Partner Violence in Transgender Communities: What Helping Professionals Need to Know
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been an increase in scholarly attention devoted to the study of intimate partner violence (IPV) within rainbow communities. While a growing body of scholarship now informs our understanding of the experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women with IPV, comparatively less is known about IPV within transgender communities. Drawing on the published literature on transgender intimate relationships, this article seeks to provide practitioners with a foundational understanding of IPV in the lives of transgender people. Specifically, we will examine (a) methodological, political, and social barriers to the creation of knowledge about transgender IPV; (b) the familial and relationship contexts of IPV within transgender communities; (c) the prevalence of IPV experienced by transgender survivors; (d) the dynamics of IPV perpetrated against and/or by transgender persons; (e) the problematic use of the “trans panic” defense by perpetrators of IPV in legal contexts; and (f) recommendations for supporting transgender survivors of IPV in ways that are trans-inclusive and trans-positive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".