Damned if you do, damned if you don't: contextual decision-making around SOGI data collection in the Deep South

Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection is often framed as a cornerstone of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts. Yet decisions about whether, how, and when to collect SOGI data are inherently contextual and increasingly precarious. Drawing on prior empirical synthesis and lived experience navigating the termination of federally funded sexual and gender minority (SGM)-focused grants in the United States (U.S.), this Perspective argues that SOGI data systems can function as structural determinants of visibility, safety, and wellbeing for SGM populations. We synthesize what the evidence suggested prior to recent policy shifts and examine how successive grant terminations-beginning with a U.S. National Science Foundation-funded project and later extending to National Institutes of Health training mechanisms supporting doctoral students-signal a broader erosion of institutional protections. Importantly, we argue that heightened risk does not necessitate data abandonment; rather, it asks us to understand how constraint reshapes our obligation. We propose a harm-reduction framework that emphasizes proportionality, methodological creativity, and adaptive safeguards, enabling equity-oriented evidence generation while minimizing harm under restrictive U.S. geographic, institutional, and community conditions.