Gender-based violence is a poorly-defined term that perpetuates bias and is unsuitable for use by government officials in present-day Washington state
Summary
Government officials, politicians, and leaders of advocacy groups in Washington have begun using the term ‘gender-based violence’ (sometimes shortened to ‘gender violence’) when talking about domestic violence. Washingtonians should reject this trend, and those who are participating in it should abandon it. These terms are unsuitable for serious policymaking discussions in present-day Washington state.
The only appropriate use of the labels ‘gender-based violence’ or ‘gender violence’ are when referring to instances of violence primarily motivated by the perpetrator’s animus toward the victim due to their gender. Those circumstances are rare. In all other situations, the terms ‘gender-based violence’ and ‘gender violence’ obscure rather than clarify meaning. We should forego these terms in favor of precise language.
In this article we:
- Ask a local expert what he means when he says ‘gender-based violence’
- Expose the problems with various definitions of the term
- Review examples of local leaders using the term
- Note that the term has made it into Washington State law
- Consider the ideas of two female counselors who reject the popularization of the term
- Posit our own explanation for the use of the term, and
- Call on all Washingtonians to reject the inappropriate use of the terms ‘gender-based violence’ and ‘gender violence’
Note: Our arguments pertain specifically to policymaking, governance, and nonprofit advocacy in Washington state. We make no comment with regard to contexts outside of Washington.
What does a local expert say gender-based violence is?
Have you ever heard the terms ‘gender-based violence’ or ‘gender violence’ and wondered:
- What does that refer to exactly?
- Are cases of female-to-male domestic violence considered gender-based violence?
- Do cases of female-to-female domestic violence count as gender-based violence?
King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor David Martin is a self-described “gender violence expert”. Mr. Martin supervises the Domestic Violence Unit in the King County Prosecutor’s Office and has won numerous awards during his 20+ year career.
Since at least 2016, Mr. Martin has routinely provided expert testimony when state lawmakers are considering legislation that pertains to domestic violence. In recent years, he has begun using the terms ‘gender-based violence’ and ‘gender violence’ during his testimonies. For example, in 2021 while testifying in favor of a bill, Mr. Martin said:
This bill provides relief for the most marginalized in our justice system, survivors of gender violence — domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking victims…
David Martin, testimony on SB 5180, Feb 1, 2021
In the quotation above, Mr. Martin indicates that ‘gender violence’ encompasses domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.
David Martin provides three definitions
We emailed the King County Prosecutor’s Office asking what David Martin means when he says “gender-based violence” during his testimonies. Mr. Martin’s email response cites three different definitions. The definitions are highly inconsistent, and none of them can be intelligibly applied in the ways our leaders have begun applying them.
Of the three definitions provided, one is from a local source — the Seattle-based Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence, which was formerly called the King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (Mr. Martin suggested that we follow up with this organization if we want more information about gender-based violence). Their definition, seen below, categorically excludes the possibility of males as victims of gender-based violence.
Can you make sense of these definitions?
On the same webpage as their definition above, Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence provides explanations for what they consider the three main types of gender-based violence: 1) domestic violence, 2) sexual assault, and 3) sex trafficking. The descriptions of each of these crimes are — appropriately — presented in gender-neutral language. Both males and females are victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking in Washington. When it comes to domestic violence, for example, men are victimized nearly as often as women (see the “1 in 4” figure below). Yet the Coalition’s definition of gender-based violence does not allow for the possibility of a male victim.
“An estimated 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men across the United States have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.”
Mia Neidhardt, Senior Management Auditor, King County Auditor’s Office (Source)
In contrast to the first definition, the other two definitions of gender violence — ones from Duke University and UN Women — explicitly allow for the possibility of male victims of gender violence, though in a somewhat feigned manner. (Click the links to read the definitions.)
To recap, one of Washington’s most credible leaders in the fight against domestic violence — a self-described gender violence expert — points to three different definitions of gender-based violence. These definitions are not only highly inconsistent, but not one of them can be intelligibly applied in the ways our leaders typically apply them. We discuss this more below.
Washington leaders are trying to mainstream these terms
David Martin is not unique among government officials, politicians, and advocacy leaders who are on record using the terms ‘gender-based violence’ and ‘gender violence’ when discussing the complex social ills of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking.
Below are additional examples from the City of Seattle, King County, the State of Washington, the YWCA, and other entities. All of these examples are recent, from the last 12 months.
| “Ending gender-based violence is a priority for the City of Seattle.” [Source] | Tanya Kim, Director of Human Services Department, City of Seattle | 10/14/21 |
| “This budget is transformational for…survivors of sexual assault or gender-based violence…” [Source] | Jeanne Kohl-Welles, King County Councilmember | 5/25/21 |
| “The Washington State Legislature created the Washington State MMIW/P Task Force as part of the effort to coordinate a statewide response to the urgent crisis of Indigenous people who go missing, are the victims of homicide or experience other types of gender-based violence in urban and tribal communities.” [Source] (See related: Attorney General’s Task Force for “Indigenous Women and People” Sends Bizarre, Sexist Message) | Washington State Office of the Attorney General | 11/1/2021 |
| “Grace Huang [a current commissioner on the Washington State Women’s Commission] is the policy director at the Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence.” [Source] | Washington State Women’s Commission | Current |
| “YWCA’s Gender-Based Violence Specialized Services (GBVSS) uses a survivor-centered model to heal the harm caused by domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and gender-based violence…” [Source] | YWCA Seattle King Snohomish | Current |
| “We believe that gender-based violence is underpinned by gender inequity, gendered stereotypes, and heterosexism, and is compounded by other forms of injustice. We work together to undo and redress gender-based violence to ensure that survivors of all genders are able to access support.” [Source] | Coalition Ending Gender-Based Violence | Current |
| “This budget includes…$600,000 of investments in gender-based violence response services.” [Source] | City of Seattle | Current |
Washington law calls for gender-based violence training
Effective July 1, 2022, Washington state law will require that judicial officers receive training on “gender-based violence dynamics”. (References: RCW 7.105.255; HB 1320; HB 1901)
Female counselors reject push to popularize GBV term
More professionals are acknowledging the murkiness of the concept of gender-based violence, a term that clouds more than it clarifies.
Ann Silvers is a counselor in Gig Harbor who has written multiple books about abuse in the context of intimate partner relationships.
Ms. Silvers has closely followed the public revelations about the conflict between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. Explaining her analysis of court testimony provided by Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychologist hired by Amber Heard, Ms. Silvers says:
The DV advocacy community is so permeated with gender bias that there is a tsunami-level push to replace the current common labels of DV (Domestic Violence) or IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) with the term GBV (Gender-Based Violence)…
To classify domestic violence as gender-based is to further entrench it as only a male-to-female thing. There is no room for recognition of female-to-male violence beyond the minimizing mention that we see in Dr Hughes’ testimony and in the bulk of DV advocacy and policy…
From my perspective, partner abuse is not a gender-based issue. Partner abuse is an abuse-based issue. Domestic violence is not a gender-based issue. Domestic violence is a violence-based issue.
Ann Silvers*, M.A., LMHC, “Psychologist Dr. Hughes Testimony for Amber Heard Exposes DV Gender Bias“
Carmen Visan, a counselor based in Issaquah, agrees with Ms. Silvers. She adds, regarding the three definitions of gender-based violence discussed above, “They obfuscate and not-so-subtly lead the reader to preferred conclusions, namely that men violate and women are violated. Their entrenching of violent behaviors in gender-based language is careless and agenda-driven; it would not likely be upheld in peer-reviewed social science journals.”
*For an additional 200 words by Ann Silvers about the gender bias among domestic violence advocates, see the excerpt provided at the bottom of this post. It is well worth a read.
Why do men hurt women? Why do women hurt men?
Ms. Silvers argues that there are dozens of reasons why partners abuse each other. She lists over 70 reasons — one of which is misandry/misogyny. She asserts that in only a very small portion of abusive relationships is gender-based hatred the primary motivator of abuse.
We (WIBM) assert that only in circumstances where misandry or misogyny are the primary drivers of the acts of domestic violence or sexual assault is it rational to apply the label ‘gender-based violence’. Under this approach, both males and females can be victims of gender-based violence because both misandry and misogyny are real sources of contempt, albeit for a small number of Washingtonians.
Our explanation of the label ‘gender violence’
Cutting through the fogginess of the definitions for ‘gender-based violence’ discussed above, here is our attempt to explain this term and the intention behind its use:
‘Gender-based violence’ (sometimes shortened to ‘gender violence’) is a label one can choose to apply to any act of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or other harm perpetrated against a female person, whether by a male or a female person. The purpose of applying the label is to reinforce the notion that women and girls experience victimization due to their gender, or, more precisely, due to a patriarchal system of oppression that affords females less power than males.
While it is true that some males are victims of each type of crime one could label ‘gender violence’, it is acceptable that people hear ‘gender violence’ and think of violence committed against females by males because males do not live in a system that oppresses them due to their gender. In other words, the victimization of males is incidental to — rather than an inevitable consequence of — the patriarchal system of oppression in which we live.
In WIBM’s view, ‘gender-based violence’ — when used as an umbrella term that encompasses domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking — is either a nonsensical term or a sexist term. Its definition is either incoherent (i.e. it is so expansive as to be meaningless) or it is blind to the existence of male victims (i.e. it is so exclusive as to neglect a group of victims purely due to their gender).
Reject the term ‘gender-based violence’
People who value justice, equality, and inclusiveness should stand up against the trend toward applying the label ‘gender-based violence’ to the crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking.
When our leaders use this term, we should call them to account. Ask them what they mean by ‘gender violence’ and why it is an appropriate term to apply to crimes that are by no means exclusively committed against one gender. Tell them that if they are talking about domestic violence, they should say domestic violence. If they are talking about sexual assault, they should say sexual assault. If they are talking about violence committed against women and girls, they should say violence committed against women and girls.
We conclude with one final illustration of the incoherence of attempts to define ‘gender-based violence’. This one comes from the YWCA of Seattle, King County, and Snohomish County:
Gender-Based Violence is violence against a person because of their gender and encompasses domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking. Gender-based violence can happen to anyone, regardless of race, gender, age, religion, education, class, or sexual orientation. [Source]
What evidence is there that a majority — or even a small portion — of the crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sex trafficking committed against men, women, boys, and girls in Washington is committed “because of their gender”?
The YWCA’s definition, as with all attempts to define ‘gender-based violence’, requires that the audience do two things: 1) believe that females in Washington are subjected to a patriarchal system of oppression, and 2) care more about preventing violence committed against females than violence committed against males.
Join us in rejecting the use of the terms ‘gender-based violence’ and ‘gender violence’.
Note: Our arguments pertain specifically to policymaking, governance, and nonprofit advocacy in Washington state. We make no comment with regard to contexts outside of Washington.
Domestic Violence Theory, Research, and Treatment is Gender Biased
Below is an excerpt from Ann Silvers’s article: Psychologist Dr Hughes Testimony for Amber Heard Exposes DV Gender Bias
Dr. Hughes’ testimony provides a window into the dominant DV worldview. Unfortunately, Dr. Hughes is not alone in her gender-based approach to domestic violence. She is not an outlier. She is the norm.
Those of us in the mental health, legal, and legislative fields who recognize that DV frequently and consequentially happens in partner gender configurations other than male-to-female are a small minority. Our voices are actively squelched by the crowd that believes that DV is caused by patriarchy. (For lack of better terms, I refer to this crowd as the DV community or DV advocates.)
The DV community’s belief that DV results from, and is caused by, patriarchy, informs how they view every DV case: men are perpetrators because of patriarchy and women are victims because of patriarchy. Men use their power to exert “coercive control” over their female partners. Women don’t have power, so they don’t use coercive control on their male partners. Gender biased DV advocates and researchers have recently begun to try to find ways to make their “DV is caused by patriarchy” philosophy create room for caring about and explaining violence and abuse in LGBTQ relationships, but they have to twist and contort their unbendable theory into a poor resemblance of a fit.