1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of SOGIE [sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression] conversion efforts, including their sociodemographic correlates, among LGBTQI2+ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, two-spirit] persons.» (p. 1)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Participants of this study needed to speak «French or English, [be] at least 18 years old, self-identify as LGBTQI2+, and live in the province of Quebec.» (p. 4) «The present paper is based on the data of the 3,261 respondents who provided information on their exposure to SOGIE conversion attempts or their involvement in SOGIE conversion services.» (p. 4)

Instruments :
Questionnaire

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

First, «[o]ver two-thirds of respondents identified family members as responsible for the SOGIE conversion attempts […].» (p. 9) Moreover, «[t]his study revealed that 4.4% of the sample used SOGIE conversion services, with higher prevalence rates among trans participants […]. The overall rate of conversion service involvement was close to those reported for Quebecois MSM [men who have sex with men] in the Canadian Sex Now survey […]. In the current study, conversion services involvement among transgender participants (6.3%) was lower than that reported in the US [United States] Transgender Survey […]. SOGIE modification attempts were far more prevalent than conversion services involvement in the current LGBTQI2+ sample (25%), particularly among trans participants who were about 7 times more likely to report so compared to cisgender participants. » (p. 14) Finally, «[b]oth SO [sexual orientation] and GIE [gender identity or expression] conversion attempts were more commonly reported by less educated and lower income participants, while SO conversion attempts more specifically were more common among those who were from more religious households and who were born outside Canada. These results confirm previous findings about the key role of geographical and socioeconomic factors in creating a social or family context that is hostile to sexual and gender diversity.» (p. 16)