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