owidbot
commented
2 weeks ago | Quick links (staging server): Site | Admin | Wizard |
|---|
Login: ssh owid@staging-site-same-sex-marriage-pew
chart-diff: ❌
- 0/2 reviewed charts
- Modified: 0/2
- New: 0/0
data-diff: ❌ Found differences
```diff ~ Dataset garden/lgbt_rights/2023-04-27/lgbti_policy_index - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) ? ----------- + + title: LGBT+ policies (Velasco, 2020) ? ++++++ - - 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. + + 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. - - 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 Ilegal ? - + + 3. Same-Sex Sexual Acts Illegal ? + - - 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. ~ Column civil_unions (changed metadata) + + description: |- - - description_short: Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ + + Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. ? ^ - - description_key: - - - |- - - This policy is not measured in a binary (adopted/not-adopted) scheme; the author follows Frank and colleagues ([2010](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25782170), [2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26166859)) 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. - - - |- - - These indicators are (between parentheses are the scoring schemes): *Proportion of Population Living Under Law*, to acknowledge subnational variations (0-1), *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), *Maximum Level of Punishment*, for regressive policies (0: no law, 0.2: less than 3 years, 0.4: over 3 years and less than 15 years, 0.6: over 15 years and less than life in prison, 0.8: life in prison, 1: death penality), *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, and *Evidence of Enforcement* that considers whether at least one case has happenedthe previous year where this was implemented (0: no evidence, 1: evidence). - - - |- - - At least three different indicators are used to estimate the policy score, with the result that 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 indicator will influence each policy’s overall score. - - 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: + + This policy is 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: less than 3 years, 0.4: over 3 years and less than 15 years, 0.6: over 15 years and less than life in prison, 0.8: life 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) - - 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 + + At least three different indicators are used to estimate the policy score, with the result that 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 indicator will influence each policy’s overall score. - - 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 - - processing_level: major - - presentation: - - title_public: Civil union for same-sex partners - - 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). ~ Column civil_unions_no (changed metadata) - - description_short: |- - - Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. This is the number of countries per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. + + This is the number of countries per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - 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 - - 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). ~ Column civil_unions_no_pop (changed metadata) - - description: Population by country and year. - - description_short: |- - - Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. This is the population per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. + + This is the population per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - 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/ - - 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). ~ Column civil_unions_yes (changed metadata) - - description_short: |- - - Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. This is the number of countries per region with full implementation of the policy. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. + + This is the number of countries per region with full implementation of the policy. - - 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 - - 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). ~ Column civil_unions_yes_pop (changed metadata) - - description: Population by country and year. - - description_short: |- - - Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. This is the population per region with full implementation of the policy. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + Measures if civil unions for same-sex partners are adopted. Domestic and registered partnerships are included. + + This is the population per region with full implementation of the policy. - - 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/ - - 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). ~ Column constitution (changed metadata) - - description_short: |- - - National constitutions are classified as protective against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity if there is explicit language or if judicial cases have set legal precedent for such protections. This variable is not used to calculate the LGBTI index. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + National constitutions are classified as protective against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity if there is explicit language or if judicial cases have set legal precedent for such protections. + + Variable not among the 18 policies of the index. - - 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 - - processing_level: major - - presentation: - - title_public: Constitutional protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity - - 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). ~ Column constitution_no (changed metadata) - - description_short: |- - - National constitutions are classified as protective against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity if there is explicit language or if judicial cases have set legal precedent for such protections. This variable is not used to calculate the LGBTI index. This is the number of countries per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + National constitutions are classified as protective against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity if there is explicit language or if judicial cases have set legal precedent for such protections. + + This is the number of countries per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - 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 - - 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). ~ Column constitution_no_pop (changed metadata) - - description: Population by country and year. - - description_short: |- - - National constitutions are classified as protective against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity if there is explicit language or if judicial cases have set legal precedent for such protections. This variable is not used to calculate the LGBTI index. This is the population per region with partial or no implementation of the policy. - - origins: - - - producer: Velasco - - title: LGBT+ policies (Kristopher Velasco) - - description: |- ? ---- + + 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. + + National constitutions are classified as protective against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity if there is explicit language or if judicial cases have set legal precedent for such protections. + + This is the p ...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 includedEdited: 2024-06-17 15:36:42 UTC Execution time: 58.04 seconds
paarriagadap
From https://github.com/owid/owid-issues/issues/1229
Main LGBT+ rights issue here: https://github.com/owid/owid-issues/issues/1556