Why do LGBTQ activitists want the Trump Administration to find out where LGBTQ Americans live?

Two staples of U.S. media for the past 1.5 years have been the purportedly anti-LGBTQ bias of the Trump Administration and the potential for Donald Trump to become a Hitler-style dictator.

I can’t figure out why the same folks are demanding that the Trump Administration pay government workers to go out and find all of the people living in the U.S. who say that they are LGBTQ. If you think that the government is attacking LGBTQ residents of the U.S., why would you want to give that government an electronic database with the full names and street addresses of every LGBTQ person? When the German government in 1933 did its first census to identify Jews, this turned out not to be a positive event for Jews living in Germany (see Wikipedia).

A sampling of media stories…

“Why the Trump Administration Won’t Ask About LGBT Americans on the 2020 Census” (Atlantic, March 2017)

Shortly after the bureau released its report, a new version came out. This time, the line about sexual orientation and gender identity was missing. The bureau didn’t immediately post an update about what had changed to its website or explain what had happened at length. Its “proposal” to include questions about LGBT identity on its upcoming surveys had just disappeared. LGBT advocates were outraged.

“The Census Won’t Collect L.G.B.T. Data. That’s a Problem.” (NYT, May 2017):

That’s why the Trump administration’s decision not to collect data on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans threatens these communities in ways that are both symbolic and practical.

“After Scuffle, Census To Add Sexual Orientation Question To Marketing Survey” (NPR, September 2017) shows a “marketing survey” in which “Gay or lesbian” is the first response to “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?”

“2020 Census Will Ask About Same-Sex Relationships” (NPR, March 2018):

Beyond improving national statistics, many advocates of equal rights for LGBT people see the changes to the census relationship categories as a symbolic victory. … “It really normalizes our experience on an American government form so that everybody looking at it and everybody filling it out sees that we exist,” she adds.

“Will We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late? Fascism poses a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II.” (NYT, April 2018):

Trump has attacked the judiciary, ridiculed the media, … equated mere policy disagreements with treason. He tried to undermine faith in America’s electoral process through a bogus advisory commission on voter integrity. He routinely vilifies federal law enforcement institutions. He libels immigrants and the countries from which they come.

“With Trump, don’t confuse the unthinkable with the impossible” (CNN, March 2018):

If there is one thing we have learned since Donald Trump took office is that we should not confuse the unthinkable with the impossible. That’s why we should pay attention to the President’s words in a private meeting with Republican donors when he told them he might try to become president for life. … there is also little doubt from his track record that Trump finds the checks and balances of democracy highly inconvenient. He openly admires dictators. When he speaks of other countries’ strongmen he sounds envious.

Trump’s impulses are already in the mold of an autocrat. He is restrained only by the democratic rules that still survive his tenure. Like dictators do, he hates the media…

Readers: Is it possible for a rational person simultaneously to believe that there is a significant risk of Donald Trump becoming an autocrat, that Donald Trump and his Administration are anti-LGBTQ, and that it would be a good idea to give Dictator Trump a flash drive containing the full name, street address, and phone number of every LGBTQ resident of the U.S.?

8 thoughts on “Why do LGBTQ activitists want the Trump Administration to find out where LGBTQ Americans live?

  1. Just LGBT? I thought it’s LGBTABCDWXYZ now! Got to be inclusive of every sexual deviant if you are not a bigot.

  2. I want to sure to get Asheknazi-Armenian-Sicilo-Ilberian-Sardinian-Naplitan-Italian-American added as a racial category. I wonder what those chances are.

  3. It’s about power. If LBGT is on the census form they can be an officially underrepresented minority just blacks and hispanics.

  4. It’s so 2017 of you to be using the old bigoted term “LGBTQ”, as it ignores the latest groups to achieve marginalized victimhood status: the intersexuals and asexuals. The politically correct term in 2018 is “LGBTQIA” (not even joking, this is now a thing).

  5. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60rZn26pGXE

    a thirteen minute video examining the nature of propaganda versus advertising and using the shifting attitudes about sexuality as a case study.

    As an exercise, compare and contrast efforts by advocacy groups to have “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” included in the census to the efforts of political campaigns to influence voters through “push polling”.

  6. What is the case for not collecting the data? If the subjects of collection do not object, and in fact are supporting the study, go for it. The facts are still friendly.

  7. If you met me on the street, you’d see me as a middle-aged, Caucasian, biological male. But what if I feel like and really believe I’m a black Lesbian? What is wrong with me answering a census taker’s sexual orientation and race questions with that answer? If I feel that I’m black and a lesbian, why can’t I answer that way? And would the census staffer dismiss my assertions and or ignore my answers to those questions altogether? If so, why? That’s not fair!

  8. I would argue it’s a risk-benefit analysis. For the sake of argument;

    – LGBT- they can argue that the knowledge of these individuals may be beneficial for the development of the community in the medium-long term. A census comes every ten years. Trump may be out in two-ish. The risk may be worth it.

    – Immigration – the administration wants to ask for nationality, which has led many advocates to contest this question. This may lead to less people responding because of fear of retaliation. Here the fear is more pressing. Here the risk may not be worth it, both for the individual respondents and the general statistical analysis.

Comments are closed.