Friday, February 21, 2025

Gallup: More U.S. Adults Identify as LGBTQ+ in 2024

Recent Gallup polling indicates a rising percentage of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+ with 9.3% of those polled in 2024, which is up more than 1% from 2023.

More

Nearly one in 10 adults in the U.S. identifies as LGBTQ, according to a large analysis from Gallup released Thursday -- almost triple the share since Gallup began counting in 2012, and up by two-thirds since 2020. nyti.ms/42ZZGIN

[image or embed]

-- The New York Times (@nytimes.com) February 20, 2025 at 5:49 PM

Comments

More from the article...

... The percentage is nearly double the amount who identified as bisexual, lesbian, gay, transgender or something other than heterosexual in 2020 and significantly higher than the 3.5% affirming such in 2012, Gallup announced Thursday. ...

Gallup polling shows LGBTQ+ identification among respective generations is:

- - - Generation Z (born 1997-2006) -- 23.1%

- - - Millennials (born 1981-1996) -- 14.2%

- - - Generation X (born 1965-1980) -- 5.1%

- - - Baby boomers (born 1946-1964) -- 3%

- - - Silent generation (born 1945 or earlier) -- 1.8%

The rate of Gen Z adults identifying as other-than-heterosexual rose from 18.8% from 2020 through 2022 to 22.7% during the past two years, according to Gallup. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-21 12:37 AM

Curious that the full-fledged assault of the GOP against LGBTQ+ people seems to only have increased those who were targeted by the GOP.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-02-21 12:39 AM

Curious if the GOP's assault on civil rights and 1st amendment freedoms will force more people into hiding who they are again.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 12:48 AM

All this shows is more people are admitting it to pollsters. The percentages were identified decades ago, 1940 to be more precise:

"According to Alfred Kinsey's research, approximately 10% of men were considered "more or less exclusively homosexual" for at least three years of their adult lives, which is often cited as the "Kinsey scale" percentage for homosexuality; this figure is based on his studies that showed around 37% of men had at least one homosexual experience to ------."

Women's range is 1%-3%.

Here's a link to a good dissection, multiple studies, databases, etc. on the subject:
It concludes:
"Identity aside, ten per cent of the population, it seems, could well be involved in same sex behaviour after all."

#4 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 10:57 AM

The Q stands for QAnon.

#5 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 11:31 AM

The Q stands for QAnon.

The bug-eyed freak leading the FBI is a full blown Q-Tard.

#6 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2025-02-21 11:42 AM

But MAGAbullies love to persecute LGBTQ hecause they love to have victims. Stupid people love to hsve victims because their stupidity makes them need to demonize minorities because morons have a need tp feel superior to someone due to their inferiority complexes. So, someone who is different is a vulnerable target!

#7 | Posted by danni at 2025-02-21 11:50 AM

The problem with these numbers is the lumping of LGB with the TQ.

I'd be curious to see if the uptick is coming from the TQ numbers.

#8 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-21 12:45 PM

The problem with these numbers is the lumping of LGB with the TQ.

I'd be curious to see if the uptick is coming from the TQ numbers.

Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-21 12:45 PM | Reply

Why do you think it's a problem with including LGBTQIA all together?? Are you trying to deny our existence too??

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 12:52 PM

I remember people used to complain if you conflated sexual identities with sexual orientations. Now they complain and accuse you of trying to deny their existence if you don't.

#10 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 02:00 PM

#9

If anything I was focusing on your existence.

There is a strong debate about social contagion in the TQ+ numbers. If the numbers were also increasing at such a rapid pace in the LGB numbers it would be a strong argument against social contagion, and bolster the "not afraid to come forward" position.

However if it's just TQ, then the social contagion possibility should continue to be investigated.

And to be clear before you assign me a position.

The T community definitely exist. However I feel that we are too liberal in affirmative care and treating kids with mental and emotional issues that in fact would not be in the T community otherwise. I feel it is a disservice to those kids, and it weakens the position of those like yourself that actually are transgendered.

#11 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-02-21 02:41 PM

All this shows is more people are admitting it to pollsters.

Your assumption is the rate is constant, and only people are admitting it now.
From a scientific perspective that is an invalid assumption, you can't draw any conclusions because the polls weren't meant to resolve this issue.

Only an increase in those counted, that is it, that is all you can assert with confidence without more data.


Why do you think it's a problem with including LGBTQIA all together?? Are you trying to deny our existence too??
#9 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Not a problem in the larger picture, but if breaking down statistically it would be interesting to see the growth rates of each.

This is from 2021
news.gallup.com

Note how "BI" has grown to 15% for kids, could it be that the Bisexual growth rate accounts for a majority if not all of the growth?

#12 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:02 PM

"Your assumption is the rate is constant, and only people are admitting it now."

Your assumption is people were just as comfortable then as now in admitting it.

Of the two, I disbelieve the latter.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 03:04 PM

The break down from the article shows a huge increase in Bisexual behavior.

Are bisexuals really LBGTQA? Aren't their degrees? If someone has one experience are they now Bisexual?

idk the rules.

#14 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:09 PM

Are bisexuals really LBGTQA? Aren't their degrees? If someone has one experience are they now Bisexual?

idk the rules.

Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:09 PM | Repl

Clue phone here. The B in LGBTQIA is for Bisexuals. You're welcome

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:11 PM

Clue phone here. The B in LGBTQIA is for Bisexuals. You're welcome

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

OneNut knows that, Capt'n obvious... He was asking something along the lines of - if he only sucks one dick, does that make him Bi? Or does he have to partake more times to get his wallet-sized ID card?

#16 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-21 03:29 PM

#16 You mean if YOU only suck one dick! Askhole!

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:30 PM

if he only sucks one dick, does that make him Bi?

You checking whether you're technically bi?

The term "curious" or "bi curious" is used for people who experiment one or two times with people of the same gender.

You're not bisexual unless you find yourself attracted sexually to both males and females. (More than just that one drunk night in college.)

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:39 PM

You mean if YOU only suck one dick! Askhole!
#17 | POSTED BY 1INCEL

Don't worry baby girl. No one was suggesting you've ever had sex.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:41 PM

Baby girl.... LMAO

#20 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-21 03:43 PM

Speaking of LGBTQIA people.

Riddle me this. A guy puts Bull nuts on his rig and then calls said rig she/her yet has a problem with Trans people. Make it all make sense please.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:44 PM

(More than just that one drunk night in college.)

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, JPW tried to play it like that after he let the cat out of the bag on the Nooner that weird night.

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-02-21 03:44 PM

Why do you think it's a problem with including LGBTQIA all together?

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 12:52 PM | Reply

I know straight, married swingers claim LGBTQIA now.

The A went from Asexual to Anybody.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 03:48 PM

"Anybody" is technically pansexual.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:53 PM

#23

This is exactly right, aren't we all LGBTQA+?

If the definition keeps changing to the point that everyone is included, then what's the point of the distinction?

#25 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-02-21 03:53 PM

aren't we all LGBTQA+

Funny how CisHets hate being left out.

#26 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:56 PM

"The A went from Asexual to Anybody."

When did it stop being Allies?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 03:57 PM

Funny how CisHets hate being left out.

Posted by ClownShack at 2025-02-21 03:56 PM | Reply

Yeppers. Just take a gander at Straight pride events. The ridiculousness is staggering.

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-21 03:59 PM

Self declared mental illness nearly 1 in 10.

#29 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-02-21 04:14 PM

From a scientific perspective that is an invalid assumption, you can't draw any conclusions because the polls weren't meant to resolve this issue.

I didn't draw that conclusion from nowhere. I cited where I got my information, why I said what I said, gave a link to a great piece on the subject, and was all based that and what was the gold standard in sexual expression in 80 years, which I also referenced but did not cite. Do you need a citation for something that is, perhaps, the seminal study on this subject? The work is incredibly interesting.

Otherwise just start with the simple:
kinseyinstitute.org

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 04:40 PM

When did it stop being Allies?

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 03:57 PM | Reply

It never meant Allies. It always meant Asexual.

#31 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 04:41 PM

What you're looking for is LGBTQIA+ Allyship. It's the other A that's not included in the acronym.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 04:42 PM

"It never meant Allies."

Sure it did; look it up.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 04:46 PM

I did before I commented. UC Davis, Wikipedia, and ChatGPT.

Calling it Allies is considered a slur.

"Some people have mistakenly claimed the A stands for ally, but allies are not a marginalized group and mentions of A for ally have regularly sparked controversy as a form of LGBT erasure."

If you want to battle the wikipedia editors, have at it.

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 05:37 PM

You don't get to be an initial unless you're marginalized.

Circling back to my original question, are white, hetero swinger Allies marginalized? Eh, no, they just like to fuck.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 05:39 PM

It started out as ALLIES.
I remember that from the 80's. I remember it well. I remember PFLAG.

It was around 2015-2018 that it shifted.
Some militancy developed in the US.
There are *some* people that get their nose out of joint because "allies" aren't "them" so they can't be in "the group."
I've run into a couple of those types.

#36 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 05:45 PM

"If you want to battle the wikipedia editors ... "

I'll just leave that right there.

Meanwhile, I'm collecting two pensions from a career in the arts. I've never heard A referred to as asexual, always ally.

Ask Siri, see what she tells you. The answer I got was either or both.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 05:47 PM

ChatGPT?
Jeezus.

Here's a great example of being wrong - and the historical and thoughtful rebuttal to it. Read the comments, and expand them (there's only one that matters and it's the longest. The rest are handclaps for it.

medium.com

It's a perfect presentation of how history is lost on the young and why that's detrimental to their own cause.

#38 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 05:57 PM

Who thinks the bulk of expanding lettered gender and sexual identities are organic and naturally created / developed vs created via media and mind manipulation of youth.

Me I don't care unless promotion is political where some identities are given benefits that others do not get.

#39 | Posted by robson at 2025-02-21 06:13 PM

Ask Siri, see what she tells you. The answer I got was either or both.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 05:47 PM | Reply

Eww, no. That's the worst AI. Apple is far behind.

Notice you skipped the UC Davis part.

Allyship is after the LGBTQA+ part regardless of how many friends you have using it wrong.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-02-21 06:22 PM

"When did it stop being Allies?*

I've seen it referred to as Asexual or Agender or Androgynous far more often than Allies. I'm pretty sure Alcoholics Anonymous were also embedded at one point.

#41 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 06:38 PM

Notice you skipped the UC Davis part.

Didn't seem the least bit relevant to me. Is there something significant about that? You provided no context, no link. I don't much care given I lived through it all.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 06:41 PM

Allyship is after the LGBTQA+ part regardless of how many friends you have using it wrong.

Yeah - No. Wrong.
Don't need you telling me that me being gay and all my friends have been 'using it wrong'.
I've heard that from too many women that tried to get me to switch teams.

#43 | Posted by YAV at 2025-02-21 06:45 PM

"You don't get to be an initial unless you're marginalized."

Everyone is marginalized, to some extent. What's the threshold? Since we're mixing and matching orientations with gender identities then why not also include other marginalized groups, like Autistic and Neurodivergent people too?

"Circling back to my original question, are white, hetero swinger Allies marginalized?" Eh, no, they just like to fuck."

Actually, you just made the point in how they're marginalized in the same way bisexuals often were and are. For a time, I think they weren't even acknowledged by the Gay and Lesbian movements.

Historically, swingers were associated with the word "gay" regardless of their orientations. Before it became primarily associated with homosexuality, gay referred to anyone in the Freelove movement.

#44 | Posted by sentinel at 2025-02-21 07:50 PM

" regardless of how many friends you have using it wrong."

Don't be a jerk.

In my arts circles, we've always been Allies. Yav confirmed history I lived through, which you don't know. Why dig a deeper hole?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-21 08:32 PM

"Notice you skipped the UC Davis part."

I noticed you skipped the "We lived through it" part.

Did you bother reading the history, so admirably provided for you? It spells out your error rather clearly.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 01:21 AM

Lumping T in with LGB makes no sense IMO. T should be it's own separate category.

#47 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 02:43 AM

T should be it's own separate category.

There are only two categories now:

1) Straight white men, and
2) Everybody else.

#48 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-02-22 02:47 AM

#48.

Um, no. But solid trolling effort.

#49 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 02:51 AM

Lumping T in with LGB makes no sense IMO. T should be it's own separate category.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 02:43 AM | Reply

You get no say because you're not part of the community.

#50 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 02:53 AM

BTW Trans people have been instrumental in the fight for LGBTQIA rights. Marsha P Johnson a Trans woman of color was credited with throwing the first brick at Stonewall. Again Jeff. You get no say. Just sayin

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:06 AM

Trans and gay are not the same. They are not intersectional.

#52 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:11 AM

Trans and gay are not the same. They are not intersectional.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:11 AM | Reply

You really have no clue how ridiculous that argument is. We are part of the community because we're all part of a group of people who have been marginalized by our own society. If you are not part of the community you really don't get to decide who is in it or not. That's just the facts of the matter.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:20 AM

Um, no. But solid trolling effort.

What is "DEI", other than not straight white men?

#54 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-02-22 03:22 AM

DEI is the embodiment of modern racism.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:23 AM

DEI is the embodiment of modern racism.

#56 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:23 AM

Gay and trans face completely different issues. They are not intersectional and it's offensive to both groups, IMO, to be lumped in together as one.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:24 AM

When it comes to DEI - take anything written, especially by Robin DeAngelo or Ibrahim X Kendi and swap black with trite and vice versa and it will read like it was written by a Klan member.

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:26 AM

Gay and trans face completely different issues. They are not intersectional and it's offensive to both groups, IMO, to be lumped in together as one.

Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 03:24 AM | Reply

GFY Jeff. You know not what you speak about.

#59 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:27 AM

What is "DEI", other than not straight white men?

Posted by REDIAL at 2025-02-22 03:22 AM | Reply

THIS!!!!!!!! DEI has become a perjorative and it's all about excluding all but cis het white males. That's the crux of the issue.

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:30 AM

www.jurist.org

The question then becomes whether American society, out of timidity, fear, or wrongheaded belief, wishes to return to those days of "white men only need apply."

Some might argue that the executive order and AG memo do no such thing " that they merely speak to assuring equal opportunity. And yet, they advocate for a return to practices that historically led to only white men being considered and hired.

The so-called "merit-based" period they romanticize was one where consideration and appointment rested more on relationships than actual merit. The fundamental criterion for consideration and hiring was who one knew rather than what one knew. And since, due to virulent discrimination, white men primarily knew other white men as peers, those relationships led to the lily-white outcome discussed above " the very system to which the President and the Attorney General (a woman, which is an irony not lost on anyone except possibly her) wish we return. If you believe I overstate the case, consider Attorney General Griffin Bell's own comments about judicial appointments, courtesy of a 2021 University of Toledo Law Review article by Katherine Simpson.

#61 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-02-22 03:46 AM

"They are not intersectional"

They certainly are in the mind of MAGA.

Haven't you been paying attention?

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-02-22 03:47 AM

Danforth,

Are you going to be around for a few more minutes?

If yes, I'd like to share a drippingly sarcastic paragraph from a piece at NRO that you will undoubtedly enjoy.

#63 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 04:01 AM

I tried to create a user blog with it but NRO links are forbidden on this site, which is crazy given that those writers are very critical of Trump.

#64 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 04:02 AM

" They are not intersectional"

They certainly are in the mind of MAGA.

Haven't you been paying attention?

#62 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2025-02-22 03:47 AM | FLAG: "

Well, on this issue apparently I'm not MAGA. I don't see it that way at all. Gay and trans are not synonymous.

#65 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-02-22 04:07 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Republicans Mum as Trump Turns Toward Russia Against Ukraine (127 comments)

'You Could Have Made a Deal': Trump Blames Ukraine (89 comments)

Kash Patel Confirmed (71 comments)

Gallup: More U.S. Adults Identify as LGBTQ+ in 2024 (65 comments)

WaPo: Trump Expected to Take Control of USPS (56 comments)

Will there be a DOGE Dividend Check? (48 comments)

Trump: Russia 'have the Cards' in Peace Negotiations (31 comments)

Musk: I'm 'Looking for the Gold at Fort Knox' (30 comments)

IRS to Lay Off 6,700 Employees (29 comments)

MAGA Is Leading 'the Dumbest Imperial Collapse in History' (25 comments)