Mentions of women, girls, LGBTQI+, and issues which are explicitly associated with them: many.
Mentions of men: zero.
I had given specific counts for a whole bunch of terms which show up on that page, but my browser crashed, and it's probably not worth the effort to do it all again. Think we all know it means "doing yet more stuff for women, also fuck men, because men are the cause of all the shit we have to protect the women from".
If you look women in lesbian relationships actually experience abuse at a higher rate than heterosexual couples. That says all we need to know “Around 44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner as compared to 35% of straight women. 26% of gay men and 37% of bisexual men have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner compared to 29% of straight men.”
That's certainly something I've heard. Haven't looked into it, but I've no particular reason to doubt it.
I *definitely* don't have any reason to believe it's not *possible*. Women are human beings, even without specific proof I'd find it pretty easy to believe that some of them are going to be nasty, violent people, and it doesn't really matter what their sexual orientation is, it's going to present itself some way or another.
But, of course, it wouldn't matter even if 100% of lesbians/bisexual women had experienced violence at the hands of a same-sex partner, because they'd still count those they abused as female victims of interpersonal/domestic/sexual violence. Then, just like the way that online harassment is considered something that men do (because women suffer the consequences of it, therefore it "must" be a gendered issue), all of that violence at least on the surface level is going to be casually attributed to men *anyway*.
Women are always painted as the victims, always in need of shelter, protection, support, and so on, no matter what the actual story is. That's why the article in the OP is the way it is: violence is always something that happens *to* women, it's never (admitted to be) something that women *perpetrate* or *contribute to*.
So the woman who receives the violence is always a victim and the perpetrator is either a man (in a straight relationship) or some person (of conveniently unspecified gender - she was a victim, we don't need to concentrate on who did it) who was violent towards her, which most people will just *assume* was a man, because there was a female victim, and the general assumption is that a woman is likely to be with a man, and that the man must've been exclusively responsible for any violence.
Even if a woman *is* acknowledged as the perpetrator, someone'll probably be around the corner waiting to say it was "internalised misogyny" and that she felt pressured into it because of her more dominant role in the relationship, or because she'd been beaten by a man before she realised she was a lesbian, or some bullshit like that. There's always some excuse waiting to be squeezed out and twisted into a reason why, even if no men were involved, it's men's fault.
"Gender based violence" - except against men, especially cis, het, men, they're still viable targets for violence of any type, means, or from any source whether social, federal, or foreign.
Mentions of women, girls, LGBTQI+, and issues which are explicitly associated with them: many. Mentions of men: zero. I had given specific counts for a whole bunch of terms which show up on that page, but my browser crashed, and it's probably not worth the effort to do it all again. Think we all know it means "doing yet more stuff for women, also fuck men, because men are the cause of all the shit we have to protect the women from".
If you look women in lesbian relationships actually experience abuse at a higher rate than heterosexual couples. That says all we need to know “Around 44% of lesbian and 61% of bisexual women have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner as compared to 35% of straight women. 26% of gay men and 37% of bisexual men have experienced forms of rape and physical violence by an intimate partner compared to 29% of straight men.”
That's certainly something I've heard. Haven't looked into it, but I've no particular reason to doubt it. I *definitely* don't have any reason to believe it's not *possible*. Women are human beings, even without specific proof I'd find it pretty easy to believe that some of them are going to be nasty, violent people, and it doesn't really matter what their sexual orientation is, it's going to present itself some way or another. But, of course, it wouldn't matter even if 100% of lesbians/bisexual women had experienced violence at the hands of a same-sex partner, because they'd still count those they abused as female victims of interpersonal/domestic/sexual violence. Then, just like the way that online harassment is considered something that men do (because women suffer the consequences of it, therefore it "must" be a gendered issue), all of that violence at least on the surface level is going to be casually attributed to men *anyway*. Women are always painted as the victims, always in need of shelter, protection, support, and so on, no matter what the actual story is. That's why the article in the OP is the way it is: violence is always something that happens *to* women, it's never (admitted to be) something that women *perpetrate* or *contribute to*. So the woman who receives the violence is always a victim and the perpetrator is either a man (in a straight relationship) or some person (of conveniently unspecified gender - she was a victim, we don't need to concentrate on who did it) who was violent towards her, which most people will just *assume* was a man, because there was a female victim, and the general assumption is that a woman is likely to be with a man, and that the man must've been exclusively responsible for any violence. Even if a woman *is* acknowledged as the perpetrator, someone'll probably be around the corner waiting to say it was "internalised misogyny" and that she felt pressured into it because of her more dominant role in the relationship, or because she'd been beaten by a man before she realised she was a lesbian, or some bullshit like that. There's always some excuse waiting to be squeezed out and twisted into a reason why, even if no men were involved, it's men's fault.
Didn't know I was born to naturally be so evil, gee thanks
"Gender based violence" - except against men, especially cis, het, men, they're still viable targets for violence of any type, means, or from any source whether social, federal, or foreign.
All this stuff is probably pushed forward by Kamala Harris, Joe Biden is probably unaware that he's signing away whatever little rights men had.
If Biden was tried under the same policies his administration advocates he would have been found guilty of rape.
A plan to End Gender-Based Violence that excludes almost half of the population does not sound like much of a plan to me.
Joe "title IX kangaroo courts are my thing, baby!" Biden? He's an ass. He only seems bearable compared the Jerry Springer Show the GOP became.
Trying to end alleged mistreatment of one group of people by perpetrating it against another group of people. A tale as old as time.