One in 20 adult residents in Brighton and Hove is either trans or non-binary, a council survey has found.
The figure, based on anonymous responses from almost 17,000 people last year, is five times higher than the figure arrived at by the 2021 census.
The Health Counts survey also found 28% of adults describe themselves as LGBQ+ – about 2.5 times the census figure of 11%.
The previous Health Counts survey in 2012 found 0.9% described themselves as trans and 11 per cent LGB.
The report, published this week, says: “Data collected on many demographic characteristics is similar to the 2021 census, giving reassurance that the weighted sample is representative of the city population.
“However, we know that the census figures were a considerable underestimate of our TNBI and LGBQ+ adults.
“Health Counts gives much higher estimates, which we believe are more representative of the city’s significant TNBI and LGBQ+ populations.”
In March, the Office for National Statistics said its gender identity figures, while broadly correct across the country, should not be used for local comparisons.
It said this is because the phrasing of its question could have led to some, particularly those for whom English is a second language, wrongly saying they were trans.
In 2023, its deputy national statistician Emma Rourke said it was also probable some trans people were among those who chose not to respond to the question. In Brighton and Hove, six per cent of people did not answer it.
The council says it spoke to local LGBTQ+ groups who said that some people living here boycotted the question because they did not trust the government with their data.
It says the way the question in its own survey was phrased – “Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history?” – was more likely to result in an accurate figure.
A link to complete the survey was texted to everyone registered with a GP practice who had not opted out of communications in April last year. Patients who were registered with a city GP but who did not live here were welcome to take part.
The council worked with about 35 community groups to reach potentially marginalised groups, including local trans charities Allsorts and the Clare Project as well as LGBTQ+ groups Mind Out and Older and Out.
In total, the council received 26,014 responses, which were weighted by age, sex and index of deprivation so that a total of 16,729 responses were used – 7.2% of the city’s adult resident population.
The findings will be used to identify which health services should be developed and funded in the city.
Click here to read our report on what else the survey found, or here to read the full council report.
This is highly methodologically unsound. We don’t know the sample size and by distributing via the city’s trans networks you get a heavily skewed sample. Furthermore, by including people who have ever had a history of identifying as trans you are actually counting detransitioners as trans.
How much money did the council spend on this, and to what ends?
Appreciate your stats knowledge; I came to the same conclusion
You might find reading the full survey answers your question. The report addresses methodological considerations, stating that the demographic data collected aligns closely with the 2021 Census, suggesting that the weighted sample is representative of the city’s population. However, it notes that the Census likely underestimated the TNBI and LGBQ+ populations.
I’m really struggling to see how this actually matters to be honest. All I can see it doing is fueling the fire of those who seem to have a vehement dislike and hatred of people minding their own business and being who they want to be without bothering anyone else!
I take your point Jules, but the article says it matters because the statistics help the council decide on services provided and on funding for healthcare.
The reason people are taking notice is the statement that one in twenty adults in our city identify as either trans or non-binary, and – as a gay man who has lived here since 1974 – I’d say that statistic is simply not true.
Meanwhile a quick google search finds
In 2023, 3.8% of the UK population aged 16 and over identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB), while 93.6% identified as heterosexual or straight. The percentage of LGB individuals is an increase from 2.2% in 2018 and 2.1% in 2017.
I know it’s Brighton but how can one in 20 adults possibly be trans/non-binary? And how much council tax has our council spent on this nonsense, while closing schools and libraries and being discriminatory to all genders and identities?
What about the disabled? Where is their survey?
Or don’t they Count?
Mike, the stat you’ve quoted is a UK-wide figure from the ONS, and it doesn’t cover trans or non-binary people at all. The Health Counts survey in Brighton isn’t claiming that 1 in 20 people are LGB; it’s saying 5% identify as trans, non-binary, or intersex. That’s a different demographic and a different question.
Brighton has long had one of the highest proportions of LGBTQ+ residents in the UK; that’s not new, nor unique to this survey. And this wasn’t a vanity project. It’s part of public health research done every ten years to help the council plan services. Similar surveys have covered everything from smoking and disability to mental health and food poverty.
If we want better public services for everyone, including disabled people, which this survey also covered, we need decent local data. Dismissing a group because they’re small or politically unpopular doesn’t make the data wrong.
It just makes it easier to ignore them.
A teeny weeny % of the disturbed male population, with a small number of genuine exceptions, are screaming about their rights how special and brave they are, while always attacking women, commanding the rest of us to affirm their lie, while also commanding huge amounts of resources , literally millions, that would be far better spent on groups that are genuinely in need. Persecuted my nanny, see Sarah Jane Parker, convicted child murderer protesting and 😱 for the deaths of WOMEN (no men) who oppose him or their sick ideology. Thank goodness for the law, gradually it’s all coming out, the public are more and more aware, and they do not agree.
Ironically, your comment is filled with ignorance about the situation transpeople find themselves in, and to me, that is far more concerning. You claim trans people are more perpetrators of violence when if you look at the data, they are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims.
It’s that uninformed bigoted ignorance that creates undeserved fear and hatred.
You’re being your own worst enemy here Jenny, I hope you can do better.
This appears to be another attempt to undermine, re-educate, and shut up a woman again, Benjamin. For daring to highlight well covered and direct threats to females by trans ‘women’/activists. It’s interesting that you choose to ignore/downplay sex based data, and women’s and girls wellbeing, rights, health, safety, risk of VAWG and deny/undermine their experience while excusing, enabling, empowering and defending violent, aggressive, threatening, behaviour towards women and girls by sections of the trans community. What is your problem with (biological) women Benjamin- scared of what they’ll say?
Using these numbers and the current population sourced from Wikipedia then that means 32K people of 632K population are trans.
Mary, just to clarify – the survey didn’t say that 5% of Brighton & Hove’s full population are trans. It said 5% of adults identify as trans, non-binary, or intersex combined. That’s not the same as saying 32,000 people in a population of 632,000 are trans.
Also, Brighton & Hove’s actual population is closer to 276,000, not 632,000, I think you may be looking at a wider region or county-level figure. Even then, 5% of adults would include various identities, not just trans.
So how do you explain that many of the commenters upon here, including myself, had absolutely no knowledge of this survey? How is it possible to collect accurate data with a methodology that excludes so many?
Easily.
You can’t identify as intersex. It is a biological, factual status.
Yes, you can.
If you conduct your survey via biased trans organisations then OF COURSE you are going to get this highly dubious outcome !
It wasn’t.
I find these figures extraordinary, and unbelievable, but I will quote from the article here:
“A link to complete the survey was texted to everyone registered with a GP practice who had not opted out of communications in April last year. ”
I certainly wasn’t given that opportunity, and I have been with the same GP for ten years.
Something is not right with the methodology here.
While it’s obvious from a Fri to Brighton centre we have more than our fair share of cockerels in frocks, these stats are ridiculous, madebu woo woo, so like gender ideology, B&H Council are a disgrace, look at their policy of mixed changing in schools, girls are forced to change with boys. Aftern22 years here B&H Cilouncil never fail to disappoint & disgust me.
I’ll second that. Even more gaulling as according to some of the comments the survey solicited input and comment on how the council could better serve residents with disabilities. Of which I am one. I’m in that surgery on a monthly basis as a minimum of I’m lucky due to the need to constantly keep tabs on 2 of my conditions, the suppression and management levels are able to achieve at a given point and an assessment of the damage to other parts of my body those same drugs cause. I’d be more than happy to have only been to my surgery once or twice in the time period but it seems the continuous failure to offer me a chance of some level of semi-direct input hit a high figure.
I won’t cast assertions without having any idea why this wasn’t offered to me but I wonder if being a heterosexual man meant I wasn’t considering worthy as I hadn’t ticked, or given the impression I may fit one of the alphabet boxes.
Has given me something to enquire about next week and to communicate that I’ll be seeking an honest and demonstrable response. Not some generic, fake apology and assurances proforma that answers nothing & doesn’t bare even considering of their having taken genuine steps
Sorry Clayton you don’t fit the “inclusive” requirement, back in the queue, unless you fancy declaring yourself trans or non binary, that will score you the lottery points you need.
Have you changed your phone number or have you opted out of medical research? I’d imagine these are the top two reasons you may not have been invited to participate. Considering how strict GDPR is as well, in the event of an unknown status, that’s considered no consent to err on the side of compliance with the law.
If it’s anything like SystemOne, it’s a single button press to text everyone with these sort of things, nothing about you outside of consent is considered when deciding on who to send to. It’s a select all situation.
I’m sure you could write to them and ask, I’d genuinely be interested if you’d be happy to share.
This has all the hallmarks of BHCC’s utterly disingenuous approach to surveys and consultations. I did not know of any such survey being carried out and I have been with the same GP practice for around 20 years.
It does not seem to matter who the party in control are (labour or green). They use reports as a means of justifying actions which are against the wishes of the majority by using a thoroughly dubious methodology which will give rise to hugely mis-leading results.
Brighton is a very tolerant and open minded city with residents who reflect this. This type of falsification by the council to justify their agenda (whatever it may be), will more likely have the effect of making the majority of the population more cynical toward inclusivity which is presumably the opposite of the intended effect.
The Health Counts survey is one of the longest-running health and wellbeing surveys in Brighton & Hove, going back to 1992. The size is substantial for any local study.
It wasn’t hidden either. No survey reaches everyone, but just because we didn’t personally hear about it doesn’t mean it was disingenuous or “falsified.”
And while it’s healthy to question methodology, calling the results “misleading” without reading the full report (which explains how responses were weighted to match local demographics) doesn’t help either.
Well this survey appeared to reach very few, as corroborated by many commenters on here. If it is directed towards a nuanced groups(s) of recipients (as is strongly suggested in the article), the data gathered from the results will not be objective or truly representative. It follows that decisions based upon the survey’s results are very unlikely to be measured and fair for all residents in the city.
The last words in your comment above are; ‘doesn’t help either’. Doesn’t help what exactly? A specific agenda? You persistently come on to this comments section fiercely defending everything about BHCC including their activities such as this survey. And yet you don’t seem to take anything like the same level of interest in other local, non BHCC related matters. In the interests of openness and transparency, please explain what your role is within the local council and/or the local Labour party? Is that something you are willing to share with other readers here, or is that information only for a select few? I ask, as I think it’s important to know whether your comments are motivated by genuine interest as a resident, or a personal investment in local politics. I am sure you will agree; honesty is everything.
None. And it suggests that many of the commenters on here are probably not part of the captured demographic that is detailed in the report, and a it’s clear a lot of commenters are unfamiliar with the concept of weighting.
I like to correct misinformation, misunderstanding, provide context, and challenge ideas that I believe are not grounded in good evidence or logic.
If you feel that it skewed in one direction, that explains more about the kind of people who comment, and exactly why it should be challenged.
Going back to the topic at hand, it’s going in the right direction with representation, absolutely we should be advocating for continuing to push for more people responding.
For example, I note this is the first time homeless and vulnerable homed people are being surveyed. Since we know that these are often ill afforded access to healthcare, it is an important demographic to assess if our current services are doing the right thing and are effective.
In answer to each of your points in turn:
Oh, really? No it doesn’t. Of course they are.
Only if it suits your obvious bias.
No it doesn’t.
No-one but you is convinced.
Wrong. The representation of this demographic in the statistics should be weighted proportionally. Despite your claims to the contrary, it clearly is not. No matter how strongly you assert them, your opinions do not become facts.
The lack of trust in data does not just extend to the trans community. The fact sex and gender is constantly conflated means this data will never be accurate- to the disadvantage of absolutely everyone. And not everyone who decides to abstain from nonsense characteristic questions like ‘what gender are you, or what gender/sex were you ‘’assigned’’ at birth’ will disengage because they identify as trans- more likely confused/frustrated/angered by ideological and nonsensical questions from individuals and organisations that really should know better. It would be interesting to know the wider demographics and representation of the people of Brighton and Hove completing this survey (e.g. age, disability, race, sex, socioeconomic status etc.) rather than constantly and disproportionately focusing on the trans/non binary community to the detriment of everyone else.
It does.
‘It does’ what Benjamin?
The survey did/does conflate sex and gender and referred to ‘assignment’ of sex/gender at birth- which is ideological and complete nonsense. These gender and ‘assigned’ questions not only force collusion with a controversial ideology in order to take part with an important city wide health survey, they also undermine any sex/gender data collected to the point that people just won’t bother answering demographics, or will stop engaging with these surveys at all, or may even start making up characteristics- because clearly it’s all just made up nonsense anyway so what does it really matter? The O’Sullivan review and Supreme Court ruling should now least ensure plain and sex based language and data is collected properly in the future- and hopefully the damage done including as a result of systematically eradicating sex from data, and the lack of confidence in data in general can start to be addressed.
Just in case your ‘it does’ instead relates to my comment re the disproportionate focus of this article on the trans/non binary community, clearly it’s written about the trans community, but I don’t see the same amount of attention given to any other characteristic in other news about this survey, and I don’t buy that just because ‘trans’ is a ‘minority’ they should be given the ‘loudest’ voice, especially given the significant questions about, consequences of, and harm associated with this ideology including persistent attempts to control the narrative and continue to bully and trample women’s and girls rights and protections even after the Supreme Courts ruling clarifying what the majority of people already understand/knew is/was the real definition of a woman- biological ‘sex’.
Still does.
Exactly. Those who don’t answer are bored of it. Stats are meaningless while the conflation continues.
Statistics are extremely important.
Thanks Benjamin for correcting everyone’s ‘ignorant’ thinking/insights/experience once again, for sharing your ‘measured’, higher level ‘logic’ and ‘common sense’ with us all, so we can all ‘do better’ according to Benjamins version of the truth at least. Not that that changes the fact this survey conflated sex and gender, undermining the data collected and any subsequent analysis of it, while also destroying trust in the process. Missing and inaccurate data doesn’t improve with weighting- whether people understand the concept of weighting or not.
Although the figures are ridiculous I’m pleased with the separation of TNBI and LGBQ – they are completely different things.
I agree on your second point. I’m afraid to say TNBI was something being struck together with LGBTQ something I had never considered before. On a personal level at least, it’s something I am going to do better on in my discussions and considerations.
You’re absolutely right, preference and self-identity are two completely different things.
I have been working in central Brighton for the last 3 months and have noticed a large amount of mentally ill people! This explains it!
Central Brighton is where much of the services are located.