SEARCH BLOG: SPECIAL INTERESTS
Strictly speaking, "minority" can be applied to any metric less than one-half. So, in the U.S., men are a "minority." But applying a term in that fashion, while correct, is both meaningless and politically... inappropriate. We tend to think of "minorities" as similar people who exhibit political or racial characteristics and, in progressive-think, must be protected in one manner or another.
Of course, one could challenge two notions contained therein: 1) superficial characteristics are sufficient to identify a "minority" and 2) the "minority" requires some form of government "protection." Recently, for example, white [Caucasian] infants were identified as a new "minority." Technically, any white infant born this year should receive consideration for "minority" political preferences. That will not happen and reasonably so for two reasons: 1) there is no other "minority" to take its place as the "majority" and 2) there is no logical rationale for providing special preferences for the new "minority."
Now we are faced with the concept of a "sexual minority." There are men; there are women. There are no third genders... except maybe the genetic anomaly of both in one body. There may be individuals who, for one reason or another, are attracted to mates of the same gender, but while they represent a small percentage of all men and women, they are neither men-women or women-men. They are men and women who have their own preferences. I prefer beer to wine, but I'm still a man.
Oh, but they have no choice in their preference. Neither do I. I simply prefer beer to wine and always have. Does that qualify me as an alcohol minority or majority? I guess that depends on which country I happen to reside.
Nevertheless, be on the lookout for new "sexual minority" legislation, regulations, studies, and protections. The progressives need a new victim minority on a regular basis. That must be the "progress" part of progressives.