Transgender People, Intimate Partner Abuse, and the Legal System (original) (raw)
Related papers
Redefining Intimate Partner Violence Beyond the Binary to Include Transgender People
Journal of Family Violence, 2016
Since the mid-1970s, the field of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has debated over gender differences in the perpetration of physical partner violence. However, this classical controversy has ignored transgender people since their gender does not seemingly fit the binary categories (male and female) first used to conceptualize IPV. Furthermore, sustained attention on this ceaseless argument has contributed to transgender people remaining invisible to the field of IPV. In this article, we redefine IPV to extend beyond the gender binary and invite the field to shift its focus to transgender people. Research suggests that as many as one in two transgender individuals are victims of IPV, but that multiple barriers prevent this group from acquiring protection that is afforded to others. Therefore, we propose that researchers direct their attention to this topic, and thus, inform police officers, victim advocates, and medical professionals who work directly to combat IPV for all.
Intimate Partner Violence in Transgender Couples: “Power and Control” in a Specific Cultural Context
Partner Abuse, 2015
Applying a “power and control” lens to high-stakes conflicts involving a trans1 person and their intimate partner can both illuminate and distort the true picture of what is going on. This article discusses 6 ways in which discriminatory societal structures and/or cultural beliefs specific to trans people and their families can be wielded as power and control weapons by both trans people and their non-trans partners. These same “abuse tactics” may, however, simply be evidence of a lack of collaborative problem-solving beliefs and skills. The difference between the two is illustrated using common issues likely to be faced by a couple undergoing or contemplating a gender transition. This article ends with specific issues and concerns that should be addressed when safety planning with a trans person or their partner.
Among the crucial advancements in the study of intimate partner violence (IPV) is an understanding of the distinct help-seeking barriers that gay and lesbian victims face. Despite these additions to the literature, transgender IPV victimization remains under-researched. The current study utilized semi-structured interviews and openended questionnaires of 18 trans-identified survivors of IPV. Working through a modified grounded analytic approach, two major themes emerged in the help-seeking process: "walking the gender tightrope" in which participants first struggled with gendered notions of victimization that made it difficult to identify abuse, and second, the challenges of "navigating genderist resources."
Trans people's experiences of domestic violence and abuse: messages for practice Briefing note
This year, on 20th November 2015, Transgender Day of Remember (TDoR) received more recognition than ever before. This reflects the increasing visibility of trans people in social life, but social exclusion and rates of discrimination for trans people remain high. The purpose of this briefing note is to highlight findings from a study which explored trans1 people's experiences of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), their social care needs and whether they accessed support through social care or supported housing provision. A brief overview of the project is presented in order to contextualise the distinctiveness and importance of the study's findings. These findings uncover the barriers to service provision as well the identification of some enablers. I end with some recommendations for practice.
Access to Domestic Violence Services: Obstacles and Discrimination Against Trans Individuals
2019
Trans individuals face unique sets of obstacles when accessing resources to end the violence due to their marginalized identity and the feminist definitions of what intimate partner violence is. Kimberly Nixon, a transwoman who was refused a volunteer position within the Vancouver Rape Relief Society due to being a transwoman, exemplifies the struggles that trans individuals face due to structural violence and heteronormativity. The case of Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society demonstrates the additional obstacles that trans individuals face to accessing services to ending domestic violence, and supports the resistance to a heteronormative system which excludes trans individuals.
The aim of this paper is to analyse Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in cisgender lesbian women and heterosexual trans women . We have chosen to focus on these different phenomena because both of them reveal the insufficiency of the classic power and control wheel created by feminist anti-violence organisers in order to analyse, understand and counteract domestic violence. In addition, the strict use of classical categories developed by the study of violence in opposite-sex couples has shown its limits too, as we will affirm in the “definition” paragraph. We are referring to lesbians and trans women from within a “strategical essentialist” view, namely a way to present subordinate or marginalised social groups focusing (temporary) on a number of core elements and putting aside local differences in order to forge a sense of collective identity, and to create solidarity toward a specific social problem (Spivak 1987). As stated by Phillips (2010), strategic essentialism is a way to “[…] invoke a collective category – like the subaltern or women – while simultaneously criticising the category as theoretically unviable. Though she [n.d.a. Spivak] subsequently distanced herself from what she saw as misuses of the notion of strategic essentialism, the idea that we may have to ‘take the risk of essence’ in order to have any political purchase remains an important theme in feminist theory and politics” (Phillips 2010, p.48). In the first part of this paper we will discuss the topic of the definition of IPV, starting from a critique of the traditional rigid definition, grounded on a gender-based heteronormative framework. We will propose a contextual definition based on a postmodern intersectional framework, in accordance with the literature about LGBTQ IPV (David & Glass 2011; Greenberg 2012; Ristok 2005; Courvant & Cook-Daniels 1998). In the following section we will present the theoretical framework which underpins our interpretation of the problem of IPV and, in relation to survivors, draw upon the : coercive control model (Stark 1995), minority stress model (Mayer 1995) and affirmative therapy models. Furthermore, we will apply the minority stress model to analyse the specific features of discrimination against LGBTQ persons. In the final part we will apply the conceptual tools provided by the abovementioned theoretical models and we will focus separately on the analysis of the peculiar characteristics of IPV towards lesbians and trans women trying to take into consideration the social inequalities that contribute to the establishment of an oppressive relationship. Finally, we will also try to outline some practical guidelines for professionals dealing with these phenomena, based on the literature about LGBTQ IPV, on the affirmative therapy models or on examples of programs that try to work outside the traditional domestic violence protocols.
Previous research has consistently found that transgender women experience high levels of domestic violence and abuse (DVA). Yet to date no studies have explored the efficacy of training workshops aimed at increasing the capacity of service providers to meet the needs of transgender women. This paper reports on findings from one such workshop developed and run in South Australia. Workshop participants (n=25) from three domestic violence services completed both pre- and post-workshop measures of attitudes towards working with transgender women, comfort in working with transgender women, and confidence in providing services to transgender women. In addition, participants responded to open-ended questions regarding terminology, and awareness of referrals related to the link between DVA and animal abuse. Statistically significant changes were identified on all measures, with workshop attendees reporting more positive attitudes, greater comfort, and greater confidence after completing the workshop. Analysis of open-ended responses found that attendees developed a better understanding of both appropriate terminology, and referrals for women who present to services with animal companions. We conclude with suggestions for how programs and services may become more welcoming and inclusive of transgender women experiencing DVA.