Yes you posted it on another thread and missed all the responses which said that poll is flakey and badly worded for numerous reasons.
"Gender affirming care" is a very narrow point which does not encompass the whole problem, which perhaps better falls under a broader 'concerns about free speech'. There are also elements of the problem which fall under crime. Plus whilst the poll focuses on the most significant priority it does not consider lesser priorities still having a certain level of strength of feeling which is still relevant and persuasive. A voter who doesn't have a child which is affected by wishing to have gender affirming care is of course not likely to put it as a priority. That doesn't mean they don't feel strongly about the subject - it's just that they are unlikely to rate it higher because as a priority, it's not affecting them directly.
As someone pointed out "cultural issues" WAS the third most important reason on another thread, which was worded differently:
Top reasons not to vote for Harris.
“Inflation was too high under the Biden-Harris Administration” (+24)
“Too many immigrants illegally crossed the border under the Biden-Harris Administration” (+23)
“Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class” (+17).
So why the big difference between these two polls? That's what needs pondering.
Furthermore the poll you mention only talks about people who DID vote. It is silent on the reasons people didn't vote. We know that voting strategies aren't just about getting your own vote out in 2024. They are also about depressing and suppressing the potential vote of your opposition. We know that this election owed a lot to Dems who voted for Biden staying home.
So to say that the poll shows that gender issues weren't important, on the basis of the poll you have there isn't necessarily true because of the two methodology points: 'a poll cancelled because worded in a way that people interpret it differently to someone understanding the poll later and is therefore not a good reflection' and the important 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' theory.
Then we have the good old Russian/Chinese bot theory. For a subject that has been simmering broadly (cultural issues) for the last decade. Which frankly is offensive to voters who are fed up of poor leaders, lack of due diligence and a winding gap between rich and poor which has feed this sense of 'two americas' which refused to talk to each other/ listen to each other. American owned and based social media has enabled that, all by it's self without the aid of any making outside force. I don't think it's been amplified as much as people seem to think by bots either. It's about an issue that's very real and very present in politics around the world and the reasons for this are reflective of patterns of deindustrialisation and educational levels. This cultural divide goes across the western world - it's not just restricted to the US. In the UK it's provincial ex mining towns, in the US it's the rust belt particularly provincial towns, in France it's provincial towns, in Germany it's east German provincial...
The one thing these places all have in common is high raters of blue collar workers, high rates of unemployment, lower educational levels, a decline in standards of living and the local community and greater problems with coping with inflation and cost of living. It's a universal pattern.
The pattern is a reaction against successive mainstream parties neglecting these issues and these communities over a prolonged period to the point they feel silenced and not listened to because they are unrepresented in these concerns and these issues have been left to fester.
In response these parties have been more concerned about high brow concepts of the people in society who have been hardest done by being ones with particular feelings about identity rather than people who have practical problems. The whole thing is that talking about concepts and ideals has been done to suppress concerns about practical daily life issues. It's a middle class concept that doesn't connect with a blue collar population because it's not representative of their life experience. Cultural capital is something for the more affluent to use against the interests of the working poor to maintain the status of the better off.
None of this has been caused by outside forces and this neglect has effectively become a national security risk because levels of dissatisfaction in key areas were high enough to stir up revolutionary thoughts. We know that unemployment has a threshold level throughout the world and throughout history at which the population typically revolts against it's rulers. If the population isn't at this level they are not susceptible to such type of forces or interference.
This is why responsibility must lie with moderates within the Republican party who have been in control in the last 30 - 40 years and the Democrats who have increasingly had a voter base which is more privileged.
If you look at Obama - he won a majority of voters on lower incomes. Now thats Trump.
The economic and cultural issues point is intrinsically linked - and this has been found in multiple studies and polls reflecting on voting patterns in the west.
They are indicative of an empire that has peaked and is now in economic decline. Again we know that businesses tend to do this with the best you can hope for to be a flat lining in performance. Yet all our economic modelling is based on ideas of demographic increase of the working population (to support the pyramid schemes of pensions) and unrealistic continual patterns of economic growth. And we've just hit a tipping point where the population is aging and not being replaced and pressures on land, because as a global society we no longer have areas to invade / explore. (Why do you think Musk is looking at space? Patterns of human progression have periods of prosperity and extreme opportunities in wealth gain based on certain themes that rotate between focuses on exploration, technology advancement and there's a couple of others which I forget to solve human conflict points and problems - but my point being that Musk is identifying that the next big era should be one based on exploration which is why he investing in it understanding we literally have no place left to go on our planet).
In the future the world population should start to decline, based on projections - and we don't really have a response to the challenges this will create for societies that base wealth on the value of land and property prices. It's interesting what is happening and has happened in Japan over the last 30 years for this reason. (Arguably on a smaller scale this is exactly what has happened already in rust belt towns and ex mining towns - they depopulated heavily in these areas).
I'm sorry but I just don't think that single poll reflects the wider picture. It is an Iowa poll. Deeply flawed.