







































AUSTRALIAN POPULATION STUDIES  2020 | Volume 4 | Issue 2 | pages 14-29 

 

 

© Lyons, Anderson, Rasmussen & Gray 2020. Published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence 
3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU). Journal website: www.australianpopulationstudies.org 

Toward making sexual and gender 
diverse populations count in Australia 

Anthony Lyons*  La Trobe University 

Joel Anderson  La Trobe University; Australian Catholic University 

Mary Lou Rasmussen  Australian National University 

Edith Gray  Australian National University 

* Corresponding author. Email: a.lyons@latrobe.edu.au. Address: Australian Research Centre in Sex, 

Health and Society, School of Psychology and Public Health, Building NR6, La Trobe University, 

Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia. 

Paper received 30 July 2020; accepted 8 October 2020; published 16 November 2020 

Abstract 

Background 

Comprehensive data on gender and sexual identity is critical for the planning and delivery of health, 

education, and social support services. This paper examines ways in which sexual and gender diverse 

populations are being counted in research, with a view to informing discussions about how to 

represent these populations in future research. 

Aims 

To examine approaches used for the collection of data from sexual and gender diverse populations in 

Australia. 

Data and methods 

We reviewed nine examples of large national surveys conducted in Australia over the past ten years 

and compared the approaches used for collecting data on gender and sexual identity. 

Results 

A diversity of approaches and a range of limitations were identified in how these diverse populations 

are counted. The proportions of survey respondents across sex, gender and sexual identity 

categories, and the types of categories, were also found to vary across studies. 

Conclusions 

There is currently no consistent approach for collecting data involving sexual and gender diverse 

populations in Australia despite the need for large-scale surveys that reflect sexual and gender 

diversity. This paper identifies conceptual and methodological questions for consideration when 

planning how to capture diversity related to gender and sexual identity. 

 

Key words 

Survey methods; sex; gender; sexual identity; Australia 

  

 

http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/
mailto:a.lyons@latrobe.edu.au


Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 15 

 

 

1. Introduction  

“There’s a saying: ‘You don’t count in policy circles until someone counts you.’” Dr Gary Gates 

Comprehensive data of sexual and gender diverse populations in Australia is crucial for service planning 

and policymaking. These populations, such as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans, 

experience many disproportionate health and social issues (Lyons et al. 2019; National LGBTI Health 

Alliance 2020). Owing to complex histories of stigma and discrimination (Anderson and Holland 2015; 

Mizock and Mueser 2014), targeted and tailored provision of support is often required. Effectively 

providing this depends on having comprehensive demographic and other data, such as age, geographic, 

and socioeconomic distributions.  

The Australian Census of Population and Housing (hereafter ‘the Census’) is Australia’s largest statistical 

collection, which is used for numerous purposes, such as public funding and decision-making for 

services and infrastructure (ABS 2017). However, the Census is currently limited in the extent to which 

it collects data on the diversity of gender and sexual identity. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 

has reported it would not be including sexual and gender identity questions in the next census, due for 

2021 (ABS 2019). Until questions are included in the census, researchers and policy makers must rely 

on what is available from other studies to ensure that sexual and gender diverse populations are 

counted and visible. An essential consideration is whether surveys ask about sexual and gender 

diversity in consistent and thorough ways, and in particular whether questions and response options 

provide capacity to build a detailed demographic profile of sexual and gender diverse populations in 

Australia.  

It is important to first note that sex and gender are typically conceptualised in different ways (e.g. 

Connell 2002; Hammarström and Annandale 2012; West and Zimmerman 1987). For example, the ABS 

released a ‘standard for sex and gender variables’ (ABS 2016), which aligns with Australian Government 

guidelines from the Attorney-General’s Department (Australian Government 2013) and outlines sex 

and gender as distinct concepts. In this standard, ‘sex’ refers to biological characteristics. It is usually 

assigned at birth as male or female, or may be recorded differently where a person has a variation in 

sex characteristics. In the standard ‘gender’ refers to how a person identifies or describes themselves, 

which may not always align with their sex assigned at birth. For example, someone who is transgender 

may have been assigned male on their birth certificate but describe themselves as, and are, a woman. 

Importantly, people might also describe themselves in different ways that are neither exclusively male 

nor female, such as non-binary (Liszewski et al. 2018). The UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) 

recently released a similar set of guidelines distinguishing sex and gender (ONS 2019). However, the 

ONS add further provision for ‘sex’ being self-defined by survey respondents, thus highlighting the 

importance of providing clarity in how terms are used in a survey and what respondents are being 

asked of them.  

‘Sexual identity’ typically refers to how a person experiences or expresses themselves sexually or 

romantically (Durso and Gates 2013). Numerous identity labels are used such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

pansexual, queer, and heterosexual or straight (Leonard et al. 2012). It is worth noting that the term 

‘sexual orientation’ is often used broadly to refer to three main components: sexual identity; sexual 

behaviour; and sexual attraction (Katz-Wise 2015). For example, a person may be attracted to someone 



16 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

of the same sex and/or engage in same-sex behaviour, but might identify as heterosexual rather than 

lesbian or gay. Depending on the focus of a survey, researchers may be interested in one or more 

components of sexual orientation. However, sexual identity tends to be the main focus in most national 

surveys in Australia, and we therefore focus on sexual identity in this article. 

It needs to be noted that conceptual and empirical work on understanding sex, gender, and sexual 

identity is considerable and complex, and it is beyond the scope of this paper to cover the many 

nuances and perspectives. For example, there are arguments that gender and sexual identity are not 

necessarily inseparable (e.g. Butler 2006). However, key points for the purposes of this article involve 

recognising that there is considerable diversity in gender and sexual identity, that terms such as sex and 

gender are typically used in different ways, and approaches to collecting gender and sexual identity 

data are likely to frame how populations are understood. For example, there are many differences in 

health and well-being between different sexual and gender diverse populations (Leonard et al. 2012; 

Perales 2019) that are unlikely to be detected by surveys that use binary options for sex or gender, or 

inadequately capture data on sexual identity. 

Recognising these issues, an analysis was conducted in 2016 of national population-based surveys in 

the US to assess how effectively questions capture detailed information from sexual and gender diverse 

populations (Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and 

Gender Identity in Federal Surveys 2016). Considerable variation was found across surveys in question 

wording and available response options. For example, some sexual identity questions only enabled 

responses of ‘straight’, ‘lesbian or gay’, or ‘bisexual’, while others allowed a greater range by including 

an ‘other’ category. The evidence is clear that there is a greater diversity of sexual identities than these, 

such as pansexual and queer, which are distinct from identities such as gay or bisexual (van Anders 

2015). Similar work on assessing the strengths and weaknesses of approaches to asking questions in 

population surveys has also been conducted in other countries, such as Canada (Waite and Denier 

2019) and the UK (Sullivan 2020). 

It is important to examine whether Australia shares similar challenges and needs in designing surveys 

to effectively capture data that better reflects sexual and gender diverse populations. Identifying 

potential implications of different approaches to questions would assist demographers and population 

researchers in developing strategies to ensure that sexual and gender diverse populations are 

appropriately counted in Australia. How data is collected has important implications for statistical 

estimations that seek to identify these populations, estimate population sizes, and understand key 

differences between them, which informs policymaking in areas such as health, education, and social 

services, as well as how we understand their lives more broadly (Cahill and Makadon 2017; Gates 

2017). 

In this article, we focus on a selection of large and prominent surveys conducted over the past ten 

years. We had one main aim: to compare and discuss how gender and sexual identity questions have 

been asked across different surveys. We also note the percentages of respondents reported from each 

survey according to gender or sexual identity, where available. We provide a combined analysis and 

discussion to draw attention to implications related to specific surveys and to identify important 

considerations for future studies. 



Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 17 

 

 

2. Data and methods 

2.1. Procedure 

Our review focused on the Census and other national surveys conducted in Australia that are known 

to be important sources of data for policy and research. The team utilised their combined knowledge 

of existing national surveys in Australia to identify potential case examples. Selection was based on 

several considerations. First, to ensure relevance to the contemporary sociocultural environment, we 

only included those conducted in the past ten years. Second, to examine whether survey questions 

are constructed differently depending on the target population, we included examples of those that 

either targeted a general population or sexual and gender diverse populations. Third, to enhance 

diversity in different types of surveys examined, we focused on those designed for different 

purposes, such as health versus employment versus community participation. For surveys specifically 

targeting sexual and gender diverse populations, we further attended to those that focused on trans 

and gender diverse populations to examine how survey questions on gender are constructed when 

confined to these populations. Finally, we limited the scope to those that also included sexual 

identity questions or were able to report some related information (e.g. the Census). 

The scoping exercise identified five general population surveys, including the Census, and four 

surveys focused on sexual and gender diverse populations that satisfied the above considerations. It 

is important to note the primary aim was to identify a broad selection of surveys as case examples 

rather than exhausting all possibilities, with the objective of documenting and discussing some but 

not necessarily all of the diversity in the framing of gender and sexual identity questions. 

For each survey, we document the year it was conducted, sample size, gender and sexual identity 

question wording (where included in the survey), available response options, and percentages of 

respondents for key response options. The analysis was primarily descriptive to enable a qualitative 

investigation. However, we focused on three key areas: (1) different terms used in the wording of 

questions (e.g. sex versus gender) and (2) variations in response options. We further note the 

percentages of respondents reporting different genders and sexual identities to provide additional 

context, but acknowledge that these may also vary based on other aspects of survey methodology. 

2.2. Overview of survey case examples 

Table 1 displays the survey case examples, information about each survey including survey sampling, 

the wording of questions as available, and percentages of respondents for key response options. The 

five national general population surveys included the Census (ABS 2017), General Social Survey (GSS; 

ABS 2015), Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA; Melbourne Institute 

2020), Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships (ASHR2; Richters, Badcock et al. 2014), 

and the Australian Gen Z Study (AGZ; Singleton et al. 2019). The four surveys that specifically focus 

on sexual and gender diverse populations included Private Lives 2 (PL2; Leonard et al. 2012), 

Rainbow Ageing (Lyons et al. 2019), the Australian Trans and Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey 

(ATGDSHS; Callander et al. 2019), and Scrolling Beyond Binaries (SBB; Byron et al. 2019). 



18 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

Table 1: Examples of sexual and gender identity questions from selected national surveys conducted in Australia in the past ten years 

Survey Survey details Sampling Sex/gender question  Sexual identity question  Demographic composition‡ 

Surveys focused on general populations 

Census of 
Population and 
Housing 
(‘Census’) 
 
 

First national 
census commenced 
in 1911, conducted 
every 5 years. Most 
recent wave in 
2016.  
 

Self-completed 
online or paper  
N = 23,401,892 
 

Sex: 
Is the person male or female: 
* Male 
* Female 
Upon request, respondents could 
receive a special form with an 
‘other’ option. 2016 was the first 
time this was made available.  
 

Sexual identity: 
No sexual identity questions. 
However, counts of persons in same-
sex couples can be manually 
calculated (see Wilson & Shalley, 
2018). 

Sex (2016):  
49.3% male, 50.7% female 
Same-sex couples (2016):  
46,800 same-sex couples, or 0.9% of 
all couples (23,700 male; 23,000 
female) 

General Social 
Survey (GSS) 
 
 

Commenced in 
2002, conducted 
every 4 years. Most 
recent wave in 
2014.  
Sexual orientation 
item was included 
from 2014. 
 

Face-to-face 
interview 
N = 12,932 

Sex:  
* Male 
* Female 
 

Sexual identity: 
Which of the following options best 
describes how you think of yourself?  
* Straight (heterosexual) 
* Gay or lesbian 
* Bisexual 
* Other 
* Don’t know 

Sex (2014):  
49.3% male, 50.7% female 
Sexual identity (2014):  
97.0% heterosexual, 3.0% non-
heterosexual (1.5% gay or lesbian; 
1.5% bisexual, other, or don’t know) 

Household, 
Income and 
Labour 
Dynamics in 
Australia 
(HILDA) Survey 
 
 

Commenced in 
2001, conducted 
annually 
(combination of 
interview [12%] 
and self-completion 
[88%]).  
Sexual identity item 
was included in 
2012 (Wave 12) 
and 2016 (Wave 
16). 

Interview (face-
to-face or 
telephone) or 
self-complete 
N = 15,380 
 

Sex: 
Are you…  
* Male 
* Female 
* Other 
 
  

Sexual identity: 
Which of the following categories 
best describes how you think of 
yourself?  
* Heterosexual or straight 
* Gay or lesbian 
* Bisexual 
* Other  
* Unsure/don’t know 
* Prefer not to say  

Sex (2018):  
48.6% male, 51.4% female  
 
Sexual identity (2012):  
91.9% heterosexual or straight, 1.4% 
gay or lesbian, 1.4% bisexual, 0.8% 
other, 0.9% unsure/don’t know, 2.5% 
prefer not to say 



Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 19 

 

 

Survey Survey details Sampling Sex/gender question  Sexual identity question  Demographic composition‡ 

Second 
Australian Study 
of Health and 
Relationships 
(ASHR2) 
 
 

Commenced in 
2001-2002, then 
again in 2012-2013.  
 
 

Telephone 
interview using 
modified random-
digit phone 
dialling 
N = 20,094 

Sex:  
Telephone interviewers asked to 
interview a male or female 
person in the household and a 
tailored questionnaire was 
administered depending on 
whether the person was male or 
female.  

Sexual identity: 
Do you think of yourself as:  
* Heterosexual or straight 
* Homosexual (gay [asked of males]; 
lesbian [asked of females]) 
* Bisexual 
* Queer  
* Not sure, undecided 
* Something else/other  
 

Sex (2012-3):  
49.6% male, 50.4% female 
Sexual identity (2012-3):  
96.5% heterosexual, 1.6% 
gay/lesbian, 1.8% bisexual, 0.2% 
other 

Australian Gen Z 
(AGZ) Study 
 
 

A 2017 nationally 
representative 
telephone survey of 
young people aged 
13-18 years (plus 
30 follow-up 
interviews).  
 
 

Telephone 
interview  
N = 1,200 

Gender: 
Telephone interviewers asked: 
Can I please confirm your 
gender? If you would prefer, 
please just say the number 
before each option I read out. Do 
you think of yourself as? 
(Multiple response) 
* One, Male 
* Two, Female 
* Three, Trans 
* Four, Intersex 
* Five, Gender Queer 
* Other (SPECIFY) 
* Don’t know 
* Refused 

Sexual identity: 
The next question is about your 
sexual identity. If you would prefer, 
please just say the number before 
each option I read out. Do you think 
of yourself as?  
(Multiple response) 
* One, Straight, that is heterosexual 
* Two, Lesbian/Homosexual/Gay 
* Three, Bisexual 
* Four, Questioning 
* Five, Queer 
* Something else (SPECIFY) 
* Don’t know 
* Refused 

 

Gender: 
49.8% male, 48.7% female, 0.4% 
trans, 0% intersex, 0.7% gender 
queer, 0.2% other, 0.3% no response 
Sexual identity: 
86% straight, 2% lesbian, 
homosexual or gay, 7% bisexual, 4% 
questioning, 1% queer or something 
else, 1% don’t know 
 
  

 

  



20 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

Survey Survey details Sampling Sex/gender question  Sexual identity question  Demographic composition‡ 

Surveys focused on sexual and gender diverse populations 

Private Lives 2 
(PL2) 
 
 

Commenced in 
2006, then again in 
2011. 
Target: Lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, and 
transgender (LGBT) 
Australians  
 
 

Self-completed 
online and paper 
N = 3,835 

Gender: 
Thinking about your gender and 
sexuality, are you:  
* Male 
* Female 
* Trans (identifying as male) 
* Trans (identifying as female) 
* I prefer to refer to myself as... 
(write in answer)  

Sexual identity: 
Do you think of yourself primarily 
as:  
* Gay  
* Lesbian 
* Queer 
* Bisexual 
* Dyke 
* Heterosexual/straight 
* Not sure or undecided;  
* I prefer to refer to myself as... 
(write in answer) 
 

Gender (2011): 
44.4% male, 48.2% female, 4.4% 
transgender (3.2% identified as female; 
1.2% identified as male), 3% preferred 
another term 
Sexual identity (2011): 
42.6% gay, 30.1% lesbian, 7.1% queer, 
11.8% bisexual, 2.1% heterosexual, 1.7% 
not sure, 4.5% preferred another term 
 

Rainbow Ageing 
 
 

Conducted in 2017, 
one wave only. 
Target: Lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, and 
transgender (LGBT) 
Australians 
 
 

Self-completed 
online 
N = 895 

Gender:  
How do you describe your 
gender?  
* Male 
* Female 
* Trans female / trans woman 
* Trans male / trans man 
* Genderqueer 
* Biqueer 
* Agender  
* Other (please describe) 
 

Sexual identity:  
How do you describe your 
sexuality?  
* Gay 
* Lesbian 
* Bisexual 
* Queer 
* Pansexual 
* Asexual 
* Straight or heterosexual 
* Other (please describe) 
 

Gender: 
61.7% male, 32.1% female,  4.3% 
transgender (0.4% identified as male; 
3.9% identified as female), 1.8% other 
Sexual identity: 
58.7% gay, 29.4% lesbian, 5.4% bisexual, 
1.2% queer, 0.7% pansexual, 0.8% 
asexual, 1.8% heterosexual, 2.0% other 
 



Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 21 

 

 

Survey Survey details Sampling Sex/gender question  Sexual identity question  Demographic composition‡ 

Australian Trans 
and Gender 
Diverse Sexual 
Health Survey 
(ATGDSHS) 
 
 

Conducted in 2018, 
one wave only. 
Target: Trans and 
gender diverse 
(TGD) Australians  
 
 

Self-completed 
online  
N = 1,613 

Gender:  
Participants self-described their 
gender in an open-ended 
question.  

Sexual identity:  
Participants self-described their 
‘sexual orientation’ in an open-
ended question.  
 
 

Gender: 
Responses stratified into 4 categories for 
reporting: 
21.9% trans men, 24.6% trans women, 
14.3% non-binary assigned male at birth, 
39.2% non-binary assigned female at 
birth 
Sexual identity: 
Responses were organised into 9 
categories: queer; pansexual; bisexual; 
homosexual; asexual; heterosexual; 
gynosexual; androsexual; and ‘no label’. 
Proportions for each varied as a function 
of gender category 
 

Scrolling 
Beyond Binaries 
(SBB) 
 
 

Conducted in 2016, 
one wave only. 
Target: LGBTIQ+ 
young people aged 
16-35 years 
 
 

Self-completed 
online 
N = 1,304 

Gender identity: 
What is your current gender 
identity? 
* Male 
* Female 
* Non-binary 
* Different identity (please state) 
Gender: 
What gender were you assigned 
at birth? 
* Male 
* Female 

Sexual identity:  
Do you consider yourself to be: 
* Lesbian or gay 
* Straight or heterosexual 
* Bisexual 
* Queer 
* Different identity (please state) 

Gender identity: 
26.5% male, 45.6% female, 19.4% non-
binary, and 8.6% described their own 
gender identity (e.g., trans, agender, 
genderqueer). 
Sexual identity:  
33.9% lesbian or gay, 24.7% bisexual, 
18% queer, and 19.8% chose to describe 
their sexual identity, which included 
pansexual, asexual, panromantic, and 
demisexual 

Notes. ‡ of most recent wave or most recent wave with relevant data. N references the sample size from the data wave referenced in the ‘demographic composition’ column, 
and refers to respondents who contributed eligible data only. For the sex/gender and sexual identity questions, we have used the terms used in the surveys, such as ‘sex’, 
‘gender’, or ‘gender identity’. Where no terms were used for sex or gender (e.g. “Are you…”), we have used ‘sex’ if options noted male or female. Where no terms were used 
for sexuality, we have used ‘sexual identity’ if options noted identity labels such as lesbian, gay, bisexual etc. The question wordings for each survey are provided where 
available, but these were unavailable in some instances (e.g. the GSS for sex). Data were sourced from the following: Census: ABS (2017); GSS: ABS (2015); HILDA: Department 
of Social Services and Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (2019), Wilkins et al. (2019), Wooden (2014); ASHR2: Richters, Altman et al. (2014), 
Richters, Badcock, et al. (2014); PL2: Leonard et al. (2012); ATGDSHS: Callander et al. (2019); Scrolling Beyond Binaries: Byron et al. (2019); AGZ and Rainbow Ageing: data from 
source authors. 



22 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

As noted in Table 1, surveys varied by mode, such as interviews or self-completed surveys. The 

general population surveys varied most, with surveys administered either online, paper, or via 

interviews. The sexual and gender diverse surveys were all self-completed and mostly conducted 

online. Mode can potentially influence responses for several reasons, such as enabling questions to 

be clarified when administered via interview or allowing privacy when self-completed (Kuhne et al. 

2019), which needs to be considered in the interpretation of findings. Also, sample sizes varied 

between surveys. Apart from the Census, the sample sizes for the surveys ranged from 895 for 

Rainbow Ageing to 20,094 for ASHR2. 

3. Analysis and discussion 

3.1. Sex and gender 

As displayed in Table 1, of the general population surveys, the GSS and ASHR2 offered only binary 

options of male and female. The HILDA survey offered an ‘other’ option and the Census allowed 

respondents to request an additional form with an ‘other’ option. All labelled this category as sex 

(rather than gender) and all asked the question in prescriptive terms (e.g. ‘are you…’). Conversely, 

the AGZ and all the sexual and gender diverse surveys labelled this category as gender or gender 

identity and offered additional response options. Specifically, they offered four options, including 

male, female, and transgender, as well as a text-entry version of ‘other’ to allow respondents to 

enter their own description. An exception was the ATGDSHS, which provided a single open-ended 

text-entry field for respondents to describe their gender rather than choosing from fixed options. 

These surveys also asked the question in identity terms, e.g. ‘how do you identify’ / ‘how do you 

refer to yourself’, with the exception of PL2. These differences in question framing may appear subtle 

but could potentially be read differently by respondents. For example, asking a question in 

prescriptive terms may result in some respondents interpreting it as sex assigned on their birth 

certificate. When framed as identity, it enables respondents to indicate how they actually describe 

themselves. Surveys may therefore need to pay close attention to precise question framing. There 

has also been a move toward a two-step process, where respondents are first asked for their sex 

assigned at birth and then their gender (PASH.tm 2017), which enables identification of those who 

are not cisgender. Importantly, this approach captures the experiences of people who have taken 

steps to affirm their gender, but do not identify as trans.  

In terms of the different responses, readers need to be mindful that differences between survey 

modes and sample sizes may have influenced responses, as noted above. However, despite some of 

the differences, when only binary options were offered, about half the sample each reported as male 

or female. However, when options outside the sex/gender binary were available, these were used to 

varying degrees ranging from 6.2% of respondents in Rainbow Ageing to 28.4% of respondents in 

SBB. Importantly, we cannot estimate how many respondents might have used non-binary labels or 

would have used ‘other’ or ‘prefer not to say’ options if they had been available in the general 

population surveys, as these options were not available in those collections with the exception of 

HILDA. This means that there are no reliable estimates of how many sexual and gender diverse 

individuals there are in Australia. The exception to this is the AGZ survey, but it is limited to 

adolescents.  



Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 23 

 

 

There is some debate in the literature about how questions about being transgender should be 

asked. Some theorists have argued that sex and gender are complex constructs that are inseparable 

from each other (e.g. Fugard 2020), and others argue that they cannot be used interchangeably (e.g. 

Gates 2014). PASH.tm, the peer advocacy network for trans masculinities, states in their position 

statement on best practice data collection (PASH.tm 2017) that trans and gender diverse people are 

not a homogeneous group, and should not be treated as one. They highlight the need for designing 

survey questions that are inclusive of all genders and of people who do not identify with binary 

gender, and to provide reliable data without erasing any groups. For example, some trans people 

identify strongly as male or female and trans, others do not identify as trans at all, whilst others 

identify as only trans for the purposes of visibility (see Bauer et al. 2017). Moreover, not everyone 

whose gender identities differ from their birth sex consider themselves trans (Darwin 2020), and 

indeed in the ATGDSHS, approximately half the sample identified as transgender while the other half 

identified as non-binary. As such, they recommend that any gender identity question allows for 

multi-select answers, since single-option answer selections do not accurately reflect the gender 

experience of many trans people, and may result in under-reporting of gender diversity.  

When available, some respondents select more than one gender identity, or if describing themselves 

in their own words use combinations of categories (e.g. “trans masculine gender nonconforming 

femme”) or describing a temporally variant gender identity (e.g. “some days I am a girl, other days I 

have no gender”; see Byron et al. 2019). This aligns with work from the US, in which more than 13% 

of non-heteronormative respondents preferred to select more than one gender identity option than 

to simply enter their own term (Ruberg and Ruelos 2020), and contradicts ideas that treat gender as 

synonymous with sex and as unchanging over the course of a lifetime (see Westbrook and Saperstein 

2015). In addition, it suggests that for many sexual and gender diverse people, gender identity 

cannot be characterised simply by selecting one term from an inclusive list, but instead by being able 

to identify multiple, overlapping elements of identity. Taken together, this suggests that there is a 

level of complexity and nuance in how survey respondents self-report their gender identities, which 

is unlikely to be fully captured in items that simply allow for a single response of male or female. 

3.2. Sexual identity 

Of the general population surveys displayed in Table 1, the majority asked respondents to self-

describe their sexual identity by selecting either straight/heterosexual, gay or lesbian, bisexual, and a 

combination of either other, don’t know, unsure, or prefer not to say. The Census does not allow a 

direct count of non-heteronormative individuals, but researchers have made counts of individuals in 

same-sex couples, based on the number of people in Australia who reported living with their same-

sex partner on census night (which suggests less than 1% of couples are same-sex; ABS 2017). This 

does not take into account any other non-heteronormative Australians, such as single people who 

identify as lesbian or gay, bisexual-identifying people who are in an opposite-sex relationship, 

pansexual or asexual individuals, etc. While the census does not include data on sexual identity, the 

ABS does collect information about sexual identity from respondents in the GSS. This survey found 

approximately 3% self-reported as ‘non-heterosexual.’ It is also worth noting that a study by Wilson 

and Shalley (2018) estimated that 3.2% of the Australian population were non-heterosexual based on 

data from several population surveys and the Census.  



24 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

The AGZ and all the surveys that focused on sexual and gender diverse populations also asked for a 

self-description of sexual identity, and offered similar responses to the general population surveys, 

but also included further options, such as queer, questioning, asexual, and pansexual, as well as text-

entry options. This resulted in a much larger range of responses. For example, 19.8% of respondents 

in the SBB survey chose to describe their own sexual identity, rather than choosing lesbian, gay, 

straight, bisexual, or queer. This suggests that more limited options used in some surveys, such as 

‘lesbian/gay’ and ‘bisexual’, do not capture the range of identities that Australians use. Ratifying this 

argument is the finding that in the ATGDSHS, where the only option was to provide a text response, 

the open-ended responses provided were coded into nine different categories. Further follow-up 

analysis of these data using hierarchical clustering techniques yielded three non-exclusive clusters 

(Callander et al. 2020). This work presents a potentially interesting scenario, where the widest range 

of responses are made possible to respondents and then employing analytical techniques in different 

ways to aggregate data.  

As with sex and gender questions, there is debate in the literature about how best to ask questions 

of sexual identity in surveys, although it seems more readily accepted that a range of response 

options are necessary. Indeed, some have questioned the appropriateness of having a wide range of 

response options (see Sabia et al. 2017 for a discussion). There are logistical considerations, such as 

balancing brevity in survey length and conciseness in response data against deeper and nuanced 

understandings of the sexual identities that people use.  

We recognise that there are also implications for asking people to choose from a range of choices 

when they might be unfamiliar with some of the options (e.g. demisexual, pansexual, panromantic, 

etc). Indeed, a study by Sell, Wells and Wypij (1995) revealed that some survey respondents select 

‘unsure’ because they do not understand the question or the response options rather than because 

they are undecided. Finally, having options to select from suggests that sexual identities are 

categorical and fixed, which runs counter to many contemporary conceptualisations of sexual 

identity which posit that sexuality is a dynamic spectrum (e.g. D’Augelli et al. 1995). This is 

particularly important in light of research from Europe that showed 5.9% of Europeans identified as 

LGBT on a dichotomous yes/no question, but over 10% identified as more than 0 on the Kinsey scale 

(that is, more than double chose an option that is not ‘exclusively heterosexual’ on a 7-point scale of 

sexual orientation; Deveaux 2016). 

As per Table 1, there are a suite of non-committal response options provided in some surveys, 

including ‘unsure’, ‘don’t know’, ‘prefer not to say.’ These are often necessary to avoid respondents 

dropping out of a survey if they are unsure how to answer the question or wish not to disclose. Many 

of the surveys also included an ‘other’ option for those whose identity is not listed in the response 

options. However, this has been met with varying levels of criticism. For example, Badgett (2009) 

criticises the use of ‘other’ as a response since it does not provide options for re-classification, and 

these respondents typically become excluded from data sets during analyses, which falsely decreases 

estimates of those who would not consider themselves heterosexual and attenuates statistical 

power. Interestingly, 2.5% of HILDA respondents, which would equal over half a million Australians, 

indicated that they preferred not to report their sexual identity. This could mean that these 

respondents did not have the right options to choose from, or did not wish to disclose their sexual 



Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 25 

 

 

identity. In line with this contention, Badgett recommends avoiding a “prefer not to say” response 

option. 

When asking questions about sexual identity, it is often unclear precisely what is meant. For the most 

part, survey respondents likely focus on the gender of the people they are sexually attracted to, as 

this is the typical focus in such discussions of sexuality (see van Anders, 2015). However, the survey 

might equally be trying to measure other aspects of sexual orientation, including sexual behaviour or 

sexual attraction (or a combination of all the above). As such, estimates of populations who are not 

heterosexual will vary based on how questions are operationalised. For example, only asking about 

sexual identity might exclude individuals who engage in same-sex sexual behaviour or who 

experience same-sex sexual attraction without acting on it. It is worth considering that questions that 

ask about different aspects of sexual orientation will attract qualitatively different subpopulations, 

and that they will be different sizes. For instance, the evidence suggests that the proportion of 

people who have engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour is far higher than the proportion who self-

identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. For example, in the Second Australian Study of Health and 

Relationships, 96.8% of men and 96.3% of women identified as heterosexual, yet 90.7% of men and 

82.3% of women reported having sexual experiences exclusively with the other sex (Richters, Altman 

et al. 2014; see also Spiegelhalter 2015). Wilson and Shalley (2018) highlight the need for 

purposefully selecting definitions so that population estimates from these surveys reflect the subject 

of the research. For example, same-sex sexual behaviour might be a more appropriate focus than 

self-identification for some forms of health surveillance research. 

4. Conclusions 

Comprehensive population-level data is essential for many reasons, including government planning, 

understanding health needs, and informing research across disciplines. Despite this, surveys have 

tended to adopt different approaches to asking questions about gender and sexual identity, including 

those specifically focusing on sexual and gender diverse populations. This adds to the challenge of 

comparing findings from one survey to another. In addition, questions are often limited to fixed 

options that are unlikely to adequately capture the identities that many people have, thus potentially 

resulting in respondents either misclassifying their identity or discontinuing the survey. In either 

case, there is the risk of erasure, where some respondents are made invisible or inadequately 

represented in survey results. This has the potential implication of confounding the categories that 

have been provided. It is especially the case for gender, where it might be erroneously assumed that 

all respondents who had no option other than to select male or female are cisgender. In addition, as 

we discussed, identities may not always be singular, fixed, or discrete, and may require respondents 

to select multiple options or describe their identity in a way that is meaningful to them. Practical 

considerations, such as the length of questions and response sets and how to frame questions or 

providing definitions of terms so that all respondents understand what is being asked of them, add 

further challenges, but are unlikely to be insurmountable.  

Ultimately, it would be beneficial to have guidelines developed for different data collection purposes 

with regard to framing questions and analysing responses. Informing this, it will be important for 

researchers to examine specifically how results vary according to question framing. Given that there 

are numerous gender and sexual identities, the implications for the reporting of results and potential 



26 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

policymaking of how identities are aggregated into larger categories, and the question of what 

comprises appropriate levels of aggregation, also requires investigation. Consulting with key 

communities, such as sexual and gender diverse communities, to ensure relevance and 

appropriateness of questions will be further important. 

5. Key messages  

• There is wide variation in approaches to identifying sexual and gender diverse populations in 

Australia. 

• Developing greater consistency in approaches across surveys and refining questions will more 

fully capture diverse identities and variations in embodiment. 

• With advancements in approaches there is an opportunity to collect data that provides greater 

representation of sexual and gender diverse populations and a stronger basis for estimating the 

demography of these populations. 

• Refining survey techniques in this space will ensure that diverse populations are more fully 

counted in Australia. 

• Counting sexual and gender diverse populations is especially important for informing service 

delivery, policymaking, and research. 

References 

ABS (2015) General Social Survey household questionnaire. Cat. No. 4159.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau 

of Statistics. 

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4159.02014?OpenDocument. Accessed 

on 14 July 2020.  

ABS (2016) Standard for sex and gender variables. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/standard-sex-and-gender-variables/2016. Accessed 

on 5 October 2020. 

ABS (2017) Census of Population and Housing: Understanding the Census and Census Data, Australia, 

2016. Catalogue No. 2900.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2900.0~2016~Main%20Featu

res~Understanding%20the%20Census%20and%20Census%20Data~1. Accessed on 14 July 2020. 

ABS (2019) ABS Media Statement on sexual orientation and gender identity questions and the 2021 

Census. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics Media Centre. 

https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/ABS%20Media%20Statement%20on%

20sexual%20orientation%20and%20gender%20identity%20questions%20and%20the%202021%2

0Census. Accessed on 14 July 2020. 

Anderson J R and Holland E (2015) The legacy of medicalising ‘homosexuality’: a discussion on the 

historical effects of non-heterosexual diagnostic classifications. Sensoria 11(1): 4-15. 

Australian Government (2013) Australian Government guidelines for the recognition of sex and gender. 

Canberra: Australian Government Attorney General’s Department. 

https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-

03/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender.pdf. Accessed on 5 

October 2020. 

Badgett M V L (2009) Best practices for asking questions about sexual orientation on surveys. Los Angeles: 

UCLA, The Williams Institute.  

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4159.02014?OpenDocument
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/standards/standard-sex-and-gender-variables/2016
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2900.0~2016~Main%20Features~Understanding%20the%20Census%20and%20Census%20Data~1
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2900.0~2016~Main%20Features~Understanding%20the%20Census%20and%20Census%20Data~1
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/ABS%20Media%20Statement%20on%20sexual%20orientation%20and%20gender%20identity%20questions%20and%20the%202021%20Census
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/ABS%20Media%20Statement%20on%20sexual%20orientation%20and%20gender%20identity%20questions%20and%20the%202021%20Census
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/ABS%20Media%20Statement%20on%20sexual%20orientation%20and%20gender%20identity%20questions%20and%20the%202021%20Census
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender.pdf
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/AustralianGovernmentGuidelinesontheRecognitionofSexandGender.pdf


Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 27 

 

 

Bauer G R, Braimoh J, Scheim A I and Dharma C (2017) Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for 

population surveys: mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PLoS ONE 12(5): 

e01780434. 

Butler J (2006) Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.  

Byron P, Robards B, Hanckel B, Vivienne S and Churchill B (2019) “Hey, I’m Having These Experiences”: 

Tumblr Use and young people’s queer (Dis) connections. International Journal of Communication 

13: 2239-2259. 

Cahill S R and Makadon H J (2017) If they don't count us, we don't count: Trump administration rolls back 

sexual orientation and gender identity data collection. LGBT Health 4(3): 171-173. 

Callander D, Newman C E, Holt, M, Rosenberg S, Duncan D T, Pony M, Timmins L, Cornelisse V, Duck-

Chong L, Wang B and Cook T (2020) The complexities of categorizing gender: a hierarchical 

clustering analysis of data from the first Australian Trans and Gender Diverse Sexual Health 

Survey. Transgender Health. 

Callander D, Wiggins J, Rosenberg S, Cornelisse VJ, Duck-Chong E, Holt M, Pony M, Vlahakis E, MacGibbon 

J and Cook T (2019) The 2018 Australian Trans and Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey: report of 

findings. Sydney: The Kirby Institute, UNSW.  

Connell RW (2002) Gender. Cambridge, England: Polity. 

Darwin H (2020) Challenging the cisgender/transgender binary: Nonbinary people and the transgender 

label. Gender and Society 34(3): 357-380.   

D'Augelli A R, Patterson C and Patterson C J (1995) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan: 

psychological perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand. 

Department of Social Services and Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (2019) 

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, general release 18 

(Waves 1-18). ADA Dataverse. 

https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.26193/IYBXHM. Accessed on 14 

July 2020.  

Deveaux F (2016) Counting the LGBT population: 6% of Europeans identify as LGBT. 

https://daliaresearch.com/blog/counting-the-lgbt-population-6-of-europeans-identify-as-lgbt. 

Accessed on 14 July 2020. 

Durso L E and Gates G J (2013) Best practices: collecting and analysing data on sexual minorities. In A 

Baumle (Ed), International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality. Dordrecht, Netherlands: 

Springer.  

Federal Interagency Working Group on Improving Measurement of Sexual Orientation and Gender 

Identity in Federal Surveys (2016) Current measures of sexual orientation and gender identity in 

federal surveys. Washington DC: Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology. 

Fugard A (2020) Should trans people be postmodernist in the streets but positivist in the spreadsheets? A 

reply to Sullivan. International Journal of Social Research Methodology .23(5): 525-531. 

Gates G J (2014) LGB families and relationships: Analyses of the 2013 National Health Interview Survey. 

Los Angeles: Williams Institute, UCLA. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-

content/uploads/lgb-families-nhis-sep-2014.pdf. Accessed on 5 October 2020. 

Gates G J (2017) LGBT data collection amid social and demographic shifts of the US LGBT community. 

American Journal of Public Health 102(8): 1220–1222.  

Hammarström A and Annandale E (2012) A conceptual muddle: an empirical analysis of the use of ‘sex’ 

and ‘gender’ in ‘gender-specific medicine’ journals. PloS One 7(4): e34193 

Katz-Wise S L (2015) Sexual fluidity in young adult women and men: associations with sexual orientation 

and sexual identity. Psychology and Sexuality 6(2): 189-208. 

Kuhne S, Kroh M and Richter D (2019) Comparing self-reported and partnership-inferred sexual 

orientation in household surveys. Journal of Official Statistics 35(4): 777-805. 

https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.26193/IYBXHM
https://daliaresearch.com/blog/counting-the-lgbt-population-6-of-europeans-identify-as-lgbt
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-families-nhis-sep-2014.pdf
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/lgb-families-nhis-sep-2014.pdf


28 Lyons et al. Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 

 

Leonard W, Pitts M, Mitchell A, Lyons A, Smith A, Patel S, Couch M and Barrett A (2012) Private Lives 2: 

The second national survey of the health and wellbeing of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender 

(GLBT) Australians. Monograph Series No. 86. Melbourne: La Trobe University.  

Liszewski W, Peebles J K, Yeung H and Arron S (2018) Persons of nonbinary gender: awareness, visibility, 

and health disparities. New England Journal of Medicine 379(25): 2391-2393.  

Lyons A, Alba B, Waling A, Minichiello V, Hughes M, Barrett C, Fredriksen-Goldsen K, Edmonds S and 

Blanchard M (2019) Recent versus lifetime experiences of discrimination and the mental and 

physical health of older lesbian women and gay men. Ageing and Society doi: 

10.1017/S0144686X19001533. 

Melbourne Institute (2012) HILDA self-completion questionnaire. Melbourne: The University of 

Melbourne. https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-

questionnaires/SelfCompletionQuestionnaireW12M.pdf. Accessed on 8 May 2020. 

Mizock L and Mueser K T (2014) Employment, mental health, internalized stigma, and coping with 

transphobia among transgender individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender 

Diversity 1(2): 146. 

National LGBTI Health Alliance (2020) Snapshot of mental health and suicide prevention statistics for 

LGBTI people. Sydney: National LGBTI Health Alliance. 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lgbtihealth/pages/240/attachments/original/15954922

35/2020-Snapshot_mental_health_%281%29.pdf?1595492235. Accessed on 5 October 2020. 

ONS (2019) What is the difference between sex and gender? Exploring the difference between sex and 

gender, looking at concepts that are important to the Sustainable Development Goals. London: 

Office of National Statistics. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetween

sexandgender/2019-02-21. Accessed on 5 October 2020. 

PASH.tm (2017) Position statement: data collection. Sydney: PASH.tm. http://www.grunt.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/PASH.tm-Data-Collection_March2018.pdf. Accessed on 14 July 2020.  

Perales F (2019) The health and wellbeing of Australian lesbian, gay and bisexual people: a systematic 

assessment using a longitudinal national sample. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public 

Health 43(3): 281-287.  

Richters J, Altman D, Badcock P B, Smith A M A, de Visser R O, Grulich A E, Rissel C and Simpson J M (2014) 

Sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience: The Second Australian Study of Health 

and Relationships. Sexual Health 11(5): 451–460.  

Richters J, Badcock P B, Simpson J M, Shellard D, Rissel C, de Visser R O, Grulich A E and Smith A M A 

(2014) Design and methods of the Second Australian Study of Health and Relationships. Sexual 

Health 11(5): 383–396.  

Ruberg B and Ruelos S (2020) Data for queer lives: how LGBTQ gender and sexuality identities challenge 

norms of demographics. Big Data and Society 7(1): 2053951720933286. 

Sabia J J, Wooden M and Nguyen T T (2017) Sexual identity, same-sex relationships, and labour market 

dynamics: new evidence from longitudinal data in Australia. Southern Economic Journal 83(4): 

903-931. 

Sell R L, Wells J A and Wypij D (1995) The prevalence of homosexual behaviour and attraction in the 

United States, the United Kingdom and France: Results of national population-based samples. 

Archives of Sexual Behavior 24: 235-248.  

Singleton A, Rasmussen M L, Halafoff A and Bouma G D (2019) The AGZ Study: project report. Australia: 

Australian National University, Deakin University and Monash University. 

Spiegelhalter D (2015) Sex By Numbers: What Statistics Can Tell Us About Sexual Behaviour. London: 

Profile Books. 

https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-questionnaires/SelfCompletionQuestionnaireW12M.pdf
https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/assets/documents/hilda-questionnaires/SelfCompletionQuestionnaireW12M.pdf
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lgbtihealth/pages/240/attachments/original/1595492235/2020-Snapshot_mental_health_%281%29.pdf?1595492235
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/lgbtihealth/pages/240/attachments/original/1595492235/2020-Snapshot_mental_health_%281%29.pdf?1595492235
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21
http://www.grunt.org.au/wp-content/uploads/PASH.tm-Data-Collection_March2018.pdf
http://www.grunt.org.au/wp-content/uploads/PASH.tm-Data-Collection_March2018.pdf


Australian Population Studies 4 (2) 2020 Lyons et al. 29 

 

 

Sullivan A (2020) Sex and the census: why surveys should not conflate sex and gender identity. 

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 23(5): 517-524. 

Van Anders S M (2015) Beyond sexual orientation: integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via 

sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(5): 1177-1213.  

Waite S and Denier N (2019) A research note on Canada’s LGBT data landscape: where we are and what 

the future holds. Canadian Review of Sociology 56(1): 93-117. 

West C and Zimmerman D H (1987) Doing gender. Gender and Society 1(2): 125-151. 

Wilkins R, Laß I, Butterworth P and Vera-Toscano E (2019) The 14th Annual Statistical Report of the HILDA 

Survey. Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research. Melbourne: The University 

of Melbourne. 

Wilson T and Shalley F (2018) Estimates of Australia's non-heterosexual population. Australian Population 

Studies 2(1): 26-38.  

Wooden M (2014) The measurement of sexual identity in Wave 12 of the HILDA Survey (and associations 

with mental health and earnings). HILDA Project Discussion Paper Series No. 1/14. Melbourne: 

The University of Melbourne. 

 


