PRACTITIONER RESOURCE Intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities Key issues
Monica Campo and Sarah Tayton
KEY MESSAGES
People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex or queer (LGBTIQ) experience intimate partner violence at similar rates as those who identify as heterosexual.
There has been an invisibility of LGBTIQ relationships in policy and practice responses and a lack of acknowledgement that intimate partner violence exists in these communities.
Beliefs that privilege heterosexual relationships affect victims’ experiences as well as policy and practice responses.
Homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism affect the experience of, and responses to, intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ populations.
Service providers lack awareness and understanding of the LGBTIQ population and their experience of intimate partner violence.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) communities
The LGBTIQ acronym is used to refer to people however, many non-heterosexual, transgendered who are from sexually or gender diverse or queer people do not necessarily identify or fit communities and who may identify as gay, lesbian, within these narrow, socially defined parameters bisexual, trans, intersex or queer. However, there is (Lorenzetti, Wells, Callaghan, & Logie, 2015). As a great deal of diversity within these communities such, “essentialist and simplistic terms” do not and a wide range of “terms and language used capture the complexities and diversities of the to describe biological sex, gender, sexuality and LGBTIQ population. For a full discussion of this sexual practice” (Fileborn, 2012). In Western complexity, see Fileborn (2012) or Calton, Cattaneo, culture, people are generally expected to conform and Gebhard (2015). There is also a list of further to gender roles that match their biological sex; reading at the end of this paper.
If you are experiencing family or domestic violence or sexual assault, or know someone who is, please call 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732) or visit www.1800respect.org.au
CHILD FAMILY COMMUNITY AUSTRALIA┃INFORMATION EXCHANGE CHILD FAMILY COMMUNITY AUSTRALIA
Conceptualising and defining Prevalence
intimate partner violence in There is little population-wide data available on LGBTIQ communities the prevalence of intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ communities. Large-scale surveys such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Intimate partner violence within LGBTIQ Safety Survey (2013) do not collect data on relationships was largely unacknowledged LGBTIQ identity, and the Australian component until recently and as such has been absent of the International Violence against Women from governmental, policy and service/practice Survey (Mouzos & Makkai, 2004) focused on responses to intimate partner violence (Ball male violence against women. Further, there are & Hayes, 2009). Research in the area has also methodological issues with existing studies. For been scarce (Calton et al., 2015). Government, example, most studies use convenience samples, policy, research, justice and practice-based raising questions about how representative the responses to intimate partner violence have figures are (Tayton et al 2014; Calton et al., 2015; overwhelmingly assumed a heterosexual Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, et al 2015; Tayton et framework in which women feature as victims al., 2014). As Edwards and colleagues (2015) and men as perpetrators (Ball & Hayes, 2009). highlighted, discrepancies in how intimate partner While LGBTIQ communities have had some violence is defined; whether studies assess effect regarding the acknowledgement of the lifetime violence/current relationship/previous issue within government agencies, this has not year; and whether measurement scales were used always translated into a substantive policy or or not, mean there are often large inconsistencies practice response (Ball & Hayes, 2009; Tayton, between studies. Kaspiew, Moore & Campo, 2014). There has also Further, as described above, there is a lack of been a lack of acknowledgement of intimate recognition of intimate partner violence within partner violence within LGBTIQ communities. gender diverse or same-sex relationships and The reasons for this are multiple but include an under-reporting of intimate partner violence inability to recognise abuse outside of dominant in general (Donovan & Hester, 2010; Leonard, understandings of gendered power dynamics Mitchell, Patel & Fox, 2008). Discrimination, stigma (Irwin, 2006; Ristock, 2011). and non-recognition of same-sex or other gender diverse relationships further present barriers to Feminism has been the predominant lens through the collection of statistical and demographic data which intimate partner violence and domestic and thus obscure the realities of intimate partner and family violence has been understood. In violence in LGBTIQ communities (Lorenzetti et this framework, intimate partner violence is al., 2015). understood as an effect of patriarchal social The Australian Research Centre for Health structures, gender inequality and traditional and Sexuality (ARCHS) conducted a national gender roles and attitudes (Bell & Naugle, 2008; demographic and health and wellbeing survey Woodin & O’Leary, 2009). There is no cohesive of 5,476 LGBTIQ people (Pitts, Smith, Mitchell, understanding or theory of intimate partner & Patel, 2006) and found significant levels of violence when it occurs in LGBTIQ couples intimate partner violence: (Calton et al., 2015). However, concepts such 41% of male-identifying respondents, and as “intimate terrorism” and “coercive control” 28% of female-identifying respondents had are thought to be useful for defining intimate experienced physical violence within a same- partner violence in LGBTIQ populations as sex intimate relationship; and these definitions emphasise that intimate partner violence is primarily defined by patterns of 25% of respondents had experienced coercion, power and control, and recognise that sexual assault within a same-sex intimate violence may be emotional, sexual, financial relationship (with women-identifying and and/or physical (Calton et al., 2015; Donovan trans respondents more likely to experience sexual assault). & Hester, 2010). These definitions also help to “transcend the boundaries drawn by sexuality A smaller study of 390 LGBTIQ respondents in and gender” (Donovan & Hester, 2010, p. 281), Victoria, also conducted by ARCHS (Leonard et though as Calton and colleagues (2015) argued, al., 2008) found that that just under a third had feminist frameworks for understanding violence been involved in a same-sex relationship where in families and intimate relationships remain vital. they were subject to abuse by their partner:
2 | Australian Institute of Family Studies 78% of the abuse was psychological and 58% This section describes the particular experience of involved physical abuse; intimate partner violence for LGBTIQ people and lesbian women were more likely than gay how heterosexism, heteronormativity and homo/ men to report having been in an abusive bi/transphobia (see Box 1 for definitions) shape same-sex relationship (41% and 28% that experience (Albright & Alcantra-Thompson, respectively); and (n.d.); Calton et al., 2015). 26% of respondents had experienced sexual assault within a same-sex relationship (Leonard et al., 2008). Box 1: Terminology This research, in addition to international data Homophobia and biphobia refer to negative beliefs, (e.g., see Donovan, Hester, Holmes, & McCarry, prejudices and stereotypes about people who are not 2006; Edwards et al., 2015; Lorenzetti et al., 2015), heterosexual (Lorenzetti et al., 2015). suggests that intimate partner violence occurs in Transphobia refers to negative beliefs, prejudices and LGBTIQ populations at similar levels as within stereotypes that exist about people whose gender the heterosexual population. identity does not conform to the gender assigned at birth (Lorenzetti et al., 2015). LGBTIQ children and young people’s Heterosexism is the set of beliefs that privilege experiences heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships “at the expense of non-normative sexual orientations Though this paper focuses predominately on and gender identities” and relationships (Leonard et intimate partner violence in adult relationships, al., 2008, p. 4). As Leonard and colleagues described, it is important to note that LGBTIQ people may heterosexism assumes that sex and gender are fixed at face abuse and violence across the lifespan as a birth and that: result of their gender or sexual identity, including from within their own families. A national survey Men are born masculine, women feminine and of LGBTIQ young people aged 14 to 21 years sexuality is the gendered, reciprocal attraction (Hillier Jones et al., 2010), for example, found that between the two … society is built on the significant rates of young people had experienced primal division and attraction between male and abuse with: female. (2008, p.4) 61% of young people reporting verbal Heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships are abuse as a result of their gender identity or seen as natural, normal and legitimate (Lorenzetti sexuality; et al., 2015). These assumptions reinforced through 18% reporting physical abuse as a result of cultural beliefs and practices and through social and their gender identity or sexuality; political institutions such as the law, family structures and religious beliefs (Fileborn, 2012) and thus 80% reporting the abuse occurred at school; become heteronormative (see below). Individuals who and challenge this world view are subject to discrimination, 24% reporting they had experienced verbal and often abuse. and physical abuse in the family home. Heterosexism provides the “social backdrop” for For the young people who reported abuse in the homophobic, biphobic and transphobic prejudices, family home, the abuser was most likely to be violence and discrimination (Fileborn, 2012). As a parent and more likely to be their father than Leonard et al. explained: their mother. This framework suggests that homophobia and transphobia are both discrete forms of discrimination and also part of a singular, Experiences of intimate partner coordinated system for punishing those who violence in LGBTIQ communities: in different ways pose a threat to heterosexist privilege and authority. (p. 3) Implications for service providers Heteronormativity is the internalisation of heterosexism and practice at the individual, cultural and institutional level. Lorenzetti and colleagues described heteronormativity While some patterns of intimate partner violence as “an internalised set of expectations about gender in LGBTIQ relationships are similar to those in and sexuality” (2015, p. 33). heterosexual relationships, others are more specific.
Intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities | 3 CHILD FAMILY COMMUNITY AUSTRALIA
Intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships outside of traditional power dynamics (Merlis & occurs within a “structural environment” of Linville, 2006; Peterman & Dixon, 2003). Similarly, heterosexism, heteronormativity and homo/bi/ gay men may have difficulty conceptualising transphobia affecting LGBTIQ people across the certain behaviours, such as rape within an lifespan (Lorenzetti et al., p. 17). Heterosexism, intimate relationship, as intimate partner violence heteronormativity and homo/bi/transphobia are (Donovan et al., 2006; Fileborn, 2012). forms of discrimination and despite LGBTIQ rights being protected in Australian law (Sex Barriers to accessing support services Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)), LGBTIQ communities still face high rates of discrimination, There are several issues that act as barriers to harassment and abuse in many parts of their LGBTIQ people seeking help from and using everyday life including at work, in public, at support services and the criminal justice system school/study and in access to health and other (Calton et al., 2015; Kay & Jefferies, 2010; Leonard services (Australian Human Rights Commission, et al., 2008; Parry & O’Neal, 2015). These include: 2014; Hillier et al., 2010). LGBTIQ communities an inability by support services/practitioners also face stigma and social exclusion (Lorenzetti to view intimate partner violence outside of et al., 2015). a heterosexual framework; Research suggests abusive partners within an assumption that intimate partner violence LGBTIQ relationships may use homo/bi/ is mutual in LGBTIQ relationships; transphobia or heterosexism to exercise power insensitivity to and/or lack of awareness and control. For example, the practice of “outing” of the specific needs/issues of the LGBTIQ or disclosing HIV status, or threats to do so may population; occur (Ball & Hayes, 2009; Calton et al., 2015; discrimination, or fear of discrimination, Kay & Jefferies, 2010). Perpetrators may use their particularly from police and the criminal partner’s sexuality or identity as a form of control justice system; and by limiting their access to friends and social networks, or by threatening to tell their partner’s stigma. employer, parent, children, landlord or friends about their same-sex relationship or trans identity Heteronormative understandings of gender (Calton et al., 2015; Donovan et al., 2006). This can and intimate partner violence result in the fear of loss of children, employment, Calton and colleague’s review of the literature relationships or housing (Calton et al., 2015). (2015) found that gender roles and assumptions Internalised homophobia can manifest within about LGBTIQ relationships affect the way an abuser as “contempt for an intimate partner” domestic violence service providers view (Lorenzetti et al., 2015, p. 17; Calton et al., 2015). intimate partner violence . As described above, An abusive partner may also use homophobia the dominant view of men as perpetrators and or transphobia to control and isolate a partner women as victims may inhibit the ability of both by suggesting that they will not be believed or victims and service providers to recognise intimate that they shouldn’t report the violence as they partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships. In will be discriminated against by services and the lesbian relationships involving physical violence, law (Calton et al., 2015; Fileborn, 2012). Further for instance, there may be the assumption that to this, fear of isolation and homophobia in the women are incapable of exerting physical power wider community may contribute to victims over other women. Similarly, stereoypes about gay staying with abusive partners (Kay & Jefferies, men not being “masculine” might result in views 2010; Parry & O’Neal, 2015). that they are not capable of violence (Calton et al., 2015; Kay & Jefferies, 2010). Trans victims As described above, heteronormative notions may be especially affected by a heteronormative of intimate partner violence may also prevent lens: “without the sterotypically masculine victims from understanding their experience as agressor and sterotypically female victim easily intimate partner violence as it is predominately identifiable, both survivor and potential helpers viewed as a phenomenon that affects women may not recognise abuse” (though some victims at the hands of a male perpetrator (Kay & may be in relationships with heterosexual men) Jefferies, 2010). Many authors argue that idealised (Calton et al., 2015, p. 5). understandings of LGBTIQ relationships further cloud understandings of intimate partner violence, Another issue identified in the research on LGBTIQ particularly among lesbian women, whose survivors of intimate partner violence is that some relationships have often been understood to exist lesbian abusers will present as victims (to shelters,
4 | Australian Institute of Family Studies support groups, and so on), in order to further services acknowledged that they needed perpetuate abuse against their partner by pursuing extra resources, training and more accessible them in these spaces, or by making it impossible for services for LGBTIQ clients, particularly in them to seek support at these services (Peterman rural/regional areas. & Dixon, 2003). As such, it is important for services to determine the perpetrator. The ACON report, as well as an Australian Institute of Family Studies review of services for at-risk groups (which included LGBTIQ communities) Lack of awareness/discrimination (Tayton et al., 2014), suggest that there is a need to Research suggests that service providers in demystify and recognise that violence happens in the domestic violence, counselling and health LGBTIQ relationships and in the families of same- sectors may lack understanding and sensitivity sex attracted and gender diverse young people. to issues specific to intimate partner violence in This needs to occur in the general public as well LGBTIQ populations, and some may knowingly as within domestic violence services and the and unknowingly discriminate (AIDS Council justice system. Lorenzetti and colleague’s (2014) New South Wales [ACON], 2011; Calton et al., framework for prevention of intimate partner 2015; Donovan et al., 2006). An Australian study violence in LGBTIQ populations was written for a examining lesbian experiences of intimate partner Canadian audience; however, it is relevant to the violence , for example, found that mainstream Australian context. The framework suggests domestic violence service providers are often that building the capacity and knowledge unaware of the particular strategies used by of health care professionals, child welfare abusers, such as the threat of “outing” as a form professionals, education workers, domestic of control ( Hotten, 2009 in Fileborn, 2012). Some violence services and the justice system services may not be welcoming or accepting through education and training is imperative of LGBTIQ communities (Fileborn, 2012); for in order to improve understanding and example, by not providing appropriate options responses, and to prevent further violence. on client intake forms (i.e. only providing male or female options, and thereby marginalising Stigma trans and intersex people). Lack of understanding Stigma is another key issue that prevents and discrimination may affect trans or intersex survivors seeking help, and research suggests individuals more severely; for example, trans this is particularly an issue for bisexual and trans- women may be refused entry to “women only” identifying individuals (Calton et al., 2015). Stigma domestic violence emergency shelters (Calton et works in various ways to inhibit help-seeking al., 2015). Research from the USA suggests that behaviours. For example, individuals may not trans individuals experience discrimination in reach out for help because they are not open medical and health settings and from therapeutic with their sexual orientation or gender identity; programs at higher rates than other populations especially if their family is unaware about their (Calton et al., 2015). LGBTIQ status (Calton et al., 2015; Carvalho, The AIDS Council of NSW’s (ACON) report into Lewis, Derlega, Winstead, & Viggiano, 2011). the gaps in services for people who identify as Trans people might fear being “outed” before they LGBTIQ experiencing intimate partner violence are ready to disclose their identity, and/or before found that services lack awareness of, and they have made associated changes such as using sensitivity to, the specific issues and needs of preferred pronouns, a preferred name, changing LGBTIQ clients (ACON, 2011). In a survey of 65 physical appearance or undergoing any surgical mainstream domestic violence services in NSW, procedures or hormonal therapies (Calton et al., the report found: 2015). Conversely, trans people who have been services lacked an understanding of gender, publically “passing” as a particular gender may sex and sexuality specifically in relation to fear seeking help because this would expose intersex and transgender clients; their trans history. under half of all services collected data/ demographic details about the number of Barriers to reporting intimate partner violence LGBTIQ clients they saw; to police less than 20% rated themselves “fully There are further issues identified in the literature competent” to work with LGBTIQ clients, around specific barriers for LGBTIQ people and less than 5% with transgender or intersex reporting intimate partner violence (and other clients; and violence more broadly, including homophobic
Intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer communities | 5 CHILD FAMILY COMMUNITY AUSTRALIA
violence). There is a history of poor relationships service providers and the justice system. Several between police and LGBTIQ communities that barriers have been identified for LGBTIQ people has resulted in a fear and mistrust of police accessing services. These include discrimination (Fileborn, 2012; Parry & O’Neal, 2015). Some (real or feared), lack of awareness and sensitivity state and territory police have sought to address to LGBTIQ issues, lack of recognition of intimate this through the introduction of LGBTIQ liaison partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships and officers and by supporting events such as pride heteronormative understandings of gender and marches and the Sydney Mardi Gras (Fileborn, intimate partner violence . Building the capacity 2012; Tayton et al., 2014). However, research and knowledge of health care workers, domestic suggests that LGBTIQ communities still face violence support services and the justice system significant discrimination and homophobic through education and training is imperative in attitudes by police officers (Dwyer & Hotten, order to improve understandings and responses 2009; Kay & Jefferies, 2010; Fileborn, 2012; and prevent further violence in LGBTIQ Parry & O’Neal, 2015). This contributes to an communities. underreporting of intimate partner violence. Fileborn (2012) identified several further barriers to reporting and these included: Useful resources the desire not to draw negative attention to Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria (GLVH)
6 | Australian Institute of Family Studies Ball, M., & Hayes S. (2009). Same-sex intimate partner providers. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17 (3), 412– violence: Exploring the parameters. In B. Scherer (Ed.) 423. Queering Paradigms (pp. 161–177). New York: Peter Leonard, W., Mitchell, A., Patel, S. & Fox, C. (2008). Coming Lang. forward: The underreporting of heterosexist violence and Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence same sex partner abuse in Victoria. Bundoora, Victoria: theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096–1107. Leonard, W., & Pitts, M. (2012). Private lives 2: The second Calton, J., Cattaneo, L. B., Gebhard, K. T. (2015). Barriers to national survey of the health and wellbeing of gay, help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and lesbian, bisexual (GLBT) Australians. Melbourne: queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society. Violence and Abuse. Lorenzetti, L., Wells, L., Callaghan, T., & Logie, C. (2015). Carvalho, A. F., Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Domestic violence in Alberta’s gender and sexually diverse Viggiano, C. (2011). Internalised sexual minority stressors communities: towards a framework for prevention. Shift: and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family The Project to End Domestic violence. Calgary: The Violence, 26, 501–509. University of Calgary. Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2010). ‘I hate the word “victim”’: Merlis, S. R., & Linville, D. (2006). Exploring a community’s an exploration of recognition of domestic violence in response to lesbian domestic violence through the voices same sex relationships. Social Policy and Society, 9(2), of providers: A qualitative study. Journal of Feminist 279–289. Family Therapy, 18(1/2), 97–136. Donovan, C., Hester, M., Holmes, J., & McCarry, M. (2006). Mouzos, J., & Makkai, T. (2004). Women’s experience of male Comparing domestic abuse in same sex and heterosexual violence: Findings from the Australian component of the relationships. Bristol: University of Bristol. Retrieved from International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS),
Australian Government Australian Institute of Family Studies Child Family Community Australia
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015 The Child Family Community Australia (CFCA) information exchange is an information With the exception of AIFS branding, the Commonwealth and advisory unit based at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and funded by the Coat of Arms, content provided by third parties, and Australian Government Department of Social Services. The CFCA information exchange any material protected by a trademark, all textual collects, produces and distributes resources and engages in information exchange activities material presented in this publication is provided under that help to protect children, support families and strengthen communities. a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) is committed to the creation and (CC BY 3.0)