LGB+ in data from ONS

[SparklyPinkHairband]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/09/suicide-self-harm-risk-lgb-adults-lesbian-gay-bisexual-ons-england-wales

The purpose of this thread is not to talk about self harm or any other harm.

The purpose is to point out that interestingly the ONS is able to focus on people with a sexual orientation other than heterosexuality, and they do not pollute this group with trans-identified people. I appreciate this clear distinction and I hope, in 10-15 years time (?), in common parlance, LGB+ will have crowded out the currently prevalent but internally incoherent and inconsistent groupings such as LGBT+/LGBTQI+/etc.

I’m all in favour of clarity around statistics so this is good news imo

That is potentially good news. As long as the ONS have not decided to conflate trans stats in with the LGB by identity rather than sex eg. lesbians who are not female? Please forgive my cynicism.

Use of the term LGB+ and being reported in the Guardian makes me suspicious. What do they mean by the +?

The problem is that they say

"LGB+"

"identify as gay or lesbian, bisexual or another sexual orientation (LGB+)"

So what are the other sexual orientations and they are still saying "identify" which could pollute the results.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/mentalhealth/bulletins/selfharmandsuicidebysexualorientationenglandandwales/march2021todecember2023#glossary

From the source, section "2. Background to the research"

"This question did not collect any information on gender identity. In this release, the abbreviation LGB+ refers to people who described their sexual orientation as "Gay or Lesbian", "Bisexual" or "Other sexual orientation" in Census 2021."

In the glossary:
"Sexual orientation
Sexual orientation is an umbrella term covering sexual identity, attraction and behaviour. For an individual Census 2021 respondent, these may not be the same. For example, someone in an opposite-sex relationship may also experience same-sex attraction, and the other way around. This means the statistics should be interpreted purely as showing how people responded to the census question, rather than necessarily being about whom they are attracted to or their actual relationships.

The sexual orientation groups included in this release were "Straight or Heterosexual", "Gay or Lesbian", "Bisexual" and "Other sexual orientation"."

So I do think they designed this to focus on sexual attraction, leaving any gender theory to the side.

A very sensible approach I would like to see more widely adopted. Some day in The Guardian as well.

It is certainly an improvement.

Thank you.

I would not trust this data.

The ONS may have attempted to define what they think is the correct description of who this covers, but in the current climate most people looking at it will assume it is the usual word +++++ group. As shown by the response from the Samaritan woman. She thinks it is the whole alphabet soup.

And I think the last paragraph is particularly insensitive. The implication being that it is this groups of people who are the issue, rather than wider society.

I was peturbed when I heard a news headline about this, and not reassured by the way the article talks about it.

Wasn't the 2021 Census the one that resulted in unusably ambiguous data because it messed around with sex and gender ID?

So a trans-identified male who was sexually attracted to women would identify as a lesbian, and therefore be included as a lesbian in this survey.
"This question did not collect any information on gender identity. In this release, the abbreviation LGB+ refers to people who described their sexual orientation as "Gay or Lesbian", "Bisexual" or "Other sexual orientation" in Census 2021."

e ONS may have attempted to define what they think is the correct description of who this covers, but in the current climate most people looking at it will assume it is the usual word +++++ group. As shown by the response from the Samaritan woman. She thinks it is the whole alphabet soup.

Agreed that the ONS can think what it likes but most will assume the common understanding.

The final remarks are the precise comments I’d expect in a formal discussion. They are accurate but it strikes me as largely a clunky classic inverted pyramid rearrangement of a press release (although I can’t find it).

Yes - I should have said in my post, that the evidence (reluctantly admitted) that many people do not understand, or have a different understanding of these letters however grouped together.

And also upset that all the shouty headlines that started once this report was release, continue to day with the implication that somehow those who are same sex attracted are not as mentally stable as opposite sex attracted people.

No reference to the much more likely cause of a hostile environment.

The data will likely include plenty of trans people unless they have specifically excluded them from the study.

TM who date other TM
Non Binaries often id as lesbian
Opposite sex attracted men who ID as trans call themselves lesbians.
TW who date other TW.

Obviously some of those groups are also LGB but there may be a higher rate of suicidal behaviour in those groups than those who are LGB and not trans identified.

So I guess it’s possible that those individuals who are trans are skewing the data.