Talk:LGBT demographics of the United States

Untitled

The table comparing Democrats to Republicans is meaningless and arbitrary demographically. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.146 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source link is no longer active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.182.229 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth reference link is no longer active — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.216.175 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV-check added

I'm adding a POV check, the article only has tables on the places with highest number of LGBT, not on those with lowest. There's no reason why one or the other would be more relevant to the topic. DS Belgium (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and removed it, a review seems over the top, but my objection still stands. DS Belgium (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Institute Survey 2011 and Gallup Study 2012

If we read the 2011 Survey itself from the Williams Institute, which is the model this Article uses as its statistical base line, the Survey specifically states adults - not the total population of the US. The Williams Institute Survey states, specifically, the estimate is the total of the adult population of the LBGT community as follows: 1.70% lesbian and gay, 1.80% bisexual and 0.30% Transgender for a sum total of 3.80% of the adult US population. The Survey also states, specifically, this approximates 9 million based upon the 2010 Census of the adult population of the US. An editor mistakenly deviated from the survey and simply used the US 2010 Census of the entire US population then applied the 3.80%. That was wholly inaccurate. Hence, the William Institute study was not followed and produced - the 11.9 million in error.

The US 2010 Census states 24% of United States population is under age 18, or, said differently, 76% are 18 or older. This precisely corresponds to the 9 million the Survey produced. This is the bases of the edit which is significantly more in compliance with the Williams Institute Survey. The national state by state data reflects this statistical accuracy. Further, the survey also offers data from 9 separate and independent surveys dating from 2004-2010, of various adult age groupings and 5 nations: Australia, Canada, Norway, the UK and the US. The statistical mean of those surveys is 2.65% of the adult population.

While the state by state population distribution is also based on the adult population conducted by Gallup from June-December 2012 and released in Feb. 2013. The largest single study on record in the US. Its work states 3.50% of the total adult population identifying themselves as LBG. If we were to sum these 11 surveys the mean is 3.32%. Therefore, US total population is 314 million (76% adult), 238.4 million are adults. 3.5 -3.8% (allowing 0.30% as Transgender) identify themselves as LBGT or, approximately 9 million. Not -11.9 million.

If we were to add the age group 13-17, or approximately 7%-8%, of the US population (314 x 8%), or 25.10 million, and apply 4% as LBGT this would increase the population of this community by I million for a total around 10 million. Still very shy of the 11.9 million offered by the editor. But, this is not covered by any of these surveys and only speculative in nature. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reviewing the Williams Institute study for the article Gender Identity Disorder and have concluded that it is not an WP:RS with respect to trans demographics, although its bibliography is worth remarking upon.

(Also, if you're going to cite it at all, please do so properly: Gates, Gary J. (2011), How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? (PDF), The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Okay, let's break this down.

"The Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey represents one of the few population-based surveys that include a question designed to identify the transgender population. Analyses of the 2007 and 2009 surveys suggest that 0.5% of adults aged 18-64 identified as transgender"

—CORRECT! This study found that 0.5% of adults are transgender, with a 95% confidence bound of 0.3-0.6%. Citation follows:

Conron, KJ; Scott, G; Stowell, GS; Landers, S (2012), "Transgender Health in Massachusetts: Results from a Household Probability Sample of Adults", American Journal of Public Health, 102 (1), American Public Health Association: 118–222, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300315, ISSN 1541-0048, OCLC 01642844 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

"The 2003 California LGBT Tobacco Survey found that 3.2% of LGBT individuals identified as transgender."

—FALSE. The referenced study found that 2.0% of LGBT individuals identify as transgender. Citation:

Bye, L; Gruskin, E; Greenwood, G; Albright, V; Krotki, K (2005), California Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgender (LGBT) Tobacco Use Survey – 2004 (PDF), Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, retrieved 28 August 2013

"Recall that the 2009 California Health Interview Survey estimates that 3.2% of adults in the state are LGB."

—CORRECT! According to AskCHIS, the 2011-2012 survey shows that 1.9% of Californians are Lesbian or Gay and 1.7% of Californians are Bisexual, for a total LGB demographic of 3.6% (95% CI 3.1-4.0%)

"If both of these estimates are true, it implies that approximately 0.1% of adults in California are transgender."

FALSE. Gates is trying to sell this equation: %(T/LGBT) * %(LGB/Population) = %(T/Population), but of course LGB/LGBT does not cancel out, especially in light of the LGBT Tobacco Survey's finding that 64% of trans people do not self-identify as LGB.

"Conway (2002) suggests that between 0.5% and 2% of the population have strong feelings of being transgender and between 0.1% and 0.5% actually take steps to transition from one gender to another. Olyslager and Conway (2007) refine Conway’s original estimates and posit that at least 0.5% of the population has taken some steps toward transition."

NOT RELIABLE. Lynn Conway has maintained a statistical projection on the prevalence of transsexuality on her website since 2001. In 2002 a version appeared in the New South Wales Gender Center magazine Polare. In 2007 a version without the most aggressive statistical projections appeared in the peer-reviewed Dutch journal Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies. These statistical projections were presented separately to WPATH at their 2007 symposium in Chicago and submitted to the International Journal of Transgenderism, where they never appeared. Although Conway's estimate of the prevalence of trans people in the general population closely matches the findings of the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, it has never appeared in a peer reviewed journal.

"Researchers in the United Kingdom (Reed, et al., 2009) suggest that perhaps 0.1% of adults are transgender (defined again as those who have transitioned in some capacity)."

NOT RELIABLE. This essay "borrows" the results of a (linkrotted) '90s-era Dutch study on cross-dressing and blends them with an unsourced assertion of a 4:1 ratio of trans women to trans men in the general population to produce the 0.1% number. The original Dutch source ("Travestie, een serieuze (nood)zaak", ISBN 9051667493) might be interesting to read, if anyone can find it, but its data is assuredly hopelessly out of date.

"An estimate for the transgender population is derived by averaging the findings from the Massachusetts and California surveys cited earlier."

But of course Gates's method for extrapolating from the LGBT Tobacco Survey to the population at large was intrinsically flawed, so here he essentially averages good data with bad.

Conclusion: Get rid of any claims the Williams institute paper makes about trans people. Use the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey estimate of 0.5% instead. —April Arcus (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same Sex Households

There seems to be a significant error regarding the total number of same sex households and growth 2000-10. The American Community Survey of the US Census of 2011 states the totals are: 581,000 in '09 and 594,000 in '10 and 605,472 in '11. See ACS 2011 US CensusYet, the Article references this same Survey as its model has tabulated over 900,000 somehow. While at the same time, the 2000 data of this Article is in full compliance with the American Community Survey of the US Census.

It's correct the Williams Institute work of the highly regarded, Dr. Gates, (using the same US Census Survey as its base) is higher that approximates 646,400. Still, it is clear, apparently, an editor has substantially deviated from both. Hence, an edit to the total of 605,472, seeing that this is the bases the US government uses to determine its governance, laws and policies until a resolution is found.

We need to be careful so that the community does not lose credibility in its struggle for their human rights. If major errors of this nature are found here and not corrected it only brings head winds.67.167.201.176 (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous Math Issues

The following potential issues were found in the State-by-state summary table:

As mentioned above, the data for percentage growth of households is incorrect somewhere. Each state is showing a change of 17-90%, yet the national change is only 1.86%? The issue seems to be with the column sum for 2010. The 2010 value for Massachusetts I'm guessing is wrong (246,049 vs 17,099 in 2000), but even leaving that state out, the 2010 total for the U.S. I'm getting is 858,204 (using the values shown in table) but the table reports 605,472.

Also, the values for "2012 LGBT Adult Percentage Estimate" do not agree with the population estimates given. Below are examples for the first 3 states in the table (CA, TX, NY):

2012 State Total Pop. Estimate	2012 State LGBT Adult Pop. Estimate	Reported LGBT Adult Percentage Estimate	My calculated percentage estimate
38,041,430	1,151,895	4.0	3.0
26,059,203	653,565	3.3	2.5
19,570,261	570,388	3.8	2.9

I thought these errors may have been introduced due to the State population total being reported as all residents, and the state LGBT total referencing only adults, but the errors seem to be in the wrong direction for this explanation.

Boredwithtv? It seems the source of the math issues are two fold.

1) An editor applying the 3.80% from the Williams Institute Survey of 2011 to the total population of the 2011 Census Survey vs the the adult population (which is the focus of the WIS '011), causing an 'over count' by 24% ( the total pop less the 24% under age 18 i.e., non-adults as per the 2010 US Census that is very consistent state to sate +- 2%).

This is why you're seeing a 'mis-count' on the state by state breakdown. It is not simply applying the % of LBGT to the total population of a state. The total population needs to be adjusted for the under 18 population first, then the % of LBGT Community. So, the correct formula is total population of the state X (.76 [the adult population]) = the total adult population (i.e., under age 18) X % LBGT = total adult LBGT population of that state.

2) An editor significantly deviated from the 2010-11 American Community Survey of Same Sex Households and the Williams Institute Census Snapshot of 2010 which places the total Same Sex Households at 664,464 See 2010 Williams Census Snapshot So, what I can do is correct the obvious error of Massachusetts, use the 2010 Williams Snapshot referenced here as Binksternet suggested for the larger states and we can go from there. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"By City" Section Table Ranking Error

FIRST OF ALL I'm sorry to just report this without fixing it but I am having trouble finding out how to fix this particular error.

In the "By city" section table, if a user chooses "Pop. Rank" or "% Rank," the table ranks 1, 10, 2, 3, etc. as if it is ranking alphabetically rather than numerically. For example, see below.

New York 	              1
Boston 	                10
Los Angeles 	         2
Chicago 	         3
...

The table should appear as follows:

New York 	              1
Los Angeles 	         2
Chicago 	         3
...
Seattle 	         9
Boston 	                10
...

The first list is how the rankings appear now in the "By city" section, ranked alphabetically instead of numerically.

The only way I know how to fix this is by add a 0 before the single-digit ranks. However, the table in the previous section, "State-by-state summary," ranks properly. I.e., it goes 1, 2, 3, ..., 9, 10, 11, etc. rather than 1, 10, 11, 12, ..., 18, 19, 2, 20, etc. (without having to introduce additional 0s). For example, see below.

38      1 	      DC            10.0%    632,323         48,057  3,678   4,822   31.10%  Legal
36 	2 	 Hawaii 	5.1% 	1,392,313 	53,966 	2,389 	3,239 	35.45% 	Legal
47 	3 	 Vermont 	4.9% 	626,011 	23,313 	1,933 	2,143 	10.61% 	Legal
19 	4 	 Oregon 	4.9% 	3,899,353 	145,212 	8,932 	11,773 	31.80% 	Constitutional Ban
37 	5 	 Maine          4.8% 	1,329,192 	48,489 	3,394 	3,958 	16.61% 	Legal
43 	6 	 Rhode Island 	4.5% 	1,050,292 	35,920 	2,471 	2,785 	12.71% 	Legal
12 	7 	 Massachusetts 	4.4% 	6,646,144 	247,247 	17,099 	20,256 	18.46% 	Legal
45 	8 	 South Dakota 	4.4% 	833,354 	27,867 	826 	714 	-13.36% 	Constitutional Ban
29 	9 	 Nevada 	4.2% 	2,758,931 	88,065 	4,973 	7,140 	43.60% 	Constitutional Ban (Civil Unions)
1 	10 	 California 	4.0% 	38,041,430 	1,338,164 	92,138 	98,153 	6.53% 	Legal
13 	11 	 Washington 	4.0% 	6,897,012 	209,670 	15,900 	19,003 	19.51% 	Legal

Again, I apologize for not correcting this problem and only reporting it but I am not skilled or experienced with tables and I cannot find what parameter is ranking the second table ("By City") alphabetically but the first table (State-by-state summary") numerically (which is correct).

--Rotellam1 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

isn't using the colors blue, yellow, and red prejudicial? like it's making a value judgment on if gay marriage should be legal or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.104.235 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a breakdown by gender as well

^Topic Malamockq (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easier said than done. Know of a data source? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Marriage Legality column seems a little superfluous

Would it perhaps be worthwhile to change it to show legality by state? I understand Federal law supersedes State law but some states, moot as it may be, still illegalizes same sex marriage, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.5.134 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages are incorrect

I just edited DC to be 7.6%, but several of the other percentages are incorrect (for example, South Dakota). Is there a way for Wikipedia to autocalculate the percentage field? If not, can someone edit it? Elakhna 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elakhna (talk • contribs)

The cited source lists DC at 10.0%, not 7.6%. If you have a different source, please cite it (even then, I think it is more valuable to take all numbers from the same source).

"Are" versus "Self-Identify As"

This article, along with a lot of other articles and source materials, confuses people who "are" LGBT with those who "self-identify as" LGBT in a survey. Social stigma is still a major issue for many Americans, and we need at least SOME acknowledgement of the difference between "How many people are gay" and "How many are willing to admit being gay to a total stranger in a survey." Are there encyclopaedic sources that can address the various types of bias that are inherent in this type of data (especially social desirability bias) without denigrating the value of the surveys themselves? Kevin posting from non-logged-in device. 159.53.110.141 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New data available

Anyone who wants to update the article, new Gallup data is available: http://www.gallup.com/poll/203513/vermont-leads-states-lgbt-identification.aspx -- If you update the distribution map, please use a single colour gradient, as a colour gradient is better for comparing different states to each other at a glance, and also because the current colour scheme is difficult to differentiate for the ~2.5% of males (1 in ~79 of all readers) who have protanopia or deuteranopia. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 15:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map error: Hawaii

Hawaii is labeled red on the map, indicating an LGBT population >5% in 2012. (The only other jurisdiction that is labeled red is D.C.) The data in the table give the 2012 LGBT population of Hawaii as 3.7%, so it should be green instead of red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.30.32 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT demographics of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/census-lbgt-demographics-studies/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/faqs/sex.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518082110/http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-05-08-full-report.pdf to http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-05-08-full-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'T' of LGBT ?

Am I missing something or are statistics for trans people not included in this article? 173.206.223.46 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I was specifically looking for youth, and didn't see anything on the Wikipedia page. Most of the studies listed seem to exclude trans numbers as well.

Here are data from a 2016 study, the Minnesota Student Survey:

"...existing surveillance data provided by 9th and 11th grade students in Minnesota in 2016 (N=81,885) ... The prevalence of TGNC identity was 2.7% (n=2168) and varied significantly across gender, race/ethnicity and economic indicators ..."^[1] (note the reference is to a secondary study, that uses the data from the MSS)173.206.223.46 (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ur having troubles finding numbers because this is a new fad. So there used to be so few ppl really didn’t track the numbers. Now there has been a huge spike as we see since they started keeping track. But they are also now pumping those numbers up. But still a big spike. Oddly this fad also seems to be regional. So yes this is such a new fad u won’t find a lot of numbers. In some places Democrats have not been able to push their ideologies onto them yet. Like in Uganda,Kenya and Tanzania! Or the fad has yet to hit that area. These may be the reasons u are having trouble finding info! 174.45.75.94 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Eisenberg; et al. "Risk and Protective Factors in the Lives of Transgender/Gender Non-Conforming Adolescents" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1= (help)

U.S. territories

The five inhabited U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) are not mentioned anywhere in the article. I found it very hard to find information about LGBT demographics the U.S. territories, but there may be data out there somewhere. I did find one link (http://lgbtmap.org/file/spotlight-us-territories.pdf), but that link mainly discusses laws, not demographics. Still, perhaps some information from that link could be added to the article. LumaP15 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe u should be asking those countries to provide u that info. Is the US suppose to hold everyones hands. Prob get way more accurate numbers also. Because the ppl who take these surveys in the US spike the numbers to make it look like their is more then actually exist. 2600:6C67:6E7F:1818:7D8E:66E5:2B37:DA4A (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Eisenberg; et al. "Risk and Protective Factors in the Lives of Transgender/Gender Non-Conforming Adolescents" (PDF). {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1= (help)

[1]