Learning Catalog Principles Quadrants of Change Trauma Modules Módulos de Trauma Intimate Partner Violence Modules
Resources Catalog Toolkits Training & Technical Assistance Action Briefs Articles Video: First Impressions Video: Hear Our Voices

 

Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ+ Relationships

Module Purpose

The purpose of this module is to:

  • Strengthen our understanding of the shared and unique ways that LGBTQ+ populations are impacted by intimate partner violence.

  • Become familiar with key terms that may help us to better support LGBTQ+ people.

  • Dispel common myths and misconceptions about intimate partner violence in LGBTQ+ populations.

  • Learn about the unique barriers that LGBTQ+ individuals face.

  • Recognize ways that we can be more inclusive of members of the LGBTQ+ population in our efforts to address intimate partner violence and support those affected.

  • Locate resources for additional information and support.

About Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ+ Populations

Often assumptions about gender and sexual identity lead to the expectation that all people are heterosexual (i.e., “straight”) and identify with the gender assigned to them at birth (also known as “cisgender”; see key terms). LGBTQ+ is an acronym that includes identities and experiences of people including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and various other gender and sexual identities. This acronym and other important terms are explained further in this module’s key terms section. 

As discussed in Module 1, it is commonly assumed that IPV occurs in heterosexual, cisgender couples, and that the woman in these relationships is usually the victim. This means that most often IPV supports and services are tailored for cisgender, heterosexual women. 

While LGBTQ+ and similar acronyms are often used as a “catch-all”, it is important to note that LGBTQ+ populations are not homogeneous. This module will attempt to describe different and shared LGBTQ+ experiences and possible barriers to help us be more inclusive in addressing IPV. 

LGBTQ+ Key Terms

The purpose of this section is to provide several key terms associated with the LGBTQ+ community. This is not an exhaustive list and the usage and definition of these terms may vary for different people, in different places, and over time. Becoming more familiar with these terms helps us better understand and respond to the needs of LGBTQ+ people overall. At the same time, it is important not to make assumptions about how people identify and to use the language most meaningful to those that we aim to support.   

LGBTQ+: An acronym including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and various other identities outside of normative categories of gender and sexuality (i.e., cisgender/heterosexual). Also referred to as minority sexual/gender identities.

Queer: An umbrella term that is used interchangeably with LGBTQ+ to describe the diverse range of identities, experiences, and relationships other than heterosexual/cisgender. While the term has been “reclaimed” by many members of the LGBTQ+ community, due to its historical use as a derogatory term it is not embraced by all people. 

Gender Identity: Refers to one’s identification with a particular gender. Commonly assumed to consist of two possible classifications, known as a “gender binary” (i.e., man or woman). However, some people identify with a third gender or otherwise outside of the gender binary.

Cisgender: A term used to describe those with a gender identity that matches the sex that they were assigned at birth (i.e. assigned male at birth (AMAB) and identifies as boy/man).

Transgender (Trans): An umbrella term that is used to describe individuals who identify with a gender different from that assigned at birth, including those who identify outside of the  man/woman gender binary. Trans individuals vary in the degree to which they choose to pursue surgical or hormonal intervention.

Non-Binary: A gender identity that does not fit into a binary (i.e., two) classification of gender as either man or woman.

Gender Fluid: A person whose gender identity is not fixed. The identity and/or expression of a gender fluid person changes over time and can vary day to day.

Gender Expression: The way that a person conveys oneself through appearance, behaviour, speech, or role that corresponds to gendered experience (i.e., feminine, masculine, androgynous). Gender expression is not fixed and does not necessarily correspond to gender identity.

Intersex: A range of variations in sex characteristic that do not fit into typical binary classifications of biological sex (i.e., male or female), including hormonal, chromosomal, genital appearance, and/or reproductive organs/gonads. People with intersex traits may or may not identify with the term intersex and can have any gender identity.

Sexual Identity (Sexual Orientation): Refers to the type of affective (emotional), romantic, or sexual attraction a person has the capacity to feel for others of specific identities.

Heterosexual: Primary attraction to members of the “opposite sex” or relationships that are comprised by individuals of the “opposite sex”. Interchangeable with “straight”.

Lesbian: A sexual identity of women whose primary attraction is to other women or a relationship comprised of women. 

Gay: Attraction primarily to members of the same gender. Typically used to describe men who are primarily attracted to other men, but is also used as an umbrella term to describe all non-heterosexual attractions, identities, and relationships.

Bisexual: The primary attraction to two genders, typically used to describe those attracted to both men and women. 

Pansexual (Pan): A person who experiences attraction to many different genders.

Monogamous: Relationships that are comprised of two people or the inclination of an individual to be attracted to or in relationship with a single partner at one time. 

Polyamorous: Relationships that are comprised of more than two individuals or the inclination of an individual to be attracted to or in relationship with multiple partners at one time. Also called “non-monogamous”.

Outing: To be out is to have a minority gender or sexual identity that is disclosed to others. People may be out in some circumstances or with some people and not others. For example, some LGBTQ+ individuals are open about their identities with friends and family, but not at their workplace. Outing refers to the involuntary disclosure of a person’s minority sexual or gender identity by others. Outing may also refer to the involuntary disclosure of one’s HIV status.

Additional Terminology Resource: For a more comprehensive list of LGBTQ+ related terms see the Fenway Institute’s National LGBT Health Education centre’s glossary https://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Glossary_March2016.pdf 

Common Myths about IPV in LGBTQ+ Relationships

Stereotypes and assumptions about IPV can cause us to overlook the experiences and needs of LGBTQ+ people and can prevent us from providing inclusive forms of support. In this section, we explore some common myths about IPV as they relate to the LGBTQ+ community and offer some valuable information that may help to broaden our understanding.

IPV is an issue in “straight” relationships and does not commonly affect same-sex couples.

Although it is commonly believed that IPV only impacts cisgender women in heterosexual relationships, research has shown that IPV exists at similar or even higher rates in same-sex and other LGBTQ+ relationships (1). The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) annual report on IPV consistently shows that a majority of IPV victims identify as LGBTQ+.

Here are some helpful statistics to debunk this myth:

Lesbian and Bisexual Women: More than 2 in 5 lesbian women  (43.8%), and roughly 3 in 5 bisexual women (61.1%) experience rape, physical violence, or stalking in their lifetime. Compared to roughly 1 in 3 Heterosexual women (35.0%) (1)

Gay and Bisexual Men: More than 1 in 4 gay men (26.0%), 1 in 3 bisexual men (37.3%), 1 in 5 heterosexual men (29.0%) have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime (1)

Trans Populations: While research on IPV in LGBTQ+ populations is limited overall, even less is known about transgender individuals. However, studies suggest that transgender people may confront similar levels, if not higher levels, of IPV as compared to sexual minority men and women and cisgender people. A study that directly compared the lifetime prevalence of IPV among transgender and cisgender people found that nearly 1 in 3 (31.1%) of transgender people had experienced IPV or dating violence compared to 1 in 5 (20.4%) of cisgender people. (2)

Okay, so IPV happens in LGBTQ+ relationships, but it is not as serious or severe as in straight relationships. 

Violence in LGBTQ+ relationships has been shown to be equally damaging to that which occurs in heterosexual/cisgender relationships, and in certain cases even more so. This myth relies upon two different assumptions: 1) that physical and sexual violence are less prevalent in LGBTQ+ relationships and 2) that other forms of violence are less serious. Although research generally shows that physical violence may be a less common form of violence in LGBTQ+ relationships overall, research has also shown that bisexual women and gay men actually report higher rates of severe physical violence than straight couples (3). Regardless of the form it takes, all violence needs to be taken seriously. 

Relationships consist of one partner who is more masculine, or is bigger/stronger, who is typically the perpetrator in IPV. 

Assumptions around gender play a significant role in how IPV is perceived and whether or not it is reported. Such assumptions are built upon presumed heterosexual relationships, in which abuse is assumed to be perpetrated by men against women. This ‘gendering’ of IPV commonly affects LGBTQ+ populations as well, as people often assume that the more masculine-presenting partner in any relationship is the offender. However, IPV does not discriminate and can impact or be perpetrated by any person regardless of physical or personal attributes. 

It is easier for LGBTQ+ victims to leave relationships that those in straight relationships, as they are less likely to be married or to have children. 

LGBTQ+ relationships are just as legitimate as heterosexual/cisgender relationships. Leaving a relationship can be a very difficult and painful process for a variety of reasons, all of which apply across different kinds of relationships. Leaving an LGBTQ+ relationship can be made more difficult due to several factors:

  • In certain places, LGBTQ+ relationships are not recognized by law and therefore LGBTQ+ people do not see the same legal protections. This may also impact legal guardianship, as a person may not have parental rights and leaving a relationship may mean they no longer have access to their children. 

  • LGBTQ+ people are often members of tight-knit communities, with shared social relationships or “chosen families”, and leaving one’s relationship may have social consequences or mean a loss of social support.

  • LGBTQ+ individuals often face rejection from their families and communities, which can mean that their current partner is their only or main source of social support. 

  • LGBTQ+ couples often go through challenging experiences together (such as coming out or transitioning) which can lead to a very strong bond and feelings of security.

  • Individuals in LGBTQ+ relationships may have a difficult time viewing their partner’s as capable of perpetrating violence, as these partners are so oppressed themselves 

  • Due to societal homophobia and transphobia, LGBTQ+ people, particularly trans and gender non-conforming people, can feel unwanted and “believe that they are lucky to ever find love, even if that love turns violent” (4).

These and other barriers are further discussed in the next section: “Unique Barriers Faced by LGBTQ+ Populations”

IPV in LBGTQ+ relationships is the same as in straight, cisgender relationships. It takes on the same forms and can be responded to in the same way. 

It is important to also consider the potentially unique ways that IPV can occur and be experienced by those in the LGBTQ+ community. IPV is a pattern of behavior used by one person in an intimate relationship to assert power and control over the other person - this is true across all kinds of relationships and identities. However, IPV in LGBTQ+ relationships may take on unique forms that draw upon aspects of a person’s gender or sexual identity, such as:

  • “Outing” one’s partner

  • Keeping one’s partner closeted from friends/family/community

  • Invalidating a partner’s gender or sexual identity

  • Enforcing a partner’s gender expression/appearance and/or ridiculing a partner’s body/appearance

  • Restricting access to services central to a partner’s identity (e.g.,restricting access to hormone therapy, isolating a person from specific support communities, etc.). 

  • Intentionally using a transgender partner’s incorrect pronouns or dead name (the name given at birth that the person no longer uses)

  • Use of relationship descriptors that invalidate/erase partner’s identity 

  • Insistence on sex acts or use of anatomical terms not aligned with a partner’s gender identity

LGBTQ+ victims experience the same barriers to service and IPV specific supports as cisgender, heterosexual victims. 

LGBTQ+ people face additional barriers that are unique to their identities and experiences. As with the myth above, it is true that many of the barriers people can face cut across different identities and kinds of relationships. However, we explore unique barriers LBGTQ+ people face in the next section “Unique Barriers Faced by LGBTQ+ Populations”.

Sources

1. Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 648(73), 6. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

2. Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Whitfield, D. L., Walls, N. E., Kattari, S. K., & Ramos, D. (2016). Experiences of intimate partner violence and subsequent police reporting among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults in Colorado: Comparing rates of cisgender and transgender victimization. Journal of interpersonal violence, 31(5), 855-871.

3. Brown, T. N., & Herman, J. (2015). Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse among LGBT people: A review of existing research. The William’s Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Intimate-Partner-Violence-and-Sexual-Abuse-among-LGBT-People.pdf

4.  Guadalupe-Diaz, X. L. (2013). Victims outside the binary: Transgender survivors of intimate partner violence (Ph.D.), University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0004686/Guadalupe-Diaz_Xavier_L_201305_PhD.pdf

Unique Barriers Faced by LGBTQ+ Populations

Members of the LBGTQ+ community who experience IPV can encounter a number of unique barriers to accessing and receiving supports. All of the common myths described above can cause IPV in LGBTQ+ relationships to be overlooked and often means that these identities are not considered in how services are designed and implemented. Here are some unique barriers LGBTQ+ people may face:

  • LGBTQ+ people are less likely to seek supports from law enforcement or mainstream providers, and instead often seek out informal social supports and LGBTQ+ programs.

  • LGBTQ+ people may encounter (or anticipate) homophobia/transphobia from service providers, law enforcement or from non-LGBTQ+ members of support groups.

  • Prior experiences of discrimination often prevents people from seeking help.

  • Lack of knowledge or training of IPV and LGBTQ+ populations among services providers can mean that even with good intentions, services may be more harmful than helpful. 

  • LGBTQ+ people may avoid seeking support or accessing services due to fear of outing oneself or one’s partner.

  • LGBTQ+ people may feel pressure to maintain community image, such as the fear that airing the problems among the LGBTQ+ population will take away from progress toward equality or fuel anti-LGBTQ+ bias. This can be even more pronounced in rural communities, which often have fewer LGBTQ+ people. 

  • May laws and policies are direct barriers for LGBTQ+ people (1). For example, a lack of recognition of partnership can disrupt family system (e.g., only one partner recognized as legal guardian); transgender people can be barred from accessing gender specific services due to lack of recognition of their identities; legal definitions of IPV often exclude same sex couples.

  • The common myths about IPV can be “internalized” such that LGBTQ+ people may be unlikely to recognize their own experience of IPV due to their gender or sexual identity and/or relationship dynamic.

  • Bisexual people may face barriers in accessing services designed for heterosexual people and those designed for LG populations.

  • Many LGBTQ+ experience social isolation and a lack of family/community support, which can make seeking help more difficult and can make them more reliant upon their intimate partner. Conversely, being a member of a tight-knit LGBTQ+ community can be a barrier as well. For instance, one may experience denial or disbelief from other members of this community, may have to navigate dual relationships, and may find it difficult to access LGBTQ+ inclusive services without their partner’s knowledge. 

  • Overlapping forms of oppression experienced by members of LGBTQ+ communities means that their choices about safety may be constrained, where one kind of safety might be traded for another (2). For example, one may have to choose between discriminatory violence at a shelter or intimate partner violence at home. 

Sources

  1. Brown, T. N., & Herman, J. (2015). Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse among LGBT people: A review of existing research. The William’s Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Intimate-Partner-Violence-and-Sexual-Abuse-among-LGBT-People.pdf

  2. Miller, E. C., Goodman, L. A., Thomas, K. A., Peterson, A., Scheer, J. R., Woulfe, J. M., & Warshaw, C.  (2016). Trauma-informed approaches for LGBQT* survivors of intimate partner violence: A review of literature and a set of practice observations. The GLBTQ Domestic Violence Project. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee3e/f17e241ad08157a68105ed13d919cda29c29.pdf

Risks and Protective Factors for LGBTQ+ People Facing IPV

Risk Factors:

  • Social isolation

  • Internalized homophobia/transphobia - for both perpetrators and victims of violence

  • Minority stress is associated with higher substance use and increased instances of mental health difficulties 

  • Discrimination and a lack (or perceived lack) of LGBTQ+ friendly services

  • Greater risks of homeless and poverty

Protective Factors: 

  • Social support and a sense of community 

  • Greater awareness of how IPV impacts LGBTQ+ people and challenging the myths

  • Awareness of and access to LGBTQ+ friendly organizations, which can increase feelings of trust in the services provided

  • Access to LGBTQ+ specific resources and information

What can we do about IPV in LGBTQ+ relationships?

Adopt a Transformational Lens 

A transformational perspective on IPV involves recognizing how systemic oppression contributes to and increases the impact of violence (1). From a transformational lens, the focus expands beyond individual situations to consider larger societal patterns of violence impacting groups of people. With this broader perspective, organizations are called upon to address the systems and conditions that contribute to IPV among LGBTQ+ populations and that act as barriers to getting support.

An adapted version of the Power and Control Wheel depicts the forms of systemic oppression impacting LGBTQ+ populations on an additional outside ring. 

LGBTQ+ Power and Control Wheel

Power and Control Wheel

for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans Relationships

Educate Ourselves

Knowing about the unique experiences of IPV and barriers faced by LGBTQ+ people is important to ensure that we are providing support that is effective, inclusive, accessible, and appropriate. The completion of this module is an example of how service providers can become more educated about IPV in LGBTQ+ communities and how to better serve these communities. It is also important to educate ourselves on the specific needs and experiences of LGBTQ+ populations in the communities in which we work. For instance, becoming familiar with the current laws and policies in one’s area can help us to better understand the unique needs of LGBTQ+ populations we aim to support.

Check our Assumptions

Many of the myths outlined in the previous section can lead to taken-for-granted assumptions about IPV, including the forms that it takes, who is impacted, and the best ways to respond. By being aware of our own assumptions and biases we can develop more inclusive ways of thinking and of offering support. Asking ourselves questions such as: “How do I define IPV?” “Does my definition rely upon assumptions about gender or sexual identity?” “How do I view LGBTQ+ relationships?” “Am I assuming the gender or sexuality of the person I am talking to? How about their partner(s)? ” “What honest questions can I ask to help me better understand their unique experiences?” and so on can help to build this awareness, challenge our assumptions, and work toward more inclusive practices.

Be Inclusive and Affirmative

Once we have checked our assumptions to ensure that we are considering the experiences of LGBTQ+ people, it is important that this inclusion is reflected in the ways that we engage with and support people facing IPV.

  • Check Our Language: Many of the assumptions about IPV that overlook LGBTQ+ populations show up in common language used in conversations about IPV. A seemingly simple but very important change that we can make is to modify our language to be more inclusive and intentional. 

Throughout this curriculum we regularly use the word “partner”, this term is a useful way to steer clear of gendered assumptions about people and their relationships. Using language such as girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband, or spouse pack assumptions about sexual identity and that latter exclude those who are not married due to personal choice or legal barriers.  It is also important to consider how the singular use of the term “partner” might erase the experiences of people who are not in monogamous relationships, rendering them less likely to seek support. Another way to avoid misgendering (wrongly gendering) people is through singular use of the pronoun ‘they’ when speaking in general terms or when their gender pronoun is not yet known.

  • Check Our Resources: Any resources that are offered regarding IPV should be inclusive of LGBTQ+ populations. It is recommended to include some resources that are specific to this population. Other resources/paperwork should be revised to ensure that they do not carry assumptions of heterosexuality or cis-identity. For example, resources that are designed for women who are victims of IPV should not include assumptions of a male partner. 

Click here for a free download of LGBTQ+ IPV materials from Futures Without Violence

  • Don’t Know? Ask: Rather than relying upon assumptions about gender or sexual identity and related terminology it is best to find out from the person in question. It can sometimes feel uncomfortable to ask these kinds of questions, but we can make the process feel more “normal” by adopting this practice with all of the people we support. By adopting intake paperwork that allows people to self-identify (e.g., an open box “other” option under gender), we can ensure that this information is not assumed or overlooked. Such inclusive practices also signal to LGBTQ+ populations that we are both aware of and accepting of diverse identities and relationships.

Service providers may also ask people what language they use to refer to various body parts, as gender minority individuals may use different anatomical terms that are better aligned with their gender identity. There may be instances where legal documents, such as a person’s identification, differs from the information provided by them (e.g., name/gender). It is important that service providers consistently use the titles provided by the person when possible.

  • Promoting Self-Determination: Listen to and privilege the language used and  articulation of their stories and needs. 

Build Awareness

Having educated ourselves on the impacts of IPV in LGBTQ+ communities and how to provide more inclusive and affirmative forms of support  we can then further support LGBTQ+ populations by building awareness and educating others. We can do so by providing information about IPV in LGBTQ+ communities to both LGBTQ+ people themselves, as well as to other service providers. Building awareness can help to bust myths and internalized stigma, increase knowledge about IPV and the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ people, and break down barriers to seeking help. 

Bridge Resources 

Organizations can maintain a list of resources specific to LGBTQ+ populations, such as community organizations, support-groups, or web-based content. This can help to widen the range of available supports to LGBTQ+ people, ensure they are connected to LGBTQ+ friendly services, and can strengthen protective factors such as increasing social support. 

Strengthen Connections

To further strengthen these protective factors, service providers and organizations that address IPV can combat isolation of LGBTQ+  individuals by partnering with LGBTQ+ organizations in the community, creating more opportunities for those experiencing IPV to reach out for assistance.

Beyond partnering with LGBTQ+ organizations, service providers should strive to include sexual and gender minority individuals on staff, as LGBTQ+ people experiencing IPV may be more likely to support from those with similar identities and life experiences (11).

Sources

  1. Generation Five (2007). Toward transformative justice: A liberatory approach to child sexual abuse and other forms of intimate and community violence: A call to action for the left and the sexual and domestic violence sectors. Retrieved from: http://www.generationfive.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/G5_Toward_Transformative_Justice-Document.pdf

 Helpful Resources about IPV in LGBTQ+ Relationships