This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
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)
The first source link is no longer active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.182.229 ( talk) 16:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The fourth reference link is no longer active — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.216.175 ( talk) 21:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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)
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)
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)
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)
^Topic Malamockq ( talk) 00:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/category/research/census-lbgt-demographics-studies/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://cloud9.norc.uchicago.edu/faqs/sex.htmWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
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)