LGBT in the US

[darkeyes]

I found this interesting..http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/18/survey-three-percent-us-adults-identify-lgbt

3.4% of US adults lgbt? More women identify slightly ore as gay or bi than men which didn't surprise me, but what did is that it is in the white population that the smallest percentage people identify as such (3.2%) but that 4.6% of African Americans, 4% of Hispanics and 4'3% of Asians do. But what is most interesting is that in the young 18-29 age group 8.3% of women but only 4.6% of men do. There are interesting and surprising results about being lgbt based on education and income. The survey was based on 121000 adults and so is not a small sample..

..on a loosely linked theme this was also in last weeks guardian and I found it equally interesting and met a latino gay couple when I visited the US during the summer in a part of the world I didn't expect to find them.. Vancouver in Canada.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/19/us-latinos-homosexuality

[tenni]

Thanks darkeyes for posting this.

Between the two articles there are a lot of stats and in some respects breaking stereotypes of both Latinos and LGBT. The shift in attitude amongst Latinos to non heteros is interesting. I can see it supporting your belief about being "out". The marriage stats are interesting in a country that has not quite caught up with same sex marriage. 20 % of LGBT are married might shift upwards once there is universal access. I found the first study with its breakdown by race/ethnicity interesting and a bit disturbingly sad that it was thought necessary to racially report on sexuality. Still lots of info there.

For me personally, it doesn't say anything relevant. Mostly, I kept wondering about the bisexual stats rather than lumping all non heteros under the LGBT label. It is a continuation of stereotyping sexuality as a binary...heteros versus LGBT umbrella group. When I read a stat that referred to LGBT I kept thinking "gay"..ya that is more than not who was being reported on. No way of determining it though. The first report broke the stereotype that gay are in the higher income category (stereotype white gay man perception) and reported it by LGBT breakdown income and ethnic wise.

Still, thanks for posting it. Lots of info.

[Alex22]

I agree with darkeyes, why does race matter. Plus when most asked, despite large sample compared to most studies, when LGBT mentioned most think "Gay", ignoring the B and T part. Just my experience of course. --Alex22



Thanks darkeyes for posting this.

Between the two articles there are a lot of stats and in some respects breaking stereotypes of both Latinos and LGBT. The shift in attitude amongst Latinos to non heteros is interesting. I can see it supporting your belief about being "out". The marriage stats are interesting in a country that has not quite caught up with same sex marriage. 20 % of LGBT are married might shift upwards once there is universal access. I found the first study with its breakdown by race/ethnicity interesting and a bit disturbingly sad that it was thought necessary to racially report on sexuality. Still lots of info there.

For me personally, it doesn't say anything relevant. Mostly, I kept wondering about the bisexual stats rather than lumping all non heteros under the LGBT label. It is a continuation of stereotyping sexuality as a binary...heteros versus LGBT umbrella group. When I read a stat that referred to LGBT I kept thinking "gay"..ya that is more than not who was being reported on. No way of determining it though. The first report broke the stereotype that gay are in the higher income category (stereotype white gay man perception) and reported it by LGBT breakdown income and ethnic wise.

Still, thanks for posting it. Lots of info.

[Long Duck Dong]

I would say that the number is a lot higher based around my own personal experiences of knowing people that do not ID as lgbt but their behievour is that of a LGBT person......... doing a rough count of the people I know, out of about 50 people, around 8 of them are people that engaged in same sex activities but ID as straight.... 30 of them ID as LGBT or hetero and the rest as *other * or sexuality undefined.....

most of the ones that do not ID as LGBT, see no reason to ID as LGBT, they do not view their sexual behievour as something that requires a label or a definition or something that they have to identify with for the sake surveys or official papers.... and its cos of things like that, that I kinda laugh at * official * findings......

a few people have said to them that what they are doing is wrong cos its undermining the LGBT community with numbers... and the answer has often been that they do not associate with or see themselves as part of the LGBT community so they are doing nothing wrong..... and when asked what I thought about it... my answer is simply that the only people it appears to matter to, are people that have their own issues with the way other people live their lives and what they do......

its strange how people want to live in a world with no labels but they have issues when labels are not used ...

[DuckiesDarling]

Personally, I call bullshit on the survey. 121k people surveyed.... out of how many in the US period? Not to mention the geographic areas would make a huge difference in how people id or don't id. To get an accurate account you'd have to ask every single man, woman and child in the US and actually have it be an honest answer... well as honest as they know it to be with the new found push for celebrities to say "I'm bisexual" I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the number was higher on paper than it would ever actually be in action.

[Annika L]

Personally, I call bullshit on the survey. 121k people surveyed.... out of how many in the US period? Not to mention the geographic areas would make a huge difference in how people id or don't id. To get an accurate account you'd have to ask every single man, woman and child in the US and actually have it be an honest answer... well as honest as they know it to be with the new found push for celebrities to say "I'm bisexual" I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the number was higher on paper than it would ever actually be in action.

I agree with the concern about truthful responses. Not sure how Gallup pursues their responses, given the sensitivity of the topic. I've always heard that the general percentage of LGB in the general population is around 10% (thought I'd heard that this is true across most species that have been studied as well)...and my recollection is that those numbers came from reputable research institutions, who would have a better idea of survey techniques for sensitive material...but could also be maybe 'merica is just a lil more moral than the rest of the world! ;) (though of course blacks and women would be a little worse than the white men)

But DD, the suggestion that we can't estimate closely and with great confidence the percentage of a large population that has quality X, unless we survey every single member...is just silly. This is what the whole field of statistics is about. If the sample is reasonably construed as random, and the data are collected in a responsible fashion, including the question asked, how people are contacted, and followed up, etc.; then N = 121,000 (even in a population 10-100 times our size) should give an estimate that is within 1-2 percent of the correct percent with an *extremely* high level of confidence (I haven't "run the numbers" with this one, but I would expect that the confidence level here is at least 99.5%...so less than 1 in 200 chance that the estimate is *not* within 1-2 percentage points of the actual percentage.

[darkeyes]

Censuses here tend to show that around 2/2.5% of the population are gay or bi.. but censuses are very dodgy being that they aren't (within families ) very secret or accurate (and indeed within a century or so personal information is not secret at all) for sexuality research has shown (as best as research can) that the lbg population is around 4-5% but most people because of the secretive and closeted nature of the lgbt may well match or surpass the figure of 10% that u talk of Annika.. me own view is that it is probably higher than that but that's a personal theory because I believe that if human beings were allowed to just develop without the negative influences around them about same gender sex and relationships, I suspect that most, not all would probably be disposed to being bisexual and more would be disposed to being gay. Once I believe that all were likely to be bisexual but I have moderated my view on that in the last decade in part based on my own movement away from what I once was.

I do agree with what u say about stats.. no survey is ever perfect, but we also know that answers are also delivered to questions asked and sometimes the question can skew the stat.. what I mean is that sometimes we phrase the question to prove the point we are trying to make by getting the replies we want... anti lgbt organisations are particularly good in this field when conducting surveys... 121000 is a very large sample as most political polling or surveying for instance is done with samples of around 100th of that size and they are considered to be accurate to within +/- that 1 or 2% (and in fact historically at least have been shown so to be at least in the UK). Even great political upset swhich people consider to have disproven polls have been shown to have done no such thing because of that +/- 1 or 2%.

But this is research and not political polling and how much reliance we can put on that difference I wouldn't like to say.. but I do think it is not quite bullshit but that it does need to be treated with considerable caution.. it is interesting, and probably even useful if only to show that there may be a movement toward open-ness in sexuality at least inasmuch as more people seem to be prepared to accept what they are rather than suppressing it... but because of the uncertainty and honesty of many in the lgbt (for very good reason mostly) we should treat its findings and these stats with caution.

[Gearbox]

You just can't make a statistic on those who give false answers to questionnaires in other statistics etc. Not with any accuracy anyway.lol
But being involved in that 'secretive' group of false identifiers, you can get a better view of their numbers IMO.
As a bi/gay we meet those closet bi/gays and chat to many more on-line. So we at least know that the 'factual' projected statistics are most likely to be lower than what is actual in the number of bi/gays in our locations. We could pretty much treat the statistics as an estimated minimum.

In my experience, my hooking up routines drasticaly changed my personal view of 'how many blokes like a bit of cock'. If I had instead gone around with a survey, I'd be practicaly blind to the vast majority of 'those blokes who like a bit of cock'.:tongue:

[tenni]

Am I the only one that notices regardless of the study or survey the same poster(s) challenge the validity and reliability of any scientific study/analysis? Yet, they have no training nor education in these fields. I do notice a greater tendency in the US but it exists in other societies to a lesser extent that reject scientific methods of study/ analysis. Pay little attention to those without training and education. The gallup surveying methods are rather secure and proven as an indication of attitudes.

The question itself was among other questions such are ethnic background etc. "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender? This is not the same question as "Do you personally identify as heterosexual?". We don't know how the reporter came to include "LGBT" or if the reporter made their own judgment. The results are interesting and indicate a change in attitude amongst Latinos and do not support stereotypes about gay people . This alone makes this survey worthy of discussion rather than a distraction by those who always complain about validity of any scientific approach.

Gear, your own personal survey is interesting but your sample control group is those that are interested in having sex with you. I agree that some who are not politically LGBT may tend not to disclose their real sexuality but they may as it is anonymous. We can not know for sure. They are disclosing to you because you have what they want. What we must not fall into is the mind set that all people are...."bisexual" etc.

[Annika L]

Yes, I agree it is useful, and far from utter BS.

After some additional thought, I have fewer problems and less suspicion of the results...but you do need to read the results carefully.

When I first read this (quickly), I had two problems:
(1) The difference between this outcome (3.4%) and what I'd heard as a reputable estimate of the global average (10%) struck me as suspicious; and
(2) The fact that they combined both sexuality (LGB) and gender (T) variance struck me as dodgy *and* threw further suspicion on such low outcome numbers (i.e., I've heard reputable estimates of cross-dressing among males as high as 2% in the US...and yet the total of US population who is L, G, B, OR T is supposed to be only 3.4%...it just didn't add up).

But the important distinction I hadn't caught on that quick first reading was that they weren't trying to measure what portion of US citizens are LGBT...they were trying to measure what portion of US citizens *identify* as LGBT.

So if those 2% of males who cross-dress don't actually identify themselves as transgendered (even though they fit a definition), then they are not counted. In fact, many, many in the T populations (beyond just cross-dressers) spend long periods in denial and/or confusion, and would not identify as T. On the LGB front, many people who engage in same-sex relations, as often as "sporadically" (more than just once as an experiment and then never again) also do not identify as LGB. And for how many people does the expression "identify as LGBT" imply that this identity is public? So I would guess that many who think of themselves as L, G, or B would not say that they *identified* as LGBT, simply because they weren't out.

Also, the lumping together of LGB and T (i.e., conflating sexuality and gender) for study purposes also makes more sense on further reflection. Those 10% studies I mentioned that cross species lines...one doesn't study how a member of another species *identifies*...one studies their behavior. And if you see two males, say, of a species, attempting to mate, it would be very problematic to try to determine whether one or both of the individuals was in fact transgendered attempting a hetero coupling vs. non-transgendered, and attempting a homosexual coupling. So putting LGB and T together makes perfect sense in that context. And so if you want to compare that number with the percentage who *identify*...yeah, it makes just as much sense for comparison purposes to put together both LGB and T individuals.

[tenni]

Annika
I don't think that the term "cross dressers" should be used with this survey. It was not the language used in the question. Cross dressers are not transgendered specifically. Some cross dressers may very well identify as heterosexual. Some men identifying as hetero just like the feel of feminine clothing texture wise and in particular underwear so it seems. Yet, they do not wish to have sex with other men. They do not wish to be female.

I would like to see how they determined answers. Most of us here would identify by selecting one sexuality or gender and not GLBT as that was not the question. They could have reported (and may have) the numbers identifying for each group under LGBT.

[Annika L]

Hi tenni,


The results were based on responses to the question, "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?" Not broken down, but as a block. And reported as a block.

I differentiate between "transgender" as an umbrella term and "transsexual" as a specific medical condition that falls under the transgender umbrella...and the T in LGBT refers to transgender as I use it, rather than to transsexuals specifically...and the survey asked whether people identified as LGBT.

Transgender does indeed include many people who have no interest in being the opposite sex. In addition to transsexuals, it includes cross-dressers, the genderqueer, people who identify as non-gendered...and some include intersexed persons (although I don't think this is appropriate or standard, since intersexed conditions involve sex, rather than gender identity). So what I was saying is that although cross-dressers actually *do* fit the definition of transgender, they are unlikely to *identify* as LGBT.

But many transgendered-but-not-transsexual people *do* identify as transgender, including, I'm sure, some cross-dressers. And they might well mark "yes" on this poll. So I think it unwise to completely discount them, just because the survey doesn't mention them by name (it didn't mention bears or leather-dykes or several other subdivisions as well).

Your concern, though, was a large part of my initial problem with lumping T together with LGB in the poll: studies indicate that most cross-dressers are in fact straight males, and my understanding is that they make up the largest portion of the T umbrella. Similarly, transsexuals, if understood as the gender they identify with, are as likely to be straight as the rest of the population...but because the survey asks about T, *all* (including the straight ones) would be flagged as LGBT. But I addressed in my post above why I'm less concerned now about this conflation of gender and sexuality.

[Gearbox]

Gear, your own personal survey is interesting but your sample control group is those that are interested in having sex with you. I agree that some who are not politically LGBT may tend not to disclose their real sexuality but they may as it is anonymous. We can not know for sure. They are disclosing to you because you have what they want. What we must not fall into is the mind set that all people are...."bisexual" etc.
I think the lovely Anika L clears that up nicely with:

But the important distinction I hadn't caught on that quick first reading was that they weren't trying to measure what portion of US citizens are LGBT...they were trying to measure what portion of US citizens *identify* as LGBT.
.....but also there's the mood of the person being asked to contend with too. I disclosed my sexuality twice because at those particular moments I was feeling ok with revealing it. Other times I have lied through my teeth and opted for 'Hetero' coz....well it was none of their buisness and I didn't want a fuss.:rolleyes:
So I'm on some census databases as 'hetero' and on others I'm 'bi'. Same person though. So some statistics are effected by peoples mood at the time I expect.lol

[DuckiesDarling]

I agree with the concern about truthful responses. Not sure how Gallup pursues their responses, given the sensitivity of the topic. I've always heard that the general percentage of LGB in the general population is around 10% (thought I'd heard that this is true across most species that have been studied as well)...and my recollection is that those numbers came from reputable research institutions, who would have a better idea of survey techniques for sensitive material...but could also be maybe 'merica is just a lil more moral than the rest of the world! ;) (though of course blacks and women would be a little worse than the white men)

But DD, the suggestion that we can't estimate closely and with great confidence the percentage of a large population that has quality X, unless we survey every single member...is just silly. This is what the whole field of statistics is about. If the sample is reasonably construed as random, and the data are collected in a responsible fashion, including the question asked, how people are contacted, and followed up, etc.; then N = 121,000 (even in a population 10-100 times our size) should give an estimate that is within 1-2 percent of the correct percent with an *extremely* high level of confidence (I haven't "run the numbers" with this one, but I would expect that the confidence level here is at least 99.5%...so less than 1 in 200 chance that the estimate is *not* within 1-2 percentage points of the actual percentage.

And yet Annika it is flawed depending on geography. If you asked 121k people in say.. California, La Basin area you would get an entirely different response than if you asked 121k people in San Antonio, TX. The corresponding number not only would be different in terms of racial makeup but also in terms of the amount of people who would identify as gay, lesbian, bi, trans or in otherwords something other than straight That's the main problem I have is not the field of statistics it is the use of the field of statistics to make sweeping statements when the results can be so varied depending on what actual people you ask.

Btw to a certain poster I have on ignore.. do not bother with your petty little swipes and to the people that message me with what he said.. please don't. I ignored him, I told him I have ignored him, if he wants to continue to show his lack of maturity in taking swipes at a person who is not going to read them.. let him. Someday he'll grow up.

[darkeyes]

We all know such surveys are flawed and we should treat their findings with a healthy questioning.. but no respectable polling organisation skews figures in the way u suggest .. Gallup tell u how they did it... by phone to every state in the Union and the District of Columbia. They are but useful guides for those interested.. how useful depends on those who wish to use them and how they are used.. how much credence can be given is anyone's guess.. but as with any kind of research polling we dismiss such findings out of hand at our peril.

Survey Methods (from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx)
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of the Gallup Daily tracking survey June 1-Sept. 30, 2012, with a random sample of 121,290 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.For results based on the total sample of [national adults/registered voters], one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is <±1 percentage point.Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com (http://www.gallup.com/).

[Annika L]

And yet Annika it is flawed depending on geography. If you asked 121k people in say.. California, La Basin area you would get an entirely different response than if you asked 121k people in San Antonio, TX. The corresponding number not only would be different in terms of racial makeup but also in terms of the amount of people who would identify as gay, lesbian, bi, trans or in otherwords something other than straight That's the main problem I have is not the field of statistics it is the use of the field of statistics to make sweeping statements when the results can be so varied depending on what actual people you ask.


A random sample would almost never include only people from CA or TX...well within the 1 in 200 figure I was talking about. Yes, methodology is critical, but as Fran points out, Gallup is respectable. As long as the sample is random (or sufficiently unbiased as to be thought of as random), it doesn't matter which people are asked.

In any case, call bullshit on the survey if you know something is wrong with the survey; call bullshit on the methodology if you know something is wrong with the methodology; but if all you have that suggests something is wrong with either is the feeling that the numbers are wrong, it's probably best to wait until you have some evidence of wrongdoing before calling bullshit.

[Long Duck Dong]

actually fran they do.... the statistics NZ 2006 census shows 2 different sets of numbers for people in same sex relationships....

according to the official numbers there was 5100 males and 6700 females living in same sex relationships in NZ and that is excluding the 260 males and 320 females that were not at the place of residence when the census was conducted ( census 2006 )
the statistics used from census 2006 same sex relationships in NZ, implies that there were 3516 female couples and 2655 male couples living together in 2006 if you use the percentages of gay males and lesbian females in same sex relationships as being 0.3 for gay males and 0.4 for lesbian females..... but the census 2006 never asked about sexuality/ sexual orientation..... so where did the 0.3 and 0.4 5 come from ? according to statistics NZ, they came from the census......

if we were to believe that 0.3 and 0.4% of gay males and lesbians are in same sex relationships... then the numbers of gay males and lesbian females in NZ is actually over 300k or 14% of NZ and thats not including the bisexual / transgender communities......and that is at odds with the 3-4% of NZ being LGBT, the same number that they have come up with in the US.... cos 3% of 4.2 mill people is 126k....

in 2007 statistics NZ which deals with the census, admitted that they do randomly round off numbers to protect privacy....

[Annika L]

I'm not sure about all the issues you're talking about LDD, but I do know that a census is very different from a statistical survey or poll. Theoretically, a census is to be a survey of every single person in an area (in your case, presumably, all of NZ). So it's a pretty different critter with its own set of issues (such as how *does* one reach every person...and does one actually...and if/since you can't, how can you be sure you're not leaving out chunks of population with specific demographics that you really want to record?). But it's quite a different set of issues from statistical sampling.

[Long Duck Dong]

ok a census in NZ is done on one night only, and every person in NZ must fill out a census form or have one done for them if they are underage or unable to fill one out, on that night, including people in hospital and in prison....

they are generally done every 5 years in NZ, tho the 2011 one was missed cos of the christchurch earthquake ( it was the center for the census data collection etc ) so the next one is in 2013....
if you are not at the location you are listed as living, you have to say where you were at the time of the census....
the census covers race, culture, religion, age, relationships, jobs, income etc... but NOT sexuality or sexual orientation.....

its also a criminal offense to not do a census form or to give false info

most of the LGBT surveys in NZ are limited to auckland, NZ's largest city... or the major cities and centers of NZ... so yes the info is different and often flawed, but thats often because its more about funding and pushing a agenda.....and why I have mentioned that the south island is generally ignored by the LGBT community unless they need our numbers to line their funding applications.....

statistics NZ is responsible for the census info as its regarded as the official * screenshot * of NZ but its often used for politicking or pushing a agenda.....
IE if you wanted to talk about poverty, you would use the census stats but if you wanted to talk about how well NZ was doing wage and salary wise, you would only use the auckland stats.... cos the NZ poverty stats put NZ and 1/3 below the poverty line but the auckland wage and salary stats put it at 1/16

what I was pointing out, is how the census provided numbers for the same sex relationships v's sexuality, yet the numbers do not match up and even statistics NZ admit that they tweak the numbers, plus they did not record sexuality or sexual orientation..... so frans statement that no respectable stat gathering outfit skews fiqures, is not correct......cos the same thing has happened with other respectable stat gathering groups in NZ......

I do know that gallup polls exclude obscure or unclear answers in polls... so groups like bi curious etc would not be counted....

[Annika L]

what I was pointing out, is how the census provided numbers for the same sex relationships v's sexuality, yet the numbers do not match up and even statistics NZ admit that they tweak the numbers, plus they did not record sexuality or sexual orientation..... so frans statement that no respectable stat gathering outfit skews fiqures, is not correct......cos the same thing has happened with other respectable stat gathering groups in NZ......

I do know that gallup polls exclude obscure or unclear answers in polls... so groups like bi curious etc would not be counted....

What's not clear to me is whether the NZ census was being intentionally manipulated to skew the results, or whether it was incompetence, or if the "tweaking" was being done in some conscientious fashion (you mentioned "to protect privacy"...not clear to me how that works, but that's one legitimate reason to treat data differently).

Polls generally *should* exclude obscure or unclear answers, which is why the exact question asked is so important. I do think "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?" is pretty straightforward...it doesn't even *try* to get at whether any person really *is* LGBT...only wants to know if they identify that way. So if a bicurious person doesn't identify as LGBT, then they don't *want* to count that person...if they do identify as LGBT, they will be as counted as the rest of us.

[Long Duck Dong]

annika

the census was not skewed nor the results from the census itself.... but the fiqures that are used are not from the single source, the census 2006, they are from multiple sources that are collected by statistics NZ. the key is that when they need a set of numbers, they use data from other sources such as polls that estimate the number of LGBT in NZ, and the number of registered / declared same sex/ gay / lesbian relationships.... then present that as part of the census 2006 findings.....

so you could actually be reading the results of the census 2006 ( same sex relationships ) and the results of a LGBT survey ( estimated number of gays and lesbians in NZ ) put together and presented as the findings of the census 2006 and that is why you get the sexuality aspect result based on a census where sexuality was never used......

I will give you a idea of how screwed up the system is..... using you as a example.... say you are a lesbian lady in a relationship with a 100k a year salary and your partner was a bi lady on 100k a year as well....

in the census you both would be listed as partners in a relationship.... same sex partners in a relationship but not a lesbian / bi in a same sex relationship....your income would be recorded at 100k but your household income would be listed at 200k.... then when the results come out, you would be classed as being in a lesbian relationship with a disposable income of 80k ( after tax ) and that would be put out as the findings from the census when the info came from the census, the tax dept fiqures and your declared sexuality and relationship type in surveys.....

this is why statistics NZ is not really relied on for presenting truthful facts..... and the * protecting privacy * is their way of saying that they have no idea so they quessestimate based on the different polls and surveys that they have done....then round the numbers off......

I agree that there should be clear cut answers......the trouble is that is that not everybody is clear cut.... and that is why I am not convinced of the accuracy of the gallup poll, but once again the reasoning for my thinking is not that the polls faulty, its the answers people give, may not be true and honest ones....and there seems to be a constant 3-4% of people are LGBT fiqure that is constantly rolled out, but when actual facts like declared relationships are revealed, it fucks the estimated numbers badly....

[tenni]

"In any case, call bullshit on the survey if you know something is wrong with the survey; call bullshit on the methodology if you know something is wrong with the methodology; but if all you have that suggests something is wrong with either is the feeling that the numbers are wrong, it's probably best to wait until you have some evidence of wrongdoing before calling bullshit."

Exactly! If you do not understand how random sampling is done, educate yourself before rejecting what you do not understand. Take a course in stats rather than constantly shooting off your mouth and being anti scientific. This is a serious danger in western societies. Ignorance and believing that your view has validity without any support or evidence. Otherwise you are just bullshitting yourself and sadly there seems to be a sizable group growing giving bullshit credibility.

[Annika L]

this is why statistics NZ is not really relied on for presenting truthful facts..... and the * protecting privacy * is their way of saying that they have no idea so they quessestimate based on the different polls and surveys that they have done....then round the numbers off......


Ah, there we come to the nub, I believe. Fran said "no respectable polling organisation skews figures in the way u suggest." On the one hand, you use Statistics NZ as a counterexample to her claim, but on the other hand, you discredit them as a respectable polling organization. I agree that skepticism is always in order when viewing statistics, but based on what I know of Gallup, they have much greater credibility (and transparency and Fran points out) than Statistics NZ seems to.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol statistics NZ is the official statistics collecting government dept.... they are regarded as a respectable polling organization.... I just do not trust the bastards to present the facts as they are reported without tweaking them.....

even tho gallup is a respectable polling organization, and I do take more notice of gallup polls when it comes to political polls, I often notice that they are very simple polls with basic, generic questions...and thats why I believe that the fiqures are not correct for the gallup pollup, as the question is * do you personally, ID as LGBT * its a yes and no answer.....and relies on the honesty of people..... and that is where things go wrong lol....

I am trying to resource the details of the NZ lgbt survey in the 90s, the questions etc and if I can get a copy of them, I will post the entire survey questionnaire and results in the site... so that people can see why the survey results blew holes in the other surveys that covered sexuality, sexual activities, partners and relationships.... and that survey put the number of LGBT in NZ in the high teens but that was cos it was so extensive and comprehensive....