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.