Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging
(USC Thesis Other)
The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
The Relationship of College Climate and Policy to Transgender Student Belonging
by
Daniella Baker
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2021
© Copyright by Daniella Baker 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Daniella Baker certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Adam Kho
Jeremy Goldbach
Ruth Chung, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Colleges have become primary sites of disclosure and transition for transgender students
(Silveira & Goff, 2016). Those that are able to attain college degrees may have drastically
improved life outcomes compared to the general transgender population in the United States
(Wilkinson, Pearson, & Liu, 2018). However, hostile campus climates and college policies are a
deterrent to degree completion and increase attrition (Beemyn, 2005). This quantitative
correlational study sought to center transgender student perspectives on campus climates and
college policies, as well as to examine the relationship of climate and policy to transgender
student belonging and intent to persist. Findings demonstrate that transgender student
perspectives of campus climates and college policies are largely negative with reports of rampant
hostility and discrimination. Findings also show that campus resources including housing,
healthcare, and bathrooms, are often exclusionary and increase school-related stress for
transgender students. Consequently, after the second year of enrollment, belonging decreases
with each year enrolled. For white and non-Black transgender students of color, minority stress
appears to primarily stem from transgender identity itself. Belonging and intent to persist for
transgender students was directly correlated with and predicted by college climates and policies.
The limitations and implications of these findings are discussed.
v
Acknowledgements
At orientation I came out to USC and my program as a transgender woman. A speaker
told the nervous crowd of incoming students to avoid any major life changes and here I was
presenting myself as the woman that I am for the first time. While finishing this program I have
officially changed my name and gender, undergone major transition-related surgeries, and
survived the unspeakable. This was all made possible by a team of faculty, peers, and friends
who gave me a glimmer of what my life could be and persisted with me through it all as brilliant
beacons of light. This study would not have been possible without the unwavering guidance and
support of my chair, Dr. Ruth Chung. You have spent many late nights and vacation days
providing much needed help and feedback. Your willingness to accept this transgender student
into your cohort and to support my research into transgender student needs has been a turning
point in my life. You have coached and cheered me on as I fought this good fight, finished this
race, and kept faith in the process. Thank you so very much for your kindness and your tenacity,
you have kept me moving in the right direction across the finish line. I’m also so thankful to and
grateful for the guidance of my dissertation committee, Dr. Jeremy Goldbach and Dr. Adam
Kho. You have helped to hone this study, which will hopefully help other transgender students
thrive, as I have with your kindness, help, and guidance. I would also like to thank my USC
classmates, Lily and Rebecca. You were my first friends in this program and have been there to
the end, you are my chosen family. Finally, I would not be here without the undying love and
support of my partner, Angela. You have seen me through so much, pulled me through so much,
and have made this possible. I cherish you.
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 10
Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 14
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 16
Demographics and Student Identity .................................................................................. 16
Campus Climate ................................................................................................................ 18
College Policy ................................................................................................................... 21
Perceived Belonging ......................................................................................................... 26
Intent to Persist ................................................................................................................. 27
Summary of Literature Review ......................................................................................... 28
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................. 29
vii
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Participants and Procedure ................................................................................................ 32
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 35
Demographics Questions and Student Identity ............................................................ 36
Campus Climate ........................................................................................................... 36
College Policy .............................................................................................................. 38
Sense of Belonging ...................................................................................................... 38
Intent to Persist ............................................................................................................. 39
Qualitative Questions ................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Four: Results .................................................................................................................. 42
Preliminary Analysis ......................................................................................................... 42
Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................... 42
Correlations .................................................................................................................. 44
Analysis of Main Research Questions .............................................................................. 45
Research Question One Results ........................................................................................ 45
Research Question Two Results ....................................................................................... 48
Research Question Three Results ..................................................................................... 51
Research Question Four Results ....................................................................................... 53
Research Question Five Results........................................................................................ 54
Research Question Six Results ......................................................................................... 56
Research Question Seven Results ..................................................................................... 57
Research Question Eight Results ...................................................................................... 58
viii
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 59
Findings............................................................................................................................. 59
Belonging and Intent to Persist .................................................................................... 59
Perceptions of Climate ................................................................................................. 60
Perceptions of Policy.................................................................................................... 62
The Predictive Role of Climate .................................................................................... 64
The Predictive Role of Policy ...................................................................................... 64
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 65
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 67
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 68
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 69
References ..................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix A: Sample Survey ........................................................................................................ 95
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Frequency Distribution by Race, Gender, and Years 33
Table 2: Frequency Distribution by Region and Type 34
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Variables 43
Table 4: Pearson’s Product Correlations for Variables 44
Table 5: Means and Standard Deviation for Belonging by Years 47
Table 6: Differences in Perceptions of Policy by Type and Region 48
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Perceptions of Policy by Type 49
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Perceptions of Policy by Region 50
Table 9: Predictive Quality of Climate for Belonging and Intent to Persist 51
Table 10: Predictive Quality of Policy for Belonging and Intent to Persist 53
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Model of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory 12
.
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Transgender issues have increasingly garnered more attention in the United States, both
culturally and politically. A national survey conducted by the Williams Institute in 2016 found
that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender (Flores, 2016). Despite being such a small
minority relative to the general population, topics involving transgender people continue to gain
attention in popular media and political discussion. Shows like Orange Is the New Black (2013-
2019), Pose (2018-2021), and Euphoria (2019-) have increased representation for transgender
people and elevated transgender issues from intracommunal LGBTQ discussions to national
discourse (Koch-Rein et al., 2020). Unfortunately, while transgender people and issues have
gained more visibility, this has been simultaneously correlated with an increase in hate crimes
targeting transgender people (Colliver & Silvestri, 2020). Such an increase in violence
experienced by transgender people has been damaging to the wellbeing and health of transgender
people, too often leading to suicidality.
In a study of the correlation of gender-based violence (GBV) and suicidality, transgender
people who reported experiences of GBV were four times more likely than transgender people
who have not experienced GBV to attempt suicide (Goldblum et al., 2012). The danger of
experienced GBV also persists in comparisons of transgender people with cisgender lesbian, gay,
and bisexual people. Compared with the broader LGBQ community, transgender individuals are
also more likely to experience greater instances of depression and gender-based discrimination
(Su et al., 2016). Attempts at mitigating some of the negative experiences of transgender people
have seen mixed results with minimal implementation and sporadic enforcement of transgender-
inclusive policies in the workplace (Colvin, 2007). The Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v.
Clayton County, Georgia (2020) extended federal workplace to transgender workers but
2
enforcement and implementation has yet to be universally applied. As such, there is much
regional variation in transgender experiences that intersect with race, class, and educational
attainment.
Transgender students that pursue college degrees may do so to increase their chances of
thriving amidst a broader culture that has yet to fully accept and include them. However, the
experiences of transgender college students are far from acceptance and inclusion due to campus
climates and college policies that inhibit a sense of belonging, often leading to attrition and
negative mental health outcomes. In a study of the National College Health Assessment–II
(NCHA-II) from 2011 through 2013 on the relationship between gender identity and
victimization, transgender students were compared as a group with cisgender males and females.
Transgender students were found to have higher rates of experiences of sexual victimization,
rape, and sexually abusive relationships than their cisgender peers (Griner et al., 2017). While
visibility and representation on college campuses has increased, this has also resulted in an
increase of both discrimination and harassment on college campuses (Sausa, 2002). Although the
visibility of transgender students has increased on college campuses, they remain one of the most
vulnerable and underserved college populations (Beemyn, 2003). Unfortunately, because
transgender people are still largely unrepresented in college administration, faculty, and staff,
colleges have often been ill-equipped to address problems of campus climate and college policy
(Sausa, 2002).
Background of the Problem
Transgender people have fewer opportunities for work and face rampant discrimination
in the workplace (Fitzgerald et al., 2015). As a result, they are overrepresented in housing
insecure and sex worker populations (Glick et al., 2019; James et al., 2016; Fitzgerald et al.,
3
2015). Many transgender college students may come to campus having experienced
homelessness or having taken part in sex work in order to survive. Like for many minority
groups, education can be a necessary tool of empowerment for transgender people that are
underemployed and face sporadic protections that are regionally defined. However, transgender
degree completion rates still trail that of the majority cisgender population at every level, largely
due to high attrition rates (Carpenter et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2018). This problem of
transgender student attrition can be associated with the negative educational experiences that
transgender students experience at much higher rates than their cisgender peers.
Experiences of interpersonal victimization and institutional marginalization on college
campuses continue to be normative for many transgender students (Seelman, 2014). While there
has been much progress over the past two decades in terms of improving campus climates and
college policies to become more inclusive and affirming of transgender students, there is still
much work to be done in order to support this vulnerable population (Rankin et al., 2019).
Colleges and universities can improve their climates for transgender students by implementing
targeted programming, support systems, inclusion efforts, recruitment, and accountability
measures (Seelman, 2014). Policies can be improved by establishing clear and easy methods for
changing one’s name and gender, providing inclusive gendered housing as well as non-gendered
options, and updating physical facilities (Seelman, 2014). Unfortunately, there is no federal
guideline or mandate for these recommendations and transgender students continue to be an
institutionally neglected student population nationwide with many campuses persistently hostile
towards their transgender populations (Rankin, 2003). Even when not overtly hostile, college
campuses still overwhelmingly exclude transgender students, resulting in less sense of
institutional belonging among transgender students than with their cisgender peers (Rankin,
4
2006). Transgender student experiences on college campuses range from overt violence and
discrimination to interpersonal and environmental microaggressions. This results in increased
risk for negative academic outcomes that can often lead to attrition (Woodford et al., 2017).
Transgender students find the freedom and independence of college campuses to be ripe
for disclosure or “coming out” (Witte et al., 2020). As such, colleges are becoming primary sites
of disclosure and transition for transgender students, but many schools are unprepared and ill
equipped to provide safe spaces for such disclosure and public transition (Donatone & Rachlin,
2013). Consequently, transgender students have internalized lower expectations to attain college
degrees, receive lower grades, and have more instances of truancy than other students (Aragon et
al., 2014). They are also at greater risk for being victims of sexual assault on campuses and
residential housing (Coulter & Rankin, 2020). Problematic drinking patterns also emerge among
the transgender student population, especially when faced with discriminatory climates and
policies (Ebersole et al., 2012).
Many of the negative experiences that transgender students encounter as they relate to
campus climate and policy are rooted in K-12 experiences that are replicated once they attend
college. Such experiences are regionally defined due to lack of federal guidance for schools
across the United States. In California, where transgender people have higher workplace and
educational protections than in most of the country, the California State Assembly implemented
AB 493 to help reduce LGBTQ discrimination for public school students. This bill set a
statewide standard for faculty training, LGBTQ-affirming curriculum, and the establishment of
LGBTQ safe spaces at all public schools for grades 7-12 by July, 2021. It called for the regular
training of all certified school employees on LGBTQ student inclusion and the introduction and
maintenance of onsite community resources for such students. However, the bill does not
5
establish a mandate in terms of policies or climate, and there are no enforcement measures
delineated. This approach is mirrored at the post-secondary level, with college climates and
policies being informed by their unique cultures, histories, and regional characteristics. As a
result, transgender students will have vastly different experiences depending on the college they
attend.
Colleges and universities understand the role that campus climate has to play in fostering
effective academic communities, especially for minorities that experience minority stress in
addition to the normative pressures of post-secondary degree attainment. This is evidenced by
the vast resources that are expended in order to improve campus climates to further inclusion
efforts (Rankin & Reason, 2008). Unfortunately, many colleges still do not proactively address
the needs of their transgender students. This inhibits their academic potential, community
integration, and participation in campus life (Rankin, 2005). At many colleges and universities in
the United States, there continues to be a lack of training on transgender student issues, barriers
to health care access on campus, low visibility of safe spaces and allies, and non-inclusive
language embedded throughout campus communications and systems (Singh et al., 2013). This
institutional neglect not only results in diminished academic outcomes and higher attrition, but
leads to alarming rates of suicidality (Russell et al., 2018; Testa et al., 2017). Transgender
students are also largely unable to change their name and gender in college and university
systems until they have successfully navigated complex legal systems and processes, ensuring
that transgender student experiences will be regionally determined to some degree depending on
local policies for name and gender changes as well as access to medical transition resources
(Beemyn & Brauer, 2015). Such policies persist despite research that shows that chosen name
use can drastically reduce suicidality and negative mental health outcomes, which are clear
6
barriers to transgender student academic achievement (Pollitt et al., 2021; Russell et al., 2018).
This institutional neglect perpetuates a low sense of belonging for transgender college students in
general and results in unaddressed attrition rates (Mancini, 2019).
Statement of the Problem
Many institutions of higher learning have identified that differences by race persist
among college students’ sense of school belonging and intent to persist at their institutions
(Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Students of color have reported less sense
of belonging and higher attrition rates than their white peers (Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015;
Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tinto, 1975; Halpin, 1990). Women and gender minorities have also
reported less sense of belonging and intent to persist than men and cisgender peers (Banchefsky
et al., 2019; Huyge et al., 2015). Students with such experiences of gender-based
marginalization, discrimination, and victimization have also reported less of a sense of belonging
and intent to persist than those who do not have such experiences (Rainey et al., 2018). For
transgender students of color, especially transgender women of color, their minoritized racial and
gender identities are compounded, with less sense of belonging and intent to persist than white
cisgender peers. (Jefferson et al., 2013). Transgender students also lag behind the cisgender
population in college degree attainment at every level (Carpenter et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al.,
2018).
Despite the reality of compounded minority stress for transgender students, there is a
persistent practice gap in improving campus climates and college policies in order to increase
belonging among the vulnerable transgender student population. This diminishes student
outcomes and serves as a barrier to degree attainment. Hostile college climates and non-inclusive
policies decrease the sense of belonging for students, increase attrition rates, and are a barrier to
7
improved academic outcomes and engagement in student life (Mathies et al., 2019). However,
how these factors specifically shape transgender students and the degree to which compounded
minority stress results in experiential variance among transgender identities has yet to be
understood. By centering transgender student perspectives and allowing such student experiences
to inform campus climate initiatives and policy-making, colleges have the opportunity to not
only improve retention rates, but to also tangibly improve transgender students’ lives beyond
college.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine transgender student-centered perspectives on
campus climates and college policies in order to better understand the relationship of such
climates and policies to the transgender college student experience, particularly sense of
belonging and intent to persist. While popular sites of disclosure and transition, many colleges
are not actively working to improve transgender student experiences and outcomes (Silveira &
Goff, 2016). Transgender students who manage to attain college degrees despite diminished
opportunities as well as cultural and systemic challenges may have improved life outcomes that
can help counteract discrimination and other negative societal pressures (Wilkinson et al., 2018).
However, if campus climates and college policies do not lead to an improved sense of belonging
for students, it is likely that they will not persist through degree attainment (Beemyn, 2005). In
addition to traditional challenges that cisgender college students face, transgender college
students also persist through many other hurdles that threaten to derail or defer college degree
attainment, including disproportionate experiences of bullying, harassment, and violence
(Kosciw et al., 2020). By centering transgender student perspectives in climate and policy
8
initiatives, colleges can improve perceived belonging in this vulnerable population and reduce
attrition.
Significance of the Study
As with other vulnerable minority communities, transgender student wellbeing and
persistence to degree attainment are supported by affirming climates and inclusive policies
(Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The correlation between sense of
belonging and improved student outcomes should prompt colleges to address transgender student
attrition by improving their climates and policies (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016). The GLSEN
2019 NSCS Report showed that the low levels of institutional belonging and higher levels of
risky behaviors experienced by transgender middle and high school students unfortunately
persists through college (Kosciw et al., 2020). When interviewed about their college experiences,
the majority of transgender students report feeling marginalized and discriminated against by
both faculty and peers, indicating that hostile campus climates have become normative across the
U.S. (Pryor, 2015).
While many colleges and universities have stated commitments to valuing diversity and
affirming transgender students, the majority of institutions in the United States do not have
policies related to this population (Patchett & Foster, 2015). Only 63% of schools reported
having gender-inclusive bathrooms and less than half of reporting schools (44%) have gender-
inclusive locker rooms, resulting in the persistent exclusion of transgender students from
physical education programs (Patchett & Foster, 2015). While 57% of colleges have diversity
offices that conduct annual trainings, only 13% of those schools offer trainings that inform
faculty and staff on transgender student issues and needs (Patchett & Foster, 2015). Policies
regarding bathroom use, participation in athletic programs, inclusion in gendered housing
9
options, and gender-neutral facilities are often sporadically implemented despite evidence that
shows how important such policies are to transgender students’ sense of belonging and intent to
persist. In an analysis of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, Seelman (2016) found
that denied access to gendered spaces that match one’s gender identity is also associated with
increased suicidality. In light of these experiences, it is understandable that transgender college
students are at higher risk of attrition than their cisgender peers (Mancini, 2019). In order to
improve retention rates in this population, colleges can work to improve transgender students’
sense of belonging and intent to persist through improvements in climate and policy rooted in the
centering of transgender student perceptions and experiences.
In self-assessments, colleges report better campus climates and more inclusive policies
than what is perceived by transgender college students (Patchett & Foster, 2015). As such, it is
important to explore this discrepancy by centering transgender student experiences and allowing
this community to inform the policies that most shape their experiences. In studies that are
student-centered, transgender students report experiences of hostility, discrimination, and
harassment which are fundamentally at odds with the mission statements and expressed diversity
and inclusion goals of many colleges and universities. In order to understand normative
transgender student educational experiences, researchers rely on surveys and interviews of
transgender students that can offer insights beyond internally developed climate reports and
official policies. By examining the lived realities of transgender students, colleges can better
identify the relationship of climate and policy to sense of belonging and intent to persist. In
allowing transgender student experiences to inform climate initiatives and policy changes,
colleges can improve transgender student outcomes and bring their practice into alignment with
their stated missions of diversity and inclusion.
10
Conceptual Framework
The Ecological Systems Theory developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) is a useful
framework for understanding the dynamic interactions of multiple interrelated systems on
subjective individual experience. This theory posits that multiple systems inform and are
informed by individuals, these include the chronosystem, macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem,
and microsystem. The chronosystem describes the pattern of environmental shifts over time due
to sociological and historical changes. For transgender students, the chronosystem includes
oppression, challenges, and progress for transgender people throughout time, as well as their own
subjective historical experiences of transition. The macrosystem includes the broader culture that
individuals are situated and participate in. For transgender students, their macrosystems may
include cultural transphobia, school region and type, academic class, gender, and race. Some of
these factors that make up the macrosystems of transgender students, like race, gender, and years
enrolled may contribute to compounded minority stress (Coleman et al., 2020). From a student-
centered perspective, race, gender, and years enrolled not only contribute to minority stress but
help shape perceptions of belonging and intent to persist. The same is true of colleges, with
region and school type being potential factors that may shape their climates, policies, and
transgender student perceptions.
For gender and sexual minorities, minority stress can negatively impact social
engagement, mental wellbeing, and physical health (Hatzenbuehler & Pachankis, 2016; Frost et
al., 2015; Meyer, 2003). Victims of minority stress have heightened risks for chronic conditions
and diagnoses of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (Lick et al., 2013). Minority stress
has also been shown to lower the quality of interpersonal relationships and increase the potential
for both domestic violence victimization as well as perpetration (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005).
11
The experience and expectation of experiencing minority stress both contribute to increased
feelings of loneliness and decreased social engagement (Kuyper & Fokkema, 2010). These
negative effects of minority stress on minoritized communities also lead to increased suicidality
as well as substance abuse (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Gamarel et al., 2016; Lea et al., 2014; Plöderl
et al., 2014). Minority stress is even more acutely felt for those in racial/ethnic minority groups
that are also gender and/or sexual minorities (Zamboni & Crawford, 2007) and contributes to
higher attrition rates for minority college students (Arbona et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2011;
Smedley et al., 1993). These risk factors are particularly elevated for LGBTQ youth and college
students, which experience greater degrees of minority stress than their straight and cisgender
peers (Bissonette & Szymanski, 2019; Chodzen et al., 2019; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013).
The exosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory refers to interactions that
do not directly involve the individual at the center of the ecological system (1979). For
transgender students, this could include influences on their families of origin and colleges
including mass media, the opinion of friends, and the perceptions of donors, administrators, and
faculty. The microsystem describes institutions and groups that directly impact individuals and
the mesosystem refers to interactions between microsystems. The microsystems of transgender
students include their family of origin, college, faculty, and peers. While the entire ecological
systems of transgender students are important, as all levels will contribute to shaping student
experiences, this study is particularly rooted in macrosystems and microsystems, specifically in
how college climate and policy relate to transgender student feelings of belonging and intent to
persist.
12
Figure 1
Model of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Note: Illustration of Brofenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Reprinted from
“Brofenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory for Modelling Community Resilience to Natural
Disasters,” by H.J. Boon, A. Cottrell, D. King, R.B. Stevenson, and J. Miller, 2012, Natural
Hazards, 60(2), pp. 381-408. Copyright 2011 by Springer Science Business Media B.V.
13
The theory of Student Involvement developed by Alexander Astin illustrates how student
demographics and their environment contribute to student outcomes that persist beyond
graduation (1984). Student involvement was shown to be proportionally correlated with student
outcomes, with highly involved students tending to receive better academic results that students
with less involvement. Another way to examine student involvement or engagement is through
the student-centered lens of belonging. Hurtado and Carter found that for minority Latinx
students, positive peer interactions and involvement with extracurricular organizations were
associated with a stronger sense of student belonging (1997). In addition to race, there were
found to be differences in belonging by years enrolled and colleges were recommended to
improve their climates and policies in order to improve Latinx student belonging. Such
belonging has also been shown to predict intent to persist (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2015),
especially for minority students (Hausmann et al., 2007). This sense of student belonging is
malleable and colleges can work to increase or decrease perceived belonging (Linnenbrink-
Garcia et al., 2016). By improving student belonging, colleges can consequently improve intent
to persist and reduce attrition (Hausmann et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997).
This important sense of perceived belonging has been correlated with college climates
and policies (Tinto, 2012). Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) showed that positive school climates and
policies are directly correlated with improved student outcomes including persistence. Hostile
school climates and policies have been correlated with negative student outcomes and attrition
(Stein at al., 2016; Fan et al., 2011; Graham & Gisi, 2000). In order to best understand what
climate and policy initiatives must be employed in order to improve student belonging, colleges
can center student perspectives on climate, policy, belonging, and intent to persist (Tinto, 2016;
Patchett & Foster, 2015). This is especially important for improving the outcomes of transgender
14
students, who have lower belonging and higher attrition than their cisgender peers (Hatchel et al.,
2019). This study seeks to better understand the interactions of transgender student ecological
systems in order to improve transgender student experiences and persistence. The
chronosystems, macrosystems, and exosystems that situate transgender student experiences can
be explored through investigating broader cultural transphobia. The microsystems and
mesosystems of transgender students can be studied through examining how race, gender, and
years enrolled may contribute to minority stress and interact with college type, region, climate,
and policy to shape perceived belonging and intent to persist.
Limitations
Conducting research on this vulnerable population can be difficult as transgender people
make up just a small percentage of the general population at less than 1% in the U.S. (Flores,
2016; Miner et al., 2012). There are also cultural and political factors that serve as barriers to
research in transgender communities. As members of a vulnerable population, transgender
students are often reluctant to participate in studies involving their identities (Suen, 2015). Areas
with weak or non-existent protections for transgender people may result in limited responses due
to fear of being identified and targeted. For many transgender people, especially women of color,
living stealth may be the safest option (Sevelius, 2013). Living stealth and being able to “pass”
(be consistently socially read as one’s gender identity) can provide a level of security that is
often not experienced by transgender people who do not pass (Begun & Kattari, 2016; Sycamore,
2006). Consequently, transgender people “in the closet” (those who do not publicly express their
gender identity) as well as those who live “stealth” (those who no longer publicly identify as
transgender but have gone through medical transitions) are often excluded from studies on
transgender populations, further limiting responses (Stitt, 2020).
15
Definition of Terms
Transgender identity and expression is difficult to define and because of the history of
systemic discrimination and cultural hostility, consequently, it is best measured and defined by
self-disclosure and self-identification (Erickson-Schroth, 2014). There is wide diversity in the
spectrum of transgender identities, some of which are culturally-bound, like two-spirit or hijra
communities (Erickson-Schroth, 2014). Generally, transgender people have a gender identity
and/or expression that does not correspond with the sex assigned to them at birth. This contrasts
with the majority cisgender population, in which sex assigned at birth and gender identity is
congruent. Transgender identities include but are not limited to transgender women, transgender
men, non-binary people who do not identify with binary (male or female) gender identities,
agender people who do not identify with any gender, and genderqueer people who may
experience fluctuating gender identity and expression (Erickson-Schroth, 2014).
Other terms that are essential to this study include minority stress, climate, and policy.
Minority stress refers to the compounded effects of systemic prejudice and interpersonal
discrimination on minoritized communities and individuals (Meyer, 2003). Such minority stress
has the potential to shape the perceptions of transgender student belonging and intent to persist,
especially for transgender students of color. A student-centered definition of climate and policy
refers to the multifaceted resources, features, and institutions that frame student experiences
(Kosciw et al., 2020). Defining climate by student experiences includes such factors as
encounters with anti-transgender language and experiences of victimization including bullying,
harassment, and assault. A student-centered definition of policy includes experiences of
institutional discrimination, encounters with support systems, curricular inclusion, curricular
resources, supportive educators, and institutional inclusion.
16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Transgender students share challenges with that of LGBQ students but also have unique
experiences and difficulties (Mulcahy et al., 2016). Hostile campus climates and non-inclusive
policies can be barriers to transgender students’ sense of belonging and discourage their intent to
persist. As educational attainment is one tangible way that transgender people can improve their
lives, colleges that work to improve their climates and policies can positively increase the
potential for transgender student thriving beyond degree completion. In order to do so colleges
must understand the intersectional dynamics of transgender student identities and how they
might contribute to minority stress, as well as the role of climate and policy in predicting
transgender student belonging and intent to persist. This chapter explores the relationship of
intersectional transgender identities to minority stress and student outcomes. This is followed by
a review of relevant literature as it pertains to campus climate, college policy, student belonging,
and intent to persist. The chapter concludes with a summary of the research questions that frame
this study as well as a discussion of the challenges in researching transgender populations.
Demographics and Student Identity
The experience of systemic discrimination and minority stress contributes to internal
stressors for transgender people, that is, the expectation of being discriminated against based on
the accumulation of personal histories of discrimination is itself stressful (Rood et al., 2016).
Minority college students enter and experience college with both externally-sourced minority
stress, as well as internal stressors which contribute to their perceptions of belonging and intent
to persist (Rentería et al., 2021). Such minority stress has been measured and correlated with
negative academic, mental, and social outcomes among cisgender minority college students,
from lower grades to decreased capacity for career planning (Winderman et al., 2018; Cokley et
17
al., 2013). Despite these disparate results many campus climates and college policies still fail to
support their minority student populations (Balsam et al., 2013).
For students of color, systemic discrimination, hostile climates, and minority stress can
impact their sense of belonging and intent to persist (Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015; Hurtado &
Carter, 1997). Students with histories and experiences of racially-based marginalization have
been shown to report lower levels of student belonging and intent to persist, resulting in higher
rates of attrition (Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tinto, 1975; Halpin,
1990). For transgender students of color, their intersecting racial and transgender identities
compound the negative effects of minority stress (Coleman et al., 2020; Harris & Nicolazzo,
2017). Research has also identified differences by gender in terms of student belonging and
intent to persist (Huyge et al., 2015; Banchefsky et al., 2019). As such, there are differences
among transgender student populations as they pertain to perceptions of campus climate as well
as educational outcomes even though many studies of transgender populations reductively
compare all transgender identities against the cisgender majority (Dugan et al., 2012). Like with
race, students with histories and experiences of gender-based marginalization have been shown
to report lower levels of student belonging and intent to persist (Rainey et al., 2018). This is also
reflected in the differences in academic performance and mental distress between transgender
male and female students, with lower performance and increased mental distress more
pronounced in transgender women than men (Clements-Nolle, et al., 2006).
These experiences of hostile climates, discriminatory policies, and compounded minority
stress often translate into extensive negative outcomes for transgender students. For example,
transgender female students report twice the risk for mental health conditions when compared
with cisgender female students (Oswalt & Lederer, 2017). Transgender students in general also
18
have lower academic outcomes than their cisgender peers, contributing to the persistent problem
of high attrition (Testa et al., 2017; Yuksel et al., 2017). The combination of these negative
experiences also contributes to substance use and addiction, with transgender students reporting
much higher rates of both than their cisgender peers (De Pedro et al., 2017). The epidemic of
campus sexual assaults has also impacted transgender students at a disproportional level to their
cisgender peers with correlated increases in suicidality in the transgender population (Yuksel et
al., 2017; Goldblum et al., 2012). While negative experiences and lack of perceived belonging
can lead to increased suicidality for transgender students, colleges and universities can
drastically reduce that risk by implementing campus climate initiatives and policies that
correspond with an increased sense of belonging and intent to persist (Willging et al., 2016). The
U.S. transgender population has been shown to display increased resilience in the face of these
challenges when provided with a sense of belonging and peer support (Bockting et al., 2013). By
increasing transgender students’ sense of school belonging, schools can reduce suicidality and
decrease the likelihood of diminished mental health while improving academic outcomes and
reducing attrition (Hatchel et al., 2019; Matsuno & Israel, 2018; Veale et al., 2017)
Campus Climate
The majority of transgender students across the U.S. report campus climates that are
barriers to establishing a sense of safety and belonging at school. Transgender students report
higher rates of verbal harassment and physical assault at schools than their cisgender peers
(Corbat, 2017). In the GLSEN 2019 National School Climate Survey, 16,713 LGBTQ students
between the ages of 13 and 21 were asked about their school experiences. 56.9% of LGBTQ
students reported being verbally harassed at school due to their gender identity with 21.8%
experiencing physical harassment based on gender expression (Kosciw et al., 2020). 87.4% of
19
LGBTQ students heard derogatory references or slurs regarding transgender people, with 43.7%
reporting that such instances happen frequently (Kosciw et al., 2020). 30.7% of students reported
that negative remarks about gender expression occurred in the presence of school staff but only
9% reported that school staff intervened most of the time when such behavior happened in their
presence (Kosciw et al., 2020).
For 9.5% of LGBTQ students, harassment escalates into experiences of assault based on
their gender expression (Kosciw et al., 2020). School staff and administration are not seen as safe
people to disclose such negative encounters to with 56.6% of LGBTQ students neglecting to
report harassment or assault at school due to perceptions that reporting would make the problem
worse or that they would be ignored (Kosciw et al., 2020). This perception is likely perpetuated
by the actions of staff and administration as 60.5% of LGBTQ students who did report
experiences of harassment or assault were ignored by staff or instructed to ignore the (Kosciw et
al., 2020). Such hostile climates often correspond with high levels of depression and low levels
of belonging for transgender students that are carried over into and inform post-secondary
experiences (Kosciw et al., 2020). Because of such normalized discrimination, many transgender
students entering college will have experienced hostile climates at the middle and high school
levels only to face similar climates on their college campuses.
Campus climate is a clear contributing factor to transgender students’ wellbeing, sense of
belonging, and intent to persist. School climates have been correlated with student outcomes in
terms of academic success, mental health, and attrition (Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005). Safe climates
are correlated with more positive student outcomes and hostile climates are correlated with more
negative student outcomes (Stein et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2011; Graham & Gisi, 2000). For
transgender students, being “out” or publicly transgender, is correlated with more negative
20
perceptions of both campus and classroom climate (Garvey & Rankin, 2015). While transgender
student perceptions of campus climate have improved across generations, transgender students
still report less of a sense of belonging than their cisgender peers and report widespread hostility
(Garvey et al., 2017; Evans & Herriot, 2004). Such experiences diminish transgender student
outcomes, increase attrition, discourage engagement in campus life, and extend the time needed
for degree completion (Garvey et al., 2019; Yost & Gilmore, 2011). Alternately, colleges with
safe climates for transgender students see higher levels of perceived belonging and intent to
persist among their transgender student population than those with hostile climates (Glazzard et
al., 2020; Garvey et al., 2015).
Due to negative campus climate perceptions and experiences, transgender students often
disengage from campus life and report feelings of isolation (Evans et al., 2017). Such isolation
can be mitigated by connecting transgender students to the broader LGBTQ community and
many colleges and universities have an LGBTQ center or space for such community
connections. However, the presence of these spaces is not enough to improve transgender student
perceptions of campus climates as many transgender students report instances of discrimination
from cisgender members of the LGBTQ community on campus, which can be particularly
damaging to their sense of belonging (Evans et al., 2017). Experiences of sexual assault on
campus are also damaging to the academic outcomes, wellbeing, and sense of belonging for all
students (Coulter & Rankin, 2020). For colleges and universities with sexual assault prevention
programs and/or policies, improving campus climates for both sexual and gender minorities has
been correlated with a broader reduction in instances of sexual assault on campus, showing that
the targeted improvement of campus climates for transgender students is associated with
increased safety for the entire student body (Coulter & Rankin, 2020).
21
However, transgender students cannot predict when campus climates will be conducive to
their academic and personal wellbeing simply by examining the type or culture of a particular
institution. Negative perceptions of campus climate and low sense of belonging are pervasive
throughout transgender student experiences at all types post-secondary institutions, including
research universities (Greathouse et al., 2018). While transgender students are more likely than
cisgender students to attend two-year institutions due to discrimination, they encounter hostile
climates and negative experiences at similar rates to transgender students at four-year institutions
as well (Beemyn, 2012). Technical and trade schools also exhibit hostile campus climates for
transgender students with low sense of belonging and more negative health outcomes than their
cisgender peers (Witte at al., 2020). Gendered colleges also present hostile climates with
transgender students at women’s colleges facing unique challenges (Marine, 2011). Colleges
seeking to improve retention and reduce attrition rates can do so by improving campus climates,
which has been shown to predict increased intent to persist and lowered attrition (Tetreault et al.,
2013).
College Policy
School policies can also be a barrier to student belonging and persistence, with only
10.9% of LGBTQ students reporting that their school had official policies in place to support
transgender students (Kosciw et al., 2020). School facilities, including bathrooms, can often
become sources of anxiety and sites of physical harm (Wenick et al., 2017). For many
transgender students, simply using existing bathroom facilities or being forced to use a bathroom
that does not match one’s gender identity results in feelings of separation and inequality
(Watkins & Moreno, 2017). This also occurs in physical education programming and athletics,
where transgender students can experience systemic exclusion and institutional barriers to
22
participation (Foley et al., 2016). From 2020 to March 2021, 25 bills excluding transgender
students from participation in school sports were introduced in state legislatures (Freedom for
All Americans, 2021). Transgender students are largely excluded from sports participation with
only 5.6% able to access appropriate locker rooms and only 5.1% able to participate in school
sports that match their gender identity (Kosciw et al., 2020). Aside from being exclusionary,
school policies can often explicitly discriminate against transgender students. GLSEN’s 2019
National School Climate Survey revealed that 22.8% of transgender students have been
prohibited from using their preferred name or pronouns, and only 8.6% reported having access to
an appropriate restroom (Kosciw et al., 2020). This discrimination is also prevalent in curricular
choices with only 16.2% of LGBTQ students reporting the experience of learning from positive
LGBTQ-relevant curriculum (Kosciw et al., 2020). The majority of transgender students have no
experiences of learning from any LGBTQ-relevant curriculum and for 13.8% of LGBTQ
students, what they do learn has a clear negative bias (Kosciw et al., 2020). This also persists in
sex education, which can have dangerous results. While transgender people are at much higher
risk for HIV than the majority cisgender population (Klein et al., 2020), only 8.2% of LGBTQ
students reported being taught positive LGBTQ-inclusive sex education (Kosciw et al., 2020).
Like campus climate, college policies have also been strongly correlated with student
outcomes (Goodman et al., 2011). Inclusive policies are correlated with more positive student
outcomes and exclusive policies are correlated with more negative student outcomes (Anaya,
2020; Grigal et al., 2011). For transgender students, school policy can directly impact their
agency, academic outcomes, and personal wellbeing (Jones, 2015). Post-secondary institutions
are not only primary sights of disclosure (“coming out”), but younger generations of trans
students are disclosing their identities at increasing rates. (Witte et al., 2020; Donatone &
23
Rachlin, 2013). While transgender students may feel safer to disclose their identities and begin
public transitions while on a college campus, they soon discover that campus facilities and
college policies enforce binary gender expectations, leading to exclusion and/or discrimination
based on gender identity (Beemyn, 2005).
Colleges with policies that affirm transgender student identities see higher levels of
perceived belonging and intent to persist among their transgender student population, while
colleges with policies that reject transgender student identities see lower levels of perceived
belonging and intent to persist (Beemyn, 2005). LGBTQ resource centers and advocacy
organizations are essential for supporting transgender students and encouraging engagement in
campus life, but nondiscrimination policies also correspond with an increased sense of belonging
and persistence (Pitcher et al., 2018). However, when such support systems for transgender
students do exist, they are often sporadically implemented and poorly communicated, with many
transgender students often being unaware of the supports that are available to them (Grewe,
2014).
Housing and restroom facilities remain an area of concern for transgender student
wellbeing and most colleges and universities can drastically improve their current practice.
Current facilities and policies across the U.S. put transgender students at high risk for harassment
and discrimination (Seelman, 2014). The majority of on-campus housing assignments are still
determined by sex declared at birth rather than gender, which is problematic for transgender
women and men, as well as transgender identities that do not conform to binary gender
expectations (Krum et al., 2013). While gender-inclusive housing policies are beginning to be
adopted by colleges and universities, such policies remain the minority across the U.S. (Krum et
al., 2013). Gender-inclusive restroom policies are another important area of growth for most
24
colleges. While many colleges and universities in the U.S. now accept the use of any restroom
that matches one’s gender identity, many still do not offer gender-neutral options, which restricts
non-binary, agender, and genderfluid students from safely being able to use the restroom on
campus (Goldberg et al., 2019).
In addition to housing and restroom facilities, transgender students also express the need
for updated policies for name and gender changes (Beemyn & Brauer, 2015). Colleges in the
U.S. often require legal name changes to be complete before allowing students to officially
update their college records (Goldberg et al., 2019). As individual states determine policies and
processes for legal name and gender changes, colleges that require legal name and gender
changes before updating student records may end up systemically misgendering and deadnaming
(calling transgender students by given names that do not match their identity) their transgender
students. In addition to providing gender-inclusive restrooms and establishing easier processes to
updating college records, transgender students can also benefit from the expansion of college
nondiscrimination policies to explicitly include gender identity (Goldberg et al., 2019; Woodford
et al., 2018). Colleges can also improve their policies to help encourage a greater sense of
belonging in their transgender student populations by offering credit-bearing courses in LGBTQ
issues (Woodford et al., 2018) and offering culturally-relevant counseling to transgender students
(Lennon & Mistler, 2010).
Participation in college athletic programs and engagement in university sporting events
can establish a strong sense of belonging in students. LGBTQ inclusion in college athletic
programs has been correlated with positive outcomes for both the programs as a whole as well as
LGBTQ college athletes (Cunningham, 2015). However, transgender student‐athletes continue to
face barriers to participation in intercollegiate athletics both culturally and through non-inclusive
25
policies (Gray et al., 2018). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) introduced
the "Policy on Transgender Inclusion” in September of 2011. While these guidelines expand
access to athletic participation to transgender student athletes, the actual implementation of such
guidelines is sporadic, with many colleges in the U.S. choosing to ignore the guidelines (Bowden
& Mccauley, 2016).
Policies as they relate to transgender students at historically gendered colleges also have
the capacity to encourage or discourage transgender student perceptions of belonging and intent
to persist. In 2013, Smith College denied admittance to Calliope Wong on the basis of her
transgender identity. In the wake of the controversy that ensued, 8 women’s colleges have
expanded their admissions policies to be inclusive of transgender women and genderqueer
students (Nanney & Brunsma, 2017). In an analysis of admissions policies for the 33 of the 34
women’s colleges in the U.S. that admit transgender students, Boskey and Ganor (2019) found
that transgender women would be admitted to 21 out of the 33 schools strictly on the basis of
self-identification. Six colleges require transgender women to undergo and document specified
medical transitions and three accept transgender women but without clear requirements (Boskey
& Ganor, 2019). Transgender men would be accepted at six of the 33 schools without any
limitations, while five schools would admit transgender men with limited circumstances (Boskey
& Ganor, 2019). Seven of the 33 schools require transgender men to transfer into another college
or coeducational program if they transitioned after admission (Boskey & Ganor, 2019). Such
policies are likely to contribute to a low sense of belonging for transgender students and higher
rates of attrition, with some colleges even encouraging their transgender students to transfer
elsewhere. However, by improving policies to be more inclusive of and receptive to transgender
students, colleges can improve both belonging and retention rates.
26
Perceived Belonging
Belonging has been established as a fundamental human need and primary social
motivator that propels much of human behavior (Leary & Cox, 2008). This persists universally
across all cultures in which belonging and motivation has been researched and is an indication of
healthy human functioning (Leary & Cox, 2008). When a fundamental sense of belonging is not
established and experienced, individuals display a wide array of negative results including
increased stress, high levels of depression, inability to self-regulate, and decreased physical
health (Leary & Cox, 2008). This necessary sense of belonging also plays an important role in
predicting motivation to persist and student outcomes for college students (Linnenbrink-Garcia
& Patall, 2015). Colleges can actively improve student motivation and intent to persist by
promoting feelings or perceptions of belonging among their students (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al.,
2016).
Pomerantz et al. (2012), showed that relatedness of children to their parents plays a
fundamental role in child motivation and can predict academic performance across the life span.
Such familial belonging is important for the development of motivation and contributes to future
academic achievement (Pomerantz et al., 2012). However, many transgender students do not
have affirming families that support their gender identity or transition. As such, safe college
campuses and relatable instructors can help fill this gap in belonging. A meta-analysis of 99
studies on the impact of teacher-student relationships on engagement and outcomes found that
positive teacher-student relationships resulted in increased engagement and achievement (Roorda
et al., 2011). Positive teacher–student relationships have been linked to increased motivation,
achievement, and happiness for students (Froiland et al., 2019). When faculty are trained in how
to respect transgender students and maintain positive relationships, there is a tangible
27
improvement in transgender student academic outcomes as well as mental wellbeing (Froiland et
al., 2019). While transgender faculty members can serve as models of success for transgender
students, they also help cisgender faculty to critique and confront the ways in which their
classroom instruction reifies gender norms (Shelton, 2018). Unfortunately, transgender faculty
members face their own problems of discrimination and minority stress which may diminish
their ability to serve as publically “out” models for transgender students (Pitcher, 2017).
In addition to faculty relationships, peer group identification and belongingness impacts
student motivation, engagement, and achievement (Ryan, 2000). By promoting a culture of
respect and removing tolerance for bullying of transgender students, colleges can help this
vulnerable population to better identify with their peers and feel a greater sense of belonging to
the social life of their school. This sense of belonging is strongly correlated with retention and
motivation to persist (Garvey, 2020). Alternately, negative peer experiences and a low sense of
institutional belonging also contribute to the high attrition rates of transgender students (Tetreault
et al., 2013).
Intent to Persist
Sense of belonging has been shown to be a reliable predictor of intent to persist,
especially for minority students (Hausmann et al., 2007). Perceptions of belonging can ease
college transitions and aid in persistence for minority student populations that have higher rates
of attrition than majority populations (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Tinto (1975), showed that
campus climates and college policies can play an important role in influencing student decisions
to persist or dropout with most attrition occurring during the first and second year (2012).
Environmental, social, and academic integration has also been shown to be necessary in
predicting such student persistence (Halpin, 1990; Tinto, 1975). Hurtado & Carter (1997) applied
28
these findings to Latino college students to examine how campus climates and college policies
might influence Latino student intent to persist. They showed that having positive interactions
and a sense of community belonging was correlated with higher persistence in Latino college
students, while hostile climates were correlated with lower persistence rates (Hurtado & Carter,
1997). Hurtado & Alvarado (2015) found that colleges can improve minority student outcomes
by working towards improving campus climates and establishing more including policies. By
fostering a more inclusive climate and improving policies, colleges can increase both student
belonging and academic outcomes while reducing student attrition (Rankin & Reason, 2008).
However, it is unclear how these patterns persist or differ among transgender students, especially
at the specific intersections of race and gender.
Summary of Literature Review
The experience of many transgender students as it relates to campus climate and college
policies is one of exclusion, erasure, and often overt hostility. In 2017, the Trump Administration
eliminated federal guidelines for schools that helped to protect transgender students’ right to use
bathrooms that match their identities. There are no federal guidelines for the protection of
transgender students and states have vastly divergent policies as they relate to transgender
people, ranging from workplace protections to criminalization of bathroom use that matches
one’s gender identity. Such systemic discrimination and sporadic protections are also
experienced by transgender people in post-secondary education. Transgender students report
high instances of perceived stigma from both peers and staff, as well as overt hostility on campus
(Johnston, 2016). The bullying that many transgender students experience in K-12 education
continues in college, leading to negative mental and academic outcomes as well as low rates of
persistence (Westrick & Lower, 2016).
29
The literature thus far demonstrates the role that campus climate and college policy have
to play in encouraging a sense of belonging and intent to persist for transgender students. The
negative student outcomes associated with hostile climates and discriminatory policies include
mental health issues, reduced academic potential, and increased rates of attrition. Positive student
outcomes associated with safe climates and affirming policies include an established sense of
belonging, increased academic potential, and increased persistence. Colleges and universities
seeking to improve the experiences of transgender students on their campuses should center
transgender student perspectives in climate and policy initiatives. This can help to bridge the gap
between diversity and inclusion statements and actual practice as it relates to protecting
transgender students and helping to improve retention rates for this marginalized population.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship of Campus Climate and College
Policy to Sense of Belonging and Intent to Persist among transgender student populations. In
order to understand how to best support transgender students and reduce attrition, colleges must
be able to understand the role that climates and policies play in predicting transgender student
outcomes.
Research Question 1 asked if there are differences by race, gender, and years enrolled in
perceptions of campus climate, college policy, sense of belonging, and intent to persist among
transgender students at institutions of higher learning. Hypothesis 1.1 proposed that White
transgender students would have higher perceptions of belonging, intent to persist, and more
positive perceptions of climate and policy than transgender students of color. Hypothesis 1.2
suggested that transgender men would have higher perceptions of belonging, intent to persist,
and more positive perceptions of climate and policy than transgender women and non-binary
30
students. Hypothesis 1.3 predicted that transgender men and women will have higher perceptions
of belonging, intent to persist, and more positive perceptions of climate and policy than non-
binary, agender, and genderqueer students. Hypothesis 1.4 stated that years enrolled would be
correlated with perceptions of belonging and intent to persist, as well as more perceptions of
climate and policy, with higher ratings for each year enrolled due to increased familiarity and
enculturation.
Research Question 2 asked if there are differences by school type and region in
perceptions of campus climate, college policy, sense of belonging, and intent to persist among
transgender students at institutions of higher learning. Hypothesis 2.1 stated that public schools
would have higher sense of belonging and intent to persist than private schools. Hypothesis 2.2
proposed that schools in the West and Northeast would have better perceptions of climate and
policy, as well as higher sense of belonging and intent to persist than schools in the Midwest and
South. Research Question 3 asked if campus climate predicts transgender students’ sense of
belonging and intent to persist. Hypothesis 3 suggested that campus climate would predict
transgender students’ sense of belonging and intent to persist. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3
proposed that campus climates that are welcoming to and inclusive of transgender students
would predict more positive transgender student perceptions of institutional belonging and
higher rates of intent to persist.
Research Question 4 asked if college policy predicts transgender students’ sense of
belonging and intent to persist. Hypothesis 4 suggested that college policy would predict
transgender students’ sense of belonging and intent to persist. This hypothesis also stated that
college policies that are welcoming to and inclusive of transgender students would predict more
positive transgender student perceptions of institutional belonging and higher rates of intent to
31
persist. Research Questions 5-8 were qualitative and as such, did not offer corresponding
hypotheses. Research Question 5 asked about transgender student perceptions of campus
climates and college policies. Research Question 6 asked about commonly-reported school-
related stresses experienced by transgender students. Research Question 7 asked about the BLM
movement may have shaped transgender students’ sense of belonging and intent to persist in
college. Research Question 8 asked about how the COVID-19 pandemic may have shaped
transgender student perceptions of belonging and intent to persist.
32
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study explored the relationship between intersectional transgender identities, campus
climates, college policies, student sense of belonging, and intent to persist. This study sought to
center the perspectives of transgender students in examining any relationships between these
variables. This chapter includes information covering participants, survey instruments, and study
procedure.
Participants and Procedure
Participants for this study were recruited from those who self-identify as transgender
students who attend or recently graduated from (within 1 year) a higher educational institution
(HEI) that is not predominantly online. This encompassed community colleges, trade schools,
seminaries, private colleges and universities, and public colleges and universities. For the sake of
this study, “college” included any institution of higher learning. Fully online institutions and
programs were excluded as the relationship between college climate, policy, transgender student
belonging, and persistence would likely be greatly individually differentiated and shaped by the
immediate environments of online transgender students.
Transgender students at 150 institutions of higher learning were sought out through
online platforms and networks for transgender communities, LGBTQ centers at institutions of
higher learning, and transgender advocacy groups for a purposeful online survey. Because this
study was administered amidst national quarantine efforts in January and February of 2021, the
survey relied on student-centered self-reporting on campus climate and college policy, as well as
perceptions of institutional belonging and intent to persist, largely rooted in recent memory. A
total of 68 transgender students responded to the survey.
33
The majority of survey responses came from non-binary transgender students (n = 29,
43%) with transgender women close behind (n = 24, 35%), transgender men were the minority of
survey respondents (n = 15, 22%). In terms of race, White students were the large majority (n =
51, 75%) and Students of Color were the minority (n = 17, 25%). For years enrolled, survey
responses were grouped into first-year, second-year, third-year, and four-or-more-year
groupings. In terms of years enrolled, students that had been enrolled for four or more years were
the majority of respondents (n = 23, 33%), first and second-year students had equal distribution
(n = 16, 24%), and third-year students were the minority (n = 13, 19%). Table 1 shows a
frequency count and percentages for survey participants by race, gender, and years enrolled.
Table 1itle Case Name of Table
Frequency Distribution for Survey Respondents by Race, Gender, and Years Enrolled
Variables N Percentage
Race
White 51 75%
Students of Color 17 25%
Gender
Women 24 35%
Men 15 22%
Non-binary 29 43%
Years
1 16 24%
2 16 24%
3 13 19%
4 + 23 33%
34
Gender, agender, genderqueer, and genderfluid identities were grouped with non-binary
respondents to compare against binary male and female identities. For race, the were no Black
participants and Asian, Latinx, and biracial students were grouped together as Students of Color
compared to White students in order to identify potential amplification of minority stress in
transgender Students of Color. For years, students enrolled for 5 years or more were grouped
together fourth year students as four-or-more to compare initial perceptions of underclassmen
with those of seniors and graduate students.
Survey responses were also grouped by school type and region. Public schools had the
largest number of participants (n = 40, 59%) and private schools had the lowest (n = 28, 41%).
For the sake of statistical significance, the small amount of responses from religious schools
were grouped with private schools. The largest number of participants can from schools in the
West (n = 31, 46%), followed by students from the Midwest (n = 18, 26%), and students from
Southern schools (n = 10, 15%). The smallest group came from schools in the Northeast (n = 9,
13%). Table 2 shows a frequency count and percentages for survey participants by school type
and region.
Table 2Title Case Name of Table
Frequency Distribution for Survey Respondents by Region and Type
Variables N Percentage
Type
Public 40 59%
Private 28 41%
Region
West 31 46%
Midwest 18 26%
South 10 15%
Northeast 9 13%
35
Students were asked to reflect on their perceptions and experiences from the most recent
period that they were studying on campus. The online survey included questions on Student
Identity (race and gender), School (type and region), Campus Climate, College Policy, Perceived
Belonging, and Intent to Persist. Surveys were hosted and sent via Qualtrics to college LGBT
centers and student groups. Participants were able to access the anonymous survey via any
internet-connected electronic device and no personally identifying information was kept or
stored.
The gender identity of the researcher was also disclosed to participants. The researcher is
a transgender woman who disclosed her identity to her institution and began publicly
transitioning throughout the course of her program. The identity of researchers has been shown
to be relevant when researching vulnerable and minoritized populations (Harvey, 2013). By
including the vulnerable and minoritized transgender identity of the researcher, the intention was
to overcome the researched population’s hesitancy to disclose their transgender identities and to
discuss the ways in which such identities have been met with negative experiences (Ellis &
Berger, 2001; Ellingson, 1998). Such established rapport with the researched population helps to
transcend barriers to acquiring data that might not be accessible to researchers that are viewed as
outsiders to the community (Eppley, 2006; Ellingson, 1998).
Instruments
The survey was divided into five sections including Demographics and Student Identity,
Campus Climate, College Policy, Perceived Belonging, and Intent to Persist. Student Identity
questions on race and gender were open response format in order to maintain student agency
over self-identification. Survey questions on Campus Climate and College Policy were modelled
after the GLSEN 2019 National School Climate Survey with binary yes/no responses modified to
36
seven-point Likert scale responses in order to better understand transgender student experiences.
Questions on Belonging were taken from the Unidimensional Simple School Belonging Scale
(SSBS) (Whiting et al., 2018) and Intent to Persist was assessed through the Student Intent to
Persist Inventory (Wheeless et al., 2011). Qualitative questions were also included to measure
the effects of the 2020 BLM protests and the COVID-19 pandemic on transgender student
experiences.
Demographic Questions and Student Identity
Student Identity questions on race and gender were left open ended in order to avoid
limiting the agency of students to self-identify. Rather than restricting expression and
identification to an exclusionary list of predetermined identities, students wrote their own racial
and gender identities. Students that did not respond “Yes” to “Do you identify as transgender?”
were excluded from the study to maintain validity but this exclusion may have limited responses
from stealth and in-the-closet transgender people. Responses to racial and gender identities were
aggregated in order to identify any differences in perceived belonging and intent to persist
among racial and gender subgroups of transgender students. Questions on college type, region,
and years enrolled were included to examine the extent to which these factors may contribute to
variance in transgender student experiences. Respondents were also asked if their program was
primarily on campus, hybrid, or entirely online. Responses from students that are in fully online
programs were excluded from the study and such experiences of transgender students remains an
area for future research.
Campus Climate
Campus Climate was measured through adapting questions from the GLSEN 2019
National School Climate Survey to specifically speak to transgender student experiences. The
37
GLSEN 2019 National School Climate Survey is a national climate survey that measures the
climates of middle and high schools from the perspectives of LGBTQ middle and high school
students. Subscales and questions were adapted in terms of language in order to explicitly
measure transgender college student perceptions and experiences. The GLSEN 2019 National
School Climate Survey did not publish methodological information on reliability or validity and
attempts were made to reach out to GLSEN for further information but none was provided. As
such, the Cronbach’s alpha for measurements of Campus Climate is between .86 to .99 and was
calculated utilizing data from this study. Questions about Campus Climate were answered with a
seven-point Likert scale to determine frequency and intensity of experiences (with 1-3 =
negative, 4 = neutral, and 5-7 = positive). Questions that were negatively worded were reverse
scored. The score rating for Campus Climate is Negative (1-3), Neutral (4), and Positive (5-7).
There were eight question and three subscales of climate-based questions:
Discrimination, Victimization, and Specific Victimization. Two subscales were adapted from the
GLSEN survey which include experiences of anti-transgender language and victimization, and
an additional subscale of Specific Victimization was generated to identify specific forms of
experienced victimization including harassment and assault. Questions included “Have you
experienced victimization (any bullying, harassment, and/or assault) based on your gender
identity at your institution?” and “Have you ever been assaulted due to your gender identity
and/or expression at your institution?” To measure the influence of demographic information on
student perceptions of Campus Climate, five separate 1-way MANOVAs were conducted, one
for each independent variable of Race, Gender, Years Enrolled, Type, and Region, with the three
dependent variables of Anti-Transgender Language, Experiences of Victimization, and Specific
Victimization (bullying, harassment, and assault).
38
College Policy
Questions about College Policy were also adapted from GLSEN 2019 National School
Climate Survey to ask explicitly about transgender student experiences. As with Campus
Climate, GLSEN 2019 National School Climate Survey did not publish methodological
information on reliability or validity, and did not respond to requests for further information. The
Cronbach's alpha for measurements of College Policy is between .81 to .84 based on data from
this study. Questions were answered with a seven-point Likert scale in order to measure
frequency and intensity of student experiences (with 1-3 = negative, 4 = neutral, and 5-7 =
positive). Questions that were negatively worded were reverse scored. The score rating for
College Policy is Negative (1-3), Neutral (4), and Positive (5-7). Language was adapted to
specifically measure transgender college student perceptions of policies. There were six
subscales of policy-based questions and 13 questions total in this section. The subscales included
discrimination, supports, curricular inclusion, curricular resources, supportive educators, and
inclusion. Questions included “Have you experienced discrimination based on your gender
identity and/or expression at your institution?” and “Does your institution have an LGBT center,
GSA, or some other safe space for transgender students and allies?”
Sense of Belonging
To measure transgender student Sense of Belonging, this study utilized the student-
centered Unidimensional Simple School Belonging Scale (SSBS) (Whiting, Everson, &
Feinauer, 2018). This is a 10-item measure of Sense of Belonging using a four-point Likert scale,
with 1 indicating complete disagreement and 4 indicating complete agreement. This four-point
Likert scale eliminates middle response categories which research has shown to be helpful in
reducing ambivalence or nonresponse (Kulas & Stachowski, 2013; Hernández et al., 2004). The
39
total score for Sense of Belonging was calculated with a lowest possible score of 10 and a
highest possible score of 40. The score rating for Sense of Belonging is Low Belonging (0-20),
Weak Belonging (21-29), and Strong Belonging (30-40).
The SSBS (Whiting et al., 2018) combines five items from the Psychological Sense of
School Membership (PSSM) with five additional items to address problems that some
researchers have identified with cross-cultural applications of the PSSM (Abubakar at el., 2016).
Construct validity and factor cohesion of the SSBS (Whiting et al., 2018) was confirmed through
corresponding the unidimensional 10-item measure with both the PSSM and the nine-item Vaux
Social Support Record (VSSR) (Vaux et al., 1986). The SSBS is consistent, with a Cronbach’s
alpha of .91, and reliable, with a Raykov CFA-based score of .96 (Whiting et al., 2018). This
scale has been shown to be a strong student-centered indicator of Sense of Belonging and does
not explicitly use transgender identities as a reference point so that transgender students taking
the survey can reflect on their school belongingness as a whole and not just as it relates to their
transgender identities. The items in the SSBS utilized for this study included prompts like
“People at this institution are friendly to me” and “I am included in lots of activities at this
institution.”
Intent to Persist
The Student Intent to Persist Inventory (Wheeless et al., 2011) was adapted as another
measure of school belonging, as intent to persist is evidence of some degree of belonging. This is
a six-item measure in which participants indicate the degree to which students intend to persist at
their schools. The prompt ‘‘He/She influenced me to’’ was followed by six opposite adjectives
(e.g., ‘Keep going/Give up”) and responses were marked using a seven-point Likert scale, with 1
indicating complete disagreement and 7 indicating complete agreement. Responses for Intent to
40
Persist were totaled with the lowest possible score of 6 and the highest possible score of 42. The
score rating for Intent to Persist is Institutional Discouragement (6-23), Neutral (24), and
Institutional Encouragement (25-42).
As the Student Intent to Persist Inventory originally was applied to examining the impact
of past instructor-student relationships and not the relationship of institutions to students
(Wheeless et al., 2011), the prompt was modified from “He/She influenced me to” to “My
institution influences/influenced me to”. Instead of oppositional binaries utilized as measures, the
inventory was also modified to measure if institutional influence on the intent of transgender
students to persist was positive or negative. The inventory has a Cronbach’s alpha of .99 and the
modified item measures included: Keep Going, Stop, Leave, Persist, Enroll, and Transfer/Drop
Out.
Qualitative Questions
Qualitative questions were also included to better understand how the 2020 BLM protests
and COVID-19 pandemic may have shaped transgender student perceptions and experiences.
The question, “What are commonly-reported school-related stresses experienced by transgender
students?” was included to better understand student perceptions of college climates and policies
while also examining the potential role of history and confounding variables in student
responses. The May 27, 2020 shooting of Tony McDade, a Black trans man, became a rallying
point for the BLM movement and helped launch All Black Lives Matter protests around the
nation to highlight the specific violence experienced by Black transgender people. Consequently,
the question, “How has the BLM movement shaped transgender students’ sense of belonging and
intent to persist in college?” was included to better understand how the protests may have shaped
transgender student perceptions and experiences. The question “How has the COVID-19
41
pandemic shaped transgender student perceptions of belonging and intent to persist?” was also
included to determine the extent to which quarantine isolation may have influenced student
responses.
42
Chapter Four: Results
In order to better understand transgender student experiences of Climate and Policy, and
how such perceptions relate to Belonging and Intent to Persist, this study employed quantitative
analyses of survey data, supported by qualitative student responses. Preliminary analyses of
survey means and standard deviations were employed in order to measure transgender student
perceptions of Climate, Policy, Belonging, and Intent to Persist, while exploring group
differences. In addition, Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to identify any
relationships between study variables including Belonging, Intent to Persist, Climate - Language,
Climate - Victimization, Climate - Specific Victimization, Policy - Discrimination, Policy -
Supports, Policy - Curricular Inclusion, Policy - Curricular Resources, Policy - Supportive
Educators, and Policy - Inclusion. This was followed by MANOVA and ANOVA analyses of
perceptions of Climate, Policy, Belonging, and Intent to Persist by Race, Gender, Years
Enrolled, Region, and Type. Due to small the small sample size and cells 1-way MANOVAs and
ANOVAs were conducted for each independent variable. Multiple regressions were then
conducted in order to understand the predictive quality of Climate and Policy to Belonging and
Intent to Persist. Finally, supplemental open-ended questions were analyzed for supportive
illustrations of transgender student perceptions, school-related stress, the potential influence of
the Black Lives Matter movement, and the ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic may have
helped to shape student experiences.
Preliminary Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
The average reported experiences of Anti-Transgender Language, Experiences of
Victimization, Specific Victimization, Discrimination and Support fell within the neutral to
positive range. Average reported experiences of Curricular Inclusion, Curricular Resources,
43
Supportive Educators, and Inclusion fell within the negative range. The lowest average scores
were for Curricular Resources (2.074 with a standard deviation of 1.054) and Inclusion (2.887
with a standard deviation of 1.543). The highest average scores were for Specific Victimization
(5.353 with a standard deviation of 1.721) and Experiences of Victimization (4.727 with a
standard deviation of 2.043), which means that victimization including routine harassment,
bullying, and assault do occur but remain rare experiences in terms of frequency. It is important
to note that these experiences were measured along a Likert scale measuring frequency of
occurrence instead of single experiences. Future studies may consider isolating questions on
traumatic experiences of bullying and especially assault to measure for occurrence rather than
frequency. In regards to Sense of Belonging, the average response is within the negative range of
weak Sense of Belonging at 26.456 with a standard deviation of 6.774. In terms of Intent to
Persist, the average response fell at the lowest end of the range for Institutional Encouragement
at 25.368. However, the wide variance in responses is evidenced by the large standard deviation
of 10.967. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for each study variable.
Table 3: Title Case Name of Table
Means and Standard Deviations for Variables
Variables Mean Standard Deviation
Total Belonging 26.456 6.775
Total Persistence 25.368 10.967
Climate - Language 4.480 1.628
Climate - Victimization 4.728 2.043
Climate - Specific Victimization 5.353 1.721
Policy - Discrimination 4.662 2.106
Policy - Supports 4.088 2.231
Policy - Curricular Inclusion 3.255 1.001
Policy - Curricular Resources 2.074 1.054
Policy - Supportive Educators 3.963 1.893
Policy - Inclusion 2.887 1.543
44
Correlations
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to explore the relationships between
study variables including 1) Belonging, 2) Intent to Persist, 3) Climate - Language, 4) Climate -
Victimization, 5) Climate - Specific Victimization, 6) Policy - Discrimination, 7) Policy -
Supports, 8) Policy - Curricular Inclusion, 9) Policy - Curricular Resources, 10) Policy -
Supportive Educators, and 11) Policy - Inclusion. Table 4 shows the correlations for each study
variable. Belonging was directly correlated with all variables except for Curricular Resources,
significant correlations were found for Intent to Persist (r = .650, p = .01), Anti-Transgender
Language (r = .598, p = .01), Victimization (r = .557, p = .01), Specific Victimization (r = .557, p
= .01), Discrimination (r = .423, p = .01), Supports (r = .377, p = .01), Curricular Inclusion (r =
.406, p = .01), Supportive Educators (r = .421, p = .01), and Inclusion (r = .383, p = .01). Like
with Belonging, Intent to Persist was also directly correlated with all variables except for
Curricular Resources, including Belonging (r = .650, p = .01), Anti-Transgender Language (r =
.770, p = .01), Victimization (r = .704, p = .01), Specific Victimization (r = .742, p = .01),
Discrimination (r = .388, p = .01), Supports (r = .314, p = .01), Curricular Inclusion (r = .375, p =
.01), Supportive Educators (r = .335, p = .01), and Inclusion (r = .394, p = .01).
45
Table 4 Title Case Name of Table
Pearson’s Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Va 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
B. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
P. .650*
*
1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
L. .598*
*
.770*
*
1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
V. .557*
*
.704*
*
.803*
*
1 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Sp. .557*
*
.742*
*
.820*
*
.900*
*
1 -- -- -- -- -- --
D. .423*
*
.388*
*
.296* .427*
*
.427*
*
1 -- -- -- -- --
S. .377*
*
.314*
*
.305* .320*
*
.409*
*
.226 1 -- -- -- --
CI .406*
*
.375*
*
.429*
*
.324*
*
.340*
*
.313*
*
.435*
*
1 -- -- --
CR .215 .162 .235 .224 .249* .007 .543*
*
.502*
*
1 -- --
SE .421*
*
.335*
*
.349*
*
.298*
*
.374*
*
.098 .548*
*
.433*
*
.344*
*
1 --
I .383*
*
.394*
*
.360*
*
.378*
*
.330*
*
.238 .322*
*
.460*
*
.456*
*
.463*
*
1**
Note. Va = Variables, B. = Belonging, P. = Intent to Persist, L. = Anti-transgender Language, V
= Victimization, Sp. = Specific Victimization, D. = Discrimination, S. = Supports, CI =
Curricular Inclusion, CR= Curricular Resources, SE = Supportive Educators, I = Inclusion
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Analyses of Main Research Questions
Research Question 1 Results
46
Research Question 1 asked the following: Are there differences by race, gender, and
years enrolled in perceptions of campus climate, college policy, sense of belonging, and intent to
persist among transgender students at institutions of higher learning?
Perceptions of Climate
Three separate 1-way MANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable of
Race, Gender, and Years Enrolled with the three dependent variables of Anti-Transgender
Language, Experiences of Victimization, and Specific Victimization (bullying, harassment, and
assault). Among the three independent variables, only the overall model for race was significant
(F(64) = 3.730, p =.016). However, subsequent univariate analysis failed to find significant
racial group differences in any of the three subscales. For Climate, hypotheses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and
1.4 were not supported. There were no differences in perception of Campus Climate by Race,
Gender, or Years Enrolled.
Perceptions of Policy
Three separate MANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable of Race,
Gender, and Years Enrolled with the six dependent variables of Discrimination, Supports,
Curricular Inclusion, Curricular Resources, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. None of the
models were significant, indicating that there are no differences by Race, Gender, and Years
Enrolled in the dependent variables. For perceptions of College Policy, hypotheses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
and 1.4 were not supported. There were no differences in perception of College Policy by Race,
Gender, or Years Enrolled.
Belonging
Three separate ANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable of Race,
Gender, and Years Enrolled with the dependent variable of Belonging. Among the three
47
independent variables, only Years Enrolled was found to have significant group differences in
Belonging among transgender students [F(3,64) = 4.666, p=.005]. The means revealed that
Belonging dropped after the 2
nd
year for each subsequent year enrolled (see Table 5). Post hoc
analysis revealed significant differences between 1
st
and 4
th
year (p=.030) as well as 2
nd
and 4
th
year students (p=.023).
Table 5 Title Case Name of Table
Means and Standard Deviation for Belonging by Years Enrolled
Years Mean Std. Deviation N
1 29.375 5.772 16
2 29.563 4.966 16
3 24.154 4.811 13
4+ 23.565 7.908 23
Total 26.456 6.775 68
48
Intent to Persist
Three separate ANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable of Race,
Gender, and Years Enrolled with the dependent variable of Intent to Persist. There were no
significant group differences for Intent to Persist, thus hypotheses 1.1 through 1.4 were not
supported.
Research Question 2 Results
Research Question 2 asked the following: Are there differences by Type and Region in
perceptions of campus climate, college policy, sense of belonging, and intent to persist among
transgender students at institutions of higher learning?
Climate
Two separate MANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable of school
Type and Region with the three dependent variables of Anti-Transgender Language, Experiences
of Victimization, and Specific Victimization. There were no significant group differences in
perception of Campus Climate, thus, hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2 were not supported.
Policy
Two separate MANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable of school
Type and Region with the six dependent variables of Discrimination, Supports, Curricular
Inclusion, Curricular Resources, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. Only the overall model for
Region was significant (F(18, 167.36) = 2.112, p=.007). Subsequent univariate analysis among
the six subscales for College Policy revealed significant group differences by Region for
perceptions of Discrimination (p=.022), Supports (p=.027), and Curricular Resources (p=.011).
The overall MANOVA model for Type approached significance (F(6,61) = 2.133, p=.062) with
significant group differences in perceptions of Supports (p=.040), Curricular Inclusion (p=.029),
49
Curricular Resources (p=.004), and Inclusion (p=.039), with Discrimination also approaching
significance (p=.069) (see Table 6).
Table 6 Title Case Name of Table
Differences in Perceptions of College Policy by School Type and Region
Variables df F Sig/P Value Post Hoc
Type .062 (Wilks)
D. 1 3.420 .069 Public > Private
S. 1 4.371 .040 Public > Private
CI 1 4.975 .029 Public > Private
CR 1 8.885 .004 Public > Private
SE 1 .945 .335
I 1 4.423 .039 Public > Private
Region .007 (Wilks)
D. 3 3.436 .022 West > All
S. 3 3.271 .027 Midwest > All
CI 3 .197 .898
CR 3 4.049 .011 Midwest > All
SE 3 1.028 .386
I 3 1.078 .365
Note. D. = Discrimination, S. = Supports, CI = Curricular Inclusion, CR= Curricular
Resources, SE = Supportive Educators, I = Inclusion
50
In terms of Policy, hypothesis 2.1 was supported in that students from public schools
reported better perceptions of College Policy in all six subscales than students from private
schools (see Table 7). Hypothesis 2.2 was only partially supported in that schools in the West
only reported better perceptions of College Policy than other regions in the subscale of
Discrimination (M = 5.326). For all other subscales, the Midwest actually had the highest scores
in Supports (5.167), Curricular Inclusion (3.389), Curricular Resources (2.722), Supportive
Educators (4.333), and Inclusion (3.333). Overall, the Midwest and West had better perceptions
of Policy than the South and Northeast.
Table 7 Title Case Name of Table
Descriptive Statistics for Perceptions of College Policy by School Type
Variables Public Private
Mean SD N Mean SD N
Discrimination 5.050 1.853 40 4.107 2.347 28
Supports 4.550 2.218 40 3.429 2.116 28
Curr. Inclusion 3.475 .987 40 2.941 .952 28
Curr. Resources 2.375 1.112 40 1.643 .801 28
Supportive Edu. 4.150 1.744 40 3.696 2.092 28
Inclusion 3.208 1.543 40 2.429 1.448 28
51
Table 8 Title Case Name of Table
Descriptive Statistics for Perceptions of College Policy by School Region
Va West Midwest South Northeast
M SD M SD M SD M SD
D. 5.33 2.21 4.28 1.67 4.80 2.20 3.00 1.50
S. 4.13 2.19 5.17 2.01 2.80 1.93 3.22 2.33
CI. 3.16 1.11 3.39 .75 3.30 1.30 3.26 .97
CR 1.99 .97 2.72 1.18 1.60 .63 1.63 1.00
SE 4.00 2.11 4.33 1.37 3.05 1.43 4.11 2.42
I 2.69 1.55 3.33 1.37 2.43 1.56 3.19 1.79
Note. Va = Variables, M = Mean, D. = Discrimination, S. = Supports, CI = Curricular
Inclusion, CR= Curricular Resources, SE = Supportive Educators, I = Inclusion
Belonging. Two separate ANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent variable
of Region and Type with the dependent variable of Belonging. There were no significant group
differences in perceptions of Belonging by Region or Type found among transgender students.
Thus, both hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2 were not supported in terms of Belonging.
Intent to Persist. Two separate ANOVAs were conducted, one for each independent
variable of Region and Type with the dependent variable of Intent to Persist. There were no
significant group differences in Intent to Persist by Region or Type found among transgender
students. Therefore, for Intent to Persist both hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2 were not supported.
Research Question 3 Results
Research Question 3 asked the following: Does campus climate predict transgender
students’ sense of belonging and intent to persist?
52
Two multiple regressions were conducted, one for each of the dependent variables of
Sense of Belonging and Intent to Persist with three subscales for Campus Climate including
Anti-Transgender Language, Experiences of Victimization, and Specific Victimization (bullying,
harassment, and assault) as predictor variables. The overall model was significant for Sense of
Belonging (p=.001) among transgender students with the R2 indicating 38% of explained
variability. Among the subscales, Anti-Transgender Language was the only significant predictor
of Sense of Belonging (p=.029). The multiple regression model also was highly significant for
Intent to Persist (p=.001) with the R2 indicating 63% of explained variability. Among the
subscales, Anti-Transgender Language was the only significant predictor of Intent to Persist
(p=.001) (see Table 9). The hypothesis of predictive quality of Climate was supported by the
results of the study in that Campus Climate does predict Sense of Belonging and Intent to Persist,
with experiences of Anti-Transgender Language being the key factor.
Table 9 Title Case Name of Table
The Predictive Quality of Campus Climate for Belonging and Intent to Persist
Variable R2 Significance Standardized Beta
Belonging .376 .001
Anti-Transgender Language .029 .400
Experiences of Victimization .510 .156
Specific Victimization .715 .090
Intent to Persist .630 .001
Anti-Transgender Language .001 .487
Experiences of Victimization .888 .025
Specific Victimization .094 .319
53
Research Question 4 Results
Research Question 4 asked the following: Does college policy predict transgender
students’ sense of belonging and intent to persist?
Multiple regressions for the two dependent variables of Sense of Belonging and Intent to
Persist were conducted with six subscales for College Policy including Discrimination, Supports,
Curricular Inclusion, Curricular Resources, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion as predictor
variables. The overall model was significant for Sense of Belonging (p=.001) among transgender
students with the R2 indicating 36% of explained variability. The subscale of Discrimination was
the only significant predictor of Sense of Belonging (p=.011). The same pattern holds true for
Intent to Persist with high significance (p=.001) and the R2 indicating 30% of explained
variability. The subscale of Discrimination was also the only significant predictor of Intent to
Persist (p=.045). Thus, College Policy is a reliable predictor of both Belonging and Intent to
Persist among transgender students, particularly regarding discrimination (see Table 10). The
hypothesis of the predictive quality of College Policy was supported.
54
Table 10 Title Case Name of Table
The Predictive Quality of College Policy for Belonging and Intent to Persist
Variable R2 Significance Standardized Beta
Belonging .360 .001
Discrimination .011 .305
Supports .448 .110
Curricular Inclusion .352 .126
Curricular Resources .727 -.050
Supportive Educators .091 .233
Inclusion .315 .132
Intent to Persist .300 .001
Discrimination .045 .247
Supports .409 .125
Curricular Inclusion .285 .152
Curricular Resources .393 -.128
Supportive Educators .423 .114
Inclusion .096 .231
Research Question 5 Results
Research Question 5 asked the following: What are transgender student perceptions of
campus climates and college policies?
Responses to open-ended questions showed that transgender student accounts of
climates and policies were largely negative. Transgender students expanded on their perceptions
55
by recounting challenges with navigating binary college systems and anxieties induced by hostile
campus climates. Reports of climates and policies tended to fall within five themes including
lack of support, lack of resources, navigating systems, climate anxiety, and hostility. Responses
were thematically grouped with exemplary quotations. Depicting institutional lack of support, a
student responded “My PGPs [preferred gender pronouns] are they/them and getting all of my
professors on board with correctly using my PGPs was a pain in the butt sometimes. The grad
school director would apparently correct them outside of class, but in the end it always fell on me
to correct them in real time and deal with their fragilities around gender pronouns. Some of my
class mates would step in from time to time, but most of the time, I had to take on that task.”
Another student recounted, “a couple of years ago, people made pride drawings with sidewalk
chalk and some people defaced them with slurs and they were not punished.”
Students also pointed to lack of resources, with one student stating, “In health care
programs the information is so gendered and there is never any offer of nuance or validation for
trans people, I feel invisible as a trans person.” Another student said, “Housing for transgender
students has also been up in the air for a very long time, and only recently did we gain a gender-
inclusive housing option.” Navigating institutional systems was also a common theme with one
student stating, “some systems that the school uses deadname me automatically despite my
preferences,” and another pointing out that “Being transgender has made it hard to navigate often
binary demographic systems.” Climate anxiety was also a prevailing theme, one student said, “I
certainly don't feel anywhere near safe enough to come out to random people about being
transgender” and another commented on social alienation,
56
When I first started dressing as I liked people would give strange looks, and I felt an
intense pressure to hide. I could feel the barrier between me and the general populace as
if they didn't feel ok with me.
Another theme that emerged was that of hostility, one student recounted, “Constantly being
misgendered even when I make my pronouns clear because I am gnc [gender non-conforming]
and early into transition. Both by students and teachers.” One student reported in-class hostility,
One time my teacher was explaining cis vs trans (in terms of molecules) by saying cis
people will be on the same size and it’s correct and more strong while trans will be on
opposite sides and it’s weak because it’s less what nature wants.
Research Question 6 Results
Research Question 6 asked the following: What are commonly-reported school-related
stresses experienced by transgender students?
In responses to open-ended questions, transgender students expanded on their
experiences of school-related stress as it relates to their gender by recounting patterns of
discrimination, harassment, and negligence. Reports of school-related stress fell along five
common themes including resources, housing and bathrooms, deadnaming and misgendering,
peer interactions, and faculty and staff interactions. Responses were thematically grouped with
exemplary quotations and included accounts of faculty sexual harassment, difficulty finding safe
restrooms, and lack of enforcement measures against transphobic bigotry. In terms of curricular
resources, a student pointed out that “trans people never seem to be mentioned in our
curriculums”. In regards to student healthcare, a student said, “Trans healthcare at my university
is seriously lacking.” Deadnaming and misgendering were also common experiences with one
student recounting, “I get constant emails that deadname me, probably every day” and another
57
stating, “Even though I submitted the necessary forms to have my chosen name read at
graduation, I was still deadnamed.” Peer interactions were another source of school-related
stress. One student reported, “Being stared at almost every day whether in the cafeteria or
hallway, as if I was a being from another universe.” Another recounted an absence of student
protections,
I stress about the ability for me to use my names and pronouns safely. Even with some
areas set up for safe expression I still feel that there is resistance from other students, and
little to no punishment when those students seem to be 'against' transgender people.
Faculty and staff interactions were also a source of stress pertaining to gender. One student
recalled an instance of transphobic sexual harassment,
A teacher who knew I was trans repeatedly misgendered me and would single me out to
talk about gender in uncomfortable ways. He would come up to me during class and put
his hand on my knee or thighs. He asked me for a kiss after class once, I panicked and
left.
Institutional policies seemed to leave students to fend for themselves with one student reporting,
“I had a pretty transphobic professor this past semester (refused to use pronouns correctly,
actively enforced the gender binary, etc), and the school was unwilling/unable to do much about
it.”
Research Question 7 Results
Research Question 7 asked the following: How has the BLM movement shaped
transgender students’ sense of belonging and intent to persist in college?
None of the survey respondents identified themselves as Black. Students reported
solidarity with the movement, a deeper understanding of intersectionality, and hopefulness for
58
the future. Many students participated in Black Lives Matter protests. Because there were no
Black participants, the hypothesis could not be tested for any relationship to compounded
minority stress.
Research Question 8 Results
Research Question 8 asked the following: How has the COVID-19 pandemic shaped
transgender student perceptions of belonging and intent to persist?
Students reported experiences of temporary homelessness due to campus housing being
shut down as well as increased isolation, stress, and depression. Quarantining in non-affirming
households was also reported, which increased stress and discouraged students from participating
in LGBT community activities and support groups. Many students report feeling lack of empathy
on the part of their professors and longing for community with other transgender people. For
some students, their campus was the only environment they felt comfortable being out in and
being back home resulted in having to hide their gender. Others report being allowed space
within the isolation to explore their gender identity and expression further without fears of social
perceptions. Many also reported that deadnaming through Zoom and other online portals was
common. Students reported that gender-affirming surgeries were pushed back and had to rely on
social media for some sense of community. The hypothesis regarding isolation and challenges
living at home during the COVID-19 pandemic was confirmed by qualitative student responses.
59
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to show the degree to which campus climate and college
policies relate to transgender student perceptions of belonging and intent to persist, as well as to
provide colleges with transgender student perspectives from which to center their climate and
policy initiatives. The following is a discussion of findings from this study, their relation to
existing literature, implications for practice, limitations, and recommendations for future
research.
Findings
Belonging and Intent to Persist
Transgender students reported weak institutional belonging and reported low institutional
encouragement in regards to persistence. Belonging was found to be directly correlated with
Campus Climate subscales including Anti-Transgender Language, Victimization, and Specific
Victimization (harassment, bullying, and assault). Belonging was also found to be directly
correlated with Policy subscales including Discrimination, Supports, Curricular Inclusion,
Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. Intent to Persist followed the pattern of Belonging, with
direct correlations for Climate in Anti-Transgender Language, Victimization, and Specific
Victimization. Intent to Persist was also directly correlated with Policy subscales including
Discrimination, Supports, Curricular Inclusion, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. While
Race, Gender, and Years Enrolled were analyzed for their correlations to Belonging and Intent to
Persist, only Years Enrolled was found to have significant group differences in Belonging. The
study did not support the findings of studies that showed differences in Belonging or Intent to
Persist by Race (Coleman et al., 2020; Harris & Nicolazzo, 2017; Hurtado & Alvarado, 2015;
Hurtado & Carter, 1997) or by Gender (Banchefsky et al., 2019; Oswalt & Lederer, 2017; Huyge
60
et al., 2015; Clements-Nolle et al., 2006). This does not mean that compounded minority stress
does not exist for transgender students, but may support transgender identity being a more
prominent alienating factor for transgender women, non-binary students, and students of color.
The only group differences in Belonging were by Years Enrolled. However, whereas it
might be assumed at face value that Belonging would increase with each year enrolled, the
inverse held true. While Belonging was similar among first and second-year students, it actually
decreased with each subsequent year enrolled. This pattern can be attributed to the negative
campus climates and college policies that transgender students face. This finding also aligns with
the pattern discovered by Stachl and Baranger’s (2020) work with graduate student belonging, in
which they found that for graduate students, belonging diminishes for senior graduate students as
well as postdoctoral researchers. This shows the need for proactive measures to increase
belonging for students that persist beyond the first two years of college in order to strongly
encourage persistence though degree attainment.
Perceptions of Climate
Students reported hostile campus climates, with emergent themes from common
responses including general lack of support, lack of resources, difficulty navigating institutional
systems, climate anxiety, and overt hostility from faculty, staff, and peers. An analysis of Race,
Gender, and Years Enrolled found that only Race had a significant influence on perceptions of
Climate. However, subsequent analysis did not find significant differences by Race in any of the
climate subscales of Anti-Transgender Language, Victimization, or Specific Victimization.
These findings do not align with the work of Dugan et al. (2012), which found differences by
gender in perceptions of campus climate along with educational outcomes. The findings of this
study also run counter to the findings of Coleman et al. (2020) as well as Harris and Nicolazzo
(2017), which showed the impact of compounded minority stress on transgender students of
61
color. This does not mean that race and gender do not have an influence on transgender student
perceptions of climate, they simply show that with a relatively small sample size in which white
and non-binary students are the overwhelming majority of respondents, transgender identity is
the primary identity from which most survey participants responded to questions on Climate. It is
also important to emphasize that none of the survey respondents were Black, which severely
limits any conclusions regarding the relationship of race to transgender student perceptions.
Questions on perceptions of Climate generated the highest scores from participants,
however, questions were framed through a Likert scale in terms of frequency of occurrence.
Even so, Specific Victimization, including bullying, harassment, and assault, did occur with the
population, but are relatively rare occurrences for the majority of respondents, having taken
place a year or more ago from the time of the study. The study population also reported
experiencing Victimization on average within the last year. While this shows the extent to which
harassment and violence occur for transgender students, future studies should consider isolating
questions on victimization and specific victimization with binary framing in order to analyze
whether bullying, harassment, and assault have occurred while enrolled and how these
experiences may moderate perceived belonging and intent to persist, especially due to the direct
correlations that experiences of victimization and specific victimization hold with both belonging
and intent to persist.
Qualitative data gathered from open-ended questions help to illuminate the experiences
of victimization and specific victimization shared by participants. Many students reported
hostility from both peers and faculty, with little recourse for victims or accountability for
offenders. Students framed experiences of misgendering, deadnaming, and alienation as difficult
but expected parts of campus life, thus fueling their minority stress. Students that were
62
victimized reported seeing little to nothing done on their behalf and a student that recalled
faculty sexual harassment never filed a report or complaint with administrators due to the
perception of lack of institutional support. This climate hostility, as well as hesitance and
reluctance to report victimization, corresponds with the findings of the GLSEN National School
Climate Survey (Kosciw et al., 2020).
Perceptions of Policy
Similar negative responses characterized student perceptions of Policy with common
reports of lack of resources, exclusionary housing policies, lack of access to appropriate
bathrooms, institutional deadnaming, misgendering by both faculty and peers, hostile peer
interactions without consequences for offenders, and hostile faculty interactions ranging from
refusal to use students’ pronouns to sexual harassment. Within the subscale of Policy, all but
Curricular Resources were directly correlated with Belonging and Intent to Persist. This includes
Discrimination, Supports, Curricular Inclusion, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. Most
responses to Policy subscales fell within the negative range, including Curricular Inclusion,
Curricular Resources, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. The lowest scores were for
Curricular Resources as well as Inclusion. This means that the majority of the study population
did not feel included at their school, could not access curriculum relevant to their experiences,
and did not feel supported by their faculty.
Qualitative responses to open-ended questions further illustrate the negative perceptions
of transgender students regarding college policies. Participants reported difficulties with
updating official college records with their correct name and gender. Even when such systems
were successfully navigated, students report being persistently misgendered by faculty, peers,
and official school communications. One student officially changed their name and gender
through their school’s required system only to be deadnamed at graduation. Student housing and
63
healthcare were also common sources of school-related stress. Bathrooms, especially the absence
of and difficulty in finding gender-neutral bathrooms, were reported to be a source of anxiety and
fear for transgender students, especially for non-binary students and those that self-identified as
early in the process of their social transitions. Institutional negligence in enforcing policy was
also noted, with students recounting administrators unable or unwilling to address hostile faculty
and negative peer encounters, even when they equated to bullying and harassment.
There were no differences in Policy perceptions by Race, Gender, or Years Enrolled,
however, school Type and Region did have a significant influence on student perceptions.
Students from public colleges reported more positive perceptions of policy than students from
private colleges. Students in the Midwest reported the highest scores overall with students from
the West reporting the second highest scores. Students in the South and Northeast had the lowest
scores and most negative perceptions of their school policies. Within the subscale for Policy,
Midwestern colleges received the highest scores in Supports, Curricular Inclusion, Curricular
Resources, Supportive Educators, and Inclusion. However, it is important to note that among
these subscales for Policy, the average scores for Curricular Inclusion, Curricular Resources, and
Inclusion all fell within the negative score range. While Midwestern colleges scored the highest
in Supportive Educators, this score only fell slightly above a neutral 4 within a 7-point Likert
scale. Within the subscale for Policy, Western colleges had the most positive score for
Discrimination, however, the score showed that on average, transgender students at such schools
still experienced discrimination within the past year. Findings in student perceptions of college
policy support that of the GLSEN 2019 National School Climate Survey, which showed the
degree to which negative perceptions of school policy are held by the transgender student
population (Kosciw et al., 2020).
64
The Predictive Role of Climate
Campus Climate was shown to predict both student Belonging and Intent to Persist. The
key factor was shown to be experiences of Anti-Transgender Language. Climate predicts
Belonging and indicates 38% of explained variability. For Intent to Persist, Climate is predictive
with 63% of explained variability. This shows that climate is an important factor in explaining
much of the belonging and most of the intent to persist among transgender students. This study
also showed that the majority of respondents had experienced Anti-Transgender Language
within the past year. Anti-Transgender Language was directly correlated with Belonging, Intent
to Persist, Victimization, Specific Victimization, Discrimination, Supports, Curricular Inclusion,
Supportive Educators, and Inclusion.
These findings support the work of Mathies et al. (2019) which found that hostile
climates decrease perceived belonging and intent to persist. This study also supports the work of
Woodford et al. (2017), which showed that hostile climates are correlated with not only negative
student outcomes, but also specifically increased attrition. In addition, the common experiences
of anti-transgender language in the study population reflects the findings of Singh et al. (2013),
who found that non-inclusive and hostile language as it relates to transgender populations was
systemic and pervasive in official school communications.
The Predictive Role of Policy
Similar to Climate, Policy was found to have a predictive role in perceived Belonging
and Intent to Persist for transgender students. Among the subscales of Policy, Discrimination
was found to play a key role in the relationship of Policy to Belonging and Persistence. Policy
was found to predict Belonging with 36% of explained variability and Intent to Persist with 30%
of explained variability. This shows that about a third of variability in Belonging and Intent to
65
Persist can be reliably predicted by Policy. This study also showed that the majority of study
participants experienced discrimination within the past year. Discrimination was directly
correlated with Belonging, Intent to Persist, Anti-Transgender Language, Victimization, Specific
Victimization, and Curricular Inclusion. Like with campus climate, these findings reflect the
work of Mathies et al. (2019) in revealing the predictive role of college policy in perceived
belonging and intent to persist among transgender students.
Implications for Practice
Transgender students remain a vulnerable minority population for colleges and
experience routine hostility and scarce support to counteract victimization and discrimination.
While colleges may have little recourse to address the broader transphobia and hostility in the
chronosystems, macrosystems and exosystems of transgender student ecologies, they can work
to shift climates and policies so that the microsystems and mesosytems of this vulnerable
population can be sources of belonging, inclusion, and encouragement to persist. Because
colleges are primary sites of disclosure for transgender students and make up a large portion of
transgender student microsystems and mesosystems, they have the potential to play an outsized
role in improving transgender wellbeing and outcomes beyond degree attainment (Seelman,
2014). While social alienation and minority stress are normative for many transgender students,
colleges can ameliorate negative experiences by employing initiatives that directly address the
many school-related stressors and anxieties that transgender students routinely experience that
have been identified by this study.
Colleges should require universal mandatory bias training that specifically includes
transgender issues, especially in regards to deadnaming and misgendering (Singh et al., 2013).
Many schools require universal sexual harassment training for faculty, staff, and students so
66
transgender inclusion can be an extension of current practice. This can help address the decline
in sense of belonging for transgender students from their first-year experiences to their fourth
year and will work to curb attrition. Bias training can also work to counteract the primary drivers
of lack of belonging and reduced intent to persist, which were found to be experiences of anti-
transgender language and discrimination. Colleges should also proactively seek to connect
transgender students to supportive networks and resources to address the yearly decline in
belonging by years enrolled.
The persistent lack of representation of transgender administrators, faculty, and staff,
contributes to some of the stressors experienced by transgender students as decisions regarding
campus climate and college policy are largely centered in cisgender perspectives (Sausa, 2002).
Increasing visibility for transgender administrators, faculty, and staff can help address such
problems by offering students with visible models of transgender thriving and supportive
educators that can uniquely speak to the minority stress experienced by transgender students
(Sausa, 2002). Such transgender role models can also be an institutional voice for inclusion and
offer their perspectives on climate and policy initiatives as they pertain to transgender student
needs.
Safe spaces should be implemented and amplified, binary and non-inclusive language
should be revised to be more inclusive, and barriers to transgender student health care should be
removed (Singh et al., 2013). Colleges should also improve their physical spaces to be more
inclusive of transgender students, specifically in regards to housing, locker rooms, and
bathrooms (Patchett & Foster, 2015). Transgender inclusion in athletics, both recreational and
official, should be made explicit and the process by which students update their official records
to reflect their name and gender should be simplified (Seelman, 2014). There should be official
67
channels for transgender students, and all minority students, to report instances of discrimination,
bias, harassment, and assault, with clear consequences delineated. This would help to address the
anti-transgender language and discrimination that were found to be the primary sources of
reduced belonging and intent to persist. By implementing these suggestions, colleges can
increase the sense of belonging and rates of persistence among their transgender students
(Mathies et al., 2019). In addition to improved transgender student engagement and reduced
attrition, the implementation of these suggestion can have the added benefit of reducing
suicidality in this vulnerable population while improving both academic outcomes and mental
health (Hatchel et al., 2019; Matsuno & Israel, 2018; Veale et al., 2017).
Limitations
This study was conducted from January to March 2021 while many state legislatures
were introducing anti-transgender bills, with most targeting transgender students with the explicit
purpose of excluding them from school athletics (Freedom for All Americans, 2021).
Consequently, many transgender students may have been reluctant to disclose their transgender
identities. This study was also conducted during the global COVID-19 pandemic, in which many
students had to rely on recent memory of on-campus interactions or the experiences of reduced
class sizes. Conducting the study after student experiences return to being fully on-campus
without reduced class sizes would likely yield different results as students would have more
physical interactions with faculty, staff, peers, and campus spaces. The global health crisis has
also increased depression and anxiety among college students in general (Li et al., 2020). Prior to
the pandemic, 20% of college students around the world already experienced at least one
diagnosable mental disorder (Zhai & Du, 2020). Unfortunately, the social isolation that has come
with the pandemic has compounded this problem (Huckins et al, 2020)
68
The transgender population is a small minority of the general population and the fraction
of this population that has the means to enroll in and attend college is even smaller. Another
limitation to the study is the reluctance to disclose transgender identity due to cultural hostility
and concerns for personal safety in the face of violence committed against transgender people in
the United States. Consequently, the relative small sample size of this national study reduced the
ability to identify differences within the study population by gender and race. Most notably, there
were no Black respondents. While, Jefferson et al. (2013) showed the impact of race and gender
in compounding minority stress for transgender students, the study was unable to reflect those
findings due to the overwhelming majority of white and non-binary respondents.
Future Research
Future studies of belonging and intent to persist in transgender college students is
necessary to address the persistent practice gap for colleges and to provide research that is rooted
in transgender student perspectives. Such research should work to extend study windows and
expand outreach to increase the sample size among this vulnerable population that may be
hesitant to disclose their transgender identities to researchers. With a larger sample, the broad
non-binary category can be disaggregated to see differences among this growing population.
Similarly, future studies should prioritize contact with Black student organizations to include and
increase the participation of Black transgender students. By increasing the reach of future studies
and directly targeting Black transgender students, differences by race can be examined and
compared. The need to disaggregate groups by race and gender within transgender populations
has been pointed out by Dugan et al. (2012), as many studies of transgender populations
reductively aggregate all transgender participants against disaggregated cisgender populations.
69
However, this disaggregation and comparison by groups depends on expanding the reach and
extending the length of studies of transgender populations.
Another area for future research is in transgender student belongingness and intent to
persist in completely online institutions. Future studies may also consider isolating experiences
of victimization to binary analyses of occurrence rather than Likert scale analyses of frequency
of occurrence. By doing so, studies can examine bullying, harassment, and assault for their
moderating potential on transgender student belonging and intent to persist. Studies should also
consider eliminating all neutral responses. The subscales for campus climate and college policy
in this study were modelled after the GLSEN 2019 National School Climate Survey and retained
the 7-point Likert scale employed by the study (Kosciw et al., 2020). While the 7-point Likert
scale was helpful in determining the frequency and intensity of experiences, Kulas and
Stachowski (2013) as well as Hernández et al. (2004) have shown that a 4-point Likert scale can
reduce nonresponse and ambivalence in participants.
Conclusion
Much of the research in transgender student populations has been conducted more
broadly as part of LGBTQ studies by cisgender researchers that often aggregate transgender
participants into one reductive group (Johns et al., 2017; Bauer et al., 2017). While LGBTQ
studies have their merit, research conducted by transgender researchers specifically in
transgender populations is lacking. This study provides such research by rooting findings directly
in transgender student perceptions and examining group differences within this population. Such
perceptions were analyzed along with student and college demographics in order to identify the
ways in which such demographic variables might interact with transgender student perceptions.
The study found that belonging and intent to persist were predicted by climate and policy, with
70
anti-transgender language and discrimination being key drivers. There were no differences in
belonging found by race or gender, but belonging was shown to decrease after the second year
with each year enrolled, which reveals the negative influence of hostile climates and
unsupportive policies on transgender students over time. While compounded minority stress has
been shown to impact belonging and persistence in Black transgender students (Coleman et al.,
2020; Harris & Nicolazzo, 2017), this study showed that for white and non-Black students of
color, transgender identity itself may be a primary source of minority stress. Campus climate and
college policy were found to be directly correlated with and predictive of belonging and intent to
persist for transgender students. This vulnerable population trails their cisgender peers in degree
attainment at every level (Carpenter et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2018) and are at higher risk for
attrition (Mancini, 2019). As such, colleges seeking to improve transgender student outcomes
and retention rates should focus on increasing perceived belonging by centering transgender
student perspectives in addressing climate and policy concerns, specifically in the areas of anti-
transgender language and discrimination (Tinto, 2016; Patchett & Foster, 2015).
71
References
Abubakar, A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Alonso-Arbiol, I., Suryani, A. O., Pandia, W. S., Handani,
P., & Murugumi, M. (2016). Assessing sense of school belonging across cultural contexts
using the PSSM: Measurement and functional invariance. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 34(4), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915607161
Aragon, S.R., Poteat, V.P., Espelage, D.L., & Koenig, B.W. (2014). The influence of peer
victimization on educational outcomes for LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high school
students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.840761
Arbona, C., Fan, W., & Olvera, N. (2018). College stress, minority status stress, depression,
grades, and persistence intentions among Hispanic female students: A mediation
model. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 40(4), 414–430.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318799077
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
Anaya P., Yankelewitz D. (2020). Inclusive access impact on student outcomes in a
community college network. In T. Hurley (Ed.), Inclusive access and open educational
resources e-text programs in higher education. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45730-3_5
Balsam, K. F., Beadnell, B., & Molina, Y. (2013). The daily heterosexist experiences
questionnaire: Measuring minority stress among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
adults. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 46(1), 3–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612449743
72
Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence in
women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 29(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00220.x
Banchefsky, S., Lewis, K. L., & Ito, T. A. (2019). The role of social and ability belonging in
men's and women's STEM persistence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2386.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02386
Bauer, G. R., Braimoh, J., Scheim, A. I., & Dharma, C. (2017). Transgender-inclusive measures
of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and
recommendations. PloS One, 12(5), e0178043.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178043
Beemyn, B. (2003). Serving the needs of transgender college students. Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(1), 33-50, https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n01_03
Beemyn, B. (2005). Making campuses more inclusive of transgender students. Journal of
Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n01_08
Beemyn, B. (2012). The experiences and needs of transgender community college students.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(7), 504-510.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.664089
Beemyn, G. & Brauer, D. (2015). Trans-inclusive college records: Meeting the needs of an
increasingly diverse US student population. TSQ, 2(3): 478–487.
https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2926455
Begun, S., Kattari, S.K. (2016). Conforming for survival: Associations between transgender
visual conformity/passing and homelessness experiences. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 28(1): 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2016.1125821
73
Bissonette, D., & Szymanski, D. (2019). Minority stress and LGBQ college students’
depression: Roles of peer group and involvement. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and
Gender Diversity, 6(3), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000332
Bockting, W.O., Miner, M.H, Romine, R.E.S., Hamilton, A., & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma,
mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender sopulation.
American Journal of Public Health, 103, 943-951.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301241
Boon, H. J., Cottrell, A., King, D., Stevenson, R. B., & Millar, J. (2012). Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Natural
Hazards, 60(2), 381-408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0021-4
Boskey, E.R. & Ganor, E. (2019). Women’s college admissions and retention policies
pertaining to transgender students: A comprehensive analysis. Journal of LGBT Youth,
17(4), 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1685424
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. No. 17–1618 U.S. (2020).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Bowden, R. & Mccauley, K. (2016). Leadership styles of college and university athletic
directors and the presence of NCAA transgender policy. Journal of Educational Issues, 2,
267-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jei.v2i2.10120
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Carpenter, C. S., Eppink, S. T., & Gonzales, G. (2020). Transgender status, gender identity, and
socioeconomic outcomes in the United States. ILR Review, 73(3), 573–599.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920902776
74
Cerezo, A. & Bergfeld, J. (2013). Meaningful LGBTQ inclusion in schools: The importance of
diversity representation and counterspaces. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4),
355-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839341
Chodzen G, Hidalgo M.A., Chen D., & Garofalo R. (2019). Minority stress factors associated
with depression and anxiety among transgender and gender-nonconforming youth.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(4):467-471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.006
Clements-Nolle, K., Marx, R., & Katz, M. (2006). Attempted suicide among transgender
persons. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n03_04
Corbat, J. (2017). When laws solve problems that do not exist: Transgender rights in the
nation’s schools. High School Journal, 100(2), 85-87.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2017.0000
Coleman, R. D., Wallace, J. K., & Means, D. R. (2020). Questioning a single narrative:
multiple identities shaping Black queer and transgender student retention. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(4), 455–475.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119895516
Colliver, B., & Silvestri, M. (2020). The role of (in)visibility in hate crime targeting
transgender People. Criminology & Criminal Justice.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820930747
Colvin, R. A. (2007). The rise of transgender-inclusive laws: how well are municipalities
implementing supportive nondiscrimination public employment policies? Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 27(4), 336–360.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407301777
75
Cokley, K., McClain, S., Enciso, A., & Martinez, M. (2013). An examination of the impact of
minority status stress and impostor feelings on the mental health of diverse ethnic
minority college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(2),
82–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00029.x
Coulter, R. W. S. & Rankin, S. R. (2020). College sexual assault and campus climate for
sexual- and gender-minority undergraduate students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
35(5–6), 1351–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696870
Cunningham, G. B. (2015). Creating and sustaining workplace cultures supportive of LGBT
employees in college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 29(4), 426-442.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0135
D'Amico, Osilla, K.C., Jaycox, L.H., & Burnam, M.A. (2016). Campus climate matters:
Changing the mental health climate on college campuses improves student outcomes
and benefits society. RAND Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9904.html.
De Pedro, K., Gilreath, T., Jackson, C., & Esqueda, M. (2017). Substance use among
transgender students in California public middle and high schools. Journal of School
Health, 87(5), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12499
Donatone, B & Rachlin, K (2013). An intake template for transgender, transsexual,
genderqueer, gender nonconforming, and gender variant college students seeking mental
health services, Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 27(3), 200-211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2013.798221
Dugan, J.P., Kusel, M.L., & Simounet, D.M. (2012). Transgender college students: An
exploratory study of perceptions, engagement, and educational outcomes. Journal of
76
College Student Development, 53(5), 719-736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0067
Ebersole, R.C., Noble, J.J., & Madson, M.B. (2012). Drinking motives, negative consequences,
and protective behavioral strategies in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college
students. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6(4), 337-352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2012.725650
Edwards, K. & Sylaska, K. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among
LGBTQ college youth: The role of minority stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
42(11), 1721–1731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9880-6
Ellingson, L. (1998). “Then you know how I feel”: Empathy, identification and reflexivity in
fieldwork. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 492–514.
Ellis, C. & Berger, L. (2001). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researchers'
experience in interview research. In J.F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook
of interview research. (pp. 848-875). Sage.
Eppley, K. (2006). Defying insider-outsider categorization: One researcher's fluid and
complicated positioning on the insider-outsider continuum. Qualitative Migration
Research in Contemporary Europe, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-7.3.150
Erickson-Schroth, L. (2014). Trans bodies, trans selves: A resource for the transgender
community. Oxford University Press.
Evans, N.J., & Herriott, T.K. (2004). Freshmen impressions: How investigating the campus
climate for LGBT students affected four freshmen students. Journal of College Student
Development, 45(3), 316-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0034
Evans, R., Nagoshi, J.L., Nagoshi, C., Wheeler, J., & Henderson, J. (2017). Voices from the
stories untold: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer college students' experiences
77
with campus climate. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 29(4), 426-444.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2018.1378144
Fitzgerald, E., Patterson, S. E., Hickey, D., Biko, C., & Tobin, H. J. (2015). Meaningful work:
Transgender experiences in the sex trade. National Center for Transgender Equality.
https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/Meaningful%20Work-
Full%20Report_FINAL_3.pdf
Flores, Andrew (2016). How many adults identify as transgender in the United States?
Williams Institute UCLA School of Law.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/
Foley, J., Pineiro, C., Miller, D., & Foley, M. (2016). Including transgender students in
school physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(3), 5–
8. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2016.1131544
Freedom for All Americans. (2021). Legislative tracker: Anti-LGBTQ religious exemption
bills filed in the 2020 legislative session. https://freedomforallamericans.org/legislative-
tracker/student-athletics/
Froiland, J. M., Worrell, F. C., & Oh, H. (2019). Teacher-student relationships, psychological
need satisfaction and happiness among diverse students. Psychology in the Schools, 56,
856-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.22245
Frost, D.M., Lehavot, K. & Meyer, I.H. (2015). Minority stress and physical health among
sexual minority individuals. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 38, 1–88.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-013-9523-8
Gamarel, K.E., Mereish, E.H., Manning, D., Iwamoto, M., Operario, D., Nemoto, T. (2016).
78
Minority stress, smoking patterns, and cessation attempts: Findings from a community-
sample of transgender women in the San Francisco Bay Area. Nicotine & Tobacco
Research, 18(3), 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv066
Garvey, J.C., (2020). Critical imperatives for studying queer and trans undergraduate student
retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(4),
431-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119895511
Garvey, J.C & Rankin, S.R. (2015). The influence of campus experiences on the level of
outness among trans-spectrum and queer-spectrum students. Journal of Homosexuality,
62(3), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.977113
Garvey, J.C., Sanders, L.A., & Flint, M.A. (2017). Generational perceptions of campus climate
among LGBTQ undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 58(6), 795-
817. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0065
Garvey, J. C., Viray, S., Stango, K., Estep, C., & Jaeger, J. (2019). Emergence of third spaces:
Exploring trans students’ campus climate perceptions within collegiate environments.
Sociology of Education, 92(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040719839100
Glazzard, J., Jindal-Snape, D., & Stones, S. (2020). Transitions into, and through, higher
education: The lived experiences of students who identify as LGBTQ+. Frontiers in
Education, 5(81). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00081
Glick, J.L., Lopez, A., Pollock, M., & Theall, K. (2019). “Housing insecurity seems to almost
go hand in hand with being trans”: Housing stress among transgender and gender
non-conforming individuals in New Orleans. Journal of Urban Health, 96, 751–759.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00384-y
Goldberg, A.E., Beemyn, G., & Smith, J.Z. (2019). What is needed, what is valued: Trans
79
students’ perspectives on trans-inclusive policies and practices in higher education.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29(1), 27-67.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1480376
Goldblum, P., Testa, R. J., Pflum, S., Hendricks, M. L., Bradford, J., & Bongar, B.
(2012). The relationship between gender-based victimization and suicide attempts in
transgender people. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 468-475.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/a0029605
Gonzalez, C.A., Gallego, J.D. & Bockting, W.O. (2017). Demographic characteristics,
components of sexuality and gender, and minority stress and their associations to
excessive alcohol, cannabis, and illicit (noncannabis) drug use among a large sample of
transgender people in the United States. Journal of Primary Prevention, 38, 419–445.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-017-0469-4
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011). Inclusion and
graduation rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21(4),
241–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207310394449
Graham, S. W. & Gisi, S. L. (2000). The effects of instructional climate and student affairs
services on college outcomes and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development,
41(3), 279–291.
Gray, A., Crandall, R.E., & Tongsri, J. (2018). Transgender student‐athletes and their inclusion
in intercollegiate athletics. New Directions for Student Services, 2018, 43-53.
Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for
interpersonal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational
Psychologist, 53(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421466
80
Greathouse, M., BrckaLorenz, A., Hoban, M., Huesman, R., Rankin, S., & Stolzenberg, E.B.
(2018). A meta-analysis of queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum student experiences at
US research universities. In K.M. Soria (Ed.), Evaluating campus climate at US research
universities, (49-75). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Grewe, M. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual support
systems within higher education. In W. Swan (Ed.), Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender civil rights (1st ed., pp. 275-296). Routledge.
Grigal, M., Hart, D. & Weir, C. (2011). Framing the future: A standards-based conceptual
framework for research and practice in inclusive higher education. Think College
Insight Brief, 10.
Griner, S. B., Vamos, C. A., Thompson, E. L., Logan, R., Vázquez-Otero, C., & Daley, E. M.
(2017). The intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by
transgender college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5704–
5725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723743
Halpin, R. L. (1990). An application of the Tinto model to the analysis of freshman persistence
in a community college. Community College Review, 17(4), 22–32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009155219001700405
Harris, J.C. & Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Navigating the academic borderlands as multiracial and
trans* faculty members. Critical Studies in Education, 61, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1356340
Harvey, J. (2013). Footprints in the field: Researcher identity in social research.
Methodological Innovations Online, 8(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.4256/mio.2013.0006
Hatchel, T., Valido, A., De Pedro, K.T., Yuanhong, H., & Espelage, D.L. (2019). Minority stress
81
among transgender adolescents: The role of peer victimization, school belonging, and
ethnicity. Journal of Child and Fam Studies, 28, 2467–2476.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1168-3
Hatzenbuehler, M. & Pachankis, J. (2016). Stigma and minority stress as social determinants of
health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Pediatric Clinics of North
America, 63(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497965
Hausmann, L.R.M., Schofield, J.W. & Woods, R.L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48, 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Hernández, A., Drasgow, F., & González-Romá, V. (2004). Investigating the functioning of a
middle category by means of a mixed-measurement model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.687
HRC. (2020). Violence against the transgender and gender non-conforming community in
2020. Human Rights Campaign. https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-
trans-and-gender-non-conforming-community-in-2020
Huckins J.F., DaSilva A.W., Wang W., Hedlund E., Rogers C., Nepal S.K., Wu J., Obuchi M.,
Murphy E.I., Meyer M.L., Wagner D.D., Holtzheimer P.E., & Campbell A.T. (2020).
Mental health and behavior of college students during the early phases of the COVID-19
pandemic: Longitudinal smartphone and ecological momentary assessment study.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e20185.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2196%2F20185
Hurtado, S., & Alvarado, A. R. (2015). Discrimination and bias, underrepresentation,
and sense of belonging on campus. The Higher Education Research Institute.
82
https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Discriminination-and-Bias-Underrepresentation-and-
Sense-of-Belonging-on-Campus.pdf
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of Education,
70(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235–251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192705276548
Huyge, E., Maele, D.V., & Houtte, M.V. (2015). Does students' machismo fit in school?
Clarifying the implications of traditional gender role ideology for school belonging.
Gender and Education, 27(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.972921
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report
of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender
Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-
Dec17.pdf
Jefferson, K., Neilands, T. B., & Sevelius, J. (2013). Transgender women of color:
Discrimination and depression symptoms. Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social
Care, 6(4), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/EIHSC-08-2013-0013
Johns, M., Lowry, R., Andrzejewski, J., Barrios, L., Demissie, Z., McManus, T., Rasbery, C.,
Robin, L., & Underwood, M. (2019). Transgender identity and experiences of violence
victimization, substance use, suicide risk, and sexual risk behaviors among high school
students — 19 states and large urban school districts, 2017. MMWR Morbidity and
83
Mortality Weekly Report, 68(3), 67-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6803a3external icon
Johnston, M.S. (2016). ‘Until that magical day...no campus is safe’: Reflections on how
transgender students experience gender and stigma on campus. Reflective Practice, 17(2),
143-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2016.1145581
Jones, T. (2015). Policy and gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex students.
Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11991-5
Klein, P.W., Psihopaidas, D., Xavier, J., & Cohen, S.M. (2020). HIV-related outcome
disparities between transgender women living with HIV and cisgender people living with
HIV served by the health resources and services administration’s Ryan White HIV/AIDS
Program: A retrospective study. PLoS Med, 17(5), e1003125.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003125
Koch-Rein, A., Yekani, E.H., & Verlinden, J.J. (2020). Representing trans: Visibility and its
discontents. European Journal of English Studies, 24(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2020.1730040
Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2020). The 2019 national
school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.
Krum, T.E., Davis, K.S., & Galupo, M.P. (2013). Gender-inclusive housing preferences: A
survey of college-aged transgender students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1-2), 64-82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2012.718523
Kulas, J. T. & Stachowski, A. A. (2013). Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor
84
disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on
Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 254–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.014
Kuyper, L. & Fokkema, T. (2010). Loneliness among older lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults:
The role of minority stress. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1171–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9513-7
Lea, T., de Wit, J. & Reynolds, R. (2014). Minority stress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual young
adults in Australia: Associations with psychological distress, suicidality, and substance
use. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1571–1578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-
0266-6
Leary, M. R. & Cox, C. B. (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action.
In J. Y Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 27-40).
Guilford.
Lennon, E. & Mistler, B.J. (2010). Breaking the binary: Providing effective counseling to
transgender students in college and university settings. Journal of LGBT Issues in
Counseling, 4(3-4), 228-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2010.524848
Li, H.Y., Cao, H, Leung, D.Y.P., & Mak, Y.W. (2020). The psychological impacts of a
COVID-19 outbreak on college students in China: A longitudinal study. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 3933.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113933
Lick, D. J., Durso, L. E., & Johnson, K. L. (2013). Minority stress and physical health among
sexual minorities. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5), 521–548.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613497965
85
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. & Patall, E. A. (2015). Motivation. In L. Corno & E. Anderman
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd Edition, pp. 91-103). Routledge.
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion
in education: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights from
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 228-236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216644450
Mancini, O. (2019). Attrition risk and resilience among sexual minority college students.
Columbia Social Work Review. 9(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.7916/cswr.v9i1.1961
Marine, S.B. (2011). “Our college is changing”: Women's college student affairs
administrators and transgender students. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1165-1186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605730
Mathies, N., Coleman, T., McKie, R.M., Woodford, M.R., Courtice, R.L., Travers, R., & Renn,
K.A. (2019). Hearing “that’s so gay” and “no homo” on academic outcomes for
LGBQ + college students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 16(3), 255-277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1571981
Matsuno, E., & Israel, T. (2018). Psychological interventions promoting resilience among
transgender individuals: Transgender resilience intervention model (TRIM). The
Counseling Psychologist, 46(5), 632–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018787261
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674-697. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-2909.129.5.674
Miner, M. H., Bockting, W. O., Romine, R. S., & Raman, S. (2012). Conducting internet
research with the transgender population: Reaching broad samples and collecting
86
valid data. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 202–211.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439311404795
Mulcahy, M., Dalton, S., Kolbert, J., & Crothers, L. (2016). Informal mentoring for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender Students. Journal of Educational Research, 109(4), 405–
412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.979907
Nanney, M., & Brunsma, D. L. (2017). Moving beyond cis-terhood: Determining gender
through transgender admittance policies at U.S. women’s colleges. Gender & Society,
31(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217690100
Oswalt, S. B., & Lederer, A. M. (2017). Beyond depression and suicide: The mental health of
transgender college students. Social Sciences, 6(1), 20.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.3390/socsci6010020
Patchett, E., & Foster, J. (2015). Inclusive recreation: The state of campus policies, facilities,
trainings, and programs for transgender participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 39(2),
83–91. https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.2015-0028
Pitcher, E.N. (2017). ‘There’s stuff that comes with being an unexpected guest’: Experiences of
trans* academics with microaggressions, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 30(7), 688-703. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1309588
Pitcher, E. N., Camacho, T. P., Renn, K. A., & Woodford, M. R. (2018). Affirming policies,
programs, and supportive services: Using an organizational perspective to understand
LGBTQ+ college student success. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(2),
117–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000048
Plöderl, M., Sellmeier, M., Fartacek, C., Pichler, E.M., Fartacek, R., & Kralovec, K. (2014).
87
Explaining the suicide risk of sexual minority individuals by contrasting the minority
stress model with suicide models. Archive of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1559–1570.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0268-4
Pollitt, A., Ioverno, S., Russell, S., Li, G., & Grossman, A. (2021). Predictors and mental health
benefits of chosen name use among transgender youth. Youth & Society, 53(2),
320–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X19855898
Pomerantz, E. M., Cheung, C. S., & Qin, L. (2012). Relatedness between children and
parents: Implications for motivation. In R. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Human
Motivation (pp. 335-349). Oxford University Press.
Pryor, J.T. (2015). Out in the classroom: Transgender student experiences at a large public
university. Journal of College Student Development, 56(5), 440-455.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0044
Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R. Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender
differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM.
International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-
0115-6
Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people:
a national perspective. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
Rankin, S. (2006). LGBTQA students on campus: Is higher education making the grade?
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(2-3), 111-117.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n02_11
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2008). Transformational tapestry model: A comprehensive
88
approach to transforming campus climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,
1(4), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014018
Rankin, S., Garvey, J. C., & Duran, A. (2019). A retrospective of LGBT issues on US college
campuses: 1990–2020. International Sociology, 34(4), 435–454.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580919851429
Rentería, R., Benjet, C., Gutierrez-Garcia, R., Ábrego Ramírez, A., Albor, Y., Borges, G.,
Covarrubias Díaz Couder, M., Durán, M., González, R., Guzmán Saldaña, R., Hermosillo
De la Torre, A., Martínez-Jerez, A., Martinez, K., Medina-Mora, M., Martínez Ruiz, S.,
Paz Pérez, M., Pérez Tarango, G., Zavala Berbena, M., Méndez, E., & Mortier, P. (2021).
Suicide thought and behaviors, non-suicidal self-injury, and perceived life stress among
sexual minority Mexican college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 281, 891–898.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.038
Rood, B.A, Reisner, S.L., Surace, F.I., Puckett, J.A., Maroney, M.R., & Pantalone, D.W. (2016).
Expecting rejection: Understanding the minority stress experiences of transgender and
gender-nonconforming individuals. Transgender Health, 1(1), 151-164.
https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2016.0012
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of
affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement:
A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793
Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents' motivation,
engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 101-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3502_4
89
Sausa, L.A. (2002). Updating college and university campus policies. Journal of Lesbian
Studies, 6(3-4), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J155v06n03_05
Seelman, K.L. (2014). Recommendations of transgender students, staff, and faculty in the USA
for improving college campuses. Gender and Education, 26(6), 618-635.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.935300
Seelman, K.L. (2014). Transgender individuals’ access to college housing and bathrooms:
Findings from the national transgender discrimination survey. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 26(2), 186-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538720.2014.891091
Seelman, K.L. (2016). Transgender adults’ access to college bathrooms and housing and the
relationship to suicidality. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(10), 1378-1399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1157998
Sevelius, J. M. (2013). Gender affirmation: A framework for conceptualizing risk
behavior among transgender women of color. Sex Roles, 68(11–12), 675–689.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0216-5
Shelton, S.A. (2018). Ripping back the veil: Examining how trans visibility shapes
understandings of gender and instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 15(3),
297-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2018.1525450
Silveira, J., & Goff, S. (2016). Music teachers’ attitudes toward transgender students and
supportive school practices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(2), 138–158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416647048
Singh, A.A., Meng, S., & Hansen, A. (2013). “It's already hard enough being a student”:
Developing affirming college environments for trans youth. Journal of LGBT Youth,
90
10(3), 208-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2013.800770
Smedley, B., Myers, H., & Harrell, S. (1993). Minority-status stresses and the college
adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. The Journal of Higher Education,
64(4), 434-452. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960051
Smith, M.J. & Payne, E. (2016). Binaries and biology: Conversations with elementary
education professionals after professional development on supporting transgender
students. The Educational Forum, 80(1), 34-47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.1102367
Stachl C.N. & Baranger, A.M. (2020). Sense of belonging within the graduate community of a
research-focused STEM department: Quantitative assessment using a visual narrative and
item response theory. PLoS ONE, 15(5), e0233431.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233431
Stein, B.D., Sontag-Padilla, L., Ashwood, J. S., Woodbridge, M.W., Eberhart, N.K., May, L.,
Seelam, R., Briscombe, B., Mendelsohn, J., Elizabeth, J., Garvey, J.C., Taylor, J.L., &
Rankin, S. (2015). An examination of campus climate for LGBTQ community college
Students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(6), 527-541.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.861374
Stitt, A. (2020). ACT for gender identity: The comprehensive guide. Jessica Kingsley Publisher
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(3), 170–179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.006
Su, D., Irwin, J.A., Fisher, C., Ramos, A., Kelley, M., Mendoza, D.A.R., Jason, D. & Coleman,
91
J.D., (2016). Mental health disparities within the LGBT population: A comparison
between transgender and nontransgender individuals. Transgender Health, 1(1), 12-20.
http://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2015.0001
Suen, Y.T, (2015). Methodological reflections on researching lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender university students in Hong Kong: To what extent are they vulnerable
interview subjects? Higher Education Research & Development, 34(4), 722-734.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1051009
Sycamore, M.B. (2006). Nobody passes: rejecting the rules of gender and conformity. Seal
Press.
Teachers: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning pupil resources and
training, A.B. 493, California State Assembly. (2019).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB493
Testa, R. J., Michaels, M. S., Bliss, W., Rogers, M. L., Balsam, K. F., & Joiner, T. (2017).
Suicidal ideation in transgender people: Gender minority stress and interpersonal theory
factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(1), 125-136.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/abn0000234
Tetreault, P.A., Fette, R., Meidlinger, P.C., & Hope, D. (2013). Perceptions of campus climate
by sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(7), 947-964.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.774874
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (2012). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
92
The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2016). How to improve student persistence and completion. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/09/26/how-improve-student-persistence-
and-completion-essay?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
United States Census Bureau, Geography Division. (2013). Census Regions and Divisions of the
United States. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-
data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
Veale, J.F., Peter, T., Travers, R., & Saewyc. E.M. (2017). Enacted stigma, mental health, and
protective factors among transgender youth in Canada. Transgender Health, 2(1), 207-
216. http://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2017.0031
Watkins, P. & Moreno, E. (2017). Bathrooms without borders: Transgender students argue
separate is not equal. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 90(5-6), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2017.1361285
Wei, M., Ku, T., & Liao, K. (2011). Minority stress and college persistence attitudes among
African American, Asian American, and Latino students: Perception of university
environment as a mediator. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2),
195–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023359
Wernick, L.J., Kulick, A., Chin, M. (2017). Gender identity disparities in bathroom safety
and wellbeing among high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(5).
917-930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0652-1
Westrick, R., & Lower, L. (2016). Transgender students: Are they a protected class?
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 87(6), 44–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2016.1192919
93
Wheeless, V., Witt, P. L., Maresh, M., Bryand, M., & Schrodt, P. (2011). Instructor credibility as
a mediator of instructor communication and students’ intent to persist in college.
Communication Education, 60, 314–339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2011.555917
Whiting, E.F., Everson, K.C., & Feinauer, E. (2018) The simple school belonging scale:
Working toward a unidimensional measure of student belonging. Measurement and
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 51(3), 163-178.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1358057
Wilkinson, L., Pearson, J., & Liu, H. (2018). Educational attainment of transgender adults: Does
the timing of transgender identity milestones matter? Social Science Research, 74, 146–
160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.04.006
Willging, C.E., Green, A.E., & Ramos, M.M. (2016). Implementing school nursing
strategies to reduce LGBTQ adolescent suicide: A randomized cluster trial study
protocol. Implementation Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0507-2
Winderman, K., Martin, C., & Smith, N. (2018). Career indecision among LGB college
students: The role of minority stress, perceived social support, and community
affiliation. Journal of Career Development, 45(6), 536–550.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317722860
Witte, T.K., Kramper, S., Carmichael, K.P, Chaddock, M., & Gorczyca, K. (2020). A survey of
negative mental health outcomes, workplace and school climate, and identity disclosure
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and asexual veterinary
professionals and students in the United States and United Kingdom. Journal of the
94
American Veterinary Medical Association, 257(4), 417-431.
https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.257.4.417
Woodford, M.R., Joslin, J.Y., Pitcher, E.N., & Renn, K.A. (2017). A mixed-methods inquiry into
trans* environmental microaggressions on college campuses: Experiences and
outcomes. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1-2), 95-111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2016.1263817
Woodford, M. R., Kulick, A., Garvey, J. C., Sinco, B. R., & Hong, J. S. (2018). LGBTQ policies
and resources on campus and the experiences and psychological well-being of sexual
minority college students: Advancing research on structural inclusion. Psychology of
Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(4), 445–456.
https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000289
Yost, M.R. & Gilmore, S. (2011). Assessing LGBTQ campus climate and creating change.
Journal of Homosexuality, 58(9), 1330-1354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.605744
Yuksel, S., Aslantas Ertekin, B., Ozturk, M., Sevda Bikmaz, P., & Oglagu, Z. (2017). A
clinically neglected topic: Risk of suicide in transgender individuals. Archives of
Neuropsychiatry, 54(1), 28-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.5152%2Fnpa.2016.10075
Zamboni, B.D. & Crawford, I. (2007). Minority stress and sexual problems among
African-American gay and bisexual men. Archive of Sexual Behavior, 36, 569–578.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9081-z
Zhai, Y. & Du, C. (2020). Addressing collegiate mental health amid COVID-19
pandemic. Psychiatry Research, 288, 113003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113003
95
Appendix A: Sample Survey
What is your gender?
[open ended]
What is your race/ethnicity?
[open ended]
Is your institution public, private, or religious?
[check]
- Public
- Private (secular)
- Religious
What region is your institution located in?
[check]
- West
- Midwest
- South
- Northeast
How many years have you been enrolled at your institution (including this current year)?
- Less than a year
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5 or more
96
Which best describes your current or most recent on campus college experience (within one
year)?
- I have never taken courses on campus, I am an entirely online student
- hybrid - courses taken partly on campus, partly online
- on campus, living on campus
- on campus, living off campus
Adapted Unidimensional Simple School Belonging Scale (SSBS)
[4-point Likert scale, 1 - strongly disagree, 4 - strongly agree]
People here notice when I am good at something.
Other students in this school take my opinions seriously.
People at this school are friendly to me.
I am included in lots of activities at this school.
Other students here like me the way I am.
I like to think of myself as similar to others at my school.
People at my school name care if I am absent.
I feel like my ideas count at my school name
I feel like I matter to people at my school.
People really listen to me when I am at school.
Adapted Student Intent to Persist Inventory
[7-point Likert scale, 1-strongly disagree, 7-strongly agree]
Prompt: My institution influences/influenced me to:
Keep Going
Stop
97
Leave
Persist
Enroll
Transfer/Drop Out
Campus Climate Scales and Questions
[7-point Likert scale, 1- never experienced, 7- experienced daily]
Anti-Transgender Language and Other Biased Remarks in School (Heard Often or
Frequently)
Remarks about gender expression at my institution have primarily been: Strongly Negative,
Mostly Negative, Somewhat Negative, Neutral, Somewhat Positive, Mostly Positive, Strongly
Positive
How often have you heard negative remarks about gender expression at your institution?
How often have you heard negative remarks about transgender people at your institution?
Experiences of Victimization (Any Bullying/Harassment/Assault)
How often have you experienced victimization (any bullying, harassment, and/or assault) based
on your gender expression at your institution?
How often have you experienced victimization (any bullying, harassment, and/or assault) based
on your gender identity at your institution?
Additional Self-Generated Questions to Understand Specific Victimization
How often have you been bullied due to your gender identity and/or expression at your
institution?
How often have you been harassed due to your gender identity and/or expression at your
institution?
98
How often have you been assaulted due to your gender identity and/or expression at your
institution?
College Policy Scales & Questions
[7-point Likert scale, 1- never experienced, 7- experienced daily]
Discriminatory School Policies and Practices
How often have you experienced discrimination based on your gender identity and/or expression
at your institution?
School Resources and Supports
How often have you utilized or been made aware of your institution’s LGBT center, GSA, or
other safe space for transgender students and allies?
Curricular Inclusion
How often have you experienced curriculum that positively portrays or discusses transgender
people at your institution?
How often have you experienced curriculum that negatively portrays or discusses transgender
people at your institution?
How often does sexual education and health at your institution include transgender issues?
Curricular Resources
How often have you utilized or been made aware of online access to resources for transgender
people at your institution?
How often have you utilized or been made aware of library resources on transgender issues and
subjects at your institution?
How often do any of your course textbooks or readings include transgender perspectives, people,
or issues?
99
Supportive Educators
How often have you encountered staff members at your institution who are vocally supportive of
transgender students?
How often have you encountered administration members at your institution who are vocally
supportive of transgender students?
How often have you seen posters or signs affirming transgender students or providing resources
for transgender students at your institution?
Inclusive and Supportive Policies
How often have you seen or experienced anti-bullying/harassment policy measures enforced at
your institution?
How often have you seen or experienced policies that affirm transgender students at your
institution?
Qualitative Open Ended Questions
Are there any other aspects of school-related stress that you experience specifically as a
transgender student?
What has been the impact of the BLM protests on your current experience specifically as a
transgender student?
What has been the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on your current experience specifically as
a transgender student?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Colleges have become primary sites of disclosure and transition for transgender students (Silveira & Goff, 2016). Those that are able to attain college degrees may have drastically improved life outcomes compared to the general transgender population in the United States (Wilkinson, Pearson, & Liu, 2018). However, hostile campus climates and college policies are a deterrent to degree completion and increase attrition (Beemyn, 2005). This quantitative correlational study sought to center transgender student perspectives on campus climates and college policies, as well as to examine the relationship of climate and policy to transgender student belonging and intent to persist. Findings demonstrate that transgender student perspectives of campus climates and college policies are largely negative with reports of rampant hostility and discrimination. Findings also show that campus resources including housing, healthcare, and bathrooms, are often exclusionary and increase school-related stress for transgender students. Consequently, after the second year of enrollment, belonging decreases with each year enrolled. For white and non-Black transgender students of color, minority stress appears to primarily stem from transgender identity itself. Belonging and intent to persist for transgender students was directly correlated with and predicted by college climates and policies. The limitations and implications of these findings are discussed.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...
PDF
Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
The perception of campus climate and satisfaction in a postsecondary setting for students with disabilities
PDF
Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students
PDF
Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students
PDF
Nothing without us: understanding the belongingness of students with disabilities
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit
PDF
Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...
PDF
The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college
PDF
The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation
PDF
Latine college belonging: influences and differences of immigration and college generation
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate as predictors for cross-race interaction at Christian colleges and universities: differences by race/ethnicity, sex, and religiosity
PDF
The effects of campus friendships and perceptions of racial climates on the sense of belonging among Arab and Muslim community college students
PDF
Native Hawaiian student success in the first-year: the impact of college programs and practices
PDF
Preserving the HBCU mission: experiences and sense of belonging of Black alumni at a PW-HBCU
PDF
The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities
PDF
The relationship of spirituality and academic engagement to undergraduate student persistence at Christian colleges
PDF
Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers
PDF
U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist
Asset Metadata
Creator
Baker, Daniella
(author)
Core Title
The relationship of college climate and policy to transgender student belonging
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
05/03/2021
Defense Date
04/21/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
college climate,college policy,OAI-PMH Harvest,trans,trans students,transgender,transgender belonging,transgender students
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Chung, Ruth (
committee chair
), Goldbach, Jeremy (
committee member
), Kho, Adam (
committee member
)
Creator Email
drbaker88@gmail.com,ellab@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-458888
Unique identifier
UC11668776
Identifier
etd-BakerDanie-9587.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-458888 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BakerDanie-9587.pdf
Dmrecord
458888
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Baker, Daniella
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
college climate
college policy
trans
trans students
transgender
transgender belonging
transgender students