May 30, 2002

2:03 PM

It's no surprise that the Sept 11 Compensation Fund will cover gay partners of victims. [nytimes link] It's easy to be generous: Of the 2,800-plus who died, the Fund has found only "22 known gay surviving partners." Never mind that the Windows on the World waiters alone should have made that number four times higher, based on the "one in ten" formula for estimating the size of a gay population, one would expect almost 300 gay victims on Sept 11. Of course, not all the gay victims would necessarily be uncloseted or have a life partner, but still -- only 22? No wonder the fund is so generous to cut checks for this tiny minority. But does this unintended survey suggest NYC may not be as queer as everyone thinks? In any case, why were so few of gays employed at the WTC?
posted by jellybuzz (50 comments total)

Because they were all at Greenwich! Zing!
posted by geoff. at 2:07 PM on May 30, 2002

There were 660 Windows on the World waiters who died that day?
posted by rcade at 2:08 PM on May 30, 2002

um... huh?
posted by eyeballkid at 2:14 PM on May 30, 2002

Cue 'the gay community knew about the attacks and warned its members' conspiracy theories.

More likely, it was just the (bad) luck of the draw.
posted by darukaru at 2:19 PM on May 30, 2002

Of course, not all the gay victims would necessarily be uncloseted or have a life partner, but still -- only 22? No wonder the fund is so generous to cut checks for this tiny minority.

So ... the decision to cover gay partners is ... a bad thing? Or ... they were disingenuous by picking ... token gay partners? ... 22 of them?

My intellectual choo-choo's not making it up the hill.
posted by sacre_bleu at 2:19 PM on May 30, 2002

Are you saying most waiters are gay? Or are you just saying that 'windows on the world' was a pretty flamboyant place, if you know what I mean.

Btw, the 'one in ten' rule is complete bunk. It's based on the number of people who have had more then zero homosexual encounters (or would even admit to those thoughts, IIRC) from the Kinsey report in the 1960s. The number of actual 'full blown' homosexual people is way lower, like 3% or something.

After everything was sorted out, only 2,800 some people died as a result of sept11th terrorist attacks, so 22 is a bit less then 1%
posted by delmoi at 2:20 PM on May 30, 2002

Of the 2,800-plus who died, the Fund has found only "22 known gay surviving partners." Never mind that the Windows on the World waiters alone should have made that number four times higher, based on the "one in ten" formula for estimating the size of a gay population, one would expect almost 300 gay victims on Sept 11.

Okay, if I do the math correctly, Windows making that number four times higher would mean 88 gays, just in Windows. Gays are 10% of the population, so Windows employs 880 people. Bullshit.

BTW, gays aren't necessarily spread evenly thoughout each profession, just as races are not equally spread. Certain jobs tend to have demographics uneven with that of the real world. And the implication that this front page post presents is insulting and unfounded.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:24 PM on May 30, 2002

The 10% number isn't true. I can't find a source with a more credible URL in a very quick googling, so here's something you may want to take with a grain of salt.
posted by jacobm at 2:26 PM on May 30, 2002

rcade: I think jellybuzz is saying that certain population groups (think media/showbiz/artsworld) are assumed to have a higher than the so-called average incidence of gay people, and this, anecdotally at least, applies to major urban centres. It is also alleged to apply to the catering and allied trades (I copped off with my first boyfriend when we both worked at a burger joint...)
But yeah, if 22 = 10%, then there were 220 waiters in the WotW...Hmmm....Does not compute. However, I would have expected to see A LOT more 'gay claims' - maybe more than 2,800 / 10 (i.e., 280+). Is the commercial sector more homophobic* than the rest of NYC?

*By which, I mean in the generally accepted sense (anti-equal rights for, not "scared of", gays). This thread don't need a semantical hi-jack.

posted by dash_slot- at 2:26 PM on May 30, 2002

If most waiters are gay (if male) what about busboys?
posted by Postroad at 2:28 PM on May 30, 2002

If most waiters are gay (if male) what about busboys?

Bi.
posted by Skot at 2:29 PM on May 30, 2002

you're assuming that every gay person has/had a "life partner." That's like assuming every straight person is married.
posted by jmcnally at 2:29 PM on May 30, 2002

Is there a page that lists the demographic breakdown of the WTC victims?
posted by gluechunk at 2:38 PM on May 30, 2002

Post-Preview:
2800 X 3% = 84, so even at the lower incidence, if that applies to NYC in general (which my intuition doubts), there should indeed have been nearly 4 times more.
So, either: i)The alleged statistics for the general population are way inaccurate, and 22/2800 - 0.7% is more precise; ii) Fewer gay-identified people with partners worked in WTC, for whatever reason (possibly homophobia) ; or iii) The fund is being unfairly administered.
I can't imagine why i) & ii) are more likely than iii), though.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:40 PM on May 30, 2002

dash_slot: You theorized that "homophobia" may account for "fewer gay-identified people...in WTC." As was pointed out earlier, there are some professions/walks of life that have a higher incidence of homosexuals, such as the arts, media, etc. I suspect that the finance community (which comprised a very large portion of deaths at WTC) has a lower-than-average number of homosexuals. Doesn't necessarily mean the finance community is "homophobic."
posted by davidmsc at 2:59 PM on May 30, 2002

jmcnally...I agree. Most people working as a waiter wouldn't have a life partner. How many married waitresses and waiters do you know? It's fairly uncommon. Additionally, the link from jacobm provides an interesting study into the Kinsey figure of 10%, saying that a lot of more modern research suggests 2-3% of the American population have had a homosexual experience in the last 10 years. Since this figure includes bisexuals and people who were 'experimenting', the true figure would drop even more. 22 doesn't seem all that unlikely to me.
posted by Kevs at 3:00 PM on May 30, 2002

How many heterosexual spouses applied for aid? 2800 people were killed; were there 2800 spouses? 1400? 700? It would help put the isolated number "22" into perspective.

What about the possibility that because gay life-partners tend to assume they won't have rights when it comes to "next of kin" decisions (at least I tend to make that assumption, although thankfully I've never had to actually follow through), they may have just allowed the legally defined next-of-kin (mother or father of the victim, probably) to collect the payment? Who knows how it would have then been split up privately within the family?

I'm not sure that every gay person has the werewithal to think about the uphill battle of challenging the law, even when faced with something as horrifying as 9/11. I don't know how I would have acted if put in that position... but it's something to consider.

[flippancy] Then there's also the possibility that 200 gay WTC employees had popped over to Barneys before work or something. [/flippancy]
posted by bcwinters at 3:02 PM on May 30, 2002

The four gays I know in NYC don't get out of bed before 10am - they're much smarter than some of us wage-slaves. ;-)
posted by TuffAustin at 3:12 PM on May 30, 2002

Fact: there's no good data on the percentage of g/l folks in the population primarily because religious right nutcases refuse to allow the government to ask about it in the Census. I think the 10% figure is highly suspect, myself. But anyone who claims they know for sure that it's lower or higher is equally suspect. The 3% figure is nothing more than a feelgood estimate that ignores the complex definitional and methodological problems this issue raises for statisticians.

here's something you may want to take with a grain of salt

A grain of salt? How about an entire salt mine? Citing research from Dr. Paul Cameron's lunatic crew on anything related to gay issues is just absurd. My favorite is the way Cameron counted obituaries in gay community newspapers to "prove" the average life expectancy of gay men is horrifically low. Yeah, that's smart science.

At least you gave a warning, but it's hard to believe anyone who'd actually read through that link would have posted it. For one thing, it seriously uses the number of gay bookstores in DC (there were 2 at the time) as an indicator of the smallness of the g/l population, completely ignoring the fact that g/l titles have been widely available in "mainstream" stores for years, if not decades. He does kindly adjust (by a random factor of 3) for lesbians who frequent "feminist" bookstores, though ("simple capitalism," indeed).

Please read links before you post them, especially on something like this, which seems to really bring out the nutcase distortions.
posted by mediareport at 3:28 PM on May 30, 2002

Long post made my browser crash... the gist of it is:
FRI is not independent, it's conservative, and look how they pick and choose their own figures on that above link (thanks, jacobm, that's a grain of salt the size of Will & Grace's wardrobe budget), not objective at all..."Some of the best surveys..." [follows unexplained list with lowest returns] Blech.

Anyway, forget the numbers game, as we could all say "only 5% of our population are [*insert minority group here], so we won't extend rights to them".

"...The emergency funds made available after Sept. 11 came too late for Mike Lyons of Jersey City, who saw his partner of 18 years, John Keohane, killed by falling debris as the two fled the collapsing towers. Mr. Lyons, unemployed and suffering from multiple sclerosis, was slow to apply for financial assistance, and was running out of money when he committed suicide on March 1."...."Republicans in the House of Representatives shelved a Senate bill, opposed by the Department of Justice, that would have provided death benefits to the survivors of the Rev. Mychal Judge, a New York City Fire Department chaplain, who was gay, and estates of nine other gay public safety officers who died at the the World Trade Center."
Is this fair?

From NYTimes

posted by dash_slot- at 3:39 PM on May 30, 2002

The number of actual 'full blown' homosexual people is way lower, like 3% or something.

heh heh... you said 'full blown homosexual'... heh heh...

But in any case, it says there are '22 known gay surviving partners' and they will be compensated. Even if somebody tried, it would be mighty hard to compensate unknown gay surviving partners. I say, cash the check and say thank you.
posted by spilon at 3:57 PM on May 30, 2002

I really don't like the post's insinuation that they wouldn't have been so generous to gay partners if there were more of them.
posted by gyc at 4:00 PM on May 30, 2002

My intellectual choo-choo's not making it up the hill

I'm going to be saying that to my boss all week.
posted by adampsyche at 4:06 PM on May 30, 2002

really gyc? and what don't you like about that? pardon the suggestion that if indeed a large number of gay partners stepped forward there might easily have been a less gay-friendly or more discriminatory stance taken by the government in administering the fund. how dare such a thing be insinuated.
posted by jellybuzz at 4:15 PM on May 30, 2002

Jeez, always looking for the negative. I have to agree with gyc.
posted by neosiv at 4:19 PM on May 30, 2002

how dare such a thing be insinuated.
And your reasoning behind insinuating it is…
posted by darukaru at 4:23 PM on May 30, 2002

pardon the suggestion that if indeed a large number of gay partners stepped forward there might easily have been a less gay-friendly or more discriminatory stance taken by the government in administering the fund.

I think the general feeling in this country is that WTC survivors can basically have anything that it's in our power to give them, regardless of specifics [whether or not this is reasonable is another question, which I'm not addressing - just pointing out the fact]. I really don't see the government trying to politicize this; even if for some strange reason 50 gay partners were to make them uncomfortable where 22 didn't, to oppose giving them money would turn it into a hateful battle, while giving them the money would not cause any trouble, as no one would want to fight against survivors of this attack, even if they were really against homosexuality.
posted by mdn at 4:38 PM on May 30, 2002

I suppose I'd feel less cynical if the federal gov, specifically, fund master Michael Feinberg, had not taken all these months to finally officially announce he would exercise his discretion in favor of gays and allow for distributions to gay partners. (New York state, under republican governor Pataki, began compensating gay partners right away.)

As to the small number, who knew? Unreliable, controversial or politically motivated statistics aside, it still seems to me one might reasonably expect more than a measly 0.7 of the total number of victims to be gay. We're talking about New York, the gay mecca of the world. The Sept 11 dead collectively represented a sweeping cross-section of this diverse city. (OK, subtract the 350 fallen NYC firefighters, whom, aside from Father Mychal Judge, we can assume were largely hetero.) Even taking into account homophobia at firms like Marsh & McLennan and Cantor Fitzgerald, and the fact that many gay people are not 'out,' especially at work, and that single gay people leave behind no life partner to claim benefits... still, only 22 gay partners for almost 3,000 dead New Yorkers? It's strange.
posted by jellybuzz at 5:01 PM on May 30, 2002

OK, subtract the 350 fallen NYC firefighters, whom, aside from Father Mychal Judge, we can assume were largely hetero.

Why would you assume that?
posted by jaek at 5:07 PM on May 30, 2002

'cause firemen are so butch, natch.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:19 PM on May 30, 2002

We're talking about New York, the gay mecca of the world.

I think of San Francisco as the gay capital of the U.S., and Amsterdam has been touted as the "Gay Capital of the World" by one online homosexual zine.

Besides this nitpicking, I think your argument is weak and sloppy.
posted by msacheson at 5:27 PM on May 30, 2002

Note to self: never try to do math in a Metafilter post.
posted by todd at 6:19 PM on May 30, 2002

If most waiters are gay (if male) what about busboys?

Bi.

Hey, I used to be a busboy, dammit.
posted by jonmc at 6:20 PM on May 30, 2002

Huge, huge, huge category error. Saying there are 22 gay life partners who qualify for benefits is not a useful number from which to extrapolate to gay victims in general. And on that useless logical leap we're supposed to infer all sorts of homophobia at Marsh & McLennan and Cantor Fitzgerald?

What the hell is Metafilter ON?
posted by dhartung at 6:29 PM on May 30, 2002

Queer?
posted by {savg*pncl} at 6:48 PM on May 30, 2002

A more likely explanation is that, in the case of victims who were single, the victims' parents were contacted to inquire about the existence of partners. If the parents weren't OK with their children having been gay, they probably said their son or daughter had no partner.
posted by fleener at 6:49 PM on May 30, 2002

I can't seem to find the appropriate table at the census web site, but this PDF (page 8 of the document) from Human Rights Campaign has a summary of the Census results indicating that in the New York-Long Island Metropolitan Statistical Area 1.28% of all households were same sex partners (self-identifying as married or unmarried). This table from the Milwauke Journal-Sentinal indicates the the percentage for Manhattan itself was slightly higher at 1.34%.

Here is a technical note from the Census Bureau on why trying to count these households is problematic.

Assumptions:

1) The Census information, though flawed, is roughly correct.

2) The Human Rights Campaign correctly summarizes the information (since I can't find the source information).

3) Approximately 3,000 people were killed in the attacks (WTC, four aircraft, and the pentagon). The actual total is higher than this, but I'll round down because the Pentagon deaths were probably anomalously low in their likelihood of identifying themelves as being in a same-sex household.

4) Those 3,000 deaths represent 3,000 New York area households (even though many likely did not).

5) Living together would be one of the indicators of a life partner.

Assuming all of that, you would expect about 38 of the victims to have come from self-identified same-sex households.

Of course, I still have no idea if this statistically significant. One thing I would like to know: at what rate are heterosexual partners claiming benefits compared to the percentage of victims that had heterosexual partners.

In addition to all the factors that may have put more or fewer gays in the World Trade Center on that day than in the general population I wonder if there are factors that make someone more or less likely to claim benefits, even if entitled.


Regardless, I am sure this story will bring a few more forward at least. I am sure there were several who just didn't want to fight the bureaucracy, but will come forward knowing they won't have to.
posted by obfusciatrist at 6:49 PM on May 30, 2002

[Hey, I used to be a busboy, dammit.]

Well, now we know why it didn't work out eh?
posted by revbrian at 6:51 PM on May 30, 2002

If most waiters are gay (if male) what about busboys?

Bi.

Hey, I used to be a busboy, dammit.
- jonmc

What does this mean, jon? (Genuinely confused!)
posted by dash_slot- at 7:10 PM on May 30, 2002

Just a lameass attempt at humor, dash...although I was once a busboy as I detail here. As for the rest...

[Jay from Clerks]

I LOVE WOMEN!

[/jay]

incase you were wondering...
posted by jonmc at 7:20 PM on May 30, 2002

What the hell is Metafilter ON?

This is your Metafilter. This is your Metafilter on drugs.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:09 PM on May 30, 2002

Thanks, jon,

(no, I wasn't)

(",)


- dash
posted by dash_slot- at 2:08 AM on May 31, 2002

1) Not all waiters are gay.
2) Not all employees of a restaurant are waiters.
3) Not all gay people have life partners
4) A very small percentage of the people killed were actually restaurant employees
5) This post sucks.
posted by swell at 5:23 AM on May 31, 2002

Forget the statistics and go back to sacre_bleu's point: "So ... the decision to cover gay partners is ... a bad thing?" What it the point of this post?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:17 AM on May 31, 2002

("it", "is", whatever...)
posted by pardonyou? at 7:18 AM on May 31, 2002

[Jay from Clerks]
I LOVE WOMEN!

Uh, Jay from Clerks is probably not the best guy to quote when proclaiming that you're not bisexual. :)
posted by mediareport at 7:26 AM on May 31, 2002

5) This post sucks.

Second that.
posted by holycola at 8:52 AM on May 31, 2002

Pardonyou?, the point of the post is exactly what it asked: out of thousands of victims, why are less then a few dozen gay partners coming forward to claim benefits?

If 3,000 people died in a terror attack on the Petronas Towers in Islamic Kuala Lumpur and benefits were offered I would imagine zero gay partners might come forward. No surprise there. But here in NY, a mere 22 did. As I said, one may have expected more.

Somewhat puzzled, I ambled over to Mefi to post about it. And I'm glad I did. Of course it's a statistical inquiry, but not strictly so. Thank you to obfusciatrist and everyone who offered insight & possible explanations.

For the record:

1. The comment about the Windows workers was tongue-in-cheek. (But come on, top-flight restaurants in Manhattan staffed by gay waiters? What next?) In fact, I do not know off hand how many waiters died on Sept. 11 or anything about the sexual orientation of those who did. (Windows on the World, the highest grossing restuarant in the country, employed approx. 300 people. Many were at work that morning. Many died.)

2. I should have said NYC is one of the gay meccas of the world. Apologizes to Amsterdam and San Francisco. And for that matter, Northhampton, MA and Provincetown, MA and Fire Island, NY (Cherry Gove and the Pines, anyway), and South Beach, FL and wherever all else.

3. I also apologize for the suggestion that Cantor Fitz is homophobic. (Not.)

4. I apologize for insinuating that the fed government would ever discriminate against homosexuals. (Not.)

5. Finally, I'm especially sorry I never saw clerks. (But I've heard it's damn funny.)
posted by jellybuzz at 9:25 AM on May 31, 2002

jellybuzz, you're not getting it.
Maybe there were only 22 gay men whose partners died in the WTC.
It doesn't have to be a sign of some grander inequity or a signal that NY isn't as queer as it used to be, or whatever. The smoking ruins of a collapsed building are hardly the best places to do a demographic study.
Hell, maybe most of the gay men with partners escaped.
posted by darukaru at 10:11 AM on May 31, 2002

Or women; do forgive me, but I associate 'gay' with males first.
posted by darukaru at 10:14 AM on May 31, 2002