How Gay Is Each American State?

[Jingthing]

Now you can have an idea:

http://www.slate.com..._in_gallup.html

Washington, D.C. is tops at 10 percent, though not a state, while Hawaii at 5 percent is second. Both places associated with President Obama. Of course though San Francisco would have the highest percentage of any big city (at 15 percent probably the gayest city in the world), the survey is about states.

Although there are LGBT communities across the country—starting from as low as 1.7 percent of the population in North Dakota—researchers found that generally speaking the percentage of the LGBT population was higher in states where there is a higher level of social acceptance.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the majority of the top ten "gayest" states have legalized same sex marriages at the state level.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[Mrjlh]

Uh? what does this have to do with Thailand? Lonely? Most people don't really care anymore...you are what you are, no big deal.

[Jingthing]

Uh? what does this have to do with Thailand?

...

This topic has nothing to do with Thailand. Thanks for your participation.

[Mrjlh]

Your welcome!

[Jingthing]

For many years there was a lot of a kind of propaganda that gay people represented 10 percent of global populations. I think that number was never correct. Evidence such as this survey give further indication that the overall percentages are much less. Of course, a lot depends on how you count gay people and lesbians, how self identified they are, do you count MSM people who don't self identify, and also accounting for bisexuals, etc. However, I think it's pretty clear 10 percent is way inflated and there is nothing wrong with honesty about the real, lower, numbers. Even San Francisco at 15 percent is interesting. I think many people in the world think it's more like 75 percent.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[qdinthailand]

As to D.C. - I'm guessing Obama didn't drag all his LGBT friends to boost the population stats, but rather, they already existed there. They're called ex-congressmen and former congressional staff turned lobbyists and contractors - probably the majority carrying a voter id card says Republican on it!

[Jingthing]

As to D.C. - I'm guessing Obama didn't drag all his LGBT friends to boost the population stats, but rather, they already existed there. They're called ex-congressmen and former congressional staff turned lobbyists and contractors - probably the majority carrying a voter id card says Republican on it!

I didn't mean to suggest Obama made D.C. gay friendly. Just a coincidence. It has been for decades now and yes capitol hill has been a gay-ish neighborhood for as long as I can remember. Also thanks to civil rights pioneers such as the somewhat recently deceased Frank Kameny.

http://washingtondc.gaycities.com/bars/nid/4502/

Edited February 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Very obviously not a reliable indication of LGBT numbers as a percentage of the population in any way, nor does the original survey, based on telephone interviews asking the question "do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender" claim to be.

Despite the disclaimer that "Gallup had released the first part of its data in October, and had already made it clear there were some obvious potential pitfalls, mainly that people might not be honest or might not see themselves as falling within any of the traditional LGBT labels" the press article still concludes that "LGBT communities make up a larger percentage of the population in states where social acceptance is greater".

This was NOT the conclusion of either the original report from the Williams Institute or the Gallup report which wrote that "their visibility is generally higher in states with greater levels of social acceptance and LGBT supportive legal climates ..." because " ...social climates that promote acceptance of or stigma toward LGBT individuals could affect how many adults disclose an LGBT identity. LGBT people who live in places where they feel accepted may be more likely than those who live in places where they feel stigmatized to reveal their sexual orientation or gender identity to a survey interviewer. ..... Given prior Gallup findings showing that the LGBT population is disproportionately young, female, and nonwhite -- all of which are groups with economic disadvantages that could limit their abilities to move -- it seems unlikely that migration is the primary reason for variation in LGBT identification across states. ..... one explanation for the variation across states is the relationship between the willingness to disclose LGBT identity and the environment of one's state of residence. It is also possible that LGBT adults make conscious choices to reside in certain states rather than others, but this possibility is difficult to assess and seems less likely."

Clearly do not believe everything you read in the Press.

Assuming that more people will deny being LGBT when they are than will claim to be LGBT when they are not (a dangerous assumption, admittedly, but at least a possibility considered by those conducting the survey) the numbers could well be an indicator that somewhere around 7 to 10% may not be that far off the mark.

[Jingthing]

10 percent is definitely WAY off the mark. Wishing big numbers doesn't make it so. Buying into retro propaganda for the sake of nostalgia is just silly. It is high time that gay people and the majority come to terms with the ACTUAL very small numbers.

Politically there are advantages to high percentages and advantages to low percentages. The fact is: gays are a LOW percentage. Better get used to the facts. The political advantages of high numbers are obvious -- just ask Marco Rubio. The political advantages of low percentages are less obvious but they exist. For example gay rights advocates can counter the arguments that granting us full equal civil rights will radically change the culture and/or the institution of marriage for the majority. How can how you treat a tiny minority radically change the culture?

Contemporary research in a less homophobic environment has counterintuitively resulted in lower estimates rather than higher ones. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent -- predominantly women -- identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual.

http://www.theatlant...ere-are/257753/ Edited February 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[jamhar]

I'm not surprised at the findings.

Having lived across the US, I found the gay and lesbian population to be centered around the metropolitan areas, and generally the larger metro areas. And generally in the north east and California My guess is that people that can, migrate to areas that are more receptive to them. California and north east have been more liberal than the south or midwest, at least in the past.

But the gay and lesbian population, gets more press, and entertainment attention than their population. possibly due to the titillation factor, taboo factor, or maybe a higher population of those industries being gay/lesbian. just my guess.

So due to the increase in exposure, there's a perception of a higher population than actually exists.

I have no idea if its good or bad, It just is.

[JLCrab]

FYI from today's NY Times as I haven't seen it noted on TV/F elsewhere:

With No Shortcut to a Green Card, Gay Couples Leave U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/us/with-no-shortcut-to-a-green-card-gay-couples-leave-us.html

[Jingthing]

FYI from today's NY Times as I haven't seen it noted on TV/F elsewhere:

With No Shortcut to a Green Card, Gay Couples Leave U.S.

http://www.nytimes.c...s-leave-us.html

There is a current thread that covers that specific issue:

[AyG]

Surely Florida is the gayest state: it does look like a semi-erect penis.

[Jingthing]

Surely Florida is the gayest state: it does look like a semi-erect penis.

Gay people do seem to be attracted to the "tip areas" of geographical peninsulas.

Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Key West, P-town, San Francisco.

Coincidence? You decide.

[KED]

I agree that LGBT members tend to migrate to urban areas - I know I did as soon as I could. However, I think that just as I have seen evidence of LGBT moving to the suburbs, as the U.S. begins to recognize equal rights nationwide, I think there will be more LGBT deciding to live in less urban areas. I think the same in Thailand - LGBT tend to migrate to Bangkok / Chiang Mai and Phuket from smaller villages.

[tombkk]

It is possible that gay people tend to migrate to states that are more gay-tolerant, but it is also possible that gay people in gay-tolerant states are more likely to admit that they are gay.

I don't think that the poll has any scientific relevance.

[Jingthing]

Oh, please. Gallup is the leading name in SCIENTIFIC polling. It is as scientific as ANY poll. There is no such thing as a perfect poll. An example of a totally unscientific poll is any poll here, at thaivisa.com.

[tombkk]

Gallup may well be one of the leading names in COMMERCIAL polling.

Scientists do take factors like I mentioned into account in sociological research.

If you show me where Gallup's research was peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind), I'll be happy to change my mind. At first sight, it appears that they left out an important factor. I want to see validation and verification.

[Jingthing]

 

Gallup may well be one of the leading names in COMMERCIAL polling. Scientists do take factors like I mentioned into account in sociological research. If you show me where Gallup's research was peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind), I'll be happy to change my mind. At first sight, it appears that they left out an important factor. I want to see validation and verification.

 

Polling doesn't work that way. It's not a medical experiment. It's a specific method for polling populations. This is getting silly now. What do you think the actual results are, state by state? Do you have another source? Do you have a better source? Another poster here seems to buy the old myth of one in ten. I feel that has been solidly debunked again and again. Obviously, a precise number isn't possible. If you count anyone who has ever had MSM the number would be much higher than 10 percent. But that isn't the question being asked.

Yes, this is political. I think gay people should completely give up the retro myths about how large a population gay people represent. It's time to face reality and go from there. Jews in the USA are less than 2 percent and yes are influential and certainly have legal equality, which they did not always have in the USA. So small size doesn't preclude achieving legal equality.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Gallup may well be one of the leading names in COMMERCIAL polling. Scientists do take factors like I mentioned into account in sociological research. If you show me where Gallup's research was peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind), I'll be happy to change my mind. At first sight, it appears that they left out an important factor. I want to see validation and verification.

Maybe you missed my earlier post, Tom.

Gallup didn't leave any of the factors you mentioned out, on the contrary they made them very clear - unfortunately the press article left them out and came to a conclusion that Gallup expressly stated was "difficult to assess and seems less likely".

You appear to misunderstand what "polls" are - they are NOT scientific research. Polls cannot, by their very nature, be "peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind)" - if they were they wouldn't be polls any more, they'd be studies.

Polls of this nature are impossible to validate or verify. Even if every person in the USA was to be interviewed in the same way that would still only be an unverified, unvalidated, non-scientific indication of the number of LGBT in the USA, not a scientific study of either the numbers of LGBT or even the numbers self-identifying as LGBT as you would still have the limitations of self-identification, interpretation of classification, social stigma, social and public acceptance, etc.

If you "want to see validation and verification" before accepting the results of any poll or study into the size of the gay male population you'll be waiting a long time, as penile plethysmography is still not conclusively proven and any sample of the population tested (or agreeing to be tested) is hardly likely to be random. While those answering the question "do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender" over the telephone may or may not give a true answer of their sexual preference for a number of reasons, they would probably be more prepared to take part in that survey than they would be in one which measured circumferential or volumetric changes with a strain gauge in response to various stimuli.

[LeCharivari]

... Another poster here seems to buy the old myth of one in ten. I feel that has been solidly debunked again and again. Obviously, a precise number isn't possible. If you count anyone who has ever had MSM the number would be much higher than 10 percent. But that isn't the question
being asked.

Correct. The question being asked was "do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender", which is an indicator of what percentage of the population are prepared to "disclose an LGBT identity" - something which, given the "stigma toward LGBT individuals" which undeniably exists to varying degrees is far from the same thing as an indicator of the actual LGBT percentage of the population.

What is clear from this and previous polls in the USA and elsewhere is that as acceptance grows so does the number of people prepared to self-identify as LGBT - hardly a surprise. Given that the numbers of those polled who "disclose an LGBT identity" are around 5% in areas where there is still some stigma/social/family pressure to "conform" (but not as much as in other areas) it seems more than likely that the actual percentage of those who are LGBT, some of whom may never admit it, is higher.

[Ajaan]

Oh, come on...we're ALL at least a little bit gay. Those who deny that are only fooling themselves.

Sent from my spaceship.

[Jingthing]

Oh, come on...we're ALL at least a little bit gay. Those who deny that are only fooling themselves. Sent from my spaceship.

Sure but being a little bit gay is a far cry from an adult self identifying as gay.

[endure]

[tombkk]

Gallup may well be one of the leading names in COMMERCIAL polling. Scientists do take factors like I mentioned into account in sociological research. If you show me where Gallup's research was peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind), I'll be happy to change my mind. At first sight, it appears that they left out an important factor. I want to see validation and verification.

Maybe you missed my earlier post, Tom.

Gallup didn't leave any of the factors you mentioned out, on the contrary they made them very clear - unfortunately the press article left them out and came to a conclusion that Gallup expressly stated was "difficult to assess and seems less likely".

You appear to misunderstand what "polls" are - they are NOT scientific research. Polls cannot, by their very nature, be "peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind)" - if they were they wouldn't be polls any more, they'd be studies.

Polls of this nature are impossible to validate or verify. Even if every person in the USA was to be interviewed in the same way that would still only be an unverified, unvalidated, non-scientific indication of the number of LGBT in the USA, not a scientific study of either the numbers of LGBT or even the numbers self-identifying as LGBT as you would still have the limitations of self-identification, interpretation of classification, social stigma, social and public acceptance, etc.

If you "want to see validation and verification" before accepting the results of any poll or study into the size of the gay male population you'll be waiting a long time, as penile plethysmography is still not conclusively proven and any sample of the population tested (or agreeing to be tested) is hardly likely to be random. While those answering the question "do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender" over the telephone may or may not give a true answer of their sexual preference for a number of reasons, they would probably be more prepared to take part in that survey than they would be in one which measured circumferential or volumetric changes with a strain gauge in response to various stimuli.

Jingthing said (please scroll up) that "Gallup is the leading name in SCIENTIFIC polling", and you just made a case that "polling" is unscientific by nature. Science and academia are very specific.

If they did take the missing factors into account but the article failed to mention that, I'd like to see the actual result.

[tombkk]

 

Gallup may well be one of the leading names in COMMERCIAL polling. Scientists do take factors like I mentioned into account in sociological research. If you show me where Gallup's research was peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind), I'll be happy to change my mind. At first sight, it appears that they left out an important factor. I want to see validation and verification.

 

Polling doesn't work that way. It's not a medical experiment. It's a specific method for polling populations. This is getting silly now. What do you think the actual results are, state by state? Do you have another source? Do you have a better source? Another poster here seems to buy the old myth of one in ten. I feel that has been solidly debunked again and again. Obviously, a precise number isn't possible. If you count anyone who has ever had MSM the number would be much higher than 10 percent. But that isn't the question being asked.

Yes, this is political. I think gay people should completely give up the retro myths about how large a population gay people represent. It's time to face reality and go from there. Jews in the USA are less than 2 percent and yes are influential and certainly have legal equality, which they did not always have in the USA. So small size doesn't preclude achieving legal equality.

I don't know what the actual facts are, state by state, but I say that what the article writes, the conclusions are unfounded.

Anyway, it's not important for me in any way in which state there are more or fewer gay people. The remark about Jews seems off-topic.

[LeCharivari]

....If they did take the missing factors into account but the article failed to mention that, I'd like to see the actual result.

If you are unable to use a search engine such as Google, try http://www.gallup.com/poll/160517/lgbt-percentage-highest-lowest-north-dakota.aspx for the latest poll, which gives a full analysis, survey methods, etc, and http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx for the poll they did last October.

[Jingthing]

 

Gallup may well be one of the leading names in COMMERCIAL polling. Scientists do take factors like I mentioned into account in sociological research. If you show me where Gallup's research was peer-reviewed by scientists (preferably double-blind), I'll be happy to change my mind. At first sight, it appears that they left out an important factor. I want to see validation and verification.

 

Polling doesn't work that way. It's not a medical experiment. It's a specific method for polling populations. This is getting silly now. What do you think the actual results are, state by state? Do you have another source? Do you have a better source? Another poster here seems to buy the old myth of one in ten. I feel that has been solidly debunked again and again. Obviously, a precise number isn't possible. If you count anyone who has ever had MSM the number would be much higher than 10 percent. But that isn't the question being asked.

Yes, this is political. I think gay people should completely give up the retro myths about how large a population gay people represent. It's time to face reality and go from there. Jews in the USA are less than 2 percent and yes are influential and certainly have legal equality, which they did not always have in the USA. So small size doesn't preclude achieving legal equality.

I don't know what the actual facts are, state by state, but I say that what the article writes, the conclusions are unfounded.

Anyway, it's not important for me in any way in which state there are more or fewer gay people. The remark about Jews seems off-topic.

I fully explained why bringing up Jews was totally on topic to the reality that SELF IDENTIFIED gays are a SMALL percentage of the U.S. population, most probably similar numbers to Jews but somewhat higher. It's about politics and whether a minority group that is small and widely misunderstood or even hated can hope to win both equality and influence. Conclusion: it is possible. Interestingly, Mormons have similar small numbers to Jews and gays. They are making progress with full public acceptance but like gays still have work to do. Edited February 27, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

Don't tell me, tomorrow Pres. Obama we be pronounced GAY here.

[LeCharivari]

Jingthing said (please scroll up) that "Gallup is the leading name in SCIENTIFIC polling", and you just made a case that "polling" is unscientific by nature. Science and academia are very specific.

He actually said

Oh, please. Gallup is the leading name in SCIENTIFIC polling. It is as scientific as ANY poll. There is no such thing as a perfect poll. An example of a totally unscientific poll is any poll here, at thaivisa.com.

There is no way to