Older LGBTQ+ Canadians’ Experiences of Prejudice and Discrimination Over the Life Course

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Amidst the growing global visibility of older lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender and sexually diverse (LGBTQ+) individuals, the predominantly American research has established that they face continued prejudice and discrimination. Yet, few studies outside of the United States have examined their life course experiences, including those related to adverse events. Building on the existing research, the present qualitative study uses a life-course perspective to explore older LGBTQ+ Canadians’ experiences of prejudice and discrimination.

Research Design and Methods

We recruited and conducted multiple, in-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews with 30 LGBTQ+ Canadian individuals, aged 65 to 83, about their life course experiences, including if and how they had been treated differently because of their gender identities, sexual orientations, and ages. Interview transcriptions were coded and analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis.

Results

All 30 participants reported traumatic and adverse experiences in patterned ways across the life course. Whereas they often faced abuse and harassment in childhood and young adulthood, they frequently reported institutionally situated prejudice and discrimination in midlife. Despite changing laws and social norms, in later life participants were subjected to targeted mistreatment and systemic neglect and exclusion as a result of their gender identities, sexual orientations, and ages.

Discussion and Implications

Findings from this study corroborate previous research and shed light on the ways that prejudice and discrimination have often permeated the lives of older LGBTQ+ Canadians. The research also points to the continued and urgent need to fight bigotry through education, policy, and progressive legislation.

Background

Although individuals who openly self-identify as older lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender and sexually diverse (LGBTQ+) continue to grow in numbers and visibility around the world, the research concerning their life course experiences is limited, particularly studies conducted outside of the United States (Fredriksen Goldsen et al., 2019). The existing scholarship has established that most of today’s older LGBTQ+ adults have endured prejudice and discrimination at some point in their lives (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2014; Lyons, 2021). Prejudice is “a cognitive-emotional process that biases some people against others” (Thagard, 2019, p. 107) and largely operates through the internalization of stereotypes. Discrimination is the resultant mistreatment of individuals that occurs via individual interactions and institutional policies and practices (Thagard, 2019). Frequently subjected to both prejudice and discrimination, older LGBTQ+ adults report being mistreated, underserved, or even rejected by healthcare professionals and social service providers, who fail to deliver care and assistance in an inclusive, culturally safe manner (Boulé et al., 2020). Studies have also found that LGBTQ+ individuals have been fired, harassed in the workplace, or denied jobs or promotions due to their sexuality and/or gender identities (Averett et al., 2020). Others have faced rejection, ostracization, and verbal and physical abuse in their interactions with family members (Averett et al., 2013), colleagues (Gabrielson, 2011), neighbors (Boggs et al., 2017), strangers (Jenkins Morales et al., 2014), and members of religious communities (Bower et al., 2021). Older LGBTQ+ adults additionally describe being excluded from youth-oriented LGBTQ+ events, organizations, and spaces, as well as feeling undesirable within the context of dating (Czaja et al., 2016; Kushner et al., 2013). Finally, transgender (Pang et al., 2019) and bisexual (Jones et al., 2018) older adults report being unwelcome and discriminated against within lesbian and gay communities.

The research has established that prejudice and discrimination are linked to a variety of negative health and social impacts for LGBTQ+ persons. For example, LGBTQ+ persons report poorer physical and mental health outcomes and greater economic disparities, relative to their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts (Lampe et al., 2024). They also have unique healthcare and social service needs as well as concerns regarding their aging futures (Hurd & Li, 2024; Hurd et al., 2022). Consequently, many are selective with whom they reveal their sexual and/or gender identities (Orel, 2014; Willis et al., 2018) and may try to pass as heterosexual and conceal their same-sex relationships (Jacobson & Samdahl, 1998). Conversely, older LGBTQ+ adults may defend against prejudice and discrimination by actively cultivating a sense of community and related social connections (Hurd & Li, 2024; Leahy & Chopik, 2020) and engaging in self-advocacy and activism (Bower et al., 2021).

To date, there has been little research attention given to older LGBTQ+ Canadians’ life course experiences or if and how they have faced and endured prejudice and discrimination over time. Yet, as has been noted by Fredriksen Goldsen and de Vries (2019), LGBTQ+ persons’ experiences of aging and discrimination are delimited by their unique sociohistorical and legal contexts that are country-specific. Indeed, Canada has a distinctive legislative history related to LGBTQ+ rights, which has included the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969 (Pang et al., 2019) and the opening of its first gender identity clinic that same year (Wells, 2022). In 1973, homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; Silverstein, 2009). Although the Canadian Human Rights Act was introduced in 1985, it was not until 1996 and 2017 that sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively, were added as prohibited grounds for discrimination in Canada (Government of Canada, 2022). Finally, same-sex marriage was legalized in 2005, making Canada the third country in the world to do so (Overby et al., 2011).

Seeking to understand our participants’ experiences over time, we drew upon Fredriksen Goldsen et al.’s (2019) Iridescent Life Course framework. This framework attends to the ways that LGBTQ+ persons’ life course experiences are nested in historical contexts and reflective of their multiple, intersecting social identities. In particular, the framework aims to draw attention to the complex ways that older LGBTQ+ persons’ experiences of trauma and adversity are shaped by opportunities and barriers at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2023). In this way, the framework highlights “the diverse, fluid, and intersectional nature of LGBTQ older adults’ lived lives, much like iridescent properties creating dynamic and fluid colors as perceived from different angles, perspectives, and environments over time” (Fredriksen Goldsen et al., 2019, p. 2). Guided by this framework and responding to Fredriksen Goldsen and de Vries’ (2019) call for research that offers insights into LGBT aging in “differing cultural, social, and political environments” (p. 317), our study aimed to address the following research question: What have been the life course experiences of prejudice and discrimination of today’s older LGBTQ+ Canadians?

Research Design and Methods

Study Design

As the purpose of our study was to acquire a deep understanding of older LGBTQ+ Canadians’ life course experiences, a qualitative descriptive methodology was utilized. In-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews allowed participants to fully and freely recount their experiences over time, yielding detailed and rich life stories (Lalanda Nico, 2015). The research was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2014). The study procedures were approved by the Behavioural Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia.

Participant Recruitment

Participants were recruited with the help of community contacts as well as through the use of snowball sampling methods, advertisements in older adult and LGBTQ+ organizational newsletters, and a poster campaign. Participants fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (1) age 65+, (2) self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or another gender or sexual minority, (3) spoken proficiency in English, and (4) community-dwelling. Interested individuals contacted the first author by telephone or email and were subsequently sent an information package about the study. Recruitment continued until we had obtained a sample that was diverse with respect to participants’ ages, gender identities, and sexual orientations.

Participant Characteristics

Thirty LGBTQ+ individuals, aged 65 to 83 (average age of 71), participated in this study. Fifteen participants identified as female and 15 identified as male, including five transgender women and one transgender man (Table 1). Although the participants were diverse with respect to their education, income, and partner status, most were born in Canada, White, university-educated, and middle class. Although a greater proportion of the women possessed graduate-level degrees, the men and women had similar incomes. Fourteen of the participants began the coming-out process in their youth or young adulthood, 14 in midlife, one after the age of 65, and one participant was still in the closet.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics (n = 30)

Demographic Characteristics	n
Age (years)
65–69	11
70–74	11
75–79	6
80–83	2
Sexual orientation
Asexual	1
Bisexual	2
Gay	14
Heterosexual	1
Lesbian	10
Pansexual	2
Gender identity
Female	15
Cisgender	10
Transgender	5
Male	15
Cisgender	14
Transgender	1
Place of birth
Africa	2
Europe	7
North America	21
Canada	19
United States	2
Partner status
Divorced/separated	4
Married/partnered	15
Never partnered	1
Single/widowed	10
Highest level of education:
College/university	10
Graduate school	18
High school diploma	1
Some high school	1
Household income (CAD)
Less than 15,000	1
15,000–39,999	9
40,000–64,999	3
65,000–89,999	7
90,000–114,999	5
115,000–139,999	1
More than 140,000	3
Did not know	1

Data Collection

Following the provision of written informed consent, participants were interviewed two, and in the case of one participant, three times in 2018, approximately 4 to 6 weeks apart, either in-person (15 participants), by telephone (10 participants), or by Facetime or Skype (five participants) for between 2.5 and 6 hr (for an average of 4 hr and a total of 113 interview hours). The first author, who has a clinical social work background and extensive qualitative research experience with older adults, conducted 58 of the 61 interviews. The remaining three interviews were completed by a graduate trainee under the first author’s close supervision. No participants withdrew from the study. The interview guide (Table 2) was developed through a careful review of the literature on aging, gender identity, and sexual orientation and was subsequently piloted. Striving to acquire an in-depth understanding of participants’ perspectives, the interviewers used open-ended questions that invited them to share their life stories of being LGBTQ+ in Canada. Participants were also asked to describe if and how they had ever been treated differently because of their ages, gender identities, and/or sexual orientations. The digitally recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed for accuracy by five trained research assistants, including the second author. After each interview, reflective field notes were made to document observations and details about the interview process, provide a space for interviewers to reflexively manage potential biases, compare interviews, and identify emerging analytical interpretations of the data (Saldaña, 2016).

Table 2.

Interview Guide

1	Please tell me the story of your life as an LGBTQ+ person.
2	How did your gender identity/sexual orientation influence your experience of (a) childhood; (b) adolescence; and (c) adulthood?
3	Please tell me about your experiences of aging.
4	What is it like to be older as an LGBTQ+ person?
5	What are some of the challenges and benefits to growing older as an LGBTQ+ person?
6	What changes in your body have you experienced as you have grown older, if any?
7	Please tell me about your health and how it has changed/stayed the same over time.
8	How would you rate your health (e.g., poor, good, very good, excellent) and why?
9	What do you think it means to age well/age poorly?
10	Tell me about your social connections and relationships and how those have changed/stayed the same over time.
11	Have you ever been in situations where you were treated differently (e.g., poorly or better) because of your age? Gender identity? Sexuality? Please describe.
12	What do you wish that other people knew about you? About aging as an LGBTQ+ person?

Notes: LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender and sexually diverse. The following overarching questions were asked in a flexible, open-ended way, in an effort to keep the conversation flowing smoothly and solicit detailed and rich descriptions of participants’ life course experiences. Probes and clarifying questions were used to deepen participants’ responses as well as our understanding of the meanings they attributed to their experiences. Not all of the data that was generated from the below questions was utilized in the present article but rather was the basis of other publications.

Data Analysis

The data were coded and analyzed deductively and inductively by both authors, with the assistance of another research assistant, using descriptive thematic analysis (Colorafi & Evans, 2016) and NVivo 12 software. Guided by the existing LGBTQ+ aging literature and the Iridescent Life Course framework, we began by identifying all of the references in our participants’ narratives to “traumatic and adverse experiences [that they had experienced] because of being perceived as LGBTQ” (Fredriksen Goldsen et al., 2019, p. 266). From there, we used recurring themes in the extant research to deductively code the data (see Table 3). Next, we repeatedly and collaboratively read the data, attending to both the readily apparent and underlying meanings in our participants’ stories (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Saldaña, 2016), ultimately identifying three broad categories of inductive codes (see Table 4 and Supplementary Material).

Table 3.

Deductive Codes

Deductive code	Definition
Sources of prejudice and discrimination	Sources of prejudice and discrimination included: acquaintances, adoption agencies, church leaders and parishioners, family, friends, healthcare systems and providers, legal systems and government policies, LGBTQ+ organizations and communities, romantic partners, school administrations and classmates, strangers, and the workplace.
Identity axes	Participant’s intersectional identities as related to their ages, gender identities, and sexual orientations.

Notes: LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender and sexually diverse.

Table 4.

Inductive Codes

Inductive code	Definition
Perceptions and experiences of trauma and adverse encounters	This includes assumptions and stereotypes, identity (mis)recognition and rejection, relational and personal losses, and structural exclusion.
Resultant emotional and behavioral responses	This includes negative emotions, concealment strategies, mental health, reframing strategies, changes in environment, fighting back, and transformation/transcendence.

Trustworthiness

To ensure the trustworthiness of our analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), we began by establishing intercoder agreement between the first and second authors and the research assistant by independently examining a subset of the coded transcripts. Discrepancies in our categorization and interpretation of the data were handled through a collaborative, consensus-building approach. We also documented analytical decisions in an audit trail, used memo writing in addition to reflective field notes to record our emergent ideas, and confirmed our interpretations through informal member checking with our participants (Johnson et al., 2020). Finally, we provided thick descriptions of our participants and their reflections about their experiences over their life courses (Younas et al., 2023).

Results

All of the participants had experienced prejudice and discrimination in patterned ways across their life courses, which was captured by three temporally situated themes, namely: (a) traumatic interpersonal encounters in childhood and young adulthood; (b) institutional oppression in middle age; and (c) later life invisibilization. Each of the participants has been assigned a pseudonym (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Participant Pseudonyms and Demographic Information

Pseudonym	Age	Gender	Sexual orientation	When the participant came out as LGBTQ+ [Decade (age)]
Allison	75	Female (trans)	Heterosexual	1990s (age 50)
Andrew	65	Male (cis)	Gay	1970s (age 18)
Beth	71	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1960s (age 20s)
Billie	67	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1980–90s (age 30–40s)
Cliff	67	Male (cis)	Gay	1970s (age 24)
Daniel	66	Male (trans)	Pansexual	1990s (age 47)
Darcy	75	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1980–90s (age 40–50s)
Edgar	72	Male (cis)	Gay	1970s (age 30)
Elena	69	Female (cis)	Bisexual	1970–80s (age 20–30s)
Fiona	83	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1970–80s (age 40–50s)
Frank	73	Male (cis)	Gay	Not officially out
Grace	67	Female (trans)	Lesbian	1980s (age 30s)
Gus	65	Male (cis)	Gay	2000s (age 49)
Hugh	70	Male (cis)	Gay	2010s (age 61)
Julia	69	Female (cis)	Pansexual	1980s (age 30s)
Katherine	77	Female (trans)	Asexual	1990s (age 50s)
Keith	71	Male (cis)	Gay	1970s (age 20s)
Louis	70	Male (cis)	Gay	1970–80s (age 20–30s)
Lydia	83	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1970s (age 40)
Marie	70	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1990s–2000s (age 43–53)
Melanie	77	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1980s (age 46)
Michael	77	Male (cis)	Gay	2010s (age 75)
Neil	69	Male (cis)	Gay	1960s (age 19)
Phil	75	Male (cis)	Gay	1960–80s (age 25–40s)
Rosie	72	Female (cis)	Lesbian	1980s (age 40)
Roy	68	Male (cis)	Gay	1960–70s (age 15–30)
Simon	71	Male (cis)	Gay	1990s (age 53)
Ted	65	Male (cis)	Gay	1990s (age 40–45)
Teresa	70	Female (trans)	Bisexual	2000s (age 54)
Violet	70	Female (trans)	Lesbian	1980s (age 30s)

Notes: LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender and sexually diverse.

“It was traumatic”: Painful Experiences in Childhood and Young Adulthood

At a time in Canada when LGBTQ+ persons lacked legal protections and social acceptance and visibility of diverse gender and sexual identities was limited, many participants reported traumatic encounters in childhood when their identities were presumed or discovered by others. Half of the participants reported incidents of physical and sexual abuse in their early years, such as Fiona: “My brother would beat me up because I had girlfriends and he’d call me names.” Like several others, Andrew was tormented in school: “Living on the prairies, that was not the greatest place in the world to be gay. And so public school and high school was absolute hell. I was obviously gay so there was a lot of violence at home and in school.” Similar to a few other participants, Roy was sexually assaulted in his youth—in his case while in the Cadets, a military-based training program for youth aged 12 to 18: “Two of my fellow cadets realized that I was gay, and they assaulted me…They orally raped me…I never reported it. I couldn’t because, if I did, all of us would be discharged. I didn’t want that.”

As the participants moved into young adulthood, stigmatization and harassment became commonplace. Many relayed that their family members had overtly or indirectly equated their sexual orientations with depravity. Julia was “devastated” when her sister assumed that she was a pedophile who could not be trusted with her niece and nephew:

Before, I used to sleep in the single bed in [my niece’s] room and [my niece] had the other single bed in her room. She loved having me in her room…I was very close to the kids. [My sister took my niece] out of that room and put her in [my nephew’s] bedroom. And I knew exactly why she did it. I didn’t say anything, but I was just excruciatingly hurt. That she would even think…that it would even enter her head that I would sexually assault her children. Like it just would never occur to me to touch a child (participant began to cry)—it’s just not part of who I am…She had all these stupid stereotypes.

Additionally, random strangers often targeted the participants with pejorative slurs, referring to them as “fucking fags” (Simon) and “dyke[s]” (Darcy), and leading them to often “not feel safe” (Rosie). Religious organizations were frequently at the center of the mistreatment. Melanie recounted how fellow congregants at her church had assumed that lesbians were neither “nice,” “feminine,” nor “friendly and warm,” but rather “big and loud.” She shared feelings of outrage as she recounted a particularly painful interaction with another parishioner, who, notably, was also a gynecologist:

He asked, “If you couldn’t have sex with men, why didn’t you see a doctor?”…I just slammed him and I said, “It has nothing to do with my ability to have sex. It has to do with who I fall in love with. I don’t fall in love with men.” I was appalled! That he’s a gynecologist and he doesn’t know that.

Many participants reported how their sexual and gender identities were pathologized by various significant others. For Andrew, and a few others, this began at home at a young age, as his parents threatened “to send me to a shrink—[and] arrange to put me in an asylum…[because], at that time, you could be put into the asylum, and as a gay man, would be lobotomized, [or] as a gay woman, genital mutilation.” Others relayed traumatic encounters in young adulthood with healthcare providers. Whereas Louis was told by a psychologist that being gay was a “mental illness…[which] couldn’t be cured,” Katherine was informed by various healthcare professionals that she required “hypnosis and psychotherapy,” so that she could “become [her] biological destiny: A happy, well-adjusted man…no longer mentally ill.” For many of the gay men, the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s had amplified their experiences of medical mistreatment and concomitant feelings of isolation and fear. Neil described a traumatic encounter with a physician who faced the door and refused to touch or even look at him during a medical examination: “That was an era where there was a lot of fear but that was certainly a total rejection of myself and, I would say, of the homosexual aspect of life.”

Finally, some participants told stories about the social and psychological costs of having their sexual identities and relationships criminalized before legal protections were implemented in Canada. Two-thirds of the participants described how they had lived in constant fear of being incarcerated, as conveyed by Keith:

I went to school during the 50’s and 60’s. In those days you could be put in jail…for “sexual perversion”…if they caught you in a homosexual act…You were forced to live in the closet and live a life of pretense, which is terrible…Until 1969, when [Prime Minister] Trudeau said we’ve got no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Phil was arrested as a young man after being caught in a public restroom having sex with another man and noted that he had subsequently “attempt[ed] suicide unsuccessfully.” Indeed, close to one-half of the participants relayed that they had experienced a myriad of negative mental health effects as a result of their homophobic and transphobic mistreatment, as exemplified by Julia’s account: “I can remember being so confused and so depressed and so angry that I had to live this double life and live a lie. I hated myself, in a way, and I was starting to get suicidal.”

“I’ve put up with a huge amount of prejudice”: Institutional Exclusion in Middle Age

In midlife, adverse experiences persisted, but their nature and location shifted to institutional settings. Many participants experienced the infringement of their human rights and the denial of services and adequate care. Two participants were denied housing, as exemplified by Teresa’s story: “A couple years after I had my [gender-affirming] surgical procedures, I was still struggling with passing as a woman. I was refused an apartment…even though my income was fine…I strongly believe it had to do with my gender and appearance.” A few, like Beth, had been disallowed from adopting children: “I was told I couldn’t adopt with a partner unless I lied and said I wasn’t gay. I wouldn’t do that, so I ended up not having kids, which [is] probably my deepest regret in life.”

Even when participants gained identity-affirming access to certain rights and services in midlife, they were often still forced to navigate heteronormative barriers and restrictions. For example, Beth faced additional challenges when she attempted to obtain a marriage license from City Hall just after same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada: “They weren’t going to change the forms yet because many of them thought it would be repealed. So, we had to decide who on the form was the bride and who was the groom.” Similarly, transgender participants’ access to medical care in gender identity clinics was fraught with heteronormative requirements, as explained by Daniel:

The psychiatrists, psychologists and, to some extent, endocrinologists, surgeons, and social workers, back in the 60s, 70s, even 80s and 90s, insisted that a trans person be straight. You weren’t allowed to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or even asexual very often, or they wouldn’t approve hormones or surgery…If you were presenting as a trans woman, you had to be divorced from your wife…Later, they allowed trans women to still be married but for trans men, it took them another 10 years…[It was] a form of erasure, erasing one’s gender identity and then erasing one’s sexual preference or sexual identity.

Other participants were repeatedly and harmfully misgendered by healthcare providers, as described by Teresa:

I had a lung issue and was referred to a respirologist, who submit[ted] a report…[that] identifies me as male…So, I went back to the respirologist and asked if he would please correct that because that was wrong. I have a birth certificate…all my legal documentation, everything is female. There’s no reason for that. And his position was, “You have male lungs,” and refused to change his report…I’ve had to deal with that kind of thing many times.

Half of the participants also reported that the workplace became a dominant site of discrimination in middle age. Some were excluded from job opportunities, particularly those who aspired to military careers, such as Beth:

I was signed up to go into the Air Force. I actually got an assignment and everything… [But] I came to that point on the form where it says, “Are you a homosexual?” I thought, “I can’t lie about this”…So I didn’t proceed any further…It’s another regret.

Others felt compelled to conceal their identities at work as a means of preventing discriminatory treatment, as articulated by Elena, who said she was “very uncomfortable. So, I didn’t really come out to anybody [at work].” Those who did come out, or openly transitioned in the workplace, frequently “paid the price,” as explained by Keith, who noted that he had “put up with a huge amount of prejudice” because casual homophobic and transphobic interactions were frequent and normalized. For the women participants, homophobic and transphobic harassment often had sexual overtones, as exemplified by Julia’s experience while working at a postsecondary institution:

I was working in a position…assessing whether programs were up to scratch…One of the program areas I had to assess was welding…So, I phoned the program head…Real macho, sleazy kind of guy but I was trying to be very professional…We made an appointment for me to go downstairs to his office…I phoned him two minutes before I was leaving just to make sure he was there…And he said, “Yes, I’m here.” So, I went down [and] he wasn’t in his office. There was a line-up of young, male students laughing outside the door. And they said, “Go in, go in”…And I was confused. So, I went in, and his computer screen had all this lesbian pornographic stuff rolling on it…I was so angry.

Still others experienced relentless surveillance and intimidation tactics, such as Grace, a teacher, whose principal had tried to “get me turfed out” and “told the staff that I was transgendered, which is unethical.”

In response, some participants walked away from their careers, often with long-term personal and financial consequences. For example, Beth quit her job as a nurse after a subordinate “started a writing campaign saying that I was unfit to be a manager…[and] unfit to be taking care of elders because I was gay…[and] they weren’t safe in my presence.” However, not everyone was bullied into quitting. A few participants responded physically, including Keith, who was harassed by a colleague: “He made a comment one day—‘Gay people are little girls who never grow up.’ And I lost it at him and he was sitting at his desk and I took [him] and…pinned him against the wall.” Others used legal channels, such, as Grace who sued her school board for harassment and wrongful dismissal, and won.

“I do feel that I’m becoming invisible”: Experiences of Social Devaluation in Later Life

In later life, participants’ experiences of prejudice and discrimination were increasingly linked to and amplified by their ages. Most participants felt progressively more unseen and socially devalued in their communities. Hugh stated: “As an older gay man…I do feel that I’m becoming invisible…Ten years ago, I’d be walking down the street, and somebody would look at me. Well, now, I think they look through me.” Many participants also felt that their cisgender, heterosexual friends and family members were unwilling to fully acknowledge their LGBTQ+ identities. For example, Frank said that his friends “don’t want to touch” the subject of his same-sex relationships in their everyday conversations and Rosie was unable to get the emotional support she needed after her partner died: “I don’t feel I can grieve the loss of my relationship…because other people saw her as just my friend.”

The participants reported feeling increasingly invisible within various LGBTQ+ communities and spaces. Several gay men noted that they were particularly disregarded as prospective sexual or romantic partners within the gay community, as conveyed by Andrew:

Youth is the goal within a big part of the gay community. If you’re not gorgeous, rich, and butch, forget it. I always called it internal homophobia…I’m ignored…I’m no longer of value there, sexually…because I’ve got a triple whammy going on here…I’m old, I’m disabled, and I don’t have money…There’s still a fairly hefty chunk of the LGBT community that think that once you hit 60, your life is over. Because of all those -isms.

Many participants stated that their aging identities and related needs were often overlooked within youth-oriented LGBTQ+ communities, as was described by Melanie:

There’s ageism in the queer community too. Well, things like the Queer Film Festival. It’s really hard. It’s much easier if you’re young and active and can stand up. If I take my scooter, I’ve got to sit right at the back. But then I can’t see…There is an assumption that gay men and lesbians don’t grow old…that’s the kind of message that we get.

Other participants felt discounted by younger individuals in both LGBTQ+ organizations and society more generally. Rosie shared: “Usually being dismissed is what I experience. As if we have no wisdom or our opinions are no longer valid.” Several transgender participants, like Grace, said there was a “hierarchy” in the LGBTQ+ community: “There’s the gay men and then underneath is the lesbian women. And underneath that are the transgender male-to-female and female-to-male…It’s a hierarchy of each group looking down on the other.”

However, participants also reported feeling hyper-visible as a result of their ages and being increasingly subjected to age-based prejudice and discrimination. On the one hand, healthcare professionals frequently assumed that they were physically limited and, therefore, in need of assistance, as described by Michael:

People assume that, because of my age, I need assistance with some things. For example, in the healthcare system…“Do you need any help doing such and such?” If I have an X-ray, “Are you able to step up on the stand?”…There’s lots of things I can do, and it doesn’t matter what my age is.

In other cases, participants perceived that healthcare providers underestimated their intelligence and behaved in patronizing ways because of their advancing ages, as relayed by Teresa:

I went in for an MRI and the technician spoke to me in a way that I found actually quite disrespectful…She was saying to me, “Well, the MRI is kind of like when you have a picture with your family and your uncle is in the background.” And I just looked at her and I said, “I have a PhD. You don’t have to talk to me like that. I’m not a child.” That kind of thing has happened to me a couple of times…I’ve found it quite irritating that people have talked down to me.

For some, their resultant sense of physical and social vulnerability was further amplified by traumatic encounters. Most of the transgender participants told stories similar to those of Alison, who described a recent, upsetting incident in a store in which a stranger had stated, “You’re not a woman. Why don’t you put on a pair of pants and be your normal self?” Some of the gay men shared stories like Frank’s encounter in a coffee shop while traveling in the United States:

I met somebody from Alabama…[and] he said, “I think you’re a homosexual.” I said, “Yes, does it bother you?” He said, “You know, if you were to live in Birmingham, Alabama, we would cut your throat.” I said, “Even today?” He said, “Yes. And some would cut off your tongue.” I said (sarcastically), “That’s a very civilized society then that you come from.” He said, “That is the right society.”

As well as targeting their LGBTQ+ identities, traumatic encounters were also linked to their perceived ages, as reported by Andrew, who stated: “I had one person, never met her before in my life, on the bus, came up to me and went, ‘You’re old, why don’t you die?’”

Many participants expressed that, even as Canada had progressed, the physical and social realities of aging were challenging for LGBTQ+ persons. When Gus was asked whether being gay was different in Canada now compared to his youth, he asserted: “In some ways it is and in other ways, it’s not that different…Homosexuality has a much higher profile…It’s not hidden under the carpet like it used to be…People’s perceptions have evolved significantly…but the stereotypes still exist.” Consequently, many participants were concerned about their aging futures. Katherine noted that while discrimination “is less prevalent than it was” and “Canada is, by and large, a very safe place…for gender variant people and homosexual people,” she felt compelled to do everything she could to make sure that she could “take care of myself [so that] I’m not a burden on society… [because] it’s harder for people the further that you get from the norm.”

Discussion and Implications

Guided by Fredriksen Goldsen et al.’s (2019) Iridescent Life Course framework, this is the first Canadian study to provide in-depth insights into older LGBTQ+ Canadians’ experiences of prejudice and discrimination over their lifetimes. A key strength of this study was the richness of the data that resulted from the use of multiple, semistructured, life course interviews. Because each participant was interviewed for an average of 4 hr, we were able to collect detailed and in-depth accounts about what it was like to come of age and grow older as an LGBTQ+ person in Canada amidst the historical backdrop of changing social norms and legal protections (Government of Canada, 2022; Overby et al., 2011). All of the participants reported adverse and often traumatizing encounters over the life course, the reverberations of which they carried with them into later life. Many recounted harassment and abuse in their earlier years, at a time when prejudice and discrimination were socially and institutionally sanctioned. In midlife, when their identities became more visible but were still not widely accepted or legally protected, they often faced an infringement of their human rights in various institutional settings. In later life, and despite increasing social acceptance and progressive legislation, they reported simultaneously experiencing hypervisibility and societal erasure. Thus, on the one hand, their gender identities, sexual orientations, and ages often resulted in them being the targeted victims of abuse, harassment, and/or discrimination. On the other hand, their unique needs as older LGBTQ+ persons were frequently unrecognized and unmet. Both these overt and more subtle, systemic forms of mistreatment resulted in a growing sense of vulnerability and invisibilization as they perceived that they were increasingly neither valued nor seen as they aged. Whereas some reported that their experiences of widowhood and partner loss were downplayed or unacknowledged as their partnerships were not recognized, others encountered ageism in the LGBTQ+ spaces and relationships where they had previously felt included and valued. In this way, our findings are similar to past research, which points to an amplification of prejudice and discrimination in later life (Cronin & King, 2010) and underscores older LGBTQ+ persons’ invisibility and susceptibility to victimization (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2014; Lyons, 2021).

Previous research conducted primarily in the United States has investigated the prejudice and discrimination that older LGBTQ+ adults have experienced at various and typically finite points in their lives, both in interpersonal interactions (Averett et al., 2013; Boggs et al., 2017; Czaja et al., 2016; Gabrielson, 2011; Jenkins Morales et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2018; Kushner et al., 2013) and institutional settings (Averett et al., 2020; Boulé et al., 2020; Bower et al., 2021; Pang et al., 2019). Corroborating these findings in a Canadian context, we found that rather than being isolated to interpersonal relationships or institutional settings at specific places or moments in time, our participants had endured ubiquitous and frequently traumatizing prejudicial and discriminatory sentiments, practices, and policies across all life stages and contexts. These experiences of trauma and adversity are particularly noteworthy and concerning given Canada’s unique and purportedly inclusive and increasingly progressive socio-legal climate. Our findings highlight how their experiences of prejudice and discrimination were linked to multiple identities, including those related to age, gender, and sexuality, in patterned ways over time.

The literature has well documented that there are serious social and health consequences associated with being oppressed and victimized (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2014; Lampe et al., 2024; Lyons et al., 2021). Our findings similarly suggest that older LGBTQ+ Canadians have experienced emotional distress and trauma, loss of employment and housing, poor healthcare, and social losses and isolation. Our research indicates that, despite changing legislation and social norms, much work is needed to further combat prejudice and discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons in Canada. Moreover, our findings highlight that many older LGBTQ+ Canadians may come into later life with the legacy of past oppressions and mistreatment as well as vulnerability to and heightened fear of prejudice and discrimination as they grow older (Hurd & Li, 2024). Thus, health and social organizations need to be aware of and sensitive to the impacts of marginalization and oppression that many older LGBTQ+ persons have faced over the life course as a result of their ages, genders, and sexual identities, so that they can provide inclusive and gender-affirming care. Legislation, policies, and educational campaigns must directly challenge ageist, homophobic, and transphobic prejudice and discrimination across all sectors of society whilst also fostering and promoting social inclusion of all peoples. Those in positions of leadership and trust must become more responsive and courageous in speaking out and acting against hate, with the goal of enhancing the safety, inclusion, well-being, and quality of life of LGBTQ+ persons of all ages.

Limitations

Our study is limited in a number of ways. To begin, as a result of our recruitment strategies and use of a convenience sample, our participants were primarily White, university-educated, and middle class. The sample was also characterized by the disproportionate representation of certain identity groups, namely gay men and lesbian women, relative to others, including transgender (particularly transgender men), asexual, bisexual, and pansexual individuals. The sample did not include any gender nonbinary or two-spirit older adults. As a result, our participants’ stories of prejudice and discrimination may not be fully reflective of the diversity of Canada’s LGBTQ+ population. We further note that many of our participants’ social advantages with respect to their social class and race may have afforded them some protections from mistreatment and systemic exclusion over the life course. As such, future research should investigate the experiences of older LGBTQ+ persons who are racialized and/or of lower socioeconomic status as well as those who are immigrants or refugees to Canada. We also acknowledge the criticisms of amalgamating different sexual and gender identity groups given the distinct nuances of their varied histories and experiences, which may be muted and obscured as a result (Westwood 2020). That being said, we also note that different identity groups frequently converge, even as they are distinctive, and that, as Fredriksen Goldsen et al. (2019) have stated, it is important to attend to “the fluidity across identities as well as how they interact with each other” (p. 18) over time. Our nonheterosexual transgender participants in particular often did not cleanly fit into only one LGBTQ+ identity category, and, therefore, the analysis benefited from not considering any one group in isolation. Finally, we acknowledge that, despite our efforts to foster a sense of safety and rapport, our participants may not have felt comfortable fully disclosing their experiences of prejudice and discrimination over the life course.

Future Research

Future studies should examine the life course experiences of older LGBTQ+ Canadians who are ethnically diverse, of lower income, racialized, and/or immigrants and refugees as well as those who self-identify as pansexual or gender non-binary, whose voices also need to be amplified. Future research should also follow the example of the Aging with Pride: National Health, Aging, and Sexuality/Gender Study (Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2023) and examine the experiences of diverse older LGBTQ+ Canadians longitudinally.

Funding

This work was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Grant (#435-2017-0165).

Conflict of Interest

None.

Data Availability

The original data are not available to protect the privacy of participants. This study was not preregistered.