Poll: What percentage of people are LGBT?

[Lieju]

Or if you're asexual?

Or have gender dysphoria but it's not bad enough that you feel you are trans?

I'm actually both of these so I'm glad someone else knows about them.

I voted yes, 'cause I do think Asexual falls under LGBT, or the longer acronym of it that I forget. Other people may disagree with me though.

I also agree with the gender/sexuality thing being more of a greyscale then a set label, but it's not always bad to have a label close to what you feel. It can help inform other people of what you're feeling if they're familiar with the terms already.

Yes, and even if you don't care about labels the society does.
As a kid I would have been more than happy not to label my gender at all. I didn't care, and I didn't care if people were boys or girls.
But being constantly told that I was a girl, and because of that there were things I was supposed to like and do etc just felt wrong, especially when I hit puberty.

Similarly, having a label for being asexual helps to give you legitimacy.
Because people have hard time understanding not everyone is the same(I still run into the attitude that being gay is not a real thing since obviously everyone is actually attracted only to the opposite sex), so having a label and proof you're not alone helps.

Because the way the society is, just saying you're not attracted to someone (or that you're attracted to the same sex for example) is not a 'neutral' position.
Unlike saying you're heterosexual, it's a position you need to defend.

 

[carnex]

Or if you're asexual?

Would you explain me how asexual can translate "Lesbian Bi Gay Transexual/Transgnder"?

Yes, asexual can be transexual/gender but it doesn't correlate

I heard multiple times that LGBT population is either 2.5 or 10 percent of world's population.

Now from strictly biological standpoint 10% would be a scary rate that would either drive evolution at breakneck pace or actually prevent it from actually occurring (words of a Molecular Biologist i know, not mine) so 2.5% is something more to my expectations and more akin to studies that restricted to romantic and sexual inclinations.

Still that is a major rate of one particular biological error (please, take no offense, I don't want to discriminate anyone, we all are living, walking piles of DNK mistakes. It's how nature works.) or there are many factors that represent themselves with those symptoms. Now that I'm rather interested in. Especially what drives certain people to suddenly switch mid life.

 

[Vault101]

Now from strictly biological standpoint 10% would be a scary rate that would either drive evolution at breakneck pace or actually prevent it from actually occurring (words of a Molecular Biologist i know, not mine) so 2.5% is something more to my expectations and more akin to studies that restricted to romantic and sexual inclinations.
.

...........wut?

how do you stop evolution from happening?

 

[DarkRawen]

I voted no, because I don't consider myself to be "LGBT", and if anyone tried to refer to me by the term, I'd be very annoyed. I'm bisexual and transsexual, but that/those group/groups do/does not represent me, nor do I represent them.

Sorry if you just used the term as a "do you fit any of these letters" things, in that case I might have voted wrong, but I do think it's an important distinction to make, at least for me as an individual.

There is a reason I phrased the poll question as "Do you consider yourself to be LGBT", so you're good. Thank you for your reply.

And thank you to everyone else who has replied so far as well, but hell if I'm quoting everyone.

I'm glad to hear that, wouldn't want to mess up your poll.

Now from strictly biological standpoint 10% would be a scary rate that would either drive evolution at breakneck pace or actually prevent it from actually occurring (words of a Molecular Biologist i know, not mine) so 2.5% is something more to my expectations and more akin to studies that restricted to romantic and sexual inclinations.
.

...........wut?

how do you stop evolution from happening?

You press the B button.

 

[LongAndShort]

One of the most surprising figures on the matter I've seen was from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, over here: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10July+2013

About 1% of reported relationships in the 2011 census were same sex. Honestly, I was expecting a higher figure since Australia is a lot more gay friendly (especially in Sydney) than we often give ourselves credit for (far from perfect though... far, far, FAR from perfect), and I imagine that there is a lot of unreported relationships. They've got a lot of figures on the LGBTI community if you're willing to dig, but I find a lot of the breakdowns on this page interesting (even though they're just same sex).

Oh, and for sake of context, straight male here.

 

[Lieju]

Or if you're asexual?

Would you explain me how asexual can translate "Lesbian Bi Gay Transexual/Transgnder"?

LGBT is generally a community for marginalized sexual/gender identities. Many people add more letters to it, or use the LGBT+ term. (Or use the term MOGAI)

Now from strictly biological standpoint 10% would be a scary rate that would either drive evolution at breakneck pace or actually prevent it from actually occurring (words of a Molecular Biologist i know, not mine) so 2.5% is something more to my expectations and more akin to studies that restricted to romantic and sexual inclinations.

Still that is a major rate of one particular biological error (please, take no offense, I don't want to discriminate anyone, we all are living, walking piles of DNK mistakes. It's how nature works.) or there are many factors that represent themselves with those symptoms. Now that I'm rather interested in. Especially what drives certain people to suddenly switch mid life.

Yeah, you don't sound like a biologist. How do you stop evolution from happening(apart from murdering everyone) or drive it at a breakneck speed? Especially because of queerness?
You are aware that non-heterosexual people can have children, yes? And have had, throughout the ages, for various reasons.
And people's hormonal activity changes throughout life. Or they conform to society's expectations, or figure out what sexual attraction actually is. So their sexual identity can change over time too.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

what percentage of people are LGBT in the world?

Impossible to know. Well, without a) taking an exact census of the world's population and b) finding out how many are LBGT. Which of course also assumes that they would willing out themselves, in case they live in a country/community that is hostile to LBGT (Russia, Middle East, etc.)

So, if you're looking for a hard number, I doubt you'll ever find it. You'll have to make due with rough guesstimations.

Actually, there are ways to get a decent idea of the percentage. Not totally accurate, but within the ballpark. Keep in mind, this would not account for people that would lie to themselves about their sexual orientation, but it would allow anyone to answer honestly without fear of reprisal. Also, considering that most science point to sexual identity as genetic, it would not be necessary to survey countries in Africa or the Middle East where homosexual activity is criminalized. But, believe it or not, this method would allow you to do so safely anyway.

It is called the Random Response Survey, and it is rather cleverly developed to leave all answers themselves randomized while allowing them to be averaged. This prevents anyone being able to tell what your sexuality would be from the response that you give. The method is this: You tell the interviewee to -say- flip a coin. Then, if it comes up heads answer Q1, and if it comes up tails, answer Q2. Question one being innocuous and always Yes, question two being a yes/no question about sexuality. Here, I'll let Dr. James Grime explain the process, as he is at least slightly smarter than I am.

 

[000Ronald]

Y'know, it's funny. I got to thinking about it, and I think I know more people who fall under the LGBT banner than I know people for sure that don't. Both of my sisters, at least half of my friends, random other people I know...And I live in a tiny farming town in Illinois.

And while I'm reasonably certain even I mechanically fall under that banner, too[footnote]I'm asexual, although someone mentioned that it would be more accurate to call me...quasi-sexual, I think it was?[/footnote], I'll have to answer your question as no. I certainly don't think of myself as being LGBT, because sexuality is such a small part of my life as to have almost no bearing on it.

 

[Vault101]

Yeah, you don't sound like a biologist. How do you stop evolution from happening(apart from murdering everyone) or drive it at a breakneck speed? Especially because of queerness?

and isn't evolution by definition really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really slow?

Like I don't know my knowelge of science in shakey but everything there just sounds...wrong...unless its simplified/taken out of context

 

[Lieju]

Yeah, you don't sound like a biologist. How do you stop evolution from happening(apart from murdering everyone) or drive it at a breakneck speed? Especially because of queerness?

and isn't evolution by definition really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really slow?

Like I don't know my knowelge of science in shakey but everything there just sounds...wrong...unless its simplified/taken out of context

Well, for species that can breed very quickly (like insects) evolution can happen relatively quickly.
And if for example a population of humans happens to die suddenly (because of a disease etc) evolution can happen suddenly quickly because now suddenly this population has quickly changed. There is also the theory of a punctuated equilibrium that proposes evolution is mostly slow and happens in leaps but I have no idea what it has to do with LGBT-orientations?

 

[carnex]

Or if you're asexual?

Would you explain me how asexual can translate "Lesbian Bi Gay Transexual/Transgnder"?

LGBT is generally a community for marginalized sexual/gender identities. Many people add more letters to it, or use the LGBT+ term. (Or use the term MOGAI)

OK, thanks (no, I'm not being ironic. I'm really thankful for the info)

Now from strictly biological standpoint 10% would be a scary rate that would either drive evolution at breakneck pace or actually prevent it from actually occurring (words of a Molecular Biologist i know, not mine) so 2.5% is something more to my expectations and more akin to studies that restricted to romantic and sexual inclinations.

Still that is a major rate of one particular biological error (please, take no offense, I don't want to discriminate anyone, we all are living, walking piles of DNK mistakes. It's how nature works.) or there are many factors that represent themselves with those symptoms. Now that I'm rather interested in. Especially what drives certain people to suddenly switch mid life.

Yeah, you don't sound like a biologist. How do you stop evolution from happening(apart from murdering everyone) or drive it at a breakneck speed? Especially because of queerness?
You are aware that non-heterosexual people can have children, yes? And have had, throughout the ages, for various reasons.
And people's hormonal activity changes throughout life. Or they conform to society's expectations, or figure out what sexual attraction actually is. So their sexual identity can change over time too.

No, I'm not a biologist, I'm really close to one in that ballpark (well, DNA and it's generational degradation). But you really misinterpreted my words in roughly the worst possible manner. The fact that someone is homosexual or bisexual, or transgender or whatever doesn't have anything to do with evolution other than they are effects of evolutionary process (or side effects if you wish). They don't stop evolution, nor they are barred from procreation, even if one or more incentives that add towards that drive is gone with them.

My question was about percentage of DNA variations or copying mistakes. If they are too high would evolution be faster or the positive mutations would not retain enough for evolution to actually have a progression. In other words, where is a mutation percentage boundary where positive mutations can't accumulate in large enough pool in large enough population of a certain species to actually have a progressive evolution.

Also it wasn't something I wanted to sidetrack discussion with, it's just an explanation where I'm coming from, a background to my thoughts on the matter.

Also, the pool yields some rather interesting results. 29% is one heck of a lot.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Wouldn't that read MOGII?

That's another way to write it, yes.

 

[chadachada123]

I don't think that sexuality exists, just (usually strong) tendencies towards either sex.

So I technically consider myself bi.

 

[Lieju]

My question was about percentage of DNA variations or copying mistakes. If they are too high would evolution be faster or the positive mutations would not retain enough for evolution to actually have a progression. In other words, where is a mutation percentage boundary where positive mutations can't accumulate in large enough pool in large enough population of a certain species to actually have a progressive evolution.

And I still have no clue what this has to do with anything and I have studied evolution to some extent (and I'd suggest you do the same because no offense but I don't think you really have a good grasp of it. I don't even know where to start with what you said and it would somewhat derail the thread...).
But just because a person is gay doesn't mean a mutation happened in them. We don't understand how genes affect sexual attraction exactly, but it's a good guess many different ones are involved.

If you're gay, and even if it's 100% genetic there are numerous ways to inherit it!

And being gay or trans or asexual doesn't mean you can't have biological children. Even if you somehow were unable to have kids, humans are a social species, and for example your siblings could have children. They might not be your offspring but they are still closely related, and if you're childless yourself and help take care of them, your relatives then can have an evolutionary advantage and your genes get indirectly passed on.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, I'm a heterosexual guy who is attracted to pre-genital surgery MtF transsexuals. I'm really not sure what that makes me. I'm essentially attracted to women with the penis still attached, to put it in especially crude (and I hope not offensive) terms. I attribute myself to being heterosexual, but I'm not sure if that specific interest changes it.

Can someone infinitely more knowledgeable than I give me some guidance here?

 

[CitizenM]

In all seriousness, you've created a very difficult task for yourself. Perhaps an impossible one. I agree with those that have criticized the bias of the thread itself; it actually tends to EXCLUDE straight people simply because of the way the title is worded. Many straight folks might not enter into a "gay topic" like this one to bother voting because the topic doesn't feel like "it's for them". Of course, fear and hatred will keep out a portion as well.

There is no commonly accepted range for the proportion of homosexuals in any given population.

As I said above, I know that the question is basically impossible to answer. Also, I realized that the poll would be biased. I didn't intend for it to do that, but I saw no way around it.

Still, did I really go so far as to make straight people feel excluded? That was never my intention. Please tell me how I can improve apon that.

Don't misunderstand: I don't believe you "intentionally" excluded straight people from the topic, only that the way the topic is presented could exclude straight people. Even posting a topic worded simply; "What's your sexual orientation?" is a more open, all-inclusive invitation to all kinds of folks. Though I admit even then, some folks can read-into the topic and opt out. But the idea is to be as general, inclusive and inviting as possible to get as much accurate information as possible.

On the subject, I can tell you this; there are far more gay people than anyone realizes. Unlike discrimination against women, ethnic minorities or people with visible deformatives, gays are by far the most invisible minority in human history. Which is precisely why it's taken so much longer for gays to be granted equality. The gay majority are indistinguishable from straight people, looking and acting just like everyone else; only the loud minority stand out. So even if you can't get a real answer, err on the side of a larger proportion than a smaller proportion.

 

[username sucks]

In all seriousness, you've created a very difficult task for yourself. Perhaps an impossible one. I agree with those that have criticized the bias of the thread itself; it actually tends to EXCLUDE straight people simply because of the way the title is worded. Many straight folks might not enter into a "gay topic" like this one to bother voting because the topic doesn't feel like "it's for them". Of course, fear and hatred will keep out a portion as well.

There is no commonly accepted range for the proportion of homosexuals in any given population.

As I said above, I know that the question is basically impossible to answer. Also, I realized that the poll would be biased. I didn't intend for it to do that, but I saw no way around it.

Still, did I really go so far as to make straight people feel excluded? That was never my intention. Please tell me how I can improve apon that.

Don't misunderstand: I don't believe you "intentionally" excluded straight people from the topic, only that the way the topic is presented could exclude straight people. Even posting a topic worded simply; "What's your sexual orientation?" is a more open, all-inclusive invitation to all kinds of folks. Though I admit even then, some folks can read-into the topic and opt out. But the idea is to be as general, inclusive and inviting as possible to get as much accurate information as possible.

On the subject, I can tell you this; there are far more gay people than anyone realizes. Unlike discrimination against women, ethnic minorities or people with visible deformatives, gays are by far the most invisible minority in human history. Which is precisely why it's taken so much longer for gays to be granted equality. The gay majority are indistinguishable from straight people, looking and acting just like everyone else; only the loud minority stand out. So even if you can't get a real answer, err on the side of a larger proportion than a smaller proportion.

I don't want to make the title "What is your sexual orientation?" Because the poll actually isn't the main focus of this thread. It was more of an afterthought, really. The main focus is... Actually I have no idea. It's just a general discussion about sexual orientation, I guess.

I agree that the title should be changed, I'm just trying to think of what to call it...

 

[Caostotale]

I'm a male who's generally attracted to females, am married to a female, but still wouldn't ever throw around the idea that I'm 'straight', a term I find kind of horrible, i.e. are people attracted to others from their own gender meant to be viewed as 'crooked' or something? Having very clear memories of being somewhat attracted to males at different points during puberty, etc.., my own experiences lead me to think that it's a fuzzy spectrum and that strict categorization is ripe bullshit territory for people who are prone to making stark territorial declarations about themselves or others. Having known a few die-hard lesbians and plenty of proud 'straight' people, I feel the categories only exist as some kind of self-esteem cornerstone or social defense mechanism. One of the former people is prone to telling others stories about how she 'knew she was gay' from the age of three, etc..., which to me, sounds like desperate bullshit.

 

[Lightknight]

While studies (like the 2011 Williams Institute) point to 4% in the US if Wikipedia seems pretty low, I'm not sure how we could ever accurately guess at how much responder bias impacted the study. Studies from a variety of nations are pretty consistently in the 1.2-5.6% range.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

1.7% identify as Lesbian
1.8% identify as Gay
.3% identify as transgender

The Bisexual category is the part that is decidedly hard to measure as it covers all the gray area. If we had a stronger classification for Bisexuality then we could come up with stronger measures. For example, a person who is extremely indifferent to the sex of a person would qualify but someone who has seen members of the same sex as attractive but not enough so to ever consider pursuing would fall into what category?

Is it still fair to consider responder bias as significant in these anonymous studies? I mean, as long ago as when I was in high school (in the south) there were several kids who were open without any attempt to hide it.

Either way, people seem to think that people need numbers in the double digit percentages for the number to be considered significant. But 4% isn't that far from all Asians that live in the US in total (4.8%). To dismiss a demographic of the population as large as 4% would be in error and just as crazy as dismissing the entire Asian population. Not sure why people would think it so trivial as to "need" more numbers to be deserving of being considered relevant.

 

[Duster]

wow, 30% of the escapist. that's around double what /v/. They ended up at around 12% bi, and around 4% homosexual.