Recently there was a new poll that purported to address the real number of LGBT people in the United States. That's a difficult task for many reasons, and it won't always result in honest, accurate answers. Or, as John Aravosis said: "8m US adults willing to tell a stranger they are gay (LGB)".
It was insane enough, really, to just release the survey in itself. There's no way it could be an accurate number in the context of this country and its treatment of LGBTs throughout history. After all, gays were victims of McCarthyism, as well:
For gay men and lesbians, the period was one of police harassment, witch hunts, suspicions of disloyalty, and dismissals from jobs, especially in the public sector.
The popular consensus that homosexuals were immoral, emotionally unstable, and untrustworthy justified their punishment and stigmatization.
This wasn't just a time when gays had rude things said about them, or even just simply faced McCarthy's Senate hearings. No, gays were subsequently excluded and banished from government jobs and stigmatized for life. The idea was that, since gays had to be closeted because they were "abnormal" and criminals (since it was illegal to be gay in America for a long time) any foreign entity could use their homosexuality against them. So the government just said, "Nope you're gay so you get no job! Sorry!'
And then they ramped up the opposition to homosexuality in the military, which had been a factor since the American Revolution, but gained more prevalence after McCarthy. Around that same time, the military used "blue discharges" to kick out disproportionately more gays (and blacks) for whatever reason they could come up with at the time. This continued on, has been the policy since the Revolution, got progressively worse for gays, and is still the policy. It will be the policy until it is not... at some point. There is no timeline.
And then there's HIV/AIDS. The government and a lot of people blamed that on gays from the beginning. I don't know if you've ever had a disease named after a specific defining characteristic about yourself (the way AIDS was once called Gay Related Immune Deficiency) but when a disease is killing people by the hour and the blame is solely placed on people who are gay, it certainly keeps them closeted and reluctant to share their orientation with their neighbors and complete strangers.
All of that makes the next part of this story just completely absurd and ridiculous. The guy who did the initial survey wrote an op-ed this week complaining about the data. He says that we need to know more about gays and lesbians and demands more openness and information. From the gay community.
As a demographer who studies the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, I’ve been asked how many LGBT people there are more often than I can count. Politics may still play a role in why the answer is critically important, but there certainly is no longer a need to prove that gay people exist. Today, quantifying the population is about documenting how LGBT people live their lives. How many marry? How often do they have children? How many are serving in the military? How often do they experience discrimination?
And are they now or have they ever been a member of the Communist Party? Are they out to their employers? Who are their employers? Are they out to their families? What are some addresses for their family members so they can be asked? What school do they go to? Is it gay friendly? Would they mind if the data-curious people go to the school and question their friends about potential gayness amongst them?
I mean, wow. We could at least consider all the reasons why it might be difficult for an oppressed minority to volunteer this information. Where's that op ed?
Even stranger, the initial poll itself at least acknowledges what the op ed does not:
"Another factor that can create variation among estimates of the LGBT community is survey methodology. Survey methods can affect the willingness of respondents to report stigmatizing identities and behaviors. Feelings of confidentiality and anonymity increase the likelihood that respondents will be more accurate in reporting sensitive information. Survey methods that include face-to-face interviews may underestimate the size of the LGBT community while those that include methods that allow respondents to complete questions on a computer or via the internet may increase the likelihood of LGBT respondents identifying themselves."
Uhm, yeah. And, you see, gays need to get past the whole fear of witch hunts, homophobia, hate crimes, abandonment by family, abuse, and loss of jobs for gayness because, you see...
These facts matter because legislatures, courts and voters across the country are debating how LGBT people should live their lives
Yes. You should out yourselves to complete strangers despite the historic fact that it's a threat to you personally, because legislatures and courts (who are also a historic threat to you personally) might need the information to determine how you should live your life. I don't know if the condescension is worse or if the complete ignorance is worse (especially considering that he says he is gay himself in the op ed.)
But as a population scientist, I don’t want to have to comb research for pertinent data to average.
The life of a population scientist is so tough, I know.
I often hear LGBT advocates lament that it seems absurd that they don’t have equal rights in this country, given how large their community is.
Okay, I pick 'condescension.' I for one have never heard any gay person lament that they don't have equal rights specifically because our population is so large. I have heard, however, LGBTs lament not having equal rights because we don't have equal rights.
And, you know, I get that it'd be nice, and maybe even productive, to have all of this information. But basically telling people 'no one's going to listen to you unless you tell random phone surveyors that you're gay' is not the answer.
The reality of our political system is that you don’t really count unless you are counted.
Or, I guess maybe it is the answer for some.
UPDATE, take two: Just tried to update the diary, and it didn't work. Anyway, I did overlook a paragraph from the op ed which changes things somewhat and I wanted to point it out.
The Ford Foundation recently funded a five-year study in which scholars considered these important questions. They concluded that concerns about non-response or survey termination are unfounded. Respondents decline to answer questions about their income much more often than they refuse to provide information about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
If people are actually willing to reveal their orientation to surveyors who aren't asking, then my complaint is largely directed at the wrong person. That said, I'm leaving the diary up because, at the very least, some parts of the op ed were so inartfully worded as to be very confusing and weird.
But people should be aware that I could just be dumb.