Scientific practices surrounding sexual identity are largely based upon cisheteronormative assumptions, using terms that may not resonate with − or may exclude − trans and nonbinary (TNB) individuals and their experiences. This exploratory study examined how TNB college students labeled and described their sexual identities. 212 TNB students (mean age = 20.1 ± 2.4, 68.4% White, 66.5% nonbinary) responded to an open-ended question asking them to list their sexual identities and describe what each identifier meant to them. Reflexive thematic analysis identified six themes: sexual identities were context-dependent, ambiguous or fluid, connected to communities, approached cisheteronormative assumptions in different ways, intertwined with gender identity, and prioritized alternative forms of attraction and connection. Findings extend bisexuality scholarship by showing how TNB young adults navigate cisheteronormative and binary assumptions underlying sexual identity labels through inclusive interpretations, using multiple and/or highly descriptive labels to describe different dimensions of sexuality, or using ambiguous, flexible, or all-encompassing labels.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fowler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: