Review Literature of Lesbian and Gay in Prison

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Inquiry Commodity

A systematic review and thematic synthesis of Canada's LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market and earnings literature

• John Ecker,
• Lori E. Ross

A systematic review and thematic synthesis of Canada's LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market and earnings literature

• Sean Waite,
• John Ecker,
• Lori E. Ross

x

• Published: Oct ii, 2019
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223372

Figures

Abstract

Background

The last ii decades have witnessed a considerable growth in the literature focusing on LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market place inequality, and income. During the same period, Canada has emerged as a trailblazer in employment protections for both sexual and gender minorities. Unfortunately, the Canadian literature on LGBTQ2S+ employment outcomes and experiences is disperse and underdeveloped.

Objective

This paper brings together this disperse enquiry and provides the first systematic review of Canada'due south LGBTQ2S+ employment and earnings literature.

Methods

We start with a systematic review and thematic synthesis of the broadly defined literature on LGBTQ2S+ poverty in Canada. We use a thematic synthesis to isolate the LGBTQ2S+ literature on employment, labour market inequality, and earnings. Our search of electronic databases took identify in April 2018 and was updated in January 2019.

Results

A full of 532 abstracts and full texts were screened by reviewers, which resulted in 84 articles included in our last sample. These manufactures were then sorted by keywords and those pertaining to employment, labour market place inequality, and income (due north = 31) were included in this assay. While estimates of sexual minority wage gaps vary depending on the data and methods used, almost studies have found wage penalties for gay men and wage premiums for lesbians, relative to their heterosexual counterparts. The literature on bisexual employment is particularly scant merely finds that bisexual men and women also earn less than their heterosexual counterparts. Enquiry on the subjective workplace experiences of LGBTQ2S+ individuals find unique challenges, barriers and, at times, exclusion from the Canadian labour market.

Conclusions and implications

While the literature on LGBTQ2S+ employment outcomes and experiences in Canada is growing, much is left unknown. The principal limitation for researchers continues to be the dearth of population-based surveys that include questions on sexual orientation, gender identity, and relevant employment characteristics. To appointment, few studies take explored employment outcomes or the subjective workplace experiences of bisexuals, transgender, two-spirit or other gender minority peoples.

Citation: Waite Due south, Ecker J, Ross LE (2019) A systematic review and thematic synthesis of Canada's LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market and earnings literature. PLoS I 14(10): e0223372. https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0223372

Editor: Stefano Federici, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italian republic

Received: July 8, 2019; Accepted: September 19, 2019; Published: October 2, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Waite et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Information Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: Sean Waite received fractional funding for this project from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Evolution Grant (430-2017-00024). Lori Eastward. Ross received partial funding for this projection from the Canadian Institute of Health Research Planning Grant (PCS-152640).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

There is a growing international literature interested in the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and two-spirit (a term that captures Indigenous individuals who place every bit gay or lesbian, transgender, or occupy multiple gender categories and sexualities) [ane] (LGBTQ2S+) individuals. An surface area receiving increasing attention is employment, labour market inequality, and earnings. Work tin can exist cardinal to an private's well-being, providing not only a source of income but besides structure, meaning, and identity. Income from gainful employment also provides nutrient, clothing and safe and secure housing.

To date, nearly of the LGBTQ2S+ employment literature has come from the United States. While this literature has fabricated valuable contributions and advanced our noesis on the employment outcomes and experiences of LGBTQ2S+ individuals, other countries may provide unique insights and interesting cases for analysis. 1 such country is Canada. Canada has been a trailblazer in providing employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation [2]. In 1977, Quebec became the first province in Canada to include sexual orientation in their Provincial Lease of Human Rights and Freedoms, which protects against employment and housing discrimination. Over the adjacent few decades, other provinces fabricated similar amendments. At the Federal level, the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation in 1996. During 2010s' these acts were further amended to include gender identity and by 2017, all provinces included gender identity as a protected condition in employment and housing. During this period, attitudes toward sexual minorities besides improved [3,4] and by international comparing, Canada ranks low on the World Values Survey'due south measures of homonegativity [v]. Canada was also the commencement country outside of Europe to legalize same-sexual activity marriage in July 2005.

The Canadian case is arguably ane of strong legal protections and relatively tolerant attitudes [ii–5]. Unfortunately, much of the Canadian literature on LGBTQ2S+ employment has been dispersed beyond several fields, such as political science, medicine, economic science, sociology and geography. To appointment there has been no attempt to synthesize these findings. Studies on gay, lesbian and bisexual earnings have also produced varying estimates of sexual minority wage gaps, depending on the data and methods employed. Nosotros endeavor to reconcile theses inconsistencies in this paper.

This paper presents the start systematic review of the LGBTQ2S+ employment literature in Canada. In detail, we are guided by three main research questions. Starting time, is sexual orientation an important dimension of labour market stratification in Canada? 2d, what are the employment outcomes and experiences of Canada's LGBTQ2S+ community? And lastly, what are the current limitations and opportunities for future research in this field? To answer these questions, nosotros conduct a systematic review of the literature related to LGBTQ2S+ poverty, broadly defined. Nosotros then conduct a thematic synthesis and focus our results on research pertaining to LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour marketplace inequality, and income. Lastly, we reflect on data limitations and research opportunities for advancing the LGBTQ2S+ employment literature into the future.

Methods

This systematic review and thematic synthesis of the LGBTQ2S+ employment literature is drawn from a larger systematic review of the Canadian LGBTQ2S+ poverty literature, broadly defined. Poverty is multifaceted and includes economical, social, and political dimensions [6–8]. Poverty has many consequences, including poor wellness, mortality, lack of education, inadequate housing, homelessness, increased adventure of violence, and discrimination [6–eight]. Our systematic review starts with a wide definition of poverty and then conducts a thematic synthesis to focus on the Canadian literature pertaining to LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour market inequality, and earnings.

Search strategy

We conducted a systematic search for literature related to LGBTQ2S+ poverty in Canada. The search was limited to manufactures written in either English language, French or Castilian. We are not enlightened of any literature omitted because of this language specification. The initial search took identify in April 2018. First, we conducted database searches using Medline, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and EconLit with subject headings, titles, or abstract terms for LGBTQ2S+ ("sexual minority", homosexual*, transgender*, queer* etc.), poverty (poverty "homeless people", poor, welfare, instruction*, "wage gap" etc.), and Canada (Canada, Canad*, Ontario, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver). For each database search, we used roughly 30 LGBTQ2S+ related terms, 25 poverty related terms and xx Canada related terms (Encounter S1 Appendix for a list of search keywords). For example, the following search strategy was used for the Sociological Abstracts database: ((su(sexual orientation) OR su(sexual identity) OR su(sex office identity) OR su(bisexual*) OR su(lesbian*) OR su(homosexual*) OR su(sexual preference*) OR su(sexual behaviour) OR su(sexual behavior) OR su(gays lesbians) OR su(transgender persons) OR su(transsexual*) OR su(gender identity) OR su(sexual minority) OR su(transsexual*)) OR (ab(sexual minority) OR ab(lesbian*) OR ab(gay) OR ab(bisexual*) OR ab(non-monosexual) OR ab(monosexual) OR ab(plurisexual*) OR ab(men who accept sexual practice with men) OR ab(MSM*) OR ab(women who accept sex with women) OR ab(WSW*) OR ab(transgender*) OR ab(transsexual*) OR ab(queer) OR ab(ii-spirit*) OR ab(LGB*) OR ab(BLB*) OR ab(sexual orientation) OR ab(gender identity)) OR (ti(sexual minority) OR ti(lesbian*) OR ti(gay) OR ti(bisexual*) OR ti(non-monosexual) OR ti(monosexual) OR ti(plurisexual*) OR ti(men who have sex with men) OR ab(MSM*) OR ti(women who accept sex with women) OR ti(WSW*) OR ti(transgender*) OR ti(transsexual*) OR ti(queer) OR ti(two-spirit*) OR ti(LGB*) OR ti(BLB*) OR ti(sexual orientation) OR ti(gender identity))) AND ((su(poverty) OR su(homeless people) OR su(homelessness) OR su(depression income groups) OR su(low income) OR su(poor) OR su(wage gap*) OR su(instruction*) OR su(employ) OR su(unemployed) OR su(welfare) OR su(shelters) OR su(income) OR su(fiscal support) OR su(wealth) OR su(housing) OR su(antipoverty programs) OR su(deprivation) OR su(social class) OR su(socioeconomic condition) OR su(occupation)) OR (ab(poverty) OR ab(poor) OR ab(wage gap*) OR ab(income) OR ab(unecmploy*) OR ab(use*) OR ab(homeless*)) OR (ti(poverty) OR ti(poor) OR ti(wage gap*) OR ti(income) OR ti(unecmploy*) OR ti(employ*) OR ti(homeless*))) AND ((su(Canad*) OR su(Toronto) OR su(Montreal) OR su(Ontario) OR su(Quebec) OR su(Vancouver) OR su(British Columbia) OR su(Alberta) OR su(Manitoba) OR su(Saskatchewan) OR su(New Brunswick) OR su(Nova Scotia) OR su(Prince Edward Island) OR su(Newfoundland*) OR su(Yukon) OR su(Northwest Territories) OR su(Nunavut)) OR (ab(Canad*) OR ab(Toronto) OR ab(Vancouver) OR ab(Montreal)) OR (ti(Canad*) OR ti(Toronto) OR ti(Vancouver) OR ti(Montreal))). These searches resulted in 438 manufactures from database searches. 4 studies did not get captured past the database searches and were included past paw, bringing the total to 442 manufactures for screening.

To ensure the well-nigh upwardly-to-date literature review, we conducted a follow-upwardly search in January 2019 to capture publications between April 2018 and the end of December 2018. Replicating the same search methodology as above, nosotros found an additional 88 publications through the same database searches. Two additional articles were included that were not captured by the previous database searches. The follow-up literature review produced 90 additional references for screening.

Inclusion criteria and quality assessment

To ensure an exhaustive review of the LGBTQ2S+ poverty literature, we used very broad inclusion criteria. First, studies had to include some course of data, such as qualitative, quantitative, or secondary data. 2d, studies had to report data on sexual or/gender minority people, which we divers broadly. For example, our review included roughly thirty LGBTQ2S+ terms. Third, the study must have reported on poverty or relative indicators, which we again divers broadly using 25 poverty related terms. 4th, studies must accept used either main or secondary Canadian data. Fifth, the study had to exist published in either English, French or Spanish. Lastly, in that location were no restrictions on publication appointment, blazon, or source, i.east. peer-reviewed vs. not-peer-reviewed.

During the screening phase, some boosted inclusion/exclusion criteria were made. Nosotros excluded historical analysis since these studies were unlikely to provide relevant information on current LGBTQ2S+ poverty experiences. We did not conflate LGBTQ2S+ sex work with poverty and simply included studies on sexual practice workers that addressed one of our poverty measures. We included studies equanimous of HIV positive participants just when information technology was possible to isolate LGBTQ2S+ respondents and data on poverty related measures were also gathered. Similarly, studies on LGBTQ2S+ health outcomes were included when this was linked to poverty or related variables. Studies reporting data on multiple countries, including Canada were included if the Canadian data/findings could be isolated.

During the kickoff phase of screening in May 2018, we reviewed articles and removed duplicates (northward = 73) and irrelevant studies (n = 263). The remaining 106 studies underwent a full-text review to assess their eligibility. To be included in the study, each text had to be reviewed past at to the lowest degree two researchers and deemed relevant. If both reviewers accounted the study irrelevant, it was excluded. If there was disagreement equally to whether the study should be included, a third researcher bandage the deciding vote.

Nosotros use the PRISMA guidelines as a framework for this analysis [9]. Overall, there were few conflicts over which studies should be included in the terminal sample. During the total-text screening, 37 additional studies were excluded. These studies were excluded for the post-obit reasons: historical study (n = 16), no LGBTQ2S+ data reported (n = 10), no Canadian information reported (n = 6), no poverty-related information reported (north = 3), no original data/assay (n = 1) and wrong effect (n = 1). This resulted in 69 articles related to LGBTQ2S+ poverty in Canada.

The follow-upwardly search followed the same inclusion criteria equally above simply was restricted to the period from April 2018 to the terminate of Dec 2018. Again, we removed duplicates (n = nineteen) and irrelevant studies (n = 48). After these exclusions, 23 studies remained for total-text review. These articles were reviewed past a single reviewer who removed studies that did non have LGBTQ2S+ (n = half-dozen) or poverty (n = two) related data. This resulted in 15 additional articles to be included in the review. In total, there were 84 manufactures related to LGBTQ2S+ poverty included in the written report. Fig 1 provides a visual representation of the systematic review methodology.

Data extraction

We assigned keywords to the concluding 84 manufactures based on their detail inquiry focus. For instance, health outcomes; life course; education; housing/homelessness; and, employment, income, and the labour market place. In most cases, articles received multiple keywords, such as life course and education or health outcomes and housing/homelessness. Nosotros filtered the extracted texts and isolated only those that included keywords employment/income/labour markets (due north = 31). Table 1 includes a listing of the articles included in our systematic and thematic review.

Results

There is a considerable torso of literature exploring LGBTQ2S+ employment, labour markets, and income in Canada (n = 31 studies). This literature is relatively recent, with 77% (24/31) of the articles published after 2010. This literature tin be separated into three broad categories. The first category includes studies that take used population-based surveys to study the employment outcomes of the LGBTQ2S+ community, including man uppercase, labour supply, occupation and industry, and the earnings of sexual minorities, relative to their heterosexual counterparts. The goal of this research is to produce generalizable results near the LGBTQ2S+ community. The biggest limitation for this enquiry has been the availability of population-based surveys that ask questions on sexual orientation, gender identity and employment characteristics [41]. At this time, there are vii population-based surveys that get together data on sexual orientation and 3 that include questions on non-binary gender in Canada [41]. Table two provides an overview of the electric current LGBT Canadian data landscape. These data limitations have meant that enquiry on the LGBTQ2S+ community has emerged unevenly. To date, most research has focused on coupled gay men and lesbians identified through the census. This approach assumes individuals in same-sexual practice partnerships are either gay or lesbian and, in doing so, erases the possibility of bisexual identifies. Nosotros discuss this issue further below.

The 2d body of literature has explored the employment experiences of the LGBTQ2S+ community, using convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews. This literature provides insight into the subjective employment experiences of LGBTQ2S+ individuals. Unlike the previous category, this literature does not strive for generalizability. Often, these studies isolate a particular occupation or field and unpack how sexuality operates inside a particular workplace culture. Examples include gay men and lesbians in the armed forces or policing services [21,27], transgender men in healthcare [32] or teaching [twoscore]. One study [ten] used an experimental audit methodology to determine whether law firms have a preference for interviewing heterosexual job applicants over gay and lesbian signaled applicants. Similar to the employment outcomes literature, this body of work has also focused predominantly on gay men and lesbians, excluding bisexual, transgender, queer and two-spirit individuals.

The third body of literature is a catch-all category for studies that tangentially capture data on employment outcomes and experiences of the LGBTQ2S+. The majority of these studies are focused on health outcomes between heterosexuals and LGBTQ2S+ individuals and gather employment and earnings information as control variables, rather than a substantive outcome.

LGBT employment outcomes

Information technology was not until the early 2000s that Canadian surveys began to ask questions on sexual orientation [41]. Carpenter [18] was amongst the starting time to use these new information to explore whether gay men and lesbians in Canada had earnings that differed from their heterosexual counterparts. Using the 2003 and 2005 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), he found that gay men had personal incomes that were 12% less than heterosexual men and lesbians had personal incomes that were xv% college than heterosexual women. Carpenter [18] then compared these findings to estimates obtained using couple information from the 2001 Canadian Census. He institute much larger wage gaps when using couple data and argued that the couple approach to estimating sexual minority wage gaps may overstate the magnitude of sexual minority wage gaps. Using similar information, LaFrance, Woolley, and Warman [29] explored the result of marriage and cohabitation on gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual individuals' hours worked and full-fourth dimension earnings. They found that gay men worked fewer hours and earned less than heterosexual men. Lesbians worked longer hours and had higher incomes. Married heterosexual men earned more than everyone else, including mutual-police and unmarried heterosexual men. Married and common-law gay men did not earn much more than unmarried gay men. One of the most startling findings was the poor labour market outcomes for both bisexual men and women. Bisexual men earned less than both heterosexual men and gay men. Bisexual women were at the bottom of the gender and sexual orientation wage hierarchy. Surprisingly, few subsequent studies accept explored the weak labour market outcomes of bisexuals.

Cerf [19] (see Harris [28] for an unpublished version of this commodity) also pooled cycles of the CCHS to make up one's mind whether sexual minority wage gaps could be explained by differences in individuals' preference for workplace stress. He institute that partnered gay men had incomes that were 13% less than heterosexual men but that they also had less stressful workplaces. Partnered lesbians earned 8% more than than heterosexual women simply they also had more stress at work. Single gay men simply not single lesbians, experienced far more stress at work than their heterosexual counterparts. Cerf [19] argued that single gay men's workplace stress may exist associated with anxiety nigh disclosing their sexuality; whereas, coupled gay men are more likely to be open about their sexual orientation at work. His theoretical model suggests that coupled gay men'due south college household incomes permit them to trade earnings for less stressful workplaces. Lower lesbian household incomes may crave that lesbians be willing to accept on more stressful jobs with higher earnings to supplement their household incomes.

Dilmaghani [24] pooled repeated cycles of the 2008 to 2012 Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey (CADUMS) to estimate sexual minority wage gaps. She constitute that full-time employed lesbians earned roughly 12% more than heterosexual women. Total-time employed gay men had earnings that were statistically indistinguishable from heterosexual men. Dilmaghani [24] likewise explored differences in household income and found that coupled gay men had the highest household incomes, followed by heterosexuals, and lastly lesbian households. The finding that gay men's earnings were statistically indistinguishable from heterosexual men is an outlier from previous studies but may exist driven by the use of chiselled top coded income [23]. Similarly, the CADUMS does not collect information on of import income determinants, such as hours worked or occupation. Table three provides an overview of LGB wage gap estimates derived from surveys containing direct questions on sexual orientation. To date, there take been no estimates of transgender, queer, or ii-spirit earnings in Canada.

To overcome the problem of small samples and, in some cases, less than platonic employment measures, researchers ofttimes plough to couple information, such as the Demography, to isolate married and cohabiting gay men and lesbians. Census data contains information on thousands of same-sex couples, high quality earning/income, and employment information. Unfortunately, the biggest drawback when using census data is that in that location is no information on single gay men or lesbians. The couple approach also engages in methodological bisexual erasure, i.e. bisexuals are considered heterosexual or gay/lesbian depending on their partner's sex. Similarly, the census data does non gather data on transgender, queer, two-spirit or other gender or sexual minority populations. Table 4 provides an overview of sexual minority wage gap estimates derived from couple information.

Brown [16] was the start to use Canadian Census data to explore sexual minority wage gaps. Using the 1991 Canadian Demography, Brown [16] classified individuals as possibly gay or lesbian when they had a aforementioned-sex, non-relative developed living in their household. Although this method for identifying gay men and lesbians was field of study to considerable bias, it was the only method available at the time because Statistics Canada did not start gathering information on same-sex couples until 2001. She constitute that gay men earned less than heterosexual men and lesbians earned more than heterosexual women. The size of these wage gaps varied past age group and whether comparisons were fabricated to married, separated, divorced or widowed heterosexuals.

Since 2001, Statistics Canada has been collecting information on same-sex activity couples. This overcomes the bias in the methodology employed by Brownish [16]. Using the 2006 Canadian Census, Waite and Denier [37] found interesting socio-demographic, human capital and occupational differences between coupled gay men and lesbians, relative to their heterosexual counterparts. For instance, they institute that gay men and lesbians were slightly younger, more highly educated, had fewer years of potential experience, less likely to exist married and/or have children, and more likely to reside in big cities (Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal). They were besides more likely to work in gender atypical occupations and industries. For example, gay men were less probable to exist working in master processes, structure, and manufacturing. Lesbians were more probable to piece of work in traditionally male occupations. Later controlling for these differences in a multivariate regression model, gay men earned roughly v% less and lesbians earned 8% more than than their heterosexual counterparts. When comparison lesbians to heterosexual men, they earned roughly 9% less. They also plant that wage gaps were significantly reduced in Canada's public sector for gay men, lesbians and heterosexual women. In a subsequent study, Waite and Denier [39] so added the 2001 Canadian Demography and the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS), to their sample and explored whether in that location were differences in the propensity for self-employment by sexual orientation. In detail, they were interested in whether barriers in paid employment increased the attractiveness of beingness self-employed for sexual minorities. They constitute that gay men were less likely and lesbians more than probable to be cocky-employed, relative to their heterosexual counterparts. The authors also explored whether sexual minority wage gaps and the propensity for self-employment varied by occupation. They constitute that gay men and lesbians had the largest wage gaps, relative to their heterosexual counterparts, in sales and service and manufacturing, trades and main industries. Gay men were more than likely to be self-employed in arts and culture and sales and service but less likely to be cocky-employed in business concern and finance. Lesbians were more probable to be self-employed in wellness related occupations, natural and science, and arts and civilisation occupations.

Waite [38] extended the previous analysis by using data from the 2001 and 2006 Canadian Censuses, as well as data from the 2011 NHS to explore whether sexual minority wage gaps narrowed over the starting time decade of the xx-first century. He constitute picayune change in sexual minority wage gaps over this period. In addition, wage gaps appeared to exist largest for immature gay men and smallest for older gay men. The lesbian wage advantage was absent-minded in younger ages and only appeared for older cohorts, suggesting that the lesbians' college earnings relative to heterosexual women only appears subsequently many years in the labour market. One explanation may be that heterosexual women's higher rates of matrimony and childbearing have negative effects on their earnings, relative to lesbian women.

Sexual minorities are concentrated in big cities, particularly Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal [22]. Denier and Waite [22] were interested in whether estimates of sexual minority wage gaps varied across these areas. In detail, they investigated whether wage gaps in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver were smaller than those in rural Canada. Using data from the 2006 Canadian Census, they found that gay men's wage gap was largest in rural Canada (18%) and smallest in Toronto (half dozen%). For lesbians, the largest wage gaps relative to heterosexual men was found in Vancouver (17%) and the smallest was in Montreal (ten%).

Mueller [34] pooled public-use data from the 2006 to 2010 General Social Survey (GSS) and establish that coupled gay men had earnings that were statistically duplicate from heterosexual men. Coupled lesbians earned roughly 18% more than heterosexual women. Some circumspection needs to be exercised with interpreting these result due to small samples sizes (90 gay men, 118 lesbians). Using like information, Dilmaghani [25] explored differences in labour supply by sexual orientation. She found that lesbians had a greater labour supply and gay men a weaker labour supply, than their heterosexual counterparts. Dilmaghani [25] likewise found that gay men and lesbians sorted into gender atypical occupations. Lastly, Allen [12] used couple information from the 2006 census to explore household production by sexual orientation. Of item annotation, he establish heterosexual households accept roughly the same production value, regardless if at that place are children or no children in the household (roughly $48,000). For gay and lesbian household, the presence of children made a considerable divergence in the estimated value of household production. The boilerplate value of household production for gay couples with children was $79,256 and $24,712 for those without children. For lesbians with children, the average value of household production was $36,997 and $53,033 for those without children.

The studies outlined above have found considerable variation in the size of sexual minority wage gaps. For example, Brown'due south [xvi] descriptive analysis found that gay men earned betwixt 6% and 30% less than heterosexual men; whereas, lesbians earned between half dozen% and 26% more heterosexual women. These estimates varied based on the heterosexual comparison group, i.eastward. when comparing opposite-sexual activity marriage men to same-sex men the wage ratio was 130.2% for heterosexual men between the ages of 45 to 54. Carpenter [18] used the 2003 and 2005 CCHS and plant that gay men earned 12% less than heterosexual men and lesbians earn xv% more than heterosexual women. Using the 2006 Canadian Census, Waite and Denier [37] found that coupled gay men earned 5% less and lesbians earned viii% more their heterosexual counterparts. Mueller [34] found that lesbians earned eighteen% more than heterosexual women in the GSS, while Dilmaghani [24] found that lesbians earned 12% more using the CADUMS. Both studies did not detect a statistically meaning wage gap for gay men. In an endeavour to reconcile these inconsistencies, particularly the cipher finding for gay men in the Mueller [34] study, Denier and Waite [23] explored how estimates of sexual minority wage gaps could exist sensitive to the types of income / earnings measures and sample specifications used; for instance, using full wages and salaries vs. full personal income, categorical income vs. continuous and top-coded vs. non-tiptop-coded income. While they found considerable heterogeneity in sexual minority wage gap estimates depending on how wages and income were measured, the general design observed was that coupled gay men earned less and coupled lesbians earned more than than their heterosexual counterparts.

Canada's General Social Survey (GSS) began asking a question on sexual orientation in 2004. To appointment, only 1 report using the GSS provides u.s. any information in sexual minority employment and earnings. Using the 2004 and 2009 victimization cycles of the GSS, Nazaretian [35] plant that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals had higher rates of victimization, relative to heterosexuals, Aboriginals, and visible minorities. Due to minor sample sizes, the author was unable to disaggregate the LGB group. Relevant to this review, the authors likewise provide some descriptive analysis of income. Nazaretian [35] establish that aboriginal and visibility minorities had the everyman incomes, followed by LGB individuals and women. Men reported the highest incomes.

The literature on transgender employment outcomes in Canada is considerably underdeveloped. This is primarily due to the famine of population-level information that include questions on transgender and other not-binary identities. Currently, there are 3 Canadian population-level surveys that capture information on non-binary gender identities and relevant employment characteristics [41]. Data from the 2017 Public Sector Employee Survey (PSES), found that 35% of gender diverse federal employee experienced harassment in the workplace, compared to 16% and 19% of cisgender men and women. Gender diverse respondents were those that answered "other" to the gender question (i.east. male; female; other, please specify). Gender various employees, which includes transgender, genderqueer and gender non-binary individuals, also report lower levels of workplace satisfaction, feel that they receive less meaningful recognition, are less valued, and less respected in the workplace, relative to cisgender male and female employees [42]. The Survey of Sexual Misconduct in the Canadian Armed Service (SSMCAF) includes a self-identity sexual orientation question, likewise as a gender identity question. Using the 2016 SSMCAF, Cotter [20] found that LGBT Regular Force members were more probable to written report workplace bigotry and sexual assail, relative to non-LGBT Regular Force Members [20]. The tertiary survey that collects information on non-binary gender identities is the Survey or Opioid Awareness (SOA) merely this contains no valuable employment information. To date, in that location are no population-level surveys that let researchers to produce meaningful estimates of transgender or other non-binary individual'south wages.

In the most comprehensive study of transgender Canadians to engagement, Bauer and Scheim [13] gathered information on sociodemographic characteristics, employment discrimination, educational barriers, wellness care access, violence, and mental and physical health of 433 transgender individuals living in Ontario. Their study also included focus groups with transgender community members and family unit members from their sample. Of item interest to our systematic review, they constitute that xiii% of transgender Ontarians reported that they were fired for being transgender and some other 15% were fired for reasons they believed were related to their gender identity. While this was non a population-level survey, the authors did take steps to address generalizability. For example, they used respondent-driven sampling (RDS), which is a methodology used to ameliorate generalizability when gathering a random sample is not feasible.

While these studies take identified of import differences in human upper-case letter, occupation, earnings, and even self-reported employment discrimination and harassment past sexual orientation or gender identity, another branch of literature has been interested in studying subjective experiences. This literature has relied on semi-structured interviews and convenience samples of LGBTQ2S+ individuals. More than half of the articles with keywords for employment, labour markets and earnings are studies about the employment experiences of LGBTQ2S+ individuals.

LGBTQ2S+ employment experiences

The second body of literature focuses on LGBTQ2S+ employment experiences. Dissimilar the previous literature, the focus here is on the subjective experiences of LGBTQ2S+ peoples in the Canadian labour market. This literature has been interested in unpacking how workplace cultures or local contexts aid or hinder the inclusion of minorities in the workplace. This also includes research on employment bigotry against LGBTQ2S+ community.

The first Canadian study to explore workplace bigotry against gay men and lesbians came 2 decades before population-based surveys started asking questions near sexual orientation. Adam [10] conducted the commencement audit study of employment discrimination against gay male person and lesbian job seekers. In his study, identical resumes were sent to Ontario law firms signaling gender by using male and female sounding first names and sexual orientation by including volunteer experience on a "Gay People's Alliance". He found that gay and lesbian signaled job applicants received fewer interview offers than non-signaled, ostensibly heterosexual, job candidates. Non-labelled male person applicants received ane.half-dozen times as many interview offers than the gay-signaled applicants. Non-labelled female job seekers received twice as many interview offers than lesbian-signaled job applicants. This written report provided the kickoff bear witness of employment bigotry confronting gay- and lesbian-signaled task seekers in Canada.

Well-nigh other studies have used semi-structured interviews to gather information on the subjective workplace experiences of the LGBTQ2S+ community. Bowring and Brewis [14] interviewed 16 gay and lesbian workers in three Canadian cities to better sympathise how they managed their non-hegemonic identities at work. The authors found that organizational environments are important for helping sexual minorities integrate their identities into the workplace. Existence in a same-sex human relationship too fabricated the coming out process at work easier. Other studies have focused on LGBTQ2S+ employment experiences within a particular occupation or field, which the author(s) argue provide an interesting site for analysis [21,27,32,33,40]. For example, MacDonnell and Grigorovich [32] conducted semi-structured interviews with four Canadian transmen working in the healthcare profession to better sympathize the links between work, career, and health. Transmen in healthcare felt that their trans identity was invisible in education programs and the workplace. "Lack of fit" was used by employers to justify bigotry and thwart promotions. Wells [twoscore] interviewed three male person-to-female transgender teachers who transitioned while educational activity in three dissimilar decades (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s). Using post-structural storylines, Wells [40] demonstrates how each participant challenges traditional discourses of transgender invisibility, silence, shame and fearfulness.

In another study, Fournier [27] conducted interviews with 21 gay and lesbian individuals working in the heavily male dominated military and police services in Quebec. She found that while war machine and police force institutions had made considerable progress in the acceptance of homosexuality in recent years, there remains an organizational culture characterised by male person chauvinism that can restrict gay and lesbian'southward full integration, especially in the military. Gay and lesbian police officers described their experiences as positive with some concerns about displays of homosexuality in the piece of work environs. Couto [21] interviewed 21 LGBT constabulary officers working in Ontario and also constitute that officers believed that workplace weather had greatly improved over the past few decades. Yet, like to the findings in Fournier [27], respondents still felt that the police service retained a hypermasculine, bourgeois, male-dominated, and heteronormative civilisation, where the archetypal cop was at times inconsistent with their personal sexual lives.

Mallon [33] interviewed 10 working-class men living in Toronto to better understand how social class shaped their identity equally gay men. The writer argues that gay social soapbox has focused predominantly on centre grade gay men, excluding working class blue-neckband gay men. The written report found that appearance, participation in the Toronto Behave culture and the role or work were instrumental in their identity as gay men.

Three studies accept taken steps to comprise sexuality into the migration literature past exploring the motivations and experiences of migration for sexual minorities [11,30,31]. Lewis and Mills [31] conducted a cross-national study of work-related migrations of gay-identified men (n = 48) living in Ottawa, Ontario and Washington, DC. The goal of this study was to meliorate understand how sexuality impacted work-related migration decisions of gay men. Amongst other things, their study highlighted the importance of sexuality in the migration decisions of gay men. For many, the decision to motility was impacted by intolerance and gay-related stigma in their electric current metropolis and/or job. Moving fulfilled multiple needs for gay men, including escaping homophobic environments, finding employment in more tolerant workplaces, and the social benefits of moving to a metropolis with a larger gay population. In an earlier newspaper, Lewis [30] used like data to challenge the linearity of the coming-out migration literature, arguing that the journey from migration to coming-out was far more complex than previously theorized. While his paper does not focus on employment experiences, information technology does demonstrate how migrants must negotiate the coming out process across diverse landscapes, including the workplace. Adam and Rangel [11] studied the post-migration experiences of 25 Spanish speaking gay and bisexual men living in Toronto. Participants were asked questions about their pre- and post- migration experiences in the workplace and gay communities, push and pull factors for migration, their sense of inclusion/exclusion, and other barriers experienced in Canada. Sexuality played an important role in migration experiences. For many respondents, homophobia was a push cistron and Canada's legal protections and union equality was a pull factor. Many of the migrants in the study were well educated and had considerable employment experience but faced barriers transitioning into the Canadian labour market place.

Tangential employment or earnings data

The third body of literature is a grab-all category for studies tangentially gathering data on LGBTQ2S+ human capital, employment, occupation, or earnings. These studies may use surveys but are typically limited in their generalizability because they focus on specialized sub-populations. This research also tends to use information gathered on subpopulations who access physical, mental, or sexual health-related services. For case, Carte et.al. [17] used a respondent-driven survey of alcohol and drug use past gay, bisexual, and/or transgender men to identify 6 classes of men who swallow alcohol and other drugs. The survey as well gathered data on employment and earnings. The authors found that men in the 'street drug use' category were more probable to exist out of work and less likely to exist stably housed than those in the "club drug use' or 'conventional drug use' groups. In another health survey, Farlatte et.al. [26] explored the syphilis epidemic affecting Canadian gay and bisexual men who have sex with other men (GBMSM). Amongst other predictors, they found that anti-gay stigma, which included career discrimination in the concluding 12 months, was a significant predictor of syphilis. The authors suggest that stigma and minority stress may play a role in GBMSM syphilis manual. Brennan et.al. [15] used data from the Ontario HIV Handling Network Accomplice Study to study the sociodemographic characteristics of older people (>50 years) with AIDS/HIV. The survey collected data on pedagogy, income, employment and occupation and reports divide results for women, heterosexual men, gay men and bisexual men. Due to pocket-size samples, the authors pooled lesbian, gay and bisexual women into a single "women" category. The descriptive results found that older gay men and bisexual men living with HIV/AIDS were more highly educated and had higher incomes than older heterosexual men living with HIV/AIDS. Gay men were the most probable to be employed amid this older sample; whereas, heterosexual men were the to the lowest degree likely to be employed. Gay men, and bisexual men to a bottom caste, were more likely to be working in senior or middle direction, or professional occupations than heterosexual men. Older gay men and women had better cocky-reported health, compared to bisexual and heterosexual men. Given their education and higher incomes, the authors conclude that older gay and bisexual men living with HIV/AIDs were doing fairly well economically, compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Ross et.al. [36] conducted a qualitatively-driven mixed methods analysis of mental wellness service experiences of LGBTQ people living in Ontario. A subsample of LGBTQ individuals who completed an online survey related to experiences of low were questioned using semi-structured interviews. They found that depression income LGBTQ respondents had more visits with mental wellness professionals and more unmet mental health needs than either higher income LGBTQ respondents or low income heterosexual, cisgender respondents. Their qualitative results found higher levels of mental wellness intendance utilization for LGBTQ people living in Ontario, relative to heterosexuals, but either equivalent or lower levels for low income LGBTQ individuals. The authors propose that the inaccessibility of private mental health care services for depression income LGBTQ individuals may explain this finding.

Discussion and decision

The biggest limitation for researchers interested in studying the labour marketplace outcomes of the LGBTQ2S+ communities continues to be the famine of high-quality data that includes questions on sexual orientation, non-binary gender identity and relevant employment variables. The LGBT population is relatively small [43–46], which requires large population-based surveys to produce meaningful samples for multivariate analysis. Unfortunately, there are no high-quality estimates of the prevalence of queer, two-spirit, or other (Q2S+) individuals in the population. The vast majority of literature on LGBTQ2S+ employment outcomes has focused on coupled gay men and lesbians. Data that include straight questions on sexual orientation allow researchers to place single gay men and lesbians, every bit well as bisexual individuals only sample sizes are often small or contain few relevant employment measures. These limitations make it specially difficult to explore the intersections of gender, sexual orientation, race and form. To appointment, no study has systematically explored these issues. The recent findings that bisexual men and women are particularly disadvantaged in the labour market warrants further attending. In particular, more research is needed to amend empathize the mechanisms driving bisexual men and women's weak labour force participation and lower earnings.

While the literature on gay, lesbians and fifty-fifty bisexual employment outcomes has grown in contempo years, there has been almost no literature on transgender, queer, two-spirit and other gender and sexual minority groups. Again, data limitations hinder research in this field. Perhaps the availability of new surveys with questions on gender identity volition provide opportunities for researchers. For example, Statistics Canada has recently signaled that the 2021 demography volition include a not-binary gender response choice. As more than surveys motility in this direction, new inquiry avenues will emerge.

With the exception of Waite and Denier [22], there has been trivial research exploring geographic variations in employment experiences and outcomes. Regional differences may exist peculiarly of import if workplace cultures and social attitudes sally at the local level. For instance, LGBTQ2S+ employment experiences and outcomes in predominantly white-neckband Toronto might be different from in rural Alberta where oil and gas industries are dominate.

While inquiry on sexual minority wage gaps and employment outcomes is constrained past the availability of data, enquiry on the employment experiences of LGBTQ2S+ peoples is not. Qualitative research provides valuable insights into the lived experiences of LGBTQ2S+ individuals. Surprisingly, in that location has been relatively trivial inquiry exploring these issues in Canada. Few researchers have extended their analyses on LGBTQ2S+ identity to work and the labour market. At the same time, the research that does exist as well seems to focus on particular segments of the LGBTQ2S+ community, i.e. gay men, lesbians and transgender individuals. At that place are few qualitative studies on bisexuals and other gender and sexual minorities.

This review of the LGBTQ2S+ literature has also highlighted a complete absence of enquiry on two-spirit individuals' labour market place outcomes and experiences. The intersection of Indigeneity, gender identity and sexual orientation may exist particularly important. We know that Canada'south Indigenous people confront considerable barriers in the labour marketplace [47] simply we know very little about the employment experiences of ii-spirit peoples. Given the electric current data landscape and marginalization of the Indigenous population, researchers will probable demand to rely on anterior methods to answer these questions.

Our systematic review has highlighted important differences in employment outcomes and experiences for Canada's LGBTQ2S+ communities. The majority of this literature falls into 2 broad categories. The first category includes studies drawing from population-based surveys to written report the employment outcomes of the LGBTQ2S+ community, with the goal to produce generalizable results. The second focuses on LGBTQ2S+ employment experiences. This literature explores subjective experiences, rather than generalizable outcomes. It also unpacks how workplace cultures or local contexts aid or hinder the inclusion of minorities in the workplace.

Starting with the literature on employment outcomes, we find important differences in employment and earnings by sexual orientation. With few exceptions, studies find that gay men earn less and lesbians earn more than their heterosexual counterparts. Bisexual men and women announced to fare the worst in this gender and sexual orientation hierarchy. This literature has as well found of import differences in wage gaps beyond cities and by partnership type. Estimates of sexual minority wage gaps derived from couple data may be larger than estimates from surveys that include directly measures of sexual orientation. Sexual minority wage gaps are larger in not-urban areas than in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Gay men and lesbians appear to sort into gender-singular occupations and industries. At that place may also be differences in the type of employment sexual minorities prefer, such equally self-employment.

The second branch of literature, which focuses on subjective employment experiences, finds important employment barriers for LGBTQ2S+ people. This is especially the case for racialized minorities and immigrants. Surprisingly, this literature is less developed than enquiry on sexual minority employment outcomes. This is surprising given that the latter is dependent on population-based survey data. Both of these literatures have focused on very predominantly on gay men and lesbians, with some limited research attention to bisexual and transgender individuals. There is an absenteeism of research on queer, two-spirited and other sexual minority populations.

This review highlights the ongoing barriers for gender and sexual minorities in Canada. Unlike other countries, Canada has a potent antidiscrimination framework that protects individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identify. The continued marginalization LGBTQ2S+ individuals suggests that greater efforts demand to be taken. One strategy may be to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the Federal Employment Equity Act. This human activity goes beyond standard antidiscrimination legislation and requires that federal employers have steps to foster inclusion of minority employees in the workplace.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Hannah Kia, Travis Salway, AJ Rich, Margaret Robinson and all members of The Canadian Coalition against LGBTQ+ Poverty (CCALP). The authors would also like to thank the Canadian Institute of Wellness Research (CIHR) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Enquiry Council of Canada (SSHRC) for providing partial funding for this project.

References

1. ane. Jacobs S-E, Thomas W, Lang S, editors. Two-Sprit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality. Chicago: University of Illinois Printing; 1997.
2. 2. Smith Chiliad. Political institutions and lesbian and gay rights in the Us and Canada. New York: Routledge; 2009.
3. iii. Altemeyer B. Changes in Attitudes Toward Homosexuals. J Homosex. 2002;42: 63–75.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Andersen R, Fetner T. Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality: Attitudinal Change in Canada and the United States, 1981–2000. Public Opin Q. 2008;72: 311–330.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. v. Jackle S, Wenzelburger G. Religion, Religiosity, and the Attitudes Toward Homosexuality—A Multilevel Analysis of 79 Countries. J Homosex. 2015;62: 207–241. pmid:25256802
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. half dozen. Brady D, Burton LM, editors. The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Poverty. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
7. 7. Haughton J, Khandker SR. The Handbook on Poverty and Inequality. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank; 2009.
8. 8. Kakwani N, Silber J, editors. The Many Dimensions of Poverty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 1988.
9. 9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med. 2009;six: 1549–1676. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pmed.1000097
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. x. Adam BD. Stigma and employ power: bigotry past sexual activity and sexual orientation in the Ontario legal profession*. Tin Rev Sociol Tin can Sociol. 1981;18: 216–221.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Adam BD, Rangel JC. The post-migration sexual citizenship of Latino gay men in Canada. Citizsh Stud. 2015;nineteen: 682–695.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Allen DW. Household product and sexual orientation. Econ Inq. 2015;53: 406–418.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Bauer GR, Scheim AI. Transgender People in Ontario, Canada: Statistics from the Trans PULSE Project to Inform Human Rights Policy [Cyberspace]. London Ontario; 2015. Available: http://transpulseproject.ca/research/statistics-from-trans-pulse-to-inform-homo-rights-policy/
14. 14. Bowring MA, Brewis J. Truth and consequences: Managing lesbian and gay identity in the Canadian workplace. Equal Oppor Int. 2009;28: 361–377.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Brennan DJ, Emlet CA, Brennenstuhl S, Rueda S. Socio-demographic profile of older adults with HIV/AIDS: gender and sexual orientation differences. Tin can J Aging. 2013;32: 31–43. pmid:23521923
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. sixteen. Chocolate-brown CL. Sexual Orientation and Labor Economic science. Fem Econ. 1998;iv: 89–95.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Carte du jour KG, Armstrong HL, Carter A, Cui Z, Wang L, Zhu J, et al. A latent class analysis of substance use and culture among gay, bisexual and other men who have sexual activity with men. Cult Health Sex. 2018; ane–16. pmid:29589798
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. eighteen. Carpenter CS. Sexual orientation, work, and income in Canada: Sexual orientation, work, and income. Tin can J Econ. 2008;41: 1239–1261.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Cerf B. Sexual Orientation, Income, and Stress at Piece of work. Ind Relat J Econ Soc. 2016;55: 546–575.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Cotter A, Statistics Canada. Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, 2016 [Internet]. 2016. Available: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/statcan/85-603-x2016001-eng.pdf
21. 21. Couto JL. Covered in Blue: Police Civilisation and LGBT Police Officers in the Province of Ontario [Net]. Purple Roads University. 2014. Bachelor: http://hdl.handle.net/10170/736
22. 22. Denier N, Waite Southward. Sexual Orientation Wage Gaps across Local Labour Market Contexts: Prove from Canada. Relat Ind. 2017;72: 734.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Denier North, Waite S. Data and Discrimination: A enquiry note on sexual orientation in the Canadian labour market place. Tin can Stud Popul. 2016; 8. https://doi.org/x.25336/P6XP4S
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Dilmaghani Thousand. Sexual Orientation, Labour Earnings, and Household Income in Canada. J Labor Res. 2018;39: 41–55.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Dilmaghani M. Sexual orientation, labour supply and occupational sorting in Canada. Ind Relat J. 2018;49: 298–318.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Ferlatte O, Salway T, Samji H, Dove N, Gesink D, Gilbert M, et al. An Awarding of Syndemic Theory to Place Drivers of the Syphilis Epidemic Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Accept Sex With Men. Sex activity Transm Dis. 2018;45: 163–168. pmid:29420444
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Fournier Thousand. Homosexuality in the Army and Police: Progress Achieved and Experiments Lived by Gay Soldiers, Police Officers, and Gay Police According to their Ain Point of View [Internet]. 2005. Bachelor: http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url = https://search.proquest.com/docview/61656084?accountid=14771
28. 28. Harris B. Essays in Applied Econometrics [Cyberspace]. Simon Fraser University. 2013. Bachelor: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?directly=true&db=ecn&AN=1404841&site=ehost-alive
29. 29. Lafrance A, Warman C, Woolley F. Sexual identity and the marriage premium. Queen Econ Dep Work Pap. 2009;1219: 32. https://ideas.repec.org/p/car/carecp/09-08.html
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
30. xxx. Lewis NM. Remapping disclosure: gay men's segmented journeys of moving out and coming out. Soc Cult Geogr. 2012;thirteen: 211–231.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Lewis NM, Mills S. Seeking security: Gay labour migration and uneven landscapes of work. Environ Plan Econ Space. 2016;48: 2484–2503.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Macdonnell JA, Grigorovich A. Gender, work, and wellness for trans health providers: a focus on transmen. ISRN Nurs. 2012;2012: 1–xi. pmid:23316387
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Mallon GP. Oh, Canada: The experience of working-class gay men in Toronto. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv Bug Pract Policy Res. 2001;12: 103–117. _08
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Mueller R. Wage Differentials of Males and Females in Same-Sex and Different-Sexual activity Couples in Canada. Can Stud Popul. 2014;41.iii–4: 105–116. https://doi.org/10.25336/P60602
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Nazaretian Z. Social status, opportunity and echo victimization: The unequal distribution of safety. [Cyberspace]. Dissertation, Wayne University. Bachelor: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/993/
36. 36. Ross LE, Gibson MF, Daley A, Steele LS, Williams CC. In spite of the arrangement: A qualitatively-driven mixed methods assay of the mental health services experiences of LGBTQ people living in poverty in Ontario, Canada. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0201437. pmid:30110350
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Waite S, Denier N. Gay Pay for Straight Work: Mechanisms Generating Disadvantage. Gend Soc. 2015;29: 561–588.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Waite Southward. Does information technology go ameliorate? A quasi-cohort analysis of sexual minority wage gaps. Soc Sci Res. 2015;54: 113–130. pmid:26463538
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Waite S, Denier North. Self-Employment among Aforementioned-Sexual activity and Reverse-Sex Couples in Canada: Sexual Orientation and Self-Employment in Canada. Tin can Rev Sociol Tin can Sociol. 2016;53: 143–175. pmid:27183963
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Wells G. Transgender Teachers: The Personal, Pedagogical, and Political. J Homosex. 2018;65: 1543–1581. pmid:28915089
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Waite Southward, Denier N. A Research Note on Canada'south LGBT Data Landscape: Where We Are and What the Future Holds. Can Rev Sociol Can Sociol. 2019;56: 93–117. pmid:30793865
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Authorities of Canada TB of C. 2017 Public Service Employee Survey Results for the Public Service by Question 114. What is your gender?—Canada.ca [Internet]. 27 Mar 2018 [cited 17 Apr 2018]. Available: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pses-saff/2017-2/results-resultats/bq-pq/00/dem114-eng.aspx
43. 43. Carpenter C. The Prevalence of Gay Men and Lesbians. In: Baumle AK, editor. International Handbook on the Census of Sexuality. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 217–228.
44. 44. Flores AR, Herman JL, Gates GJ, Brownish TNT. How many adults identify equally transgender in the United states? Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute; 2016.
45. 45. Canada Statistics. Canadian Community Health Survey, 2003. The Daily. 2004;June 15.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Vizard T. Measuring Sexual Identity in the Uk. J Bisexuality. 2014;14: 524–543.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Pendakur K, Pendakur R. Aboriginal Income Disparity in Canada. Tin can Public Policy. 2011;37: 61–83.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

chappellhally1981.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0223372

Share this post