The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

The gayest state in America is…Kentucky!?

I would have guessed Vermont or Massachusetts.
 
Peloso said:
Define "gayest".
Click to expand...

Good point. The article goes with the percentage of the total population which identifies as LGBT. I guess one could go instead with the absolute number of LGBT people in a particular state, in which case California or New York might come out on top. It just goes to show that one should always consider factoids like this critically.
 
^ It's clickbait. Did Kentucky slide over and try to sodomize West Virginia? Why frame the results of a cursory headcount as being representative of an entire group?

"You can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that."
-Homer Simpson
 
The article made no mention of how the LGBT percentages in each state was determined. My guess is that the study didn't do their own polling, but relied on percentages done by different studies, and threw them all together. First, figures on the LGBTQ+ population are notoriously unreliable, and different studies use different methods. You are going to get different results if you use self-report vs. cold calling persons at random.

In this study, when a totally unexpected result such as a high percentage of LGBT people in Kentucky shows up, you need to look closer. I noticed that the percentage for Illinois was low, which I doubt because it includes the Chicago metro area. And if that result is true, it should be replicated, which means other studies will show the same thing. I'll bet that Kentucky will be nowhere on the next study that comes out like this.
 
Araucaria said:
The article made no mention of how the LGBT percentages in each state was determined.
Click to expand...

Apparently the research was based on pooling multiple years of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The report is linked below.

Using data from the 2020-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), this study estimates the percentage and number of LGBT adults at the national, state, and regional levels.

Adult LGBT Population in the United States (UCLA School of Law / Williams Institute; December 2023)
Click to expand...
 
Peloso said:
^ It's clickbait. Did Kentucky slide over and try to sodomize West Virginia? Why frame the results of a cursory headcount as being representative of an entire group?

"You can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that."
-Homer Simpson
Click to expand...
I'm sure that W. Virginia needs no help.
 
unloadonme said:
Good point. The article goes with the percentage of the total population which identifies as LGBT. I guess one could go instead with the absolute number of LGBT people in a particular state, in which case California or New York might come out on top. It just goes to show that one should always consider factoids like this critically.
Click to expand...
In fairness though...per capita stats are used all the time.

I have no problem with this benchmark.
 
You boys have NO idea how much Mitch McConnell sucks . . .
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20231209_195957_Chrome.png
    Screenshot_20231209_195957_Chrome.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 10
Wow.

UCLA fucked up this badly....as did the CDC.

Certainly someone from Kentucky I was sharing the article with was just flat out 'No Way'.
 
That reminds me of another study I came across once that fucked up badly. The study was looking at the ages of the men who impregnated teenage girls. They divided the men into age groups like under 20, age 21-25, and so on. They came out with a big headline that a very large number of girls were being impregnated by over 35 year old men. But when people started scrutinizing the results, it turned out there was a large category where the girls did not give the age of the baby's daddy. In the analysis, for some reason they inexplicably dumped the age not given into the over 35 category, thus yielding the bizarre result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top