:bar_chart: Add combined variables for Velasco LGBT+ data

[paarriagadap]

Add combined indicators for same-sex marriage, LGB in the military and age of consent. Also add aggregations for each of the status of these columns. The rest of the code is the same, though it has been updated to reflect the latest metadata changes. Main issue https://github.com/owid/owid-issues/issues/1556

[owidbot]

Quick links (staging server): Site	Admin	Wizard

Login: ssh owid@staging-site-modify-lgbt-indicators-velasco

chart-diff: ❌

• 1/8 reviewed charts
• Modified: 1/1
• New: 0/7

data-diff: ❌ Found differences

```diff ~ Dataset garden/lgbt_rights/2023-04-27/lgbti_policy_index - - title: LGBT+ policies (Velasco, 2020) ? ------ + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) ? +++++++++++ - - This dataset, from the work of Kristopher Velasco (2020), provides a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape by capturing the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. - - 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal ? + - - 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 2. Equal Age of Consent ? + - - 3. Employment Discrimination + + 3. Employment Discrimination ? + - - 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 4. Hate Crime Protections ? + - - 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 5. Incitement to Hatred ? + - - 6. Civil Unions + + 6. Civil Unions ? + - - 7. Marriage Equality + + 7. Marriage Equality ? + - - 8. Joint Adoptions + + 8. Joint Adoptions ? + - - 9. Gender Marker Change + + 9. Gender Marker Change ? + - - 10. LGB Military + + 10. LGB Military ? + - - 11. Transgender Military + + 11. Transgender Military ? + - - 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies ? + - - 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children ? + - - 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts ? + - - 2. Propaganda Laws + + 2. Propaganda Laws ? + - - 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Illegal ? - + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal ? + - - 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent ? + - - 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality ? + - - Each of these policies score in a range between 0 and 1, according to their level of implementation. Together, they form the LGBT+ Policy Index. + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) - - Additional policies are included in the dataset, as constitutional protections against discrimination, LGB military ban and third gender recognition. + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. - - sources: - - - name: Kristopher Velasco (2020) - - url: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ - - date_accessed: '2023-06-15' - - publication_date: '2020-07-24' - - published_by: |- - - Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje ~ Table lgbti_policy_index (changed metadata) + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. ~ Dim country - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) year country 1998 European Union (27) 2015 European Union (27) 2018 European Union (27) 1999 Low-income countries 2006 Low-income countries ~ Dim year - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year European Union (27) 1998 European Union (27) 2015 European Union (27) 2018 Low-income countries 1999 Low-income countries 2006 ~ Column age_of_consent (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (combined) + + description_short: Combines the equal and unequal age of consent. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. + + citation_full: |- + + Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje + + url_main: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ + + date_accessed: '2023-06-15' + + date_published: '2020-07-24' + + license: + + name: Center for Open Science Terms and Conditions of Use + + url: https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md + + unit: '' + + short_unit: '' + + display: + + name: Age of consent + + numDecimalPlaces: 0 + + processing_level: major + + presentation: + + topic_tags: + + - LGBT+ Rights + + - Human Rights + + description_processing: |- + + We estimated regional aggregations by using [Our World in Data definitions of regions](https://ourworldindata.org/world-region-map-definitions) and our (https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources). + + type: ordinal + + sort: + + - Equal + + - Partial implementation + + - No legal provisions + + - Unequal - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year age_of_consent European Union (27) 1998 NaN European Union (27) 2015 NaN European Union (27) 2018 NaN Low-income countries 1999 NaN Low-income countries 2006 NaN ~ Changed values: 5597 / 5800 (96.50%) country year age_of_consent - age_of_consent + Kenya 2018 NaN No legal provisions Madagascar 1991 NaN Unequal Panama 2001 NaN No legal provisions Sweden 1999 NaN Equal Switzerland 2006 NaN Equal ~ Column age_of_consent_equal_count (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (equal, number of countries) + + description_short: This is the number of countries that have equal age of consent for same-sex and different-sex partners. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. + + citation_full: |- + + Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje + + url_main: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ + + date_accessed: '2023-06-15' + + date_published: '2020-07-24' + + license: + + name: Center for Open Science Terms and Conditions of Use + + url: https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md + + unit: countries + + short_unit: '' + + display: + + name: Equal + + numDecimalPlaces: 0 + + processing_level: major + + presentation: + + topic_tags: + + - LGBT+ Rights + + - Human Rights + + description_processing: |- + + We estimated regional aggregations by using [Our World in Data definitions of regions](https://ourworldindata.org/world-region-map-definitions) and our (https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources). - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year age_of_consent_equal_count European Union (27) 1998 NaN European Union (27) 2015 NaN European Union (27) 2018 NaN Low-income countries 1999 NaN Low-income countries 2006 NaN ~ Changed values: 203 / 5800 (3.50%) country year age_of_consent_equal_count - age_of_consent_equal_count + Africa 2009 NaN 12 Asia 1995 NaN 13 Asia 1999 NaN 17 Asia 2007 NaN 21 North America 2013 NaN 10 ~ Column age_of_consent_equal_pop (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (equal, total population) + + description: Population by country and year. + + description_short: This is the total population of countries that have equal age of consent between same-sex and different-sex + + partners. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. + + citation_full: |- + + Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje + + url_main: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ + + date_accessed: '2023-06-15' + + date_published: '2020-07-24' + + license: + + name: Center for Open Science Terms and Conditions of Use + + url: https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md + + - producer: Various sources + + title: Population + + description: |- + + Our World in Data builds and maintains a long-run dataset on population by country, region, and for the world, based on various sources. + + + + You can find more information on these sources and how our time series is constructed on this page: https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources + + citation_full: |- + + The long-run data on population is based on various sources, described on this page: https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources + + attribution: Population based on various sources (2023) + + attribution_short: Population + + url_main: https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources + + date_accessed: '2023-03-31' + + date_published: '2023-03-31' + + license: + + name: CC BY 4.0 + + licenses: + + - name: Creative Commons BY 4.0 + + url: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-RmthhS2EPMK_HIpnPctcXpB0n7ADSWnXa5Hb3PxNq4/edit?usp=sharing + + - name: CC BY 3.0 + + url: https://dataportaal.pbl.nl/downloads/HYDE/HYDE3.2/readme_release_HYDE3.2.1.txt + + - name: CC BY 3.0 IGO + + url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ + + unit: '' + + short_unit: '' + + display: + + name: Equal + + numDecimalPlaces: 0 + + processing_level: major + + presentation: + + topic_tags: + + - LGBT+ Rights + + - Human Rights + + description_processing: |- + + We estimated regional aggregations by using [Our World in Data definitions of regions](https://ourworldindata.org/world-region-map-definitions) and our (https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources). - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year age_of_consent_equal_pop European Union (27) 1998 NaN European Union (27) 2015 NaN European Union (27) 2018 NaN Low-income countries 1999 NaN Low-income countries 2006 NaN ~ Changed values: 203 / 5800 (3.50%) country year age_of_consent_equal_pop - age_of_consent_equal_pop + Africa 2009 NaN 262791746 Asia 1995 NaN 521349724 Asia 1999 NaN 1828857745 Asia 2007 NaN 1963437839 North America 2013 NaN 194331955 ~ Column age_of_consent_missing_count (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (missing, number of countries) + + description_short: This is the number of countries that have missing data on the age of consent. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. + + citation_full: |- + + Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje + + url_main: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ + + date_accessed: '2023-06-15' + + date_published: '2020-07-24' + + license: + + name: Center for Open Science Terms and Conditions of Use + + url: https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md + + unit: countries + + short_unit: '' + + display: + + name: Missing + + numDecimalPlaces: 0 + + processing_level: major + + presentation: + + topic_tags: + + - LGBT+ Rights + + - Human Rights + + description_processing: |- + + We estimated regional aggregations by using [Our World in Data definitions of regions](https://ourworldindata.org/world-region-map-definitions) and our (https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources). - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year age_of_consent_missing_count European Union (27) 1998 NaN European Union (27) 2015 NaN European Union (27) 2018 NaN Low-income countries 1999 NaN Low-income countries 2006 NaN ~ Changed values: 203 / 5800 (3.50%) country year age_of_consent_missing_count - age_of_consent_missing_count + Africa 2009 NaN 0 Asia 1995 NaN 0 Asia 1999 NaN 0 Asia 2007 NaN 0 North America 2013 NaN 0 ~ Column age_of_consent_missing_pop (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (missing, total population) + + description: Population by country and year. + + description_short: This is the total population of countries that have missing data on the age of consent. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. + + citation_full: |- + + Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje + + url_main: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ + + date_accessed: '2023-06-15' + + date_published: '2020-07-24' + + license: + + name: Center for Open Science Terms and Conditions of Use + + url: https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md + + - producer: Various sources + + title: Population + + description: |- + + Our World in Data builds and maintains a long-run dataset on population by country, region, and for the world, based on various sources. + + + + You can find more information on these sources and how our time series is constructed on this page: https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources + + citation_full: |- + + The long-run data on population is based on various sources, described on this page: https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources + + attribution: Population based on various sources (2023) + + attribution_short: Population + + url_main: https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources + + date_accessed: '2023-03-31' + + date_published: '2023-03-31' + + license: + + name: CC BY 4.0 + + licenses: + + - name: Creative Commons BY 4.0 + + url: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-RmthhS2EPMK_HIpnPctcXpB0n7ADSWnXa5Hb3PxNq4/edit?usp=sharing + + - name: CC BY 3.0 + + url: https://dataportaal.pbl.nl/downloads/HYDE/HYDE3.2/readme_release_HYDE3.2.1.txt + + - name: CC BY 3.0 IGO + + url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/ + + unit: '' + + short_unit: '' + + display: + + name: Missing + + numDecimalPlaces: 0 + + processing_level: major + + presentation: + + topic_tags: + + - LGBT+ Rights + + - Human Rights + + description_processing: |- + + We estimated regional aggregations by using [Our World in Data definitions of regions](https://ourworldindata.org/world-region-map-definitions) and our (https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources). - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year age_of_consent_missing_pop European Union (27) 1998 NaN European Union (27) 2015 NaN European Union (27) 2018 NaN Low-income countries 1999 NaN Low-income countries 2006 NaN ~ Changed values: 203 / 5800 (3.50%) country year age_of_consent_missing_pop - age_of_consent_missing_pop + Africa 2009 NaN 1492690 Asia 1995 NaN 9263659 Asia 1999 NaN 10111970 Asia 2007 NaN 11234670 North America 2013 NaN 5615935 ~ Column age_of_consent_no_legal_provisions_count (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (no legal provisions, number of countries) + + description_short: This is the number of countries that do not have legal provisions for the age of consent. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department. + + citation_full: |- + + Velasco, K. (2020). Transnational Backlash and the Deinstitutionalization of Liberal Norms: LGBT+ Rights in a Contested World. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/3rtje + + url_main: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3rtje/ + + date_accessed: '2023-06-15' + + date_published: '2020-07-24' + + license: + + name: Center for Open Science Terms and Conditions of Use + + url: https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/cos.io/blob/master/TERMS_OF_USE.md + + unit: countries + + short_unit: '' + + display: + + name: No legal provisions + + numDecimalPlaces: 0 + + processing_level: major + + presentation: + + topic_tags: + + - LGBT+ Rights + + - Human Rights + + description_processing: |- + + We estimated regional aggregations by using [Our World in Data definitions of regions](https://ourworldindata.org/world-region-map-definitions) and our (https://ourworldindata.org/population-sources). - - Removed values: 145 / 5800 (2.50%) country year age_of_consent_no_legal_provisions_count European Union (27) 1998 NaN European Union (27) 2015 NaN European Union (27) 2018 NaN Low-income countries 1999 NaN Low-income countries 2006 NaN ~ Changed values: 203 / 5800 (3.50%) country year age_of_consent_no_legal_provisions_count - age_of_consent_no_legal_provisions_count + Africa 2009 NaN 34 Asia 1995 NaN 31 Asia 1999 NaN 28 Asia 2007 NaN 24 North America 2013 NaN 9 ~ Column age_of_consent_no_legal_provisions_pop (changed metadata, changed data) - - {} + + title: Age of consent (no legal provisions, total population) + + description: Population by country and year. + + description_short: This is the total population of countries that do not have legal provisions for the age of consent. + + origins: + + - producer: Velasco + + title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) + + description: |- + + Velasco measures a country’s LGBT+ policy landscape with an original LGBT+ policy index that he created; the LGBT+ Policy Index captures the implementation of 18 different LGBT+ policies. Policies included in the index are limited to those adopted across at least three countries or are explicitly advocated for by transnational activists. + + + + These policies are subdivided between: + + + + Progressive policies: + + 1. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Legal + + 2. Equal Age of Consent + + 3. Employment Discrimination + + 4. Hate Crime Protections + + 5. Incitement to Hatred + + 6. Civil Unions + + 7. Marriage Equality + + 8. Joint Adoptions + + 9. Gender Marker Change + + 10. LGB Military + + 11. Transgender Military + + 12. Ban on Conversion Therapies + + 13. Ban on Gender Assignment Surgeries on Children + + + + Regressive policies + + 1. Death Penalty for Same-Sex Sexual Acts + + 2. Propaganda Laws + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Ilegal + + 4. Unequal Age of Consent + + 5. Ban on Marriage Equality + + + + These policies are not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues (2010, 2017) in considering that similar policies can meaningfully vary in scope, benefits, punishment, etc. So, he determines the robustness of each policy by reviewing five indicators (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): + + 1. Proportion of Population Living Under Law: To acknowledge subnational variations (0-1) + + 2. Scope of Genders Subject to Law: As they can be typically differentiated by gender (0: no law, 0.5: just men or women, 1: both) + + 3. Maximum Level of Punishment: For regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: <3 years, 0.4: >3 years and <15 years, 0.6: >15 years and < life, 0.8: live in prison, 1: death penality) + + 4. Ease of Access: To benefits the law outlines (0: no law, 0.25: significant barriers, 0.5: moderate barriers, 0.75: little to few barriers, 1: no barriers) + + 5. Evidence of Enforcement: Has been least one case the previous year where this was implemented? (0: no evidence, 1: evidence) + + + + While all five indicators may not be relevant to each policy, each policy in question uses at least three different indicators and with them, each policy score ranges from 0 to 1. Therefore, a score of 1 corresponds to that policy's most robust scope and implementation. This also means that changes in any indicators will influence each policy’s overall score. For example, a country having national marriage equality (indicator 1), few (if any) formal restrictions to obtaining a marriage license (indicator 4), and full implementation (indicator 5) will receive a score of 1. + + + + To create the index, the scores for each policy are summed together annually, with progressive policies receiving a positive score and regressive policies receiving a negative. This results in an index ranging from -5 to +13. No country reaches these extremes, demonstrating that countries can get better and worse in their policy environments. + + + + The LGBT+ policy index represents the most robust and nuanced measure of LGBT+ policy adoption and implementation to date and is a novel contribution to the literature. By incorporating progressive and regressive LGBT+ policies and variation in implementation beyond a binary coding scheme, this measure captures even fine-grained changes to the LGBT+ policy landscape. It better assesses the extent to which countries are or are not influenced by transnational processes. + + + + Multiple sources were consulted to find the necessary data to construct this index. The primary data source was the State Sponsored Homophobia Reports produced by ILGA. These reports, produced almost annually, outline the adoption of various policies and provide some information on implementation. For information on trans- and intersex-specific policies and military information, other sources were used, including the Trans Legal Mapping Report, also produced by ILGA, reports and documentation provided by Transgender Europe, Movement Advancement Project, The Hague Center for Strategic Studies LGBT+ Military Index, and academic studies such as Reynolds (2013). Furthermore, multiple sources were used to obtain data on the evidence of enforcement – particularly arrests – including an extensive newspaper search across each country using LexisNexis and Factiva and other external reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights ...diff too long, truncated... ``` Automatically updated datasets matching _weekly_wildfires|excess_mortality|covid|fluid|flunet|country_profile|garden/ihme_gbd/2019/gbd_risk_ are not included

Edited: 2024-06-17 14:35:28 UTC Execution time: 45.84 seconds