Transmen, Transwomen, and Non-Binary People of Color: Findings from the Social Justice Sexuality Project

Background and Purpose: Research on the experience of gender diverse individuals is growing, however, few represent the voices of people of color or explore the unique experiences of groups within the gender diverse community.  Understanding these experiences is important to inform practice designed to support and meet the unique needs of each population.  To fill this gap, a secondary analysis was conducted using the Social Justice Sexuality Project (SJS), one of the largest national surveys of LGBTQ+ people of color, to provide a rich description of transwomen, transmen, and non-binary individuals.

Methods: An analytic sample was selected (N=311) of individuals who identified exclusively as a transwoman (n=116), transman (n=64), or non-binary/other (n=131).  The sample was diverse in age (transwomen, [M=36.1, SD=13.2]; transmen, [M=32.16, SD=10.86]; non-binary, [M=32.80, SD=12.23]), race (transwomen, 33.9% Black; transmen, 26.7% Black; non-binary, 25.6% White), ethnicity (transwomen, 28.6% Mexican or Chinese; transmen, 42.9% Mexican; non-binary, 28.0% Mexican).  Chi-square analyzed group differences (transwomen vs transmen, transwomen vs non-binary/other, transmen vs non-binary/other) for demographic information including education, income, and military service among others.  ANOVA were conducted for the happiness scale, community connectedness scale, and social support questions specific to gender identity. 

Results: The highest level of education completed showed significant difference between groups χ²(12)=44.41, p<.001; Cramer’s V =.274.  Transwomen composing the largest group with a high school diploma/GED (31.2%) or less than high school (8.3%).  Transmen consistently led in associates degree (12.1%), Bachelor’s degree (25.9%), and some graduate/professional school (13.8%).  Non-binary individuals showed a split between highest percentage with some college/no degree (13.8%) and graduate/professional degree (18.0%) possibly indicating possible environmental barriers that, when overcome, individuals excelled.  A significant difference was found between if individuals were parents with non-binary individuals less likely to be a parent and transwomen significantly more likely χ²(2)=10.00, p=.007; Cramer’s V =.185.  The community connectedness scale found a significant difference between groups, F(2)=4.29, p=.015.  The happiness scale approached significance difference between groups, F(2)=2.79, p=.063.  Tukey HSD Post Hoc test found non-binary individuals are significantly more connected and approaching significance on happiness when compared transmen and no significant difference existed between transwomen and transmen or trans women and non-binary individuals.  Regarding whether they felt mainstream LGBT organizations addressing gender equality, transmen reported the community is doing too much (6, 10.2%), transwomen reported the community was doing just the right amount (45, 42.9%), and non-binary individuals felt the community was not doing enough (83, 68.0%), χ²(4)=9.587, p=.049; Cramer’s V =.129.

Conclusions and Implications: Our findings indicate that the transwomen, transmen, and non-binary people of color in this sample have unique backgrounds and experiences that warrant further inquiry.  Findings challenge the misconception that gender diverse people are a homogenous group, calling for research and practice to elucidate their unique experiences.  This sample allowed for additional considerations for differences in age, race, and ethnicity that will be discussed further in the presentation.  Interventions aimed at addressing the needs of gender minorities could benefit from adopting adaptable programming to address the identified differences for each gender diverse group.