Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Oct 17.
Published before final editing as: Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2024 May 6:10.1037/sgd0000730. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000730

Controlling Partner Dynamics in Transgender/Nonbinary Young Adults’ Romantic Relationships: Exploring the Roles of Cissexism-Related Beliefs and Material-Need Insecurity

Gabriel R Murchison 1, Rose Eiduson 2,3, S Bryn Austin 1,2,4, Sari L Reisner 5,6,7,8, Madina Agénor 5,9,10, Jarvis T Chen 1, Allegra R Gordon 2,11
PMCID: PMC12530503  NIHMSID: NIHMS2020852  PMID: 41113799

Abstract

Controlling partner dynamics—when a person’s sexual or romantic partner exerts disproportionate control over their behavior and/or joint decisions—can adversely impact sexual and mental health. For transgender and/or nonbinary (TNB) young adults, cissexism—the system of power relations that marginalizes TNB people in favor of cisgender people—may contribute to controlling partner dynamics. However, mechanisms linking cissexism to controlling partner dynamics remain underexplored. Using data from a cross-sectional online survey of romantically partnered U.S. TNB young adults (N=393; 18–30 years old; 50% nonbinary; 56% people of color), we tested two mediation pathways from interpersonal cissexism to controlling partner dynamics: (1) a cissexism-related beliefs pathway, in which cissexist rejection contributes to beliefs that may cause young adults to feel socially and emotionally dependent on romantic partners, and (2) a material-need insecurity pathway, in which cissexist discrimination contributes to material-need insecurity, leaving young adults dependent on romantic partners for needs such as food and housing. We tested individual paths using generalized linear models, then tested mediation pathways using natural effects mediation analysis, adjusting for age, gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, and partner gender. The cissexism-related beliefs pathway was not supported. However, results supported the material-need insecurity pathway—namely, cissexist discrimination was positively associated with controlling partner dynamics (b=0.15; P=.012), with a significant joint indirect effect via material-need insecurity (food insecurity and housing instability; b=0.05; P=.022). Reducing TNB young adults’ vulnerability to controlling partner dynamics may require structural changes (e.g., laws, policies, norms) to prevent cissexist discrimination and material-need insecurity.

Keywords: transgender, relationship control, cissexism, transphobia, housing insecurity

People who are transgender (i.e., whose gender identities do not match sociocultural expectations for the sex they were assigned at birth) and/or nonbinary (i.e., whose gender identities are not exclusively male nor female, e.g., nonbinary, genderqueer, gender fluid, agender) face pervasive interpersonal prejudice and structural disadvantage stemming from cissexism—namely, the system of power relations that marginalizes transgender and/or nonbinary (TNB) people in favor of cisgender people (Lennon & Mistler, 2014). Cissexism contributes to numerous and often substantial health disparities for TNB people relative to cisgender people, including higher probabilities of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; Stutterheim et al., 2021) and experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV; Peitzmeier et al., 2020).

Research with predominantly cisgender populations suggests that HIV acquisition and IPV victimization are influenced by controlling partner dynamics—that is, when one partner in a sexual or romantic relationship exerts disproportionate control over another partner’s behavior (e.g., clothing, social activities) or decisions affecting both parties (e.g., monogamy agreements; Bosco et al., 2022; Pulerwitz et al., 2000). Despite controlling partner dynamics’ relevance to key health disparities between TNB and cisgender populations, and despite the fact that 28% to 60% of TNB adults have experienced controlling behaviors from a sexual or romantic partner (Cantor et al., 2015; Garthe et al., 2018; James et al., 2016; Roch et al., 2010; Valentine et al., 2017), there has been very little research on TNB-specific risk factors for controlling partner dynamics. In particular, it remains unclear how cissexism, at either the structural or interpersonal level, might contribute to controlling partner dynamics in TNB people’s romantic relationships.

Public Health Significance of Controlling Partner Dynamics

Within the sexual health literature, controlling partner dynamics are typically measured using the Relationship Control subscale of Pulerwitz and colleagues’ Sexual Relationships Power Scale (Pulerwitz et al., 2000), with lower scores representing disproportionate control by the respondent’s partner. In this paper, we refer to the general phenomenon of control in romantic relationships as relationship control, and we refer to lower relationship control scores—indicating that the participant’s partner exerts disproportionate control—as controlling partner dynamics. As is typical in the relationship control literature, we consider controlling partner dynamics along a continuum, ranging from severe, intentional, and pervasive controlling behaviors (which may reflect the narrower phenomenon of coercive controlling IPV; Hamberger et al., 2017) to subtle and unintentional power dynamics.

In their foundational conceptual and psychometric work on relationship control, Pulerwitz and colleagues (2000) drew on the Theory of Gender and Power (Connell, 1987) to explain men’s disproportionate control in their sexual and romantic relationships with women, positing that sexism grants men greater control via a combination of structural factors (notably men’s greater access to institutional power and economic resources) and internalized gender norms (Pulerwitz et al., 2000). Subsequent research has extended Pulerwitz and colleagues’ analysis to other systems of power relations (e.g., racism; Dworkin et al., 2017) and demonstrated that controlling partner dynamics are relevant to HIV and IPV in couples of various gender pairings. In research with men partnered with men (Dworkin et al., 2017) and women partnered with men (Matsuda et al., 2012), controlling partner dynamics have been linked to higher levels of sexual behaviors associated with HIV and sexually transmitted infections (e.g., condomless sex), likely because controlling partner dynamics make it difficult for people to insist on protective behaviors such as condom use (Matsuda et al., 2012). Controlling partner dynamics have also been associated with greater probability of IPV victimization in research with women partnered with men (Teitelman et al., 2008), women partnered with women (Eaton et al., 2008), and men partnered with men (Bosco et al., 2022). It is not clear whether these prior studies included TNB participants (except for Bosco et al., 2022, which excluded transgender men). However, the relevance of controlling partner dynamics to HIV and IPV in couples of various genders suggests that the construct merits further attention with TNB people in particular.

Potential Pathways from Cissexism to Controlling Partner Dynamics

In the U.S. and other Western contexts, TNB people are subjected to numerous forms of structural cissexism, including but not limited to laws, policies, and institutional practices that intentionally or unintentionally disadvantage TNB people as well as social norms, cultural stereotypes, and political rhetoric that denigrate, “other,” or dehumanize TNB people (Brightman et al., 2023; Gamarel et al., 2020; White Hughto et al., 2015). In addition to directly impacting TNB people’s lives, structural cissexism contributes to interpersonal forms of cissexism, both by creating conditions that make TNB people vulnerable to discrimination or victimization (e.g., gender-segregated public restrooms; James et al., 2016) and by fueling anti-TNB attitudes through negative stereotypes (Brightman et al., 2023; Gleason et al., 2016; White Hughto et al., 2015). Prominent forms of interpersonal cissexism include discrimination (e.g., unfair treatment in a workplace or healthcare setting), victimization (e.g., verbal harassment, physical assault), rejection (e.g., being cut off or distanced from family or friends), and gender non-affirmation (denial or non-acknowledgment of a TNB person’s gender; Testa et al., 2015). The psychosocial impacts of interpersonal cissexism may differ across these specific forms. For instance, experiences of cissexist rejection are associated with higher levels of internalized cissexism (i.e., self-directed cissexist beliefs), while experiences of cissexist discrimination are not (Testa et al., 2015; Testa et al., 2017). On the other hand, interpersonal cissexist discrimination may have substantial economic impacts, such as losing job opportunities or being forced to leave school before completing one’s degree (James et al., 2016).

Prior research indicates that interpersonal cissexism within the context of romantic relationships may contribute to controlling partner dynamics. In one study, TNB participants described tolerating controlling or otherwise harmful behavior from romantic partners because past experiences of cissexism-related romantic rejection led them to believe that they could not find more supportive romantic partners (Murchison et al., 2022). Research has also described romantic partners who capitalize on cissexist social contexts to exert control over TNB people (Marrow et al., 2024), such as blackmailing them by threatening to disclose their TNB identity (Peitzmeier et al., 2019). It is less clear whether more general experiences of interpersonal cissexism, such as cissexist rejection or discrimination in non-romantic contexts, play a role in controlling partner dynamics. However, as discussed below, the broader literature on controlling partner dynamics suggests two pathways by which interpersonal cissexism in non-romantic contexts could contribute to controlling partner dynamics in TNB people’s romantic relationships: a cissexism-related beliefs pathway and a material-need insecurity pathway.

Cissexism-Related Beliefs Pathway

Informed by Social Exchange Theory (Emerson, 1981), Pulerwitz and colleagues proposed that controlling partner dynamics stem from discrepancies between partners in several areas, including their perceived social alternatives to the current relationship (Pulerwitz et al., 2000). Corroborating this point, research with young adult women has found that the probability of leaving an abusive partner was reduced when women perceived themselves as having poorer social alternatives to the abusive relationship, including unfavorable dating prospects and limited social support beyond the relationship (Edwards et al., 2010). While this work did not focus on TNB people, it suggests the possibility that interpersonal cissexism, particularly cissexist rejection, contributes to controlling partner dynamics by shaping beliefs related to dating prospects and/or alternative sources of social support. Among TNB people, cissexist rejection appears to contribute to two related sets of beliefs: internalized cissexism, also known as internalized transphobia, and anticipated cissexism, also known as negative expectations (Rood et al., 2017; Rood et al., 2016; Testa et al., 2015). Internalized cissexism describes negative attitudes and beliefs about one’s TNB identity that result from negative sociocultural messages about TNB people (Rood et al., 2017), while anticipated cissexism refers to a person’s expectations that they will encounter cissexism in the future (Rood et al., 2016). Qualitative research indicates that both internalized and anticipated cissexism may be major factors in how TNB people perceive their social alternatives to their romantic relationships. Internalized cissexist beliefs can include stereotypes that TNB people are undesirable, both as romantic partners and in other relationships (e.g., friendship; Rood et al., 2017). Similarly, anticipated cissexism may include beliefs that one will be rejected by prospective romantic partners as well as current and potential friends (Murchison et al., 2022; Rood et al., 2016). In other words, TNB young adults with higher levels of internalized and anticipated cissexism may perceive themselves as having limited dating prospects and few other sources of social support, which may make them vulnerable to controlling partner dynamics. Accordingly, the top panel of Figure 1 depicts a proposed cissexism-related beliefs pathway linking cissexist rejection to controlling partner dynamics, featuring internalized cissexism and anticipated cissexism as mediators.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Hypothesized mediation pathways from cissexist rejection and discrimination to controlling partner dynamics.

Material-Need Insecurity Pathway

Pulerwitz and colleagues’ conceptualization of relationship control further highlights the role of economic and material resources (Pulerwitz et al., 2000). This proposition is supported by research finding that women are more likely to leave abusive relationships when they have more access to basic resources, such as income and transportation, independent of their partner (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Interpersonal cissexism, particularly cissexist discrimination, may constrain TNB young adults’ access to economic and material resources in a number of ways. At all levels of education, TNB people may face discriminatory school policies and practices that discourage or prevent them from completing their degrees (Goldberg et al., 2019; Snapp et al., 2014) or shunt them away from well-remunerated fields (Maloy et al., 2022). In the workplace, many TNB people encounter cissexist discrimination in hiring, promotion, and termination (Abreu et al., 2023; James et al., 2016); in a large national survey of U.S. TNB adults, 19% had experienced one of these forms of employment discrimination in the past year alone (James et al., 2016). Compounding the economic impacts of diminished educational and career opportunities, TNB people report discriminatory treatment when attempting to access social safety net benefits, including the U.S. Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (“food stamps”; James et al., 2016), and widespread housing discrimination, including unfair eviction (James et al., 2016). As a result, compared to cisgender people, TNB people are at heightened risk of material-need insecurity: limited or uncertain ability to meet basic needs, particularly food (Russomanno et al., 2019) and housing (Glick et al., 2019; Glick et al., 2020; James et al., 2016). Material-need insecurity may leave some TNB young adults dependent on romantic partners for their material needs, which may make it difficult to leave relationships with harmful dynamics (Goldenberg et al., 2018). Thus, material-need insecurity represents a second mechanism potentially linking interpersonal cissexism to controlling partner dynamics: TNB young adults who experience more cissexist discrimination may be at elevated risk of material-need insecurity, which may contribute to controlling partner dynamics. The bottom panel of Figure 1 depicts this proposed material-need insecurity pathway, in which food insecurity and housing instability mediate the association of cissexist discrimination with controlling partner dynamics.

The Present Study

Although many TNB people have experienced controlling behaviors in romantic relationships (Cantor et al., 2015; Garthe et al., 2018; James et al., 2016; Roch et al., 2010; Valentine et al., 2017), prior research has rarely addressed processes by which cissexism, at either the interpersonal or structural level, may contribute to controlling partner dynamics. There is a particular need for attention to controlling partner dynamics during young adulthood (defined here as ages 18 to 30 years), a period that often includes relevant challenges such as building skills and expectations for adult romantic relationships, learning to successfully cohabitate with partners (if desired), and establishing financial independence from families of origin (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Young adulthood may also be a period of particular vulnerability to cissexism’s psychological sequelae, including internalized cissexism (Puckett et al., 2021)—and likely also to cissexism’s economic impacts, given that young TNB adults are far more likely than their older TNB counterparts to report incomes below the poverty line (Puckett et al., 2021). Nonetheless, through a combination of external social supports and their own strategic responses to cissexism-related difficulties, many TNB young adults build egalitarian romantic relationships that support their psychological wellbeing (Murchison et al., 2022). An understanding of how cissexism impacts controlling partner dynamics could inform education and practical supports to help more TNB young adults achieve these positive romantic outcomes.

Given the need to better understand the role of cissexism in controlling partner dynamics, and the need for specific attention to cissexism-related romantic relationship experiences during young adulthood, the goal of the present study was to assess two potential processes by which interpersonal cissexism could contribute to controlling partner dynamics among TNB young adults: one focused on the psychological impact of cissexist social rejection (the cissexism-related beliefs pathway), and a second focused on the economic impact of cissexist discrimination (the material-need insecurity pathway). Specifically, we hypothesized that (1) cissexism-related beliefs (internalized cissexism and anticipated cissexism) would mediate the positive association between cissexist rejection and controlling partner dynamics, and (2) material-need insecurity (food insecurity and housing instability) would mediate the positive association between cissexist discrimination and controlling partner dynamics.

Methods

Sample and Data Collection

The present study used quantitative, cross-sectional survey data from the Body Image, Sexual Health, & Relationships Project (B*SHARP), a mixed-methods research project addressing body image, sexual health, and romantic relationships among TNB young adults. Young adults were eligible if they lived in the United States, were between 18 and 30 years of age (inclusive), and reported a combination of gender identity and sex assigned at birth other than man/male or woman/female. Participants were recruited through (1) outreach to campus- and community-based lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/nonbinary, and queer (LGBTQ) organizations in the United States and (2) posts on Facebook, Instagram, and Reddit, including ads targeting users with LGBTQ-related interests and unpaid posts to TNB-oriented groups. Participants who screened eligible using an online form were sent a survey link via email and, after providing informed consent, completed an anonymous online questionnaire addressing health behavior, psychosocial, and identity-related topics. Those who completed the survey could choose to receive a $10 Amazon.com gift card or donate $10 to one of two LGBTQ-focused nonprofit organizations. A multi-step screening process was used to remove likely fraudulent responses from the sample, including checking for correspondence in responses to the screening form and the survey, use of attention check items, and review of open text fields for duplicate or nonsensical responses. Procedures were approved by the Boston Children’s Hospital Institutional Review Board.

The present analysis was restricted to participants who were currently in a romantic relationship of any duration, N=393, representing 55.0% of all complete, valid responses. Within the analytic sample, age ranged from 18 to 30 years (mean=24.1 years). The most frequent gender identity was woman/transgender woman (n=111; 28.3%), followed by nonbinary (n=91; 23.2%), man/transgender man (n=84; 21.4%), genderqueer (n=38; 9.7%), gender fluid (n=21; 5.3%), agender (n=21; 5.3%), and additional nonbinary umbrella identities (n=26; 6.6%). Regarding race and ethnicity, more than half of participants (n=224; 57.1%) reported belonging to a racialized group, including Black or African American (n=44; 11.2%), Latine or Hispanic (n=44; 11.2%), Asian or Asian American (n=30; 7.7%), and multiple and/or additional identities (n=106; 27.0%). The remaining participants described themselves as White (n=168; 42.9%). The most frequent sexual orientation identities were queer (n=125; 31.8%), pansexual (n=76; 19.3%), and bisexual (n=69; 17.6%), followed by lesbian (n=31; 7.9%), gay (n=29; 7.4%), straight/heterosexual (n=26; 6.6%), and asexual (n=17; 4.3%), with 20 participants (5.0%) reporting another sexual orientation identity. Participants’ romantic relationships varied in duration, with similar proportions under a year in duration (36.4%), between 1 and 3 years in duration (31.3%), and 3 years or longer in duration (32.3%). About half of participants (49.7%) were living with their partner. Partners included women (36.7%), men (39.0%), and nonbinary people (24.2%). Somewhat less than half of partners (44.4%) were TNB.

Measures

Controlling Partner Dynamics (Outcome)

We measured controlling partner dynamics using the Relationship Control subscale of the Sexual Relationships Power Scale (Pulerwitz et al., 2000), which has demonstrated good psychometric properties in diverse populations, including U.S. young adults of various genders (McMahon et al., 2015). We modified the scale to use gender-neutral pronouns, reversed the direction of scores so that higher numbers reflected more controlling partner dynamics, and removed two items not appropriate for consensually non-monogamous relationships (e.g., “My partner might be having sex with someone else”). The remaining 13 items assessed the extent to which a participant’s romantic partner exerted disproportionate control over shared decisions and/or the participant’s behavior (sample: “My partner tells me who I can spend time with”; 1=Strongly disagree; 4=Strongly agree), with alpha=.91. Participants with multiple current romantic partners were instructed to report on the partner they felt closest to or spent the most time with. Scores were calculated as the mean of all items (range: 1.0–2.9), with higher scores reflecting more disproportionate control exerted by the participant’s partner.

Cissexist Rejection and Discrimination (Exposures)

Experiences of cissexist rejection and discrimination were measured with the rejection and discrimination indexes of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure, previously validated in a sample of U.S. and Canadian TNB adults (Testa et al., 2015). The rejection index addresses interpersonal rejection in six contexts based on gender identity or expression (sample: “I have been rejected or distanced from friends because of my gender identity or expression.”). The discrimination index addresses five forms of discrimination based on gender identity and expression (sample: “I have had difficulty finding employment or keeping employment, or have been denied promotion because of my gender identity or expression”). For both indexes, response options were Never, Yes, before age 18; Yes, after age 18; and Yes, in the past year, and participants were instructed to select all options that applied. We assigned one point for each experience reported during at least one life stage. Scores ranged from 0.0–6.0 for cissexist rejection and 0.0–5.0 for cissexist discrimination.

Cissexism-Related Beliefs (Potential Mediators)

Internalized cissexism was measured using the internalized transphobia scale of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure (Testa et al., 2015), which consists of eight items tapping negative attitudes regarding one’s own gender identity or expression (sample: “I feel that my gender identity or expression is embarrassing”; 1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree), with alpha=.89. Scores were the mean of all items (range: 1.0–5.0).

Anticipated cissexism was measured using the negative expectations scale of the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Measure (Testa et al., 2015), which consists of nine items tapping expectations that one would experience interpersonal cissexism if others knew one was TNB (sample: “If I express my gender identity others wouldn’t accept me”; 1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree), with alpha=.87. Scores were the mean of all items (range: 1.0–5.0). For transgender men and women who indicated that they publicly express their gender identity all or almost all of the time, “gender history” was substituted for “gender identity,” reflecting the fact that these participants may be able to express their gender identity without being perceived as TNB (Testa et al., 2015).

Material-Need Insecurity (Potential Mediators)

Housing instability was assessed with the prompt Have you had unstable housing in the past 6 months? “Unstable housing” means living in a hotel, boarding house, group home, on the street, or having no fixed address in the past 6 months (1=Yes; 0=No). This measure has been used in previous research with U.S. sexual and gender minorities (Blashill et al., 2020; Reisner et al., 2010).

Food insecurity was assessed with the prompt How often during the past 12 months have you been hungry because you couldn’t afford more food? (1=any food insecurity during the past 12 months; 0=I have not been hungry for this reason), adapted from previous food insecurity research with U.S. adolescents (Widome et al., 2009).

Participant Characteristics

Participants reported their age in years.

Participants reported gender identity from a list of 15 options (see Sample and Data Collection). After screening out cisgender participants, participants were assigned to one of three gender categories for analysis: “woman/trans woman” (gender identity of woman or transgender woman), “man/trans man” (gender identity of man or transgender man), and “nonbinary umbrella” (remaining gender identities, e.g., nonbinary, genderqueer, gender fluid, agender).

Participants reported their race and/or ethnicity from a list of eight options; participants could select multiple options. For analysis, participants who selected Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, Latine or Hispanic, or White alone were assigned to these categories, while participants who identified with multiple options or with four lower-frequency options (American Indian or Alaska Native, Middle Eastern or North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or another race or ethnicity) were grouped into a single category representing multiple and additional races and/or ethnicities.

To assess sexual orientation identity, participants were asked to select the term that best described their sexual orientation from a list of 10 options. For analysis, participants who selected straight/heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or asexual were assigned to these categories. Participants who selected bisexual, queer, or pansexual were grouped into a single category in light of the conceptual overlap between these identities (Galupo et al., 2017) and preliminary analyses indicating comparable relationship control scores across these subgroups. Lower-frequency identities (same gender loving, questioning, and “another sexual orientation identity”) were grouped into an “additional sexual orientation identities” category.

Romantic Relationship Characteristics

Participants reported the duration of their current romantic relationship (in months or years), their partner’s gender identity (man, woman, nonbinary umbrella identity) and gender modality (TNB or cisgender; Ashley, 2021), and whether they lived with the romantic partner. For participants with multiple romantic partners, these questions referred to whichever partner the participant felt closest to or spent the most time with, i.e., the partner with whom controlling partner dynamics were assessed.

Analysis

Analysis was conducted in R 3.6.2 (R Core Team, 2017). We began by calculating frequencies of categorical variables; means and standard deviations of continuous variables; and item missingness for each variable. Item missingness ranged from 0% to 3.1%. Missing data were multiply imputed (m=50) with fully conditional specification using the mice package for R (Van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011). For all multivariable models, continuous predictors were Z-standardized (i.e., centered at zero and scaled such that one standard deviation on the original scale equals one point on the transformed scale) to aid in comparing their effect sizes.

Using the unstandardized pre-imputation data, we calculated descriptive statistics for participant characteristics and key study variables in the full sample. We also calculated pairwise unadjusted associations among exposure variables.

We then used the imputed data to estimate exposure-mediator and mediator-outcome associations. We first fit multivariable generalized linear models for each of the proposed mediators as a function of cissexist rejection and discrimination (Models 1A-D), adjusting for age, gender identity, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation identity, and whether the partner was a transgender woman, cisgender woman, transgender man, cisgender man, or nonbinary person.. Models for internalized cissexism and anticipated cissexism (continuous) were linear. Models for food insecurity and housing instability (binary) were Poisson models with the sandwich variance estimator; this approach produces estimated risk ratios, which are easier to interpret than the odds ratios produced from logistic models (Zou, 2004). We then fit a multivariable linear model for the outcome (controlling partner dynamics) as a function of the four proposed mediators (Model 2), adjusting for cissexist rejection and discrimination as well as age, gender identity, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation identity, and whether the partner was a transgender woman, cisgender woman, transgender man, cisgender man, or nonbinary person..

Finally, we used natural effects mediation analysis, via the imputation-based approach implemented in the medflex package for R (Steen et al., 2017), to directly test the two proposed mediation pathways in the imputed data. We analyzed each pathway separately. In the cissexism-related beliefs pathway models, we treated cissexist rejection as the exposure and treated internalized and anticipated cissexism as joint mediators, adjusting for cissexist discrimination. In the material-need insecurity pathway models, we treated cissexist discrimination as the exposure and treated food insecurity and housing instability as joint mediators, adjusting for cissexist rejection. Both mediation models were also adjusted for age, gender identity, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation identity, and whether the partner was a transgender woman, cisgender woman, transgender man, cisgender man, or nonbinary person..

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents demographic characteristics of the sample and descriptive statistics for exposure, mediator, and outcome variables. On average, participants had experienced cissexist rejection in 3.3 of the four contexts assessed and had experienced 2.5 of the five forms of cissexist discrimination assessed. More than a third of participants (34.6%) had experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months; a smaller proportion of participants (11.5%) had experienced housing instability in the past six months. Supplemental Table 1 presents pairwise correlations among the exposure and mediator variables.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics, partner/relationship characteristics, and key study variables among transgender and/or nonbinary young adults who participated in the B*SHARP survey and were currently in a romantic relationship (n=393)

Participant characteristics Mean (SD)
Age (years) 24.09 (3.32)
n (%)
Gender identity
 Woman/trans womana 111 (28.3%)
 Man/trans mana 84 (21.4%)
 Nonbinary umbrella (e.g., nonbinary, genderqueer, gender fluid, agender) 197 (50.3%)
Race and ethnicity
 Asian or Asian American 30 (7.7%)
 Black or African American 45 (11.5%)
 Latine or Hispanic 44 (11.2%)
 White 167 (42.6%)
 Multiple and additional identitiesb 106 (27.0%)
Sexual orientation identity
 Bisexual/queer/pansexual 270 (68.7%)
 Lesbian 31 (7.9%)
 Gay 29 (7.4%)
 Straight/heterosexual 26 (6.6%)
 Additional identities 37 (9.4%)
Romantic relationship characteristics n (%)
Relationship duration
 Less than 1 year 143 (36.4%)
 Between 1 and 3 years 123 (31.3%)
 3 years or longer 127 (32.3%)
Living with partner (yes) 195 (49.7%)
Partner gender identity
 Woman/trans woman 144 (36.7%)
 Man/trans man 153 (39.0%)
 Nonbinary umbrella (e.g., nonbinary, genderqueer, gender fluid, agender) 95 (24.2%)
Partner gender modality
 Transgender and/or nonbinary 174 (44.4%)
 Cisgender 218 (55.6%)
Cissexist rejection and discrimination (exposures) Mean (SD)
Cissexist rejection 3.28 (1.90)
Cissexist discrimination 2.48 (1.56)
Cissexism-related beliefs (potential mediators) Mean (SD)
Internalized cissexism 2.42 (0.93)
Anticipated cissexism 3.35 (0.82)
Material-need insecurity (potential mediators) n (%)
Food insecurity in past 12 months (yes) 136 (34.6%)
Housing instability in past 6 months (yes) 45 (11.5%)
Controlling partner dynamics (outcome) Mean (SD)
Relationship control score 1.52 (0.44)
Open in a new tab
a

All participants in these categories identified as transgender. Some endorsed man or woman as their primary gender identity, while others endorsed trans man or trans woman.

b

Includes participants who selected only American Indian or Alaska Native (n=3, 0.8%), Middle Eastern or North African (n=2, 0.5%), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (n=1, 0.3%) or another race or ethnicity (n=1; 0.3%) as well as those who selected multiple responses. The most frequent multiple response combinations were Latine or Hispanic and White (n=30, 7.6%), Asian or Asian American and White (n=12; 3.1%), Latine or Hispanic and Black or African American (n=11; 2.8%), and American Indian or Alaska Native and White (n=11; 3.1%).

Associations of Cissexist Rejection and Discrimination (Exposures) with Cissexism-Related Beliefs and Material-Need Insecurity (Potential Mediators)

We found support for the hypothesized exposure-mediator relationships (Table 2; Figure 2). Within the cissexism-related beliefs pathway, cissexist rejection was significantly, positively associated with internalized cissexism (b=0.12; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.24; P=.042) and anticipated cissexism (b=0.16; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.28; P=.006). Within the material-need insecurity pathway, cissexist discrimination was significantly associated with food insecurity with a risk ratio of 1.36, meaning that a one standard deviation increase in cissexist discrimination was associated with 1.36 times the probability of reporting food insecurity (95% CI: 1.14, 1.61; P<.001). Similarly, a one standard deviation increase in cissexist discrimination was associated with 1.86 times the probability of reporting housing instability (95% CI: 1.31, 2.65; P=.001).

Table 2.

Associations of cissexist rejection and discrimination with cissexism-related beliefs and material-need insecurity among transgender and/or nonbinary young adults who participated in the B*SHARP survey and were currently in a romantic relationship (n=393)

Model 1A: Associations with internalized cissexism (cissexism-related beliefs pathway)
b (95% CI) P
Cissexist rejection 0.12 (0.00, 0.24) .042
Cissexist discrimination 0.00 (−0.12, 0.12) .986
Model 1B: Associations with anticipated cissexism (cissexism-related beliefs pathway)
b (95% CI) P
Cissexist rejection 0.16 (0.05, 0.28) .006
Cissexist discrimination 0.22 (0.10, 0.34) <.001
Model 1C: Associations with food insecurity (material-need insecurity pathway)
RR (95% CI) P
Cissexist rejection 1.21 (1.01, 1.44) .036
Cissexist discrimination 1.36 (1.14, 1.61) <.001
Model 1D: Associations with housing instability (material-need insecurity pathway)
RR (95% CI) P
Cissexist rejection 1.10 (0.74, 1.64) .648
Cissexist discrimination 1.86 (1.31, 2.65) .001
Open in a new tab

Note. RR=risk ratio. All estimates correspond to a one standard deviation difference in the predictor. Estimates are based on multivariable models adjusted for age (in years), participant gender identity (woman/trans woman, man/trans man, nonbinary umbrella), race and ethnicity (White, Latine or Hispanic, Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, multiple and additional identities), sexual orientation identity (lesbian, gay, straight/heterosexual, additional identities) and whether the partner was a transgender woman, cisgender woman, transgender man, cisgender man, or nonbinary person. See Supplemental Table 2 for covariate coefficients not shown here.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Estimated associations among cissexist rejection/discrimination, cissexism-related beliefs, material-need insecurity, and controlling partner dynamics among transgender and/or nonbinary young adults who participated in the B*SHARP survey and were currently in a romantic relationship (n=393).

In two cases, the exposure from one pathway was also significantly associated with a mediator from the other pathway. First, cissexist discrimination was positively associated with anticipated cissexism (b=0.22; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.34; P<.001). Second, a one standard deviation increase in cissexist rejection was associated with 1.21 times the probability of reporting food insecurity (95% CI: 1.01, 1.44; P=.036).

Associations of Cissexism-Related Beliefs and Material-Need Insecurity (Potential Mediators) With Controlling Partner Dynamics (Outcome)

The hypothesized mediator-outcome associations were supported for three of the four proposed mediators (Table 3; Figure 2). Within the cissexism-related beliefs pathway, internalized cissexism was significantly, positively associated with controlling partner dynamics (b=0.13; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.23; P=.020), but there was no significant association between anticipated cissexism and controlling partner dynamics (b=−0.05; 95% CI: −0.16, 0.06; P=.343). Within the material-need insecurity pathway, there was no significant association between food insecurity and controlling partner dynamics (b=0.01; 95% CI: −0.19, 0.22; P=.896), but housing instability was significantly, positively associated with controlling partner dynamics (b=0.67; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.99; P<.001).

Table 3.

Associations of cissexism-related beliefs and material-need insecurity with controlling partner dynamics among transgender and/or nonbinary young adults who participated in the B*SHARP survey and were currently in a romantic relationship (n=393)

Model 2: Associations with controlling partner dynamics
b (95% CI) P
Internalized cissexism a 0.13 (0.02, 0.23) .020
Anticipated cissexism a −0.05 (−0.16, 0.06) .343
Food insecurity 0.01 (−0.19, 0.22) .896
Housing instability 0.67 (0.36, 0.99) <.001
Open in a new tab
a.

Estimates correspond to a one standard deviation difference in the predictor.

Note. All estimates are adjusted for cissexist rejection, cissexist discrimination, age (in years), participant gender identity (woman/trans woman, man/trans man, nonbinary umbrella), race and ethnicity (White, Latine or Hispanic, Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, multiple and additional identities), sexual orientation identity (lesbian, gay, straight/heterosexual, additional identities), and whether the partner was a transgender woman, cisgender woman, transgender man, cisgender man, or nonbinary person.

Tests of Mediation Pathways

Results from natural effects mediation analysis (Table 4) did not support the cissexism-related beliefs mediation pathway, but they did support the material-need insecurity mediation pathway. Regarding cissexism-related beliefs, there was no total effect of cissexist rejection on controlling partner dynamics (b=0.02; 95% CI: −0.03, 0.08; P=.665) and no indirect effect of cissexist rejection on controlling partner dynamics via internalized and anticipated cissexism as joint mediators (b=0.01; 95% CI: −0.02, 0.03; P=.520). However, regarding material-need insecurity, there was a significant total effect of cissexist discrimination on controlling partner dynamics (b=0.15; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.21; P=.012) and a significant indirect effect of cissexist discrimination on controlling partner dynamics via housing instability and food insecurity as joint mediators (b=0.05; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.09; P=.022), accounting for 33.3% of the total effect.

Table 4.

Results of natural effects mediation analysis testing indirect effects of cissexist rejection and discrimination on controlling partner dynamics via cissexism-related beliefs and material-need insecurity among transgender and/or nonbinary young adults who participated in the B*SHARP survey and were currently in a romantic relationship (n=393)

Cissexism-related beliefs mediation pathway
b (95% CI) P
Total effect of cissexist rejection on controlling partner dynamics 0.02 (−0.03, 0.08) .665
Direct effect of cissexist rejection on controlling partner dynamics 0.02 (−0.09, 0.12) .779
Indirect effect of cissexist rejection on controlling partner dynamics via internalized cissexism and anticipated cissexism (joint) 0.01 (−0.02, 0.03) .520
Material-need insecurity mediation pathway
b (95% CI) P
Total effect of cissexist discrimination on controlling partner dynamics 0.15 (0.09, 0.21) .012
Direct effect of cissexist discrimination on controlling partner dynamics 0.10 (−0.01, 0.21) .066
Indirect effect of cissexist discrimination on controlling partner dynamics via housing instability and food insecurity (joint) 0.05 (0.01, 0.09) .022
Open in a new tab

Estimates are adjusted for age (in years), participant gender identity (woman/trans woman, man/trans man, nonbinary umbrella), race and ethnicity (White, Latine or Hispanic, Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, multiple and additional identities), sexual orientation identity (lesbian, gay, straight/heterosexual, additional identities), and whether the partner was a transgender woman, cisgender woman, transgender man, cisgender man, or nonbinary person.

Discussion

As one of the first studies to directly address controlling partner dynamics in TNB young adults’ romantic relationships, this study provides key insights regarding how cissexism may contribute to these potentially harmful experiences. Overall, the hypothesized cissexism-related beliefs pathway from cissexist rejection to controlling partner dynamics was not supported; higher levels of cissexist rejection in a young adult’s close relationships and communities were not associated with controlling partner dynamics in their current romantic relationships, and there was no significant mediation by the two cissexism-related psychological processes we considered (internalized and anticipated cissexism). However, we found support for a hypothesized material-need insecurity pathway: Young adults reporting more cissexist discrimination across various contexts were more likely to report material-need insecurity, which significantly mediated the association between cissexist discrimination and controlling partner dynamics. These findings call attention to the potentially crucial role of cissexism-related economic disenfranchisement in TNB young adults’ romantic relationship experiences. They also suggest future directions for understanding cissexism-related psychological processes that may shape controlling partner dynamics for TNB young adults.

We expected that experiences of cissexist rejection in one’s close relationships and community would contribute to cissexism-related beliefs—internalized cissexism and anticipated cissexism—that could in turn contribute to controlling partner dynamics. However, there was no overall association between cissexist rejection and controlling partner dynamics, while individual associations along the mediation pathway were small and not consistently significant. These findings contrast with prior qualitative research suggesting that TNB young adults’ past experiences of romantic rejection contribute to negative evaluations of their dating prospects, which may lead them to tolerate harmful behaviors from their romantic partners (Murchison et al., 2022). One potentially important distinction is that the prior qualitative study addressed cissexist rejection and cissexism-related beliefs directly related to romantic relationships (Murchison et al., 2022), whereas the present study captured broader experiences of cissexist rejection and more general cissexism-related beliefs. It may be that cissexism-related beliefs specific to romantic relationships (e.g., anticipating romantic rejection due to being TNB) are relevant to controlling partner dynamics, yet general cissexism-related beliefs may be less relevant. Future research should reassess the relationships among cissexist rejection, cissexism-related beliefs, and controlling partner dynamics while defining these constructs more narrowly (e.g., past rejection by potential and actual romantic partners; cissexism-related beliefs about one’s dating prospects). It may also be important to consider experiences other than interpersonal cissexism that may drive cissexism-related beliefs, such as negative media portrayals of TNB people (Rood et al., 2017).

Our results supported the hypothesized material-need insecurity pathway, suggesting that cissexist discrimination may increase TNB young adults’ exposure to controlling partner dynamics by making them more likely to experience material-need insecurity. Further, of the two forms of material-need insecurity we examined, housing instability—but not food insecurity—was directly associated with controlling partner dynamics. TNB adults have described how cissexist discrimination and regional housing affordability crises contribute to pervasive housing insecurity within TNB communities, leading many TNB people to depend on their social networks for housing in the short term (e.g., couch surfing) or long term (e.g., shared apartments; Glick et al., 2019; Glick et al., 2020). Accordingly, for some TNB young adults, economic necessity may be an important factor in choosing to live with a romantic partner, as half of the present sample was doing. When TNB young adults cohabitate with romantic partners out of economic necessity, they may feel forced to tolerate a partner’s abusive behavior or risk losing their housing (Goldenberg et al., 2018). Interpersonal cissexism can contribute to housing instability through multiple pathways, including employment discrimination, bias-motivated eviction or denial of housing, and youth leaving home due to family abuse (Glick et al., 2019; James et al., 2016; Shelton & Bond, 2017). Interpersonal cissexism, in turn, is perpetuated by structural cissexism, including anti-TNB rhetoric and ideology (Brightman et al., 2023) and the absence of legal protections against anti-TNB discrimination in many U.S. states (Gleason et al., 2016; Movement Advancement Project). Both interpersonal and structural cissexism may be compounded by intersecting systems of power relations, notably structural and interpersonal racism (Glick et al., 2019; James et al., 2016), and by additional structural forces, notably regional and national housing policy (Glick et al., 2019). Strategies to address controlling partner dynamics among TNB young adults should include intervention on each of these processes, as well as broader economic forces that contribute to young adult housing instability: the dearth of affordable housing in many U.S. cities (Glick et al., 2019) and inadequate safety net programs for young adults who cannot afford housing costs. There may also be a need for supports for TNB young adults who do not require shelter services yet need assistance to move out of a controlling partner’s home; such assistance might include moving services or payment of security deposits.

Our hypothesized cissexism-related beliefs and material-need insecurity pathways were informed by Pulerwitz and colleagues’ foundational work on relationship control, which proposed that controlling partner dynamics stemmed from discrepancies in partners’ dependence on one another, access to resources (including economic/material and emotional resources), and perceived alternatives to the current relationship (Pulerwitz et al., 2000). However, our hypotheses and findings are also consistent with the nonvoluntary dependence perspective (Rusbult & Martz, 1995; Tan et al., 2018), which has primarily been applied to physical, sexual, and expressive verbal IPV but may also be relevant to controlling partner dynamics. Building on the Investment Model of Commitment (Rusbult et al., 1998), the nonvoluntary dependence perspective holds—in part—that people are more likely to stay in relationships with IPV when they perceive poor social and/or economic alternatives to the relationship (Rusbult & Martz, 1995; Tan et al., 2018). The nonvoluntary dependence perspective captures many of the same risk factors as Pulerwitz and colleagues’ conceptualization of relationship control, including economic/material resources and perceived social alternatives. However, the nonvoluntary dependence perspective differs from Pulerwitz and colleagues’ work by considering an individual’s social alternatives and economic/material resources in absolute terms, rather than in comparison to their partner’s, and by drawing attention to stay/leave decisions (decisions to maintain or end the relationship) as the process by which social alternatives and economic/material resources shape vulnerability to controlling partner dynamics or IPV (Edwards et al., 2010; Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Both the Pulerwitz and colleagues conceptualization and the nonvoluntary dependence perspective may be valuable in understanding TNB young adults’ experiences with controlling partner dynamics. Future research should test aspects of each perspective that could not be explored here, including the roles of discrepancies between partners (which will require dyadic data) and stay/leave decisions (which will require longitudinal data).

Another critical area for future research will be the roles of additional systems of power relations in TNB young adults’ experiences of controlling partner dynamics. Qualitative work with TNB young adults (Murchison et al., 2022) and with Black and Latina transgender women (Gamarel et al., 2020) has found that interpersonal and structural racism, sexism, ableism, and sizeism were salient in many participants’ dating and romantic experiences, often in concert with interpersonal and structural cissexism (Gamarel et al., 2020). However, those studies focused primarily on interpersonal rejection and cultural norms or stereotypes, with less attention to economic marginalization. Given evidence of disproportionate economic marginalization (e.g., poverty, unemployment) among Latine, Black, indigenous, and multiracial TNB people (James et al., 2016) and TNB people with disabilities (James et al., 2016), future research on controlling partner dynamics among TNB people should consider the economic impacts of structural and interpersonal racism and ableism in combination with structural and interpersonal cissexism. Similarly, service planning and advocacy efforts addressing controlling partner dynamics among young TNB people should attend carefully to multiple systems of power relations and to the needs of multiply marginalized TNB young adults.

A third key issue to explore in future studies will be the role of formal and informal social supports in TNB young adults’ experiences with controlling partner dynamics. While social support is relevant to both of the pathways proposed in the present study, we did not directly assess either perceived or received social support. Prior research with TNB young adults indicates that social support outside one’s romantic relationship—particularly from friends, family members, and mental health clinicians—can be key to preventing and resolving romantic relationship challenges, both by reassuring young adults that their social support needs could be fulfilled if they ended the relationship (Murchison et al., 2022) and by providing relationship advice and support, including help leaving a controlling or violent relationship (Kurdyla et al., 2021; Sherman et al., 2021). Given the prevalence of shared housing arrangements in TNB communities (Glick et al., 2019; Glick et al., 2020) and the fact that some TNB people depend on financial support from others (e.g., parents) to maintain stable housing (Glick et al., 2020), social support from others could also reduce TNB young adults’ dependence on romantic partners for housing. Thus, social support could be a protective factor against controlling partner dynamics for TNB young adults—and could potentially buffer the effects of structural and interpersonal cissexism on controlling partner dynamics. Future studies should test these hypotheses, distinguishing among various sources of support (e.g., family, friends, mental health clinicians) and dimensions of support (e.g., instrumental, emotional) to identify those that may be most protective against controlling partner dynamics.

Mental health clinicians working with TNB young adults should be attuned to whether clients are experiencing controlling partner dynamics, including dynamics that may not rise to the level of intimate partner violence but may nonetheless be detrimental to mental health. Given the potentially key role of housing in controlling partner dynamics, clinicians should develop strong referral relationships with local agencies that can provide housing-related supports—which may include local LGBTQ centers or HIV service organizations. Clinicians should also seek opportunities to support local and regional advocacy efforts related to housing affordability. From a psychotherapeutic perspective, clinicians can explore how internalized cissexist beliefs, particularly beliefs about TNB people being romantically undesirable, may influence clients’ relationship decisions (Murchison et al., 2022). One way of addressing these harmful beliefs may be to encourage clients to attend TNB support groups or community events, where they may meet TNB people in healthy and egalitarian romantic relationships.

Our findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. Because we used cross-sectional data, we were unable to establish whether the exposures of interest temporally preceded the outcomes of interest. Other temporal orderings are also possible; for instance, controlling partner dynamics could contribute to higher levels of internalized cissexism (Peitzmeier et al., 2019). Associations could also have been confounded by unmeasured variables. Due to the potential for reverse causation and confounding, we cannot conclude that the estimated associations represent causal effects. Selection effects are another potential concern, given our use of a voluntary, non-population-based sample. For instance, given that recruitment materials reflected the study’s focus on romantic relationships, young adults who were satisfied with their romantic relationships may have been more likely to participate, such that levels of controlling partner dynamics in this sample may be lower than those in the broader population of U.S. TNB young adults. Further, some participants may have underreported controlling partner dynamics and cissexism-related beliefs due to social desirability bias. Finally, we did not directly assess structural cissexism (e.g., anti-TNB laws, policies, cultural stereotypes, or political rhetoric) in relation to either controlling partner dynamics or the hypothesized mediators; these will be important areas for future research.

Conclusion

The present study is among the first to address social-contextual risk factors for controlling partner dynamics among TNB young adults. We found support for a material-need insecurity pathway linking cissexist discrimination to controlling partner dynamics: Young adults who experienced more cissexist discrimination were more likely to report food insecurity and housing instability; in turn, housing instability was positively associated with controlling partner dynamics. These findings call for attention to material-need insecurity, particularly housing instability, as a mechanism by which structural and interpersonal cissexism contribute to controlling partner dynamics. Indeed, the present findings support calls for increased attention to cissexism-related economic marginalization in TNB health research broadly (Frost et al., 2019; Mizock & Hopwood, 2018).

Reducing TNB young adults’ exposure to controlling partner dynamics may be key to addressing the disproportionate burdens of HIV and IPV victimization in this population. Doing so will require efforts to eliminate structural and interpersonal cissexism, including cissexist discrimination, combined with meaningful policy action to address the housing affordability crises persisting or emerging in many areas of the U.S. and other countries. These critical structural interventions should be combined with direct support for TNB young adults, including services for those who wish to leave cohabitating romantic relationships.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Materials

Public Significance Statement.

This study found that transgender and/or nonbinary (TNB) young adults who have experienced more anti-TNB discrimination also experience more controlling partner dynamics in their romantic relationships—and that this may be because anti-TNB discrimination forces some young adults to depend on their romantic partners for basic needs like food and housing. These results reinforce the importance of structural interventions to reduce anti-TNB discrimination, and they also suggest a need for practical supports (e.g., housing assistance) to help TNB young adults leave controlling romantic relationships.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr. John E. Pachankis for his feedback on this manuscript, Jordan Schultz for their contributions to survey development and data collection, and all the Body Image, Sexual Health, & Relationships Project participants for making this research possible.

Funding

Support for this research was provided by the Aerosmith Endowment Fund for Prevention and Treatment of HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections (PI: AR Gordon), the Research Education Institute for Diverse Scholars (PI: M Agénor), and the Open Gate Foundation (PI: GR Murchison). GR Murchison was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant T32-MH020031. SB Austin was supported by US Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration grant T76-MC00001. AR Gordon was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant K01-DA054357.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest

None to declare.

References

  1. Abreu RL, Gonzalez KA, Lindley L, Capielo Rosario C, Lockett GM, & Teran M (2023). “Why can’t I have the office jobs?”: Immigrant Latinx transgender peoples’ experiences with seeking employment. Journal of Career Development, 50(1), 20–36. 10.1177/08948453211062951 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashley F (2021). ‘Trans’ is my gender modality: A modest terminological proposal. In Erickson-Schroth L (Ed.), Trans bodies, trans selves (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Blashill AJ, Brady JP, Rooney BM, Rodriguez-Diaz CE, Horvath KJ, Blumenthal J, Morris S, Moore DJ, & Safren SA (2020). Syndemics and the PrEP cascade: Results from a sample of young Latino men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(1), 125–135. 10.1007/s10508-019-01470-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bosco SC, Robles G, Stephenson R, & Starks TJ (2022). Relationship power and intimate partner violence in sexual minority male couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), NP671–NP695. 10.1177/0886260520916271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brightman S, Lenning E, Lurie KJ, & DeJong C (2023). Anti-transgender ideology, laws, and homicide: An analysis of the trifecta of violence. Homicide Studies. Advance online publication. 10.1177/10887679231201803 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Bruce C, Townsend R, Thomas G, & Lee H (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct: Harvard University. http://sexualassaulttaskforce.harvard.edu/files/taskforce/files/final_report_harvard_9.21.15.pdf?m=1442784546
  7. Connell R (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person, and sexual politics. Polity Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dworkin SL, Zakaras JM, Campbell C, Wilson P, Grisham K, Chakravarty D, Neilands TB, & Hoff C (2017). Relationship power among same-sex male couples in New York and San Francisco: Laying the groundwork for sexual risk reduction interventions focused on interpersonal power. Journal of Sex Research, 54(7), 923–935. 10.1080/00224499.2017.1279258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Eaton L, Kaufman M, Fuhrel A, Cain D, Cherry C, Pope H, & Kalichman SC (2008). Examining factors co-existing with interpersonal violence in lesbian relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 23(8), 697–705. 10.1007/s10896-008-9194-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Edwards KM, Gidycz CA, & Murphy MJ (2010). College women’s stay/leave decisions in abusive dating relationships: A prospective analysis of an expanded investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1446–1462. 10.1177/0886260510369131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Emerson RM (1981). Social exchange theory. In Rosenberg M & Turner RH (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 30–65). Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  12. Frost DM, Fine M, Torre ME, & Cabana A (2019). Minority stress, activism, and health in the context of economic precarity: Results from a national participatory action survey of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender non‐conforming youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 511–526. 10.1002/ajcp.12326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Galupo MP, Ramirez JL, & Pulice-Farrow L (2017). “Regardless of their gender”: Descriptions of sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual, and queer identified individuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(1), 108–124. 10.1080/15299716.2016.1228491 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gamarel KE, Jadwin-Cakmak L, King WM, Lacombe-Duncan A, Trammell R, Reyes LA, Burks C, Rivera B, Arnold E, & Harper GW (2020). Stigma experienced by transgender women of color in their dating and romantic relationships: Implications for gender-based violence prevention programs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), NP8161–NP8189. 10.1177/0886260520976186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Garthe RC, Hidalgo MA, Hereth J, Garofalo R, Reisner SL, Mimiaga MJ, & Kuhns L (2018). Prevalence and risk correlates of intimate partner violence among a multisite cohort of young transgender women. LGBT Health, 5(6), 333–340. 10.1089/lgbt.2018.0034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gleason HA, Livingston NA, Peters MM, Oost KM, Reely E, & Cochran BN (2016). Effects of state nondiscrimination laws on transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals’ perceived community stigma and mental health. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 20(4), 350–362. 10.1080/19359705.2016.1207582 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Glick JL, Lopez A, Pollock M, & Theall KP (2019). “Housing insecurity seems to almost go hand in hand with being trans”: Housing stress among transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in New Orleans. Journal of Urban Health, 96(5), 751–759. 10.1007/s11524-019-00384-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Glick JL, Lopez A, Pollock M, & Theall KP (2020). Housing insecurity and intersecting social determinants of health among transgender people in the USA: A targeted ethnography. International Journal of Transgender Health, 21(3), 337–349. 10.1080/26895269.2020.1780661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg AE, Kuvalanka KA, & Black K (2019). Trans students who leave college: An exploratory study of their experiences of gender minority stress. Journal of College Student Development, 60(4), 381–400. 10.1353/csd.2019.0036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldenberg T, Jadwin-Cakmak L, & Harper GW (2018). Intimate partner violence among transgender youth: Associations with intrapersonal and structural factors. Violence and Gender, 5(1), 19–25. 10.1089/vio.2017.0041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hamberger LK, Larsen SE, & Lehrner A (2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 1–11. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. James S, Herman J, Rankin S, Keisling M, Mottet L, & Anafi M (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF
  23. Kurdyla V, Messinger AM, & Ramirez M (2021). Transgender intimate partner violence and help-seeking patterns. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), NP11046–NP11069. 10.1177/0886260519880171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lennon E, & Mistler BJ (2014). Cisgenderism. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1–2), 63–64. 10.1215/23289252-2399623 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Maloy J, Kwapisz MB, & Hughes BE (2022). Factors influencing retention of transgender and gender nonconforming students in undergraduate STEM majors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(1), Article ar13. 10.1187/cbe.21-05-0136 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Marrow E, Malik M, Pantalone DW, & Peitzmeier S (2024). Power and control, resistance and survival: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the qualitative literature on intimate partner violence against transgender individuals. Social Science & Medicine, 342, Article 116498. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116498 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Matsuda Y, McGrath JM, & Jallo N (2012). Use of the sexual relationship power scale in research: An integrative review. Hispanic Health Care International, 10(4), 175–189. 10.1891/1540-4153.10.4.175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. McMahon JM, Volpe EM, Klostermann K, Trabold N, & Xue Y (2015). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the sexual relationship power scale in HIV/AIDS research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(2), 267–294. 10.1007/s10508-014-0355-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Mizock L, & Hopwood R (2018). Economic challenges associated with transphobia and implications for practice with transgender and gender diverse individuals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(1), 65–74. 10.1037/pro0000161 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Movement Advancement Project. Equality maps: Housing nondiscrimination laws. Retrieved February 9, 2023 from https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws/housing
  31. Murchison GR, Eiduson R, Agénor M, & Gordon AR (2022). Tradeoffs, constraints, and strategies in transgender and nonbinary young adults’ romantic relationships: The identity needs in relationships framework. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(7), 2149–2180. 10.1177/02654075221142183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Peitzmeier SM, Hughto JMW, Potter J, Deutsch MB, & Reisner SL (2019). Development of a novel tool to assess intimate partner violence against transgender individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(11), 2376–2397. 10.1177/0886260519827660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Peitzmeier SM, Malik M, Kattari SK, Marrow E, Stephenson R, Agénor M, & Reisner SL (2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 110(9), e1–e14. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Puckett JA, Tornello S, Mustanski B, & Newcomb ME (2021). Gender variations, generational effects, and mental health of transgender people in relation to timing and status of gender identity milestones. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 9(2), 165–178. 10.1037/sgd0000391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pulerwitz J, Gortmaker SL, & DeJong W (2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42(7), 637–660. 10.1023/A:1007051506972 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.4.4) [Software program]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  37. Reisner SL, Perkovich B, & Mimiaga MJ (2010). A mixed methods study of the sexual health needs of New England transmen who have sex with nontransgender men. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 24(8), 501–513. 10.1089/apc.2010.0059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Roch A, Morton J, & Ritchie G (2010). Out of sight, out of mind? Transgender people’s experiences of domestic abuse. LGBT Youth Scotland; Scottish Transgender Alliance. https://www.scottishtrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trans_domestic_abuse.pdf [Google Scholar]
  39. Rood BA, Reisner SL, Puckett JA, Surace FI, Berman AK, & Pantalone DW (2017). Internalized transphobia: Exploring perceptions of social messages in transgender and gender-nonconforming adults. International Journal of Transgenderism, 18(4), 411–426. 10.1080/15532739.2017.1329048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rood BA, Reisner SL, Surace FI, Puckett JA, Maroney MR, & Pantalone DW (2016). Expecting rejection: Understanding the minority stress experiences of transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Transgender Health, 1(1), 151–164. 10.1089/trgh.2016.0012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rusbult CE, & Martz JM (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558–571. 10.1177/0146167295216002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, & Agnew CR (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Russomanno J, Patterson JG, & Jabson JM (2019). Food insecurity among transgender and gender nonconforming individuals in the southeast United States: A qualitative study. Transgender Health, 4(1), 89–99. 10.1089/trgh.2018.0024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Shelton J, & Bond L (2017). “It just never worked out”: How transgender and gender expansive youth understand their pathways into homelessness. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 98(4), 284–291. 10.1606/1044-3894.2017.98.33 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sherman ADF, Allgood S, Alexander KA, Klepper M, Balthazar MS, Hill M, Cannon CM, Dunn D, Poteat T, & Campbell J (2021). Transgender and gender diverse community connection, help-seeking, and mental health among Black transgender women who have survived violence: A mixed-methods analysis. Violence Against Women, 28(3–4), 890–921. 10.1177/10778012211013892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shulman S, & Connolly J (2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39. 10.1177/2167696812467330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Snapp SD, Hoenig JM, Fields A, & Russell ST (2014). Messy, butch, and queer: LGBTQ youth and the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(1), 57–82. 10.1177/0743558414557625 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Steen J, Loeys T, Moerkerke B, & Vansteelandt S (2017). Medflex: An R package for flexible mediation analysis using natural effect models. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(11), 1–46. 10.18637/jss.v076.i11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stutterheim SE, van Dijk M, Wang H, & Jonas KJ (2021). The worldwide burden of HIV in transgender individuals: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 16(12), Article e0260063. 10.1371/journal.pone.0260063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Tan K, Arriaga XB, & Agnew CR (2018). Running on empty: Measuring psychological dependence in close relationships lacking satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(7), 977–998. 10.1177/0265407517702010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Teitelman AM, Ratcliffe SJ, Morales-Aleman MM, & Sullivan CM (2008). Sexual relationship power, intimate partner violence, and condom use among minority urban girls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1694–1712. 10.1177/0886260508314331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Testa RJ, Habarth J, Peta J, Balsam K, & Bockting W (2015). Development of the gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation & Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65–77. 10.1037/sgd0000081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Testa RJ, Michaels MS, Bliss W, Rogers ML, Balsam KF, & Joiner T (2017). Suicidal ideation in transgender people: Gender minority stress and interpersonal theory factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(1), 125–136. 10.1037/abn0000234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Valentine SE, Peitzmeier SM, King DS, O’Cleirigh C, Marquez SM, Presley C, & Potter J (2017). Disparities in exposure to intimate partner violence among transgender/gender nonconforming and sexual minority primary care patients. LGBT Health, 4(4), 26–267. 10.1089/lgbt.2016.0113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Buuren S, & Groothuis-Oudshoorn K (2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. 10.18637/jss.v045.i03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. White Hughto JM, Reisner SL, & Pachankis JE (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 147, 222–231. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Widome R, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Haines J, & Story M (2009). Eating when there is not enough to eat: Eating behaviors and perceptions of food among food-insecure youths. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 822–828. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.139758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zou G (2004). A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(7), 702–706. 10.1093/aje/kwh090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Materials
NIHMS2020852-supplement-Supplemental_Materials.docx (33.9KB, docx)

RESOURCES