Winter 2026 Issue

LGBTQ+ Partner Violence: Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQIA2S+ Communities
By Kris Berg, MSW, CPS, and Matteo Montero-Murillo, MSW
Social Work Today
Vol. 26 No. 1 P. 32

Implications for Ethical Social Work Practice

Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to a pattern of coercive and abusive behaviors used by one partner to exert power and control over another within a current or former romantic or sexual relationship. These behaviors may include physical violence, sexual coercion, psychological manipulation, financial control, and isolation. IPV is a pervasive public health and social issue with profound implications for survivors’ physical health, mental health, and overall well-being.1

Research consistently demonstrates that LGBTQIA2S+ people experience IPV at equal or higher rates than their heterosexual and cisgender peers.2,3 Transgender and nonbinary people experience especially high rates of IPV compared with cisgender peers.4

Social workers play a vital role in IPV prevention and response, as outlined by the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics.5 However, many frameworks guiding this work have been developed around cisgender, heterosexual relationships. As a result, LGBTQIA2S+ survivors remain underserved within traditional service systems.1

Unique Dynamics of IPV in LGBTQIA2S+ Communities
LGBTQIA2S+ identity abuse is a form of coercive control that involves weaponizing aspects of a partner’s LGBTQIA2S+ identity to maintain power. Abusers exploit preexisting systems of oppression (eg, homophobia or transphobia) to manipulate, isolate, and silence their partners. Examples include misgendering, deadnaming, outing, threats of outing, or restricting access to gender-affirming care.1

Understanding these dynamics also requires recognizing the misconceptions that shape how LGBTQIA2S+ IPV is interpreted. Messinger notes that heteronormative assumptions—such as the beliefs that same-gender relationships are inherently egalitarian, that violence between LGBTQIA2S+ partners is mutual rather than directional, or that sexual violence is less relevant outside heterosexual contexts—have contributed to the persistent minimization of LGBTQIA2S+ survivors. 3 These myths obscure identity-based power imbalances and help explain why many survivors struggle to identify their experiences as abuse or encounter disbelief when seeking support.

The following are three case scenarios based on IPV dynamics observed within the LGBTQIA2S+ community. These scenarios demonstrate how some LGBTQIA2S+ survivors may experience IPV through identity-based coercion rather than, or combined with, other forms of emotional abuse and overt physical aggression.

Case Example 1: Emotional Coercion and Forced Detransitioning
Shea, a queer transmasculine person, is in a relationship with Micki, a bisexual cisgender woman. As Shea begins exploring his gender identity, he expresses interest in starting hormone therapy. Although initially supportive, Micki becomes increasingly resistant, framing Shea’s transition as a threat to their relationship. She cries and accuses him of “ruining what [they] have” and at times pointedly refers to him with feminine terms (ie, misgendering). Ultimately, Micki convinces Shea to abandon his medical transition.

Case Example 2: Sexual Coercion and Gender Dysphoria
Rachel, a transgender heterosexual woman, tells her partner Jordan, a cisgender heterosexual man, that certain sexual acts cause her gender dysphoria. Jordan pressures her to comply anyway, insisting that “a real woman” would perform these acts. Fearing retaliation, Rachel agrees despite her discomfort. Afterward, Rachel begins dressing less femininely while at home to avoid further sexualization, which worsens her gender dysphoria.

Case Example 3: Physical Violence, Ageism, and HIV Stigma
Marcus, a 45-year-old gay cisgender man living with HIV, is married to Daniel, a 30-year-old gay cisgender man. Over time, Daniel becomes increasingly controlling and physically violent. When Marcus tries to set boundaries, Daniel reminds him that “no one else would want an older man with HIV” and that he should be “grateful” to have a partner who accepts him. Marcus fears that leaving the relationship would jeopardize his health, as he relies on Daniel’s workplace insurance to afford his HIV medication.

Barriers to Seeking Support

Micro
At the micro (individual) level, LGBTQIA2S+ survivors of IPV frequently face stigma, disbelief, and provider bias that inhibit help-seeking. Research indicates that LGBTQIA2S+ survivors seek formal services at lower rates than heterosexual survivors, often due to anticipated discrimination and marginalization within service systems.3,6 Because dominant IPV frameworks have historically marginalized LGBTQIA2S+ experiences, many survivors remain uncertain whether their experiences “count” as abuse.

Fears of judgment or blame further compound this uncertainty. LGBTQIA2S+ survivors who avoid help frequently cite concerns about being blamed for the abuse, treated as inherently dysfunctional because of their identity, or subjected to pathologizing responses; many also anticipate homophobic or transphobic reactions from providers.7 Such expectations of pathologization or heteronormative responses reinforce internalized stigma, leading survivors to doubt the legitimacy of their experiences or worry that disclosure will confirm harmful stereotypes.8 Consequently, many navigate abuse in isolation.

Mezzo
At the mezzo (community) level, barriers arise through survivors’ interactions with institutions meant to protect them. Many violence-response and criminal-legal systems remain ill-equipped to address LGBTQIA2S+ experiences, with survivors reporting harassment, misgendering, and criminalization by law enforcement.3,7 Additionally, some survivors are wrongfully arrested due to law enforcement assuming they are the perpetrator, often stemming from media depictions of queer or trans “predators,” or because they are perceived as more “masculine” or aggressive.

Health care settings reflect similar barriers. Providers may minimize identity-based abuse or make assumptions about survivors’ bodies, pronouns, or relationships.6 Research has found that many LGBTQIA2S+ survivors felt providers did not understand their needs and reported feeling judged or pathologized.3,9 For transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex survivors, procedures such as sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) exams can exacerbate gender dysphoria and replicate prior medical invalidation when conducted without appropriate sensitivity.

Further, shelter and housing programs often rely on binary gender models, leading to the disproportionate exclusion or misplacement of transgender and nonbinary clients. Many IPV survivors who sought shelter reported being denied access, and some were explicitly turned away because of their gender identity.10

Macro
At the macro (societal) level, structural inequities and political hostility exacerbate vulnerability. LGBTQIA2S+ populations experience elevated rates of poverty, unemployment, and housing instability, which limit survivors’ ability to access support resources such as therapy, legal aid, and safe relocation.3,11 These constraints extend the reach of IPV by shrinking the external support resources survivors can safely rely on.

Contemporary sociopolitical attacks on gender identity and sexual orientation have also created a broader culture of fear. State and federal efforts to restrict gender recognition, ban gender-affirming care, and impose “single-sex” shelter mandates in many US states have generated widespread uncertainty about whether LGBTQIA2S+ survivors will be permitted to access critical support services.4 These policy environments amplify the risks of seeking help, particularly for those who already face surveillance, criminalization, or family rejection.

Best Practices
Effective support for LGBTQIA2S+ survivors requires intentional and culturally responsive practices that directly address the unique harms created by identity-based abuse.1 There are several best practices that social workers can implement to ensure safety and inclusivity for LGBTQIA2S+ survivors of IPV.

Be explicit about confidentiality. Providers should clearly outline privacy limits and how client information will be handled, especially in situations where survivors may fear being outed. Clear confidentiality guidelines help survivors feel secure enough to disclose and seek support.

Use nonassumptive and mirrored language. Providers should default to using inclusive terms such as “partner or partners” instead of gendered labels like “boyfriend” or “girlfriend.” Providers should also refrain from making assumptions about clients’ names, pronouns, and relationship configurations and instead mirror the terms that clients use for themselves. This linguistic shift communicates that all identities and relationship structures are welcomed.

Engage with LGBTQIA2S+ community knowledge. Providers should stay informed by following LGBTQIA2S+-led podcasts, content creators, educators, researchers, and activists to remain current with evolving language and community wisdom. Community-based learning ensures that practice remains grounded in the lived realities of LGBTQIA2S+ individuals, rather than static theoretical frameworks.

Collaborate with LGBTQIA2S+ and domestic violence services. Providers should build relationships with LGBTQIA2S+ community organizations and domestic violence agencies to better understand how each supports survivors and where service gaps remain. Maintaining ongoing dialogue between these sectors ensures that referrals are accurate and culturally responsive.

Advocate for organizational change. Providers should promote inclusive policies within their agencies (eg, gender-affirming intake forms, staff training, and nondiscrimination protocols) to ensure that LGBTQIA2S+ survivors receive consistent, affirming care across all points of service.

Support legislative and structural advocacy. Providers should engage in broader (macro) advocacy efforts, including supporting federal protections for gender identity and sexual orientation, expanding funding for LGBTQIA2S+ support programs, and challenging policies that restrict access to shelters, hospitals, or other services.

Conclusion
The conditions surrounding LGBTQIA2S+ IPV are shaped not only by interpersonal harm but also by internalized stigma, discriminatory policies, and an increasingly volatile political landscape. These intersecting forces limit survivors’ access to support and reinforce cycles of silence and isolation.1 In this context, social workers have an ethical obligation to cultivate affirming, culturally responsive practice grounded in the lived experiences of LGBTQIA2S+ communities.

Yet ethical practice alone is insufficient without meaningful structural investment. Expanding funding for LGBTQIA2S+ IPV services, strengthening nondiscrimination protections, and ensuring access to gender-affirming and survivor-centered care are essential to reducing harm. As both practitioners and advocates, social workers must bridge micro-level support with mezzo- and macro-level change, challenging the systems that perpetuate exclusion while empowering survivors to reclaim safety and self-determination. Through this integrated approach, the profession can help build a landscape where LGBTQIA2S+ survivors are not merely accommodated but fully affirmed and better protected.

— Kris Berg, MSW, CPS, is a public health social worker, consultant, and graduate student at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

— Matteo Montero-Murillo, MSW, is a clinical social worker and illustrator from Philadelphia working in maternal addiction.

References
1. American Psychiatric Association, Division of Diversity and Health Equity. Treating LGBTQ patients who have experienced intimate partner violence. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Cultural-Competency/IPV-Guide/APA-Guide-to-IPV-Among-LGTBQ-Communities.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Chen J, Khatiwada S, Chen MS, et al. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/98137/cdc_98137_DS1.pdf

3. Messinger AM. LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research. University of California Press; 2017.

4. Understanding intimate partner violence in the LGBTQ+ community. Human Rights Campaign website. https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-intimate-partner-violence-in-the-lgbtq-community. Updated November 4, 2022.

5. Code of Ethics. National Association of Social Workers website. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English. Published 2021.

6. Calton JM, Cattaneo LB, Gebhard KT. Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(5):585-600.

7. Tillery B, Ray A, Cruz E, Waters E; National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and HIV-affected intimate partner violence in 2017. https://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NCAVP-HV-IPV-2017-report.pdf. Published 2017.

8. Edwards KM, Sylaska KM, Neal AM. Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: a critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence. 2015;5(2):112-121.

9. Guadalupe-Diaz XL, Jasinski J. “I wasn’t a priority, I wasn’t a victim”: challenges in help-seeking for transgender survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women. 2017;23(6):772-792.

10. James SE, Herman JL, Rankin S, Keisling M, Mottet L, Anafi M; National Center for Transgender Equality. The report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf. Published 2016.

11. Sokoloff NJ, Dupont I. Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender: challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women. 2005;11(1):38-64.

Resources
Brown TNT, Herman JL. Intimate partner violence and sexual abuse among LGBT people: a review of existing research. UCLA School of Law Williams Institute website. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/ipv-sex-abuse-lgbt-people/. Published 2015.

Donovan C, Hester M. Domestic Violence and Sexuality: What’s Love Got to Do With It? Policy Press; 2014.