"It's Their Consent You Have to Wait For": Intimate Partner Violence and BDSM Among Gender and Sexual Minority Youth.

Gender and sexual minoritized (GSM) youth are more likely than their cisgender heterosexual peers to experience intimate partner violence (IPV) and practice bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism, and masochism (BDSM). Although IPV and BDSM are vastly different phenomena, superficial similarities (e.g., violent behaviors) can lead to misidentification in both practice and research. This study explores how GSM youth (a) experience and understand the differences between IPV and BDSM and (b) report consensual violent and controlling behaviors when answering items on IPV measures. Nine demographically diverse GSM youth (mean age 21.2) were drawn from a GSM youth-serving organization in the Northeast United States. Participants were interviewed about their experiences with IPV, BDSM, and consent. Participants also were asked to describe the process of completing two standardized measures of IPV. Interviews were coded using conventional and directed content analysis. Eight of nine participants reported IPV victimization, and seven reported BDSM interest or experiences. Four themes emerged: (a) GSM youth experience a spectrum of IPV victimization, often related to their gender and sexual identity; (b) interest in BDSM does not imply an acceptance of IPV; (c) GSM youth have a nuanced understanding of consent and strategies to communicate consent with their partners; and (d) Consent is the organizing framework by which GSM youth distinguish IPV from BDSM. Participants reported various degrees of certainty that they would include BDSM behaviors when answering questions about violent behaviors. Findings underscore the importance of conceptually and operationally differentiating IPV and BDSM. Programs that serve GSM youth should address IPV victimization, offer sex-positive education regarding healthy relationships and BDSM, and assist GSM youth in differentiating abusive behaviors from consensual BDSM. Standardized measures that do not conflate BDSM with IPV are crucial for studying IPV among GSM youth.

Intimate Partner Violence Help-Seeking in the U.S. Transgender Survey.

Research finds that transgender survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) often face transphobia-related barriers to reaching help. Due partially to a dearth of larger datasets supporting multivariate analyses, it is unclear whether sociodemographic factors can further hinder transgender help-seeking. Addressing these gaps, logistic regression secondary data analyses were conducted with 15,198 transgender IPV survivors from the nationally-representative 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Odds of seeking help from survivor agencies were significantly greater for survivors who are trans men, assigned-female-at-birth genderqueer, Alaska Native or American Indian, poorer, transphobia victims, and victims of any IPV type, especially controlling IPV. In addition, odds of not seeking help due fearing transphobic responses were significantly greater for survivors who are trans women, asexual or bisexual, poorer, younger, undocumented, childless, ever homeless, transphobia victims, or victims of any IPV type, particularly sexual IPV. Implications for future research and population-specific service provision are discussed.

Transgender Polyvictimization in the U.S. Transgender Survey.

Relative to cisgender people, transgender individuals not only are at an elevated risk of experiencing at least one form of physical or sexual violence, but also at an increased risk of polyvictimization: that is, exposure to multiple types of violence over the life course. Given that polyvictimization increases vulnerability to adverse mental and physical health sequelae, there is a pressing need to identify which sociodemographic subgroups of transgender people are at greater risk of polyvictimization. Understanding these risk profiles will have important implications for developing transgender-specific models for violence prevention, screening, and intervention. Responding to this need in the literature, the present article offers secondary data analyses of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest study to-date of transgender people in the United States (N = 27,715 transgender adults), with participants selected from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., as well as several U.S. territories and overseas military bases. Multiple variable regressions examine sociodemographic predictors of five distinct forms of violence, as well as how many of these five violence types were experienced. The examined sociodemographic predictors included gender, sexual orientation, race-ethnicity, citizenship status, ever been homeless, has a disability, transgender outness, gender visual conformity, household income, and age. The five assessed violence victimization types included intimate partner violence, nonpartner sexual assault, antitransgender family violence, antitransgender physical violence during Kindergarten through 12th grade, and past-year antitransgender physical violence. With some exceptions, results indicate that more marginalized segments of transgender communities have a greater likelihood of experiencing polyvictimization. Recommendations are discussed for future research and service provision.

"I Wasn't a Priority, I Wasn't a Victim": Challenges in Help Seeking for Transgender Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence.

Among the crucial advancements in the study of intimate partner violence (IPV) is an understanding of the distinct help-seeking barriers that gay and lesbian victims face. Despite these additions to the literature, transgender IPV victimization remains under-researched. The current study utilized semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires of 18 trans-identified survivors of IPV. Working through a modified grounded analytic approach, two major themes emerged in the help-seeking process: "walking the gender tightrope" in which participants first struggled with gendered notions of victimization that made it difficult to identify abuse, and second, the challenges of "navigating genderist resources."