Qualitative study reveals dual protective and harmful relationship dynamics among queer, trans, and nonbinary people of color, highlighting the need for intersectional support interventions.
Queer, trans and non-binary people of colour’s (QTNB-POC) experiences are situated within systemic racism, heterosexism and cissexism, influenced by other compounding marginalised identities as well. Such systems of oppression can shape both QTNB-POC’s identities, and encounters with others. Little is known about how QTNB-POC relationships may be a source of resilience against, or reinforce, systemic oppression; most existing information on these experiences has been through a single-axis approach that does not consider multiple interlocking systems of oppression. The present study interviewed 34 QTNB-POC in a semi-structured format, using interpretative phenomenological analysis and member-checking to construct and refine main themes. The final themes were: a) Internalised Oppression Influences Relationship Navigation, b) Disconnection and Oppression Perpetuated within Relationships, c) Relationships as a Vehicle for Healing and Growth, d) Relationships as a Source of Safety, Support and Joy and e) Cultivating Intentionality and Authenticity in Relationships. Participants described how they encountered oppressive messages within their relationships, and intentionally withdrew from relationships that felt harmful, while also describing how relationships had the potential to be healing, safe and beneficial in protecting against such messages. Our study’s findings highlight the duality of relationships as being both potentially helpful and harmful for QTNB-POC, and the importance of identity validation and affirmation within these relationships. Finally, our study highlights the need for intersectional considerations and collectivist interventions that may improve the relationship experiences of QTNB-POC individuals, and education and outreach around systemic oppression to increase understanding and critical consciousness overall.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Staton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: