Naming and Recognition of Intimate Partner Violence and Family of Origin Violence Among LGBTQ Communities in Australia

Abstract

Dominant framings of intimate partner violence (IPV) construct the experience as one where a cisgender man enacts violence against a cisgender woman. While often the case, this framing obfuscates the experiences of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender diverse, or queer (LGBTQ) and may challenge their ability to conceive of their relationship-based experiences as abusive or violent. The extent to which hostile experiences from family of origin violence (FOV) members are conceived or named as violence is also unclear. A large, online, national survey of LGBTQ adults separately assessed experiences of IPV and FOV in two ways: a direct question relating to abuse from a partner/s or family member/s, and a second question (asked irrespective of the previous answer) which sought to establish experience of a nuanced list of abusive acts that can constitute violence (including emotional abuse, LGBTQ-specific forms of violence, and enforced social isolation). Following comparison of responses, multiple regression analyses were performed to assess variation by demographic characteristics. Among the full sample of 6,835 individuals, when asked directly, 30.93% (n = 2,108) of participants indicated that they had ever experienced FOV and 41.73% (n = 2,846) indicated that they had ever experienced IPV. However, when asked about experiences of FOV using the second nuanced question, 43.18% (n = 2,675) responded in ways that indicated that they had ever experienced FOV and 60.71% (n = 3,716) with respect to IPV. The recognition of violence, as indicated by responses to the direct question varied by numerous characteristics, including age, gender, and educational attainment. These findings indicate some LGBTQ people may struggle to recognize or name their family or relationship experiences as abusive or violent, which may complicate their ability or willingness to access professional support. More expansive framings, policies, and responses to IPV and FOV are required.

Keywords

lesbian gay bisexual trans gender diverse family violence intimate partner violence domestic violence Australia same-sex relationship violence

Background

Historical and dominant framings of family violence¹ (often referred to as domestic violence or domestic abuse in other English-speaking contexts) predominantly construct the experience as one whereby a man enacts violence against a woman, possibly with children as victims by proxy. Although rarely made explicit, the implied assumption is of both perpetrator and victim–survivor being heterosexual and cisgender (i.e., their current gender identity aligns with the gender that was presumed and recorded for them at birth; Donovan & Barnes, 2019; Rogers, 2019). Donovan and Hester refer to the “public story” of domestic violence and abuse and how this dominant framing has entrenched beliefs that, typically, physical violence only occurs in this heterosexual, cisgender, binary context, with a particular presentation of (cis) gender—the big “strong” man being physically violent toward the small “weak” woman; which itself arises due to the structurally unequal power positions of men and women (Donovan & Hester, 2010). While some national family or domestic violence frameworks and national plans increasingly acknowledge diversity in gender (albeit imperfectly; Seymour, 2019), there are few signs that public discourse pertaining to such violence has shifted and largely remains in a heteronormative, cisgender frame.

A growing body of literature suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender diverse or queer (LGBTQ²) identifying people can experience violence within sexuality or gender diverse intimate relationships and family contexts at least as commonly as cisgender and heterosexual people, and in some instances more so (Rollè et al., 2018). The 2017 Victorian Population Health Survey (Victorian Agency for Health Information, 2020), a representative household survey of more than 33,000 individuals across the state, identified that 13.4% of LGBTIQ people had an experience of family violence (of all forms) in the last 2 years. This was more than twice the rate observed among non-LGBTIQ people (5.1%) in the same survey. Similarly, a large survey of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States found that 61.1% of bisexual women had an experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime, alongside 43.8% of lesbian women and 37.3% of bisexual men, which compared to 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men (Breiding et al., 2013). Some research indicates the prevalence of domestic violence may be higher among cisgender lesbian women compared to other sections of the LGBT community (Messinger, 2011), although other studies point to a higher prevalence among those who are bisexual, less educated, and with physical or cognitive impairment (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2013). In their work, Donovan and Barnes (2019) report on the analyses conducted by the Crime Survey England and Wales in 2010 and 2018 where the sexuality (not gender identity) of participants to the randomized survey are included in the analysis. In the earlier analysis, reported rates of IPV were more than double for participants identifying as lesbian or gay male (13%) than of heterosexual women and men (5%). In addition, compared with heterosexual women (4%) and men (3%), lesbians or bisexual women (12%), and gay or bisexual men (6%) were three times and twice as likely, respectively, to report experiencing one or more instances of non-physical abuse, threats, or force (not including sexual assault) in the 12 months prior to the survey (Donovan & Barnes, 2019). The 2018 analysis (Office for National Statistics, 2018 in Donovan and Barnes, 2019), only compares women identifying as lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual and finds bisexual women nearly twice as likely to report (10.9%) partner abuse than heterosexual women (6%); and lesbian/gay women also reporting higher levels than heterosexual women (8%). Furthermore, looking at different types of abuse, bisexual women were five times as likely to report sexual assault than heterosexual women (1.9% and 0.4%, respectively); lesbian/gay women also reporting higher rates than heterosexual women (0.5%). In their community survey of family and IPV, Donovan et al. (2021) also found that bisexual, trans and non-binary folk were more likely to report these than lesbians, gay men, cisgender participants.

The forces that shape the perpetration and experience of family violence among LGBTQ+ communities are complex and a comprehensive account is beyond the scope of this article (see (Carman et al., 2020 for review). Donovan and Hester (2010, 2014) point to the ways in which heteronormative practices of love are implicated in victim/survivors remaining and/or returning to domestically abusive relationships. Donovan and Barnes (2020) develop the findings of Ristock (2002) and Donovan and Hester (2014) that those in their first same-sex relationship can be victimized by the experiential power of partners who have been out in their LGBTQ+ identities for longer. Other research has pointed to some gay men (as an example) holding on to heteronormative and stereotypical views of masculinity, particularly as they relate to male cultures of dominance (Salter et al., 2020) which can lead to violence being regarded as routine or aggression not being identified as family violence or men not wanting to self-identify as “victims” (Oliffe et al., 2014). What is important to take from these findings is that, as Donovan and Barnes argue, more needs to be done to take account “of the broader socio-structural and cultural context within which LGB and/or T people live that shapes not only whether they recognize their experiences as requiring help, but also their perceptions of what sources of help might be available to them” (Donovan & Barnes, 2020, p. 555).

A key concern conveyed in several qualitative studies (Calton et al., 2016; Donovan & Barnes, 2020; Donovan & Hester, 2014; Head & Milton, 2014; Messinger, 2017) and reinforced by practitioner discourse (O’Halloran, 2015) is that the dominant framing of family violence diminishes the ability of some within the LGBTQ+ community to recognize their experience as one of violence. Other commentators have suggested that a lifelong, elevated experience of verbal, physical, and/or sexual assault—still sadly pervasive in a large number of Australian contexts (Hill et al., 2020, 2021; Strauss et al., 2020)—normalizes experiences of violence and poor treatment to the extent that some LGBTQ+ people can struggle to recognize violence within relationships or in the home (O’Halloran, 2015). The recognition of violence is by no means a challenge limited to LGBTQ+ communities with research suggesting that many in the general population can struggle to identify and name their experience as violent or abusive, which poses a significant barrier to accessing help (e.g., Francis et al., 2017; Kim & Hogge, 2015). However, the challenge of recognition may be further exacerbated for LGBTQ+ communities given their experiences are excluded or erased by the dominant, patriarchal, cisgender, and heterosexual lens through which family violence is typically constructed. This challenge to recognition is particularly concerning when considering the important role it plays in help-seeking.

Further challenges may be found in how the act of family violence is commonly understood and how this can be different—or indeed unique—for those who are LGBTQ+. Across all relationship types, the public story of intimate partner or domestic violence as only serious or “real” when it is physical or sexual in nature can complicate recognition of violence that is enacted in other ways, such as enforced social isolation, emotional, or financial abuse (among other forms; Am, 2013). Such constructions may also fail to account for coercive control; a pattern of behavior that a perpetrator may use to gain power or control in a relationship and which serves to diminish a person’s sense of autonomy, confidence, or self-esteem (Stark & Hester, 2018). LGBTQ+ people experience all of these forms of family violence in addition to those that that result from identity abuse (e.g., threats to disclose LGBTQ+ identity, HIV status disclosure), withholding gender affirmation treatment (Laskey et al., 2019; Merrill & Wolfe, 2000).

In the context of such diverse family violence experience for LGBTQ+ people, and noting the dominant frameworks that operate to impede recognition of violence within these relationships, the means of surveying and documenting this experience become particularly challenging. While some notable surveys of family violence among LGBTQ+ communities have asked nuanced questions in such a way as to recognize a broad range of IPV experiences, including physical, sexual, and psychological abuse (e.g., Coston, 2017; Pantalone et al., 2012), others have tended to rely on questions that require an explicit naming and recognition of a relationship as one that was, in general terms, abusive or violent, particularly when conducted as LGBTQ+ specific surveys (Carvalho et al., 2011; Leonard et al., 2008). While valuable in highlighting broad population-level need, these studies may mask the inability of an individual, or in fact whole communities to recognize and name experiences of abuse as such when they do not fit within the normative narrative which reduces the term “family violence” to only mean in practice “men’s violence against women.” Further to this, global-level statistics relating to an “LGBTQ+ community” likely mask its considerable diversity and the many intersections that may further shape violent experience. In their COHSAR project, Donovan and Hester (2014) made the decision not to advertise their research in LGBT+ communities as being about domestic abuse but about “what happens when things go wrong” in intimate relationships (McCarry et al., 2008). This approach was intended to prevent the loss of potential participants counting themselves out of research about domestic violence and abuse. Participants were then asked a range of questions including about relation status, conflict, resolution of conflict, victimization by and perpetration of a range of physical, sexual, emotional, financial abuses, the impacts of these behaviors and help-seeking behaviors and were finally asked whether they had ever experienced domestic violence and abuse. Thirty-eight percent of survey respondents self-identified that they had experienced domestic violence and abuse in a same-sex relationship but far more indicated they had experienced at least one form of emotional abuse (54%), physical abuse (41%), or sexual abuse (41%). An analysis taking into account the severity and frequency of victimization with multiple types of abusive behavior indicated that about 10% of the survey respondents experienced the most severe kind of intimate partner abuse, coercively controlling violence (Hester et al., 2010).

Within this paper, we seek to examine recognition of family violence by attending to the discrepancy between explicitly reporting an experience of family violence and reporting experience that, objectively speaking, may indicate violent or abusive behaviors in a relationship as acknowledged within Australian family violence legislation (Family Law Legislation Amendment Act, 2011). In line with Australian conceptualizations of violence, we draw a distinction between IPV and family of origin violence (FOV); the latter typically referring to birth (or legally adopted/Guardian) families in a way that acknowledges some LGBTQ+ people have “families of choice,” particularly when they have been subject to emotionally abusive rejection by families of origin due to homo/trans/bi/queer phobia (Dewaele et al., 2011). Our principal aim, therefore, was to examine the differences that arise between explicit reporting of IPV and FOV and reporting of experiences that may indicate IPV or FOV even if not named as such by the individual. Furthermore, and in recognition of the heterogeneity of the LGBTQ+ population, we sought to understand if and how these experiences and discrepancies in naming violence are observed across different members and intersections of the community.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The study sample was drawn from Private Lives 3, a cross-sectional national survey of health and wellbeing among 6,835 LGBTQ+ people in Australia aged 18 years or older (Hill et al., 2020). For most of the current analyses, we included only respondents who reported experiencing some form of FOV or IPV. The resulting sample included 4,607 participants aged between 18 and 88 years old. Participants were recruited from all states and territories. Private Lives 3 was approved by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee. The survey was open from July 24, 2019 to October 1, 2019 and was advertised through promotion by LGBTQ+ community organizations as well as paid targeted advertising on Facebook and Instagram.

Materials

The Private Lives 3 survey instrument comprised items pertaining to demographic characteristics including gender, sexuality, age, area of residence, country of birth, level of education, weekly net income, and current employment. For the purposes of the current analyses, gender identity was coded as either cisgender or trans and gender diverse.

Experiences of FOV were examined using two questions. The first asked participants to directly identify if they had ever experienced FOV: “Have you ever felt you were abused in some way by a family member(s)?” All participants, regardless of how they answered the direct FOV question, were then asked to answer a nuanced FOV question. This question asked participants “Have you experienced any of the following from family members? (choose as many as apply).” Response options included 10 forms of violence such as “Physical violence,” “Social isolation,” and “LGBTQ+ related abuse.” All participants who indicated any FOV were also asked if they had reported their most recent experience of violence to anyone—including health professionals, authorities, teachers, etc. Participants who had experienced any of these forms of FOV were also asked if they felt they were targeted for the abuse because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or intersex variation(s).

With regard to IPV, the initial direct question asked, “Have you ever been in an intimate relationship where you felt you were abused in some way by your partner(s)?” This was followed by the more nuanced question outlined above.

All participants who indicated any experience of FOV or IPV were also asked: “The most recent time you experienced abusive behavior from a family member or intimate partner, did you report it to any of the following? (choose as many as apply).” Response options included a list of 11 health professionals, authorities, services, and people of some form of authority, with the additional options to select “other” or indicate that they did not report the violence to anyone.

Statistical Analyses

All analyses were performed using STATA (Version 11, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables. This included numbers and percentages of participants who reported ever experiencing FOV or IPV. These were computed for both the initial direct question and the nuanced question that listed different forms of violence. Subsequent analyses focused on participants who reported experiences of violence through either the direct or nuanced question. A series of univariable and multivariable logistic regressions with robust standard errors to account for the variance in sample sizes were used to assess predictors of participants’ ability to directly identify having experienced either FOV or IPV. Observations with missing data were excluded from these analyses. Predictor variables included demographics as well as types of violence experienced and whether the most recent experience of violence had been reported to anyone. Types of violence included in the models were physical, sexual, emotional, social isolation, and LGBTQ+ related violence. Descriptions of the types of violence (as presented to participants) that were included in the models are provided in Table 1. Two dummy variables were created as outcome variables to indicate participants’ ability to directly identify FOV and IPV. These variables were coded as “yes” if participants responded “yes” to the direct question regarding FOV or IPV and coded as “no” if participants responded “no” to the direct question but then identified experiences of violence in the nuanced question.

Table 1.

Violence Types Included in the Model as Described in the PL3 Survey.

Type of Violence	Description
Physical violence	Hitting, throwing heavy objects or threats, and physical intimidation regardless of whether an injury resulted
Sexual violence	Undesired sexual behavior through force or other means
Emotional violence	Regularly manipulated, humiliated in front of others, gaslighted, bullied, and blamed for abuse
Social isolation	Made it difficult to see friends, family, or community
LGBTQ+ related abuse	Rejected or made you feel ashamed for being LGBTQ+, refused to support/affirm your identity, other homo/bi/transphobia, or intersexism

Note. LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender diverse, or queer.

Regression analyses were conducted separately for FOV and IPV. Univariable regressions were first conducted for each predictor variable to assess associations with the outcome variable. The FOV regression model also included the additional predictor variables of whether participants who experienced FOV felt that they were targeted for the abuse because of their LGBTQ+ identity/expression. Two separate multivariable logistic regressions were then conducted, one for FOV and one for IPV, to identify significant independent predictors. All relevant predictor variables were entered into each model. Tests of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern, with all variance inflation factors < 2. Results are reported as unadjusted (univariable) odds ratios (ORs) or adjusted (multivariable) odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p < .05 used to assess statistical significance.

Results

Frequencies and proportions of sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table 2. Most participants identified as either gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and almost three-quarters of the sample identified as cisgender. The majority were aged under 45 years old, born in Australia, and currently engaged in some form of employment. The largest proportion of participants lived in inner suburban areas, and under one-third each in outer suburban and regional, rural, or remote areas. Three-quarters of participants had completed tertiary education, and most earned a net income under $2,000 per week.

Table 2.

Sample Characteristics (N = 4,607).

	No.	%
Sexual orientation
Lesbian	984	21.40
Gay	1,112	24.18
Bi+	1,364	29.66
Queer	652	14.18
Other	487	10.59
Gender
Cisgender	3,399	74.38
Trans or gender diverse	1,171	25.62
Age (years)
18–24	1,328	28.83
25–34	1,445	31.37
35–44	813	17.65
45–54	575	12.48
55+	446	9.68
State
Australian Capital Territory	176	3.82
Queensland	854	18.54
New South Wales	1,115	24.21
Northern Territory	24	0.52
South Australia	284	6.17
Tasmania	129	2.80
Victoria	1,578	34.26
Western Australia	446	9.68
Residential location
Inner suburban	1,949	42.75
Outer suburban	1,268	27.81
Regional/rural/remote	1,342	29.44
Australian born
No	694	15.09
Yes	3,906	84.91
Education
Secondary or below	1,133	24.60
Non-university tertiary	1,133	24.60
University—undergraduate	1,284	27.88
University—postgraduate	1,056	22.93
Income
0–$399	1,416	31.05
$400–$999	1,236	27.11
$1,000–$1,999	1,378	30.22
$2,000+	530	11.62
Employed
No	1,243	26.98
Yes	3,364	73.02

Of the full sample of Private Lives 3 participants (n = 6,835), when asked directly, 30.93% (n = 2,108) of participants indicated that they had ever experienced FOV and 41.73% (n = 2,846) indicated that they had ever experienced IPV. However, when asked about experiences of family violence using the additional nuanced question (43.18%; n = 2,675) indicated that they had ever experienced FOV and 60.71% (n = 3,716) indicated that they had ever experienced IPV.

Of participants who indicated experiencing some form of FOV, most (78.8%, n = 2,108) were able to directly identify that these experiences constitute abuse. However, 21.2% (n = 567) did not name this violence directly, with their identification of violence relying solely on the nuanced question. None of the participants who indicated an experience of FOV answered only the direct question without also indicating this experience through the nuanced question. Similarly, most participants (76.0%, n = 2,846) who had experienced IPV were able to identify this directly, while 24.0% (n = 897) identified violence solely through the use of the nuanced question. In addition, a small proportion (0.7%; n = 19) of participants directly indicated that they had experienced IPV, while not selecting any form of violence in the nuanced question. While it is challenging to interpret the discrepancy in responses for this small sample of participants, it may simply reflect that their experience was not represented in the list of response options of the nuanced question, and they declined the opportunity to provide further detail through the “other” response option.

Recognizing and Naming FOV

Table 3 displays regression results, including significant predictors, of directly recognizing or naming experiences of FOV. In the multivariable results, compared to participants who identified as lesbian, those who identified as gay had lower odds of directly recognizing and naming experiences of FOV (AOR = 0.69, CI = 0.49–0.97, p = .034). Participants aged over 55 years had 2.5 times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming experiences of FOV than those aged 18–24 years (AOR = 2.52, CI = 1.42–4.45, p = .002), and those with a postgraduate education had 1.5 times higher odds than those with a secondary school education of directly identifying FOV (AOR = 1.51, CI = 1.01–2.25, p = .042). Conversely, participants who were engaged in some form of employment had lower odds of directly recognizing and naming experiences of FOV, compared to those who were not (AOR = 0.67, CI = 0.49–0.91, p = .009). Gender identity, residential location, being born in Australia, and income did not have any association with directly recognizing and naming experiences of FOV.

Table 3.

Correlates of Directly Identifying Experiences of FOV.

	No.**	%**	Unadjusted (Univariable)		Adjusted (Multivariable; n = 2,675)
	No.**	%**	OR (95% CI)	p	OR (95% CI)	p
Sexual orientation
Lesbian*	448	82.05	—	—	—	—
Gay	380	71.43	0.55 (0.41–0.73)	.000	0.69 (0.49–0.97)	.034
Bi+	688	79.54	0.85 (0.65–1.12)	.246	0.84 (0.61–1.17)	.309
Queer	353	83.85	1.14 (0.81–1.59)	.463	0.90 (0.60–1.36)	.620
Other	236	76.62	0.72 (0.51–1.01)	.057	0.70 (0.46–1.07)	.098
Trans or gender diverse
No*	1,421	77.06	—	—	—	—
Yes	666	82.63	1.42 (1.15–1.75)	.001	1.06 (0.80–1.40)	.677
Age (years)
18–24*	695	76.80	—	—	—	—
25–34	672	78.32	1.09 (0.87–1.37)	.443	0.93 (0.69–1.26)	.649
35–44	345	79.68	1.18 (0.89–1.57)	.236	1.06 (0.72–1.58)	.759
45–54	240	81.08	1.29 (0.93–1.80)	.124	1.57 (0.98–2.52)	.059
55+	156	85.25	1.75 (1.13–2.70)	.012	2.52 (1.42–4.45)	.002
Residential location
Inner suburban*	827	77.80	—	—	—	—
Outer suburban	629	80.95	1.21 (0.96–1.53)	.100	1.30 (0.98–1.71)	.066
Regional/rural/remote	635	78.20	1.02 (0.82–1.28)	.835	1.04 (0.79–1.38)	.779
Australian born
No*	269	74.31	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,834	79.46	1.34 (1.03–1.73)	.026	1.37 (1.00–1.89)	.052
Education
Secondary or below*	559	77.10	—	—	—	—
Non-university tertiary	550	78.80	1.10 (0.86–1.42)	.442	0.95 (0.69–1.31)	.753
University—undergraduate	562	78.16	1.06 (0.83–1.36)	0.629	1.14 (0.82–1.57)	0.428
University—postgraduate	436	81.95	1.35 (1.02–1.79)	.037	1.51 (1.01–2.25)	.042
Income
0–$399*	773	79.77	—	—	—	—
$400–$999	599	80.51	1.05 (0.82–1.33)	.705	1.15 (0.83–1.59)	.395
$1,000–$1,999	540	78.15	0.91 (0.71–1.15)	.422	1.13 (0.77–1.65)	.531
$2,000+	176	72.73	0.68 (0.49–0.93)	.018	0.78 (0.48–1.29)	.335
Employed
No*	699	83.71	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,409	76.58	0.64 (0.51–0.79)	.000	0.67 (0.49–0.91)	.009
Type of violence—LGBTIQ+ related
No*	833	75.25	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,275	81.31	1.43 (1.19–1.72)	.000	1.48 (1.14–1.91)	.003
Type of violence—physical
No*	845	67.22	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,263	89.07	3.97 (3.24–4.87)	.000	3.44 (2.70–4.39)	.000
Type of violence—sexual
No*	1,576	74.13	—	—	—	—
Yes	532	96.90	10.92 (6.67–17.87)	.000	14.36 (8.01–25.75)	.000
Type of violence—emotional
No*	441	60.83	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,667	85.49	3.79 (3.12–4.61)	.000	3.16 (2.49–4.01)	.000
Type of violence—social isolation
No*	1,324	74.30	—	—	—	—
Yes	784	87.79	2.49 (1.98–3.12)	.000	1.58 (1.20–2.07)	.001
Targeted because of LGBTQ+ identity
No*	1,406	81.46	—	—	—	—
Yes	700	73.92	0.65 (0.53–0.78)	.000	0.72 (0.55–0.94)	.017
Reported most recent experience of violence
No*	1,354	75.90	—	—	—	—
Yes	692	86.50	2.03 (1.62–2.56)	.000	1.56 (1.20–2.03)	.001

Note. CI = confidence interval; FOV = family of origin violence; LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender diverse, or queer; OR = odds ratio.

Reference category.

The number and proportion of participants who had experienced FOV based on the full survey sample.

Participants who experienced FOV that involved physical abuse, emotional abuse, or social isolation had up to 3.4 times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming experiences of FOV (physical: AOR = 3.44, CI = 2.7–4.39, p = 0; emotional: AOR = 3.16, CI = 2.49–4.01, p < .001; and social isolation: AOR = 1.58, CI = 1.2–2.07, p = .001), while those who had experienced sexual abuse had 14.4 times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming the FOV (AOR = 14.36, CI = 8.01–25.75, p < .001). Participants who reported experiencing LGBTIQ-related abuse had around 1.5 times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming FOV (AOR = 1.48, CI = 1.14–1.91, p = .003). However, participants who felt that they were targeted for the abuse due to their LGBTIQ identity or expression had lower odds of directly recognizing and naming experiences of FOV (AOR = 0.72, CI = 0.55–0.94, p = .017). Finally, those who had reported their most recent experience of FOV or IPV to someone (e.g., to authorities, school teacher, health professional) had around 1.6 times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming FOV (AOR = 1.56, CI = 1.2–2.03, p = .001).

Recognizing and Naming IPV

Table 4 displays regression results, including significant predictors, of directly recognizing or naming experiences of IPV. In the multivariable results, compared to participants who identified as lesbian, those who identified as queer had almost one and a half times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming experiences of IPV (AOR = 1.47, CI = 1.01–2.13, p = .044). Participants aged 25–44 and over 55 years had up to three times higher odds than those aged 18–24 years of directly recognizing and naming experiences of IPV (25–34 years: AOR = 1.35, CI = 1–1.82, p = .048; 35–44 years: AOR = 1.99, CI = 1.38–2.88, p < .001; and 55+ years: AOR = 2.87, CI = 1.78–4.62, p < .001). Gender identity, residential location, being born in Australia, level of education, income, and engagement in some form of employment did not have any association with ability to directly recognize and name experiences of FOV. Experiencing LGBTIQ-related abuse was not associated with ability to recognize and name experiences of IPV. However, all other types of violence included in the model were associated with much higher odds of directly recognizing and naming IPV (physical: AOR = 4.16, CI = 3.23–5.36, p < .001; sexual: AOR = 4.09, CI = 3.15–5.31, p < .001; emotional: AOR = 4.48, CI = 3.59–5.6, p < .001; and social isolation: AOR = 1.78, CI = 1.44–2.21, p < .001). Finally, those who had reported their most recent experience of FOV or IPV to someone (e.g., to authorities, schoolteacher, health professional) had 1.3 times higher odds of directly recognizing and naming their experience as an instance of IPV (AOR = 1.31, CI = 1.05–1.65, p = .018).

Table 4.

Correlates of Directly Identifying Experiences of IPV.

	No.**	%**	Unadjusted (Univariable)		Adjusted (Multivariable; n = 3,716)
	No.**	%**	OR (95% CI)	p	AOR (95% CI)	p
Sexual orientation
Lesbian*	622	77.56	—	—	—	—
Gay	610	67.18	0.59 (0.48–0.74)	.000	0.82 (0.62–1.09)	.177
Bi+	871	78.26	1.04 (0.84–1.30)	.706	1.22 (0.91–1.63)	.186
Queer	450	84.27	1.57 (1.18–2.09)	.002	1.47 (1.01–2.13)	.044
Other	285	75.40	0.90 (0.67–1.19)	.450	1.35 (0.92–1.98)	.122
Trans or gender diverse
No*	2,069	74.72	—	—	—	—
Yes	748	79.49	1.31 (1.10–1.57)	.003	1.00 (0.78–1.29)	.969
Age (years)
18–24*	662	70.88	—	—	—	—
25–34	912	76.77	1.36 (1.12–1.65)	.002	1.35 (1.00–1.82)	.048
35–44	583	81.42	1.81 (1.43–2.29)	.000	1.99 (1.38–2.88)	.000
45–54	371	74.05	1.17 (0.92–1.50)	.208	1.38 (0.93–2.03)	.109
55+	318	78.71	1.49 (1.13–1.97)	.005	2.87 (1.78–4.62)	.000
Residential location
Inner suburban*	1,221	76.07	—	—	—	—
Outer suburban	753	74.85	0.93 (0.77–1.12)	.442	0.84 (0.66–1.06)	.146
Regional/rural/remote	840	76.99	1.04 (0.87–1.25)	.663	0.94 (0.73–1.20)	.621
Australian born
No*	425	73.78	—	—	—	—
Yes	2,415	76.42	1.15 (0.94–1.41)	.174	1.11 (0.84–1.48)	.460
Education
Secondary or below*	599	71.82	—	—	—	—
Non-university tertiary	755	78.40	1.43 (1.15–1.77)	.001	1.01 (0.75–1.37)	.928
University—undergraduate	798	76.29	1.25 (1.02–1.54)	.034	1.14 (0.84–1.55)	.397
University—postgraduate	693	77.09	1.32 (1.06–1.63)	.013	1.16 (0.82–1.64)	.411
Income
0–$399*	806	76.91	—	—	—	—
$400–$999	779	76.82	1.00 (0.82–1.23)	.990	0.86 (0.63–1.16)	.316
$1,000–$1,999	901	76.10	0.96 (0.79–1.17)	0.687	1.01 (0.71–1.43)	.972
$2,000+	341	73.49	0.83 (0.65–1.07)	.155	1.06 (0.68–1.66)	.802
Employed
No*	767	78.99	—	—	—	—
Yes	2,079	75.00	0.80 (0.67–0.96)	.014	0.91 (0.69–1.20)	.499
Type of violence—LGBTIQ+ related
No*	2,312	74.48	—	—	—	—
Yes	507	82.84	1.65 (1.32–2.07)	.000	0.82 (0.61–1.12)	.213
Type of violence—physical
No*	1,415	64.67	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,404	91.88	6.19 (5.05–7.58)	.000	4.16 (3.23–5.36)	.000
Type of violence—sexual
No*	1,615	67.74	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,204	90.39	4.48 (3.66–5.48)	.000	4.09 (3.15–5.31)	.000
Type of violence—emotional
No*	356	45.99	—	—	—	—
Yes	2,463	83.72	6.04 (5.08–7.17)	.000	4.48 (3.59–5.60)	.000
Type of violence—social isolation
No*	1,390	66.76	—	—	—	—
Yes	1,429	87.45	3.47 (2.92–4.12)	.000	1.78 (1.44–2.21)	.000
Reported most recent experience of violence
No*	1,792	77.68	—	—	—	—
Yes	894	85.63	1.72 (1.41–2.09)	.000	1.31 (1.05–1.65)	.018

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; IPV = intimate partner violence; LGBTQ+ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender diverse, or queer; OR = odds ratio.

Reference category.

The number and proportion of participants who had experienced IPV based on the full survey sample.

Discussion

The experience of IPV among LGBTQ+ communities is a serious and pervasive concern. Regardless of the manner of questioning, the proportions reporting abusive or violent experiences within intimate relationships are very high. Similarly, a very high proportion of participants directly reported violence enacted by members of their family of origin. When asked as a direct question relating to their experience of abuse or violence from an intimate partner, approximately 4 in 10 provided an affirmative response; however, this rose markedly to around in 6 in 10 when asked to indicate their experience of one or more nuanced forms of violence or abuse (a similar jump was observed from 3 in 10 to 4 in 10 in relation of FOV). Such a finding reinforces the value of sensitive and inclusive questioning in surveys of family violence, including forms of violence that can be LGBTQ+ specific. In addition, differences were noted in the odds of people being able to directly recognize their experience as one of abuse or violence according to differing demographic characteristics and other life experiences. These differences were not always the same when considering IPV and FOV.

In relation to FOV, both older age and a higher level of education were associated with being able to name and recognize this experience, which may indicate a dimension of literacy or exposure to relevant discourse that aids the process of recognition. Gay men had lower odds of directly recognizing or naming their experience as one of family violence, compared to lesbian women, which could reflect greater social recognition of family violence as being experienced by women or, conversely the normalization of violence experienced by men. Those who experienced physical or sexual abuse had higher odds of recognizing and naming their experience as one denoting FOV. Finally, those participants who felt that they were targeted for the abuse due to their LGBTQ+ identity or expression had lower odds of directly identifying this as an experience of FOV. The reasons for this are likely multifaceted. This might include a sense of normalization of experience as a result of living in a context where so many are subject to abuse, rejection, or other forms of violence at the point of disclosing their gender identity or sexuality to family members (i.e., “coming out”; Hill et al., 2021; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2013). In addition, LGBTQ+ people might have grown accustomed to relaying these coming out narratives to others on a regular basis (Marques, 2020), so the framing of this experience as one of violence or abuse may be complicated or impeded. It might also indicate a level of internalized homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia where such abuse was framed as deserved therefore not actually abuse. This relates to the minority stress theory that highlights internalized homophobia as one of the common underpinning associations with pervasive stress experiences (Meyer, 2003).

In relation to IPV, an age association was observed whereby older participants had higher odds of directly identifying and naming their experience as one of violence, which may reflect greater exposure to public discourses around IPV, including those that deviate from the dominant public story of this experience. It might also reflect more historic experiences of abuse that an older individual has had more time to reflect on, process, and recognize as abuse. At a univariable level, violence within intimate relationships was less commonly named as such by gay identifying participants, but this was not significant at the multivariable level (so too with trans participants). This may indicate ways in which sexuality and gender identity can shape the perception of IPV; however, further research (particularly that conducted qualitatively) may wish to explore in more detail how these groups engage with dominant narratives of IPV, and how they may complicate naming and recognition. The experience of LGBTQ specific abuse was not associated with directly identifying and naming IPV, which might suggest that these experiences, sitting outside of the dominant framings of IPV, may pose a particular challenge to recognition. In the case of both IPV and FOV, those who had reported their experience had higher odds of directly recognizing and naming it. Partly this is to be expected and cross-sectional data such as these do not allow us to understand the sequence of reporting a form of abuse and then naming this as violence. Irrespective though, it highlights the central importance of raising awareness and improving recognition of violence in its diverse forms to increase the proportion of people who reach out for professional support when they need it.

Taken together, these findings suggest considerable complexity in how LGBTQ+ people conceptualize their experience of family of origin and/or IPV and if or how they explicitly name it as such. These data also indicate diversity within the LGBTQ+ community regarding this conceptualization. The reasons for this complexity in naming and recognition could arise for a number of reasons, including those outlined earlier regarding the “public story” of family violence (Donovan & Hester, 2010). These could relate to a central focus on IPV in discussions of family violence which obfuscates the different relational contexts in which family violence can occur and normalization of experiences of abuse as part of a “coming out” story. These could also relate to difficulties in conceiving of a same-sex relationship as one involving violence, for example: assumptions that women cannot exert physical power (Calton et al., 2016); idealized understandings of LGBTQ relationships that can cloud understandings or recognition of IPV (Irwin, 2008; Merlis & Linville, 2006); or, in the context of lesbian relationships, a concern (conscious or otherwise) that acknowledging lesbian IPV may threaten feminist framings of family violence that emphasize the negative impacts of misogyny and patriarchy (Rollè et al., 2018); a reluctance to further or reinforce societal homophobia by contributing to stigma around LGB relationships (Ard & Makadon, 2011); a perception that violence between two men is not seen as serious because they can both exert physical power so the victim can defend himself (Calton et al., 2016); or a reluctance of people to accept a construction of themselves as a victim, particularly the case for men due to constructions of masculinity (Donovan & Hester, 2010).

In this context, it is especially crucial that health and social care providers are attentive to the possibility of violence among relationships involving LGBTQ people and ask appropriate, sensitively worded questions to establish their risk. However, research indicates that many service providers themselves are unaware of the nuanced ways in which family violence can be experienced by LGBTIQ people (Fileborn, 2012; Furman et al., 2017) and there is growing evidence to indicate that many LGBTIQ people face significant barriers to accessing and receiving safe and affirming support when they experience family violence. This can include inappropriate assumptions about the nature of violence in same gender relationships, or a failure to recognize it as such (Calton et al., 2016) as well as conscious or unconscious acts of discrimination (Fileborn, 2012) or a basic lack of understanding relating to sexuality and gender diversity, which stymies the provision of support (ACON, 2011). It might also reflect a reluctance to disclose same gender relationships and LGBTQ identities to healthcare providers for fear of discrimination, which itself presents an inability to raise even more sensitive issues of abuse and violence. While an historic body of research has examined rejection or abuse from family members at the point of disclosing LGBTQ-related identities or practices (Katz-Wise et al., 2016), there is a lack of research examining broader experiences of FOV, including if and how those working in child and family services understand and recognize family of origin abuse that is directed toward LGBTQ identity.

Outside of direct contact interventions within family violence service contexts, the findings reported in this paper indicate that there may be value in supporting interventions that encourage LGBTIQ community-level discussion about family violence in ways that assist people to better recognize the diversity of this experience. An example of such an intervention in action can be found in Australian LGBTIQ community-controlled organization, Thorne Harbour Health, and their “Safe always” intervention (https://www.safealways.org/), which seeks to raise awareness of the ways in which IPV can operate within LGBTIQ communities and provide signposting to gender and sexuality affirming support services in the state. There may also be value in interventions targeting the family violence services sectors that provide education as well as encourage and facilitate self-reflection on the nature of abusive or violent experiences within family of origin or intimate partner contexts, which may, in turn, facilitate greater update of professional family violence services’ ability to provide LGBTIQ safe and inclusive services, which, in turn, may increase trust in these services and the rates in which LGBTIQ seek out these services.

This analysis includes several limitations. The Private Lives 3 study was cross-sectional in nature and, as such, it is not possible to identify how or when people came to conceptualize or name their experience as one of family violence, nor can we ascertain how the “public story” of family violence has shaped their responses. It is also the case that some participants may also have been perpetrators of family violence and some both perpetrator and victim–survivor, which may have further complicated recognition of their actions as constituting violence or abuse. It should be noted that we do not seek to recast someone’s personal lived experience as violent or name it in ways that they did not themselves. In conducting this analysis, our intention has been to draw attention to very differing levels and patterns of reporting violence that exist for this population which, we surmise, is likely a consequence of the dominant framings and public stories of domestic violence that do not take into account the lives and circumstances of many within the LGBTQ+ communities. This could be the subject of further, detailed, qualitative enquiry. Such qualitative work could account for more recent experiences of violence, experiences of polyvictimization, and more nuanced analyses of intersecting backgrounds, including ethnicity. Such work could also examine the extent of exposure to LGBTIQ specific or inclusive FV education campaigns and/or discussion entered into with others in the LGBTQ community regarding family of origin and IPV.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank members of the Private Lives 3 Expert Advisory Group and Gender Advisory Board, who supported this research and gave valuable support, advice, and feedback at various stages of this study, as well as the many other individuals and organizations who gave assistance at different stages to aid survey design and recruitment.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: The Private Lives 3 study, from which these data are drawn, was funded by the Victorian Government Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services. Supplementary analyses of data pertaining to family violence were made possible by funding from the Commonwealth Department of Social Services.

ORCID iDs

Adam Bourne

Marina Carman

Notes

Author biographies

Adam Bourne, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Public Health and Deputy Director of the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University. He leads a program of research relating to LGBTIQ health, including family violence and mental health.

Natalie Amos, PhD, is a Research Officer at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University. She contributes to a number of studies pertaining to the health and well-being of LGBTIQ populations with expertise in large-scale quantitative data analysis.

Catherine Donovan, PhD, is a Professor of Sociology and Head of the Department of Sociology at Durham University, UK. Her research interests relate to the use of violent and abusive behaviors by LGBT people in their intimate relationships.

Marina Carman, MA, is a Director of Rainbow Health Australia, a specialist LGBTIQ knowledge translation, training, and policy team housed within the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University.

Matthew Parsons, BA, is the Manager, Education and Strategic Development at Rainbow Health Australia within the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health, and Society, La Trobe University. He manages numerous programs relating to family violence sector capacity building.

Stephanie Lusby, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University where she currently manages a large, national project relating to family violence service provision for LGBTIQ people.

Anthony Lyons, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Public Health at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University. He has expertise and interests in LGBTIQ mental health, stigma, and discrimination and in ageing among LGBTIQ communities.

Adam O Hill, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society at La Trobe University where he contributes to a variety of projects relating to LGBTIQ health and well-being as well as social and behavioral HIV prevention and care research.

References

ACON. (2011). One size does not fit all: Gap analysis of NSW domestic violence support services in relation to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities’ needs. Executive Summary and Recommendations. https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-489138563/view

(2013). Shifting language and meanings between social science and the law: Defining family violence. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 36(2), 359–389.

Ard

K. L.

Makadon

H. J.

(2011). Addressing intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(8), 930–933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6

Barrett

B. J.

St. Pierre

(2013). Intimate partner violence reported by lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-identified individuals living in Canada: An exploration of within-group variations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 25(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2013.751887

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Walters

M. L.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings of victimization by sexual orientation. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

Calton

J. M.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Gebhard

K. T.

(2016). Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318

Carman

Fairchild

Parsons

Farrugia

Power

Bourne

(2020). Pride in prevention: A guide to primary prevention of family violence experienced by LGBTIQ communities. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1141833/Pride-in-Prevention-Evidence-Guide.pdf

Carvalho

A. F.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Winstead

B. A.

Viggiano

(2011). Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26(7), 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9384-2

Coston

B. M.

(2017). Power and inequality: Intimate partner violence against bisexual and non-monosexual women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517726415

10.

Dewaele

Cox

Van den Berghe

Vincke

(2011). Families of choice? Exploring the supportive networks of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00715.x

11.

Donovan

Barnes

(2019). Domestic violence and abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGB and/or T) relationships. Sexualities, 22(5–6), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716681491

12.

Donovan

Barnes

(2020). Queering the narratives of domestic violence and abuse. Palgrave.

13.

Donovan

Hester

(2010). ‘I hate the word “victim”’: An exploration of recognition of domestic violence in same sex relationships. Social Policy & Society, 9(2), 279–289.

14.

Donovan

Hester

(2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with it? . Policy Press.

15.

Donovan

Magic

West

(2021). LGBT+ domestic abuse needs assessment for Central Bedfordshire Council. https://www.durham.ac.uk/media/durham-university/research-/research-centres/research-into-violence-and-abuse-centre-for/central-beds-lgbt-da-needs-assessment.pdf

16.

Family Law Legislation Amendment Act. (2011). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1011a/Copy_of_11bd001

17.

Fileborn

(2012). Sexual violence and gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, intersex, and queer communities. https://aifs.gov.au/resources/practice-guides/sexual-violence-and-gay-lesbian-bisexual-trans-intersex-and-queer

18.

Francis

Loxton

James

(2017). The culture of pretence: A hidden barrier to recognising, disclosing and ending domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15–16), 2202–2214. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13501

19.

Furman

Barata

Wilson

Fante-Coleman

(2017). “It’s a gap in awareness”: Exploring service provision for LGBTQ2S survivors of intimate partner violence in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 29(4), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2017.1365672

20.

Head

Milton

(2014). Filling the silence: Exploring the bisexual experience of intimate partner abuse. Journal of Bisexuality, 14(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.903218

21.

Hester

Donovan

Fahmy

(2010). Feminist epistemology and the politics of method: Surveying same sex domestic violence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2010.482260

22.

Hill

A. O.

Bourne

McNair

Carman

Lyons

(2020). Private lives 3: The health and wellbeing of LGBTIQ people in Australia. ARCSHS Monograph Series No. 122. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1185885/Private-Lives-3.pdf

23.

Hill

A. O.

Lyons

Jones

McGowan

Carman

Parsons

Power

Bourne

(2021). Writing themselves In 4: The health and wellbeing of LGBTQA+ young people in Australia (National Report). https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1198945/Writing-Themselves-In-4-National-report.pdf

24.

Irwin

(2008). (Dis)counted stories: Domestic violence and lesbians. Qualitative Social Work, 7(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325008089630

25.

Katz-Wise

S. L.

Rosario

Tsappis

(2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth and family acceptance. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(6), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.005

26.

Kim

Hogge

(2015). Intimate partner violence among Asian Indian women in the United States: Recognition of abuse and help-seeking attitudes. International Journal of Mental Health, 44(3), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207411.2015.1035073

27.

Laskey

Bates

E. A.

Taylor

J. C.

(2019). A systematic literature review of intimate partner violence victimisation: An inclusive review across gender and sexuality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.02.014

28.

Leonard

Mitchell

Patel

Pitts

(2008). Coming forward: The underreporting of heterosexist violence and same-sex partner abuse in Victoria. https://apo.org.au/node/3251

29.

Marques

A. C.

(2020). Telling stories; telling transgender coming out stories from the UK and Portugal. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(9), 1287–1307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1681943

30.

McCarry

Hester

Donovan

(2008). Researching same sex domestic violence: Constructing a survey methodology. Sociological Research Online, 13(1), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1650

31.

Merlis

S. R.

Linville

(2006). Exploring a community’s response to lesbian domestic violence through the voices of providers. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 18(1–2), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1300/J086v18n01_05

32.

Merrill

G. S.

Wolfe

V. A.

(2000). Battered gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v39n02_01

33.

Messinger

A. M.

(2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(11), 2228–2243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383023

34.

Messinger

A. M.

(2017). LGBTQ intimate partner violence: Lessons for policy, practice, and research. University of California Press.

35.

Meyer

I. H.

(2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

36.

Office for National Statistics. (2018). Domestic abuse: Findings from the crime survey for England and Wales, year ending 2018. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusefindingsfromthecrimesurveyforenglandandwales/previousReleases

37.

O’Halloran

(2015). Family violence in an LGBTIQ context. https://sayitoutloud.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Family-violence-in-an-LGBTIQ-context-Kate-OHalloran.pdf

38.

Oliffe

J. L.

Han

Maria

E. S.

Lohan

Howard

Stewart

D. E.

MacMillan

(2014). Gay men and intimate partner violence: A gender analysis. Sociology of Health and Illness, 36(4), 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12099

39.

Pantalone

D. W.

Schneider

K. L.

Valentine

S. E.

Simoni

J. M.

(2012). Investigating partner abuse among HIV-positive men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 16(4), 1031–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-011-0011-2

40.

Ristock

J. L.

(2002). No more secrets: violence in lesbian relationships. Routledge.

41.

Rogers

(2019). Challenging cisgenderism through trans people’s narratives of domestic violence and abuse. Sexualities, 22(5–6), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716681475

42.

Rollè

Giardina

Caldarera

A. M.

Gerino

Brustia

(2018). When intimate partner violence meets same sex couples: A review of same sex intimate partner violence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1506. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506

43.

Rosario

Schrimshaw

E. W.

(2013). The sexual identity development and health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents: An ecological perspective. In Ptterson

C. J.

D’Augelli

A. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. Oxford University Press.

44.

Salter

Robinson

Ullman

Denson

Ovenden

Noonan

Bansel

Huppatz

(2020). Gay, bisexual, and queer men’s attitudes and understandings of intimate partner violence and sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898433

45.

Seymour

(2019). (In)Visibility and recognition: Australian policy responses to ‘domestic violence’. Sexualities, 22(5–6), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716681465

46.

Stark

Hester

(2018). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191

47.

Strauss

Cook

Winter

Watson

Wright Toussaint

Lin

(2020). Associations between negative life experiences and the mental health of trans and gender diverse young people in Australia: Findings from Trans pathways. Psychological Medicine, 50(5), 808–817. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291719000643

48.

Victorian Agency for Health Information. (2020). The health and wellbeing of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer population in Victoria: Findings from the Victorian Population Health Survey 2017. https://vahi.vic.gov.au/report/population-health/health-and-wellbeing-lgbtiq-population-victoria