“Your stress is mine too”: a qualitative exploration of couple-level minority stress in trans-inclusive couples

Abstract

Background

Minority stress has traditionally been explored at the individual level, particularly among LGBTQ+ populations. However, the experiences of couple-level minority stress in trans-inclusive relationships, where at least one partner is transgender, are underexplored. This study seeks to understand the unique stressors and coping mechanisms within these relationships, considering the compounded stress from multiple marginalized identities.

Methods

A qualitative approach was used, involving semi-structured interviews with 10 Italian trans-inclusive couples. Participants were invited to participate from November 2021 to July 2022. Data were analyzed through template analysis as a qualitative approach to thematic analysis, identifying stress levels and themes. The coding process was iterative, involving multiple rounds to refine themes and sub-themes.

Results

Ten themes were identified and organized into four levels of analysis: 1) Systemic level, encompassing perceived safety, social representation, and legal and social disparities; 2) Familial level, comprising experiences of discrimination, devaluation of relationship identity, and emotional impact; 3) Social interaction level, involving microaggressions and social exclusion; and 4) Intra-couple level, exploring shared stress and comparative couple-image.

Discussion

The findings highlight that trans-inclusive couples experience a complex interplay of stressors at multiple levels, which are influenced by both external perceptions and internal dynamics. Understanding these stressors is crucial for developing supportive interventions that address the unique needs of these couples. The study emphasizes the importance of considering intersectionality in minority stress research to capture the diverse experiences within trans-inclusive relationships.

Keywords:

• Couple-level minority stress
• dyadic stress processes
• ecological systems
• stigma
• trans-inclusive couples

Acknowledgement

We thank Ilaria Babbolin for her contribution to transcribing and analyzing the research data.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Notes

1 In their research, LeBlanc and colleagues refer to “same-sex couples”. However, the term “same-sex couple” may be perceived as less inclusive. Consequently, it has been proposed to substitute it with “same-gender couples”. Nevertheless, we believe that in this paper, discussing “same-gender couples” could render trans-inclusive couples invisible. In fact, in this specific context, the term “same-gender” may be confusing when distinguishing between couples in which at least one of the partners is transgender and may indeed share the same gender (e.g., a “trans-inclusive couple” consisting of a transgender woman and a cisgender woman, or two transgender men), and couples consisting of two cisgender partners who share the same gender (e.g., a “same-sex couple” consisting of two cisgender men or two cisgender women). Indeed, both cases could fall under the concept of “same-gender couples”. Therefore, for these reasons, in this manuscript we have agreed that it would be more functional to retain the term “same-sex couples” to refer to couples where both partners share the same cisgender identity and have an attraction (exclusively or not) towards individuals of the same gender.

2 Although both terms may hold transnormative value for some transgender and non-binary individuals, the term “passing” is considered by some researchers particularly problematic because it can invalidate the identity of trans* people by implying that “transgender individuals are never able to fully become their identified gender” (Katz-Wise & Budge, 2015, p. 151). Therefore, “blending” has been increasingly used recently, as it is more prevalent and accepted within the trans* community (Flynn & Smith, 2021; Rood et al., 2017). However, since the term “blending” is still uncommon and has never been used even by the participants in this study, we thought it appropriate to use the term “passing.” Following what emerges from the trans* community, we will begin to replace the term “passing” with the more affirmative “blending” in future studies.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the present work