While research on intimate partner violence (IPV) has begun to include gay and lesbian relationships, these studies have almost entirely focused on cisgender relationships or victims. To date, little to no research exists on IPV in the transgender community. The current study explored accounts and meanings of IPV victimization as told by 18 transgender-identified survivors. Thirteen in-depth interviews and five open-ended questionnaires were analyzed from a modified grounded theory method through open and focused coding that revealed three broad and salient themes. First, the accounts of violence illustrated the role of transphobic and genderist attacks in the dynamics of abuse. Central to the power dynamics in these abusive relationships was the use of these attacks against trans identities. Second, participants constructed meanings behind their IPV victimization; specifically, they addressed why they felt this happened to them and what motivated abusers. Participants emphasized the meaning behind much of what they experienced as the abuser controlling transition. The survivors described their abusers as wanting to regulate their transition processes and maintain control over their lives. In their discussions, participants attempted to make sense of their experiences and explain why this could’ve happened. Participants felt that they were susceptible to abuse and in a period in their life in which they felt unwanted due to their trans status. This trans vulnerability is how most of the participants explained why they felt they were victimized by their partners. Finally, as all of the participants in the study had left their abusive relationships, their narratives revealed their processing of a victim identity. In these discussions, participants utilized a gendered discourse or a “walking of the gender tightrope” as they distanced themselves from a “typical” feminine and passive victim. Further, participants described navigating genderist resources as they sought help iv for their experiences. This study offers ground-breaking insight into how IPV affects transgender communities and illuminates the distinct realities faced by these survivors.

This research was designed to expand the empirical knowledge and understanding of stalking victimization by examining both intimate and nonintimate stalking and the use of technology to stalk. To accomplish this, the current research examined differences among intimate and nonintimate stalking, stalking types (cyberstalking, stalking with technology, and traditional stalking), and stalking types by the victim-offender relationship. Specifically, this research examined demographic differences, differences in severity, seriousness, victim reactions and responses to and effects of stalking. Findings revealed that overall intimate partner stalking victims experienced greater levels of seriousness and severity of stalking, and expressed more fear than nonintimate partner stalking victims. Additionally, they were more likely to have engaged in self-protective or help-seeking actions. With regard to stalking type, victims who were cyberstalked and stalked with technology experienced a greater variety of stalking behaviors, were more likely to define the behaviors as stalking, and took more actions to protect themselves than victims who were traditionally stalked. Moreover, those who were stalked with technology experienced a greater severity of stalking. And when examining differences among stalking types by the victim-offender relationship, intimate partner stalking victims were still more likely than nonintimate partner stalking victims to have experienced a greater severity of stalking. This research contributed to existing research by being the first to examine cyberstalking and stalking with technology with a national dataset, and adding to the knowledge of differences between intimate and nonintimate partner stalking. Implications for policy and for research are discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.