They Log Your Sexuality for Inclusion But Not for Justice

The government tracks your identity for healthcare, funding, and corporate DEI but refuses to collect that same data when children are abused. Why?

Inclusion for Optics. Silence for Justice.

The modern obsession with identity tracking did not emerge in a vacuum. In the post-1960s era, civil rights reforms gradually morphed into identity politics, which began as a movement to rectify historic injustices. Over time, however, this movement evolved from seeking equal treatment under the law to demanding equal representation in every conceivable institutional category. By the early 2000s, pressure from advocacy groups, academic theorists, and bureaucratic bodies transformed this demand into policy. Thus was born the bureaucratic appetite for collecting data on race, gender, and eventually, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Intended initially to monitor fairness, these metrics quickly became tools for enforcing ideological conformity. Agencies and institutions now log this data as proof of virtue and compliance. But this accountability infrastructure conveniently disappears when it comes to crimes, especially those involving the most vulnerable. We are left with a society that logs identity for grants and optics, but not for justice.

One of the most enduring illusions of our time is the belief that intentions matter more than consequences. We are told that identity tracking—of sexual orientation, gender, or ethnicity—is a moral imperative, a progressive advancement. But beneath that moral theater lies a disturbing truth: we are building a society that logs the identity of every law-abiding citizen, but shields the identity of criminals who prey on our most vulnerable.

That’s not a flaw. That’s policy.

Where Your Sexuality Is Tracked—When It Benefits Institutions

1. Healthcare Systems

Under bureaucratic mandates stemming from the Affordable Care Act, healthcare providers now gather SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) data, not to treat illness, but to satisfy the ideological demands of the day. In a country where a person can see five specialists and still suffer misdiagnosis, our health system has decided it's more important to know whether a patient is attracted to the same sex than whether they can breathe.

Consider the example of the Fenway Health Center in Boston, a nationally recognized LGBTQ+ health provider. Their extensive use of SOGI data collection has become a model for other health systems, lauded by advocacy organizations and government agencies alike. But despite their thorough demographic tracking, there is little evidence that this data has been used to prevent or respond to abuse patterns, particularly involving minors.

In another case, Kaiser Permanente integrated SOGI data fields across its electronic medical record system to improve patient experience. However, this tracking operates in a vacuum regarding safeguarding vulnerable individuals from predatory behavior. The same system that flags your pronouns at intake will not flag a pattern of abuse if it emerges tied to specific demographics.

2. Federal and Private Grant Programs

When applying for government grants, the question is no longer whether the work is good, helpful, or necessary, but whether it checks the right identity boxes. Entire funding pipelines now depend on an organization’s ability to log and report LGBTQ+ participation. This is not a reflection of progress, but of politicization.

Take the CDC’s "Minority HIV/AIDS Fund," which prioritizes LGBTQ+ outreach and requires detailed reporting on sexual orientation and gender identity to qualify for ongoing funding. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Supportive Schools encourages grantees to demonstrate efforts in LGBTQ+ inclusion, complete with quantifiable data.

Private foundations mirror this approach. The Arcus Foundation, one of the largest LGBTQ+-focused philanthropies, ties grant awards to demonstrated SOGI impact, even in unrelated fields such as climate change or education.

According to a 2021 report by Funders for LGBTQ Issues, more than $200 million annually is now allocated specifically to LGBTQ+ programs, and nearly all recipients must report demographic identities to maintain eligibility.

However, while these metrics are tracked with bureaucratic zeal, the same rigor disappears regarding abuse prevention. No federal grant system requires demographic reporting on who commits sexual misconduct in their programs. No LGBTQ+ grantee must account for staff behavior or screen for grooming patterns.

We can count every gay intern at a nonprofit. But we can’t ask if the person accused of abuse has a history of targeting children by gender or orientation. That’s the ideological firewall we dare not cross. When applying for government grants, the question is no longer whether the work is good, helpful, or necessary, but whether it checks the right identity boxes. Entire funding pipelines now depend on an organization’s ability to log and report LGBTQ+ participation. This is not a reflection of progress, but of politicization.

3. Corporate DEI and ESG Scoring

Large corporations—beloved allies of modern leftist movements—collect SOGI data not to empower workers but to protect themselves from the activist mob. This is not virtue. It is insurance. It is appeasement masquerading as morality.

Take Google, which publishes detailed annual diversity reports, including statistics on LGBTQ+ representation across departments. These reports are celebrated in the media and rewarded in environmental, social and governance (ESG) scoring models used by investment firms. In contrast, companies like Hobby Lobby or In-N-Out Burger, which do not track or promote SOGI data, are routinely criticized in progressive circles and penalized in ESG rankings.

The message is clear: track identity and be praised. Refuse, and be smeared. But none of this corporate scrutiny extends to how businesses protect—or fail to protect—children from abuse, even when scandals emerge in educational, entertainment, or service sectors. The identity of the predator remains a taboo topic, even as the identity of the customer becomes corporate currency.

4. Public School Surveys

Children who cannot legally consent to contracts or medical treatments are now surveyed by schools about their sexual orientation. And somehow, we are told that this is a matter of "affirmation" rather than ideological grooming. There was a time when adults protected children from sexual discourse. That time has passed.

In public schools across the United States, particularly in states like California, students as young as 11 are being asked to disclose their sexual orientation and gender identity through surveys such as the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS). This survey, administered to students in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11, includes questions like, “Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?” with options such as “Straight (not gay),” “Gay or Lesbian,” “Bisexual,” “Something else,” and “Don’t know.”

In some instances, the administration of these surveys has led to controversy. For example, in Burlington, Massachusetts, middle school students were given a health survey that included explicit questions about sexual activities, despite some parents having opted their children out. This incident prompted federal complaints and highlighted schools' challenges in balancing data collection with parental rights and student privacy.

The rationale behind collecting such data is to understand better and address the needs of LGBTQ+ students, who often face higher rates of bullying, mental health issues, and other challenges. Organizations like GLSEN conduct the National School Climate Survey to document the experiences of LGBTQ+ students and advocate for safer, more inclusive school environments.

However, the inclusion of sensitive questions in school-administered surveys continues to be a contentious issue, with debates centering around the appropriateness of the questions, the age of the students, and the extent of parental involvement in the process.

Where Sexuality Isn’t Tracked—When It Involves Predators

1. Sex Offender Registries

If your neighbor molests a child, you may find his name in a database. What you will not find is whether he targets boys or girls, whether he identifies as straight or gay, or whether he has a history of exploiting institutions that claim to protect children. Because of that, we are told, would be discriminatory.

2. FBI and DOJ Crime Data

Government crime databases that track every conceivable demographic detail suddenly go blind when it comes to predator patterns. Sexual orientation disappears. Target preference is scrubbed. The data that could warn us is dismissed as dangerous to the narrative.

Example: The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) records the gender of victims and offenders, but never cross-references these in a way that might reveal uncomfortable truths.

3. Institutional Abuse Cases: Schools, Foster Care, NGOs

We have seen predators embedded within schools, foster systems, even refugee centers. Yet in every major scandal, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts to recent NGO busts, the question of orientation is never asked publicly. When identity is weaponized for inclusion, it is silenced for justice.

Case: Stacie Laughton (D-NH)

Openly transgender. Former state rep. Arrested in 2023 for helping run a child exploitation ring and protected by the press’s silence.

Case: Tony Navarrete (D-AZ)

Openly gay state senator. Charged with molesting boys. No activist backlash. No institutional reflection.

Why the Data Gap Exists—And Who It Serves

The refusal to log sexual orientation and gender identity in cases of child abuse, molestation, and trafficking is not an oversight. It’s a strategic omission backed by political ideology, media complicity, and institutional cowardice.

1. The Political Class Protects Its Allies

Democrats have led the charge in making SOGI data collection mandatory across schools, hospitals, and corporations for inclusion. But when that same data might reflect poorly on institutions they fund, activists they support, or communities they politically depend on, suddenly the tracking stops.

When asked why the DOJ doesn’t publish data on the sexual orientation of child sex offenders, the answer is always some variation of: “It’s too sensitive,” “It could stigmatize,” or “There’s not enough demand.” This, even though DOJ already tracks detailed racial, gender, and even religious information in other crime categories.

Example: The FBI’s 2022 Hate Crime Statistics report includes race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and even gender identity of victims. But for offenders, the categories become conveniently limited.

2. The Data Would Complicate the Narrative

In politically protected circles, particularly in LGBTQ+ advocacy spaces, there’s a fear that tracking sexual orientation in predator cases could fuel “stereotypes” or “anti-gay rhetoric.” But this is a dangerous trade-off—shielding potential repeat abusers in the name of community image.

Data Point: Studies such as Abel et al. (1987) and later meta-analyses consistently found that a disproportionate number of male child sex offenders identified as homosexual or bisexual—often targeting boys specifically. Yet public reporting standards have been altered to avoid even using these terms in offender profiles.

When patterns show up, such as in the clergy abuse crisis, where over 80% of the victims were adolescent boys, the terminology is softened from “homosexual abuse” to “ephebophilia,” and the orientation of the abuser is never highlighted in official government databases.

3. Nonprofits and NGOs Rely on Political Cover

Many nonprofits and “refugee aid” organizations receive federal grants, yet have been implicated in trafficking scandals, especially when dealing with unaccompanied minors. These groups often have close ties to left-leaning political movements and LGBTQ+ advocacy circles. The last thing federal agencies want is for their preferred contractors to be implicated by inconvenient data.

Example: In 2021, Project Veritas released footage from whistleblowers showing that some federally contracted shelters for migrant children—run by nonprofits—lacked proper vetting and had ongoing incidents of sexual misconduct. No public database tracks whether these offenders shared demographic or ideological traits.

4. The Bureaucracy Is Trained to Fear “Disparate Impact”

Under the Obama administration, the concept of “disparate impact”—the idea that any policy disproportionately affecting a minority group is inherently suspect—was embedded across federal departments. This chilling effect extended to data collection, where agencies became reluctant to collect data that might reveal overrepresentation of a protected group among perpetrators.

Thus, instead of confronting uncomfortable truths, the system has been engineered to avoid asking them.

5. Who Benefits?

• Activist groups avoid uncomfortable statistics that could weaken their lobbying leverage.

• Political allies don’t face scrutiny, even when linked to predators.

• Institutions retain their “inclusive” image, even as abuse goes unmonitored.

And the children?
They’re sacrificed at the altar of optics.

The refusal to log sexual orientation in cases of abuse is not accidental. It is a calculated evasion.

• It protects activist orthodoxy.

• It preserves institutional reputation.

• It avoids statistical truths that contradict fashionable narratives.

In short, it is the triumph of ideology over truth and power over justice.

Inclusion Optics vs. Justice Reality

A citizen must declare his identity to receive a license, but a predator may hide his identity to escape consequences. Institutions that aggressively log identity for access, compliance, or optics rarely apply that same rigor when lives—not optics—are on the line.

In 2023, a Virginia school required parents to submit legal ID, proof of residency, and vaccination records just to enroll a child in kindergarten. Meanwhile, that same year in California, a convicted sex offender—using a fake name and with multiple prior aliases—was released on bail without biometric verification, later assaulting another victim in a different jurisdiction. The system tracked a toddler more aggressively than a predator.

The Omission Is the Policy

This is not justice. It is camouflage. We are not protecting children; we are protecting narratives. The data is collected when it flatters power, and it is buried when it threatens it.

The cultural consequence of this selective data silence is profound. When predators are shielded under the guise of privacy or anti-discrimination, institutions lose the ability to track repeat offenders, identify demographic patterns, and implement focused prevention strategies. Worse, it signals that certain ideological priorities outweigh the welfare of children.

Legislatively, this omission has already shaped policy blind spots. Agencies cannot build effective reforms or allocate resources when the data intentionally avoids offending protected categories. The result is a justice system that’s hobbled by its own fear of being called “biased,” even while real, measurable harm continues.

We claim to believe in equal treatment under the law—but that principle evaporates when it comes to how we classify offenders.

Victims are cataloged in detail. Offenders? Their demographics are treated like state secrets.

There was a time when truth mattered more than optics, when data served discovery, not denial. If sexual orientation is relevant for job applications and healthcare forms, then it is damn well relevant when a child is victimized.

They log your sexuality for inclusion.
But never for justice.
And that is no accident.

If you believe truth matters more than ideology, share this. The predators have cover. It’s time to lift it.