SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY This cover sheet must be included with the Assignment/Essay ASSIGNMENT/ ESSAY BEING SUBMITTED IS FOR MODULE: PSU44003 - A - YEAR12 - 202021 THEORETICAL ISSUES MODULE COORDINATOR (LECTURER) NAME : Fredrique Vallieres Submission deadline: 5pm 11/01 /202 1 Student number: 17309014 Number of words: 27 4 9 /2500 (+/ - 10%) Essay Title: Discuss ing C urrent U nderstanding s of the F actors that P romote and/or H amper H uman C ollaboration as Applied to Ideological Polarization Surrounding Gender Identity NB – PLEASE CHECK THE BOX AS AN INDICATION THAT: I have completed the Online Tutorial on avoiding plagiarism ‘Ready, Steady, Write’, located at http://tcd - ie.libguides.com/plagiarism/ready - steady - write Insert X here X This cover sheet should be added to your essay and a SINGLE electronic file (i.e. THIS SHEET WITH ESSAY in the one document) must be submitted by the deadline. *** PLEASE ENSURE YOU ARE SUBMITTING YOUR ESSAY TO THE CORRECT BLACKBOARD SITE*** Discuss how our current understanding of the factors that promote and/or hamper human collaboration could be applied to address a specific societal challenge of your choosing. Globally , the rate of violent hate crimes against transgender individuals has risen exponentially since at least 2013, and peaking in 2020 ( TvT , 2020 ). As radicalization of political ideologies has surged internationally , the conflict between opposing groups has followed ( Stewart, Mccarty & Bryson, 2020 ). A mong the most prominent topics of argumentation in this regard is gender identity , which has become viciously polarized , with several ideologically opposing groups establish ing either in support for, or against transgender individuals ( Jones & Brewer, 2018 ). To address the issue of intergroup conflict concerning the legal rights, freedoms, and protections of transgender individuals – termed here as transgenderism – it is crucial to understand the groups involved, how these groups formed , what group membership entails, and where ideological conflict occurs across their core values. Seemingly, a psychological approach to this issue could illuminate the cognitive mechanisms involved in the hopes of benefiting transgenderism Overall , a psychological perspective in this regard relies paradigmatically on Henri Tajfel’s ( 2004 ) social identity theory ( SIT ), which broadly refers to the interactions between groups – where individual ’ s membership for such determines in - groups, and extensionally, groups that an individual does not belong to determines out - groups. Further, SIT is proposed along side findings demonstrating cognitive biases such as in - group favouritis m, and out - group negativity, and posits a generalized model for group conflict and cooperation, adaptable through the deterministic features of group - membership, the values, beliefs and g oals of the group – its culture – and rationale for conflict between groups ( Tajfel, 1974 ). Thus, SIT is utilized as a basis for discussion of the groups polarized around arguments concerning transgenderism. Preliminarily, the involved parties must be established, and can be broadly categorized into four groups, and further dichotomized as either trans - positive ( T+ ) , or trans - negative ( T - ) . Firstly, and most importantly in this topic, are transgender individuals, then cisgender trans - inclusive feminis ts , both respectively included in the T+ category. Following, trans - exclusionary radical feminists ( TERFs ), and miscellaneous transphobes – referring to numerous groups shar ing prejudice against transgender indivi duals – are included in the T - category. Thus , the transgender group finds itself with ally and enemy in a struggle to seek rights and protections through social norm reform, and seemingly stands as an ideological battleground in feminist secularization . However, contemporary denotation of TERFs as members of the radical feminist group holds as a misnomer, where currently, TERF rhetoric holds more in common with that of white Christian right - wing dogmatism than it does in its root of radical feminism ( Pearce, Erikainen & Vincent, 2020 ). Initially, the radical feminist argument proposed transgenderism as an ideological barrier to the abolition of gender, where the argument held that conformity to binary hegemonic gender constructs would bolster and maintai n patriarchally - biased hierarchical social stratification inequity ( Richardson & Meyer, 2011 ). Inversely, individuals that purely sought membership for a group whose core value was transphobia – contrasted here against miscellaneous transphobes whose core group identity is not contingent on transphobia – rallied behind the label of radical feminism as the leading argument against transgenderism , and i n doing so, a new group was created losing any semblance of its namesake as the ideology evolves ( Pearce, Er ikainen & Vincent, 2020 ). This is recognized by modern TERF s , with many preferring labels such as ‘gender - critical,’ with some even falsely holding the TERF acronym as a misogynistic slur ; a comparable example would hold Nazi as a slur ( Davis & McCready, 2020 ). Hence, TERF in this context refers not to a T - radical - feminist perspective as such would be considered miscellaneous transphobia , while membership of the TERF group is contingent on a core identity of transphobia ( Davis & McCready, 2020 ). Altogether , the involved groups exist in a valanced spectrum varying in personal involvement, where criteria for group membership can either posit T+/ - as core or auxiliary value s Briefly , with the involved parties identified, a psychological perspective conjects why individuals may identify as transgender despite the public ostracization that such sociocultural norm - violation entails, and why TERFs may base their identity around the prejudicial treatment of transgender individuals ( Diamond, Pardo & Butterword, 2012; Pearce, Erikainen & Vincent, 2020 ). First ly , it must be acknowledged that transgender individuals do not hold a homogenous self - concept of what it means to be transgender, but a core definition can be encapsulated as not identifying with the gender one was assigned at birth ; where individuals may transition within the established W estern gender binary of man and woman, some may reject the binary and fall within the non - binary spectrum, and others may hold marginally to the binary without adhering to its boundaries ( Diamond, Pardo & Butterword, 2012 ). Social psychological research has demonstrated that many transgender individuals identify more personally as a self - concept rather than as adherence to established values of a transgender group, and that identification with a tangible group of transgenders rather than merely a conceptual label stems not from what Kelman (195 8 ) considered conformity influence, but rather that internalized negativity or conspecific shunning from failure to conform to established norm s of incidental groups maintains low self - esteem ( Levitt & Ippolito, 2014 ). F urther, according to the SIT’s self - esteem hypothesis, transgender group membership is often contingent on a desire for acceptance of their identity to increase personal specific trait self - esteem, so transgender group membership oft stems from necessity rather than desire for distinction ( Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Levitt & Ippolito, 2014 ). Moreover, this is to be considered alongside global demographic data demonstrating 41% suicide attempt rate for transgender individuals annually ( Dickey & Budge, 2020 ). T ransgender self - report rationale for suicide attempts typically report satisfaction with self - concept and transgender identity , where gender dysphoria stems largely from dissatisfaction with societal prejudice and biases fostering overall deleterious life satisfaction and subjective well - being ( Wolford Clevenger et al., 2018 ). Moreover, for mer and even contemporary census of transgender individuals are argued as inaccurate considering countless individuals refraining from transgender self - labelling when doing so jeopardizes economic security or personal safety, resulting in a Maslowian ( 1943 ) conundrum where necessity for basic needs limits attainment of psychological needs, and bars self - fulfilment needs ( Hoffarth & Hodson, 2018 ). Altogether , it is asserted that transgender individuals hold group membership intrinsically on grounds of identity, and internal versus external acknowledgement of group membership varies depending on intersectionality , where generally, identification with a n external transgender group promotes positive personal self - esteem which grows as a function of social - self esteem increasing . T hat attempted rejection of transgender identity at internal and external membership levels demonstrates deleterious effects ( Monro, 2007 ). Antithetically, TERF group membership is ideological, and is thus considered an identity - reference group, where TERF id entity is established from the average views of the group and solidified from conformity influences ( Thompson & Hickey, 2011; Mckinnon, 2018 ). Following, as minimal requirement for TERF group membership consists of out - group negativity towards transgender individuals , it is crucial to establish a psychological basis for prejudice and elaborate out - group negativity dialectics. Summarily, comparative evolutionary psychology has proposed homologous traits responsible for respondent cognitive mechanisms – allud ing to theory of mind (ToM) – that initially allowed for instinctual parent - offspring dependency relationships, that exapted for recognition of conspecifics against heterospecifics , and eventually developed to accommodate increasing social cognition so as to categorize socially afforded relationships with conspecifics based upon episodic - memorative accounts of prosocial or antisocial conspecific behaviour ( Brüne & Brüne - Cohrs, 2006; Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000; Kaufmann & Clément, 2007 ). Further, pro/antisocial behaviour in this perspective is suggested as innate aversion to harm and inequity , which are affectively enforced by group conspecifics through reward and punishment , where antisocial behaviour is foundationally considered norm - violating behaviour, and as language skills – and extensionally, emotional skills, and culture – evolved, sociocultural norms built upon such foundations to establish emotional rather than purely affectively enforced social norms – for example, shame/guilt ( Hechter & Opp, 2005 ). Further, the evolutionary roots of ToM extend to innate prejudic ial capacity , where developmental psychology has demonstrated infant preference for familiar agents – especially in the case of race – and aversion to agents with unfamiliar characteristics ( Bar - Haim et al., 2006 ). This continues to social psychological research utilizing implicit association tasks and transcranial magnetic stimulation to demonstrate a neural pathway responsible for processing fear - based prejudicial judgements, and a connecting pathway for identifyin g and regulating such judgements; the results of which notably demonstrated slightly improved capacity to overcome prejudiced judgements in individuals who held internal values to reject prejudice rather than external ones – their own desire to do so rathe r than the result of societal expectation ( Plant & Devine, 1998 ). Returning to the TERF perspective , however, there is no attempt to reject prejudice either internally or externally ; t hus rationale for intentional prejudice must be examined. Depending on the specific TERF group, various rationalizations may be employed; ranging from accusation of transgender individuals as conspiratorially intent on invading wome n’s safe spaces to enact sexual violence, to faux - sympathetic desire to help cure transgender individuals of the proposed psychiatric condition manifesting as delusions of gender ( Mckinnon, 2018; Pearce, Erikainen & Vincent, 2020 ). However, as has been tirelessly es tablished in so - called bathroom debates, zero known cases have surfaced of transgender individuals utilizing bathrooms for sexual misconduct ; in fact, transgender individuals are frequently the victims of prejudice - fuelled assaults within bathrooms ( Bianco, 2015; James et al., 2015 ). Generally, such rationalizations are consistent with research - based account s of moral dumbfounding , referring to the tendency for individuals to ascribe greater ratings of immorality upon established sociocultural norm - violating scenarios even when rationalizations for such are provided to ascertain that personal well - being is improved and social well - being is unaffected ; wherein lower immorality ratings for scenarios that do not violate norms , despite being rationalized as personally and/or socially harmfu l , are scored ( Haidt et al., 2000 ). In these studies, when participant reasoning for evaluations are questioned, cognitively dissonant explanations are typically constructed retrospectively, and hypotheticals outside of the investigated scenarios are offered as fallacious self - argumentation to fill gaps in conscious logic ( Royzman et al., 2015 ). Additionally, neuroimaging studies utilizing these experiments largely find activation of the insula – as associated with the disgust emotion – correlating with mor ally dumbfounding conditions ( Prinz, 2016 ). Simply put, TERFs are irrationally disgusted by transgender individuals , and TERF ideologies are suggested to both form as rationalizations for moral dumbfounding and allow for confirmation bias of morally dumbfounded individuals as means to strengthen group cohesion ; and as the leading party opposing T+, allows co - option of such rationalizations by miscellaneous transphobe groups (Vanaman & Chapman, 2020) Progressing on these notions, what role can a psychological perspective play in subduing the T+/ - intergroup conflict and supporting transgender individuals . Initially, considering Stoner’s (1961) group polarization theory which holds that group determined behaviour typically manifests as more extreme than individual determined behaviour especially considering moral entrepreneurial influences , it is suggested that deplatforming of TERF groups could limit the influence and impact of alarmis m causing moral p anic ( Hines, 2020 ). However, this is difficult to accomplish when TERF ideology is still largely consistent with T - ideations held across most sociocultural norms ( Winter et al, 2016 ). Thus, some steps must be taken to shift social norms to accommodate and provide legislative protections and rights of transgender individuals and prohibit hate - speech from T - , especially for public organization of TERF s ( Thomas et al., 2017 ). Considering cross - cultural longitudinal studies investigating the malleability of social norms , behaviour such as smoking cigarettes – which was historically accepted as socially neutral and sometimes described as personally beneficial – may begin to elicit insula activation once sociocultural norms shifted to conceptualize the behaviour as antisocial by amoralizing the social and personal harm of the behaviour ( Schmall, 2009 ). Notably, studies utilizing this paradigm demonstra te the inverse in cases such as homosexuality, where mora lization norm - shifting from antisocial to socially neutral were established through rationalization of personal and social benefit . The effects, however, were less profound than in the cigarette study , as insula activation was merely reduced rather than extinguished, suggesting that it is less effective to unlearn an established prejudice than it is to learn a new one ( Schmall, 2009 ). Hence, related research has suggested that T+ education and media representation allow for younger generations to prevent , or at least limit, the degree of learned prejudiced norms regarding transgender individuals , thus encouraging generational moralization ( Gillig et al., 2018; Divan et al., 2016 ). However, for norms to shift meani ngfully, it is positioned that society must unanimously support T+ and reject T - , effectively shifting prejudice from transgender individuals onto those displaying discriminatory behaviour. Consequentially, a psychological perspective advocates methodology to accomplish such: First proposed in Gordon Allport’s ( 1958 ) contact hypothesis ( CH ) , instances of purposefully constructed interpersonal contact with members of a minority group can significantly demonstrate reduction of outgroup negativity towards the minority group ( Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ). Informally, this suggests that mere visibility of transgender individuals could shift norms , thus providing a humanizing perspective to unif y the public as T+. Notably, one recent study reports that indirect contact with transgender individuals such as in cases of media representation or abstract educ ation is effective, though only in a short follow - up period, while direct contact with transgender individuals in the context of in - person speaker panels was found to be more effective and effectively enduring ( Rani & Samuel, 2019 ). Further, it is speculated that fostering a humanization of transgender individuals through direct personal contact alleviates hypothetical stereotypes in communities where individuals may never have previously encountered a transgender individual, whereas indirect contac t mainta ins some degree of dehumanization towards transgender individuals ; in this regard, it is the difference between moral identity formation of an individual who internally versus externally rejects prejudice ( Rani & Samuel, 2019; Plant & Devine, 1998 ). “Progress can't happen just from trans people being out in the open. Society also has to truly accept transgender individuals” (Jennings, 2016 ). Notwithstanding , CH was revised by Donald Campbell (1965) into realistic conflict theory (RCT), where ecologically valid experiments utilizing RCT found that conflicting groups will escalate intergroup negativity when perceiving the out - group as a threat to in - group attainment of limited resources (Kite & Whitley, 2016) . Applying this to T+/ - , feministic - TERF rhetoric largely relies on fear of transgender women actually being men attempting to reclaim the established suffrage attained by women under the opp ression of patriarchy ( Pearce, Erikainen & Vincent, 2020 ). Thus, the se TERF perspective s claim limited resources – rights, freedoms, protections – that are threatened by transgender individuals. Research utilizing RCT in examples of diversity integration illuminate similarities in cases of racial diversity within workplaces : A s majority white spaces become diversified, in - group homogeneity is established to contrast out - group homogeneity, where fear for loss of resources is attributed to non - white individuals rather than the individuals in power controlling the resources ( Brief et al., 2005 ). However, the practicality of RCT is demonstrated wherein groups unify towards common goals, alleviating intergroup conflict and reducing out - group negativity by establishing new in - group homogeneity ( Esses et al., 1998 ) A pplying this to T+/ - , there is potential to unify transgender individuals and TERFs under a common goal of dismantling patriarchal inequitable resource distribution rather than both groups competing for systematically enforced limited resources ( Ferree & Mueller, 2004; Koch et al., 2020 ). However , as previously mentioned, non - feministic TERFs contempo rarily advocate for right - wing ideals, with many opposing abortion rights and same - sex marriage, and advocating for adherence to traditional gender roles ( Korulczuk & Graff, 2018 ). Hence, TERF distinction holds on whether a sect holds any semblance of femini st value, or merely façades as such to maintain the status - quo or repeal gained suffrage John Duckitt ( 1992 ) suggests that the former can resolve conflict as per RCT, while the latter must be treated as “domination of the outgroup by the ingroup” in terms of oppression, wherein the oppressed group must either accept this or rebel against it, which is either responded to with aggression, or appealed to where oppression is diminished or ceased. Ultimately, the issue lies within systemic oppression of transgender individuals, and as is the case with all oppressed minority groups, intersectionality demonstrates greatest vulnerability to dominative aggression ( Grzanka, 2018 ) Simply put, it is posited that bolstering transgenderism cann ot be accomplished in isolation; complete shifting of sociocultural norms away from prejudicial treatment of all oppressed groups must be established to unify the public against the ruling class that maintains intergr oup conflict through systemic inequality. Without straying into revolutionary Feminist - Marxism, it is suggested that norms can be influenced enough to gradually alter public consensus to encourage T+ democratic action towards transgenderism. Generally, social psychology assists in analysing the intergroup relations involved in T+/ - conflict and advances potential techniques for sociocultural norm shifting to support transgenderism However , u ntil systemic oppression is overcome, the most beneficial act psychology could accomplish would involve removal of gender dysphoria from the DSM to prevent gatekeeping of hormonal treatments and gender - affirming surgeries , and amend notions of transgender as an illness to be treated which largely serves only to limit access to legitimate transgender healthcare , or therapeutic treatment that could prevent countless suicides ( Heng et al., 2018) References Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice . New York, NY: Doubleday. Bar - Haim, Y., Ziv, T., Lamy, D., & Hodes, R. M. (2006). Nature and nurture in own - race face processing. Psychological science, 17(2), 159 - 163. Bianco, M. (2015, April 02). Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People Have Attacked You in Bathrooms. Retrieved January 04, 2021, from https://www.mic.com/articles/114066/statistics - show - exactly - how - many - times - trans - people - have - attacked - you - in - b athrooms Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2000). Child Development and Evolutionary Psychology. Child Development, 71 (6), 1687 - 1708. doi:10.1111/1467 - 8624.00258 Brief, A. P., Umphress, E. E., Dietz, J., Burrows, J. W., Butz, R. M., & Scholten, L. (2005). Community matters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 830 - 844. Brüne, M., & Brüne - Cohrs, U. (2006). Theory of mind — evolution, ontogeny, brain mechanisms and psychopathology. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 (4), 437 - 455. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.08.001 Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283 - 311). Davis, C., & McCready, E. (2020). The instability of slurs. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 97(1), 63 – 85. Diamond, L. M., Pardo, S. T., & Butterworth, M. R. (2012). Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 629 - 647) (1144324005 861128477 S. J. Schwartz, 1144324006 861128477 K. Luyckx, & 1144324007 861128477 V. L. Vignoles, Authors). New York, NY: Springer. Dickey, L. M., & Budge, S. L. (2020). Suicide and the transgender experience: A public health crisis. American Psychologist, 75 (3), 380 - 390. doi:10.1037/amp0000619 Divan, V., Cortez, C., Smelyanskaya, M., & Keatley, J. (2016). Transgender social inclusion and equality: a pivotal path to development. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 19, 20803 Duckitt, J. H. (1992). The social psychology of prejudice. New York: Praeger. 157 - 179. Ferree, M. M., & Mueller, C. M. (2004). Feminism and the women’s movement: A global perspective. The Blackwell companion to social movements, 576 - 607. Gillig, T. K., Rosenthal, E. L., Murphy, S. T., & Folb, K. L. (2018). More than a media moment: The influence of televised storylines on viewers’ attitudes toward transgender people and policies. Sex Roles, 78(7 - 8), 515 - 527. Grzanka, P. R. (2018). Intersectionality: A foundations and frontiers reader. Routledge. Haidt, J., Bjorklund, F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia, 191 - 221. Hechter, M., & Opp, K. (2005). Social norms (pp. 15 - 72). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Heng, A., Heal, C., Banks, J., & Preston, R. (2018). Transgender peoples’ experiences and perspectives about general healthcare: A systematic review. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(4), 359 - 378. Hines, S. (2020). Sex wars and (trans) gender panics: Identity and body politics in contemporary UK feminism. The Sociological Review, 68 (4), 699 - 717. doi:10.1177/0038026120934684 Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2018). When Intergroup Contact is Uncommon and Bias is Strong: The Case of Anti - Transgender Bias. doi:10.31234/osf.io/ywg5p James, S., Herman, J., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. A. (2016). The report of the 2015 US transgender survey. Jennings, J. (2016, March 31). What Jazz Jennings Wants All Trans Kids to Know [Interview]. Retrieved January 4, 2021, from https://time.com/4275809/jazz - jennings - transgender - rights/ Jones, P. E., & Brewer, P. R. (2018). Elite cues and public polarization on transgender rights. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 8 (1), 71 - 85. doi:10.1080/21565503.2018.1441722 Kaufmann, L., & Clément, F. (2007). How culture comes to mind: From social affordances to cultural analogies. Intellectica, 46, 221 - 250. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of conflict resolution, 2(1), 51 - 60. Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr, B. E. (2016). Psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Psychology Press. 325 - 330. Koch, J. M., McLachlan, C. T., Victor, C. J., Westcott, J., & Yager, C. (2020). The cost of being transgender: where socio - economic status, global health care systems, and gender identity intersect. Psychology & Sexuality, 11(1 - 2), 103 - 119. Korolczuk, E., & Graff, A. (2018). Gender as ‘ebola from Brussels’: The anticolonial frame and the rise of illiberal populism. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 43(4), 797 – 821. Levitt, H. M., & Ippolito, M. R. (2014). Being Transgender: The Experience of Transgender Identity Development. Journal of Homosexuality, 61 (12), 1727 - 1758. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.951262 MacDonald, E. (1998). Critical identities: Rethinking feminism through transgender politics. Atlantis: Critical Studies in Gender, Culture & Social Justice, 23(1), 3 – 12. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370 - 396. doi:10.1037/h0054346 Mckinnon, R. (2018). The Epistemology of Propaganda. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96 (2), 483 - 489. doi:10.1111/phpr.12429 Monro , S. (2007). Transmuting gender binaries: The theoretical challenge. Sociological Research Online, 12(1), 1 – 15. Owens, H., & Schubak, A. (2020, November 20). The Names You Should Know On Transgender Day Of Remembrance 2020 [Web log post]. Retrieved January 04, 2021, from https://www.elle.com/culture/a34660519/transgender - day - of - remembrance - 2020/ Pearce, R., Erikainen, S., & Vincent, B. (2020). TERF wars: An introduction. The Sociological Review, 68 (4), 677 - 698. doi:10.1177/0038026120934713 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta - analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751 - 783. doi:10.1037/0022 - 3514.90.5.751 Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(3), 811. Prinz, J. (2016). Sentimentalism and the moral brain. Moral brains: The neuroscience of morality, 45 - 73. Rani, N., & Samuel, A. A. (2019). Reducing transphobia: Comparing the efficacy of direct and indirect contact. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51 (7/8), 445 - 460. doi:10.1108/ict - 12 - 2018 - 0102 Richardson, M., & Meyer, L. (2011). Preface. Feminist Studies, 37(2), 247 – 253 Royzman, E. B., Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). The curious tale of Julie and Mark: unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment & Decision Making, 10(4). Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social Identity Theory's Self - Esteem Hypothesis: A Review and Some Suggestions for Clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (1), 40 - 62. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3 Stewart, A. J., Mccarty, N., & Bryson, J. J. (2020). Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline. Science Advances, 6 (50). doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4201 Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13 (2), 65 - 93. doi:10.1177/053901847401300204 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. Political Psychology, 276 - 293. doi:10.4324/9780203505984 - 16 Thomas, R., Pega, F., Khosla, R., Verster, A., Hana, T., & Say, L. (2017). Ensuring an inclusive global health agenda for transgender people. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 95(2), 154 Thompson, W. E., & Hickey, J. V. (2011). Society in focus . Upper Saddle River, NJ, NJ: Pearson Education. TvT, T. (2020, November 20). TMM Update: Trans Day of Remembrance 2020. Retrieved January 04, 2021, from https://transrespect.org/en/tmm - update - tdor - 2020/ Vanaman, M. E., & Chapman, H. A. (2020). Disgust and disgust - driven moral concerns predict support for restrictions on transgender bathroom access. Politics and the Life Sciences, 39 (2), 200 - 214. doi:10.1017/pls.2020.20 Vanaman, M. E., & Chapman, H. A. (2020). Disgust and disgust - driven moral concerns predict support for restrictions on transgender bathroom access. Politics and the life sciences, 39(2), 200 - 214. Vincent, B. (2018). Transgender health: A practitioner's guide to binary and non - binary trans patient care . London: Jessica Kingsley. Winter, S., Diamond, M., Green, J., Karasic, D., Reed, T., Whittle, S., & Wylie, K. (2016). Transgender people: health at the margins of society. The Lancet, 388(10042), 390 - 400. Wolford - Clevenger, C., Frantell, K., Smith, P. N., Flores, L. Y., & Stuart, G. L. (2018). Correlates of suicide ideation and behaviors among transgender people: A systematic review guided by ideation - to - action theory. Clinical psychology review, 63, 93 - 105