惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

The Cloudflare Blog
小众软件
小众软件
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
博客园 - 司徒正美
V
Visual Studio Blog
G
Google Developers Blog
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
月光博客
月光博客
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
博客园_首页
Blog — PlanetScale
Blog — PlanetScale
博客园 - 聂微东
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
D
Docker
Vercel News
Vercel News
Recent Announcements
Recent Announcements
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
爱范儿
爱范儿
J
Java Code Geeks
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏

Calvin Liang's Blog

The Fed says this is a cube of $1M. They're off by half a million.
The US Census Bureau's first LGBT data is buried in a pan...
Calvin Liang · 2026-05-12 · via Calvin Liang's Blog
The US Census Bureau's first LGBT data is buried in a pandemic survey

I made some graphs with it.

Canada started its 2026 census this month.

(Yes, the Canadian census happens on years ending in 1 and 6. No, I don’t know why.)

I clicked over to StatsCan to look at the data tables from the last census, and thought: this should be a map.

So I built one: censusmaps.ca.

It’s a zoomable map of Canada, broken down by census division (cities-ish), then by census tract (neighborhood-ish), then by dissemination area (block-ish). You see population, age, language, ethnic origin, all the rest.

Once you’ve wired up one country’s census, the next one is easy.

uscensusmaps.org

So I did the U.S. version too: uscensusmaps.org.

Same idea, American Community Survey five-year data, drilling all the way down to block group.

While I was knee-deep in Census Bureau FTP folders, I noticed a dataset I’d never heard of: Household Pulse Survey

The Pulse

The Household Pulse Survey is what the Census Bureau spun up during COVID to publish data faster than the ACS could. Two-week turnaround instead of two years.

Most of it is pandemic stuff: who’s working, who’s hungry, who’s depressed, who’s vaccinated.

But it also asks questions the US census has never asked:

Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?

  1. Gay or lesbian
  2. Straight, that is, not gay or lesbian
  3. Bisexual
  4. Something else
  5. I don’t know

Plus a question on current gender, plus a question on sex assigned at birth.

This was the first time the U.S. Census Bureau has ever collected sexual orientation and gender identity data from a national sample.

And almost nobody has plotted it.

So I pooled seven non-overlapping HPS cycles spanning September 2021 to June 2024, weighted everyone by PWEIGHT (Census’s per-respondent weight, i.e. how many U.S. adults each respondent stands in for), and made some charts.

I thought these graphs should be out there, so here they are:

By birth year

Line chart of LGBT identity by U.S. single-year birth cohort, 1933 to 2005. Six lines for gay men, lesbians, bisexual men, bisexual women, transgender women, transgender men. Bisexual women rise from near zero in the oldest cohorts to over 13 percent in the youngest. Every subgroup is higher in younger cohorts than older ones.

LGBT identity by single-year birth cohort. Ages shown as of 2024.

By income

Grouped bar chart of household income distribution by SOGI subgroup, eight brackets from under 25 thousand dollars to 200 thousand plus. Transgender women reach almost 30 percent in the under 25 thousand bracket. Transgender men reach 26 percent in the same bracket. Cis straight men sit at 10 percent there. At the 200 thousand plus bracket, gay men hit 13 percent while cis straight men hit 11 percent.

Household income distribution within each SOGI subgroup. Cis straight men and women shown for reference.

By state

Horizontal stacked bar chart of all 51 U.S. jurisdictions ranked by total LGBT share of the adult population. DC sits at the top at 15 percent. Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont follow around 9 to 10 percent. Mississippi, South Dakota, and Idaho sit at the bottom around 5 percent. Six color-coded subgroups stacked within each state bar.

Total LGBT share of adult population, by state, with subgroup breakdown.

By metro area

Horizontal bar chart ranking the 15 largest U.S. metros by cis gay men as a percentage of metro adult population. San Francisco at the top at 3.54 percent. Detroit at the bottom at 1.11 percent.
Cis gay men, by metro area.
Horizontal bar chart ranking the 15 largest U.S. metros by cis lesbians as a percentage of metro adult population. Houston at the top at 1.36 percent. Los Angeles at the bottom at 0.65 percent.
Cis lesbians, by metro area.
Horizontal bar chart ranking the 15 largest U.S. metros by bisexual men as a percentage of metro adult population. Seattle at the top at 1.90 percent. Miami at the bottom at 0.77 percent.
Bisexual men, by metro area.
Horizontal bar chart ranking the 15 largest U.S. metros by bisexual women as a percentage of metro adult population. Seattle at the top at 3.91 percent. Miami at the bottom at 1.78 percent.

Bisexual women, by metro area.

Horizontal bar chart ranking the 15 largest U.S. metros by transgender women as a percentage of metro adult population. Phoenix at the top at 0.82 percent. New York at the bottom at 0.23 percent.

Transgender women, by metro area.

Horizontal bar chart ranking the 15 largest U.S. metros by transgender men as a percentage of metro adult population. Riverside California at the top at 0.85 percent. Dallas Fort Worth at the bottom at 0.21 percent.

Transgender men, by metro area.

Per metro area breakdowns

Show all 15 metro area breakdowns
Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Atlanta metro area, ranked from largest to smallest.

LGBT identity in the Atlanta metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Boston metro area.

LGBT identity in the Boston metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Chicago metro area.

LGBT identity in the Chicago metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.

LGBT identity in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Detroit metro area.

LGBT identity in the Detroit metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Houston metro area.

LGBT identity in the Houston metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Los Angeles metro area.

LGBT identity in the Los Angeles metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Miami metro area.

LGBT identity in the Miami metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the New York metro area.

LGBT identity in the New York metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Philadelphia metro area.

LGBT identity in the Philadelphia metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Phoenix metro area.

LGBT identity in the Phoenix metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Riverside, California metro area.

LGBT identity in the Riverside, California metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the San Francisco metro area.

LGBT identity in the San Francisco metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Seattle metro area.

LGBT identity in the Seattle metro area.

Bar chart of LGBT subgroup percentages within the Washington, DC metro area.

LGBT identity in the Washington, DC metro area.

Caveats

Before reading too much into any of this:

  • HPS response rates are 6 to 7%, with documented nonresponse bias toward higher-income and higher-education respondents. The absolute levels are likely overstated. The shapes (across cohorts, across geographies) are more defensible than the magnitudes.
  • HPS is online-only, and online surveys tend to report higher LGBT shares than phone or in-person modes (more privacy, less social desirability bias). Julian, Manning, and Westrick-Payne (Demography, 2024) put HPS at 8.5% LGBT in 2022 vs Gallup at 7.2%, NHIS at 7.2%, and BRFSS at 6.7%. The Census Bureau itself warns that HPS “should not be interpreted as the single indicator of LGBT prevalence.”
  • These charts almost certainly undercount the youngest cohorts. HPS offers “something else” for sexual identity and “none of these” for gender; Julian et al. show those buckets are increasingly picked by younger respondents using identities outside the L/G/B/T labels (pansexual, queer, nonbinary, gender-fluid, etc.). 4.87% of the 1995-2004 cohort picked “something else” vs 0.71% of the 1945-1954 cohort, and 3.44% picked “none of these” vs 0.67%. My charts treat both as not-LGBT, so the real cohort gradient may be steeper than what’s plotted.
  • Older cohorts also skip the SOGI questions at higher rates (2.75% missing in 1945-1954 vs 0.75% in 1995-2004), so part of the cohort gradient is who answers, not just who identifies.
  • The transgender count here includes respondents whose sex assigned at birth differs from their current gender but who did not pick “transgender” themselves. Census imputed the sex value for roughly half of these, which Julian et al. flag as warranting caution.
  • Geography in the public file stops at state, region, and the 15 largest MSAs. There’s no county, ZIP, or PUMA.
  • INCOME is household income for the prior calendar year, not personal.
  • Birth year 2006 is dropped from the cohort chart. Phase 4.0 ran a split-panel test that asked SOGI of only half the sample, and 2006 only shows up in two cycles, so the effective N is too small to plot.
  • Phase 4.2 (late 2024 onward) transgender data is excluded. Census changed the available answers for the SOGI questions in that phase, so the numbers don’t line up with the earlier cycles.

Raw data

U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey Public Use Files