Housing Insecurity and Disparities Among Gender Minorities in Canada: Evidence From a National Census
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Housing is a key social determinant of health, yet research on disparities among transgender and gender-diverse people has relied on convenience or targeted samples, leaving population-representative evidence absent. To the authors' knowledge, this study provides the first population-based assessment of housing inequities for cisgender-, transgender-, and nonbinary-led households in Canada. METHODS: This study utilized data from the 2021 Canadian Long Form Census, focusing on primary household maintainers aged ≥15 years. Gender identity was derived from sex at birth and gender identity questions, disaggregating cisgender, transgender men, transgender women, nonbinary assigned male at birth, and nonbinary assigned female at birth households. Outcomes included core housing need (unaffordable, inadequate, or unsuitable housing) and each component separately. Logistic regression models estimated ORs and predicted probabilities, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and regional covariates. Subgroup analyses examined heterogeneity by age, living arrangement, and tenure. RESULTS: Cisgender men-led households had the lowest probability of core housing need (8.0%), compared with higher risks among cisgender women (12.8%), transgender women (21.2%), nonbinary assigned female at birth (21.2%), nonbinary assigned male at birth (19.4%), and transgender men (16.5%). Fully adjusted models showed elevated odds for transgender women (OR=1.32, 95% CI=1.15, 1.51), nonbinary assigned male at birth individuals (OR=1.30, 95% CI=1.12, 1.51), and nonbinary assigned female at birth individuals (OR=1.55, 95% CI=1.41, 1.72) households relative to those for cisgender men. Disparities were largest among youth, renters, and households with multiple people. CONCLUSIONS: Transgender and gender-diverse-led households face systematic and significant housing disadvantages in Canada. Addressing these inequities requires embedding gender identity in housing policy, enforcing antidiscrimination protections, and expanding affordable and supportive housing tailored to transgender and gender-diverse populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".