A Research Note on Canada's LGBT Data Landscape: Where We Are and What the Future Holds

Abstract

There is a growing international literature on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. One of the biggest limitations for researchers in this field continues to be the dearth of population‐based surveys that include questions on sexual orientation, gender identity, and high‐quality demographic, health, social, political, or economic variables. This research note provides an overview of the current LGBT data landscape in Canada. We start with some of the challenges for researchers studying the LGBT community, including issues of sample size, measurement, response bias, and concealment. Next, we provide an overview of Canadian surveys that include questions on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, including the strengths and weaknesses of each. We end with a brief discussion on newly available administrative data and provide recommendations for researchers and policymakers moving forward.

State Involvement in LGBT+ Health and Social Support Issues in Canada

“…‘Data collection’, another subject area, recommends that the federal government, through Statistics Canada (the national statistical office), consult with LGBT+ organizations, researchers and individuals for the development of questions for all its surveys on sexual behaviour and attraction; promote oversampling of LGBT+ populations to produce sufficiently sized samples for intersectional analyses; and include specified questions on its surveys regarding sex at birth, gender identity and sexual orientation regardless of the age of respondents, and that this be prioritized for health, housing, income, homelessness, as well as alcohol, tobacco and other substance use surveys. There is no mention of the Canada Census and its slant towards same-sex couples and their marital status and how this further marginalizes LGBT+ individuals not in coupled relationships [ 44 ]. Further, such recommendations overlook the work that LGBT+ groups have done over the years consulting with Statistics Canada for proper representation [ 45 ].…”

Improving sex and gender identity equity and inclusion at conservation and ecology conferences

“…Second, data on participant diversity must be provided voluntarily by the participants either during the registration process or in post-hoc surveys, which presents challenges in terms of eliciting and storing sensitive data. Third, even when data on participant diversity are collected, analyses of diversity and initiative effectiveness are challenged by the relatively small size of the LGBTQIA+ community, issues with defining sexual orientation and gender identity, response bias, and concealment of gender or sexual orientation 17,81 . The sensitive nature of sexuality and gender identity questions increase the likelihood that respondents may be untruthful in answers 81 .…”

“…Third, even when data on participant diversity are collected, analyses of diversity and initiative effectiveness are challenged by the relatively small size of the LGBTQIA+ community, issues with defining sexual orientation and gender identity, response bias, and concealment of gender or sexual orientation 17,81 . The sensitive nature of sexuality and gender identity questions increase the likelihood that respondents may be untruthful in answers 81 . Unlike status characteristics, such as race and gender, sexual orientation and gender identity may be invisible, with real or perceived stigma in providing this information to conference organizers 34,35 .…”

Queering New Cinema History: Affective Methodologies for Comparative History

“…While in Canada researchers have been able to reliably use the census to identify same-sex couples since 2001, this demographic data excludes single queer people, and so its representativeness and adequacy is suspect. 25 Likewise in Europe, census data also only allows the identification of couples, though the United Kingdom has asked questions about sexual identity in their Integrated Household Survey since 2011. 26 Though this data may be useful for future data-driven studies of queer cinema audiences, our ability to only identify same-sex couples excludes single queers and other non-normative, non-monogamous family formations, and privileges homonormative forms of queer life.…”