A recent review paper unpicks methodological hurdles and highlights the need for mindful research inclusion of those beyond the gender binary.
14 November 2025
By Emily Reynolds
Over the past decade, research into the sexuality of gender non-conforming people has grown rapidly. Despite this increased interest, however, those who identify as non-binary often remain under-represented within broader research on gender and sexuality. This poses a problem not only for non-binary people and their partners in terms of being more widely understood, but also for professionals seeking to update their knowledge in order to provide support who might be left with relatively little peer-reviewed information to draw on.
To assess the size of this research gap, Fraedan Mastrantonio and team from the University of Southampton draw on twelve years' worth of papers on non-binary people's sexuality. Writing in Archives of Sexual Behavior, they present a rounded image of what's been investigated so far, and find that non-binary people have some things in common with their binary transgender peers — but that the measures used in research often fail to fully capture their experiences.
The team gathered studies published between 2012 and 2024 focusing on non-binary sexuality, including satisfaction, pleasure, fantasy, relationship quality, and sexual distress. They then reviewed each of the 44 eligible papers based on who participated, how gender identity was explored, what variables were measured, and any main results.
Firstly, while many of the studies were high quality, the team found a number of interesting methodological issues. One of the primary issues was that non-binary identities were often labelled as 'other' or write-in, meaning that different non-binary identities were often lumped together in one group. This prevents researchers from being able to compare and contrast these groups, which potentially results in missing nuanced differences between their experiences. In most studies it also wasn't clear if non-binary participants also identified as transgender.
In terms of orientation, non-binary people overwhelmingly gravitated towards non-normative labels. Queer was the most frequently used; pansexual, bisexual, and asexual also appeared regularly. Interestingly, non-binary people often used 'other' options when available, suggesting that standard categories don't always feel like a good fit. Some studies suggested that non-binary people were more likely than both cis and binary trans people to report attraction to all genders, and were more likely to have had non-binary partners. They were also more likely to report non-monogamous relationships, suggesting more openness to alternative relationship structures.
There were mixed results around risk. Some studies suggested that young non-binary people engage in higher-risk sexual practices than their peers, such as unprotected sex or sex under the influence of drugs and alcohol. One found that non-binary people assumed to be female at birth felt less able to negotiate use of condoms compared to trans women, hinting at specific vulnerabilities, whereas others found no significant association between non-binary identity and risk. Despite this complexity, relationship satisfaction didn't differ between the various gender identities investigated: there were no consistent differences in how satisfied participants of these studies felt with their sex lives or relationships.
With that said, these studies also identified barriers to feeling fully satisfied. Non-binary people were less likely than binary trans individuals to seek or receive gender-affirming care, such as hormones or surgery, and more likely to report being denied treatment when they did seek it. People assumed to be female at birth in particular reported higher levels of 'gender insensitivity' in sexual health settings, including transphobia and normative assumptions. Non-binary participants also reported greater gaps between how they see themselves sexually and how they would ideally like to be, as well as more sexual distress than cis people in at least one study.
Finally, the team explored a set of other sexual variables, mostly studied in single papers. Measures of sexual assertiveness showed few differences between cisgender and non-binary individuals, suggesting that the ability to express one's needs are not necessarily different. Non-binary participants did however report fewer problematic beliefs about consent: they were less likely to think consent is implied or becomes less necessary in longer relationships.
The review's impact is two-fold: as well as collating interesting insights from a broad range of studies, it also highlights that research on non-binary sexuality can be limited in scope and methodological depth, failing to fully capture people's sexual experiences. This limited the investigation's conclusions in itself, and underlines the need for proper consideration to be put into properly capturing both data about individuals' gender identities (rather than just providing an 'other' option) to allow for more fine-grained analyses.
Future research needs to centre non-binary participants from the outset, the team argue, focusing on using inclusive terminology and research designs, and incorporate validated tools that reflect people's lived realities. This would be one more step towards ensuring that the sexual health and wellbeing of non-binary people are properly understood, and that non-binary people can access wider support for their sexual wellbeing similar to those with binary genders.
Read the paper in full:
Mastrantonio, F., Kovshoff, H., & Armstrong, H. (2025). Non-Binary People's Sexuality, Sexual Health, and Relationship Satisfaction: A Review of 12 Years of Quantitative Research (2012–2024). Archives of Sexual Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03224-0
SOURCE:
https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/non-binary-insights-slip-through-cracks-sexuality-research(accessed 26.11.25)
No comments:
Post a Comment