How do Americans view trans rights in the workplace?

A study coauthored by Sansone and published in Management Science in April 2024 revealed that more than two-thirds of Americans favor the US Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County banning discrimination against transgender people in the workplace. Respondents also underestimated the actual extent of societal support for the rights of transgender people.

The research team used a research design that specifically aimed to identify the extent to which people communicate their views honestly when they perceive their beliefs to be potentially socially unacceptable. The researchers noted that social desirability bias affected respondents’ self-reported views: Participants overstated their true support for transgender rights by 8–10%. Support for trans rights was high among Democrats, LGBTQ+ respondents, and women.

Sansone and coauthors Billur Aksoy and Christopher Carpenter argued that their results “are highly relevant for policy, showing large popular support behind the 2020 Supreme Court ruling banning employment discrimination against transgender people.” 

Does sexual orientation affect the choice of transportation?

Sansone, along with Sonia Oreffice from the University of Exeter Business School, analyzed American Community Survey (ACS) data on 3 million households for 2008–2018 to study how sexuality impacts transportation choices. They identified a stark gap between men in different-sex and same-sex relationships when it comes to transport choices: men in same-sex partnerships are 69% more likely to commute via cycling or walking and 7% more likely to use public transportation than men in different-sex relationships. Women in same-sex couples are 3% more likely to use public transportation than their counterparts in different-sex couples. Notably, men in same-sex couples are also 45% more likely to work remotely.

The reason for this trend could be that LGBTQ+ people tend to value the environment more than those in heterosexual partnerships. According to the same study, the environmental preferences of Americans in same-sex couples are 10% stronger than those of people in different-sex relationships, which could account for their choice of more eco-friendly forms of transportation.

Generally, there is also less of a commuting gap between partners in same-sex pairings than there is between partners in different-sex relationships. Traditional gender roles could explain this gap, as women in different-sex relationships often feel more pressure to be closer to home and work fewer hours than men.

Are LGBTQ+ people underrepresented in STEM?

Is there a “sexuality gap” in STEM? It appears so. Another study by Sansone and coauthors using 2009–2018 ACS data and the 2013–2018 National Health Interview Surveys indicates that STEM degrees are pursued less often by men in same-sex relationships than those in different-sex relationships. The difference between the two groups is 12%. Women are also underrepresented in the field, and the gender gap is 21%. Women’s and gay men’s representation are positively and systematically associated in STEM. Notably, Black men are 4% less likely to major in STEM fields than white men.

According to Sansone, “These patterns are highly suggestive that the mechanisms underlying the very large gender gap in STEM fields such as heteropatriarchy, implicit and explicit bias, sexual harassment, unequal access to funding and fewer speaking invitations are related to the factors driving gap in STEM fields between gay men and heterosexual men.”

How did the repeal of US sodomy laws affect crime?

June 26th is a date to remember in the US, because on that day in 2003, laws against sexual relations among same-sex partners were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Sansone and coauthors studied data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program database for the years leading up to and following the monumental decision. Their discoveries are illuminating.

In the years following the 2003 Supreme Court decision, arrests for disorderly conduct dropped by 24%, DUIs by 26%, and prostitution by 37%. Directly related crimes, such as “offenses against chastity,” were reduced by 16%. The researchers hypothesize that the crime reduction was partly attributable to lower substance abuse from improved mental health in the LGBTQ+ community. The reduction in prostitution charges could be correlated with the new ability for LGBTQ+ people to find sexual partners more easily/publicly. The study suggests that the impact of Lawrence v. Texas was economically significant for the United States and could serve as a powerful reference for countries that have yet to repeal similar laws.

Sansone noted, “This study is a first step towards helping international institutions to evaluate more accurately the costs and benefits of pressuring or suspending foreign aids to countries in blatant violation of basic human rights, and also emphasizes the potential benefits from repealing sodomy laws still standing in several countries.”

Making inclusion a key research question

Dr. Sansone’s expertise as an economist along with his commitment to orienting LGBTQ+ inclusion at the heart of his research agenda uniquely position him to contribute empirical evidence on key issues in the public sphere today. His work is appreciated by those of us here at Standard Error.

—Hannah Hancock contributed to the writing of this post.