(PS8-33) Association of Transition and Partner Affirmation on Intimate Partner Violence in Transgender and Nonbinary Adults

 Background. Intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization disproportionately affects transgender and nonbinary (TNB) people (James et al., 2016; Peitzmer et al., 2020; Woulfe et al., 2021). Engaging in gender transition steps can have positive impacts on TNB populations, such as increased gender euphoria and reduced mental health symptoms (Jacobson & Devor, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2018). However, no study has explored whether the timing of transition (before or during an intimate relationship) is associated with IPV victimization among TNB populations. Further, gender affirmation encompasses various ways someone communicates the validation and acceptance of a person’s gender identity. Affirmation from an intimate partner in the form of microaffirmations – subtle validation of one’s gender identity – have been found to have positive impacts on TNB people within and outside of their intimate relationship (Galupo et al., 2019; Pulice-Farrow et al., 2019); however, research has yet to assess how partner affirmation may be associated with IPV victimization among TNB populations. The current study assessed how specific transition steps before or during an intimate relationship and partner affirmation were associated with IPV victimization in the current relationship. Method. 256 TNB adults (28.5% transfeminine/trans women, 31.6% transmasculine, 34.4% nonbinary/agender/genderfluid/two-spirit; 41% people of color) currently in an intimate relationship of at least six months completed questions about type (social, medical, hormone) and timing of transition steps (before or during the relationship), and measures of partner affirmation and IPV victimization (physical, psychological, and injury). The Partner Affirmation of Transgender Identity Scale (PATIS; α = .92; Scott et al., 2024) assessed TNB individuals perception of their partners acceptance and affirmation of their gender identity, and the Conflict Tactics Scale was used to assess IPV victimization (Straus & Douglas, 2004). We ran separate logistic regression models to evaluate how participants’ timing of transition, and partner affirmation were associated with IPV victimization ever occurring in their current relationship. Results. Both social transition (OR = 0.324; p < 0.001) and medical transition (OR = 0.385; p = 0.002) before the current relationship were significantly associated with lower odds of experiencing psychological IPV victimization. None of the variables for transitioning during the relationship were significantly associated with any type of IPV (physical, psychological, injury) victimization. Partner affirmation was significantly associated with lower odds of experiencing IPV victimization for all types: psychological (OR = 0.231; p < 0.001), physical (OR = 0.548; p = 0.003;), and injury (OR = 0.446; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Results indicate that transition steps and partner affirmation may have important implications for understanding risk and protective factors for IPV victimization. These findings may support policy and advocacy related to the importance of access to transition-related steps and the prevention and treatment of IPV in TNB populations.