Poll: What percentage of people are LGBT?

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'm asking just out of curiosity: what percentage of people are LGBT in the world? I have seen many wildly different estimates, from as low as 0.5% to as high as 25% of the population, so I figured that I can get some good, trustworthy answers from strangers on the internet.

One of the reasons for the variance is that different surveys define what qualifies as LGBT differently. Some use genetic or biological factors, others use surveys, others use a combination. Some only count people who are actively LGBT, whereas others count anyone who has ever been, and still others count fantasies. And many either ignore bisexuals entirely (by wrapping them into gay or straight) or only count those who are actively bisexual. Finally, some studies deal with those still in the closet while others ignore closeted individuals.

 

[BEE-BOT]

Eh I've always seen it as more of a grey scale, rather than a black and white category deal.

This ^^. I suppose 'pan' could be apt also.

Edit: OT, Im pan-sexual, but Id have no clue as to the percentage of people as LGBT.

 

[BEE-BOT]

I don't think that sexuality exists, just (usually strong) tendencies towards either sex.

So I technically consider myself bi.

Pan-sexuality is more common than people do realize. But still somewhat 'odd' from what I gather.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, I'm a heterosexual guy who is attracted to pre-genital surgery MtF transsexuals. I'm really not sure what that makes me. I'm essentially attracted to women with the penis still attached, to put it in especially crude (and I hope not offensive) terms. I attribute myself to being heterosexual, but I'm not sure if that specific interest changes it.

Can someone infinitely more knowledgeable than I give me some guidance here?

Honestly, I'm fine with "whatever you feel comfortable calling yourself."

There are men who have sex with other (cis) men and consider themselves straight. In a field that largely comes down to self-identity, classification can be a *****. But it sounds like you consider transwomen to be women, which would not be bisexual or homosexual.

"What's your sexual orientation?"

So are transfolk now excluded?

Do I have to bust out the "sad Hulk" music?

And I still have no clue what this has to do with anything and I have studied evolution to some extent (and I'd suggest you do the same because no offense but I don't think you really have a good grasp of it. I don't even know where to start with what you said and it would somewhat derail the thread...).
But just because a person is gay doesn't mean a mutation happened in them. We don't understand how genes affect sexual attraction exactly, but it's a good guess many different ones are involved.

If you're gay, and even if it's 100% genetic there are numerous ways to inherit it!

And being gay or trans or asexual doesn't mean you can't have biological children. Even if you somehow were unable to have kids, humans are a social species, and for example your siblings could have children. They might not be your offspring but they are still closely related, and if you're childless yourself and help take care of them, your relatives then can have an evolutionary advantage and your genes get indirectly passed on.

I can't reply to Carnex directly, but I figured I'd weigh in here. Studies have been done before that indicate that biological relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children. We don't have a specific gay gene (Though we've found several which may correlate to homosexuality), but a gay dude in the family actually means more babies. The idea that this would present as a negative in the community first and then and only then develop into the population seems to be Carnex's problem, and if it presented that way, it wouldn't work.

However, it appears the "screw more" element is the primary trait here, and that homosexuality is a side effect. It would ultimately make more sense that this trait first appeared in women and was passed along because they were having more babies (for self-evident reasons). Only then does it become an issue, but it's a net positive because any gay taken out of the gene pool (assuming they don't have kids) is still met with a net positive result.

I don't think that sexuality exists, just (usually strong) tendencies towards either sex.

So I technically consider myself bi.

That sort of sounds like "I don't believe gravity exists, I just believe in an apparent attraction between objects with mass."

 

[DRTJR]

I am a strait white dude.

If I were to take a crack an the percentage of LGBT persons is 2% to 5%.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I've always found it interesting that lesbian and Gay have their own letters, when lesbians are gay. Could anyone tell me why this is, I'm curious

 

[Nieroshai]

I honestly don't think the Escapist is a good litmus test. It's a very politically-charged, gamer-niche site; something many modern LGBT would gravitate to, especially if they felt like outcasts and gaming happened to be their outlet. Outside the site? Then there are those of us who don't discover our sexuality in earnest until later in life when events shift our paradigms, either for political/religious reasons or because our relationships up to this point had leaned one direction and had no reason to do otherwise. Then there are the BOTDF brats who identify as pansexual because it's cool and the "scene" thing to do, but they're actually pretty straight and doing it for attention.
I don't consider myself part of the LGBTBBQWTFROFLMAO community mostly because I don't consider myself part of a community. I have an orientation, that doesn't mean I find gay camp pleasant and charming or that I feel particularly comfortable around someone who is flagging. I'm a furry, but you won't catch me dead at a convention. I'm transgendered, but I'm so broke I don't think I'll be able to afford to become transsexual til I'm past my prime. In all, I just find it all depressing. I'm uncomfortable in my own skin and in nearly all social groups, and I can't stand when people try to advocate for me personally when they don't know what they're advocating for.

 

[K12]

I think it depends a lot on how you ask the question.

Adults who self-identify as LGBT or have had a long term partner of the same sex is probably less than 5%. This number is almost certainly lower than the number of people who are actually LGBT in reality because barely anyone pretends to be LGBT when they are heterosexual but plenty of people do the opposite.

As for people who are anything above 0 (exclusively heterosexual) on the Kinsey scale, 25% seems like a decent estimate.

The 30% on this site is massively high, I reckon a lot of this will be down to the fact that this is a self-selected group (i.e. people who saw the poll and decided to participate).

I reckon a census of accounts on this sites (assuming you give a sexual orientation) would be far lower, though still probably higher than the general average because internet users are generally younger and better educated than the general population and homophobes (and self-hating gay people) are not.

 

[JoshuaNorton]

According to this Russian cult band it's 6.5% of the animal kingdom and 7% of humanity that's gay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3YAnFjySTU
Apparently that's something Soviet scientists found out back then.

 

[Lieju]

I can't reply to Carnex directly, but I figured I'd weigh in here. Studies have been done before that indicate that biological relatives of homosexuals tend to have more children. We don't have a specific gay gene (Though we've found several which may correlate to homosexuality), but a gay dude in the family actually means more babies. The idea that this would present as a negative in the community first and then and only then develop into the population seems to be Carnex's problem, and if it presented that way, it wouldn't work.

However, it appears the "screw more" element is the primary trait here, and that homosexuality is a side effect. It would ultimately make more sense that this trait first appeared in women and was passed along because they were having more babies (for self-evident reasons). Only then does it become an issue, but it's a net positive because any gay taken out of the gene pool (assuming they don't have kids) is still met with a net positive result.

I know of those studies but that 'gay gene' would only explain male homosexuality, and is at best a partial explanation.
It's likely (as with almost any traits) that sexual orientation is determined by several genes, in part prenatal hormones, and in part upbringing.

And it's likely caused by different things in different people.
(Although the question should be rather 'what governs sexual attraction' than 'what causes gayness?' because it's possible something like fetishes could be affected by the same things.)

 

[Elfgore]

I'm straight, but have thought about having sexual relations/relationships with men. So maybe Bi? Honestly, I don't know. I know I like women, but not sure about the men part. Maybe as time goes on I might figure it out. Either way, I'm in no rush.

 

[CitizenM]

"What's your sexual orientation?"

So are transfolk now excluded?

Do I have to bust out the "sad Hulk" music?

Last I checked, trans is independent of sexual orientation. And "other" or "none" is a perfectly valid answer that doesn't invalidate the question.

 

[Therumancer]

I'm asking just out of curiosity: what percentage of people are LGBT in the world? I have seen many wildly different estimates, from as low as 0.5% to as high as 25% of the population, so I figured that I can get some good, trustworthy answers from strangers on the internet.

Internet strangers, I ask you to use all of your Science! Find me a study or survey or whatever that has an accurate estimate, one that accounts for people not admitting to being LGBT yet doesn't overestimate! Find me the perfect data for the sole purpose of satasfying my curiosity! ! Mwahahahaha!
*clears throat*

Since I'm fairly certain that someone will answer my main question in the first few replies, here are some additional questions for discussion. You don't need to answer them if you don't feel comfortable doing so, obviously.

The question in the poll, because I want to know how many people are LGBT on this site, too.
About how many of your friends and family do you know to be LGBT?
How tolerant are people of LGBT people where you're from?

Edit: I forgot to answer my own questions. Derp.
I answered "yes" in the poll. I'm a gay dude.
Nobody I know of in my family, but I'd say over half of my friends are LGBT.
Out here in California, people are pretty tolerant. I haven't personally had anyone take any issue with me being gay yet, but I know others who have had insults thrown at them from complete strangers, and others who have lost friends since coming out. It could be better, but it could also be a lot worse.

Edit 2: I don't expect a huge breakthrough where all the questions I asked would be answered with absolute certainty, I wanted to start a discussion. Also, I understood that the poll would be inaccurate, but that doesn't mean I wasn't curious about what the results would be.

Well if you put up a search for "how many homosexuals are there" you'll find some fairly consistent research at least as far as the US is concerned. Most articles that come up talk about the "assumed 10%" and then go on to explain the number is far, far, lower usually between 2 and 5%. Some of these articles then go on to reinforce the point by talking about how few people comparatively showed up for gay marriages when they were legalized despite massive media attention, not to mention the 'bend over backwards' attitude the left wing had been taking, pretty much providing every incentive for people to come out and claim they are gay. This is to say nothing about "faux homos" which is pretty much people that pretend they are gay for the attention and sympathy, not to mention that done right it can be a good way to pick up girls "I never really felt attracted to girls before I met yooou...." (The UK version of Coupling also had a character who was a faux-bi sexual mocking this trend and gets outed for it). The US being a very permissive country has lead to lots of people coming here to avoid persecution, and as a result we also likely have a higher ratio of homosexuals than other countries where people wouldn't identify to begin with due to hostility (but those that can are going to leave for more accepting climes if they can). It seems to follow that the .5% estimate is probably pretty close in terms of global population.

Basically, one thing most sources I run into seem to agree on is that homosexuals are few in number, but have become vocal well beyond their numbers, giving the illusion of there being more of them. The illusion being that they are at the 10% level making them as numerous as other minority groups which they are not.


Of course as some articles will get into, there are all kinds of questions about homosexuality. It can take some digging of course but one of the very controversial things is to separate gay men from lesbians and examine them separately as opposed to treating it all as one group. Putting men and women into different groups is something that happens with almost all issues besides this. The reason why this becomes important is because women apparently are far more likely to be involved physically with members of their same gender, but also tend not to associate as gay or even bi- afterwards. This tends to raise questions on the numbers as well, as to whether one should start classifying someone as lesbian or bi-sexual as soon as they consentually have sex with their own gender, especially if they do it more than once. Apparently the reason for this is that a lot of women who do this will claim they "like" girls but aren't attracted to them in a major way like they are guys so don't consider it an orientation, or do not count "just fooling around" when it's "not serious". I mention this because if true this could very easily change the results more towards the 25% mark or above if say like 1% or less of men are gay, but say half of all women are functionally lesbians or bi-sexual bringing the number there alone to 25%. Of course at the same time those women don't associate as Lesbian or Bi. Of course any such statistics are dubious as a lot of this allegedly comes down to researchers having women marking themselves as straight also admit to positive homosexual experiences.

The above though also plays into some other things as well, where a lot of people have argued that bi-sexuality might be relatively normal for women, but an aberration for men. Something that plays well to pervs (like me I guess) but represents a threat to a gay rights movement scared of a "divide and conquer" strategy where say gay men are persecuted but lesbians are more accepted. There have been a few articles I've run into over the years that have argued in favor of the "natural bi-sexuality" of women as remnants of a survival instinct, the idea being that since men go out and face danger naturally being the hunters/warriors they are more likely to get killed, the ability to "bond" with other women in a sexual fashion makes it easier for them to say get together to raise a fatherless child, or survive if they wind up without any men until they could find more. Similar logic (which doesn't always involve sex) has also been used in analysis of whether women wind up having closer relationships/friendships with other women than say men do with other men... which is debatable as a lot has been said especially recently about "bro-hood", but you still see more about women celebrating friendships and relationships than guys (as well as movies and such built around that theme being very popular with the ladies).

A lot of this is scattered information, but nothing that should be too hard to find with simple web searches. Most of it is largely theoretical at the moment anyway, as we (obviously) don't have the answers, and even if we did there is the big question as to whether society would want, or be able to, accept them, especially in something as divided as the US.

 

[Vault101]

I've always found it interesting that lesbian and Gay have their own letters, when lesbians are gay. Could anyone tell me why this is, I'm curious

for some reason gay seems to be the "guy" version whereas lesbian is very specific....why? *shrug* I don't know, some women prefer gay or even queer for whatever reason

snip

1. I think women being more prone to bisexuality is BS perpetuated by they fact men like "girl on girl" and that women are allowed by society to have more open and confortable freaindships

2. no one pretends to be gay just to gain sympathy

3. however little the population may or may not be if its too much for the poor straight people for the gays to marry, be treated like humans both IRL and in entertainment then....well really

 

[Therumancer]

[
1. I think women being more prone to bisexuality is BS perpetuated by they fact men like "girl on girl" and that women are allowed by society to have more open and confortable freaindships

2. no one pretends to be gay just to gain sympathy

3. however little the population may or may not be if its too much for the poor straight people for the gays to marry, be treated like humans both IRL and in entertainment then....well really

People pretend to be anything to get sympathy, it's not something everyone does mind you, but as soon as you see a lot of positive attention being aimed at a group people will try and latch onto it. This is in part how the whole "Emo" thing became the joke that it is, people like that started to get a lot of attention and sympathy, next thing you knew everyone was publically wallowing in teen angst.

... and I'll be honest, one of the most reliable ways to get stuff off of people in an MMO is to pretend your gay as opposed to say pretending your a girl, largely because of the expectation that nobody does it. Wait for some bro-talk knocking gays, make some comments about how your gay and to leave you alone, get some responses "oh let me apologize for all the bigots" directed at you, and then go on with your "life story" about how your a barely legal young man seeking escapism because nobody understands you, especially your parents, who hate you not just because your gay but weak and effeminate looking. You'll be surprised how many friendly dudes come out of the woodwork to help you out after a while, the transferrable goods which can then be transferred to your account. I don't toy with people like that, but I've seen it run by aquaintences.

The point is anything that can be spun to an advantage or positive attention will be used.

-

When it comes to the lesbian thing, it depends, as a straight guy who has been known to enjoy "lesbian" porn I have to admit I've had similar thoughts since there are a lot of people like me. At the same time though, I'm slow to dismiss it outright since some of my personal life experiences mean that I see a potential truth there. It's one of those cases where I think LGBT needs to be broken up into specific groups, with each thing evaluated on it's own, rather than being represented and evaluated as a group. To put things into perspective I don't think I've ever seen a study done focusing entirely on women, trying to determine how much of that might be true, since it seems like it could be plausible.

Of course one of the problems with any kind of social ruling in the US is that we don't have the tools needed to make informed decisions as I've mentioned before. Our current attitudes on civil liberties means that the government or other groups with the resources can't genuinely investigate or gather information from unaware people on a large scale, and then use that information publically towards setting policy. One of the big problems is that when studies have to be entirely voluntary you can't find out much about people when they think no one else is around, and that's when it matters, otherwise they are just going to tell you whatever happens to suit their agenda. Case in point let's say you have a girl who did a three way with her boyfriend and another girl both of them know, and then she had fun so when her boyfriend wasn't around she slept with this other girl a couple of times because "it's okay, my boyfriend already knows were intimate". She puts herself down as straight and says "well, I'm not a lez, I just got horny and it was better than just using a vibrator on my own, and I didn't want to cheat". Does she count as straight just because she identifies that way? Depending on the terms of the information gathering and it's voluntary nature you have to record her as she wants, not as you want, because otherwise she can withdraw her participation so to speak. Of course it depends on the study. This however goes into issues well beyond this. I mostly consider it a "maybe" I mentioned this kind of thing
for the sake of discussion since it comes up every once in a while in articles, but rarely gets much serious attention.

As far as gay marriage goes, my opposition there has little to do with my other thoughts on gay rights (which you are aware of I'm sure, but I'm more or less forbidden from speaking with complete freedom). As far as I'm concerned nothing prevents two adults from getting married, if two guys or girls want to exchange vows and rings, and the community accepts them as exclusive to each other, it's all good, and that's all that's needed. The issue is when it comes down to legal recognition of these marriages which comes with benefits like tax breaks. Tax breaks included based on the assumption that married couples will have children, and to lower expenses to encourage it. The reasons for this were never specified in the laws themselves because at the time the laws were written nobody thought it would ever need to be specified. Homosexuals are not going to have kids, no matter how much they might want to, the tax breaks become free money for all intents and purposes. When homosexuals adopt/take foster kids/whatever such arrangements usually come with money to help cover the expenses, indeed one of the most abused things out there is people adopting a bunch of kids, pocketing the money, and keeping them in squalid conditions. I also believe in general lines do need to be drawn, otherwise there is no point to having laws to limit behavior. Once you start establishing precedents that the government wlll recognize any marriage you open the door for people to marry their pets and stuff and claim benefits for it. That sounds insane, but consider even here on The Escapist we've had articles about people marrying video game characters and the like (as far as ceremonies and such go), if your removing the reason for the tax breaks and such and saying "hey they should apply to anyone who is married" and saying the government has no right to decide what marriages to recognize, all it takes is a decent lawyer and next thing you know your giving some guy a tax break because he decided to marry Tali from Mass Effect or something, and had a ceremony with a picture of her on a monitor. Everyone will do it to get the tax breaks so they lose any meaning. This sounds "insane" until you consider how the laws snowball, and how decades ago nobody would have considered gay marriage likely to be an issue.

Now to be fair with you, I once had some different attitudes about gay marriage, mainly because I agreed that a gay couple should say have the right to see each other in the hospital the way a husband or wife would in many cases, and things like that. The thing is though that policies changed and most hospitals now allow such visitations, and a lot of other policies changed as well. As a result the biggest defense for gay marriage no longer applies. Right now it seems to mostly be being fought about because it annoys straights and conservatives, and you know... who doesn't like tax breaks?

I also feel the government needs to be tightening up on marriage laws and such in general since we already have trouble with polygamist cults, and polygamous marriages coming into the country from elsewhere and so on. Basically the government needs to have more control, not less in this particular case, and while the gay issue is different, it represents precedent for the government being unable to discriminate in terms of who can get married and under what terms which will just make battles on other fronts more difficult. Rulings made here can be used in other cases. A lot of people don't pay as much attention to it because it's not a hot button liberal topic, but every once in a while you see exposes on Polygamist communes and how the older men chase the man children out as soon as they can to avoid competition for the women and all kinds of things. There have also been cases where people coming into the country from other nations have used loopholes to say have five or six wives and argue for preferential treatment to bring them all in, and things like that. Hence why I am a big supporter of the sanctity of the ruling that in a legal sense marriage is a union between one man and one woman. That definition gives the government plenty of leeway to go after a lot of problems, but as long as they are embattled over this garbage it's not going to happen.

What's more I really think this is an issue for states to decide, as I feel the people in each state have the right to decide what they want to live with. I do not think it's following the spirit of the laws for the federal government to act as it has been here, especially seeing as the attitudes of the founding fathers (the guys who wrote the things being used to crush state rights here) towards homosexuality were pretty well known given the morals of the time. I think the gay marriage thing is very dangerous right now because it's driving a wedge between the people and the government, it's not the sole cause, but in one way or another we have like 15 states in one form of rebellion against the federal government or another. You combine this issue with things like the legalization of illegal immigrants in the back yard of states where the majority of people don't want them, and it's just going to make things worse. People were watching the situation with Scotland not too long ago with interest because similar dialogues are already happening in the US. The union only works as long as the states feel it's in their best interests to remain part of it, and the federal authority comes from voluntary compliance. If a lot of these issues continue there is a decent chance we're going to get to the point where one or more states is just flat out going to say "no" and that's going to be a really, really, bad thing for the entire country. See, as easy as it is to hate/dismiss "Red States" understand that in those areas of the country your finding huge numbers of people who oppose a lot of these social agendas, and what's more are the ones who actually have to deal with the illegal Mexicans becoming legal and living in their back yard and stuff. Everyone suffers and becomes weaker if those states leave, but when your telling millions and millions of people to suck it up for your moral principles (which you do not have to deal with) it becomes an issue. A lot of people also tend to forget each state has it's own identity, history, and issues.. and the red states in many cases identify with it particularly strongly.

With gay rights, immigration, and other things my basic attitude is that the left wing needs to stop forcing things. Introduce the ideas, but you need to wait for time to pass and people's attitudes to change if they are going to, the people whose back yard it's going to happen in especially. Basically you need to hope people like me change our minds (my attitudes have waffled in the past) or establish an infrastructure and hope it changes generationally. Going state by state for example, it opens the door for the states that legalize gay marriage to set an example and create pressure for those that do not, and so on.

As I've said before, I don't expect a civil war tomorrow, but I think some serious cracks are showing and you have to be blind to miss them. We have governors in open defiance of the federal government and in some cases using federal resources (also in defiance of federal authority when they comply). It's not some big thing when it happens with just one state or is isolated incidents, but it's happening with a lot of places all at once, and it seems it's one thing after another. This is not the time to be trying to hammer in social reforms, especially not so many at once. Truthfully though I think illegal immigration is more likely to break things than gay rights. Simply put if Obama declares millions of people legal, and tells some of the states like Texas to accept all these new citizens in their back yard, I think there is a reasonable chance some of those states might just flat out refuse to recognize federal authority and start doing deportations (or worse) themselves. I could be wrong, but it could get very interesting. The gay marriage stuff is just continueing to pour gas into the fire.



That said we're likely to agree to disagree yet again. You won't see the connections I do, and that's fine. I tend to think in terms of the big picture and a few moves ahead a lot of the time.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Eh I've always seen it as more of a grey scale, rather than a black and white category deal.

A lot of people will agree with you on this point. Others will also go so far as to say that sexual preference, and even gender-identity, are somewhat fluid.

In case it comes up again in the thread, for other people

LGBTQIAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning[footnote]heard it stand for "queer" but that term makes some people extremely uncomfortable[/footnote], intersex, asexual (and/or aromantic), pansexual or polyamorous), but some people have found that it's too long for their tastes and have started using MOGAI[footnote]also MOGII[/footnote] (Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities, and Intersex), or GSM (Gender and/or Sexuality Minority)[footnote]can also be GSI (Gender and/or Sexuality Identities)[/footnote] instead.

Taking all that into consideration and the problems that can arise with each acronym might be why the LGBT+ shorthand is still the most enduring and popular version.

I didn't know about the terms MOGAI or GSM but now that I know them, I know what I'll be using from now on!

---

I would identify as MOGAI considering that even within the community, there are a number of people would would marginalize asexuality. There are men and women who I love but it's a familiar kind of love. I see a lot of my friends as extensions of my family and don't feel any sexual desires. It's to the point where the sights, and smells, of sexual organs repulse me. I didn't know asexuality was a thing before and merely thought there was just something wrong with me...then I thought I was trying sex with the wrong people...then I found out about being an Ace and it just made sense to me.

 

[runequester]

Anywhere from a few percent to several percent. As a lot of people have said, it gets super complicated super fast.

Throw in people who prefer dating one gender but prefer sex with the other gender or people who are super straight or super gay.... except for that one time and it gets even better.

On a personal level, I tend to use theoretical bisexual. I have felt sexual and romantic attraction to men but am in a monogamous relationship with a woman which is unlikely to change.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Most studies I've read put the number around 10%. 6-7 for gay people and another 3-4 for bisexual. Perhaps another 1% for Transgendered, though that number will likely climb as science gets better with the procedure.

It's difficult to quantify exactly how many people are LGBT for several reasons. The biggest of which is probably the number of issues with coming out; being ostracized, kicked out of one's home, being disowned, loss of friendships and relationships, fear of violence, etc. Another issue is that human sexuality is hard to fit into a neatly defined box. What if someone is straight but experiments one time with someone of the same gender. Are they gay? Are they bi? Are they simply straight and had a moment of questioning? It's not so easy to fit into a definition, and there are multiple ways to look at this scenario.

As far as this thread's vote count goes (currently around 70/30 as of this writing), it's probably higher than average because I would venture that LGBT are more likely to be attracted to the thread and therefore more likely to vote. Most straight people I know just don't think about LGBT issues unless it affects someone particularly close to them, because it's just not on their radar.

 

[Something Amyss]

Most studies I've read put the number around 10%. 6-7 for gay people and another 3-4 for bisexual. Perhaps another 1% for Transgendered, though that number will likely climb as science gets better with the procedure.

It has little to do with the "procedure," transfolk are treated worse than gays. Gender identity is still grounds of discrimination in a lot of places where even sexual orientation is considered a protected class.

You'll see numbers for both increase with acceptance, though it's very likely trans identities will never amount to even as much as 1% of the population. It's an extreme minority, but we're talking an issue of self-reporting within an otherwise invisible and hated group of people.