US won't tally LGBT people in '20 Census

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-census-lgbt-americans_us_58db3894e4b0cb23e65c6cd9

Your thread title is misleading and inaccurate. Presumably everyone gets tallied. That's the entire point of a census. It's just that sexual orientation is not one of the demographic questions that is asked.

I don't recall that it ever was.

It wasn't. 2020 was supposed to be the first time.

So you're saying Huffpo is a misleading and inaccurate news source?

Are you saying it's a news source?!?

It is always good to collect data but that always seems to be the first thing cultural conservatives want to bury. It is like they think if they block the data then the problem doesn't exist. They do this with gun deaths, with climate data, and now with gays.

Truthfully, it costs almost nothing because you are mailing them out anyway so what is one more line?

It is time there was data regarding glbt presence in America.

I am not trying to troll or be insensitive.
Why should gender orientation be a part of the census? If you look on Ancestry.com, especially in the marriage rolls, you will see same sex marriages.
Granted, transgender are not listed, and that might be a concern, but only in the ancestry rolls, not the census rolls.
If I'm missing something, please enlighten - without being obnoxious about it

The census collects the numerical and demographic information of the population, in order to best effect representation. By omitting a particular demographic that has become quite outspoken and prominent, it seems like a political move to deny those people exist at all.

Remember, there was a time when women, and black people weren't a part of the census, why? Because they weren't given representation, even though they were affected by laws that discriminated against them.

LGBTQ's get counted only as 3/5 of a person.

Okay, what's the Q doing here, and when did it show up?

While unrepresented, women and black people were always included in the census, even before suffrage and abolition. (If slaves hadn't been counted, the three-fifths compromise would have been impossible, because they wouldn't know what the "three-fifths of all other persons" number should be.)

Women and black people were always part of the census.

Before we get into this women and black people thing, it is now important to be able to see actual numbers instead of what is essentially polling estimates. The census counts everyone. It does not poll a small samples set and extrapolate from there. The reason why it is opposed is because of fear that there are many more than thought, and if those numbers were shown to business and politicians there might be a further shift towards inclusion of the glbt community in the regular community. That means the power block of homophobic assholes would potentially lose influence and power. Then we might see things like gays in Disney movies more often.

As for women and blacks being counted, sure they were. However they were counted by association with a man most of the time. Blacks were property so they were counted as property of a white man. Women were considered property of the man also because they had no real vote or power in the beginning. Children are counted in the census but they are not counted as a full person the way an adult is. So let us get real here.

The reason women were usually counted by association with a man is that it was very difficult for a woman to not be associated with a man at that time. However, a woman who lived alone would still be counted.

Similarly, even though children don't have voting rights, they are still counted as full people according to the census. Being registered in the census is distinct from legal status. The census just says "this person exists, and here's where they live."

That is true, and I should have been more clear. Yes, women were counted, even while they lacked representation, which is why identification and representation means a great deal when it comes to the census. Up until the 1850s, the name of the head of household was counted, and then just general statistical questions. In 1850, the census became more complex by asking about individuals beyond the head of household. The 1850 census is considered a landmark census because it broadened the scope of the census, and gave a far more complex and nuanced view of the United States and its demographic makeup. That was also the census that anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions began fighting over, which likely helped nudge the United States in the right direction to eventually abolish slavery.

The point I'm (not adeptly) getting at is that to acknowledge that a voting bloc exists and votes based on issues that directly affect them, and then not count them, is a form of erasure. Right now, there is anti-transgender legislation being pushed through various state governing bodies. The 2020 census was going to begin counting transgender people (as part of the LGBT initiative), but that was changed. Now the 2020 census won't include LGBT people. Without those statistics, it becomes easier to say that there isn't a significant political movement among the LGBT community. I mean, are there a million LGBT citizens? 10 million? 50 million? Who knows? As long as they aren't counted, they don't have to be fairly represented, or even acknowledged.

On Wordforge?

Surely you jest.

Seriously though, what does the Q in LGBTQ stand for? I don't think it's "queer", because wouldn't that be redundant?

"Questioning."

Okay, so what does that mean?

It means they don't know where they fall on the spectrum. Many people have misidentified as being gay for years till they've found themselves attracted to a woman. Or they realize they aren't attracted to men as much as they are to being a woman who is attracted to men.

Clearly you're part of the 'Questioning' segment. Congrats for coming out!

Sounds a lot like my religious affiliation.

For a handy future reference, because I used to wonder when I first started learning:

Lesbian
Gay
Bisexual
Transgender
Questioning
Intersex
Asexual

I'm pansexual, and in the longer acronym (yes it gets longer *boom tish*), there is a "P" to represent that, but I don't mind being categorized under the "B". I'm not kidding about the longer acronym, though. Some people suggest it should be LGBTTQQIAAP (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally, Pansexual), and there are still those who feel it leaves people out. Honestly, we probably just need to come up with something better, that's more inclusive, while also being simple to grasp.

Is pansexual like Captain Jack Harkness?

The Conservatives here tried to make the whole census non-mandatory, cuz facts have a liberal bias.

There is a new British show about hookers in 18th century England starring women, directed by women, written by women, and produced by women. It supposedly deals with these social issues and wraps it all up in a good storyline without resorting to gratuitous T&A a la Game of Thrones or Deadwood.