Identity Collision: Older Gay Men Using Technology

This study examines identity work among older gay men in relation to Information and Communication Technology (ICT). It draws on the notion of IT identity—the extent to which individuals experience technology as integral to their sense of selves—to explore how their homosexuality and advanced age shape their relationships with technology. Applying thematic analysis to 17 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with gay male users aged 66–81, we show that while homosexuality and technology enable and reinforce one another, the relationship between technology and advanced age can be better deﬁned by alienation and estrangement. Consequently, we argue that technology constitutes a crossroads at which the gay and elder identities intersect and collide. In this sense, technology is similar to other cultural constructs, like sexuality, that challenge the merger of advanced age and homosexuality, rendering the older gay identity almost impossible.

marginalized groups use technology to improve their lives. Although aging gays face unique challenges because of the combination of their age and sexuality, the potential role of technology in coping with these challenges has escaped scholarly attention so far. Similarly, many scholars studied identity work among senior citizens (e.g., Biggs, 1997;Cook, 2018) or examined how gay people, usually adolescents, negotiate their queer identities from a psychological point of view (Rust, 2003). However, research about identity work among older gays is rare and the studies available are limited in scope (Rosenfeld, 1999 is a notable exception).
This study addresses these gaps by exploring the interplay among homosexuality, advanced age, and technology. It examines identity work among aging gay men and inquires about identity negotiation in relation to new technologies.

Theoretical framework
Gay men and older people's offline and online experiences Over the past 40 years, acceptance of gay people has increased steadily in Western countries (Flores, 2019). Nevertheless, gay men still experience exclusion, discrimination, and unfair treatment leading to negative mental health outcomes (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012;Meyer, 1995). In contrast to such offline challenges, mediated online environments are typically easier to control and maneuver and thus experienced by gay men as safe places to participate, explore and communicate with others (Lucero, 2017).
Alienation within the gay community might be particularly detrimental given the importance of emotional support. Social and family support is important for older people in general, as they constantly face new challenges related to their advanced age (Litwin, 1996). Such support is even more crucial for aging gay men because it mitigates the impact of double stigmatization (Grossman et al., 2000). However, many of them lack a sufficient supportive network because they rarely have children (Hash, 2001) and are likely to have eliminated homophobic friends and family members from their networks (Grossman et al., 2000).
Similar to younger persons, older people regardless of their sexual orientation go online, inter alia, to compensate for offline challenges (Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018). Parallel to the ongoing increase in Internet use rates among older people residing in Western countries (Schumacher & Kent, 2020), studies demonstrate positive associations between ICT use and subjective wellbeing in later life, and some even prove causality (Damant, Knapp, Freddolino, & Lombard, 2017). These studies suggest that ICT use is most beneficial when it fosters social engagement (Szabo, Allen, Stephens, & Alpass, 2018) and when the purpose of use is recreational (Lifshitz, Nimrod, & Bachner, 2018). However, its positive effects are not equally available to older users due to disparities in frequency, type and complexity of use (Nimrod, 2017;Quan-Haase, Williams, Kicevski, Elueze, & Wellman, 2018). Factors explaining age-related digital divides include technical issues (e.g., costs and lack of knowledge), physical limitations, cognitive impairments, environmental conditions, and psychological constraints (Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018).
As the above literature indicates, many studies have examined ICT use among gay men and among older people. The rich literature about older gay men, however, has been focusing on physical and mental health challenges (Choi & Meyer, 2016;Fenkl, 2012), largely ignoring the role of ICT in aging gay men's realities, despite its documented contribution to older users at large.
Contrarily, a growing number of studies about aging gay men address identity issues in various contexts. These studies depict the older gay identity as an impossible combination, because "seniors are not sexual and homosexuals are, by definition, only sexual." Therefore, in our cultural imagination, "a senior cannot also be a homosexual nor can a homosexual also be a senior" (Knauer, 2016, p. 55). One result of such identity collision is that many older gay men refrain from self-identification as different or queer (Fox, 2007).
Below, we elaborate on identity work, technology, and IT identity, laying a theoretical foundation for the claim that ICTs further challenge the merging of gay and elder identities.

What is identity? Approaches, definitions, and characteristics
The notion of identity has received considerable attention in the social sciences, generating an abundance of definitions, theories and approaches (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Most scholars define identity in a general sense as the answer to the question "Who am I?" with regard to social categories or objects (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). Watson (2008) offers a cultural-discursive approach rooted in social construction, defining personal identities as people's notion of who and what they are and social identities as cultural, discursive or institutional notions of who and what they could or should be. Through identity work, individuals bridge between these elements of internal personal selfidentity and external discursive social identity.
Social constructionist approaches suggest that the answer to "Who am I?" is the result of a dynamic and continuous contextual process, shaped by interactions and discourses and involving constant hierarchization of sub-identities (Adams & Crafford, 2012;Musson & Duberley, 2007;Stets & Burke, 2003). Four elements of this definition are particularly pertinent to this study: First, identities are innately social because people yearn to be part of something greater than themselves (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). Moreover, they are shaped by interactions that provide "competing bases of identification" (Knights & McCabe, 2003, p. 1589. In this study, we show that homosexuality and advanced age are distinct bases through which older gay users negotiate their identities in relation to technology. Second, drawing on Watson (2008), we stress the importance of discourses and narratives for identity work (see also Kornberger & Brown, 2007). As Musson and Duberley (2007) put it, identity is "a continuous casting and recasting of our 'selves' through discursive practice" (pp. 146-147). Consequently, we assume that individuals negotiate the "Who am I?" question not only with regard to categories and objects (e.g., older people and technology, respectively) but also in relation to the ways people talk about them (e.g., how they portray and rationalize linkage between technology and advanced age).
Third, people negotiate their identities in relation to and within different and sometimes contradicting contexts, such as family and work. As such, identity work is highly contextual (Adams & Crafford, 2012). Continuing along this path, we arrive at the fourth and final major definition component, declaring that people develop and maintain several identities (Stets & Burke, 2003) that they arrange hierarchically and present strategically according to specific goals and contexts (Stets & Biga, 2003).
In this study, we view technology as a context whereby participants shape and hierarchize their gay and elder identities. Merging the above four elements, we understand age and sexuality as two distinct sources of identification that older gay users negotiate, manipulate, and hierarchize according to the manner in which they and other people perceive and discuss technology.

Identity work, technology, and IT identity
Identity work is a process of identity creation, regulation, negotiation and modification (Adams & Crafford, 2012) that often involves conflict and unrest. In Watson's words, "identities, or subjectivities, are caught up in contradictions and struggles, tension, fragmentation and discord" (Watson, 2008, p. 124). Consequently, identity work warrants a constant balance between the self and external constraints and demands (Adams & Crafford, 2012). Individuals achieve balance and resolution by developing different creative identity work strategies (Dittmar, 2011;Snow & Anderson, 1987).
An increasing number of studies, fueled by the growing importance of ICTs in our everyday routines, are focusing on technology as a reference point for identity negotiation (Lamb & Davidson, 2005;Whitley, Gal, & Kjaergaard, 2014). These studies usually draw on Goffman's approach, according to which individuals develop and negotiate their identities and then use various resources, including technological artifacts, to present themselves to others (Goffman, 1959). Carter and Grover (2015) coined the term "Information Technology (IT) identity," defined as "the extent to which an individual views use of an IT as integral to his or her sense of self" (p. 932). A strong IT identity represents positive identification, meaning that use of a particular technology is integral to one's sense of self, while a weak one represents neutral disidentification, asserting that such technology use is unrelated to one's sense of self.
While Carter and Grover's construct commonly refers to a particular IT, they expanded this narrow definition in two different ways. First, they differentiated between different levels of ITs, pointing out that IT can be anything from "operating system (e.g., Android)" to "infrastructure (e.g., a network)" (p. 942). Second, they explained that people may maintain a more general IT identity that reflects "identification with IT across multiple devices, application environments, and software applications" (p. 942). As we will demonstrate throughout the analysis, participants in this study used different devices as "Internet devices" and tended to discuss the Internet as one concept regardless of the device they had used to access it. This tendency was documented in many studies about older ICT users (see Hargittai & Dobransky, 2017;Nimrod, 2020). Accordingly, this study addresses participants' general IT identity that is built around an array of networked devices.
The strength of one's IT identity can be assessed according to three interrelated dimensions: Relatedness, emotional energy, and dependence. Relatedness represents a sense of connection with IT. Individuals who view IT as integral to their sense of self are likely to express a stronger sense of connection and to experience blurred boundaries between the self and technology than will those who feel that IT is unrelated to who they are. Emotional energy refers to enduring feelings of emotional attachment, confidence, and enthusiasm towards technology, as contrasted with feelings of boredom, while dependence addresses one's sense of reliance on technology, such as the Internet (for work purposes, contact with family and friends and the like). We focus on this conceptualization to inquire whether and to what extent older gay users experience technology as integral or unrelated to their sense of selves with respect to the above three dimensions and in relation to their homosexuality and advanced age.

Research methods
We looked into older gay users' identity work by applying thematic analysis to 17 semi-structured, indepth interviews with participants aged 66-81 (mean ¼ 73).

Sampling and sample
In accordance with common definitions of advanced age (Harley & Teaster, 2015;Kimmel et al., 2006), our quest focused on self-identifying gays aged 65 and above. Most participants were recruited through three social groups that meet weekly in LGBTQþ centers located in Israel. Fewer responded to our Facebook posts and the remainder were recruited through snowball sampling.
Seven of the 17 participants were native-born and the others immigrated to Israel at a young age. Ten were divorced, nine had children, six were single and four were in relationships (of whom two were married to men). Four of the single participants never married and three were living with their wives (married or separated). Three participants had secondary education, ten held BA or MA degrees and four had PhDs. Nine were completely out of the closet, four disclosed their homosexuality to some people, three were out to specific friends or family members and one was completely closeted.

Semi-structured interviews
In-depth, semi-structured interviews are a data collection strategy designed to inform the interviewer of participants' subjective experiences and perspectives regarding a particular topic (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). They are conversational and informal in tone, aiming at achievement of an open and intimate atmosphere in which both sides feel comfortable asking, responding and commenting about issues initially raised by the interviewer (Longhurst, 2010).
Interviews took place at participants' homes, public parks, or cafés, according to participants' preferences. We explained the study and its overall goals and asked them to sign an informed consent form that we read aloud and explained in detail. Interviews included predetermined open questions referring to ICT use that we could modify or replace according to participants' responses. The interviews lasted between one and two hours (mean ¼ 1:37) and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Each participant was given a $20 gift card at the end of the interview.

Reflexive thematic analysis
Thematic analysis is an umbrella term referring to different approaches aimed at identifying, organizing and gaining insights into patterns ("themes") across qualitative data sets (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Here, we used reflexive thematic analysis, a systematic approach consisting of six phases (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012. Familiarization refers to the initial search for interesting features, options and connections that might add depth to later coding. Practically, it means reading and rereading the data while noting casual ideas shaped by research questions. Generating codes marks a more detailed and systematic engagement with the data in which the researcher attaches clear labels to different units, thus identifying initial meaning throughout the data set. We use inductive coding, a bottom-up strategy in which the analytic process originates in the data. This strategy does not nullify the researcher's existing knowledge but suggests that data should constitute the starting point for analysis. Constructing themes refers to a process in which similar codes are merged into coherent arrays of meaning that illuminate a particular part of the data set. When a single code appears to represent a significant pattern across the data set, it becomes a theme. In the next two phases, reviewing and defining themes, the researcher "tests" existing themes against the research questions and refines their boundaries by providing clear definitions and names. The final phase, producing the report, is intended "to tell the complicated story of your data in a way which convinces the reader of the merit and validity of your analysis" (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 93).
Reflexive thematic analysis is open and inductive, yet informed by a research question that draws on a theoretical framework. As such, the succeeding Analysis and Findings section delineates the interplay among homosexuality, advanced age, and technology through the lens of identity work, showing that homosexuality and advanced age function as two distinct contexts in which the strength of a participant's IT identity changes. As we do not test a preconceived hypothesis (i.e., deductive analysis), the quotes presented in this section are not organized and examined according to the three dimensions of IT identity (relatedness, emotional energy, and dependence). Instead, the findings tell the story of the data using identity work concepts and ideas, while the concluding discussion demonstrates how this story coincides with IT identity's three dimensions.

Technology and homosexuality: mutual reinforcement
Homosexuality and technology are interrelated in the sense that they enable and reinforce one another, as manifested in the ways in which participants understand and evaluate the role of technology both in relation to their pasts and to their current use.
Technology's potential role in the participants' "heterosexual" past The primary link between technology and homosexuality resides in the participants' past experiences as closeted husbands and fathers and their current beliefs about the potential role that technology could have played in these experiences. Many participants referred to this period as a "fake heterosexual phase," describing it in terms of denial, repression, lies and unfulfillment: "I completely denied my homosexuality; it came up occasionally but I kept repressing it" (Mor, 70); "After my first homosexual encounter, I got treatment to get rid of it, to be normal, to be fixed. I was fixed enough to (. . .) get married and had OK sex for 35 years" (Shachar, 71).
Along with self-denial and repression, other participants referred to the frustration originating in long-term concealment. Alon (69), who remained married for 18 years after his first homosexual experience, said: When you're not a habitual liar but end up lying, it's (. . .) extremely difficult and constitutes a heavy burden. I was living this lie for many years (. . .) but knew that my wife (. . .) would never accept it (. . .). Hiding it was like a cancer (. . .) it grows until you cannot stand it any longer. For many participants, prolonged denial, repression, lies and concealment have resulted in strong feelings of a lack of fulfillment that eventually prompted their coming out: "Our relationship became difficult and complex (. . .) and you finally understand that you only live once. After 28 years, I felt that I couldn't hide it anymore and dropped the bomb (. . .) It was a real bomb" (Harel, 66). Recurrent manifestations of the lack of fulfillment and the loss shared by many participants suggest that the past heterosexual phase is still ingrained in their realities and selves. For example, Meir's (80) reply to our question "How satisfied are you with your life?" was: "Only when living with a man, maintaining a real household (. . .) I look to the past and realize that I've missed this part. Even up to the last day of my life, I will not have fulfilled it to the fullest." The past heterosexual phase is the largest analytical category in this study, suggesting that the content represented by this category is central to participants' life stories. As the following quotes suggest, it is this prism through which they evaluate technology and the ways it might have obviated years of frustration: "I was interested in men but didn't realize it or know anything about it. Who's gay? What's gay? It was underdeveloped. There was no Internet back then." This citation from Alon (69) represents a discursive pattern whereby participants presuppose a causal link between the absence of the Internet and unawareness of their homosexuality.
Relating to a later period, as a married man, he continued: "Since 2000, I have been maintaining a library of photos and video clips that I downloaded for sexual stimulation. They excited me because I had nothing else. My sexual desire was this folder. That's all I had." Similarly, Sharav (79) shared: "I felt my homosexuality but didn't do anything until I was 30 because I wasn't into cruising in public parks (. . .) That's all we had back then (. . .) We had no computers or Internet with the options that we have today." While Alon links his early unawareness of his homosexuality to the lack of Internet, he perceives the computer and Internet as the only refuge where he could live out his hidden sexual desire during his marriage, as did Sharav. This disparity emphasizes the perceived importance of technology as a means of raising awareness of homosexuality and enabling its fulfillment in situations in which it would have been largely impossible otherwise.
In other words, many participants envisage the potential contribution of technology vis-à-vis the frustrating heterosexual phase characterized by repression and unfulfillment, thus constructing technology as a means that supports and even enables homosexuality. The next section suggests that technology not only embodies a potential contribution, as imagined by participants, but also plays a central and concrete role in their current everyday lives as gay users.
Technology's concrete contribution to participants' gay realities As we mentioned earlier, studies suggest that gay users find it safer and more convenient to negotiate their identities and to participate, explore and communicate with others online. Overcoming offline barriers through online platforms explains why Internet use is more prevalent among gay users than among heterosexuals (Lever, Grov, Royce, & Gillespie, 2008). Consequently, it is not surprising that all participants have connected smartphones and desktop computers or laptops and one third also own tablets. All use these devices for email, online news, and WhatsApp; the vast majority also use Facebook (15), dating websites/apps (15) and Skype (9), while only a few use Instagram/Twitter (2).
The relatively extensive use of ICT by gay users, including our participants, rationalizes the mutual relationship between homosexuality and technology and explains their mutual reinforcement. Findings suggest that participants' homosexuality is manifested in their ICT use in different contexts. Below we demonstrate how homosexuality encourages technology and vice versa in two contexts: Online dating and concealment through technology.
Just like among their younger counterparts (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012), online dating is particularly important for older gay users. While heterosexual affection and desire are considered acceptable and normal, gays are encouraged to hide their sexuality to the extent that "everyday space is experienced as aggressively heterosexual" (Hubbard, 2000, p. 191). The default status of heterosexualitythe presumption that one is straight until proven gay-expropriates public space from nonheterosexuals, rendering online dating services an attractive and possibly even exclusive option. It is thus hardly surprising that gays are more likely than heterosexuals to meet others offline, have sex or establish long-term relationships through online dating services (Lever et al., 2008).
The interviews affirm how important online dating services are to gay users. Fifteen out of 17 participants use at least two online dating platforms daily, ten have set a dating website as their homepage and-most importantly-the topic was qualitatively salient in most interviews, with some participants stating explicitly that they "couldn't imagine their everyday routines without Atraf" [a local dating site/app] (Daniel, 76) or "have become addicted to the sound of incoming dick pics in Grindr" (Oren, 68). The centrality of online dating in participants' lives demonstrates that their homosexuality encourages use of technology, that in turn enables them to live out their homosexual lives.
The interviews suggest that participants who were still closeted to some extent have developed strategies of concealment through technology, but at the same time use technology to live out some aspects of their gay identity in a limited and somewhat restricted manner. Three participants maintain two different smartphones: One for work and the other for "personal use." They clarified that such separation aims at keeping things private. Two other participants said that they never go online using their real names unless they are chatting with family members. Horev (69), who is completely closeted, said that he locks his laptop with a password and uses it only in bed, even though he lives alone and never takes his laptop out of the house. When we asked if anyone else uses his laptop, he replied: "No, but I lock it with a password, you know, just in case I'm ill, to make sure no one has access to it." When we asked Dani (81) whether and how often he looks for online content but is unable to access it by himself, he replied that occasionally he wants "to download something (. . .) but cannot do it" because he is "too old for such things." He added: "I can't ask my daughter for help because I keep family out of this area." Dani also described the last time his computer stopped working when he "had to call a technician although she [his daughter] could have fixed it in seconds (. . .) because (. . .) Boom! Just like that, she might suddenly see something she's not supposed to see." These quotes demonstrate how technology is involved in a culture of concealment. At first glance, one might interpret the role of technology as one that hinders homosexuality, but technology-based concealment encapsulates the mutual reinforcement of technology and homosexuality, wherein participants' gayness-closeted gayness in this case-not only encourages use of technology but is also enabled by it. In other words, similar to younger gay men (Marciano, 2011), in circumstances in which homosexuality is illegitimate or experienced as such, technology is used to manipulate conditions, allowing closeted older gay users to live out some of their sexuality.

Technology and advanced age: alienation and estrangement
When the context of use is not gay-oriented, participants' relationship with technology shifts, suggesting that advanced age per se is somewhat estranged from technology. The alienated relationship between them is manifested in three principal patterns that we call ageist paternalism, generation gap construction and a traditional view of new technologies.

Technology-based ageist paternalism
Ageist paternalism refers to recurrent messages conveyed to older users by their close social environment, usually younger family members, indicating that senior citizens are "not technologically-minded." These messages reflect the well-documented age-related digital divides (Nimrod, 2017;Quan-Haase et al., 2018) and emphasize their status as digital immigrants who perceive younger users as authoritative guides who should be heard and followed.
One common manifestation of ageist paternalism is the case of young people compelling their older fathers to register with Facebook and encouraging a particular type of use that does not interest their senior progenitors. For example, Sa'ar, who created a Facebook profile because his daughter "forced him to," explained that he does not "understand the platform or see the point in it" and when he does use it, he prefers to "scan the feed and read other people's stuff." Yet his daughter insists that to make the most out of it, he needs to be actively engaged (e.g., by posting).
Shachar (71) shared a similar story: "My daughter told me 'Dad, I'm bringing a new smart TV.' I told her 'Don't! I don't want or need it!' but she insisted." He admits that although it has been six months since she bought the smart TV, he never used it because "I would rather sit on the sofa with coffee and a book, or go out with friends. I'm not bored." In both these cases and several others, young people advise their fathers about which technology to use and how to use it. Note that the issue is not only about technical assistance but primarily involves telling fathers what their needs and interests are when it comes to interaction with technology.
A more extreme manifestation of ageist paternalism is impatient and even rude responses to older users' technological ineptness, which evoke feelings of shame and even fear. Four participants expressed such experiences at different levels. Ido (81) explained: My nephew (. . .) can be very offensive. When I have a problem, he might say something like "Are you stupid? Don't you know anything? You're this, you're that (. . .)" Sometimes I tell myself: Fuck it! I'll just go and ask him, but I'm also afraid to raise the issue because he might insult me again.
Such incidents intensify older users' sense of inferiority and the gap between old and young, as they reflect inverted power relations in which a technologically adept youngster tells an older user what to do. The legitimacy to "dictate' elders explain the above cases in which young users ignore fathers' needs and interests regarding technology use. We understand such cases in light of Jenkins' comments, according to which "identities exist and are acquired, claimed and allocated within power relations" (Jenkins, 2014, p. 47).

Constructing a deterministic generation gap
Internalizing the paternalist approach, participants presuppose a deterministic and naturally constructed generation gap with respect to technology-one that always involves mentioning their own age and comparing their technological incompetence with younger users' prowess. Responding to our question "How do you use the Internet?" Mor (70) replied: "I'm constantly on the Internet (. . .) It makes me feel good to know that I'm not behaving like others my age." However, when we asked Mor about the first time he ever used a smartphone, he answered: "I didn't grasp everything (. . .) When I stand close to a 16-year-old guy, I can see how slow I am compared to him." Mor assumes that different age groups use the Internet differently, presenting a normative approach according to which a particular pattern of use links him with the "right" group. While he indicates that he uses the Internet extensively, he seems to be confused about his technological ability. His evaluation and construction of his perceived technological incompetence vis-à-vis an imaginary 16year-old attests to the importance he ascribes to the generation gap and illuminates his understanding of the relationship between technology and advanced age.
Alon (69) said: "Technology is my weakest side (. . .) It's not for me. Everything related to Internet and technology is simply not for me." Alon explains that when he uses PowerPoint and wants a photo to pop up after the text, he usually gives up and asks his "young daughter-in-law" for help "because it's technological and I'm not there (. . .) I don't want to get into trouble or take risks." Alon used the expression "because it's technological" as a closed and deterministic explanation of his difficulty, assuming that technology itself is a reason that warrants no further explanation. Technology is an artifact, a device; using it as an adjective without a following noun to describe a tendency or a habit implies that technology has inherent features, such as complexity and obscurity, which in turn rationalizes discussion of technology in terms of trouble and risk. Like Mor (70), who differentiates between age groups based on their relations with technology, Alon assumes that one can be technological or not and while his young daughter-in-law belongs to the technological realm, he is simply "not there." Such quotes show that participants rarely refer to the concrete difficulties of adopting technological innovations, to particular cases in which they failed to use a device or to reasons for their perceived incompetence. Alternatively, they presume generational differences and rely on a deterministic construct wherein technology belongs to the young, portraying the relationship between advanced age and technology through this prism. This suggest that age-related digital divides (Nimrod, 2017;Quan-Haase et al., 2018) are reflected not only in actual use but also in users' self-perception.

Traditional view of new technologies
The third pattern suggests that participants take a cautious approach to new technologies, viewing them as extrinsic, functional means that should be used in specific contexts. This conservative view implies that new technologies have not been fully assimilated in older users' everyday lives, thus supporting previous findings regarding constraints to ICT use among older adults (Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018).
When we asked participants if they met (non-romantic) friends online, Dani replied: "One or two, but it's not my style. I prefer meeting people in the flesh." Similarly, Harel (66) replied: "my first acquaintances were online (. . .) but we quickly shifted to the phone. Why stay online? Good friends should be on the phone. I need communication." We also asked participants to rank their media in descending order of importance. Mor (70) explained that his cell phone is much more important than his computer because "the cell phone connects you to the world. It can make calls; the computer can't." When we commented that computers also allow calls, he replied that it's not the same. Responding to our question "What is the place of the Internet in your life?" Ido (81) replied: "It keeps me busy for a few hours." We also asked how he would feel if the computer were taken from him. He replied: "I use it a lot to call my family abroad, but I have a monthly hundred-minutes-free plan with my mobile service provider, so not having Internet wouldn't be a big deal." These quotes and many others point to a salient pattern according to which participants use new technologies extensively but do not perceive them as necessary. Their cautious approach is reflected in making a traditional, even normative ("it's not my style," "good friends should be [. . .]") distinction between online and offline environments, assuming that online is separate from and parallel to offline rather than their being mutually complementary. Additionally, they present a functional and suspicious view of new media while remaining loyal to older media. Claims that online connection does not allow communication or is not equal to traditional phone calls suggest that their use of new technologies is contextual and limited. Ido's functional approach implies that the Internet does not have a significant role beyond communication with family members. These quotes stand in a sharp contrast to the ways in which participants depicted the place of new technologies in their lives when they referred to their homosexuality.
This alienated view of new technologies coincides with participants' negative approach to specific platforms and their use of emotional-judgmental words to explain it. For example: "I don't like Facebook and I'm not crazy about Skype either" (Dani); "I hate Facebook. Facebook is crazy" (Harel, 66); "I don't like Facebook. I can't quit because my family uses only Facebook, but I hate it" (Matan, 74); "I don't like the whole (. . .) what's called social media" (Pinchas, 75).
Repetitions of the word "like"-particularly in contrast to statements in which the participants say they hate Facebook-point to an explicitly judgmental approach to these platforms. Participants' explanations of why they hate these platforms further illuminate their relationships with technology. Harel explains that he hates Facebook because "it tries to be too many things at the same time, news, dating, sales, everything has a Facebook page, it blurs the boundaries too much for me." Matan (74) says that Facebook "constantly coerces you into stuff (. . .) like suggesting who you should be friends with." Pinchas (75) adds: "I don't know if it has to do with my age or habits, but when I use new software, I want the manual. I need to hold it in my hands, a book that explains how to work with it." These quotes suggest that participants hate these platforms because they do not comply with old definitions and habits: They do not fall into any traditional old media category or come with a structured manual that explains how to use them. Moreover, the "agentization" of Facebook ("it tries," "it coerces you," and "Facebook is crazy") suggests that the participants view new technology as an active agent, supporting its perception as an external, unearthly force that is estranged from their everyday routines.
While the (older) gay user embraces technology as a means that could have influenced his unique past circumstances and experiences and is currently contributing to his everyday life, he internalizes his status as a digital immigrant, consequently constructing his technological ineptness as natural and deterministic. While technology and homosexuality reinforce one another, the relationship between technology and advanced age can be better defined by alienation and estrangement.

Conclusion
Our findings suggest that new technologies are a crossroads where the gay and old identities intersect and collide. They demonstrate that older gay users have strong IT identity (Carter & Grover, 2015) when they use, talk and think about technology in relation to their homosexuality and a weak IT identity when their advanced age is at stake. In other words, the impossible combination of homosexuality and advanced age (Fenkl, 2012) appears to be maintained and even intensified by technology use. These identity components function as two contradicting contexts wherein the extent to which older gay users experience new technologies as integral or unrelated to their respective selves and realities vary significantly. This observation does not deny aging gay men's intersectional experiences, but rather suggests that their gay and old identities coexist with discord and unrest in regard to technology use, thus illuminating one more aspect of their unique experience.
The first part of the findings suggested that homosexuality and technology enable and reinforce one another for two reasons: (a) Participants imagine how technology could have raised awareness and enabled fulfillment of their sexuality had it been present during their youth and early adulthood; and (b) technology plays an important role in their current everyday lives as older gays.
Findings presented in this part reflect all three dimensions of the participants' IT identity, namely relatedness, emotional energy and dependence (Carter & Grover, 2015). For example, participants' portrayal of technology as allowing them to do what was previously perceived as impossible demonstrates their dependence and reliance on technology in their deepest sense. It also reflects relatedness, that Carter and Grover (2015) define as the extent to which the "who I am" is related to "what I do" with technology. Alon's secret folder of photos and videos, for example, appeared to define and partly comprise who he was, particularly during his closeted phase.
Participants' statements that they cannot imagine their lives without dating apps and that they are addicted to the sound of incoming messages obviously support previous research on gays' use of dating services (Lever et al., 2008) and reflect their dependence on technology. Furthermore, they attest to the older gays' emotional energy, embodying attachment to and enthusiasm about technology. Similarly, development and use of technological strategies to conceal homosexuality, manipulate external constraints, and live out their sexuality, even if only partially, reflect participants' reliance on technology. Use of these strategies also suggests that who they are is highly interwoven with what they do with technology (relatedness), as they use it to maintain and fulfill a core aspect of their identity.
This part of the analysis generally shows that older gay users relate to ICTs, depend on them and are enthusiastic about the benefits and opportunities they offer. As such, the findings attest to the important role of technology in their homosexual experiences and selves. They apply technology as a means of identity work (Adams & Crafford, 2012;Watson, 2008), through which they actualize elements of internal-personal self-identity, often while protecting and maintaining their external, discursive social identity.
The next phase of analysis showed that older gay users' relationships with technology shift when their age supplants their sexuality as the primary context. They internalize their status as digital immigrants and construct their technological ineptness as natural and deterministic to the extent that they experience technology as alienated and estranged.
The pattern that we called technology-based ageist paternalism consists of two components that together point to participants' low emotional energy in relation to new technologies. First, we showed that young family members tell their fathers which technologies they should use and how, while their fathers are clearly uninterested in these technologies or at least indifferent to them. Fathers' attitudes towards these technologies point to their low emotional energy because they reflect "little emotion, or perhaps boredom, at the prospect of interacting with IT" (Carter & Grover, 2015, p. 945). A more extreme manifestation of ageist paternalism referred to rude responses to older users' technological ineptness and the feelings of shame and fear they evoked. Emotional energy is said to refer to users' attachment, confidence, and enthusiasm. Although several of the participants expressed fondness to certain forms of technology and even mastered them, our research generally showed that older (gay) men are neither confident nor enthusiastic about technology as a whole.
The second pattern was the construction of a generation gap, in which older users presume generational differences and rely on a deterministic construct of technology as something that belongs to the young. They are confused and insecure about their technological competence because they are "not there" and because technology is "not for them." These findings are consistent with the agerelated digital divide described in previous research (Nimrod, 2017) and reflect little dependence or relatedness, as they suggest that participants feel estranged from technology and more importantly, that technology hardly constitutes a defining element of their selves.
The third pattern referred to a conservative view of technology. Here we showed that participants prefer face-to-face meetings over online interactions, that they do not perceive computers as providing "real communication" and that they value their devices only because they "keep them busy." These manifestations suggest that our participants are neither dependent nor enthusiastic about technology and that they experience low emotional energy when using or thinking about their devices.
Overall, this study extends the literature on identity work among older people (Biggs, 1997;Cook, 2018), gay people (Rust, 2003) and older gays (Rosenfeld, 1999), as well as identity work in general by deepening our understanding of the role of material objects therein (Dittmar, 2011;Vignoles, Schwartz, & Luyckx, 2011). Findings indicate that technology is not only a reference point whereby users negotiate their identities (Lamb & Davidson, 2005;Whitley et al., 2014), but also a sphere in which the contradicting elements of one's identity may intensify and collide powerfully.
Moreover, while endorsing the importance and applicability of the IT identity concept (Carter & Grover, 2015), the results also point to a particular weakness in this conceptual framework and offer further development. In its current form, the IT identity model conveys the impression that IT identity is more stable and fixed than most other identities. Among others, Carter and Grover (2015) claim that while "IT identity is not immutable (. . .) change is largely cumulative and gradual" (p. 939) and suggest that "those who feel a strong sense of connection with an IT are likely to enact their IT identity across a variety of situations" (p. 945). Our study emphasizes the contextuality of IT identity by showing that the three dimensions of IT identity-relatedness, emotional energy, and dependence-change according to the context of use, namely, homosexuality vs. advanced age. This means that IT identity is not as stable and fixed as the model implies.
Precisely because it can be viewed "as a new form of material identity" (p. 939), IT identity exists and operates in juxtaposition with several other identities, taking part in a complex array of contradictions and struggles that individuals seek to resolve as part of their identity work. Individuals may simultaneously develop several IT identities, both weak and strong, as they do with other identities (Stets & Biga, 2003), realizing them according to social situations and contexts. IT identity is not superior to or more stable than other identities, but rather contextual and situational, as is evident in older gay users' experiences.

Funding
This work was supported by Ageing + Communication + Technologies (ACT), a research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and housed at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada.