Tomato, Tomatoh? Examining Perpetrator Program Practitioners’ Divergent Assumptions about IPV Across Sexual Orientations in the Southern Cone

Abstract Purpose This paper examines how practitioners in perpetrator intervention programs in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay conceptualize intimate partner violence (IPV) across sexual orientations, and how their narratives reveal enduring traces—or palimpsests—of earlier theoretical and institutional frameworks. Despite decades of research, IPV knowledge and practice remain overwhelmingly anchored in heterosexual relationships, framing men as perpetrators and women as victims. Considering that semantic distinctions in practitioners’ talk may signal deeper divides, we examine how these distinctions reflect divergent assumptions about gender, power, and relationality. Methods Drawing on five years of qualitative fieldwork in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, we employed narrative interviews ( n = 32) and program observations, analyzed using a modified Structural Narrative Analysis to identify patterned assumptions and discursive strategies in practitioners’ accounts. Results We identify core divergences in how practitioners implicitly define IPV: as a primarily heterosexual phenomenon; as less constrained by patriarchy in LGBTQI+ relationships; as socioeconomically conditioned only in heterosexual contexts; as universally explainable through psychological traits; and as amenable to a single, “one-size-fits-all” intervention model. Conclusions Framed through the metaphor “tomato, tomatoh?“, we argue that these seemingly minor semantic distinctions in practitioners’ talk in fact signal deeper epistemological divides—different assumptions about gender, power, and relationality that fundamentally shape intervention practices—and carry significant practical consequences for how interventions are delivered, whose experiences are legitimized, and which cases receive institutional attention. The analysis highlights the material effects of professional discourse, showing how heteronormative frameworks persist even in “progressive” programs, reinforcing the invisibility of LGBTQI+ victim-survivors and perpetrators. The paper argues for more inclusive and contextually sensitive frameworks that recognize the relational, structural, and identity-specific dynamics of IPV across diverse intimate relationships.