Australia is due a census. There has been shouting.

[TheSandgroper]

And the shouty ones have been listened to.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-30/albanese-says-question-on-sexuality-will-be-tested-for-census/104289570

Because yesterday https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-29/labor-faces-lgbtq-census-backlash/104288430

It doesn’t say what the question is exactly, but if the census asks if someone identifies as LGTQI, that’s useful societal information. I’m not sure what the issue is here. Can you clarify?

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/research/2026-census-topic-review-phase-one-directions Under the Sex category - New topics being considered further.

After a mandated process of consultation, the ABS decided not to alter the question being asked from the 2021 census. They have other methods of data capture as well which they think manages to do the job.

However, after three days of shouting from all sorts, the PM announced on national radio this morning that he will be overriding the processes as set by law and telling the ABS what to do and that a question on QT etc must be included.

This to me is foolhardy because I don’t think he will continue this through to the following census and instruct the ABS to form a question about detransitioning. Indeed, I don’t think he wants to tell them to include a question on detransitioning this time either. I haven’t heard mention of it in the shouting. Therefore, the data captured will not be a true reflection of trends and service need.

And then there is the fact that a prime minister has just told a commissioner of an independent body how to do his job. He shouldn’t do that.

Thank you for that. Where was the shouting though? Who has been doing that? In the document you linked, the ABS was still in review phase.

The shouting was in the media yesterday. A very fast backflip by our PM.

How would that be useful?

@KielderWater

How would that be useful?

Health and associated future service planning - one reason off the top of my head.

What specific health needs does someone with a congenital reproductive disorder share with a heterosexual man who identifies as ‘queer’?

You might want to ask how we can possibly get good quality information based on the census question you describe. There is an interesting comparison of the 2021 census question about gender identity here. https://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/article/flawed-census-question-leads-to-inaccurate-data-on-gender-identity

Comparing Brighton and Hove (shown by several different objective metrics to have a particularly large trans population we see that this is 20th in terms of numbers of trans identified respondants compared to Newnham (no 1 on the list). The reason why Newnham is number 1 is because of the numbers there who struggled with the question. For example because of poorer English language skills. Its really hard to ask a question in such a way that people will know what you are asking.

If you Google there is a lot of celebration about the inclusion of this question. I thought that the Office of Statistics had to apologise for conclusions drawn from this data. You cannot really find that. Australia will hopefully be aware of the problems.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-29/labor-faces-lgbtq-census-backlash/104288430

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-29/census-lgbtiq-questions-jim-chalmers-divisive-debate/104284240

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-28/lgbtqi-2026-census-exclusion-sexuality-gender-questions/104279252

https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/media-releases/sex-discrimination-commissioner-calls-fed-gov-reverse-lgbtiqa-census#:~:text=Australia's%20Sex%20Discrimination%20Commissioner%20Dr,topics%20in%20the%202026%20Census.

https://equalityaustralia.org.au/equality-australia-welcomes-govt-decision-on-census-but-says-it-doesnt-go-far-enough/

https://equalityaustralia.org.au/almost-70-orgs-call-on-federal-government-to-properly-count-lgbtiq-people-in-the-2026-census/

Feels are worse than useless on the operation table

@Retiredfromthere Thanks for posting that.

I know it and you know it and I dare say the Australian Bureau of Statistics are well aware of it but many of the shouty organisations in Australia don’t give a flying fuck. Certainly no organisation I have seen has come out to publicise the UK results and suggest caution.

@KielderWater The I in LGB … stands for Intersex. This, I understand, is an oldfashioned term for Disorders of Sexual Development. I also understand that most DSD people prefer not to be associated with the rainbow crowd but they are labelled anyway.

It does seem like the Australian government will consider gathering information about LGB people in the next census, but certain activists are still displeased that gender-incongruent people were excluded and believe further action is necessary, though some gender-incongruent Australians seem to think not being formally counted is better in the long run.

Another, and often more preferred though less heard, term for DSD is congenital reproductive disorders.

As for forced teaming - that was the point of my question: what benefit is there in finding out if people ‘identify as LGTQI’ as opposed to finding out if they are LGB, T or have DSD/CRD (which should be known from medical recording)? The only place for asking if someone ‘identifies as LGTQI’ would be alongside asking about religious beliefs.

@KielderWater I understand what you are asking and had an answer written out to you but changed my mind. I had a little think.

It’s very hard to apply for funding from anywhere without statistics. Finding out numbers means access to ready money, whether it is government grants or privately obtained.

As always, it’s follow the money. I wonder how many funding applications ask for population/user numbers and how many have been knocked back or simply not applied for because that box cannot be filled. I wonder how big the pot available is? Think Stonewall doing a wonderful job getting gay marriage legalised then finding itself without a raison d’etre so shifting position to the T.

@KielderWater any medical recording should be known here in Australia as we have a centralised medical system just as the UK has.

Yes I can see how it could be useful for getting hands on resources.

The (Australian) news broadcast I listened to today covered the OP's topic, and also had a brief story on M-pox. The newsreader let us listeners know that "LGBTQI+" individuals are at higher risk of contracting the disease.
The public health expert whose statement was replayed did talk about vaccination rates among "MSM" so I gather it is gay men who need to be aware of their increased risk of contracting or spreading this disease.
At this point I think polite society's agreement to never say "gay" is looking more and more like old school homophobia.

Unless you collect accurate information about birth sex and acquired gender (where applicable) it’s of no use to planning. If all the transmen report themselves as male, how does the health service work out how many breast surgeons it needs to cover essential cancer surgeries and the new cohort of elective mastectomies? Or urologists or OBGYN to manage genital reconstructions and testosterone-related hysterectomies?

Statisticians cover that by recognising that individuals that reported formerly as female now tick the male box - and so on. The number that do so, in any case, wouldn’t be so many as to make more than a blip in statistics.

I’m not talking about feels or operating tables. I’m discussing access to health services of all types.

It’s completely useless data due to the expansion of gender ideology terminology. What data will be collected? Let’s go through the letters to determine what could be used for planning:

L: lesbians, which now means “anyone who identifies as a woman who is attracted to anyone who identifies as a woman”. So data on this will include men and women.
G: “same gender” attraction”, again, meaning straight people are included.
B: probably the most accurate data set.
T: a broad group including AGP men, young people with ASD, lesbians who identify as male, the nebulous ill-defined “non binary” and people who are gender fluid on the night of the census. What useful information can be gleaned from this subset of data?
Q: anything. Absolutely anything, including young people who are straight but don’t want to be too boring.
I: not only will this include people with DSDs, it will also include people who think they have a DSD but don’t, like I have seen on trans forums.
A: asexual. Because there’s a pressing need for services for asexual people, is there? And we’ve been “educated” here that asexual is a broad term that includes people who only want to have sex with people they romantically care about .
+: yes, let’s get all the people with kinks to declare themselves…

@NotBadConsidering Exactly! Thank you.

See, our census could become a laughing stock. And call me patriotic but that distresses me.

https://readlion.com/from-skoliosexual-to-graygender-here-are-the-most-vexing-of-san-franciscos-130-gender-options/

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner in Australia doesn’t know what a woman is. That’s how captured things are. The shouty groups will get their way, no doubt.