There is discrimination in violence. On the surface this appears to be an untrue statement. However, when we examine how violence is perceived by the public, and treated within the legal framework, the statement is justified.
For far too long there has been silence about the ways in which violence is experienced by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT+) community. There is no insistence for justice, cries of indignation, or galvanized marches from the nation when a transgendered or gay person is murdered. There is no deep concern, or queries regarding “what about the children?!” when an LGBT+ youth is abused at home, shunned and/or abandoned by family. Finally, there certainly is no national conversation about intimate partner violence occurring between same sex couples.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is related to any behavior between a couple that involves acts of physical and sexual violence, emotional and psychological abuse, and controlling behavior (World Health Organization 2012). When we speak of domestic violence or specifically IPV, we mostly think of this violence in relation with heterosexual couples. However, studies have supported that the prevalence of IPV in non-heterosexual couples is comparable to that in hetero-couples (Turell, 2000). The absence of recognition in laws books, or intervention programs to address Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence (SSIPV) is a continuation of the ways in which violence and trauma in the community has been ignored and silenced. The myth of heteronormativity, fear of stigmatization, cultural mores on gender norms and minority stress, all contribute to the lack of discourse on SSIPV.
The myth of heteronormativity is rooted in the belief that there are only two genders, each with an assigned sex and heterosexuality is obviously, the only outcome. When relationships are gendered and behaviours are set based on a person’s sex, it is inconceivable that IPV can occur between same sex couples. Heteronormativity assumes that women are gentler and more inclined to be passive or non-aggressive, whereas men are given to being loud, physically aggressive and expressions of anger are acceptable. The idea that a woman is being abused by her partner, who is also a woman, seems impossible because there is no man in the relationship. There is an idealization that female couples are utopian, without intense conflict and egalitarian. Yet, research has shown that IPV is disproportionally high in the LGBT+ community. In instances of severe violence, prevalence is similar or higher for LGB adults (bisexual women: 49.3%; lesbians 29.4%; gay men 16.4%) compared to heterosexual adults (heterosexual women: 23.6%; heterosexual men: 13.9%) (Breiding et al., 2013)
Furthermore, the assumption of heteronormativity encourages us to think only in terms of a binary. So that when we acknowledge same sex couples we erroneously try to fit the relationship into a man-woman dynamic, and determine “who is wearing the pants” so to speak. Therefore, we engage in dismissive conversations, trying to explain violence between female partners, as one partner having identified with “masculinity” and toxic behaviours, that is then projected unto her more feminine partner. However, the reality is that perpetrators of IPV can be men or women, regardless of age, social or marital status, orientation or gender identity, because IPV is not about sex or gender, but power and control.
There is also the concern that recognizing SSIPV, would not evoke empathy, but lead to further stigmatization of the community, adding to the experience of social marginalization. (Kaschak, 2001; Rostock, 2003). For example, public discourse of lesbian IPV may result in negative reactions regarding female homosexuality. In general, violence perpetrated by men on their female partners is perceived to be more serious. A conversation about female same sex IPV might be viewed as an emotionally motivated dispute, or as an effort by gay rights activists to insert themselves into mainstream issues. These conversations compete for attention in a space that privileges male on female violence. Additionally, there is the belief that it is easy for gay men to leave an abusive relationship, because gay couples are characterized as inherently unstable with the constant changing of partners. Negative stereotypes like these, further the silencing of violence within, and marginalization of, the LGBT+ community.
Our cultural ideas on how we imagine and talk about masculinity and femininity is another barrier to recognizing SSIPV. SSIPV victims may be afraid to talk about their experiences, thinking that in doing so, they would inadvertently reinforce erroneous stereotypes about the community. The perception that homosexual men are not “real men” and are less masculine than heterosexual men, makes it difficult for a man to admit that his partner is physically abusing him. Furthermore, we hold on to the “mutual fight myth”, believing that because it is two men fighting, then the fight is equal. Also, if the victim were a “real man” then he would fight back. Nevertheless, the reality is that victims often express that the abuse was not mutual, rather it was endured, many of whom felt desolate and trapped. Conversely, lesbian IPV may be dismissed as harmless, simply because women are perceived to be the “weaker sex, and are not seen as strong or dangerous. Seen in this context, one can appreciate that SSIPV victims, report experiencing more victimization when making police reports. These cultural mores about, “real men” and “emotional women” underscore the need for more sensitization for police officers when dealing with members of the community.
We need a shift in public perception about the ways in which SSIPV is hurtful and harmful. For just as with heterosexuals, the outcomes from emotional, physical, psychological or sexual abuse, for SSIPV victims can be severe. Consequences include physical injury (even death), social isolation, property destruction and loss, interrupted work, and education; and psycho-social effects like depression, stress, general anxiety, substance mis-use, and feelings of shame and worthlessness. Some may wish to dismiss the realities and negative outcomes of SSIPV, by trivializing same –sex relationships. However, just as with hetero-victims, same-sex (SS) victims also cite their reasons for staying as commitment to and love for partner, financial and emotional dependency.
There are specific risk drivers related to SSIPV, with one of the most significant predictors being minority stress. Minority stress is the chronically high levels of stress experienced by the LGBT+ community, as they face more barriers to positive life outcomes in various aspects of life. These stressors include low self-esteem because of social stigma, the strains of “living in the closet”, fear of being “outed at work, homelessness and social exclusion. Living daily under such pressure erodes one’s mental and physical health and fosters a sense of dis-empowerment. LGBT+ individuals who experience feelings of inadequacy and low self-efficacy, are more likely to use “power assertion” (violence) in their private lives to compensate for their innate sense of powerlessness. Moreover, minority stress correlates with depression, substance use and poor quality of relationship, which are risk predictors for IPV.
It is time that we acknowledge the disproportionate amount of violence that the LGBT+ community silently endures. There are men and women within this community who are victims of IPV, at any even more alarming rate than within heterosexual couples. The continued stigmatization, stereotyping, and sexism, increases the risk of violence to this community. LGBT+ individuals are already marginalized and subject to minority stressors that persons may never encounter. LGBT+ youth grow up to be LGBT+ adults, when we communicate to our children that the community is irrelevant, we normalize the violence they are likely to experience as adults. We need to expand the ways in which we imagine citizenship, to include rights for sexual citizenship, that protect LBGT+ persons from discrimination in their most vulnerable times, especially in the face of violence.
Written by: Rae Alibey for a Friends For Life project with funding through the CARICOM-PANCAP/CVCCOIN Multi-Country Caribbean Regional Global Fund Project [GN 1838].
Comments
Post a Comment