2010 census to 'closet' data on same-sex married couples

It's one of the reasons

I've pushed to add the word 'transgender' as an identity option for the 2010 census in order to start generating federal statistics for the community, and to take away the fundies argument (and some of our GLBT anti-inclusion peeps) that the transgender community is a 'tiny part' of the US population.

Decline to take the stats, and then you (and the fundies)can put your head in the sand and say that same-gender couples 'don't exist'

---

by: MonicaR @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:55:52 AM CDT

That dog won't hunt

The idea you propose will still result in underreporting of transgender numbers and you can guess why-- Transsexuals like myself do not want identification as transgender and will not report being so. I will only identify myself as a woman. This sentiment is very strongly held by I think most of the transsexuals who transition. When someone is struggling with all her might to be accepted as a woman, to be denied that by being relegated to a "third gender" category feels like a hell of a letdown.

There has to be a better way to count us than the census.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe this is a stupid question

But do either of you know why "Intersexed" is not an option? I can see why "transgender" can lend itself to debate (i.e. the  valid point that people who are pre- or non-operative transsexuals and those who for what ever reason can't change their birth certicate might get lumped into a category that the do not necessarily want to be in), but I have never been able to figure out why various forms of goverment can't add a box that that says "Intersexed" or even "transgender or intersexed" to split the difference. How difficult or expensive could it be to phase it in as offices run out of forms and reprogram the systems to allow a change to a third option in one category. Some for "Civil Union" or "Domestic Partnership" How hard is it to add one category? Is it somehow more complicated than it sounds?

Second question: Hypatia, again, this may be a stupid question, but regarding things like the Census, even if there were a third option, why on earth would anyone who has already need to check any box other than simply "male" or "female" (whichever applies)--wouldn't it just be giving another option and leaving up to the person to decide which box to check? Or is it more of a Pandora's Box thing--like once things like the census get changed, who knows where it might lead?

(I kind of feel like an idiot here, because this really is one of those things where I really don't get it and I am too embarrassed to ask anyone in person.)

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 13:53:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That really is a good question

It hadn't occurred to me before--but you may be right about intersex people deserving the right to mark that as their gender. I honestly can't say because I'm not informed enough about intersex issues or what the folks who are directly concerned would think about this. It would be interesting to know, though. I don't know personally anyone who's intersex.

Susan, I don't think your second question is stupid, but I'm sorry I don't follow what the question is asking-- could you restate it?

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 22:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is because I left out half of the sentence

Sorry. I guess that I am officially sick--I now have a fever so I am probably not making a whole lot of sense.

What I meant to say was:
even if there were a third option, why on earth would anyone who has already changed all of their legal records and lives in a state where there are precedents set that ensure their rights are protected, need to check any box other than simply "male" or "female" (whichever applies)--wouldn't it just be giving another option and leaving up to the person to decide which box to check? Or is it more of a Pandora's Box thing--like once things like the census get changed, who knows where it might lead?

I guess what I am trying to say is that I understand Monica's position about needing enough people to voluntarily identify as transgender on the census for the general public to understand how many people's right are affected, but at the same time, I see why it should up to the individual to decided what they do or do not choose to disclose. I think I am somewhat confused about the question of whether it is better to risk being under-represented or continue to be unrepresented in the census--that is what I meant about opening Pandora's Box. Is there a danger that if the numbers under represent the real population, it might hurt them instead of help them?

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 23:33:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very good question, Susan

I'm wary about transgender identity, separate from male or female, being made official, lest all transsexuals like me be forced to identify as third-gender instead of as the women or men we really are. That is already the law in Thailand, so when I hear such proposals here, alarm bells go off.

I have no objection to transgender people identifying as such, as long as I'm not forced to. I haven't seen any assurances yet that if that legislation went through I would be allowed to retain my legal identity as simply a woman. I will not stand for a Thai-style 3-gender system that would forcibly classify me as a non-woman.

The problem with voluntarily checking a "transgender" box on the census form is that transsexuals will refuse to check it, and the numbers will come up short. The result would be counterproductive to the purpose Monica seeks to achieve. I agree with her purpose, it's just that the method she's proposing won't work as intended and may even worsen our status.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 14:21:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It sounds McCarthyist

But how about are you now or have you ever been transgender?

Or perhaps much better have a question to ask if the person was previously legally considered one sex and is now another as an equal option to transgender and as an additional option to male and female?

That way your genuine womanhood would be counted, your past circumstance would be counted too and those who feel somewhere in between or who identify as transgender would also be counted especially being able to check multiple boxes.

---

by: battybattybats @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 20:19:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No.

My past doesn't count for anything. It's very painful and a matter for my private grief, not public identity. It doesn't define me and I don't want it to label me.

Your idea sounds like the Hindu caste system-- in which the circumstances of your birth forever determine who you can be in society. That's un-American. The American way is to leave your past behind and make of yourself whoever you seek to be.

The unmarked category is always understood to be the real deal, while marked categories are taken to be subordinate. Every non-trans woman gets to be in the unmarked category of woman. I don't want a marker to separate me from other women. I am just a woman, nothing more, nothing less.  

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:29:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I respect your feelings

And I'd certainly only support it as optional.

I should point out though that I'm not American but Australian, that my suggestion is indeed nothing like the caste system though I can see how you would see it that way. I agree that defining someone by the circumstances of their birth goes against enlightenment values. Noting how many people are born into certain circumstances and correlating it with other variables is not really defining people by that though.

Statistics as a field was born in the systematic anlysis of plague. The mapping of disease and of need. The vast majority of our technical scientific and medical developments have come from its usage to some extent.

The purpose of collecting this data would not be to catagorise anyone. The purpose would be to measure how many people are of varying needs, where they live etc to determine how effective measures to serve their needs are in each place and for whom to determine how to best distribute and redistribute resources to serve those people.

If we consider being transexual as a medical birth-condition issue then this is important data that should impact helath policies, medical ecpenditures etc. If we consider it as a social needs issue then it's still important data.

I do not suggest that your past at all defines you nor that it would make you any iota less a woman. Getting accurate data however is important for proper policy construction and an accurate understanding of demographics.

It's not as if census forms don't already include sensitive questions about private matters including religious beliefs, ethnicity, income, marital status and more (country depending of course). It's not about defining the populace or individuals, it's about learning about the populace to inform governmental decisions.

Now you needn't agree with having a census at all either of course but if we have one isn't it important for the policy-makers to know how many people have had or require SRS surgery as well as how many people self-identify as transgender?

If for example reliable stats on SRS are available that can be viewed as proportions of population by place income and ethnicity for example reliable data would reveal where people were badly disadvantaged on matters of employment, race or services. Additional resources could then be expended to help those in most need or to change policies where clearly discriminatory.

That assumes of course the government is using it's statistics properly which it seems it is not.

---

by: battybattybats @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:54:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True

We are talking about the census here, and the data, including private matters, are aggregate, not individual. I guess I can relax about that. I just get all paranoid about being defined by others. Taking off his turban, they said, Is this man a Jew? Working for the clampdown

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 14:17:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actuallly...

Perhaps it's better to just ask your direct view.

If we need to collect better more accurate data on the proportion in the population of transgender identified people and specifically the number of transexuals getting surgery, not getting surgery, wanting surgery and not wanting surgery including those getting surgery overseas then how do you think that data could best be obtained in a way that respects your wishes not to be tagged labeled or stigmatised by your past?

Especially if the data needs to be assesable by other demographic factors and untersections of disadvantage?

---

by: battybattybats @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:10:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I concede this point

As long as the data are used in the aggregate, not individually. Thanks for talking some sense into me.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 14:19:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No worries

No worries Hypatia.

Your concerns are understandable and I can see how it could easilly be a touch-button reflex issue for you. It is worth bearing in mind too that under a repressive regime imparting such information would indeed be worth worrying about and not all democracies are as secure and reliable as either of ours.

---

by: battybattybats @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 19:49:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think that Religion is asked about in the US Census anymore

To the best of my recollection (which is admittedly foggy right now because I am drugged out of my tree on codeine), I think they stopped asking that, either in the last census or the one before. If I recall correctly, it is still asked about in Australia.

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 21:27:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For my part, it is what they do with the information

that would concern me.

I am disabled, and I have to say that every time I check off "DISABLED" on any form, even though I know it says "for statistical purposes only" I wonder if it is going to come back and bite me in the ass someday.

FYI, Batty, my uncle was one of the people who got blacklisted during the McCarthy/HUAC witch hunt, so maybe I am a bit paranoid.  

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 21:37:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A few weeks ago...

I started to follow up my "Light Bulb Moment" diary using statistics of number of married atheist couples versus those of religious affiliations. Could NOT find the info anywhere, but still working on the post.

Having looked at thousands of census records over the years for genealogy purposes, I have no doubt that they certainly COULD reflect married status, as well as whether one is considered a husband or a wife! They've been able to do that since records started to reflect status- back in 1850 onward!!

What did they do back then? Well, simple. It was a grid chart with columns, so they just wrote the info in- same as the census taker did when he visited my house for the 2000 census.

Here's info on the censuses and downloadable blank charts, via Ancestry.com.

They can report married/single/widowed/divorced. They can report ALL family relationships and even if someone within the household is a "boarder". All they do is ASK the individual; they require NO PROOF WHATSOEVER of legality.

More times than I can count, I have found discrepancies based on what the person reported instead of legal FACT. Marriages that were in reality common-law and not legal; children whose illegitimacy was hidden by claiming they were either younger than reality or a distant relative living within the home.

So this argument, that they "can't" report a same sex marriage, is a huge and obvious load of bull.

But honestly, is anyone surprised by it?

In fairness, I can understand that computerization has occurred. But this argument of "2 husbands or 2 wives" gumming up the system is as false as the old "Oh NO, Y2K is going to crash all of the computer systems! We're DOOMED!!!

Funny- I'm in my living room using a laptop that I can also walk around the front yard and still have Internet connection. Guess they were wrong about that ole "Y2K" thing, eh?  

---

by: Louise @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:12:36 AM CDT

GAH.

By no means whatsoever am I saying that SSMs are NOT legal or legitimate. Just re-read and am now going to clean off the keyboard covered with coffee... sorry about that.

And MonicaR's addition of "transgender" is PERFECT. I completely agree.

---

by: Louise @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:16:28 AM CDT

Legal

The fact remains that SSMs are not legal under federal law.  Until DOMA is dead, we should not pretend otherwise.  There is a large chuck of the country who does not get ENDA's importance because they think it is already illegal to first someone for being LGB and/or T.

---

by: tony @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 22:22:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So petty with their hatefulness

Ugh.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:06:53 AM CDT

fascinating, and disgusting...

...that educated, purportedly professional folks are eager to assert that some marriages are not marriages at all, and that recognizing the state laws which make those marriages legal is a burden too large.

---

by: SteveBoese @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM CDT

Will we also see

a whole slew of Xtian religious choices, maybe Jewish and then just "Other"?  For race, maybe "White", "Light tan", and "Too dark"?  

---

by: Jami @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM CDT

our government to decide it needs accurate data?

  After 7 1/2 years of Bush?  There is a definite need for accurate data.  But accurate data is something of the past for now, and we'll see in Novermber if it will change or be the McSame.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:27:36 AM CDT

Just more ways they use to deny us

Because of course our relationships aren't as valid as are "regular" marriages.  Maybe we shouldn't have to pay the same taxes as those married couples that do get counted then, eh?  

"If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door."
Harvey Milk

---

by: Buffy @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM CDT

We don't pay the same taxes,

WE PAY MORE!!!  It would be nice to get the same tax breaks that "regular" marriages get.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 19:43:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lambda Legal should sue that LGBT taxes pay for THEIR census

I want a REFUND if we won't be counted as couples and families. Doesn't this negate any reason to have a census...to F*CKING get an accurate count?
We could save a lot of time and money and just pull figures out of our a$$es...all married families are a Daddy and a Mommy with 2.5 children.  

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 15:27:39 PM CDT

I'm equally pissed

that yet ANOTHER government agency has been polluted by the insane bigotry running rampant in this country.

The very minute that laws started to allow legal statuses such as marriage or civil unions in even ONE state, the Census Bureau should have been working to revise their forms, procedures, etc.  

---

by: Louise @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 16:57:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I worked the 1980 census

As an enumerator for it.  No Hypatia, there ISN'T a better way to count the transgender population in the census and have the numbers unquestioned by both sides in this debate over exactly how big is the US transgender population than for you stealth boys and girls and separatists to take out your pencils, and TRUTHFULLY report yourselves on census forms as such.

We have arguments in the scientific community now over where Lynn Conway's numbers are accurate versus the 40 year old ratio they quote in WPATH (and so do our opponents)

If you want your rights, we've got to have the government-generated statistics and data to whack legislators over the head with. Underreporting is a small price to pay to collect that data.  

Census data by law is confidntial and does not get released until 72 years after the initial census is taken, so you'll be long gone when some future relative of yours gets to read the data from the 2010/2020 census that reveals your status.

Simplicity is what I'm after here.  My proposal is to add 'transgender' (and intersex as our intersex frends suggested) as part the array of check off identity options now or if we can't get it done for 2010, definitely 2020.  

I want to get the ball rolling and start collecting the stats ASAP.  For example, if I were doing it, all I would do on my census form is to check 'female', 'African-American and 'transgender' as my identity choices.  

The bottom line is that POLITICALLY, when we had this discussion back in the early 90's, many of you separatist peeps complaining about the 'transgender' term now were intimately involved in advancing the valid arguments then that led us to the community choosing to be called 'transgender'.  You correctly argued then that you didn't want to be stigmatized by and the community shouldn't be accepting a 'medical' term (transsexual) not chosen by our community as an identrifier.    

Well, the community as a result of those reasoned arguments (by your people mind you) chose transgender, and that's what we've been lobbying at all governmental levels with for the last decade.  It it more inclusive, so what's the problem you separatists have with 'transgender'now, since y'all were the ones pushing it?  

'Transgender' is now in common usage as an identifier like African-American has become to replace Black.

Y'all need to deal with the fact that we listened to y'all in the 90's and you were right then becasue it is a term we created and chose as a community.

I guess if Mara Keisling were the one proposing it instead of the Black transwoman, y'all would be jumping up and down saying it was a great idea, huh?

But the grousing from the 'I hate transgender camp' doesn't invalidate my proposal or the fact that we need stats and a headcount of transgender peeps in the US.

---

by: MonicaR @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 17:32:47 PM CDT

You may have mistaken me for someone else

I'm not sure what you mean by calling me a separatist. I am not consciously or intentionally advocating any kind of separatism. I was not part of any discussions on this in the '90s, because I didn't come out until 2004, I missed all that went before. Race had nothing to do with my response to your idea--if Mara or anyone had proposed it, I would not have said anything different. Please do not impute racism to me because we had a disagreement about one matter-- one that is not even racial.

All I'm saying is I do not identify as transgender, I identify as a woman-- and most of the transsexual people I know feel similarly. That doesn't make me a separatist. I've written elsewhere at PHB about my support for transgender rights. I just do not feel that "transgender" is a complete or accurate description of who I am. My feeling is that "transgender" works as an umbrella term for a coalition of different groups working toward a common political goal, but the word is so vague as to be useless for describing an individual.

I'd be as interested as you in seeing an accurate count of the number of transsexual people. I'm just not convinced that self-identification on the census form is the best way to go about it. Nothing personal against you, Monica. I admire the good work you're doing for the cause. We don't have to agree on every single point to be able to respect one another.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 22:33:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hypathia

If you weren't aware of it, most of the people louldly pushing for reuse of the 'transsexual' label to describe themselves are the HBS/transsexual separatists.

So when I hear someone describe themselves as a transsexual, it's automatically associated in my mind and the minds of those of us doing the lobbying work with those people.  Some of them have been nasty with their nouveau radical feminist rhetoric about not being associated with the 'oppressive' transgender community.    

My apologies if you aren't.

The piont is, I want transgder civil rights coverage in my lifetime and I'm pushing practical, common sense ideas based o my knowledge of my people's civil rights history to get it.  Just because I and others embrace the transgender label doesn't mean I or others don't consider ourselves women either, Hypathia.  But speaking for myself, the difference is I'm not denying or running away from the fact that I spent two decades cooped up in a male body.

So yeah, we diagree on that.  But I'm glad we see eye to eye on the need to officially count every transperson in the US.  The fastest way to get that done is to make it as simple as possible for the feds to implement it.  

That means as a compromise, to get the data we need, we may have to use the 'transgender' term to do so, since that is the one we've been lobbying with for the last 15 years and the most inclusive of all the various permutations of gender in our community, pre, post and non-op.  

Once we get the first one done, then we can work on breaking the stats down to pre, post and non-op.  But telling you from experience and my time with the Census Bureau, (and I will pitch the idea to my congressman, who sits on the committee that funds the Census Bureau) when new questions or procedure changes are proposed or introduced to the US census, they don't start out very detailed right off the bat, although that is a worthy goal to shoot for.

---

by: MonicaR @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 04:02:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There seems to be some misunderstanding

First of all, I have never endorsed the "HBS" ideology. That isn't where I'm coming from. I don't do ideology. All I want is to be accepted fully as a woman so I can live my life, it's that simple.

So when I hear someone describe themselves as a transsexual, it's automatically associated in my mind and the minds of those of us doing the lobbying work with those people.  Some of them have been nasty with their nouveau radical feminist rhetoric about not being associated with the 'oppressive' transgender community.

If I ever personally say anything nasty against anyone, you are cordially invited to call me on it. But that is not my way, so please don't attribute that to me.

Just because I and others embrace the transgender label doesn't mean I or others don't consider ourselves women either, Hypathia.

I never said or implied that. I know better. As stated above, stated repeatedly, I support transgender equal rights. Just because I don't identify as transgender that doesn't mean I don't support transgender rights. I support gay men's rights too, even though I'm not a man. For me LGBT is a package of solidarity. I was drawn into activism as a lesbian, but I signed up for the whole LGBT package without discriminating.

I see nothing wrong at all with your self-identification as transgender, it doesn't harm me any. In return I expect my own self-identification to be respected. What harms me is not transgender people, but the ignorant public at large. If I have the transgender label pinned to me, that equates in most people's minds to "not a woman." In a perfect world, everyone would be accepted as they want to be. But in the real world we live in, transgender identity simply will not achieve the total womanhood I need to live my life. I assimilate among women 100% with no qualifications separating me into a different category from them. Nothing less will do.

But speaking for myself, the difference is I'm not denying or running away from the fact that I spent two decades cooped up in a male body.

So yeah, we diagree on that.

Now just a minute there. That is really offensive. Please stop attributing things to me that I never said or thought. I'm living openly, not in stealth. Frankly, stealth is not even possible these days since every job worth having requires a background check, and the government positions for my career here in DC all require a security clearance investigation. Stealth is out of the question, and it's also beside the point. It's no secret that I'm transsexual, but that doesn't mean I need to shove my pre-transition history in everyone's face. It's on the same level as anyone's personal, private medical history. "Denying"? "Running away"? What the hell are you talking about? I'm going forward into my complicated life without fear. It doesn't mean I need to call attention to my medical history. I'm just a woman. Let me just live my life.

I'll accept the apology you offered for everything you guessed wildly wrong about me. Peace.

Hypatia

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 13:58:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Odd perspective here

but it seems that those who shed the trans unbrella and seek a place as women on a binary model and are not gender deconstructionists are theones most often pilloried here and woild seem to be oppressed in the sense that they see transition as a pathway to becoming a whole woman and that their desire to claim this view is derided.

My friend of operative history sees herself that way, as a woman and those of us who know here agree with and validate that view.

To an outsider looking in, and particularly to this non-separatist second wave Lesbian Feminist, it truly appears that others deny the right of these women to simply be women, just as these same others decry the jaundiced attitudes of Separatist Feminists.

It may well be that it is indeed time for Pharoah to "let these people go" and to allow them to express their sense of self as unique and valid.

If so very may of Lesbians can accept these sisters of ours at face value, accept them as women of an extraordinary history, why can not the transgender community permist them their definition of self?

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 18:40:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am sure this is on their website, but I am too tired to go look

What is the Census Bureau's margin of error? Might any underreporting come from a small enough number of people to get absorbed by the margin of error? Any informed guess?

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:41:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What about ambiguous names?

Perhaps I'm displaying my ignorance here, but how are they determining if someone is 'misreporting' an SSM or not? Do they just look at the person's name and say "Robin is a woman's name?"  Or is there some way of identifying said individual?

---

by: gayjaybird @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 17:48:04 PM CDT

Census Censored

I couldn't remember the last census. SO I went the website to poke around and find out about it. (Mainly, did we have to participate, and how could we protest the changing of SSM couples to non-married.)

I checked out the FAQs adn did a search and came across an article titled, "Unbinding the Ties: Edit Effects of Marital Status on Same Gender Couples." Since it was from april of 1999 I don't think it was taking into account legally recognized weddings. Anyway this is a quote from the abstract:

The current Census Bureau editing policy changes the relationships for people self-identified as same gender married couples into unmarried partners. A very small proportion of people in this situation have their gender changed based on their first name. We find that those couples self identifying as married couples are different from couples self identifying as unmarried partners on a number of important characteristics. Most especially children are much more likely to be coresident in married households. Our findings clearly indicate that the Census Bureau edit process is combining heterogeneous groups of couples.

The rest is available here (as I mangle a hyperlink):
http://www.census.gov/populati...

Apparently they've decided against their report.

(As an interesting side note, I noticed that according to the report that there was a higher number of Same-Sex couples reporting as married in Columbia SC than in Sacramento CA.)

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM CDT

tell census takers

Tell census takers, if you won't list me married, mark me off as DEAD.
Refuse to add to the lie that we are either unrelated or straight.

Isn't there some legal penalty for falsifying census data?
Charge EACH census taker with that crime.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 13:22:26 PM CDT

I looked up the census bureau's answer about falsifying data

They are keeping the answers as answered, but won't publish them. Isn't that breaking the Freedom of Imformation Act?

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 13:35:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

information...typo

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 13:36:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It takes forever to get things released under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the interim, it certainly would seem to be deliberate publishing of misinformation. Or maybe I should say disinformation.

A government agency lying. What a shock.

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 19:23:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

again .....trans-issues on threads with ZERO trans-theme

Tune in tomorrow boys and girls

same trans-time
same trans-channel

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 16:29:30 PM CDT

Respectfully disagree with you on this one

This topic does affect trans folk. In some states their marriages are legal, others not--just like us, except that their situations become further complicated by other factors.

A lot of programs get funding, etc. based at least partially on census data, so it behooves all of us to strive for accuracy, on all counts. Trans issues are our issues, too, in as much as census data affects all of us to some extent, and the issues overlap.

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 18:10:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm legally in a same-sex marriage-- in Virginia of all the crazy places!

I'm still in the same marriage from before I transitioned (how much longer it will last is another question). As long as we remain married, the IRS, the insurance companies, and whoever else cares about these things have to technically go against their rules to deal with us as a married couple consisting of two women. When the census comes along, we can expect our marriage to be censored (if it lasts that long).

I'm not trying to get one up on gay couples who can't get married. It's actually kind of embarrassing that I have this privilege exceptionally because of these loopholes in the law that haven't been examined yet by the courts. When we got married many years ago, I didn't realize I was trans. It just sort of overtook us. There are lots of legal same-sex couples like us in states that technically outlaw such marriages. Apparently the authorities prefer to let sleeping dogs lie on this matter.

Here's what I find about compromise--
don't do it if it hurts inside,
'cause either way you're screwed,
eventually you'll find
you may as well feel good;
you may as well have some pride

--Indigo Girls

---

by: Hypatia @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:40:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I love irony...

My ex and I very nearly crossed the state line to get married in Idaho, because Idaho law does not recognize change of gender. Everyone we talked to about it (including the clerk who would have issued the license) got a bit of a kick out of the idea of sticking it to the bigots by using a bigoted law in our favor. For our part, though, we actually felt pretty much the same way you do about it, not to mention feeling like we had an unfair legal advantage over our friends (most of whom have kids, so it was doubly painful to think about our kids gaining protections that their kids don't have).

As it turned out, it was a good thing that we planned a long engagement, because ultimately things did not work out between us.  

susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 21:15:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]