Supporting the LGBTQ+ Student Experience

Introduction

This guide was created by Rutgers Universitys Center on Violence Against Women and Children as part of the Enhancing Victim Services Project. The project aims to enhance direct services for victims/survivors of violence and strives to expand upon university-wide responses to violence on campus. One population of focus is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) victim/survivor community, whose experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) may differ from those of cisgender and heterosexual victims/survivors.

This guide covers the rates at which LGBTQ+ individuals experience IPV and SV and the unique ways they experience violence, the barriers LGBTQ+ victims/survivors may face accessing services, and best practices for serving LGBTQ+ victims/survivors on college campuses.

Key Terms to Know

Below is a list of key terms which pertain to the LGBTQ+ community and other students on campus. Note: This list is not exhaustive of all sexual and gender identities. It is important to both ask and respect how each client identifies.

• Biological Sex
  • Biologically determined characteristic influenced by chromosomes, hormones, and physical anatomy (i.e., reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics) (APA, 2015).
• Sexual Orientation
  • Sexual, emotional, or romantic attractions to others based on biological sex and/or gender identity (PFLAG, 2021).
• Lesbian
  • Describes women who are exclusively sexually, emotionally, and romantically attracted to other women (PFLAG, 2021).
• Gay
  • Sexual, emotional, or romantic attraction exclusively to those of the same gender as oneself (PFLAG, 2021).
• Bisexual/Bi
  • Refers to sexual, emotional, and romantic attraction to men and women; or sexual attraction of people who are the same sex and different sexes from oneself (PFLAG, 2021).
• Pansexual/Pan
  • Refers to sexual, emotional, and romantic attraction that is independent of another's gender identity or expression (PFLAG, 2021).
• Queer
  • Sometimes used as an umbrella term for minoritized (i.e., non-straight) sexual identities. Note: Some LGBTQ+ people still consider this term offensive, as it has historically been used as a slur against this community. Only use this term for individuals who identify themselves as queer (PFLAG, 2021).
• Asexual/Ace spectrum
  • Refers to experiencing limited or no sexual or romantic attraction to others; this occurs on a spectrum and being asexual does not necessarily mean never having romantic or sexual relationships (PFLAG, 2021)
• Demisexual
  • An identity used to describe an individual who experiences sexual and/or romantic attraction only after an emotional bond is formed with a particular person(s). Often described as part of the asexual spectrum (PFLAG, 2021).
• Straight/heterosexual
  • Refers to sexual, emotional, and romantic attraction to those one identifies as a different gender from one’s own (PFLAG, 2021).
• Gender identity
  • One’s internal sense of their gender, which encompasses social roles, physical attributes, and behaviors. Gender identity and biological sex are not synonymous (PFLAG, 2021)
• Cisgender/Cis
  • Refers to someone whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth (PFLAG, 2021).
• Transgender/Trans
  • Refers to someone whose gender identity and sex assigned at birth do not match (PFLAG, 2021)
• Nonbinary
  • Refers to someone whose gender identity is not distinctly male or female (PFLAG, 2021).
• Genderfluid
  • Refers to someone who does not experience their gender identity as fixed over time (PFLAG, 2021).
• Two-Spirit
  • Term used by some North American Indigenous communities, including American Indians and Alaska Natives, to describe those who identify with a third gender and fulfill unique social and/or ceremonial roles because of this (PFLAG, 2021).
• Non-Monogamy
  • An umbrella term for all sexual and romantic practices outside of being sexually and/or romantically active with one partner at any given time. Some forms/types of non-monogamy include, but are not limited to polyamory, open relationships, relationship anarchy, and swinging. Note: This term does not apply exclusively to those who identify as LGBTQ+ (Balzarini et al., 2017).
• Polyamory
  • A form of non-monogamy in which all partners in a given relationship are aware of and accept that their partners may desire or have additional sexual and/or romantic relationships at the same time. Types of polyamorous relationships include but are not limited to triads (three people who are all dating each other), hierarchical poly (with consented upon primary, secondary and/or tertiary partners) and polyfidelity (where no partners other than those initially in the poly relationship when established are allowed), etc. Note: This term does not apply exclusively to those who identify as LGBTQ+ (PFLAG, 2021).

Introduction

This guide was created by Rutgers University ’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children as part of the Enhancing Victim Services Project. The project aims to enhance direct services for victims/survivors of violence and strives to expand upon university-wide responses to violence on campus. One population of focus is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) victim/survivor community, whose experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) may differ from those of cisgender and heterosexual victims/survivors.

This guide covers the rates at which LGBTQ+ individuals experience IPV and SV and the unique ways they experience violence, the barriers LGBTQ+ victims/survivors may face accessing services, and best practices for serving LGBTQ+ victims/survivors on college campuses.

Experience of Violence Among the LGBTQ+ Community & Minority Stress Theory

Minority stress theory posits that rates of behavioral health conditions, such as suicidal behavior, substance use, anxiety, and depression are higher among LGBTQ+ people than those who are cisgender or heterosexual due to pervasive prejudice, discrimination, and stigma against the LGBTQ+ community (Meyer, 2003). This societal stigma is often internalized by LGBTQ+ people, who by then anticipate discrimination, violence, and rejection by individuals and systems based on their LGBTQ+ identities (Meyer, 2003). Internalized and environmental stigma, especially in the absence of social support, can result in negative health impacts and maladaptive coping, such as substance use or selfinjury (Meyer, 2003). It is beneficial for service providers to understand that IPV and SV occurs against LGBTQ+ people in the context of other forms of oppression within society at large, such as the legal system and health care system. In the United States, anti-sodomy laws criminalized sexual activity between consenting adult men and other consensual sex practices until the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down remaining anti-sodomy laws in the United States in 2003; the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders categorized homosexuality as a mental illness until 1973; same-sex marriage was not federally legalized until 2015; and discrimination and hate crimes against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity are not federally codified into law (Carpenter, 2012; Hebl et al., 2016; Meyer, 2003; Miller et al., 2016; Weinmeyer, 2014). These systemic forms of dehumanization and delegitimization represent a broader context of discrimination and violence that impacts LGBTQ+ people in profound ways.

Because large systems have historically stigmatized LGBTQ+ identities, sexeducation beyond the scope of heterosexual and cisgender experiences ofsexuality and sex are excluded from most sex education programming foryouth. This is despite the demonstrated efficacy of inclusive sex education atreducing homophobic bullying and other forms of violence against LGBTQ+youth and IPV and SV in general (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021). SV and IPV perpetrated against LGBTQ+ individuals are layered with violencehistorically committed against the LGBTQ+ community and other minoritizedcommunities to which they belong (Miller et al., 2016). According to FBIstatistics, nearly one out of five reported hate crimes are committed against amember of the LGBTQ+ community (Fitzsimons, 2019). Violence againstLGBTQ+ people is often more severe for LGBTQ+ people of color. People of color are more likely to suffer injuries from hate crimes and are lesslikely to receive medical attention; however, they report these crimes to lawenforcement less frequently than their white counterparts (Dixon, 2010).H eterosexism and cis-sexism combine with other forms of oppression, such asracism and xenophobia, in complex ways that worsen the impacts of SV andIPV. LGBTQ+ victims/survivors of SV and IPV experience poorer mental healthoutcomes due to their victimization, including more severe symptoms ofdepression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Miller et al., 2016). Studies demonstrate that the rates of IPV and SV against the LGBTQ+ peopleare often higher than those against cisgender and heterosexual people in largecommunity samples (Brown & Herman, 2015; Walters, Chen, & Brieding,2013) and samples specific to college students (Cantor et al., 2020; Whitfieldet al., 2018). There are complex reasons for these disproportionate rates ofvictimization, which will be further addressed in this guide series.

Family Violence Against LGBTQ+ Youth and Young Adults

Research demonstrates that LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately higher levels of adverse childhood experiences (e.g., child abuse/neglect and family dysfunction) than their cisgender and heterosexual counterparts, especially emotional abuse, and neglect by caregivers (Craig et al., 2020). Family rejection and hate-motivated violence against LGBTQ+ youth by family members is not uncommon; according to one study involving twentyfive LGBTQ+ foster youth, almost all participants had experienced identitybased rejection by at least one family member or caregiver (Mountz & Capous-Desyllas, 2020). Child welfare involvement and youth homelessness also disproportionately impacts LGBTQ+ youth for these reasons (Fish et al., 2019; Forge et al., 2018). Economic, housing, and family instability are also related to a heightened risk of sex trafficking and sex work among LGBTQ+ youth, as well as violence revictimization (Hogan & Roe-Sepowitz, 2020). Therefore, when practitioners are working with LGBTQ+ clients, it is important to gather information about their nuanced experiences of family rejection and acceptance based on their sexual and gender identities and trauma histories in a validating, trauma-informed manner. In a survey of 574 LGBTQ victims/survivors of IPV, Lippy & Waters (2021) found that most respondents had not sought formal or informal support regarding IPV, yet 47% of participants wanted formal support to help strengthen their relationships with family and friends. It is also important to assess how LGBTQ+ clients’ support systems often look different from those of their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts because of the prevalence of family and peer rejection of LGBTQ+ youth and young adults.

Forms of Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence

LGBTQ+ people may be at particular risk for manipulation and control by partners and others due to their marginalized status. Abusers may know that victims/survivors must overcome significant barriers to accessing services that make it difficult for them to leave the situation, relationship, and/or shared home. Further, abusers can utilize their victims’ previous experiences of LGBTQ+ discrimination to cause further harm. LGBTQ+ people may experience the same abuse tactics as those who are not LGBTQ+, including emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and financial abuse (The Network/La Red, n.d.). However, these types of violence are expressed in ways that may uniquely apply to those who are LGBTQ+.

Examples of forms of IPV and SV specific to LGBTQ+ people include:

• Abusers may use the threat of “outing” the victim/survivor to keep them silent, meaning they could reveal the victim’s/survivor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, putting them in additional danger such as loss of support systems, loss of employment and thus health insurance, and risk of violence fueled by homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia
• LGBTQ+ victims/survivors report their abusers speaking in homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic ways during the relationship
• Members of the LGBTQ+, such as lesbian and bisexual women, experience violence after coming out to their partners Abusers may call transgender victims/survivors the wrong name, use incorrect pronouns, or ridicule them about their gender identity or presentation
• Abusers could restrict transgender victims’/survivors’ use of their medical treatment related to transitioning, such as hormone therapy
• Hypersexualization, objectification, and partner mistrust related to myths of promiscuity and infidelity of bisexual women may be related to higher prevalence of IPV perpetrated against bisexual women
• Bisexual men and women’s invisibility or lack of recognition in the LGBTQ+ community and limited acceptance by both straight and gay/lesbian communities (e.g., those in “straight-passing” relationships may face exclusion from gay/lesbian communities) can result in feelings of isolation and lack of belonging, which may increase vulnerability to violence
• Corrective rape of lesbian women, asexual women, and trans men who are perceived to violate gender norms by others is a unique form of sexualized violence. Corrective rape constitu

Introduction

This guide was created by Rutgers University’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children as part of the Enhancing Victim Services Project. The project aims to enhance direct services for victims/survivors of violence and strives to expand upon university-wide responses to violence on campus. One population of focus is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) victim/survivor community, whose experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) may differ from those of cisgender and heterosexual victims/survivors.

This guide covers the rates at which LGBTQ+ individuals experience IPV and SV and the unique ways they experience violence, the barriers LGBTQ+ victims/survivors may face accessing services, and best practices for serving LGBTQ+ victims/survivors on college campuses.

Access to Victim / Survivor Services

Most popularized examples of IPV in education and media are heteronormative and focus on violence between cisgender, heterosexual partners, without offering the same level of information or representation for LGBTQ+ individuals (Brown & Herman, 2015). Additionally, if IPV and SV services do not specifically advertise themselves as LGBTQ+ friendly, this may deter students from searching for or accessing them. Students may worry about facing discrimination, stereotyping, or uninformed care workers whom they need to educate about their identity while seeking services. Many systems of support were not created with LGBTQ+ relationships in mind, including laws addressing violence in relationships and victim/survivor services. For example, victim/survivor service providers may not tailor their supports to LGBTQ+ victims’/survivors’ needs. One study reported that only 17% of students agreed that their university provided LGBTQ+ students with sufficient IPV services (Edwards et al., 2016). Shelters and health care facilities may not serve LGBTQ+ victims/survivors. One study found that in 2015, of 986 incidents of IPV against LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected individuals from ten National Coalition of Antiviolence Programs (NCAVP) partners, 44% of victims/survivors who sought shelter were denied, most commonly due to gender identity (Waters et al., 2016). State laws also vary on definitions of IPV and SV, potentially excluding those in same-sex relationships from legal protections (Brown & Herman, 2015). For example, in North Carolina, abuse is only considered domestic violence under the law if it occurs between “persons of opposite sex” (ACLU of NC, 2019). These institutional barriers prevent LGBTQ+ victims/survivors from receiving help or believing that help is available to them.

Despite the need for services, LGBTQ+ individuals rarely access them. Many LGBTQ+ victims/survivors fear that reporting their assaults could contribute to further discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, as they may fear that it will contribute to stereotypes that same sex relationships are inherently abnormal (DeKeseredy et al., 2017). LGBTQ+ victims/survivors may also fear rejection from crucial social support networks like family and friends, especially because when their LGBTQ+ peer networks are small and tightknit, and disclosing abuse could lead to isolation from peers (Brown & Herman, 2015; Garvey, Hitchins, & McDonald, 2017). Further, if the person who committed the violence is LGBTQ+, the victim/survivor is more likely to interact with them after the abuse, as there are limited social spaces that cater specifically to LGBTQ+ people (Victim Rights Law Center, 2017). Finally, given violence historically perpetrated against LGBTQ+ people, these victims/survivors may fear the responses of law enforcement and other service providers if they reveal they identify as LGBTQ+ (RAINN, 2019). As a result, LGBTQ+ victims/survivors rarely report their victimization.

It is essential to note that LGBTQ+ victims/survivors of color face additional and compounded barriers to accessing help due to intersecting forms of oppression. LGBTQ+ people of color, especially Black victims/survivors, have been historically brutalized by law enforcement, and may have experienced previous violence due to systemic racism along with homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia (Langness & Velasco, 2020). For example, LGBTQ+ victims/survivors often have unhelpful or violent experiences with the police. One report found that 55% of LGBTQ+ IPV victims/survivors reported that when reporting their abuse, law enforcement was indifferent towards them, and 20% reported they were hostile (Tillers, Ray, Cruz, & Waters, 2018). This could make reporting IPV or SV especially dangerous for them, their partners, and communities (Miller et al., 2016).

Additionally, responses to disclosures of IPV and SV significantly impact victims’/survivors’ mental health. In a study of 905 heterosexual women and bisexual women sexual assault survivors, Sigurvinsdottir & Ullman (2016) found that perceived social support was related to depressive symptoms and PTSD symptoms, and bisexual women received more negative reactions and less social support following disclosure than their heterosexual counterparts. Cultural myths about violence against LGBTQ+ people are pervasive among law enforcement, the civil and criminal justice systems, healthcare providers, and other large systems that hold authority (Calton et al., 2016). For instance, some law enforcement officers, or even social workers and domestic violence advocates may believe that abuse in same-sex relationships is mutual (that both partners batter each other), or that abuse cannot occur in same-sex relationships. This myth may result in both the victim and the abuser being arrested if the police are called. An LGBTQ survivor may also be afraid that revealing the abuse will reflect badly on all LGBTQ people or fuel anti-LGBTQ biases (WomensLaw.org, 2019). In North Carolina and South Carolina, for example, restraining orders can only be filed against persons of the opposite gender if they are unmarried (ACLU of NC, 2019).

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Scholars, researchers, and service providers tend to approach sexual and intimate partner violence education, programming, and services from an identity-neutral, a-historic, and “powerevasive” perspective, often neglecting the inherent power dynamics involved in SV and IPV, which can and often does center the “numerical majority’s” experience (Harris & Linder, 2017). Neglecting to address issues of identity, power, oppression, dominance, and history reconstructs and works to maintain systems of domination that often lead to violence on campus (Harris & Linder, 2017). Universities can support their LGBTQ+ students who are victims/survivors of SV or IPV in several key ways which center their experiences in program development, policy, research, and evaluation (Klein et al., 2020). These recommendations aim to undo the false idea that violence perpetrated against White heterosexual, cisgender women is the norm around which prevention and response should be centered (Klein et al., 2020).

Recommendation 1: Foster a Campus Climate Inclusive to LGBTQ+ Communities

Universities should cultivate a campus climate that is inclusive and supportive to LGBTQ+ students and centers their experiences. A survey of transgender youth found that positive social supports serve as protective factors from trauma exposure and relate to less severe symptoms of depression and anxiety (Becker et al., 2017). Inclusive campus climate also relates to higher academic and social engagement for LGBTQ+ students (Garvey et al., 2017). LGBTQ+ inclusion involves ensuring there are LGBTQ+ centers on campus, campuses support student-led initiatives regarding LGBTQ+ visibility, sex and relationship education includes LGBTQ+ experiences, and universities aim for diversity, equity, and inclusion through formalized programming at the university (Waling & Roffee, 2018). Campuses that encourage the development of LGBTQ+ communities can create a social safety net for victims/survivors and students dealing with minority stress (Becker et al., 2017). LGBTQ+ survivors with intersecting oppressed identities, such as Black LGBTQ+ survivors, those with disabilities, international students, and firstgeneration college students, have unique service needs in higher education settings. Services should consider the increased reliance on spiritual communities for some cultural communities. Support networks often cater to white, cisgender, and heterosexual norms. Consultants who specialize in diversity should be hired to create programming specific to the needs of Black LGBTQ+ individuals (Sanz-Saumeth, 2020). Victim service providers should partner with campus and local LGBTQ+ spaces to increase awareness and access of supportive services to this underserved community.

Recommendation 2: Increase Clinicians' Competence Working with LGBTQ+ Victims/Survivors 

To build trust and provide effective care to LGBTQ+ students, health care providers should inquire about sexual behavior in a nonjudgmental way and not assume sexual orientation or gender identity (Ard & Makadon, 2011). Clinicians should also screen for IPV in LGBTQ+ patients by directly asking if their partners hurt them or if they feel safe (Ard & Makadon, 2011). Additionally, clinicians should see patients alone regardless of the gender of the person accompanying them to ensure that a potential victim/survivor can disclose their victimization safely (Ard & Makadon, 2011). Providers should be cognizant of common myths about same-sex IPV, including assumptions about the mutuality of violence between same-sex partners rather than adequately assessing who is the primary abuser or minimization of the severity of violence, especially when perpetrated in a same-sex relationship between women ( Rollè et al., 2018). According to the 1994-1995 National Violence Against Women Survey, bisexual men and women are at a higher risk of being victimized by opposite-sex partners and perpetration of IPV by women does not conform to the feminist construction of SV and IPV as patriarchal violence (Messinger, 2011; Cannon et al., 2015). Therefore, IPV and SV response should be theoretically based in more than just feminist theory and should rather use a more integrated understanding of power dynamics between individuals based on oppressed and privileged aspects of their identities and actual behaviors within abusive relationships (Cannon et al., 2015).

Recommendation 3: Train Victim/Survivor Services Providers

To best serve the LGBTQ+ population, victim/survivor service providers must receive proper training. Education should include revised guidelines to reflect the burden of violence in the LGBTQ+ community and incorporate LGBTQ+ victim/survivor testimony (Ard & Makadon, 2011). The organization Demonstrate LGBTQ+ Access includes a comprehensive list of tips for incorporating LGBTQ+-related professional training (Demonstrate LGBTQ Access, 2015):

1. In addition to discussing language and respect for the LGBTQ+ community, baseline training should explore systemic and institutional barriers to helpseeking.
2. The organization should integrate information about LGBTQ+ needs and barriers into all aspects of training, as single trainings will not sufficiently shift culture.
3. The trainings should also examine the assumptions that reinforce the gender binary, assumptions of heterosexuality, and assumptions of nuclear family formation, which effects even those who are not LGBTQ+.
4. Service providers should acknowledge that LGBTQ+ victims/survivors and non-LGBTQ+ victims/survivors will be treated differently because their needs are different, and assuming they are “the same” leads to inequitable treatment.
5. Workplaces must create space to discuss gender and sexuality.
6. Trainings on LGBTQ+ victims/survivors must integrate the intersection of gender and sexuality to all forms of oppression, including racism, ableism, and ageism.
7. Establish buy-in through integrating serving LGBTQ+ victims/survivors in the organization mission but expect pushback from some of those involved. Develop creative trainings with interactive and varied components that also integrate current events.

Recommendation 4: Consider Developing Support Groups Specific for LGBTQ+ Survivors

Because LGBTQ+ victims/survivors of IPV and SV may have experiences of violence unique to their sexual identity or gender identity, support groups specific to LGBTQ+ victims/survivors may increase victim service use and effectiveness for sexual and gender minority students. Some LGBTQ+ victims/survivors may desire and benefit from these targeted interventions, whereas other victims/survivors may prefer support groups and group counseling that is more integrated with victims/survivors of diverse sexual and gender identities. Therefore, increasing all clinicians’ competence and sensitivity to the unique experiences and needs of LGBTQ+ students while also developing targeted interventions and supports is considered best practice (Gray et al., 2020). Within these spaces, it is also important to acknowledge the diversity of identities and experiences within the LGBTQ+ community.

Recommendation 5: Promote an Awareness of Sexual Violence and Intimate Partner Violence in the LGBTQ+ Community

Prevention and awareness campaigns should ensure that they target the LGBTQ+ community. Universities should make sure pamphlets, posters, and other materials on IPV are inclusive of LGBTQ+ individuals (Ard & Makadon, 2011). This can include using gender neutral language when describing relationships and including images of people with diverse gender presentations and races. Materials should also inform students on the specific ways that LGBTQ+ victims/survivors experience violence and emphasize that abuse is not exclusive to straight relationships. Events should try to steer clear of using heteronormative language that focuses on the experience of straight cis-gender women, for instance, events such as “what she was wearing,” or “in her shoes.”

Recommendation 6: Ensure Victim Service Providers and Campus Healthcare Providers Use Inclusive Documentation for Practices for LGBTQ+ Clients/Patients

Intake forms in all health care settings should include patient’s legal name, preferred name, and pronouns. Additionally, when health forms require information about patient sex, two questions should be included (CDC, 2020):

1) What is your gender?

• male
• female
• nonbinary/genderqueer
• trans man
• trans woman
• additional gender category (please specify):
• decline to answer
• all that apply

2) What was your sex assigned a birth?

• female
• male
• not designated 

Ensure that questions about sexual orientation, sexual history, and relationship status are as exhaustive and inclusive as possible. Sexual orientation can include options such as straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning/unsure, asexual, the option to specify another sexual orientation, and decline to answer (CDC, 2020). Relationships can and do include non-monogamy, polyamory or open relationships. Best practices regarding data collection on patient/client sexual orientation and gender identity are often changing. Refer to the most recent CDC guidelines for best practices.

Final Thoughts

This guide attempted to bring awareness to the importance of recognizing that one-size-fits-all programming and services on campus are often heteronormative and do not center the experiences of LGBTQ+ students. To effectively create change on campus and prevent IPV, service providers, faculty, staff, students, and policymakers must move beyond performance to practice and implement social-justice oriented, identity-conscious programming and services that consider the intersections of social identities. As this is by no means an exhaustive guide, resources for further information are provided on the following pages.