I get the point of the article. I cherry picked.
The advocates seem to agree with me:
"Moreover, gay advocates
themselves have expressed surprise at what seems to be under-utilization of
protections that they fought hard to secure and, accordingly, they have
attempted to explain why the numbers are so low."
(Exactly, what I'm saying, instead of dressing up for a parade and protesting they'd be better off following standard procedure that previous civil rights movements helped create.)
He doesn't support his overall claim:
"I find that in six of ten surveyed states, the
incidence of sexual orientation filings falls somewhere between the incidence
of sex and race discrimination filings."
He never says how he got the number of gay workers. You know how? He probably worked backwards from the number he wanted to get... which is admitted around p.19.
"The biggest methodological hurdle came in estimating the total number
of gay people in the workforce to utilize as the denominator for the sexual
orientation complaints. This is complicated because sexual orientation is not
visually identifiable and because there are no census-type data concerning
the number of gay men and lesbians in the workforce. Moreover, there is no
one meaning for “sexual orientation”—sexual orientation can be established
by reference to desires, behaviors, identities, or combinations of these, and
all three can fluctuate over the course of an individual’s life. Yet the method
of this Article’s analysis required some meaningful way around these
epistemological and practical counting problems.
I utilized the following process to address this hurdle. In each state,
I began with the 1990 U.S. Census estimate of the total civilian workforce. I
then expressed the number of gay people in the workforce as three different
possible portions of this total: 10%, 5%, and a combined number consisting
of the sum of 2.4% of the male workforce and 1.3% of the female workforce.
I selected three different figures to provide a range for the findings. Given
the impossibility of arriving at a single estimate of the number of
heterosexual or gay people in society, presenting three points across a fair
range of the possibilities seemed the most sensible way to proceed."
How does generality of amount of gay people in the work force or in society have to do with the number of internal state-employed cases of orientation discrimination?
I'll restate my point though: The gay rights movement, as it is, is destructive to their own cause and poorly planned. If they want to be successful there needs to be changes in tone and method.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
