Are there differences in rates of sexual offenses within subgroups of the LGBTQ+ community (e.g., gay men, lesbians, bisexual people)?
Executive summary
Evidence shows meaningful variation in sexual-offense involvement across LGBTQ+ subgroups, but the pattern is complex: research consistently documents much higher rates of sexual victimization for LGBTQ+ people overall, while studies of perpetration are fewer, use mixed methods, and show gender-driven differences rather than a simple “LGBTQ versus straight” divide [1] [2] [3]. Important gaps—notably the routine exclusion or under-sampling of plurisexual (bisexual+) people, inconsistent measures of perpetration, and non-representative samples—mean conclusions about subgroup differences in perpetration must be cautious [4] [5].
1. Victimization is clearly higher across LGBTQ+ groups, but that’s not the same as higher perpetration
Multiple national and systematic sources find that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people experience substantially higher rates of sexual and other violent victimization than heterosexual/cisgender peers—for example, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Williams Institute analyses report many-fold higher victimization rates among LGBT people in national surveys [1] [2], and systematic reviews document very high prevalence estimates among LGB subgroups in many studies [6]. Those elevated victimization numbers establish a context of disproportionate harm, but they do not by themselves identify who is committing offenses or whether rates of perpetration differ meaningfully by sexual orientation [6] [1].
2. Perpetration studies are limited, show gender-driven differences, and often exclude bisexual people
Recent empirical work that directly compares perpetration across sexual identities is sparse and constrained; a study explicitly comparing monosexual (gay, lesbian, heterosexual) cisgender adults found gender-driven differences in sexual violence perpetration and cautioned that plurisexual people were omitted from analyses because of sampling limits [4] [3]. Secondary analyses focused on sexual minority men show notable self‑reported victimization and smaller—but nontrivial—rates of self‑reported perpetration (for example, one study reported ~19.5% lifetime IPV perpetration among sexual minority men in a given sample) and other studies report low perpetration among female-assigned-at-birth sexual minorities in some samples [5]. These mixed patterns support the idea that sexual identity interacts with gender and context in shaping perpetration risk, rather than producing a uniform elevation across all LGBTQ+ subgroups [5] [4].
3. Population studies add nuance: criminal-justice contact and registry data don’t show a simple bias toward LGBTQ+ perpetrators
Total-population research from the Netherlands finds elevated criminal-justice contact for sexual-minority females but not for males, underscoring sex/gender differences in offending patterns rather than a universal effect of sexual minority status [7]. Likewise, analyses of people on U.S. sex‑offender registries show that recidivism and some registry outcomes do not differ markedly between LGBTQ and straight cisgender registrants, suggesting no straightforward overrepresentation on registries after conviction [8] [9]. Those findings complicate narratives that frame LGBTQ status as a direct driver of sexual offending and point toward social, gendered, and measurement explanations for observed differences [7] [8].
4. Methodological caveats: measurement, sampling, and underreporting warp the picture
Research on perpetration suffers from wide measurement variation (different definitions, instruments, and recall windows), heavy reliance on convenience or secondary samples, and routine under-inclusion of bisexual and transgender subgroups—problems explicitly noted in the literature and flagged by systematic reviewers [5] [4] [6]. Victimization itself is also underreported among LGBTQ survivors because of fear of mistreatment or being outed, meaning official statistics and some surveys likely underestimate true rates and distort subgroup comparisons [10] [6]. These technical limits mean that small differences between subgroups may reflect study design as much as real differences in behavior [5] [4].
5. Bottom line and what the research should focus on next
The strongest, most consistent conclusion in the evidence is that LGBTQ+ people face far higher victimization; the question of whether particular sexual‑orientation subgroups have higher perpetration rates is unsettled and appears to depend on gender and context rather than orientation alone, with many studies specifically unable to assess bisexual/plurisexual people or to provide representative perpetration estimates [1] [3] [4]. To move beyond ambiguity, researchers must use representative sampling, include plurisexual and gender‑diverse people, standardize perpetration measures, and separate analyses by sex/gender and context—otherwise policy and prevention efforts will remain reactive to incomplete, potentially misleading signals [5] [7].