Albanese backs down on decision to exclude LGBT question from next census
www.abc.net.au
The prime minister overturns a decision earlier this week to omit a new question on sexuality being added to the national census, after several Labor MPs spoke out against the move.

In short:

Anthony Albanese has backed down on a decision not to add a question on sexuality to the next census.

The federal government intended to omit a new question out of fear it could create “divisive” debate.

What’s next?

The next census will be held in 2026.

  • NaevaTheRat [she/her]@vegantheoryclub.orgEnglish
    3·
    2 months ago

    I’ve had interactions with the user that lead me to believe they have less than pure intentions. There’s a current moral panic about all the kids turning trans with the usual “if trends continue” specious reasoning1.

    Usually not answering why being trans is bad apparently.

    But the point remains, who cares how many people might be trans in the future? Trans people now are quite clear about our needs and they’re being ignored. E.g. in nsw Alex Greenwich’s equality bill was proposed years ago and shelved, the eugenics program against us remains intact. Will counting us make the nsw government not want to steralise us and fund healthcare instead?

    1. if you ever see “if trends continue” followed by some by the year X Y% of people will something assumed bad you should tack infinite years on and see if it goes past 100%. If yes, they think you’re stupid and can’t think about maths/why induction is often fallacious.
    • gila@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      I agree that census data on the subject will be used by reactionaries as a basis to react. Or more generally, to polarise in any direction. I don’t think that’s the intended function of a census though, and I think mitigating that unintended outcome isn’t best achieved by compromising the intended function. Function which I think is a net positive for society in an analytical sense.

      e.g. in sports - if there was a legitimate cause for concern about a perceived unfair advantage to women that were assigned male at birth, wouldn’t it follow that we would see a statistical overrepresentation of trans women athletes relative to trans women in the general population, vs cis female athletes relative to cis females?

      To my knowledge what’s been observed elsewhere is the opposite, supporting that there is no legitimate cause for concern. Not that there would be if trans female athletes were indeed overrepresented, but I think the reactionary argument falls apart for the majority where the data supports the opposing view.

      It also occurs to me that limiting the data via either omission or underreporting could equally be used by those with malintent, e.g “why spend time worrying about the needs of 0.1% of the population?”

      It’s not really for me to comment on whether it’s a net positive for trans people specifically, but in lieu of other info I’d defer to orgs like Equality Australia on that, who seem to think it’s warranted.