First time I've seen a reasonable argument for not identifying us as queers on the U.S. census. After all, he says, "[w]here's the corresponding movement to "atheize" the census? (4th paragraph, 5th sentence). 

I've never seen the other issue before in relation to the census (brought up here near the end of the article) - that "the 'sex' option should be amended to allow for identification as 'intersex', 'genderqueer'. etc."

What do you think?

Views: 96

Replies to This Discussion

The link to the original article that this article is responding to is given below.

Queering the census
This article makes more sense to me, and the comments are more diverse, than the first. In the US, entire elections seem to swing on a small # of voters who feel one way or another about LGBTQI people, but there is little accurate accounting of how many people view themselves as LGBTQI. I could see a reasonably accurate accounting as having either benefits or harm to LGBTQI people. For example, politicians might say "They are only 2% of the country" (or whatever # the census gives) so throw us under the bus. Or, maybe it would be 10% and they might start to think we mean something.

Whether a sticker campaign, that would result in people putting stickers on the forms or envelopes, that would be ignored as the #s are tallied, would be influential - I doubt it. No one is required to note anything extraneous on the census forms and envelopes, and there is some risk it would invalidate the form, such as by gumming up the machines that read them. I don't know about that - you can tell me I'm full of poo and I might just agree.
The author of the first article pretty much disproved his initial point with his sentence "LGBT persons are not numerous". How does he know that without a census? And exactly what the hell is his definition of numerous?

His little rhetorical flourish "they cannot know whether little Adam will grow up to marry an Eve or a Steve." makes me think he's a homophobic twit - the old "Adam and Steve" line is pure homophobish. That's even if he's gay.

His argument about sex/gender is completely uninformed. He seems to have no idea that intersex people exist, when he says "Professionals in gender studies use the word “sex” to describe biology (male or female) and “gender” to describe self-identity (man, woman or whatever). So the present census is asking a completely intelligible question about anatomy." So if you are intersex you do not even exist on the census.

He might have some other points about the issue of whether LGBTQI people need to be included on census, or not, but he's probably an undergrad with little exposure to real life.

Most of the comments tell me that Princeton students are twits (to make a broad generalization) just like the article's author. One commenter did make sense.
How exactly is saying "Adam and Steve" homophobish?

I've made jokes myself about Adam and Steve, but never thought saying Adam and Steve meant I was homophobish.
I may be overreacting, or showing my age. In the past, Anita Bryant and her ilk often used the Adam & Steve expression, and when I was involved in the first gay pride event in Indianapolis, among the signs that religious homophobes carried in protest was the "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" line. As well as their creative "Go back to San Fagcisco" sign and others regarding Hell and Damnation.
Actually, the U.S. Census encourages all gay couples to identify themselves as such.

Gay and committed? Census says you can check "married" box

Census: Gay couples should check 'married' if that's how they view relationship, transgender people should choose the sex they identify with

Census will count gay couples who check "husband or wife"

I didn't know anybody could mark their race as "American". Is that actually even an option? "American" doesn't count as a real racial category, I would think, so the only way that could be entered on the census would be if you wrote it in.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service