I Don't Want to Tell the Census That I'm Gay. Don't Erase Me.
Stop trying to draft me as a data point for your federal lobbying efforts.


Two parts of the upcoming 2020 federal Census have gotten a lot of people upset. First, it will ask people if they're U.S. citizens. Second, it will not ask people if they're gay, bisexual, or transgender.
In all likelihood, there's an overlap: People upset about one are upset about the other, despite the contradiction. That's because they care about the Census to the extent that the answers to the questions can be used to control and influence government. Matt Welch has noted correctly that asking about citizenship is a deliberate effort to undercount illegal immigrants in order to alter the Congressional district map landscape in ways that will be more friendly to Republicans. Democrats and progressives are definitely not happy about that.
For the LGBT question, the exact opposite is happening: People who want a head count of gays and transgender people believe the data will then be valuable in influencing federal policies and spending on projects that benefit LGBT people—or, more accurately, to benefit certain LGBT organizations.
I blogged about this when the outrage first hit a year ago, but now there's a new round of complaints (much of it from people not checking the dates on the stories they're linking to) and some insultingly bad headlines. The Daily Beast claims "Gay and Single? Bisexual? Transgender? The 2020 Census Still Erases You." No. It doesn't. The census is still counting you. It's just not asking your sexual orientation, unless you're in a same-sex relationship. Your body will still be used to determine how many seats your state gets in Congress.
I remember back in the day when it was religious conservatives who wanted to treat gay people as though we were nothing more that our sex lives. What the hell happened here?
It's about the money. Here's how NPR is covering the lack of LGBT questions:
"If this is about how resources are spent or given to communities and we are talking about the LGBTQ community, not everyone is married or in a relationship," says Ronald Lewis, an out gay man who is currently single.
So I guess I won't be getting some check from the feds for being a single gay man. But that was never going to happen anyway. We're talking about lobbying for federal funding for particular projects. This is about pork-barrel spending.
Here's a paragraph in that same NPR piece that's worth picking apart:
But the questionnaire won't have a space for him and other LGBT people who are not living with a spouse or unmarried partner to indicate their sexual orientation. That means for now, there are no reliable national data about how many LGBT people live in the U.S. that can inform public policy.
No, that's just simply not true. First, there is a lot of scientific polling—extensive amounts of polling—about LGBT populations across the United States. Some of it is even by the federal government, via the National Health Interview Survey. You can look at some of the data on this Wikipedia page.
To the extent that those data are not reliable, they're not going to be any more reliable than data gathered by the U.S. Census. That's for the exact same reason that the data the Census collects on citizenship is sketchy: It's only as accurate as people's responses. Many people are not comfortable with telling the government their sexual orientations and will see it as a breach of their privacy.
But this isn't about getting an accurate count. It's about using data to push for policies or funding for groups who claim to represent LGBT people, regardless of whether they actually do.
Count this gay dude out. I'm not going to have my body used to lobby for spending that I probably don't agree with. If they ever add sexual orientation questions to the Census, I won't be answering. The purpose of the Census is to determine congressional representation. Beyond that, feel free to "erase" me from whatever other spending plans you have in mind.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As long as they only weaponize the Census against my cultural enemies, I'm fine with whatever extraconstitutional bullshit they get up to with it.
How could the Census be weaponized against Philadelphia?
Move it to New Jerksey.
Rerouting the flow of the Delaware River around Philly? I am down with that.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do... http://www.onlinecareer10.com
I am making $85/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.
look here more http://www.richdeck.com
Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly... By completing freelance jobs you get online... I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week...
Go this web and start your work.. Good luck... http://www.jobs63.com
Through Philly? Without warning?
Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly... By completing freelance jobs you get online... I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week...
Go this web and start your work.. Good luck... http://www.jobs63.com
Hey now! Based on the article's title, we might be able to somehow,use the census to rid ourselves of Tony
C'mon, man! Tony's the best source of amusement many of us have. Don't be wishin' him erased.
OT: Retard fight!
Wait, since Kimmel is Schumer's sock puppet, does that mean that Schumer actually insulted FLOTUS? See this is why Jimmy needs to get permission from his handler before speaking.
Also, does Kimmel know that Hannity knows martial arts? Because, I hear he knows martial arts. Don't let the gut fool you, his hands are deadly weapons or something
I never get tired of this.
I saw that earlier, cringeworthy.
"The only one that counts - ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER!"
"Beyond that, feel free to "erase" me from whatever other spending plans you have in mind."
Ok, they'll just mark you down as 'un-personed'.
All this census stuff is utter and complete nonsense. Just take a count and be done with it.
Reapportion the legislature?
How about a White House secretary sends each state a postcard asking "how many registered voters you got?" and then does the math?
Save a few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon the deficit is only huge, not enormous.
Not to mention an army of liberals does not get paid as census takers.
I'm no bigot, I just want to treat everyone in particular groups as though they were the same. Oh, wait...
Reminds me of this quote by Yankee coach Elston Howard when asked if manager Billy Martin was a racist....Howard say, "No, Billy is not a racist, he hates everyone equally!"
thats always been my answer, guess i'll have to give Billy credit for it now
Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly... By completing freelance jobs you get online... I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week...
Go this web and start your work.. Good luck... http://www.jobs63.com
Nah ? I'm giving credit to The Kingston Trio: "And I don't like anybody very much," in their song from the late fifties or early sixties.
There's no contradiction and you spell out why. One question's purpose is malicious and the other's isn't.
Getting an accurate count of where all the gays are sure does seem sinister.
As a lefty, I say fuck you.
"Hitlerian" is the proper term.
Looking for pork barrel spending to be sent your identity group's way is somewhat malicious .
Not somewhat malicious. Truly and horribly despicable--but far too central to our wanna-be socialist (or crony capitalist) system.
Yes, prying into their personal lives could well conceal malice. Asking legitimate questions about nationality (actual nationality, not heritage) seems fine for a government questionaire.
Matt Welch has noted correctly that asking about citizenship is a deliberate effort to undercount illegal immigrants in order to alter the Congressional district map landscape in ways that will be more friendly to Republicans.
Is there really proof that someone came out and said this? I've seen people talk about it as if it were true fact, but I'm not sure I've seen an actual quote. Anyone got a link?
Look, either there's a link, which would prove the plot, or there isn't a link, which would prove the effectiveness of the plot's cover-up.
So it's true either way, denier.
I think its fair to assume this is the intent of the census changes. Assessing malicious intent to this, though, I think is the leap, considering that citizenship has been asked on every census since the 50's, except for the 2010 census. This seems more like reverting to the standard.
I think its fair to assume this is the intent
Cool. So no link?
Nah, I suck.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/featur.....-congress/
But there was an effort by conservatives in Texas to only count voters in congressional districts so that somewhat highlights the intent behind this.
My point is, if there's no actual quote of somebody saying so, then Scott printing "Matt Welch has noted correctly" seems to be bad form. I like Scooter, but this don't fly well.
I got your point. It's fair
IT'S AN OPINION RAG, EVERYTHING IS 'PINION!
The left doesn't need for someone on the right to actually say what they are being interpreted as saying.
The left just knows what conservatives mean. Frequently there will be a "dog whistle" or a "code word" uttered, on which the left does a full Karnac, the Magnificent act, and reads the minds of those transparent righties.
Keep up, $park?.
Yes, "Karnac, The Magnificent," that 'splains everything.
Matt Welch has noted correctly that asking about citizenship is a deliberate effort to undercount illegal immigrants non-citizens in order to alter the Congressional district map landscape in ways that will be more friendly to Republicans citizens.
Does this at all change the meaning?
Basically, I posit the question of what non-citizens should be counted at all given that they are not represented by the United States Congress in any way, shape, or form and aren't intended to be in the first place.
I mean, otherwise why not distribute census forms to the Ukraine to determine how many Rep's they get in Congress?
The claim is that the plain reading of the constitution doesn't care if you're a citizen or not. It's a reasonably strong claim. On the other hand, Welch and Company have repeatedly claimed that immigration has nothing to do with voting. TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
Guess they were lying (shocker).
Has the benefit of not encouraging game-playing with the giving and taking of citizenship for purposes of apportionment. Of course, the lack of citizenship of slaves and their partial counting plays a big role in the current legal framework around this question.
If we start going down the "why includes non-citizens" rabbit hole, we could then ask why include non-voting felons and other citizens who don't have political rights.
Check Section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Apportionment shall be reduced by the number of eligible voters - male, over 21, US citizens - denied the franchise.
Yes, and that provision still holds, in theory, even though women and 18-year-olds now vote. I strongly doubt that it will EVER be invoked, that the number of male (only) over-21 (only) U.S. citizens in a state who are denied the franchise will be explicitly used to reduce a state's representation.
I don't think the constitution limits representatives to only legal citizens, may have to check on that
Look into how the 3/5 compromise came about.
The left is wanting to channel the slave-holding states in being able to use non-voting "persons" to bolster the count, so as to have a disproportionate representation over states that don't have as many non-citizens.
If there were a large number of illegal aliens at the time, there probably would have been a similar argument.
If the country is really full of homophobia, presided over by a homophobe Hitler-wannabe, then I can't see why any gay person would want to register with the government.
Then there's the constitutional question about the limitations on Census authority, though that's a bit of an antiquated objection since the Constitution was 100 years old, like the Book of Leviticus.
I was always taught that 10% of people are LGBT. So just multiply the total US population by 1 / 10 to find out how many of us there are. Pretty simple.
But we need to know how many LGBTQ2I+ people live in The Castro as opposed to Jackson Tennessee. These questions are important. Without answers, we simply don't know.
The exact percentage is ?^2.
If 10% of the nation was gay, it seems like the AIDS rate would be much higher given a few inconvenient facts regarding self-selected populations.
That 10% is FAKE NEWS & always has been!....The real amount is closer to 2-3%
That sounds about right, and is I. Line with credible scientific data.
You wanted your pony Scott. To get it you are now going to be marked and counted. Good luck with that.
Come on, John. Scott is taking a principled stand here and you're kicking him in the shins just because.
John hates Shaklefraud just because. It's his thing.
There actually are reasons for it, and one of those reasons is contained within this article.
Let's just fix this, shall we?
There, doesn't it feel better to be honest?
That means for now, there are no reliable national data about how many LGBT people live in the U.S. that can inform public policy
Knowing where the gay people are might come in handy in the future. Think about it.
It's not like China town or little Italy: just because a gay community exists somewhere now doesn't mean that's where you'll find their gay children and gay grandchildren in years to come.
All the more reason to keep track every few years.
Why doesn't the Census just statistically sample gay people, like they wanted to in the 90s?
"statistically sample" - sounds dirty.
Not if they consent - - - -
Good.
I mean, I'm one of those crazy open-border types but I still think that non-citizens simply don't count when it comes to apportioning Representatives - which, I would add, if you can't vote in and out of office (which an illegal can't) then they don't even have the slightest imprimatur of representation - or most other government programs.
There shouldn't be government programs for illegals and they certainly aren't represented in any form that would have been recognized by the founders - we fought a war to end the practice of a third party assigning people to represent us in our government.
The whole 'asking about citizenship' question is a tempest in a teapot. It's a distraction. As you point out, they're not legally allowed to vote. I'm also told, repeatedly and forcefully that illegals are scared of having contact with authorities and so having them fill out that information on a form that they... send to the authorities seems like an exercise in statistical theater.
All of this was warned about in the 90s when the Clinton administration started to politicize the Census process.
It's not that hard: Enumerate people so we can apportion representatives. Fuck your welfare state. We have other departments for that.
Children can't vote either, but they still count those little brats.
we fought a war to end the practice of a third party assigning people to represent us in our government.
Are you sure we won?
Do you think the people who mark 'yes' to being transgender to help the movement even while they're not transgender will out number the people who are transgender and mark 'no' to avoid nosy busy bodied government entities?
That depends on whether there's a statistically-significant transgender population who aren't focused on telling everyone about their particular eccentricity.
I guess it might be moot since the 'transgender' population is so small that most people consider it to be less than the number of people who, say, die in a swimming pool each year. (A joke, perhaps, but not far off from the truth as one might expect from a specific delusion.)
If it were a question on my census I'd answer "yes". There's literally no working definition of the term, so you can put whatever the fuck you want and it's all good.
See the confusion that's come out of letting dames wear bloomers?
Matt Welch has noted correctly that asking about citizenship is a deliberate effort to undercount illegal immigrants in order to alter the Congressional district map landscape in ways that will be more friendly to Republicans.
That's funny, I thought it was a legitimate question to determine how many US citizens there are.
Asking about your private life should be off limits. Citizenship is your public life.
Citizenship is a birth defect occasionally covered with a tattoo.
As public as your face, and as private.
Citizenship is a Constitutional requirement for voting! Something which several Reason authors seem to conveniently forget!
We should be like France and remain the dark about the nonwhite demographics.
"There's like 20-30% of them OK"
I wonder what Christian National Socialist census forms looked like...
The same as bitter snarky unfunny atheist tool I'd wager.
The census has constitutional authority to reapportion the house of representatives. It does not have constitutional authority to be the determination of where to spend a gazillion tax dollars.
Only valid question: How many people live here?
It may not have had "constitutional authority to be the determination of where to spend a gazillion tax dollars" but it did
have a role in determining how we should be taxed. Until the 16th amendment came along.
Original text, removed by the 16th A:
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
As for spending a gazillion tax dollars; here's James Madison on the subject:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
""It's about the money.""
Also what citizenship questions are about, fwiw.
while some (Welch?) have highlighted the idea that asking citizenship questions will suppress response rates, and thus over a longer term have an impact on how congressional seats are apportioned... that impact is both slow, and in the net, probably not as significant to GOP vs. Dem balance of power as is currently being sold.
Huffpo looked at the question 10 years ago
net-net, its not some huge crusher for GOP
2/
but what it DOES potentially significantly influence is growth of federal spending over the next 10 years.
lots of team-blue constituencies, and their respective puppet-pols in congress, rely heavily on growth of federal $ to their districts. if response rates neuter that, slow growth significantly... well it at the least punishes these places that are so politically reliant on illegal immigrants.
And it seems to be something that the GOP would welcome democrats complaining about. Because what would be more-appealing to voters than having one party say,
"Hey, this is unfair! i deserve to suck more taxpayer money to my district because i've got lots of immigrants!" Surely that will be a popular campaign theme?
anyway - i think both the 'congressional seat apportioning' and the 'spending' issues influence the topic, but i think the 'spending' one is really the meat of it, and something few want to debate openly, because it would put one side in the position of arguing, 'But I deserve more $$ because of ...illegal populations', which is hardly the sort of thing citizens like to hear.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the census people will only consider orientation in the context of a current relationship?
If someone is currently single, they will be neither straight nor gay. It's only at the moment of entering a relationship that their sexual identity will be determined?
Sort of like Schr?dinger's cat ? except it's a quantum super position of sex?
Okay... Just when I thought government couldn't get much dumber.
I am both gay and straight until laid.
Not that hard.
What happens if you just don't give answers that fit in the boxes?
Not much.
Race: human
Religion: Jedi
Sexuality: yes
Citizenship: earth
That would confound the poll takers.
Human? What if I identify as Kryptonian, or Gallifreyan? It's my choice according to those idiot progtards.
I never answer any question that's not relevant to the constitutional purpose of the census.
-jcr
This is also a very good post which I really enjoyed reading.
The information you share is very useful
what is busybox
I am making $85/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk
Census takers (and written equivalents) should only say two things:
"How many people live in this home?"
"Thank you"
California becoming a "sanctuary state" before the 2020 census makes more sense now. Pack all the illegal immigrants there before the census, don't allow the feds to enforce immigration laws, and get an even bigger slice of the pie in the House. Makes sense. It is also bothersome.
Enter that CA is out on under martial law.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h%u2026 Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk
Matt Welch has noted correctly that asking about citizenship is a deliberate effort to undercount illegal immigrant
Cite a source for the word correctly, especially in light of the qualifier deliberate.
Matt Welch repeating it does not make it true.
I would say any claim about impact on the count is speculative at best, and assumes facts not in evidence, as Perry Mason would have said.
I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h%u2026 Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk
I'm glad you noted this, but I do find it interesting that it's pretty much the same group of people who one minute are shouting about the immigrant-status question being included, then shouting about the sexuality question not being included. It seems to me that the Federal government should have a legitimate interest in the former, and should leave us all the fuck alone about the latter.
I doubt people who are here illegally were ever participating in the Census. The guy running the boarding house two blocks over isn't going to admit he has 25 Honduran day-laborers living with him.
I don't want to tell the census where I live, what I do for work, my ethnic origins, my sex, the date of my birth, my marital status or that I am alive. Yet I bet they have all this information already.