Shared identity and need fulfillment in transgender young adults’ romantic relationship experiences

Abstract

Transgender young adults experience a unique and complex set of stressors in romantic relationships. These stressors may be amplified for transgender people with non-transgender partners due to fear of stigmatization or lack of understanding, and therefore might reduce feelings of closeness and satisfaction. The ability of partners to fulfill relational needs may explain any identity-based differences in relationship well-being. This study examined associations between partners’ shared transgender identity and general relational need fulfillment, relationship closeness, and relationship satisfaction among transgender young adults in romantic relationships. This study also assessed the extent to which need fulfillment could mediate the association between shared transgender identity and relationship experiences. We hypothesized that transgender young adults with transgender partners would report higher relationship closeness and satisfaction compared to those with non-transgender partners, mediated by increased need fulfillment. One hundred ninety-seven U.S-based transgender young adults in romantic relationships (M age = 25.7) completed an online, cross-sectional survey. Multivariable linear models were run for associations among variables of interest and causal mediation analyses were conducted. Participants with transgender primary partners reported significantly higher relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction, but not need fulfillment, compared to participants with non-transgender partners. In addition, significant positive associations were observed between need fulfillment and relationship closeness and satisfaction. No mediation was observed. Results provide insight for practitioners working with transgender people in or seeking romantic relationships, and suggest further research to explore the mechanisms that generate potential differences in relationship experiences and that promote relationship well-being regardless of identity differences.

Keywords

Gender identity gender ingroup bias LGBTQ+romantic relationships relationship satisfaction transgender

Background

Transgender (trans) people, whose gender differs from sociocultural expectations for their sex assigned at birth, experience unique and diverse stressors as a result of structural and interpersonal stigmatization and discrimination (Hendricks & Testa, 2012). Romantic relationships can serve an integral role in transgender people’s mental health, interpersonal functioning, and resilience in the face of oppression (Meier et al., 2013; Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Murchison et al., 2023; Pepping et al., 2024). For example, trans people can build a safe space for their gender exploration, expression, and affirmation within relationships (Gunby & Butler, 2023; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2019). Social support from romantic partners can also buffer against structural and interpersonal cissexism and consequent mental health disparities (Gamarel et al., 2019; Murchison et al., 2023; Pepping et al., 2024). In addition, trans people’s partners can gain awareness of their own identity and build insight into social advocacy as a result of their partner’s trans identity (Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Siboni et al., 2023). Such benefits might be particularly salient in young adulthood, a focal period for transgender identity development as well as romantic relationship formation (Kuper et al., 2018; Puckett et al., 2022; Tillman et al., 2019).

Stressors in transgender adults’ romantic relationships

At the same time, the biomedical and social transition process, alongside stigma associated with trans identities, can generate a complex set of individual and dyadic stressors for trans young adults in relationships. When one partner discloses a trans identity, partners often navigate changing gender roles and sexual expectations as well as sexual orientation transitions (Iantaffi & Bockting, 2011; Marshall et al., 2020; Siboni et al., 2023). Regardless of whether a trans person has recognized or disclosed their identity prior to or after starting their relationship, couples may need to negotiate potential family and peer rejection of both partners (Gamarel et al., 2014, 2019; Lewis et al., 2021). Within the relationship, partnerships are tasked with finding shared community and communicating ever-evolving needs throughout biomedical and social transition and beyond (Coppola et al., 2021; Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Murchison et al., 2023; Platt & Bolland, 2017).

However, recent research has suggested that these relational stressors might present differently for trans people with partners who do not share a trans identity compared to those in partnership with other trans people (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017). Trans people might continuously fear rejection, non-affirmation, and cissexist stigmatization from cisgender (cis) or other non-trans partners (Platt & Bolland, 2017; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017; Thornton et al., 2025). Further, non-trans partners may show a lack of support or understanding for the experiences of trans people, which might in turn generate feelings of isolation (Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021). In addition, trans people at times may experience fetishization (Perez & Pepping, 2024) and may potentially be more likely to experience identity-related abuse in relationships with non-trans partners (Woulfe & Goodman, 2021).

Social identity theory as a framework for identity differences in relationships

From a theoretical perspective on the role of identity in romantic relationship experiences, past research has explored how close others, such as relationship partners, are viewed within an individual’s self-concept (Aron et al., 2004). This theory of including others within the self has been considered central to the psychological construct of closeness, which is a common predictor of relationship well-being and overall success (Le et al., 2010; Pietras & Briken, 2021). Social identity theory, which links shared identity to in-group categorization and positive perceptions, extends this phenomenon such that in-group members are viewed as closer to the self (Hogg, 2016). Identity differences may be exacerbated by systems of privilege and marginalization that generate power differentials (Pulice-Farrow et al., 2017), such that trans people could ultimately experience lower relationship closeness with non-trans partners compared to trans partners. Given these theoretical links between identity and closeness, an investigation into the role of identity in trans people’s relationship closeness is paramount to understanding the factors that inform quality relationships and downstream benefits for trans people. However, no quantitative research to our knowledge has examined the relationship between partners’ shared trans identity and relationship closeness.

Need fulfillment as a function of shared identity in romantic relationships

Further research is also necessary to better understand the mechanisms underlying potential differences in relationship experiences based on shared identity. Fulfillment of relational needs represents one potential mechanism. Research derived from interdependence theory proposes that individuals seek romantic partners to fulfill a set of general relational needs, such as companionship and self-expansion (VanderDrift & Agnew, 2012). Dependence on partners to fulfill these needs, and the fulfillment of them, predicts relationship satisfaction and levels of cognitive interdependence (Agnew et al., 1998; Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992; Le & Agnew, 2001). Cognitive interdependence, or the joint representation of self and other in dyadic relationships, overlaps substantially with inclusion of the other in the self (Agnew et al., 1998). While research is limited regarding the role of shared identity in general relational need fulfillment specifically, one study found that trans people with trans partners reported higher overall social support compared to trans people with non-trans partners, and higher support was associated with higher relationship satisfaction (Fuller & Riggs, 2021) Taken together, this evidence suggests the possibility that the relational closeness associated with shared identity is mediated by increased fulfillment of general relational needs.

Additional support for need fulfillment as a potential mechanism underlying the effects of shared identity on relationship experiences stems from research on trans peoples’ needs in relationships. The identity needs in relationships framework proposes that trans people must consider identity-specific needs alongside general relational needs in making relationship decisions and sustaining healthy relationships (Murchison et al., 2023). Recent evidence indicates that trans and/or nonbinary partners may better fulfill the identity-based needs of trans people in relationships compared to cis partners (Murchison et al., 2025). Stronger fulfillment of identity-based needs such as identity exploration and affirmation may correspond with stronger fulfillment of general relational needs such as self-expansion and security, respectively. However, it remains unclear whether shared trans identity is indeed associated with increased fulfillment of general relational needs and whether need fulfillment explains differences in overall relationship experiences based on identity.

Current study

This study therefore aimed to (1) examine the association between partners’ shared trans identity (trans vs. non-trans) and relationship closeness and satisfaction for trans young adults in romantic relationships and (2) determine the extent to which general relational need fulfillment could mediate associations between shared trans identity and relationship experiences. We hypothesized that trans people with trans partners would report higher relationship closeness and satisfaction compared to trans people with cis or other non-trans partners. Based on studies of identity-based needs and social support, we further hypothesized that general relational need fulfillment would mediate the relationship between shared trans identity and relationship experiences.

Methods

Participants

This study used data collected as part of the Better Understanding Needs and Sex study, an online cross-sectional survey of U.S.-based young adults (ages 18–35). Participants were recruited via social media advertisements (including trans-specific social media groups, e.g., Lex, r/trans on Reddit), online outreach to community organizations, university campus flyers, and a university student research participation pool. Data were collected from October 2023 to April 2024. Eligibility criteria for the larger study included: (1) age between 18–35; (2) residence in the United States; (3) identification as currently sexually active; (4) proficiency in English. Additional eligibility criteria for the present analyses included: (5) self-identification as transgender; and (6) currently in a committed romantic relationship. Potential participants completed a brief online eligibility screener; upon completing the screening questionnaire, eligible participants were directed to a consent form, and were automatically presented with the survey if they indicated consent. After survey completion, participants were directed to a final page where they were given the opportunity to enter a raffle to win one out of 20 $50 Amazon gift cards.

Automated validation checks to remove potentially fraudulent, duplicate, or low-quality responses included incorrect responses to two or more attention check questions (Maniaci & Rogge, 2014) and completion time less than 20 minutes for the full survey (following established procedures for estimating completion time; Bowling et al., 2016). Manual procedures, validated by consensus between two study team members, included examination of unintelligible or nonsensical open-ended responses, patterns of extreme consecutive identical responses (i.e., straightlining; Arevalo et al., 2022), and patterns of identical responses to demographic questions across consecutive respondents. Of 1,602 valid responses, 658 were excluded due to not providing information on relationship status; an additional 847 were excluded due to participants not identifying as trans or reporting that they were not in a romantic relationship, for a final sample of n = 197. Of included participants, n = 1 (0.51%) was recruited via a U.S.-based university student research participation pool. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Stony Brook University. This study was preregistered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mu9fw). The present study deviated from the preregistered protocol only in that the ‘mediation’ package was used to assess mediation; in addition, exploratory moderation analyses are not reported due to lack of theoretical basis or notable findings in preliminary analyses.

Participant characteristics

The final analytic sample of 197 participants had a mean age of 25.7 (SD = 4.3; see Table 1). Participants reported a variety of gender identities, with a plurality identifying as nonbinary (37.6%); the next most commonly reported gender identities were man (27.4%), woman (18.8%), other (7.1%), genderqueer (3.6%), agender (2.5%), gender non-conforming (2.5%), and gender fluid (0.5%). Most participants identified their sexual orientation as either queer (35.0%) or bisexual (26.4%), followed by gay/lesbian (18.3%), pansexual (11.2%), asexual (4.1%), straight (2.0%), unsure or questioning/other (2.0%), and fluid (1.0%). The majority of participants were White, non-Hispanic (74.6%), followed by multiracial/multiple races (12.7%), Black/African American (4.1%), Asian (3.6%), White, Hispanic/Latinx (3.0%), and other (2.0%). In regard to relationship characteristics, more participants identified as consensually non-monogamous or polyamorous (57.9%) compared to monogamous. Participants’ relationship lengths ranged from two months to 14.1 years (Mdn = 29 months). Approximately half of participants reported primary partners who identified as trans (50.3%; see Data Analysis), resulting in comparison groups of n = 99 (trans) and n = 98 (non-trans).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics across samples.

Demographic	N = 197		Participants with trans partners (n = 99)		Participants with non-trans partners (n = 98)
Demographic	n	%	n	%	n	%
Age
M	25.7		26.5		25.2
SD	4.3		4.24		4.36
Gender identity
Agender	5	2.5	3	3.0	2	2.0
Woman	37	18.8	19	19.2	18	18.4
Gender fluid	1	0.5	0	0.0	1	1.0
Gender non-conforming	5	2.5	2	2.0	3	3.1
Genderqueer	7	3.6	5	5.1	2	2.0
Man	54	27.4	19	19.2	35	35.7
Nonbinary	74	37.6	41	41.4	33	33.7
Other	14	7.1	10	10.1	4	4.1
Sexual orientation
Asexual	8	4.1	5	5.1	3	3.1
Bisexual	52	26.4	21	21.2	31	31.6
Fluid	2	1.0	1	1.0	1	1.0
Gay	15	7.6	5	5.1	10	10.2
Lesbian	21	10.7	10	10.1	11	11.2
Pansexual	22	11.2	12	12.1	10	10.2
Queer	69	35.0	45	45.5	24	24.5
Straight	4	2.0	0	0.0	4	4.1
Unsure or questioning	1	0.5	0	0.0	1	1.0
Other	3	1.5	0	0.0	3	3.1
Race/Ethnicity
Asian	7	3.6	4	4.0	3	3.1
Black/African American	8	4.1	5	5.1	3	3.1
Multiracial/Multiple races	25	12.7	14	14.1	11	11.2
White, Hispanic/Latinx	6	3.0	2	2.0	4	4.1
White, non- Hispanic/Latinx	147	74.6	72	72.7	75	76.5
Other	4	2.0	1	1.0	2	2.0
Income
Under $12,000	21	10.7	9	9.1	12	12.2
$12,000–$23,999	17	8.6	9	9.1	8	8.2
$24,000–$44,999	48	24.4	22	22.2	26	26.5
$45,000–$74,999	45	22.8	24	24.2	21	21.4
$75,000–$119,999	38	19.3	17	17.2	21	21.4
$120,000 or more	23	11.7	15	15.2	8	8.2
Not reported	5	2.5	3	3.03	2	2.0
Education
Some high school	5	2.5	2	2.0	3	3.1
High school diploma/GED	26	13.2	13	13.1	13	13.3
Some college	52	26.4	23	23.2	29	29.6
Associate’s degree	13	6.6	7	7.1	6	6.1
4-year college degree	62	31.5	32	32.3	30	30.6
Some graduate school	15	7.6	8	8.1	7	7.1
Graduate school degree	24	12.2	14	14.1	10	10.2
Relationship structure
Monogamous	83	42.1	32	32.3	51	52.0
Consensually non- monogamous	114.	57.9	67	67.7	47	48.0
Relationship duration (months)
Mdn	29		28		29.5
IQR	48		40		47.5

Measures

Gender identity and modality

For demographic purposes, participants were asked “which of the following best describes your gender identity?” with six response options along with an option to write in an identity not listed. Participants were also asked “do you identify as transgender or trans?” to ascertain gender modality (e.g., trans, cis) and were only included in analyses if they responded affirmatively, regardless of binary or nonbinary gender identity. Equivalent questions were asked regarding participants’ primary partners, and partners were categorized by trans identity. For the purpose of analyses, participants’ partners whom participants identified as questioning their gender were classified as not trans.

General relational need fulfillment

General relational need fulfillment was assessed using a 5-item scale adapted from past research that measures fulfillment across companionship, security, sexual contact, self-expansion, and independence domains (Le & Agnew, 2001; Machia & Proulx, 2020). Participants reported the extent to which their partner satisfactorily fulfills each need on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all fulfilled; 7 = Completely fulfilled). An average of all items was taken to create a composite score across domains. Cronbach’s α was .73.

Relationship closeness

Relationship closeness was measured using the single-item Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron et al., 1992). Participants selected from a series of seven pairs of circles with gradated degrees of overlap which best describes their relationship with their partner. Selections corresponded with a 7-point scale from 1 to 7.

Relationship satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was assessed using the 4-item version of the Couples Satisfaction Index (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Participants first rated happiness with their relationship on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = Extremely Unhappy, 6 = Perfect) and rated subsequent items on 6-point Likert scales with scale labels dependent on the nature of the item (e.g., 0 = Not at all, 5 = Completely). Sum scores were calculated for analysis; Cronbach’s α was .82.

Data analysis

All analyses were conducted using R 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024). Participants were asked to list up to four relationship partners and reported demographic characteristics, relationship definitions (e.g., only partner, primary partner, nesting partner), need fulfillment, and relationship satisfaction for each. Participants were then asked to select one partner for additional questions including relationship closeness and sexual behavior; seven participants selected a partner who was not their primary partner (with six explicitly noting sexual behavior patterns as their reason for selection). For the purpose of analyses, only each participant’s primary partner was considered in outcome modeling (defined as the partner participants identified as their only, primary, core partner or, in the absence of other distinguishing characteristics, the partner they selected for follow-up questions). Therefore, seven participants were missing data for relationship closeness.

Participants missing all data for a given measure were excluded from analyses involving that measure. Participants were also excluded if they did not respond to the item assessing partner trans identity or relationship length. Missing values at the item level within scales were multiply imputed using the ‘mice’ 3.16 package in R (van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011). 100 imputations were run using all model variables as well as key demographic variables in the predictor matrix. As 20 participants did not respond to the measure of relationship closeness and seven additional were excluded from these analyses, missingness for the relationship closeness measure was 13.6%, resulting in an analytic sample of 170 for models of this outcome. Missingness for need fulfillment items ranged from 1.5% to 9.6%, and no items were missing from relationship satisfaction items.

Given documented associations with variables of interest, all models were adjusted for relationship length, which did not significantly differ between participants with trans or non-trans partners, t (195) = −0.69, p = .492 (Anderson & Emmers-Sommer, 2006; Platt, 2020; Traeen & Kvalem, 2022). Multivariable linear models were conducted to assess associations between shared trans identity and need fulfillment and each with relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction. Causal mediation analysis using the ‘mediation' 4.5.0 package in R assessed the extent to which need fulfillment could mediate relationships between shared trans identity and relationship experiences (Tingley et al., 2014).

Results

Relationships between shared trans identity, need fulfillment, and relationship experiences

Descriptive statistics and post-imputation correlations between model variables are reported in Table 2. As anticipated, shared trans identity (trans vs. non-trans) was significantly negatively correlated with relationship closeness and satisfaction, though not with need fulfillment, such that shared trans identity was associated with higher relationship closeness and satisfaction. Need fulfillment was significantly positively correlated with relationship outcomes. Results from multivariable linear models of the associations between shared trans identity and need fulfillment, and each with relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction (all controlling for relationship length), are presented in Table 3. Shared trans identity was significantly associated with relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction such that participants with trans partners reported higher relationship closeness and satisfaction compared to participants with non-trans partners. No significant association was observed between shared trans identity and need fulfillment, though the point estimate was in a consistent direction with other findings. Need fulfillment was significantly positively associated with both relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and post-imputation correlations of model variables.

Variable	M	SD	Correlations
Variable	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Partner trans identity	—	—
2. Need fulfillment	5.63	0.96	−0.10
3. Relationship closeness	4.98	1.24	−0.17*	0.22**
4. Relationship satisfaction	21.53	3.30	−0.18*	0.64***	0.21**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Results from linear modeling of the relationships between partners’ shared trans identity and need fulfillment and each with relationship outcomes, all adjusted for relationship length.

	Partner trans identity			Need fulfillment
	B (95%CI)	ß	p-value	B (95%CI)	ß	p-value
Need fulfillment	−0.12 (−0.39, 0.15)	−0.06	p = .392	—	—	—
Relationship closeness	−0.42 (−0.78, −0.05)	−0.17	p = .026*	0.35 (0.15, 0.53)	0.27	p < .001***
Relationship satisfaction	−1.02 (−1.94, −0.11)	−0.15	p = .030*	2.32 (1.96, 2.69)	0.66	p < .001***

Note. Partner trans identity was dichotomized as trans (control) vs. non-trans (test). *p < .05, ***p < .001.

Natural effects mediation models of the relationship between shared trans identity and relationship closeness as well as relationship satisfaction, mediated by need fulfillment, are displayed in Table 4. Consistent with findings from the initial models, the total effect for shared trans identity on each relationship experience was significant such that participants with trans partners reported higher relationship closeness and satisfaction compared to participants with non-trans partners. A significant direct effect was also observed for modeling of the relationship between shared trans identity and relationship satisfaction, while the direct effect for modeling of shared trans identity and relationship closeness was marginally significant. No significant indirect effects were observed for either of the mediation models.

Table 4.

Results from natural effects mediation modeling of the relationship between partners’ shared trans identity and relationship outcomes as mediated by need fulfillment, adjusted for relationship length.

	B (95% CI)	ß	p-value
Partner trans identity and relationship closeness mediation model
Total effect of partner trans identity on relationship closeness	−0.42 (−0.78, −0.05)	−0.17	p = .024*
Direct effect of partner trans identity on relationship closeness	−0.35 (−0.71, 0.00)	−0.14	p = .053
Indirect effect of partner trans identity on relationship closeness via need fulfillment	−0.06 (−0.18, 0.05)	−0.03	p = .290
Partner trans identity and relationship satisfaction mediation model
Total effect of partner trans identity on relationship satisfaction	−1.02 (−1.94, −0.10)	−0.15	p = .030*
Direct effect of partner trans identity on relationship satisfaction	−0.75 (−1.44, 0.07)	−0.11	p = .031*
Indirect effect of partner trans identity on relationship satisfaction via need fulfillment	−0.27 (−0.91, 0.37)	−0.04	p = .411

Note. Partner trans identity was dichotomized as trans (control) vs. non-trans (test). *p < .05.

Post-hoc sensitivity analyses comparing trans and nonbinary to cis partners

Given that some nonbinary people self-identify as trans and others do not (Beischel et al., 2023), post-hoc exploratory sensitivity analyses were conducted to qualitatively compare differences in effects when partners whom participants reported identifying with a nonbinary gender identity (e.g., nonbinary, gender fluid, gender queer) but not identifying as trans were grouped with partners whom participants reported identifying as trans. Resulting models had comparison groups of n = 123 (trans and/or nonbinary partner) and n = 74 (cis partner) and are displayed in Supplemental Tables S1 and S2. Contrary to primary models, no significant associations were observed between partner trans identity and need fulfillment, relationship closeness, or relationship satisfaction, though significant associations of need fulfillment with relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction were observed. No indirect effects were observed in these mediation models, in alignment with the primary mediation models.

Discussion

Satisfying relationships can promote resilience to oppression and contribute to overall wellbeing (Gamarel et al., 2019; Gómez-López et al., 2019). Yet, trans people in relationships with cis and other non-trans partners might face challenges related to identity differences that may weaken perceptions of closeness and ultimate relationship satisfaction. Though the ability for partners to meet each other’s general relational needs may attenuate the impact of identity differences on their own, dyads with shared trans identities may on average be better able to fulfill each other’s range of general relational needs. This study found that trans participants with trans partners reported significantly higher relationship closeness and satisfaction, on average, than trans participants with non-trans partners. However, there was no evidence that need fulfillment mediated associations between shared trans identity and relationship closeness or satisfaction.

Associations between shared trans identity and relationship experiences

Past research has identified unique considerations related to identity and social privilege differences that may pose barriers for trans people in building healthy relationships with cis or other non-trans romantic partners (Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021; Murchison et al., 2023). This study found higher relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction, on average, for trans people with trans primary partners compared to non-trans partners. Results align with the postulate of social identity theory that shared identity generates closeness, and potentially downstream satisfaction, in interpersonal relationships (Hogg, 2016). Findings may partially explain the frequency at which trans young adults choose to partner with other trans people—in the present sample, over half of participants’ primary partners identified as trans, a substantially higher proportion than national population averages (∼0.5–5.1%; Brown, 2022; Herman et al., 2020). Given the predominance of research focused on cis partners of trans people or trans people’s overall relationship experiences, these findings encourage further scientific exploration of the benefits of trans-trans long-term romantic partnerships. Nonetheless, mean relationship closeness (4.79 out of a total maximum of 7) and summed relationship satisfaction (21.0 out of a total maximum of 28) scores for trans people with non-trans partners were relatively high, suggesting that close and satisfying relationships are frequent for trans people regardless of partners’ shared identity.

General relational need fulfillment in trans young adults’ romantic relationships

Moreover, non-significant findings for the relationship between shared trans identity and need fulfillment indicate that trans partners can commonly find both trans and non-trans partners who provide strong support related to general relational needs. Indeed, as with relationship experiences, mean need fulfillment scores were high for both groups (trans partner M = 5.71, non-trans partner M = 5.53 out of a total maximum score of 7). Findings potentially stand in contrast to past research observations that trans partners of trans people provided stronger partner support (Fuller & Riggs, 2021). However, measurement of need fulfillment in the present study averaged across multiple domains of needs, including but not limited to constructs approximating support (i.e., security). Future research might examine whether specific general relational needs are more strongly met in trans-trans relationships or investigate other individual and dyadic factors that may be associated with need fulfillment. For example, qualitative evidence suggests that relationship qualities such as perceptions of equity between partners, flexibility, and unconditional acceptance promote successful relationships for dyads that do not share a trans identity (Coppola et al., 2021; Motter & Softas-Nall, 2021). Such qualities may bear more strongly on general relational need fulfillment compared to shared identity alone.

In addition, the lack of mediation of relationships between shared trans identity and relationship experiences by need fulfillment prompts further research to better understand the mechanisms by which trans people develop closer and more satisfying relationships with their partners. In light of recent findings that trans and nonbinary partners provide stronger identity-related support compared to cis partners of trans people (Murchison et al., 2025), a meaningful extension of this work might assess whether identity-specific support better explains the present associations. Given variability in trans people’s relationship priorities (Murchison et al., 2023), research might examine how trans people prioritize trans identity-based or general relational needs within relative to outside romantic relationships based on shared trans identity. Nonetheless, positive associations between need fulfillment and relationship experiences mirror findings from the general population (Machia & Proulx, 2020). These findings affirm the potential for individual or couples-based interventions that target identification and fulfillment of partner general relational needs to enhance relationship health for trans young adults.

Sensitivity analyses comparing trans and nonbinary to cis partners

Finally, when partners whom participants identified as nonbinary but not trans were grouped together with trans partners in post-hoc sensitivity analyses, associations between partner identity and relationship well-being were no longer significant. Though subject to further formal testing, comparisons between models imply the possibility that trans people’s perceptions of sharing a trans identity specifically may engender enhanced experiences of closeness and satisfaction in relationships. However, differences in statistical power resulting from unequal group sizes in sensitivity analyses may have obscured previously significant associations. Regardless, these results promote careful consideration and future study of similarities and differences in the identity-relevant experiences of trans and nonbinary young adults in relationships without assumptions of group homogeneity.

Limitations

While this study provides novel investigation of the relationship experiences of trans young adults, findings are constrained by several limitations that represent promising avenues for future research. First, over half of participants reported consensually non-monogamous relationship structures and may have multiple committed partners, a higher proportion than commonly observed in past studies, which poses a potential constraint on generalizability (Perez & Pepping, 2024). Furthermore, this study only included the primary partners of participants in assessment of need fulfillment and relationship experiences. Past research in the general population has suggested that need fulfillment from one partner bears little on relationship satisfaction with another partner for some polyamorous relationships (Mitchell et al., 2014). However, future research might examine associations between shared identity, need fulfillment, and relationship experiences across all relationship partners and assess differences between monogamous and consensually non-monogamous individuals.

Further, intersecting identities can inform the systems of marginalization and privilege that can confer power differences between trans people and their partners, and warrant additional investigation to better understand how convergence and divergence in identity inform relationship experiences for trans people (Gamarel et al., 2020). For example, alignment in gender identity for both binary or nonbinary trans people may play a role in identity-based affiliation and relationship outcomes. Intersecting identities and their alignment may also inform partners’ ability to fulfill general relational needs. In addition, disability status was not measured in the present study and should be considered in future studies as it informs intersectional identity differences in need fulfillment and romantic experiences.

This study also used a single-item measure of relationship closeness, which might be expanded upon in further research (e.g., Berscheid et al., 1989). In addition, while this study controlled for relationship length in analyses, relationship length relative to identity disclosure was not assessed. Whether trans partners disclosed their identity prior to or after entering relationships and the timing of identity development milestones may represent crucial factors that inform the impact of shared identity and need fulfillment on relationship experiences. Finally, this study investigated potential mediation using cross-sectional data, which limits inferences drawn regarding hypothesized temporal sequencing of variables. Longitudinal research might generate further valuable insight into dynamic relationship processes, particularly given the evolving experiences and needs of trans people through potential biomedical and social transition processes in young adulthood (Puckett et al., 2022).

Conclusion

This study found that trans people with trans partners reported higher relationship closeness and relationship satisfaction, but not general relational need fulfillment, compared to trans people with non-trans partners, while higher need fulfillment was also associated with more positive relationship experiences. No mediation of the relationships between shared trans identity and relationship experiences by need fulfillment was observed. Results suggest exploration of the contextual factors that amplify or ameliorate the impact of identity differences on relationship health and promote interventions to support need fulfillment in trans people’s relationships.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material - Shared identity and need fulfillment in transgender young adults’ romantic relationship experiences

Supplemental Material for Shared identity and need fulfillment in transgender young adults’ romantic relationship experiences by Benjamin E. Eisenstadt, Gabriel R. Murchison, Joanne Davila in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their support with study development: Emily S. Bibby, Stephan A. Brandt, Daphne Liu, and Navy Spiecker. The authors would also like to thank the following individuals for their support with data collection: Grier Adams, Casimir Isaacs-Corcoran, Yukihiro Kitagawa, Fiona Lam, John Miller, Amrutha Reddy, and Kayla Rust. Finally, the authors would like to thank Briana S. Last for contributions to manuscript development.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported with funding provided to Joanne Davila by Stony Brook University and funding provided to Emily S. Bibby and Stephan A. Brandt from the John Neale Award, Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University. This research was also supported by funding provided to Benjamin E. Eisenstadt from the Center for Inclusive Education at Stony Brook University.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information:

This research was pre-registered prior to analysis of data. The aspects of this research that were pre-registered were study hypotheses and data analyses. The registration was submitted to Open Science Framework (). The data, code, and study materials used in this research are available upon request to the authors: benjamin.eisenstadt@stonybrook.edu

Ethical considerations

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Stony Brook University (IRB2023-00042).

Consent to participate

As approved by the Institutional Review Board, participants were presented with a consent form that detailed the general purpose of the study, with emphasis on the voluntary nature of participation, potential risks, payment information, and contact information for the principal investigator and institutional research oversight office. Participants indicated their consent to participate in this study by checking a box at the end of this form to indicate that they had reviewed the preceding information and wished to participate.

ORCID iDs

Benjamin E. Eisenstadt

Joanne Davila

Data Availability Statement

All data, code, and study materials are available upon request to the authors.*

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Agnew

C. R.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Langston

C. A.

(1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. American Psychological Association.

Anderson

T. L.

Emmers-Sommer

T. M.

(2006). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in online romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 57(2), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970600666834

Arevalo

Brownstein

N. C.

Whiting

Meade

C. D.

Gwede

C. K.

Vadaparampil

S. T.

Tillery

K. J.

Islam

J. Y.

Giuliano

A. R.

Christy

S. M.

(2022). Strategies and lessons learned during cleaning of data from research panel participants: Cross-sectional web-based health behavior survey study. JMIR Formative Research, 6(6), e35797. https://doi.org/10.2196/35797

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596

Aron

A. P.

Mashek

D. J.

Aron

E. N.

(2004). Closeness as including other in the self. In Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Beischel

W. J.

Schudson

Z. C.

Hoskin

R. A.

van Anders

S. M.

(2023). The gender/sex 3×3: Measuring and categorizing gender/sex beyond binaries. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 10(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000558

Berscheid

Snyder

Omoto

A. M.

(1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792

Bowling

N. A.

Huang

J. L.

Bragg

C. B.

Khazon

Liu

Blackmore

C. E.

(2016). Who cares and who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000085

Brown

(2022). About 5% of young adults in the U.S. say their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/06/07/about-5-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-say-their-gender-is-different-from-their-sex-assigned-at-birth/

10.

Coppola

Gangamma

Hartwell

(2021). “We’re just two people in a relationship”: A qualitative exploration of emotional bond and fairness experiences between transgender women and their cisgender partners. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(3), 648–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12467

11.

Drigotas

S. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. American Psychological Association.

12.

Fuller

K. A.

Riggs

D. W.

(2021). Intimate relationship strengths and challenges amongst a sample of transgender people living in the United States. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 36(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2019.1679765

13.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

14.

Gamarel

K. E.

Jadwin-Cakmak

King

W. M.

Lacombe-Duncan

Trammell

Reyes

L. A.

Burks

Rivera

Arnold

Harper

G. W.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520976186

15.

Gamarel

K. E.

Reisner

S. L.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Nemoto

Operario

(2014). Gender minority stress, mental health, and relationship quality: A dyadic investigation of transgender women and their cisgender male partners. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037171

16.

Gamarel

K. E.

Sevelius

J. M.

Reisner

S. L.

Coats

C. S.

Nemoto

Operario

(2019). Commitment, interpersonal stigma, and mental health in romantic relationships between transgender women and cisgender male partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7), 2180–2201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518785768

17.

Gómez-López

Viejo

Ortega-Ruiz

(2019). Well-being and romantic relationships: A systematic review in adolescence and emerging adulthood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2415. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132415

18.

Gunby

Butler

(2023). What are the relationship experiences of in which one member identifies as transgender? A systematic review and meta-ethnography. Journal of Family Therapy, 45(2), 167–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12409

19.

Hendricks

M. L.

Testa

R. J.

(2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with transgender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the minority stress model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029597

20.

Herman

J. L.

Flores

A. R.

O’Neill

K. K.

(2020). How many adults and youth identify as transgender in the United States? The Williams Institute. UCLA School of Law.

21.

Hogg

M. A.

(2016). Social identity theory. In McKeown

Haji

Ferguson

(Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary global perspectives (pp. 3–17). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6_1

22.

Iantaffi

Bockting

W. O.

(2011). Views from both sides of the bridge? Gender, sexual legitimacy and transgender people's experiences of relationships. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 13(3), 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2010.537770

23.

Kuper

L. E.

Wright

Mustanski

(2018). Gender identity development among transgender and gender nonconforming emerging adults: An intersectional approach. International Journal of Transgender Health, 19(4), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1443869

24.

Agnew

C. R.

(2001). Need fulfillment and emotional experience in interdependent romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(3), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501183007

25.

Dove

N. L.

Agnew

C. R.

Korn

M. S.

Mutso

A. A.

(2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x

26.

Lewis

Doyle

D. M.

Barreto

Jackson

(2021). Social relationship experiences of transgender people and their relational partners: A meta-synthesis. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114143

27.

Machia

L. V.

Proulx

M. L.

(2020). The diverging effects of need fulfillment obtained from within and outside of a romantic relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219877849

28.

Maniaci

M. R.

Rogge

R. D.

(2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008

29.

Marshall

Glazebrook

Robbins-Cherry

Nicholson

Thorne

Arcelus

(2020). The quality and satisfaction of romantic relationships in transgender people: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Transgender Health, 21(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1765446

30.

Meier

S. C.

Sharp

Michonski

Babcock

J. C.

Fitzgerald

(2013). Romantic relationships of female-to-male trans men: A descriptive study. International Journal of Transgender Health, 14(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2013.791651

31.

Mitchell

M. E.

Bartholomew

Cobb

R. J.

(2014). Need fulfillment in polyamorous relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 51(3), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.742998

32.

Motter

B. L.

Softas-Nall

(2021). Experiences of transgender couples navigating one partner’s transition: Love is gender blind. The Family Journal, 29(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720978537

33.

Murchison

G. R.

Eiduson

Agenor

Gordon

A. R.

(2023). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221142183

34.

Murchison

G. R.

Paglisotti

Vives

Daley

Pachankis

J. E.

(2025). Development and validation of the Transgender/Nonbinary Identity Support from Partners Scale. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000868

35.

Pepping

C. A.

Belmont

Cronin

T. J.

(2024). Romantic relationships buffer minority stress in transgender and non-binary adults: Effects on depressive symptoms and suicidality. Journal of Affective Disorders, 365, 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.06.062

36.

Perez

Pepping

C. A.

(2024). Relationship experiences of transgender and non-binary adults: Exploring dating goals, relationship structures, minority stress, sexual fetishization, and relationship victimization. International Journal of Transgender Health, 26(4), 1026–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2316690

37.

Pietras

Briken

(2021). Inclusion of other in the self and couple’s sexuality: A scoping review. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 47(3), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2020.1865494

38.

Platt

L. F.

(2020). An exploratory study of predictors of relationship commitment for cisgender female partners of transgender individuals. Family Process, 59(1), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12400

39.

Platt

L. F.

Bolland

K. S.

(2017). Relationship partners of transgender individuals: A qualitative exploration. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(9), 1251–1272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517709360

40.

Puckett

J. A.

Tornello

Mustanski

Newcomb

M. E.

(2022). 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000391

41.

Pulice-Farrow

Bravo

Galupo

M. P.

(2019). “Your gender is valid”: Microaffirmations in the romantic relationships of transgender individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 13(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2019.1565799

42.

Pulice-Farrow

Brown

T. D.

Galupo

M. P.

(2017). Transgender microaggressions in the context of romantic relationships. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(3), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000238

43.

R Core Team . (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

44.

Siboni

Prunas

Anzani

(2023). “He helped me in discovering myself.” Rethinking and exploring sexual and gender identity in trans-inclusive relationships. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 49(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2092568

45.

Thornton

Riggs

D. W.

Cations

(2025). Partner relationships following transition: A metasynthesis of the views of cisgender partners. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2025.2456492

46.

Tillman

K. H.

Brewster

K. L.

Holway

G. V.

(2019). Sexual and romantic relationships in young adulthood. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022625

47.

Tingley

Yamamoto

Hirose

Keele

Imai

(2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05

48.

Traeen

Kvalem

(2022). The longer it is, the closer one feels: Perception of emotional closeness to the partner, relationship duration, sexual activity, and satisfaction in married and cohabiting persons in Norway. Sexuality & Culture, 27, 761–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-10037-z

49.

van Buuren

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

(2011). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03

50.

VanderDrift

L. E.

Agnew

C. R.

(2012). Need fulfillment and stay–leave behavior: On the diagnosticity of personal and relational needs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511431057

51.

Woulfe

J. M.

Goodman

L. A.

(2021). Identity abuse as a tactic of violence in LGBTQ communities: Initial validation of the Identity Abuse Measure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2656–2676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518760018

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.08 MB