Gender-based violence in the relationships of LGBTQI+ people: an overview of the problem and ways to address it

CONTENTS

Introduction

Gender-based violence can generally be defined as violence whose commission is rooted in a particular gender order of society. Today that order everywhere remains patriarchy, with a more or less rigid hierarchy in which the male gender dominates the female one, and with a more or less rigid separation of these genders, defined by the sets of norms, attitudes, and stereotypical notions applied to them. As a result, gender-based violence is most often spoken of as violence committed by men against women. Although such manifestations are indeed the most widespread, reducing everything to them alone would be an oversimplification. After all, imposed gender norms can also give rise to violence against people of the same gender when those people cross the boundaries set by such norms.

In particular, when the issue of gender-based violence is examined, LGBTQI+ people often fall outside the focus of attention. On the one hand, this is because of their generally lower visibility, which is a consequence of society’s rejection. On the other hand, the specifics of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) create the false impression that the dynamics of relationships shaped by gender norms and stereotypes supposedly do not concern them and should not affect them. LGBTQI+ issues in general are often presented in a separate context and are sometimes perceived as though they were somehow separate from “universal human” ones. In reality it is more accurate to say that SOGI simply adds its own specifics to the general set of issues, including those related to violence.

A significant share of gender-based violence consists of domestic violence and violence by an intimate partner, the countering of which has recently been receiving more attention. So as not to overburden the text, this term is used here specifically in the form “intimate partner violence” or, in short, “partner violence”. It is understood that the partner may be a person of any gender

In particular, last year Ukraine ratified the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence – and is working on the implementation of its provisions. This convention also contains references to violence based on SOGI. However, in Ukraine’s public and media space such manifestations of violence still remain something of a “blind spot” – something that one part of society does not much want to hear about, and another part does not have much opportunity to speak about freely.

This text likewise does not claim to describe the situation with manifestations of partner violence against LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine, given the lack of such information at the present moment. It is focused rather on general information and trends on this issue in the world, in the hope that it will thereby pave the way for further, broader, and more open discussion and for the search for solutions to these problems in our country as well. This material also does not cover those types of gender-based violence that go beyond the private sphere of relationships and whose perpetrators are, for example, bearers of cultural traditions or state institutions. A separate material is planned on them.

General Concepts and Data

Domestic violence can be defined as violence that arises in domestic relationships, such as family relationships or shared living arrangements.

Intimate partner violence is a type of domestic violence that can come from either a current or a former partner. In English the abbreviation IPV – for intimate partner violence is often used for it.

Sometimes these two terms are used as synonyms. However, domestic violence is nevertheless a broader concept, since it can include violence by various family members – for example, by parents against children. Also, not all domestic violence is gender-based: in those same relationships between parents and children, gender may not be the decisive factor, unless we are talking about cases where, for example, violence is committed against a child whose behavior does not conform to gender stereotypes.

If we speak about violence by the partner of an LGBTQI+ person, at first glance it may seem that this concerns exclusively same-sex gay and lesbian couples.

In the general case, however, these may be cases of violence:

• by a partner of the same sex / the same gender in homosexual relationships;
• by a partner of a different sex / gender in the heterosexual relationships of a trans person;
• by a partner of a different sex / gender in the relationships of a bi-/poly-/pansexual or queer person;
• by a former or sham partner of a different sex of a homosexual person – for example, in situations where the person for a certain time was not aware of their homosexuality, or concealed it or continues to conceal it behind a facade of heterosexual relationships;by one of the partners of one or another sex / gender in polyamorous relationships.

From the point of view of the nature of the relationship violence may be:

• by a steady partner. Such cases are characterized by the repetitive nature of the violence, which becomes systematic and may combine various manifestations at the same time;
• by a former partner. One of the typical cases here is when an LGBTQI+ person was in a relationship even before coming out or gender transition, or even before becoming aware of their SOGI, which resulted in rejection by the partner, while at the same time that partner did not leave them alone after the relationship ended;
• by a new or casual partner. This category is sometimes singled out as “dating violence”, when the relationship is not stable, and in such cases there is a particular risk that the violence will have a homophobic, biphobic, or transphobic basis. It also includes violence by clients against sex workers (among LGBTQI+ people these are most often trans women).

While for cisheterosexual couples the issue of violence began to be raised and studied quite long ago, the first studies of it in the relationships of LGBTQI+ people appeared in the 1970s. Broader approaches to collecting and analyzing data, which made it possible to obtain more systematized results and statistics, date to the 21st century. This is connected both with the general processes of normalizing discourses around LGBTQI+ topics and with the fact that violence in relationships used to be viewed primarily as something committed by men against women. The relationships of same-sex couples, by contrast, were perceived by default as “equal”, in which such cases were supposed to be rather exceptions not worth focused attention. Yet it was precisely research that was needed in order to ultimately confirm or refute this hypothesis.

In fact, most researchers agree that over the course of their lives LGBTQI+ people encounter partner violence on average more often than cisheterosexual people do. At the same time, the figures vary depending on the particular group. Thus, in 2010 the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) was conducted in the United States, with more than 18,000 participants.

In 2015 the Williams Institute, which generally focuses on research into SOGI issues, carried out a review of a number of studies of violence against LGBTQI+ people for the period beginning in the late 1980s. According to it, for those studies whose samples are representative, the percentage of people who experienced intimate partner violence over their lifetime falls within the following ranges:

• for gay men: 25.2%–33.3%
• for bisexual men: 16.1%–37.3%
• for lesbians: 25.0%–40.4%
• for bisexual women: 42.9%–56.9%

From these data it can be concluded that the risk of encountering violence is higher for women than for men, and also for bisexual people than for heterosexual and homosexual ones, reaching its highest level at the intersection of these categories – for bisexual women. Only for gay men is it at a level comparable to that for heterosexual men.

While the NISVS survey concerned only sexual orientation, the Williams Institute also analyzed the situation regarding trans people. The number of studies here is generally smaller, but from those available it follows that between 31.1% and 50% had encountered intimate partner violence.

At the same time, the survey of transgender people in the United States in 2015 produced a result of 54%, which is also a very high figure.

NISVS also examined the sex of the partner who commits the violence. In the cases of gay men and lesbians, the perpetrator is of the same sex in 90.7% and 67.4% of cases respectively. Among bisexual people, the perpetrator is of a different sex in the cases of 89.5% of women and 78.5% of men.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this: first, that in the relationships of non-heterosexual people, as in heterosexual ones, violence is more often committed by men; second, that on average it is people of a different sex who more often become perpetrators.

The latter is above all evident in the example of bisexual people, but among lesbians too about a third of cases involve men. This also brings us back to the point already mentioned, that a homosexual orientation does not in itself preclude the experience of relationships with people of a different sex or gender.

The above confirms that gender conditioning is present in LGBTQI+ relationships as well. After all, patriarchal society normalizes violence by men, programming them to believe that they must get their way by force, whereas women, on the contrary, must submit. At the same time, let us note that although male perpetrators do predominate numerically, this predominance is not so significant as to reduce everything solely to gender. Later we will also show how gender conditioning can play a role in the relationships of purely same-sex couples as well.

In 2015 the study “Domestic and Dating Violence against LBT Women in the EU” was published, which combined separate studies in 8 European Union countries. Unlike the studies in the United States mentioned above, it was not aimed at obtaining statistical data but was rather qualitative, focused on identifying trends in manifestations of violence and the best means of countering them. Focused primarily on women, it nevertheless made it possible to identify certain patterns regarding LGBTQI+ people in general.

At the same time, there are important aspects that introduce their own specifics precisely into the relationships of LGBTQI+ people:

• the threat of outing, that is, of the disclosure of sexual orientation or gender identity among people to whom it is unknown – these may be work colleagues, relatives, friends;
• social isolation in which a partner finds themselves because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The factors named can play into the perpetrator’s hands in the desire to maintain control and power over the victim, since they contribute to the victim’s isolation from those around them and reduce the likelihood that the victim will seek support and help from them.

In Ukraine, although individual cases of partner violence in the LGBTQI+ community have become known and have reached the media, there have so far been no studies of this topic or at least attempts at a more systematic examination of it. In particular, in 2020 journalists sent requests to the regional departments of the National Police in order to find out whether law enforcement agencies had ever recorded cases of violence in LGBTQI+ relationships, and received the answer that there had been none. However, this points not so much to the actual absence of such cases as, above all, to the fact that the police in no way single out same-sex couples or SOGI characteristics in their statistics, so even if such cases did in fact occur, data on this is simply not retained.

Types and Manifestations of Partner Violence

There are various classifications of intimate partner violence depending on which characteristics are taken as the basis. Among them the following can be named:

• Situational/systematic violence. The first refers rather to individual situations in which at a certain moment the interaction between partners escalates into a quarrel with violent actions on one or even both sides, yet such episodes are not repetitive. Systematic violence, by contrast, means precisely repetitiveness, the regularity of manifestations, in which it is usually possible to distinguish clearly who commits the violence and who suffers from it.
• Mutual/non-mutual violence. As is self-evident from the name, in the first case we are talking about manifestations of violence on both sides – for example, quarrels that may be initiated in different situations by one partner or the other. The second is violence in one direction, where there is a perpetrator and a victim.

Non-mutual systematic violence is also called “intimate terrorism”. It is above all a way of establishing or maintaining power and control over a partner and may combine various forms, which will be discussed in more detail below. It is precisely this type of violence that is usually the most severe in its consequences.

A category of violent resistance is also distinguished, which arises as a way of stopping a partner’s violence by forceful means in turn. It may be either a spontaneous, impulsive reaction to a particular act of violence or a prepared response to systematic violent actions. At the same time, even if the response is harsher than the act of violence that provoked it, the two cannot be equated, since the response is a means of self-defense.

Here it is important to note that violence is often understood by default as only its physical manifestations, whereas in reality the forms it may take are considerably more varied. There are various classifications of them, more or less similar in their lists of the main types. Proceeding from those that can occur in the relationships of LGBTQI+ people, we can settle on the following list:

• physical violence;
• sexual violence;
• psychological (emotional) violence;
• economic (financial) violence;
• cultural violence.

Below we will consider each of these types separately, placing the emphasis on those specific manifestations that are connected precisely with belonging to LGBTQI+ people. At the same time, as is worth stating once again, in real situations these manifestations may occur in combination, which only multiplies the harm they cause.

Physical violence

Physical violence covers any actions that cause a partner bodily harm or other bodily suffering, and in a broader sense also threats to commit such actions.

Examples of it may be acts of direct physical impact: beating, pushing, biting, strangling, tying up, throwing objects at a partner, using weapons. It may also be restrictive actions of a physical nature: locking someone in a room or, conversely, outside the home; leaving them without food, clothing, medicines, and so on.

In addition to those listed, in relationships with LGBTQI+ people physical violence may have the following additional manifestations:

• Using violence against a partner’s genitals or chest. This may have an additional psychological effect on trans people, once again triggering dysphoria about their sex organs or, conversely, devaluing the changes that have taken place with them in the course of transition.
• Forbidding a trans partner to resort to medical interventions related to gender transition – for example, to take hormones or to have surgery.
• In the case of HIV-positive people – attempting to infect the partner with HIV in order thereby to increase control over them.

Sexual violence

Sexual violence is, in the broad sense, any sexual actions or behavior toward a partner that are unwanted by them. This may be physical sexual contact ranging from touching to rape, as well as such manifestations as ignoring a partner’s sexual needs, dismissive remarks about their body, appearance, sexual experience, behavior, or desires; refusal to use safer-sex protection, coercion into sexual interaction with others, and so on.

With regard to LGBTQI+ people, sexual violence may also manifest itself in the following ways:

• The perpetrator may use the false claim that women cannot be rapists, or that men cannot be raped, in order to deny the fact of the violence.
• Stereotypes associated with LGBTQI+ people or with gender roles may be used in order to push someone toward a particular sexual interaction. For example, toward anal sex in the case of gay men, or toward interaction in which the more masculine person takes an exclusively active role and the more feminine one a passive role.
• Ignoring the gender identity or presentation of a transgender partner during sexual interaction, in particular drawing attention to the “male” or “female” nature of their sex organs.
• Refusal to use protection on the pretext that LGBTQI+ sex is supposedly safe (for example, since it does not lead to unwanted pregnancy).
• Coercing a bisexual person into a threesome or group sex on the pretext that this is supposedly inherent to their sexual orientation.

Thus, in these cases the manifestations of violence are gender-based even though it takes place between people of the same gender.

Psychological violence

The terms “psychological violence” and “emotional violence” are used to a certain extent as synonyms and refer to behavior that undermines a partner’s psychological and emotional state, self-esteem, and personal integrity by means of intimidation, psychological pressure, manipulation, and so on.

It may include such manifestations as verbal threats, constant and unwarranted criticism, excessive control, restriction of contacts, humiliation, devaluation, name-calling, shouting, false accusations, gaslighting, jealousy, refusal of support, and it may occur both when alone with the partner and in the presence of others.

In the relationships of LGBTQI+ people there are the following specific manifestations:

• Denying that violence is possible at all in non-heterosexual relationships – or, conversely, presenting it as an organic component of them that need not be resisted.
• Accusing a partner of deserving violence because of their belonging to LGBTQI+ people – for example, if they are a bisexual or transgender person in a heterosexual relationship.
• Coercing a partner into coming out or, conversely, into remaining closeted. Also disclosing a partner’s sexual orientation or gender identity to their family, work colleagues, and so on without prior agreement.
• Using the high level of homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia in society as an argument to a partner that there will be no acceptance from other people, or that the perpetrator is the only one who can be trusted; restricting the partner’s social contacts in this way.
• Forbidding communication with friends of the same sex or gender out of jealousy (in heterosexual relationships a similar prohibition may concern the opposite sex or gender).
• If a partner has children – using them as a means of pressure in connection with sexual orientation or gender identity: from inflating feelings of guilt toward the children because of SOGI to threats of disclosing SOGI to relatives or government authorities, as a result of which the children could be taken away.

Psychological violence is often harder to recognize than other kinds precisely because it usually has no physical, material manifestations. This leaves more room both for normalization, as though it were an acceptable part of the relationship, and for manipulation and for pinning the blame on the injured party. Yet in its consequences it may be no less harmful and destructive, and sometimes more so, because, as a respondent in one of the studies noted, it “leaves scars on the soul” – in other words, long-lasting and even lifelong consequences for the psyche.

An example of the normalization of violent practices is, for instance, going through the contents of a partner’s mobile phone, which is a violation of personal boundaries and a means of control, yet may be perceived as a sign of closeness in the relationship. Another example, also based on control: when a partner is required to send photos from work in order to make sure that they are at their workplace. The reason for this may be jealousy – which, in turn, is perceived as a sign of “true” love. In this way, what is in essence violence may even be perceived as something positive – above all because of the victim’s dependence on the perpetrator and on their relationship.

Another example of emotional violence that may not be obvious is self-harm carried out demonstratively, accompanied by accusations that a partner is the reason it is being inflicted, and by coercion to change that behavior or to take certain actions. It is precisely the demonstrative quality here that is a sign that this is a manifestation of violence and not merely a mental health problem of the person inflicting the self-harm. Threats of suicide also belong to this same category.

Economic violence

Economic violence (the term “financial violence” is also used, although its meaning is somewhat narrower, concerning only finances as such) consists in the perpetrator maintaining control over the economic resources of the person they are in a relationship with, which makes that person dependent on them in most aspects of life.

This may manifest itself directly through control over money and over what it may or may not be spent on; coercion to pay expenses; use of a partner’s bank cards without their agreement; appropriation or destruction of their property; coercion to sign documents related to property and finances. A direct or indirect consequence of such control may also be the restriction of a partner’s opportunities in education and career.

In the relationships of LGBTQI+ people economic violence may also have the following manifestations:

• Using the roles within the couple as an argument for why a particular partner – for example, as the more masculine one, the one who plays the role of the “husband” – should pay more.
• Coercing a partner into paying the transition-related expenses of the person committing the violence: hormone medications, doctor’s visits, and so on.
• Threatening to disclose a partner’s sexual orientation or gender identity at work, where they do not wish to do so, which may result in dismissal and the loss of their source of income.
• Impersonating a partner when carrying out financial transactions. In same-sex relationships this may be easier, since photos on documents, when the people are of the same sex, may be perceived as more similar.

Not only in LGBTQI+ relationships, but in them as well, a fairly widespread situation is when one of the partners earns more than the other, whom they support financially, and in payment for this demands maximum control over their actions or a certain “payment for generosity”. For example, this may be the satisfaction of sexual needs – whereby financial violence turns into sexual violence.

Cultural violence

Cultural violence is not always singled out as a separate type, but in the context of the relationships of LGBTQI+ people this makes sense. It arises when the perpetrator uses aspects of a partner’s sociocultural belonging and identity in order to maintain control, to manipulate, and to cause harm.

Such violence relies on inequalities existing in society and the negative phenomena connected with them: sexism, classism, racism, ageism, ableism, as well as homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia.

It may manifest itself as humiliation on the basis of the corresponding identity, prohibition of or restrictions on practices connected with it, coercion into practices unacceptable for a partner’s culture, restriction of access to the community of the corresponding culture, and so on.

In the relationships of LGBTQI+ people cultural violence may manifest itself in the following ways:

• Claiming that a partner is “not authentic enough” for their identity. For example, in the case of a trans person who identifies as a woman but does not undergo vaginoplasty.
• Under the same pretext of “insufficient authenticity”, coercing a partner into social isolation – for example, if this is a trans person whose appearance may not be read unambiguously as “female” or “male”.
• Deliberately using the wrong pronouns and/or name for a partner – again, when this is a trans person.
• Policing a partner’s behavior so that it conforms to notions of the “correct” expressions of gender identity or sexual orientation – for example, in clothing or accessories.
• Restricting a partner’s access to the LGBTQI+ community and its events – for example, out of an unwillingness for their couple to be associated with it and with the corresponding subculture. At first glance this seems more characteristic of relationships with a heterosexual person, but in fact this is not necessarily so – an LGBTQI+ person may also have internalized homophobia or transphobia that pushes them to limit contacts with the community.
• Supporting negative notions and stereotypes about LGBTQI+ people. Again, this is possible both in heterosexual relationships and in homosexual ones, out of a motive to distance oneself from the LGBTQI+ community, to show one’s difference, one’s greater closeness to “ordinary” heterosexual couples.

Specific dynamics may arise in the relationships of trans people in those cases where the relationship began before transition or before coming out to the partner. Later, when the trans person does so and begins to openly express their gender identity – in how they refer to themselves, in appearance, and so on – if the partner defines their own orientation as clearly heterosexual or homosexual, they may feel that it is called into question in such a relationship. Sometimes the partner blames the trans person for this and may resort to various manifestations of violence in order to force them to give up transition as such, or to restrict them in expressions of gender expression – for example, in the choice of clothing.

On the other hand, when, for example, a trans woman comes out immediately in a new relationship, she risks encountering aggressive transphobia. If she has not changed the gender marker in her documents to female, then even despite a feminine appearance she may be denied recognition as a woman and accused of deception. It should be noted here that legal gender recognition procedures are far from quick and accessible everywhere, and even where they are, a trans person has the right to decide for themselves when exactly to resort to them and whether to resort to them at all.

The forms described rarely exist separately from one another; on the contrary, if the violence is systematic, as has already been said, they may combine and turn into one another.

Violence often begins with purely verbal manifestations, continues with other manifestations of psychological violence – such as, for example, the threat of outing – and eventually escalates into physical and/or sexual violence. Some respondents in the studies noted that in relationships between women emotional violence predominates over physical violence. Others, however, did not confirm this claim, noting that one may often entail the other.

The “LGBTQI+ Power and Control Wheel” may also be used to describe partner violence as a system.

THREATS	Threats or actual actions to harm you Threats to leave you or to take their own life Reckless driving to intimidate you Threats to out you Threats against other people who matter to you Stalking
INTIMIDATION	Making you afraid of a look, of certain gestures or actions Smashing objects Harming pets Displaying weapons
EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE	Humiliation Making you think badly of yourself Imposing feelings of guilt Asking whether you are a “real lesbian”, a “real man”, a “real woman”, and so on Using and reinforcing internalized homophobia, biphobia, transphobia
ISOLATION	Controlling what you do, whom you see or talk to Narrowing your circle of contacts and activities outside the relationship Using jealousy to control you Making you report your whereabouts Telling you that no one will believe you, especially if you are a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans person Not allowing you to go anywhere alone
DENIAL, MINIMIZATION, AND BLAME	Downplaying the facts of the violence Saying that it did not happen Shifting the blame for the violence onto you Saying that you deserve such treatment Accusing you of “mutual violence” Saying “women cannot commit violence against other women”/ “men cannot commit violence against other men” Saying that it is only a quarrel and not violence
USING CHILDREN	Imposing feelings of guilt regarding the children Using the children to relay messages Threats to take the children away Threats to report to the authorities that you are gay/lesbian/bi/trans so that they take the children away
USING PRIVILEGE	Treating you like a servant  Making important decisions without your involvement Using privilege in order to discredit you, put you at risk, limit resources, or use the system against you
ECONOMIC VIOLENCE	Not letting you work or keep a job Making you ask for money Interfering with your work or studies Using your credit card without your permission Not working and demanding that you provide for them

Here it is evident how various types and means of violence may be used to preserve power and control over a partner: threats, intimidation, emotional violence, isolation, denial, blame, children as a means of blackmail, privilege, economic violence.

All these means become more effective thanks to the fact that they are fed by homophobia/biphobia/transphobia and heterosexism.

This sums up the point that it is precisely the current gender order – an essential component of which is the presentation of exclusively heterosexual relationships as the norm, as well as of the fixedness of sex and gender characteristics – that is the environment fostering the spread of violence not only by men against women, but generally in the relationships of people of different sexual orientations and gender identities.

Whatever the manifestations of violence may be, if they are systematic then, apart from the direct harm to the person affected, they may also have long-term consequences for them. In particular:

• bodily injuries;
• injuries to internal organs;
• contracting a sexually transmitted disease, in particular HIV;
• general deterioration of health;
• depression;
• anxiety disorder;
• post-traumatic stress disorder;
• sleep and/or eating disorders;
• social isolation;
• substance abuse;
• lowered self-esteem, shame, and feelings of guilt;
• problems with trusting people and building relationships;
• a tendency toward self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts.

Many LGBTQI+ people who have experienced violence name among its consequences a feeling of shame in one form or another.

Among lesbians, in particular, it is sometimes connected with the template of violence supposedly committed physically by a much stronger man, which does not fit when the perpetrator is in fact another woman. Among trans women, shame is sometimes connected with their own body and with gender transition, which is a consequence of gender dysphoria and internalized transphobia, and which perpetrators may exploit in order to put pressure on them.

All of this underscores the importance of the timely provision of competent help to those affected, free of manifestations of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia, and, where necessary, of long-term support as well.

Help for Those Affected by Violence and the Difficulties in Obtaining It

Depending on the situation, those affected by a partner’s violent actions may need various types of help, in particular:

• Help with stopping the violence and ensuring that it does not recur. Sometimes loved ones and people who have witnessed the violence can help with this, but in the general case this is the task of law enforcement agencies.
• Help with distancing oneself from the perpetrator. This may require a place where the affected person could live temporarily, in particular a shelter.
• Medical care – if the affected person has sustained bodily injuries.
• Psychological help in overcoming the consequences of the violence.

Violence is violence regardless of whether it is committed in different-sex or same-sex relationships, so ideally there likewise should be no difference either in seeking the corresponding help or in its provision by the relevant services. However, in the real world, where homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia still remain significant, there are additional difficulties and direct and indirect barriers to obtaining help.

These barriers may arise at two levels:

– external: when trying to obtain help, when a person is refused it, is given it improperly, or when its provision is accompanied by unwanted actions;

– internal: when deciding whether to seek help, when a person may not dare to do so, proceeding from the expectation that the negative consequences of such an appeal will outweigh the positive ones.

Among the internal barriers the following can be named:

• Fear of encountering homophobia, biphobia, or transphobia from the police or other services and thereby receiving not so much help as still more suffering. General doubts are also possible here as to whether the law enforcement system, in which the level of phobias remains high, is in principle capable of helping in such cases. For example, a lesbian may fear the reaction to the fact that she is in a relationship with another woman, and a trans woman may fear the reaction to her very voice on the telephone, which may sound insufficiently feminine.

• Fear that such an appeal will directly or indirectly lead to outing, that is, will reveal the affected person’s sexual orientation to those to whom they would not wish to reveal it. And this, in turn, may have negative consequences for them because of the homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia widespread in society.
• Fear of the consequences that making the situation of violence public may entail within the affected person’s social circle in the LGBTQI+ community itself. This circle is usually small, and there is a risk that some of the people in it will take the perpetrator’s side or adopt the position of “not airing dirty laundry”, which will ultimately increase isolation. And in general, repeated discussions of the situation in such a circle may become an additional source of stress and retraumatization. The same category includes the fear that the perpetrator, on learning that the affected person has sought help, may resort to even more threatening actions toward them.
• Unwillingness to create problems for a partner even despite the violence on their part.
• Previous negative experience of such an appeal to the police or other services, which holds a person back from trying again.
• The stereotypical notion that the very concept of partner violence concerns primarily, or even exclusively, heterosexual couples, where it is committed by a man against a woman. On the one hand, this may make it harder to recognize manifestations of violence as such, inclining a person instead to perceive them as a “normal” component of homosexual relationships. On the other hand, even if the violence has been identified, the affected person may expect that they will not be helped, since the relevant services are not set up to work with such cases. Such expectations are also fostered by the fact that public service advertising on countering violence usually likewise depicts only “classic” violence in heterosexual couples.
• A notion that is derived from the previous one: that in a homosexual couple violence can come only from the more masculine, physically stronger partner against the more feminine, physically weaker one. So when in a particular case this is not so, it may be harder to recognize.
• Low awareness of exactly where one can turn for help with violence, in particular of the existence of friendly services that have experience of working with LGBTQI+ people, if there are any.
• Fear that voicing facts of violence that takes place within the LGBTQI+ community may be used as an argument against the movement for the rights of LGBTQI+ people. From these positions, people from the LGBTQI+ community and organizations themselves may urge those affected to keep silent and not report cases of violence, fearing that this will spoil the good image of the community as a whole and undermine its solidarity. Here it is important to note that human rights belong to everyone by default, and no person should have to prove that they are “good enough” for those rights to be protected and for them to be able to exercise them.

If we generalize the examples given above, it is easy to notice that the theme of homophobia/biphobia/transphobia runs through them like a red thread. Among other key factors, gender stereotypes and low awareness can be named.

We will consider external barriers in more detail in the context of the corresponding types of help.

Law enforcement agencies

The existence of legislation and/or certain guidelines that explicitly contain provisions on police work with cases of violence among LGBTQI+ people undoubtedly makes the situation easier. This, first, raises awareness that such cases exist at all and, second, provides more specific instructions or recommendations on how to act in them and what exactly the liability should be.

If there are no norms with explicit mentions of LGBTQI+ people, this still leaves the possibility of examining acts of violence in accordance with the laws that concern domestic violence in general, or laws that concern the infliction of certain harm. In this case, however, cases of violence in those relationships where the partners do not live together, or those cases in which the violence has no physical manifestations, are more likely to be overlooked. Also, some police officers may consider that domestic violence laws do not apply to same-sex couples at all, or to those whose relationship is not registered, and may refuse to open and investigate a case.

At the same time, in a study conducted in Lithuania (p. 119), police officers note that, from their point of view, the existing regulatory framework is sufficient to work with cases of domestic violence in same-sex couples even without spelling them out explicitly in legislation, since this is part of their job one way or another. At the same time, however, the officers also note that people from such couples do not turn to them, and they do not understand what might be holding those people back. From this we can conclude that, even when they are not homophobic themselves, police officers may not be aware of the overall level of homophobia in society. Besides homophobia, the very procedures for filing a report of violence can contribute to retraumatization, especially in the absence of proper psychosocial support. Therefore, for LGBTQI+ people to feel trust toward law enforcement agencies, the mere absence of homophobia may not be enough. Clearer signals and means of support are needed that would make it plain to LGBTQI+ survivors that they have nothing to fear here.

If police officers are not knowledgeable about violence in LGBTQI+ relationships, it may be harder for them to interpret situations, starting with determining who is the party committing the violence and who is the survivor. This is especially true of situations in which it is not the survivor who contacts the police but a third party – for example, someone who witnessed an act of violence. When the abuser and the victim do not look “typical,” where the former is supposed to be noticeably bigger and stronger than the latter, the police, having difficulty interpreting events, may be inclined to arrest both, and judges to impose restrictions on both parties, effectively equating them in the conflict. According to the report of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) of the United States on intimate partner violence among LGBTQI+ people and people living with HIV, in 2015, 31% of survivors who turned to the police were subjected to wrongful arrest.

As for trans women, a larger share of them are involved in sex work and experience violence in that environment. At the same time, in many countries engaging in prostitution entails criminal or administrative liability (the latter applies to Ukraine as well), which, combined with its stigmatization, leads to a situation in which survivors of violence cannot count on help from the police. At the same time, there is in places a mistaken belief that almost all trans women are connected with prostitution, and that intimate partner violence against them is therefore possible only in this sphere. This contributes to greater stigmatization and to a stereotyped approach by the police toward all trans women in general.

In Ukraine, as has already been said, police reporting records no complaints regarding violence in LGBTQI+ relationships. The current Ukrainian law “On Preventing and Countering Domestic Violence” contains no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity. At the same time, it applies to “persons who live (lived) together as one family but are not (were not) married to each other,” as well as to “other persons connected by a common household, who have mutual rights and obligations, provided that they live together” – thus, it is cohabitation itself that is the condition under which same-sex couples also fall within its scope. Under this law, the police may issue an emergency barring order for a period of 10 days, which prohibits the person who committed the violence from staying with the victim at their shared place of residence and from coming within a certain distance of them. Through the court, its effect can be extended as a restraining order for up to 6 months. The court also imposes a punishment which, depending on the severity of the violent offense, may be community service for a period of 150 to 240 hours, detention for up to six months, restriction of liberty for up to five years, or imprisonment for up to two years.

In 2017, the “Polina” police unit was also created, consisting of mobile teams for countering domestic violence. At first this project operated only in certain regions, but in 2019 it was expanded to all of Ukraine and the number of mobile teams is gradually increasing (as of 2021 it was reported that 86 of them were operating across Ukraine). This unit has no separate contact details, but when calling the police at 102 you can specify if it is “Polina” that is needed.

At the same time, the awareness of the Ukrainian police about same-sex couples and manifestations of violence within them remains very low. Training programs contain no mention of this topic, which already reduces the chances of an adequate response when someone seeks help. To this must be added the high level of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia within the police, which is often manifested in an unwillingness to open an investigation at all in response to complaints from LGBTQI+ people. On the other hand, LGBTQI+ people themselves, aware of the high likelihood of encountering homophobia/biphobia/transphobia and at the same time the low likelihood of receiving effective help, often avoid turning to the police.

Shelters

Shelters for survivors of domestic violence are usually organized along gender lines and in most cases are intended for women. Accordingly, they turn out to be inaccessible for gay men.

As for transgender people, in many cases the presence or absence of restrictions concerning them at a shelter is not explicitly stated. In practice, however, trans women often face refusal of accommodation at women’s shelters if they have documents with a male gender marker, an insufficiently conventionally feminine appearance, or even simply when their transgender status becomes known. On the other hand, trans men and non-binary people whose documents still carry a female marker may be refused precisely because their appearance has become masculinized in the course of gender transition.

According to the NCAVP report mentioned earlier, 27% of the surveyed survivors of violence tried to seek shelter. Of them, 44% were refused, and in 71% of cases the refusal was connected with their gender identity.

To some extent, the situation is offset by shelters supported by LGBTQI+ organizations and specifically intended for LGBTQI+ people, including trans people. However, their number is usually far smaller, so situations may arise where a shelter is overcrowded and has no free places, as well as where shelters exist only in certain regions, which makes them inaccessible for people who cannot easily cover long distances.

If an LGBTQI+ person does manage to get into an ordinary shelter, this still does not guarantee that they will feel safe there. A lesbian, bi, or trans woman who discloses her sexual orientation or gender identity may encounter manifestations of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia there, both from the staff and from the other residents. In extreme cases she may also face violence on these grounds, which negates the whole point of staying in such a shelter.

In shelters for LGBTQI+ people there is also a risk that an abusive partner, in order to get to the victim, will try to enter the same shelter by deception. Such a situation is specific precisely to LGBTQI+ relationships, since in cisheterosexual ones, for example, an abusive man will not be admitted to a women’s shelter simply on the grounds of gender.

Everything said above applies equally to Ukraine. Here there are general shelters for survivors of domestic violence, regulated by a number of legislative acts, in which a stay is free of charge and may not exceed 3 months. At the same time, the relevant laws contain no mention of LGBTQI+ people, while the recommendations of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) on creating and supporting such shelters (the fund itself supports a number of them) mention only in passing the need to ensure non-discriminatory access to them for a number of categories, including LGBTQI+ people. In practice, shelters usually do not indicate their openness to LGBTQI+ people in any way, and in fact the latter (and especially trans people) risk running into problems there.

At the same time, there are several shelters supported by LGBTQI+ and feminist civil society organizations: “Insight” and the “Women’s March” jointly support such shelters in Lviv and Chernivtsi, Gender Stream in Uzhhorod, “KyivPride” in Kyiv, and “Projector” in Odesa (the latter specifically for transgender and non-binary people). Note that they were created and are positioned above all as oriented toward internally displaced persons and people affected by the war, which is currently a particularly pressing need in Ukraine, so their accessibility for survivors of domestic violence as well can be spoken of only in theory.

Psychological and medical assistance

Like shelters, most services helping survivors of domestic violence, including helplines, are oriented toward women in heterosexual relationships. When LGBTQI+ people turn to them, the staff of such services may not understand how to act, being unfamiliar with the dynamics of relationships in same-sex couples and proceeding solely from a model in which the abuser is by default a man and the survivor a woman. In worse cases, they may also display homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia, or even try to explain what happened by the very fact that the survivor is in a homosexual relationship or is transgender, and advise them to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Similarly, there are many family and couples counseling services that can help resolve relationship problems at an early stage, before they have escalated to the level of systematic violence (it is worth noting that where such systematic violence does occur, joint counseling is no longer recommended, since the abusive partner may take advantage of a situation in which both points of view are treated as equally valid in order to blame the victim and put pressure on them). However, most such counseling services are oriented only toward heterosexual couples, and the psychologists who provide them have no experience of working with LGBTQI+ people.

Once again, LGBTQI+ organizations try to cover these needs by creating support services oriented specifically toward LGBTQI+ people. But, like shelters, they may not be available in all regions and may not be able to handle the entire flow of requests (which usually consists of any requests for psychological help from LGBTQI+ people, and cases of intimate partner violence are only a part of them). In addition, survivors may refrain from reaching out for fear that the situation of violence will become known within the LGBTQI+ community itself.

Cooperation between LGBTQI+ organizations and general services supporting survivors of violence could potentially reinforce the weak points in the work of each. In practice, however, the connections between them are often underdeveloped, and one side may not even know of the existence of the other or of the specifics of how it operates.

As for medical care, when transgender people seek it they are highly likely to have to disclose their trans status, or else it comes out by itself in the course of a medical examination. This stops many from seeking care at all, out of fear of encountering transphobia. Many doctors are also simply unaware of how to treat transgender patients and in some cases refuse them, citing a lack of the relevant qualifications, even when the care in question has nothing to do with gender transition.

In Ukraine there is a National “Hotline” for the Prevention of Domestic Violence: tel. 116 123 or 0 800 500 335. There is also a free Hotline on Countering Human Trafficking and on Preventing and Countering Domestic Violence, Gender-Based Violence, and Violence Against Children, run by the Government Contact Center at 1547. Although they may be the simplest means of quickly obtaining support, these lines are not designated as accessible to LGBTQI+ people as well, and in practice, when using them, the latter may run into incomprehension and incompetence. The same applies to general psychological support services.

At the same time, a number of LGBTQI+ and feminist organizations support psychological services directly intended for LGBTQI+ people or friendly to them. Among them are the following:

• “Insight” – up to 5 free counseling sessions
• “Women’s March” – general psychological and crisis counseling for women; you can get in touch through the bot on Telegram
• Trans*Generation – up to 5 free counseling sessions for trans people
• “Fulcrum” – psychological counseling and testing for HIV/STIs
•  “You Are Not Alone” maintains a registry of friendly psychologists for the LGBTQI+ community.and also directly provides psychological support.

“Insight” also maintains a database of friendly doctors. Although the priority in creating it was doctors needed for gender transition, it also covers gynecologists and, importantly, family doctors, who can be an “entry point” for subsequently obtaining any kind of medical care.

If an LGBTQI+ person who has experienced violence does decide to seek help of one kind or another, the mere absence of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia may not be enough for them to feel due trust and comfort in the interaction.

Several recommendations can be offered that staff of support services would do well to keep in mind when building a dialogue with survivors:

• Hold the appointment in private, with no other people in the room. In particular, do not assume that the person who came with the survivor is a friend or a relative who can be trusted.
• Do not make assumptions about the sex or gender of the survivor’s partner. Until they have said so explicitly, use gender-neutral wording, avoiding gendered forms or combining them where they cannot be avoided (for example, as in this item: “he or she”).
• In conversation with the survivor, use the same terms they use to describe their partner, identities, and sex characteristics. If a term seems unfamiliar, politely ask what it means.
• Do not assume that an LGBTQI+ person is out. It is better to err on the side of greater privacy than to cause unwanted outing.
• Do not assume that the cause of the violence was the person’s LGBTQI+ identity. Although LGBTQI+ people are generally often persecuted precisely because of their SOGI, in the case of intimate partner violence this is by no means necessarily the case.
• Do not advise the person to leave their partner. Abusive relationships often involve dependency, and the partner’s threat to leave may be perceived as a greater danger than the violence itself. That is why such advice at an early stage is more likely to turn the person against whoever is trying to help them this way.
• Do not suggest that the survivor provoked the violence in some way. That would mean playing on the same side as the abuser, who may level similar accusations at the victim, creating and deepening a sense of guilt in them.
• Do not express doubt or disbelief about what the survivor says. If it was hard for them to reach out for help, such disbelief may in turn reinforce their doubts about whether they should have done so.

A systemic response to intimate partner violence

No less important than direct help to survivors of intimate partner violence are measures aimed at reducing the amount of such violence against LGBTQI+ people in principle. They should involve a systemic approach to the problem, which can be carried out by state and other institutions at various levels, preferably in a comprehensive way:

• Introducing anti-violence legislation that explicitly mentions LGBTQI+ people or SOGI.
• Including issues concerning LGBTQI+ people in general and violence against them in particular in the curricula and specialized trainings for police officers, doctors, psychologists, and social workers.
• Setting up services, units, and the like and developing guidelines focused specifically on working with LGBTQI+ people who have survived intimate partner violence.
• Running social campaigns aimed at highlighting the problem of intimate partner violence among LGBTQI+ people.
• Holding awareness-raising events within the LGBTQI+ community designed to teach people to recognize violence in relationships better and to provide information and advice on how to act when it happens.

The existence of legal recognition of LGBTQI+ relationships in itself contributes to a general improvement in countering violence against LGBTQI+ people. Besides the indirect connection between the existence of such recognition and better treatment of LGBTQI+ people in a country, there is also a more direct one: it explicitly establishes the applicability of general domestic violence legislation to same-sex couples in registered relationships, whether these are marriages or some form of partnership. Of course, the specific wording of the laws matters here, as does the extent to which their relevant provisions are communicated to law enforcement and other responsible agencies. In addition, those whose relationships are not registered may still remain outside the scope.

For trans women, in turn, it matters how simple and accessible the gender recognition procedure is in a given country. Besides affecting the quality of their lives, including in the aspects of building relationships, the gender marker may matter from the standpoint of applying anti-violence legislation to them. Those provisions of such laws that concern women specifically may not be legally applicable to trans women whose passport sex is marked as “male.”

The most comprehensive systemic approach to countering gender-based violence is the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. In particular, because it:

• defines violence against women on the basis of gender, which means that trans women are also included in this concept;
• contains the broadest possible definition of domestic violence as violence that occurs within marriage or outside it, with or without cohabitation, by a current or former partner of any sex or gender, which makes it possible to apply it to cases of violence in same-sex couples regardless of whether or not their relationship is registered;
• requires prohibiting all forms of discrimination against women, that is, including discrimination on the grounds of SOGI, and repealing laws that contain discriminatory provisions;
• requires taking legislative and other measures to prevent, investigate, and punish the forms of violence defined in the Convention, which include psychological, physical, and sexual violence (including rape), stalking, forced marriage, genital mutilation, forced abortion and sterilization, sexual harassment, and so-called “honor crimes.”

Implementing the Convention involves carrying out measures aimed at preventing violence, protecting survivors, holding those who commit violence accountable, and pursuing a comprehensive policy of countering violence. In particular:

• raising awareness of the various forms of violence;
• introducing policies to change the gender roles and stereotypes that contribute to violence;
• training in working with survivors;
• cooperation with civil society organizations, the media, and the private sector on the relevant topics;
• creating medical, psychological, and legal aid services for survivors, as well as shelters and support lines;
• criminalizing all forms of violence against women and domestic violence;
• special means of protecting survivors during the investigation and court proceedings;
• ensuring an immediate and appropriate response by law enforcement agencies;
• involving all responsible actors in implementing a comprehensive policy centered on the rights of survivors.

What is listed above can in fact serve as a ready-made basis for a program of countering violence against LGBTQI+ people as well – with minimal modification to take into account survivors of violence of genders other than female. It is worth noting, however, that ratification of the Istanbul Convention in itself does not mean the automatic implementation of all its provisions, since that may require a greater or smaller number of changes in legislation, which in turn takes a certain amount of time. To monitor this process there is the independent group of experts GREVIO, as well as the Committee of the Parties of the participating states, to which a state submits reports on the implementation process and which, for their part, can make recommendations on how to improve it.

Among the social and awareness-raising measures for countering gender-based violence, the first to mention is the international campaign “16 Days Against Violence”, which is held every year from November 25 to December 10. The dates were not chosen by chance: the first day is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and the last day is International Human Rights Day. Government institutions and civil society organizations use this period to hold a variety of events drawing attention to the problem of gender-based violence. So this can be a good occasion to include LGBTQI+ topics in such events and to remind people how exactly this problem affects LGBTQI+ people as well.

Let us also note other positive examples of measures against intimate partner violence toward LGBTQI+ people that have been implemented in various countries.

• In Belgium, a “temporary residence prohibition” has been in effect since 2012, barring a person from staying at another person’s place of residence if they may pose a danger to that person. The order can be in force from 10 days to 3 months, and it is applicable to people in any relationship, including same-sex ones. The law that defines this order is, however, criticized for the absence of clear instructions on how exactly the level of danger is to be determined, as well as for the fact that in practice imposing the prohibition requires a great deal of bureaucratic procedure.
• In Bulgaria there are no legal provisions related to violence that would explicitly mention LGBTQI+ people. But a psychologist from Sofia has been supporting LGBTQI+ people who have experienced violence for many years and eventually became one of the co-founders of the Imago Association – an organization whose tasks include precisely this kind of support. Thus, LGBTQI+ people in Bulgaria, even without legal regulation, can at least find this association and safely receive professional help there.
• In Hungary, the organization NANE, which works on countering gender-based violence, runs a hotline for survivors. It has cooperated with the LGBTQI+ organization Háttér, so its staff have been trained to improve their skills in working with LGBTQI+ people. In particular, when women survivors call them, they take into account that these women may be in a relationship with either a man or another woman, if the callers do not say so directly. That is why they avoid gendered wording and say, for example, “partner,” so that the caller feels more comfortable talking about her relationship problems.
• In Portugal, in 2015, as part of implementing the National Action Plans, a number of events on LGBTQI+ topics were held, including trainings focused specifically on domestic violence in same-sex relationships. They were aimed at the professionals who support survivors in the fields of health, security, social work, civil society organizations, and law. As a result of this work, a guideline devoted to these issues was also prepared. Later, two specialized centers were created in Portugal to support survivors of violence, primarily domestic violence, staffed specifically with trained professionals and cooperating with various organizations. The Portuguese police also maintain websites through which survivors of violence can report cases of it and receive support if it is difficult for them to reach the relevant institutions physically. Finally, the Portuguese branch of the international LGBTQI+ organization ILGA runs a helpline, psychological counseling, legal aid, and a social integration service for LGBTQI+ people.
• In the United States of America, the legislation of most states treats cases of violence in same-sex couples in the same way as in different-sex ones – which, however, does not guarantee equal application of such laws in practice. At the same time, the country has both general services that help in cases of violence and specialized ones oriented toward LGBTQI+ people. In particular, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), whose work is focused on advocacy and education, also hosts materials concerning LGBTQI+ people on its website. The same is true of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has both its own telephone line for helping survivors of violence and web resources. And the American Bar Association has produced a publication on the rights an LGBTQI+ person who has survived domestic violence has, and the means by which they can protect them. Among the more specialized resources, the following can be noted:

There are also LGBTQI+ organizations of a broader profile whose work covers topics related to domestic violence as well. Among them are GLSEN (the “Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network”), Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, NCTE (the “National Center for Transgender Equality”), NCAVP (the “National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs”), Outright International and a number of others.

In Ukraine, on June 20, 2022, after years of delay and opposition primarily from the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations, the Istanbul Convention was ratified. However, the full implementation of its provisions remains a task still to be carried out – overall, in the year that has passed since ratification, no substantial changes have occurred in anti-violence legislation. The main instrument here remains, as already mentioned, the law “On Preventing and Countering Domestic Violence”, adopted in 2017 with a certain orientation toward the Istanbul Convention from the outset and subsequently amended, including with the aim of bringing it into greater conformity with European Union legislation. It still, however, contains no mention of SOGI.

At the same time, the legal recognition and protection of LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine as a whole is still at a low level. Draft Law No. 5488, which is meant to strengthen liability for hate crimes and for discrimination on the grounds of SOGI, submitted in 2021, so far still remains a draft. Likewise, Ukraine still has no legal regulation of same-sex relationships whatsoever, although at the level of the National Human Rights Strategy this issue has been on the agenda for several years now. The draft law on registered civil partnerships is also under consideration and has substantial political support, so there is reason to hope that this is already a matter of the not-too-distant future.

The gender transition procedure in Ukraine is currently regulated by regulatory documents of the Ministry of Health, which provide for establishing a diagnosis through psychiatric observation, carrying out medical interventions for “sex reassignment” (at a minimum, hormone replacement therapy), and legal gender recognition – in exactly that sequence. In practice, this algorithm can be complicated by ambiguous wording in the Ministry of Health’s clinical protocol, a shortage of qualified doctors, and abuses on their part. The introduction in Ukraine of the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), a process that is now at an early stage, opens the way to simplifying the transition procedure, at least by removing the mandatory psychiatric examination from it. However, the actual timeframe in which this may happen is so far hard to predict.

On the whole, it can be stated that today there is no systemic response to intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine as such. There is neither legislation, nor state programs or services, nor awareness-raising programs and events that would explicitly address LGBTQI+ people in this context. In effect, the gaps in this area are filled to some extent only by civil society organizations working in the LGBTQI+ field – and even then rather as part of their general work helping LGBTQI+ people than by devoting particular resources to this specific issue. So perhaps this text will ultimately become the starting point from which a systemic approach to the topic begins.

Conclusions and recommendations

Thus, studies of the phenomenon of intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people point to the relevance of this issue. Despite this, too little attention is paid to it – on the one hand, because of the universally high level of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in society, and on the other, because of the stereotypical belief that violence in relationships is possible only by a man against a woman.

Services that are supposed to help survivors of violence are often not properly set up and have no experience of working with LGBTQI+ people, while the latter, for their part, do not trust them and avoid reaching out for help. At the state level, in particular the legislative one, measures to counter intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people are also largely insufficient. At the same time, the most complete mechanisms for this are laid down in the Istanbul Convention, ratified to date by 37 states.

Below are a number of recommendations on what state institutions, professionals who work on the problems of violence, and civil society organizations could do to improve the response to gender-based violence, in particular intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine.

TO THE STATE:

• Introduce the necessary changes to Ukrainian legislation to make it fully compatible with the provisions of the Istanbul Convention.
• Adopt laws to improve the legal situation of LGBTQI+ people, primarily on the basis of the draft laws on registered civil partnerships and on countering discrimination and hate crimes.
• Improve the gender transition procedure and the medical services related to it in the direction of greater accessibility, in particular by introducing ICD-11.
• Take the necessary measures to ensure that crime statistics record whether victims belong to the LGBTQI+ community.
• Add information on SOGI issues in general and on intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people in particular to the curricula for police officers, psychologists, and social and medical workers.
• Explicitly include aspects concerning LGBTQI+ people in social campaigns directed against gender-based and domestic violence.

TO PROFESSIONALS:

• Conduct research on intimate partner violence in the relationships of LGBTQI+ people in Ukraine.
• Regularly upgrade their qualifications both on intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people specifically and on gender-based and domestic violence in general, as well as on SOGI topics.
• Provide survivors of violence with all possible support, taking into account their particular circumstances related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Help colleagues rid themselves of homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia.
• Make the fullest possible use of gender-neutral language in contexts of intimate partner violence, when specific individuals whose gender is known for certain are not being discussed.
• Ensure that shelters for survivors of gender-based violence are inclusive of non-heterosexual and transgender people.

TO CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS:

• Cooperate with one another and with state institutions in order to create and support comprehensive programs for countering gender-based violence and helping those who have survived it.
• Organizations working on the topic of domestic violence and/or violence against women should also take violence in LGBTQI+ relationships into account in their work.
• Hold events and information campaigns aimed at drawing attention to the problem of intimate partner violence against LGBTQI+ people.
• Raise LGBTQI+ people’s awareness of their rights and of the possible courses of action in cases where they experience intimate partner violence.

Material prepared by Inna Iryskina, Coordinator of the Transgender Program