Even if Census responses provide an underestimate or incorrect responses initially, over time trends will make responses more clear and reliable. Normalising openness about sexual orientation, and emphasising confidentiality of the Census, should both help ensure that it will be a better approximation of reality.

Pegasus' comments above about reproductive differences are somewhat broadbrush and I would be hesitant about applying them. Non-heterosexuals may not be a useful term if it is used to exclude bisexual (and pansexual and fluid etc) people some of whom live in different sex relationships. The Census is a snapshot of that day. The statistical information is useful for future planning but it is not a complete description of how people have lived their lives previously, or will do in future. For example statements like "Non-heterosexuals have different reproductive and family needs – think of what it takes for a non-heterosexual couple to have a child, and raise it as a legally recognised family." may refer to exclusively gay or lesbian couples, but may not apply to a person who has children from a previous different sex relationship regardless of how they identify now. Some heterosexual people face similar fertility challenges to same sex couples too.

The Census should ask clear questions about how a person identifies now, and can include information about current living or partnered status. It cannot be absolute about how a person will live in future.

I have to point out too, for reasons of establishing healthcare appropriate to need, the questions would also need to be so flexible as to, for example address "the man who identifies as heterosexual, but has done or currently sleeps with men, or the man who identifies as gay, but has done or currently sleeps with women". I know a number of people in both camps. So you could ask it as a tick box, each row is as stated;
heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, Asexual, Don't Know, Other, but each column a tick box for gender of sexual partners [men previously] [men currently], [women previously], [women currently], [none/never].

Food for thought.

Thanks for your responses, Kay.

Yes, my comments about non-heterosexual reproductive and family needs did not go into detail. That does not mean they aren't important. I feel like your response was aimed to muddy the waters without acknowledging this.

The differences that non-heterosexual people go through to reproduce and raise children are vast. Consider a lesbian couple: They have to find someone to donate, which is not easy. They also have to: be comfortable with that donor; consider the level of involvement that the donor and his family and friends will have with the child, if any; seek legal advice and have legal documents drawn up, signed and witnessed; raise the child in a hetero-normative society, where the arrangement might not be accepted; and deal with legal oddities about who the parents are etc. These are just examples, I'm not au fait with it all.

You are wrong in saying that the troubles that some heterosexuals face when having children are equivalent to what is 'normal and everyday' for non-heterosexuals.

Regarding your comments about the term 'non-heterosexual', where you interpret that it wouldn't cover bisexual people in opposite-sex relationships... That is just silly - someone doesn't stop being bisexual just because they happen to be dating an opposite sex partner at that time. As a comparative example, if a Caucasian man is in a relationship with an Asian woman, that man is still Caucasian - he doesn't change is race.

I'm well aware that a Census is a snapshot of information - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. ANY argument against including a sexuality question in the Census, can and should be applied, rationally, to every other question in the Census.

"You are wrong in saying that the troubles that some heterosexuals face when having children are equivalent to what is ‘normal and everyday’ for non-heterosexuals."
Sorry Pegasus Springtail but this sort of comment gets me.
On what do you base you opinon upon? Where are your facts? Based on a data base of how many?

Sorry but unless you can subtantuaite this claim, it is rubish, laughable and a joke and doesnt serve you well at all.

Hey, you need a censis an the NZ Statistics Dept

I'm sorry, Racheal. I should have put it more simply. Let me say it another way.

Lesbian couples generally always go through the process I mentioned, whilst heterosexual couples generally just have sex.

That is the difference.

This is based on my experience over 35 years. But you're right, I haven't conducted a study. I presume you have? Please share your results.

Please remember you agree to the Terms of reference when on this website. This means not engaging in personal attacks, nor making comments that aren't nice.

These census discussion threads are full of people make generalising statements. Asking someone to substantiate is fine - but do it nicely.

This is a discussion forum not an agreement forum. State your views and let others have theirs.

I think sexual orientiation information should absolutely be included so that our country can get a better idea of how big these communities are. This will allow us to better service and fund them.

There are lots of ways of conceptualising sexuality and they are all contested in various ways. I think if the Census includes sexual orientation (which I believe it should) lgbtqia+ communities should be consulted with as to how it is done. I would recommend stepping away from just the big three - gay, straight, bisexual - and allowing communities who get even less representation to represent themselves. "Asexuality" should definitely be there and I think also "pansexuality" (which is my own sexuality).

This should definitely be included, it's important and will help making decisions based on fact (not assumption).

I agree with the comment from @Pegasus Springtail that there is a risk of some people not wanting to reveal it, but that's a societal issue that needs resolving, not hiding behind.

Friendly reminder that trans people exist, and that (for example) myself and my partner, both transgender and in a queer relationship, have recently conceived.

Thanks @ellaanais and @josh_nz for discussing how the data on sexual orientation might be used. As Josh points out, how someone identifies might not be reflected in their behaviour. Research around sexual orientation often uses 'sexual orientation' as an umbrella term, under which are: sexual attraction, sexual identity, and sexual behaviour - that is, three things make up a person's sexual orientation. Is this framing useful?

I would say @LisaAtStats that it is useful in general yes, but if there was a way that respondents could almost tick boxes as i'd mentioned and/or indicate (similar to a 1-10 scale) where they may fall I think that would be a better way StatsNZ would be able to get a thorough and well-dimensioned output. One that not only New Zealand can utilise, but would be extremely beneficial to countries and organisations worldwide. Not since Kinsey has there been a serious attempt at gauging sexuality, and that was male-focused, and I believe there is plenty of time between now and 2018 that StatsNZ would be able to word the question and answer so succinctly that responder error/omission (whether deliberate or accidental) is minimised.

If a digital platform is available by 2018 either wholly or partially, there is further opportunity to assist in anonymising data whereby a respondent would complete an exercise online for a particular question or set of questions, and is given an alphanumeric code to put as a response on the census form, giving further assurance that any member of the public (or any family member) would not be able to extract or assume the content of information/answers given.

Kinsey's work on men's sexuality was released in 1948. He followed than up with another, just as important report on women's sexuality in 1953 @Josh_NZ . 1 to 10 is probably too wide a scale - 0 to 6 like Kinsey should be enough. Maybe with the addition of other variables for asexual people.

The Ministry of Health in their New Zealand Health Survey is collecting data on the three aspects of sexual orientation. Data on Sexual Identity will be available mid December, with data on Sexual Attraction and Sexual Behaviour presumably some time next year.

that sounds interesting, lisa! can you talk a bit more about that, or point me to some links?

Kia ora, Bridget from Ministry of Health here.

As part of the 2014/15 NZ Health Survey we are running a Sexual and Reproductive Health Module, similar to the UK's National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL). The Sexual Orientation section covers: sexual attraction: ever, sexual attraction: in the past year; sexual experience and sexual identity.
So you may like to look at the NATSAL infographics downloadable here http://www.natsal.ac.uk/home.aspx, or at the UK's Integrated Household Survey's Sexual Identity infographic: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/integrated-household-survey/integrated-household-survey/january-to-december-2012/info-sexual-identity.html .
Please note we've not committed to any publication time-frames for the Sexual & Reproductive Health data.

From 2015/16 onwards Sexual Identity will be part of the core NZ Health Survey - that is, the question will be asked every year.
Finally here's a link to the Health Survey publications (nothing on sexual orientation yet): http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/national-collections-and-surveys/surveys/current-recent-surveys/new-zealand-health-survey?mega=Health%20statistics&title=NZ%20Health%20Survey

Regarding the points made in the discussion document: there seem to be two major points: [1] it hasn't been done before and [2] the data may not be reliable.

The fact that no other statistical agency hasn't managed to get this question onto their censuses doesn't mean NZ shouldn't be first. It just means it's difficult to do.

Ethnicity, descent and religion are all difficult too - and the data from those questions are notoriously unreliable for certain purposes as well. Those questions are retained because, imperfect though the data may be, they give us all an indication of make up of our country.

With questions on sexual orientation already included in the NZ Health Survey, the difficulty with creating a classification standard suitable for the census seems overstated to me. Given the amount of work already done here and elsewhere it should be possible to create a question and a statistical standard classification.

Regarding acceptability to people answering the question - a "refuse" box would cover that concern. In any case the UK Integrated Household Survey report on Measuring Sexual Identity (2010) found (1) no reduction in overall response rates to the survey when the question was or wasn't included and (2) a greater than 96% response rate to the question where it was asked. That's a better response rate than the income question gets.

New Zealanders will get used to a question of this sort the more often they are asked it, and the more normal and everyday it becomes. The sooner we start asking, the sooner we'll get to that state.

• Richard Arnold

@richardarnold that's a great response! Couldn't agree more!

Just because its hard doesn't mean we should do it and we do for other questions so it is possible.

This is the classification of Sexual Identity that's used in the UK and in the NZ Health Survey:
1 Heterosexual or straight
2 Gay or lesbian
3 Bisexual
4 Other
.K Don’t know
.R Choose not to answer

The Ministry of Health is collecting all three aspects of sexual orientation (sexual identity, sexual attraction, and sexual behaviour) in a Sexual and Reproductive Health Module, and then going to collect Sexual Identity every year as part of the core Health Survey.

People have discussed many ways that sexual orientation data might be used. Is it necessary to collect all three aspects of sexual orientation, or can one (or two) aspects provide the information needed?

Thanks @bridgetmurphy and @richardarnold for your great contributions to this discussion, and welcome also to @karinfromuranus.

The census is about identity - let's leave it at that.

We don't ask people how often (or even whether) they go to church, or Maori people whether they ever go to a marae. I think the attraction and behaviour questions can be left aside.

And of course the census questionnaire can't just keep growing in length.

When doing research concerning the LGBTIQQ+ people inNZ it is incredibly frustrating that there is no documented data to work from. While I think it's great that the Health Survey is now seeking data unlike the census not everyone takes part in it so while its a great start its usefulness is decreased. I think it's beyond time that sexual orientation was included in the census. Heteronormativity is alive and kicking in the health sector and probably many others, a good idea of numbers of people who identify with the LGBTQQI+ community would be helpful.

I read elsewhere on this board that Statistics NZ consider health to be the main concern for LGBTQQI+ people. I would suggest while health issues are of concern that is dragging people's sexual orientation back to them as sexual beings. In fact LGBTQQI+ people have many issues other than health. These include but are not limited to violence, suicide, homelessness, increased risk of poverty (particularly lesbian women and Transgender people) and discrimination. There is a real need for us to have an understanding of how many LGBTQQI+ people we have nearing retirement so we can forward pls for their housing needs in later life.
As a Lesbian who is also a researcher and a Registered Nurse it is beyond frustrating to hear that sexual orientation isn't seen as important. One of the results of my research is that lesbian and bisexual women are deeply hidden in society and often their needs are overlooked.

One of the great strengths of the Census is providing regional data. As @sianmunson and @pegasusspringtail have commented, this could be useful for developing retirement housing and business planning. How else do people see regional data around sexual orientation being useful?

Anyone else want to comment on whether the three aspects of sexual orientation are needed (sexual identity, sexual attraction, sexual behaviour) or whether sexual identity, (as proposed by @richardarnold) is sufficient for the Census?

I agree with Richard both for asking often as education
"New Zealanders will get used to a question of this sort the more often they are asked it, and the more normal and everyday it becomes. The sooner we start asking, the sooner we’ll get to that state. "

And that sexuality identification is sufficient for the Census. Other surveys or research may go deeper but having a minimum base would be helpful.

I think at this stage sexual identity would be sufficient although the researcher in me wants attraction and behaviour as well because sometimes behaviour or attraction aren't seen as identity in some people.

Other areas of use for the data would be for data for funding submissions for LGBTQQI projects, giving an idea as to whether the project was sustainable or required in an area. An example might be an LGBTQQI focused rape crisis service or LGBTQQI victim support or health service.

Kia ora,

Apologies that I don't have an opportunity to review all comments before making my own.

Agree in principle with the idea of capturing sexual orientation, as there is a significant need for resources to be directed to support this community, and for building in contract clauses around requirements for mainstream providers to specifically work to be inclusive of this community.

However, feel it could be easily confused with, or miss, 'sexual behaviour', which can be different to what someone describes their orientation as. In terms of targeting health $$, sexual behaviour may be a more relevant piece of information to capture.

As a common example, a cisgendered male may identify as heterosexual and wish to marry someone who identifies as female, but have sex with other cisgendered men at some point (or though out their life). In terms of health, their sexual behaviour puts them at a higher risk of contracting HIV, but their orientation does not.

But then, issues of disclosing sexual behaviour in a multi-person dwelling could also be problematic!

In short, I fully support and hope that the census captures some information around sexual orientation or behaviour, as more information is always better than less!

The very question being present in the census also helps to raise awareness across Aotearoa, and helps us progress as a society towards being more inclusive and welcoming.

Thanks

I was on the fence, but the discussion here makes it seem like it would be useful to include a question on sexual orientation. I think it would be easiest to ask for sexual identity, and leave it up to the person answering to decide what exactly that means to them if the answer isn't straightforward. The options suggested by Pegasus Springtail would be suitable for anyone, as they also include the right to opt out, or fill in an identity that doesn't fit the main categories.

Some have suggested putting an age limit on this question. I think we need to consider that kids are going through puberty at earlier ages, and some are coming out in their tweens. They should be counted and have their identities respected. But I imagine most would simply tick "don't know" or "none/asexual" (or their parents would so so for them if they're too young to fill out a form). Either way, I think it's good to send a message that it's their identity and that it counts.

In terms of precedents for studying sexual orientation through questionnaires in NZ, it would be worth looking into The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study: http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/our-research/research-groups/new-zealand-attitudes-and-values-study.html
The fifth wave of this study includes the question "How would you describe your sexual orientation?", and simply provides a blank to fill in. They explained that they "opted for an open-ended item so as not to assume particular orientations or descriptions [which] allowed participants to describe their sexual orientation using whatever terms they preferred.

Unfortunately they haven't released any studies on the results at this stage, but the data is available here: https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/psych/about/our-research/nzavs/NZAVSTechnicalDocuments/NZAVS-Technical-Documents-e20-Sexual-Orientation-Statistical-Standard.xlsx
In 2014, 74.7% expressed Heterosexuality, 4.5% expressed non-heterosexuality, and 20.9% refused or were invalid. What is also clear is that many (5.6%) didn't understand the question, so the design of the question and provision of options/suggestions are important factors in producing accurate and useful data.

Thanks everyone for contributing to a really high quality discussion about the need for data on Sexual Orientation. A few people have mentioned the consequences of NOT having data on Sexual Orientation (homeless options potentially not being LGBTIQ friendly, needs for older LGBTIQ people...). More information or stories like this could also contribute towards a demonstration of need for data.

This has probably been said,
Ive been working in supporting LGBTIQ young people for years and the most common thing that i hear is "well, whats the point, theres only one or two of you anyway" people don't want to change their systems because they think there is no need purely because our community never gets included in surveys so we don't know the real number. Well actually, "we" know the number, the people who actually work to support LGBTIQ people. Health services/ schools / homeless shelters, any services that works with wellbeing, etc don't know the numbers and don't see the need to change for something they don't believe is a real need.

In the mean time, organisations are running to support the LGBTIQ community that are being left out of the mainstream and the people who are supporting those people are untrained, un paid and massively overworked. All because the people who should be doing that work and think there is no need, don't have the numbers.

Workplace productivity research shows that where people feel marginalised or bullied that their productivity is reduced. Many corporates are considering signing up to diversity programmes like the Rainbow Tick or getting a copy of the NZ Standard for Rainbow Diversity. Employers don't just do this to be nice. They want the best outcomes for their company and this may include health and well-being of staff. More information about who New Zealanders are - as workers, customers, and students - will help ensure their needs are considered and appropriate policies adopted.

Does a workplace family picnic include same sex couples? Are same sex couples with children welcome at the local school? Will a parent who is transitioning be treated with respect at parent teacher evening? What about a transgender teacher at a parent teacher evening?

Showing there are more than straight and cisgender people in the world, and having an idea about that diversity, will help central and local government plan services, support and information. For example, LGBTIQ people are more vulnerable to being on the receiving end of violence than straight and cisgender people but the number of trained Diversity Liaison Officers in the police force is inadequate to ensure sensitive and appropriate support to LGBTIQ victims of crime. Better data about population groups may help justify additional professional development and support. Mind you, I also think the same about more women in the police force for similar reasons.

At some future time if prejudice against people of different sexual orientations didn't exist, then the questions could be reviewed. For now there is a need for information.

Loomio discussions AND the submissions close on the 30th June.

As I have said before, there has been really high quality discussion in this thread and I strongly encourage you to make a formal submission.

While all the discussions on Loomio will be formally assessed, your best opportunity to influence census content is to make a submission.

Thanks @kayscarlet and @kabelmanga1 for those examples.

Are there questions in the census that people are interested in having a breakdown by Sexual Orientation? (See the census forms or the Preliminary Views paper).

It's all closing today - Loomio discussions and the submissions.

So there is still time to make a formal submission or put down your last thoughts here.

Thanks for contributing to such a good discussion.