Although group interaction is a rich source of data, it offers many challenges for analysis. We discuss how pretesting can solve many coding and reliability issues before the actual data collection and analysis. We also consider how coding schemes can be developed, how coders can be trained, and how coder reliability can be ascertained. We examine the properties of different estimates of intercoder reliability and detail how these relate to decisions about the data.

Although some qualitative research has noted differences in gay and lesbian enclaves based on characteristics such as race and sex, in this article, we draw upon quantitative data from the U.S. Census to demonstrate the manner in which enclave formation is affected by the interaction of sexual orientation and other demographic characteristics (such as sex, race, age, and income). We focus our attention on enclaves located in three counties in the San Francisco Bay Area: San Francisco County, Alameda County, and Sonoma County as one example. Even though these spaces fall within close proximity to one another and share similar geographic appeal, our analyses indicate that these enclaves are far from homogenous in terms of the demographic composition of their inhabitants. These quantitative analyses provide further support to past qualitative findings, as well as highlight additional distinctions in the manner in which demographics affect enclave selection. We supplement our demographic analyses with supporting field research and interviews, further highlighting both the variation and the commonalities of these enclaves. Overall, our findings promote an expansion of the understanding how intersecting demographic characteristics affect selection of a particular enclave and what may constitute a gay enclave.

In 2018, the General Social Survey (GSS) asked some respondents for their sex assigned at birth and current gender identity, in addition to the ongoing practice of having survey interviewers code respondent sex. Between 0.44% and 0.93% of the respondents who were surveyed identified as transgender, identified with a gender that does not conventionally correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth, or identified the sex they were assigned at birth inconsistently with the interviewer's assessment of respondent sex. These results corroborate previous estimates of the transgender population size in the United States. Furthermore, the implementation of these new questions mirrors the successful inclusion of other small populations represented in the GSS, such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, as well as Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. Data on transgender and gender-nonconforming populations can be pooled together over time to assess these populations' attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and social inequality patterns. We identified inconsistencies between interviewer-coded sex, self-reported sex, and gender identity. As with the coding of race in the GSS, interviewer-coded assessments can mismatch respondents' self-reported identification. Our findings underscore the importance of continuing to ask respondents to self-report gender identity separately from sex assigned at birth in the GSS and other surveys.

No abstract

Faced with legal animus or outright legal prohibitions on adoption, fostering, or surrogacy, gay men and lesbians could be deterred from family formation. In this article, we use 2000 U.S. Census data to assess the validity of this assumption by examining the effect of positive and negative family laws on the presence of children in the households of same-sex unmarried partners. In doing so, we seek to assess whether formal law plays a central role in family formation outcomes for gay men and lesbians. Employing a multilevel analysis, we find that formal law, particularly negative formal law, appears to play little role in outcomes involving family formation. Formal law might, however, play a greater role when defining property or other legal rights, such as through second parent adoption. These findings are compatible with the notion that individuals are less likely to consult formal law in their everyday lives-particularly with regard to family mattersbut are more likely to do so with regard to family issues concerning wills and estates, transfers of property, or other "business" matters.