1. Plenary session: Opportunities and challenges in public data gathering on LGBTI+ people in the Nordic countries

In recent years, more data than before has been collected on LGBTI+ people in the Nordic region. This creates new opportunities, such as developing survey and register data that better reflects diversity and strengthening collaboration between research institutions, non-governmental organizations and public authorities.

At the same time, there are challenges to address, including resistance from anti-gender movements, binary and heteronormative assumptions in questionnaires, and methodological and ethical questions.

Four keynote presentations from the seminar were streamed and were freely available for viewing by participants outside the seminar. The keynote session was chaired by Hanna Onwen-Huma Ministerial Adviser, Ministry for Social Affairs and Health, Finland.

1.1. Troubling histories and current pressures of public data gathering on LGBTI+ people

Jukka Lehtonen, Professor Adjunct (Title of docent) in Sociology of Education, University of Helsinki

Jukka Lehtonen spoke about the history of LGBTIQ+ related data gathering and its current pressures. He summarized the troubles in and possibilities of public data gathering as follows:

Troubles

Lack of acknowledgement of sexuality and gender diversity
Gender binary thinking (woman-man, female-male)
Cis- and gender-normativity:
sex=gender, biological
sex=legal gender=gender
identity=gender expression
Lack of focus on intersexuality or variations of sex characteristics
Heteronormative assumptions (partner in relationship, agent of sexual harassment)
Lack of acknowledgement of intersections of differences
Problematic question formulations and terminology
Lack of relevant questions and themes for LGBTIQ+ people
Lack of analysis and reporting from LGBTIQ+/sexuality and gender diversity and intersectional perspectives
Heteronormative and problematic interpretations in reporting

Possibilities

Public funding, on-going data gathering, systematic analysis and reporting: possibilities to develop the expertise and methodologies
Possibilities to gather large data (sometimes allows analysis on intersections and various groups)
Possibilities to generalize (large data, based on statistical register, possibilities to check response-rate)
Possibilities to compare (cis vs. trans, non-heterosexual vs heterosexual)
Possibilities to analyse change (same questions from year to year)
Scientific and political acceptance, seen as more neutral information than the one produced by NGOs or individual academic researchers
Possibilities to work together with NGOs, academics and neighbour organizations (inter)nationally

Jukka Lehtonen concluded his presentation with recommendations:

It is vital to gather data on LGBTIQ+ people to be able to get knowledge and information on their social situation, wellbeing and experiences of discrimination. This is needed to change their situation and advance equality in society. This kind of data gathering is the responsibility of the state, and state should demand this from all population surveys and also give resources for the analysis and reporting of the data from the viewpoints of gender and sexuality diversity.
It is a question of research quality and ethics that all respondents can take part to the population surveys without needing to lie about their gender and sexuality or to be misinterpreted in the analysis due to heteronormative survey questions or analysis. In the formulation of the questions on sexualities or gender identities of respondents and when abolishing heteronormative aspects from the questionnaires, it might be helpful to organize target group discussions, also with LGBTIQ+ people, and feedback opportunities to test and design the best possible questions and methods.
It is not enough to gather data. Often the biggest problem with the valuable data gathered through general population surveys and other public data gathering on gender and sexuality diversity is that it is not analysed and reported. Or that the analysis and interpretation of results are not carefully done and that the results are reported only marginally or in problematic ways. It will be vital to study both local and international research and also study qualitative research on the topics of the analysis to get a deeper idea on the context and explanation for the results. It would be relevant to discuss the results and the analysis related to sexuality and gender diversity with LGBTIQ+ people and activists as well as other key actors in society. This could raise the quality of the analysis and reporting, which would make the benefits for society and its citizens more likely.

1.2. Anti-gender politics and influencing: A threat to evidence based, interdisciplinary research on LGBTQI+ people

Julian Honkasalo, Ph.D., professor adjunct, Research Council of Finland senior research scholar at the University of Helsinki

Julian Honkasalo spoke about anti-gender politics and influencing and the threat it creates to the interdisciplinary research on LGBTIQ+ people.

The framing of gender mainstreaming as “gender-ideology”

“Anti-gender” mobilization is widely identified global phenomenon. “Anti-gender” means different kinds of oppositional movements that target equality and diversity. Anti-gender mobilizing targets evidence-based scientific research and confuses gender self-determination as a human right with personal choice. A related pseudo-concept is “Gender ideology”, which is framed as propaganda and indoctrination, is paralleled with extremism, and is used to create moral panic.

The targets of anti-gender mobilization in the public sector include academic programs and research funding of gender studies, migration studies, and intersectionality. Also, DEI (diversity, equality, inclusion) consulting in the private sector is under attack.

Using discourses of democratic grassroot mobilization and participation, “anti-gender” actors often depict and present themselves as defenders of freedom and democracy. “Gender” is a “symbolic glue” that ties together organizations and agents with contradicting interests, which has also been called “Gender populism”.

How does anti-gender influencing operate

Examples include

False arguments, misrepresentation of gender equality, reproductive justice, The Istanbul Convention, feminism in general.
Mimicking and mirroring.
Defaming, smear campaigns, making academic gender studies scholars seem as not credible (ad hominem), as pseudo-science.
Threats and intimidation, harassment, lawsuits.
Accusations of “gender ideology”, indoctrination, etc.
Targeting also research funding agencies.
Doxxing (distribution of personal information online without permission and with the intent to harm).

AI produces new challenges by using deep fake technology in addition to bot factories and trolling. In anti-gender influencing, gender equality, diversity and human rights is mirrored back as:

Gender-ideology, genderism, wokeism.
Unscientific dogma, indoctrination.
Elitism and moral corruption.
Extremism, “gone too far”, corrupting and endangering children (compare to older, historical forms of gay panic) or the history of “hereticism”.
Gender ideology → trans ideology, violent extremism, terrorism (Russia, USA).

Anti-trans-medicine medical and litigation groups are also (mis)using Nordic research in their claims.

Key takeaways

We need much more focus on tracing techniques of legal, but very harmful forms of foreign influence on Nordic values and the scientific facts, rather than simply focusing on the concept of “hate speech”, which is a legal grey area problem and puts us directly into a ”free speech vs. hate speech” debate.
More research on effective data collection for ways of preventing and countering anti-trans medical expertise and litigation as well as their connection to much broader anti-gender politics and push-back.
Broader definition of “violence” as an analytical and theoretical tool. Compare to research on domestic violence/gender-based violence.
Strong Nordic collaboration: Sharing of knowledge, best practices, protection of equality and diversity policy and implementation.

1.3. Nordic challenge: Youth and elderly participation in public data gathering on LGBTI+ people

Janne Bromseth, Ph.D., senior researcher from the Eastern Norway Research Institute at the University of Inland Norway

Janne Bromseth spoke about youth and elderly participation in public data gathering on LGBTI+ people.

Age and generation are intertwined in relation to gender and sexuality. People have grown up under different societal conditions, which has affected their basic human rights and exposure to negative attitudes, discrimination and violence. Regardless of the generation, they may have come out in different times and ages. Despite its importance, there is far less research on older LGBTI-people’s health and life conditions than there are on young people.

The presentation focused on studies on elderly LGBTI+ people based on a recent literature review of studies conducted in Nordic countries. Of the 38 identified publications, the majority were from Sweden. Norway and Denmark were also well represented, while there were only two publications from Finland, one from Åland, and none from Iceland, The Faroe Islands or Greenland.

The themes of the studies included:

Experiences of discrimination during their lifetime
Health
- Mental and physical well-being: general patterns
- Sexual health
- Ageing with HIV
Encounters with healthcare and social care
- Previous experiences of healthcare: (hetero)normativity and ignorance
- Apprehensions about and experiences of eldercare
Relationships, networks and LGBTI contexts
- LGBTI relationships: general patterns
- Chosen (and not chosen) families
- LGBTI contexts and community

Older LGBTIQ+ adults have often been hard to reach and obtain sufficient sample size using probability sampling. This has sometimes been dealt with by a problematic solution of combining diverse groups of sexual orientation and gender identity as one group. As an alternative, it is possible to combine several survey rounds to achieve sufficient sample size.

Based on the review, the following recommendations were made:

Include questions on sexuality and – in particular – gender identity in public health surveys
Must be supplemented with targeted studies where LGBTIQ+-older adults are recruited specifically
More knowledge on subgroups and differences among older LGBTIQ+ people is needed (e.g., intersex, POC and those with migration experiences, people living with HIV), and how for example geographical situatedness, class, health and community participation matters for experiences of ageing
Research is needed on experiences in care services for older people among LGBTIQ+ people
More research from Finland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland is needed
Creative methodological efforts: Learn from each other and from LGBTIQ+ people on how to target

1.4. Transgender lives at the population level – evidence from Danish administrative data

Jane Greve, Professor and deputy head, The Danish Center for Social Science Research (VIVE)

Jane Greve presented a study on trans individuals’ socioeconomic situation that compared three methods of identifying the population. The ‘self-identified’ trans population (N=197) was based on questions on gender identity in the 2020 wave of the Survey of Health, Impairment and Living Conditions (SHILD). The ‘medical’ trans population (N=1,594) was based on all health care visits with gender identity-related diagnostic codes. The ‘legal’ trans population (N=1,995) was based on legal gender recognition.

Of the ‘medical’ trans population, 54.5% belonged to the ‘legal’ trans population, while 41.0% of people in the ‘legal’ trans population also belonged to the ‘medical’ trans population. Of the ‘self-identified’ trans population, 3.9% had medical visits with gender identity-related diagnostic codes and 5.7% belonged to the ‘legal’ trans population.

Trans people belonging to the ‘medical’ and ‘legal’ groups were considerably younger than the self-identified population and the general population. Their level of education was also lower.

Trans people belonging to the ‘medical’ and ‘legal’ groups were less often employed than the self-identified population and the general population, and their mean annual income was lower. The self-identified survey population showed no major socioeconomic differences with the other general population participants.

Therefore, relying only on survey measures of trans identity may underestimate disadvantages experienced by trans people who have made legal transition and/or attended medical services.