‘Being together really helped’: Australian transgender and non-binary people and their animal companions living through violence and marginalisation

Abstract

This article explores the intersections of human and animal lives in the context of violence and marginalisation. It draws on two studies, the first involving a sub-sample of 23 open-ended survey responses completed by transgender and non-binary (TNB) people taken from a larger study exploring the intersections of animal- and human-directed violence, and the second involving eight interviews with TNB people focused on the meaning of animal companionship. Together, the findings suggest that animal companionship can be a protective factor for TNB people experiencing marginalisation and/or distress, whether in the context of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) or in the context of other forms of intra- or inter-personal points or adversity. The findings suggest that animal companions can provide TNB people with comfort and non-judgemental emotional interactions in the face of DVA and other life stressors. However, the risk of violence directed towards animals must also be considered. The article concludes with discussion of the implications for DVA service provision and research.

Keywords

animal companions animals domestic violence < violence LGBT non-binary transgender

Transgender and non-binary (TNB) people face many risks of harm as a result of living in heterosexist and cisgenderist societies (Riggs et al., 2015). A limited body of literature on TNB people and animal companions (i.e. domesticated animals who live in the home) suggests that human–animal bonds may help compensate for the risks of harm, specifically by providing TNB people with unconditional positive regard (see, for example, McCloskey, 1999; Muraco et al., 2018). That animal companions can express unconditional positive regard without concern for human hierarchies and stigmatised identities has particular relevance to TNB populations. This may be especially true for TNB people whose family members have rejected them because of their gender and/or sexual identities (Muraco et al., 2018), who are first disclosing their gender diversity (Jin, 2018), and who are navigating family violence including identity-related abuse (Riggs et al., 2018).

Over the last decade or so there has been greater inclusion of other animals in sociological research and some – within and without the discipline – have argued there is a need to take ‘nonhuman animals seriously, treating them as aware actors on the social stage’ (Birke, 2011: xx; see also, for example, Cudworth, 2016; Coulter, 2016; Gillespie, 2018; Hamilton and Taylor, 2017; Nibert, 2003; Peggs, 2013; Philo and Wilbert, 2000; Emel and Wolch, 1998). In this article we extend this focus by considering how animal companions themselves are at risk of violence when living in households with TNB people where abuse is present.

Specifically, in this article we draw on Australian survey and interview data with TNB people to further explore the intersections of human and animal lives in the context of violence and marginalisation, including in the context of family or intimate partner domestic violence and abuse (DVA), as well as in the context of other forms of intra- or inter-personal adversity. In so doing, we acknowledge that animals do offer significant support to the humans who have strong relationships with them. We know from the literature with cisgender, heterosexual people that animal companions are a significant source of meaning to many (e.g. Owens and Grauerholz, 2018; Rhoades et al., 2014; Walsh, 2009). Our findings echo this, with participants being clear that animals offered them non-judgemental companionship that was sometimes life-saving in its nature, but also demonstrate that positive relationships with animal companions also need to be weighed against the risk of animals being exposed to human–human violence, or having violence or abuse directed towards them. Again, while this is not unique to TNB people’s relationships with animal companions (see, for example, Fitzgerald et al., 2019; Riggs et al., 2018, 2019), the additional exclusion, marginalisation, harassment and violence faced by many TNB people can mean that animal companionship takes on particular significance and can place animal companions at risk of violence themselves (Taylor et al., 2018).

Background literature

Transgender and non-binary people’s experiences of violence and marginalisation

Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) significantly affects gender and sexuality diverse people (Bolam and Bates, 2016; Brown and Herman, 2015; Riggs and Toone, 2017; Waters, 2016). This includes violence and abuse between intimate partners, and from other family members (Hines and Malley-Morrison, 2004; Turell, 2012; Turell and Herrmann, 2008). However, members of gender and sexuality diverse communities experience DVA differently and have different needs (Turell and Cornell-Swanson, 2005). TNB people in particular experience significantly higher rates of intimate partner DVA across the lifespan than other populations (Barrett and Sheridan, 2017; Cook-Daniels and Munson, 2010; Goldenberg et al., 2018; Roch et al., 2010; Stotzer, 2009; Walker, 2015), including in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018; Campo and Tayton, 2015; Couch et al., 2007; Papazian and Ball, 2016). The negative impact of intimate partner DVA is increased by the exclusion of TNB people from dominant narratives surrounding DVA, due to cisgenderism, heteronormativity and, at times, the resultant pressure to remain ‘closeted’, which prevents TNB people from being identified as such by services (Greenberg, 2012; Holmes, 2016; Rogers, 2017). This exclusion often results in services providers having an incomplete or incompatible approach to TNB people and their specific DVA needs (Riggs et al., 2016).

At its core, DVA sits within a broader context of violence and marginalisation experienced by TNB people as a result of transphobic abjection and repulsion (Ansara and Friedman, 2016; Bandini and Maggi, 2014). There are several perspectives on the types of factors which specifically influence violence against and marginalisation of TNB people. Rogers (2017) has suggested that the abuse of TNB people by their families may be understood through the lens of ‘honour’-based abuse, wherein a TNB person’s family members may attempt to control that person as a means of reducing perceived or internal transphobic stigma and shame, ultimately privileging their own desire for gender conformity over the wellbeing of a TNB family member. Such abuse may also occur when a family member or intimate partner perceives a TNB person’s gender as inauthentic, thereby denying that person’s needs, instead attempting to control their narrative (Bornstein et al., 2006).

A more systematic perspective pertains to the overall lack of visibility of transgender-specific DVA experiences, which leads to a significant knowledge gap among the public and DVA service providers in understanding the behaviours and patterns which affect TNB people (Vlais et al., 2017). Australian research (Riggs et al., 2018) has found that among a sample of 503 gender and sexuality diverse people, TNB people were those statistically most likely to have experienced family-based DVA, with statistically significant relationships between having experienced violence and abuse from family members and increased psychological distress. Violence and abuse can manifest in several TNB-specific actions on the part of perpetrators, including forcing the TNB person to cease transitioning or to conceal their identity, positioning the person’s gender presentation as grounds for being seen as undesirable by anyone outside of that relationship (thereby making the partner or family member their sole social connection), threats of ‘outing’ the TNB person, and directly depriving them of access to hormones and other transition-related necessities (Peitzmeier et al., 2019).

Animal companionship in the context of intimate partner and family DVA

The deliberate harm of animals is increasingly being recognised and, within this, there is now significant research specifically on ‘The Link’ between the perpetration of abuse directed by humans towards animals and abuse directed towards other humans (Newberry, 2017). For example, in one of the first pieces of research in this area, when researchers surveyed women who entered a refuge in response to fleeing violence, they found that of the 74% who had animals companions, most also reported that their partner threatened or harmed their animal companion (Ascione et al., 1997). Animal abuse also appears to be more prevalent in families where DV is present (Faver and Cavazos, 2007; McPhedran, 2009). When Volant et al., (2008) surveyed 102 Australian women who had experienced DV and a demographically matched sample of 102 women without DV experience, for example, they found that more than half the women with DV experience reported that their animal companions had been harmed, and 17% of these reported that their companion animals had been killed. This contrasted with only 6% of the matched sample reporting harm of animals and no animal deaths. This mirrors research from other countries that consistently demonstrates co-occurrence of domestic violence and animal abuse rates between 25% and 86% (Monsalve et al., 2017). For example, Hartman et al. (2016) found that 11.7% of 291 victims of domestic violence in a US study had witnessed threats toward an animal companion, with 26.1% witnessing actual animal harm.

Increasingly, research is supporting the idea that if a person is abusive towards animals, it can signal a ‘red flag’ about their likelihood of enacting violence against intimate partners or children (DeGue and DiLillo, 2008; Febres et al., 2014). Animal harm may also be an indication of the level and type of danger presented by the abuser. Simmons and Lehmann (2007), for example, concluded from their survey of 1283 women seeking refuge in shelters in Texas that men who abuse an animal are more dangerous than those who do not. The abusers who were violent to their partners, and who also abused an animal living in the home, utilised a greater range, and severity, of aggressive violence (Simmons and Lehmann, 2007).

The presence of animal companions in the context of DVA can also significantly change experiences of violence or abuse. Those targeted by DVA may become especially attached to animals as a ‘safe’ source of emotional comfort (Flynn, 2000) and this connection, in turn, may make animals more attractive targets of abuse (Signal et al., 2018), with research showing that violence perpetrators use animals as coercive devices (e.g. Onyskiw, 2007). For example, in Ireland, Allen et al. (2006) asked the 13 women (of a sample of 23) who had experienced animal abuse in the context of a domestically violent relationship, what they thought the motivation for their abuser’s behaviour was. Twelve of the women stated that their animals were used to deliberately establish control over them and/or their children. Newberry (2017), in her analysis of 74 stories from online forums where individuals shared experiences of animal abuse also found that using animals to control human behaviour was a common theme. She further identified three sub-themes: isolating victims by restricting their contact with others (e.g. ensuring victims were scared to leave their animals with the perpetrator while they visited friends/family); financial control (e.g. refusal to pay for veterinary bills) and preventing the victim from leaving and/or coercing them to come back through, for example, threatening the animal’s lives. As a result of the threats and abuse animals may receive in DVA situations, many (human) victims remain in, or return to, abusive situations due to fears over the fate of their animals (Taylor and Fraser, 2019). Alternatively, this fear may motivate them to leave their abusers (Taylor et al., 2018).

Despite previous research focusing almost solely on the link between human-directed and animal-directed violence in the context of heterosexual, cisgender relationships, some research does suggest both that ‘The Link’ is evident in TNB people’s relationships, and that animal companions can play a significant role in TNB people’s coping with DVA. For example, we have found that experiencing close relationships with animal companions to a degree mitigates experiences of intimate partner DVA by helping to foster a greater sense of broader community connection and thus reducing psychological distress, and that this is especially true for TNB people (Riggs et al., 2018, 2019). Other findings (Taylor et al., 2018) suggest that TNB people’s experiences of family-based DVA may be offset by a desire to protect animals from harm, giving some people the strength to leave violent or abusive family situations.

Research questions

Based on the previous literature outlined above, the project reported in this article sought to explore in further detail some of the intersections of animal companionship, experiences of DVA, and broader experiences of life challenges among two samples of transgender and non-binary people. The present article was specifically guided by the following research questions:

How do transgender and non-binary people understand the risk that DVA can produce for animal companions, and how do they respond to this?

How does the presence of animal companions help transgender and non-binary people cope with stressors?

Methods

The findings reported in this article draw on two connected studies, both of which focused on gender and sexuality diversity and relationships with non-human animals. For the purposes of the present article, participants from either study who identified as transgender or non-binary were included as a purposive sample.

Participants and procedure

The first study involved a survey completed by 503 gender- and/or sexuality-diverse people living in either Australia or the United Kingdom. The survey focused on human–human relationships and human–animal relationships, including (but not limited to) relationships where DVA had occurred. Inclusion criteria were (1) having a diverse gender and/or sexuality, (2) being aged 18 years and over, and (3) living in either Australia or the United Kingdom. Participants did not need to be currently living with animal companions nor did they have to have experienced abuse to participate. Participants were recruited via posts on social media (Twitter, Facebook), in emails shared via organisations (the LGBTI Health Alliance) and in emails to listservs (human–animal studies). No incentives were offered for participation. Of the 503 participants, 96 identified as transgender or non-binary. Of these 96 participants, 23 responded to an open-ended question in the survey that focused on the impact of animal companionship on responses to DVA. Table 1 provides an overview of these participants (in which, it should be noted, that participants could select gender and sexuality from a list provided).

Table 1.

Participant demographics study 1.

Participant #	Age	Gender	Sexuality	Participant experienced DVA from intimate partner	Participant experienced DVA from family members	Animal abused by intimate partner	Animal abused by family member
1	30	Female	Lesbian	Yes	Yes	No	No
2	39	Female	Lesbian	Yes	Yes	No	No
3	62	Female	Pansexual	Yes	Yes	No	No
4	63	Male	Bisexual	Yes	Yes	No	No
5	42	Male	Pansexual	No	Yes	No	No
6	43	Male	Hetero	No	Yes	No	No
7	49	Non-binary	Pansexual	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
8	24	Non-binary	Queer	Yes	Yes	No	No
9	31	Non-binary	Pansexual	Yes	Yes	No	No
10	31	Non-binary	Bisexual	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
11	31	Non-binary	Queer	No	Yes	No	No
12	34	Non-binary	Pansexual	Yes	No	No	No
13	36	Non-binary	Pansexual	Yes	Yes	No	No
14	47	Non-binary	Bisexual	No	Yes	No	No
15	48	Non-binary	Pansexual	Yes	Yes	No	No
16	22	Non-binary	Queer	No	Yes	Yes	No
17	23	Non-binary	Pansexual	No	Yes	No	No
18	31	Non-binary	Queer	Yes	No	No	No
19	44	Non-binary	Queer	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
20	57	Male	Pansexual	Yes	No	No	No
21	28	Female	Hetero	Yes	No	No	No
22	34	Female	Hetero	Yes	No	No	No
23	29	Female	Lesbian	No	Yes	No	Yes

The second study involved interviews with lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender women living in Australia. The interviews focused on relationships with animal companions, including in the context of life stressors. A flyer inviting participation in the study was circulated through the researchers’ networks, including Transgender Victoria and Rainbow Families, and on Facebook via the page Gender Diversity Australia. No incentive was offered for participation. In total, 38 people made contact expressing interest in participating in the study and were given the full information sheet about the study. Of these, 20 completed a consent form and a demographic sheet and participated in an interview. Of the participants, eight identified as transgender or non-binary and were included in the analysis undertaken for the present article. Table 2 provides an overview of these participants (in which, it should be noted, participants described their gender and sexuality in their own terms).

Table 2.

Participant demographics study 2.

Participant #	Age	Gender	Sexuality
24	52	Woman	Bisexual/Pansexual
25	50	Female	Complex
26	27	Non-binary	Bisexual
27	45	Female	Bisexual
28	26	Woman	Bisexual/Complicated
29	19	Female	Bisexual
30	25	Non-binary	Lesbian
31	36	Non-binary	Pan attracted grey asexual

Materials

For the first study, participants completed a questionnaire designed by the authors, based upon previous research by Donovan and Hester (2014), and hosted on SurveyMonkey. The questionnaire design was non-experimental, between-subjects, and intended as a scoping study given the relative lack of research on the topic. The questionnaire was open from 15 January 2016 and closed on 5 August 2016. The majority of participants (64%) completed the questionnaire within the first month it was open. Given that information about the questionnaire was shared widely, it is not possible to provide an estimate of response rates. The first eleven questions on the survey were demographic. Participants then chose whether or not to complete a series of questions about their experiences of DVA and animal cruelty. Each of emotional, physical, sexual, financial, and identity-related abuse were presented on a separate page, so that participants could choose to skip pages that did not apply to them. Each of these pages asked about perpetrators, accessing support, the nature of the abuse, and how the presence of animal companions potentially impacted upon responses to DVA. It is this open-ended question (‘If you were/are living with animal companions at the time of the abuse, how did this impact upon how you responded to the abuse?’) that is the focus of the present article.

For the second study, participants were interviewed either in person or via Skype or telephone, depending on their preference and location. Sample interview questions include: ‘How does your animal companion contribute to your wellbeing?’, ‘How have they helped you in difficult times, including during relationships difficulties with other humans?’ and ‘Are there things that your animal companions give you that you don’t get from humans?’ Interviews on average lasted for 60 minutes. All interviews were conducted by the lead author, who has extensive previous experience interviewing gender and sexuality diverse women. Interviews were audio recorded and were professionally transcribed. Pseudonyms were allocated by the authors after transcription. Saturation of responses was exceeded by the 16th interview, however an additional four interviews were undertaken as they had already been scheduled.

Analytic approach

Data from the two studies were combined as one sample, and were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) recommendations for thematic analysis. The research team first engaged in multiple readings of the data corpus identified for the present article. Through these readings, initial codes were generated. All of the codes identified were then shared between team members, collated and condensed so as to reduce overlaps and produce a coherent group of codes focused specifically on relationships with animal companions in the context of life challenges, given this was the specific focus of the analysis presented in this article. Once a set of core codes was agreed upon by the research team another iteration of reading was undertaken to generate themes from the codes. While codes represent general groupings of common concepts, themes represent higher-order categorisations, focusing on the specific ways in which participants speak about a given concept. As such, themes are not necessarily exhaustive of all codes, but rather tell a specific story about the data. This reflects the constructionist approach of Braun and Clarke’s outline of thematic analysis, which eschews a realist account of the data. In other words, the themes reported below were collectively and actively developed by the research team, rather than them reflecting a naturalistic product arising from something inherent to the data. Having identified key themes from the data corpus, through a process of reading, discussion, reduction and clarification undertaken by the research team, the lead author then identified key quotes that were considered indicative (but not exhaustive) of each of the themes developed.

It is important to note that the present article draws on two studies: one primarily quantitative, and one primarily qualitative. As such, the findings draw on data that were relatively thin (i.e. responses to open-ended questions in the first study tended to be relatively brief), alongside data that were richer (i.e. the interview data from the second study). Combining these two studies, however, with their slightly different foci and methods, allows for a clear and detailed examination of participant relationships with animal companions, including in the context of DVA and other life stressors.

Results

‘Some of that abuse and neglect was directed at our family pets’: animal companions at risk in the context of DVA

One-third of all participants described experiences wherein an animal’s safety became a significant issue as part of an interpersonal conflict. One survey participant stated ‘my mother was physically violent [towards me, and towards] the dog as well’. Other participants described experiences of non-physical violence enacted by a partner or family member; one survey participant’s father ‘used to take his anger out on the family dog. Not physically, but by shouting and scaring him.’ For these participants, the abuse directed towards their animal companion was either a part or total reflection of the abuse they were being subjected to. For some participants, these abusive experiences had a long-lasting effect. For instance, one survey participant reflected that ‘abuse directed towards [the dog] still features in my flashbacks’.

Although most participants described how their animals experienced abuse by the same people that abused them, some disclosed that their own behaviour negatively affected their animal companion, including during their post-abuse recovery. One survey participant described the collateral damage of their arguments with their ex partner, and suggested that ‘it was certainly distressing to the companion animals around to see the humans upset and in conflict so much’. Another survey participant disclosed directing their responses to abuse towards their animal companions: ‘sometimes my feelings were vented towards pets rather than the people causing me the harm’. Yet another survey participant described the kind of remorse that they experienced as a result of turning their abuse towards their animal companion. They stated ‘After [my traumatic experience] I would pat the cat until she purred. Then I would snap at her and appear angry at her until she growled. I felt terrible for doing it.’

In many ways, this theme of animal companions being at risk of abuse, including abuse with previously trusted humans, highlights the myriad ways in which animals might be subjected to abuse, by both perpetrators and victims of human–human violence. It also demonstrates the interwoven nature of multiple facets of ‘The Link’ (Newberry, 2017): it reveals both the ways in which animal abuse is a signal of a person’s tendency for abusing humans, but also how experiences of abuse can sometimes result in a person re-enacting that abuse on an animal instead of their abuser or another person. Taken in its entirety, this theme highlights the complexities of animal companionship in DVA environments in TNB people’s lives, and both the risks and benefits to the animals and people involved.

‘[My] trigger to seek help was seeing animals harmed’: animals as indicators of violence

For victims generally, abuse often involves being degraded and discredited, which can seriously undermine self-esteem and self-belief. In this context, abuse victims are not always able to recognise their experiences as abusive while it is happening. For some people clarity comes through seeing a loved one also being abused. Several participants in our study described their animal companions as becoming a kind of litmus test for recognising the violence they were experiencing. For one survey participant, witnessing an animal companion being harmed was the reason they ultimately sought help for DVA, as ‘it was easier to act to keep animal companions safe than myself at that point’. Although they struggled to act in self-defence, they were able to leave an abusive environment in order to protect an animal companion. For another survey participant, however, the opposite was true. As they noted: ‘I did not flee as I had responsibility to my animal.’ This shows the complexity of the role that animal companions play in the decision-making process of ‘staying’ vs ‘leaving’. For some people the abuse of an animal companion signalled a reason to exit an abusive relationship or negative living situation. For others, their sense of responsibility meant that they stayed in order to ensure their animal’s safety. These experiences reflect previous literature on similar research conducted with cisgender women (Faver and Strand, 2003).

‘She alleviated some of the aloneness’: animal companions as more-than-a-stress-reliever

Half of the participants reported experiencing significant comfort and alleviation of stress as a result of living with animal companions. One survey participant stated ‘the companion animals were a great source of comfort, and their presence helped calm me when I was stressed’. This sense of calmness, while difficult to quantify, reflects the potential stress-relief suggested by other studies with people who have experienced DVA (Kelly and Garland, 2016; Michalopoulou et al., 2015; Smith, 2009).

However, for many of our participants, animal companionship provided much more than a stress-reliever. For some participants, there was also a significant sense of companionship and togetherness that added to their physical and emotional wellbeing. For example, one survey participant described the benefit of shared physical activity: ‘The dog was a great comfort to me, I used to walk him and being together really helped.’ While this is something that again has been reflected in previous research, both on animal and human companionship and how they mitigate the negative effects of DVA (Crane and Constantino, 2003; Taylor et al., 2018), it highlights the importance of attending to the animals providing support to transgender and non-binary people specifically.

Other responses relevant to this theme of animal companionship as more-than-a-stress-reliever reveal nuances that previous research with TNB people has yet to address, specifically those about suicidality and having the strength and will to live (see e.g. Fitzgerald, 2007, on animals as preventive factor among suicidal cisgender women). In our study a quarter of the participants mentioned that their animal companions played a distinct role in negating their own feelings of suicidality, or otherwise gave them a significant reason to fight for their survival. One interview participant commented that when she is with her dog she feels ‘less lonely, less as if “nobody loves me, I might as well eat worms or something”’. For another interview participant it was less a matter of surviving than it was the role animal companionship played in their overall feelings of resilience: ‘the love I received from my dogs helped me to endure the abuse more than I would have been able to do otherwise’. Yet another interview participant’s statement encapsulates the feeling many of these participants were describing: ‘my dog gave [me] my strength and someone to cuddle’.

A final note on this theme is that participants’ experiences with animal companions were not only focused on ways in which animals provided resilience or company during difficult times, but also on the joy that they brought. One participant described their dog as a ‘ray of sunshine’, and went on to tell a story about a time when the dog managed to vomit up a self-portrait in such a hilarious way that it completely uplifted the participant’s mood. There was a reciprocal joy described by some participants as well, wherein animal companions’ positive emotions transferred to participants. Another interview participant commented, ‘When I see her and she’s excited to see me, that definitely makes me feel real good.’ Another interview participant’s comments dovetail with this experience of being lovingly seen and recognised by another being. They stated: ‘If I had a really long day at work and come back to the house, she immediately comes to the door and is so excited and that makes me instantly happier to see her and how excited she is.’ Overall, animal companions appeared to provide friendship, positive regard, and humour significant to our participants’ ability to recover from abuse and other life stressors.

‘They’ve been there when people haven’t been’: animal companionship as non-judgemental support

When humans are at risk of being regularly if not constantly judged for not fitting with normative gender and sexual conventions, the prospect of sharing company with others who are not judgmental can be even more meaningful. A third of our participants discussed the distinct and positive difference in affect they experienced with their animal companions compared to other human beings. One interview participant stated: ‘Let’s be honest, there’s pretty horrible people out there, there really are. So, it’s nice to get that carefree [companionship]’. For this participant, their animal companion provided a welcomed separation from human experiences, with all the potential trauma and complexity that human interactions can carry. For another interview participant, their animal companion provided them with the space within which to sit with more complex reactions. Following a set of traumatic experiences, they felt it was ‘easier with a pet to be yourself and not worry if how you’re behaving is socially appropriate or if you’re making the other person uncomfortable’. They added that with their animal companion they ‘[don’t have to worry about the] social things you have to worry about with human relationships’, giving them more space to be comfortable and behave in whatever way they needed to in order to heal. Their animal companion gave them the space to be complex and work through their own trauma.

Several participants noted the difference animal companions made in terms of their experiences of being accepted for who they were. When discussing everyday interactions or statements, one interview participant commented ‘I can never be certain that [interacting with other people comes] without judgement, whereas I can with the dog.’ Another interview participant felt similarly, ‘It’s just nice having that, I guess consistent reliable source of affection and non-judgemental – [dog barks in the background]’ (non-binary interviewee). One of our transgender interviewees recalled how they questioned their gender in the company of their cat, especially in the early hours of the morning:

. . . [cat] was a part of my life probably just before I really actively started questioning my gender. And there’s the cliché of ‘will my animal companion still accept me when I come out as trans to them?’ . . . I guess with my animal companion it was, it gave me someone that I could, you know, I guess talk to . . . as a cat she’s like I guess fairly a nocturnal animal . . . the time that I was exploring my gender would usually be, you know, between 2am and 4am every morning. That would be when I put on make-up and stuff and did the early level like gender-confirming type stuff. And so, she’d be sitting with me, sitting on my lap purring while I’m putting on my eyeliner and stuff. And like I guess that was, you know, a very soothing thing, having her around and, you know, knowing that she would be there.

For many of our participants, then, their non-human companions gave unequivocal positive regard, oblivious to the hierarchies of human conventions. For another interview participant, this experience of acceptance was a significant counterpoint to how society as a whole dealt with their transness and womanhood. For them, as a trans woman ‘living in a society that isn’t really [working] for women in general, let alone trans women, having someone who just absolutely never judges me [is] a huge relief’. Another interview participant’s statement ties many of these experiences together: ‘cats love you for who you are, which helps when others try to deny your identity’. By providing a consistent form of what one participant stated was ‘unconditional love’, something largely lacking in human relationships, animal companion were shown to provide a space where many TNB people’s identities could be affirmed (not just maintained) in the face of societal discrimination and erasure.

Discussion

Our first research question related to how TNB people understand and respond to the risk that DVA can produce for animal companions. The majority of participants in the two studies reported in this article perceived their animal companions to be cherished family members and trusted friends, with whom they shared their domestic space and private lives. This is important to note because family members are ordinarily accorded higher status and better treatment than the traditional status and treatment of pets that people ‘own’ (e.g. Charles and Davis, 2011). However, as some of our participants noted, while interspecies family homes can generate much joy and love, they can also involve domestic abuse for both humans and animals. Participants from both our survey and interview research indicated the harms that animal companions can suffer from witnessing domestic violence between humans and/or being a direct target of abuse. This recognition of harms demonstrates that animal companions, as family members can, like humans, experience negative repercussions of exposure to violence (see also Taylor and Fraser, 2019).

For some participants, the trigger point for leaving an abusive relationship occurred when witnessing family members or sexual intimates abusing their animals. This has implications for domestic violence researchers, policy makers and service providers wanting to better understand the wide range of triggers, possible pathways of escape, but also obstacles for victims of violence to seek help and safety. One participant raised the wider and increasingly recognised social problem of not having access to suitable pet-friendly accommodation; how the lack of options delayed them leaving (also see Riggs et al., 2016). TNB people’s recognition of harms, and the refusal to abandon animals in times of crisis, speaks to their demonstrated awareness and appreciation of the needs, welfare and rights of (other) animals.

Our second research question related to how animal companions can help transgender and non-binary people cope with stressors. Our participants shared how animal companionship supported them to feel safe to explore their gender and/or sexual diversity. Animal companionship can help people who are transitioning and/or learning how to publicly represent their experiences and preferences. Many participants shared examples of the warm, non-judgemental and touch-based support animal companions can provide. For most of our participants, however, the power of animal companionship extended well beyond stress relief, enabling them to experience themselves in more expansive ways. This includes the support animals provided them during the violent periods, post-separation and in recovery. Participants spoke of how animal companions can play a myriad of roles in TNB people’s processes of dealing with abuse, including being a confidante, support system, distraction, truth-teller, comic, and at times the recipient of shockwaves from a person’s own experiences of abuse. To some extent the themes reported above reflect those found in the broader literature, such as how animal companions provide affirmation, positivity, non-judgement, and safety during times of crisis (McCloskey 1999; Muraco et al., 2018). What has not been so well explored to date are the ways in which human victims of domestic violence can assist animal victims of domestic violence not just to escape but also recover post-abuse (Taylor and Fraser, 2019).

Extrapolating from the findings, there is the need to normalise the presence of TNB people in DVA spaces, and significantly increase their inclusion in discussions of animal companionship, DVA, and the ways in which the two intersect. Our findings also suggest that TNB people have some specific needs related to animal companionship that uniquely affect them as a population. More research is required to gain a deeper understanding of the needs of TNB people and their animal companions, and how DVA services can best address them. When considered together, present DVA research and service provision appears to be falling short for TNB people, particularly those who either have an animal companion or were forced to abandon one at some point in their DVA experience. We now explore in more detail this third point.

In terms of research, we would suggest that what is needed is more social research, rather than bio-medically driven research. TNB people continue to face stigma, discrimination and a denial of their right to self-determine and assert their gender (Szydlowski, 2016; White Hughto et al., 2015). These are predominantly social rather than medical experiences. There is also a pressing need for more research about TNB people’s experiences of DVA, not only because of their greater risk of exposure to DVA, but also because ongoing stigma and discrimination contributes to the specific, often insufficiently documented, experiences of TNB people experiencing DVA (Tesch and Bekerian, 2015). More research is needed to track the discrimination TNB people are likely to face when attempting to access DVA support services (Seelman, 2015). And more research is needed on TNB people’s significant relationships, including those that occur across species, such as those reported by our participants in relation to their animal companions. Such research is important because animal companionship can often form a significant protective factor in TNB people’s lives, particularly in the face of rejection or discrimination. It is also important because it is through research with marginalised human populations and other species that we can make much needed theoretical and applied connections about how traditions, hierarchies and beliefs about what is natural and superior cross species lines in the reproduction of violence and abuse. Paying attention to how discourses of human mastery perpetuate, condone and/or excuse violence against animals and humans offers an important opportunity for the conceptual integration of silos of knowledge and study to advance knowledge in the area so as to inform and shape the nature of future public, media and scholarly debates about violence perpetrated against both people and animals.

Strengths

There are several strengths evident from this research. First, we accessed an under-researched group (TNB people) that is sometimes ignored or constructed as ‘hard to reach’. Hearing from them is crucial given the extent and significance of DVA for sexuality- and gender-diverse populations, and given some of the specificities of TNB experience, such as coming out as non-binary, or gender transitioning. A second strength of the research relates to the candid information participants provided about what they observed when their animals were exposed to violence. This information is important because it helps us see the needs and rights of animal companions who have historically been ignored in domestic violence theorising, policy making and service provision (instead of being focused on as a signal of inter-human abuse). Hearing from those who admitted mistreating animal companions after separating from abusers, cautions us not to assume that the needs of human and animal survivors of domestic violence are always aligned. The other strengths relate to future research possibilities described earlier.

Limitations

Although the studies described in this article provide insight into TNB people’s experiences of navigating DVA and animal companionship, there are some limitations to both studies. First, while qualitative data provides richness and depth, it does not allow for a more epidemiological perspective on the subject. By contrast, as some of the data was collected from qualitative sections within an overall quantitative questionnaire, certain points of data could not be expanded on beyond the quotes provided in the article. This means that ‘thicker’ quotes were not always available in the analytic process. As DVA affects many TNB people, it is important to get a significant snapshot of matters from a broader population level. Future research might benefit from utilising a mixed methods or quantitative approach with a large population sample. Similarly, while all participants identified as transgender or non-binary, other important demographic characteristics were not collected and therefore not represented in the analysis. Race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other life aspects significantly shift a person’s experience of DVA (Leguizamon et al., 2017; Malley-Morrison and Hines, 2007), and future research will need to consider the ways in which gender diversity intersects with these in order to form a more complete picture of TNB people’s experiences. Finally, there may be more specific experiences around navigating animal companionship which may significantly impact a TNB person’s experiences, such as dealing with health care professionals or other service providers as a person with a companion animal (Fraser et al., 2019). This leaves a knowledge gap on the role health care providers play in supporting TNB people with animal companions through a DVA experience.

Conclusion

Transgender and non-binary people are significantly more likely to experience DVA compared to the general population. This is further complicated by the presence of animal companions within the context of DVA. TNB people living with animal companions and who are experiencing DVA encounter many issues similar to their cisgender counterparts, including difficulties leaving an abusive situation and the likelihood of their animal companion also experiencing psychological or physical abuse. By contrast, animal companions also play a specific protective role in these situations, providing TNB people with joy, relief and, at times, the capacity to recognise their own abuse by witnessing their animal companion’s experiences. TNB people’s needs and unique experiences must be better incorporated into how services, research and policies negotiate DVA. This in turn will increase the quality of life of TNB people and their animal companions, and provide further nuance and insight into how TNB people negotiate animal companionship and experiences of violence and abuse.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the people who agreed to be individually interviewed for this study and to ALMA for providing the funding for it.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Australian Lesbian Medical Association.

ORCID iDs

Shoshana Rosenberg

Damien W. Riggs

Nik Taylor

Author biographies

Shoshana Rosenberg (MSexol.) is an independent Sexological and Musicological researcher, an Associate at Curtin University’s Department of Sexology, and a researcher at the Collaboration for Evidence, Research, and Impact in Public Health (CERIPH). Her current Doctoral research is focused on the experiences of gender and sexually diverse Jewish people in the Australian Diaspora.

Damien W. Riggs is a Professor at Flinders University and an Australian Research Council Future Fellow. He is the author of over 200 publications in the fields of gender, family and mental health, including books such as (with Clemence Due) A Critical Approach to Surrogacy (Routledge, 2018) and (with Clare Bartholomaeus) and Transgender People and Education (Palgrave, 2017).

Nik Taylor is the Managing Editor of Society & Animals; a charter scholar of the Animals and Society Institute; and an Associate Member of the New Zealand Centre for Human–Animal Studies. As an Associate Professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand she teaches and researches human–animal studies. Her latest books include Ethnography after Humanism (with Lindsay Hamilton, Palgrave, 2017) and Rescuing You, Rescuing Me: Companion Animals and Domestic Violence (with Heather Fraser, Palgrave, 2019).

Heather Fraser works as an Associate Professor at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. She is the author of In the Name of love: Women’s Narratives of Love and Abuse (Women’s Press, Toronto, 2008) and Neoliberalization, Universities and the Public Intellectual: Species, Gender and Class and the Production of Knowledge (with Nik Taylor, Palgrave, 2016).

References

Allen

Gallagher

Jones

(2006) ‘Domestic Violence and the Abuse of Pets: Researching the Link and its Implications in Ireland’, Social Work in Action 18: 167–81.

Ansara

Y.G.

Friedman

E.J.

(2016) ‘Transphobia’, in Naples

Hoogland

R.C.

Wickramsinghe

Wong

W.C.A.

(eds) The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, doi: 10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss217.

Ascione

(1998) ‘Battered Women’s Reports of Their Partners’ and Their Children’s Cruelty to Animals’, pp. 290–304 in Lockwood

Ascione

F.R.

(eds) Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Ascione

Weber

C.V.

Wood

D.S.

(1997) ‘The Abuse of Animals and Domestic Violence: A National Survey of Shelters for Women who are Battered’, Society & Animals 5: 205–18.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2018) Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence in Australia: 2018. Cat. no. FDV 2. Canberra: AIHW.

Bandini

Maggi

(2014) ‘Transphobia’, pp. 49–59 in Corona

Jannini

E.A.

Maggi

(eds) Emotional, Physical and Sexual Abuse: Impact in Children and Social Minorities. Cham: Springer International.

Barrett

B.J.

Sheridan

D.V.

(2017) ‘Partner Violence in Transgender Communities: What Helping Professionals Need to Know’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies 13(2): 137–62, doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2016.1187104.

Birke

(2011) ‘Preface: In Hope of Change: Rethinking Human–Animal Relations?’, in Taylor

Signal

(eds) Theorizing Animals: Re-thinking Humanimal Relations. Boston, MA: Leiden: Brill, pp. xvi–xx.

Bolam

L.T.

Bates

(2016) ‘Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence and the Increased Health Risks in the LGBTQ+ Community’, Psychology Postgraduate Affairs Group Quarterly 101: 30–3.

10.

Bornstein

D.R.

Fawcett

Sullivan

Senturia

K.D.

Shiu-Thornton

(2006) ‘Understanding the Experiences of Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans Survivors of Domestic Violence: A Qualitative Study’, Journal of Homosexuality 51(1): 159–81, doi: 10.1300/J082v51n01_08.

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

12.

Brown

T.N.T.

Herman

J.L.

(2015) Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Abuse among LGBTQ People: A Review of Existing Research. Los Angeles: Williams Institute.

13.

Campo

Tayton

(2015) Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex and Queer Communities: Key Issues. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Family Studies.

14.

Charles

, (2014) ‘“Animals Just Love You the Way You Are”: Experiencing Kinship Across the Species Barrier’, Sociology 48(4): 715–30.

15.

Charles

Davies

C.A.

(2011) ‘My Family and Other Animals: Pets as Kin’, pp. 69–92 in Carter

Charles

(eds) Human and Other Animals. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

16.

Cook-Daniels

Munson

(2010) ‘Sexual Violence, Elder Abuse, and Sexuality of Transgender Adults, Age 50+: Results of Three Surveys’, Journal of GLBT Family Studies 6(2): 142–77, doi: 10.1080/15504281003705238.

17.

Couch

Pitts

Mulcare

Croy

Mitchell

Patel

(2007) Tranznation: A Report on the Health and Wellbeing of Transgendered People in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society.

18.

Coulter

(2016) Animals, Work and the Promise of Interspecies Solidarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Crane

P.A.

Constantino

R.E.

(2003) ‘Use of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) to Guide Intervention Development with Women Experiencing Abuse’, Issues in Mental Health Nursing 24(5): 523–41, doi: 10.1080/01612840305286.

20.

Cudworth

(2016) ‘A Sociology for Other Animals: Analysis, Advocacy, Intervention’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(3/4): 242–57.

21.

DeGue

DiLillo

(2008) ‘Is Animal Cruelty a “Red Flag” for Family Violence? Investigating Co-occurring Violence toward Children, Partners, and Pets’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24(6): 1036–56, doi: 10.1177/0886260508319362.

22.

Donovan

Hester

(2014) Domestic Violence and Sexuality: What’s Love Got to Do with It? Bristol: Policy Press.

23.

Emel

Wolch

(eds) (1998) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature–Culture Borderlands. New York: Verso.

24.

Faver

C.A.

Cavazos

A.M.

Jr (2007) ‘Animal Abuse and Domestic Violence: A View from the Border’, Journal of Emotional Abuse 7(3): 59–81.

25.

Faver

C.A.

Strand

E.B.

(2003) ‘Special Section: Domestic Violence and Social Work Education, Domestic Violence and Animal Cruelty: Untangling the Web of Abuse’, Journal of Social Work Education 39(2): 237–53.

26.

Febres

Brasfield

Shorey

R.C.

Elmquist

Ninnemann

Schonbrun

Y.C.

, et al. (2014) ‘Adulthood Animal Abuse among Men Arrested for Domestic Violence’, Violence Against Women 20(9): 1059–77, doi: 10.1177/1077801214549641.

27.

Fitzgerald

(2007) ‘“They Gave Me a Reason to Live”: The Protective Effects of Companion Animals on the Suicidality of Abused Women’, Humanity & Society 31(4): 355–78.

28.

Fitzgerald

Barrett

Stevenson

Cheung

(2019) ‘Animal Maltreatment in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence: A Manifestation of Power and Control?’, Violence Against Women 25(15): 1806–28.

29.

Fraser

Bartholomaeus

Riggs

D.W.

Taylor

Rosenberg

(2019) ‘Service Provider Recognition of the Significance of Animal Companionship among Trans and Cisgender Women of Diverse Sexualities’, Culture, Health & Sexuality 1–20, doi: 10.1080/13691058.2019.1568577.

30.

Gillespie

(2018) The Cow with Ear Tag #1389. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Goldenberg

Jadwin-Cakmak

Harper

G.W.

(2018) ‘Intimate Partner Violence among Transgender Youth: Associations with Intrapersonal and Structural Factors’, Violence and Gender 5(1): 19–25, doi: 10.1089/vio.2017.0041.

32.

Greenberg

(2012) ‘Still Hidden in the Closet: Trans Women and Domestic Violence’, Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 27(2): 198–251.

33.

Hamilton

Taylor

(2017) Ethnography after Humanism: Power, Politics and Method in Multi-species Research. London: Palgrave.

34.

Hartman

Hageman

Williams

J.H.

Mary

J.S.

Ascione

F.R.

(2016) ‘Exploring Empathy and Callous-unemotional Traits as Predictors of Animal Abuse Perpetrated by Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34(12): 2419–37.

35.

Hines

D.A.

Malley-Morrison

K.M.

(2004) Family Violence in the United States: Defining, Understanding, and Combating Abuse. London: Sage.

36.

Holmes

(2016) ‘Exploring the Intersections between Violence, Place and Mental Health in the Lives of Trans and Gender Nonconforming People in Canada’, pp. 53–75 in Giesbrecht

Crooks

(eds) Place, Health and Diversity: Learning from the Canadian Perspective. New York: Routledge.

37.

Jin

J.N.

(2017) The Clinical Significance of Companion Animals for LGBT þ Youth: Unconditional Love in a Straight Society. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.

38.

Kelly

Garland

E.L.

(2016) ‘Trauma-informed Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction for Female Survivors of Interpersonal Violence: Results from a Stage I RCT’, Journal of Clinical Psychology 72(4): 311–28, doi: 10.1002/jclp.22273.

39.

Leguizamon

J.S.

Leguizamon

Howden

(2017) ‘Revisiting the Link between Economic Distress, Race, and Domestic Violence’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, doi: 10.1177/0886260517711177.

40.

Malley-Morrison

K.M.

Hines

D.A.

(2007) ‘Attending to the Role of Race/Ethnicity in Family Violence Research’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22(8): 943–72, doi: 10.1177/0886260507303060.

41.

McClosky

(1999) Crossing: A Memoir. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

42.

McPhedran

(2009) ‘A Review of the Evidence for Associations between Empathy, Violence and Animal Cruelty’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(1): 1–4.

43.

Michalopoulou

Tzamalouka

Chrousos

G.P.

Darviri

(2015) ‘Stress Management and Intimate Partner Violence: A Randomized Controlled Trial’, Journal of Family Violence 30(6): 795–802, doi:10.1007/s10896-015-9740-8.

44.

Monsalve

Ferreira

Garcia

(2017) ‘The Connection Between Animal Abuse and Interpersonal Violence: A Review from the Veterinary Perspective’, Research in Veterinary Science 114: 18–26.

45.

Muraco

Putney

Shiu

Fredriksen-Goldsen

K.I.

(2018) ‘Lifesaving in Every Way: The Role of Companion Animals in the Lives of Older Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Adults Age 50 and Over’, Research on Aging 40(9): 859–82.

46.

Newberry

(2017) ‘Pets in Danger: Exploring the Link between Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 34: 273–81, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.11.007.

47.

Nibert

(2003) ‘Humans and Other Animals: Sociology’s Moral and Intellectual Challenge’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(3): 4–25.

48.

Owens

Grauerholz

(2018) ‘Interspecies Parenting: How Pet Parents Construct Their Roles’, Humanity & Society 43(2): 96–119.

49.

Papazian

Ball

(2016) ‘Intimate-partner Violence within the Queensland Transgender Community: Barriers to Accessing Services and Seeking Help’, in Dwyer

Ball

Crofts

(eds) Queering Criminology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

50.

Peggs

(2013) ‘The Animal Advocacy Agenda: Exploring Sociology for Non-human Animals’, Sociological Review 61: 591–606.

51.

Peitzmeier

S.M.

Hughto

J.M.W.

Potter

Deutsch

M.B.

Reisner

S.L.

(2019) ‘Development of a Novel Tool to Assess Intimate Partner Violence against Transgender Individuals’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34(11): 2376–97, doi: 10.1177/0886260519827660.

52.

Philo

Wilbert

(eds) (2000) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations. New York: Routledge.

53.

Power

(2008) ‘Furry Families: Making a Human–Dog Family through Home’, Social & Cultural Geography 9(5): 535–55.

54.

Rhoades

Winetrobe

Rice

(2015) ‘Pet Ownership Among Homeless Youth: Associations with Mental Health, Service Utilization and Housing Status’, Child Psychiatry and Human Development 46(2): 237–44.

55.

Riggs

D.W.

Toone

(2017) ‘Indigenous Sistergirls’ Experiences of Family and Community’, Australian Social Work 70(2): 229–40, doi: 10.1080/0312407X.2016.1165267.

56.

Riggs

D.W.

Ansara

Y.G.

Treharne

G.J.

(2015) ‘An Evidence-based Model for Understanding Transgender Mental Health in Australia’, Australian Psychologist 50: 32–9, doi: 10.1111/ap.12088.

57.

Riggs

D.W.

Fraser

Taylor

Signal

Donovan

(2016) ‘Domestic Violence Service Providers’ Capacity for Supporting Transgender Women: Findings from an Australian Workshop’, British Journal of Social Work 46(8): 2374–92, doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcw110.

58.

Riggs

D.W.

Taylor

Signal

Fraser

Donovan

(2018) ‘People of Diverse Genders and/or Sexualities and Their Animal Companions: Experiences of Family Violence in a Bi-national Sample’, Journal of Family Issues 39: 4226–47, doi: 10.1177/0192513X18811164.

59.

Riggs

D.W.

Taylor

Fraser

Donovan

Signal

(2019) ‘The Link between Domestic Violence and Abuse and Animal Cruelty in the Intimate Relationship of People of Diverse Genders and/or Sexualities: A Bi-national Study’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, doi: 10.1177/0886260518771681.

60.

Roch

Morton

Ritchie

, Equality Network and LGBT Youth Scotland (2010) Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Transgender People’s Experiences of Domestic Abuse. Glasgow: Scottish Transgender Alliance.

61.

Rogers

(2017) ‘Challenging Cisgenderism through Trans People’s Narratives of Domestic Violence and Abuse’, Sexualities 22(5–6): 803–20, doi: 10.1177/1363460716681475.

62.

Seelman

K.L.

(2015) ‘Unequal Treatment of Transgender Individuals in Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis Programs’, Journal of Social Service Research 41(3): 307–25, doi: 10.1080/01488376.2014.987943.

63.

Simmons

Lehmann

(2007) ‘Exploring the Link Between Pet Abuse and Controlling Behaviors in Violent Relationships’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22(9): 1211–22.

64.

Smith

J.D.

(2009) Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR) for Women with PTSD Surviving Domestic Violence, unpublished PhD thesis, Fielding Graduate University, Ann Arbor.

65.

Stotzer

R.L.

(2009) ‘Violence against Transgender People: A Review of United States Data’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(3): 170–9, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.006.

66.

Szydlowski

(2016) ‘Gender Recognition and the Rights to Health and Health Care: Applying the Principle of Self-determination to Transgender People’, International Journal of Transgenderism 17(3–4): 199–211, doi: 10.1080/15532739.2016.1217183.

67.

Taylor

Fraser

(2019) Companion Animals and Domestic Violence: Rescuing Me, Rescuing You. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

68.

Taylor

Riggs

D.W.

Donovan

Signal

Fraser

(2018) ‘People of Diverse Genders and/or Sexualities Caring for and Protecting Animal Companions in the Context of Domestic Violence’, Violence Against Women 25(9): 1096–115, doi: 10.1177/1077801218809942.

69.

Tesch

B.P.

Bekerian

D.A.

(2015) ‘Hidden in the Margins: A Qualitative Examination of What Professionals in the Domestic Violence Field Know about Transgender Domestic Violence’, Journal of Gay Lesbian Social Services 27(1): 391–411, doi: 10.1080/10538720.2015.1087267.

70.

Turell

(2012) ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Communities’ Readiness for Intimate Partner Violence Prevention’, Journal of Gay Lesbian Social Services 24(3): 289–310.

71.

Turell

S.C.

Cornell-Swanson

L.V.

(2005) ‘Not All Alike: Within-group Differences in Seeking Help for Same-sex Relationship Abuses’, Journal of Gay Lesbian Social Services 18(1): 71–88, doi: 10.1300/J041v18n01_06.

72.

Turell

S.C.

Herrmann

M.M.

(2008) ‘“Family” Support for Family Violence: Exploring Community Support Systems for Lesbian and Bisexual Women who have Experienced Abuse’, Journal of Lesbian Studies 12(2–3): 211–24, doi: 10.1080/10894160802161372.

73.

Vlais

Ridley

Green

Chung

(2017) Family and Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs, Issues Paper of Current and Emerging Trends, Developments and Expectations, Stopping Family Violence Inc., URL (consulted 20 December 2019): http://sfv.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FDV-perpetrator-programs-issues-paper.pdf

74.

Volant

Johnson

Gullone

Coleman

(2008) ‘The Relationship between Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse: An Australian Study’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23(9): 1277–95.

75.

Walker

J.K.

(2015) ‘Investigating Trans People’s Vulnerabilities to Intimate Partner Violence/Abuse’, Partner Abuse 6(1): 107–25, doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.107.

76.

Walsh

(2009) ‘Human–Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy’, Family Process 48: 481–99.

77.

Waters

(2016) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-affected Intimate Partner Violence in 2015: A Report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. New York: National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.

78.

White Hughto

J.M.

Reisner

S.L.

Pachankis

J.E.

(2015) ‘Transgender Stigma and Health: A Critical Review of Stigma Determinants, Mechanisms, and Interventions’, Social Science & Medicine 147: 222–31, doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010.