views are dismissed and unrepresented. Some also direct personal attacks at various media figures like Katherine Maher, Rachel Maddow, and Don Lemon.

There is also discussion about a 2014 Pew Research Center study which found that NPR's audience skews liberal, with 67% identifying as left-leaning while only 21% identifying as right-leaning. Many commentors say even these percentages fail to capture the true composition of NPR’s left leaning audience.

Overall, many Americans view the resignation of Uri Berliner as indicative of a larger trend of liberal bias in media organizations.

Current conversations around the possibility of Trump's re-election among Democratic, left-leaning, and progressive voices reveal much concern, skepticism, and outright opposition. Rachel Maddow and other left-leaning commentators often criticize Trump's policies and leadership style, frequently discussing the potential implications and risks of a second Trump term. At the same time, they dismiss or redirect from problems with the Biden administration.

Much of the commentary class is focused on nebulous topics which are difficult to quantify or provide nuanced discourse on. Common discussions among leftists and progressives regarding a second Trump term typically center around perceived authoritarianism, isolationism, and abuses of power. There is a strong sentiment among progressives that a second Trump term would lead to the destruction of democratic norms and increased polarization.

Authoritarianism

Progressives fear authoritarianism if Trump is reelected. They fear a combative press relationship, disregard for checks and balances, and unilateral decision-making, warning a second term would escalate into a more authoritarian leadership style.

Isolationism

Progressives worry about Trump's isolationist foreign policy, claiming it strains alliances, undermines global cooperation on climate change, and empowers authoritarian regimes. They fear a second term would prolong or worsen these trends.

Abuses of Power

This group asserts Trump abused power in his first term, highlighting actions like firing FBI Director James Comey and attempting to manipulate the Justice Department against political foes.

FISA Concerns

There is fear Trump might misuse FISA to target domestic political opponents, risking civil liberties.

These concerns are sometimes shared among moderate Democrats and Independents, although the intensity of the concerns vary. There is a significant portion of moderate Democrats and Independents who appear to be more focused on other issues, or who might view these concerns as overly alarmist. Additionally, moderate Democrats and Independents might disagree with progressives on policy issues, even if they share some of the same concerns about a potential second Trump term.

MIG Reports analysis identifies that online discussions about Biden outweigh those of Trump. Despite this, Trump’s approval ratings are generally higher across issues important to voters. This showcases that establishment media’s messaging is not representative of the electorate or even the entire Democratic party.

Online commentary among left leaning voters also reveals dissatisfaction with the current political climate writ large. While many do criticize the conservative right, there is also dissatisfaction with what they see as the failures of both liberal and centrist Democrats. Some argue for a more radical, leftist approach to politics. Others express frustration at what they perceive as a lack of focus on key issues like economic inequality, healthcare, and the environment.

The Biden administration’s performance is another major focus of Democratic voter commentary. Some criticize Biden for his handling of the border crisis. Others accuse his administration of denying women the right to buy houses by allowing a significant increase in housing prices.

There is criticism directed towards Vice President Kamala Harris, with some suggesting she was chosen for her identity rather than her abilities or success.

Many left leaning and progressive voters are unhappy with the current tax system, expressing concerns about misuse of tax dollars. These voters are frustrated with how their tax money is being used, especially in terms of foreign aid and government spending. They suggest tax dollars are being squandered or misallocated, and express resentment over the perceived lack of benefits they are receiving in return for their taxes.

In a recent revelation that has sent shockwaves through political circles, a former FBI agent, Gavin O’Blennis, was caught on camera discussing the agency's alleged tactics, including targeting American citizens and potential entrapment strategies. O’Blennis's claims, made to an undercover journalist, have ignited a fiery debate about the fairness of prosecutions and the existence of a double standard within the American justice system, particularly concerning former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

BREAKING: CIA Officer/Former FBI Boasts “Can Put Anyone in Jail…Set ’Em Up!” “We Call It a Nudge”

FBI “Did What We Wanted” with Alex Jones @RealAlexJones “Took His Money Away” “Chop His Legs Off”

Estimates 20 Undercover FBI Agents at J6, Works with Some of Them Now at CIA

FBI… pic.twitter.com/QxP20emKB5

— Sound Investigations (@SoundInvestig) April 9, 2024

Key Themes of Conversation

Disapproval of FBI and CIA Tactics

• Users express strong disapproval of the FBI and CIA, accusing them of setting people up and engaging in unethical practices.
• Demands for defunding these agencies emerge as a response to the perceived abuse of power and manipulation of the justice system.

Support and Criticism of Political Figures

• Discussion about Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) surfaces, with some users praising her for purportedly revealing the truth, while others criticize her actions.
• Allegations of political bias and agenda-setting within government institutions like the FBI and CIA prompt scrutiny of their role in targeting specific individuals.

Controversies Surrounding FISA and Prosecutions

• Anger erupts over efforts to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), viewed by some as a tool for unwarranted spying on Americans.
• The prosecution of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, coupled with claims of entrapment and unfair treatment, fuels discussions about the integrity of the justice system and potential political motivations behind prosecutions.

Analysis

Online discourse around the FBI official's admission delves into a myriad of conspiracy theories and suspicions surrounding the actions of intelligence agencies. A prevalent belief among some conservatives suggests a concerted effort by the "deep state" to undermine Trump and his supporters. This narrative often intertwines allegations of election fraud and accusations of biased prosecutions against conservative figures.

• Sentiment around the topics of “deep state” and “political opponents” took a hit as discussion of the undercover video increased.

The term "deep state" features prominently in discussions, with users expressing concerns about partisan agendas within government agencies and the perceived targeting of individuals based on their political affiliations. Criticism of media outlets and accusations of liberal bias contribute to the overarching sentiment of distrust towards mainstream institutions.

Moreover, conversations highlight broader societal issues, such as concerns about the influence of political correctness or "woke culture," and debates about gender issues and media integrity. Allegations of censorship and selective reporting further deepen divisions within the online discourse, reflecting broader societal polarization.

Conclusion

The admission by an FBI official has served as a catalyst for intense debates about justice, political bias, and the erosion of trust in institutions. The conversations reflect a deep-seated divide in ideologies, with accusations of unfair treatment and manipulation amplifying existing tensions within society. As discussions continue to unfold, the ramifications of these revelations on public trust and accountability remain at the forefront of national discourse.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and its reauthorization have been a significant topic of discussion, especially in the context of surveillance and privacy issues. It is critical to understand citizen perceptions about FISA and whether they believe it is being used as a political tool against opponents.

Political party affiliation has a significant influence on perceptions of FISA. Democrats generally have a more positive sentiment towards FISA, often viewing it as a necessary tool for national security. Republicans are more likely to question the act, particularly after the 2016 elections and allegations of its misuse against President Trump's campaign. They tend to view FISA with suspicion, believing it could potentially be used to target political opponents. Independents fall somewhere in the middle, with their views varying based on individual beliefs about privacy and national security.

When looking at other demographics, it becomes a bit more complex. Economic class, for example, may influence perceptions, with wealthier individuals tending to be more skeptical of government surveillance. Geographically, those living in urban areas, particularly on the coasts, tend to be more accepting of FISA, seeing it as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. In contrast, those in rural areas or the heartland are more likely to view it as a potential infringement on their rights.

It's crucial to note that these perceptions are not static but can shift based on current events, political climate, and individual experiences. For instance, perceived misuse or abuse of FISA could lead to more widespread skepticism, regardless of party affiliation or demographic group. Therefore, maintaining trust in FISA requires transparency, accountability, and ongoing dialogue to address concerns and misconceptions.

There is also a lot of distrust and skepticism expressed towards politicians and institutions, including the CIA and FBI. Many voters view these agencies as being part of the “Deep State.” Many people seem to believe there is widespread corruption and misuse of power at various levels of government. These individuals often use terms like “Uniparty” or “Deep State Cartel” to refer to what they view as a singular, corrupt entity controlling American politics.

Former ESPN anchor Sage Steele recently alleged on Fox News that her 2021 interview with President Biden was completely scripted. Steele claims the interview questions were prepared in advance and required strict adherence by the president’s communications team. Her comments about the interview, which originally aired on ESPN, are generating controversy in the field of journalism, opening discussions about the authenticity of the interview and journalistic integrity.

It also fans the flames of concern many Americans have about Joe Biden’s mental fitness for office. Many voters believe Biden’s cognitive acuity is rapidly declining, necessitating tight control over what the President says and what questions press are allowed to ask him.

In traditional journalism, it is considered unethical to provide interviewees with scripted questions beforehand. This is because it allows guests to prepare answers, which can potentially manipulate the narrative and mislead the public. The objective of journalism is to uncover truth and hold those in power accountable, which may be compromised when interviewees are given prepared questions.

In the case of President Biden, it also highlights concerns over his ability to answer questions extemporaneously, without confusion or large lapses in memory. Instances of Biden seeming disoriented during public appearances are a growing concern for many voters on both sides of the aisle.

The situation with Sage Steele and Joe Biden represents a recurring issue for Biden as more accusations emerge of scripted interviews with the press. In this instance, people speculate whether ESPN, as a major news outlet, allowed its journalistic standards to be undermined for a high-profile political figure. This has potential implications for the credibility of ESPN and any journalist who allows prepared questions for the president.

The controversy also raises questions about the role of media in politics. Many people believe if media outlets are accepting scripted questions from the Biden administration, it will lead to unfair bias, favoring the White House agenda over journalistic inquiry. This can lead to a lack of trust in the media and further polarize political discourse.

MIG Reports analysis of the original interview identified:

• The questions were tailored to convey specific messages.
• Themes included COVID-19 vaccination, sports-politics intersection, and family anecdotes.
• There was an emphasis on promoting vaccination and addressing election issues in Georgia.
• Concerns were raised about potential propaganda or manipulation.
• There were obvious elements of political messaging present in the interview.

The scripted nature of presidential interviews implies a corrupt relationship between politics and media in the modern era. While political leaders seek to control their messaging and shape public opinion, media organizations have a duty to prioritize journalistic integrity and independence.

This event highlights the importance of journalistic integrity and the potential implications of compromising unbiased reporting. It suggests a dereliction of duty by media outlets in holding the powerful accountable and providing the public with unbiased information.

Recent events in media expose the growing dissatisfaction Americans have with news and entertainment outlets. Data suggests that viewer trust in mainstream media outlets is precipitously low as viewers feel media elites despise average people.

There is also a perception among many that the mainstream media is biased in its coverage. People point out examples when news highlights any Biden surge in the polls, rather than scrutinizing his policies. There is a sentiment that Trump's actions and policies are often unfairly criticized or misrepresented by the media.

Media Bias Against Trump

There is a strong sentiment among right leaning and conservative Americans that media coverage of Trump is unfairly negative and strongly biased against him. They accuse outlets and commentators of spreading lies and being part of a "witch hunt" against the former president. This sentiment is particularly strong among older demographics and those living in traditionally conservative states.

This group sees Trump as a champion for their beliefs and values. They are harshly critical of what they perceive as liberal bias in the media. Many also express a belief in Trump's innocence in the face of ongoing legal issues and investigations, often attributing these to political persecution.

On the other hand, critics of Trump, who tend to identify as liberals or Democrats, are supportive of recent media coverage, particularly regarding his ongoing legal issues. They accuse Trump of corruption and believe his actions deserve scrutiny.

This sentiment is prevalent among younger demographics and those in traditionally liberal states. Critics also express frustration with what they perceive as the media's "soft" approach on Trump, arguing that he should be held more accountable for his actions.

Elite’s Disrespect for Average People

A recent example of Stephen Colbert's fundraising efforts for Joe Biden fuels voter perceptions that entertainment and media figures ignore the transgressions of Democrats while constantly harping on conservatives. Many criticize Colbert for using his cultural influence to sway political outcomes.

The interview between former CNN host Don Lemon and the owner of X, Elon Musk, has also spurred a significant response from the American public. The interview sparked conversations about media bias, with conservatives accusing networks like NBC of suppressing conservative voices and liberals accusing networks like Fox News of promoting misinformation. This indicates a deep distrust between the two sides and the media.

People are also discussing a recent controversy involving comedian Jon Stewart’s hypocrisy in discussing Trump’s New York legal case. Stewart reportedly overvalued his home in a similar way to what Trump is accused of doing. Many accuse Stewart of promoting a double standard and negatively shaping media perceptions. Some argue Stewart should be held to the same standards as Trump and pay back taxes.

There is also criticism directed at NBC for hiring and promptly firing former RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel. Discussions criticize the network for acquiescing to the complaints and laments voiced by NBC and MSNBC hosts like Chuck Todd, Kristen Welker, and Jen Psaki.

Normal Americans Feel Misrepresented

Another grievance many Americans express against mainstream media and entertainment is their elitism. There is a growing sense among working and middle-class voters, particularly conservatives, that media elites are out of touch with "normal" people.

This sentiment is fueled by perceived liberal bias in the media, with critics arguing media elites look down on traditional values and the everyday concerns of Americans living outside major urban centers. However, some still argue the media plays a crucial role in holding those in power accountable.

Despite some defense of mainstream media, the theme of "media elites" versus "normal Americans" is recurring in online discussions. Average people in middle America or suburban and rural communities feel marginalized and believe the media doesn't represent their perspectives or concerns.

While some simply feel media elites are distant from the realities of ordinary life, others perceive a targeted animosity from media figures. Many feel comments from figures like Joy Reid, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, and others reveal a certain disgust for average people.

There is also a prevailing sentiment that media elites “hate normal Americans” who align with conservative values. Some give examples of media figures insulting the intelligence of conservatives, deriding their traditions or religious beliefs, portraying negative stereotypes of them, and attributing false motives to their actions.

Dismissing the Sins of Their Allies

Many criticize the media for what they see as a bias towards the left and a tendency to downplay or ignore the transgressions of Democratic politicians. Middle-class voters often express feelings of being overlooked or undervalued, while victimizing and harmful actions by elites are justified and dismissed.

Mainstream media is perceived as propagandizing policies favoring the wealthy and powerful. This sentiment is reflected in discussions about the lack of representation for blue-collar Americans in the media and politics.

There are some who laud the media's efforts to hold the government accountable, however. This group praises the resilience of figures like Joe Biden in the face of intense scrutiny.

After a controversial encounter a female Planet Fitness member had with a trans person shaving his beard in the women’s bathroom, Planet Fitness is facing Budweiser-style public backlash. Allegations also include a biological man allegedly exposing himself to a 15-year-old in the women's locker room at Planet Fitness.

Many Americans are deeply upset with Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. They feel the company is not respecting the rights of women but is supporting woke gender ideology. There are frequent calls for boycotts and strong language used against Planet Fitness, accusing the company of supporting potentially dangerous trans activists at the expense of women.

• Sentiment towards transgender rights has decreased slightly in the last two weeks, while discussion volume is up in the last week.

Online Discussion About Woke Policies at Planet Fitness

Public discussion about Planet Fitness is decisively negative, with many people declaring they intend to or have already canceled their memberships. Many are also praising the economic consequences of a growing Planet Fitness boycott, causing the company to lose stock value.

There is also a recurring theme of freedom of speech throughout the discussion. Some voters believe that by supporting transgender rights, Planet Fitness is suppressing the freedom of speech of women who disagree with their stance. They argue that everyone has the right to voice their opinions, even if they are seen as offensive or controversial by others.

There are also growing social media movements that display how dissatisfied people are with Planet Fitness' policies on transgender people using their facilities. There are people posting with the hashtags #BoycottPlanetFitness and #Misogyny, indicating a negative sentiment towards the company due to their perceived negligence of women's safety.

The discussion is heavily influenced by political ideologies, with many linking their views on Planet Fitness to their broader political beliefs. There is a clear divide between conservative and liberal viewpoints, with each side accusing the other of trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

While the discussion is predominantly negative, there are also voices in support of Planet Fitness's stance on trans issues. These people argue that supporting trans rights is a matter of basic human rights and equality, and they applaud Planet Fitness for taking a stand.

How Different Voter Groups View Trans Rights

Conservative Voters

In general, conservatives tend to speak out against the inclusion of trans people in women's spaces like restrooms and locker rooms. This group often views this issue through the lens of biological sex rather than gender identity, arguing for the preservation of spaces designated for biological women.

Liberal Voters

More left-leaning voters are generally more supportive of trans rights, including the right to be included in spaces that align with their gender identity. They often argue for inclusivity and equality, seeing this issue as part of the broader fight for LGBT+ rights.

Moderates and Independents

There's no strong consensus among Independents, but they generally strive to find a middle ground. Some may support trans rights but also voice concerns about potential implications for cisgender women.