Past 6-Month Prevalence of IPV Victimization among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Undergraduate Students: A Brief Report

Abstract

Research has largely neglected the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV) among transgender and gender-diverse (TGD; e.g., nonbinary and genderqueer) individuals. However, existing research suggests that TGD individuals are disproportionately affected by IPV. The current study sought to explore if and how rates of IPV vary among subgroups of TGD undergraduate students and contextual factors of IPV among TGD individuals including the co-occurrence of multiple forms of IPV victimization, the type of relationship in which IPV occurred, and the gender identity of the IPV perpetrator. Participants were 280 TGD undergraduate students attending 20 medium- and large-sized residential public universities across the contiguous United States. Of the entire sample of TGD undergraduate students (N = 280), a total of 27.5% endorsed past 6-month IPV victimization (20.0% psychological, 6.1% physical, 8.9% sexual, 11.4% coercive control, and 5.7% LGBTQIA+-specific). Among only the participants who endorsed past 6-month IPV victimization (N = 77), 45.4% reported one form of IPV victimization, 26.0% two forms, 22.1% three forms, and 6.5% four forms. Further, 41.3% of TGD IPV victims were in a casual relationship, 56.0% were in a serious relationship, and 2.7% were in multiple relationship types. Finally, 55.8% of victims reported their perpetrator was a man, 22.1% a woman, and 22.1% a TGD individual. No significant differences in rates of IPV were found between TGD respondents. These data highlight the urgent need for programming efforts on college campuses that are specifically designed to prevent and address IPV among and against TGD students. Future research should evaluate universal- and population-specific risk and protective factors for IPV among TGD individuals to inform prevention and response efforts for this highly vulnerable population.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health crisis in the United States that disproportionately affects sexual and gender minorities (Decker et al., 2018). However, the vast majority of IPV research to date focuses on cisgender individuals and rarely transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals, including TGD college students, who may be at increased risk based on their age/life development stage (Mulder & Clark, 2002). Existing work suggests that TGD individuals are a highly vulnerable group for IPV. In a literature review on rates of IPV victimization, Peitzmeier et al. (2020) found that overall, 25.0% of transgender individuals reported past year physical IPV and 16.7% reported past year sexual IPV. However, few studies have examined risk for IPV among TGD college students specifically.

Using data from the National College Health Assessment II (NCHA-II), a national research survey that collects data on students’ health, habits, behaviors, and perceptions, across 120 institutions of higher education, Whitfield et al. (2021) found that 18.4% of a sample of 201 transgender college students experienced emotional (psychological) IPV victimization in the past 12 months, 10.5% sexual IPV victimization, and 10.0% physical IPV victimization, rates that were significantly higher than cisgender men and cisgender women in the study. Likewise, Griner et al. (2020) analyzed data from the NCHA-II to evaluate rates of interpersonal victimization more broadly, among 204 transgender, 27,322 male, and 55,012 female college students. They found that transgender college students reported significantly higher odds of all nine types of interpersonal victimization assessed (emotional [psychological] abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, stalking, sexual touching without consent, attempted sexual penetration, sexual penetration, physical assault, and threatened with violence) compared to cisgender male and female college students (Griner et al., 2020). While findings of both studies are notable, they utilized single-item screeners to assess experiences of different forms of interpersonal violence, which may have resulted in underreporting of these victimization experiences. As such, it is possible that these studies underestimated rates of IPV and other forms of interpersonal violence among transgender students. Further, neither examined rates of interpersonal violence among other gender-diverse individuals (e.g., nonbinary and genderqueer). Thus, there are many unanswered questions about IPV victimization among TGD college students.

The current study is grounded in Testa et al.’s (2015) gender minority stress and resilience model. This model is used to explain disparities in the well-being of TGD individuals, arguing that TGD individuals may experience multiple forms of stress related to their identity that increase risk for negative outcomes including gender-based victimization (e.g., verbal/physical aggression), gender-based rejection (e.g., rejection from individuals, institutions, and communities), gender-based discrimination (e.g., experiencing housing, legal, medical, or employment difficulties), and identity nonaffirmation (e.g., others not acknowledging and/or accepting a TGD individual’s identity). While prior research has not directly tested if gender-based stressors predict IPV victimization, it seems logical to posit that experiencing gender-related stressors may increase IPV victimization vulnerability via multiple mechanisms such as by increasing emotion dysregulation, which then serves to increase relational conflict. Additionally, a partner’s internalized stigma or negative attitudes toward TGD individuals or identities may increase the chance of gender-based victimization for a TGD partner as a result of relational conflict.

The current study seeks to expand the literature on IPV among TGD college students by delineating the IPV experiences of TGD students including rates of different types (i.e., psychological, physical, sexual, coercive control, and LGBTQIA+-specific) of recent (past 6-month) IPV, rates of co-occurrence of different types of IPV, and the gender identity of the IPV perpetrator. Additionally, we sought to examine rates of IPV separately for TGD college students rather than assuming that they are a homogeneous group. Existing studies have explored contextual and relational factors of IPV among transgender and nonbinary people qualitatively (see Rogers, 2021) and quantitatively (see Donovan & Barnes, 2020) among community samples of TGD individuals. However, this study represents the first to our knowledge to examine a number of relational and contextual details of IPV among TGD individuals including the co-occurrence of different forms of IPV, the relationship type in which IPV occurs, and the gender identity of the victim’s perpetrator. Further, the current study also evaluated whether rates of IPV differ among TGD groups separately (transgender versus gender-diverse). Finally, this is the first study to evaluate any relational and contextual factors of IPV among TGD college students. This information is important to inform affirming prevention and response efforts on college campuses.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 280 TGD undergraduate college students attending 20 universities across the contiguous United States drawn from a larger study on college student relationships (total N = 11,871).

Procedures

Participants were drawn from a larger study focused on risk factors for IPV among sexual minority college students that was open to all undergraduate students (18–24 years old). Specifically, students attending one of 20 participating U.S. universities were recruited to complete an online survey about college student relationships during a 4- to 8-week period during the Fall 2019 (12 universities) or Fall 2020 (8 universities) academic semesters. All participating universities were public, residential, medium- and large-sized, and not located in major metropolitan areas (six in the Southeast, five in the Northeast, five in the Midwest, three in the Southwest, and one in the Pacific region of the United States). In addition to selection based on size, type, and location, universities that varied in the extent to which they had supportive policies and resources for LGBTQIA+ students were purposely selected.

Student recruitment strategies varied across participating universities based on university policies and included individual emails to students as well as other recruitment methods (e.g., social media postings). Participants who met criteria and consented completed the survey online and were entered into a drawing for one of five $50 gift cards awarded to students at each participating campus. Following survey completion, participants received information about campus, local, and national resources. Across participating campuses, 1.2%–10.3% (M = 4.7%) of the total undergraduate student body completed the survey. The East Carolina University and University of Nebraska-Lincoln Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approved the study protocol. For a more detailed overview of the procedure, see (Littleton et al., 2023).

Measures

Sex assigned at birth and gender identity

Sex assigned at birth was assessed by asking, “What sex were you assigned at birth? (i.e., what appears on your birth certificate?)” Response options included male, female, and intersex. Gender identity was assessed by asking, “How would you describe yourself? Please select one.” Response options included man, woman, male-to-female transgender, female-to-male transgender, genderqueer/nonconforming/nonbinary, and choose to self-identify. The choose to self-identify category was consensus coded with high interrater agreement (99.3%). Individuals who identified as male-to-female transgender, female-to-male transgender, and those whose sex at birth was incongruent with their gender identity were coded as transgender, while participants who identified as genderqueer/gender-nonconforming/nonbinary were coded as gender-diverse. Participants who chose to self-identify were not coded.

Intimate partner violence

We used Dyar et al.’s (2021) Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (SGM-CTS2) to assess IPV victimization. Items drawn from the CTS-2 assessed psychological (e.g., swore at me), physical (e.g., slapped me), and sexual (e.g., used force [like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon] to make me have sex) IPV victimization. Dyar et al. (2021) also added eight items to the measure to assess coercive control IPV (e.g., monitored my time and made me account for my whereabouts), which were drawn from the Coercive Behaviors Scale (Frankland & Brown, 2014) and the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011). Finally, Dyar et al. (2021) created an SGM-specific IPV Tactics subscale consisting of five items designed to capture SGM-specific IPV behaviors (e.g., threatened to out me to my friends, family, or other people in my life if I didn’t do what they wanted). Confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 352 SGM individuals who were assigned female at birth supported the five-factor model fit of the measure (Dyar et al., 2021). Response options for all items included, “Yes, in past 6 months,” “Yes, but not in the past 6 months,” and “No, this has never happened.” Participants received a score on each subscale of either 0 (no past 6-month victimization) or 1 (any past 6-month victimization).

Relationship status

Respondents were asked: “Which of the following best describes your current relationship situation? If you are in more than one relationship, please select all that apply.” Response options included single/not dating, friends with benefits, casual dating relationship, serious/committed dating relationship, engaged, married, and other. The responses were coded into a dummy variable with 0 indicating a casual relationship (single/no relationship, friends with benefits, and casual dating relationship) and 1 indicating a serious relationship (serious/committed dating relationship, engaged, and married). Of note, individuals who indicated they were single/not in a relationship and reported past 6-month IPV may have recently ended their relationship or been in a relationship in which none of the categories captured their experience.

Gender identity of the IPV victim’s perpetrator

As a follow-up to the IPV measure, respondents were asked: “Which of the following best describes the person who was involved in the event(s) that happened to you?” Response options included man, woman, male-to-female transgender, female-to-male transgender, genderqueer/nonconforming/nonbinary, and other.

Analysis

Chi-square analyses were calculated using cross tabulation with the TGD sample to explore whether IPV victimization, co-occurrence of victimization, relationship type, and perpetrator gender identity varied statistically by gender identity.

Results

Demographics

The mean age of TGD participants was 19.95 years (range 18–24, SD = 1.71). Most TGD students (n = 197; 71.6%) identified as White, followed by 32 (11.6%) as multiracial, 15 (5.5%) as “other,” 12 (4.4%) as Black/African American, 11 (3.9%) as East Asian/Pacific Islander, three (1.1%) as Native American/Alaskan Native, two (0.7%) as Western/South Asian, two (0.7%) as Caribbean Islander, and one (0.4%) as North African/Middle Eastern; 25 (9.0%) identified as Hispanic or Latinx. ¹

Past 6-Month TGD Undergraduate IPV Victimization

Among TGD students (N = 280), 27.5% endorsed past 6-month IPV victimization (20.0% psychological, 6.1% physical, 8.9% sexual, 11.4% coercive control, and 5.7% LGBTQIA+-specific). Transgender (n = 67) and gender-diverse (n = 213) student rates of IPV victimization were not statistically different for past 6-month overall victimization (transgender: 31.3%; gender-diverse: 26.3%; χ² (1, 280) = .65, p = .419), psychological victimization (transgender: 26.9%; gender-diverse: 17.8%; χ² [1, 280] = 2.60, p = .107), physical victimization (transgender: 7.5%; gender-diverse: 5.6%; χ² [1, 280] = .30, p = .585), coercive control victimization (transgender: 16.4%; gender-diverse: 9.9%; χ² [1, 280] = 2.17, p = .141), sexual victimization (transgender: 4.5%; gender-diverse: 10.3%; χ² [1, 280] = 2.15, p = .143), and LGBTQIA+-specific victimization (transgender: 3.0%; gender-diverse: 6.6%; χ² [1, 280] = 1.22, p = .270).

Co-Occurrence of Past 6-Month TGD Undergraduate IPV Victimization

The majority of TGD IPV (N = 77) victims experienced more than one type of IPV. More specifically, 45.4% (n = 35) reported experiencing one form of IPV, 26.0% (n = 20) two forms, 22.1% (n = 17) three forms, and 6.5% (n = 5) four forms. Co-occurrence of past 6-month IPV victimization did not differ significantly by gender identity, χ² (3, 77) = 3.89, p = .273.

Relationship Type of Past 6-Month TGD Undergraduate IPV Victims

Most TGD victims (N = 75 ² ) reported being in a serious relationship (n = 42; 56.0%) followed by casual relationships (n = 31; 41.3%) and multiple types of relationships (n = 2; 2.7%). Relationship type did not vary with statistical significance as a function of gender identity, χ² (2, 75) = 1.11, p = .573.

Gender Identity of the IPV Victim’s Perpetrator

Most TGD undergraduate victims (N = 77) reported that the perpetrator was a cisgender man (n = 43; 55.8%) followed by cisgender women (n = 17; 22.1%) and TGD individuals (n = 17; 22.1%). Perpetrator gender identity did not vary with statistical significance as a function of the victim’s gender identity, χ² (2, 77) = .94, p = .625.

Discussion

Findings from the current study add to the limited body of literature on IPV among TGD college students. Results supported that TGD undergraduate students report high rates of IPV victimization. Results also identified important contextual and relational factors such as most TGD victims experiencing multiple types of IPV victimization, and that cisgender men are most commonly perpetrators of IPV against TGD students, although a sizeable percentage reported perpetrators with other gender identities. Such findings can have important implications for prevention programming, as well as support resources for TGD IPV victims. Although previous research has documented high rates of IPV among TGD individuals in community samples, very little research has examined rates of IPV among TGD college students (for exceptions, see Griner et al., 2020 and Whitfield et al., 2021). Of note, our rates of IPV were higher for psychological IPV victimization, but lower for physical and sexual IPV victimization than (Whitfield et al., 2021), and our rates were slightly lower than those found by Peitzmeier et al. (2020). However, it should be noted that the current study evaluated past 6-month IPV, whereas most prior studies, including Peitzmeier and colleagues, examined rates of past year IPV, which may explain these discrepancies in prevalence rates.

Notably, we also found no statistically significant differences between TGD individuals in rates of IPV or in IPV contextual factors. Although it may be that these subgroups of TGD college students have highly similar IPV experiences, lack of statistically significant findings may also reflect limited power due to the small sample size, as well as our inability to examine differences in a more nuanced way (e.g., transgender woman versus transgender man versus genderqueer versus nonbinary).

In previous research utilizing noncollege samples, experiences of IPV were found to differ by gender identity, with nonbinary individuals being more likely to experience some forms of IPV compared to transmasculine individuals, including sexual IPV and LGBTQIA+-specific IPV (Kattari et al., 2022). In another study, rates of psychological and physical IPV were higher for transgender men compared to transgender women and nonbinary individuals (King et al., 2021). We found similar patterns in rates of IPV among transgender as compared to gender-diverse individuals, although no differences were large enough to differ significantly. It may be that since many gender-diverse individuals are assigned female at birth (AFAB), they may be at higher risk for sexual IPV, much like cisgender women, and that transmasculine men may report elevated risk for physical IPV similarly to cisgender sexual minority men; in other words, patterns in IPV experiences may parallel differences found in cisgender and sexual minority samples. Thus, future studies with college samples should continue to examine the occurrence of different forms of IPV, particularly in contrast to samples of cisgender college students, and evaluate gender identity differences in IPV experiences. Further, given that a substantial minority of TGD students in the current study reported that the perpetrator of the IPV was a TGD individual or a cisgender woman, future research should continue to assess the gender identity of IPV perpetrators among TGD individuals.

Limitations of the study should be noted, however. The sample size of TGD students was relatively small, limiting our ability to detect statistically significant differences by gender identity, and students were predominately White. Additionally, particularly given the overall low response rate across participating universities, it is not known the extent to which TGD participants were representative of TGD students on each campus as a whole. Likewise, the study included students enrolled at 20 universities and, as such, is not representative of students enrolled in college overall. Further, we did not measure population-specific correlates of TGD individuals’ experiences with IPV victimization, such as TGD-specific minority stressors. There were also some contextual variables (e.g., length of relationship and sexual orientation of the perpetrator) that we did not assess. Finally, we only assessed IPV at one timepoint and did not evaluate patterns of IPV over time.

Despite limitations, these data offer important implications for prevention and response efforts on college campuses. First, it is important that universities ensure that IPV prevention and response efforts are inclusive of the lived experiences of TGD individuals, which likely requires tailored programming, as well as efforts to target perpetrators of IPV against TGD students, since TGD IPV may be part of a pattern of gender-based victimization (Testa et al., 2015). Further, universities should ensure that groups that interact with TGD IPV victims (e.g., victim advocates, campus police, and student health employees) have appropriate skills to respond in identity-affirming ways and are knowledgeable about gender-based stressors among TGD individuals as gender-based rejection and identity nonaffirmation (Testa et al., 2015) may hinder recovery from victimization. Similarly, campus providers need to be aware that most TGD victims are likely experiencing multiple types of IPV and that among TGD students, IPV happens across a broad range of relationships. To date, campus responses to IPV among TGD are not well documented, but some extant evidence suggests that campuses are not adequately addressing IPV among TGD students (Edwards et al., in press), which highlights the importance of research such as the current study. Future research is needed to replicate, confirm, and extend findings in order to inform campus-based IPV prevention and response efforts for TGD college students.