Your core assumption is false. Education is not evenly distributed alongside ideologies.
Education is negatively correlated with conservatism, thus a sample of a job requiring higher education will not be representative of the general public.
It's not a secret - perhaps this source is more palatable to you, although it lacks exact figures: Mathematicians divided over faculty hiring practices that require proof of efforts to promote diversity - https://www.science.org/content/article/mathematicians-divid...
Or this one: A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...
I started voting for Republicans because I watched Democrats become anti-science, e.g., gender-affirming care. Anyone with ideology rejects science, which includes people from both parties, but currently my life is impacted in a negative way by liberal ideology, not conservative ideology (conservatives actually talk with me, while liberals shun me if I ask for evidence).
> I started voting for Republicans because I watched Democrats become anti-science, e.g., gender-affirming care.
Gender-affirming care is not "anti-science", you just don't understand the science.
Gender-affirming care is not saying that people can change their biological sex. It was never that. That was, and will remain, a conservative hallucination.
Gender-affirming care is about curtailing the effects of gender dysphoria and improving the quality of life of transgender individuals, and some cisgender individuals. Which is science-backed. It works. Gender-affirming care leads to better outcomes for transgender individuals, period.
The problem here with you, and other's, is that you're just arguing the wrong points. You might not think gender dysphoria is real or that it matters, but that's not the conversation. The conversation is "does gender-affirming care help people and improve outcomes". Which yes, it does.
Whether those people deserve to be helped is not a scientific question. It's a political one. Please, know and understand the difference.
There's no such thing as being "without ideology". To quote Zizek, leading expert on ideology:
> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.
Education is negatively correlated with conservatism, thus a sample of a job requiring higher education will not be representative of the general public.