Tradeoffs, Constraints, and Strategies in Transgender and Nonbinary Young Adults’ Romantic Relationships: The Identity Needs in Relationships Framework

Abstract

Prior research suggests that prejudice and structural disadvantage (e.g., cissexism, racism, sexism) put transgender and nonbinary (TNB) young adults at risk for adverse romantic relationship experiences, yet supportive romantic relationships may help TNB young adults cope with these stressors and promote their psychological wellbeing. Accordingly, there is a need to better understand how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the context of prejudice and structural disadvantage. To address this topic, we analyzed in-depth interviews with TNB young adults (18–30 years; N=30) using template-style thematic analysis, guided by intersectionality as an analytical framework. Our analysis resulted in three themes. Theme 1 describes how prejudice and structural disadvantage constrained the strategies that TNB young adults used to pursue fulfilling romantic relationships (e.g., leaving adverse relationships). Theme 2 addresses the tradeoffs that some participants faced in their romantic relationships, including tradeoffs between psychological needs related to their social identities (e.g., gender identity affirmation) and general psychological needs (e.g., intimacy). Theme 3 highlights individual and contextual factors (e.g., lessons from prior romantic relationships) that helped participants build fulfilling romantic relationship. These themes form the basis for the Identity Needs in Relationships Framework, a new conceptual framework addressing how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the context of prejudice and structural disadvantage. The framework offers an explanation for why some TNB young adults maintain romantic relationships that seem to undermine their wellbeing, and it draws attention to strategies and resources that may help TNB young adults form fulfilling romantic relationships despite the prejudice and structural disadvantage they face.

Young adults who are transgender, i.e., with a gender identity diverging from expectations for their sex assigned at birth (Erickson-Schroth, 2014), and/or nonbinary, i.e., with a gender identity that is not exclusively male or female (Erickson-Schroth, 2014), face double to triple the odds of depression, anxiety, and suicidality as their cisgender peers (Lipson et al., 2019; Reisner et al., 2015). These mental health disparities are widely held to result from psychosocial stress caused by cissexism: the system of oppression and power relations privileging cisgender people at the expense of transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people (Erickson-Schroth, 2014). Research suggests that cissexism from partners and others can negatively impact TNB people’s romantic relationships (Gamarel et al., 2014; Peitzmeier et al., 2021; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017), yet there is growing evidence that supportive romantic relationships can help TNB people cope with cissexism in their broader social contexts (Galupo et al., 2019; Gamarel et al., 2018). These dynamics may be heightened in young adulthood (defined here as ages 18–30 years), when TNB people also face the general developmental challenge of learning to navigate adult romantic relationships (Fincham & Cui, 2011). Thus, there is a need to better understand how TNB young adults pursue and achieve supportive romantic relationships despite the prejudice and structural disadvantage they face.

TNB Young Adults’ Romantic Relationships

While not all TNB people experience romantic attraction or pursue romantic relationships (Riggs et al., 2015), most TNB young adults are romantically active (Murchison, 2021). Data from a 2018 survey illustrate the prevalence and heterogeneity of TNB young adults’ romantic relationships: 86% of participants had experienced a romantic relationship and 55% had a current romantic partner (Murchison, 2021). The duration of current relationships varied considerably, with 32% having lasted at least three years, and 50% of partnered participants were living together (Murchison, 2021). Current partners included men (39%), women (37%), and nonbinary people (22%); overall, 44% of partners were themselves TNB (Murchison, 2021). Few other studies of TNB people’s romantic relationships have expressly addressed young adulthood, but young adults have been well represented in most, suggesting that the findings discussed below are likely relevant to this age group.

Cissexism as a Challenge in TNB People’s Romantic Relationships

Research has identified distinctive challenges that TNB people face in romantic relationships, including perceived dissonance among partners’ gender and/or sexual orientation identities (Platt & Bolland, 2018; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017; Siboni, Prunas, et al., 2022) and gender dysphoria, i.e., distressing feelings of incongruence between one’s gender identity and body or self-presentation (Martin & Coolhart, 2022; Siboni, Rucco, et al., 2022). Prominent among these challenges is cissexism from both prospective and established romantic partners. TNB people have described the challenges of dating in cissexist social contexts, including discrimination, fetishization, and violence from prospective partners, even within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) communities (Araya et al., 2021; Platt & Bolland, 2017; Riggs et al., 2015). For some TNB people, these experiences led to perceptions that they had a “limited pool” of potential romantic partners (Araya et al., 2021; Gamarel et al., 2020) and uncertainty that they would ever experience ideal, loving, or respectful romantic relationships (Fuller & Riggs, 2021; Gamarel et al., 2020). With respect to established romantic partners, Peitzmeier et al. (2019, 2021) found that having experienced overt cissexist behaviors (e.g., intentional misgendering, destroying gender-affirming clothing) from a current or previous partner was a risk factor for serious psychological distress, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Pulice-Farrow et al. (2017) described a broader range of cissexist partner behaviors, such as minimizing a partner’s TNB identity, misgendering them in certain social contexts, or expecting them to conform to binary gender norms. Even when cissexist behaviors were subtle and unintentional, participants often found them distressing because they occurred within an important close relationship (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017).

Research has also characterized cissexism in non-romantic contexts (e.g., from families or strangers) as a stressor impacting TNB people’s romantic relationship functioning (Gamarel et al., 2014; Gamarel et al., 2018; Platt & Bolland, 2017, 2018; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017). One study with transgender women and their cisgender male partners linked women’s cissexist experiences to greater depressive symptomatology in both partners (Gamarel et al., 2018). Furthermore, couples’ reports of cissexist relationship stigma—social disapproval of a relationship because one partner is TNB—are associated with poorer relationship quality and greater depressive symptomatology for both partners (Gamarel et al., 2014). Cissexist relationship stigma from either partner’s family may be a particular source of stress (Platt & Bolland, 2017). Moreover, some partners respond to cissexist relationship stigma with cissexist behaviors, such as misgendering their TNB partner in public (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017).

Supportive Romantic Relationships in the Face of Cissexism

Even as cissexism poses challenges for romantic relationships, research indicates that romantic partners can be a key source of support as TNB people navigate cissexism and other TNB-specific challenges (Coppola et al., 2021; Galupo et al., 2019; Gamarel et al., 2018; Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Platt & Bolland, 2018; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2019; Siboni, Rucco, et al., 2022). TNB people have described numerous ways that romantic partners affirm their gender identities, such as compliments using gender-congruent language (Galupo et al., 2019; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2019). These behaviors may counteract gender non-affirmation (i.e., lack of social acknowledgment or respect for one’s gender) in other social contexts, a risk factor for poor psychological wellbeing in TNB people (Testa et al., 2015). Romantic partners may also provide direct support in response to cissexism, e.g., speaking out against cissexist remarks (Coppola et al., 2021; Galupo et al., 2019; Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2019), providing emotional support (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2019), and helping TNB people devise strategies for avoiding or addressing cissexism (Platt & Bolland, 2017). Indeed, Coppola et al. (2021) found that jointly coping with cissexism was a powerful bonding experience for many of the couples they interviewed.

These findings raise an important question: how do some TNB young adults build supportive romantic relationships despite the challenges posed by cissexism? Prior research highlights a range of relationship dynamics, such as trust and communication, that help couples navigate TNB-specific challenges (Coppola et al., 2021; Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Siboni, Rucco, et al., 2022). However, it remains unclear how TNB young adults achieve romantic relationships with positive dynamics. This outcome may depend on unexplored processes, such as how TNB young adults choose romantic partners or respond to relationship difficulties—in other words, how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the context of cissexism.

TNB Young Adults’ Romantic Relationship Choices

Understanding how TNB young adults build supportive romantic relationships may require careful attention to the choices they make when forming romantic relationships or when facing relationship difficulties. For instance, prior research suggests that some TNB young adults respond to partners’ cissexist behaviors by ending the relationship, yet others tolerate these behaviors, sometimes at considerable cost to themselves (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017). Terminating relationships with cissexism or other adverse dynamics may be key to TNB young adults’ long-term relationship success, but the factors that shape these decisions have not been well characterized.

While not specific to romantic relationships, foundational work on the role of gender affirmation (i.e., affirmation of one’s gender identity by others) in TNB people’s sexual behavior (Reisner et al., 2010; Sevelius, 2013) offers potential insights into how cissexism shapes romantic relationship choices. This literature is grounded in the concept of psychological needs: psychological constructs that motivate human behavior and contribute to psychological wellbeing (Patrick et al., 2007). Sevelius’ Gender Affirmation Framework (2013) frames social affirmation of one’s gender identity as a psychological need—and posits that this need can be heightened by the social oppression (e.g., cissexism, sexual objectification) that many transgender women experience. The Gender Affirmation Framework further posits that some transgender women fulfill gender affirmation needs through sexual relationships and, in doing so, may engage in behaviors that increase their risk of negative health outcomes (Sevelius, 2013). In research with transgender men, Reisner and colleagues (2010) have likewise found that gender affirmation needs can influence sexual behavior, further observing that transgender men’s sex partners sometimes offer or withdraw gender affirmation as a means of sexual coercion. Together, Sevelius’ (2013) and Reisner and colleagues’ (2010) work suggests that prejudice and structural disadvantage drive some TNB people to sacrifice other physical or psychological needs (e.g., health, sexual autonomy) in order to fulfill gender affirmation needs. This insight does not explain why some TNB young adults maintain romantic relationships that undermine gender affirmation needs, as reported in at least one study (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017), but it indicates that understanding TNB young adults’ romantic relationship choices may require attention to potential conflicts among TNB young adults’ gender-related psychological needs and other needs or priorities.

Multiple Systems of Oppression and Power Relations

Most studies of TNB people’s romantic relationships have given limited attention to systems of oppression and power relations other than cissexism. However, emerging evidence suggests that additional systems of oppression and power relations, such as racism and sexism, also impact TNB people’s romantic relationships. In at least two quantitative studies, transgender women have reported more difficulty meeting romantic partners than TNB people of other genders (Fuller & Riggs, 2021; Riggs et al., 2015). Furthermore, in a qualitative study with a predominantly Black sample of transgender women, participants described how the confluence of cissexism, racism, and sexism simultaneously limited their romantic options and fueled mistreatment by romantic partners (Gamarel et al., 2020). These findings highlight intersectionality (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Combahee River Collective, 1978; Crenshaw, 1991) as an important analytical framework for future work on the romantic relationship experiences of TNB people with multiple marginalized social identities in social context. Rooted in Black feminist thought and practice, intersectionality promotes critical analysis of how multiple systems of oppression and power relations grant privileged social groups preferential access to resources at the expense of Black women and other multiply marginalized groups in compounding ways (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Combahee River Collective, 1978; Crenshaw, 1991). Intersectionality foregrounds the ways that multiple systems of oppression and power relations shape and uphold one another, in part by encouraging attention to the lived experienced of multiply marginalized groups, such as transgender women and TNB people of color, in social context (Agénor, 2020; Collins & Bilge, 2016).

Present Study

In this study, we set out to develop a theoretical framework addressing how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the face of prejudice and structural disadvantage based on multiple, intersecting systems of oppression and power relations. To do so, we analyzed qualitative in-depth interviews in which 30 TNB young adults discussed past and present romantic relationships, focusing on how social identities—including being TNB—shaped participants’ romantic relationship experiences. Guided by the Gender Affirmation Framework (Sevelius, 2013) and related work by Reisner et al. (2010), our analysis examined the possibility that conflicting needs—including gender affirmation—might influence TNB young adults’ romantic relationship choices. Using intersectionality (Collins & Bilge, 2016; Combahee River Collective, 1978; Crenshaw, 1991) as an analytical framework, we attended to multiple social identities and systems of oppression and power relations, with particular attention to multiply marginalized participants. Intersectionality also prompted us to analyze how participants’ experiences differed across gender and race/ethnicity, how geographic and temporal contexts shaped those experiences, and how systems of oppression and power relations manifested both interpersonally and structurally (Agénor, 2020; Collins & Bilge, 2016).

Methods

Participants

The present study was based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 TNB young adults, conducted within a mixed-methods study on TNB young adults’ experiences with body image, sexual health, and romantic relationships. Eligibility criteria included age (18–30 years), self-identification as TNB, living in the New England region of the U.S., and ability to communicate in English. Participants were recruited via LGBTQ-focused organizations, campus groups, and social media groups. Interviews were conducted from August through November of 2018.

Table 1 presents characteristics of interview participants and their current romantic relationships. Age ranged from 18 to 29 years (mean=23.6 years). All participants identified as TNB, with 63.3% reporting a nonbinary identity (e.g., nonbinary, genderqueer, agender); smaller proportions identified as women or transgender women (23.3%) and men or transgender men (13.3%). Most participants described their race and/or ethnicity as White alone (56.7%); the second-largest proportion (16.7%) identified as multiracial and/or with multiple races or ethnicities. The most frequent sexual orientation identities were queer (23.3%) and bisexual (20.0%). We did not systematically inquire about disability or neurodivergence, but one participant described himself as Deaf, one described themself as disabled, and seven discussed being neurodivergent (e.g., attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism). Over half of participants (53.3%) had a current romantic partner, and 16.7% had multiple partners.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of transgender and nonbinary young adults interviewed in the present study, N=30

	Mean (SD); median
Age (years)	23.6 (3.0); 24.0
	n (%)
Gender identity
Nonbinary	8 (26.7)
Woman, female, trans woman, and/or MTF	7 (23.3)
Man, male, trans man, and/or FTM	4 (13.3)
Genderqueer	3 (10.0)
Agender	2 (6.7)
Gender fluid	2 (6.7)
Transmasculine	2 (6.7)
Agender, gender fluid, nonbinary	1 (3.3)
Transfeminine	1 (3.3)
Racial and/or ethnic identity
White	17 (56.7)
Black or African American	4 (13.3)
Asian	2 (6.7)
Hispanic or Latinx	2 (6.7)
Asian, White	1 (3.3)
Biracial or multiracial	1 (3.3)
Black or African American, Native or indigenous, biracial or multiracial	1 (3.3)
White, Native or indigenous, Jewish	1 (3.3)
White, Hispanic or Latinx	1 (3.3)
Sexual orientation identity
Queer	7 (23.3)
Bisexual	6 (20.0)
Pansexual	5 (16.7)
Lesbian	4 (13.3)
Asexual	2 (6.7)
Gay	2 (6.7)
Demisexual	1 (3.3)
Fluid	1 (3.3)
Queer, pansexual	1 (3.3)
Queer, lesbian, pansexual	1 (3.3)
Educational attainment
High school diploma or equivalent	2 (6.7)
Some college	13 (43.3)
College degree	9 (30.0)
Some graduate/professional school	3 (10.0)
Graduate/professional degree	3 (10.0)
Student status
Current undergraduate	7 (23.3)
Not current undergraduate	23 (76.6)
Relationship status
Not dating anyone	13 (43.3)
Dating one person	6 (20.0)
Dating multiple people	4 (13.3)
Living with a partner	3 (10.0)
Open relationship	2 (6.7)
Seeing multiple people in different relationship configurations	1 (3.3)
“Pending”	1 (3.3)
Current romantic partner is…
No current partner	13 (43.3)
Nonbinary	7 (23.3)
Cisgender woman	5 (16.7)
Cisgender man	3 (10.0)
Transgender woman, nonbinary	1 (3.3)
No response	1 (3.3)

Interview Procedures

Participants in the Boston metropolitan area were interviewed in person, while participants elsewhere in New England were interviewed by video conference. Participants provided written informed consent, and all procedures were approved by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health IRB. The Deaf participant was interviewed using video and text-based chat; the remaining interviews were verbal. Interviews ranged from 30 to 120 minutes (mean=64 minutes). Verbal interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. After the interview, participants completed a demographic questionnaire and received a $30 gift card.

The study team developed an interview guide informed by a review of the literature on body image, sexual health, and romantic relationships among TNB young adults. At the time, the literature on TNB young adult romantic relationships was sparse, so we solicited feedback from community stakeholders (e.g., TNB young adults, LGBTQ youth program leaders) to ensure that interview questions were affirming and comprehensive; this feedback informed revisions addressing asexual and aromantic identities, consensual nonmonogamy, and online romantic relationships. The interview guide explored key aspects of how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships, including how participants chose partners and dealt with relationship difficulties. Several prompts and probes addressed these topics in relation to social identities and/or systems of oppression and power relations (e.g., “How would you say these identities affected the kinds of support your partner and you gave one another?”) We incorporated a prompt informed by the literature on gender affirmation and sexual behavior (Reisner et al., 2010; Sevelius, 2013; see Introduction), asking participants about disparities in power or control within romantic relationships and how their social identities affected those dynamics. Consistent with recommendations for addressing intersectionality in qualitative research, we prompted participants to discuss multiple social identities (TNB, sexual orientation, ethnic-racial, and gender identities) and systems of oppression and power relations (cissexism, heterosexism, racism, and sexism) and also encouraged participants to identify other social identities and systems of oppression and power relations that shaped their experiences (Bowleg, 2008).

Interviews were conducted by four study team members with graduate-level training in public health research and project-specific training in semi-structured interviewing. All interviewers were White, two were TNB, and three were young adults. Interviewers represented a range of sexual orientation identities (queer, bisexual, and asexual) and gender identities (nonbinary, man, and woman). To ensure quality and fidelity, each interviewer reviewed and discussed recordings of two practice interviews with the principal investigator.

Analysis

Our analysis combined template analysis—an approach to thematic analysis in which themes are derived from a hierarchical coding template that is iteratively revised during coding (Brooks et al., 2015; Crabtree & Miller, 1999)—with qualitative data analysis methods described by Miles et al. (2020) for the development of visual diagrams and networks. Specifically, we used template analysis to develop three themes addressing TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences in relation to their social identities; we then used “causal networks” displays (Miles et al., 2020) to develop a conceptual framework based on these themes. Analysis proceeded in four rounds, each comprising a coding phase and a connecting and corroborating/legitimating (CCL) phase (Crabtree & Miller, 1999); see Table 2 for details. The first author was responsible for coding; the first and senior authors met periodically to discuss emerging themes and sub-themes. Coding was conducted using the Dedoose qualitative analysis application (version 7.0.23).

Table 2.

Activities conducted during each round and phase of data analysis.

	Coding phase	Connecting and corroborating/legitimating phase
Round 1	We reviewed three transcripts to develop an initial coding template with a priori (deductive) codes (Crabtree & Miller, 1999) addressing specific social identities (e.g., TNB identity, sexual orientation identity), positive romantic relationship experiences, and negative romantic relationship experiences. We applied this template to all transcripts.	We reviewed coded excerpts to develop subcodes for specific identity-related relationship experiences (e.g., “derogatory comments”) and related phenomena (e.g., “dating opportunities”).
Round 2	We applied the revised template to the data, adding and revising codes as needed.	We used a concept map (Miles et al., 2020) to visualize clusters and sub-clusters of codes. We observed that nearly every sub-cluster in the “positive partner behaviors” cluster had a parallel “negative partner behaviors” sub-cluster (e.g., “facilitating exploration” and “identity imposition”). Informed by prior work addressing gender identity affirmation (Sevelius, 2013; see Introduction), we surmised that these positive and negative sub-clusters could reflect the same underlying identity-related psychological needs (e.g., “identity exploration”). A review of coded excerpts confirmed that this conceptualization fit the data. Thus, we established a new identity needs cluster, with subclusters for specific identity needs.
Round 3	We applied the revised template to the data, adding and revising codes as needed.	We developed a preliminary “causal network” (Miles et al., 2020) to explore relationships among higher-level codes (e.g., between identity needs and relationship strategies). We reviewed coded excerpts to confirm or revise hypothesized relationships. We reorganized codes and modified code definitions to reflect this emerging conceptual framework.
Round 4	We applied the revised template to the data, adding and revising codes as needed.	To explore how identity needs were discussed across various social identities, we examined a quantitative table describing co-occurrence of the identity needs codes and codes denoting specific social identities. We then reviewed excerpts for each combination of identity need and social identity (e.g., stigma buffering in relation to ethnic-racial identity), using analytic memos (Miles et al., 2020) to reflect on how identity needs were discussed in relation to each social identity. To explore how social identities shaped the dynamics described in each theme, we sorted excerpts for each theme by gender and race/ethnicity, documenting observations with analytic memos (Miles et al., 2020). We considered explicit discussion of specific identities or intersections of identities as well as implicit differences in content across gender and race/ethnicity. We reviewed all transcripts to confirm that the final themes and conceptual framework accurately reflected the data, with attention to disconfirming or negative evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles et al., 2020)

To ensure reliability, the first author reviewed codes for each excerpt at least twice during each round. In addition, a secondary coder (the second author) coded 10% of transcripts using the final coding template, and the first and second authors discussed all discrepancies. When these checks identified ambiguities in a code, the code definition was updated to clarify its scope. After coding, the first author reviewed all transcripts to confirm that final themes and sub-themes accurately reflected the data, with attention to disconfirming or negative evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Miles et al., 2020). To identify gaps and biases in the first author’s interpretations, the first author obtained peer feedback on preliminary themes and sub-themes from two study team members familiar with the dataset, two groups of LGBTQ health researchers, and one group of mental health clinicians working with young adults (Creswell & Miller, 2000).

Results and Discussion

Consistent with prior research on young adults’ reasons for forming and maintaining romantic relationships (Patrick et al., 2007; VanderDrift & Agnew, 2012), participants’ narratives suggested that their romantic relationship choices were motivated by multiple psychological needs. In other words, participants sought romantic relationships that were not merely supportive of their TNB identities but fulfilling in a broader sense—i.e., meeting the various psychological needs a young adult experienced as salient within that relationship. Nonetheless, prominent among these salient needs were what we term identity needs: psychological needs directly related to a social identity, such as TNB identity, sexual orientation identity, or ethnic-racial identity. In Theme 1 (Prejudice and Structural Disadvantage Constrain Romantic Relationship Strategies), we describe several strategies that participants used to pursue romantic relationships that fulfilled their psychological needs, and we explain how prejudice and structural disadvantage constrained these strategies, particularly for multiply marginalized participants. In Theme 2 (TNB Young Adults Face Tradeoffs in Romantic Relationships), we identify five identity needs evident in participants’ descriptions of their romantic relationships, and we discuss how some participants’ romantic relationships fulfilled certain psychological needs at the expense of other needs. In Theme 3 (TNB Young Adults Use Personal and Social Assets to Achieve Fulfilling Relationships), we describe individual and contextual factors that helped some participants build fulfilling romantic relationships. Finally, bringing these themes together, we introduce the Identity Needs in Relationships Framework as a conceptual framework addressing how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the context of prejudice and structural disadvantage.

Theme 1. Prejudice and Structural Disadvantage Constrain Romantic Relationship Strategies

Participants described using several strategies to pursue romantic relationships that fulfilled their various psychological needs, including their identity needs. Prominent romantic relationship strategies included carefully choosing romantic partners (see Subtheme 1.1), asserting one’s needs within a relationship (see Subtheme 1.2), seeking support from people other than one’s romantic partner (see Subtheme 1.3), and leaving relationships that did not fulfill—or even undermined—important needs (see Subtheme 1.4). However, prejudice and structural disadvantage—notably ableism, cissexism, racism, sexism, and sizeism—posed constraints to these strategies, particularly for multiply marginalized participants.

Subtheme 1.1. Constraints on Partner Choice

Many participants described making judicious choices about potential romantic partners, assessing whether prospective partners were likely to be compatible with their needs. Some participants had clear personal guidelines for choosing partners. For instance, several participants reported prioritizing partners who were familiar with certain social identities:

For a while I felt like I mostly was looking to date other genderqueer and non-binary people because they would get it the most. And now [cisgender partner] happens to be perfect, but…she also went through her own questioning, like, “Oh, maybe I’m genderqueer”… So that feels good. (28 years old, genderqueer, White, queer/pansexual)

However, some participants found it difficult to be selective in whom they dated because they perceived their dating options as limited by ableism, cissexism, racism, sexism, and/or sizeism. Several participants described being rejected based on their TNB identity, race, body size, or disability:

Dating sites make me feel bad in terms of being able to see the attention cisgender traditionally attractive abled White people get in comparison to me, a transgender fat Deaf (but still White) person. (22 years old, transmasculine, White, bisexual)

The risk of encountering prejudice made dating a stressful experience for some participants, leading a few to avoid dating altogether:

I haven’t dared to dream about [what I want in a relationship]. I hear all these horror stories all the time about dating someone and then you’re like, “Hey, Reddit, my boyfriend’s a white supremacist.” And I have…this anxiety of getting to know someone and then ending up like, “Oh, they’re transphobic.” (23 years old, gender fluid, Black, pansexual)

Participants also discussed structural forms of cissexism and racism that constrained their choice of partners. With respect to structural racism, several participants of color described being overlooked, misunderstood, or fetishized while dating within predominantly White campuses or residentially segregated areas. With respect to structural cissexism, a few participants described problems posed by LGBTQ dating apps’ gender-segregated designs:

I thought about signing up for Her, but it would not let me sign up because I was not listed as female on Facebook...I’ve thought about Grindr, but I’m not really far enough in my transition, people are gonna be really weird about it.” (27 years old, transmasculine, White, bisexual)

Participants’ individual contexts and social positions, including their multiple social identities, shaped how cissexism, racism, and other systems of oppression and power relations impacted their dating opportunities. This participant described how her local community’s history of transmisogyny (i.e., prejudice against transgender women) made dating more challenging for her than for TNB peers of other genders:

I spend a lot of my time in…places [that] have…a long history of lesbian community that has not involved trans women… And most of the other trans people I have as peers down there are not trans women… And so often in the types of queer spaces where I might potentially find someone that I would want to date, I’m often spending a lot of time fighting off stigma... Sometimes it will be more explicit discrimination, but also...there will just be miscommunications, you know. I’ll show up to a party thinking I look hot as hell...and people would coo over me like I was their little sister. (27 years old, trans woman, White, bisexual)

Subtheme 1.2. Constraints on Asserting One’s Needs

Participants described a range of challenges in their romantic relationships, including some directly related to being TNB or other social identities. Consistent with previous research on how couples navigate TNB-specific challenges (Martin & Coolhart, 2022; Platt & Bolland, 2018; Siboni, Rucco, et al., 2022), some participants addressed these challenges by communicating their needs to their partners, with varying degrees of success:

I’m not a fan of [having a] chest… But I have had partners who are very…attached to what I have there, and that has not always felt great, which I’ve voiced…

Interviewer: And have your partners been receptive to that?

Participant: Yes, they have. They’ve been pretty good about that. My one partner [mentioned earlier]…struggled more with it. (25 years old, nonbinary, Black, queer/lesbian/pansexual)

Several participants described ways in which cissexism, racism, and sexism made it difficult to assert their needs within romantic relationships. For this participant, sexism seemed to contribute to a former partner’s domineering behavior:

When I was in high school, when I was just starting to question, “What is this gender thing?,” I was in a relationship with this guy and he was really invested in the idea of me being a very, very feminine woman, and that was something he felt he could personally control. So he made me feel very bad about myself and about the relationship when I didn’t conform… I was more afraid of him being unhappy…than with what I was doing to please him. (22 years old, nonbinary, White, queer)

Several participants also described how expectations of prejudice led them to downplay their needs, such as expressing their gender in ways that felt comfortable and authentic:

[My partner’s] mom and sister were in town this past weekend, and I felt that I had to be the feminine one for them to accept me... [T]hey come from a town that’s almost exclusively White, and I met them before, and they didn’t know what sushi was… I just figured that if I, as an Asian person, were to meet them dressing very masculinely, that would be too much for them… I already know that they love me, but still, there’s always that fear. (24 years old, agender/genderfluid/nonbinary, Korean American, gay)

This excerpt exemplifies the heightened challenges that some multiply marginalized participants encountered as they contended with multiple systems of oppression and power relations simultaneously.

Subtheme 1.3. Constraints on Seeking Support from Others

A few participants reported turning to other members of their social networks—particularly friends, family, and mental health clinicians—to fulfill psychological needs not met in their romantic relationships. When other social relationships could fulfill a need, the fact that a romantic partner could not fulfill that need was not necessarily a problem, as this participant explained:

So it actually feels like [my partner] might not be able to give me exactly the kind of support I need in terms of racial things, and for her I don’t feel that I can adequately always provide her the support she has in terms of…her socioeconomic status… [F]or those identities we might find better support elsewhere, and that’s okay. (24 years old, agender/genderfluid/nonbinary, Korean American, gay)

However, a few participants described how cissexism and/or racism limited their access to social support outside their romantic relationships. These constraints led some participants to depend on romantic partners for a broad range of needs:

And so I guess what really helped was having another…queer slash trans person…accepting me as I am, and saying, if you’re a woman, you’re a woman... [That] relationship helped me to…live my life authentically [despite the] ramifications on my ability to find housing, on my ability to find employment, my ability to maintain friendships… I was able to do that because I had a partner. (26 years old, trans woman, Puerto Rican, demisexual)

Without other sources of support, needs unfulfilled by the romantic partner were more likely to become distressing for the participant and lead to dissatisfaction with the relationship.

Some multiply marginalized participants discussed the importance of social support from those who understood their experiences across multiple identities. This intersectional support could be particularly difficult to find, as one participant explained:

I’ve read so many struggles about getting a therapist to be able to get past the race thing, and then adding in any other intersection... (23 years old, gender fluid, Black, pansexual)

Subtheme 1.4. Constraints on Leaving Adverse Relationships

When participants recognized that a romantic relationship was failing to fulfill important needs, or even undermining those needs, some chose to terminate the relationship:

[At the end of] that relationship… I was like, “I need to have some space to explore this gender identity.” I wanted to explore the experience of being with men as a man, and that wasn’t something that we could do while in a monogamous relationship… And that was why I think it ended… (27 years old, transmasculine, White, bisexual)

However, a few participants discussed how systems of oppression and power relations discouraged them from leaving unfulfilling or otherwise problematic relationships. Notably, transphobic and cissexist stereotypes caused some participants to doubt their desirability as romantic partners, leading them to believe that an unfulfilling or even harmful romantic relationship was the best they could expect. These beliefs were tied to the dating challenges discussed in Subtheme 1.1, as this participant expressed:

Even when I was in a relationship, I feel like it was like a one in a hundred chance that it even happened… and then I felt pressure to stay in the relationship because, well, who else would ever want to date me… I can’t really expect or think that [I’m] ever gonna have a lot of dating partners [as a transgender lesbian]… (28 years old, trans woman, White, lesbian)

Theme 2. Encountering Tradeoffs in Romantic Relationships

Based on participants’ descriptions of strengths and challenges in their past and present romantic relationships, it was clear that many of these relationships had fulfilled some important psychological needs yet failed to fulfill, or even undermined, others. Echoing prior work on TNB people’s sexual decision-making (Reisner et al., 2010; Sevelius, 2013), some participants had maintained romantic relationships that fulfilled their need for gender affirmation, even when those relationships undermined other psychological needs, such as sexual autonomy. We also found evidence of other kinds of tradeoffs in romantic relationships, including tradeoffs involving multiple identity needs (Subtheme 2.1) and tradeoffs of identity needs in favor of general psychological needs, i.e., psychological needs not directly related to social identities (Subtheme 2.2).

Subtheme 2.1. Tradeoffs Among Identity Needs

Interview participants described past and present romantic relationships as having considerable influence on their thoughts and feelings about being TNB—and other social identities, including sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, disability, religion, and socioeconomic background. Moreover, participants described romantic relationships as shaping how they experienced and coped with prejudice and structural disadvantage based on multiple systems of oppression and power relations, including ableism, cissexism, heterosexism, racism, and sexism. Informed by Sevelius’ (2013) framing of gender affirmation as a psychological need, we conceptualized these processes in terms of how romantic relationships fulfilled or undermined five distinct identity needs: affirmation, stigma buffering, supported exploration, trigger management, and shared understanding. These identity needs are summarized in Table 3, accompanied by examples of how romantic partners fulfilled and undermined each need.

Table 3.

Descriptions of five identity needs salient in transgender and nonbinary young adults’ romantic relationships

Label	Description	Examples of fulfilling partner behaviors	Examples of undermining partner behaviors	Frequency across social identities	Example	Notes
Affirmation a
(a) Positive regard	The need to feel loved and appreciated with respect to one’s identities	• Offers compliments and affection for identity-related characteristics	• Discourages, denigrates, or mocks one’s identity or related characteristics	Prominent for TNB identity; some examples for sexual orientation identity	I was wearing [a binder] and I was kind of self-conscious… [My partner] hugged me and they’re like… “Is that a binder?… I’m so happy that you’re doing that.” …It was awesome because no one [had ever] had that much of an intimate experience with me and my identity. (19 years old, nonbinary, White/Jewish, pansexual)	Partner affirmation of TNB identity was salient for many participants, but one participant explained that they did not experience a need for external affirmation of their nonbinary identity and had not discussed that identity with their partner.
(b) Validation	The need for interpersonal feedback confirming that one’s identity is legitimate	• Explicitly states that one’s identity is valid • Describes and treats one in ways consistent with one’s identity	• States that they do not “believe in” one’s identity • Communicates verbally or nonverbally that they do not see one as one sees oneself	Prominent for TNB identity; some examples for sexual orientation identity	I guess especially when I was earlier in transition and still not sure how I fit in…as a gay man among cis gay men, it was really validating when I would sleep with gay cis men who treated me like any other man… (25 years old, trans man, White, gay)
Stigma buffering	The need for support in dealing with identity-related prejudice and structural disadvantage	• Assists in finding non-prejudiced services and resources • Intervenes in prejudice-based events • Provides emotional support regarding prejudice and structural disadvantage	• Fails to speak up about prejudice or structural disadvantage • Dismisses the impact of prejudice and structural disadvantage • Questions one’s perception that an event was prejudice-based	Prominent for ethnic-racial identity; also discussed for a range of other social identities	[S]he didn’t tell her family that I wasn’t White… And it was more of a challenge because this was around the time of the [2016] election and her family was, like, huge Trump supporters… and…around the time of Michael Brown and Philando Castile… I was mad that she wasn’t willing to be open with her family and…talk to them about why their political choices aren’t the best for a lot of different people. (25 years old, nonbinary, Black, queer/lesbian/pansexual)	Stigma buffering was often a challenge in interracial relationships; several participants of color described White partners as unwilling to recognize or stand up to racism.
Supported exploration	The need for encouragement and impartial dialogue as one explores a range of options for labeling, understanding, and expressing one’s identity	• Serves as a ‘sounding board’ for identity possibilities • Offers positive feedback on new identity possibilities • Provides identity-related information and resources	• Discourages one from labeling or expressing their identity in certain ways • Shares unsolicited opinions or preferences about one’s identity	Prominent for TNB identity; some examples for sexual orientation identity	[W]ithout even being prompted, they just started sending me lists and lists of things to just look into… [That] gave me the tools to be able to be more comfortable in my gender and in my sexuality without giving me any sort of opinion or making it feel like it was anything other than my idea. (21 years old, nonbinary, White/Latino, pansexual)	Several participants described partners who discouraged them from exploring their TNB identity, fearing a perceived conflict between the participant’s gender and the partner’s sexual orientation.
Trigger management	The need to limit exposure to identity-related emotional triggers (e.g., words or behaviors related to gender dysphoria or identity-related trauma) and mitigate negative emotional responses to triggers	• Seeks to understand one’s emotional triggers and related personal boundaries • Provides emotional support when one encounters triggers	• Ignores implied personal boundaries • Violates stated boundaries • Uses triggers for psychological aggression or manipulation	Prominent for TNB identity; some examples for sexual orientation identity	I’m still not a huge fan of being penetrated all the time… And I haven’t [always] felt like I could say like, “Hey, I would rather you focus on this instead” …I guess I was just avoiding breaking down and having a bunch of [gender-related] stuff come up… (28 years old, genderqueer, White, queer/pansexual)	Trigger management was often (though not exclusively) discussed in the context of sexual behaviors that triggered gender dysphoria.
Shared understanding	The need for one’s partner to understand the personal significance of an identity and related experiences, including experiences of prejudice and structural disadvantage	• Actively listens when one discusses identity topics • Engages with discussions or activities related to the identity • Makes independent efforts to learn about the identity	• Dismisses one’s thoughts and feelings about an identity • Dismisses one’s interpretation of an identity-related experience	Prominent for TNB, ethnic-racial, and sexual orientation identities; some examples for additional identities	[My relationships are] just a bunch of nonbinary Black people just dating each other, and it’s really nice and really, like, healing to… be with someone who’s the same identities as you and can understand where you’re coming from on a lot of identity aspects. (24 years old, agender, Black/indigenous, queer)	Many participants described how having a social identity in common with a romantic partner contributed to shared understanding. When identities were not shared, some partners fulfilled shared understanding needs through active listening and engagement.

^a.We treat validation and positive regard as components of a more general need for affirmation in light of previous work on this topic (Sevelius, 2013) and because participants often discussed these needs interchangeably.

Many participants discussed identity needs related to more than one social identity, most frequently gender identity, ethnic-racial identity, and/or sexual orientation identity. While some participants described romantic relationships that fulfilled needs across multiple social identities, others described relationships that fulfilled needs for one social identity yet undermined needs related to others. For instance, several participants of color described relationships with White partners that fulfilled TNB identity needs but not ethnic-racial identity needs.

Some participants described romantic relationships that fulfilled some needs related to a given social identity while undermining other needs related to the same identity. For instance, this participant described a past relationship as fulfilling their needs for shared understanding of their TNB and ethnic-racial identities:

[A strength of the relationship was] having that baseline understanding both on a gender level and also a racial level. We’re both Black and we’re both transmasculine, so there were just a lot of things that felt right and felt comfortable about being together… (21 years old, genderqueer, Black, queer)

However, that partner had undermined the participant’s need for affirmation of their TNB identity:

There was one time where we were talking about dysphoria…and he was like, “I think you might be a guy. I think you might be a trans guy.” And I was like, “I know for a fact that that’s wrong…” And he brought that up a few more times before I had to be like, “Just please stop.”

In deciding whether to continue these inconsistently fulfilling relationships, participants were confronted with a tradeoff between the identity needs that were fulfilled within the relationship and those that were unmet or undermined.

Subtheme 2.2. Tradeoffs Between Identity Needs and General Psychological Needs

Similar to the tradeoffs between gender affirmation and other needs described by Sevelius (2013) and Reisner et al. (2010), several participants described romantic relationships that fulfilled identity needs while undermining general psychological needs:

[Because that partner was] nonbinary... I felt a little bit less worried about my body in that relationship because I thought there were different expectations for what I had to be… It’s a strange thing for me to talk about, I think, because I don’t talk to this person anymore because I realized that they were being [sexually] coercive. (22 years old, agender, Black, queer)

Furthermore, some participants described relationships that fulfilled general psychological needs, such as intimacy or autonomy, while undermining identity needs:

[My former partner was] extremely straight. And so whenever I’d bring up the idea of, like, “Oh, maybe I should cut my hair. Maybe I should, like, wear boy clothes,” they were like, “No. Why would you ever wanna do that? You’re gorgeous the way you are as a woman.” …I knew I should have been like, “No, you’re stupid”… But…wanting to feel accepted and loved by someone, it’s just kind of like, “No, I’ve got to stay the way I am or they’re not gonna love me.” (19 years old, nonbinary, White/Jewish, pansexual)

Most participants described some tradeoffs among needs in their romantic relationships, which is not surprising given the wide array of identity needs and general psychological needs that romantic relationships might fulfill or undermine. However, participants described some of these tradeoffs as psychologically stressful, and some involved potentially serious harms, such as sexual coercion or pressure not to begin a gender transition.

Theme 3. Using Personal and Social Assets to Achieve Fulfilling Relationships

Despite the potential for tradeoffs, many participants described romantic relationships that seemed to fulfill many of their salient psychological needs and promote their overall psychological wellbeing. We identified three individual and contextual factors that helped participants accomplish this goal: lessons from prior romantic relationships (Subtheme 3.1), social support (Subtheme 3.2), and a set of beliefs we term identity needs confidence (Subtheme 3.3).

Subtheme 3.1. Lessons from Prior Romantic Relationships

Describing early romantic relationships, several participants recalled how uncertainty about what was normal, or about how partners should treat them, had made them hesitant to assert their needs:

My first boyfriend in high school...would touch my breasts without my consent… I hadn’t ever been in a sexual or dating relationship before, and so I didn’t really know what to expect, and I didn’t really know that I could say ‘no’ more than I was... (27 years old, nonbinary, White, queer)

As participants gained romantic experience, their prior relationships—whether amicable or conflictual—informed strategies for subsequent relationships. For instance, several participants discussed how prior relationships influenced their choice of romantic partners:

…[T]heir privilege of not having to really deal with [racism], that was an issue… So I don’t date White people anymore…for…any more serious romantic relationship... (24 years old, agender, Black/indigenous, queer)

Participants also described how prior romantic relationships informed other strategies, such as discussing needs and concerns with new partners, establishing personal standards for how partners should treat them, or soliciting friends’ perspectives on their romantic relationships:

I tend to often ask for support on [romantic relationship concerns] because I was in an emotionally abusive relationship, and I think if anyone had known the extent of things that were going on at the time, probably it would have ended a lot sooner… (27 years old, transmasculine, White, bisexual)

Subtheme 3.2. Social Support

Several participants described social support as key to addressing romantic relationship tradeoffs—both to fulfill unmet needs (see Subtheme 3.3) and for advice and support regarding romantic relationship difficulties. For instance, this participant’s mother helped him decide to leave an adverse romantic relationship:

[My mother] helped a lot during my first relationship when I was struggling with how to end it or whether to end it… helping me understand what the difference is between making compromises in a relationship and, like, what is not good. (28 years old, trans man, multiracial, asexual)

Most participants identified friends as their primary confidants for romantic relationship concerns. Some participants also sought support from family members, social media groups, and mental health clinicians. Several participants preferred to discuss romantic relationship concerns with people who shared or were familiar with particular social identities, often including TNB identities, sexual orientation identities, and/or ethnic-racial identities. As discussed in Subtheme 4.3, some multiply marginalized participants had difficulty accessing support from people who understood their experiences across multiple identities and systems of oppression and power relations. However, one participant had found this intersectional support through social media:

…Facebook has a lot of good support groups… It’s nice, because you can…narrow it down to enough of a specific identity that there are enough people…with your similar experiences that you can talk to... [Y]ou can talk to people who can understand where you’re coming from and actually give good advice, or just listen. (24 years old, agender, Black/indigenous, queer)

Subtheme 3.3. Identity Needs Confidence

As discussed in Theme 1, some participants were pessimistic that future romantic partners would fulfill their identity needs, and some hesitated to assert their identity needs in romantic relationships. However, a similar number of participants both expected to find and felt they deserved romantic relationships that fulfilled their identity needs. The following excerpt encapsulates this concept, which we term identity needs confidence:

[E]ven if there’s things that you really like about someone, if you often end up feeling like they aren’t really listening to you or they’re…not able to affirm how you see yourself… you deserve better! [laughs] …[I]t is possible to find people who will be respectful and affirming of your needs and how you see your body, and you deserve that. (27 years old, nonbinary, White, queer)

Identity needs confidence was primarily discussed in relation to TNB identity but also arose in relation to other identities, including sexual orientation identity and ethnic-racial identity.

Several participants described how low identity needs confidence had discouraged them from asserting their identity needs:

[It] felt like [my partner] wanted me to be more feminine or more female for him to be more masculine or more male, and that felt kind of shitty... I’m watching him go through all of the transition things like getting a binder, and I was like, “I wanna try that.” But it felt like it wasn’t okay for me to try it on… I was still sort of like, “Am I enough of whatever this is to try it?” (28 years old, genderqueer, White, queer/pansexual)

Some participants described asserting their identity needs yet backing down or blaming themselves when partners resisted. Furthermore, as discussed in Subtheme 1.4, some participants hesitated to leave adverse romantic relationships because they believed they were unlikely to find partners who better fulfilled their needs.

Several participants described low identity needs confidence in past relationships but expressed much greater identity needs confidence by the time of the interview. For instance, this participant recalled their self-doubt after confronting a former partner about racism:

…I just remember being really upset about it, but being like, maybe I’m being overly sensitive, or maybe I’m not explaining well enough to them why that’s an issue... (24 years old, agender, Black/indigenous, queer)

By the time of the interview, the participant had come to prioritize romantic partners who offered shared understanding of their identity-related experiences, particularly with racism:

[For a romantic relationship] I need to be able to get along with you, you can’t be overly racist, you have to be willing to learn and understand your privilege and my identities… And just being understanding of me as a whole person instead of just a singular thing.

Regarding TNB identities, participants’ narratives suggested that identity needs confidence was lowest in the early stages of coming out as TNB, increasing over time as participants explored their TNB identities, gained experience dating as an openly TNB person, and connected with TNB-affirming communities. One participant summarized this positive trajectory:

I think it tends to be so hard to visualize what “future you” is gonna look like. Not just what surgery or hormones could make you physically look like, but the community that you will be surrounded by, and people that are gonna love and support you… [Y]ou’re gonna meet people who will get it, and partners too. May not get all of it if they’re not trans, but who will surprise you beyond everything that you ever expected. (28 years old, genderqueer, White, queer/pansexual)

The Identity Needs in Relationships Framework

Bringing together the themes described above, we propose a new conceptual framework, the Identity Needs in Relationships Framework (INRF; Figure 1), for understanding how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the context of prejudice and structural disadvantage. The INRF holds that multiple forms of prejudice and structural disadvantage, often magnified by multiple marginalization, constrain the strategies that TNB young adults use to pursue fulfilling romantic relationships (Figure 1, path A). Romantic relationship strategies help young adults achieve romantic relationships that fulfill their most salient psychological needs (Figure 1, path B); thus, when these strategies are constrained, TNB young adults may experience romantic relationships that pose significant tradeoffs among their psychological needs. Significant tradeoffs in one’s romantic relationships can lead to inadequate fulfillment of identity needs, general psychological needs, or both (Figure 1, path C). Nonetheless, some TNB young adults draw on personal and social assets—notably lessons from prior relationships, social support, and identity needs confidence—to access romantic relationship strategies (Figure 1, path D), helping them achieve romantic relationships that fulfill their most salient psychological needs.

Figure 1.

Key constructs and pathways of the Identity Needs in Relationship Framework.

Framing Romantic Relationship Choices in Terms of Tradeoffs

The INRF’s tradeoffs construct frames TNB young adults’ romantic relationship choices as motivated by efforts to balance multiple important psychological needs, including needs related to being TNB and other social identities. This framing can account for prior findings that TNB people may maintain adverse relationships that fulfill gender affirmation needs (Reisner et al., 2010; Sevelius, 2013)—yet, conversely, may also maintain romantic relationships that undermine gender affirmation needs (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017). While our analysis did not focus on intimate partner violence (IPV), the construct of tradeoffs offers a potential explanation for the elevated prevalence of IPV victimization in TNB populations relative to cisgender populations (Peitzmeier et al., 2020): Constraints imposed by prejudice and structural disadvantage could press TNB people to maintain romantic relationships that threaten their physical or psychological safety yet fulfill other important needs. This possibility should be explored in future studies addressing TNB people’s decision-making in romantic relationships with IPV.

Intersectionality and Differences Across Social Identities

The INRF reflects several tenets of intersectionality that have received little attention in previous work on TNB people’s romantic relationships. These include attention to multiple systems of oppression and power relations and their intersections (rather than cissexism alone), the experiences of multiply marginalized people, and the role of structural disadvantage (Agénor, 2020; Collins & Bilge, 2016; Combahee River Collective, 1978; Crenshaw, 1991). Our results made clear that multiple systems of oppression and power relations shape TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences—and while many participants described cissexism as relevant to their romantic relationships, some participants described other systems of oppression and power relations, particularly racism, as equally or more salient. Our results further showed that multiple marginalization posed distinctive challenges to forming fulfilling romantic relationships. There was also some evidence that structural disadvantage (e.g., structural cissexism and racism) constrained participants’ romantic relationship strategies, though structural disadvantage was not addressed directly in our interview guide, and additional research may be necessary to fully explore its role TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences.

Salience of Psychological Needs in Romantic Relationships

We defined fulfilling romantic relationships as those that fulfilled the psychological needs a young adult found salient within that relationship, yet this study only partially addressed how a psychological need becomes salient within a romantic relationship. Consistent with the Gender Affirmation Framework (Sevelius, 2013), we found evidence that prejudice and structural disadvantage could make identity needs more salient, e.g., by limiting opportunities to fulfill those needs in other social contexts. Future research should more fully explore the processes by which identity needs and general psychological needs become salient within romantic relationships. This work may help to explain young adults’ decisions when faced with tradeoffs in their romantic relationships—for instance, why some young adults seem to prioritize identity needs over general psychological needs while others make the opposite choice.

Variation in the salience of identity needs may explain why participants were most likely to discuss certain identity needs in relation to certain social identities. For instance, affirmation needs were primarily discussed in relation to TNB identity and sexual orientation identity—and rarely in relation to ethnic-racial identity. Future research should explore reasons for this variation, including the possibility that experiences in other social contexts and life stages make identity needs more or less salient in romantic relationships. For instance, many young people of color receive ethnic-racial identity affirmation from their families and communities of origin (Hughes et al., 2006), and these experiences may make romantic partners less important as a source of ethnic-racial identity affirmation.

Applying the INRF With Broader Populations

Many elements of the INRF are potentially relevant to both TNB and cisgender young adults’ romantic relationships, even as TNB young adults may experience them in distinctive ways. For instance, seeking support from others may be an important romantic relationship strategy for both cisgender and TNB young adults, while cissexism poses unique constraints to this strategy for TNB young adults. Consequently, the INRF may have potential as a framework for understanding how a broader population of young adults—both TNB and cisgender—navigate romantic relationships in the context of prejudice and structural disadvantage. However, our results suggested that there are both similarities and differences in how various social identities and systems of oppression and power relations shape young adults’ romantic relationships. Thus, research with broader young adult populations may find that some INRF constructs (e.g., identity affirmation) are less relevant to cisgender young adults, and additional constructs may emerge in research centering other social identities.

Limitations

The present study has some notable limitations, including several related to our interview guide. First, we probed most explicitly for experiences related to TNB, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnic-racial identities, and our results may not adequately reflect the roles of other social identities (e.g., disability) in TNB young adults’ romantic relationships. Second, because questions focused on psychological and interpersonal processes, our data may underrepresent the role of material needs (e.g., money, housing, transportation) in romantic relationship decisions (Murchison, 2021). Third, because we developed the concept of identity needs during analysis, we did not explicitly ask participants about their perceived identity needs. Posing this question might uncover additional identity needs not evident in our data.

Another limitation is that our sample was restricted to participants from New England. Compared to other U.S. regions, New England has a relatively favorable social and policy climate for LGBTQ people; for instance, New England states have among the highest levels of public support for LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws (Jones et al., 2019). Thus, research in other regions might highlight other pertinent forms of cissexism, such as overt cissexist violence from potential romantic partners (Gamarel et al., 2020). Conversely, some forms of prejudice and structural disadvantage our participants discussed (e.g., racial residential segregation) may be less prominent in some geographic areas.

Finally, some aspects of TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences may have shifted since data were collected. For instance, when interviewed in 2018, several participants described difficulties with gender-segregated LGBTQ dating and hookup apps. Prominent apps in this category are now less gender-segregated in design and marketing, though TNB people still encounter cissexism from individual users (Albury et al., 2021).

Conclusion

Drawing on qualitative data from a diverse sample of TNB young adults, we have proposed a novel framework for understanding how TNB young adults navigate romantic relationships in the context of prejudice and structural disadvantage. The INRF advances understanding of TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences along multiple fronts. First, the INRF addresses how multiple social identities and systems of oppression and power relations shape TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences, considering structural disadvantage as well as interpersonal prejudice. Second, the INRF extends prior work on gender identity affirmation by identifying additional identity needs that are salient for TNB young adults. Third, the INRF sheds light on TNB young adults’ romantic relationship choices through the construct of tradeoffs, explaining why some TNB young adults maintain romantic relationships featuring cissexism or other adverse dynamics. Finally, the INRF calls attention to the strategies by which TNB young adults pursue fulfilling romantic relationships—and the personal and social assets that facilitate those strategies. Further research is needed on several points, such as the INRF’s applicability to cisgender young adults and the role of material needs (e.g., housing) in romantic relationship tradeoffs. Ultimately, we hope that this work informs efforts to help TNB young adults form fulfilling romantic relationships, which may be a bulwark against the inequities and hostility they too often face.