This qualitative study examined how practitioners in perpetrator intervention programs (PIPs) in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay conceptualize IPV across sexual orientations. It used 32 narrative interviews with PIP practitioners and program observations over five years, analyzed via Structural Narrative Analysis.
Six core heteronormative assumptions were identified in practitioner narratives: (1) IPV is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon; (2) LGBTQI+ people are less constrained by patriarchy; (3) social class intensifies IPV only in heterosexual contexts; (4) psychological/pathologizing explanations are universal; (5) heterosexual intervention models apply to all; and (6) heterosexual cases receive greater credibility and institutional priority. No PIP in the sample had LGBTQI+-specific protocols, and practitioners routinely adapted heterosexual-designed modules by only swapping pronouns or keeping role-play scripts unchanged.
- Convenience and snowball sampling limits transferability; no LGBTQI+-identifying practitioners were in the sample, narrowing the perspective captured. - The topic of LGBTQI+ vs. heterosexual IPV emerged organically rather than being pre-specified, and disclosure of the first author's identity as a gay man may have shaped responses. - All three countries are from the Southern Cone; findings may not generalize across Latin America or other regions.
Clinicians and program coordinators running PIPs should audit their existing modules, risk-assessment tools, and role-play exercises for built-in heterosexual assumptions—swapping pronouns is not enough. Developing mandatory LGBTQI+-inclusive training and referral pathways that address identity abuse is a concrete first step toward equitable intervention.
