New estimates of the LGB population and the anti-gay sentiments they face: Both are larger than previously thought.
In honor of Pride month, let’s focus on a subset of the LGBTQAIP+ spectrum: specifically those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, which we will simply refer to as LGB. In the past, the lowest estimates for the size of the LGB population were about 2% (with respect to the overall population) and the highest estimates were around 11%.
But these estimates came from simple surveys, and let’s face it, surveys always have bias. Especially those on “sensitive” topics. Nowadays, LGB+ identities are politicized, and it is not an exaggeration to say that crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is still at large. Thus, it can easily feel safer to hide an identity that does not fit into the heterosexual and cisgender expectations of society.
This raises another interesting question, though: exactly how many people in the world hold anti-LGB prejudices? If it is difficult to put a number on how many people knowingly identify as LGB, it seems near impossible to put a number of how many people think anti-LGB thougts (especially if they are unaware).
Survey bias is especially pernicious when we try to measure the popularity of anti-LGB sentiments. That’s unsurprising because, when asked a tough, politically-heavy question, we often know what the “politically correct” answer is expected of us. This social desirability bias may, for example, encourage a staunch opposer of adoption by same-sex parents to hold their tongue, or even feign support, if it is brought up in casual conversation in a more progressive circle.
However, subverting the social desirability bias in order to get an accurate estimate of anti-LGB prejudices is undeniably important. How can we tout the “progress” that society has made in terms of accepting the LGB+ family when we have no idea of the magnitude anti-LGB prejudices that persist in the minds of our neighbors?
In 2016, a group of three economists (Coffman, Coffman, and Ericson) published a fascinating interdisciplinary article — with potent flavors of psychology, queer studies, and applied statistics — to better estimate (1) the population of LGB individuals and (2) the population of those that hold anti-LGB sentiments.
The first ingredient to this paper’s recipe is: psychology. How do we design a survey to get people to answer truthfully? There are two related concepts that can help comfort a responder to tell the truth. First is giving responses anonymously in such a way that answers cannot be traced back to individuals. Second is more simple: responding in privacy, without anyone else able to physically see (or otherwise observe) the responder, increases likelihood of answering truthfully.
How did the researchers achieve both anonymity and privacy to circumvent the social desirability bias? They used a very simple item count technique. Think of what the opposite of “Two truths and a lie” would be: say I tell Jack a list of statements, and Jack tells me how many are true. So if I told Jack five things, and he tells me only three are true, then I still do not know which two are false. This provides Jack with anonymity, knowing that I cannot somehow determine his exact truths! (The only exception is if all five statements are true or false, which the researchers must try to avoid as much as possible.)
Now, the researchers used this design of a survey question to their advantage to design two related surveys. In one survey, the researchers would bury a “sensitive question” (such as, “are you gay?”) in one of the lists of statements, and ask for the number of true statements. This is the veiled survey since the researchers must guess indirectly whether the statement was true or false. In the other survey, the researchers would separate the sensitive question from the list and ask it directly.
The second ingredient to this paper is some simple mathematics: From the example image above, my entirely honest response results in 2 truths + 1 sensitive truth on the left = 3 truths on the right. However, I were hiding my sensitive truth, then there would be a possitive difference: 3 truths on the right — 2 truths on the left = 1 hidden truth. When there are differences, this indicates that a question is stigmatized, which may be expected for questions about sexuality. Using expected values (means) and simple correlations, the researchers were able to determine some demographic characteristics that were correlated with an individual’s likelihood of lying about their sexuality: specifically, Christians, African-Americans, an older populations (which supports other research that these identities tend to be more anti-gay).
The final ingredient to this paper is Queer studies: and while I have no experience in this field, I can point out a critique on this study. The researchers do not attempt to clearly distinguish between “LGB” (lesbian, gay, and/or bisexual) and non-heterosexual, instead they use them nearly interchangeably. However, non-heterosexual also includes asexual identities, which would never be identified by questions such as “are you attracted to people of the same/opposite sex.” Also, it is unclear how bisexual persons, those who are attracted to both same and opposite sexes, were or were not counted for in previous estimates of the “gay” population. So instead of solid numbers for how many people were lesbian/gay and how many were bisexual in the past and present, we have very squishy numbers on who were lesbian, gay, and/or/maybe bisexual in the past and present. While clarity here may not be the top priority, it would be nice for future researchers to try to tease apart these many different sexual orientations to give them proper attention.
The survey included over 2,500 participants in 2012, so it is rather robust and recent, although not perfectly representative. The main results are that, under the veiled survey, people were ~60% more likely to report non-heterosexual identity or experiences and ~70% more likely to say that it should be legal to discriminate against LGB persons when hiring. Furthermore, the final estimates for the LGB population was 15.3–27.4% (depending on attraction, experience, or identity) and the final estimates for anti-gay sentiments ranged from 15.2–27.0% (depending on the specific opinion).
These issues are intertwined in a negative feedback loop. Consider a scenario where a young gay boy is scared to come out to his parents partially due to the discriminatory jokes and remarks made by the boy’s anti-gay aunt. If the boy did come out, then the aunt may have to face her anti-gay sentiments face-to-face, and may be convinced, with time, to let them go for the sake of her nephew. On the other hand, if the aunt never expressed such hateful speech, then maybe the gay son would be comfortable to come out sooner rather than later, which could potentially prevent the aunt from ever forming or sharing anti-gay sentiments. However, in the current state, the anti-gay sentiments hold power over the closeted gay boy, whose relationships, identity, and mental health are ultimately at risk.
While strong anti-gay sentiments persist, individuals are less likely to explore their sexuality and to identify as they wish. Then, while the size of the LGB population is underestimated, we are continually subjugated as a “small, insignificant” minority, both socially and politically. Furthermore, when policy decisions are driven by numbers, then misrepresented numbers (for example, underestimated rates of hate crimes) result in insufficient support from organizations that should be more helpful. Without LGB population earning proper attention and support, then it becomes easier to clutch onto anti-gay sentiments.
Pride month is important for several reasons. One of which is visibility, and this article suggests that current visibility of the LGB population is still not at a level that accurately represents the true LGB population. And, beyond LGB, there are many MORE sexual and gender identities that receive even less attention, and this month should be dedicated to raising all of the LGBTQQAIP+ spectrum up.
The fight for LGBT+ equality is FAR from “over.” The remaining challenges exist in the minds of our neighbors and in the hands of those in charge of hiring, payroll, and promotions. A gay person being out is powerful, especially in the workplace, but we need voices and changes to make this more commonplace. Support your fellow queer people in their individual and professional journeys, and demand that your workplace include more LGBT+ initiatives into their diversity goals.
