Are Latter-day Saints Disproportionately Gay? Part II

Years ago I discussed the highly plausible possibility that Latter-day Saints are disproportionately gay (at least for males), because our large family sizes mean we have a higher chance of having older brothers, and older brothers, or the “fraternal birth order effect” has been shown to have a significant influence on male homosexuality. 

At the time I didn’t come up with an estimate for how much more homosexual the Latter-day Saint population is, but I have since done so in a back-of-the-envelope kind of way, which suggests that men raised Latter-day Saint have about 9% more homosexuality than the general male population.

(And yes, I know that referring to “homosexual” as a noun is generally rude, but in this context we are very specifically dealing with the attraction element of sexual orientation and not the identity necessarily, so I think it’s apropos in this case). I think my numbers are right given the premises, but as always with things like this it’s nice to get another pair of eyes and I’d appreciate any insights anybody has. 

Wonk alert start

First, we need to determine about how many more older brothers, on average, Latter-day Saint background men have. We don’t have this kind of data directly anywhere as far as I know, but we can estimate it from the number of children their mothers have. 

Specifically, Preston’s Equivalence (1976) gives us a formula for converting number of children to number of siblings of the children’s generation. (Personal aside, Sam Preston was wrapping up his career when I was a graduate student at UPenn. He didn’t advise me, but I remember once coming into his office with North Korean data for this or that project back in my ah-shucks, naive youth when I thought that all data that came out of the UN website was gospel truth. After generously working with me for a bit he asked where the data came from, and then laughed and told me not to bother). 

WordPress doesn’t render equations very well so I’ll paste it in (also see here for an explainer).

Where sibship size=F, average number of children born to parent generation is G, variance of number born is the numerator, and average number of children born to parent generation is the denominator.

So it’s a function both of the average and the spread. To come up with an estimate of the average and variance of children ever born I grabbed these numbers from the recently released 2024 wave of the Cooperative Election Survey for Latter-day Saint women between the ages of 45 and 65 (after they’ve completed their childbearing, but still within the same generation more or less). The 124 women we have yields 2.74 children on average with a variance of 3.9. For non-Latter-day Saint women we have 1.76 with a variance of 2.29. These numbers are a bit lower than we’d expect given the TFRs of around 2.0 in the 2000s, but I’m cutting the data up so finely that I’m ignoring weights here, but this should suffice as a point of comparison. 

Plugging these numbers into the Preston Equivalence yields a Latter-day Saint having an average of 4.17 siblings, while the average non-Latter-day Saint American has an average sibship of 3.06, so the average Latter-day Saint has about 1.11 more siblings. 

But how many more older brothers does that translate to? First, since about half of the siblings will be sisters, we cut that number in half, so .555. However, this will yield the number of total brothers, when the fraternal birth order effect only matters for older brothers obviously. If we estimate that on average half of all brothers will be older and half will be younger we cut this number in half again to yield an estimate for the number of additional older brothers specifically, which is .2775. 

So the average man of Latter-day Saint background has about ¼ more older brothers than the average non-Latter-day Saint background man. Assuming linearity, since one additional older brother increases the chance of male homosexuality by 33%, if we multiply .33 by .2775, that yields an effect of 9%. 

If we do a robustness check and increase the non-Latter-day Saint TFR to 2.0 with the same variance, that equals 1.02 more siblings, which equals .255 more older brothers, or 8% more likely to be gay. 

Wonk alert end

So, even with some fudge factor we can say that Latter-day Saint background men are probably around 8-9% more likely to be gay than non-Latter-day Saint men in the United States. (It’s worth noting a common misinterpretation of “increase of X%.” This means that if the baseline rate of male homosexuality was, say, 1%, then a 9% increase would increase it to 1.09%, NOT from 1% to 10%). 


Comments

12 responses to “Are Latter-day Saints Disproportionately Gay? Part II”

  1. These studies are hard for me to understand. I’m sure you’ve factored in the increase of men generally in there somewhere–because of more older brothers. And to my small mind it seems like that should actually reduce the percentage of gay men.

  2. Stephen C.

    If I understand your concern correctly that should be taken into account because I’m specifically looking at the chance of homosexuality *for the average man* from an LDS and a non-LDS background.

  3. Nice analysis. Now I’m looking forward to seeing a DeseretNews article entitled “Is There a Silver Lining to Utah’s Declining Birthrate?” :)

  4. The authors of this 2023 article do a pretty good job contesting the research that led to the FBOE idea.

    See: Vilsmeier JK, Kossmeier M, Voracek M, Tran US. “The fraternal birth-order effect as a statistical artefact: convergent evidence from probability calculus, simulated data, and multiverse meta-analysis.”
    Excerpt from abstract: “When analyzed correctly, the specific association between the number of older brothers and homosexual orientation is small, heterogenous in magnitude, and apparently not specific to men. In addition, existing research evidence seems to be exaggerated by small-study effects.”

    A 2017 article pointed in a similar direction to the one above. See Brendan Zeitsch “Reasons for Caution About the Fraternal Birth Order Effect”

  5. Stephen C.

    Thanks Jared! I wasn’t aware of that meta-analysis and will have to look into it more deeply. However, it is worth noting that very recent, high quality, pre-registered, high-N research keeps finding the effect, even if there are some nuances: e.g.

    Fo?t, Jakub, Benjamin Kunc, Jaroslava Varella Valentova, Klára Bártová, and Kate?ina Hudá?ová. “Examining the fraternal birth order effect and sexual orientation: Insights from an East European population.” Archives of Sexual Behavior53, no. 8 (2024): 2905-2922.).

    Ablaza, Christine, Jan Kabátek, and Francisco Perales. “Are sibship characteristics predictive of same sex marriage? An examination of fraternal birth order and female fecundity effects in population-level administrative data from the Netherlands.” The Journal of Sex Research 59, no. 6 (2022): 671-683.

    Also, it’s worth noting that there is a rebuttal to their rebuttal, although I haven’t dived deep enough into it to know who’s right, but that Netherlands dataset is huge.

    Blanchard, Ray, and Malvina N. Skorska. “New data on birth order in homosexual men and women and a reply to Vilsmeier et al.(2021a, 2021b).” Archives of Sexual Behavior 51, no. 7 (2022): 3319-3349.

  6. I’m not a demographer, but…

    If a family has N children, on average N/2 will be girls and N/2 will be boys. A boy will on average have N/2 sisters and N/2 – 1 brothers, because he is one of those N/2 boys.

    The number of siblings, F, is just N – 1, so N = F + 1. So shouldn’t the average number of brothers for a boy be (F + 1)/2 – 1 or (F-1)/2 rather than F/2?

  7. Stephen C

    For point one, I’m inclined to chalk that up to gambler’s fallacy thinking. If you wake up as a man in a family of unknown composition, you have a 50% chance of any sibling being a brother since the universe doesn’t owe your family a daughter to keep things balanced. I thought for a moment there might be a sort of Monty Hall problem (the paradoxical thought experiment that drove the statistics community crazy) dynamic at play but I don’t think that’s the casem, so I stick by my initial assumption of assigning half the siblings as brothers and half as sisters.

    As for point two, if I’m understanding you right, the average number of siblings isn’t just N-1, since families with more children are overrepresented. For example, if our entire population is two families, one with two children and one with ten children, you might think it’s simply (1 + 9)/2=5 (if we’re subtracting one for the reference individual), so five. However, each of the ten children have a sibship size of 9, so they’re overrepresented, so it’s actually (9+9+9+..+1), so around 8.

  8. Thanks for those references, Stephen. Pretty lively debate it seems. I do like to see rebuttals of rebuttals in the literature. I’m afraid I don’t have enough background in stats to follow all the math properly, but the Vilsmeier criticisms seemed very well-founded on the basis of sample size and highly questionable selection of subjects. I can’t access the full article from Ablaza et al, but it looks like that massive data set from Netherlands will be hard to beat.

  9. Leaving the amazing math and analysis behind, I believe, based on my time in the church, mission field and BYU, there are a few extra gay men in our sphere.

    Post mission discussions with ex companions who are gay, members who are gay and married to women, and those deep in the LDS closet who exude a desire for male closeness, always left me feeling our gay brothers were above average in numbers. My close gay LDS friend who married a woman and had 6 sons, worried at least two of them were gay. He became so upset with his desires and secret lifestyle he eventually took his own life. Is there math to help us figure out a solution to this issue in the church?

  10. Stephen C

    Short answer no, that’s not a mathematical problem, but there has been a lot of discussion about the other issues involved throughout other T&S posts.

  11. I’m definitely wrong, though it’s not the gambler’s fallacy, and I suspect you’re right though I haven’t figured out the math to prove it.

    I grew up in a family with three girls and five boys, so I have three sisters and four brothers. The ratio of sisters to brothers (of boys) will always be higher than the ratio of girls to boys, just because focusing on brothers of boys makes one boy not a brother.

    But! Focusing on brothers of boys means we’re only interested in families with at least one boy. The expected ratio of girls to boys conditional on the family containing at least one boy is less than one. That means the expected ratio of sisters to brothers may well be one. Does the fact that we’re conditioning on the family having at least one boy exactly balance taking one boy out of the pool of brothers? It seems right, but I haven’t thought of a way to prove it.

    Robert, I’m so sorry about your friend. That’s devastating. I’m sure the answer involves more members demonstrating unconditional Christ-like love (it sounds like you did) and more of our LGBT brothers and sisters feeling the Savior’s unconditional love. That’s something we can and must work on independent of anything the Church does as an institution.

  12. Stephen C.

    RLD: Thank you for your example of how I should have responded more compassionately to Robert’s inquiry.

    I do think your third paragraph is the key. By selecting for a person who is a boy in a family we’re already making an independent die roll, but the once that die roll comes up “male” then all the subsequent rolls are independent.

    Jared: It is kind of fun to see the back-and-forths; hopefully they keep it civil, sometimes they don’t. I seem to recall a back-and-forth about data quality in a particularly often used survey (Add Health) that had four or so back-and-forths in a journal, and things started to get testy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.