Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities’ Readiness for Intimate Partner Violence Prevention

Turell, Susan C.; Herrmann, Molly M; Hollander, Gary; Galletly, Carol L.

doi:10.1080/10538720.2012.697797

Cited by 39 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies (Austin et al, 2002; Girshick, 2002; Balsam and Szymanski, 2005; Bornstein et al, 2006; Messinger, 2011; Galletly et al, 2012) claimed how bisexual people experienced an additional stress related to IPV because of the lack of support from the LGB community. Bisexual people were doubly marginalized, not being recognized by lesbian and gay people as part of their community and, simultaneously, being stigmatized by heterosexuals.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Davidson and Duke (2009) showed that bisexual people were victims of the law system and the services to the same extent. Moreover, studies showed that biphobia within the LGB community increased the risk of IPV between bisexual partners and, simultaneously, reduced help-giving resources (Austin et al, 2002; Girshick, 2002; Balsam and Szymanski, 2005; Bornstein et al, 2006; Messinger, 2011; Galletly et al, 2012). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past few decades, the causes of and intervention for intimate partner violence (IPV) have been approached and studied. This paper presents a narrative review on IPV occurring in same sex couples, that is, same sex IPV (SSIPV). Despite the myth that IPV is exclusively an issue in heterosexual relationships, many studies have revealed the existence of IPV among lesbian and gay couples, and its incidence is comparable to (Turell, 2000) or higher than that among heterosexual couples (Messinger, 2011; Kelley et al., 2012). While similarities between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) IPV were found, unique features and dynamics were present in LGB IPV. Such features are mainly related to identification and treatment of SSIPV in the community and to the need of taking into consideration the role of sexual minority stressors. Our findings show there is a lack of studies that address LGB individuals involved in IPV; this is mostly due to the silence that has historically existed around violence in the LGB community, a silence built on fears and myths that have obstructed a public discussion on the phenomenon. We identified the main themes discussed in the published studies that we have reviewed here. The reviews lead us to the conclusion that it is essential to create a place where this subject can be freely discussed and approached, both by LGB and heterosexual people.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although tacitly acknowledged as being an important issue, IPV in LGBT relationships has not been thoroughly studied or analyzed, which reveals its actual status as marginalized in research, policy, and treatment of IPV (for a review of empirical studies on IPV in LGBT partnerships, see Bernhard, 2000;Byrne, 1996;Finneran & Stephenson, 2014;Fortunata & Kohn, 2003;Glass et al, 2008;Greene, Fisher, Kuper, Andrews, & Mustanski, 2015;Heintz & Melendez, 2006;Letellier, 1994;Lie & Gentlewarrior, 1991;Merrill, 1996;Merrill & Wolfe, 2000;Murray, Mobley, Buford, & Searnan-DeJohn, 2006;Oswald, Fonseca, & Hardesty, 2010;Renzetti, 1992;Renzetti & Miley, 1996;Sorenson & Thomas, 2009;Turell, Herrmann, Hollander, & Galletly, 2012;Welles, Corbin, Rich, Reed, & Raj, 2011). As previously noted, the latest NISVS does not ask, and therefore does not collect data on, IPV in trans* identified people's relationships.…”

Section: Working With Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Perpetrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

Armenti²,

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, the judicial system response to violence between intimate partners, or intimate partner violence (IPV), typically mandates that adjudicated perpetrators complete a batterer intervention program (BIP). The social science data has found that these programs, on the whole, are only minimally effective in reducing rates of IPV. The authors examined the social science literature on the characteristics and efficacy of BIPs. More than 400 studies were considered, including a sweeping, recently conducted survey of BIP directors across the United States and Canada. Results of this review indicate that the limitations of BIPs are due, in large part, to the limitations of current state standards regulating these programs and, furthermore, that these standards are not grounded in the body of empirical research evidence or best practices. The authors, all of whom have considerable expertise in the area of domestic violence perpetrator treatment, conducted an exhaustive investigation of the following key intervention areas: overall effectiveness of BIPs; length of treatment/length of group sessions; number of group participants and number of facilitators; group format and curriculum; assessment protocol and instruments; victim contact; modality of treatment; differential treatment; working with female perpetrators; working with perpetrators in racial and ethnic minority groups; working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) perpetrators; perpetrator treatment and practitioner–client relationships; and required practitioner education and training. Recommendations for evidence-based national BIP standards were made based on findings from this review.

show abstract

“…Although intimate partner violence/abuse (IPV/A) 1 victimology, prevalence, and etiology remain a controversial topic across the differing disciplinarians investigating the phenomenon, decades of research have dispelled the myth that IPV/A is a gendered phenomenon occurring only in heterosexual relationships (Turrell, Hermann, Hollander, & Galletly, 2012;Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). Nevertheless, IPV/A is still recognized by the majority as a cisgendered 2 phenomenon, and although there is an abundance of research evidencing IPV/A within same-sex relationships (e.g., Letellier, 1994;McKenry, Serovich, Mason, & Mosack, 2006) and against men in heterosexual relationships (see Fiebert, 2012), it is still viewed, within society at least, as violence against women in heterosexual relationships (Johnson, 2011).…”

Section: Walkermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Societal transphobic and heterosexist attitudes present additional difficulties for trans people experiencing IPV/A has their experiences are undermined; considered mutual conflict or worse deemed to be deserved for nonconformation to the norm (Turrell et al, 2012;White & Goldberg, 2006). When trans people do approach mainstream services, they are rarely welcomed, rather they are subjected to practitioner ignorance, discrimination, and/or degradation (Dean et al, 2000).…”

Section: Walkermentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Trans People’s Vulnerabilities to Intimate Partner Violence/Abuse

Walker

2015

Partner Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally recognized as "violence against women," the research literature on intimate partner violence/abuse (IPV/A; also known as domestic violence) continually neglects to incorporate subculture populations that do not fit societal understanding of typical victim/offender roles. More than 4 decades of research has expanded our knowledge of IPV/A in Western and developing countries across race, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status. However, identifying the prevalence of IPV/A across all manner of relationships has been difficult. In particular, IPV/A within the transgender population has remained practically invisible. Although frequently recognized as an appendage of lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations, trans people are often overlooked in research because of their invisibility within society. Research that does exist is rarely generalizable because of sample size and selection. Therefore, research is required to assess how trans people are affected by IPV/A, what they understand IPV/A to be, what needs are trans-specific, and what help-seeking barriers exist.An analysis of the literature pertaining to trans people regarding IPV/A and other violence, health, and public relations as well as experiences with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and judiciary in an attempt to identify any issues that could be relevant to trans people experiencing IPV/A is presented. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. KEYWORDS: transgender and domestic violence; violence against women; transphobia; discriminationThe public story about domestic violence locates the phenomenon inside heterosexual relationships within a gendered victim/perpetrator dynamic (the stronger/bigger man controlling the weaker/smaller woman) and forefronts the physical nature of violence. (Dempsey, 2010, p. 209)

show abstract

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities’ Readiness for Intimate Partner Violence Prevention

Cited by 39 publications

References 46 publications

When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence

When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

Investigating Trans People’s Vulnerabilities to Intimate Partner Violence/Abuse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About