The US district judge made the ruling in the case of four trans Wisconsin residents, who were challenging a 1997 provision that excluded coverage of “transsexual surgery” for Medicaid recipients.
Judge William Conley said on Friday, August 16, that the state’s Medicaid programme was discriminating against trans people by not covering trans healthcare.
The four trans people who filed the lawsuit argued that gender-affirming healthcare for trans people was medically necessary due to the medically recognised condition of gender dysphoria.
“There is now a consensus within the medical profession that gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition, which if left untreated or inadequately treated can cause adverse symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, serious mental distress, self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Conley wrote in his judgment, according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
In the 38-page ruling, Conley said that trans people in Wisconsin were being discriminated against on the basis of sex under the federal Affordable Care Act.
Conley’s ruling follows a temporary injunction against the provision that he issued last year.
Insurance companies that manage state Medicaid plans also “acknowledge that gender-confirming hormone and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria can be medically necessary”, Conley said.
Wisconsin is among nine US states that have explicit Medicaid exclusion for trans healthcare, according to the ruling, which also estimates the cost of gender-affirming treatments covered by Medicaid to be between $300,000 and $1.2 million per year.
Wisconsin spends $3.9 billion a year on its Medicaid programme.
Trump proposing nationwide rollback of trans healthcare.
On May 24, the Trump administration filed a 204-page proposed regulationthat would roll back healthcare protections for trans people.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published the document proposing eliminating gender identity as one of the factors in healthcare and government policy.
The regulation would reverse changes made by the Obama administration and came as another knock to the transgender community.
The brief was submitted in a case concerning Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired from a Detroit funeral home after she informed her employer that she was beginning her gender transition. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., is one of three cases concerning LGBTQ workers’ rights that the Supreme Court is expected to hear this fall.
Aimee Stephens and her wife Donna, right.Courtesy ACLU
The brief, submitted by Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco and other Department of Justice attorneys, argues that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, “does not bar discrimination because of transgender status.”
“In 1964, the ordinary public meaning of ‘sex’ was biological sex. It did not encompass transgender status,” the brief states. “In the particular context of Title VII — legislation originally designed to eliminate employment discrimination against racial and other minorities — it was especially clear that the prohibition on discrimination because of ‘sex’ referred to unequal treatment of men and women in the workplace.”
If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it will be overturning a decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Stephens in March 2018.
“Discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII,” Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote in the 6th Circuit’s decision. “The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex.”
Moore added that requiring the Christian business owner, Thomas Rost, “to comply with Title VII’s proscriptions on discrimination does not substantially burden his religious practice.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative legal group thathad petitioned the high court to hear the Stephens case, said the lower court overstepped its bounds by “redefin[ing]” the term “sex” in Title VII to “mean something other than what Congress clearly intended.” Just hours before the Trump administration submitted its brief, ADF submitted one of its own, arguing that “judicially rewriting sex discrimination in Title VII will spill over into other federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination.”
“It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner’s podium, and to receive critical scholarships,” the ADF brief states. “It will also require domestic-abuse shelters to allow men to sleep in the same room as female survivors of rape and violence. And it may dictate that doctors and hospitals provide transition services even in violation of their religious beliefs.”
In addition to Stephens’ case, the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases dealing with workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Those cases — Zarda v. Altitude Express and Bostock v. Clayton County — will be consolidated.
The Trump administration has made its position clear on the scope of sex discrimination in Title VII, so Friday’s amicus brief did not come as a surprise to those following the cases. In July 2017, the Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Zarda case opposing the extension of Title VII discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation. And in October 2018 — prior to the Supreme Court decision to hear the Stephens case — the DOJ filed a brief with the high court siding with the funeral home. In the Stephens case, the federal government is pitted against itself, since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a defendant in the case.
The Supreme Court will hear the cases next term, which begins in October.
Nearly 200,000 transgender people in the United States have been exposed to so-called conversion therapy at some point in their lives, according to a study published Thursday by The American Journal of Public Health.
“Conversion therapy” refers to efforts to change an LGBTQ person’s gender identity or sexual orientation and has been condemned by nearly every major health association, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Using data from the National Center for Transgender Equality’s 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey and UCLA’s Williams Institute, researchers from Harvard and The Fenway Institute estimated that 187,923 trans people across all 50 states — or approximately 13.5 percent of the country’s estimated 1.4 million self-identified trans individuals — have been subjected to attempts to change their gender identity by a “professional,” such as a psychologist, counselor or religious adviser.
“Our research team was extremely concerned to find that this practice, which is widely discredited by major medical organizations, was so prevalent,” Dr. Jack Turban, a resident physician in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the study’s lead author, told NBC News in an email.
The researchers broke down the data in several ways, including by state. Respondents in Wyoming, South Dakota and Montana were the most likely to experience gender conversion therapy in their lifetime, with more than 20 percent of respondents in each state reporting they had experienced gender conversion therapy methods.
In addition to examining lifetime exposure of psychological attempts to change a person’s gender identity from transgender to cisgender (PACGI), researchers also examined exposure to such conversion efforts from 2010-15, “to capture the diagnostic change from ‘gender identity disorder’ to ‘gender dysphoria’” by the American Psychiatric Association.
Gender identity disorder was historically used by mental health professionals to diagnose trans individuals despite objections from advocates, who argued that the term further stigmatized trans people by assigning them a lifelong mental health diagnosis. Gender dysphoria, which is used to describe the emotional distress over “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender,” has been deemed the more accurate terminology by the APA since 2010.
Researchers found that 5 percent of trans people reported exposure to conversion therapy from 2010 to 2015. The number of individuals varied across states, but similar to the lifetime exposure results, respondents from South Dakota (16.3 percent) and Wyoming (9.1 percent) were the most likely to experience gender conversion therapy at some point during this five-year period.
Most major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, have labeled gender identity conversion efforts as unethical and state that they can lead to adverse mental health outcomes.
Trans individuals suffer elevated risks of anxiety and depression compared with the general U.S. population, according to experts. In an earlier study, Turban looked at such mental health outcomes for transgender individuals and determined that exposure to conversion therapy is “associated with severe mental distress, suicide ideation and suicide attempts.”
Turban said he hopes his findings will highlight the magnitude of this controversial practice for state legislators who are considering legislation to ban the practice on minors.
“In the past, some state legislators have argued that such bans are not necessary because gender identity change efforts do not occur in their state,” Turban said.
He cited as an example former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, who vetoed a 2018 bill to ban conversion therapy in the state because he said there was “no evidence” that the practice was employed.
“Our findings show that this is false,” Turban said. “Transgender people in every U.S. state reported exposure to gender identity change efforts.”
In the last 30 months, 13 laws have been passed protecting minors against conversion therapy. Currently 18 states, along with the District of Columbia, ban the practice on minors.
Pretty much everyone knows Illinois is one of the most welcoming places for LGBTI people in the US.
From Boystown to a plethora of LGBTI-owned and friendly businesses across the state, it’s a place where people of all backgrounds live and thrive. To embrace the state’s diversity, the Illinois Office of Tourism created a new campaign to spread a message to the LGBTI community and the rest of the world: that Illinois is Amazing for All.
The six-foot-by-23 wooden sculpture became an instant hit with the 200,000 visitors at the two-day festival. The sculpture is now sitting in the heart of Chicago’s LGBTI district, Boystown, at the corner of Halsted and Newport.
But why did Hoffman want to join Illinois in sending this message to the LGBTI community? Gay Star News sat down with him to reveal all about the now-iconic sculpture.
So why did you want to create this artwork to encourage LGBTI people to visit Illinois?
My main belief is the importance of public art and how it changes lives when you come across it.
A little bit of my background: I make stickers saying ‘you are beautiful’, as well as other outdoor installations. I started those in 2002. And we’ve now printed five and a half million stickers, and done these sort of installations around the world.
The message is that no matter who you are, you can see these stickers and know ‘you are beautiful’. And I think that that’s an incredible message. I think that came from struggling with self-esteem and different issues growing up and stuff.
So Illinois Office of Tourism reached out, because especially in Chicago, this project is very prolific. They wanted to partner and collaborate on this other great message – that Illinois is Amazing for All.
What inspired the design for the #AmazingForAll sculpture?
Basically, I make things in two very distinct ways. One is that things blend in like signage and then the other way is a handwritten style. When you do it that way, there’s a human connection there. Like someone is literally saying something to you. Then when you blow that up in scale, it’s just really incredible.
The sign in construction | Photo: Matthew Hoffman, Instagram
It must have been incredible when you debuted at Northalsted Market Days. How was that feeling? What was it like to have thousands of people see it?
It’s my favorite thing. I’m definitely someone who wants people to experience the work I make. I really stay in the background with a lot of the stuff I do. I try to keep a lower profile just because I don’t want it to be attached to my baggage. Like, who’s this person and what it’s about. This is a message for you in that moment. And so enjoy it.
So it was super cool to just see people enjoy it. It’s one of those things that when you watch people walk by, they smile, then they run up to it. And they ask their friend or a stranger to get their photo taken in front of it. That’s a really incredible experience.
It’s cool because not everybody is going to see that in person. They are sharing it around the world so all sorts of people are able to see it on their feed.
Have you lived in Illinois long?
I was born in Ohio and then we moved around. I went to school in Indiana. Eventually I moved to Chicago in 2002. So I’ve lived in the Midwest my whole life and I’ve been here about 17 years.
What’s life in Illinois like for LGBTI people?
I feel like it’s open and inviting. I’m not talking firsthand – I’m straight – but it seems open everywhere. There are some areas that need to get better, but it’s great for a really good portion of the state, especially in Chicago. I think it’s great.
Where’s your favorite place to eat?
So I’ve got an 11 year old. Me and him generally like the worst places, you know. But there’s this one called – Rosati’s [a Chicago pizza restaurant]. Yeah, we go like almost every day.
The completed sculpture when it debuted at Northalsted Market Days | Photo: Illinois Office of Tourism
What’s one thing everyone should do in Chicago?
There are these great architecture boat tours. That sounds like a tough sell to some people. But it’s a great way to explore the city and learn about things. We take the boat tours every year. It’s pretty cool because it goes down the river through the whole city, you learn a lot about the history, and then it actually takes you out on the lake, which is pretty fun.
So what plans do you have for the future?
We just put up a couple ‘you are beautiful’ pieces on fences, and one on a building. And we are going to do more of those. And then we also have a space where we have our studio, with a store and a gallery in the front. It’s in the Avondale neighborhood at 3368 N Elston Ave.
So we’re doing everything that we can to be a part of the community and bring people in. Our next big show is 20 July. It’s called Beautiful Together. And we’re inviting like 200 different artists to make a ‘You are beautiful piece’ and add their voice to the message. So that’s kind of the next big, big thing as far as our fun summer installations.
This article was sponsored by the Illinois Office of Tourism.
We are already midway through summer and LGBTI travelers, one of the most dynamic travel audiences, mold the landscape of the global tourism industry with their travel choices.
Travel by Interest, a gay travel website that turned into a global hotel-choosing tool, researched what gay travelers search for ahead of their summer holidays, and ‘Gay Beaches’ proved to be the hottest trend in Google with more than 58,000 average monthly searches.
But… could a gay beach, even if that gay beach is one of the best in the world, become a reason to choose your next destination? In some cases yes; in others no. One thing is for sure: gay men love beaches – who wouldn’t, as they are relaxed and carefree, making socializing much easier. But what did gay travelers search for regarding gay beaches?
The pattern ‘gay beach + destination’ seems to be very popular for both alternative and famous destinations. Yet, the searches do not just focus on destinations but also on more generic ideas, like gay beach resorts and – interestingly – gay beach weddings. It seems like year by year, gay men become more romantic!
Before we begin presenting the most searched gay beaches in the world, it is worth mentioning that in addition to the leaders in ‘Gay Beach’ related searches, United States & United Kingdom, we found a vivid interest from Canada, Brazil, and India.
During our research, we found many gay summer destinations, which were to be expected. But, on the top of all of them, we found the one and only Gay Barcelona, with the keyword ‘Gay Beach Barcelona‘ being hit approximately 1,600 times per month.
Next comes the notorious ‘Gay Beach Mykonos‘, which counts approximately 1,000 Searches per month in Google, while the most popular months are naturally from June to August. Mykonos is home to various gay beaches, but when people search this keyword, they most probably search for Elia Beach.
‘Gay Beach Miami‘ searches average approximately 1,000 per month, while the keyword’s peak months are January, March, April & May – when the relevant searches reach up to 1,300.
Stuck in the middle: Still Popular, but fewer searches
Photo: Shutterstock
Some destinations surprised us as they had fewer searches than what we would expect. For example, Gay Beach Sitges is one of them, averaging 880 searches per month.
With a similar number of searches, we found Gay Beach Fort Lauderdale. However, the competition is so high on this keyword, that companies have to pay up to 5 euros per click to be shown on the first page of Google Results. It’s obvious that Fort Lauderdale will be companies’ least favorite destination of the year.
Gay Beach Tel Aviv, on the other hand, might have an average of 770 monthly searches per month on Google, but this doubles in May, right before Tel Aviv Pride. Gay Beach Ibiza proves to be an iconic keyword opportunity, gathering an average of 720 searches per month. The keyword shares almost the same searches with gay bar Ibiza and gay hotel Ibiza.
Finally, Gay Beach Lisbon has approximately 590 searches per month, a number that’s doubled during the summer months from June to September. The keyword “Gay beach 19 Lisbon” has also made its appearance through our research.
At the bottom: Fewer Searches, but still on demand!
Photo: Drew Sullivan on Unsplash
Lastly, we found some destinations – popular or not – which aren’t in the top positions. However, they still gather a respectable amount of searches. Gay Beach Bali is searched approximately 320 times per month, peaking during March. We should note that there are not any gay-only beaches in Bali – only gay-friendly.
The keyword Gay Beach Greece is also on the rise with 260 avg. monthly searches. Many islands and popular seaside destinations in Greece feature at least one gay beach. It’s nice seeing more gay travelers interested in learning more about them.
Gay Beach Ipanema is the only gay beach on our list that attracts more searches than the usual combination “gay beach + destination”. This keyword averages 210 searches in Google per month, while “Gay Beach Rio” gathers only 170.
Our research on the keyword ‘Gay Beach’ has brought forward many popular gay destinations, but also many alternative ones. Gay Beach Bali is definitely among the most unexpected keywords found on our report. So, tell us your opinion. Which of the above keywords did surprise you the most? And, don’t forget to let us know which trend you would like to cover on one of our next articles!
A group of LGBTQ creators has sued YouTube and its parent company Google, alleging that the video platform was regularly restricting their abilities to make money with their videos based on their sexual orientation.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California Tuesday and first reported by The Washington Post Wednesday morning, seeks class-action status.
YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning.
“YouTube is engaged in discriminatory, anticompetitive, and unlawful conduct that harms a protected class of persons under California law,” the lawsuit alleges. It was filed on behalf of the creators of GNews!, Bria Kam and Chrissy Chambers (BriaAndChrissy), Chase Ross (uppercaseCHASE1), Lindsay Amer (Queer Kid Stuff) and Amp Somers (Watts The Safeword).
In their lawsuit, these creators allege that YouTube regularly labels their videos as offensive or sexually explicit simply because of their sexual orientation. They also allege that their videos are regularly being demonetized, that YouTube changes their thumbnail videos, and excludes them from content recommendations, resulting in suppressed view counts.
This all happens while YouTube doesn’t enforce its content policies against users harassing LGBTQ creators, the lawsuit alleges:
“Defendants’ control and regulation of speech on YouTube has resulted in a chaotic cesspool where popular, compliant, top quality, and protected LGBTQ+ content is restricted, stigmatized, and demonetized as “shocking,” “inappropriate,” “offensive,” and “sexually explicit,” while homophobic and racist hatemongers run wild and are free to post vile and obscene content on the pages and channels of the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs and other LGBTQ+ content creators.”
To further make their case, the plaintiffs published a video on YouTube Wednesday morning:
The lawsuit comes just a few months after YouTube faced a backlash over the way it handled homophobic speech on its platform. At the time, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized for its handling of a particularly high-profile case, which involved the far-right YouTube commentator Steven Crowder mocking gay Vox journalist Carlos Maza.
“I know the decision we made was very hurtful to the LGBT community and that was not our intention at all,” she said during an interview at Recode’s Code Conference.
The lawsuit alleges that this was just a PR exercise: “Instead of taking LGBTQ+ reports of viewpoint discrimination and selective restrictions on LGBTQ+ content seriously, Ms. Wojcicki spent some of her “personal vacation” time doing carefully scripted PR or “selfie” interviews with selected YouTubers.”
The lawsuit also cites recent reports by the New York Times that suggested that the video platform was in part to blame for the election of Brazil’s far-right and homophobic president Jair Bolsonaro, and reference recent appearances of Google and YouTube executives in congressional hearings.
In addition to monetary compensation, the lawsuit is also asking the court to order an injunction that would stop YouTube from “censoring, restricting, restraining, or regulating speech based on the discretionary use or application of discriminatory, animus-based, arbitrary, capricious, vague, unspecified, or subjective criteria, rules, guidelines, and/or practices.”
In a stunning move the Trump Dept. of Justice is trying to get the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) to reverse years of findings and rulings, and declare that discrimination against LGBT workers is legal. The EEOC does not make law but its findings are highly-regarded and taken into account by the courts.
Now, the DOJ is “urging,” as Bloomberg Law reports, the EEOC to “flip” its position, and tell the U.S. Supreme Court discriminating against LGBT workers is not a form of sex bias and therefore is totally legal.
“Political leadership in the Solicitor General’s office wants the EEOC on board to show the high court that the Trump administration is now unified in the belief that Congress didn’t have lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers in mind when it passed a federal workplace discrimination law more than five decades ago,” Bloomberg Law states.
The government has until Friday to decide how it will proceed – united or not.00:1100:44
The EEOC successfully sued on behalf of a transgender woman who worked as a funeral home director in Michigan, but was fired when she said she would be transitioning. The Justice Dept. would like the case reversed by the Supreme Court.
Bloomberg says it’s “unlikely” the EEOC will reverse course, but it also reports the DOJ could just roll over the EEOC. Given its history under the Trump administration, it seems that is more likely to happen than Bloomberg suggests.
The United Methodist Church announced that it has voided a vote that would have governed how congregations leave the faith over the issue of LGBTQ inclusion, citing “irregularities” in a measure that passed by just two votes in February.
In a press release released Saturday, the United Methodist Church said that an investigation uncovered that four people posed as absent delegates to cast votes at the February conference.
“Multiple pieces of evidence corroborated the conclusion that these four individuals improperly cast votes,” the press release said.
In February, Methodists met in St. Louis for a General Conference that was summoned in order to “resolve the longtime debate over the status of LGBTQ people” in the church.
The church voted on multiple measures on the issue, including the “Traditional Plan,” which passed by a vote of 438-384 and reaffirmed the church’s traditional stance on LGBTQ issues by banning same sex marriages and the ordination of gay clergy. The Traditional Plan goes into effect January 1, 2020 and is not impacted by the voided vote.
However, voting irregularities emerged over another part of a measure known as the “disaffiliation legislation,” which would have changed how congregations could choose to leave the United Methodist Church.
Following the implementation of the “Traditional Plan,” LGBTQ-inclusive Methodist churches whose gay clergy and same-sex marriages will be banned, might be looking to leave the church. The “disaffiliation legislation” would have governed how they leave the church and whether they would be able to “take their buildings with them,” according to UM News, a Methodist news service. With the process in limbo, it is not clear how these churches will go about breaking ties the the United Methodist Church.
Only this plank of the legislation had voting irregularities, and it is now up to the Council of Bishops and the Judicial Council whether the wrongly-decided plank also means that the entire disaffiliation legislation must also be voided.
Kim Simpson, chair of the Commission on the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, said, “I know there are some poised and ready [to leave the UMC] because [the Traditional Plan] goes into effect January 1.” Simpson said that if the Council of Bishops refers the disaffiliation legislation voting issue to the Judicial Council, “they could decide that it needs to be voted on again.”
According to the church’s internal rules, “any possibility that invalid ballots might affect the result of a vote renders the entire ballot null and void,” and since the disaffiliation measure passed by a wafer thin margin of two votes — 402 to 400 — the four ineligible ballots render the entire ballot null and void.
“The Commission on the General Conference is committed to protecting the integrity of the legislative process,” said Simpson. “We’ve carefully and prayerfully reviewed the results of the investigation undertaken with oversight from the task force, and we are taking the necessary steps to strengthen our procedures and restore confidence in the process.”
Technology companies are often portrayed as being progressive businesses, but their political spending suggests otherwise. Activist group Zero for Zeros analyzed political contributions made by the highest-scoring companies on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, a benchmarking tool that focuses on measuring corporate policies and practices for LGBTQ employees. It found that while many companies talk a big game when it comes to equality, they have quietly been lining the pockets of politicians who support regressive and oppressive measures that tread on LGBTQ rights.
In reviewing political contributions of 49 major companies, Zero for Zeros tallied a total of $5,837,331 given by corporate political action committees(PACs) that wound up in the coffers of politicians who have received a score of 0 on the HRC’s legislative scorecard. That score means they failed to support a single issue that would have improved the lives of LGBTQ people. Members of this elite group of people who can’t muster a single vote in favor of LGBTQ issues include Ted Cruz, who spent part of last year pushing a bill that would allow businesses and nonprofit organizations to refuse to serve same-sex couples, and Steve King, a Republican congressman who is known to be friendly with white supremacists. King led a campaign in his home state of Iowa that removed three Supreme Court justices who shot down a proposed law that would have restricted marriage in the state to one man and one woman.
Tech companies were particularly noteworthy offenders, racking up $1,312,560 in contributions that were spread around to ten members of the House and 19 Senators were identified by HRC as the worst-of-the-worst when it comes to LGBT issues. The “FAANG” companies — Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google — accounted for $356,000 of that total, with Amazon leading the way by giving $178,500 to anti-LGBTQ politicians. Facebook gave $100,000, while Amazon added $77,500. (Netflix and Apple did not make contributions to any of HRC’s lowest-scoring politicians, per Zero for Zeros’ data).
Several other tech firms contributed more than $100,000 to politicians who have pushed for laws that harm LGBTQ people over the last decade. Microsoft gave $238,500, while T-Mobile contributed $101,500. AT&T, one of the largest telecom providers in the country, was also the largest single contributor tracked by Zero for Zeros. It gave a total of $460,000 to anti-LGBTQ legislators. This, perhaps, shouldn’t come as a surprise, as the company has come under fire for its contributions to socially regressive politicians in the past.
Popular Information reported earlier this year that AT&T is one of the biggest financial backers of politicians pushing incredibly restrictive anti-abortion legislation in states like Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio. The corporation also gave nearly $200,000 to the legislators who introduced and voted for laws that would effectively ban abortion. Popular Information also noted that during Pride Month in June, AT&T gave another $144,500 to politicians and leadership PACs that push anti-LGBTQ laws. That included a donation to Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), who proposed legislation to deny medical treatment to trans members of the military — made while AT&T was sporting a rainbow flag avatar on its social media accounts.
Tech companies and corporations as a whole have made it a habit to express their support for LGBTQ causes when it is most convenient. It’s easy to put out lukewarm statements full of platitudes about equality when everyone else is doing it. But when it comes down to it, these companies will put their own interests before those of the marginalized groups they claim to support. All you have to do to find proof of that is follow the money.
The Asexual Education and Visibility Network (AVEN) defines asexuality as: “Someone who does not experience sexual attraction or an intrinsic desire to have sexual relationships.”
There is a lot of diversity in how people experience being asexual however, levels of sexual attraction can vary and asexual people are often still in romantic relationships.
The research found that those who identified as asexual “were as likely to report being in an intimate relationship as non-asexual LGB adults.”
They were also likely to as non-binary (72 percent) or as women (27 percent) and 86 percent were assigned female at birth.
People between the ages of 18 and 27 were also far more likely to identify as asexual.
Lead author of the study Esther D. Rothblum said: “Asexuality is an emerging identity.
Given that the majority of asexual respondents were young, we expect that the prevalence and understanding of asexuality will grow as more youth reach adolescence and become familiar with the identity.”
n March this year, the Williams institute published data which said that the total LGBT+ population in the US was 11,343,000, or 4.5 percent of the total population.
This new data would suggest that around 0.08 percent of the total US population, which is around 260,000 people, identify as asexual.
However the number is likely to be higher than this, as some people who identify as asexual may not also identify as part of the LGBT+ community.
Study author Ilan H. Meyer said: “We see in these results that asexuals are an integral part of the LGBT community.
“It is important to note, however, that this study only included asexuals who also identify as LGB, so the results are pertinent to a segment of the total asexual population. We have more to learn about asexual heterosexuals.”
